Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 1990-12-03 • •• 0 • '3), Rz hsepaa C\ 0 C:1 • 12, () • A , . • • • •• • , AGENDA ' CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OARD CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,CITY HALL,380 , Monday,December 3, 1990 7:30 P.M. -, il r. I, CALL TO ORDER ,,' II. ROLL CALL III, APPROVAL OF MINUTES c> August 6, 1990 `�� October 1, 1990 IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. PUBLIC HEARING Q, a request by Butcher Frank Properties is also requestingoyal to approval of a lot " 120,000 square foot, six story office building. The applicant :. line adjustment between "Centerpointe Lots site north of5 and 6. The sthe10nes cCenterpointe Buildi at Centerpointe ' Drive and Kruse Oaks Boulevard and is on the Map 2 lE 6). Staff coordinator is Rober Galante �hn Plannill��re.-- Centerpointe (Tax Lots 500 and µTi,ll b continued to a date certain. nu 20_�QF(Mod 10-9Q1, a request by Terry L. Goldbeck for approval to construct a one—story `uft. o ce\ret l structure with 30 parking spaces. The site is located on the south side o G sq. lE ' Galewood Street in Mercantile Village (Tax Lots 2000,2100 &2200 ofContinued from of A�hn lrla 8BB). Staff coordinator is , November 19, 1990. , , a request by Richard P. Waterman for an �g8�PC15--88(1WIod, extension on the approval of a 3—lot major partition,+includes line future streets plan,ustment and aThe sttees located to the Park and Open Space Standard. The approval • west of Hwy. 43 between Glenmorrie Lane and Cherry Lane (Tax Lot 7000; 2300 respectively • of Tax Map 2 1E 10DD; 14BB). , VI. GENERAL PLANNING • VII, OTHER BUSINESS—Findings,Conclusions and Order SD 33-90—Harold&Linda Doland DR 17-90/VAR 27-90 Glenn E, Chilcote AIA DR 19-90/VAR 29-90—Birtcher Frank Properties DR 21-90—Hans Heuer , . 0 VUL ADJOURNMENT 11, A Development Review Board welcomes your interest in these agenda items, Feel free 1 The Lake Oswego to come and go as you please: • . . DRB Members: Slaff: rs„ 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 • • • STAFF REPORT . , : 411) CITY, OF LAKE OSWEGO LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION APPLICANT: FILE NO.: Richard P. Waterman SD 12-88\VAR 19-881PD 5-88(Mod. 10-90) PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: l'i M Richard P. Waterman (TL 7000, 2 1E 10DD); Miphael R.Wheeler Matthew J. Jankowski (TL 2300, 21E 14BB) DATE OF REPORT: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: November 21, 1990 Tax Lot 7000; 2300 respectively of Tax Map 2 1E 10DD; 14BB DATE OF HEARING: LOCATION: December 3, 1990 e West of Hwy, 43 betwee;R Glenmome Lane & NEIGHBQEHOOD ASSOCIATION: ) IP Cherry Lane Glenmon-ie Park COMP.PLAN DESIGNATIO'sk ZONING DESIGNATION: R-15 V , r, I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST ' The applicant is requesting extension on the approval of a 3—lot major partition, lot line • `} adjustment and a variance to the Park and Open Space Standard, The approval includes a future streets plan. 411 ' IL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: Impact Management Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 1, 4, 6 General Policy II, Specific Policy 2, 3 General Policy III, Specific Policy 1 SD 12-88WAR 19-88\PD 5-8 (Mod, 10-90) Page 1 of 8 ra p • f Urban Service Boundary Policies General Policy III, Specific Policy 5 oilWildlife Habitat Policies General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 2b Distinctive Natural Area Policies i"i General Policy I, Specific Policy 2 Potential Erosion Area Policies General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 2 General Policy IV, Specific Policy 1, 3, 4 Energy Conservation Policies General Policy II, Specific Policy 5 Stream Corridor Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 2 General Policy II, Specific Policy 2 General Policy III, Specific Policy 2 • Residential Density Policies 1,`.a General Policy I, Specific Policy 1, 4 General Policy III, Specific Policy 1 • Protection Open Space Policies General Policy I General Policy II Transportation Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 1 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 4, 5 General Policy VI B. City of Lake OSwPo)Wining inane c LOC 48.195-48,225 R-15 Zone Description (setbacks, lot area, lot coverage) C. City of Lake Osweon nP.,Atotim nt ra • LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards LOC 49,120 Future Streets Plan LOC 49,300-49,335 Major Development Procedures LOC 49.330 Preparation and Submittal of Final Plan or Plat LOC 49.61 LOC 49.610 Quasi-Judicial Evidentiary Hearing Procedures Criteria for Approval D, City of Lake Oswe cTn ,,�.Deyelonm nt tandardc, 3,005-3,040 Stream Corridors 5,005 -5,040 Street Lights 8,005 -8,040 Park and Open Spac;c.,> 9.005 -9.040 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering III11.005 - 11,040 Drainage Standard for Major Development , SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88(Mod. 10--90) Page 2 of 8 I,, ., 13.005— 13.040 ii 14.005— 14.040 Weak F ndard Soils 16.005— 16.040 Utility Standa��rd 10 .005— 1 .040 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control 19.005— 19.040 ' Access St,�aridllyd Site Circulatioin - Private Streets/Driveways E. Oity of Lake Oc�=Po Tie ` ;., PQta ��n . LOC 55.010—55.130 F. CuYylLa1C eg0 SArnr.cL �rQl-tin : LOC 57.005—57.135 M. EIIMINo y A. ExittinE Conditinnc• The applicant was granted approval for a lot line adjustment and a three—lot major partition with a planned development overlay on February 3, 1989 Class II variance to the Park and Open Space Development Standard was denied oneA earlier 19, 1989 following a remand of an appeal of SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 to the Land Use Board of Appeals (Exhibits 6, 8). The applicant requested an extension on the approval on September 16, 1989 and was , 0 granted that extension on September 20, 1989, effective until September 21, 1990. applicant again requested an extension on August 3, 1990. As required by LOC 49.330, the requested extension must be reviewed by the Development Review Board. Upon review of file materials, it has been determined that an error was made in the date chosen from which to grant an extension. A comparison of the correct and actual dates is as follows: • Correct D_am Date U sed line rrect_) Date of Council's April 19, 1989 ' Final Decision September 21, 1988 (Exhibit 6) (Exhibit 10) Date Council's April 19, 1990 Decision Expires (as per LOC 49.330) September 21, 1989 Date of Admin— April 19, 1990 ' istrative Extension (did not occur) Se(Exhibitr 20,) 1989 S, ,) 4) Date Administrative April 19, 1991 Extension Expires September 21, 1990 (as per LOC 49.330) (Exhibit 4) Acting upon direction of a former staff member, the applicant securred an administrative extension approximately five months earlier than required by LOC 49,330, While premature,remature the applicant's current request for extension may be considered by the Board 41) ' and if appropriate, be granted to the correct date of April 19, 1992, vi It., I SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88(Mod, 10-90) Page 3 of 8 r. B. Existing Conditions; There have been no changes made to the applicant's proposal: C. Proposal; G' The applicant is seeking approval of an extension of Council's approval of SD 12-88/PD 5-88. VAR 19-88 was denied by Council''and is no longer a part of this application. D. Compliance with_Cr i for Appr v "� 1 The criteria for approval were substantially addressed in the original review of this application (See Exhibit 13). This report provides some additional information to update the earlier consideration. As per LOC 49.615 (Development Code), the Development Review Board must consider the following criteria when evaluating a request for extension of an existing development approval. 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval. The applicant has borne the burden of proof through submittal of documents marked as exhibits, accompanying this report. 2. For any development application to be approved, it shall first be established that the proposal conforms to: a. The City's Comprehensive Plan ° Applicable policy groups are: Impact Management Policies These policies require protection of natural resources from development, comprehensive review of development proposals, and payment of an equitable share of the costs of public facilities. These policies are implemented through several Development Standards, addressed further below. The policies require assurance that distinctive areas will be preserved, soil will be protected from erosion, trees will be protected from removal, streams will be preserved and that density will be limited to achieve these results. Compliance with the applicable Development Standards reviewed below will assure conformance to these Plan policies. Conditions of approval will be imposed when necessary to assure compliance. Wildlife Habitat Policies These policies require protection of upland habitat in the form of preserved open space, natural vegetation or fragile slopes. The related development standards are reviewed in this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. Distinctive Natural Area Policies These policies require the City to preserve tree stands and those features listed as r distinctive. g p port f the Tree Cutting Ordinance. The provisions of thisolicies are ordinance are reviewedO inhthisere55 ollowing an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88(Mod, 10-90) Page 4 of 8 O s , • Potential Erosion_Area Policies • These policies require designation of areas of severe potential for erosion as Protection Open Space, and require erosion control and drainage measures during site planning and construction. Development is subject to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development\Standard adopted to implement these Plan policies. The related development standards are reviewed in this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. F—nergv C'oncen, tion PolisiP,s These policies encourage energy conservation through solar orientation and site planning which takes into account the site's natural features. These policies are now implemented through the City's Solar Access Ordinance (LOC Chapter 57) which will be reviewed later in this report. Stream Corridor Policies These policies designate major stream corridors as Protection Open Space. These policies allow the City to require dedication of easement in stream corridors as a• condition of new development where needed for storm drainage management. These policies also require a determination of a stream corridor buffer zone to protect steep slopes, soil and vegetation from erosion hazard. Grading is required to be regulated to protect stream corridors. Setbacks are required to achieve the above objectives. Residential Density Policies IIII These policies require assurance that residential density is appropriately related to site conditions, surrounding land use and capacity of public facilities. The policies encourage planned developments. These policies are implemented through a variety of Development Standards and the Planned Development Overlay [LOC 48,470--48,490], These regulations are reviewed later in this report. Protection Open Space These policies further protect the natural resources identified in the Natural Resources Policy Element. These policies are implemented through a variety of applicable Development Standards and Ordinances. These are reviewed for compliance later in this report. b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations. i. For variance applications, the standards found in LOC 48.650. Zoning Code Requirements and Analysis An analysis of the proposal's compliance with the Zoning Code was performed in the staff report for SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 (Exhibit 13). The adequacy of this proposal was affirmed by the Land Use Board of Appeals on February 3, 1989 (Exhibit 8), ip SD 12--88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88(Mod, 10-90) Page 5 of 8 • ^ Y ._J ' • • • • DCVeIo m .nt C Re ,llaanents a_nd An ly¢ic This application was appropriately processed as a major development. Applicable ,, Development Standards were addressed in the original staff report (Exhibit 13) and ' affirmed by the Land Use Board of Appeals on February 3, 1989 (Exhibit B), The applicant proposes no changes in the proposal. Tree Cutting Qrdinance_Requirements and Analysis O(;�hapi r 1 This ordinance allows the removal of only those trees necessary to site proposed improvements (e.g, street improvements, dwellings, accessory structures). The applicant's propossal to construct a new street will require some tree removal, the extent of which will be determined upon submittal of construction drawings. The design will be • required to minimize tree removal, and a tree cutting permit is required before removal may occur. Solar Access Ordinance Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 57). Adopted since the original approval, this ordinance requires that 80% of newly created ' lots meet minimum solar requirements regarding orientation and lot depth [LOC 57.020(1)]. While each proposed lot exceeds the required minimum north-to-south dimension of 90 feet, none of the three proposed lots are capable of having a frontage within 30 degrees of east-west. As an alternative, solar building lines may be designed for all three lots or each must comply with one of two performance options [LOC 57.020(2) and(3), respectively], This choice will be imposed as a condition of this action, if approved. 0c. The applicable Development Standards The applicable Development Standards were addressed in the nriginal staff report (Exhibit 13). The adequacy of the applicant's proposal was affirmed by the Land Use Board of Appeals on February 3, 1989 (Exhibit 8 d. Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS A future street plan was approved as a part of the original application and remains 1 ' unchanged in this request for extension. ' C. Conclusion: Based upon the materials originally submitted by the applicant, staff concludes that the proposal can be made to comply with all applicable criteria by the addition of certain conditions, DI RECOMMENDATION / The staff recommends approval of the requested extension of SD 12-88NAR 19-88/PD 5- 88(Mod. 10-90) until April 19, 19925 subject to the following conditions: A. 'Except as modified by conditions B through J below, the applicant shall satisfy the . conditions of SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 as originally approved on April 19, 1989 2 prior to the issuance of any building permits requested subsequent to this action, SD 12-8 8\V A R 19-8 8\PD -8 8(Mod. 10-90) Page 6 of 8 • B. Original Condition No. 3 shall be deleted and mplaced by the following: n. "The final plan shall reference,., erence this land use application--, City of Lake Oswego Land Development Services Division N File No, SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88(Mod, 10-90)." C. Original Condition No. 8 shall be deleted and replaced by the following: "The final plan shall dedicate, and illustrate the location, dimension and purposes of easements for construction and maintenance of sanitary sewer and water lines necessary to serve Parcels 1, 2 and 3:and Tax Lot 6600 of Tax Map 2 lE 10DD, abutting the north." D. Original Condition No, 9 shall be deleted and replaced by the following: "The final plan shall refer to Parcels 1, 2 and 3 instead of • l.oisi 1, 2 and 3 as originally proposed." E. The following notes shall appear on the final plan: Parcels 1, 2 and 3 are solar lots: development of structures and planting of non-exempt vegetation on Parcels 1, 2 and 3 shall comply with Solar Access • Ordinance (LOC 57.050-57.090). This requirement shall be binding upon the applicant and subsequent purchasers of Parcels 1, 2 and 3. • Habitable structures built on the lot will have their long axis oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis and at least 80% of their ground floor south wall protected from shade by strucutres and non-exempt trees; or, Habitable structures built on the lot will have at least 32% of their glazing and 500 square feet of,their roof area which faces within 30 degrees of south and is protected from shade by structures and non-exempt trees. • These notes are for reference only and are not a part of the plat. F, Original Condition No. 13 shall be deleted and replaced with the follows; "The final plan shall dedicate to the City of Lake Oswego and illustrate the location, dimension and purpose of a 50 foot-wide easement along the stream corridor as illustrated on Original Exhibit 3," G. Original Condition No. 6 shall be amended to add the following: "This agreement shall apply to all three parcels as approved," c SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5•-88(Mod, 10-90) Page 7 of 8 e . • • r H. Original Condition No. 15 shall be deleted and replaced by the following: 0 ' • "Evidence of tiie above to be provided to the Public Works and Develops nt Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits requested to the date of this approval." • • I. An additional Condition No, 16 shall read as follows: f "The City shall allow the removal of only those trees necessary to allow road construction, site a dwelling or accessory structure on Parcels 1, 2 and 3. This removal • shall comply with LOC 55.050-55.080(Tree Cutting Ordinance), � J. An additional Condition No. 17 shall read as follows: "The City shall record a copy of the approved Future Streets Plan (Exhibit 9) with the County Clerk. The recorded instrument shall reference this land use. application—City of Lake Oswego Land Development Services Division File No. SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5— , 88(Mod. 10-90). The ultimate lot pattern shown shall be considered to be conceptual only and does not grant approval for the creation of parcels in that configuration." EXHIBITS • 1. Tax Map 2. Letter from Applicant, dated September 28, 1990 3. Applicant's Request for Extension, dated August 3, 1990 4. Letter from L. Bailey Granting Extension, dated September 20, 1989 5. Letter from Applicant, dated September 16, 1989 6. Findings, Conclusions and Order; City Council; regarding remand of VAR 19-88; dated April 19, 1989 7, Petition for Judicial Review; Land Use Board of Appeals; dated February, 24, 1989 • 8. Final Opinion and Order, Land Use Board of Appeals; dated February 3, 1989 9. Notice of Intent to Appeal; Land Use Board of Appeals, dated October 10, 1988 10, Findings, Conclusion and Order, City Council; dated September 21, 1988 11. Notice of Appeal of Findings, Conclusion and Order of Development Review Board;dated June 20, 1988 12. Findings, Conclusions and Order, SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88-557; dated June 6, 1988 13. Staff Report; SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88; dated April 22, 1988 14, Council Memorandum regarding Schools, dated September 18, 1990 xn�9o1 • SD 12-88WAR 19-88`PD 5-88(Mod, 10-90) Page 8 of 8 • • 33 \ .vrl•rt t s�• i a>te4 /`�Lpq \�\ A v' :6 ' 5 ch = I' 1,i„ea`/ S ' a M .� �.,,' 6404 W J �►� . .1 ,5 • •,,,> ' • 6403 0• •I �` ('''� Lh !�` c. s •oy 7 \J w ° 4 o 1/60 I_ v 7` k IN+,/et.. •,'a��.. v` 1Lt2100 ;Sr' ds•JJLM •t u\6 ''!.b rh„•.e:2.0 ; t. °.� 31 26 5r h .• �a. ' s�' v 144 Af, •iJa 1755 o °t saa•srw ill 0 ` 143\ " N 12200 —,• — -- .' w 1 0 11 ti ' °CZ 6ft I yA q 11 �v 4). 0 • h 31 \ ( 2 300 • ,,",� r °a , I6S$5 `�' • 30 +� 7000 T.' * r.tfti y .... 10 II \c If:\ t 2 �0 \e ) ' '''' . . o 2`br V r' ,yz E .62, 0.\. . k.\i. ' ois• J h 7'�0� T °° o �0; A.0•\ ; 2\b1�3 'G• ptr t• _lliki sL� R,�''',52200 "po ,• ` 1660 • C \ �a 6OfJ Al ti \y r , oZ 1', It, \II (4 ,, ti A' LC 4 5 ` ,add•Ss. • �� 1 E 4=•p c0 p C 4 6 �' �'''4, . 11t •�L ate L L .o' -t —' — R D - —90 roe '�' 1�� �•� I E r'eitt�3"'`�'�' Q�-cc� .ct'�'• iy �i`y `' ' z d 8 u� \M V,RR ,�C� *RIV LN, 9I ' ��'\ ��- CHER "e c� 2100 iiii. Col; I •\,, b. . . /". ' ,.. . 1.� /� \ da 'r 1 1/e��tair � 0 >, ti, EXHIBIT 0 - a * , 1 PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS, INC. -y T =ors-6-he+t+o P.O. Box 3071 Redmond, ''WA 98073 (206)481-7781 . Septembert28, 1990 Bob Galante � y� �,� Acting Planning Director o,• CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 "A" Avenue Lake Oswego,-OR 97034 RE,; Mailing Address Labels for ' DRB Hearing on 10/15/90 for . SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88-7 , . Dear Bob and Hamid, �� Enclosed are two (2) sets of mailing address labels for property owners located ,within 300 ft. my property, which Bob requested during our brief (9/ 5Y' in your office. Needless to say, it was an meef;�ing' .on Toes. � but thanks interests�q challenge to gpt this information from 150i miles away, to FAX I was able to get it mailed to you today. IMP o next Tues., Wed., and Thur. (October 2-4) dealing I plan to be in Lake Oswego with the lawsuit I filed in an attempt to get the public road access into the• property (lot line adjustment) that Jerry Baker requested. The Settlement . Conference is scheduled for October 3, 1990 and the Trial Date is October 23, 1990. Please call me at (206) 481-7781 on Monday (10/1), or at 635-2067 in Lake Oswego fran 10/2-10/4 if you have questions, or if there is any problem with 1 getting on the DRB Agenda for the October 15, 1990 meeting. I appreciate )'`a - your continued cooperation on this matter. arm egards, . Richard P. Waterman EXHIBIT 1 2 SD 12-, H_�ho) • 1 L. / I '\ ' . ' k 1 PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS, INC. , : 0 I THE WATER TOWER AT JOHN'S LANDING 4.. ff'"►h:a P.O. Box 3071 Redmond, WA 98073 (206)481-7781 • (1(0 C•r�h � . 1 I August 3, 1990 I AA . Peter Harvey, City Manager 2'.( ?`� •�+yr n,.,,l1 Jack Haminond, Acting City Attorney /4 .(car '; ` .Q "'r+`' CITY OF LAKE OSWE D I .380 "A" Avenue <<x�( Lake Oswego, OR 97034 S•fm ., r.N..,141 • "9 LI) RE: Request for Additional Extension of Approved Major Partition SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88-7 Dear Mr. Harvey and Mr. Hammond: 4 • r AA a follow-up to my telephone conversation) today with Lynn Bailey, L.O. Associate Planner, please consider this letter to be • formal foal request for a ' further time extension. for the above land use action under LOC 49.015(10) , and/or other City of Lake Oswego Code Sections. The present expiration date 0 on my Major Partition is September 21, 1990. It is my understanding that this extension request will probably require the approval of the Development Review Board. I am filing this forial extension request today to permit timely scheduling with the D.R.B. All required ' application materials and fees will follow. • The reason, this Major Partition cannot beby 9/21/90expiration / completed the date is because Jerry Baker, L.O. Traffic Engineer, requested that I try to acquire 8`5± sq. ft. of the adjacent lot to provide better access from Cherry Lane for the public street the City is requiring to access my three (3) proposed lots. Michael Busher, the former owner of the adjoining property agreed to the 875± lot 'line adjustment, which is a matter of record in my application. However, Busher sold the property to a Matt Jankowski in 1989, and Jankowski is unwilling to make the 875± sq. ft. adjustment the City of Lake Oswego is requesting. I currently have a law suit pending ng against Jankowski in an effort to resolve. this matter. However the Settlement Conference Date of 10/3/90 and the Trial Date of 10/23/90 both take place after my September 21, 1990 expiration date. Hence the need for a further extension. Thank you for your cooperation in granting this request. Warm regards, 4 2 , 0 KL,f,, ,. . Richard P. Waterman 2 1 i 3 , EXHIBIT cc: Carlton W. Hodges, Atty. I Lynn Bailey, Associate Planner f 1So 12•915(4coldha) r fir► . , ) , sso•�•A..,,. September •20, 1989 v 1 P.o.eo.sss P LSOOa�;e • Comp'S7034 kid Pan,:M1; »•sa•as: >ii ' Envarw0 Richard P. Waterman 55343S4270 Professional Consultants, Inc. •. r- 6.14,«0 8147 - 161;st Ave. NE 3034u•clss Redmond, WA 98052 sos•us•oto RE: SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88-7 Dear Mr . WAterman, ., This office has received your request for a time extension for, the above land use action. LOC W 49. 015 (10) delegates review of this type of request :E from the City Manager to Land Development Services staff. 0 In accordance with the terms and o conditx s•, original approval your request is herebyap roofv . 0 the The new expiration date is September 21, 1990'. Ag y4111 WJ further extension requests will be heard by the Development Review Board . Please refer to page 4 of the enclosed copy of Findings, Conclusions and Order �ry W for SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88-557 for additional . information. `.J `j,J If you have any questions , please contact this . 3 ^ office at 635-0290. vi z Respectfully, 0 C ., 0 W VI LOIn D. Bailyf Associate Planner . Cr LDB/7k lL O EXHIBIT o4. 0 , „. ,...) , .. L) ...J D Q. i. I 4 . 0 I� o hf ! • PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS, INC. THE WATER TOWER AT JOHN'S LANDING ' 8147 - 161st Ave. N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 (206)869-2680 ° September 16, /1989 Peter Harvey, City Manager CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 "A" Avent' 0 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: Request for Evctension of Approved Partition (File No. SD 12-88/ k,. • VAR 19-a8/PD 5-88-7) Dear Mr. Harvey: I have been advised by Lys Bailey, L.O.0. Partition for the above Associate Planner, that approvedram' anless extension requestproperty will expire after September 21, r consider this leter to is fled, in writing, with the Cityir89 Please my written request for said extensiong�Il Please I am working with L ' ,. developed Lynn Bailey and OTAK, trying to resolve a ped with the owner of the adjoining problem that has residence, Jerry Baker had requested thatI try to pert acquireh was sq.my former • the adjacent lot, to provide better access offCherry for public of street the City was requiring to access Lanee for the t . private road requirement my three lots. The public, street vs. t compelled to provide access because the City felt I should be to the North. throughmy property, for the Federspiel property A problem now exists because Michael B>3sher, ' residence from me , had agreed to the 87 1$ lot line duo stmen my former matter of record in my application for the 1 Ladjustment which is a the present owner of this property, Free (3) lot Minor Partition. But tape pri*ems to sell oI p sty, Matt Jankowski, has recently indicated his has the propertytrade me the 8751 sq. ft., even though he currently A listed for sale. Because of this situation, I will need some additional time to explore my legal and land use alternatives concerning this • street access situation. Thank you for your cooperation in granting this extension. Warm regards, Richard P. Waterman c`'1�072:°2 ' cc: Lynn Bailey, hNt5 c,��''s III Associate Planner OTAK Project Engineer EXHIBIT 5�P 1989 N Matt Jankowski —=.. • RCEIV�D r2-ee�a,� 0 row 9. 