Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 1991-09-16 • rI r. AGENDA ' .. i; CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD ` '` CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,CITY HALL,380 'A' AVENUE Monday,September 16, 1991 ` "'' 7:30 P.M. tr .,y L CALL TO ORDER ;'. if ROLL CALL Agenda Book 77. APPROVAL OF MINUTES iv, PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS • 1 'I V. PUBLIC HEARING ;. l • DR 10-91,review by the Development Review Board of the entt.rgency tree cutting permit for removal of the Cottonwood tree on Canal Road, The issue is whether the permit should be revoked r• � 'a based on intentional or unintentional misrepresentation of facts. The site is located west of Canal / i: ' Road and south of Childs Road(Tax Lot 400 of Tax Map 2 1E 2OBC), Staff coordinator is 1-Iamid Pishvaie,Development Revie y, . , AP 91-4, an appeal of an administrative decision to the Development Review Board on SD 52-90, a request by Jerry &Joann Randall for approval of a 2—lot minor partition on a 1,24 acre site. The • parcels are proposed to be 18,000 and 36,300 sq. ft. in size. The site is located at 695 "G" Avenue (Tax Lot 300 of Tax Map 2 1E 30B), Staff coordinator is Barbara Smolak,Associate Planner, VAR 15-91(4—d), a request by John &Donna Ghiorso for approval of four Class 2 variances as follows: A:a ;. . a) a 5—toot variance to the side yard setback, which requires a 15—foot combined minimum to a 5— foot minimum each side [LOC 48,215(1)]; b) a 24—foot variance to the rear yard setback, which requires a 25--foot setback [LOC 48r215(1)]; c) a 5% variance to the lot coverage, which request a maximum of 35% in the R-7.5 zone for interior lots [LOC 48.225(1)]; and d) a 24—foot variance to the Oswego Lake setback; which requires a minimum of 25 feet [LOC 48.535(3)]. The site abuts Oswego Lake, which is listed in the Comprehensive Plan as a Distinctive Natural Area (Special Distinctive Areas: No. 54, Oswego Lake), The site is located at 3458 Lakeview Blvd. (Tax t:. " Lot 3200 of Tax Map 2 lE 8CD), Staff coordinator is Michael R.Wheeler, Associate Planner. ti,f , it . 'ill DR 8-91/SD 24-91, a request by Ankrom Moisan Associated for approval to construct a 59,000 sq. ft,, three story office building. The building is intended to complete the 4000 Kruse Way Place Office Campus currently consisting of three office buildings. A lot line adjustment between Tax Lots 5900, _ 1 ` 3200 and 3300 is requested, as well• The site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Kruse Way and Kruse Way Place (Tax Lots 5900, 3200 &3300 of Tax Map 2 lE 8BA). Staff • coordinator is Robert Galante,Senior Planner. 1, VI• GENERAL PLANNING VII OTHER BUSINESS -Findings, Conclusions and Order ` , is SD 25-79(Mod. 6-90)/HR 15-90(Revised) -Lula F. Simpson �.. SD 8-91-Compass Corp. SD 22-91\VAR 14-91-OTAK,Inc. DR 5-91-David M. Norris DR 6-91-David M. Norris PD 21-89(Mod.7-91)-The Holtman Company VAR 16-91-Keith Hoelscher AP 90-12-Carla and Stephen Loughlin fA AP 90-13-R.E. & Helen L. Spiker VEIL ADJOURNMENT The Lake Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to came and go as you please, • DR.B Members: ,S.t f: / ' irtztbat H.Foster,Chair Torn Coffee,Planning Director « • • , L.�Stanaway,Vice—Chair Robert Galante,Senior Planner ' „' .," -73.s A.Bloomer Ron Bunch,Senior Planner , , Robert D.Greaves Humid Pishvaie,Dcv,Review Planner 0 o.-Iger Remy Catherine Clark,Associate Planner K ;y Ni,Starr Jane Heisler,Associate Planner Nz.-..7t n J.Sievert Barbara Smolak,Associate Planner ti, `" Michael R.Wheeler,Associate Planner Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney Barbara Anderson, DRB Secretary Kathy Avery,PC Secretary ° • e $ eN i Joi 0 a • { aW q' t 1, . • • ' i I, I } t '�• ... ' -.^ a; , 1 y t'l}t.c!{t 1 'try, ,��. • . . . (,), ..O.I 1 0.p..0 j\I 7\°44:so its 4 • 0 EGON "' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELC)t'\IJ N'I'II MEMORANDUM ;, TO Development Review Board + FROM: Hamid Pishvaie,Development Review Planner +t '' a SUBJECT: DR 10-91 -Review of emergency tree-cutting permit for the cottonwood tree on Canal Road 1,. DATE: 1 • September 6, 1991 • r •h., The Board is directed by the City Council to review the emergency tree cuttingpermit for removal ofcottonwood tree on Canal Road (removed on July 8, 1991), The m aoranda by • the City Attorney (dated July 30, 1991 and August 13, 1991 ) rovide tailed information. recommendations for Board's action. The of owing nfor information provided to help the Board in their review of this issue: Exhibit 1 Memorandum by City Attorney, dated1991 .i August 13, ,- . ,,• Exhibit 2 Memorandum by City Attorney, dated July 30, 1991 ;, : Exhibit 3 Chronology of Meetings and Events on Riverview Park Planned Development (P,D 19, 1989), dated July 15, 1991, with 8 attachments Exhibit 4 Arborist Report by William L. Owen, dated July 16, 1991 ,,Exhibit 5 •. Letter by Sammie Stanbro, dated August 26, 1991 I a• • ' Exhibit 6 ` • Letter by Robert Knight, dated August 31, 1991 Kecommendation• 1 The City Attorneys n, inorandum of August 13, 1991t1 of the Board regarding die already issued permit. In general, the 1),lmorandum stes responsibilities Board should determine whether there was any misrepresentation of facts in the originalat the w application for a tree cutting permit, Staff recommends that the procedures listed in the above memo be followed by the Board, •. "a, m 1r rqx rts)chemid>DR 1 U-911916Jh 1 f_ 10 A5P 'b \ '11.111i,, ° 11...!111 ,I.1::,. ;14N I !i1^.i1't� �• �, Idnl'11v11 P7!1111�•p.•111:II�',1., ." i 'a'• r ISic1P11 ItI,iUI! lill'.I It!ia1'r4 . '11 • 11v1,�, 111:n,; ri t; ',i' a °',: i e,.„J•0 'F 'i ! ; n °t , I a t N A r 3 , t' ',• i s i 1 rt 1: • h 1 :° 1' { // e e i •� sal c r 0 / d r e v, ti e' 1 J V G':.. •..'..- '.: 4i,•1...\ :', A •�,, 1 , o ' • r 4 •4 ' �. lr S .. r `. t ./ 1, . 1 n 'ti. I y/ 1�. .p • . ..•.. .. .. .• .~ • MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Board From: Jeff if ii Condit, City Attorney`" Date: August 13, 1991 O . Subject : Correction to my Memorandum of July 30, 1991, Review of Riverview Park PD/Emergency Tree Cutting Permit On July 30, 1991, I sent the Development Review Board (DRB) a memorandum regarding the Park PD Emer enc procedure for review of l>1�e Riverview / g Y Tree Cutting Permit , This issue which was referred to the Board by the Lake Oswego City Council on July 16, 1991 . As part of that memorandum, I advised the Board that. have to consider an additional issue: whetheryou would should revoked for failure to file a timelythe entireeu tPD • an extension. Subsequente plat or request for staff discovered that the developer failedto file 9g1 meeting, I +. the plat within the one year deadline established by LOC 49 .330 (1) and filed to otherwise re •`quest an extension of time for filing. LOC 49 . 330 (1) requires a developer to C submit the final plan or plat within one year of the date of approval, extension in writinge or to request an period. Reading LOC 49 .330 (1) t together expirawith LOC tion of the one year empowers the DRB to revoke a 49 . 097 (2 ) , which permit for railure to comply with time deadlines, i reasoned that the issue of whether or not timely filing had occurred must be referred to the DRB for a ,w public hearing. Since that memorandum, Planning staff has uncovered history of previous decisions of the City Council indicating a contrary intent . .✓ On March 18, 1986, former Planning Direc:or Topaz Faulkner issued d , an opinion construing LOC 44 .310, that failure to timely file automaticallyedvoidso ther permit .49 .330, E interpretation was appealed This to the City Council (SD17-79-378eandaCI 1-8nning 6-410) ,Commission ando then ♦! upheld the interpretation of the PlanningDirector. both of which 44. 310 is somewhat different than LOC 49 .330 (1) Although LOC statute requires filing within six months and providedoes hnot fo for an opportunity to request an extension) , the operabe provisions regarding the requirement for filing by a time certain is identical . Because the Council did not change the operable language when it abolished LOC 44 .310 and adopted LOC 49 . 330 (1) , the Council obviously did not intend to change the operation of that ordinance, •.. 'E`X H D I ? . . -- r Ix;•- 1 .'• " ' • r . Memo: Development Review Board August 13, 1991 Page 2 Unless the applicant can demonstrate that he requested extension of time for filing for theplat sled an his current PD.peir in prior, to June 4, 1991, development he will have tol file la new ordeapplication r tr°teed with the with the process as if the and previous application had never°been approved. Because the permit is automatically voided b to file, there is no need for the DRB to review t1 y failure. �F) question. AFFECT ON COUNCIL D:CRE TTOI�*: LI 1,I y ; � ^ The DRB must still determine whether or not the emus cutting permit should be revoked. In order to make that tree determination, the Board must decide whether the a knowing or unknowing misrepresentation of fact in applicant made a application, testimony or evidence submitted in support tree cutting permit , of the then the Board has the aauuthority�to� If the answer is ". the underlying revoke the yes, yin PD is void, the DRB does not have to eedauoe consideration of whether or not failure to comply proceed to a condition to p y with the preserve the tree should result in revoca'�ion of the permit or whether mitigating measures should be impsed. , DRB will be able to consider any r ed. (The the loss or removal of the tree atlsuchttimemassarnewcapplic by at comes before it . ) application • If the DRB revokes the emergency tree cuttin the applicant in the same legal position as i permit ,f permit had the p it will put been issued. This will subject the applicant to citation for cutting the tree without a validpermit L Chapter 55 (True Cutting) pursuant to LOC • '" ZGC:bp , CC : Tom Coffee, Planning Director • CA03 , w . !. MEMORANDUM 1 u TO: Development Review Board (DRB) r ! FROM: Jeffreyde' G. Condit, City Attorney RE: Review of Riverview Park PD/emergency tree cutting . g y � g permit -+ DATE: July 30, 1991 ` 1 Y kx. , On July 16, 1991, the Lake Oswego City Council voted to refer the above noted development to the Development Review B determination if certain permits should be revoked orramefor a nded pursuant to LOC 49 . 097 . This pursuant a previousl a provision provides that the DRB may revoke for one or more ofytheppermit following reasons�wing a public hearing (1) The applicant made an intentional or unintentional material misrepresentation of fact in the application or in ' '� evidence submitted in support of the application, A themisrepresentation', is a misrepresentation which causesmater�al different decision under the criteria than would have otherwise been made. (2) The applicant fails to complete the work within the approved time period or in the manner approved either an extension of time or a modification ofobtaining granting authority, the (3 ) The applicant fails to use or maintain the "�� propert accordance with the approved plans and conditions . y in ."� ''" ` Background: The DRB approved the Riverview Park Planned Development (PD) on June 4, 1990 (PD 19-89) . the DRB imposed aconditien of approval requiring the developer to design Canal Road in order to preserve the 72 " cottonwood tree at the to the development . In late May/ early June 1991, the entranceer ' developer Bill Moore successor r presented arborist reports to the City I suggesting that the tree was dying and a hazard and requested a tree cutting permit , The City initially informed him that it did not believe the tree was an immediate hazard and that he would • therefore have to apply to the DRB to amend the condition of approval in order to remove the tree. The developer submitted additional arborist reports and a demand letter from his attorney stating that the tree was an immediate hazard and demanding the City issue an emergency tree cuttingO„." 55 . 070 , This section provides : Permit pursuant too L LOCCt In the event of emergency conditions requiring the i immediate cutting or removal of trees in order to avoid-a danger or hazard to persons or property, an emergency permit will be issued without payment of fee and W ' ,•i • i ` EXHIBIT t 1' '.lti x i j without formal application, by Director or in his absence, by the Public Works Building Division. any member of the Based upon the evidence and re developer, the City issued an emergencyemade by the • tions permit on July 3, 1991 .There was a significant neighborhood cute that the developer had misrepresented the condition dncloning concernsh and the immediacy of the hazard. At the public meeting,the tree -: developers arborist stated that while he felt the immediate, it may not have been an emergency. and wvo to send the emergency the hazard ' g cY permit to the DRB todetermine Cwhether voted emergency tree cutting permit should be revoked b $ her the t I , intentional or unintentional, misrepresentation 49 . 097 (1)en C r upon [a tree cuttingpresentation -' pursuant to LOC 49 .140 1 permit is a "minor development" LOC ursunt ( ) (k) , and therefore is subject is revocationocon, then pursuant to LOC oper0s7 (1) ) ' If the emer et to y is ritike of ability to comply thy permit approval becomes at issue, pYwitha o • An additional issue has been discovered since 16 meeting: Staff has discovered that the developer er failed to request an extension of time for filing J at, in violationl to LOC 49 .330 (1) , This his plat, in of LOC 4 plan or provision requires a developer to submit the finrequest an extension within one enyear of the date of approval, onq-year g prior to the expirationofthe or to period. If such an extension � ' 4 n.•: one year is automatic, is requested oneeyearn, the If a developer fails to request arnval for permit is subject to revocation by pursuant to LOC 49 . 097 (2) for failure to meet the compliance deadline. Scope of DRS review: The DRB must make the follow' determinations in the following order: Ong h 1 h m r ` a �'�' must determine whether the rdevelo developer e in rm be r information whetp submitted misleading The DRB regarding the emergency nature of the hazard created by the condition of the tree. than the issue of whether the condition tofhthestre is narrower removal; the issue is ; nether the developer misledetjustifiedi issuing an emergency ' to the DRBa eo rge cyeppea change tothe &p licy into 'opposed to requiring application condition of approval , � . Effect- of rQyo ar ' �� revokes the tree cutting tirmi If the DRB he me legal g permit, the developer will be placed in yr g position as if the permit had never be ^ He will become subject to citation for cutting a been ihoued,.permit, and his underlying PD g tree without a revocationpermit will become subject to comply with pursuant cto ondition 49 . 097 (2) and (3)for failure to maintain ( ) for failure to approval without seeking an amendment �. approval . his proper; of a The developer can cure theseudefects taso cdes described .. in subsection 3 below, eycri bed . . M • `r r tj ` 4 i `;1 , I� J�: it j' : t , 1. 1 '� 4 , r i " t 7' 1 {' 1� r J '�' n b_L---�ffeGt Of aFf; rmIa.. e _thg_emgxiagngy_ps..rait,_ If permit is not revoked, then the DRB must conder amendment toe the condition of approval requiring the road to be designed to protect the tree (unless you otherwise revoke the PD for failure to timely file, as describe in subsection 2 below) . In amending this condition, the DRB can consider the effects of removal of the tree on the development, including any effects on h and can consider whether to impose mitigative measures such chass requiring new trees 'to be planted. 2-. Ehnit i ri h PD The DRB must detemine�whetherthedevelo ,__ Plat,/ extension in writingper requested an +° • period. prior to the expiration of the one • year iy • �j ffect of r vnsAt-ion of PD for f ' The PD will be considered revoked as of Junel5,^ 1991,, ,.plac file, 4 �` property in the same status as if the PD had never been enla pro the Such a revocation will moot all issues regarding conr)liancerwith or amendment of the condition of approval, issue of revocation of the emer envy but will not moot the development emergency permit . Any now " +r,' proposed for the site will have to be • new application, with all of the attendant requirementssfor as a neighborhood contact, public hearings and opportunity ; pportunit for appeal . -s--_mid the PD b�+ rerroke� fnr fa; �„ ,. condo t�on of annrn.r�1 � S �comri I Permit and does not revoke the PDthe B for vfailure okes e tree cutting } an extension, then the DRB must consider whetherr themely shouldi for PD be revoked for failure to comply with the condition to cottonwood tree, As noted above, the developer can cure this preserve the defect if he can demonstrate to the DRB's satisfaction condition would have been amended to allow removal of that the ' A . cottonwood had the developer come before the DRB normal pursuant to the .f ' process for amending a permit . If the DRB determines that �, the evidence would have justified removal of the condition, then the DRB can amend the condition and may consider the imposition • • any hydrological or mitigative measures in lieu of t condition J 1,4 to preserve the tree. If the DRB determinehe condition • have approved removal of the tree, then it , .{ hat it would not , _ ' revoke the PD Y determine to permit for failure to comply with a required condition. As stated in 2 (a) above, revocation of the PD '� require any development on the property to be will application, p p Y processed as a new If you have any further questiins, please do not hesitate to call . cc - Peter Harvey, City Manager Planning Department r h: M J'� Y 1 • • ; • • • f •• „.. • •. . . • . . • • "• , • .• , • h• • . „ • ' • • . • , • • . S . I V, 1 f 1 ' •II E OREGON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Coffee,Planning Director ° FROM: Harnid Pishvaie,Development Review Planner °U ` SUBJECT: Chronology of Meetings and Events on Riverview Park Planned (PD 19-89) Development DATE: July 15, 1991 4 This memo will provide a chronology of meetings between City staff and the developer ofRiverview Park since the approval of the project by the Development Review Board; ry June 4, 1990 DRB approved PD 19-89, June 16, 1,990 City received the first arborist's report on the cottonwood tree (Attachment A). • September 18, 1990 Meeting with the applicant to discuss the project, including the design of Canal Road in order to preserve the 72" cottonwood tree. October 5, 1990 Meeting with the applicant to discuss the project, including the design of Canal Road in order to preserve the 72" cottonwood tree. January 14, 1991 Meeting with the applicant to refine the design of Canal Road. February 5, 1991 Meeting with the applicant to discuss the design of Canal Roa d and other issues. Early February, 1991 Telephone conversation with Bill Owen (arborist)regarding the cottonwood Mr. Owen suggested that for a proper evaluation, an • arborist should climb the tree in order to conduct a canopy inspection. February 25, 1991 City received the second arborist report. This report was prepared , after an arborist had ascended the tree (Attachment B), EXHIBIT r 380"A"Avenue r 3 ,st Office Box 369 • Lake Oswego,Oregon 97014 y""'-771 Planning t)ivisiun:(503)635-(;.:90• Building Division:(503)635.0390 • VAX(503)635-026 .17)477.7. �' l J r"'rt 1 tl• . Tom Coffee,Memorandum , ; July 15, 1991 Page 2 , March 7, 1991 Meeting with the applicant and his consultants to review the issues on Canal Road and other facilities. design April 23, 1991 Meeting with the applicant to discuss realignment of the internal street. Canal Road improvement was also discussed. June 10, 1991 Meeting with applicant to review revised construction l p ans. June 12, 1991 . City received the third arborist report (Attachment C), • June 19, 1991 Letter by Stuart O. Kendall (the applicant's representative) to the City Attorney regarding the tree-cutting application (Attachment D)e June 20, 1991 Letter by the City Attorney responding to Mr. Stuart O. Kendall's letter of June 19, 1991 (Attachment E). June 21, 1991 • City received a written request by the applicant for removal of the cottonwood tree (Attachment F). July 1, 1991 An up-to-date overview of the project and the arborist reports was 0 • .:u e presented to the DRB by City staff at their regular meeting of July 1 1991 (under General Planning), July 3, 1991 City received the fourth arborist report (Attachment G . Based July 3, 1991 on the final arborist report(dated July 3 1991), City the tree cutting permit for removal of the cottonwoo tree issued j (Attachment H). ..ktrwlunents , : nid9t.l)<conts>PDl9-s9.m mo7/1s • • • 4 + tit . r • • U, DUE'LE Gill v c.7ssoeia <_ ++" ar-r. at a..rwas.callz &slating c.Fetvice Aii a 4.10,44 A •,.,. . . . . .. , . , , . , . ,.. .. .. mEmoRABDum , . , . . .... .. • • . . . ,. . ! , . . ., . ,..... . .. . .. , „ . . .. TO: John DeJong Tech. Engineering Corporation , { } , FROM: Bot Mazany ASCA #133 aj Consulting Arborist w; DATE: July 16, 1990 •J RE: Riverview Park Cottonwood• • ' I have completed my condition assessment of the large Cottonwood on this ‘ ' site and strongly recommend it not be retained based on the followin : ` g 1. The tree appears to be at a stage of maturity to be very close try t "° the normal life expectancy for this specie. 2. This tree has a high potential for total or partial failure, as evident by the large, 12 to 15 diameter, branches which have already fallen from this tree. ' : : ' ''' 3. The current roadway is impacting approximately 20% of the root zone to the east. Road and other site improvements, utilities etc. , will further impact the root zone, possibly an additional 20%. 4. The tree has a slight lean toward the roadway. 5. The tree will be further exposed to environmental changes and ' , ' stresses during site clearing and grading which may be necessary for construction. ` In summary, it is my professional opinion that the probability of this tree failing is too great to risk retaining this tree on site. I trust that this brief, report is sufficient for your needs at this time, Please contact me if further information or clarification is required. �" • • • • (��, Box. i ®5, dav� `!on, .sgcn 97071 ^ ,: fi t� • 11 I + i • T• y • • v 1, • • • • L�. i. T' • d b y' • • 1 P• ' 0 . . '. • • • • b • H • .. rJ 0 ' .'' ,. • • • • ,. V • • • • .-..�....r..r.,w« .. ...- .. ... C • .r - ', ' , . a' it • I . rf� • ...."1::: ,r. . • ,. - ' c • ';,� P 4,• • ',. ALx�.43 ib Alt%S.. 111411,-* low . fr. 0$ TO: John DeJong �` - r! 4 Technical Engineering corp. e114 • FRCM: Bob Mazany ASCA 4133 ii Consulting Arborist / • DATE: February 25, 1991 q, N • RE: 'Memorandum Addendum Riverview Park Cottonwood ;A • This addendum to my memorandum, dated July 16, 1991 � , is to • • • ? submit additional detail as to the state and condition of the tree in question. '' " On February ^Y 23, 1991, in the company , qualified arborist employed byt;;,, o_ Dave Wyant, a Pruett Tree Service, I reinspected this tree. Mr. Wyant was engaged to ascend the w tree for a closer, more detailed inspection of the canopy. Cur observations, both from the ground with binoculars, and Mr. Wyant ' s close canopy inspection from within the tree resulted in the following observations : 1 . The 'time of season and the fact that the area has been .; • , • brushed around the tree resulted in a much more open view of the entire tree than was possible in July . 2 . There are decay pockets throughout the canopy from previous branch failure. Eased on this evidence and the relatively poor com izat •pa eclud:a:::t compartmentalization capability of qthis du A. specie leads me to conclude that this decay may be quite • m • deep within the stem structure. 3 . There' is a large (15"-18" diameter) codominant t" • branch/stem union on the south-southeast quadrant of the canopy. This union is approximately 60 ' above the ground and projects over the adjacent roadway. The probability • • of this branch/stem union failing is high serious hazard potential . g posing a 4 . The large branches are heavily weight-loaded, especially • ' to the south and east with some having larger decay b pockets Erom larger branch failure . • A .7 <- eco3) PM- cog7 , ": ti • John DeJong x� Technical Engineering Corp. February 25, 1991• Page Two f' t • 5 . One larger branch (12"-15" diameter) growing to the west- < , southwest has serious decay in the top portion leaving less than two-thirds of the branch with viable holding • wood. This branch could fail due to the location and extent of this decay. It is still my opinion, based on this additional, more detailed inspection, that the long-term prognois is poor to 744 fair, with a serious potential for at least partial failure. The risk involved, relative to the short term bonefit gained, does not alter my original recommendation for removal . .4' *",= Please contact me if further information is required. • j (yy c P" • • • r i • • • , • • • • • . 4111 A • • , , • • • !, 4: aF"t ar.cz and -�v2d 7_ a nnsurEin9 cSctvicc Met 1A,,, a rl �' " A C , , . • in11.1; t MEMORANDUM EMORAND I�� c' ' 4 1 Bill Moore , Benet:-Moore JUN 13 1991 Mazany ASCA #133 sulti FROM: Bob 7,- =` 77 Con ng Arborist DATE: June 12, 1991 Riverview Park Cottonwood I will preface this memorandum recommendation by , Potential' that th3�s';tee;:h reiterating my rev if,�the ctail.ure'w_ih a1 ��'L „Suficient�l' �P previous ` ; a're ls..t l�,o [tPatr: an 'shoal y'.sex ��7us e w�8. ^ , '• d d not � In ourtelephone rptaineel :r that to P;zone conversation of outline a June 1p minimize the program of therapeutic 1991, you requestedch would minimize ion potential for e ofit tree care which would ' impact when failure of this tree and decidenstthat this this area 1e sen the tree must be is developed should retained. someone ' ' My recommendations are as follows : :, 1 • The tree will Class IV require pruning to National Arborist approximately selective canopyAssociation y 15% to 20% and reductionawo af. "� 2 . The large including deadwood. ... g branch, alluded t � memorandum, would require in item 5 of my February y 25,W , ,,• branch and cablingweight reduction to1991 branch at the wound a viable y'' area. to protect from failure of the 3 . Demolition . of the existing direction of the Consulting roadbed would be g Arborist , under the ~ - The construction• of the newroadway ' ... i • The et wide lane as no closer to far to could be only one twelve trunk the east of f • tre each sideof'than twenty feet the tree a as Lance le, but , fifty feete thee the center line distance a ' twenty foot of the construction would distance is trunkd of the aeration require elevatingto be violated could be installed under tese that roadbed cushioning and •- - Vertical mulchingpaved surface . e1istin of the currently compacted area under the : q injection fertilizing, h' alongw' deep with root both to NAA standards . , • 1305, Zcie*Ezt0i2, Elz `goiz 97o5 (50 ) 60.0s9r v • f • ' 1 • ✓t •`r Bill Moore n • Benett-Moore .June 12, 1991 • Page Two • 5 . All work on the tree or within the root zone of the tree must be under the direction and with the approval of the Consulting Arborist . .t In Sconclusion, though al will .have.•been•.done arboziculturally tco tile t iE: 't`'�ate • �� minimize the potential for fa ]uxe'.andx�creae;the .i�,• ••,.....,,....n, Esc..•.•..,..+.»..d...•...—•».—• ;cond°it~ on of'•thas tree there,.,can be no guarantee f 'the' lon• term•'survi•va •an ,; a e o•••: • . • e.. ''' he►fm-cyrg~ ' t`?" h s' i~6'a cin close;;•pro{ mitt',1.to••thetree gets,w,�the;,greater,,the potential, or se4aous ,hazard;p fa; gq . to Y x • 1 ' a • • • J• • • • • •s • • • • • • • a i ti i •• J p.. V ki,„ (t.,,,,..e.,zic . . .. . • .. b ;, t. . , STUART O. KENDALL _ ATTORNEY AT LAW •••, ,,, 4040 DOUGLAS WAY--P.O,80X 1706 1,I'+t.t�l� • 0� v,:saa�1l.LAKE OSWEGO.ORETGON 97035 \. !"' •�� 1 y (5 3)635777 _Ili f ��g�'r(1` /I�' June 1 , 19911.- It ?�1 �/ ,..� • Jeff:• JUN ' Condit, Esq. 9 1991 City Attorney i '''' City of Lake Oswego 380 "A" Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97035 RE: River's Edge/Riverview Park - Cottonwood Tree Dear Jeff: . As I advised you on June 18, 1991, I represent Willard T. Moore, WTM Holdings, and the developers of River's Edge. Mr. Moore forwarded to me copies of the memoranda, opinions and correspon- . . dence from Bob Mazany regarding the large cottonwood tree on the " E River's Edge development. I note from those documents that the • ree has a "high potential for total or partial failure. " Mr. Mazany has strongly recommended the tree be removed. At the present time, the tree is adjacent to and overhangs a public right of way. Based on his opinion, it is mandatory that the tree be removed to eliminate the liability that my clients may have for maintaining f'.• such a hazart. on their prlperty over this long period of time. Mr. Moore advised me that he re • June 14 , 1991 and the city has refused toested a grant cutting permit on grant the permit. .. If the city refuses to grant the permit within 24 hours from receipt of this letter, I have advised Mr. e 1 wave no other alternative than to seek mandamus eorhother will appropriate relief. In the event a child or other person is njured as a result of your failure to issue the permit, we will look to the city for all appropriate damages. Very truly yours, STUART 0. KENDALL OK/Md • .., c : Pete Harvey, City Manager : .. . Planning Department • '�• Jerry Baker, City Engineer M,' Bill Moore ` . _ p. • • �. hh . • 1 � ! + r • 1. • t ^ V d, • • .4. • 1• • f1 V. • • • J , fr . . a,- pp i / �J i slociatzl MEMORANDUM TO: , ;6• " • �`` Bill Moore p •.^ + P Benett-Moore ` •'MY•', . . . .; ..:„.,., FROM: Bob Mazany ASCA #133 G y/J`Con .alting Arborist . ,.. DATE: June 12, 1991 RE: Riverview Park Cottonwood .i I will preface this memorandum by reiteratin mypre vs that this tree has a sufficiently seriouss potential for failure in all or part and should not be retained , if the area is to be developed . In our telephone conversation of June 10, 1991, you requested that I outline a program of therapeutic tree care which would minimize the potential for failure of this tree and lessen the construction impact when this area is developed should someone • decide that this tree must be retained. ; a My recommendations are as follows : 1 . The tree will require pruning to National Arborist Association Class IV standards for selective canopy reduction of approximately 15% to 20% and including deadwooa. ' 0.1 2 . The large branch, alluded to in item 5 of my February 25, 1991 memorandum, would require a 30% weight reduction to a viable lateral branch and cabling to protect from failure of the branch at the wound area . 3 . Demolition of the existing roadbed would be under the direction of the Consulting Arborist . a , The construction of the new roadway could be only one twelve foot wide lane as far to the east of the tree as possible, but no closer to the trunk than twenty feet for a distance of fifty feet each side of the center line of the trunk of the , tree . If the twenty foot distance is to be violated, roadbed construction would require elevating so that cushioning and aeration could be installed under the paved surface . , E, Vertical mulching of the currently c�timpacted area under the r n w existing roadbed would be required, along with deep root liquid injection fertilizing, both to NAA standards . 5, BzacrEttoh, OzEcion 97075 ' (:io. ) 64b-0b497 • o , a Y� - + . .�•. . � ,' �., Bill Moore Benett-Moore M1 June 12, 1991 Page Two • • 6. All work on the tree or within the root zone of the tree must be under the direction and with the approval of the Consulting • Arborist . • In conclusion, though all will have been done arboriculturally to minimize the potential for failure and increase the state and condition of this tree there can be no guarantee for the long term survival and safety of this tree. The more uno this area in close proximity to the tree gets, the greater the potential for serious hazard.• • • • • • • • t q' .1• } T 1 r i 3 ' pl • • • • • • 1 / f .. (07. , , .. .. . 0 -44/1/\\„...\eczy.,)ear . ' CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE June 20, 1991 1 Stuart O. Kendall Attorney at Law r 4040 Douglas P.O. Box 1708 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 RE : River's Edge/Riverview Park - Cottonwood Treo Dear Stuart: ` ° The city is in receipt t of your �� in which you demand that the of Lake tOswego toter of �.�arant a tree 9tcutting permit within 24 hours for the large cottonwood tree re.2cated at the entrance to the River 's Edge development. You make this request because a "high :potential for totaloandapartial razany , states that partial Bobfailure. `` As you ,know, the Development Revir. condition of approval to the RiverEdge wDevelopment thatattached Board (DRB) a entrance road to the development be designed to the • ' cottonwood tree. 9 preserve this , This condition was Imposed pursuant to significant neighborhood concern that this tree be preserved, and the lack of any information presented by the developer at that time that the tree was dying or a hazard. e 49 .125( 4) prolnibits the city from changing any econdition Oswegooimposed) by the Development Review Board unless the change is processed as a new application which requires a Development Review Board. public hearing in front of the condition would have to be affirmativelyient should changedeevenre iftht this were removed pursuant to a tree cutting permit. ) the tree Tree cutting permits are defined as "minor developments" . pursuant to LOC 49 . 140( 1 ) (K) . LOC 49 .140( 2) states that any proposed minor development which occurs as an integral part of a proposed major development shall be processed as part of that major development. For these reasons, it is the city's staff interpretation that only the Development Review Board has the authority to approve removal of the tree at this time . r F, . R ` 300"A"AVENUE / POST OFFICE BOX 369 / LAKE O5WEC o, ORECON 97034 / (503) 635.0225 + , ,1 n • Mr. Stuart 0. Kendall June 20, 1991 Page 2 The city understands your concern regarding potential liability. Based upon city staff 's review of the report, however, the city believes that the lity can be , significantly reduced if the large limbeis1 removed al ifrom the tree. A tree can be pruned without the necessity of getting a tree cutting permit, and the report indicates that removal of this large limb will significantly reduce the immediate potential of the tree 's failure. In order to expedite the review process in ', r the interim, the City will forward the request condition of approvalq to amend that to the Development Review Board for hearing. Because of notice requirements , that hearing will have to be held on August 5, 1991 . Your client expressed concern about the daisy of his project. Because he has an approved permit, the city has no objection to his proceeding with those portions of the ; • development which would not be affected by the pro osed amendment. Your client must understand, however, p proceeds at his own risk . that he If you have any questions , please do not hesitate to call. lAr5i?2:-. , e ey G. Condit City Attorney JGC :bp cc: Jerry Baker, City Engineer Tom Coffee, Planning Director Peter C. Harvey, City Manager x" Bob Galante, Senior Planning cao2 .corr-10 ;9 • 0 tr+ i x -"alk • JUN 2 1 1991 hetifttLedro°60 June 21, 1991 Willard Moore 5470 SW Childs Rd Lake Oswego Ore 97035 Director of Public Works Phone 598-0195 3880 "A" Ave Lake Oswego Ore 97034 • RE: Emergency tree removal at Riverview Park-Childs Rd and Canal Rd ` Dear Sir, I am requesting an emergency permit under section 55,070 of the tree cutting ordinance for removal of a cottonwood tree that is in a hazardous condition. I am attaching a letter from my attorney and copies of three letters from an arborist retained in this matter. The letter from the City of Lake Oswego dated June 20th, stated that " the city believes that the potential liability can be significantly reduced if the large limb is removed from the tree". Nowhere in the arborist reports • does it indicate that the tree could be made safe by any measure, except by removal. He begins his last letter by stating that there is "serious potential in all or part and should not be retained". And ends his letter, by saying that even after the limb is removed and other measures taken, that there • can be no guaranty for the safety of this tree, , On June 14, I applied for a tree cutting permit, which has not been granted. The continued liability and threat to persons and property forces • me to seek a permit under section 55.070. • Sincerely yours, • • • (}/belitt • Willard T, Moore • • • • M „ f T .ro M `1 bat , STUART O. KENDALL . . -• ATTORNEY AT LAW 4040 DOUGLAS WAY-P.O•BO% 1708 LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97035 (503)635.7773 June 20, 1991 Mr. Willard T. Moore 5470 Childs Road Lake Oswego, OR 97035 RE: 72" Cottonwood • Dear Bill: After our discussions yesterday and today, I contacted Bob Mazamy who is very familiar with the facts about the tree. He advised that the tree was particularly unsafe at this time because of the wet weather causing both the Weight of the tree to increase due to increased moisture on the leaves, and the wet soil condition causing an increased likelihood of failure of root system to maintain stability. In his opinion, this is an emergency ; .situation and I agree with him. , I personally looked at the tree today and feel that if it fell,it may fall over the existing road causing potential and even death. Mr. Mazamy advised that he has seven cases mofefall- ing trees in which he is now involved; three of them involve fatalities. It is my opinion based on the information from him and my personal observation that this is an emergency situation and falls within the tree cutting ordinance of Section 55. 070 dealing , with emergencies. 2 recommend you take the action necessary to remove the tree in �' _ accordance with Section 55. 070. This may impact your plan approval pproval for River's Edge and you will ire taking that risk, but I feel your liability is so great if you 5 ' cn't remove the tree that you may need to take that business risk. Very truly yours,, r �,rV / i. fie L / STUART 0. KENDALL SZK,Jmd • • f • eC= -- 9 1 WED 1 f) _ t52 P . S 1 • • - 6' t Sal .c1 �;.. Z azaruny CV2 c �SOCiaEEl _ u1r t1 Att A lowel 6, xan24c.)L C O/21ULttR `�e:t�•tCC MEMORANDUM • TO; Bill Moore • Benett-Moore FROM: Bob Mazany ASCA #133 : /✓ / Consulting Arborist Ar DATE: July 2, 1991 RE: Riverview Park Cottonwood Lake Oswego On June 24, 1991, I retained another arborist from Pruett Tree service to ascend this tree to retrieve branch samples to further ,a. determine the extent of decay and potential for failure of or within this tree . There is sufficient evidence of decay and structural weakness present for me to once again (see memorandum dated July 16, 1990, February 25, 1991 and June 12, 1991) recommend the immediate removal of this tree to preclude the possibility of an accident occurringnow or duringthe the development of this area. process of p This information, prior to my last • site visit, was discussed by telephone with Mr. Ker"tal1, your attorney, on June 20, 1991 . Thank you for the opportunity to be of service , Please contact me if further information is required. • • • • • t • . , • • . • • • . . • • . • • . . ' . . • • , ': .. , . , • I , , i 1 I . . '• " 1 I J 1 . 1 . . I - -7.N., CHILDS 110,40 I . I 1 i •••'•-N-,N:• •• •• •••,..4........ •'l'-''s s.....N ••••-'-'-- .-".--''.... .." ••••••:•'‘ 1 .. . ,, ..•••<''.. '11' , 1,..!,•.•••••••1 ). • ......) I , •'' , ..,•' ...N.' . ..* . . • ...• .., . ...., A • ' e '4VIZIk"°-% .•••••'*:"A' ,'7 . r eq..% • ' :::`,IT.s^ , ,.....4...1. "r,\'`--•,•-c— • ' 1 1'r 11:141,,,q::VU1N . I I . I' '2r. ,..s, •PROPOSED PARR..:‘,..„. • ....".........•...:••.• 4.1; • . 7...I'''. .,, ' ''.1 ...(.4--' 1 . ....a. ) • a .."--..)."---j • t GI45V"%,A•0 er.V"-k . .,„1.•^%/ • ' ..''''''' .4' ' ......,•;"-- i . ' „a* ,./ ".., ..,..,,T.t."c:i-ro, / , ' , t,,,,,:'" er i• it; a..... •:`,.. ).:.,.,... ••••• • f• 1,,,,.., ...,., . . . u . ..„ s PROPOSIO PARR..) .• , LA,C.41.41 U‘A . I O :I.›. • 'I•••••P P 0P •••'. I I• X ..,--1- 3 , ,,,...:.,..: • . . , •,.00----,- ..• . . 1 ,„„ Z .,......„-cr ,.. „ , .,. „.,... ........„ IA I . ,:'' • i. i i • • ...Lio. ow.p P P1/ 11! . •t • i ••• i' .:pt'....r.‘..,'"o'f'.;;.""'1..,t1..„..,,14.....f,': \r.:.,„...: .1:47. :1, 1 ' 1.11.4 ,:,.11,4«, ":2,.,"..::I. :1/. /lc' - .2!...,—------••,z;s„ gt.._,...''' ,ti , . . • i i ..'',. *.e. % •...4 ''' 1 ...^...!. 7-'':••••'"1.1.11•1411 I. V. I. ''.... 1 j" 1 '44• / . I ' 1 ,i A 0 1 ,• I • o :.41,, J .4..1. „,,r.•t .4.1 , ."--i .,40:,.4. ttli-a c., ..,1,. A ,• . it..,, .,x--.2,..............._. ..... "......• • I ,.. . •$• I ..-... r . ..,..: i*I., ' • "'"'°Q0 WIN( • r • i I . -.., ..-..,, 1 -1 , • , „ ..,,x4P•••... I I ..• I Pi/ / / f I / I I I , / ::V,,..r..4.;74'..,-,:le.r,:n.::l.ucx.142,4": .,T.,..—, . , •t RIVERVIEW PA 19 K . ,.......,...i.u.,.........,..,..,,.. itr.lt.A. mitotli „.,.!urg.,.... ,.. ... .,oe-•••%,„ • TENTATIVE PLAN • _. lAcknIA.I.... !tilt mii.a.itia•ttiir: Sellt r I IOW 42:141M:1111 'iii; 1 itt..i i414411111. I::titigsrt./OM BOUNDARY DATA PLAN .. . ::::.141,11,1:I,“ ... ••••,-- • , I- MI••••OW 011.1p ....I.. .,. a lailtlac iyaift i:tiL4tierrili•L;XII.4 it•it. 'I-. I.) 1' ''' 1. .1 ,.....7.,n,,,,_. ........ . t,,,,, ..1 , ialstisc Rd ....s.i«4 tali. , II :.1. "-II-. 1 1 i..: ;;.ii,.. ,....„.„,, 1:3,:tax!,11nt,'12:1.:1;:.: "-V,-*--'7.-P—' - If NO II to/1 MA II "..[••••p...-•—•••••:4ttLi,...,,,, yaii.Oil I,to,i i,•• II ..1 ,4...!,, to aailiiii LAN.'itiltilai'' ......, atiLitiii ;:t!'• V•rilitiViii•itti."1" 14 tiaiSiV"1 11........1 .0 .\ • • , 0.1001 M.It 10111.....Yet. . 4 '"" ititiii "' It4IC AL it'll t I i I C?ION '/.':11L•riiliw. _tvoleAt. WU! ItttioN ,•,••• ill.titt"Ut!ir.lain . ..r,14411 • . I i. •In.It 1••••11.01 014 1041 .... ..........::.; 1.4•11......1.AI M 0 OM I 14.40 .k. , . SHEET2 of 1,.. 411. . . . • , I 4 . . * cl, • (, •.• . .., • . '• 1. . . . . .' • . . . ., n . . . ` • City O/. Lake Oswego • • • � NO. . 7/ ISSUED ,..,,LLY.,.(zy 3 ..:„19 LOCATION _-_ " ,5 dos ee (,..1_,..v '" 1,ioa � t' `___i" _ `J S 12.t7 x C►WN CR d ..C--.) o. Of Trees To Be Removed s- •1:c;. 66 , ••-. c 7.3.4�-� Cty Hall , Telephone— 636.3603 THIS PERMIT RUST' BE POSTED ALONG VIT BLDG. N • • • • • • • ;r • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ��}ra�' y`• �' *' .x • •h i Ait ,,,,Lzt) H . .. ,..,.... • • .. ,t, .„ . • • , , . . • . . , . . . • . . . . . . 4 ,. . .. i` a . . . . • I ' • • n. pad • • • • • • •V y. 1,11 k.. d • d'. .` i r •� / a «n . t '! - _ r N'' WILLIAM L. OWEN and ASSOCIATES Tree and Landscape Consulting Services n ' P.O.BOX 641,PORTLAND,OREGON 97207 503/222-7007 503/656-7057 .wr,c.racnrr of `•r, 'a July 16, 1991 Mr. Hamid Pishvaie Development Review Planner .:' City of Lake Oswego PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Dear Mr. Pishvaie: J� f •` . As you requested, I have examined carefully the very large, felled cottonwood tree located next to Canal Road, off Childs Road in Lake Oswego. The purpose of the examination • ti was to determine insofar as possible whether the tree was a hazard tree prior to its being felled, due to imperfections, flaws, decay, etc. in the stem (trunk) or scaffold/crown branching system. During my examination, I inspected numerous tree parts quite closely, from the stump to the extremities, as they are now scattered about the area near the ` stump in the direction of fall. In addition, increment borings were taken at significant points of suspicion along the stem and major branches where decay was suspected or present. The inspections have revealed the following: ,, • 1) Though somewhat wilted because of the time delay since felling, the foliage and outer facade crown branch's appeared typical for the species. 2) Located variously at the base of the tree were parts of branches averaging five to ten inches in diameter, which were dead or in some stage of decay, minor to severe. Presumably, these fell from the tree during the pruning , prior to the felling. •- 3) The stump and main stem appeared to be basically sound to the first 30 40 feet of the stem. 4) At approximately 30 feet, two branch stubs show decay forming in a ring inside the holding wood, which is approximately 1/2 to 3/4 Inches in thickness in the upper stub. 5) At 80 feet an included bark crotch was present indicating a red flag situation with high propensity for failure. 6) At 90 feet a large wound section from an old branch loss had not closed, with substantial decay and rot visible inside, On the ground at this point 4. (90 feet), I found a cut branch approximately 7.50" in diameter with a lateral approximately 7" in diameter with substantial decayed wood inside. 4` EXHIBI-T .. Giv*trf INSPECTION.DIAGNOSIS AND I VALC'A•T'ION OE TREES,S SIMI'DS AND RELATED PLANTIN CONSI'LTATION WITI I ICESPI:C:'( To)PLANTING. ' J.:"," v "' T f213SER A`I'ION.MAIN ,G[+` ql" AKnOREAL PLANNING COMI'I2H D NSI�'E LOSS OR DAMAGE REPORTS.DI'LY SANL'T1ONE' I FOR LEGAL OR C:C)NTRAC;1'l'AL PI%POSES LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE TESTIMONY IN COC'T2 '`— — • • Letter to Mr. Hamid Pishvaie '•. July 16, 1991 • } Page 2 6) (continued) An average of only 3/4" of holding wood was surrounding the disintegrating • centers, extending the full 18"of the sample below the point at which it had • broken. The sample is marked and near the tree at this time. 7) At approximately 96 feet, a major side/scaffold branch, 17" in diameter, formed a crotch with the main stem, with included bark at that point. , Approximately 14 inches above that crotch on a side 17" branch was a 5" dead branch stub with resultant typical decay moving down into the parent branch toward the included bark crotch. This situation is typical of wound response decay and is the single most dangerous area in the entire main stem of tree, considering its relationship to the upper scaffold. } ` 8) At 117 feet in the scaffold, another major included bark crotch a 14" and 12" lateral branch relationship with a high potential for failure. 9) Similar situation to #6 above could occur at approximately 123 feet. Decay , had begun in side branches in that area. Increment Borings; At 36 feet, decay - 4-1/2" in just above 2" branch bark ridge. 0 ,. At 48 feet, eight inches below branch stub, decayat tipof bore, a8" approximately inside. At 63 feet, boring through center of limb shows substantial decay. At 78 feet, fourteen inches below wound center of trunk, decay approximately 7" inside. nsideY At 78 feet, below a major wound, decay found at depth of 3-5 inches, below branch on right side of wound. At 90 feet, some decay found at tip of boring (1-1/4") at 9" depth, ;- Conclusions: i This specimen of Cottonwood is typical of the species and has, no doubt, reached full maturity and is probably movinginto typical , low grade senescence. The decay onset is • typically normal, caused by branch breakage, wounds from other sources, and unknown •stresses in the trees past. it is the way trees show age. Senescence is not necessarily rapid in onset, but can move rapidly or slowly, with decline '�breakage, dead wood, and, in worst-case situations, complete failure ocharacterized sr ffold bra by nches . or entire stems, d branches • 0 • •, ♦• ., , - if' a: • I Letter to Mr. Hamill Pishvaie July 16, 1991 ;a Page 3 U' During an inspection of this tree you requested of me as friend-of-the-court in February 1991, I noted that the tree had substantial dead wood in its crown, including dead °•y „"; hanging branches, and informed you at that time that the tree could Indeed be hazardous, but that I would need time to have an expert climber inspect the tree at my direction to bring me samples prior to making any further judgement. I did caution at that time • against building the road between the tree and the canal and recommended that the road • be taken well out beyond the tree, beyond the drip line away from the creek. 56 At this time the tree contains many serious hazard or potential hazard pockets within its •t stem crown configuration, including one major point for potential stern disintegration and failure at approximately 90 feet (see above #7). Any of these points could have failed at s - any time had the tree remained, during wind, ice or snow storms, or on a still, in the heat of summer. This situation is only exacerbated when decay and holding wood erosion are occurring steadily as is the case in certain areas of this specimen. Obviously, ` • A high winds, ice, snow, or even heavy rains in full foliage can create stresses which can result in failure when weak points, such as exist in this specimen, are present at various lit . points throughout the scaffold. The tree, therefore must be called a hazard tree. Due to its immense size, it had a e!'•}potential very wide "target" area possible under and around it. With a proposed roadway, homes and people in them being planned for the area, the conclusion is obvious that safety has to be a primary consideration. The tree could have remained, but if it had, my recommendation unavoidably would have been to severely pollard the tree, to bring it down to the 90 foot level below the major flaw found in the stem. In addition, the side branches up to that point: would have been reduced substantially so that the tree would have become what is known In arboriculture as a "hat rack" specimen. The tree then would have been physically "safe" fror,n blowing down or from failure at any point because the size and weight balance would have been ,reduced to a point where that would be possible. However, it shortly would have begun to grow advantitious sprouts of two types, elite and suppressed, From these a high profile of maintenance care would have resulted in the development of a new crown over time,but based in much weaker branch/stem unions because of the nature of the growth of even • the elite sprouts. The tree would then have been growing itself into a more dangerous situation from failure each ensuing year. The species grows rapidly and the danger would increase with that growth. Constant monitoring and annual pruning would have been absolutely necessary in that instance, as well as cultural maintenance and Insect/disease control. The question then becomes does one want a pollarded and quite ugly partial remains of what once was a beautiful old tree, simply to keep the tree and have it safe? The alternative to the severe pollarding would be, of course, removal. After careful and thoughtful consideration of all of the factors, on a cost-benefit ratio, and a dead-end ' basis for care and hazard reduction In the years ahead if the tree had remained, I would have recommended removal. • • . 4 u. Letter to Mr• Hamid Pishvaie iP July 16, 1991 Page 4 • • ', However, the choice would have to have been made by the City as to whether or not it wished to take or the added burden of maintenance of what can o; ly be called ugly remains over time in a dead-end situation. Decisions regarding tree safety are ones the Consulting Arborist must face but which are never pleasant. However, when one has seen a number of fatalities from failure of trees and faces the question "could this failure have been avoided had expert eyes looked at this • tree before the fact?", one is sobered at the prospect. The decision, prudently taken, then must be made on the side of safety for persons and property. There is an old saying, " the only safe tree is a stump." That is as true as it is irrelevant in these situations. No consultant worth his salt will practice arboriculture in that manner • • when it comes to a tree of this magnitude. However, the evidence Is very clear in this 1 ` case. Removal was a most prudent possible option. The next possible: option has been recited above and was a decision only the City could have made. I trust this report is sufficient for your needs in this matter. If you need further informat.nn relative to hle above, please advise me. • a• / Kr ,�, •; Very urtaly y r' r • Aile f 4//jf / a William L. Owen, B.S., M.A., C.A. American Society of Consulting ArborIsts • • WLO:ps • • • • • 1 -•_.- 2 'i !�'7 '/ S -- cc- to Y/ n I ,' `''•• ' `; ' 72,63 ,• • � - 72-71e- / • '. - I , � .. . ... ., .,.,••••:. • . , _z---- 1' o -°t/p /./. "� . i . . . ,. :" -4,,...7. .. ,. . ... ., UE9-- 7 '•- �v - - /A) Erg • • :AUGG 2• ;'v''; 't'„/i ?12i1/n/)f-fzNzj, ' TUit/,¢ y--.T LcVGL.• 03'E- �9}f o S.t/G/.,JC. , � ��C)• 75') -`.-- ?t 2 r�/'c//� G� tl ,Y''?JJ2.'` e,� w r,� ���w� ( 4 'ivi/slcr" /die•.' s/z 1 _ /e&-- it/� L r ,T,.� /iL//6�?T� t o, . • . GA'x.• vAl moo, 7 i�z�U�; P . •{ ,}. �-/.ems` , ;¢rj� "• l�'• ., 7'7'Z--�- / ,' `' �v '.par- eiU: 7,z, R aR-.D` ' -,; / r - � / � �rf1� /�f.� ` 4s , ,'vd7--= r L , 3/7zc/ L' 0 V7 /W7— lej'T1/74.5 77FEEs C9y ,• .� - ; �� T vac/ - ! - , S - L�fr '� '9= /z,biTh j�� � tJL7 " ' • � r 'r-�, '1vim, l T9�5 ,, Pik'' Ao ,t)0T r� ‘--- re 7z) err/�.T r'�/ 77?& / 74J7� �.¢ /; a9/ ` 'ZT � s1- G--77741� . ., ,y/T ,/. M Y r • • S�C/,L' , � 7 4 'dot//71G-�A f�'' �JG 7� - -z'��/u 17'S". EV Z- W( 707T (Lif 45 r'Vl 7 •,/ !'G¢e. ,r , 112 C4174/.t/d7 ' 1; .'; ':.1 y 725P •. �� I1&- n� , c Ge)/T Tom` /1•1 -'w 0des . ' ,kip.,f7.-477.,.?* . , vom , _2.. , -I ?' V'zJ z eL. /ice i I l /7- l/L� ' /067if4e'l 4'z ?Z5-9-7"' e�, " 5,-. 1.er.e?•4,,,,,.iv /� / ei�'-(�/� j�//y/y�1 , /J�` erf ���/) y 1. a d i• ��v0r . T 7 /5 r,�-Ifs • /1)1,7- ,� -- 7-77 Z-4457' -a 1 ., 77/h "' 5'L7� ,/�,e 'jam`•� ,P1/!. b'- T_ ry'.. ; 1 �,� ... yr ,1 1t;'" \ \ .i\i" v r�'r•` Id" } • ''! ,•r/•. , ' -' ' ,//.�yt/,''♦, ,-•i •�• +•id a t i 1 I 1 •)• f \ r .t 11//-/�/���✓�//�l�( f, G�.. �•,fiC.�-�G/� •p` \. ".:**.f..', I I) .It"' '''!4't 4 ..' ! ". :.. . 'i. . ,/ . . .d:i/.4 i ih ' •";(0- • 'I'' ""*• ' ''' 0 ., ,., . • • 1• • ,•ct::• Al."`;.Al."`;. }y. 1. IY 1I/ .1 1 1•• Y, • (' • 4 �t - ` ..••_ A 1. 11' •l� :� . I .4.+ • ^\ " ' t • I. .i 1 '. I..M . • • jr • •- + 4, ,i. .. r8 t, i • a. f' �. ••r.' r,a:. k9'; '' ' Lake Oswego City Council)and Development Review Board ' �, City Hall } ' Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 August 31, 1991 SEP 3 1' i1 Na ' ' 1/ r r2E: Case File NO: DR 10-91 IIenet Moore Homes, and the .development of his proposal on property Assessor Map NO: 2 1E20BC, Tax Lots 400,500,600, 700,800,& 900, and Tax lots 100 r.; sr101 of Tax Map 221E 19AD, and concerning permits to davelop b r this property with a high density of homes at the expanse of ;;:; our environment. Comments of Robert Knight .� 4800 SW Dogwood Drive Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035: .. .lentlemen: ±e anger I feel for Mr. Moore and his associates is great, .:,+fit • I will contain my emotions and tell you a story of destruction. r _ have owned property on Dogwood Drive since 1943. ` p p y g `te third house on this road, and literallyhand built Were ilt our home as there was no electricity here at the time. . tit-Tiously, we have witnessed great changes in this area over tye past forty eight years, some good - some terrible,and !.=owing up in this area was most appreciated as an adult. The ,G memories are still vivid, and hopefully you will see a ' • =ttern of needless destruction that can 't go on if life is r' to bave�home worth having. v.w e Sli al .a y ,r` When my parents built our home on Dogwood Drive there were fir trees on this property with trunks five and six feet in diameter not only on our;h y property but all over that now owned n by Mr. Moore. In the 50 's Mr. Stonebrink, owner at the time, , y logged the property of every fir tree, an operation that lasted several months. He devastated a unique and beautiful natural forest. Nobody could stop him. After all it was his land. There was an old wagon trail that ran through the '' property. On it I found wagon parts, horse-shoes, a military saddle, and all kinds of old bottles. The trees were so tall • and large in diameter that it kept the forest floor free of scrub timber. The trilliums would bloom by the thousands . :•• i It looked as though it had snowed until they turned purple, and other flowers my mother called "tiger lilies and lady slippers . " It was paradise of beauty and a playground of fun and exploration for us children. It' s not all gone yet. The center of the property would flood every year and remained a wetlands most of the year. Wetland grasses � `. surrounded the standing water. (I built a sled with a sail and would zoom over the ice and snow in winter. ) The wetlands and grasses provided and still do provide a great habitat for frogs (my favorite) , quaill, pheasant, ducks,and yes even foxes and deer. It won 't be long if the likes of Mr. Moore and Mr. Stonebrink have their way. ; At the corner of Childs Road and Canal Road there was a small • grocery store and gasoline station. They had two pumps , the kind which had a glass top. You would pumpthe . gas up into o, • the glass container then gravity flow into the car ' s gas tank L . (myfirst • job) . You may take note that those old gasoline storage tanks are probably still in the ground at that site. The family who owned the store and station lived in a small adjoining house with chickens ,goats , milk cows etc. . . f y lj . . 1 -,• p, ti. FN The cottonwood tree Mr. Moore destroyed served us as children by lending its branches for a rope swing forty eight years ' ago. It was a healthy tree. It was destroyed needlessly. • Greed: ti, Now we come to Mr. Moore. In my estimation he is not • credible, and is not willing to lay his plans on the table honestly. The neighborhood went to his meeting on August : 28th,1991 in good faith. No answers were given and many, many "i don 't know "to our questions. How can a permit be given to a person who doesn 't know why he bought 30 plus 'acres when he only wants to build thirteen houses on five acres . Obviously, he is evasive about his intentions for• other 25 acres. the At the rate of 3.3 houses per 5 acres (13X6=approximately 78 possible homes on that site) that 6natural environment that i in the final stages of complete destruction. • He never intended to live up to the original agreed 32 with a 25 foot conservation zone on Dogwood and Sycamore, the preservation of the wetlands , acceptable to all of the residents on Dogwood Drive and Sycamore Drive. • cottonwood tree after the one year obligation totladhere e cut the Q'. ' the original development plan had expired. His argument that the cottonwood tree was not sound and Sanger to passerb a � y is a farce. Our property faces north on , Dogwood Dr. near the intersecttion of Sycamore.moxe. That particular corner has been a hazard for years due to * 4 unattended growth blocking ,• visibility of oncoming traffic and • pedestrians walking on that less than sixteen foot wide road, T Y and until recently a blind corner where brush grew right up and onto the road. -3- • • / )J 1 4 There were many near tragedies at that corner. If Mr. Moore is so concerned about the safety of passersby, why didn 't�do something about that overgrowth? The county finally cut that overhanging growth so they could get ready for paving Sycamore and Dogwood Drives after three years of petitioning them to make these roads passable without damage to , • automobiles. (Nothing has been done to these roads for forty- five years. ) Now that the county is going to fix our roads, • Mr. Moore' s trucks and heavy equipment moving and parking on A,' these narrow roads will make a mess of them. If you have not been on Childs Road it will be impossible for ' ‘ ` you to make a proper decision concerning this roject' s n impact on this area. Go down Sycamore to Dogwood, turn around, and go out on to Childs Rd. People literally take f their lives in their hands when entering it. Co experience it L for yourselves! Then tell us that development of thisproject is good for this area and the environment. Tell us that you are willing to help destroy the last of its kind in Lake Oswego. Tell us that you are willing to oversee a legacy of rape and destruction for the questionable value of the dollar! , Now I ask you, please be responsible for good management and government in L.O. Don 't allow Mr. Moore or anyone to destroy r � this beautiful area for reasons of greed. Yes , I beg of you to stop this man until he comes up with a total plan for all of that land. Yes, a plan that does not rape the land for profit. We all are interested in logical development. Mr. Mitchell ' s plan was acceptable. Why did Mr. Moore find it unacceptable?p Please, see this man and his associates for what they are, exploiters who care nothing about us or our .. environment. Thank you. Sincerely, 4 0 . .. , i Y C L� •:0v a"'' ' tJ • ,°spa„ 11I.'. ' �.+ ` ✓� by I ° d4rt'• ... ._ W(E OF GSIy OREGOX4 P b DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM 'r TO: Development Review Board • FROM: Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Planner SUBJECT: DR 10-91 DATE: September 14, 1991 • Attached for your review are the additional information on DR 10- 91 received after the writing of the September 6, 1991, staff memorandum. Exhibit 7 Letter by Mr. & Mrs . Kelly E. McCarthy attachments, dated August 15, 1991 (with Exhibit 8 Letter by Natural Resources Commission, Undated • • (N.!1 _ .1%i\ "Hu • 1..M 0i% '°,,1 1 1 • �, .uu' k'. �;q y r I�SI ti:^ �' •irP�7 +r* r r •,1°il; • w • • i • , 0 I. 6 • • • • August 15, 1991 �i " ✓/ WTM Development 5470 Childs Road Y, 'E X 1�0 8 s ir_. h- Lake Oswego, Oregon .97035 7 ,' . , i , ,f Dear Sirs: ' 1,0 /0 —`1..i. As the sole residents of Canal Rd., we would like it brought to your attention that we consider the fallen tree and stump on your property off Canal Rd. to be an eye sore and possible fire hazard. We would greatly appreciate it if you would dispose of the tree and stump as goon as possible, a _ In regards to the controversy over whether the tree should have been cut down in the first place, we would like to make our opinion known. We travel Canal Rd. a minimum 'of twenty times a day in order to get to and Prim eur home. We have on several occasions encountered tree limbs from the co •oversial Cottonwood blocking access to our home. One such limb was large enough that it required two adults to move it out of the way. We were very grateful that the ,, . ' limb did not fall on one of us or our children. We concur with the arborist • that it was an immediate hazard and needed to come down. The idea that other M ` limbs would not have fallen while city officials took the time to hold a hearing is not very comforting to people who actually live on this road and N travel it numerous times daily. If you remember correctly, we questioned the condition of the tree when you first started to discuss keeping the tree as '. j. part of the development and asked you to have it checked out with an expert A first. • Since the controversy over whether the tree should have been fallen originally ;, t•, is actually moot at this point, we would like to once more ask you to clean up the downed tree and its stump. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, ' . .n1140 iail. kW. 40-9 ' 0...eak Mr. and Mrs. :telly E. McCarthy and a:nily C77y 41,,, , a4izen, 4,,,,,,, ...?,,, „,..,..„,,,, . , . . *, ', 4 (94tUle 1 6 4 5 Oa, q70,35 ,,, , , a a ,r (or( ) pr,'kd-� y� .v'if' V , V,• • 0 • 0 . / • _i—,,-a rnY _, , :f 1;f �a� v t . ,ii .�. .q4 •, k. Y ,. . •,r. :i�'^'i ,9,• it •r :�9. '.6 t [. ,.r. r, ..,{..r,. '..a ,:- .'w��� N,'rt, { ..� '.4 - ,.ri -� <"T..-i, {; ',E �," l •e' .'ill t7 '1.i1. } f d .li ;}4.,T r )r' r t t ,.r t r {'r► ,��• .aY r'. •,t Ip'"'�d , „t'., ;C• '.�I,:,l,,.Y. t;, N, Fiq -! +L`•d t'.t.,t--li,.,d sl1. .?� 1,- .. ��{t s ,, i .cf= g•i,},.,;I, ► ! < +. ., ' .�" i ' • )�-, �RIDAY 7 . . h�.vj,r !• w,,, ,-. �,. .,.,.:.,� , i,,� r..,f r.: #:t.v: l + '.,, 1,�? w,, T,r'. CO ? ,. . olr Storms �' v�' '''• N1 High 78-83 • r „ — tx. h,Augrsst 2, 1991 Voice of the Rocky Mountain Empire Rockies Edition 125 cents ' . .. Y,; - •� , r �; rJlp + - +.. ! h' ]N' ..,2._5., rw t�l• '+' 'F , _. ,n.:,,� 4r 1' I • -,• , r 1.1 `Iy', ,J'5 trs 1 ...•. rY 1 • v 1 1 1 i , , l,r• �,Stl JiR..I✓I1.4. •,,,•L tie�M'.L1:., v ! tt ,��►,' �''� � �( , ;t ��.�,�l. { iv ' Qs/.'0 � � �b/ esboy at '�j7S�.'�.7r. Y• it ll'� i , '� i) t Qr t `Mt'oy. ' ,►d1 t'..walk 1 M•v'1t� '' ! 'f , , ..