5b 't. v ei BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL { 2 OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO u 3 Consi�derat;ion of the Remand ) VAR 19-88-661 by the Land Use Board of ) 4 Appeals of VAR 19-88, LUBA ) FINDINGS , CONCLUSION AND ORDER Case No. 88-087 ) 5 Nature of the Appeal 6 This matter is before the City Council on the remand by 7 LUBA, in case #88-087, of the City Council decision to ap prove 8 VAR 19-88. VAR 19-88 granted a partial ,variance to the Park and 9 Open Space Standard for the proposed development approved by 10 Order SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/ PD 5-88-602. 11 Hearings i' 12 The City Council held a public hearing and considered this 3 matter on the record of the entire proceeding at the Council 's i' '\. 14 April 4, 1989 meeting. The hearing was held pursuant to LOC W 1 15 49.625. 0z 16 Criteria II 5 jo 0 17 LOC 49.500 - 49. 510, variances n�3 18 Park and Open Space Standard N 4pg 19 Conclusion , ul ¢z 20 r The City Council concludes that VAR 19-88 does not compyl- Ua 21 with the applicable criteria . i • R Findings and Reasons • 22 The City Council relies on the staff report dated March 24, 23 A 1989 and the evidence in the record presented to the Council as a ,,,i, 24 part of the report as support for its decision. Mr. Sokol, p`• 05 during his oral presentation offered neW evidence concerning 26 i EXHIBIT Page 1 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSION AND ORDER G Ch�sS • 1111 property ownerships and opinions held by a person not a party'•' to 2 this proceeding. Due to the constraints imposed by City Code provisions requiring an "on the record" proceeding, the Council 3 rejected the offer of new evidence and based this decision only 4 on evidence contained in the record. 5 Mr. Sokol objected to the fee charged for the transcript on 6 appeal. That objection was raised during the Council 's 7 consideration of this appeal in September,' 1988 and rejected in 8 the Council 's order. Tt\at order was appealed to LUBA. Mr. Sokol 9 did not pursue his objeo€ipn in the LUBA appeal. The Council 's 10 decision on that point was therefore final at that time and the 11 Council will not further consider that objection. 12 Due to the nature of the appeal taken to ,LUBA" and considered 4111 • 13 in case #88-087, the decisions on all aspects of the proposed q 14 three lot development, except the variance, became final b '• � p p y Q15 operation of law when they were not appealed. The Council 's zY.15], 16 decision in this order will require a change to those final land 1 J jo° 17 use decisions to bring them into conformance with this decision • }y 13 prior to any development activity taking place on the site. The a o 1; 'oa 19 provisions of LOC 49 .125 will govern the type of procedures that • >.Z 20 will be followed in the consideration of the request for change, U Q 21 if and when it is filed. 22 IT IS ORDE' ED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego • ' 23 that: 24 Section 1 . VAR 19-88 is denied., V5 Section 2. The land use approval granted by City Council ' s 26 order SD 12-88/VAR 19--88/pb 5-88-602 shall be modified to conform Page 2 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER i . s' ' 1 • ,,,, , . 41111,,, ? to this decision prior to the issuance of any development t. 2 permits. Y, I certify that this order was`~ '� approved by 3 presented to and rife"`" 4 the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego. * Dated this 19thday of April 1989. 5 -- , Alice L. Schlenker, Mayor �. Vote at the Council meeting • 8 on April 4, 1989. , 9 AYES : Schlenker, Anderson, Churchill, Dutham, Fawcett, Holstein 10 NOES: Holman « , - 11 ABSTAIN: (! • A ailaEXCUSED: 0 14 • S ' 15 „ • ta .J 0 16 Y ' <J S� 17 to 18 • r u . ,/ . 19 2 0 . � ar k 2.1 22 • 23 11 2.4 r '', k' �,6 -- Page 3 .: FINDINGS , CONCLUSION AND ORDER ry. • A TRUE COPY,,r i , 41111 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS of Attorneys for 0OF THE STATE OF OREGON LARRY N. SOKOL, DANIEL REIS, ) HANS vanWITZENBURG and ) ARTHUR BODE, ) % LUBA N . 88-087 .. Petitioners, ) ) ' Appellate Court v. ) No. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, ) Respondent: ) PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW • • Petitioner seeks judicial review of the Final Order of the Land Use Board of Appeals in case number 88-087, dated February 3Q 1989, and represent as follows: A. Nature of the Order the Petitioners Desire Reviewed: This is an order deciding land use questions arising from the City of Lake Oswego ' s grant of a variance for development of three lots i. , within the City. The Land Use Board of Appeal erred in holding that LOC 49 .510 (1) were "standards and criteria" required by ORS 227 . 173 . Petitioners contend the , provisions are too vague, indefinite and allow complete discretion with the City in violation of the State statute. fb = EXHIBIT `7 c4 1 - PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW 5o it j,. 'qe) 1 The Land Use Board of Appeals found that S petitioners had failed to establish that LOC 49. 510(1 ) required a strong "unnecessary hardship test prior to the granting of a variance" . r The Land Use Board of Appeals also found that the only injury to the petitioners ' neighborhood under LOC 49 . 510 (1 )B was a failure to provide additional open space despite the fact that the evidence was that the variance will create significant traffic and safety hazards as well as adversely effect property values. B. Nature of Petitioners ' Interest: Unless the above decision is reversed, the petitioners will be aggrieved by the construction of " three lots where lawful application of a variance would have permitted only two lots . Petitioners are harmed by having the variance granted pursuant to code provisions which are vague, indefinite and a f� allow total discretion in the City to grant or not I to grant a variance depending upon the whim of the City. Lastly, that finless this decision is reversed, the petitioners will be required to live with additional traffic and safety hazards and what they perceive to be a lowering of the value of their residential properties. Y 2 - PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW .11 • . . . . . ' . . " , . 7 , C. Petitioners do not agree to shorten the agency record. Dated, this 24th day of 'Pebruary, 1989. 0 JOLLES, S. ' 11., & BERNSTE ', ' C. , • , . , By .., - A fir • LARRY N. ' OROL :"... B #72247) 721 S. W. Oak Street Portland, Oregon 97205' • Telephone: ( 503 ) 228-6474 • . , Attorneys for Petitioners k ...' . ip „• , . , .., • -...1 . , -: , ..' . - . ' 0 ‘ , 3 - PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW • ' , , . , , . • • I 1 •S ' P CERTIFICATE OF MAILING4/ / , I hereby certify that I served the foregoing • Petition for Judicial Review on: //�� Land Use Board of Appeals 100 High' Street SE, Suite 220 . Salem, Oregon 97310 Dave Frohnmayer OSB #71001 ' Attorney General Phone: (503) 378-6002 State of Oregon, , Justice Building Salem, Oregon 97310 • Virginia L. Linder OSB #80294 It " Solicitor General Phone: (503) 378-4620 ` State of Oregon Justice Building Salem, Oregon 97310 James M. Coleman OSB #76101 City Attorney Phone: (503) 635-0225 City of Lake Oswego P. 0. Box 309 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 • City of Lake Oswego P. 0. Box 309 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Richard Waterman P. O. Box 144 \ Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 \Don Hanson and OTAR, Inc. 17355 S. W. Boones Ferry Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Michael C. Busher 1515 S. Cherry . Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 b} mailing by registered or certified mail to those persons a true and correct copy thereof, certified by me as such, placed . " • in a sealed envelope addressed to them at the addres et ' forth, and deposited in the United States Post Offi e at Portland, Oregon, on February 24 , 19 : • with the p.-ta. prepaid. 1 latkillii6L 4111 ______. LARRY- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of yNi SO OL Attorneys for Petitioners . ., I . r \ ,, , • e { LAND USE • BOARD OF APPEALS 1 BEFORE THE, LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS EB 3 2 3( 'q� • �1 ) 2 OF TH8 STATE OF OREGON 3 LARRY N. SOKOL, DANIEL REIS, ) HANS vanWITZENBURG and ARTHUR ) 4 BODE, ) 5 Petiti; ) o ers, LUBA No. 88-087 6 vs. ) FINAL OPINION ) AND ORDER 7 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, ) 6 Respondent. ) 9 Appeal from City of Lake Oswego. 12 Larry N. Sokol, Portland, filed the pe'tition for review and 11 argued on behalf of petitioners . With him on the brief was ' Jolles, Sokol & Ber:nstein, P.C. 12 IIJames M. Coleman, Lake Oswego, filed a response brief and 13 argued on behalf of respondent. ( 14 SHERTON, Referee; HOLSTUN, Chief Referee, participated in the decision. 15 REMANDED 02/03/89 16 You are entitled to ` 17 Judicial review is judicial review of this Order . governed by the provisions of ORS 197 . 850 . 11 18 A r 19 ' 20 _. EXXHIICT 21 1 a `sons) 22 I 1 -MS(Mioohi') 23 24 , • 25 26 Pane 1 M f • 1, I. ' • f n , 411/ 1 Opinion by Sherton. 2 NATURE OF THE DECISION 3 Petitioners appeal a Lake Oswego City Council (city . 4 council) order approving (1 ) a three-lot major partition, ( 2 ) a 5 lot line adjustment, 7 (3 ) application of a Planned Development 6 (PD) overlay district, ( 4) a variance from a parks and open 7 space development standard, and (5 ) a future streets plan. ° a Petitioners challenge only the approval of the variance from J 9 the parks and open space development standard. 10 FACTS 11 The subject property is an undeveloped 1 . 3 acre parcel 12 owned by applicant Richard P. Waterman' and zoned R-15, a r i3`_' residential zone with a 15, 000 sq. ft. minimum lot area. The • 14 property is located to the west of the intersection of 15 Highway 43 and Cherry Lane. There is a stream corridor in the . 16 southeast corner of the property. The property is adjoined to 17 the north by a larger parcel containing one single family o 18 residence. J 19 The applicant initially requested a minor partition of the ' 20 property into three lots to be served by a private street . 21 After discussions with city staff, in which the staff strongly , 22 recommended that a public street be created, the application 23 was changed to a request for a major partition to be served by 24 a public street . 2 A major • partition is classified by the 25 City of Lake Oswego Development Code ( LOC) as a major 26 development . LOC 49 . 140 and 49 . 145 . The city + s Parks and Open t P �� �y Page 2 • M • 1 s • 1 Space development standard is applicable to pp all major . 2 developments. 3 Lake Oswego Development Standards . 3 (LODS) 8 . 01(0 4 The proposed development includes ( 1 ) three lots 17, 300, 5 12, 635 and 16, 617 sq. ft . in size, 5► ( 2) 11,500 sq. ft . 6 dedicated for public road purposes, and (3 ) 6, 400 sq. ft . 7 reserved as private open .space to protect the stream corridor . e Record 193 . A variance from compliance with the Parks and Open , 9 Space standard was requested. The parties disagree on what the '' 10 Parks and Open Space standard requires in this instance . 11 The city's Development Review Board ( review board ) approved 41) 12 the application on June 6, 1988 . Petitioners appealed the 13 review board ' s decision to the city council . The city council 14 adopted its order denying the appeal and affirming the decision 15 of the review board on September 21 , 1988 . This appeal 16 followed. 17 FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR1' 16 "The City' s variance approval process which applies what the City calls guidelines as o17 19 approval criteria is in violation of ORS 227. 3(j) . "t�o 20 LOC 49 . 510, entitled "Variance Standards, " i provdes as 21 follows : 22 th" ( 1) hegranting authority may grant a variance from development standards if it i$ established that : 23 . "A. The request is necessary to prevent r Z4 unnecessary hardship• and, 0 Z5 "B. Development consistent with the request will 26 not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located or to property Page 3 • l • • 1 !, established to be affected by the request; and, 2 "C. The request is the minimum variance 3 necessary to make reasonable use of the property; and, 4 "D. The request is not in conflict with the s Comprehensive Plan. 6 "( 2 ) In evaluating whether a particular request is to be granted, the granting authority shall consider the 7 following, together with any other relevant facts or circumstances e , "A. Relevant factors to be considered in 9 determining whether a hardship exists include: 10 i . Physical circumstances related to the 11 piece of property involved . 12 "ii . Whether a reasonable use similar to like properties can be made of the IIII 13 • property without the variance . 14 "iii . Whether the hardship was created by the person requesting the variance. 13 "iv . The economic impact upon the person 16 requesting the variance if the request is denied . 1T "B. Relevant factors to be considered in determining 18 whether development consistent with the request is injurious include: 19 • "i . An analysis of the physical impacts such 20 development will have, such as visual, noise, traffic and the increased potential 21 for drainage, erosion and landslide hazards . 22 "ii . The perceptions of residents and owners of property in the neighborhood concerning the 23 incremental impacts occuring as a result of 4 the proposed variance . 24 "C. A determination of whether the standards set forth in subsection ( 1) are satisfied necessarily4111 • involves the balancing v,'��f competing and 26 conflicting interests: The considerations listed p 4 i 6 1 in subsection ( 2 ) A and B are not standards and are not intended to be an exclusive list of 2 considerations . The considerations are to 'be used as a guide in the granting authority' s 3 deliberations . , 4 "D. prior variances allowed in the neighborhood shall not be considered by the granting authority in s teaching its decision. " ' 6 Petitioners contend a variance to the city' s , development 7 standards is a discretionary permit; and, therefore, under 9 ORS 227 .173( 1) the city is 'required to base approval or denial 9 of such a variance on standards and criteria set out in its 10 development ordinance.6 Petitioners argue that because the 11 city interprets the above-quoted provisions. of LOC 49 . 510( 2) as 12 "mere guidelines, " which are advisory in nature and car be • 13 ° "enforced or ignored by the City as it sees fit, " the city does 14 not have mandatory approval standards or criteria for variances ,�f 15 from its development standards. Petition for Review 4 . 16 Petitioners also argue this lack of variance standards 17 "conflicts with the procedural rights set forth in Fasano v . 15 Washington County Commission, 264 Or 574, 507 P2d 23 ( 1973 ) . " 19 Petition for Review 5 . Petitioners argue their rights to . 20 present and rebut evidence were prejudiced by their inability 21 to determine the standards applicable to the Variance I. 22 application . 23 Respondent agrees its approval criteria for variances from 24 its development standards must comply with ORS 227 . 173 ( 1 ) , 25 However , respondent contends that it does have mandatory IP 26 approval criteria for such variances , and that those criteria a Page 5 , 0 II r o • 1 11 • r • 4111 a , i ! 1 are set out in paragraphs A-D of LOC 49. 510(1 ) . According to 2 respondent, it cannot approve a variance unless all four of 3 these criteria are met. Resporrdent also argues that 4 LOC 49 . 510 ( 2)C makes absolutely clear that the "considerations" s listed in LOC intended only to give 49. 510 (2 )A and B are °`� 6 guidance to decision makers in determining whether the criteria / 7 of LOC 49. 510 (1)A and B are met. Respondent arguesf,that the • 4" 'a criteria of LOC 49. 510( 1) are clear enough to informparties c; a f 9 what must be established in order for a variance to be granted. 10 ORS 227 .173(1) requires that standards anti criteria for the C 11 approval of a variance from the city 's design standards be set \? 12 out in the city's development ordinance . We agree with the III G 13 city that its code sects out standards and criteria for the 14 approval of such varianc at es . OC.,_.4.9_,5 .011) A through D. Under 15 the city's__code,-____the Application .of these criteria is 16 mandatory. The city cannot approve a variance from its design' 17 standards unless it determines that these four criteria are .....• .. . ... ..... .. • ..... _ _ . . . •..6 ,.... ... . ., . . _ . . .. ,e_. 18 met. 7 19 e On the other hand, LOC 49. 510 ( 2 )A and B are non-exhaustive Zo lists of "relevant factors" the city is to consider in t1 determining Whether the criteria of LOC 49 . 510 (1)A and B are. 2 satisfied . These ' ., relevant factors" are not themselves :a standards Which mandate approval or denial of a variance 4 application . LOC 49 . 510 ( 2 )C. We find no error in including in 0 r 5 the code a list of factors the city considers relevant to 6 determining compliance with mandatory criteria . 6 age 6 r l . 41I0 1 Further more, 'since the city ' s code does set out the . 2 criteria for approval of variances to its design standards , 3 petitioners ' rights to present and rebut evidence relevant to • 4 these criteria were not prejudiced . Petitioners ' specific r 5 challenges to the interpretation and application of three of \ 6 theselcrriteria are addressed under the second assignment of ` 7 error . 8 SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR , 9 "The City ' s grant of the variance is contrary to the 10 applicable standards and law. The City ' s findings that the applicant had met the criteria for a variance under LOC 49 . 510 (1 ) is not supported by substantial f' 11 evidence in the :record. " 12 A. Unnecessary Hardship '13t LOC 49 . 510 ( 1)A st,cs out the fo,''llowing criterion for a 1 i 14 variance from the city ' s development ,Itandards : 15 "The [ variance) request is n'ecessar unnecessary hardship * * * " 1 to prevent 16 I 17 Petitioners argue that respondent has misconstrued this t e• 18 standard in several respects. Petitioners first argue that the i • 19 "unnecessary hardship" which must be shown to obtain a variance 20 must arise out of conditions inherent in the land itself , . `' 'k 21 citing Erickson V. City of Portland, 9 Or App ' 56 , 496 P2d 726 22 ( 1972) , Lovell v. Independence Planning Comm, , 37 Or App 3, S86:. • 3 P2d 99 ( 1978 ) ; and Chou v. City of Keizer, 15 Or LUBA 420 24 ( 1987 ) , Second, petitioners argue that conformance With the 1, 25 city ' s code cannot itself constitute the "unnecessary hardship" 26 required for approval oE a Variance, citing Standard Supply Co . I,i Page 7 l r0 �. d 1 } t0 ' ''' • .hR • 1 v . Portland, 1 Or LUBA' 259 (1980 ) . Finally, petitioners argue 2 the "unnecessary hardship" standard requires that , without the 3 variance , the applicant ' s property would be virtually useless, Y 1 .., 4 citing Erickson v. City of Portland, supra, and Standard Supply 5 Co . v. Portland, supra . Petitioners contend the city did not 6 find, and the applicant did not demonstrate, that denial of the t 7 variance would preclude beneficial use of the property or that a there is a hardship based on conditions inherent in the land . o `,_ '+ 9 The city argues that land use law relating to variances is � 1 ' 10 not based on common law, but rather on the interpretation and 11 application of the specific local government ordinance ' 12 provisions applicable in a particular case . Cope v . City of 13 Cannon Beach, 15 Or LUBA 546 ( 1987 ) . The city further argues '' ' 0, 14 that the language of LOC 49 . 510 is different from the ordinance 15 language construed in al] the cases cited by petitioners . 16 According to the city, the LOC does not contain language 'm. 17 requiring the establishment of xceptional or extraordinary -' _ . ,; 18 circumstances applicable to the subject property, as did the 19 ordinances at tissue in Erickson V. City of Portland and Lovell a 20 v, Independenc Planning Comm. The city also argues the 21 language of the LOC, unlike the ordinance language at issue in 22 Standard Supply Co , v. Portland, does demonstrate an intent to 23 create a Variance standard less restrictive than the 24 traditional "unnecessary hardship" test , 25 The city contends it made a specific policy choice to adopt F 26 less restrictive variance criteria when its present development API . Page 8 • .t u r • 1 code was adopted . According to the city, prior to the 1981 2 adoption of the current LOC Chapter 49, the use and development 3 of land in the city were governed by a zoning code and 4 subdivision code which contained variance criteria similar to *' ' 5 the traditional standards considered by the Court of Appeals i►�, ,' 6 Erickson v . City of Portland and Lovell v . Independence r. 7 Planning Comm.9 The city argues that legislative history of , 8 the adoption of the 1981 development ,, code , in the form of 4 1 , 4 '' 9 minutes of city council meetings at which the draft code was 10 considered, demonstrates that the language ultimately adopted 11 as LOC 49 . 510 ( 1.) was intended to relax the traditional hardship 12 test .10 13 According to the city, because it did not adopt the 14 traditional hardship test in its code, and the code does not «c T, 15 specifically define "Lardship, " the city is guided by the 16 common dictionary definition of the term "hardship" as 17 " something that causes or entails suffering or privation . " 18 Respondent ' s Brief 13 , � ,, r.. 19 The city also contends the record supports the city ' s 20 determination that requiring full compliance with the Parks and 21 Open Space standard Would subject the applicant to an • 5 22 unnecessary hardship because ( 2 ' the development application . 23 was changed to a major partition ( to which the Parks and Open 24 Space standard applies ) because of the cit is desire that a 25 public street be created to serve future development on an 26 adjacent lot ; ( 2 ) additional public open space cannot be Page 9 , , • 1 , ICI 1 1110• T 1 provided without limiting the partition of the property to two 2 lots; and ( 3 ) the applicant is dedicating 11, 500 sq. ft . for a 3 40 ft . public road right-of-way and building a 24 ft . public 4 street, at considerable cost . 5 We agree with the city that in interpreting the meaning of • 6 code variance provisions it is the code language, rather than 7 appellate court or LUBA decisions interpreting traditional 8 variance standards, that controls . In a previous decision , we • 9 observed: 10 " (W]e note land use law, including the law pertaining to variance relief , is not a branch of common law, but 11 is rather based on particular statutes, ordinances and rules enacted by legislative and administrative 1110 12 . bodies . Anderson v . Peden, 284 Or 313, 315, 587 P2d 59 ( 19788 ) , Thus , in cases of this sort , the focus of 13 our inquiry must be on the actual language appearing in the controlling enactment . " Fisher v . City of 14 Gresham, 10 Or LUBA 283 , 289, rev' d other grounds, 69 Or App 411, 685 P2d 486 ( 1984 ) . " . 15 16 To date, no Oregon appellate court decision has limited , on • 17 constitutional , statutory or other grounds , the scope of 18 discretion which may be exercised by local governments in 19 establishing standards for the approval of variances . Id . We 1 20 have held that the power to allow a variance is not strictly 21 limited to instances where relief is necessary to permit • 22 beneficial use of the subject property , Morrison v . City of 23 Portland, 10 Or LUBA 12 ( 1983 ) . Local government variance 24 standards which do not require a demonstration of "unnecessary 25 har dship" have been applied without judicial criticism, E'isher 26 .+. City of Gresham, 69 Or App at 415-416 ; Atwood v , City of D page 10 a 1 Portland, 55 Or App 215, 637 P2d 1302 ( 1981 ) , rev denied 292 Or 2 722 (1982 ) ; 1000 Friends v. Clack Co. Commm. , 40 Or App 529 , \ .. I 3 595 P2d 1273 ( 1979 ) . 4 Where local government variance standards do include the 5 traditional "unnecessary hardship" criterion without further 6 elaboration, both we and the appellate courts have required the • 7 standard to be interpreted to require that (1) the subject , a Property be virtually useless without the variance; and ( 2 ) the 9 hardship arise from conditions inherent in the land which � . 10 distinguish it from other land in the neighborhood . 11 91 Erickson v. City of Portland, supra; Lovell v. Independence , 12 Planning Comm. , supra? Standard Supply Co . v. Portland, supra; _ 4 0 . 13 Chou , v . City of Keizer, supra . In Standard Supply Co . v. 14 Portland, supra at 262, we rejected the city' s more liberal 15 interpretation of "unnecessary hardship" in its variance 16 standards because we found no authority in the local 17 government 's code to support a more liberal interpretation . , 18 However, in this case we a ree with the city that the g' 0r 19 language of its code indicates that it did not intend to adopt { 20 the traditional,t onal, strict interpretation of the term "unnecessary 21 hardship. "12 ,; ,� The code identifies "factors to be considered" 22 in determining whether an unnecessary hardship exists , M ; 23 including "physical circumstances related to the piece of 24 property involved" and "whether a reasonable use similar to :A � 25 like properties can be made of the property without the 26 Variance . " LOC 49 . 510( 2)A. i and ii , These factors parallel a' Page 11 • k 4111 ‘. ., . 1 but are more liberal than, the traditional elements of 2 "unnecessary hardship. " The factors also include "economic 3 impact on the person requesting the variance if the request is 4 denied, " which is not part of the traditional, strict C• 5 interpretation of "unnecessary hardship. " LOC 49 . 510( 2 )A. iv . u 6 Most importantly, the code provides that a determination of 4 • . 7 whether the "unnecessary hardship" requirement of , 8 LOC 49 . 510( 1 )A is satisfied "necessarily ,invo],yes the balancing 9 of competing and conflicting intersts" and the considerations 10 set out in LOC 49 . 510 ( 2) A "are not standards and are not 11 intended to be an exclusive list of considerations, " but are to i 12 be used as a guide by the reviewing authority. LOC 49 . 510 ( 2)C. 13 Reading LOC 49 . 510 in its entirety, we find that the city 14 clearly did not intend to adopt the traditional, strict 15 "unnecessary hardship" test. The city' s interpretation of the ' ' ' 16 "unnecessary hardship" criterion of LOC 49 . 