�•. --.,, �4---- 11.it: 11,1vit 1,14 k. W1+1 (, 1t-,f� I.C,f ./.? �, I **,,,*%1,r f • ,l• �, 1 ti U ,ti •. ,.,,tit 0t'�411141171r771".VI CI T'.lw t, t e ti Longmont 5 vear-old killed as 900-pound cottonwood branch falls r y:r a• •k� i,t 41_ i t I. 0 � '1 • ,�, E 1 .• . . ). N u , u ,t , Y,r } 7S , •1 j r 1 y By Tracy Solpel I don't think the tittle guy even "He was my favorite, said a ' t , S t; ,+ "'; , , Iey /' ',' ;• ' '`I = , s , g P g I, , yt< �S. , .:'!'I p,,,• . ,I l Sle (, 9. ,•fir' ,� • ; t cw,ola,!Punt Watt wdmr know what hit him," said Lon choked-up Iiel of father of 10 ' !-J LONGMONT A 5•year•old moot police Li.Carl McLdyre Ile children and grandfather of 22.Be i f ' ' I' ',. ` , i' ditto `, ;f'' ' ,i ` �r't' v ,,, Longmont boy was killed and his said that in his 15 years with the and his wife,Catherine,had visited •.7,. i . +k ;• \e ",,.1 .i vet, :' ',r+ /•. , ,! w when a 900- department, he had never seen a with Ian,Stuart and Hel oth's only -. A''' t I'j 7 :'. ''' `,7t A] , d I ,' 4!, V;�! i s; , ,, • a playmate InjuredP 1 g w,f n/. r tl ,; + b ' ,1 r u a poc:nd tree ihub tell on them at lrlw caltse such serious injury. child,just 10 days aga `'•' �,r °�`:;,s''�:�r'l�x'`e. ,',�1„`�,iJ, �.,�,.�t�+71'�bt,y` {';+�1, }' � �"z Sucshine l're•School Summer The cottonwood trce's limb, 12 "My wife always says,'You die ;.,,i,- •', , tt,`.I�+n., f taa �t'�, "� ,r y,l ,i.if. M.. 41. , i.li �: w Camp yesterday, shortly before inches in diameter and 90'feet long, when you're supposed to die,'and I t;r'_.1t,t t, , iI ;,>. . '4,1; :• '�. ,;0" 1 } ,.•. 11•11 A:,•,„ , • ,: parents were due to attend skits fell 5l feet, always tell her,'Hell,no,there's al- Tr '"�t' ', , iy; IC;t;f^r .f"1,,0+"i, `111' '1 ''' - + 4, j,k1` 4'"'lt'i4t;t+;,"' • and sing-Menge , ways a way to prevent It.'But that , 1 ` t< 4„,+ •I, i „�l' + , fl}6,1.?!,I.1, .1i, • t.;.i' • , nl r r', N r+ a , r t t , , Ian's parents tilde not But Harold 1;, /i 1:�•,: I }$,V.. `'fit "',,sl 2., it , '*r ,!'"s- •• t' tan Stuart son of Evan Stuart to the r� eslerda . llarald wasn't the case here.It's a sorrow• ��"�,;` +� - ;4" '� � � a�u ,,} ,{ , ,�, , .,r P Y' Yful thin Y 1, • ;� ^'%ter •r1 � , I: f,!*'',1 j i4 a lb .k „t,.,,1;!4 ':: and Linda lielgoth, was rushed to Hclgolh, the boy's 00-year•old b' ?� �''�� s;{r t •.:: i'll' `j va:A+'+ M " +'ljr ,1 , ' A-' air .f hrt►' tf t4,1.wi•�rl., teoxtnont United Hospital inunedi• grandfather,said Evan Stuart told Ian's 5-year-old playmate,Bran- ' , 7 :_ y , e).08,1 r•f', ' ,> t. 1 t t, ,1,;, ,•, {l,fr ; r,.' 77 „ r ate➢,' after the freak incident at him he had dropped off ian at the don Martin, was treated and re- I ,: :'. Jr;;, .Y j t,t ., " , " w ' 91.. a m, in Roosevelt Perk:Doe- preschool at the St•Vrain Mernori- leased from Longmont United with 'FAVORITE': .tt r f �'' `. ""e " ``4" tort performed enter.ene surge al in the ark had run a slight concussion and minor ian Stuart was de- ,,, '. r y: t ` y�t;'Sr e'y�) . tP,�'yfin �����. ., •.,- e%'r , °f ' b Y r surgery Building P e . •-. ,,,::.;, ♦..;�:,,.', ,eI.''?/'1r�%'-enej1 Y '}'t�I;l,�t,ft /. ,r a., to treat massive internal injuries, some errands and was driving by serapes. scribed by his -•� - but ian was pronounced dead the school on his way home when grandfather as'my ' TtfuO ,r'uiuJettycl.nt.,t1, ' shortly before noon. he saw Ian in the ambulance. Please see TREE on 18A favorite.' SCENE OF TRAGEDY:city employees remove sections of the tree limb. " • ti.' p / s.• . 1 „y,� .'r i p F i • • p, , .: t., '.,y Cottonwood limb falls, i , . . .. . . ... : , kills 5-year-old at camp . . TREE from Page IA screaming"she said."I asked.him , y _ , what happened, and he Said, 'A • "I felt extremely tortunote — tree?' He doesn't remember any- my son was right next to him," thing. He doesn't want to talk Brandon's mother, Natalie Martin, about it. All he said is that be got ' ' . • • saaid yesterday. "But I feel devas- up to play and he was hit. . . . fated for the other family." Her Someone was watching over Bran- husband, Terry, drove to Long- don yesterday." most from Westminster, where he At least six children wore under F ' ' works at a body shop, to be with the tree playing games when the her and Brandon at the hospital. ' limb cracked. "If the teacher "We were there(at the hospital) hadn't heard it crack, and yelled when the other boy died. And I for them to run, there would be didn't know hire, but when they mare"injuries,said Longmont po- r' told us he had died, a part of me Iice Capt. Terry Lauber'. • via. died, too," Natalie Martin said. Forestry experts believe the 'u She dropped off Brandon at 9 limb was weakened by bacterial a.m. and returned at I t a.m. to wetwood, a common disease that participate in the parent-student eats away at trees, and fungus. day activities. But when she ar- "If you,were to examine 200 rived,she found police officers and trees,you'd find wetwood in 190 of t .Y others picking up tree limbs near them," said Dave Leatherman, an • the school, operated by the Long- entomologist with the state forest mont Department of Parks and service. He added that there was Recreation. no visible indication that the limb A counselor told her Brandon was rotting, and its tumble ! JF h .'l been hurt. couldn't have been predicted. "These were the same little Longmont city crews sawed the boys, the same ages, who played limb into pieces and removed it , together. It's a horrible feeling," from the park yesterday after- I ,. i- Natalie Martin said, adding that noun. by yesterday afternoon, Brandon Martin said the month-long pre- ,. already was having nightmares school camp, which met from 9 about ",he incident. a.m. to noon twice a week, ea 'a .t ' "He took a nap and woke up Tuesday. J.. ,° 0 . .. . • v ,'� u.t'••r, • • Denver Post August 3, 1991 • . Old cottohwoods hazardous . Expert: Fast-growing trees susceptible to decay, breakage By Tracy Seigel provide a lot of shade, he said, but in some Colorado Denrer Post Staff Writer municipalities, planting high-hazard trees is forbid- LONGMOINIT —Forestryexperts rate old cotton- den because of the exppotential danger as they age. wood trees, like the one whose limb killed a 5-year- "What we would recommend is that you replace old Longmont bay Thursday,among the most hazard- these high-hazard trees with medium-hazard or lo°w- • ousin Colorado. hazard trees Iess susceptible to decay," he said. "If t 'The mpg.potential for failure(decay and break- their branches fall out,they're not going to weigh 500 age) are box elders, cottonwoods, Siberian elms, sit' pounds." ver maples and large wrllows, among others," said On Thursday, a 900-pound limb from a 70-year-old Make Schomaker, forest pathologist for the Colorado cottonwood In Roosevelt Park fell 51 feet,killing pre- State Forest Service. schooler Ian Stuart. Forestry experts believe the limb "Most of the high-hazard trees are East-growing, was weakened by a annbination of fungus and bacte- but because they're fast-growing, they have weaker rial wetwood, a disease that infects trees. • wood." People like the trees because they grow quickly and • • 11 • • • • • • b.. i 1 S.: V • • • • • • f ' !1. • .. - . - • Mr. Robert Foster, Chairman Development Review Board City Hall P.O.Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 S E P I. 3 14'a1, Dear Mr. Foster, . . At its meeting on July 24, 1991, the Natural Resources Commission discussed the cutting of the cottonwood tree on the Homesite Development near Childs Road (DRB application permit number 2D19-89). Since we have not been directly involved in the review of this project, nor the subsequent actions of the city staff or the developer, we do not wish to comment on the propriety of the City's permit or the tree's removal. We would like to express our deep regret for the loss of this tree, and to ask that the DRB consider mitigation for the natural resources loss from the parties involved, Our Commission members unanimously passed a motion to requc ct that the DRB: 1. Assess the impact of the tree's removal on natural resources, specifically, a. the adjacent wetlands, b. foliage cover and tree mass, c, wildlife habitat,• and, 2. Mitigate the natural resource impacts to the greatest degree viewed possible by the DRB, The objective is to replace as much of the cottonwood's function as possible with its equivalent in young trees, To ensure their survivability, and for continued assessment of potential changes to the wetlands, some maintenance functions • ' may need to be installed, We recognize that the development may have to be redesigned to accomodate such mitigation,g However, since the development permit has lapsed, the project appears likely to be redesigned as part of a new application, • We have also communicated to the City Council our recommendations for changes , in the City's emergency 'y g y permit procedures, to avoid any further losses, Sincerely, (10A/OkAA__rj8), ,t__, .. - Lynne Black, Co-Chairman 1 ,, Michael 0 Brien, Co-Chairman 1 . -' EX H.' 8 I T • a J `a v 4 1 fir q♦ ) b -_1'r ,1 • • ' • • o • • • • • • • 4.. it f Y 1 `\'r 6i-.., o A ki sl II ./''' 7' /7.- /-1 /3 A-, h /e / 9 (9 i r • '' ._.__ __..�._ . a_.L /- a�...'S r? .�. .�� 4=" � n != ` ' ? fit. 1 C,. ..,.._ r.J C? .J- 0 s?, 1 n,I• C 1 4 / 1. /2 -s /2 C:= A ,17 i 1 c/'-.._ c3 5 litJ fry e'f ©n. G+ c' Al • o _.D/._. I'Z 4. ..b..... _1)l^ I//,` C p r>>/r 2.e 7 C . ., . . . a _. ._ . A,/• C lea eL. 41.4 n. aA it, . y /3/ C L l/t 17 eJ 1 o GJ l \INi!` /=A 7.1-1 is. n `�' it p h rt h 1/ r 9 e-t. c,,,,n r3 47 12 r4 v o i< 1•--' t3 �,./ / s / s lam/ c r .. __ _ i` „C '� Y. s ! Cst,d L fit✓ o rr/.......0 „. ,..., ..., ,...,,, , . . !'' A J O (.I . ��.1-a4 A y- it i 1i , G/ /_?,,e icId e 1' c l /� e 7' S 0 t'� ) - Y h' c Li /✓ CJ /C' e1 n.i /V A ,7'` 1! d j l4 A or e!�A )rJ /z !� 1C G lam '/'� l S /2/z CL., d `cy yI i l 1' D., >'' 4 1 4./ C.�' `1-r� 0 a Yt . 4r. 2'c+ a I( C t (../1 i h / u 1 I /4)/ Y c a t` c; .v,,/,t O 12 0/./ 4,- ivLsr r .,/ c- a i v r- .� h.1 ,E- /r ft, /7 t r ._) rt., 17/x b y `:e rt.z / Li o 1 y. N. .n, Y.. • • Q e• L'f • • • do u t- i yt ;P • • • . � SIB •�A• • 1 , t ... r � Y.. ' ' l 4 • • 11 - •l'! i . ... . 1 1 r 7- fr"-1. IF' 1r: - ••-- ---- . • ...........".. ....... ........_ . ......._... ......„4. 411.............,..... ir .51 ...51 Li Il=" /7--",-3 pc. c it - - ----r. ,4-, A 7 --,--/-,,.J• Al pr.- .' . . . . ..... .. .. ... .... .. _ _.,..., ... , ,, ......._........,...........0.- •- , I / -2 A 1 a ,.-,I / ...r‘a. i"i A P tZ .2 A • ..„........._ ____ ...._.... ........_______,.._ _L._ v __________[ _ ______JA/1_0 c•5 ec.. r-_-, _,_/_.,s- ._,,,rst_s>7 ,A-11 9/ ),) c a 4 C 1 .1 0,0,1401 "PI 47$4i go r. "7'11 WC . 41 I . , ''''''--7-1-1 CE•:-. Pic c rt -7-- C.3 /=' ---7'01,4/ )4 "71 "--2.'.,., • .• .,i •, . • . . A I- t. -7 A/ tc- *-7-I 1 i I 1=1" ill 1 7.. 4 --A -.I I te lg. ...- . __....... __ ... .— --- . • ' . . . ,A ki ID I Jr S J c..h J -7' <- 1/4.1 -7-(... 1Z k /b. li, i L. ID -- 11 CI ditc' --7'i L I A -7 P • ,S% it i,..7 Ar --2's A/.0 l,c /f1 ,., • i I 7- \A/ A j -P t I C C--ir..1-7/r 2, .• .......-__ .., ........_,-............-......_,_,,,..-*--....--........ ." li1.7"...c.i Al. ---7'?•0 / .0 C/ A 10-1 _7- C.) ic ----Z-7,-,.4"' Jr -.........-...--„.- . _.... , ° • II . . •NA., ) -r• 1 6/ .,...e4 ,1 4 7- p /-i a -7- 4- Jvi.,4-,,,, d i-r j( .2_ i i e kr,.. • • , , r<C)J--1 474-If / ir/0 ----____ --__ --"' I I LA....),A=i f r .....,__ _ • •. 1 0,--- t i fie 4 441::'i?- --..:-.... A le h l .....1 '\.'ki t -7-I,/ ...-11 • , p A./.. 2--,4 (kJ y 1 ist‹..• ....4i 1.., L -z" " -r A--1, fr2.1:- `77' CS. 6 /c ,. 1, • ‘14-t-r1,4/9 h,la e 0 /0 ••---i)* A.4 1-1_,./ --Z 4i ilv J-I. k t 2 u c t-,,...: cr lc"•i.) 4, L.L., .4 ',., .. 4 r ............... ,,, .. a 7- \A/ 4„...1 ---i--/o 4/r )• -- X \tv t L ,/ D •f . i . ., "". ""-Z ./1. ti.-1-L 3 ibL Li 4) iQ-Ott 7 c:" Pt" - - A .. 1 --____-- ----. I----tA. 0 j‘i C A t., 4 (.. AZ 0 4 ' -7% " •7, c 44. )a i 0 kt Tr. .4 Al ' . : . I. /2 h J J.1 c //s/ .1,,) 0 /a 1r 49 b P 0 c` L.._. 43 i,,,, ,.. (•< Pt..1- 1...Li/p 0. 4 4 9 Ad*-,` Ada4.4;,., . i . 'S.-.„. 4 • , 1 • . . . . I 4. •I , . I • .. ,„ •• ..---- . ., . V . . • • i .•. ' . AIL 9♦ • 1 • 1.,. • • • ®.t • • • • • • • • • 1n • ti t h , •r • • • y .t >li • • • mr j • ro wr / /y . . r - ...1' ,ea T/-,Ikrt, C 'Wd S " i I 131 .� ,C3_. . ._ .__. . . ... lc h , s. ._ 1.. / C 7' _. AL a i,/ .c" • e. •-4 ,r../ r h 7 k `r _ A Cc>u11 '0,/S vn L. $ .7 V/o 1? /'h f' 7 co d pa �` A A..7 /t'J a b —7. �l'._.-/�� h _ �..' o l�o <L. o Yw 1t t t, 7" T o -z"is. • A/ *-r..(41 fL n 7' 7'A / / 'y/.t 1 I p le tr a _ ?,"•, tit %J _ . �. _ .. V/ C h e 1. /r_f C17• !-4 .. .�._a.. -....—.. .mot �./ c l�N /t I- i -in 40 /2197- 0/1.) /JvC oc herb C4L./.{ C 04h f z Ll h7, l t ! !'r r 7-� r 1 idt� r L o`./..c 1-1 / /d .� Lv c G. t✓,r/ r,,r 0 f y..l„0- r d I -h"J/i; .r'. tr 1. yti o t. Ln e 12 d.M 1 rz, iz C �{ h s V 0 f e .1' . 1 r • ' t. .0 t y, nl .w ' • 1. y. i N• • .,,.i.-..',...:::..',:.,1,:1' .1'• •• • • • • i • • • • • • • • • • • • g. • • . • .. • _. . `�r • " ' • ` _ - . / 1/ 41 4d I T n V J F d 8 1 .,_( / 3 ? / CD .. \Ai H 4 7 .4. i3 O t,.*y. "..�'l�/4 /Z/Q-d 7 j ►`; xi G. � `� .44/r_. L,A L! 0 A V c Li /'r '`7'Iy 1J /t'! L., .. t 'c / I't I .t li A1 /pC m/ 91p 1 r? .t -r" G. /d � I 4 i� � � Aw� :1---,--m_ ,, ,..., . --,-., , z... . )47 .0 ". 4'-''1" L c."/SG'i 1 i A /No c- 7 � 6/ C1d ,1 L k-' re D r c c_ c. L.to cf.?./r' r `., i 11 1 f L- / !< �;' v J 1 1.1 C L-7 1V it 1'I t/P L/r y -2-Q. C c, o-.» va ; _ .��./ z e.J �L-, 0 l Lam 17 2 . 0-1 COv� . /.i tC/ r . _,4- 4 c ert b I '7 /K C t_1j / � I%i l --rC. A0ALZ1) hlt .t A n + + F n 1 c .► r c N p� eL� --- ,►�- i t `, , h' L.. c !C 1r a,1 -<....lc c-o ' e'L , ie�`+►e►?' ,+ tor h. ��.. 7 ' Ca L.-,.A Al. iN 4 [7 t..•r -Z.I... tJ / J.) t..11 � a/ N I%/ 4 G'h �wd IV 9 c.. �11� '�v A y c-sr L.. a N t'y 1 ,d1 /� b cr r�.. a LA L. to ,l_?44. t 42/ d.1/r t� iv1 ?+-+ `7 y,h✓ C" Cr o S u L J�, ). , A L t- u ,.,, c a n t1 17 J A 11 /j C.! 7 G /t,it / c 4 t. Sra /V Y�.a ai �� •. i /`1d' pu44. A1ii • , J:. ti . 1y1 [ f •,1 .y' t . • 44 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4�•y y Development Review Board September 16,1991 ,. City of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 RE: Permit to Remove Cottonwood Tree at Canal and Childs Road According to the city attorney, this meeting is to determine if I "intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented facts" when I applied for a tree cutting permit to remove the Cottonwood tree. I will address this issue first from a chronological sequence of events that will show absolutely that there was no misrepresentation of facts, intentional or unintentional. Then, I will make a few comments on this matter. I acquired the 30 acre parcel located at Childs Rd at Canal and Sycamore at Dogwood in June 1990. The parcel had preliminary approval for a 32 lot subdivisio i and I began the developmo„t process upon acquisition. The approval called for the developer to "retain the services of a professional arborist" to "protect the 72" Cottonwood tree in an island or median i' strip"., • I. In July 1990 the project engineer, John DeJong, contacted the City of Lake Oswego to inquire as to the names of acceptable professional arborists. Among the names mentioned was Robert Mazany, Mr. Mazany was contracted by Mr, John DeJong to offer consulting advice called for by the city. 'r Mr. Mazany along with Mr. DeJong, inspected the tree and his letter to DeJong dated July 16, 1990 is attached, I quote, "in summary, it is my professional opinion that the probability of the tree failing is too great a risk retaining this tree on the site", This information was forwarded to the planning staff of the City of Lake Oswego and it was decided to consider this matter while continuing with the process of obtaining a permit to begin development, I• • r During this time period, I was contacted by Mr, Kelly McCarthy, who is the only resident on Canal Road at the present time, He asked about the intent to keep the tree and had we checked it out with an • 4 EXHIBIT 1 e• ,0 ". DII fit, • Y _ • CJ • • 1 $ • j q of '•.I • • • ri • 4 � i,.� i'• a �1 4 • y'r 1 b?- expert. He further said that he had to remove a limb from the road that had fallen from the tree and it was so large, that it took two men to remove itr He stated he was concerned about the safety of his children and wife. a' By February 1991, we had completed final drawings of the improvements to Canal Rd. to include an island around the Cottonwood tree. At a meeting with the staff, the question of the tree was again raised and it was decided to have Mr. Mazany • re-examine the tree to include, a canopy inspection and up date his report. • During the period between July 1990 and February 1991, I . observed that two large limbs had broken from the tree and one limb had landed in the road and the other one adjacent to the road. Mr.. Mazany confirmed these limb failures when he re-examined the tree. Mr. Mazany's letter of February 25. 1991, is attached and states that the tree has "serious potential for at least partial failure. The risk involved, relative to the short term benefit gained, does not alter my original recommendation for removal", • Jlr., « , This letter was delivered to the staff and to my attorney, The staff answered that they had an arborist also observe the tree at this • time and it was my understanding that his conclusion was the same as Mr, Mazany's. His name is Mr. Owen. ° • =r. During a subsequent meeting with the planning staff and the engineering department, I voiced my growing concern over the safety of those who traveled Canal Rd. Finally, the staff asked if I would ask Mr. Mazany to outline any measures that could be taken to render the tree safe. I made this request of Mr, Mazany and v '• letter of June 12, 1991, is attached, In the letter he again statedl�t gthat "there can be no guarantee for the long term survival and safety of i,. this tree, The more use this area in close proximity to the tree gets, the greater potential for serious hazard". • d :'a On June 14, 1991, during a severe summer storm, I inspected the tree and found that another limb had fallen next to the road and my concern was so great that I immediately requested a tree cutting permit from the city, I was told that I should try to trim the tree in ;'r "M accordance with Mr. Mazany's letter, In the mean time, my attorney 1 rr '12 .4 6- 1 F • s• • • Y.: . +. . • • • • • • ,_ • 31 • f � ; • • • 'l ,• • s • • • • • («' 4 • 1 , tiff i notified me that it was his opinion after talking to Mr, Mazany and �� personally inspecting the tree, that the liability was great and that I should take action to remove the tree under Sec 55.070 of the tree ordinance covering emergences. I attached a copy of this letter, In the meantime, on June 24, Mr. Mazany again inspected the tree • along with another arborist from Pruett Tree Service to retrieve branch samples to "further determine the extent of the decay "and and to see if pruning and crowning would lesson the danger. I was with him at the site and he concluded that there was to much decay 4 to pursue the plan of delimbing to lesson the danger, He also said that the most dangerous time for Cottonwood tree failure is during ;a a July and August, when the trees water absorption is greater and • limbs become heaviest, r I v• • +,. I relayed this information to the staff and even showed them two limbs that had been cut that had significant decay, 1 again asked , for action on my emergency tree cutting request and a day or so `r later, I was informed that they would like to discuss the matter at V . '' I the Development Review Board meeting on Monday July 1,1991, After stating my concern over the danger involved in waiting any k `; .., longer, I agreed. 1 ' t, :' 4 On July 2,1991, I was informed by the staff that the DRB had T • approved the permit subject to Mr. Mazany writing a letter clearing 4 up what they felt were ambiguities in his letters. I made the request •ci of Mr. Mazany and he responded immediately with his letter of July g• t .° 4, 2, He stated that on his inspection of June 24, "that there is sufficient , t :° evidence of decay and structural weakness present for me to once •"„ again recommend the immediate removal of this tree". I submitted , "� A y ;•' this letter and received a tree cutting permit on July 3, 1991. The '•" • 'I• � ,• tree was removed on July 5,1991. During this entire episode, the staff acted in a manner • ,-.. ,s.�-: consistent with the development orders and Mr. Mazany carried out . 1, his services in a highly professional manner, I had not met Mr, • , ,,, Mazany prior to this project and in fact, didn't meet him until after CO . , the February letter, His services were on an hourly basis and he was ,. ' ` ' ' paid a total of $ 770.00 for his services throughout this entire ordeal. • • `., 1 I feel that I have acted in accordance with the ordinances of • the City of Lake Oswego and in keeping with the orders of the ` » i. • ,, C t k ,, , +,, qr::m y tl b. • • • • • • • • ,ce.q.•• ? • n;t "i. r• 1. City Counl, il, staff and neighbors would not share in the liability, But 1i once I was notified of potential failure of the tree by the arborist and confronted by Mr. Kelly with his evidence 4nd concerns, I was liable ' ' { should anyone be injured, both morally and financially. With all these dealings with the arborists and a growing rt, concern for public safety, what did I do, go out and cut a tree down? No, I applied for a permit, I submitted accurate information for the • city's consideration. Information that was not fabricated, falsified or a coerced and was from very qualified people. Information that in no way " intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting the facts ". `�r ..,... Only after what I assumed was careful consideration of this matter, ?;' did the City of Lake Oswego grant that permit. t'' Mr. Kelly McCarthy has written a letter and enclosed an article 'y a from the Denver Post about a 5 year old boy, who was killed by a 70 ° r� year old Cottonwood Tree on August 2, 1991, I wonder if anyone considered that tree dangerous. I wonder if it were identified as a hazardous tree by qualified arborists, would the parents of that boy ,r.' ' have wanted to wait for public debate before it was removed. ".. Cr L ,,, A A • ,` -` �, Since the tree removal, a large Cottonwood Tree in the center of a; the project, has split almost in half, I offer a photograph of the tree, fr .... This tree is not near a right of way, but still could have been lethal to d N someone playing around it. ',' I understand ht., r.i people can have different views of reality ,,,,..0, • 7:- and how passionate 'they can be about their views, They all have `�, ; ' rights to those •.tiews, Rut I have rights too. Rights of property and "• the right to protect that property and those that travel that property. , Everyone loves mom, apple pie and trees. I'm no different, But when .' ,1.; the choice is between a tree and a human life, I'll take the human life every time. Respectfully Yours, °• 1 , Willard `I', Moore A 5470 SW Childs Rd, '4`Y•; • Lake Oswego, Ore 97035 d ih1 ;• t, ,. ..a • . • • '• ' 4 4',.;•• • . .,, • • ,• . • . . 17::)'• •••••:'• .„ ,• • • , • • .. •• • ''• • , . • , •• ' ••' •• , • • . • .• , • y •••l•• • • • • • , • • 4 • • • • • • • . •• • • • ••,.4 •• • I a I • . . . • • '• • • • • I • •• • • • • •••I •. as .• • a • • • A .1 • • • •„ ‘• • IN . • • r y • • ;I ,'..• ',- `-',"'.','• ,•''',-',.':.,'., i •':.": , . . . .. ,,,•„••'-'',:,,,,."'•,, • .:,.• '',. •'':-.'• 1 . . ' ‘,,•,• ', f,•.. .,- *: ': •' r..' , p•, 1 . : ''.,',' :. •• . .•,;,Q.,.s..••,•• • . ••‘.•'. :•:' i •., , . 4 . ..' .:.:',.,'....•,••••-:':'•:.,': -•: '..1..-:.'..•,.. 1.' • . • . ,•• • .,. ,, . P.p..4,041 - ,,.. C.:4-....0, :`• . ..,,. _dr• . `',* , •::': '. I:•.'''.: • , „- .,•. ,.••••.' L.'.! :, 2..... :. . ,. — . •:„-• ..0%. -.io......- . -.. ....).- .. . .,.. • .., .. . . , ‘,,..• ..,:,..,..•..• - • if,-stli 4., • „ .., __ •ar" 4-- . .."1 ', - ..' 4 -,4, .,:•.,.. ...a..Air 4 .1.4 t ,,,:af .. .0',1110.'" . . , N .. ',0..Of •.•.i4,....: , : .? ' ' 41, '' :'-i :. *bq 4 . 4. :,':'. ': 4 . - : •, . .„. - . ...• 4.14y ',.. e 4 i*'..... ' 0 %.. ::'...''.'* ,.•::' '.,,* l''*: :* 41° '4 *Nib : : 4:0 ir.. .. )'" " . ,. oir •'.. ,,• , ,. ,,, .., , - ,„.„ -fr. , ' . , , , 11 - k,k, ,- . •% 4 :. :* *:: II* P .i :. - ., ' Alle. . '. -.4'4" '.4 •' ',' •'. -1 IS *t 'IV 1, I.• .,`".` ' * ' ,'. I 41.0, 1r ...• . , ' •:,,, ,,, - to. .4. 's ' , .•V'2,,,,ir:, .,n,' ,Z,:L- ."...0' t .,.,..:•.`,,,,••' . -..,,s` .... . , „ .. ,, li . L i ...,'•L, .• - .":' • '..' ' . . .ft ' ' ; -4'' •. ..,. '. ' .1 . .• . 1 .;•.'' ',' 1 '. ..,4 - • ... •-41iPliOr , ' 'e.'.."' .: • •••."4`4.,,,i' -.1'7 • •„,z‘ *:•./-* t „'',•••'• • • .-• .: • vt,i, , ,- , . „ .14. ..,,,!"-..1.•4'.:::,` ..-'..,,,::.,•' - . •.-• ip ' 4 ,. ., . 1. , • .p.,- , . , ...,,i ..,. ..s. . .." '.....',. . ' .... •. , . .,. •,., ,, . , . 31 lir ...T,, I , .•,.4 -• ,.','"t.•-, . .., - •• ', !.1, 1/4 ' ••',41/4.0t• ''11 •'.,..- -P!' .ir ,•'':• .4 a' ‘.., - ': , ,* • ' ' . ' * . * ill , ...• . ..,. .4, •. ' 'i.,.;: .' ''"it:' '41 * . ' .'...''''' '': '*', .- :•'•• * It:: 4 - ' ..,ti 144qt:I 4 • . 44". • , .• ....•... , ., ft. * thr.,,, . ''' ' ! ...** '.4 '.'''.*,•.; ,:**4,:• ' '.. , 44. '.' ;.1,: ..' • ,,..''* &''. :-.4:.-,:a" •...•: ' ,,, . ..,. . . ,., .. , , , . . . . .y. ,:jii,. • :-.* •4*:*•.:.' '....; :AM,. 4 ,, „ . . . . . . . ..-- ', 1,„ ...1,,....! .s • .,• . . . . ..• , , .. i• (':' ivtt.. ,."' a. •) :. * " -. .: , . . •':':.'''.:',...;',' et:. .. ; ' 6/ * , 11• •, ; L' •, :.:.• 9, * *. *, ..“ :..".•' * st., 4' ,,,7 : 1 t44 4.. .., ,,• , *.:-.',;.' '''' ,, iw..'• , , * ' • . ' ‘ ..ir , ...,...•... -„., .. ) ... ..• -... ..... g .....t. ,. ...,. .r.,•.,. --, ..... ,....,: %...., ,_AiL.,..,„, . ... . y .. .,.: .. *, ... . -., . - -4, 1.1 -.7-,..b,,. • „ , •, . *.. ' it. r`d . ' ' ' ' ' ,,... . ;' ''•;' Ni.i._-4.4.: ;, .,7 ' %.',,ii,‘','. ,. ','. 7 t , • .. *4 it 4.1'' "' , - ., .. 1 ••4 411 . ;. * ,.. „ .. , , iliw14,..44.,Ar. :;# i I?l' .*Alp 41*•7•Z A ''''''' :•t :it 4'4*t*.lir,sti,i II, 11,.c, r,„ l'-t„,f . ' ... .„,•,..,'7.,..,:. ,, l', ., `... , . ..• • .... , • tilliits7:. .. :ii., ilk; ...,. -... ,...*, .4,,?..,,•4:. .,.,,.:.,:,,-.4,, ..i.. .a.11 •.t ...II: ;,'....;.,•••':i,';',•...4.4. - „z t.• .. , .., .. 4"..criv-....*: . 'ill 44' . - -• .. .., .-*.• •.:•,,. 7.:- • • . .•, ' •-• . 4,;.*: #.$ r . .7. . • '-:..•AcIP .,r'''- ', 0.er;. v'r ....,%,.1,; -I, ., •4• '4 .vi '.' '. * ,...4"! • .•'P f''%..:* ,'. .1.:11,.4. .c.'. •41,',.. ..•'' '•,„1,Ile ''' .. s 1p , • '"111.. ' , ', , . •,- , • , 1,0 • . , ., ,, .' • ., .... ........ . . n * , '0 .-' . r '... • ' ' ' It t",•' ',,2: ',,' , of ' .*,4- • , , .. . , '• ; , ., .• 4iii,: r'''''"'•'1 : '.':. . ' Ogi 1. ' .. . ;.; ','' 4:r :.. ,1 ' .i' 1 '. ' '...' a ' t 4 if . . ' ••'•, .' V 4." '. 4'4 4 •. V.'... • 1.-'4;d. .7.' ' . •..' .•' r. '' ,AV 4'.‘°': ''"'. L.n. t' ' ". . . ' ''''n . . . 4, . .. • , . L . a , • , .n a n ' , ,i , . ' a • n, . ,..4 — . . . -. *a ... • • . 2;lt..k, '.'.. — . 4. .. r,„) ;. . a* --ar' -• ' , . ., *• ,.... v:— n n .'' • '' ° '. ' ,‘ • . ' ' . .* . ' ' ' : ir %I ' li n . .* • ,..1 00* ... , . •4* ,,'Ill i '' " ' '''' 04 ,44. • .... • ' , • " • ' ....: • • 16, : I"": i'.4.4.4. , , .. '-. : •,' , , , ..'!. 1:' 4 • . lit..t. '4`,,,:.• . . "10, . .0 ,L. . .. ,... - . . .. ... . . • -, • ii1/,f1-44.1'.-A.,. ',...• ,,*'.,:,,, ''-t' ......" ,..-.. .'.n. ' ": '. "' . ,'. ''',#.''',-.'... •-'..'"' '44 .'. : :* ....* :. , - 4' "le's, "`..#.4, t' • ,a .k ,4.4,i. 4.6 : a . , . , q : . . , ' ,•*"."1" ..i"' .' IP"" 311P'9 s,, ,:„ illii41444**.t'' :',"1*, i,i, ,r.,,' • ,h‘ ,, . , : ,,_ , '.. , .. , , .. • , •‘. . ,, ,t,• • , . f Fti . ,.Ak.,,,,- flieli440.„I,.,,,s,„0.4 ' fs';',. "%ss:°''..' .' ,,s,1', .,r •' .- . . . ' . , . . ' •P' . . ,, ''.. 4.,.0('.64.*.• :' !: . , . . . ' •. . ',14,,d111-411,,,,,,..2: ' 4 ''' , .. ' '4' .'.., ..,",,tit...0,... ,.. . .0.0^It,: ..,It' -• ' ' , ; .'. - *„ i' 1,, . ..i* . • - t , t. „ .- • 4 .:: . . :0,..: * ft :'' ; . .. .... • / 0 -) , .. i •••• ..111C%,'bk.4". 4. a. ' 0 ' : 141430'4...L. ''11'°' . ' tr,, . bf • -...... , ,,, •••;41,,. 1,.. ;nit iii A . . ". ., • ,,,, 7'-,„4•,,,,,,,,,,,.',.„I,,4•11..1‘.''4L0:.....em.i..tt..o..,i.zi•!.4mti...„.../4.. • . •'.o. , ..',,.,..„-,,,j..aJ,k.4r,„„,,,,..1.:-..,..:,...I.,'4t.ti'4ri...,>„.'•. . • ,4..1•...4. a„,alit'! t 4 ' 's"4;r'44i a.t,,'.•'."It•., ',.l1:.i,.z 4i.,i-.'..6,,,'..V, ,.1,•1 5.,;i.t,!-,...7•...'4.4?11..'.N1.4%.4 , . .. , • .• . .. , , r t�l r •t i 5 6'. r' au • t' s; al +` r 0)4.. E i • U , t i C • • 14. • ,p' t 1 1', i ♦ i rp X • i l t 4 • ;• A` 1, yl +T v• . !• 4'' • r.0 �, • ,• .' .. ikIdra h V 55 .060 TREE CUTTING 55 .080 • t• `a 55.060Fees. '� i • •• 1- ,• The application shall be accompanied by a filing fee as � . herein prescribed. The filing fee is not refundable, whether or not a permit is thereafter granted. ,-.•In;.determining the fee to be paid, all ' • permits granted within a period.'of one year for cutting of trees upon contiguous property owned 'by, the applicant shall be considered as having been filed in• a ;single,;application• t ' , t 1 • For ,Cott ' •. t •.,J, .'. . ..t�rb^w ing three or fewer trees • '�•�.' ` 2.}.`.1.For the -a •� ryyYf ., .di r1.41". t' notirf W{(,;•� ;'.`.a.'r-4,tkasxrr\1.,r...� cutti r-xemo• 1 t of .four or car ,,ng o ya r a, 1 ettrees from a land �� parcele of, (i ncludrng�allik con``t'.iguous��1a"ndl i`n�+►:common' '°. ownership). notJ,exceedings" 2.0;;000 square feet=''iaa�;arp,a' a• fee of . • �` • ` `^N :,.:1-...$-.12�:�t0 0'•..,'t't`.. ,,.„ 't• ", J.1ykt ,�i,.:L'. •0,c 'y y•ct 4,41 ?,,C���+:. -..,,Jykw H „_ 1'(,�,... 7.' t�l��'f. 'C. . -C ✓Ys�s:0f';•Rt.�!"ef �4., ''' 'hy.' ^. • r°1:'"•'hV � t ' 4..t' •�, `.T�:r " y �''1 ' + t1*F i'''' 7.. k' ,;r , • ,' ...L I'. ,,,�+ All ,other..,dappl?.ca :tons;;▪ ,;a` f;eeof�4•$,SO :Op.I.r),,' !w r` +'Y f3r$�t �' �' ' e e':� tr R�ta4 •.�.h. + v,}Y t a,'va. �,.. � •t r.,�.},f1�� 'PI'. �, I µ,, .0 P':No f ,,•sha11 be require''d'iwi'th`j;`an"4a' . �;i`era'tby s r• 1 ,� „ �• .� �t.. �� PP1 ion •filed • a �< v governmental tagency . . (Ord 3.No 1• '429,Y°"" .'a ,. , w Sec 1 ••{� n..71 ) r',«r •. • •,-4 •- •: ; y '`,.�;�a tl. w7.tr • _ ier. . ,,•.• ,•40.•,+-1 U • ,�. 55.0 7 0 • ., , Emergencies. ,;•� 1.'"* ,, •In the +•iS"k4i2 ••j, •. t ' ":J ',",.. . ' ,4? ,�, M+gas events ofliemer epo ,conditions re u "r' : .. ,°', � ►..,:s y � + '•«rr t�-g y. � „• +,.:., q iri.ng :the immediate �t�• cutting or "removal :'afeE•ees ,in orciei :�o avoid ,"� .` , 't •p,+ dander, or. hazard to ° ' ''' persons`'•'or. ,property,i an emer enc '' r} ,` ��, . �,Ny+„ g Y•c pe•'rrnit: will'.be.. issued without `' t , p, y rite of;;fee ,and without• for . • r a me � ,, �,, mat• a l�,cabiori,„,by the Public .0 ,' Works ''•Director l'or` s`ingth`is labs'ence' , p ` . ,, � � R,.1..} ,. bY`''any�•memher;,af'•lhe:•Building isrrj. Di:vision•' ' •Tfj thePublicTWorks'. Direct`or is' unavailable and no ' w member..ofr+ heSiBuilding°` Division is reasonabl ' y, •available in the 'y event 'of, such�,emergency,, it>,,shall be ,lawful to '1.f .a. r,.` 1.•►.}, ,,.,, proceed with the cutting o +xap.treep,,or ;,trees without- a'permit to the extent • Y ,neccessary: toy°avo�.d., the' immediate danger ore, ,,. _�•,••,. ,,4f,.,a ,,;,,, , g hazard .:; In the event r:„ of �the•k"cuttingsofaany.• tree wider they rov;isions of;.this section . '` � . ; wz.thout .btie , r'ibr.•1�' 1. `.`K3 �• x+'C�4�A;KnJ x ,rPi•}.ori filing' oi•'..a�l; .application :.with the: Public' 'erg: ,1Di-rector;,, the rson' Works pe .'doing so `shall nwith'j.'n';48 `hours :thereai ter "`'"'` ��' Y '.., repast the;�,acLi.oni'taken . to the;•Public' payments+ � '" ''' ;z ' ; Woi:ks',Director; without '' ;� � y .� 41'.4,x 'of�. fee,4• and.;sha11 forthwith,•provide ,such information, and •,• • 1yA! evvrdenGe ae.•may', ..'e reasonably': required by:•the'-'Public '• :1 rectors,•.to explain and justify the`,act ' ' r .Works o '•;:,, 1;429,,• Sec. - 1; 5-18--71 . Ord. No. 1631, Sec.t3; 7-20 76. ) No. rt ) 55.080 Criteria for issuance of permits . ' . r. ' A permit may be issued as requested in the application; may be issued in part and denied in part, or may be issued subject to f compliance by the applicant with reasonable conditions to be + imposed in order to promote the purposes of this chapter, A A , ti•_ permit shall state t•he period of time for which it is valid. A permit issued for 'the reason that an improvement is to be • 4 . provision that the • constructed upon the premises shall contain a l permit is not valid until a building permit has been issued for the construction of the improvement, The burden is on the applicant to show that granting of a permit would be consistent • 351 .4 a,; ` a;•k1.•' .;., , • . y ••Ity `7 K • i• p• •L� '. y Y rn C 7 A 1 • l .11 • • gin. i • • • ;•1 • • f Y1 ` •� ' • July 12, 1991 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Ellison 19678 S.W. Perch Court Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 141 RE: Fallen Black Cottonwood Dear Mr, and Mrs. Ellison: MANAGEMEN�C. + Prafeesionel Foresters On this date I examined a large black cottonwood tree that was felled along Canal Road approximately 100 yards south of the intersection with Childs Road. Generally I found the tree was of average health and vigor for its age and did not contain significant fiber deterioration to adversely impact the • MARK R.SMITH structural integrity MREG R.SMITH $ ' y of the bole or the limbs that I observed, I am writing DAN GREEN this letter to document my findings, observations and opinions based on this JIM WICK inspection. • ",,DNY SACHET " * CAREEN MAHR The stump of the tree in question is located approximately 10 feet west of • Canal Road. No root rot was noticed nor was there any obvious root ; ;°� damage prior to the falling of this tree. When the tree was felled the face cut, or the first cut in the direction of the intended fall, was made too deep into the tree. The back cut was slanted in such a way that It met the face cut too low on the stump, In addition, an excessive amount of wood was cut to retain control of the tree as it fell, Three small hardwood trees were damaged during the falling of the cottonwood and are leaning over Canal ' Road, posing a hazard to traffic. These facts lead me to the opinion that ` ,r'' the person or persons who fell the tree were inexperienced falling trees of this size and were not as concerned as they should have been in reducing hazards along the mad as a result of their work. I used a knife to examine the strength and condition of the wood fibers in the tree. At the stump I found the wood to be reasonably sound with less than 5% of the stump area showing deterioration, The heartwood in this ;, i tree is a darker brown color but this is common in black cottonwood' and is not necessarily indicative of fiber deterioration, The diameter of the stump inside the bark measured 6'0" by 5'7" with w bark thickness of 2 to 3 inches. I counted 91 annual growth rings at the stump which would make this tree approximately 93 years old. From the butt of the tree to the first limbs at 34 feet I found two knots that were approximately 4 to 5 inches in diameter with substantial fiber deterioration. This is quite common in trees of this age to have the lower limbs die, deteriorate and fall off of the tree, At a point 34 feet from tho: ' y butt of the tree were the first larger live limbs. These limbs were from 8 toii 11 inches in diameter and were severed from the bole of the tree by a chain ' saw. About 10% of the heartwood in these limbs showed fiber deterioration. ' : In my opinion this rot would not substantially weaken the limb to support full branching, Approximately 4 to 6 of these branches were severed from the tree but were not found on the site. Since this is a Japanese beetle quarantine area it is my understanding that this debris should not have been , removed. ..iYadn One Building &erue 3a7 '+ EXHIBIT BUS s U l'teedawe hoed r s r. Laic O+«r[a,Oregon 97038 r• 1 «° IS" l:Sdli4•IOgI PAY tIOB4.aM1b •h {{�yam , , • • •.• • • ._ . „ • , • . .„• , • . , • „ . . , , ,. • • • .• • . .•, ' • " • • ,• ,• ' 4.* , • . • , . . , -•' •• • . .•. • . • - • I .•t • • „.• • ."• •' - 1 . • . . p i,1 At 67 feet from the butt a large lateral branch was observed. Tills branch measured 18°' by 25" outside of the bark and was shattered in such a way that the internal fibers could be observed. No significant fiber deterioration was noticed at this location. At a point'77 feet from the butt another rotten knot was observed that was approximately 5" in diameter. u, The crown of the tree extended to 138 feet from the butt. I observed many broken and fractured limbs in the crown area and found no significant rot Or fiber deterioration. If I can answer any questions or be of any further service to you please contact me. Very truly yours, . 6,t..,c .—C.,,,, e'r't i • Greg T for Vice President A- �1 4 4 a ' , • µ.\ .fi i r y • �.r • +' a 4. yl Itl r'Y rt e. I TESTIMONY OF IRA MILLER, PROFESSIONAL ARBORIST AT JULY 16, 1991 LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL MEETING a, Miller: Good Evening Mayor, City Council Members, I am an arborist from West Linn. I was asked last Thursday to come over and take a look at this Cottonwood tree, with it. By chance I am familiar Last fall I was asked by Les Wilson, a representative from Benet- Moore Construction asked me to bid the whole projasked to take a look at this (Cottonwood) tree. At t that time ., Les Wilson asked me to give him a e Mr. Cottonwood. I never did price for removing the subsequently sold my business andnowto honly do consultim with a ing work. I r� g work. It is my opinion that the demise of this tree (Cottonwood) was $.' si n sealed and delivered when the desi n review board approved the a lication to build 32 units in there. Now I will elaborate on this. At about 70 feet (above the ground) there is evidence a but it appearspast and there is some decay there, 4 ' large limb has been tore off in the ' that it is healing over. The tree is 138 feet tall and given the clearing and the wind corridor that will be opened up . . , the crown will have to be 1/3. . .that is not to s ' pruned by about because it was a magnificent sspecimenoofda have cut down, Colvin: Mr. Miller, two nwood, r° questons. . .one is the same have asked the other two arborists and that is do question s ; hours?_ Could this tree had to come down as an ernes enc in 24 hours? Could it have wain until a hearin which would have been four weeks later? Miller: No at didn't have to come down but the tree was signed, sealed and delivered that it Was out because of construction trauma, wind blow gand limbs tearing to be on its g off. If in fact I am right and the tree has wetwood disease .: . • y' 1i limbs die back and drop off. I did not see a grin the tree last fall and again last winter wheneItwasal oveof r rot there. But, I knew if I was to work on the tree (Cottonwood) it `.` would be crown reduction and I wasn' t f move the because I didn' t need the 'heat' this think (there cutting) has brought. •Colvin: My •',, next question: When you were out there a year ago to bid on this project did that include removal of this Cott tree? onwoo d a. Vj. • Miller: Yes. . Colvin: So a year ago when bid, was the Cottonwood to be you included asked thato b dt �here to give a 1 III r HIBl1' ;I " r,. p N " C 4 • • . . • • - • •• . — .,‘ . . . . • V . . • , . • •• • • 1,.i. • , •• • . .• 'kt • . ,• .•n • • •. • •.• " • ,n. • .' • • * • • . • . — • • „ • • , • .• • , • n — *1> V 6, :' .: Miller: Yes, ;hy Mr. Wilson (Operations Manager for Bill Moore) . • Colvin: So a year ago this tree (Cottonwood) was being ,. . considered for removal? ,; • Miller: Sure. Marcotte: What I wanted to know. . .from what you is that in the "signed, sealed, delivered" part i ws that atthe tree was in jeopardy because of the removal, of trees around it and its close proximity to targets near it? Miller: My feeling as an arborist is that a Cottonwood tree in close proximity to targets should either be reduced or removed. Now that tree (Cottonwood) i don' t feel should have been removed. " Move the street or move whatever you need to need to take (the Cottonwood) down. Most of us in move but you didn't (arborists) feel this way, this industry I am here on my own. . .no one asked my to attend. X only wanted to shed some light on this so those this. present could understand Chrisman: I want to thank you for your hrne.sty in shedding light on this issue. Churchill: I would be interested to hear your } • Cottonwood over here that has survived the Safeway stort re the . development and the thousands of cars that v` go in and out every week past it. . .and it 's survived many many generations of development there. . .but let me get to a specific question with you. • Churchill: Mr. Wilson, who was an agent for the developer, asked you for a bid to remove that tree (Cottonwood) in the fall of • , 1990? Miller: Yes, and the total project. K• Churchill: So, in your judgement the intent of the developer was to remove that tree (Cottonwood) last fall (1990> Miller: Yes. . .but I later sold my business. Churchill: i think this is an important point in this whole episode and to the theory of conspiracy that some of the neighbors have presented here because there is no question in my 4 . mind. Please present your credentials. • Miller: About 32 at the University ofaMichiganrs working with trees, 3 years of forestry w , r G' e • • r • e • n • I �A r • P� 1 • 4.4 M M ry, I. • • • • • , . ..........) 0 1 - y L.-) , • 'is l �6-\ (/ 1` Y • • • • • • • • (.'? 11 ,. (• ....) t11 r t.• I • • l' • , , ) 1I. • ) . w. •• I • • i "I • • �> �l • • • : ni • • • 0 ..• . i+^ ., } r ' • • • • • • y "b&off •,1.1 evel ery„ .. , . ., „ .. , •.,, :.-... ,-. ... no park l „ .. re uiremi.ant P, , , By JOHN M.GRUND The potential park still belongs to will be available because it's a dif- Staff Reporter Moore, said City Attorney Jeffrey ferent set of circumstances, but we Bad news for developer Bill Condit. The land deal was supposed do plan to donate a public area, Moore may also become bad news to have become final when the final something in that ballpark (of 14 for the city. plat for the subdivision was filed— acres),"Moore said. Moore, who cut down a cotton- something that never happened, he M wood tree on Canal Road 7uly 5 and said, Moore prescnt<'d a plan to create { x 13 lots on 5 acres at a neighborhood created a community furor, recently "All bets are off now,"he said learned that he would have to start Developer Bert Mitchell had meeting Aug. 2fi, He said he wants his project again from scratch be- originally proposed the gift of the •to pursue the project in stages, r cause his city approval for the park. He asked that it be named for probably with lots smaller than r development had lapsed.. his.wife, Virginia Mitchell; Moore; Mverin li prpPgtl at"'but;,prgbably But because Moore'scovering the same urea •permission• when-he later: bought, the project— • has lapsed,"`so`liave`.rdnditions-'On from Mitchell, was bound by the "The times are a little different; the project that called for a 14-acre agreement Mitchell made.with the the economics are a little different,' :', ' parcel to be deeded to the city as a city. ,:iw•• • he said. The lots still will be more It natural park. Although,+Moore is now free to than 10,000 square feet,he said. The city has also begun an loves- apply to idevelop the land, he said Ligation to determine if other trees the city probably will end up with a The zoning will a4 sal more than . i ' were cut illegally on the property. 1301ots on the site he said,"It won't g p pe y park of about the same size as be anywhere near that," :,, City officials visited the site Sept. 3 before. .r a: and counted stum s. ow do ' p "We don t kn w much park See_DEVELOI'CR� page A3 _, ►, 1 bt Devel®perl, from page Al ` Mitchell's plans for 13 lots "Hell still have to deal with cut within the last six months; on '5 acres as a first phase preservation .of the wetlands," Moore can be cited for illegal raised suspicions of neighbors. Condit'said. However, he tree cuffing and be fined up to , Connie Emmons of' the added that the Mitchell project $500 fur each instance. If the "Rosewood,Action Group said set aside more than 50 percent trees ,were cut more than six at that rate Moore could double* of the entire area as open space months ago, however, the .i the number of lots in the — an unusually high percent- violations are outside the Mitchell project. age that may be tough to statute of limitations and ha Moore said future phases match, cannot be prosecuted, "'Steno('sei•,-"Irdepcnds on the Condit said city officials Condit said 30 to 40 stomps ` • market conditions." found evidence during their were found,The city is hiring a / • , , Condit noted that the city Sept, 3 visit to the property consultant to examine them,he I. •can still impose conditions on that trees more than 5 inches in said. • ' any new development applica- diameter—which would have Moore denied any illegal �? • tion,and require land to be set required permits — had been tree cutting, "There's absolute- ' ! ° ' aside, The 14-acre Virginia cut on the land. ly no foundation to that," he C ,Mitchel Park land is largely_ "Now we're trying to pine said. "We haven't done any- ` 'v�lopcc� 'w of be 'poini- "i,: ,5" he gaid:If'tlie"k thing on the pro rt within ,property ;�`T -°, city c ,+ • + , � «... .the'1ast,y ;'jl;r I .nl 6 ,' ' �w oCtifUR hr., , r� i 1)1 +UUn1,'4^::. ... , ..., , f�ll,iu . •' 11,• !` At. )„, /(..c_>:\• Duv\4, N'"-- /,/, '10 ,/ (...c, ; e.,ed.., C. oci — NoJ c(0 by , i f J` lu 6,, ./ ( 1, arrayjc Pt i'-/G- InA0tge.1 L-- 1 t PA . .',4 a i/ p h • r`• ,a Y ,yi • .f• 1 i • U 1 f • • • o. Y f-Ir r.. t i f 4l: . .• COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANNING COORDINATION 197.703 caption to the definition of "needed 197.763 Conduct of local quasi-judicial housing" authorized by ORS 197.303 (3). land use hearings; notice requirements; • (8) As used in this section, "exception" heating procedures. The following prose- dures shall govern the conduct of quasi- , ,: q means a comprehensive plan provision, in- A : eluding an amendment to an acknowledged judicial land use hearings conducted before ' comprehensive plan, that: a local governing body, panning commission, (a) Is applicable to specific properties or hearings body or hearings officer on applica. 4 r* p p ' P tion for a land use decision and shall be in. situations and does not establish a planning corporated into the comprehensive plan and or zoning policy of general applicability; land use regulations: (b) Does not comply with some or all goal (1) An issue which may be the basis for requirements applicable to the subject prop- an appeal to the board shall be raised not «' ernes or situations; and later than the close of the record at or fol. n`v (c) Complies with standards under sub- lowing the final evide, fiery hearing on the • #�' section (1) of this section. proposal before the Ior•til government. Such (9) An exception acknowledged under issues shall be rinsedwith sufficientORS 197.251 197.625 or 197.630 (1) (1981 Re- specificity so us to tined the governing body, placement Part) on or before August 9, 1983, planning commission, hearings body or " ' shall continue to be valid and shall not be hearings officer, and the parties an adequate ;,: .• _ subject to this section. 11983 c.827 §1981 opportunity to respond to each issue. • t 197.735 11973 cAS2 §7; repealed by 1977 c.665 §24) (2) Notice of the hearings governed by sr, •' 197.7.10 11973 c.4S2 §8; repealed by 1977 c.66S §2.1) this section shall be provided to the appli• 1• `lk• cant and to owners or record of property on i the most recent property tax assessment roll - ' MISCELLANEOUS y where such property is located:1197.747 Meaning of "compliance with a the goals" for certain purposes. For the (a) Within 100 feet of' the property which - purposes of acknowledgment under ORS is the subject of the notice where the subject ' '' 197,251, board review under ORS 197.805 to property is wholly or in part within an urban 197.855 and periodic review under ORS b'r°wth boundary; a 197,640 and 197.641 to 197,647 "compliance (b) Within 250 feet of' the property which �.' with the goals" means the comprehensive is the subject of the notice where the subject k' plan and regulations, on the whole, conform property is outside an urban growth bound- with the purposes of the an d p goals and any fail• ary and not within a farm or forest zone; or i v • ure to meet individual goal requirements is (c) Within 500 feet of the property which ' technical or minor in nature. 11983 c.827 §1.1 1959 c.761 §91 ; is the subject of the notice where the subject c' 197.750 11973 c4S"_ §5; property is within a farm or forest zone.• : , repealed by 1977 c.665 §24) 197.752 Lands available for urban de- (3) The notice prr,vided by the jurisdic • - Lion shall: velopment. (1) Lands within urban growth • boundaries shall be available for urban de- (a) Explain the nature of the application t ti velopment concurrent with the provision of and the proposed use or tales which could be key urban facilities and services in accar• authorized; dance with locally adopted development (b) List the applicable criteria from the • ,' standards, ordinance and the plan that apply to the op- ' • (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this plication at issue; •' r• section, lands not needed for urban uses street . • �: during the planning period maybe des} (c) Set forth the address or other nated for agricultural, forest or oher nonugr, easily understood geographical reference to r �` the subject property; ban uses. 11983 eS27 §19I 197,755 11973 c•4S2 §9; repealed by 1977 c.G6S §241 (d) State the date, time and location of 197.757 Acknowledgment deadline roethe }tearing; • newly incorporated cities, Cities ineorpo• (e) State that failure of an issue to he ' \ ' 't ► - rated after January 1, 1982, shall have their tnised in a hearing, in person or by letter, ' comprehensive plans and land use regu- or failure to provide sufficient specificity to lotions acknowledged under ORS 197.251 no • afford the decision make' an opportunity to later than four years after the date of incor• respond to the issue precudes appeal to the �, potation. 11983 e.821 §131 board based on that issue, • 197.760 11973 c 4S2 §9a; repealed by 1977 c.GGS §24) (0 Be mailed at least: + 197.762 11987 c729 05; repealed by 1989 e.761 §10 (A) 'Iwenty days before the evidentiary -4, (197.76;1 enacted in lieu of 197762)) hearing; or 'a EXHIBIT lt3.155 r YYY 1 t • • • • • • I• , • • • • • • ti 1 5 1' I , • } • y • • 4 197.805 ' MISCELLANEOUS'MATTERS "' (B) If two or more evidentiary hearings new issues which relate to the new evidence, i , are allowed, ' 10 days before the first testimony or criteria • for decision-making , ' evidentiary hearing; which apply to the matter at issue. • (g) Include the name of a local govern. (8) The failure of the property owner to , , „`• ment representative to contact and the tele- receive ,notice as provided in this section phone number where additional information shall not invalidate such proceedings if the may be obtained; local government can demonstrate by affida. (h) State that a,copy of the application, vit that such notice was given. The notice all documents and evidence relied upon •by nevi ivins or this sc of noticeetion shall a >t restrict the applicant and applicable criteria , are g g y other means, includ- available for inspection at no cost and will tog Posting, newspaper publication, radio and television. 11989 c.761 Ma (enacted in lieu of be provided at reasonable cost; 197,762)1 (i) State that a copy of the staff report Note: 197,763 was enacted into law by the Legisla•will be available for inspection at no cost at live Assembly in lieu of ORS I07702 which was not least seven days prior to the hearing and will added to or mode a port of ORS chapter 197 or any se• be provided at reasonable cost; and tics therein by legislative action. I'tel'uce to Oregon ' F Revised.Statutes for further explanation. (j) Include a general explanation of the 197.765 11973 c.482 §2a; repealed by 1077 c.665 §24 requirements for submission of•testimony and the procedure for conduct of hearings. 197.767 11987 c.729 §4; repealed by 1989 c,837 §34l 197.775 11973 c.482 §11; repealed by 1077 c.665 §24 (4)(a) All documents or evidence relied 197.780 11973 c.4S2 §12; repealed by 1977 e,665 §24 upon by the applicant shall be submitted to 197.785 (1973 cA82 §13; repealed by 1977 c,665 §24 the local government and be made available to the public at the time notice provided in 197.790 11973 c,482 §14; repealed by 1977 c.665 §24 197.795 11973 c.482 §10; repealed by 1977 c,605 §24 subsection (3) of this section is provided. •(b) Any staff report used at the hearing shall 'lie b.ddilable at least seven' clays prior LAND USE BOARD OP APPEALS to the hearing. li-If additional doratmeitts or 197'.805 Polic • on review of land use ,', evidence is rovided to su ort of the a decisions. It is tie policy of the Legislative • ca ion, an pparty s to a entt a to a con- Assembly that time is of the essence in iinuance of the hearing. SucT a con tore reaching final decisions in matters involving r `sftaIl not be subject to the limitations of ORS land use and that those decisions he made 215.428 or 227.178. consistently with sound principles governing (5)' •At the commencement of a hearing judicial review. It is the tntet,t of the Legis- under a comprehensive plan or'land use reg. dative Assembly in enrtcting ORS 197.805 to ulation, a statement shall be made to those 197.855 to accomplish these objectives. 11979 in attendance that: c.772 §Ia; 1983 c,527 §251 197.810 Land Use Board of Appeals; (a) Lists,the applicable substantive crite• appointment and removal of members; rta, qualifications: (1) There is hereby created a ,a' . (b) States that testimony and evidence Land Use Board of Appeals consisting of not. �• must be directed toward the ..criteria de- more than three members appointed by the �IV,: scribed in paragraph (a) of this subsection or Governor subject to confirmation by the other criteria in the plan or land use regu. Senate in the 'manner provided in ORS t lation which the person believes Co apply to 171.562 and 171,565. The board shall consist the decision; and of a chief hearings referee chosen by the S 1„- (c) States that failure to 'raise an issue referees and such other referees as the Gov „ with' sufficient'specificity to afford the deci� ernes considers necessary. The members of sion makdr and the parties an'opportunity to the board first appointed by the Governor ` respond to the issue precludes appeal to the shall be appointed by the Governor to serve board based on that issue. for a term beginning November 1, 1979, and ending July 1, 1983. The salaries of the + (6) Unless there is a continuatice, if a menibers shall be fixed by the Governor un. ` participant.so requests before the conclusion less otherwise provided for by law. The 'sal' • of the initial evidentiary hearing, the record ary •of a member of the board shall not be • i ' shall remain open for at least seven days id. reduced during the period of service of the - ter the hearing. Such an extension shall not member. • ' be subject to the limitations of ORS 215.423 or 227.178. (2) The Governor may at any time rep (7) When a local body, move any member of the board for inefli• fi governing plan. ciency, incompetence, neglect of duty, ring commission, hearings body or hearings malfeasance 1h office or unfitness to render ., ocor reopens a record to admit new evi• effective service, Before such removal the ffi . 1 dence or testimony, any person nut); raise Governor shall give the member a copy of • 19.156 . e r y . a0' bn `i'n • • • • • • • • • I • Y• • • ;; io • c , • • • • • • • ' r t 1t 'l ^ ..:� P..A.R°'X" L Le DC 3N-srENTORY C) 'TREES CU'°7C TAT X7CHOU'T 113C"3R.EE CUT'I'XrTG• P3E3R.N_L"X' Robert Ellison Date of walkthrough with Tom Coffee and Hamid Pishvaie: Sheryl Gunderson, Connie Emmons, Sherry Patterson September 3, 1991, 10:00 a.m. NORTHERLY 1/3 OF PROPERTY ONLY: • INVENTORY: Beginning at east side of property south of wetland area but north of remains of cut black cottonwood tree: r, 1. Maple XX 7 inch diameter 2. Maple 10 inch diameter located toward cottonwood 3. Maple 13 inch diameter westwardly 4. Maple XX 7 inch diameter westwardly 5. Fir 7 inch diameter westwardly 6. Maple 9 inch diameter toward center of property 7. Maple 8 inch diameter westward 8 . Maple 8 inch diameter westward 9. Maple 12 inch diameter westward 10. Maple 9 inch diameter westward to 11. Unknown 9 inch diameter westward . i, 12. Fir 14 inch diameter westward • 13. Fir ? XX 7 inch diameter s.e. 10 feet approx. 14. trir ? 8 inch diameter e. 25 feet approx. , 15. Fir ? 7 inch diameter same location • 16. Fir 19 inch diameter 10 feet west a pprox. 1 17. Unknown 8 inch diameter 20 feet west approx. :°p 1 • 18 . Unknown 7 inch diameter 10 feet west approx. a '. ~ 19. Maple 8 inch � $ '9 ' ' : 0 diameter 20 feet west approx. hi' r• 20. Maple 8 inch diameter 50 feet west and to right. , •I • • • • • n. r• • , • n • •,:ice . I 'Y • • • • • • • h , c IQ Page 2 • 21. Maple 11 inch diameter same location % 22. Filbert 18 inch diameter 25 feet west and south 23. Unknown 9 inch diameter 35 feet north and west 24. Unknown 12 inch diameter 25 feet south approx. • 25. Fir 7 inch diameter north/west 50 feet approx. a 26. Hemlock ? 18 inch diameter 10 feet west approx. 27. Oak ? 6 inch diameter 10 feet north/west 28. Maple 21 inch diameter 35 feet north/west 28A Maple 7 X 8 1/2 in. dia. same location 29. Oak ? 8 inch diameter 15 feet south/west 30. Cottonwood 8 inch diameter 15 feet north approx. 31. Fir 27 inch diameter 100 feet south/west 32. Fir 8 inch diameter same location 33. Unknown 7 inch diameter 25 feet south/west .. k 34. Fir 8 inch diameter 150 feet north approx. • 35. Fir 11 inch diameter 6 feet north/east 36. Unknown 10 inch diameter same location 37. Ash ? 10 inch diameter 20 feet west approx. 38. Maple 7 inch diameter 30 feet north approx. • 39. Unknown 14 inch diameter 50 Feet north approx. 40. Maple 7 inch diameter 300 feet west approx. 41. Ash 16 inch diameter back of grove/wet end :� Y•t 4 1 42. Note 9 inch diameter split trunk on ground south from #41. Follow trail east back to Canal Road. Note: South above trail and fallen tree. • / J ,Y• • 0 A Page: 3 43. Fir 14 inch diameter 18 inches high stump. • 4 This surveyis an quick overview and covers only the northerly 1/3 u " of the subject property. Considerable tree cutting has also occurred on the remaining areas of this property. XX indicates the four (4) stumps which Tom Coffee, Lake Oswego , .• Planning Director, did not accept as violations because size was questionable. ti r. A tree must be 5+ inches in diameter at 24 inches above the ground to require a permit for cutting. • • V 1. • • r t of n• • • i J • • , Y4 410 c ; • t lc • tU V A.i. 4'. C 1u i Y l ♦ y C. 6y • • • • • • • • • • • •i • • • • • • • • • • • • • ` STAFF REPORT . . CITY LAKE F . , .. PLANNING DIVISION_ TO: Development Review Board ti. FROM: Barbara Smolak, Associate Planner SUBJECT: AP 91-4, Appeal of City Manager's approval for a 2—lot minor partition (SD 52-90) DATE: September 6, 1991 t, • • :Background: ` This is an appeal of an action of the City Manager as provided by LOC 49.630 and LOC 49.015(10). • The decision was rendered as provided by LOC 49.200. The Development Review Board may consider any oral and written testimony and materials provided by the appellant, the City Manager or other interested persons. The Development Review Board may • uphold, modify, remand or reverse the City Manager's decision [LOC 49.630(3)}, 0 The appeal of the original staff decision to approve the 2—lot minor partition is brought by a nearby resident, The appellants Notice of Appeal (Exhibit A) identifies eight points of concern, The Board ' • must examine the masons cited in the Notice of Appeal and any evidence submitted at the hearing in determining whether the minor partition complies with all applicable criteria. The issues raised by the ' appellant are listed below, followed by staff analysis. A discussion of the original application is found • in the original report and decision (Exhibit B), • Discussion of Issues by Appellant: 1. The appellant claims that the size of Parcel A as depicted in Exhibit 3 is not 18,000 sq. ft. in size. The size of Parcel B is not 36,300 sq. ft. • • The total site area is 1,24 acres or 54,014 sq, ft(Exhibit C). The applicant is proposing Parcel A to be '. li.t,000 sq. ft.; therefore Parcel B will be 36,014 sq. ft. The final survey and plan will reflect the exact ;Y area of each parcel. 2. The appellant claims that the length of the western boundary of the original parcel,the w boundary adjoining his property, is not 543 feet as depicted in Exhibit 3. It is 538 feet. The length of the eastern boundary is 543 feet and the length of the western boundary is 538 feet • ' Exhibit C), The final plan will show these dimensions, AP 91-4 Page 1 of 3 • 1 . .1.: • 3. The appellant claims that the diagram showing the parcels before and after the partition fail to show the 20 ft. dedication which the staff is recommending. Normally this is not shown on the preliminary survey, but instead at the time the final plan is submitted for approval by the staff. The site is of sufficient size to accommodate this dedication and meet all the setback requirements. 4. The appellant claims that the applicant fails to provide the topographical information required by Development Standards. Staff determined the level of detail presented by the applicant and the soils engineer was sufficient for partitioning purposes. A greater level of detail will be required for actual construction. The proposed 1'" construction activity is in the relatively flat areas; no activity is proposed in the steeper areas on the edges of the property. The slope from north to south at the northerly end of the north building site is 16% to 20%. 5. The appellant claims that the application failed to include the necessary erosion control plan as required by 16.035(4). , Erosion control plans are required for major development permits and construction, The proposed °;; partition is a minor development permit and does not propose construction work at this stage. In single family home construction, erosion measures must be in place before footing inspections are done. 6. The appellant claims that the application fails to adequately address the effect of drainage onto his property as required by 12.020. • Partitioning in and of itself does not alter drainage patterns. The staff report requires that the drains •' must be taken to a discharge point approved by a licensed soils engineer; and the design of such systems shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to construction, as a condition of approval of ' ••, the partition, 7. The appellant claims that the proposed building site will put part of the new house in a , ,,. particular area of the lot which has especially deep fill and has slid substantially in the 11 years he has lived next door. • • The actual siting of the house would be in accordance with the recommendation of the soils engineer and reviewed and approved by the City Engineer during the building permit process. 8. The appellant claims that in processing this application, the staff has failed to enforce LOC • 49.605(5). The applicant submitted the names and addresses of the owners of record according to the County Tax Assessor's records for notification purposes (Exhibit D). Recommendation: ' Based on the evidence currently in the record, staff recommends that the original decision (Exhibit B) be,4 upheld. AP 91-4 . Page 2 of 3 ., 1/ •t a f „ _ • a .', .�. r, 1 ''.,..: 414 Exhibits • • A. Notice of Appeal of SD 52-90,dated July 1, 1991 B. Staff Report and Decision, SD 52-90,dated June 7, 1991 C. Tax Map D. List of Property Owners r i , v f• � 1 'T' d �r •O I y.♦ • • • { e . J iyt '1. • A • • 7 • • • AP 91-4 Page 3 of 3 • y •v , � n 9 °b• . • . . .. • .. . . .• . •. .. ... • , . .„ r ''r. . , ,•••• . , , .. . . . . • 1' • . „ 1 r r r c" N r' cc: Barb, Smolak"'� 9 4,� rRi�ctird M. Moran Tom Coffee _ � Box 74 ( *Ora �hstaiR Jeff Condit ' Oswego, Oregon 97034 t�,(+�r .., .. —_/.•• - ."