510 ( 1 )A not to 17 require a demonstration that ( 1 ) without the variance the 16 subject property would be virtually useeleleds, and ( 2 ) the 19 hardship arises from conditions inherent in the land, is 20 reasonable and correct .13 r. 21 The first subassignment of error is denied. ' • 22 B. Minimum Variance Necessary for Reasonable Use • 23 LOC 49 . 510 ( 1 )C sets out the following criterion for a 24 Variance from the city ' s development standards : 25 "The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable Use of the property * * * " 26 • 12 Pane ;; • A, Petitioners argue this Board ani the Oregon courts have 2 held that a variance must be the minimum variance necessary to r A 3 make beneficial use of the subject property, citing Erickson v. 4 city of Portland, supra, and Standard Supply Co•. v . Portland, 5 supra . Petitioners argue that the city "did less than consider 6 whether the developer ' s request for a variance to the open 7 space standard in order to put in a three-lot development was 9 s the minimal variance necessary to make use of the property. " ' ' 9 Petition for Review 11 . According to petitioners, the city 10 merely adopted the applicant ' s contention that a three-lot A. ' 11' 11 partition was necessary in order to make reasonable use of the • - . 12 property. Petitioners assert there is no evidence in the 13 record to show that three buildable lots are necessary to make , 14 reasonable use of the property . 15 The city argues that the development review board decision 16 the city council relied on states that requiring additional 17 open space would severely limit development of the property . ' 't; 18 Record 65-66 . The city also argues thea.e is evidence in the L 19 record that ( 1 ) requiring the full 20% open space would resu t 1;' ' 20 in less than 45, 000 square feet being available for 21 development, thereby limiting the development to two lots ; and 22 ( 2 ) the loss of the third lot would make the development 1, r ;' 23 economically unfeasible. Record 74, 176, 193. ' 4 24 The city also points out that the partial variance to the • '.7' : 0 25 Parks and Open Space standard results in preservation of the A p 26 stream corridor ( 11 , 6% of the property) as open space . The Page 13 0'1 y ,, 1 1.ti{ A 1� • 4~1 J. • 1 • c 1 city further argues that the applicant could meet 'the Parks and 2 Open Space standard by paying a $3, 870 acquisition fee in lieu 3 of providing the remainder of the required 20% open space . The 4 city argues the requested variance is the minimum which would 5 allow three lots to be created and not require payments by the CI -> 6 applicant in addition to the costs for dedication and • 7 construction of the public street` According to the city, in , C.') - ...----- 8 these circumstances, to apply LOC 49 . 510 ( 1 )C in a manner 9 resulting in less than three developable lots or a requirement 10 for an additional contribution for public improvements would be 11 unreasonable. 0 . . , , 12 A premise underlying petitioners ° argument concerning the 13 '.interpretation of LOC 49 .510(l )C is that, based on the cited 14 LUBA and court variance cases, the city must require that a ' ,+.,4t'fi, 15 variance be the mimimum necessary to make some beneficial use 16 of the property. However, as we explained in the previous 17 subassignment of error, our inquiry must focus on the 18 particular city code provisions governing the appealed variance. , A' 19 In this case, LOC 49 . 510 reflects an intent to depart from 20 the traditional, restrictive type of variance standards . In i 21 the previous subassignment, We concluded that the city was not 22 required to interpret "unnecessary hardship" in LOC 49 . 510 ( 1 )A 23 to require that the property be virtually useless without the • 24 requested variance. To require LOC 49 . 510 ( 1)C to be l• ' + 25 interpreted as p petitioners urge would create an internal t 26 conflict between these two standards : 14 We conclude the Page 14 1 ,' 1 city ' s interpretation of " reasonable use" of the subject property under LOC 49 . 510 (1 )C is reasonable and correct . s, 3 However, petitioners also allege the city ' s decision does , not demonstrate that the requested variance is the minimum S necessary to make "reasonable use" of the property. The only , 6 findings explicitly addressing this criterion state: 7 "The applicant has provided 11. 6%` - open space in addition to right-of-way dedication for a public 8 street and future access for the . adjacent 'parcel .---- Staff supports the a licant ' s variance re / (. 'PP request and q s 9 agrees additional open space dedication will prevent a reasonable use of the 1 .3 acre site . "15 Record 137 10 • Other findings relevant to this criterion provide: 1•t "The applicant initially requested a minor land � . 12 partition but staff ' s recommendation for construction of a public street resulted in a major partition, N. • 13 hence a major development . p Considering the amount of right-of-way dedication, future street access and / 14 physical improvement of the new street, the preservation of 11 . 6% open space is sufficient . ' '' 15 Requiring additional open space would * * * severely limit the development of this parcel . * * * " Record 16 50-51, 65-66, 136 . 17 To comply with LOC 49 .510 ( 1)C, the city ' s findings must 18 establish ( 1 ) what constitutes reasonable use of the property, y 19 and ( 2 ) why the approved variance is the minimum necessary to 20 allow such use.16 See Fisher v. City of Gresham, 12 Or LUBA p. 21 at 192 . Although the above-quoted findings include a 22 conclusionary statement that the standard is met, they are 23 inadequate hecause they fail to explain what the city considers 24 to be " reasonable use " of the property and why the variance approved is the minimum variance required to allow the p .`r 26 " reasonable u e "1'7 s Rattler, they simply state preservation Page 15 `' ..G ., , 0 ' ' . 1 of 11 . 6% open space is "sufficient" in this instance and state 2 that providing additional open space would "severely limit the 3 development of" the parcel . 4 Under ORS 197. 835( 10 ) ( b) , 18 even though the city ' s s findings are inadequate, we must uphold the 'nty ' s y • r 6 determination of compliance with LOC 49 . 510(1 )C if "the parties •'. 7 identify relevant evidence in the record which clearly supports ;� 8 the decision. " In this case, the evidence cited by the parties \ 9 does clearly support a finding that providing the full 20% open 10 space would result in there being only two developable lots on , 17 the property. Record 176, 193 . However, this evidence does 12 not clearly support a finding that the a ` pproved variance from 13 20% to 11 . 6% open -space is the minimum necessary to prevent , . 14 loss of the third io9 is In addition, the evidence does not clearly support a 16 finding that providing three developable lots is essential to ,. 17 "reasonable use of the property. 20 Interpreting and b w 18 applying the " reasonable use" standard requires an exercise of 19 considerable judgment by the city . We are therefore-o unable to 20 overlook the inadequacy of the city ' s findings by virtue of 21 ORS 197 . 835 ( 10 ) ( b) . See Bright v. City of Yachats , Or 22 LUBA ( LUBA No. 87-048, October 13, 1987 ) , slip op 14 . • 23 This subassignment of error is susta,i,ned , 24 C. Injury to the Neighborhood 25 LOC 49 , 510 ( 1 )8 sets out the following criterion for a • , 26 variance from the city' s development standards : pmm 16 6 Y D, 4t "Development consistent with the request will not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is 2 • located or to property established to be affected by the request * * • 3 ' 4 Petitioners challenge the adequacy of the city' s Linding of „ 5 compliance with this standard, arguing that a finding must 6 state the facts supporting the decision and explain how the 7 standards and facts result in the decision reached . ' 8 Petitioners claim the city ' s finding merely recites the 9 approval criteria. Petitioners further argue the city ' s 10 findings fail to address relevant issues of traffic safety, 11 noise and congestion raised by them in the proceeding before 12 the city . 4 13 Petitioners also contend that the city' s finding of 14 compliance with this standard is not supported by substantial 15 evidence in the record. Petitioners cite evidence in the 16 record concerning traffic safety which they contend constitutes 17 substantial evidence that the proposed development will cause ' 18 traffic safety problems . d 19 The city points to its findings that there will be public 20 benefits from the proposed development was supporting its 21 determination of compliance with LOC 49 . 510 ( 1 )B. Record 65 . • 22 The city also argues that petitioners ' arguments concerning �1 23 traffic impacts, congestion and noise reveal that petitioners 24 misinterpret LOC 49 . 510 ( 1)s. The city argues that this 25 standard only requires determination of the effects of they 26 granting of the variance from the Parks and Open Space standard • . Page 17 � 0 , r • I . . . , , , 1 on the neighborhood, not of all� ,., effects of the proposed 1. , 2 development on the neighborhood . According to the city, the ti 3 only effect of granting the variance is either that 8 . 4% of the 4 subject site will not be required to be preserved as open space A .„ a s or $3, 870 will not be paid to the city in lieu of providing 6 such open space, Respondent argues that the a 'i pproval of this 7 variance, therefore, can have no measurable detrimental impact • . ' a on the neighborhood. 9 The parties disagree on the proper interpretation of 10 LOC 49. 510 (l )B. Petitioners contehd that "development ii consiste»t with the request will not be injurious to the : 12 neighborhood" requires that the city consider the impacts of 13 the entire proposed development, i . e. , three single family 14 dwellings with a public street to provide access to these - 1s dwellings and the neighboring parcel . On the other hand, the 16 city argues this standard only requires consideration of the y 17 incremental impacts on the neighborhood due to the variance A,'1;' 1s itself, i . e. , preserving 11 . 6% versus 20% of the site as open s 9 paces 21 1or forgoing ------, .,y , 1 • 21 9 g $3, 870 for acquisition and development S 2dt,,_of parks and scenic ea5emwl�ts . LOC 39 .100 . .-- -- 21 The Wording of this standard is ambiguous . We find that , 22 the city ' s interpretation of its standard is the more n 23 reasonable . In many instances a requested Variance might only 24 affect one portion or area of a large proposed development . In 23 such a situation, it would be unreasonable to interpret this 26 standard to require consideration of all impacts of the Page 18 r . . • 1 development in deciding whether the variance should be 2 approved . This interpretation is supported by the city ' s identification of the perceptions of neighborhood residents and 4 property owners concerning "th incremental mpacts occurring - • S as a result of the proposed variance" as a relevant factor in • r .• , o r 6 determining whether hOC 49 . 510( 1 )B is satisfied . (Emphasis ' $ 7 added. ) LOC 49. 510 ( 2)B. ii . 8 Thus, we conclude that LOC 49 . 510 ( 1)B requires the city to • 9 determine that not providing an additional 8 . 4% of the proposed 10 development site as open space\ will not be injurious to the 11 neighborhood, and to explain the basis for that determination ' 1 12 i�its f i.•nd-ings 222 The only findings expressly addressing 13 LOC 49 . 510 (1 )B state : ' , q Y+ 14 "Staff believes the request to reduce the required 20% open space will not be injurious to the neighborhood , 15 The applicant has proposed to construct a public ( 16 street and provide future access to the adjacent parcel to the north, and is dedicating a sizeable portion of the lot for that purpose. " Record 136-137 . d 17 18 The city maintains the following finding, although ? 19 ostensibly addressing the application of the PD overlay, is N _ - 20 also relevant to compliance with LOC 49 . 510 (1 )B: ,/ ' , 21 " .°` [Tills proposal would provide public benefit by the requirement of installation of two street lights, 22 the obtainment of 'a City drainage easement over the stream corridor, and the provision for future access 23 to the adjacent lot . " Record 65 , 24 Only the first sentence of the above-quoted findings 2S directly addresses the impacts on the neighborhood of not 26 providing the additional 8 . 4% open space . We agree with4. • Page 19 • O . •• 0r a r • . I • I _, t t t . , . 1111 1 petitioners that that sentence is impermissibly conclusionary. 2 It simply restates the criterion, and does not explain what, if 3 any, impacts the city believes not providing the additional 4 open space will have on the ' neighborhood and why ., the city 5 'concludes those impacts will not be injurious . The remainder . 6 of the findings quoted above describe other features of the ,7• proposed development and conclude they will provide a 4public • • benefit. " These findings may be relevant to the standards 9 governing approval of the partition or application of the PD 10 overlay, but they are not re evan o e ermining whether t `e 11 lack of additional open space will be injurious to the 12 neighborhood. 410 13 Since we find t city 's findings inadequate for the 14 reasons stated above 3 no useful purpose would be served by 15 reviewing petitioners' additional allegation that thn findings 16 are not supported by substantial evidence. DLCD fv. Columbia 17 County, Or LUBA '•` .° (LUBA No . 87-109, March 15, 1988 ) , 1e slip op 7; McNulty v. City of Lake Oswego, 14 Or LUBA 366, 373 19 ( 1986 ) . 20 This subassignment of error is sustained, in part . 21 The second assignment of error is sustained, in part . 22 THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 23 "Inaccurate information on the lot sizes proposed for •• p pego • the development was used by the Lake Oswego 24 Development Review Board in analyzing the developer ' s plan . This inaccurate information prejudiced the 25 City ' s decision and the finding should be remanded for1111 reconsideration . " 26 1 Pale 2 0 i / Petitioners assert that city staff provided inaccurate 2 information to the development review board regarding the size 3 of lots surrounding the proposed development. Petitioners 4 argue that the size of surrounding lots is relevant to s determining whether development consistent with the variance 6 will not be injurious to the neighborhood pursuant to 7 LOC 49 . 510 ( 1)B. Petitioners argue �`t at they y were prejudiced e because (1) the misinformation damaged petitioners ' credibility 9 before the review hoard, and ( 2) the review board relied on • 10 this misinformation. �1 The city points out that at the hearing on petitioners ' 12 appeal of the review board ' s decision, the city council allowed 13 petitioners to enter evidence into the record to correct the 14 misinformation given to the review board . The city argues the 15 city council accepted and considered petitioners ' evidence, but 16 found it not to be relevant to conformance of the proposed 17 dvelopment with applicable criteria. The city denies that 18 petitioners were prejudiced by the misinformation on 19 surrounding lot sizes provided to the review board . 20 The findings adopted by the city council state : 21 " * * * During the appeal hearing the only inaccurate information identified by appellants was the reference 22 to lot sizes in the Hallinan Woods subdivision. The Council accepted Exhibit 23, a portion of the plat of 23 the Hallinan Woods subdivision along with a written statement by Andy Paris that the lots shown on the 24 exhibit were in excess of 20, 000 sq. ft . The lots sho25 subject n toto the eXhthislbit are applicat not adjacent and to the property j the closest shown being more than 200 ' to the north and west of the 26 subject site. * * * The size of other lots located hp 21 • 1110 more than 200 ' away from the site are not facts which are relevant to the issue of compliance of the 2 application with an applicable criterion. The inaccurate information submitted by staff was 3 corrected by appellants and the Council received the correct information into the record. * * * N 4 Record 7 . S The city council accepted and considered evidence submitted 6 by petitioners to correct the misinformation given to the 7 review board. 24 Petitioners do not argue that the city e council lacked authority to reverse or modify any aspect of the 5 review board 's decision because of the review board 's reliance 10 on misinformation. Any prejudice to petitioners due to the 11 revie'a board ' s receipt of inaccurate figures regarding the size 12, of lots in the Hallinan Woods subdivision was eliminated by the city 0 council 's council s acceptance of corrected information on appeal . C 14 Cf. Slatter v. Wallowa Cou�n�, Or LUBA (LUBA No . 15 87-105, April 15, 1988 ) slip op 9 (de novo review by county 16 commissioners of planning commission decision cured any 17 impropriety created by participation of a planning commission 18 member with a financial interest ) . 79 The third assignment of error is denied. 20 The city ' s decision is remanded. 21 22 23 24 2S1111 26 Mgt 22 O n,� A • • 1 ��I FOOTNOTES2 1 3 The lotlhine adjustment also involves a small portion of an adjoining parcel . 4 S 2 • Under trle Lake Oswego Development Code • ( LOC) , a minor 6 partition defined as "(a] partition that does not include the creation of a street. " LOC 49 . 015( 33) (b) . A major 7 partition is defined as " (a] partition which includes creation • of a street. " LOC 49. 015(33) (a) . The proposed public street 8 potentially would provide access for future development of the adjoining parcel to the north. 9 10 3 The Parks and Open Space standard provides, in relevant 1 part: • 12 " (a]ll major residential development * * * shall provide open space or park land approved by the city 13 in an aggregate amount equal to at least 20% of the gross land area of the development . " LODS 8. 020. 1 0 14 0 We also note that LOC 49 . 140( 1)H identifies a minor 15 ,`partition as a 'minor development. " Minor residential developments are not required to comply with the Parks and Open 16 Space standard. Id. 17 4 ,` 18 The Lake Oswego Development Standards are not codified a:.i`1 part of the LOC. 19 20 5 Although the minimum lot area in the R-15 zone is 15 , 000 21 sq. ft . , a smaller lot may be approved if the Planned , Development OVerlay district is applied to the property . The ' 22 planned development overlay allows the minimum lot area requirement to be altered without a variance, so long as the 23 density requirement of the underlying zone is met . LOC 48 . 475 . 3 . The maximum density provision for the R-15 zone Z4 would potentially allow three dwellings on the subject property . LOC 48 , 205( 1) , 1111 25 26 rase 23 , N 1 6 2 ORS 227 . 173 ( 1) provides : 1 3 "Approval or denial of a discretionary permit application shall be based on standards and criteria, 4 which shall be set forth in the development ordinance and which shall relate approval or denial of a discretionary permit application to the development ordinance and to the comprehensive plan for the area 6 in which the development would occur and to the development ordinance and comprehensive plan for the • 7 city as a whole. " U .8 9 We also agree with the city that ORS 227 .173 (1) does not require perfect standards, but rather standards that are clear 10 enough to inform the applicant and other parties of what must be established during the application process. Lee v. City of 11 Portland, 57 Or App 798, 802, 646 P2d 662 ( 1982) ; Columbia River Television v. Multnomah Co. , 14 Or LUBA 179, 182 ( 1986 ) . . 12 However , we note that petitioners ' argument under this III assignment of error is only that the city does not have 13 'criteria for the approval of variances set out in its code. Petitioners do not also argue that, if the provisions of 14 LOC 49. 510( 1)A-D are criteria, they are inadequate to inform parties of what is required to obtain approval of a variance. 15 1 16 8 We note the technique of providing both approval criteria 17 and relevant factors is similar to the legislature 's and Land Conservation and Development Commission ' s approach in providing ' 1e both mandatory "statewide planning goals' and nonmandatory 'guidelines. " See ORS 197 .015 ( 8 ) and ( 9 ) . 1 19 ZO 9 Section 50 . 510 of the city ' s 1961 zoning code provided, in 21 relevant part : J 22 "The Design Review Board may authorize Variances from the requirements of the zoning code where it can be . 23 shown that, owing to special or unusual circumstances related to a specific piece of property, the literal 24 interpretation of the zoning code would cause an UndUe or unnecessary hardship. * * * 25 4111 "In determining whether the literal interpretation of 26 the zoning code would cause an Undue or Unnecessary hap .24 p . 4 • 1 • ro- b 1 hardship ,,of sufficient degreee to require the granting of a variance, the Board will consider the following 2 criteria, together with all other relevant • • circuMstances : 3 ��, " (1 ) Special and unusual conditions apply to the 4 property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or neighborhood, s which conditions are a result of lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over 6 which the applicant has no control . 7 " ( 2) The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right of the applicant a substantially the same as is possessed by owners of other property in the same zone or vicinity. 9 '. " (3 ) The variance is not materially in conflict 10 with the objectives of prevailing community or neighborhood plans, nor injurious to the 11 neighborhood in which the property is located . 12 " ( 4 ) Without the variance as requested, the property will be unsuited for the normal and el 13 reasonable uses of property within the zone or vicinity, as distinguished from the applicant ' s 14 personal needs or desires. " 1s 10 16 The exerpts of minutes of the 1981 city council meetings which the city cites as legislative history are not in the 17 record of the city's proceeding submitted to LUBA, but rather are attached to the city's brief . Petitioners objected at oral . is argument to the city 's submission with its brief of material not in the record, but have not filed a motion to strike the 19 material or a request for a reply brief. Neither has the city expressly requested that we take official notice of these 20 documents. See Oregon Rules of Evidence 201 and 202 . However, we need not determine whether these documents are properly 21 before us in this case because, as explained in n 10, infra, we do not rely On these documents in interpreting LOC 49 . 510 ( 1 )A. 2 We note the Court of Appeals has stated, in dicta, that it $3 may be we should be more influenced by a local government interpretation of an ambiguous ordinance provision when "the 24 local interpretation is based on legislative history to which the local entityhas peculiar access. " McCoy v. Linn County, 25 90 Or App 271, 276, 752 P2d 323 ( 1988) . However , neither we nor the court have determined whether LUBA may consider, as 26 legislative history, documents not subject to official notice N 25 0. r , . , , . . t. 1 and not in the record of the appealed decision. See ORS 197 . 830( 11 ) (a) . local government 2 1° 3 11 ,,,�� We note that in all the cases cited, with the possible 4 exception of Standard Supply Co . V. Portland, supra, the local government variance standards included �a traditional s "exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property but not generally applicable to propert in the vicinity" prevision as we..l as an "unnecessary hardship provision . It is not entirely clear to T us that t1e y traditional "unnecessary hardship" criterion alone must be interpreted to require that the hardship , result from a conditions inherent in the land not shared by other property. 9 12 10 We also agree with the city that its amendment of the traditional, restrictive variance standards of the 1961 code to 11 substitute the more flexible provisions of the 1981 code supports its liberal interpretation of the• "unnecessary 12 hardship' provision in the 1981 code. See Morrison v. City of Portland, 11 Or LUBA 246, 257-258, rev'd other grounds 70 Or ' 13 `•App 437, 689 P2d 1027 (1984) . 14Y However, in construing the provisions of the 1981 code, we do not rely on the exerpts of minutes of city council meetings 1s concerning the draft 1981 code which the city submitted as legislative history. Those minutes neither support nor argue 16 against the city's liberal interpretation of "unnecessary hardship' as used in the 1981 code. The minutes indicate some 17 city council members felt that variance criteria should be 'fairly tight' or 'restrictive in nature, ' while others thought , 't 18 the then existing criteria were 'a little too restrictive" or 'there should be some flexibility. ' Respondent ' s Brief 19 App-12 . The minutes state it was the consensus of council members that they were "willing to look at language that would 20 be less restrictive on the hardship question, but still . incorporates the requirement to prove or demons'br°ate 21 hardship. " ( Emphasis added. ) Respondent 's Brief App-14 . The • quoted language does not establish that the council members 22 intended the language they eventually adopted to be 'less restrictive, " only that they were willing to consider such a 23 possibility. 24 13 23 We note that to the extent petitioner raises a substantial evidence challenge to the city ' s determination of compliance 26 With its 'unnecessary hardship" standard, that challenge is page 26 • •n , 7 ' 0 1 based only on there being no evidence in the record to support V. {! a determination of compliance with etitioners ' interpretation 2 of the "unnecessary hardship" standard. However, we do not adopt the interpretation of that standard advocated by 3 petitioners. Petitioners do not allege the evidence in the record is inadequate to support the city 's determination of 4 compliance with the city' s interpretation of the "unnecessary hardship" criterion; and, therefore, their evidentiary 3 challenge must fail . 6 14AP 7 We note that in Fisher v. City of Gresham, 69 Or App at 415, the court interpreted ordinance provisions requiring e variances to be necessary for "reasonable economic use" not to • require that property be shown to be incapable of au economic 9 use. 10 . 15 11 These "findings" are found in the staff report of April 22, 1988 . The city council 's order states "the decision of the 40 12 Development Review Board set forth in Order SD 12-88/VAR ;19-88/PD 5-88-557, is affirmed . " Record 10 . The parties agree 13 that this language has the effect of incorporating the cited review board order into the city council ' s decision . 