..... �ctre 30, 1991 � Z' ►C J�.. till REGO1ipE61 4: City Recorder City of Lake Oswego ' 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Regarding: SD 52-90 Proposed Minor Partition at 695 G Avenue l have received notice dated June 18, 1991 , of the staff approval the above referenced minor partition, of my notice of appeal of that decision to thecappropriateletterbe hearing body, i am an owner of several parcels of land in the immediate vicinity including tax lot #200 immediately west of the parcel to be divided. is3 am appealing the partition for the following reasons : 1 • The size of parcel A as depicted in exhibit 3 is not 18, 000 sq . ft. in size. The size of parcel B is not 36 , 300 sq, ft . 0 The length of the western boundary of the original j boundary adjoining my propertyparcel , ted in exhibit 3. It is 538 feet. , is not 543 feet as depicted 3. The diagram showing the parcels before and after the fails to show the 20 ft. dedication which the partition r recommending, is 4. The application fails to provide required by Development Standards (6)the topographical i16 .035t(7) which are not optional on this and the s ep slopes. It is required by 16 . 035p ( 1 )e hatdthis ue oi formation �, be included at the time of making the application for the partition in order to adequately address erosion and drainage considerations prior to deciding on lot boundaries . The application fails to include the necessary erosion control J plan as required by 16 . 035 4 ( ) My property has a continuing 110 . . , . . . . . . "+ :ace of appeal: SD 52�90 .iEXHIBIT /4 page 1 • • < j y • erosion problem from the steep bank of fill which raised the level of the applicant 's back yard above the level of mine ,If there is development in the vicinity of the bank , the 1' erosion problem will become much greater . h 9 6. The application fails to adequately address the effect I drainage onto my property as required by12. 020 . of the applicant installed the new drainfield for thevexisting house we have had a substantial drainage problem in our back yard. This area was formerly primarily grass but is now c' primarily buttercups and other bog suggestion that the roofs of the existing houseand garage staff connected to that drain field will increase mygarage be } problem. 7. The proposed building site, as I understand the plan, will put part of the new house in a particular area of the lot which has especially deep fill and has slid substantially in the 11 years we have lived next door . The general direction of the sliding of that corner is onto my •, , • � of a house, as well as the property . The added weight to increase the sliding of process the l and and threatentruction' lower the is1 low ler • levels of my property. B. In to • processing this application, the staff has failed 0 .c, "` enforce LOC 49 . 605 (5) . ..,0 ((I� M A.•. It is not my intention to oppose the partitioning as such . I am, however very much concerned that it be done in such a way as to insure a viable building site that does not adversely impact my r .:� property. I am especially concerned about the impacts of landslide, surface soil erosion, and drainage onto my property, As best I can determine, the proposed new building site is atop the area which Mr. Wright (AW Geotechnical Services, Inc. , "Preliminary Geotechnical Reconnaissance" , Dec. 18 , 1990) indicates contains 30+ feet of fill . This area is already sliding onto my property . • a topographical survey showing the contours , a site plan drawn to the same scale, and a drawing of the soil study to the same scale, the problems can probably be solved. I agree with the December 28 recommendation by Mr . Wright that the new unit be located as close as possible to the existing house, ;, 'he building standards for Hillside Protection and Erosion control require that the topological survey include all existing buildings cra neighboring properties within 100 feet of the applicant's �~operty .. I would sug gest that it also include all the way to the 1 cottom of those steep slopes near the boundary . I will be happy to provide the licensed surveyor with access to requests it. my property when he Niz •ce of appeal: SD 52-900 page «.. • V•.. , J I ' Mrs . Randall indicated to the neighborhood association that they intended to continue ownership of Parcel A and rent it out . If that is still the case, then it may be possible to build their new house ' : 'without needing 'to actually partition the property. 1 P y• If that is possible, then staff comment on the need to abandon their right to a circular drive would no longer be true, 1 would also like to express my ( ;pinion that the city should not require the Randalls to give the city 20 feet along o Avenue, a 1 :/„..,,,4,i' 7 _ m,,,,,____,----- . , • . , . . ,.. . ' . • , .. ,..„ ,.. , . . , . , . . ,. ,.., 1 . ,. ..• .. .. . ... , . . a ' J, , i • • • 'i J • • ict-ce of appeal; SD 52-90 page 3 ..'.',;, • 41.,,, .. I: • 1. r. •• , .. .i . ' ..'c'.' . .• , •• .. ' '., i•''''',,:', ' '''. ,..„. ...... ...r. •• , ..;.,'‘it::: ••••••_.,' . , . „ . .. ... : i . "'•:• , .• . ... , * .. :.'....,-.. '• .-,. ,• . .• .., .,„ . ....,,.'','1 ,N.: . ,,':1,::--•:*.. ., ..,., .'• 'h.'''. .'4,. - .• , . • . . . - . •. -,, ' . 4 4 .1. • • . 4...... ••". . .1 ..•i 411:.# '4. :0 '.'';'•4 *:• •• ' `',.• :.i, , : •r.t r• • r. ' •• ,. . # • • 4 , •••. A t. #.• • . •.•I' . • :: , ., ...• r . . , 4 • . . A. ,..t, • ' •• • .. , . ..... . ,I. • • 4. '• • • • -. , ,. w• .‘ . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . , . . . .. . • • e ' , 1r.. i STAFF REPORT• Mr . . . . f '_.• , CITY OF. . . LAKE OSWEGo . .. .. .. :., . :- . ., , . APPLICAN"e: FILE NO,: Jerry&Joann Randall { •;V SD 52-90 PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: • Jerry &Joann Randall Barbara Smolak LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT: Tax Lot 300 of June 7, 1991 Tax Map 2 1 E 308 LOCATION: p NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: 695 "G" Avenue First Addition { `r rQMP. PLAN D1`C tvA'1'TON: ZONING DESIGNATIQ j: r �� R-7.5 n• ,, R-7,5 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST " The applicant is requesting approval of a 2—lot minor partition on a 1.,24 acre site. The parcels are proposed to be 18,000 and 36,300 sq. ft. in size, ."` ) "' II. APPL,ICAB E REGULATIONS A. • GiiX of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: Urban Service Boundary Policies General Policy III,Specific Policy 4 •4• • ' Impact Management Policies �` General Policy II, Specific Policy 3 ' • Wildlife Habitat Policies General Policy I • • Potential Landslide Area Policies , General Policy I • Energy Conservation Policies "' EXHIBIT SD 52-90 ' P 97 --- • Pagelof8 • ' � •` W' ; � ''„ ' i ` 8+ ,I tom) • E. Qityof Lek__ e Oswego Wing Orinance: LOC 48,195-48.225 R-7.5 Zone Description (setbacks, lot area, lot LOC 48.535(4) coverage) O Special Street Setbacks C. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: II g•` • LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards LOC 49.140 Minor Development LOC 49.220-49.210 Minor Development Procedures • LOC 49.215 Authority of City Manager LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 5.005—5.040 Street Lights 7.005 —7.040 Parking & Loading Standard 10.005 — 10.040 Fences 12.005 — 12.040 Drainage Standard for Minor Development 13.005— 13.040 Weak Foundation Soils 14,005— 14.040 Utility Standard ` 18.005 — 18.040 Access Standard 19.005— 19.040 Site Circulation —Private Streets/Driveways § t' I E. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance: LOC 57.005—57.135 F. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinancg: LOC 55.010-55.13Q III. FINDING, A. Existing Condition; ` '. 1. The total site is composed of approximately 54,300 sq, ft, in a rectangular configuration, located at 695 "G" Avenue. 2. There is an existing single family dwelling on Parcel A which will be 18,000 sq, ft, in size. 3. The new building site is a relatively flat area sloping gently to the north were it then drops off into a thick forest. This site was filled several decades ago. 4. A 8" water main is located in "G" Avenue, . B. Proposal; 0 '. - 4 '' ' The applicant proposes to create two parcels from a 54,300 sq, ft, lot, The parcels will be • 18,000 sq. ft. (Parcel A) and 36,300 sq. ft. (Parcel B) in size, 0 y SD 52-90 5 Page2of8 , • 1; J ` U t i . ii; C. Compliance with Criteria for Approval: As per LOC 49.615, staff must consider the following criteria when evaluating minor development, d ' 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval. royal. The applicant has borne the burden of proof through submittal of documents marked as exhibits, accompanying this report. 2. For any development application to be approved, it shall first be established that the proposal conforms to: a. The City's Comprehensive Plan • Applicable policy groups are: . Urban Service Boundary Policies These policies require the City to manage and phase urban growth within the Urban Service Boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic services. Specific Policy 5, which is used as a guide in interpreting the meaning of the General Policy, states that new development shall be serviced by an "urban level" of services, including schools. This specific policy also states that these services are to be available or committed prior •to approval of development. The City Council memorandum of September 18, 1990 • demonstrates that the current level of school planning and coordination between the City and School District satisfy this General Policy. The passagei school levy on November 7, 1989 further assures adeuat school facilities.on dollar Impact Management Policieso 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 be protected from removal, • streams be preserved and that density 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. • Potential Landslide Area Policies. These policies require identification of areas with potential for land slide hazard and' requires the City to regulate land use, density and intensity of activity in landslide areas,City resources compiled from U.S. Soil Conservation Service District mapping indicates that the site has a potential for landslide hazard. The applicant has addressed these policies by submitting Exhibit 6, which is a geotechnical report. t ' SD 52-90 Page 3 of 8 6 , >4 1 i .. , ::::,,,:. .. ,,,),,,;: ',',.,,:.: • M � Energysonservation P i i s These policies encourage energy conservation through solar orientation and site planni "' which takes into account the site's natural features. These policies are now implement:'through the City's Solar Access Ordinance (LOC Chapter 57) Which will be reviewed later in this report. b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations. Zoning Cede Requirements and Analysis • The site is zoned R-7.5 which requires a minimum lot area of 7,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit; required minimum lot width at the building line is 50'; required total depth is 100' L ' [LOC 48.210(1)]. Maximum lot coverage is 35% for an interior lot or 40% for a corner lot [LOC 48.225(1)]. The maximum height in the zone is 35 [LOC 48.220]. The zone requires the following minimum setbacks: Front Yard: 25 ft. Rear Yard: 25 ft. Side Yard: 5 ft. minimum width, total combined minimum 15 ft. , The maximum height allowed in the zone is 35 feet [LOC 48,220). The setback requirements can be met for both parcels. Review of height and lot coverage for any nc structure will occur duringthe building g permit review process. The applicant proposes the parcels to be the following sizes: Parcel A 18,000 sq. ft. Parcel B 36,300 sq. ft. The proposed parcels conform to all applicable zoning requirements. LOC 48.535(4), Special Street Setbacks, requires a 20 ft. setback measured from the right—of—way of''G" Avenue. Dedication of a 20' right—of—way will be required to • comply with the Utility Standard to meet the City's future street needs. • 17evelonment t^ode Rgq sir menu and Anil siS • The proposed minor partition is appropriately being processed as a minor development, • , Other than the applicable Development Standards, there are no other Development Code requirements applicable to this request. ,polar Access Ordinance Requirements and Analysis The construction of a dwelling or accessory structures on the site, or the planting of non— solar friendly vegetation, must comply with LOC 57.050—57.090,the Solar Balance r'Point provisions of the Solar Access Ordinance, R Tree Cutting Ordinance Requirements and Analysis • • This ordinance is intended to preserve trees. Only those trees which must be removed in , order to site proposed improvements will be granted tree cutting permits. The applicant • SD 52-90 • Page 4 of 8 • v • • is ..t • 5 w �. .., Jv; — shall position proposed dwellings so as to minimize the number of trs removed incompliance with LOC 55.080(2). This will be required as a condi on of this action, if r { "I approved. Them is a large Red Cedar in the vicinity of the proposed driveway. The applicant / { be required to submit a plan prepared by a consulting arborist detailing the for protecting this tree. S methods for c. The applicable Development Standards ' Sttreeti iahrc , 00 r tl There is a street light at the intersection of 7th and "F" Avenues, which is directl of the property. This provides compliance with the standard, y in front • • Parking an�i---->sl^adinL(7.005_7 0 n • This standard requires that each single family dwellingprovide spaces in addition to a garage or carport. Each parcel sufficient size to meet the parking requirement. Fences (10 00 1 : . ' . ,': . Fences are not a pan of this proposal. Any fences that may be constructed at a must comply with this standard. later date not •' • This standard requires that drainage alterations, includingnew ' adversely affect neighboring properties. There are no public storm development, y in the vicinity of the site. systems Drainage naturally goes over the surface of the land and eventually to Tryon soils in this area am erodible; therefore, roof and foundation drains must e takentoThe point of discharge approved by a licensed soils engineer and measures need to be taken reduce the velocity and energy of the discharge. Design and installation of this system to will be required as a condition of approval of this action, if approved, weak Fo mdation Soils (1 00 y 0401 ' , This standard applies to all development which will involve proposed structure in areas identified as "potential weak foundation soils", s located Although this site is not identified on the City's "Weak Foundation Soils"mapit identified on the "Potential for Landslide Hazard" map as havingpotential is limitations. The applicant has submitted a detailed geotechnical report wich de the condition of the fill area on the site, p describes the soils report The construction recommendations outlined in P (Exhibit 6) will be a part of the conditions of approval and the foundation design suggested in the report shall be approved by an engineer prior to issuance of - any e ^. building permits, : : , 0 d. •. , SD 52-90 . . Page 5 of 8 . 4 • ;Y Utility Standard (14.005— 14,04Q) 7 r• This standard requires that infrastructure improvements be installed underground where • , possible. All services to the new dwelling will be required to be provided underground. Them is a manhole in the alley between 6th and 7th on the south side of"G"Avenue. It • is the top end of an 8" system that drains into the Lake Interceptor. The City Engineer will determine whether or not sewer service will be permitted by a private pumping system or by a S.T.E.P. system, which will pump into a public pressure line. The standard also requires necessa ry ary right—of--way to be dedicated when utilities and related facilities need to be provided. Twenty feet of right—of—way dedication shall be provided to meet the future right—of—way needs. ,,\ccess Standard (18.005— 18.0401 This standard requires that each parcel abut a public street for at least 25 feet. Both parcels will comply with this standard. Parcel A will have 75 feet and Parcel B will have 25 ft. Site Circulation—Private Streets/Drivewkvs (19.005 — 19.0.A0j This standard requires that driveways for single family dwellings not exceed 20% grade nor 5% cross slope. The grades of the site in the area proposed for development will enable compliance with this standard which will be assured upon application for any building permit. d. Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS rL • Them are no such plans which affect this site. y . C. Conclusion: Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant, staff concludes that the proposal complies with or can be made to comply with all applicable criteria. Ill. ACTION TAKEN The staff approves the proposed minor partition, subject to the following conditions: 1 J 1. A final plan (as depicted in Exhibit 3) shall be submitted to City staff for review and signature of approval within one year of the date of this decision. Upon written application, prior to expiration of the one year period, the City Manager shall, in writing, grant a one year extension. Additional extensions may be requested in writing and must ` ' be submitted to the City Manager for review of the project for conformance with current • law, development standards and compatibility with development which may have occurred in the surrounding area. The extension may be granted or denied and if granted, • may be conditioned to require modification to bring the project into compliance with then current law and compatibility with surrounding development. , 2. The final plan shall be registered with the Clackamas County Surveyor's office and ' recorded with Clackamas County Clerk's office, 0 . ,. 3, The following note shall appear on the final plan: 410 . ,w SD 52-90 Page ti of 8 • • • Parcels A and B are Solar Lots. Development of structures and • planting of non-exempt vegetation on Parcels A and B shall comply with the Solar Balance Point Provisions of the Solar Access Ordinance (LOC 57.050-57.090). This requirement shall be binding upon the applicant and subsequent purchasers of Parcels A &B. 4. Evidence of the above to be provided to the Public Works and Development Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits requested subsequent to the date of this approval. 5. The applicant shall dedicate 20 feet along "G" Avenue to the City for future right-of way purposes. 6. The applicant shall sign a nonremonstrance agreement for future street improvements in "G" Avenue. This agreement shall apply to all parcels as approved. 7. The applicant shall design and build a roof and foundation drainage system. The design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to construction. 8. The City shall allow the removal of only those trees necessary to site a dwelling or , accessory structure on Tax Lot 300. This removal shall comply with LOC 55.050- 55.080 (Tree Cutting Ordinance). The applicant shall provide a tree survey illustrating the location, type and diameter of at( trees in excess of 5 inches on each adjusted parcel � s : in application for each building permit requested subsequent to this approval. r Development on each adjusted parcel shall avoid as many trees as possible through �;. prudent site planning. 9. The applicant shall be required to submit a plan prepared by a consulting arborist .' detailing the methods for protecting the large Red Cedar in the vicinity of the proposed driveway. :. •N. MISCELLANEOUS r i• `' Prepared by: , ,g" 0- _I _ 1--A IIII Ar.. A I 1-X....," t420 /7 / 9 9/ . . . 'BARA SMOLA — Da --6) (- Associate Planner Approved by: 'dui? /Y/ TOM CO i' Date Planning Director - :. . 0 SD 52-90 Page 7 of 8 ! 4 r Reviewed by: • . CINDY PHILLIPS / /9/ Date Deputy City Attorney EXHIBITS 1. Tax Map 2. Applicant's Narrative • • 3. Site Plan 4. Geotechnical Report,dated De+.,unber 28, 1990 5. Letter from Jerry Randall, dated February 11, 1991 6. Geotechnical Report, dated April 16, 1991 • ; • r • • is •. of • ,1♦ • { t � • SO 52-90 • r Page 8 of 8 1��r i , • c,,...• V ' , �2p�t I' +si• t a r fir / s :IP:.,c • \ '"-.0, ` • . • \ / 0 2 • ' , " • b .,,` �54 sad 4,�e 5 • ~/ • '••„ 600 fttsos il itS1 \i\„; . • /1 .r!f' sss�qc ..• ill‘ ,41.• V 0 1/ • • 7 i°'4/ I 1 I lk,\li t\l\‘:..\i. \114 • / ',, 4 • .,y,1� sue.f / e k�� -----------7 CO / /Th ...., N / ,: Ti ' Itt..4,140 e 1.1..1°.-...'...'-' 11''7-1-1.1'1115 .11,,,iicit*.p,!.451,,,,.!//' / . : 4. 6 ° . ,4.,.,,.. ... � irS r / S . . , r aP{7 t J �ir L -. • SEA MAp 2 Ir r; - 'lliiitRo'•- . . . ,.r V .. � 1 ,. ` ... . ,���•, 'fit. �.` t \.. .. •�♦ ., t ..� : • • • • • 'I. .1 � 1• .t• ♦t .• I II1 i9.11 f♦ • - t t i, CC'4PLIANCF WITH THE APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Stream Corridor There are no stream corridors on this site. Wetlands There are no wetlands located on this site. Parking Two off-street parking spaces, not including the garage, are required for a single family unit. Adequate parking for this lot will be provided. Drainage for Minor Development -! Drainage will be run to the back of the property where it will a drain into Tryon Creek. r ,' ; Utilities All utilities listed below are available to the lot from F Avenue. Sanitary Sewer Water Supply Gas and Electricity , Street Lights 4 There is a street light at the intersection of 7th and F Avenue, • which is directly in front of the property. ,i : . Flood Plain N/A ; • " Erosion Control N/A • . . 0 a , , Fria /0 : ,. .( V SI, ' t COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (continued) Fences. There are no fences to be constructed. Trees The request for partition and future development of the lot should not involve the cutting of any trees. Access Frontage of the property to be partitioned is 100 ' . This is 10 ' more than required for a minor partition. Access will be gained from r F Avenue. 0 ' ' : xu r, 1 r 1 . )' • , 't. 1 fir • 1 11 .^. , 4 J• • b • j. ,a v.. December 1, 1990 City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: ' r The object of this minor partition is to subdivide a 1.24 acre parcel into two lots. The existing home would remain on a lot approximatly 100'X180' . The second parcel would be of approximatly 100'X363' and be used to accamodate a new residential structure (home) of cpproxl-- matly 2800 square_feet. We have outgrown the existing home. The lot to be minor partitioned is zoned R7.5. I have applied for and received a preapplication conference. The ' ' conference was held with Russell Chevrette, Lynn Bailey and one other ♦ gentleman who's same I do not recall. There were no complications for building, the access clearances were adequate. The city Was not ', , , anxious for me to cut a fir tree, so the access road size would be 12 feet. The two concerns were sewer and soil compaction since the site was filled 20 to 30 years ago. I have contacted Tony Wright,• a soil analyst. Tony stated the soil is definitely buildable, but prior to building he would like to analyze the soil and make any recommendations necessary. We also had a meeting with Paul Harris in regards to a sewer system. The basic details have been discussed and appear to be acceptable to all parties involved. • Enclosed I have included a site plan, tax map and a property owner- 4. ship list. Please let me know if you need any more information. You can reach me at 635-4176. Sincerely, , •+vim 0 ., • • Jerry A. Randall . . • Enclosures • Jr t ' I I a ,. A • • C.'' • • • .` St i • 4 i • • • • • • tl • i l l •• a 4.ece L ,c— '/A' s'" 5/ AG?o , . , s oC71JEE 1 P,eo -e 4 ry /544,s 5.�3' i 4,O 006 it) 4- o1-4) /U� 7.-A6 t /4- / /,os2/UE et//GL. .. . \`. MU 26 b Afro .LOT' 4C- lla "_� U ht kZS/ sYV � j • awEw . , , t / '06%1° . Pofwcel. I c Y "ar e0 4 il; i".!yl,;10 ei g;;AL,I a zve I 0 L., w' 9C{'I B'1 Ti Co q5 6- A•UE(J USE` fir;, ° i;,iur t g. .ram - . Q• ' +' i• A✓,e , If •1+ • • Y. r • •• 0.• d ,.1• �o{ 0 • • Y• • • • • • • • • • • • 1. . 1 ' .a 1 • • • ' 1 • A 4110 , • b• • • r 1 • • 1# AW GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, Inc. 1470 Horseshoe Curve Lake Oswego, OR 97034 DEC 5 I, 9 FAX: (503) 636-1628 PHONE: (503) 635-3146 695 "G" Avenue December 28, 1990 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Attention: Mr Gerry Randall PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RECONNAISSANCE RE: PROPOSED MINOR PARTITION 695 "G" AVENUE, LAKE OSWEGO, OREGM • In response to your request, we performed a geotechnical reconnaissance of the subject site on December 18 , 1990. • e"' A schematic outline of the proposed site with reference to your existing residence is shown on the Site Plan, Fig. l. The site has evidently been developed by historical filling * ' several decades ago to develop a flat area some 200 ft in length and 100 ft in width. The adjoining fill slopes of the created ``;' ' plateau area vary from 50 to 55%. The upper filled area slopes " slightly toward the north. The surface is covered by grass. The top of the slope is flanked by occasional 12 to 14 in. diameter { ' Scotch pines. The origin of the fills is not known but appear to be composed mostly of silt with evident occasional concrete and •• asphalt fragments which were occasionally noted in exposed slope exposures. • The fills appear to be 7 ft or so in thickness over the west side increasing to 20 to 30 ft over the extreme northerly portions and 20 ft or so along the east side. A 8 to 10 ft high or so concrete retaining wall was noted at the toe of the easterly slope. The filled area and adjoining fill slopes appear to be stable with no evidence of creep or other soil movements. A e a A review of the USGS Lake Oswego Quadrangle Map indicates the original virgin topography slopes on an approximately 201 grade northeasterly toward Tryon Creek which is some 500 ft away from the north property line. A northeasterly draw occurs beyond the northeast portion of the property. A review of Geologic and Geologic Hazards Mapping for the Lake ' ' • Oswego and Gladstone Quadrangles contained "DOGAMI Bulletin 99, Geology and Geologic Hazards of the Northeastern Clackamas county ' Oregon, 1979" indicates that high water tables and Wet soils occur .4, 4,v •ilt'Aill'"' •t"3 ID '��t{ X N 4 Y3�, st,.. • • ,�� Rp ,M1t , 1 t 1 • t Page 2 December 28, 1990 4111 to depths of 1 1/2 ft. The basic geologic unit underlying the site IOW consists of Lacustrine and Fluvial unconsolidated stratified to crossbedded sand and silt and occasional lenses of pebbles to gravel. The underlying unit consists of the Columbia River Basalt Group. It is our opinion that the site is stable and suitable for the proposed duplex unit. w It would appear that it may be necessary to found the proposed duplex unit on foundations that extend into the underlying insitu , • materials. Since the fills slope northward, it may be cost effective to provide a basement level which would minimize the depths of excavations into underlying insitu soils. In addition it would appear necessary to locate the proposed unit as close as possible to the existing residence. It is our opinion that a geotechnical investigation of the site is required to provide information concerning depths of the • fills and the character oi the underlying insitu materials, • Yours truly, AW GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES,INC If (1,4 id Antho J. Wright, P.E, • ,;a 1�, a y,• ;a , • Attachment: Schematic Site Plan I : cc Mr Mike Wheeler City of Lake Oswego 410 i > • a Sv s4-go (~') ��l Ft .' apt., i=►6� A . .. , . . . ., ... . , .. 13 . , _. . J r, 0 � .e.te. . , 'P i»tr t. .. q . 6 CD Fis—L 1 '\'""4r�o �- C 11 . 412A11.e C•vE? 2014 Fg&.t 4 +Fi« ' 7' / . ,;,. le . , t . . . . , . . . .. . , 10...;. ® *),,60..., G e qAR J I A . i • '' E�16 T. .. RES. 14 aAct Ai 1..7 ,J Nw -• el ' C. '1 t, nR • �� 6 / S �4 .� S ?cpCfs E? , le<, S C.I4 MA TA G 410 C 1 i•a PLAN . • • • • s • • _,S.....,.. CA) ....,..............:•,,NN '..N< "'../•••••• •• •\ • k ‘'.\\‘\ '^ , \ ........ ..............,„'''''.* . ...••••••. : \\ \ * \\NN I's 0 9 U 7 • 5 •, .....—. .---. .,:........ ...- .., \ 's ,•,.\ ...,.— ._.,.....'"'-'—'. '* , ....: , ...' ':... ...,..z:_• . .,. ..„...>...! . ... .. ,,NT":. - .. .1 .„.. /50 ...,—.....-..-"--"'N\ 1 • . '. - ' '‘.......-.---••'''''..-...'...--... '--..'.....'s ....'.....--*".'.'"'"'....--------.-------'- ....'' '-. ''..."-'''N x. /.....'".."'.......'"s\"............\\ \ . . . li ,........ ...A -"... ,. , .....\114' ....- \'''-'-'N.'—.°2T ,.....----Z.,.......,...„.„....N.141 . ----.---" . \V .I . --...=-1: '''...j1 % /....;,,:**....\,, ---"---... .,....\\,), ‘.:k‘ii" "Oh 2 . ` "\ \ --" \ \ 1.-Z11-1,71.------1 --:\ \,___ -_„.--. `'' --\__ '-.7) .. •. , _Hi' - . , ---- \ \ .• , . __..,,7:, I \ i \...y...„3:7 I \\\,•:.......---:_—...„ ...---Thb 6______1:;, .....,w)if \ '----h -.. 11e ir :F ; 1,\ 111111111.111411:\>. I '"\-\\ .." 7-::: : : . \." If 62f2- \141i."'--r:"-- I 1-----:---1 ' 'IL-41111111111111\1411 . .s. I , . I • I 115a rr,e I I . f . . 2G4 ‘ , -- .-- . „_... igs, c) , . __1, __. , .. . , ,, '11:7 ,,,, , ,,\„;._ ____ .. ....._ _ , , ,i. N • r , • 1 i/ 1 - ., '""tea I A > ---- t ; I ' 1 tfe7\ ' ' LO JINJA 7: -----', ,..j , 1 ` , ti if ` t l w, February 11, 199111bGt�+, Barbara Smalak City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 F E B 4 1991 Dear Barbara: In response to P your question of who I talked to at the Planning Commission and what was discussed in regards to the step system. A meeting was arranged between Kirk Schultz, Paul Haines, and myself. Kirk Schultz is the new owner of the 1.26 acre parcel to the east of me, the address being 691 G Ave. The reason for the meeting was to discuss the step system. Kirk Schultz and I have gained copies of the original gravity feed system proposed for the properties boarding Tryon Creek State Park from F and G avenues. After looking at the layout of the system the areas that would have to be traversed and proposed costs, we thought there had to be a better way to access the sewer system now proposed. Prior to Kirk Schultz purchasing the ` :'; ' at 691 G Street, property he was made aware of a new sewer system that the City of Lake Oswego was considering for areas where gravity feed was not a realistic or feasible means of providing sewer service. The discussion with Paul was conducted on a premise of likelihood in regards to the adoption of the step system by the city. Kirk Schultz and I explained our situation and offered to help in any way we could. " Paul explained to us the attitude of the City Council toward the step system and what kind of time frame we were looking at an far as the city formalizing the adoption of the system. In answer to your question on specifics, there were no answers as to design; that will be between the City of Lake Oswego and DEQ. Paul conveyed to Kirk and I that he felt the system would be implemented within the next year. Kirk Schultz and I also offered to have the system for our properties designed by the company the city is talking with and giving the design to the city if it would help. So in conclusion, the meeting was for us to determine whether or not we should even pursue a minor partition if sewer was going to be •a prohibitive for us to hook up to. After our discussion with Paul Haines, Kirk Schultz and I decided to go ahead with our partitions. If I can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, ,., '`-' r`(/1/. _ .... .. . . : , Jerr 7 andall ..... ..;.-..... • 695 G Ave. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Fgt,y4 Ituf T pcQ ty„ t,y,�,V�pJ. • . 1 I �' '• , . a • • �•I • • • • • u. I • • • • • • • • • • • • r. t ft (J t r ,r.L• [i.:IY,�> 91-22 ft.(; a APR 2 3 1991 1 . GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION • PROPOSED RESIDENCE 695 "G" AVENUE, LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON FOR JERRY A. RANDALL a : • • • r- 1f APRIL 16,1991 AW GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES,INC+ D PROF-.4,' ' . 410 , � �' ©866 ' � Gd 0 oOU =a l irfKt'. 1f.; (. � r) ! •c` • 0 AW GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, Inc. 1470 Horseshoe Curve Lake Oswego, OR 97034 ,+ FAX: (503) 636-1628 PHONE: (503) 635-3146 ti 695 "G" Avenue April 16, 1991 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Attention: Mr Jerry A. Randall GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RESIDENCE 695 "G" AVENUE. LAKE OSWEGO. OREGON Dear Mr Randall, Transmitted herewith are three (3) copies of our geotechnical investigation report. The investigation consisted of three explanatory borings, and various evaluations to determine the optimum method of developing the residence. This report documents our various findings and presents our recommendations for grading, drainage, and foundation support, Yours truly, AW GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Inc. . '4' .;; /44117 klifyia ,... Anthony J. Wright, P.E. 1'Y. • '(/ �� � 1 , .+ ti. * n h Page 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The location of the site is indicated on the Vicinity Map, Fig.1.. The site ;Is located on a gently sloping fill grade, of the existing residence. The Site Plan, Fig.2 indicates the footprint of the ' approximate fill boundaries. Plans for the one to two story residence feature ati conventional plan and foundation system consistingof a a Y perimeter spread footing with interior concrete pads. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Surface and Topography i The site has been filled several decades ago to develop a relatively flat area some 200 ft in length and 100 ft in width. The northerly portion of the fill area is somewhat depressed, , about 2 1/2 ft or so below the general level of the major southerly portion of the filled plateau ' area. The surface is covered by • grass. Occasional Scotch pines are located around the perimeter of the top of the fill slope. Three of the Scotch pines at the top of the northeasterly and northwesterly fill slope were noted to possess pronounced sweeps at the base of the trunks in the direction of the slope. Generally the fill embankment slopes at about 50%, The extreme northerly slope is steeper with a grade of 60% over the upper 20 ft grading PPe g gas the toe to 45% for a distance of 40 ft or so then grading steeply at about 80% toward a downhill natural ravine. Vegetation over the fill slope consists of miscellaneous brush and brambles. Occasional large chunks of rock and ccacrete fragments were exposed fill embankment. A french drain is located beyond the west property at the top of the an westerly fill slope, y line beyond the toe of the The site a ppears to be moderately drained though the surface conditions were wet and soft at the time of our investigation on March 20,1991. Subsurface Conditions The subsurface conditions were investigated on March 20 1991 with three power auger borings utilizing both solid and hollow stem flights. To gain access to the boring locations, it was necessary to install sh?nts of plywood over the grass to support the wheels of the Versa Pioneer drill rig which was towed by a four wheel drive truck. The approximate locations of the 3 auger borings are shown on the Site Plan, Fig,2. ti S I i 0 . Page 2 Drilling and sampling were performed by a qualified field engineer (Spencer Vandehey :U of Vandehey Soil Explorations) who maintained detailed logs of the soil and water conditions encountered in each boring. The overall drilling and sampling program was planned and monitored at frequent intervals by AW Geotechnical Services,Ine. Disturbed and undisturbed samples were obtained from borings at approximately 5 ft . intervals. Standard Penetration tests (SPT) samples were obtained by driving a split spoon . .:` sampler into the soil a distance of 18 in. using the impact of a 140 lb hammer dropped 30 in. The number of blows required to drive the sampler over the last 12 in. is denoted on the boring logs. The standard penetration resistance or N Value is a measure relative consistency or stiffness of cohesive soils. Relatively undisturbed samples of the silt were obtained by pushing 3,0-in. Shelby tubes into the undisturbed soil a distance of about 24 in. The soil exposed at the end of the Shelby tubes was examined and classified. The ends of the tubes were covered with plastic caps and duct taped to preserve the natural moisture content of the soil. AU of the soil samples were examined by AWLS and tested. The three borings B-1,B-2, and B-3 were drilled to depths of 36 1/2 ft, 31 1/2 ft and 9 1/2 ft respectively. • 0 . . The subsurface conditions revealed by various borings consisted of 16 1/2 to 9 ft of fill (depth increasing in a northerly direction) that consisted of soft brown silt with occasional gravel . . • ; and random organic materials and burned wood pieces. Occasional debris such as bricks, cement and other materials were also observed. An identified slide plane was interpreted at a •,, . depth of 8 1/2 ft in Boring B-1. To obtain a Shelby tube sample in the identified slide plane .. horizon, an additional nearby boring B-3 was drilled and sampled. The fill materials are underlain by medium stiff gray silt to sandy silt that extends to the bottom of the deep borings B-1 and B-2 at 36 1/2 and 31 1/2 ft respectively. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings at the time of drilling. However the upper fill materials were generally wet and seepage conditions can be anticipated in excavations. The wetness of the upper fills may in part be due to a septic leaching field that is apparently located in the general area. We detected no evidence of odorous materials during drilling of the upper fills. Detailed logs of borings B-1,B4,, and B-3 appear on Figs, 5,6, and 7. The Unified Soil r . Classification system is shown on Fig.8. ',. i. - , 0 ,, , . 4 ` : "+w•+ s R , , rY. • Page 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS S General The conditions revealed by the borings for this investigation indicate that the site is underlain by relatively soft silt fill materials to depths of 9 1/2 to 16 1/2 ft over the footprint of the proposed residence. Some variations within a few feet of the latter depths could be reasonably anticipated over the unexplored 'p portions of the residential footprint. fi The fill materials are not considered suitable for spread footingsupport due to adverse settlement considerations. P i• We have discussed various feasible methods of developing the residential foundation with you as follows: '• ' ' 1. Drive timber piling that derive frictional support from the underlying medium stiff insitu silt materials. 2. Excavate all fill materials followed by replacement with compacted processed ' rock fills to develop a standard crawl space or half basement area. 3. Excavate all fill materials followed by limited replacement with compacted , + 4 processed rock materials to develop a full basement. It was agreed that development of a Pull basement area would ap pear to offer the most reasonable and cost effective method of developing the residence at the proposed site. The advantage of full basement construction would be the relatively limited volume of replacement processed crushed rock fills and the development of additional living area. Slab-on-grade support would be suitable for the support of the garage slab subject to appropriate subgrade preparation and reinforcement of the slab. However, the perimeter footing locations should be excavated to remove all fill materials followed by replacement with processed crushed rock fills. . Site observations over then depressed northerly portion of the fill (in the vicinity of boring B- ) suggest that a shallow slide contact occurs at a depth of 8 to 9 ft. The rather sudden • break in grade is considered to most likelybe the upper slide scarp. We surmise that ongoing creep along a shallow sliding surface has occurred over many years. The depressed grade and inclined lower trunks of the Scotch pines near the top of the fill slope are indicative of Ong . term lateral creepmovement, `.. ; Therefore, it will be necessary to locate the residential basement system below any such slide plane. The latter condition will most likely be fulfilled by the required fill excavation to develop a full basement. ' . , . as t C • r•! Page 4 • Site Development and Basement Excavation We recommend that the overall grade over the major southerly portion of the residential , footprint be excavated to a depth of 2 1/2 ft to a level that is compatible with the grade of the depressed northerly fill surface. Following the general site grading, the residential footprint should be excavated to remove all fills for a distance of 4 ft beyond the building lines. Similarly, 5 ft wide excavations S should be made along the perimeter footing lines of the garage. Fill slopes should be excavated at an inclination no steeper than 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (1H1;1V), • ti An outline of the proposed excavations is indicated on Fig.3. • It is necessary that AWGS Inc. evaluate the subgrade conditions, particularly over the v northerly portion of the residential footprint that is currently identified as a potential shallow ' : slide or creep area. Additional excavations may be necessitated if adverse conditions be revealed. If desired, the basement excavation could be continued beyond the north side to the outer . ': fill slope to develop a daylight basement. . Following the basic excavation of the existing fills the subgrade should be overexcavated • (where necessary) to permit the installation of a geotextile stabilization fabric and 2 ft of no fines • , 1 1/2 in. minus crushed rock installed in a single lift. Subsurface drainage should be installed • around the perimeter of the excavation. Details for an appropriate drainage system are indicrated on Fig.4. Spread Footing Support • • Continuous spread footings can be supported directly on the crushed rock fill pad • , compacted with multiple passes of tracked equipment. Interior foundation pads can be similarly • supported directly on the crushed rock till pad. Spread footings bearing directly on the'crushed rock fill pad (minimum thickness 2 ft) r . can be designed to impose real load bearing pressures of 2500 lb/sq ft which applies to the total •a ` of dead and frequently applied live loads, 1 We recommend that all perimeter continuous footings be reinforced with 2 No. 4 rebars, • r • ' 7 A, Pa P, S ,,, `. g Settlements below continuous spread and individual spread foundation pads are estimated to be some 1/2 in. or so below the imposed structural loadings. • Basement Reining aW al, '� Basement retaining walls should be backfilled with import free-draining crushed rock Y materials which should be tamped to 85% of the density obtainable by AASHTO T-99. Some :> economy in backfilling may be attained by utilizing onsite silt materials and backfilling in a layered filling sequence as indicated on the attached Fig.4 Drainage and Footing Details. ' ' ': Standard design details can be utilized for basement retaining walls, Lateral pressures t ' r. r exerted against basement walls can be assumed to be equal to an equivalent fluid pressure of , ii: 35 lb/cu ft. Garage Floor Slab ' . The garage floor slab and approach driveway slab should be supported on 9 in. of 1 1/2 in. minus crushed rock. The subgrade should be proof rolled to detect any soft areas which should be removed and replaced with compacted 1 1/2 in. minus crushed rock. The floor slabs should be reinforced with No,3 rebars on 18 in, centers in each direction. Drainage ti Perimeter subsurface drains should be routed in closed pipes beyond the northwest toe of the fill embankment and downslope toward the existing ravine. Downspouts for rain drains should be si,,nilarly routed to the ravine beyond the north property line. Disposition of Excavation Spoils • Most of the excavate materials should be wasted offsite. • Under no circumstances should excavation spoils be installed over the fill area beyond the northerly side of the proposed residence. It may be feasible to install limited portions of the excavation spoils in an area downslope of the toe of the northerly fill area, some 80 ft or so 0 beyond the top of the northerly fill embankment, Details for appropriate fill spoil disposition • can be worked out at the time of grading. It is necessary that all landscape fills be properly protected for erosion control. Similarly • , Y 1 1 Y. .. 1 '. Temporaryhaybales an other erosion gradingontrol devices be r aire Bunn the construction, all surfaces exposed bythe variousoperations should be grassed or h droseeded, may g ,i' •1l Page 6 LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES The opinions and recommendations contained within this report are not intended nor should they be construed to represent a warranty of subsurface conditions but are forwarded to assist in the planning and development process. In the performance of exploratory borings, specific information is obtained at specific locations. However, variations in the subsurface • conditions may exist between boring locations, the extent of which may not become evident until , the excavations are performed. We recommend that we be retained to observe the site preparation, evaluate identified shallow slide/creep phenomena at the northerly end of the fill embankment, subgrade • preparation, and the crushed rock fill installation to evaluate the adequacy of the work in •h a•` • accordance with intent of this report and the project specifications and plans, Yours truly, AW GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Inc. ,ftfl ,Vim'_- �f , •. • : Anthony JWright, P.E. 1 ' 1, . • . Attachment: Fig.1 Vicinity Map Fig.2 Site Plan Fig,3 Excavation Plan Fig.4 Drainage and Footing Details . . Fig,S Boring Log B-1 Fig.6 Boring Log B-2 Fig.7 Boring Log B-3 Fig,8 Unified Soil Classification r ' 41) • • • •i 1 r tt. 1 1e r c N br 1, } Cl, r� < I w 1N 4 8 ' w•,. 1 `,, •ll, `4,a> .4 1, ' �' , . , SITE "' I hi 44 \Itr, b 3' /el ' NI>r s ( r V . .:•,,, • ' ' a II(•i1 f , - 1� NI ■7/ ' Y MVO l `w i �` r 1 /t♦11 i •1P ,, Of NI • • i/ , • +;/- A 11A ' ,, /4 1'•1 p1 0•, /Pa \'; •J' jO J �{• )fr I le /1 N. N0 ••) •h, P11 • N! r� , ; .. AN • N11' ' Pr ee 1 a, I d Y N I 1 �. •s• • •se • 1 i t 1• 1 a b\ 110 b1 IP I ~/ 71 aft•1 b Ih. •N y, O T_.:,'� x + ri )I be 1 ° rV ]KCQ, • ql y 'I, ■ r • 01 • 11` Ile �, WO 131 '1 �� , NAA�■ • 1,°j �.r !07 tat, y AVIMUE 01 01 01, •4 y'r �1y,' ,` \ A tea toe he •] N u e ��• D ,° N fY / 1, r4 IIe7 /el• ••/ 111733 :.. 4 I see 04, IJ• "' qe .11 I ( 134 'II SO 1e IN '{1 u■ Q• '" i tar/N f - 'r70• IIr /)° )' J11 " 'ea re/ /U 1f0111 rji, , Jy,. .. 1'1 O ,1r,o )r ,1 ,11 ru r�i 111 /11 rIn /e ,1•',�. IPA e1 Ip° 7,f /AI U Lfl /ll �, 1 �0 NA 11• AVlNU( = C. 111 I /no (11 ` •� 1/ 1a .�i a1 b. w'ab N1 : b ° b $•ro }. •/1 �.- Fb qr •)! ~bet 1. °°e y it •1/. A Ir • NO y 4f +NI t4I''i;i II! r p `• 10e •IeI• N1s. I JI/1• 1 : ` 144 4,1 ° h • 1./0 U 11 1nt Ise 1U 100° J1 fN,: b0 .7� l>0 1+ 1+!340 f1n /4 // be '1 11e•1e I eNftl1I +j AYtAU[ IN w r,Il • IJ0 j it 1G u1r IIe /• j� ■ naiO A n 41. IA1 <)1= b 110LIiIII7 . If +1 • r• ONV"a AV I I.7 a;r 110 11�; 1Nl r, p, Y 30 eJ, .: 'l III ri Ie /Y0 a 4414 IYa1 jy I �, 00 1j 4I•• �0 II OI IJ• +l/ ?, .`A'.. • II )/1 • , ,. "Eau A N v is 111 I O e li J1, I 1 I J/A Jf1 ( ).. t. ' °I P • C r •� i) ? , 1 111 t L• ✓ 7N AI/ 1p MI eY I, ue •I 11OA[fN -•.,J JI• !1J Jr ,„ I 'f0 NAIf 400 'II."'" y �` Iii f - r, o Y`'-ti_r r Wa ,01 r A• we I 111 ' ^i)p I,1. • 1, I r ^I) R 7' f --`1 I-�� b1 . I • n , • 1 , N 1 '' 1 �`j f • E lr kJ'11 ` 1 4 1 VICINITY MAP FIG,1 • r � �• c. v �r ttf' . ;...:. ....,'. ' , cS L......... ._______" . i Q N > - } / ""� R-2 (8 1/2' Fill) • (.4 Aii ------\:—.,(—_,.............._.—....... „.„............. PROPOSED RESIDENCE _. Possible Slide Scarp \ j'\\// • B-1 (16 1/2' Fill) Depressed Grade (-3'±) . - l/' • • K....."'""....''''" \ J� V , ; � 4 t. • * . \ 01".‘ 1:? / Fill Embankment Scale l"=20' . SITE PIS FIG,2 - • . ti P ' x�; Existing Residence a ar al <s / fl ge / , /AN > ( 0 . . / ./ . _ .. i I �d . / • . ' ' / Pi t ( i ..'' 1 .r ,e)....' \ • 0. t • //f • / / /..to• it , iiillizir, r 1......._....4.____./....— ""'"'" ).-s-- .,. Indicates Depth -'' of Excavation --c"N...... \ .)0.,e,' . __,..."..,1 , . NExisting Embankment .,�-' Scale I"=20' . { 7-ZIndicates Proposed Initial NOTE: Refer to Text of Report for • ' 3' of Grade Excavation Additional Information] Indicates Limits of • Overexcavation to EXCAVATION ';PLAN ' Remove Existing fills FIG,3 ;ry o • r 7,_ t r r+ ' H r' ti. } I -TAAAPtn o N =tT�:. SILT Fe4.L.S 2% MhN v �/`NIC r. -, Y 441"„ 41 ‘ ' �' Vso G 6 G ! ' A t 4 f } Cl. LI t i.:, 4 44 6 i U I t.I ` L. i I re .0 J 'V Lill B4_. 44 ', �1 ., d tl Q .h.- 1 IS tr e 1 st r ♦ L • Ex1S7ING FILL5 Illikv 9 • a i L • raAtC`ML: y, 41 ,r 4 G 6 4 'ti , , —1 r.1 C II e 040 y. V ,o / L } G ‘ J G • w . 6. .ra 0 iI i \ ........)/4 ri3O 6 a ` I. b I r .t Y tl • t, �h 4 • _ u •,� f AII� , I k•I 1 . 'ta SA N a 1./ P c R F. A d s . s I 1..1- lUau,01Nus No P:INes z STABIL-I ZA"rto tJ 4RuSNCD Roc Lc' 1 }. • 1 DRAINAGE AND FOOTING DETA , TIG.4 AtV AW GEO I. ..FIO�I ICAL. (� SERVICES, INC. BORING LOG PROJECT NAME RANDALL RE. .tDENCE PROJECT NUMBER 91-022 BORING NUMBER B-1 DATE OF BORING 3-26-91 GROUND ELEVATION AT BORING WHEN DRILLED • SAMPLE DATA A STANDARD PENETRATION It J RESISTANCE,N,BLOWS/FOOT SOIL DESCRIPTION W 121 ® WATER CONTENT,% g 0 20 40 �` GRASS • • , , ML DARK BROWN ,SILT WITH OCCASION- AL GRAVEL AND ORGANICS (SOFT) I I (FILL) 5 i . !r ' •...... SPT ` , ; .,--,...�._.. t I 1 . . . II ,p. 10 i i • i . . .e�--.�... PROBABLE SLIDE PLANE : ' Ii . . ML BROWN GRAY SILT (MEDIUM STIFF) • SPT A : , • ; 9 (FILL) SOME DEBRIS •F � 15 _.�.. �. SPT A, : � • • . i ML BROWN AND BROWNISH GRAY S�Ivr-- TO SANDY SILT WITH SMALL ROOTS (SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF) 20. SPT _ I _.. ,v. 'A. i s . 25 SPT A i • ' + Ya 30 SPTE A i SAND DECREASING • 35 iBORING COMPLETED AT 36 1/2,FT SPT N BORING LOG B-1 Films 4 • .. • .. .•'`•.. .... a '. '�IF `',•. 1 � �.� • •� difkAAW GEO; CHNICAL iSERVICES, INC. BORING L.O o f PROJECT NAME RANDALL RESIDENCE PROJECT NUMBER 91-022 BORING NUMBER B-2 DATE OF BORING 3-26-91 GROUND ELEVATION AT BORING WHEN DRILLED 0 • •:, ,„ SAMPLE OATH A STANDARD PENETRATION I ' RESISTANCE,N.BLOWS/FOOT• y SOIL DESCRIPTION • I 6 p WATER CONTENT,% , MP E-� "« ,_ GRASS O 20 40 �` ML BROWN SILT TO CLAYEY SILT (SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF)(FILL) MISCELLANEOUS DEBRIS s ' : ' i I SPT lik A. ; 1i0 ; ' Gra ' • MLDARK GRAY OROANIC SILT (SOFT) OL I r` 10 • , Iq II , , .. , ML BROWN FINE SANDY SPTill : : A ' ' . ' 0 : ; . • '. STIFF) SILT (MEDIUM t • SHii: 0 20. SPT , (SOFT TO ME.D1UM STIFF) 4 q ' SPTEl r • , 30 (MEDIUM STIFF) ' SPT BORING COMPLETED AT 31 1/2 Fr 35 11)BORING LOG B-2 , , F1G.6 1 • A►VJ GEO'i ZHNICAL (� ACOI/ SERVICES, INC. BORING LOG :.,. ' RANDALL RESIDENCE 1, PROJECT NAME- PROJECT NUMBER 91-022 . BORING NUMBER B-3 ` DATE OF BORING 3-26-91 • GROUND ELEVATION AT BORING WHEN DRILLED._ '_.______ SAMPLE BATA A STANOAR°PENETRATION i, • RESISTANCE.N.BLOWS/FOOT'. SOIL DESCRIPTION �Wy p y. W p N- .- N �1 t ym 0 WATER CONTENT,•1. W ca O 20 '410 A to CRASS ....• . - .. .......r.,...................... ..........--77.../....-...-,---..-.... ML BROWN SILT WITH SOME SAND, GRAVEL &MISC. DEBRIS (SOFT TO MEDIUM STICF) (FILL) • DARK GRAY O i •A . � RGANIC SILT (SOFT) SW: , Il I OL (FILL) 7 ,, 10 �. 1 • i , • !)� 1 ' ' BORING COMPLL'I♦ED AT 9 1/2 IT 15 � ; ! 1 . , ; ' i ' , I ; I , • I . I . . . I • 201 . : : i i ,�. . i , . , , . . . 25 , . , I : I'` 30 II. . il 35 r , BORING LOG 13-3 FIG.7 o: t • MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPHIC LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONSn. SYMBOL SYMBOL • v1 11 WELL.GRADED GRAVELS.GRAVEL- e oi GAN SAND MIXTURES,LITTLE OR NO GRAVEL e t 0 R FINESAND ' GRAVELLY CLEAN GRAVELS �, s w • SOILS (LITTLE OR NO ••'�••• PCORLY GRADED GRAVELS, FINEST �,e GP GRAVEL SAND MIXTURES,LITTLE �..• On NO FINES COARSE ✓'• •...r GRAINED SOILS jou SILTY GIIAVELS,GRAVEL^SAND " s 4 GM SILT MIXTI1nis ' MORE THAN SO% GRAVELS WITH FINES • • OF COARSE FRAC• (APPRECIABLE TION RETAINED AMOUNT OF FINES) ON NO.4 SIEVE CLAYEY()RAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND , GC CLAY MIX lIJIlttS v° °•. a WEL) NIIAItr SANDS GRAVELLY •• • i SW SANO9 I ItI I F on NO FINES SAND CLEAN SAND '••p. _ •••0 • AND ILITTLE OR NO ° ' O° SANDY FINES) SOILS POORLY HIIADEDSANDS GRAVEL MORE THAN 50% SP LY SANOS l It7LF OnNO FINES OF MATERIAL IS • LARGER THAN NO. � ' 111 _ " 200 SIEVE SIZE SILTY SANDS SAND SILT SANDS WITH FINES SM MIXIHnt5 MORE THAN SB% y' OF COARSE FRAC• (APPRECIABLE •' ! TION PASSING AMOUNT OF FINES) ' -'- NO.4 SIEVE CLAYFY'IANII5.SAND CLAY �/ SC MixTU1I115 INORGANIC' It IS AND VERY FINE ML SANDS.IIGCk t I OUR SILTY an CLAYEY PINE SANDS On CLAYEY SILTS WITH 411(111T PLASTICITY • FINE SILTS %f�j"r INORGANIP CLAYS LOW TO '0 ' ' LIQUID LIMIT 7 y MEDIUM I t AS ItY GRAVEL)Y i GRAINED AND /r r ✓•;f C6 SOILS CLAYS LESS THAN 50 � /r �. CLAYS SANDY CLAYS.SILT Y • El AY" LEAN CLAYS • III I I) ORGANIC 51I.T5 AND ORGANIC 4 I I 1 I 1 OL SILTY CLAYS or LOW PLASTICITY 1(1 11111 1(1 11111 INORGANIC SILTS,MICACEOUS On MH DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS MORE THAN 50% SILTS OF MATERIAL IS LIQUID LIMIT j CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH SMALLER THAN NO, CLAYS GREATER THAN 50 / PLASTICITY,FAT CLAYS 200sIEVdSiZE • ' �/ y/ r OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO �)(We HIGH PLASTICITY,ORGANIC SILTS r HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS • PT HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTSSOILS WITH NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS : . , UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Y i� UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION • FIG.8 �3�0 ‘. a M 10/ .4c `Q I S i 3p ./ .• . . o. . . t •el:A . Illp• t• \ . °•'°0.4o, " • \ / 0 . •\ s91 qo I, SO .. • if '..,'-...,..'.'.1.'...1'.,'n''..::..:4't.:.,..'I:':::''t. 34q �. • ..,. ,... \ �s c• 1 • Y, y • • / .....*1 1 .`.. �r��., / . 1yy \ • ,, , • ',4' • /� 4 C: ..„.,,,,..:,:-:.:.:1..1.,..,..,:..•.:, �4�' �l, • •sss 'iry1• ' 7 � • o' y r• 4 , C‘..c..' ' . . / . . ikti4 • • rs-------.7%.......:*'-'-'7. 1...",... 'd EXHIBIT r, 1 r . y^ p !, ••••',..„,,:,.v. . , ,.. , ' ''.;.:".:,•::, .',....!. '''' ,', b, .,.:,..,,..,i•':..':; .. • 'I .' •. o I .•'.• .%. . '' ' I , ., •' '. , • • •*., • ' . ',..'';' ••••*:::',: ..... ...... .'... ' • '.'I. ' ....' * *,.. .. ' .t •*f• . '.. •• I A.• • . , a , . , .._ • . ,. , . ., ' • ..1 . ' ''.':rk,..,,,,"....,:....,•:, ' • . ,, . . • ,,',-‘...,..,,.`, , - ' ..4 •. .... . • . . . f , .''• . , . , • ''' ... .. ,.. .. ,... .. . . '''• ,, .. . . .** ,.•. . . . • . . . , ,,.. . . . . ..,.... • • . ,. . . , . . • , • .,, • „ , . . .. ., • ., . • ' . . ,• ' .. . . . . . ' ': ' . .1 • „ , . . . . .. . . . . .. • -' '' ' ' ' • I ''' . ' ' • ' '' ' '.\;• . ' ' •'' ' 1 ' ' ii ' - * '' ' . • lu MICHAEL BRAND NANCY HUG 11639 SW RIVERNOOD RD 884 8TH STREET ' . PORTLAND, OR 97219 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 HAROLD BURKE DUANE ANDERSON PO BOX 834 855 G AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 MAIt'I'tN InmrNsIATT .IAMrs nnrd.ANR - ft 044 6TI1 t UN1 . 004 ',9II IITUVOV LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 LAKE OSWEGO, OH 9]1114 "' 1,'-:, LLg55H KURTZ uu HERMAN BOOMER LAKECOSWEG8 OR 97034 860 8TH STREET LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 n RONALD GOBLET DAVID BERENTSON 848 6TH STREET PO BOX 507 LAKE OSWEGO', OR 97034 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 DARLENE MACHUM JERRY LEMIRE 864 6TH STREET 852 5TH STREET LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 EARL MILSTEN MARIE LIVINGSTON 892 6TH STREET 870 5TH STREET LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 i MARY ESELIUS EDWARD J SIMS 857 6TH STREET n LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 887 6TH STREET LAKE OSWEGO, OR °7074 • WILLIAM PORTIER RALPH HUTCHENS • LAKE20SWECOCEOR 97034 22560 S FOREST PARK Rl1 BEAVERCREEK, OR 97004 GLADYS MASENHIMCR GARWOOD DELANEY PENDLETON, OR 97801 827 6TH STREET LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 FRANZ GEDERT JOSEPH OPOKA . 865 7TH STREET 817 6TH STREET LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 DARRELL HIRTE • WILLIAM LARSON 828 5TH STREET LAKE708W£COEiEOR 97034 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 - iil EXHIBIT • IP9/- r Its :. v • e . . .. . . f•... . ..... .• iU . . .. , . .., . .... • . . . . .. . .„., .. ... r ` CHARLES LINCOLN 777 E AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 4210AChANDLER RD LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 V d" DAVID LIPTON 829 7TH STREET LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 • AML'• t•:Lh.IOT'P 828 7TH STREET LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 •°` EDWIN SZEIMES 843 8TH STREET LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 EDWIN KEITH • 3540 RED CEDAR WAY LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 BBgE6gRTON MCGEE f,AE705WIGOEOR 97034 '• t';, BRENT BARNES THEODORE HOPPER 878 7TH STREET 892 8TH STREET LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 I. RONALD SIMONSON 882 7TH STREET LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 '�:`• SALENA ANAMAE TOCKERT PETER WARD 761 81'H STREET 575 G AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 DAVID BARYON DICK MORAN p,b� 1740A '� LA y K 8TH STREET LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 KATHRYN PAGAN KIRK SCHULTZ 871 OTH STREET 1620 SW TAYLOR ST SUITE 200 ' LAKE OSWECO, OR 97034 PORTLAND, OR 97205 , . 4110 . . y Richard M. Moran P.O. Box 74 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 September 15, 1991 To: Development Review Board ' City of Lake Oswego Regarding: Appeal of SD 52-90 Minor Partition at 695 G Ave The following arguments relate to the issues listed in my notice of appeal . w; { Issue #1 : Exhibit 3 shows the new lot line dividing Parcel A from the flag portion of Parcel B , It is indicated that this new lot line is 25 feet from eastern edge of the undivided property. The dimensions of parcel A are 75 ' x 180 ' . The resulting lot size is not 18,000 sq. ft. Issue #3: The proposed partition plan, Exhibit 3, should show whether the 20 ' dedication is to be made before or after determining the 180 ' depth of parcel A. This effects the location of the rear lot line of Parcel A and thus controls how much area of parcel B is north of the steep slope area. Issue #4 : Partitioning is development within the meaning of the code. The parcel in question contains a substantial amount of land with slopes in excess of 20%. In this case, sections 16 , 035(6) and 16 . 035(7) of the building standards do not allow staff discretion { • to determine whether a topographical survey is needed. The survey is mandatory . The slope in an east to west direction immediately west of the building site is in excess of 50%. In particular, the excavation plan shown in figure 3 of exhibit 6 shows excavation beyond the start of that embankment and shows a footing excavation ten feet deep less than five feet from the top of the embankment. Issue #5 : Section 16, 035(4) of the building standards is clearly worded to apply to all development on highly erodible soils , The staff claim • 1 i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •fit • • • • • • • • • r 0 that this section does not apply is not a supportable interpretation. That the building site includes highly erodible soils is clearly indicated in exhibit 6 . Along the west boundary of the property, there is already ongoting erosion into my back yard. Since I was concerned about the )... erosion, several years ago I consulted with a well known geology professor. He indicated that if a building were built on the fill area near the top of the embankment, we would get further erosion and could expect to lose five to ten feet of level space in our back yard. In addition, we would see substantial sliding of the neighboring fill into the lower part of our property . He indicated that the erosion along the side embankment from building could be controlled but it would be expensive. Controlling the sliding of ' the fill further back was possible in theory but seldom both successful and cost effective. I am concerned, Without the erosion control plan and the topographical data I do not have enough information to consult with experts as to whether I am likely to incur sever damages . Issue #6 : It is true that the partition process by itself does not impact the • drainage patterns . The staff is however , recommending as condition #7 of approval of the partition, that a drainage system be designed and built. This is also the onlyopportunity get to provide testimony on the drainage problems a I will permit will not normally come before the board for reV�iewbuilding In the past, the city allowed the applicant to build a garage without rain gutters which encroaches onto the steep embankment between our properties . The rain runoff from the garage roof causes erosion which is undermining some trees and which dams the normal drainage path of the runoff from my driveway , As a result, I am likely to lose some trees and twice it has caused flooding in my basement. From this I have learned that the city ' s building • code processes , left to themselves, are not likely to adequately protect my interests , There is a septic drainage field which was installed within the • last ten years , It is about to become obsolete, Presumably due to the boundary layer between the fill and the original underlying soil , the drainage flow from that drain field seems to drain into my back yard, At one time I noticed a suggestion from the staff in the file of this application which suggested that this drain field be utilized for rain runoff after the sewer connection, Because of the adverse 'impact. on my propert I would ask instead YoU to ' prohibit such use and require the drain field be removed, In addition, I would like to request that the drainage system be designed such that the discharged water does not flow onto my . , ..:, , • property above the elevation of 200 ft. • `d y. I, 1 0 .,' '.' . • ' 4' i.:"• • • •r' M1 • ` '.cif.',, H I I • • • • 1 • • • • • • 1. • • • r yv • Issue #17 The partition cannot be granted unless the applicant provides a demonstration that the proposed lot contains a buildable building site, The staff or the board are required to act only on the information provided by the applicant. The applicant appears to have only shown one proposed building site. That building site is explicitly forbidden by the building standards 16 .020(4a) unless • it explicitly qualifies under the exception specified in 16.020(4b) , This requirement explicitly requires findings that the specific provisions of the design will prevent landslide. The Geotechnical Investigation in Exhibit 6 purports to serve this function. The site plan and excavation plan shown in figures 2 and 3 are either incorrect or not drawn to scale. (They do not show enough distance between existing residence and new residence. ) In ' order to adequately show that the proposed plan will work , it is necessary to be able to correlate the partitioning site plan of exhibit 3 and the geotechnical site plan and excavation plan with �:' the topological survey required by 16 .035. Issue #8 : The list of names and address are not the same as listed in the county tax records . Claim by the staff is false. In particular, the name and address given for me was : i' Dick Moran 701 G Avenue La ke Oswego, OR 97034 ` The first notice sent by the staff on this partition, the notice dated December 19 , 1990 , was sent addressed that way and was , of course, never delivered to me. When I complained, the staff made the correction which is visible in exhibit D. A similar incorrect mailing list was used by Mr . Schultz on his recent partitioning and the notice took a mnth to get delivered to me . The owner name and address listed in the tax records for tax lot 200 is as follows : Moran, Richard Martin & Jenne Kathryn Hosier PO Box 74 , Lake Oswego, OR 97034 • It would be appreciated if this board would instruct the staff to enforce section 49 , 605(5) of the development code, f L r• V #. Il \ •i, ♦ } if a r. e f • f • 0 , •-'. ,. •,„, • i• T -y 1 1 t ! • . .