14 Furthermore, the review board incorporated the findings of the April 22, 1988 staff report into its order, which makes them 1s part of the city '.s decision. Record 64 . 16 16 17 As a result of the requirements of LOC 49 . 510 ( 1 )C, a variance could not be approved if the use possible without any 18 variance constitutes "reasonable use" of the property. Therefore, if it is alleged in the proceedings below that such 19 use does constitute "reasonable use, " the city must address in its findings why the use allowable without a variance is not 20 "reasonable use. " 21 17 ' 22 If the city is correct in interpreting its Parks and Open Space standard to require the applicant either to dedicate an 23 additional 8 . 4% open space or to pay a $3, 870 acquisition fee, then under LOC 49 . 510 ( 1 )C the city ' s decision would have to 24 demonstrate that payment of the additional feet as well as provision of additional open space, Would prevent "reasonable 25 use of the property. The city' s decision does not establish 11111 this . 26 Pane 27 � r 4111 1 We also note that petitioners did not •assign as error the city's interpretation of its Parks and Open Space standard as 2 allowing payment of a fee in lieu of providing the required open space . However, the arguments in the petition for review 3 seem to be based on an assumption that compliance with this standard may be achieved only by providing the required amount 4 of open space . We find it unnecessary to determine the correct interpretation of this standard in resolving this subassignment 5 of error, as the city ' s findings are inadequate to demonstrate ?• compliance with LOC 49 . 510(1 )C under either interpretation. 6 7 18 ORS 197 . 835 (l0 ) (b) provides: a "Whenever the findings are defective because of failure to 9 recite adequate facts or legal conclusions or failure to adequately identify the standards or their relation to the 10 facts, but the parties identify relevant evidence in the record which clearly supports the decision or a part of the decision, the board shall affirm the decision or the', part of the decision supported by the record and rema,n%f the 12 remainder to the local government, with direction • indicating appropriate remedial action. " 1111 • 13 1 ' 14 19 For instance, the site plan at Record 193 shows that Lots • 1s 1, 2 and 3 total 46,550 sq. ft . Under the R-15 zone with the PD overlay it is necessary to have 45, 000 sq. ft. to have three 16 developable lots . The evidence in the record does not explain why the variance could not be minimized, while still retaining 17 three developable lots, by allocating an additional 1,550 sq. ft. to open space. Also, assuming the city' s 1a interpretation of its Parks and Open Space standard is correct, the evidence in the record does not explain why payment of part 19 or all of the $3, 870 acquisition fee should not be required under LOC 49 . 510 (1 )C. 20 21 20 This evidence consists merely of a statement by a city 22 planner that "because of the right-of-way dedication for the public street and future access, ( the provision of 11 . 6% open 23 space With three developable lots ] i8 a reasonable use of the site, " ( Record 74 ) and an unsupported statement by the 24 applicant that limiting the parcel to two developable lots "is not feasible . " Record 176 . 231111 26s palm 28 .. ._. ,........ .... ,...... -.... ... .. _..._.. ___.. ,. .... .... �„mob 4 • • 1/1 ` 1 21 2 Assuming the 6400 sq . ft . shown on the site plan at Record 193 as open space constitutes the 11 . 6% referred to in the 3 findings, then the additional 8 . 4% open space which would be required without the variance amounts to approximately an 4 additional 4600 sq. ft . However, we note that 6400 sq. ft . appears to be only 9. 9%, not 11. 6%, of the gross area of 64, 450 s sq. ft. shown on the site plan . 6 22 7 If the city is correct in interpreting its Parks and Open Space standard to allow the payment of a $3,870 parks \ acquisition fee in lieu of providing the 8 . 4% open space, then �• the city's decision must also explain why not collecting .that 9 fee will not be injurious to the neighborhood. We note that the city's decision does not appear to do so. We offer this io comment as guidance to 'the ;city on remand, as petitioners have not raised this issue in their argument, presumably because 11 they disagree with the city,'as to the correct interpretation of the requirements of, the Parks and Open Space standard . 12 4111 13 23 Petitioners also attack the city ' s findings as inadequate 14 to demonstrate compliance with LOC 49.510(1 )B because they do riot address traffic, congestion and noise impacts of the is proposed development . However, petitioners do not explain how these issues relate to the effects of the variance on the 16 neighborhood . Whether or not an additional 8 . 4% open space is provided will have not change whatever traffic, congestion and 17 noise impacts the proposed development may have. 18 24 19 We note that LOC 49 . 625 ( 7 ) ( "Appeals of Hearing Body Actions to City Council" ) provides that the city council ' s 20 consideration of the hearing body' s decision "shall be confined to the record of the proceeding below, " and "evidence not 21 contained in the record made before the hearing body may not be presented in the hearing before the City Council . " HHowever , 22 petitioners do not assign as error the city ' s acceptance of their evidence regarding lot sizes at the appeal hearing . 23 24 25 26 Pap 29 u , a • CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ,2 I hereby certify that I served the foregoing Final Opinion and Order for LUBA No. 88-087, on F6fbruary 3, 1989, by mailing 3 to said parties or their attorney a/(true copy thereof contained in a sealed envelope with postage,/ prepaid addressed to said 4parties or their attorney as follow3 : 3 Larry N. Sokol Jolles, Sokol & Bernstein, P.C. 721 SW Oak Street 7 Portland, OR 97205 s James M. Coleman , City Attorney City of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego, OR 97034 44 Dated this 3rd day o,r February, 1989 . f,; (/_:/44oe g —ArCrosby �}� A•ministeative Assistant 7,3 » // i 25 pro 3 0 ' ti • \ V BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS ` 'ti • �~ j 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON ' , 1---:°/ 3 LARRY N. SOKOL, DANIEL REIS, ) HANS vanWITZENBURG and ) 4 ARTHUR BODE, ) 5 Petitioners, ) LUBA No. 6 v. ) 7 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, ) 8 Respondent. ) 9 10 NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL , 11 I 12 Notice is hereby given that petitioners intend to 41o13 '. appeal that land use decision of respondent entitled AN APPEAL 14 OF THE APPROVAL OF A 3-LOT P.A.RTITION WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 15 OVERLAY (RICHARD P. WATERMAN) SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88-602. , 16 This order became final on September 21, 1988. It involves an 17 appeal of the approval of a 3-lot major partition with planned 18 devolopment overlay, lot line adjustment, a variance to the 19 Park and Open Space Standard and approval of a future streets 20 plant by the Lake Oswego City Council. 21 II 22 �` Petitioners are represented by Larry N. Sokol, 23 / ` Jolles , Sokol & Bernstein, P.C. , 721 S. W. Oak Street, 24 Portland, Oregon 97205-3791 ; telephone number ( 503 ) 228-6474 . 40 Respondent, City of Lake Oswego, has as its mailing 25 k 26 address and telephone number: City of Lake Oswego, 380 "A" Page 1 - NOTICE-0F INTENT -Pa APPEAL _. . ; EXHIBIT 49 Csras) JOLLES.SOKOL I BERNSTEIN,P.C. &bib 1.2.0156 p 1,aa), Attorneys al Lk., 7r S PI.Osk Street TlyW+rMs(WO 01,�74 • • • • 1 Avenue, Post Office Box 369, Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 ; 2 telephone number ( 503 ) 635-0215. 3 The City has as its '\legal counsel: James M. 4 Coleman, City Attorney, City of Lake Oswego, 380 "A" Avenue, 5 Post Office Box 3E9, Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 ; telephone 6 number ( 503 ) 635-0225. 7 III ! • f I 8(c Applicants, Richard Waterman, Michael Busher, OTAK, 9 Inc. and Don Hanson were represented in the proceeding below 10 by: Richard Waterman, P. 0. Box 144, Lake Oswego, Oregon 11 97034 ; Don Hanson and OTAK, Inc. , 17355 S. W. Boones Ferry, 12 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034; Michael C. Busher, 1.515 S. Cherry, 13 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034. 4111 14 15 NOTICE: �( 16 Anyone designated in Paragraph III of this notice 17 who desires to participate as a party in this case before the 18 Land Use Board of Appeals must file with he Board a Motion to 19 Intervene in this proceeding as, req r by OAR 661-10 . 50 20 ,, 14( 21 LARRY N. . OKOL 22 Attorney «r Petitioners • 23 24 25 26 S 14E'-'c8Y CERTIFY T',Va. Page 2 NOTICE .OF__INTENT TO APPEAL FOREGOING IS A`r: CO THE ORIGINAL T►4L';EOF, s' r� �+ Ja,Led,6liROL a eenNsrEIN, Attorneys d La. "• PTnirn s,'yI,Oak so.a 1 o Attorney fo(P e t i t i o n e r .n�, �.oa�a�ars� f . 1 IJ ) 0 4 ` • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE • 1 (1004:yr 2 I hereby certify that on the, of �1.988 , I served a true and correct copy f this Notice 3 Intent to Appeal on all persons listed in Paragraphs II and III of this Notice pursuant to OAR 661-10-015( 2) by first 4 class mail. a 5 Dated this 0 day of 0 . .er, 1988. 41, ,, afklaill We RY N. SO 7 Attorney for Petitioners J 8 9 ' ,; 10 11 12 fa 13 ' , • 14 15 16 17 18 19 , 20 1 3 1\'', 24 io 25 6 Page 3 - NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL ` Jaws,500:3 BERNVEIN,P,C, • Ati6moys at Los i 171 ti W,Oak 5tn 1. c, Porltwni,ure on 9720:WM •Yot• h nu(SO 2244474 N' 0 ,, • ` ` C ® 1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL . ' 2 OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO' 3 An Appeal of the Approval of ) SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88-602 a 3-Lot Partition with ) 4 Planned Development Overlay ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER (Richard Waterman) 5 Nature of Appe, 1, 6 • An appeal of the approval of a 3-lot major j partition with 7 planned development overlay, lot line adjustment, a variance to I ' 8 the Park and Open Space Standard and approval of a future streets 9 plan (Tax Lot 7000 of Tax Map 2 lE 10DD and Tax Lot 2300 of Tax 10 Map 2 lE 14BB) . The Notice of Appeal was filed by letter dated 11 June 15, 1988 by Mr. Larry Sokol on behalf of himself and Daniel ", •12 Reis, Hans Van Witzenburg and Arthur Bode. 13 Hearings L. 14 The Development Review Board held a public hearing and oI 15 considered this application at its' meeting on May 16, 1988. The tig o0 16 City Council considered this matter on the record made before the FJ`= Board at the Council 's September 6, 1988 meeting. ti 00 17 sw Criteria and Standards . 0 18 LuJ° A. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Coder 'o< 19 J <� LOC 48. 195 - 48.225 R-15 Zone Description v> 20 LOC 48 .470 - 48 .490 Planned Development Overlay Z1 B . City of Lake Oswego Development Code: ,\ o 2Z LOC 49.120 Future Streets Plan )), LOC 49 .210 Minor Development Application • 23 LOC 49. 300 -- 49. 335 Major Development` Procedures LOC 49.500 - 49 .510 Variances LOC 49. 610 puasi-Judicial Evidentiary AIIIV Hearing Procedures • 411,5 LOC 49 .615 Criteria for Approval 26 EXHIBIT 1 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER I la C6 Page /5.01241014,e iye� (Io 7) -) . Ilk C. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 2 4.005 -. 4.040 Stream Corridors 5.005 3.040 Street Lights • • 3 8.005 - 8.040 Park and Open Space 9.005 - 9.040 Landscaping, Screening and 4 Buffering 10.005 - 10.040 Fences 5 11.005 - 11.040 Drainage for Major 13.005 - 13.040 Development 6 13.005 - 13.040 Weak Foundation Soils Utilities 16.005 - 16.040 Hillside Protection & Erosion 18.005 18.040 Control g' Access 19.005 - 19.040 Site Circulation - Private 9 Streets/Driveways D. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: 10 • Residential Land Use Policy Element R 11 Residential Density Policies, General Policies I, III 12 Conclusion . 13 • The City Council concludes that SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 14 comply with all applicable criteria . `m W 15 Findings and Reasons • A 0 Y�, 16 The City Council incorporates the August 23, 1988 staff Q 00 17 report as support for its decision, supplemented by the ''63W f ollcwing. The "analysis" portion of the August 23, 1988 staff) w 18 HI;0 • z w .repor (pages 2-9) addresses the issues raised by the appellants ''1/ ;oJ 19 <W in their Notice of A F 20 Appeal During the hearing on this matter the • • us appellants did not raise new substantive issues or present 21 R arguments ag�`inst the decision that were not generally raised in 22 the Notice of Appeal. However, the Council will specifically 23 address some of the points raised by appellants. 24 1. The Notice of Appeal generally alleges inaccurate 25 information was provided by City staff to the Development Review s 26 2 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER Page �' • 41111 Board. During the appeal hearing the only inaccurate information frnation . 2 identified by appellants was the reference to lot sizes in the ' 3 Hallinan Woods subdivision. The Council accepted Exhibit 23, a 4 portion of the plat of the Hallinan Woods subdivision along with 5 a written statement by Andy Paris that the lots shown on the 6 exhibit were in excess of 20,000 sq. ft. The lots shown on the 7 exhibit are not adjacent to the property subject to this 8. application and the closest shown being more than 200' to the north and west of the subject site. The subject property4s 9 zoned R-15 which requires 15,000 s .ft. 10 q per dwelling unit': The applicatior as approved LI' the Board results in a density 11 complying with the zone requirements. The size of other lots 2 • located more than 200' away from the site are not facts which are ` relevant to the issue of compliance of the application with an 2 14 applicable criterion. The inaccurate information submitted by ''g 15 staff was corrected by appellants and the Council received the Y° 16 correct information into the record. This point on appeal <W yp 17 ( provides no basis for modification, ' reversal or remand of the W '0 18 Board's decision. • 0 ' 3I 19 2. Appellants refer through their Notice of Appeal and in tz 20 their oral argument to use of the PD Overlay process, LOC _ "' ' < 21 48.470 - 48. 490, as a "variance". Such a characterization is 22 legally incorrect and is misleading. The PD process is 23 established by Code and is available for Use in any zone. The ' Board has interpreted LOC 48 .470 to 'make the PD process available 41/1 to small projects if the project provides an overall public 26 , 3 -, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER Page ' • , 1 1 benefit. The Council accepted the Board's interpretation in a ' 2 previous appeal and that rationale is still valid. Galen Park , 3 PD 2-88-565, LUBA No. 88-053. In this case the Board adequately ' 4 explained the public benefits resulting from the use of the PD 5 Overlay. (See 8-23 stafE report, pp. 5-6, Exhibit 1, p. 3, 6 Exhibit 3, pp. 51-59. ) • • 3. The Council agrees with the Board's decision to allow 8 the variance from. the Park and Open Space( Standard. Appellants `, . " 4 are incorrect in alleging the Board did not evaluate the 9 application for conformance with the correct standards. The 10 standards for, granting a ,vatiance to a development standard are d ii found only in LOC 49.510 (1 ) . Appellants argue that the factors 12 listed 'in LOC 49. 510( 2) (A) and (2) (B) are standards for approval. 13 b They are incorrect. LOC 49.510( 2) (C) states: ti 4 14 ' • m "A determination of whether the standards set 'forth in ° 1 13 , subsection ( 1) are satisfied necessarily involves the y balancing of competing and conflit,i;ing interests. The • oz considerations listed in subsection (2)A and B are not <o 1b • standards and are not intended to' be an exclusive list of wm considerations. The considerations are to be used as a °0 1' guide in the granting authority's deliberations. " Emphasis '= added. �?N 18 zY The emphasized portion makes it absolutely clear that the ~ o< 19 F. J F. considerations listed in ( 2) are not standards for approval, but t w 20 "< are intended to be a non -exclusive list to be used as guidance to 21 R assist parties in evaluating whether a variance request can meet 22 Standard (1 ) (A) - hardship and (1 ) (B ) - injury to neighborhood. 23 The Board adequately addressed the variance criteria. The 24 ID i Council specifically finds that the hardship created was not ° created bythe e appellant. This three-lot partition could have , 26 4 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS ANb ORDER Page j� r I4 t A el been processed administratively as a minor development 2 application. LOC 49.130, 49.140( 1) (H) , 49.140(2). Minor 3 developments are not required to comply with the Park and Open • 4 Space Standard. Development Standard 8, §8.010. , It was as a 5 result of strong urging by City staff that this application , 6 became a major partition in order to create a public road to ' serve the undeveloped lot to the north. A major partition is a a major' development and the Park and Open Space Standard therefore $k , applies. 9 4. There is substantial evidence in the record that the 10 issue of traffic safety was considered and resolved during the 11 review of this application by both City staff and the Board. See 12 • 8-23 Staff Report, pp. 7-9. The three lots created by this 13 application will add a total of approximately30 trips per day toN 14 • Cherry Lane. This ivcrease will not create a traffic hazard. 3 15 The intersection of Cherry Lane and Highway 43 will not be Na _ x° 16 reconstructed as a part of this approval. The approval was not " o¢ 17 "° predicated upon the intersection being reconstructed. The ,1-0 y 18 approved design was used because it will provide safe access to wo zw of 19 Cherry Lane at this time and also if the Cherry Lane/Highway 43o ? 14/ W 20 intersection is reconstructed. (See Exhibits 11 and 16 ) . U < 21 5. Appellants during their oral argument expressed i dssatisfaction with information received from m staff prior to the. 23 Development Review Board hearing and with the billing method for 4 appeal transcript costs . They did nbt argue that the City 's 25 actions prejudiced their ''ability to participate in the hearings 26 1 Page 5 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER Al . • r o ... `j • 1 before the Development Review Board and City Council, nor did . 2 they ask for reversal or remand based upon their expressed 3 dissatisfaction. II • 4 IT IS ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego 5 that: 6 1. The appeal is denied and the decision of the Development 7 Review Board set forth in Order SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88-557 is 8' affirmed. e I certify that this order was presented to and approved by 9 the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego. 10 Dated this 2.1.st day of September , 1988. 11 kle., c 0%-)..- 12 William E. Young, Mayor 13 h 14 Vote at the Council meeting held on September 6, 1988. c . 15 r' AYES: Fawcett, Holman, Sinclair, Waggoner,�" 16 Durham NOES: a 17 c ABSTAIN : • ' , 18 a EXCUSED: Young, Woller s H 19 10 i , o 21 ♦ 22 23 24 IP 255 1 76 6 - FINDINGS, CONCLUJSIONS AND ORDER Page ' `r 1 . . ...-... - .ca......... . 0 . COY RECORDER • June 20, 1988 f . City Council City of Lake Oswego , Post Office Box 369 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Dear Council: ' A. NOTICE OF APPEAL of FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER "ni of DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD re A Request for Approval of a 3-Lot Partition with Planned Development Overlay; SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88-557 (Richard P. Waterman) ; DATED: JUNE 6, 1988 B. The appellants are residents of the Glenmorrie area who have an interest in maintaining the integrity of M the laws and ordinances of the City of Lake Oswego. The appellants live in the vicinity of the proposed PUD and either signed petitions or participated in the original Development Review Board hearing. They are aggrieved by the decision because of the safety hazard which it will permit and also because of what they perceive to be a Significant harmful effect on their real estate values . Appellants also have an interest in having accurate information presented to the Boards , making important decisions . C. The City Zoning Code, Development Code and Development Standards involved are those which appear at Page 1 of the Findings, Conclusions & Order. According to a Lake Oswego Planning Department document entitled "A Basic Outline of the Class II Variance Procedure" , this variance request failed in';, IIIEXHIBIT So 11-So 64•4110) • 4 City Council City of Lake Oswego NOTICE OF APPEAL June 20, 1988 SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/ • Page Two PD 5-88-557 • satisfying many of the prerequisites, For example, this document outlines the relevant factors to be considered in determining whether a variance is, injurious. The factors to be considered are: 1. An analysis of the physical impacts such , • development will have, such as visual, noise, • traffic and increased potential for drainage, erosion and landslide hazards . 2. The perceptions of residents and owners of property in the neighborhood concerning the incremental impacts occurring as a result of the varianc proposede. 1. These requirements were neither appropriately • discussed nor considered by the staff in their report. a Consequently, the Development Review Board in reaching its decision couldn' t consider them adequately. JThe overwhelming testimony, 'perceptions an petitions from the adjacent and surrounding neighbors opposed the PUD. Given this evidence and testimony, had the ' Lake Oswego requirements been followed, a variance was not possible at this location. The record does not reflect these requirements were considered and the record does conclusively show that significant injuries would, in fact, result from this proposed variance. • 2.. Inaccurate important information was provided by the planning staff to the Development Review Board. The appellants will present evidence that the staff acted as an advocate for the developer and in their zeal provided incorrect facts which were significant in the final decision. ,, 3 . The use of the Plan Unit Development to allow this variance Was inappropriate. The Plan Unit Development t modifies provisions in the base zone. It is, in4111,. ' + O , 1 • . • 1 ,a -) City Counc,•:1 City of Lake Oswego NOTICE OF APPEAL June 20 , 1988 SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/ 0 Page Three PD 5-88-557 effect, an overlay zone. The base zone implements the plan and no where in the plan does it authorize the use of a PUD on an acre or less. In effect, the City staff attempted to use the PUD to grant lot size variances. This violates the Code and PUD provisions. 4. The use of the PUD provisions was further misused because here the requirement of open space was partially waived. What we have is a variance of a variance. It was never the intention of the PUD • provisions to allow small PUD' s such as this on ' "regular"' pieces of property. This variance offers no particular- benefits in exchange for the higher density bonus allowed by the PUD. The main "trade off" established by the law as a •"price" for the PUD, i.e. an open space requirement, was waived in substantial part. The law does not permit such, a "waiver" . 5. Contrary to the findings, the record does not • demonstrate the City Engineer actively participated ini this decision. He did not testify nor did he present a report. This was a significant absence. The proponent had the burden of proof to prove the variance was safe. It is adjacent to a major highway. • The record shows significant numbers of cars would be affected by this proposal which was dangerous. 6 . The testimony from the people, in both live form and by petition was that this variance was going to pose both a significant traffic hazard and a safety hazard. There was little, if any, evidence to permit the Development Review Board to conclude that the "development will not negatively affect the intersection of Highway 43 and Cherry Lane. " This was a dream, not a finding supported by testimony. This testimony is completely apposite. How the Development • 1 ' . ... . . . . /' 1111 - .1. . . City Council . City of Lake Oswego NOTICE OF APPEAL ) . June 20, 1988 SD 12-88/VAR 19-68/ \\ Page Four PD 5-88-557 Review Board could have permitted this significant and hazardous change to both Charry Lane and the Pacific . Highway based on this record is an absolute mystery. 1, , Res, • fully su it, pd, I,\-:. -- d Ito. — Or h / . • . ..00,..%,„,,_., _ •‘s...., . \.,.._ , w , . , , . J01...LL) IL \ 114? 0 i • / , dr f 1 , • 0 • ---, t i • ,,/ • ; \ , - 41 , • . , . . i. , . i ,. . . . . 0 ' BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Of. THE CITY Of E.. SWEGf. °LAK 3 q 4 Al REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF) SD. 12-88/VAR 19,-88/PD 5-88-557 A 3-LOT PARTITION WITH ), (Richard P. Waterman) 5 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVER-) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS `& ORDER LAY ) , 7 NATURE OF APPLICATION ' The applicant is requesting approval of a 371o.t major partition 8 with planned development overlsy, lot line, adjystment and a • 9 variance to the. Park and Open Space• Standard. Additionally, the\ 10 application includes a future gtreets plan (Ta)A Lot 7000 of Tax Map 2 lE 1ODD. and Tax Lot 2300 of Tax Map 2 lE 14BB) . 11 12 HEARINGS 0 The Dev•elopment Review Board held a public hearing and considered • •this application at its meeting of May 16, 19.88. 15 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS A. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code: ' 16 • . .____. LOC 48.. 19.5-48.225 R_15. Zone- Description , 17 LOC 48.:470 " • • • Planned 'Development Overlay. 18 B. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: 19 LOC 0. 120 Future Streets Plan LOC 49.210 . Minor Development Application 20 LOG' 49.3'00-49.335 Major Development Procedures LOC 49.500-49.510 Variances 21 LOC 49.610 Quasi-Judicial Evidentiary • Hearing Procedures 22 LOC 49..615 Criteria for Approval , 23 C. 'City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 24 4.005 4.040 Stream Corridors 5.005 - 5.040 Street Lighta • 25 8. 005 - 8.040 / Park and Open Space ' 41) , EXHIBIT ' 1.2. (7 ): 1 SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 60114866.12D)10) , PAGE ' • P . , . 