• • .. r d`J STAFF REPORT . . .. .. . . •• . .. ... CITY OF LAKE OSWE , ,. , .. ----1PLANNING DIVISION----- ,,, • APPLICANT: FILE NO.: • John &Donna Ghiorso '7, VAR 15-91(a-d) PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: Samuel A. Wheeler Michael R. Wheeler ; LEGAL D .4 RIPTInN; DATE OF REPORT: T Tax Lot 3200 of Tax Map 2 1E 8CD September 6, 1991 LOCATION: DATE OF HEARING: •. , - • 03458 Lakeview Blvd. September 16, 1991 COMP.PLAN DESIGNATION: NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: None R-7.5 ZONING DESIGNATIQ 1: R-7.5 w S' I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of four Class 2 variances as follows: a) a 5-foot variance to the side yard setback, which requires a 15-foot combined minimum to a 5-foot minimum each side [LOC 48,215(1)]; b) a 24-foot variance to the rear yard setback, which requires a 25-foot setback [LOC 48.215(1)]; q ' c) a 5% variance to the lot coverage, which request a maximum of 35% in the R-7,5 zone for interior lots [LOC 48.225(1)1; and d) a 24-foot variance to the Oswego Lake setback; which requires a minimum of 25 feet[LOC 48.535(3)], +, VAR 15-91(a-d) Page 1of10 sfi: • ✓ '_, The site abuts Oswego Lake, which is listed in the Comprehensive Plan as a Distinctive Natur Area (Special Distinctive Areas: No. 54,Oswego Lake). II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS ewe ; A. City ak Oswego Comprehensive Plan: 1, ., Impact Management Policies General Policy I, II, III ll Wildlife Habitat Policies General Policy II Distinctive Natural Area Policies General Policy I, II . Distinctive Natural Areas Policies Special Distinctive Areas o No. 54, Oswego Lake Potential Erosion Area Policies General Policy II, IV Energy Conservation Policies General Policy II • Flood Plain Policies General Policy II - a' : Oswego Lake Policies ' General Policy II, IV Social Resources Policies `' General Policy I Protection Open Space Policies General Policy I, II Transportation Policies General Policy I, III B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordtnancet LOC 48,195-48,225 R-7.5 Zone Description (setbacks, lot area, lot • coverage) LOC 48,515(1) General Exception to Lot Size Requirements • LOC 48,535(3) Special Street Setbacks ,' LOC 48,535(5) General Exception to Yard Requirements LOC 48,655 Classification of Variances • • LOC 48,690 Action on Class 2 Variance Application LOC 48.810 Quasi-Judicial Evidentiary Hearing Procedures LOC 48.815 Criteria for Approval LOC 48,820 Restrictions and Conditions • • VAR 15-91(a-d) Page 2 of 10 . , a Y • i - y n. ' :: , ,.., , . er ... ,.„, 0 , C. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: ' None D. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance: LOC 57.005-57.135 E. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance: r, LOC 55.010-55.130 • • III. FINDINGS A. Esisting Conditions 1. The site is composed of approximately 5000 sq. ft, in a trapezoidal configuration. • 2. The site abuts Lakeview Blvd. on the north and Oswego Lake on the south. Single family dwellings are located on lots abutting the site on the east and west. • 3. A concrete foundation is located on the site, the remnant of a dwelling which was destroyed by fire. Also located on the site are a boat dock, decking, retaining walls • • " and planters, a concrete stairway and asphalt parking area, 4. A 36-inch Douglas-fir tree is located in the northwest corner of the site. 5. A garage attached to a dwelling on Tax Lot 3300, abutting to the east, is located 20 feet from the front property line, 6. A dwelling is located on Tax Lot 3100, abutting to the west, The dwelling is located at least 25 feet from the front property line, ° 7, The site has a grade differential of 25 feet,descending from Lakeview Blvd. to `j' Oswego Lake to the south. 8. Lakeview Blvd. is a 22 ft.-wide paved street with no curbs or gutters in a 40 ft.- wide right-of-way. B. Compliance with Criteria for Approval: As per LOC 49,815, the Development Review Board must consider the following criteria v when evaluating a Class 2 variance: • 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval. . The applicant has provided the exhibits listed at the end of this report in support of the requested variances. 2. For any development application to be approved, it shall first be established that the proposal conforms to. . : • VAR 15-91(a-d) Page 3 of 10 . 4 • J ✓', 1 t' • • 31• 'to‘ a a. The City's Comprehensive Plan Ii The applicable Plan policies have been addressed as follows: 40 . • Impact Management Polici e • These policies require protection of natural resources from development, comprehensive >' . . review of development proposals, and payment of an equitable share of the costs of 1,• 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 x results. Compliance with the applicable Development Standards will be reviewed upon application for building permits requested subsequent to this action, if approved, to 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. These policies are implemented through LOC -' Chapter 55, the Tree Cutting Ordinance, which is reviewed in this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. Also applicable is the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development Standard which will be reviewed upon application for a building permit requested subsequent to this action, if approved, Distinctive Natural Area Policies These policies require the Citytopreserve those q tree stands and features listed as ; distinctive. Oswego Lake is identified as a Distinctive Natural Area in the Comprehensive Plan (pgs. 34-35, Volume I). These policies are implemented through LOC Chapter 55, the Tree Cutting Ordinance and LOC 48.535(3) the Oswego Lake Special Setback, The related requirements are reviewed in this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. EQtential 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, This standard will be reviewed upon application for a building permit requested subsequent to this action, if approved, Energy Conservation Policies . These policies encourage energy conservation through solar orientation and site planning • • which takes into account the site's natural features, These policies are now implemented through the City's Solar Access Ordinance (LOC Chapter 57) which will be reviewed later in this report, t VAR 15-91(a-d) • Page 4 of 10 ! Floodplain Policies These policies require the City to protect development from floodin;,i. These policies are implemented through the Flood Plain Development Standard, which will be reviewed upon application for a building permit requested subsequent to this action, if approved. • Oswego Lake Policies These policies require the City to protect Oswego Lake from the effects of development. The policies require a setback from Oswego Lake and are implemented, in part, through the Oswego Lake Special Setback, which will be reviewed later in this report. Other applicable development standards (Drainage Standard for Minor Development and the 4 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development Standard) which will be reviewed for compliance upon application for a building permit requested subsequent to this action, if approved. Social Resources Policies These policies require the City to protect features valuable to the community identity and to preserve the natural and aesthetic qualities which are the pride of the residents. These policies are implemented through the Tree Cutting Ordinance, Stream Corridor , Development Standard and Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development , - , Standard, which will be reviewed for compliance upon application for a building permit requested subsequent to this action, if approved. Protection Open Space Policies These policies further protect natural resources listed in the Plan, including stream • , corridors, hillsides, erodible soils and sites with landslide potential. These policies are implemented through the Stream Corridor Development Standard and Hillside Protection " and Erosion Control Development Standard, which will be reviewed for compliance upon application for a building permit requested subsequent to this action, if approved. . Transportation Policies These policies require that streets be improved as planned when demand requires, The policies also require that a developer be required to dedicate additional right—of—way as necessary to provide for widening. These policies are implemented through LOC 48.535(4), Special Street Setbacks and the Utility Development Standard. The applicant will be required to dedicate five feet of additional right—of--way along the site's frontage • on Lakeview Blvd., as necessary to meet these requirements. The provisions of the .- Utility Standard will be reviewed for compliance upon application for a building permit requested subsequent to this action, if approved. b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations. • i. For variance applications, the standards found in LOC 48.650, Zoning Code Ordinance (LOC Chapter 48) r. The site is located in an R-7,5 residential zone which requires a minimum lot area of 7,500 sq. ft. [LOC 48,215(1)1, However, the site is subject to an exception from this ' requirement because the lot was created prior to the enactment of zoning regulations by • ' • the City (LOC 48,515(1)1, The R-7,5 zone requires the following setbacks [LOC •`` 48,215(1)]; VAR 15-91(a—d) Page 5 of 10 Minimum Required (ft.) Proposed (ft.) • Front yard: 25 17.5 [as allowed by LOC 48.535(5)141/ ' . . . : • Side yard (east): 5 ft. min., 15 ft. total 5 ft., 10 ft. total • 4 • Rear yard: 25 1 ft. Side yard (west): 5 ft. min., 15 ft. total 5 ft., 10 ft. total The maximum height allowed in the R-7.5 zone is 35 feet. The elevations provided , (Exhibit 3)indicate that compliance with this requirement is possible, which will be assured upon application for a building permit requested subsequent to this request, if approved. The maximum lot coverage allowed in the R-7.5 zone is 35 percent for an interior lot such as this site [LOC 48.225(1)]. The applicant is requesting a 5 percent Class 2 variance to this maximum lot coverage [VAR 15-91(c)]. The applicant is proposing a lot coverage of 40 percent. All variances [VAR 15-91(a--d)] will be reviewed at the end of this section of the report. . The proposed front yard of 17.5 ft. is allowed by the general exception to yard requirements,LOC 48.535(5), which allows averaging between the Code requirement '' and deficient yards which are adjacent (Tax Lot 3300, abutting to the east). This 17.5 ft, front yard is proposed in addition to the Special Street Setback for this segment of Lakeview Blvd., which requires a special setback of 25 feet measured from the centerline of Lakeview Blvd. prior to the streets original dedication. The applicant proposes to comply with this standard. The applicant will be required to dedicate 5 additional feet of right-of-way to coincide with this special street setback, and to provide the City with a signed agreement of nonremonstrance for future improvements to Lakeview Blvd. It should be noted that setbacks are measured to the nearest point of the structure, including bay windows or other habitable space. The 17,5 ft. would be measured to the window at the north end of the proposed garage, if it projects beyond the north building wall. Another special setback applies to the site: the 25 ft. Oswego Lake Setback, measured from the property line at the lake, The applicant is requesting as 24 ft. Class 2 variance • to this special setback [VAR 15-91(d)]. • The Oswego Lake Setback is concurrent with the 25 ft, rear setback of the R-7.5 zone, The applicant is requesting a 24 ft, Class 2 variance to this rear yard setback [VAR 15- • • 90(b)], • The applicant is requesting approval of a 5-foot Class 2 variance to the side yard setback, which requires a 15-foot minimum on each side of the proposed dwelling [VAR 15 • - 91(a)] • • The applicant has carefully responded to the four variance criteria for each of the variances requested (Exhibit 2). The Board may rely upon this exhibit as support for their decision. Staff has extracted only the highlights of that narrative in the discussion and analysis below, As per LOC 48.650(1), the Development Review Board must consider the following ' criteria when evaluating a request for a Class 2 variance: VAR 15-91(a-d) Page 6of10 , • f { • , 0 a. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship; The applicant cites the lot area of 5000 sq. ft. and the steep grade of the site as providing a hardship in the development of the property. The applicant has provided a variety of comparisons for what he indicates are "like properties" (Exhibits 6-11, 16-22). Based upon these comparisons, the applicant suggests that a hardship would be incurred if the four variances were not approved, because the size of the bedrooms, the dining room, and kitchen would not be similar to those found in the applicant's comparison. The applicant indicates in Exhibit 11 that the smallest house in the sample is 3000 sq. ft., and that the average is 4560 sq. ft. The applicant proposes to build a.dwelling that is 3500 sq. ft. on three levels. The applicant indicates that the integrity of the dwelling would be compromised by having to comply with required side, rear and Oswego Lake Setbacks, .> as well as the 35 percent lot coverage allowed by the zone. He notes that rooms would be smaller than reasonable as demonstrated by his comparisons, b. Development consistent with the request will not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located or to property established to be affected by the request; The applicant indicates that the proposed dwelling will harmonize with the neighborhood �' in size and character, The applicant has indicated the location of structures on adjacent properties, noting that the proposed `twelling will be in keeping with the character exhibited by those locations. . , . . 0 The applicant notes that efforts have been made to create an attractive appearance from the street, and to preserve the 36—inch Douglas--fir in the northwest corner of the site. '.Q The owner of 3434 Lakeview Blvd., adjacent to the east, has raised an objection - (Exhibits 31 & 35) due to the potential loss of view of the lake, The opponent, Mr. . Johnson, notes that regulations such as setbacks are designed to protect property owners ' from such a loss, The applicant has not addressed this visual impact of his proposal in the material submitted, The Board must examine this issue and determine whether an injury will • occur to the owner of 3434 Lakeview Blvd. as a result of the proposal. Staff , recommends that the applicant demonstrate that no injury will occur; in the event that this • • is not achieved staff will recommend denial. c. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of 0, the property; The applicant indicates that the proposed 5 ft, side yard setback on each side, the 1 ft. setback at the rear and from Oswego Lake and an additional 4 percent of lot coverage is • the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the property, The applicant again • cites topography, lot area, and data found in his comparisons (Exhibits 6-11, 16-22) to • demonstrate this point. ' The applicant illustrates through Exhibit 12 that the coverage requirements limited the • • building to 1264 sq. ft, on a single story, The setbacks of the R-7,5 zone, the 25 ft. . Special Street Setback for Lakeview Blvd., and the Oswego Lake Special Setback limit .. • ' the building to 1604 sq. ft, Providing a two car garage would reduce the habitable area to 1204 sq. ft, on the main or entry level, A three car garage would reduce the habitable area to 1004 sq, ft, on the main floor. • • VAR 15-91(a—d) ', , Page 7of10 . 4 4. 1 The applicant suggests that to suffer such a reduction in floor area and function would ` not be in keeping with the "reasonable use" demonstrated in the comparison. Even witl ' three car garage, the total habitable floor area could be as large as 4212 sq. ft. on three floors including all decks. The applicant has indicated that a main floor plan based upon . such a restricted floor area would not be similar to like properties, ,. d. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. • The applicant proposes to comply with all applicable Plan policies through compliance r with all applicable regulations and the approval of the four requested variances. In. • particular, the applicant proposes to comply with the Special Street Setback for Lakeview Blvd. which implements applicable Transportation Policies, and can comply with the Solar Access Ordinance designed to implement the Energy Conservation Policies. The applicant's proposal intends to satisfy the Distinctive Natural Area Policies and. the ' ° Oswego Lake Policies through approval of the requested variances. The applicable portions of these policies protect Oswego Lake, and are implemented through the Oswego Lake Special Setback [LOC 48.535(3)). An area of 15 ft. in width is located between the sea wall and the southerly property line of the site. The decks proposed would be 16 ft. from the sea wall at the nearest point; the J dwelling is proposed to be 22 ft. from the sea wall. These distances will be greater than previously maintained by the dwelling and patio before it was damaged by fire (Exhibit 5), and would satisfy the applicable Oswego Lake policies. All remaining applicable Plan policies are implemented through the Development Standards, and will be reviewed upon application for a building permit for the dwelling requested subsequent to this action, if approved. Solar Access Ordinance Requirements and Analysis • . • This ordinance requires that construction of new single family detached dwellings must , comply with the Solar Balance Point provisions of the ordinance LOC 57,050 Based upon the Solar Balance Point worksheet(Exhibit 22), the proposed dwelling 090J complies with this requirement, Tree Cutting Ordinanc.e Requirements and Analysis This ordinance, as applicable to the proposal, allows only the removal of trees necessary ,y • to site a dwelling or accessory structure, The applicant has noted that several trees were destroyed in the fire that destroyed the former dwelling, The applicant proposes to preserve the singular 36 inch Douglas—fir that remains in the northwest llorner of the site, Unless redesign o12 the dwelling prompts this tree's removal due to the denial of one or • • more of the requested variances, there is no need to further review the tree removal criteria, • i c. Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS • . There are no such plans which affect this site, 0 ' VAR 15r-91(a—d) J Page 8 of 10 p y; •• CO Conclusion: The applicant has demonstrated compliance with three of the four applicable criteria,Y Due to the objection of the property owner neighboring to the east, a potential injury may occur if the variances to the rear yard setback and Oswego Lake Setback are approved. tr! The approval could result in the loss of a view of Lake Oswego and surrounding areas, according to the testimony of the opponent(Exhibits 31 and 35). The applicant must demonstrate that no injury will occur before the Board may approve the requested variances. , o. III. RECOMMENDATION Provided the applicant provides sufficient evidence to the Development Review Board ' demonstrating that no injury will occur as a result of the proposal, or that the affects of such injury will be balanced by benefits derived by the public as a result of the development, staff recommends approval of VAR 15-91(a-d), subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall dedicate 5 ft, of additional right-of-way along the entire frontage of ' the site on Lakeview Blvd. for future right-of-way purposes, • 2. The applicant shall provide the City a signed nonremonstrance agreement for future • improvements anticipated in Lakeview Blvd. 3. Evidence of the above shall be provided to the Department of Planning and Development ' �. prior to the issuance of building permits requested subsequent to this q action. Absent such evidence, staff recommends denial. n' E. 3IB ITS 1. Tax Map 2. Applicant's Narrative, dated July 5, 1991 3, Site Plan, Lake Elevation, Lakeview Blvd, Elevation (Applicant's Exhibit 10) 4. Main Level Floor Plan, Lower Level Floor Plan (Applicant's Exhibit 10-2) 5, As Built Site Plan (existing conditions following fire damage to dwelling; Applicant's Exhibit 10-3) 6. Kitchen Size Comparison (Applicant's Exhibit 1) 7, Side Yard Setback Comparison (Applicant's Exhibit 2) • 8, Bedroom Size Comparison (Applicant's Exhibit 3) 9. Dining Area Comparison (Applicant's Exhibit 4) ^ 10, Rear Yard Setback Comparison (Applicant's Exhibit 5) 11, House Size Comparison (Applicant's Exhibit 6) 12, Building Setback Requirements & Calculations (Applicant's Exhibit 7) 13. Letter from Lake Oswego Corporation, dated August 7, 1991 (Applicant's Exhibit 8) • 14. Letter from B. Siler, dated June 13, 1991 15, Earlier Design Concept; Main Floor Plan (Applicant's Exhibit 11) 16. Comparison; 1445 Terrace Drive (Applicant's Exhibit 12) • 17. Comparison; 1495 Terrace Drive (Applicant's Exhibit 13) • • 18, Comparison; 920 West Point Road (Exhibit 14) •. ., 19. Comparison: 1455 Lake Front Road (Applicant's Exhibit 15) 20. Comparison: 1207 Lake Front Road (Applicant's Exhibit 16) ..*: • a.r n ✓ , VAR 15--91(a-d) w Page 9 of 10 4 I I - + j FA • 21. Comparison; 16819 Greenbriar Road (Applicant's Exhibit 17) 22. Comparison: 16879 Maple Circle (Applicant's Exhibit 18) 23. Letter from T. Brambilla,dated June 6, 1991 (Applicant's Exhibit 19) 24. Letter from R. Erickson, dated June 6, 1991 (Applicant's Exhibit 20) 25. Letter from G. Chou,dated June 6, 1991 (Applicant's Exhibit 21) • 26. Letter from D. Marthlene, dated July 30, 1991 (Applicant's Exhibit 22) 27. Letter from R. &P. Larsson, dated July 27, 1991 (Applicant's Exhibit 23) v 28. Minutes of Neighborhood Meeting,dated June 27, 1991 29. Solar Balance Point Worksheet • 30. Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Panel No.410018 0003C,dated August 4, 1987 31. Letter from D. Johnson, dated August 1, 1991 • 32. Correction by Staff of Exhibit 12 Re: Special Street Setbacks 33. Soil Areas and Hazards 34. Vicinity Map 31. Letter from D. Johnson, dated September 5, 1991 • (VAR9I,1 kcRcporu>VAR IS-91 ,:1. • • • • ilr • . 4 . C • • `• J • • x 44 YA• Y .� 1 • :ir s• VAR 15-91(a-(1) Page 10 of 10 I r, I .r .-,_.. ,•. is 10 fk * . 0 II' lt4'.1.' ' ‘C3 +b. s \CoQQ° ••40. Ise 14 w a� W-.9- k\ • ‘tt. 0 • vt. 2 • • SSE /i0oe \•„ �°� \ AO\ \ . .,*.,.. 4 ,�QP° wtn o. Ib at' a ` u V'• • ub rA 0 \Q1.0o t*� ,� n • AAA G` I. `r .%, \i OVA \ +u�,ib 14/• rho p _ + .,0‘' ' \\ Yt. or rs /35-'06' t:;4. 427 2. ,.. \ 01#•001/041111111#1°11:1;1##fr)f. obia.61' d el' ille • 601 \ .. . ' ‘47%0. . , 1�oe �. era e ` I ,, y • � q \. u ��NI ��� ♦ �� a sf Q\ Zgdo • �e,ob` G � • 3 ,.a \ N\t"" 400000,000:^ ...tit 0 \ 4,0 o4 �!. , .. t•• . [b ,oe .r 2r ` �y e \ . s,,o' edisIc'r,...ifir?.)00‘.,.„ \\ 162 ' • . s l� .$11 f • 9i ' t� fo• 9 Q26moo\ _ � f 4 r \QQ 46 d 15* o pQ a fe 42, 09 f°' e soo� " as�lor If • k4,- rO \ \ \ " 4 1 '11vie N 0� a v Pda EXHIBIT `.or ``� 2''QQ�. \ s• �\ o'°1d� ,+I�'�� 4' ''' ,,,1 ., • tf \",t/ .,kt ‘. ly. \ c%. / go AA. ds• ` o y N ••yi' 7,\CP\ti r je.:i f "WI • ,i It- • • 1 i c./ R ,fic., 2 I" M` .` a Ad iv ''JI/•'0e!i' + I'• , \9� .\ \4N3 } Y 7 A 5 i t • • • • • ...Iti. y4. • Y• • • • • — e 1 ° w t. • w r'. 1 1 1 Y. ♦ ` it ‘'\1 ., .. F I. INTRODUCTION AU G 3 ,' J�, The following is a formal request for approval 'Ofour 2 fr Class variances. The site is a PProximately 5, 000 sq. ft. and + described as Tax Lot No. 3200 on Tax Map No. 7-21 and is � . ,. located on Lakeview Boulevard, fronts on Oswego Lake. Address: 3458 Lakeview Boulevard. . II. PROJC T SUMMARY A. Description of Project Prospective owner of this property would renovate the lot and build a new structure consisting of three levels, three bedrooms and approximately 3, 500 sq. ft. Because of the extreme drop to the late level, the home will be a low profile of one story and a-half from Lakeview Boulevard (grade level ) . The original house burned down approximate) three *� y yea. ago leaving a foundation which is a visual nuisance and which is prone to erosion. Although several trees were lost • during this fire, the proposed structure has been designed to retain the large Douglas fir located on the a v norhtwesterly corner of the lot. There will be five •? off-street parking spaces provided. B. Site Description, The site is bordered between Lakeview Boulevard and Oswego Lake. The lot extends in approximately 30 feet : .' from Lakeview and then declines at a rapid rate down to ' a lower level approximately 25 feet below the upper grade. This is the location of the existing foundation. There is a broken cement walkway traversing down this embankment, as well as the remains ' ' of metal railing (this would be removed during construction and shored up to prevent further erosion) . From the foundation level the lot then extends to the south for about 66 feet at a fairly constant rate to the sea wall adjacent to the lake. III. PROJECT SCHEDULE • Removal of the existingfoundation and otherhazards ha..ar ds will c commence approximately November 1st. New construction to follow immediately. This is con\;1ngent on the granting of the variances by the Development Review Board on September 16th. J E1XHIB `IT ' • Via ls-9 r(4-d 4 VARIANCE REQUEST (1 ) SIDEYARD SETBACK r . The following is a formal request for a variance relating to the sideyard setbacks from a combined 15-fi: :,t minimi.tm to a 5-foot and a 5-foot setback (each side) . General This variance request concerns the sidUyard setbacks contained in Section 48. 215 for an R-7. 5 Zone. DECISION CRITERIA A) Hardship The proposed 5-foot sideyard setbacks are necessary for the reasonable use of this buildable property. Because of the lot size (approximately 5, 000 sq. ft. ) and the ' ` extreme dropoff (approximately 25 feet ) , the proposed structure, although being three levels, would only r constitute approximately 3, 500 sq. ft. with an actual footprint of approximately 1, �r87 s ft • q . (including the ; . 3 deck overhang on the second floor) . The bottom floor is actually 1270 sq. ft. . A hardship would be imposed on the owner if the structure was required to be smaller because key rooms such as the kitchen, which is designed to be 338 sq. ft. , would not be in keeping with the character neighborhood. Exhibit 1 lists five h�_~� `f the ores in the neighborhood and the average square footage designated .. � . to the kitchen area. They range from 315 sq. ft. to 360 sq. ft. for an average of 339 sq. ft. . In addition, a hardship would be incurred if the proposed variance were not granted, as the lower level bedrooms (two) (footprint level ) would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, The `l average sugare footage as shown on Exhibit 8 ( 189) is greater than our proposed square footage of 157. This is very much in keeping with the character of the ne i gh bos_irho+od and constitutes a reasonable use for this property. The proposed dining room is 210 sq. ft, and a hardship would be suffered if the variances required were not granted, in that neighborhood homes ass sh own wn in Exhibit . 4 have equal to or larger dining areas. The average is rig sq( ft. . II:. ,. A. `M The proposed building would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and constitutes a reasonable use for similar and like properties (see Exhibits 2 and 4) . The existing house to the east, Tax v; Lot No. 3300, is a combined distance of approximately 30 feet between the two buildings. The home directly ro to the west is approximately 5 feet from the property 1 line, thereby having a combined distance of 10 feet X. ", between the two structures. As demonstrated by Exhibit 2, there arc many homes in the neighborhood which have 0 to 3-foot; sideyard setbacks. A hardship would be imposed on the owner of this property if a 5-foot sideyard setbAck was not granted because the key rooms of the home would have to be shrunk to an impractical size. Exhibits 1 and 3 demonstrate this. The 5-foot sideyard setbacks requested were, in fact, in keeping with zoning requirements for R-7. 5 lots up until May ist of this } year. M. .,, P) Non-injurious to the Neighborhood The rebuilding on this site of a new single family home in an R-7. 5 Zone is for all intents and purposes a very desirable change and enhancement to the neighborhood. The proposed house is very much in keeping with the character of the neighborhood as shown on Exhibit 6. On an attached sheet (Exhibit 6) submitted with this application is a survey of the neighborhood that shows the square foot sizes of the homes, ranging frc'rn 3, 000 to 6, 806, for an average of 4, 560. Thus, the size of this home would be quite compatible with this neighborhood. Current condition of the lot is injurious to the neighborhood in its present state. The impact of a new structure will be of great benefit to the neighborhood. The new home would, in fact, harmonize • .� with the environment, be visually pleasing and would help control potential erosion and landslide hazards. The current lot condition is an unsightly and dangerous nuisance. . C) Minimum Variance Required The variance of 5 feet sideyard setbacks is the minimum variance necessary to properly site this house on the property. Granting of this variance will acknowledge l , e, and approve the location of the proposed structure. • Also attached to this application is a site plan showing proximity of exhisting buildings on each . . . • • • —. • • side. (see page 3 of Exhibit 10) . . • D) Conflicts with Comprehensive Plan •„., , •• This request complies with the pl-oviAiGhs of , ,. .• • • residential development in the R-7. 5 . Zone and meets the requirements of the comprehensive plan With the - exception of Section No. 48. 215 sideyard setbacks which - , • this variance is a request for the exception of. This request will provide for a proper development of this site by placing a house of comparable mize and character to the rest of the neighborhOod in a location approximately equal to that of other existing „„6•.• residences, but in no instance any 01000r to the side • property lines than that previously AllOWed in this zone and evident in the built environmont. ,c. • ,.• • , • :. •„ :„•,.2, , ,•,, b' • • • . , • 't 4,• • ", • . . . • ••'• • • • • - •.•• •• . • • • •t • '•• • • ." • • •• , • • ••• ,• •• • • •. • • • • a • ._.. ,1 a ... .. r I • • .V i 1/ *t I 41 VARIANCE REQUEST (2 ) ' :::..: -w REARYARD SETBACK The following is a formal request for a variAr`Ice relating to the rearyard setback reduction for the property Tax Lot No. 3200. a General, '„ This variance request concerns the rearyayd setback contained in Section 48. 215 for an R-7. , Zone. We request a setback reduction of the rearyard setback of }• 25 feet to 1 foot. F DECISION CRITERIA A) Hardship f. The size of this lot and the extreme topography requires that the proposed structure extend into the •' ', 25-foot setback zone, as the house that previously burned down did. As Exhibit S demonstrates, there are a large number of homes in the neighborhood with structures extending into the E5-foot rearyard setback. As the Exhibit also shows, the square footage of these horses is larger than the approximate 3, 500 sq. ft. as proposed. Therefore, a hardship would be incurred if, because of the rearyard setback, the structure were , made smaller, thus not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. As demonstrated, the key rooms would be small and not functional (see Exhibits 1, 3 and 4) . . •" • S) Non-inJurious to the Neighborhood The structure, as plotted, h��s been approved by the ,,'� . t Lake Corporation and the Neighborhood Association { .. (please see attached Exhibits 8 and 9) . (also see •. Exhibits 19 through 23) r l , • • The home directly to the east, Tax Lot No. 3300, has a • �V• boathouse and living quarter which currently extends . beyond the property line. The house directly to the west also extends approximately 85 feet into the rearyard setback, ,Outs, proposed varirrice of 1 foot , . , :lf' . �� 'd Y. • ,t y would, therefore, be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and would in no way be injurious t , the neighborhood. C) Minimum Variance Required t' a This variance of 24 feet at the rear is the minimum •, variance necessary to properly site thi house on the ' c property. Granting of this variance will acknowledge and approve the location of the deck, aetback. The .-. house will be set back 7 feet frc'm. the lakeside property line. Also attached to this application is a site plan showing the present size of the site with R-7. 