1 . . .III ' ' 9.005 - 9.040 Landscaping, Screening & Buffering v, 2 10.005 - 10.040 Fences ,`` 11.005 - 11.040 Drainage for Major Development `y �r` 3 13.005 - 13.040 Weak Foundation Soils ' 14.005 ,- 14.040 Utilities 4 16.005 - 16.040 Hillside. Protection & Erosion Control, ' 5 18.005 - 18.040 Access 19.005 - 19.040 Site Circulation - Private 6 Streets/Driveways 7 % D. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: 8" , Residential Land Use Policy Element, Residential Density Policies, 9 General Policies I, III . . 10. CONCLUSION • ♦ O 11 The Development ,Review Board concludes that SD 12-88/ VAR .19-88/PD 5-88 can be made to comply with all applicable 12 criteria. III �' 13 14 FINDINGS AND REASONS • The Development Review Board incorporates the April 22, 1988 1S staff report on SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 as support for its 16 decision, supplementeeby the following: ' 1. . During presentation of the staff re ort staff . 17 P ► provided additional .informa•tion noting the effective date of the 18 Cherry Lane righty•of-way vacation would be 30 days from . , 19 May 3, 1988 and stated.the future streets plan per LOC ' 20 49. 120 was necessary to provide access to the adjacent Tax Lot 6600. ' 21 2. Exhibits 12 and 13 were submitted by opponents of the 22 proposal, Exhibits 14 and 15 were submitted by the 23 applicant. 3 . The opponents' testimony focused primarily on.-:,the P �' 24 following concerns: 25 - The Planned Development Overlay is not intended to be 26 used for small developments. 2 SD 12 -88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 1 • PAGE 1, , • ' I , • -' The Planned Development Overlay requires the - • reservation of open space. . 3 - The variance request to provide less than 20% has not . ' been justified per the variance criteria found in LOC 4 49.500-49.510. 5 - The intersection of Cherry Lane and Highway 43 is . 6 dangerous; additional traffic and the location of the new street would increase the danger. 7 4. During deliberation, the Board discussed the proposal and 8 Jthe opponents '. concerns and made the following findings: 9 - The Planned Development Overlay can be applied to this proposal land is an appropriate use of the overlay. 10 Although the partition can meet the requirements of the 11 underlying zone without the• Planned Development Overlay, the Board determined the overlay would provide 12 the flexibility and variety in the location of 3 improvements on the lots, thus enabling preservation of the stream corridor and allowiri the • g Placement of the residences as far away as possible from Highway 43 . 15 There is evidence in the record that the proposal would 16 provide public benefit by the requirement of 17 installation of two street lights; the obtainment of ,a City drainage easement over' the stream corridor, ' and . 18 the :provision' for future access to the adjacent lot. 19 - The variance request to the Open 'Space Standard is 20 appropriate. The applicant initially requested a minor ' land 'partition but staff' s recommendation for 21 , construction of a public street resulted in a major 22 partition, hence a major development. Considering . the 23 amount of right-of-way dedication, future street access and physical improvement of the new .street, the ' 2 24 preservation of 11. 60% open space is sufficient. 25 Requiring additional open space would impose a hardship upon the applicant and severely limit the development 1111 3 SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 • PAGE . ., r. . ,l, of this parcel. The hardship is not self-imposed but 2 cre f- ed by requirements of the City. 3 - The proposed development will not negatively affect the inter�ection of Highway 43 and Cherry Lane. The City 4 Traffic\ Engineer has worked with the applicant and 5 Exhibit 3 adequately reflects his comments and concerns. 6 7 ORDER , 8 IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD of the City of • Lake Oswego that: , 1. SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 is approved subject to , 10 compliance with the conditions of approval set forth in Subsection 2 of this Order . 11 2. The conditions for SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 'are as , H 12 follows: . 13 1. A final plan shall be submitted to City staff forII review and signature of approval within one year of 14 the date of this decision. Upon written (-. ' 15 application, prior to expiration of the one year 16 period, the City Manager shall, in writing, grant a one year extension. Additional extensions may be 1 • requested in writing and must be submitted to the' 18 hearing body for review of the prpject for , 19 conformance with the current law, development standards and 'compatibility with development which ` 20 may have occurred in the surrounding area. The 21 extension may be granted or denied and, if granted, Za may be conditioned to, require' modifications to '� bring the project into compliance with then current , . . 23 law and compatibility' with surrounding development. ' ` -1. -r` 24 2. The final plan shall identify the stream corridor n and shall be registered with the Clackamas County 25 ' Surveyor ' s Office and recorded 4/ith the respective 26 , 4 SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 PAGE ' c , ,� Clerk's Office, as deeds at, the Clackamas County • 2 noted--in Condition #3. 3 3. Legal descriptions (metes and bounds) to be specified on legal instruments for title transfef) 4 for recording with the Clackamas County Clerk's' 5 Office, shall be provided to City staff for review. ' 6 .Actual recording shall not be a condition of approval of this decision. However, when recorded, �� thi instruments for both parcels shall reference 8 this land use application - City of Lake Oswego, Land'Services Division,C File No. SD 12-88/ +; 9 VAR 19-88/PD 5-88. 10 4. That the property 'owner'' dedicate.•40' of right-of- , 11 way, as illustrated in Exhibit 3 as modified in the , discussion of the Utility Standard in the staff 12 'report dated April 22, 1988. 41F 5. That the applicant design the public street to be a 24 ' street with curb and gutter. This design shall , be submitted for review and approval by the City 15 Land Development Services Division. 16 6. That the property owner sign a nonremonstrance 17 agreement for future street improvements on Cherry Lane .and at the intersection with Highway 43 . , • 18 7. That a street tree plan along the new street be 19 submitted for review and approval by staff. Street 20 trees to be planted prior to issuance ¶ f certificate of occupancy for each residence. 21 8. That the property owner provide easements for ' 22 maintenance and construction of sanitary sewer and ,water line. . 23 9'. That the future streets plan, as illustrated in , 24 Exhibit 9, be recorded . 25 10. That a restoration and landscape plan be submitted . 1110 and approved by Cite staff prior to construction. 5 SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 ' PAGE • 6. • • . 11 1111 11. That the applicant: 2 o Provide runoff calculations to determine the 50- r' 3 year storm runoff rate to this site. o Design the culvert for the new street to carry 4 the 50 year storm runoff (flowing full) . 5 o Provide an approved emergency overflow route from the new ditch inlet at Cherry Lane to the 6 roadside ditch along Pacific Highway. 7 13 . That the property owner provide a 50'-wide drainage 8 easement to the City along the stream corridor. 14. The applicant pay an outstanding sewer assessment. on 9 the property or apply for segregation of the 10 assessment. �I .15. That evidence of completion for th!,Llbove conditions 11 be submitted prior to issuance of any building 12 permits.. 13 . Y 14 (J 15 / 16 17 • 18 19 > � 20 21 22 23 24 25 4111 26 6 SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 PAGE • • • • I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to arid APPROVED))by: the s Development Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego, . ' 3 DATED this 6th day of , 1988. 4 6 \ James A. Miller, Chairman Development Review Board 7 8 9 Se et ry OP-1 \17164o 10 11 ATTEST: 12 ORAL DECISION - May 16, 1988 41kAYES: Miller, Zinsli, Martindale, Swillinger, Ingrim, Foster, Greaves 15 NOES: None 16 ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 1718 WRITTEN FINDINGS - June 6, 1988 19 AYES.: Miller, Zinsli, Martindale, Swilinger, Ingram, Foster 20 NOES: None ABSTAIN: None 21 ABSENT: None 22 23 24 5 7 SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 PAGE STAFF REPORT ' • CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ., LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION \ APPLICANT: FILE NO. : OTAK, Inc. SD 12-88\VAR 19-88\PD 5-88 1 PROPERTY, OWNER: STAFF: Richard P. Waterman Renee L. Dowlin Michael C. Busher LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT: Tax Lot 7000 of April 22, 1988 Tax Map 2 lE 10DD; DATE OF HEARING: Tax Lot 2300 of Tax Map 2 lE 14BB May 2, 1988 LOC ATION: NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: ' West side of the inter- Glenmorrie Park section of Pacific Hwy. . and Cherry Lane COMP. PLAN D, STGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: II , R-15 R-15 I. APPLICANT' S REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 3-lot major partition with planned development overlay, line adjustment and a variance to the Park and OpetttSpace Standard. Additionally, the application includes a future streets plan. II . APPLICABLE REGULATIONS ; crts) ; EXHIBIT I . III - A, City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code: I J C� I Ci2•9bCiso ) LOC 48 , 195-48 , 225 12-15 Zone Description 1 ' SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/Pb 5;88 Page 1 of 11 t. ,a` • B. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: -LOC 49. 120 Future Streets Plan • LOC 49. 210 Minor Development Application LOC 49.300-49. 335 Major Development Procedures LOC 49 .500-49 . 510 Variances LOC 49 . 610 Quasi-Judicial Evidentiary • Hearing Procedures 41-.) LOC 49 . 615 Criteria for Approval C. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 4 .005 - 4.040 Stream Corridors 5. 005 - 5.040 Street Lights 8.005° - 8. 040 Park and Open Space 9.005 - 9.040 Landscaping, Screening & Buffering 10.005 - 10.040 Fences 11. 005 - 11.040 Drainage for 'Major Development 13 . 005 - 13 .040 Weak Foundation Soils 14. 005 - 14. 040 Utilities 16 .005 - 16.040 Hillside Protection & Erosion ' \ Control 18.005 - 18. 040 Access 19.005 - 19. 040 Site Circulation - Private 1111 Streets/Driveways D. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: Residential Land Use Policy Element, Residential Density Policies, General Policies I, III II . FINDINGS A. Background: 1. Tax Lot 7000 is approximately 1. 3 acres. 2. The applicant is proposing to lot line adjust Tax Lot 7000 and Tax Lot 2300 in order to construct a public street (Exhibit 3 illustrates the adjustment) . 3 . The applicant made an application for a minor land partition in early 1987. During staff review of the application, staff discussed their recommendation for both a public street and • consideration of a Future Streets Plan for this area . 4 . The applicant has requested a portion of the 111 Fi unimproved Cherry Lane right-of-way be vacated . The City Council is processing this proposal . SD 12-88/VAR 19-8`8/PD 5-88 Page 2 of 11 9 40 r 0B. Compliance with Applicable Regulations: LOC 49. 300 (2) - Major. Partition Approval Major partition applications shall be the same as • that for a minor development application. All other • provisions of LOC 49 . 300 - 49 . 335 shall apply to this application. ) LOC 49. 615 - Criteria for Approval 1. The b ii urden of proof in all cases is upon the ' applicant seeking approval. i The applicant has provided sufficient materials • with which to evaluate the request, as evidenced by the exhibits . d • 0 2. For any development application to, be approved, it shall first be established that the proposal conforms to: • a. The City's Comprehensive Plan; - Residential Land Use Policy Element • Residential Density Policies , General .Poli,'ty Z • 'The City will assure that residential . density is appropriately related to site conditions, surrounding land uses, and capacity of public facilities (especially Streets) , and overall Growth Management policies 'oh density. f The applicant has propol`d a three lot major partition w.�.th a 'planned development overlay. Exhibit" 11 and 'Exhibit 3 have been provided to show the site can physically • `ha'ndle the proposed project. The •_ ' construction of a public street and proposed i Future 'S'tre•e'ts Plan assures that this proposal and any future growth to the north will have adequate access. , General Policy, III , "Maintain substantially developed single family neighborhoods at existing density JIIdesignations . " SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 Page 3 of 11 . The City will: Ammi Permit PUD or clustered developments in residentially developed neighborhoods where the average density of the development does not exceed the designated residential density. This plan policy is implemented through the zoning code ( i .e. planned development „ overlay) . The applicant has applied for a 3 lot major partition with a planned development overlay and this staff report I addresses both the overlay and other applicable codes and standards. b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations. >LOC 48. 195 - 48 . 225 R-15 Zone Description The site is zoned R-15 and designated R-15 by the Comprehensive Plan. R-15 requirements are: o Lot area per dwelling 'unit 15,000 sq. ft. o Lot width at the . . building line 50 ' o Lot depth - 100 ' o. Setbacks: , 20 ' Front :25 ' Rear.. 10 ' Side ' o Maximum Height of Structure 35 ' 1, o Maximum Lot Coverage 30% • / Because the application has been submitted as a planned development, the lot size can be smaller than the minimum lot area required by the R-15 , zone, as long as the overall density of the zone is not exceeded. , In considering an application for a Planned Development Overlay, the hearing body shall , apply the height FAR, lot coverage, use and • density requirements of the underlying zones The remaining requirements of the underlying zone may be varied without the necessity of variances . Exhibit 3 illustrates that Parcel I is 17 , 300 4111 sq. ft. ; Parcel II is 12, 635 sq. ft . ; and, Parcel III is 16 , 615 sq. ft . The site has SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5=,88 Page 4 of 11 • adequate area to partition the lot into 3 NI: ' • parcels and meet the R-15 density requirement. The applicant has not requested any modification of the underlying setbacks. LOC 48.470-48. 490 - Planned Development Overlay • The Planned Development Overlay is an overlay zone and is not a development in and of itself. Although it requires hearing body approval,' it is not a major development. The type of development (i .e. , minor land partition, major partition, or subdivision) determines whether • the development application is either minor or major. The applicant' s proposal is' a major partition and classified as a major development. c. The applicable Development Standards Stream Corridors (3. 005 - 3 . 020) This standard 'i applicable to all development within stream cl\rridors. A stream corridor ,, • ''` exists on the site and is shown on Exhibit 3 . • • The applicant has addressed this standard on • page 2' and 3 of Exhibit 1. The proposal will involv constructing the public street across . . , , the seam corridor as well as installation of - underground utilities within the public street area. Staff recommends the final plan identify the stream corridor .boundary. An additional " condition of approval requires a restoration plan be submitted and approved by City staff ' prior to construction. The plan shall comply N with 3 . 020 (4) (A) and 3 . 025. Street Lights (5 . 005 - 5 . 040) This standard is. applicable to all development . which includes public and private streets, public pathways and accesswa.ye, or parking lots . Staff recommends a street light be installed at the intersection of the new public street and Cherry Lane, and at the terminus of the new public' street. The location and photometrics of tile street lights must be approved,, by the City Traffic Engineer , SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 Page S of 11 ` c' , , 9 Transit (6 . 005~- 6. 040) �i This standard applies to all major. development. The applicant;, is not required to construct a hard surfaced pedestrian path as neither an 'adjacent mu/tiple-passenger excharge facility or • adjacent path leading to such a facility exist. Park and Open Space (8 . 005 - 8. 040) . ` r This standard requires all major residential development to provide open space or park land approved by the City in aggregate amounts equal 'to at least 20% of the gross land area. The applicant has applied for a variance to this standard (Exhibit 2) . The,applicant has provided 11.,60% of the total site area as an open space tract cpntaining the stream corridor . The hearing body' may grant the variance from the development• standard if it is established that: 1. The request is necessary to prevent' unnecessary hardship. • ,, Initially, • the applicant proposed a three 1111 lot minor land partition that would not / ' require compliance with, this development standard. After discussions with the staff / concerning " a potential traffic hazard, the applicant 'agreed to provide a public treet, hence a major 'partition. Staff agrees the 20% open space requirement would• create a hardship. Based upon the amount of right-of-way dedication and future street access, staff believes the 11 . 60% open space is ufficient. Requiring additional open space would severely limit the development of this parcel. 2. Development consistent with this request 11 will not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located or to property established to be affected by the request. Staff believes the request to reduce the required 20% open space will not be • injurious to the neighborhood . The applicant has proposed to construct a public street and provide future access to the H adjacent parcel to the north, and is : w SD 1288/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 Page 6 of 11 . j' • • 'dedicating a sizeable portion of, the lot for that purpose. 3. The request is' the minimum, variance necessary to make reasonable use of the property. The applicant ,has provided 11. 60% open space in addition to right-of-way dedication for a` public street and future access for the ramv adjacent parcel. Staff supports the • applicant's variance request and agrees additional open space dedication will '' prevent a reasonable use of the 1. 3 acre site. , 4. The request is not in conflict with the • 1 na • Comprehensive Plan. ' ' The variance request will not conflict with any of the plan policies. The applicant has • • .proposed to protect the stream corridor as open space. Staff supports the applicant ' s request for a' reduction in the required 20% open space. Landscaping Screening & Suffering (9 . 005-9 . 040) This standard is applicable to all major development. Section 9. 020 (4) requires that all , development abutting streets shall provide • street trees at the proper spacing for the ' species. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the street tree species be approved by City staff and planted prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy being • granted for;;the single family homes. o Fences (10, 005 10. 040) \. 'o This standard is not applicable as no fences are A . proposed with the application. Drainage Standard for Major Development (11 , 005- 11 .040) This standard applies to all major development. The applicant states storm drainage from the proposed three residences will outfall into the existing stream corridor , A culvert will be installed under the proposed road crossing, enabling water to run to the existing culvert t 11 under Pacific Highway, , SD 12-88/'VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 Page 7 of 11 k. 1 . ,, h d `9 • • ' Staff recommends the applicant provide the 4111 following: o Runoff calculations to determine the 50-year storm •runoff rate to this site. o Design the culvert for the new street to carry the 50-year storm runoff (flowing full) . o Provide an approved emergency overflow route . from one new ditch inlet at Cherry Lane to the roadside ditch along Pacific Highway. , • o Provide' a 50 ' -wide drainage easement to the City along the stream corridor . • Utility Standard (14. 005 - ,14. 040) . a. Water System A 6" water line exists in Cherry Lane. ' Exhibit 8 is a letter from the Glenmorr.ie , Water Cooperative Engineer confirming that the proposed partition. can be served. b. Sanitary Sewer System An 8" sanitary sewer line exists along the ' site' s northern• property line. The j applicant must provide utility easements. for �• the parcels ' construction and maintenance. These easements must be approved by the City and recorded prior to issuance of any building permits. c. Streets 1 The applicant is proposing to dedicate 40 ' ' of right-of-way as illustrated in Exhibit 3 . This dedication shall extend to the northern A M property line. The public street will be 24 ' of asphalt with vertical curb and • gutter. Staff recommends the improvement be extended through the vertical curve as illustrated in exhibit 4 . This extension will allow greater street frontage for Parcel 2 and provide a better transition in which to end the physical improvement . The applicant has illustrated a turnaround on Lot 3 . Staff has determined the turn- around is not requited . Due to the length SD 12-88/VA1 19-88/PD 5-88 0 Page 8 of 11 - �:, t'IN of the street and the provision for a future 111/1 streets plan, the Fire .Marshal does not require a turnaround with this portion of the street improvement. '11 Crnstruction of the 'street will result 'in cuts and fills. The property owner must provide slope easements to cover all cuts • and fills within private property required t to construct the public street". Hillside Protection & Erosion (16. 005 - 16 . 040) , • • This standard is applicable to all development ' which includes hillsides or areas with erosion potential. The easterly 3/4 of the lot is. . located in a slide area on ,the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has submitted Exhibit 11 , a soils reconnaissance report that states no hazards would prevent development or, require special treatment to overcome. • Access (18 . 005 -- 18 . 040) This standard is applicable to all major ` developments and to all partitions of land. The ' all applicant's proposal to partition the lot, into 3 • • parcels and construct a public street is in conformance with this standard, as, every lot 1 will have a minimum of 25 ' of street frontage. III. CONCLUSION . • Based onthe findings presented in this report, the r' • applicant can meet the applicable criteria for development, with the application of certain conditions , A IV. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of SD• 12-88/VAR 19--88/pD 5-88 • subject to the following conditions; ;, 1. A final plan shall be submitted to City staff for i, /teview and signature of approval within one year of the date of this decision : Upon written application, prior to expiration of the one year period, the City Manager shall, in writing, grant a one year extension, Additional extensions may be _ requested in writing and must be submitted to the 111/1 hearing body for review of the project for SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 Page 9 of 11 Y i • • 1• conformance with the current law, development: ;' ,. Ill/ standards and compatibility with development which may have occurred in the surrounding area. The iwr , extension may be granted or denied and, ifgranted, may be conditioned to require modifications to bring the project into compliance with then current law; . (' • and compatibility with surrounding development. )2. The final plan shall be registered with the Clackamas County Surveyor ' s Office and recorded with the respective deeds at the Clackamas County Clerk ' s ' . Office, as noted in Condition #3 . - • 3. Legal descriptions' (metes and bounds) to be specified on legal instruments for title transfer, . ' for recording with the Clackamas County, Clerk ' s Office, shall be provided to City staff for review. Actual recording shall not be a' condition of approval of this decision. However, when' recorded, the instruments for both parcels shall reference this land •use application '- City of Lake Oswego, ' Land, Services Division, File No. SD 12-88/ VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 . • 4. That' the property owner dedicate 40 ' of right-of- `way, as illustrated in Exhibit 3 as modified in the1111 s • •Utility ,Standard in 'this�.report. 5. That •the applicant design the public street to be a 24 ' etreet •with curb and gutter. This design shall . ' be submitted for review and approval by the City Land Development Services Division. 6 . That the property owner sign a nonremonstrance r agreement for future street improvements do Cherry Lane and at the intersection with Highway 43 . 7. That a street tree plan along the new street be ' ; submitted for review and .approval by staff. Street trees to be planted prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for each residence. 8. . That the property owner provide utility easements - . . . for maintenance and construction of sanitary sewer and water line. r - 9 . That a future streets plan, as illustrated in Exhibit 9 , be recorded . 1. 10 . That a restoration and landscape plan be submitted 1111 ' and approved by city staff prior to construction, 4 6 .1j SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 « Page 10 of 11 a n { 11. That the,, applicant: • o Provide runoff calculations to determine the 50- , year storm runoff rate to this site. • o Design the culvert for the new street to carry tIle 50 year storm runoff (flowing full) . o Provide an approved emergency overflow route from the new ditch inlet at Cherry Lane to the roadside ditch along Pacific Highway . 13 . That the property owner provide a 50' -wide drainage easement to the City along the stream corridor . 14. The applicant pay an outstanding sewer assessment on the property or apply for segregation of the assessment. • ,15 . That evidence of completion for the above conditions ' be submitted prior to 'issuance of any building , permits . a ' Exhibits 1 . Applicant ' s Narrative la , April 1 , 1988 Letter from Don Hanson 2 . VAR Request 3 . Site Plan 4 . Profile of Proposed Street 5 , Stopping Sight Distance Map and Table 6 . Tax Map • 7 , Street Vacation Map 8 , Glenmorrie Water Cooperative Letter 9 . Oregon State Highway Division Letter • • 10 . Vicinity Map 11 . Soils Reconnaissance SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88 • Page 11 of 11 • I w . • tl \1 if, 11 APPLICATION FOR: MAJOR LAND 'PARTITION/GLENMORRIE PARK,, ® APPLICANT O/ WNER: RICHARD P. WATERMAN • P.O. BOX 144 LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 _ REPRESENTED BY: OTAK, INC. P.O. BOX 1379 • LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97035 CONTACT: DON HAN$ON SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a formal request to divide a • 1.30-acre site into three separate parcels. The site is located at the intersection of Pacific Highway and Cherry Lane south of r downtown Lake Oswego. The site slopes from 'west to east and • contains a drainage ravine in the southeast portion of the site which passes under both Cherry Lane and Pacific Highway in a culvert. Access to the proposed three lots is taken from Cherry Lane by constructing a public roach which extends from the southeast corner towards the center of the site. A preliminary site plan is attached which shows the access road and lot configurations 1 ' Access to the adjoining parcel to the north (T.L. 6600) is 1 '• currently provided by a driveway off Pacific Highway for the existing single family' residence. City staff is concerned that this parcel would be landlocked if the owner divided it up into homesites and access onto Pacific Highway was denied. The v applicant proposes creating an access tract to resolve this issue. It is shown along with a future street configuration for T.L. 600 on the attached site plan. COMPLIANCE: Lake Oswego Development, Ordinance Standards Section 1.005 Historical Preservation i, There are no existing historic structures or natural features on the site. Section 2.005 Buildina DRsign Single family detached homes are not subject to development ordinance standards. Design and construction of these homes will be monitored by the building permit process. ' -1- `' EXHIBIT "4 r 0 f Section 3.005 Stream Corridors 3 .005 A stream corridor, which is identified on the Lake Oswego Hydrology map in the comprehensive plan does exist on site an is shown on the attached site plan. 3 .015 - Buffer Zone a minimum 25-foot building setback is provided adjacent to the existing stream corridor. In • addition a 5-foot construction limit setback is provided. These setbacks are illustrated on the site plan. I 3.020 - (1) Construction within the corridor will be limited to: One public road crossing and underground utility installation. 1 .020 - (3) A. No building construction or other site structures are proposed within the stream corridor buffer area. e ' B. The road crossing proposed is imperative tea develop the site, provide adequate safe circulation and access and allow for emergency vehicle access to the three proposed homes. The utilities will be installed under the roadway to minimize disturbance. C. The roadway and lotting pattern is designed to minimize impact on the stream corridor. The three proposed homes are located away from the stream and the access road width has been reduced to minimize fill requirements. • D. No density transfers are requested as part of this application. 3 . 020.4 A. These slopes will be hydroseeded and revegetated with riparian plan material to minimize erosion and make the slope compatible with the stream corridor. • B. Drainage Management - Storm drainage from the proposed three homes will outfall into the • existing stream corridor. A culvert will be installed under the proposed road crossing, enabling water to run to the existing culvert ° under Pacific Highway. C. No realignment of the existing corridor is proposed. • -2- • s ' 1 , • D. Open Space - No open space is proposed as part of this project. E. No utility lines are proposed within the stream corridor with the exception of those proposed under the private road crossing. 3 .020 (5) Adequate easements to City stanards are proposed over all underground utilities to be .constructed within stream corridor and open space areas. 3.025 Standards for Construction erosion Control - All disturbed areas with the stream corridor will be hydroseeded and revegetated with indigenous riparian plant material. The existing vegetation is primarily palustrine scrub shrub, palustrine broadleaf deciduous shrubs and palustrine forested materials. Proposed revegetation plants will be species selected from these three groups. This will assure that the stream corridor maintains its natural state and aesthetic quality and continues to accommodate wildlife • habitat. This indigenous revegetation will also minimize erosion and maintain ground water quality within all stream corridor areas on site. 3.030 Standards for Maintenance The revegetation will ultimately return open spaces to their "maintenance free" natural state. Section 4.005 Wetlands There are no wetlands on the site. Section 5.005 Street Lights No new street lights are proposed as part of the minor partition. Private driveways will be illuminated from the proposed houses and the existing residence. • I Section 6.005 Transit This is not a major development; therefore, this standard does not apply. Section 7. 005 Parking This development does not generate a parking and loading need; therefore, this standard does not apply. , • -3 • . • section 1.005 Park and Open Space P • per tttrda el-eVees ' -aAiA - /\ V P, ,P NCAg i-o-".s 5414,,d• bA5 buy, far4toL c 6K h Section 9.005 Landscaping. Screening and Buffering; This is not a major development; therefore, this standard does not apply. Section 10.005 Fences No fences will be constructed over 6 feet in height. The choice • of installing fences will be left to the individual lot owners. • All fences will comply with Loc.50.350. Section 11.005 Drainage Standard for Maior Development This is not a major development; therefore, this standard does not apply. Section 12.005 Drainage Standard for Maior Development • No alternation of direction of the existing drainage pattern will result from this partition. Roof Drainage from the single family houses'will be allowed to percolate within the lot areadand outfall into the existing drainage ravine. Section 13.005 Weak Foundation Soils • The soils existing on site are suitable for single family home a construction ,and associated Site improvements. Section 14.003 Utility Standard A. Water - The site will be served by extending a line in from an existing main in Cherry Lane. B. Sanitary Sewer- The site will be served by an existing 8" line along the north property line. C. Sidewalks - No sidewalks are proposed as part of this partition application. D. Street Name Signs - One street name signs is proposed as part of this petition application. E. Traffic Control Signs No traffic control signs or devices are proposed as part of this partition application. One stop sigh is proposed at the intersection of the proposed on-site public road and cherry Lane. 1111 7 • , • + 1 N F. Street Lights - No street lights are proposed as part of this partition application. . m •L+ G. Underground Utilities - Underground utilities will be ,'' , installed to City standards. . . H. Streets - A public street is proposed to access the three lots. Refer to the site plan and profiles. I. Television Cable - Underground cable television lines will be coordinate and installed to serve the three lots. ii Section 15.005 Residential Density . Density Calculation: Site Area: 1.30 acres/56,628 sq. ft. Lot Size/R-15 Zone 15,000 sq. ft. Allowed Density 3.77 Units Proposed Density 3.0I Units The proposed density cls in compliance with the R-15 zoning for the property. 1 Section lfi.005 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control n 0 A detailed erosion control plan will be submitted to the City for review prior to construction. Section 17.905 Floodplains No floodplains existing on the site; therefore, this standard does not apply. Section 18.005 Access All three lots will be accessed by a proposed public road which will connect to Cherry Lane. Refer to Site plan. The topography allows safe access to each lot from the public road. The proposed development will generate approximately 30 vehicle trips ', per day. Cherry Lane is classified as a collector, street by the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. Section 19. 005 Site Circulation A public road is proposed which will provide access to the three proposed homes. Section 20. 005 Bikeways and Walkways This is not a major development; therefore, this standard does - . ti notIDapply. -5- • a ID • P April 1, 1988 0 Ms. Renee L. Dowlin Associate Planner City of Lake Oswego P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 dm R: ': SD 12. 88 (3 Lot Major Partition) , Tax Lot 7000, 2 ZE 10 DD Dear Renee: lo ' The following is in response to your February 26, 1988 letter b requesting further information on the Waterman Partition: 1. Future streets plan - The layout of the future access road and cul-de-sac for T.L. 7000 to the north of the Waterman . parcel is shown on the site plan. . 2 . Glenmorrie Water District - Astatement of available service is included in our application. The nearest fire hydrant, is shown on the site plan. f 1 i . 3 . , The •centerline to centerlind minimum standards are exceeded by the revised site plan attilched. , 4. The site plan is stamped \by a registered professional Engineer. A centerline pro�'�file of the proposed road is included. The site plan demonstrates the extent of cut and fill. A typical cross section of the new road is also • included in the application. !I r \ . 4 5. Drainage - The site slopes toward an existing 15" culvert • under Pacific Highway which is shown on the plans. Beyond \ the culvert, storm water follows natural courses to the , , Willamette River. The culvert currently ends at the west edge of highway pavement with very little cover. We propose to extend this culvert west 15 ' and construct a ditch inlet at its end with a dam_like embankment, to ensure water intake. The water course from the culvert inlet to the proposed on-site road will berip-rapped to prevent bank erosion. The water course to the west (above the on-site 4111, road) will not be altered. Comw-JEXHIBalm ‘..IT , IA zpi a.. i • 0 Ms. Renee L. Dowlin April 1, 19$8 Page 2 x Alr. I ti " ' 6. SAte Distance - A map illustrating site distance requirements of the State Highway Department is included in the application. Mr. Waterman has made a tremendous effort to resolving the City' s concerns by negotiating a land acquisition with his neighbor to realign the access road. OTAK has redesigned the access road to meet the City' s requirements and provide future access for T.L. 6600 if it ever develops. We feel that our application is '' complete and contains adequate information for the Development t', ' Review Board. { Respectfully, _ . . 1 . Don Hanson, A.S.t.A. 410 , Landscape Architect/Planner " DH:bw ° r , Encl. nA r, h y,i d , • h ,. U 4 410 ' p 1r n C 0 r " , N _ - •. 0 • '' ', • . '::,. , GLENMORRIE PARTITION Lake Oswego, Oregon Project #1724 p VARIANCE REQUEST Presented to: • CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO , R 380 A Avenue ` Lake Oswego, OREGC'ZI 97034 • . (503) 635-0270 J Presented by: I* OTAK, INCORPORATED 17355 SW Boones Ferry Road Lake Oswego, OREGON 97035 • (503) 635-3618 • 1.n q .. April. 13 , 1988 i III - 1 - 4 EXHIBIT` (..- d t. n . , ' 41 ° ' I .•� E GLENMORRIE PARTITION April 13, 1988 4111' .4 . Variance Request h SD 12.88 (3 Lot Major Partition) Tax Lot 7000, 21E, 10DD ` The followingisformal a request for a variance to standard 8 . 005 Park and Open Space. The open space provided on the • site plan is 6, 587 square feet or 11. 60 percent of the total site area. , , A. The 20% open space requirement is excessive if applied . "' to the project. Initially, the proposal was a minor y'' partition. The access road created on site to solve ,,. . � traffic hazards at the City' s request, has pushed this project into the major partition category. However, the proposal is still for only three (3) homes on a conbined total area of 1.30 acres. Given the configuration of • ' open space surrounding a drainageway, the main intention " • of open space is provided. The right of way require- ments consume an inordinanr;' amount of space. Additional ,..„ ' open space cannot be provided without limiting the par- III i, tition to two (2) lots, which is not feasible. B. Providing open space along the drainageway is beneficial ' for both immediate and downstream neighbors. All access for the three homes will be internal to the site, which will extend the open visual quality along Pacific High- way. The proposed on-site right-of-way resolves dang- erous access issues and provides future ' legal ' access . for the neighboring parcels to the north. C. Given the proposed density of the project, stream Corr- idor revegetation effort and right-of-way requirements, 1 this variance is the minimum required to ensure feas- ibility. . r D. This request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The open space provided meets the stream corridor• protection criteria. • + • DH:sw/1724 410• . . - 2 I * GL, z� 4. t i oz L„j- r i ' 161 EL ‘0,. c 0(;) i ,____I-r__ ....____ .__ , ____ () • _______ _,__ .._ m . . . , ,f--/., - . ,.., ... ,,,I. ,: fit, .. 12-.4,S__ r [ ji - . _ • .3 ...........__._..__ -- 4 ,,„.. . .- -- • I..... 40 . ..., ,, -. ..i.. ,.. .,...er. •—....„N .•., . 1 .'.. in i , C jiff ...•• . \ i. N ..,. / 1-\s‘lj°'''' "- . \ .... \ \!1? t-t4 / 7-17-2-2---:'r"--;'-4-7Sir::1;,--- - Int -- 5T 2 EE.1". ) . • • • AO (///,�J�lCJ/ , �' ��i� ` f- I° a o BE �• S/ / ` , L- _ ti / .... T y.. '"` littOk.,.. ;*41P 41.00 $9' 6;),.. ...,,1"-',/ ....0 ..../' , . 4110 J. 44 _ ...... . . • W 'g s!) ....,,,, ....- .._...„1...._-_____-- . „ ---- ,.....r , . . r - ....._-. .....__ . ...... „ , , -DPE5-----41k-. --4,.....„, .... .....r, ..... .....0 „.. ......... ... . . _ t � - ram-TA. + TfiEpA.l a , '~, gS '�'•ri._.yr, - 3'1�\ r�. .✓ =+ -.F11�.-�V�Q'��.:f�yy '~ I©Y I• .. n�J1Ca Qj\"\°�i ' / ' 4 �.t.~ �d �1 v 'r / if .................."—": ......... — -.�.�. . 4 * ' • "+''1' 0 00-.0 Pr *. - V.,1"/$7/ • sI A ' S° ,,,,,..---- GLENMOR ''' . MA►J .. ak . 1 l ��1( /' tom\ ✓ a t engineers C G(1•p1y 'L '�j'�`E X H 1 B I p �' phlledix , ���NtGa\� " FL �,�,ttr,a.a�j i'r !bridle/Fe rrehlledtr �•, �6 0:4co\' kv , c .,7�*. 1ncn, rporated ►urn• n ` , • ,�ry� A,,, ^15 Sw,ewta Xeriy ne„list osti100,on 9JWb,(501)ds:3611 r!41 n) („ 101 E,In Streit,VuieovKt WA MA,1209)593-0�SI .r . • • • .. w ,�• •" 1 . 1 "1.VAt v8 • 4 »n . N0 . • _ _ N.«_r. _ • -r � • CV .., »n .....x i . CL � .NI ..t , • IrEr ' • IA • • �o _ ', 1 a p_ t ♦ 1_--r • «-ate ` p nu+ • • • i,. _�.rx,. �_. , , ...._ ,._. ». a +n . � n r x•.•.t- P a • • . )d .....� � ` _._ . .� • _ . _,us. , 1 _«,•_•s.,u rr•.is _.._..1. • , w.._ ...,,,a ♦ .u..r ♦rw• ,w a .,., . ♦..•a._ -_.. H,.,. un�a+ r C u ♦ • • • -n w-i .hzta H D ` ;M • :lWAd d0 17 00+0i, . ♦ ♦ .» • ♦ ♦ • • ♦ ♦ to O • t: R , ; i • , ;*.J L1.1MCJ21E ` otakAttxtede,P.C. PROJECT MAJOR. PAR.T1T1OJ JOE NO. 1! a4ti£; a, .,., „ .. .... .... . i ,t. 1 ! ,i A li. tilts sooner Ferry Rd. BY OK♦ By DATE .3.5t. g8 PAGE _ OF " ," n' P.O.Box 1379 Lake Ch*aso♦Oregon 97034 (sal)535.3618 , • • �«a 1 • • ]' •N • ...a......-a., T._.,...L. ,_«..x. ««„• b_�,,,w««; .4... , j r I. 1_ •'"x'« I,.t ,...•a.. , J ««.. 1 . - -t: «-� . j ill ~• t•1 ..;. « ..«..1 ' '«•'..�^• .•-•-.• n••—. •..,.. _ _,.•.. , «« • r .�-�.� �� 'lsT ....� t_,U. Cps i 1 k f 2� • • • • w,• ..,_._. « _,«,♦• a._., , r •.. w, , �. 1.. am , , ♦ ... ...« �� • 1 j t. • ... fr t r I \X, ...'*, . ...., r , , .,,. '.• . r pp 'P ' ,.n r , - .. r r �!' • I • TQPPIJ • r • ' ' FO . '�5 M PI-I ePEE� r, ._ ..• ,,.._.. al EXHIBIT,„; fly' ,. • • • • GLE,IJMooR21E • p '', , � Ae itu�•pc, PROJECT fv1 AJ orL F'4,12Y MOW 172 1 r. JOB NO, • 1, o. ! J3SSW,boons9perrygd. BY A+ '•_. CK. BY DATE •.61 •'a d PAGE OF x•- A 2,kw I379 `ain Osv.vgo;Orelori 97014 (509)6.1S.30itl i • • 1," ., o �'a J . A , ' �P 138 AASHTO—Geometric Design of Highways and Street• ` A „ o •o t pp pQ pQ pp pp pp • C Z7 to,-. �N„ 1n L '+rNC> �kl � Ni[) 10 C 0r u7� ppNNMsY7u7c01� W CI CC O N NS!`1 N cN� CamR 6' R L6 0 COt�[1 N Ca i . �•' CD9 the� to h Tr M h.-Co CO CD CD• p•'• .. . ,5"'" , •-N0?V? Tr OtOh • i GEr h' ulMriC7hefOLO .: • r VJ O QOOh�nco W Ncnoi V •-•—P.N tND c7).r`MQp0 tY • O 0° M W h N . N h O7 �-03 COM r c�.i' sr ypp .4 C C M�OWNtOhn(77 O �� C C •-•-NNM •rTr m u b J.Z MIA P,yrc•co O c6 r:In •o t, OD •..-•-NNP) c�) er o aD a. . opo I TS o on CDlne! N 000> cnao?,_ TrM C co oi,y o 0 0 ci 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O tl O w V C D m m +` 0 a+ b Pco m :�_ 0 MflOMhOMrlcoci . C 0 c7.-o OD(p Ui .-��cyi llC�+pi� fa '' C . C.. hQ).-Ntf CO�NN CV N C A 0 m 01 OIL M 6 r;MOh nh '� q w° MM SS N h ti l0 to •.- 7 cC y H �+ 1' E m U3u up in '- CI O h, o �NNNcV(�Ic4NCV NN m 4 oo O op E .c 0po a Ev's coiEE`N�iiOV .ncou) tno m z o C E pvnoN�ppp�t��DLnrDtappr,,� .'.ra.. Qy 0-- NNNMt+) q'V'7tNOt�A1D p V 0 r 4: i r it r - co p.0 C y . .. a 0 E o u)O UlC5 Ca InInO L7 o m �' ... m O. N N M M Tr TrLD lq fO tO f. m 0 y.- w • a• '1 ill) . . i� , „ N .1 y µ 4' r . r I a ' ° . . • III 1 '1 1 ,, . . y • • '[ r`I 'f� hIR)�15>•rl` XiJr �.• °•e. , • „ • 1v • N NZ ; L�sCl"7tZ•hy"'n iC','•'y �,rY• e�"-14 t r .`.• •5 '1 r`I .r r 11 � /, `l , ' •'. �a 'p ' - �- „" V>\ r•1 C ry •t•"I %ii,oya . y •:, •. I • r���•�r , r 4., a.• r11 ♦y ''• -.�?•_ _t�':i^'_!~•• ,rL .J„ttetr. 1. '4'f "'� �N8✓moo"w•I. _r.r.Z..y/9�"w/'•"L'T.719'. •,�- :,]•.. • 'PI �•'>'•. �� r r . _• d•1 '. 164r02j�- '^•'Fr/Is L r'frk4*, 0 '•�"7,y. { y ar�h�r/K•�� -,t.,..,-,-., • 1 �'�s y ° ` "-142,�" -�t..>.'r^•C•;.•;1,t j .4•.:'� '• .' • A :;•;... .6404 . , ,. 'dlr...., 1 " , ♦:,: •.• M, ' •.'.,r�•�C '"'(•sT 6,,r It -;e• B., • rr 1.;� r '1-. `I . L�LJ'Ir ., . a, +..: r• _4••:. -,.":" ,;, ...,', ,...e .. , . . ,;,,, .. µr' %<"+�'6403 _ • �I ,'t/--�- (�� ''•, ' ;�'s' q•s¢ oyr� r •,t,4 trV f --�•• 1 . y • '\•k, 1�•sif.,•' tr.•.IJ7 •r• '• • I I (/1•' V- 'y '�� _ �h ' ,,�: 0 pp • Y''� ,,e1 • .la. �,t �. �Jdy ,,�.3�3b 31 _ o..:-.• • ,.•--e•-• .: t/r ';•• r 8 .f.R/•16, 4' / ' r „ - 3 I • 11 t� '\ 1}+, u' , t...." '•ti t ". •' ,� „^`� � "� r(7 • rw q_• ' �ry 2?Z 43 7100 y 4 I 1 ,-.. -.•-..,,-.:,..,..,,::::..,--.,.... ., Jt .y•� , , Lt ti r.•� t Cl6 W d • r l tS... .•r'7'r� �4V Gt RS'A'J' t , ai � r, ♦ r 18155 ' 0 0�, ' `I J.sa�trw � �`7,, rR; L k' t' • .� r r• [• yam "� „y✓ � t 'A I-• a -i 0•� -+, r.S } Ity' N . MI'2 L,00Y #1�tl� OJi '.+\.F�`• •� tr . _��,r ♦., •f'{.. �' SI • - 5 Yam. 1.' /} ?. • •L �'^ i� �y t rt� L I �� - � •316881� ♦ " Q' �' r`''`.r.•' 1.. ♦'S.. �1r ' i,x j`1' \ \ �• '�/ 7 , '` y,\ tom, ,1,11•,'i yi ••r rf\L}•jt, h• r, [fX��Fj e :+..-v,.r.... 1P.Y a..J \ • -1, 1 ^ 1 -i41'.1 / 1^-,.. •: ,✓trr• t '11t' „ ' 1" "r 4i. .4:±N,J.' ..: • J -r , ., /�`r/r y, t,, ylw Zr,!••t••T. ,•'•Wr,..;i;i'fi*S'"r•t'Zttii*}L,(,v t"t '` ,'-.••r1 . .L•,•16,, rf , r +r t 1 i f fi,y'G.,e3t: \r ''' `s 11 I �'i1t� l� �1L�,+ ,. )S,��tt }[,�• �\S 1 'S'_ e ., '�L�r•` ..�, • I. .r 1 k r `. r-t r, ' r•,iy �•�J r '�-'1 ,' ran . • h x ...,,. i_ +tare 1'3 - n ,Y .., •�",,r it.5 . :�:4 .. Cu -• hi:*. 'Y•t 1 r7. y rA; '.)1-fda. {'r.'r i Jt',r i I l•'•,ti'•�. rY71: N -` • y�.. 1, ) ' ', -:r • am„ _•ti:Y+tCY':-F `Ce•y1vV• M :I t t, t�•t 1.r�r�-„ty�4r 'S.� y /J t tt.rl R�'tS�•Z' r. It'," •r r s1��1 .JII_ .. a,' P%i 1.. y 're', • •': l S i::.':,, •,.v44':r• h• • 4.1,A'• \I"• ,..1: ,•Q •.Il,' ; • Ty7 a•✓ ,,,,��ii1s,,,4.. ,�': eJy� i ,rt .r��- IY.-u,�1 j M,,tir Ti•'.y9Y/ •' 4•,!''��.7 .I• 1' h.•`? lr,Jr+.•s. "�.G'•>? BZ�•1f1'�'+` w���y kiNY1•I. ` =+t- .ty r lsa[n•: • I/ K _ • • 1�• fit +I.�l�Gs•z•':, i1 ) f�� ' , wS1. 7lv i •I rw�tAl• Sr- :" .y4:a.",•� +A, 1�`' fi t�t�j.+1 t=1j, u'+U._, �.y k�, t%r �,L, � 'a u ..-��.G- ay"•}�' n. • r 4 c�tZ, .�1 .:F t. 1, • 4Yrr Y,t L'rit f " '\ Y y IC {+` ,+r! r�, .ii 'C•.y,' "'•.r 7V9�:�I / • •.--s_ •.••.,�CL�.• ,4_� � � _ � . - • /• r � 1����.3'r ,.�.�'f' 3 n�,y ti` f �Y' �r� �L•' Yu aN 7 i i )rt1,i y �. .•r S r••N syi"' i''' ` ti 'a Y . ' ?` .J 6 5 .f..' i'Z r• ,,.$�4'tr t fr7i_. •' ♦ tl.'� �: �"lrt. u .�. J��:.i h'4,�� 1Ai1 �r �- N. t#G�, i�„?�+ 1' ''� +�,r+ � k,t � �i ,•,r h rt. e °'7 g`6r �IL.4 r•-• //•*6 ^"'`` ; n, .. .:, 7rr- t K,... .r .4 S%9.9' t�-. [*�?''.•",•'F""' -.. r-.ti�}?• ` ;��. �'a` N'j:r'i ASd3'k/.0� !1.4{ s r •.,:�" ,"i. ' �'`. ..e ,-=A-", '' ryL+ �""'�i's•.-"."'7.•.,'. +� y{� �.r i �3 t L,LL� • Z+ 1� f,� ',� l•.�.,.- ,7. _ w ,y1 w . t �-0 • - r , J f. :e••t'r 7`r,.,, \I•t; r tiV SY..t ,k0,1 M}4'�� r t4;7 Ssw 'c..0 sits ► t,r JL 7.vY11frk'�I r" 1� rirf, 't 1 • •:;} -iC••••.: 7. , t..a. `**� 1 : r9). .s� ;4.4 ;'1 • i 7f tf�'�.� Y. f-',.r `• - ,...,......,:.1,,,-. 1l `, ••� • n ' }Nail!♦ �•' '1\• fle�n (u.,rµ Y` 'k, }5�i}1C Kj I)y,l,li- rr r{ j'I�1�t Y{IA/y,,{�. •.:, 3 1.•N•'t .? � ,„\ t,: 1 / .Y1' •I• •Jfi.'.2Pn� :.0'h 1++ ""++"FF rf,p1�i YI4`41*.l•.ttei I'''*r,�G=L.,r ji r NYC/ ifif i`1•6 �, _•.4 ''t• t. '4r,L�F 3 ,(- 1 +^` 1 Y t ✓�. �.( � t`. 'Yf} ",t IyT:1,•1{i r,�.3 Fr -�YI'L' 1 Il.�.,,'r'ti'h r•t;r1M'�µ 00 SY• i .•1• 7<•.1 l{ ! r ., , , .• •..• �. S 'C'd+J.- ' 1,.- r.14;�+ + �5•' Y trv'Ze:.,;' r , d.'It tYy t. ,""�'r . •+ 1,Is,,�r•, ,.1,. L• 3`+„kj',',?!•S•.br• ;e'.it✓ J r'•,Y • r.; rr „ .Y �..1. '� , '•"• ,r `^�,t'.:,Z .1 'i t'1%•• 1 INC.)• ►p?•N� Y.�i',T,{1• • tr. c-Z;'3 . i r O 1 t9 i•„..1�(� l 1rA J ,i r..•. } L -1 •+•i l.r�• ',r `��$+�,_� ���,..�n�z.'`4. `t0 l.ri � ::� y:'1, it 1/4,t1�. ,it. i ,,'f �I i} ,f�S,!/ rw?)�fS( tY (ti,r ��'{'Ft'f{'j•t,�f..:i'•�`,`"� • vet ^ •; ri , �"' {t F: ., 'y�1L' t p, ,, r�•'+.+ r'..St,S '�''r -..�,Y;fA`+rbS. ' ,;:., �w►''L ti!'lN ::.n�'t •• •. 'I I al •t•. „..yet)., ,{ !" t Y rt❖rr4 �' -f_Cif,J/. '(o;�,jly. ' - -••• `-?• •-tr" � y+4• , 'Al'�5% ' •. • • t tily•\St {,•1:'Z !s ill n=♦ �J.G1„.�'. ,� � �a 1 y .'er• r. ,.."t iat.r.-., , 1... •. •• • r .r ,!fn), 11...1� ,• ��. 1` �{l f ara4�. 1 •.. i 1i 't J'JSI ‘.....4...... . } •j,+7 ij"15" • 4 O \ i' �.e i; (..;1} �,3� "�•�11 i rrr , it, •w �i • ,, err 3 1i - 'S I ! •'�r `.. 71,r{y.•b/ t\• i'•`'J j :t�Y�''Lk` f r �h��•r r y 4 . ��' ,,lr , 3-:.r u • "j , a4. ;ti� .Z r ',y"S•� �. r1•'r /'4l' { Q!"Wrr I � taij iii'i .t. ' ..L'L '>�1~ { • `9 • • ,./f•" t 1". �k } �• ter KI fsdfi �'^+' �U h'- ' �: v aa'F� 1 ; �sr+i�,•c :rF:i' iy • y. ti r 1.f-;��'i 7:k".• -�h Lt'`.•. . • „. ti, a fi � .• . +. ., . i'9u a r.. 't �� ,,...r✓ ><' a.:.c9„�' y, -'LIT '�Q t �k23.,1c�rr��jM•yr llti• 'P"� 0 .+ ' „E•t" !01, -'"' -r___v i ti•, ' ;.a1 yv 1 �:AtY�1.r Y 1 r.4r V,lt�,hT:, �'r' y„M..1,.t..' ,F•�•i �y,t , fx.:: s'.-s.+.^` �r t J J?i G ,:.'. - \ r •+-,"YaNv �'• p jr"�y�✓.��.K1.1�j Y,� �,• r Y ,IM f. �;},R ,;t,_._•:--, Q- «,, ,,4',. ,I ,vim •i , y.j' tr: t:� } ' C+• .gigigalf.B T , 11' + F•- " t23'0 • . L t 1 1,, •• ba y '... p, , • • 1+ r �TF. 4,(;+, � i 6 l.:• P •'1 J , 7. i "j'f�'1 'M/nt�"O."5 ,}h 1�:. � '�5 r • ♦ ,i .Yl;"•.y4.1,J t "r • ▪ _ ♦ •F G ti rF 1>*en. 0 La•h. 5�1 t` , '.'�Yir ) t �10 �hL{`, ;>f ,� ' ,....,0l, of.. 1 1660t�, 00,1• „1 n' r, . ,,143,..4„ ,ce• • '� ^• 1 n 1 hA . . ,O ,..1 L:v •IS•IJ • ,r' f:, 3h.-♦ :, .".,•Y,,,�,_,,1 •r rtt rt, r,S I."r• Y` ,�11' . ,, w y I \.,Y, r w ' r \\, ...'''''.1..,�, .gip _ 0 \ _ �' w • t •• ,�{{O �` 'P+ .: 'i*Ccl( y it.#. at /'11 •... { ,di. s !, V.t -A w} .«`"1Y.' • 11,;/41:27{• (•':to.•1'FI•� ,-.e.;a 65. 1,;.y4.-,,c,�•1.4tkf •,�,: .,:. -1 :..i�. .� Tr • w .w yw r''f.' r'41,• 1,� .�tr�`�1;��t',. ,,J}�'' "•fii u :-.•'1J��a1 •;5c �•r 1CrP a'A,.L}• � • 4 • ,A y w' ca;•y0•' jS 1 �,,.rt It Z, .1 4' k 4+ i 4...:1,,tr .Y'� y �•` ...+4•,•. T• 'ifRht.4!./ I L , 5.t1FOt 1. ' 9 �'r't.�'ttM.;\�..•S"'•ttlf.:4;(41; 1 A, �G. .) ! p'r�,. dia 7.f� 1,{�.r �r dt}r!n ,tr': '. � 'r- A•:. Q♦A/I. •c r '7 v .r L'�' 6it '�7.� /^c ~ 'L 1 J ir�t '', ,p • ''��~r\�''rlv4+,tb�.4.• ,0-11` " ^nYi3'r•:'j,•\ ZV ";t A" ,c •$..t/ Ai..tt i.:,0'of k. Y► ti•�..♦• ,•�' ,,y j1 4 ,L r�+'�N Ytnritr' '-t E,,�'ram \. i t ' Y• :S iA ft..t♦t�1 N r 1 9 T. . r74"yy+ ••,:,ri•' � /!/'l;+i , ,t,,,r z., - h n + C 4 '•' , 7 1 .. aa• r n a,• =' ,r .1 r r.I',. • nib y t y, v v.•r♦ C�"'�,• i L,,rtt..•, r'\• '.j tt.-� „ .!;� 1 ti`'j' �`- + /.c+ r�Ij''ri ♦ py ,Jr;�t>C.t ' ri r: .,,.y♦. i..r . tl%) r ��" •1�t1:5 1 ,y,{y., .50., �j")w•.••/`• ft7'i r^, ,�- �•rr.-sr..Y-----74 �•k^C�r� 0� y~' J• 4 t-L%��.••,o\it t '.;pr..,, •i: w ."/.-_-•- ,.M�./r'r„. �``i�' t••-t:`i' •J?�`t�ti •`��w Y A,* ?�",•.•r•. �y .rr" � •l, 4' L:, sr iyy%5j". A� " .Yr 'At,.' ., ....•,•. �s�y.1„.i, . ,'•C• {`' { 1 r :•.+,'1.,_ „.1.V o .,1 r }r•rY, r Y,\.tt. O,;•'t•f.• I ,rr iw q.,t..•..Vi• t4f111,,».4�,�-T r�l� 1 4. ve,: t .• • r..,�� ,�'�"'�� r _.t '-I.�? . ' „-..ter.. :�.�,!"rr,t �!•. . ,' • V . - J 1 .1 f .,1,• Nln `"41 1 .i '� 1'a_ •.r" ; ♦ :r.I .i,"t'4.`. .•, • r" .,,Va•'t ' t-'+'""CJY.i' y111.1. t•;}'7J1J4' �`�:\'`° A• 4'i;' ,:i 'f t rl.•.'Y'l.q•, :�r •1':, 1'. �.;r •�.f, •1.10 •�+ a'1{ + - 1 , � ✓�It• �1�+G I�}�lb Y+�L�' � LY �•�H ".r: r • a • P .fi •'� ,, 4 .41-• ,"L ry'W' ^R. ., '. ',vv.::;Lora. •, t l .•' 1 ,l 9 } '1,t ,+.f,\ .I '`'11t �' iv,.. A lyd.•) 11 \ ...al'ott J..J. tt,!}• ...' ,, , 1 r+J r r. %• Nr 4 1 t l U J• ♦::T ,•,1;Y, ., 1. r ' s , p 1 r�it r r P t(� �1. j t ` IG. fat° t • .s ~:,t s a_.,.-1 .`• Y✓•- Il.t y 1 SY t ii,,,,4 \�1� I.0:1.+,•r r A pr r i t?J . L� ¢: r' Si .. 1h 1 ,. 1 'r•. \,,.�'�Ir l^jr' ` 1' •J/••x.' M:r 4+vw , A 1 �' -'4' I YL\••v r''•'1-�. 1 •(IN�•,)y,,.�-IY,\MN"41f.��.+r 1•t 1•t 1{ "V �n� J ;r r• "•-�+ti••,rc, !i, 4,•�,t , ♦ • 1 Y 1 (. N/r;�� ws1 '��ti�r 11>IS i,' 1 w if.i is ,,x1Lir't�i'r,�'' /"� �• 3� }\r�r,•+'�!i;L4� ►�j�_ ! 4,M4••r�'ki 1 tJ 'S.ti ,'‘1'-,' 1 ,• h Y ."I' -1 , -' .i ♦ It 1},,4"; . 7 a'+ lt" 111• 4 ,.";N 'C(, I �, ,• 't, .,` •I.,IIP $, d, rA1 ✓., .�1 1,.. .,YI.),. „;°;... :i •rr• "• { J71 :'' .. i r j do r• r„';t y '1 h h ' t�' .'�" '+- '1' t- .1 ••� )1• g tea. ;• f✓ • A*e' '� r.,W't\ 1 fr�ti( t•r a'.+:t r�'•.''!� r t Ili .t'�n� n t,t '�';Itn wt�� t'41,1,,1• t�!�t•� t1'rytit ftY�`"!.' y' y1. '� h �•r } 1, • u� ..1�s at. ;'T ?' 1 .,. 4+• s;'?� y.ica_'l]r,'•":jr )75-vea. ri�4 .': 'r - •�.f•,At/ A , *„ t /, y`1�y', ws; i1 . '� 1•e. ly t ..a . lV,1: ltr f 4j.J:•` tg.V ,}f f. \ . Y,j;' t .1. 'A•• r }k t• rwv- • 1: 1.•.• '+''+ti• I�1�: •�. It .S �� r..JJ,r' � 1 7 I':n) ly.L.y +• U''\Ot' �1��', I r � ,A`" .��t' ,fC�. � Jt {I 1,a.� L.i ` -�. • 1 t' �•j. rl .r r" ii.. ,, r, 4,µu,, t't• t lt. w�. .V1Y7� t••i'••1 ♦'' J' u t •"'t.. 3���S'"�+, '•� e,I ,1, ryx,: t••r -. ^ ,,,' T l• ;','*.` � �l" j y .St`r1 .r 'tr!,\•1 r 'nL, I t• I.t►r'tV�,4 ,� tyt>N�• rY -Pi�t « Y 1•� r ,�ttS,�t. yi tl 641s raYy).•�+! r ! „fl"'bW9"1:•,'' Stl 4 j.I ..,. .y.• '•s* .}..ram µ , ..A�Lxi>;a I',Ht..").iJ ,t'`4 M .,1 et,,u, tr,,,,1 ,TL,.t.,. '0 tt•= ..'. . ,1 01„ , ,;r t 1:�._t t S "' 1 1� '•1•� N.fa ( ) t ?�1�, ;t o'rl JTM :ti 1 '; . a: •C.. •. �..t "^` w 1 ai ir ,y' .1`' ,ttt., " r,'.r p 'i L.,,,y,• y i Pr ..'`?-p•d,:v., tt t.�,':l�• ',l 'd f..ni, 't t._r"'""r- • .`�4.1. "'^4 '��.r ,f , r$1 ti-y. IY•�_, .,_ ,f.0 „Y 01.. 1'1✓•• •r�W{ ,(ylOd a rl' ,.g..41, IV,' i tk•'• ♦> ,.' 4, 1•il v- `t 5,'• ,�5^ ,, to 4 V Y .tj`�., Y iv,.0 lit y. ! • 4 ,�6 yy"N`.„ S+}Y` ,g .�i#. w •f)- -. •rt'e •,. �?IIt'a� .1 ;..,„ \ uY:i1�J�,I( 77"+ •r Y-r ."r ..1,� .• .�11 e•L•F3�+:.`'�.jti�� .:'�i •I ''�W1�i17 iS�1 �+ �•�'y�•4'.�ur (Y�.�.�' r •i J • i iL-•1'�N�, "4� h 1,„•'�,l., �. • .,v. ,�ir••{4'+ ,o.,, .. .r. d!""AA fir.. t,..., 1,F) '� I,.. ,."e• 0.1,..,G'' • i .L .,. �,, .f • t 1,r, p,,,,.,..). ,i r•I a . t •,.C •,T+ Mr , � „,' .w er , tUn�14.•..,,tr•r r , u •tl1' rL u,tld * .,.� Ipf'�/• • v.• ' �� 1 • Li. .•F;; Y.x"jw�. y' �y•i.CY �..,✓� `yi17, �,.•,•}Likkt. r 4. q ii.r"e 1•1F J �i7 q, ' "C,{.;.;, It. ,i ,y, '�, yy 'b}' ~Jj 'f 'Sr ,''� al y �'� S tY'S p.l` 'I. .t 'r'A ,ti�'::lt .P�may.1 '' • Il, cfJ t. �. +1 1 •,''�Iy .H' �' . +11 ��ty."....��' •. !..•I A. .".,• : ..ti•19iti'ey111' - y.yr. • Y•''t rt`YI'' �• .•i- ,.J . •e.. •• •�".• • ? t '1, - y . /P 1 h ., M1,�', 1 '• r1 L. 1e ; -1:,.., w. ,' , •y,.'' YI' • 1 / - r1, 4.. . . t '>--.ka_ '+LA.'-f 011',4:%" • i ,ci v`• " U{l-s• ,1),�•T 411-7-tt•15:f/'. ,10 t,, �F.�• .'1-''<. ;".1l/ •"y '. ` • • ' ''' •,,�,•.t�,� 't'';• + , ", =, '}tM• F`1s+,.'7'�. ►o i.l..,st-rL 41�4"•,Si a�i t1•.l•• 'a,r�Ii-:,;• . ,;y. •• ."4 "4 •t, EXHIBIT ✓' ht , ..1-. .='.1'•f Pt,, ,i�.1J 1;` -*••i. J I' r,N P7 N.. 17,4�.'�•! .1 r/^ •r-.'• " 11/a��l} ,•; J.t II tY•:. ;,t Y.tr y !ri • • 1 "`1. ,1l $h • h1• f,t�" ✓• 'Y(.r 6 ,./ ..• jtq L Q� 4,.- 'j I. ,r „.. -•••• .f9 r}s 1 • tl• Mu i d r'f) r. a aYLsr 4,,,, i. 3� • / a +iy a • d•' v. • MT , ".1T' r' • Os. ♦ +.♦ Y r. ;f_74 t 1 ! Q . /,✓/� `. Y' P. ...C1r s . ' .r 1u1 i4r r rt• 4 Aty , i��•'�' Y.t .y ' �^:. } /..^ J,1114/1:3. o , et .Ti..pJ /Tu•w•4t, �i.'it }rl"a le `*?itti t 4•.,t t" ," • 1 - S • • .'t • } d,Y•'it 1',S,T�i y10.3 N`�r iv. ll �"u V�� 47 aT1 Mv /•7i�{,, ('jf yd'/�S�:"- f 't r'" "�"��....� -- 2,IIv, + d."i .'+ ,.. • • Q1• i lil, t l:, t r R f rt'yt • ▪ • /1 ., ."• !'pJ ' • . ••i AO' Q.4r ozo „.. ;.r• ,i.A i`s` t?k.. i.'`!,we. tit ,•I«r ..• `•?r•,,,I b,... .,. ��/ t Yw r • ,• • it* 1.,•Lt.-71�A, 1• .' bf^'Y'.+•1� • . 1 J 4., .. ' ! fit;y.. • • '.';_;' • 1 •, • J + . Ir 't' " II • • T'-'�,j • \�. `L•{,1 ' t Y•i1, PF'7/1. Y• 11 ' • +' • 1 • y 1 e •. tt11 14 r1Ir' i t'` . • r af \ G FI./ OG ada. • ..,o.rz' .�.�e 6406 a• a.,---2y:,73'.4' 6407 I6625 '' i40 8 I.\ I 3 4 36S . 1425 h ; ' \ o 7'• \ • i & . \: \oq�d - b N i 141• ri � n "� 33 ,ra:•oaa z 3 4 i a �3 I16600 ry 4 r Nae'szvra \ / 2 3 P. .e.as�nv�� �v.vv /u.a1 • 1 0�. ,------ ' .4- '99^ 6405 N"• Z , SKY CT. 5 ..,. Ary 'v�j'.v19 io w .r d3•'Iss 40"J"/ •Jb 6402 ' . �s >�.�. 6404 Li-1 1420 to ,°.grg' i � 6403 1 —.riN . / ' 8 v 1460 'o �, S'1f3 I.P: a 5 'Q ( , , RF/— ts 4 ° —r� . tV/ P z T 9 in .TA y% • ( k • t, ( 00 G�ao7 16T55 k; j •• s,:r 9iv o� 0 • • • • r Ory 4 \ � cs /1 r9x•18.E /1, '4 Ml272 30 'N ' :' �Od^,... ....r, _ 7000 �, y. 3 y 22 I >;.. �,. s�,.Jd•J7-w ��� °L' 4� r \" 16800 s6. Rd. �s�� 15 14 0 31A1" I.1? .61<SO 0)1Ait LF' . 3 -o • o • rho/J ° J, o• t p�u l,l L. \0 : r t16 A 2 l' • • • r , EXHIBIT "A" ExHIplT. , , PROPOSED STREET 'VACATION: IF LOTS 26,30,31 11 GLENM L.ORRIE PARK I n c o r p I>yss sw Booties tea . IGt E Ith Stall Vaicnurtr WA 964641 Mai 69S Mt , • , ° r . b �T e A p •. DONALD L. MURRAY Consulting Civil Engineer , Telephone (503) 234-3661 6548 S .E. 14th . Portland , Oregon 97202 (7777, k _ 1 1 t' H, March 17 , 1988 '(l, ' , Richard P . Waterman P. 0. Box 144 `APR - JC38 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 a ' Re : SD 12-48 , 3 Lot Minor Partition on Cherry Lane. Dear Sirs : This letter is to .confirm that the Glenmorrie Water Cooperative is willing , and has adequate capacity , to provide domestic water service to the proposed minor partition. The estimated static pressure at this location will be 50 # and service will be from the 6" main in Cherry Lane . There is a fire hydrant approximately 300 feet from the proposed partition that tests 1000 gpm with 20 # residual ( tested 1985 L.O.F.D. ) . It will be at least three lb y,ears until the construction program brings fire flows to the required 1500 gpm in this area. In addition to, the cost of construction for extending a water line to your proposed partition from the Cherry Lane main, there will be the per unit fees of $2000 membership , and tneter cost plus $600 installation. All fees must be paid before water . service is started . Construction plans should be submitted for approval to both the City of Lake Oswego and the G•l?timorrie Water Cooperative . • Respectfully , m 4. Zh4 Donald L . Murray P .E. 4 Engineer Glenmorrie Water Cooperative cc . Halvorson L.O . I . �+ XH � BI? 404 ,r v • • RECEIVED JUN 2 '2 1987-• • Oregon State Highway Division • �.,- DISTRICT 2A MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR '0 'imcousscHmior PO BOX 565, BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075-0565 PHONE 226•6002 r . _ June 17, 1987 In Reply Robe to PU.No.: ' Jerry Baker City of Lake Oswego P.O: Box '369. r Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Subject: Tax Lot Map #21 :10DD Tax Lot 7000, 6600 • Access proposal for the subject tax lots does not access State Highway right-of-way, Highway 43. • • My review of the proposed access to the subdivision of Tax Lot 7000 with potential access to 6600 is as follows: ' The access to Tax Lot 7000 should provide access align as possible to the alignment of the T intersection of Cherry Lane off the Oswego Highway. Site distance improvements should be made so that the minimum of 450 feet of site dis- tance is established and maintained for this private access. e. The proposal to access Tax Lot 6600 via a private street paralleling the Highway 43 to Cherry Lane would require redesign of the existing Cherry Lane intersection with Highway 43. This redesign would eliminate the "Y" type configuration for southbound traffic exiting Highway 43. With a redesign the private road access to Cherry Lane would operate provided the redevelopment on Tax Lot 6600 is not a high traffic generator. Sincerely, David A. Willhite , P.E. P.L.S. District Maintenance Supervisor xc: Dennis Everson, Clackamas County tench Cook, OTAK LtC:cls • EXN ' , F glrrn t34..1 alit p-a • a • • . ♦ • 1 . , ' 1 I,• ;. • ^ t• r • VICINITY MAP • • • , ._ as . :.i. `• _a,.. ' .�.w �� •"''"� `wI•:d w i• .:fl"". a. tF\ C:.••V ] .O,',l Scr• .� +,• ��_. " 54C9 `1 SSfOS t,s,0 1 `%'• •`r1y1tti7 `•.. %... \,.+'` ~ I1 ••-� _ _ - 0 j. uto9 2I {{ . _ _ _ a u " \� it \\ \� ❑�\,\\ \ ,\""`�Tr, P'�� 1 _ 2•t 7 I ,•�rt�]itS "see r •f• 10\ • ' MORNING 5K C7 ^\ T "r . • t 6t01 6�0 ry , ! \� `.-4.•. ••••• • '• + q�1rt 1ii eft , \ 6A03 "\\ ' • `\ 0111``` I� \ �� �� �. \ 1. •.,• . . • t \ \, ...,tt,\ l\...., % ‘;4171 rFt.,,5',.• , , I I '. '-•-v.+.: I ' — am.—=�, • u .,.. •,.a.41. ^) 6 - :4i\ :SIC ^ t%'...1 •.._‘: :•` r • • • is '� ;\ , , ' 1 \ ''i\,u✓ ,t � ! ` \� \ \ \ t,'aa r 11`i i 1 , •. . .. • z _,„, 4 \\,:\ ...., \ . , s ‘ • --s,.. i .;Ica. -4.1.........., , L 14 C. • , ,\, \i " ' r*1-.1 — -.1 - ri f irr ,Or % ,.. i _. -- \:i,66 0 ` t � ,)r. ti _._. It114 IC , Ns ,. 1 , I.11 :I 2:7.0 \ 1~, _l; ^�e.DS;v=� ,. 1 , `� \ Al ♦,\' ` u. \; �; , ^1/ �� IM• ..1 i � • \ hCX .. rj9l:; Is �la\ 1:r 2:`.,iaco ..:It MI \• 4 '—'..`=- testy-• .�. • -.7 ..4.2 \ 1 .. ,._ ., . * \ . ,Vciz...:I �• - ^ - ••• , • r '•.--, ;4} S�.•\. \ •• - f /` � ' .A \, - — ,,,. ........ , „. . •1-../1-:.•- \‘... •,,•,C(N. •• ' k : • , . [..._ :, ...., •\\•,.\\_:, • • , -I!-O- rtI 1252-.�i•I4'"_�.,•Y• :.:!�?�`,, �•.•._-=,. . :•- --•- a " `;YI _ , ::�`(Cr?EKlzYI F,'ti`L.;.`. \ 1 �+t` �. ✓,`�\�~ • ', \t +r� \, ` \� de EXHIBIT A.•; -,• , . it, RECE ,iD AUG t 2 1987 JOHN McDONALD ENGINEERING SOILS-CIVIL-GEOTECHNICAL Ground-Penetrating RADAR 10116 S.E.STANLEY AVENUE PORTLAND,OREGON 97222 (503)774-0077 August 11, 1987 OTAK, Inc. 17355 SW Boones Ferry Road Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 RECONNAISANCE AT GLENMORRIE PARK MINOR LAND PARTITION The site is located at Cherry Lane and State Highway 14 on the 'uphill side. The ground surface slopes upward at about 15 percent near the street and then flattens to about 10 percent halfway up the site. There is a tiny intermittent creek on the south side of the site. The soil is Quatama according to the SCS Soil Survey, and 111/1 it has a more. cla a nature a few feet dow n Y so it could have a seasonal perched water table. That is what DOGAMI Bulletin 99 `\ means when it says the area has a shallow water table. This is the only hazard listed for the site on the hazard map, and it would be relevant only if septic tank sewage disposal were contemplated. / / w In my opinion there are no hazards that would prevent development or require special treatment to overcome. Therefore, the site is suitable for residential development. • Very truly yours, (-4/ 0.0N O6' C�: a � w Nk. Mcov� -4 EXHIBIT 0 N. vI-c1 ' 9/18/90 // MEMORANDUM • . To: Development Review Board Members Planning Commission Members EXHIBIT From: Mayor and City Council t2 42 ae€►eoiti, Date: September 18 , 1990, 7 Subject: Interpretation of Comprehensive Plan Policies Relating to School Capacity This memorandum is an update to the City Council 's prior memoranda of August 19, 1989, October 17, 1989, and December 5, 1989. The initial August 19 memorandum contained the City Council's initial determination of the school capacity„_issue. The October 17, 1989 memorandum contained updated information and data received by the City Council at 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 4)17,800 ,000 Lake Oswego School District facilities improvement bond issue on November 7 , 1989 . This memorandum contains school district projections for the 1990/1991 elementary school year and information concerning residential development activity for fiscal year 1989/90 . It • contains information received by the City •Council at a. joint meeting with the Lake Oswego School District Board held on August 21 , 1990. As a result of certain determinations by the Development Review Board in its consideration of two applications for residential development that there vas 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 of a Moratorium without the City first making the findings required by the statute . The conclusion of y 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 morat,orium . The resulting dilemma is obvious : on the one hand the ' • Development Review Board denied two applications fir lack Hof school capacity based on City Comprehensive Plan policies (a pattern which state law classifies as a moratorium ) , and yet the Council has concluded that facts do not exist to make the • • 1 • VICINITY IT Y MAP r• l:•.r ri/.jI.'u�`•u 1111 . �4 �;.' '_.' " 111n. ; 5yr0.5Jwti;fQ7 5 \• 1 \v1� .. sr � 1 '0 . 41 U+ rIk--__:_..--.. ..:_-....-,: _:...,,... , • .1 \1 10 Q 1 !11 �• \�; �\a�u %tit 't `:---.^'�- `\ \ n • c 1 it j \`. ` � \ t\`,\ 1� -'�` )„,....---;., 1 •1 , '\,,: .JAI ,•�•,•.A _• �,�y\\ 1 \ a . , I .{ 2'1 •r. 1! ` w...: -"S-y^.a ' •.,1C•.}}}.,, : l ♦ , I I , i MORNING SK, \\` t\� \\\ \ 7` Z Ikil` ✓' 1 116�oI' 640 `r' q r` \ \r ^•' ".r..t Y _ o' \__ Ititz,�1�1 �1i l\ t y� \\ UN 1121 1' �, t;A 1_ .:16,03 •1 ; w g \ �.�\\ 11 ,\ 1 �� _ter .. `\ \\\ ;� , ,-.6st ,oc� } 11 x 1 ero 1 a 7 r ;. ;12 :: '. J1.rr „ 6yl. \,(�.:, ' rim•. I� 191,0 (i' ,t;�,` ' 1 ti I oi00 I If:: 7 �4`� Imo, \`� •!,11 �� •; ' I tI ` <�it f• ` \,, ,•1\� ,\, ` 1\`t``1 `\k!\-I tt ry/ /•1 ; �w `1�. . i. .. , 1 Z ; S 111:E -1.0 A ._ t ; 41 A. \` \ .•,ram` 1',,t%C + i' 6 1 6:• _ %,1 i S •,.dt•.dy •+ ,`\ \\ C 1\� \,\ t\ •3h ',\II ;y'• , • ,__Ellrjr .111Fr ‘'6 ' Tr:'r 1 i\\I\1 't c...3 4 ,..1,14 , 2:.: • '- :: ,t' 1 • -•--. `i mil , s %ID ,lu -' .-.. .._ L•.'.kc OSWryU II .�' ' ` .� `,�1\� .. \�• �•�[/II/C' t,i L.v Apt • 53d1 IS ` � IS\ � -,•,, SCO' t t r�MA 4,41r.. A ./...s.......:::— \:. \,, . P: Cr, • . ..-Nt • * ••••••• ••\ '.:i.r.;L:::::.:...',:.,...:.,,.ii ::\.\\20_3,..,A.;''.,,,.%\,.. :6'1'62\.f,":".. .(\%. E r!�t(7 n I 1 z e z LTz -- - `<T\— - —V.', _ _ `Q_ • _ I /4 . ',' it'' ‘‘' ' E'l .. \.. ....--L3‘, :. ,. I, .1\ 4 . • :#•,1 • ••• ' ' ••'. c.• '4/ \\ 111 ~\,1• ..c. • tom' • `\ .rr,l 't' S 0 ',,\ \ • A + \\\\, �\ t., ag EXHIBIT \ "�• a�'�. ,. ' 4: • \ \ \\ PA ' 4� • Memo: Development Review Board and Planning Commission Members September 18, 1990 Page 3 The City Council sincerely expresses its gratitude to the members of the Development Review Board who have been faced with the difficult job of dealing with this issue in the first instance, and who have done so with professionalism and obvious Great concern for the community as a whole. Atty/Correspond-7 Attachments 1-3 110 • 7 7 . • • • I ® ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FACTUAL FINDINGS (9-18-90) The City and the School District have coordinated concerning the impact of development on the ability of the District to meet its legal obligations to educate the children of the District . A significant portion of the School District lies outside the City limits and the City has no control over the impacts of growth • occurring outside its boundaries . The City has received no , communication from other jurisdictions served by the District that they perceive a problem or intend to limit development due • to school capacity problems. The District has provided the City the following facts : 1 . Attendance in the 1988-89= school year at the Lake Grove Elementary School exceeded the capacity the District determined necessary to provide an urban level of service at that school. The Lake Grove Elementary School population was significantly reduced for' the 1989-90 school year. Enrollment on June 1 , 1989 was 651 students . Enrollment as of October 2 , 1989 was 530 students . Enrollment as of June 1 , 1990 was 453 students . The adjusted forcast for the 1990-91 school year is 500 students . 2 . The District has short term plans in place that address the current capacity problems on a District wide basis . By implementing these plans , the District stated itwill 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 ele^1entary school enrollment of 3 ,241 students . Based )n -ta <i•7u- . capacity and ' urgent projections , on October 1 , 1990 the District by i?,hplenenting the short term plan will ';.a . 1 unused capacity system wide that will accommodate 3^'a additional elementary students . 5 . The District has a long term plan to provide capacity l ' • addition to the 379 seats to be made available t`iocc;h the short term plan. These long tern plans include an 4 additional ele'ientary school and remodeling existin j facilities . 5 . The maximum capacity of 3 , 772 stadcants , assuminj continuation of the current rate of growth, .will accommodate new students into the 1991-92 school year. i1 . _ _..._.. ........ ............. .......... ,... fib ... I"' . ........ .. ... .. .... .._ .. . R fill ' .:. Attachment No. 1 September 18, 1990 or Page 2 ' 7 . The earliest completion date for the new school �`�• authorized by the November, 1989 bond facility election is Fall, 1991 . The remodeling of existing facilities to be funded by the bond issue will be completed before • that date and will provide at least 250 additional • • seats. The new school will .have an ideal capacity of '` • 500 students. ( , 8 . The District as a practice does not construct facilities • in anticipation of growth, but attempts to coordinate the construction of facilities so they will meet -a current demand at completion and not stand empty or be underutilized. 9 . The District projects student populations using a computer model. The projections are based on school attendance areas and the District does not attempt to • project at the level of individual subdivisions or houses . Projections are compared with actual student counts . Based on these comparisons, modifications to the computer program factors are. made if warranted. The District 's projections in the last 2 years have been . • • quite accurate. The physical counting of children in the district on a regular basis,,: as the data base for . projections , does not provide a 'significant enough improvement in accuracy to justify the additional expense it would take to carry out such program. • • By comparing data compiled over the last six years concerning development approvals and vacant lots with the actual growth in school population, the conclusion can be drawn that there is not • a quantifiable and direct relationship between the school population and those two factors that will assist the District in making short term student projections . Other factors , s .ich as • market reception, interest rates , the health of the Ore-j•an economy elo affect family size of buyers and sellers of existing hove; the number of new children in the District ' 1 population. Based upon the present level of sophistication DE the City and District planning processes , it is not possible t ) ,`" predict with any degree of certainty how soon after appr•:val children from new residential levelopients will enter the sc•; system. } . . . . . , III : , Attachment No. 1 . . , , , , September 18, 1.990 Page 3 The District voters in Nay, 1989 approved a new district tax base • by an approximate 2 :1 margin. The old tax base was $19 , 542 ,310 .The new tax base is S29,975 ,000 . The new tax base contains levy authorization above that levied_ by the District in the current fiscal year and is intended to `fund growth, staffing and maintenance for the new capital facilities "to be funded from the• November, 1989 bond issue. This community has a solid history of support for school fending measures . The November 7, 1989, $170800,000 facility bond issue passed by a substantial margin. The District has been planning to meet the demands generated byy growth. During the middle 1980 's , the District proposed using a middle school concept. A switch to middle schools would have 4" ` freedspace in the elementary schools for additional students . y The debate caused turmoia in the District and the concept was dropped. Coupled with the change in Superintendents occurring soon thereafter, the District planning and implementation of funding 0 measures to accommodate elementary school population growth was delayed . The growth was anticipated but the community debate over how to best address the impacts of growth has delayed the provision of the District 's solutions . The City Council may, at anytime when justified by ts , enact a moratorium on buildingpermits the 97, 52 pursuant to ORS 157 . �2q , The District has the responsibility under state law to educate the children of the District. The Council views the District as an expert in educational matters . The Council accepts the statement of the District that it will provide an educational experience for its students that meets District standards . Atty/Correspond-7 ffe ATTACHMENT NO. 2 FACTUAL INFORMATION CONSIDERED BY CITY COUNCIL ( 9-18-90) 1 . Bill Korach, Lake Oswego School District Elementary Enrollment - August 8 , 1989 2. Karen Scott, packet containing : l - Building permits by year, single-family, graph - Building permits by year, multi-family, graph . - Total single family lots recorded by year - Inventory of vacant lots, July 1 , 1989 - Number of lots recorded from 7/1/83 to 6/30/89 - Number of building permits issued for singl` amily 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: Politids and Panaceas , Office of Educational Research and Improvement, T.S . Depart.ent of Education • 4 . Opinion issued by James A. Redden, Attorney General, June 11 ,• 1979 5 . Memorandum from City Attorney to Mayor and City Council, 0 July 31 , 1989 6 . Report from Lake Oswego School District , July 5 , 1989 , with attachments 7 . Proceedings of joint City Council/School Board meeting , July 31 , 1989 ' ,\ 8 . Proceedings 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 tiorach, Lake Oswego School Superin►:enleit ' a . Teacher-Student ratio and classroom space 5. Enrollment projections , service level, and short and 1.any term solutions 11 . Lake Oswego School 'District : The Facts , submi y!: d b.,' k;i,;.; IP auni,:k 12 : Transcrip t excerpt from August 7 , 1989 Development Relic. Board meeting tape including excerpt also suomitted ) 4 , • • r i 1 Attachments No. 2 September 18, 1990 . Page 2 • 13. Enrollment graph showing actual enrollment from 1962-1967 and projections through 1989-1990 submitted by Warren Oliver 14. Statistical chart titled "Determination of K-6 Student Factor" submitted by Erin O' Rourke-Meadors 15. Letter from B. Ayres dated July 24 , 1989 • . 16. Letter from Jae Rieg dated August 3, 1989 17. Letter from Pam Sparks dated August 8, 1989 18 . Letter signed by Chamber of Commerce past presidents Tom Decker, Paul Graham, and Rob Barrentine and Bob Chizum, Chamber members , dated July 28 , 1989 19 . Letter from Douglas Oliphant, , Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce President, dated July 20 , 1989 20 . Letter from William T.‘' Ryan dated August 8 , 1989• y (, 21 . Letter from Leonard G. Stark, dated August 7, 1989 22 . Letter from Robert and Mary Larsen, dated August 5 , 1989 23 . Letter from Mr. and Mrs . Clark , dated August 6 , 1989 240 Letter from Robert Butler, dated August 4 , 1989 25t. Letter from Lynora Saunders , Chair, Forest Highlands • Neighborhood Association, dated August 1 , 1989 26 . Letter from D.R. Norris , dated July 29 , 1989 27 . Letter from Judith D. fJmaki , dated August 1 , 1989 28 . Charles gales , Staff Vice President for Governmenta�1% it Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, 1 tte � � dated August 14 , 1989 79 . Gregory D. Meadors letter, dated august 13 , 1989 33 . Celeste Ward letter, dated August . 14 , 1939 31 . Denby and Doug !enper letter, dated august 14 , 19891111 32 . Carol Webb letter, dated August 14 , 1989 r , "y, Pr''. yr: i ' .r 0 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 • S( 38. Ala F. Rothstein letter, dated August 13, i989 39 . Robert S . Dahlman Sr. letter, dated August 13 , 1989 40 . Janice A. Burt letter, dated August 13 , 1989 41. Jane Culberton letter, dated 'August 14 , 1989 42 . Toni Smith letter, dated August 13 , 1989, including attached newspaper articles and copy of Bill Korach ' s memorandum da;eJ ID 4,3 . Deborah B . Feldsee letter, dated August 14 , 1989 44 . Steven M. Berne letter, dated August 14 , 1989 45 . Wilma McNulty letter, dated August 14, 1989 46 . Leonard G. Stark letter, dated August 14 , 1989 47 . Gay Graham letter, dated August 11 , 1989 48 . Marilyn Roberts letter, dated August 10 , 1989 49 . Mary Avery letter, dated August 10 , 1989 50 • Bill Tucker letter, dated August 11 , 1989 51 . Kim and Barb Ledbetter letter, dated August 14 , 1989 52 . Richard 4 . Bullock letter, dated August 11 , 1939 53 . Charles O . Ruttan letter, dated August 9 , 1989 54 . William Sorenson letter, dated August 11 , 18'9 411 5i . "'iarci Ver hauler, letter, dated August 10 , 1989 ' 56 . Charles A . 4ansteld letter, dated August 11 , 1 ),3 ) . K ° c • IDAttachment No. 2 September 18, 1990 Page 4 l 57 . Larry E. Walker letter, dated August 10, 1989 ` .. 58 . Katherine and Donald McMahon letter, dated August 14 , 1989 59. Stephen Swerling letter, dated August 14; 1989 60. Karen Griffin, League of Women Voters letter, dated June 20, 1989 61 . Cheryl M. Petrie letter, dated August 13 , 1989 11 62 . Letter from Rick Newton, dated August 15,' '1989 63. Letter from JoAnn Gillen, dated August 14 , 1989 64 . Letter from Patrick ' F . Stone, dated August 11 , 1989 65 . Map of City and District boundaries 4111 '' 66 . Determination of impact as of July 28 , 1989, submitted by Erin O' Rourke-Meadors . 67. Bill Korach , "Questians and Answers : How is the School District Coping with Growth . " (Presented to City Council at Joint School Board/Cty Council Meeting of October 2 , 1989 . 1 4, 68i. 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 , ',fay 7, 1990 . 71 . Enrollment Repot, Lake Oswego Sschool Distri -t , Tune 1 , 1990 . 1 72 . Memorandum from Sandra Korbeli{ regarding st, Jr l cap ici y all residential development activity, August 10 , 1990 . 73 . Lake 21 , 1Oswego Elementary School enrollment st,atisr. ics , AJ3us': _ 74 . Umnranduri 4.am Peter C . Harvey regarding rest, enti i1 ' -,t S calculations , august 23 , 1990 . atty/Correspc)nd-7 - I ' 6 . • V Ir • - • ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PLAN POLICY INTERPRETATIONS u (9-18-90) " In the consideration of the school capacity issue within the framework of a quasi-judicial hearing considering specific land use applications , one Specific Policy has been focused upon by those seeking denial of the applications on the basis of a lack of school capacity. That policy is Specific Policy. 4 for Urban Service Boundary General Policy III . A few other policies have also been raised. Before stating the Council 's interpretation of those policies, it is necessary to restate the rationale for the City's interpretation that the General Policies of the Plan are the regulatory language of the Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan was first adopted in 1978 and was developed as a result of legislation at the state level in 1989 ' and 1973 which required local jurisdictions to adopt a comprehensive plan which was consistent with established ' , statewide land use planning goals . A "comprehensive plan" is defined by state law as : " [A] generalized, coordinated land use map and policy II statement of the governing body of a local ,governrnent that interrelates all functional and natural systems and °' activities relating to the use of lands, including, but riot 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 rjs,tems occurring in the area covered by the plan. 'Genera-:" •iature ' means a summary of policies and proposals in y;ivad categories and does not necessarily indicate spetcitr'ic location? of any area , activity or use . A plan is 'coordinated ' when the needs of all levels of governments , semi-public andt P private agencies , andtie citizens of Oregon have been considered and accomnod3r_ad is much as possible . ' Land ' includes water, both surface 31 subsurface, and the air. " At the state level each statewide planning goal, which are mandatory statewide planning standards and are general in riat . r? , • a i5 accompanied by "guidelines" . The guidelines are : " ., .r Sjuggested approaches designed to aid cities and counties in preparation , adoption and implementation of comprehen5:. a plans in compliance with goals and to ,:aid state agencies all special districts in the preparation , adoption and i1pi i5ntlti :n IDof plans , program s and regulati �ns in compliance ,Jith ;oily . 10, Guidelines shall oe adv 5ory and shall not limit state Rrjr?n tes , cities , counties and special districts to 1 Single apdroach . " i . / q i1 Attachment No. 3 :r September 18, 1990 .r Page 2 The City's Plan, at page v, explains the difference between Objectives, General Policies and Specific Policies in the following way, 40, "The adopted plan contains Objectives, which are short statements of the purpose of the policies, General Policies, which are major methods of achieving objectives, Specific Policies, which are more detailed steps to carry out General Policies, . . . ." There are also strategies for carrying out the Plan found in Volume II, which is the background information and supporting a documentation for the Plan. The language has historically been applied as follows : • • The general policies of the Plan are the portions which are "regulatory" in nature. They are the "generalized policy a statements" which constitute a comprehensive plan as defined by state law. A hearing body, in order to approve an application , . must conclude that the applicable general policies of the , Comprehensive Plan have been followed. Each land use decision must identify and explain why the requirements of the .applicable general policies have been satisfied by the application. Not all general policies are applicable to every decision. -In reaching a conclusion concerning compliance with a general policy, the hearing body will be guided in its decision making br 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 squ&_e footages and many contain multiple detailed subsections . If the specific policies are given the same regulatory weijht a 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 fot- the granting of variances from the regulatory provisions of the Plan, When an application or project conforms to the Nne al �� policy, but perhaps not to the letter of a subsection 7f .one f the specific policies for the general policy, the applicatio-, oi: project as a wnole ^rust be denied if the specific policies 1 construed to oe regulatory in natures all regulatory starti.9,ar 9; must be complied with in order for an application to be aporove+; . 41 1111 , t i - 0Attachment No. 3� September 18, 1990 Page 3 The specific policies are considered during the analysis of an application or project. If the staff recommendation is that a project complies with a general policy, but the detail of a specific policy is not followed, an explanation should be provided why, notwithstanding that inconsistency with the :specific policy, the recommendation is nonetheless consistent '-with the applicable general policy. This approach has been employed in City decision making consistently for 7 years and has twice been considered by without a reversal on this point . This methodology implements the Plan in a manner which is consistent with the state law , definitions which govern local land use planning and at the sane time does not minimize the level of effort and scrutiny that dent into the original Plan development . Each of the applicable general Plan policies will be discussed below. No general policy specifically requires that adequate school capacity be established prior to the approval of a residential development . Schools are mentioned in a few specific_ ' ID policies and it is from these references that the olicies bec, applicable in the review of a development application. �ome 1 . Overall Density General Policy I The Comprehensive Plan will maintain the overall, average residential density of the Urban Service Area within the capacity of planned basic public facilities systems, - including at least water, sewer, streets, drainage and public safety. Specific Policy 3 : The City will coordinate planning of facilities with the Lake Oswego School District, to assure that school capacities and expansion costs are considered . ' This policy requires that the Comprehensive plan density :)e sucn that the planned densities do not result in land uses that will exceed the capacity of public facilities systems ay. tlabia or planned . This policy regulates Comprehensive Plan 'nap densi; ieS and is not applicable in the development review stage , The • appropriateness of the Plan map desinat.ion or zone dPS ; ,;nati :.. on a '2;lven site is not an issue in a hearing :.)n A ri vi?.l-�p7tal appli; tir , hearing 4110 • 11 I . 411) . Attachment No. 3 , • September 18, 1990 Page 4 2. Impact Management General Policy II ) • The City will evaluate zoning and development proposals • comprehensively for their impacts on the community, requiring the developer to provide appropriate solutions before approval is granted. • Specific Policy 6: Encourage the Lake Oswego School District to provide specific information on school capacity to be taken into consideration in development review." This policy is the one most directly focused upon school capaci ', in the development review process . This policy requires that a detailed review of projects take place and it directs that the ' - 'c City seek capacity information from the District . The development review process and the development standards insure • that this review takes place. The City is coordinating with the School District on school capacity issues and is encouraging the District to provide the City with school capacity inforation . • The July 5, 1989 report from the District, and the July 31 , 1989 , October 3 , 1989, and August 21 , 1990 joint meetings are examples • of this coordination and "encouragement'' . Because of the variety ' of factors that :::impact school population, it is not currently possible to predict, with a great degree of accuracy, school populations beyond the coming year. It is equally uncertain and unpredictable when a child from a home on a lot in a nearly approved development will enter the school population . $ Owever, once a building permit has been issued for a dwelling, it become., 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 av _- a ' 3-5 month time frame can be done with an acceptable degree of reliability . If this coordination results in the development o data1 a E which 1 supports the findings required by the state moratorium statJte to establish a capacity shortage, a .moratorium' on building per-tits can be enacted in sufficient tine to minimiie the inflow of new • students tO the district, - 3 . Impact Management General Policy V. The City will plan and program for the provision of adeuat K public services and Facilities . q e , (r • \ e ® 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 1 capacity, subject to City Council approval. " The general policy requires the City to plan and program for the provision of adequate facilities . The City cannot plan or program for the School District. The City does coordinate with the District. This policy does not require the City to plan facilities for the school . Through the enactment of the moratorium statute, the State Legislature has prevented the City from carrying out Specific Policy 3 on a case by case basis 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 . • 40 Urban Service Boundary General Policy III • The City will manage and phase urban growth within the Urban Services Boundary, with a logical gical planned extension of basic 0 To establish priorities for the phased extension of services, M 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. �' The City will schedule public facilities(FUTURthrough E laABLE) . capital improvements program and financing plan. Specific Policy 4 : New development shall be served by an Urban level of services of the following: a. Water b. Sanitary sewer c. Adequate streets, including collectors ' d. Transportation facilities ' e. Open space and trails, as per Open Space Element f. City policy protection g. City fire protection h. Parks and recreation facilities, as per Parks and Recreation Element • A n J 0 ..: • Attachment No. 3 • . , September 18, 1990 4'. Page 6 it • , i. Adequate drainage j . Schools Services shall be available or committed prior to approval of development. Such facilities or services may be provided concurrently with the land development for which they are necessary if part of an adopted capital ''budget at the time of • approval of the development, or if with adequate provisions assuring completion,�ysuch as the sveloper 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 , t 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 ur.banizahle areas . The City is then to schedule public facilities through a capital improvements program and financing plan . Specific Policy 4 relates directly to nokh, ng 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 Polity, II, discussed above , which addresses the impacts of development on services . It is notable that the specific policies for that general policy do not require the type of precise fit in timing between development approvals and the provision oe services that is contained in Specific Policy 4 . '' The most relevant language of this general hanc; is that the City will "manage and phase°policy toh tie issue at "logical planned" extension of "basic" services. The �' District is logicallycnoc�, demands ,3enerated b planningto provide new facilities t � s+ar :,. in general; y growth . The district; like school distrits provides facilities in response to demand--nit anticipation of demand: [ The Director of the Department of land Conservation and Development urges identifies schools ; along with s rocand fire of this fad': an�1 police and fire services , As "responsive" facilitfe;a . The Director draws a distift:tion, E'pr planning purposes , between these responsive facilities : n transportation, water, sewage and drainage facilities y ner words "must attend, rather than follow or respond t ,'+'t i t construction . " 4111 . „ , ,, , . . . , . . . . . r Attachment No. °3 September 18, 1990 Page 7 • • Specific Policy 4, on the other hand, directs that schools be available or committed "prior to approval" of development. If that has not occurred, the +specific policy states that schools may be provided "concurrentiy with development "if part of an adopted annual capital budget sit the time of approval of the development. " The specific polity contradicts the language of its general policy in that it is illogical and inconsistent with how schools _,' • function in this state, to require schools to be constructed or } funded prior to the approval of the development which they will serve. The City has experienced the result of a strict application of the language of this specific policy . A defacto moratorium resulted in circumstances which did not justify the enactment r& a moratorium pursuant to state law. The current level of school planning and coordination between the City and School District satisfy this general policy . In summary, the three general policies listed above , which are applicable to the school capacity issue in- the consideration of a specific development application, when read together, require the City to plan for services sufficient to accommodate growth , coordinate with the School District on capacity issues , and evaluate applications and determine impacts . School capacity is a system wide issue and forecasting when new growth will impact the school syst*a is not precise . A quasi-judicial hearing on .j single land use application is not the appropriate forum within which to make determinations concerning system wide school capacity. There is not reliable data concerning future impact; that will result from a single application or the timing of those impacts . The current level of coordinatiori and planning, with continual monitoring of actual school populati )n changes , =,,: taf these policies . If it is determined that school capacity will ..)e 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 prblem . Atty!Correspond • ,, , . . , • . , LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT • f Office of the Superintendent May 7, 1990 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Bill Korach, Superintendent SUBJECT: Elementary Enrollment Recommendation t. One of the primary goals of my superintendency has been to establish an open, forthright, and cooperative approach to problem solving between the school district and the Lake Oswego community, an approach which has guided our efforts to cope with the problems created by burgeoning elementary enrollment. With every elementary school in the district having now been affected by the growth in Lake Oswego, all the school communities have worked in support of the school district's efforts to preserve the standards by which we have defined a high-quality educational experience for the children of Lake Oswego, • District Standards Equal opportunity--The district has a responsibility (Board Policy 6110) to provide ' "essentially the same instructional program to all children of the district." Studeht-teacher ratio--The district believes that smaller classes facilitate increased teacher- studer,c interaction, require less teacher time spent on behavioral management, allow for more • thorou'h student diagnosis and evaluation, and provide the potential for greater flexibility in 41110 teaching strategies, including more individualized instruction to address individual di ft$rences . 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 4 should be a stable, secure environment within which each child can develop and he 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 P 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 nm%completed its third year of a thorough study of short-term and long-term approaches to the dramatic increases N 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 hL'ip . shape solutions to our enrollment problems, Additionally, this sprang, members of the Lake Grove School community opened their homes for a series of five coffees attended by district administrators, school !vim! , members, and parents to provide an additional forum ►.`or discussion of the enrollment options berm. ,..ensid:Nd by the district, e culmination of this extensive study coordinated by the Elementary Enrollment Study Committee, tttcludimt Orb considerable opportunities for participation by the community and by staff, is represented by file indt‘ideal recommendations of the members of the enrollment committee and by the following recommcndat ri h, the superintendent, 0 ' c, . • f ) • 1� .�. �/ SUPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION FOR LAKE GROVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL • "a INFORMATION AND ASSUMPTIONS The school district has established the ideal size of an elementary Lake Grove's enrollment is currently over 550 students, without the kindergarten, hiiichx as you n approimatelyUo v,tts hastbeen relocated at Bryant Elementary School. The projection for October 1, 1990, for Lake Grove School is 600 students. ' again excluding the kindergarten. After extensive analysis of building permits, housing under construction. the number of elementarystudents 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 ciurent boundaries could exceed 700 students before the end of the.1990-91 school year, in The following reference points are relevant to my recommendation: 1. Lake Grove School has had to shoulder the burden of co" ag with the impact of significant growtht enrollment for a longer time than has any other eleme°itary 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 program at Lake Grove School • throughout the 1990-91 school year 1. by employing a combination of options to significantly reduce the Lake Grove student population toe . the optimal site of an elementary school as defined by district standards for the start of the 19��!1-��I • 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 • Gwen the conditions and the limitations facing the district until the new elementary school and the additional ekassrooms gained through remodeling are completed, I believe the following recommendation for Lake Grove S:c:^ool to be the best possible combination of short-term solutions. I therefore; recommend to the Board of , ,. Directors 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 i'or 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 year. This option will further reduce the projected October 1, 1990, enrollment of Lake Grove School to approximately 500 students, 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. anarea ,! , ." referred to as the Bay Creek Development, which would also be designated by the-Board of~Dir r�`Ir, to attend the new school in 1991-92, This option will allow us to utilize existing elassrount spate within the district as well as' help to present Lake Grove from significantly exceedine the optimal +ii.e for district elementary schools, ' a. Designate other neighborhoods �,• , ,ghborhoods where large-scale development is scheduled to take flak., tor dtstri,.;• wide elementary school attendance until the new elementary school boundaries are established for the well as o help prevent Lake Grove from eeeei � classroom space cvithttt the �fi,triet as 1991-92 school year, This option will allow us to utilize existing. This recommendation will continue to require that the district provide adequate su size for rot servicest elementary �chos e Elementary School, including administrative assistance, support to Lal,, tJro>v , • • , • S'N:?cliIIN T ENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION FOR UPLANDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 11111 INFOR, ATIO N AND ASSUMPTIONS Uplands aementary School currently has a population of 559 students and is projectcd for 595 students on, • October , 1990. With the additional classrooms and expanded core facilities being added through remodeliniT plus the mtinued use of portable classrooms, Uplands Elementary School should have the classroom space to accomm late the growth which is projected for the 1990-91 school year without significantly compromising . district s rtdards. CONCI. SIONS The dish it has established a practice of allowing each school to keep all students within its attendance boundari until the population reaches the point where, compared with other schools in the district, equal educatio ! opportunity is being significantly jeopardized. The district can provide the classroom space and , the resot :es to allow Uplands School to continue providing an educational program comparable to that of the • district's ther elementary schools. RECOf' •IENDATION I rccomr rid to the Board of Directors that the district keep all Uplands Elementary students within the current 1 lands attendance boundaries at Uplands Elementary School for the 1990-91 school year, This option w . require that the district continue to provide adequate support services, including administrative .�, " assistanc SUP UIi1TENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION FOR FOREST HILLS ELEti1ENTARY SCHOOL A INFOR; kTION ANT',ASSUMPTIONS Forest H s ElementarySchool currentlyhas a ,population of 377 students and is projected for 403 students on October 1990, With the additional classrooms and improved core facilities being added through remodcli Forest Hills School should not have to reduce the quality of its educational program to p' accommc ate the growth which is projected for the 1990-91 school year. CONCL IONS The distr ; has established a practice of allowing each school to keep all students within its attendance boundari until the population reaches the point where, compared with other schools in the district, equal cducatior opportunity is being significantly jeopardized, The district can provide the classroom space and the mot. es to allow Forest Hills Elementary School to continue providing an educational program compare: . to that of the district's other elementary schools, RECO,1' fENDATION 1 recomrr id to the Board of Directors that the district keep all Forest Hills Elementary students %ithin the current F est Hills attendance boundaries at Forest Hills Elementary School for the 1990.91 school year. This opti will require that the district continue to provide adequate support services. 4. III . . • A ., . , . . VIlF sy._, i 9/4/90 • 0(14) • CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO s CITY ,ti1ANAGER'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 u regarding vacant single—family zoned lots were calculated. Sandra Korbelik pSenior Pl how the advised me that the figure of roughly 857 vacant lots was calculated by counting the Planner, has number of subdivisions and minor partition lots v g adding the sum of Karen Scott's calculation fo �-- last fiscal year (1g89_90), 7988-59, and then subtracting single—family building of existing lob ending The.calculation of 857'vacant lots included yboth large tracts of vacant land and fiscal year, scattered, already subdivided vacant lots within established neighborhoods, The of the 857 are found in scatted in lots, bulk There was also a request+to determine the geo7ra hic areas are located, This would require considerable manual work ont thehe C part of where these lots staff to accumulate. the Planning I It is recommended that this explanation be added to the other material for inclusion in the update of the moratorium report, Respectfully submitted, /01/ / . eter C, Harvey City Manager • • ( • 380 A a`VA..E POST O FICA BO\J69 l 5kE 05VtipGO OREGCa'v .034 503 5J5.4z15 91 , • • . Lake Oswego . . , r Elementary Enrollment August 21, 1990 • Adjusted Current # of I Projection Forecast Capacity Enrollment Portables . Bryant 413 513* 529 S02 2 Forest Hills 403 403 - 391 370 \ Hallinan/) 330 330 437 311 Lake Grove 600 500* 552 453 Palisades 344 344 345 373 River Grove 299 299 414 305 1 Uplands 595 595 644 574 4 Westridge 409 40 �) 9 460 39g TOTAL 3.393 3 3,393 3,772 3,241 10 • . 0 j, MEMORANDUM •. • (Cifia14.1:=7/./.:1 TO: Peter C.Harvey, City Manager FROM: Sandra Korbelik, Senior Plannrg— Wqat " :7;; SUBJECT: Status Report Regarding Lake Oswego Elementary School Lake Oungo Capacity and City—Wide Residential Development Activity Oregon 17074 v s01.17of a DATE: August 10. 1990 • Engi d0�.uMq 0�70�nnq CityCouncil has requested a per<:.dic briefing regarding the status of the Lake S07"36. 1 Oswego School District elementary school capacity. As you know, the City has established a regular system of communicating residential development activity to kjj S07„„„F,A4 the school district to assist in forecasting classroom demand. This report contains the school district projection for the 1990/1991 elementary school year and a , summary of residential development activity for fiscal year 1989/1990. }-" 1. School District Forecasts � ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROJECTIONS 1990/1991 SCHOOL YEAR • Capacity for Adjusted Forecast School 1990/1991' 1990/1991- 0 529 513 illForest Hills Bryant 391 ,403 Hallinan 437 330 ' 1 ',' U) Lake Grove 552 �' �;, Palisades 500 3 •k W Rivergrove 414 ?9.1 rt Uplands 644 595 W Westridge 460 409 3 n Total Students 3,772, 3,393 V1 Z 0 C 1 Capacity varies yearly for each school based on construction of new additions, ..,J = portable classrooms, kindergarten programs and space commitments for other oagencies or district wide programs, CDL.L. The adjusted forecast total and the enrollment projection total from October 1, D1989 are the same, The adjusted forecast, however, has a redistribution of individual school figures due to subsequent elementary enrollment decisions , )44' > v 3 The adjusted forecast figure of 500 for Lake Grove is conservative, and may range up to a total of 600 students, ilim"...../ 4The adjusted forecast figure of 299 for Rivergrove is conservative, Student (Yl demand created by the active new home construction in the Bay Creek subdivisions located north of Westlake will be accommodated within the Rivergrove School, The size of that demand is difficult to forecast, • 4110 The school district has created the flexibility to accommodate an additional 379 students should actual fall enrollment exceed the forecast. Starting with the subsequent school year of 1991/1992 the new element an increased district capadity of 500 students. ' school will provide for 2. Residential Development Activity („--, • The following two tables summarize residential development activity for this last fiscal year. These figurese "' Council August 1989, which had supplement June 30,information distributed to City 4, A. BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED 1989/1990 FISCAL, YEAR Single Family 400 Houses Mulct Family 9 II1,:1 Total 439 Dwellings 11 _ B. SINGLE FAMILY LOTS APPROVED 1989/1990 FISCAL YEAR . . ( ant III— Otc R-15 • 63 ' R-�10 117 R-7,5 31 R-5 at, Total Lots Approved 372 The City continues to experience an active development market, both through the subdivision of land and issuance of building permits. There were 682 new • dwelling units in 1988/1989, the preceding fiscal year. When compared to the 1989/1990 figure, it is evident that the single family market continues robe t! strong, The drop in multifamily can be attributed to a decline in available �� multifamily land, 3, Conclusions Information presented to Council in August, 1989 during te building moratorium deliberations indicated there were a total of 835 vacant single family zoned lots within the city limits, A very gross update of this vacant lot figure with the last fiscal years development activity indicates there are roughly 357 vacant lots aW ,;r July 1, 1990, This new vacant lot figure cantl lots) to ). . , was achievedutc by adding ngl i arnily Vacant building pe to 372 recently approved ,ors and subtracting -i00 (single ram ie 6 .0 0 •. t° .. . • There are several variables which are not taken 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. ) • , . . . , . 0 0' I I • -414 . , 110 . , . . . . • LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT 0 • Office of Supenntndont ENROLLMENT REPORT Date 6n/90 ELEMENTARY K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Spec Total Oct. School Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup, Sec Pup Sec I Pup ( -or North Side o Forest Fatly 2.0 52 3 0 75 2 Orin 2 0 51 2.0 401 2.5 IIIIM 2 0 47 1 0 10 16 51 3741 00 0 50 114 4 0 95 40 96 3.5 82 35 85 4 0 86 00 0 2401 5581 2 • 3,0 63 4 0 87 3,0 66 3.0 69 4,0 4 0 83 4 0 92 1 0 10 26 0 5621 Taal 5.0 115 12 0 276 9.0 204 9.0- 9.5 214 10.0 224 10.0 225 2 0 20 IIIMMEIMIR South Sae T 6,0 122 2.0 43 2.0 MEI 2.0 49 2.5 4 2.0 35 2.0 39 0 0 0 18 5 392 Haltlnan 2.0 39 2.0 40 2,0 40 2.0 4611IM 58 2.0 41 3.0 71 0.0 0 15 5 11111EMIN 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 1 River Grove 2.0 43 2.0 38 2.0/9 43 2.0 47 I 42 1.5 34 1 AMR 0 0 0 12.01 2721 0 West►iaae _ 2.052 3 0 65; 2.0 51®M 2 5 61 3 Oar 3.0 85 0 0 0 18 01 4361 3' Total 14.0 293 11.0 2351 10.0 225 10.5 .242 11,0 270 11 5 237 9.0 220 0 01 7 01 1 7221 GRAND TOTAL 19 01 408 23 0 511 19.0 429 19 5 458 20 5�® 461 19,0 445 2.0 20 143 5. 3 2101 5, SECONDARY Junior High High School E7 8 Total Octet 9 10 11I 12 Total Cat ' 1Aalu HS 261 237 498 or•4 I.�:, Is 259 2501. 230 2041 '7 c431 ` 250 2511 5011 4 Lkendoe 230 2181 2291 2501 iI 42-1 man -Total ----1 5111 488( 99;1 8 Total 489 468 4591 4541 ' 7:1 t Growth Analysis f October 193" October 1989 Oclooer 1989 ^,,ufrent Grade Lever I N 1 S N l S N 1 S N I S Elem K-757--------1 1 3081 1 4611 1 4731 1 494 1 4671 1 690 1 4941 .a Hfeh-.5 I 4041 4251 • "Si -+fore 9.'2 i ^061 , 1 440j li 472 494` 4�_ 4cgf _. ----I� 0571-_}I ?571 992 :491 933 :.1TALS 5.06E 11I��s �r�_3291 1 9 G30 1 III