5 Zone setbacks required shown on it (Exhibit 7) . This shows the total allowable building area following all setback, requirements would only be 1, 767 sq. ft. which would make it physically impossible to put a properly sized house on a piece of lake front property and utilize this site comparable to others in the immediate �. surrounding neighborhood. ` ' , D) Conflict with Comprehensive Plan , This request complies with provisions of residential development in the R-7. 5 Zone and meets the requirements of the comprehensive plan with the exception of Section 46. 215 setbacks which this variance is a request for the exception of. This request will provide for a proper redevelopment of this • site by placing a house of comparable size and ';' character to the rest of the neighborhood in a location 7. approximately equal to that of other existing . residences, while at the same time providing a means of :,': retaining the 36-inch specimen old growth fir located at the front of the property. If the house location is forced further to the north in order to maintain a required lakeside setback of 25 feet, it will mean the elimination of this tree. • ., • • V. • ° w 1 �. ,' • VARIANCE REQUEST (3) (35% LOT COVERAGE) The following is a formal request for a variance relating to the 35% coverage for Lot No. 3200. General This variance request concern;- the 35% interior lot coverage for an R-7. 5 Zone as stated in Section No. 48. 225. The proposed structure would require a variance from 35% to approximately 39%. DECISION CRITERIA ' : A) Hardship The proposed approximate 39% lot coverage is necessary for the reasonable use of this buildable property. Because of the lot sire (approximately 5, 000 sq. ft. ) and the extreme dropoff (approximately E5 feet) , the proposed structure, although being three levels, would •only constitute approximately 3, 500 sq. ft. with an •' actual footprint of approximately 1, 987 sq. ft, (bottom floor of 1270 sq. ft. ) A hardship would be imposed on the owners if the structure were required to be smaller because the rooms would be too small and not funet Tonal. The proposed building would be in keeping with the character of the community and the neighborhood as demonstrated by Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 5 and E. As demonstrated by Exhibit 10 and 11 several plan drawings have been made in an effort to save the large • fir tree and also put the property to the most reasonable use,. As shown in Exhibit 7, a smaller • footprint would not only make the home fairly unlivable : '-.- :-.- ' 0 because of the divisor of the rooms by floors, but would also add substantially to the overall construction cost, A much larger and more costly retaining wall would have to be plated at the back of the house where the extreme dropoff occurs and the structure might require 4 floors and the removal of the • old growth fir. f Y ae i G • lt) Non-injurious to the Neighborhood �:. The rebuilding on this site of a new single family home in an R-7. 5 Zone is for all intents and �.tr P Poses a very V desirable change and enhancement to the neighborhood. The use of the approximate 39% lot coverage is • �, necessary and would in no way be injurious to the neighbors and would, in fact, be of smaller square footage than all of the new homes built or, Lakeview F Blvd. . As Exhibit 6 demonstrates, the lot coverage in the neighborhood ranges from 41% to 40%, with an average of 45. 8%. The housing square footage ranges from 3, 000 sq. ft to . 6, 806 sq. ft. , tir.7ralonstrating that • a 3, 500 sq. ft. home covering aproxirnately 39% of the lot is well within the standards of the neighborhood • (see Exhibit 6) . The visual impact from the road will be considerably less than all the new homes on Lakeview and most of the . ' older homes in the neighborhood. The house and garage will be one story high from the road with garage doors facing the motor courtyard, rather than the street. Off street guest parking will be screened by a landscape strip and the motor courtyard will be buffered by a landscape planting area around the base of the 36-inch Douglas fir. The main body of the house will be set back from the road approximately 58 feet. This will be an enhancement to the neighborhood and • decidedly not injurious. C) Minimum Variance Required This variance of 4% to the lotcoverage is necessary toproperlyy site this house onthe this variance will acknowledge apd`aap ty. Grantingove location as stated and will maintain the visualr^impact eof`�the . ' neighborhood. D) Conflict with Comprehensive Plan • This request complies with provisions of residential • development in the R-7. 5 Zone and meets the requirements of this comprehensive plan with the except ion of Section 48. 225, 35% lot coverage, and is requested for the exception of. This request will provide for a proper redevelopment of this site by placing a house of comparable size and character to the 111,.. '':::-. .:::',. rest of the neighborhood in a location approximately egt.tal to that of other existing homes. • tl t 1 4 •r i :,' a-.-•r 't t. d',c .a.°. .'1 r .l tt... U _ ., r .. ? ' • .r ti; s ., 5 1 VARIANCE REQUEST (4) t,.... ' r • REARYARD SETBACK The following is a formal request for a variance relating to the special Oswego Lake setback reduction far the property Tax Lot No. 3200. General • This variance request concerns the rearyard setback contained in Section 48. 215 for an R-7. 5 Zone. We request a setback reduction of the rearyard setback of 25 feet to 1 foot. • DECISION CRITERIA A) Hardship • The size of this lot and the extreme topography requires that the proposed structure extend into the 25-foot setback zone, as the house that previously burned down did. As Exhibit 5 demonstrates, there are a large number of homes in the neighborhood with • structures extending into the 25--foot rearyard setback. • As the Exhibit also shows, the square footage of these homes is larger than the approximate 3, 500 sq. ft. of proposed. Therefore, a hardship would be incurred if, because of the rearyard setback, the structure were • . made smaller, thus not in keeping with the character of - the neighborhood. As demonstrated, the key rooms would be smaller and not functional (see Exhibits 1, 8 and 4) . B) Non -injurious to the Neicjhboorhood The structure, r�asplotted, has been approved by the • ' ' Corporation and the neighborhood (see attached ' Exhibits 8 and S) . (also see Exhibits 19 through 83) . The home directly to the east, Tax Lot No. 3300, has a . • boathouse and living quarter which currently extends � beyond the Y property line. The house directly to the west also extends approximately E5 feet into the rear yard setback. Our proposed variance of 1 foot would, therefore, be in keeping with the character of . the neighborhood and would in no way be injurious to the neighborhood. C) Minimum Variance Required This variance of 24 feet at the rear i.ti the minimum , variance necessary to properly site this house on the property. Granting of this variance will acknowledge and approve the location of the deck setback. The house will be set back 7 feet from the lakeside property line. Also attached to this application is a site plan showing the present size of the site with R-7. 5 setbacks required shown on it. (Exhibit 7) . This shows the total allowable building area following all setback requirements would only be 1, 767 sq. ft. , which would make it physically impossible to put a properly sized house on a piece of lakefront property er t site comparable to others in the immediate surroundings neighborhood. • D) Conflict with Comprehensive Plan This request complies with provisions of residential development in the R-7. 5 Zone and meets the • requirements of the comprehensive plan with the exception of Section 48. 215 setbacks which this variance is a request for the exception of. This • • r -, -, request will provide for a proper redevelopment of this • site by placing a house of comparable size and character to the rest of the neighborhood in a location 1 approximatly equal to that of other existing residences, while at the same time providing a means of retaining the 36-inch specimen old growth fir located at the front of the property. If the house location is forced further to the north in order to maintain a required lakeside setback of 25 feet, it will mean the elimination of this tree. • *4 (note Exhibits 12 through 18 are back-up for other exhibits) • • • • • • • r • 4 • 1 ^ 0 4 • • 0 . 464 I® •• EXHIBIT 0042 15-1160,40 1;. •' • "i lilt 'pi.____:iii1i� •_ , - , 3/4"-ft.-'...": hi izi, `+ ._ _ natk7nacrrdrer _- • .. ' S I 1 1 I •ft •,.,,.0..0, ., It [ itil , 111 .1 , (t4,,./.11: ....,rli i -igi, , O , IIIIlad �'Pr^INIPIIIfain�� Ili feria �I��1jrli.Alj" ,' / ,,I,, 447,1 lizi1. .1" la I1-Illjll ,llIII�III iI IIIWI�111r 1'1, ,ll�/�Ii,' • , 4P7� •l,f. I111111 ��pp��i�(r,�. \�� »i::;"�,1.,.M.4�a�\! 4f�* !-+`_ �i11 • , Plp,111; ul1l '� `,y�Jl�' L�, 11.St��j ��� Itil �lY, 'id' l:n N _Yak I. ' - �Tj! C� 1 {P,�;-, ��� y,i,nor of I;d� .,i1 i 1 , •. N i1.1�V i f r h ! ll ' .. `_�-= Q; ii I11._ /� irr` Ili +<lJI� L.I Li' a. I i `IL�II�IUI�I; - fl�r'1 . ... .I14,„ � � cicg '0 r r~ ^•1114'", !„CIA) • • = ”iik44 4 V �• �� r o/ilNeua l,, Va • :1 I .,if;). 1� :acre ,�r� .I Ala • I • ,,141 III f !ii' : a,;,i+1,��;� zinc y 1 . .fir. /' .rl �, I �"'- �f.i to + I r , •n'dt. .. �iyt!'9.Ij of . ' il 'J_ .�„._ '�/ , _!fir ` f l.•• , ,;�aa' �._. 1 �„tit r•/L/� � �• �� ndac '04 • U I G .�';111111,11,, III �/vP .ri lib I�. i 11 9LLUN1uiJ/ • end ..::+!;.% -rtw' l: �Il�il!rr�lil.t•list ' cv9ftW. ;V �.�,: �/'!tL{v �I����- '^+1�''+w4_-o, ,�v"'2.vi� ,,.,, d / I a "� il` 11 '. t/20 y� io r� ,�/vd devotion , elw, ia' is _ f i xu • G•3f.,gr " rePil , • i o • Q • r fP .............; ae fake os% EXHIBIT C VAR slim _ I . ,, i . 15-tit 4.-.1 : .. , ...,,. .) .... .. • ,“ f� .. � _ • , whog _. •.....,...,„, ir '10 "� 1 �•r4*tea 'a tidiaCti 6.I ,` •' . "`"tem., '; �� „1 J a at 4 W - Igo . I..... Ers...i.‘3 • /0'6 Pj ri `j'm si IikjI Lam/+ elf°. atic s •• 4#EI WIttet. 've*r ��1 !• i `icamj mi. lei Jaws. '��il` �� 1 _ .... �, � olr -f .. LW -* VP, . ,. .„ vetic z 47z".01•44t, 1 .:.-t-7. - .. t 0.4 - "idp 4, lon orV Iti �� l cehi. • .�,, '' keou�. i, ra►/of, ° 111.,/,;,,,,,,,kreil igfploirda er /247 f' ` • ° t Sa47 Qlot ia7a . : ,,. ,.. •• Icya''r9 d• �iI bold 4 1 ? , lot Iir r "9'6 • L., I ` , ,r w wurs�A r..iA.. _ .. * ..,. . . 0 . . _.._ . , . ° 1fibrt• I0r3 . G . . �` P , blase ,,,,,,,,,,,„,„„,,o„,,v,... , , „, , „ „,,,, . • --- dual locattan ba 1 / ui- & "> a+toot hiaasurerr t. ,', 1'/; •' 1. fi104,012.,' ��I surer //,, r /�,� ; / ,// icdpfs tU 1. . . •fke atltli vr0a0t 4 4 • . , . / . ; ''-i. �� : _ MIS A .\____/ • _ t ( ) . ... . .... , .. _ .. • 064t 1 Ham>J,ram ' ZS . ,t Io arl ra imin I 1 h Ise WO,� 81 plk"J' 1 a ,• , ,,,,, . „; iii._ 0 . ,4)41, i ... 4:,,,,,,, , . , . . s, 1....... I , ... ... ,. . ... . . , .. .....i rs gcvi ecposed e� pit /Mi/// // tt1 �i 3#hd naD r " . t . I ws fps• ed House ' 1 2i'�n►t� 1 . prof `j wt r c' ' yIN ushoa 345t 161<eview NO. . WIVYN . ' r G�IM�V r €ideIV-�/ 1��1 IIr�t ~ 3' VV t\l1 , 1 _ 5 of r vi EXHIBIT �,e.I T ►iced 0,73..qI 5 . . ., . F.,---corga8e, v 15-9i a co • 3 . ^ .., )). 4 ' .., • • . ' •, ,.• ", •' i • , 2 •. . , • , . , EXHIBIT 1 ... • • : N . Lot House Kitchen Kitchen Address Size Size Size Sq. Ft. %. ', • . - • . ..• 3406 Lakeview Blvd, 5867 381.7 , 20 x 18 360 3390 Lakeview Blvd. 6435 3040 14 x 24 336 . , 16819 Greenbriar 4500 3060 21 k 15 315 .• . .. . . . 920 West Point Rd. 6370 6806 20 x 18 360 1207 Lakefront Rd. 5000 3000 18 x 18 324 . • • (kitchen) AVERAGE SO. FT. = 339 .. . • - ,.. , 4 EXHIBIT , kdOP VArtte-cit 04-00 -I , .f . • t • i'. ••'. .. " • , iiii I • 11,1 '. .1 1 • 1.. . • • 1- • ' 1 1 • . 4 a • 16 s { EXHIBIT 2 The following houses have similar sideyard ot:backs. il:. 2896 Lakeview -- Garage with zero setbac (north side) 8950 Lakeview -- Zero-foot setback (north side) • 3214 Lakeview -- House zero-foot setback (east side) 3168 Lakeview -- 3-foot setback to fireplace (west side) 3406 Lakeview -- Zero-foot setback (east side) 2988 Lakeview -- Garage with zero setback (north side) 2910 Lakeview -- Garage with zero setback (north side) '. 2896 Lakeview -- Garage with zero setback (north side) r EXHIBIT 7 %a.15-9I(a-d) . , N , .. • . 0 i „o V • . . EXHIBIT 3 Lot House Bedroom Address Size Pile Sing Sa. Ft. 61819 Greenbrian Rd. 4500 3060 25 x 15 375 15 x 15 225 ,.:: 10 x 11 110 10 X 11 110 "' �`'• 1207 Lakefront Rd. 5000 3000 15 x 18 270 13 x 12 156 10 x 11 110 1455 Lakefront Rd. 5500 6119 25 x 18 450 ' .,, 15 x 15 225 11 x 12 132 . .` , , 11 x 12 132 1475 Terrace Dr. *5021 4180 18 x 20 360 *(Lot is divided by 15 x 12 180 ` the road, with the 10 k 12 120 house on the 5021 10 x 12 120 sq. ft. portion) 16649 Maple Cir. 5300 3100 12 x 11 12 x 11 132 .1 • 1 6 x 10 60 4. TOTALS (18) 3399 (bedroom) AVERAGE SOFT. =189 (note:3 of the above 5 homes have 4 bedrooms) .1 EXHIBIT _ 1'' '• . ••lf q'.� I.7,i EXHIBIT 4 Dining Lot House Area Address Sipe Size Size Sq. F 3406 Lakeview Blvd. 5867 3817 14 x 16 224 3390 Lakeview Blvd. 6435 3040 13 x 16 208 1207 Lakefront Rd. 5000 3000 13 x 14 182 1455 Lakefront Rd, 5500 6119 14 x 18 232 920 West Point Rd. 6370 6806 20 x 14 280 (dining area) AVERAGE SQ. FT. -292 '' EXHIBIT .. VA2 -gi6.0,-.4) 4 is ;t'' , ,•, ,-.-•'`..-.. 0 1• •• \ . ..... • awe • ", • - ' • .• • fln 0 . , w� `1 t EXHIBIT 5 'wt • address House R�eaaryard Size c k s' "r 1207 Lakefront Rd. 3000 e q, , 1455 Lakefront Rd. 6119 ti 1445 Terrace Dr. 3495 0 4110 ' : . * , t 1495 Terrace Dr. 4180 � p 920 West Point Rd. 6806 3' r 3434 Lakeview Blvd. 2755 0 (from guest house) 3466 Lakeview Blvd. 2016 (note: several homes actualy extend into Lake property) 'l EXHIBIT . i a n to ; VA�1y�q d t• .• 7 t./' c." • • EXHIBIT 6 Lot House House/ Footprint Address Size Size Lot %, y. f ` ,:• 1207 Lakefront Rd. 5000 3000 60% 41% 1455 Lakefront Rd. 5550 6119 111% 47% 920 West Point Rd. 6370 6806 107% 47% 3406 Lakeview Blvd. 5989 3817 63% • 48% 16819 Greenbriar Rd. 4500 3060 68% 46% AVERAGE = 4560 82% 45. 8% r EXHIBIT • • ' , • 1. 1 . 'F-AItll1IN 4-1 •"S'... .'''.. '''.........'...."'.'" [ 1 5::'114IN L ....... ......_„__ _.......... __......... . ..• .. . . . . .._._.„.., i. 'col tree.a kit c •2.25 / • a viotk IAvilcill ale�, I 1 3s'X9). . i78o 1. r 1 IGae�r6e .. i ea... a5.3 iio /o' ea !:_i" / :: I.. . ...:;.. _ ._ . 7 / . , ... . we,T 960.77 Fx(Albr—a COrrVIA4 5ef.IDCk.ItC1VOS;51aC0 lj'a6 s 1 (s ; 5-MQ 1�+►�q t���c�- r wr'c,ptti�� , Mill Un+bined [Alain c 15 M►n r N 1rMA..t a Ybk i 25•'' 1 C T'tj, NatsUUcrete 3s% U; 9122.91 . E3IIOVsn Vor ISiIl il EXHIBIT ' i : I , , , ; , , . '. e it t 11 Sp .74 4' Qswego ; ' ...,. Lake OS o,Orepon 97034 I/ or CORPORATION i '�5�)636-�422 1 1 • , , � • John Ghiorso • 2084 Ridgewood Road � ' ' • �� • • - Lake Oswego, .OR 97034 "'•, • Re: Your Residential Pxoposal @ a•, "! 3458 Lakeview Blvd. :,, ' I', . 1 • !' 1 I'1 , Dear John: I • I We have reviewed your letter and pilot drawings ' •, • and have no objection to the reduction of setback. However, LOC does not .have authority to grant etch ,, variances, these must be obtained from .the City;of''.. Lake Oswego Building Dept. , , , I ":'1',f 1 1 ` • When you are ready .to build please •submita formal,;, : ' LOC permit application for all waterfront,'cons 'UI�1'�' " 1 1' , • , 1 11 .1.r traction, changes or alterations. q, '• 11 - Respectfully yours,' , '. t `; ; 1;'1'+j``•' • t LAKE OSWEGO CORPORATION ' I' . y%i n • , . .. .e4. .2 ,id atieel . , . I I ' Charles E. Schaefer ' Member of DRB, LOC I. : �� ,� • • EXHIBIT 1 _ , IS • V412.15-116 •a) • • r . .. I • i t 1'!'i. '�1 I • I ' ! I' ', ,I + 11' ,''I.1. `' '/.. I i " I.!i,1,41,�.1'', ' 1•' • li • i 1 1 1 •Y 1,1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 . • • ` I• I S. • `1 I ' 1' i I 0IF11 l•I1. • ' I1 1 .! li • I II,•,h:. .• �0°I.6'I, • ' • • ' • i 1u' .1 ,,I:11 ii. 111 .. " 1 • • ' 1 ' I on I I { . 1 1 I • • • A1 • , 4. l 1 { 1 a 1 • 1 1 l 1 . I a • I I {1 1 II 1 { 1 , 1 , ',l • 1 i oN. Uf ef .; 7 .. Buzz Slier L,ak®View Villas Forming Neighborhood Assn. 3320 Lakeview Blvd. Lake Oswego, OR 07036 John Ghlorso J & J Ba les 6: Market ing Inc. _ 17403 sW Upper Bomnes Ferry Rd, Tigard, OR 97224 June 13, 1991 Re: Coristruction of new residence on Lakevi'aw Blvd, Dear Mr. Qlorso, 1� Thank you for yesterday's meeting to discuss the plans y N is for your . •"� new home on Lakeview Blvd. While we do not yet have a fully recognized neighborhood aasoclation, It Is comforting to know that persons such as i x, , • yourself are interested In our Input regarding new construction in this area, The development of your lot on Lakeview, and the design of your new home, are both in accordance with our expectations.,.and certainly hot 'the least bit Injurious to the neighborhood, It is particularly comforting .to know that the house will not extend skyward from the street level more than a story and a half. This will greatly enhance the holue's appearance from the street, and prevent it from overshadowing the •4 nearby existing homes, Considering the new setback requirements, originally intended for larger lots, variances should be granted to allow a reasonable size for • your house structure, especially considering the steep and narrow character of the lot. The large tree at the street.side is well worth saving, and your plan to keep It Is welcome news. In addition, many of us hope you will plant other plants and shrubs as part of your general landscaping plan, If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call anytime. We look forward to sharing the neighborhood With you and your family, Thank you again for your sideration In contacting us. • ' e �/� ® rag ds �. ..:. , 4 EXHIBIT • 14 fuzz so V.62. 15.-91(a._4 Lakevie ill , LLS:bs 410 . ' .0° & t••• •••"1442•• • • ' •• • • ii Rev.itve,ii . • • . .• . • y81°0.14101• • • • f• • • • •• • • • • • • t 1! l or • •• • • I •• + • • •' •• • • • • • • •• • • i • ••.ito. .ri4• 4.. ,0,,,,,,I . \ . .. 3ç1vTifeCle0 • • 1 11111 • • • i'' • •• •.4. • f„ • 1 + 0....0.:• • ; ?Ifigfii.a5 : • • 4 . .,,, 1 . .. . ,..,. . 4 .• • • • ♦ . • •4 ♦ • + �• ..nb }. + O�wY1 M+.�YWYIr+Mrr.N_.0._M4•M••a error I/ Wr + . • • • • • 6 6 11 •• • e 6 . • 6 a 4 •. 1 4 • • • Ali ti tor , - . . yoir,l'iort a a . .. a . . . . • , • 6 • '4 4 EXHIBIT •.11 • • 4 6.i • • 4 f • • •; • • • • •• • i • + 15 • • • 1 ` 1 1 • . . • tY IN kb ,i- Z!.Y r 0 ♦1� 1 2 �t �1 .✓ `.,i ••y 7 r - r. fi.,K ,,,,,, ri',1 r s "4y1•,T'14'r+ "`{.(!.�T'l• C hC 4 �� ♦ ew 't t ..tt t.r',rS,4.tc.r.i4*.. •.,•:•-.;..'t s. - 11 ," ` s 2'ti.!!''.1r '', • r 1. -Ay%-tw ?t 3,•, y s. -. .., ., _,w , tIt :Y • 'P'* -v1 11 -4�•V �.yi .r��• ,ss. ,.•.� ;:=T" „1� to A•'•' y 4�rV /� [I rV / 1, ; `{fir .„;. tt .�,�`''"�'f�..� 1 . .. r'•t. ;. t L,•"•• r!F •r'� ?,1e,�i ` i - . • • a r�14h } � -:4' •' / . • A as rr. h •,., , '. •;- .•Lf SCJ AA*-11P� k �L.V,•NN• t1'1 to [F�s [ �'+ i " .. ; •Ci ' % it.*,Jr..• p..�:... •. LOU•M 4.:14M ow1F.� • A 1. ac 7, y`',-,��- r"A 4.. ur".`r•'—,,,,i�-C,4.r'•r�,fir.-•.,..-M' w ""•- .-!: -..t.,.'' •�, _ - --,.. \ *`.' •4r C1 •^'-, :.`.+: r.+• —- -''.e:'a• .'-..-:- '. 7-. r"r .°Jr�l�n"rylT,tr :1. .oie 9 es9 TAX car' rt % O �j va215-11 a-A) tor 6/2e is ,P1 /L< /1 6 e " ei NdmE /3 .1�19.�-,0 NOTF : r/©rr�� es tc /T d �+r .tJrr� .s 9 PoorpEJNr 1S 301i/ 41696 - 'GOT /s ',GiS6d/?) .B )Lt y ra/.' rfl) ; a4EDieaon, c.? QC)nr r. . ,•;•1•.;w A t' .- `, , Or •pry ,,, s , 1 Affi _ r . • _ , �,, aol '� TERRACE rK.:..•. , DR l,,,ti� 4. 1 POIN r ,, tel. 0trl \I. \ ;o C .• m4A ' Q4 4c 1 •�r.�v ' 1loJ 2 A '� . ' Yf A . A ?t 4C � .. 1 „�. . .'AAA :1 - r ....,,•_ ) 4,,c. r'x4 '7 \e .6. .0 , ' . A • ♦ p • • • • • '„ �, ! .f ', tY tt k b t.°11 ,' , '' • t •kI r I ri d' \ c: • S 1"Y, ,1. k,4 •??. ..` ,•/1A, f,. , .fit ,j . rI Ji L .4 ' 14h, Ib 4 , • • 5. lI�w{ f T` .V yy (jilt! �ywill : y I}• t ^.r.. 35 i �. n�• ..' =• A ...5l � ••. '• 1� ..t ,- _- ,',_ 71{w.y^..4Y r e:.. -i.' 'j a I.' , ;, _ .___-"•.w, r EXHIBIT ' ' /`}94' 7e 4Ce 1).� 1-7k I 62/6 9 a,9 T/:x1 t, T &4 3 VAR-15-III 4-4 . • • tor is al iv`p6A ay rite RoR•A . 5aa/ 4 0,a for cer)NEaQ /No476' is coCAMh /3/94'11 -0 CW THE vPP/s /a.S/oe oF. ,('.09ib, "rorAc s /A-46e /'ooT/3 9E a/= Home •m /Sa 0., e� t % of Atoms' Lo /4 Itor " ' a/�o o/. 1�179GA G+jT- y 83°Jo o� Lor, al Fooridk.•a.)]• i s •24 4 V., Howie sJ1J • il 40.4 ro e ir) . d /3rti G ryes, o/d. u �v w • P ,L F • ,, 303 �t 305 ,a �� 1410 ItS l,tiM 41'1 l �M1.302 �, ' w' `I �SSS , � . ` a b0b ,, oM 1.rar �,\ a a i , „ „ °• • .Oyo / �' isoo '"tg4:, • • ,� 1/ F I T.di7y \ ' .-',i, :. • • ,.�• • It '•k• 'N 1N v \04 `‘ 4A. , .., XI, • • � ! L, o5 A -o.• I 2.1.56a t / 9� 2AI i I503 • • Oro-�-..... .i,�b ,� ,, 1 • lit. 1 .f. 1;. If late kl ' • l� �A 4 ..r..'l7�' �'� t��'�_` .► « / lh 1ST , • • • ' f' �'t • • ,. • "i* ••' t Y Vt.,k b ‘...\-- ''''' 4' • e..„ ., 4 4•4•', 4 4-1 kp 0,.., .. • ' u • A� '. ,..T •lr*:-.10"+i t I. -yn, tom' `.aJ i$ ' 11 ` t.,� `� .1 r� / �.4y j �.,1t tt, r ',. r I."..,.lift}u.e ..r ' �r : • �y� ricn ',.. ' 1� �C:iil 0 Ill'r Y r w , I . � {+3 ` . , `I8iE' ..,,Vi 1 g AA� , i� � ; / d ��6 i1 1 I'I4 , . aeeMrle cy !'+', „.." Y• ,LItF : L ;s .. • • 1a t'''',, t4,••!,• .. • .. r y. al ♦• 4 i. ,i K . M,� X �'f• '4•"�' 7 - .z"..=1-.:- r .alL .„•.,:!•it''''' • • ` '+,.• ,C' A?+.• •�„� .�.�` t 3�.;,Ye y,♦�• 4 , ^yti Y T'I...••i. _�i ''• 4 it":r;,�'7-.•_i =..,. •+ .7L"L-l1 `'.� .�i_.it"c ••• 'L,.' 'yl- , . .,. 1 n • ; . • ,.4 ,tom..' '-e r •••t^* , 4, , • 902o uJEsr- w Re/%21- d , . . :1 t a EXHIBIT a • A .2'/6Io 46 re-), •�K for s2,'Ad' . .— • tor size .9/p/�•d=Y: ro 37D (IJ • ♦y ..w.�.,.. ' :''' . 7 Raffle !c isRZmad fe.om ' To 68afr '•y'. . /oG 8b '0/ i . .0 , or, e,NT �oqj 7' °le o COT , . 1 `'' �,, �.. S., 11• • '!"1El).ECo/7'� J .819TH • .4.. • • •�••'� t. •� •,r•. •,•.l, •' I1 •4- • •• '••t G•• • •� • , , . . ••• •a • n'. ,' • . `.•• •�, • . .• • • . <4. %Ph': .. . . . „gc,,,,„ c.) .... ... ....,.... ...,„ , . ,,, . l'' , 0 i •-. .., , ' �`p0`4o r,,azr,,..1st,+' 1 1 '.'. Z v''rf• • .,. JJ • • .i', I� i i • o� ' ('4 i.. /.,,,�•� , C• i• ! 4,t I,._ 9 r ..% To +271 .Y •' o� ti 3c:••! ' ,,• .;•.••• .. .......‘. •• ?..442a.41pi,:c s'�o 'y „ioo• f .a004 �1�s2 ,..�AkE' • 41° .•1�. ,4.4% i' .°1 �.i 4 Pr ii�` 2QI ,• `��r'J "'`'"• Oro d ?tee • �.. . 4' i+► °. '.^N*. r i PART OF TL 300• Y•z•.. .µ ie., ON 2 IE 10 A"•i. .a•H. •• , • r. ., • + . .'�.�1'. 'rJ-y.� J h ,•.'J• e',i•'� s u F L t+ �.. Mr . ti.s. .aka 4 id "IT,,c y, Jtr aS tkr ;%.. R,..4 ,, tA-; ••Fi,4't'..5 ,,i,,,1,11.,. ;, tytk.b l/1 k i16� .,` V.�''.. ;,. 'Ya t„fF FrS .CJs : •Fri 5 '^.t.i. f). . .. ats-1!) "...-A (�r '.: 1� .1�, '. S f•• ,A.a IA,r'i r1,`}1 f. '\rt ' i --. {•:} "'. •ty •• 1�,.^c' '*.vAlvV'L ii'- - •i r .T.+AO." t•✓ fy.•hi,'r 1 M ""..ii!!1.....o., 4 '•T' vs;\ ;•�^,�..1�1 lr- IMlY ys ' 1 u¢ .1 a •,!'. F 1.,.♦ ty , `'c �1 ,•\...p -•. ,'� r�� jai'•. .. -,t ., T, •� , 4 4 at i, i r lr}! �•' '• t4'„~ l �lor7[A 2Y �1 w, ''l`_: 1 • M � r• ;�` ,�� .lam 1 � *.{f j.• y • 1 ..4 I" s .,a C,f.7 nor s.. i } 9f 1.,,J ! i1 r' ' f' : •� «. _-..,. .-._._. 7• • F •• .j rif - ''ONwNrr•r *Oil. 4 •" ,t4,�.1`' 1.:i.• 5,1.; ��'. • •'� # '• Y.s.: •s..•. �.!• 1 . 211" \idr i. 4wur +5�,-y--- :Y. .'�y$.> "MTh_1'•. 1.`,,``C`..3 t 17' ."^r•+s-3;►1•"' ' ,�+�'�•'�'x.r�. -a,"''�.1'' �i hr w yJ Y�:. .. 1 e a .. t--+ `'_"'tarr• : ' ��.—...1, ram ��_ cN..,. v "';''�.,,,...a ,yr.r 1 JP•.. EXHIBIT 1 .. . a A A / io � � x �for '- i�ao t _ YA215-RI a-d {' A a9 •x ix ,q NI��G . a S�O ,� Nor d° e• rive • CGosewe'ss 7v 1.41 e41,7; Meat sire 6/if = /// % °F. for • .. fJ�/!o., rive, � .7?/:S7A/'7l1et,s�'E%Gt)CE.Av /v/r�L!", .ice +Poor/044o'ris ..260° . 4/�'90 OP 47. :�;`: es Ed e.co ink! •3' . .�4T/�-S s ;* '•� ''� . . OS�VEG SEEhl�4 r,.. O • C Jt,�=l••50 1$1A,O6;It, as S • • ',. 19` 2 1. ''• ► ;',1,`,r 1.-,�e - ' • +Still ; I`:tS11.I: 1'. w" ,�hL•�I•a. 'y:�1. . hft s 6 e, 13 .. .+.' •.` Q+ •Z\tit `: Of,,,AK, e ... .. 5 ZTp ZNAt , 2100 2200 U15 do ism e- 6'a, t. n ., J'•„ + 8. . Via\ 1st ,+ 1 i++,,. ,+ 2000 ,:�2300 �: p 1149 • L ^i__63".0 I R/'• i•; 'i1.i. ' Oa ,. r. sqe. esCUTN II OF ON ALBEAT 1 ..z'.:JI MA I • #06 MAPLF 4N LINE CF e . V,L,.AR. , • x�i ' • _ . �.' • kb ti- 1.2 ,i' A. .. Jtr; ,1k .f,., { r *e + r ✓�21 (x1f'••, 104it`407 4�st. 'T + ♦ !. � , , d�. Z + b t � ,q{ r ✓1t -iy�:+tti:i\•Gu�.} rtt; �� §• il V ,. Y s� . � vii: co (fit +1f�.a • �' •rr y J ' r� � "44 � - ` • 0 . ' • • 1. • r..•r e ,i..'i ,• t!• x { :, 'X. t ; tt';',, -" r ,"-. ' t 4 '' •1'. L „• 14'f2•3i •I v' yK ,.1._ .'f`•e • 1 4' ' T�,F':. ) 4� ,41r 1 r. i r t1 � ..` a . t 4 , ., Wt1..' M.C, r fit. ` ,-F+;x� i t I. d'r.'�� } ,jr ! jam F;.!1'ri`..' wu t 'h 4a t' * < ''c 0 •`7' • • ti.H�. t. • r k r Wit, n �v i ). sS r' ,r , .lti' l 4 r C y S ,,L. i '•' :3 f�• 'i .- ' it .• •• r+y ; r t e K r £ t'•1Lr �'4 • '%. -• v .lt t. °• ,i . .• v �' •�.r w..t •. S,I,U,•y r �.. r r 't.•' 3{ ✓ • �+-ti• t h r\. 1vt rSr1 r •• , �"L + 'r 3 4 `• t•4•'s a y- h r. + J Y. • a t� yw�„ tl•y.' , M..- 't" ty.Ji I y • Yr > ! a �• r;t~Y•t- 4 L�•i. s•,•. r+� ���c r IY -ti x :•t t t•q. .: .r ,y `5- a ..tq L t yG•-a,�.r r"r e. a.. �- "ti. t , `�',: ,r -0,� • , • , ,t {h� '. �'....•4- J• ." Y •''C^ `'F 't' •.r.,t' . '1 • '} 'ww...lf.rr ... ., - 4 ti .'w, ? • . •w '•t ~••y .a•.}•..r�ti• . 0.y „' .Tt D• r • • 1 - , p • ,•• ' I. 4i. • a®'f 9.7��tf '7 4E '�i ' ,•y`i• i, ..i i .' f. I .NE x .'f r � XMIBj7�°� c0 • ' . . t 1• , • � fir..•siae..�gv e,;r:. •scao g 1 ` 1 • Vt2 ws_q, _d • e}Orr�E•s /,ze.:•,3 .: .3000 .0 60 9'0 0,- tor. . , ' , Fvor fsn•�r,,s , c9,0ga t .r •Sti 'l®' 0f teor ,••° I. • 5400 I C900 A PART OF TL 300 11• 00 • 'ICN 2 IE 10 1 ,•�..tirs. n, •r. :4•1,. 7„, , I • Ol .' as`• % �� � � • rt .� i.a, ,� s4. ,eJ ' • i oaN�I, • ,R �., tie PO •. •/�0� 9 lord1�r114! '17 or ,,p. 00 +• i J ,.�111s'V 1 �d• • 1.101• . 3601 ; r ,I. • '� t : • ifln' % Si `..e......• ,� ,A., ,R ' 71 • • 1 •72 .STIR EET 4 o . ... ... . -- ... ..... . i 4. • • •"I.1','... . t y tx,k.b t 1 . , ..ie"...' • • • • 103414 g647510 A2.7F • -•.rsoao • ' $689.Ooo `' eu+aAsaas.at4aawc tu�u+tiEDa® etmoba iiceAtoc►aael- • 4.a... . t •�4, • t iY •is i-ram'• I✓'" 1••-r�M� `• ,Cr?".!Ri • '•, .•+. r .,,vC S�"P�`Tt '1"i+tr?•'•�•4'�"''tit.••d- t 'Y'• • f.•...• . !^?¢IM �t. .f•1 .5••H.r•ib•;• 10 • ' ' • •l4••eY ..• 1.i.I M • • • • ACo 961t1A l t� • r C 10 z aT�t`Yat S MORE %n 4 • . ; Q NRAGA •A • . • P,Ipry WPh 636.4021,..t . , or OWI ICAu.I T1WG;icon • !.t Sltt 50.9Q Aran m] • f: la D U ROOM DES Stint 11 'd Aot 22 9irf CNV ON • EntSx10 ,31/1.,1 11311WL$Sal 041115 NM ' ?t LroS1X'Sr, EnC¢DMS003 S"t +W3 TbTo• $ Deo _ ;loot CON SOK Con1'FS Cone S On Li % [4 14 FA GAS AC_ Sot ' Ln6alS2©Q.000 To IOU . gr-awt F►L RI CO IS°1n►t$L250 IT 6 •° $ X Fall KOt a GOER enol YES INN CRY limn sa PI a, . X.U. OX 12 kow it W+Rr tMW TL_L i&U3 AUKOO-TPP.�.�_ • • at poPEES MVP tiWAI. ► t;urxE _g_, '4t ^'• lar�LOL Enna eaa n t 9•.I Ansen TatA i 2T3,1„•.........._ Lv 1YDtt feC•11dpt0 & 43 LAKEVIEW VOUS RS.AISCIXTBY GORGEOUS•ALL !1® I!€ATV TOY 10 FURNACE.N SV KTT.SR1VQITV.CARF,STS,SPfCTACILM •' ' . , MAY AY itiLtEfil t K AT 1 VPATEA• 1 O TkE RE��TY tOUP s 4132 Ph 676�8� h • r ia• •e.• E 1., It, . ' ' • • • • f• .a •' .' EXHIBIT • 2I Vitt.i - ) . pl ,. w " .. • r , • • • • • _ • ' • • • 1' •• • , , • it _ 4. N f.1 • • • , t 1 / t y L • . • • /03398 1 554445 A2.7F '•3450''1750► •$509.000 8i16i1A911MOR8A11IAlP1RiIL0rCIImItIMOYtlM4llLlYtLTTA0aiSulAIWCWI3 ' j --a, • •.t•i r•r '• 1�•.,: �.: t "4• 'e' ._ ..few ..- 7 • z a ti., i' } , ^C,y4 Y;; , ;;• r , t f s2•y sr',x�'.ap 'i r•` xf't37' � i�'��•�1"�y�p�y1�„.�1y Y r�)1 _ : t a ec►,r116.71 MALE CAI SW ' Cc L4 Ea I7034 Y4t S SK AWLS . lialdignii AY Sal' :.fit, . ..:H+.1ii4.3113..• 04IftV 1.9UMCRTH.CIA _tiftot...._•...:.._s •'4rva103 •• X tw 121 CEDAR ' ...$S111,1,.i 1Tt4,Tu t Jar R A Ct�A* CtA YE tint$.. •Q 0 `' Cotmtd$ 0 % 7L_ XJ ,__,_ tns+1 rE$ ) Cln► s•••. , $ .Lem Litt OW.OSP FirNW11.N in* TP T ix SOA ,A!Fits 0 % I. ' • L.T S" fdn YfS "ILNI F n „tt .M { ' 4 I. OIOL Sbt N gas S._u11 i _ elkt J�or Cat t Iw,pil.7Q4 _ t tMr L7t/WWr1 Est/Rinks N 10.VECTACAM MAIN LR WATERFt 0tff LMdtG WITH '4 EXHIBIT fedFNOOM1!111�0y�0SiEYf71111.IE 1.111 JL'HtOINRESO t0a* N.H.$LRQIAS Ni IAARIA .L Y I6 i..4 , 1t11 0. + .J 1 .•11, . —(2--'2■••—• imitopigionnemumingarman SI7�MAEreu,i,u� 'sStL ��.aaaataa VAP- 15-91 a.,A) • . ... , • F ' Y ` ,_ ,•Yj •, • , , ' / , . • t• • • 1 t.. _ • ,,.•y 1 Q', ti ', • • , ' . t • I'• +� a •1▪ '�•' .. , • • • • •�••' 'a • • 1' • I �1• • •• • June 6, 1991 • i ' , 1 • ', 1 , •. •• • • Mr•.• • �, • &4iohas►l Wheeler i, ,• •, ,•1 e '1. '' •' Planning and Engineering Dept. 1 ••,':.• ,• " Q •' ICity',®f Lake Oswego 1 f: .►,,'.� • 300 A'Avenue • •;• •O a.• z ° ' ' Lake Oswego, •'OR • 97039 Dear Mr. ,Wheelers ••. •• ,•. . t, • t? • •.:S'• /{n+' •.1 . • ...a rtt`'' Mg► wif®'Myrna Hrambilla and support • • • . • 1. , '" } the requested ' variances.to allow Hr. and Mrs: Ghiorso to butj.c at 3480 •••• «.(, Y;",. Lakeview Blvd. Those of us 'on Lakeview take great'•p ride".in' :' r• our homes and desire to see <:: home constructed on this • , vacant site. .At •present, ,,3458 Lakeview is a real eyesore' and a dangeroub ••.`-dam site for children to play. We feel the Ghioreos varjanee : •—1A.i.„': requests are the minimum necessary to make 'reasonable use•®i•••` •'1';y.: the property and allow them to build a quality home of the s :T `� '': standards of the'other homes in the neighborhood,,. • _• ., •.1:•ti,1 . . 1J • Thankyou foryour •�`--• °��;`•consideration, • . • , . 1▪ • ,.. • Tony,i3rambil la • • r.,'' ,• • _ ; • •t•3406 Lakeview Blvd. . . rv,,• '� Lake Oswego, OR 97034 j ,•.��s . � '. air(,, .. �' •',r',, !ij Oil • . .a •• "tIt•{f▪ •'. . • 1+ EXHIBIT ' a a 'r • 2 V� •• •1 • ,• a 1 1• , ..,_ • a a 1 • h�. '• • 41 a f , , a •t • • a ''• .L�y••' • • . •, -:C- du lit ft 't -- , . . June 6, 1991 'Mr. •fichae1 Wheeler ' .Planning and Engineering Dept. City of Lake Oswego . ; . 380 A Avenue • •3, Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Dear Mr. Wheelers a .. We understand that John and Donna Chiorso are seeking some • variance in order to be able to build a home at 3458 } Lakeview Blvd.• " � Y We feel the variances should be allowed as the home they are • planning to build will not be injurious to the neighborhood. ;�'"'Most of the homes on Lakeview Blvd. have been rebuilt or remodeled and we feel that rebuilding on this vacant lot will enhance our neighborhood. n 4. Sincerely, (-464 gL/eut-- • Ron Erickson ' 3390 Lakeview Blvd. ;r Lake Oswego, OR ' 97034 • ' '' EXHIBIT 124 • • uAR. ►t.,(c- • • r , • ) '' ' : J1 w ' . as S.. jib.i t :+ M .1.1 • June 6, 1991 • Mr.' Michael Wheeler Planning and Engineering Dept. City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue • Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Dear Mr. Wheeler: We understand that John and Donna Ghiorso are seeking some variance in order to be able to build a home at r, t Lakeview Blvd. 3458 " ' . We .feel the variances should be allowed an the home they are planning to build will not be injurious r a �' to the neighborhood. Most of the homes on Lakeview Blvd. hae remodeled and we feel that rebuilding on this avdoanttlot t will enhance our neighborhood. Sincerely , ...,,,e400-y-eere(!fo-it,_ 33 S1 lfi44.11%: ,► W v d 1 al EXHIBIT ns '• 2 1, ,--------- , A2 _40 • • • } a • A t ,+ . a. I s , .. M IT' 'i: 'i•t • t t ' • C 0 .....64..... , ., . ' ''e",••1,I,',,•• -.6'-'l '4w4t I. ..,,„ii„Le,rsvie,tt.:0 . "h '+i ' 4_ __ A/� Y t i f ` ' __________g . i f I'• .�._.....—. Sir IS --___ ' t.c.....--- _ r'r r I G .. \I? „4.e...i...0.24,00.4G— %.,..: : f. t i �••�V—sir 2444- �. _ A. �.. 'T-�I�.�5slr.T+.. ti 44 , q• r"' ,1', --___ _____:gt,___ .41A4141211,,e-. 011-.X•4""61..-- 44414#10-!-6"—__ts thetSeili ...4- . -=ttPdev__Uej—C.Gq. OkiN-•ft.iti.;114-0.74____q-143•014/—tet•-.... 14 , ,, , 1 ..SOW W\11 ' �ip/ ✓r — .., ,, ,.. ,,,, ..,, , ,......, . , _______ci) ,,,.. ..r.,... . . . r,:-J----ea,,--3'2)-1,z 4,1.7— . . . , ''• '''„'.•s'1,', I 915--ie'rev-e -Li- . ..: r . .. • . 3 j(98" ..40-4.ite;:d-_t8M_______ . 1 . it >� EXHIBIT "l L if, .I 1 40.7;_zebzz_____ .. 0................... ejpirf • • ;* Og&e____("-S-S::,. 4--ej �. ��, . sr. • . - . - ---•^ter. _..�`�'e.dr.-'-, _ ----..-1Z. , ----el -., _......' ' . • • • • (Of.......„, ' ...........0 k • • • li EXHIBIT Vika 15-411 a-d) a. a ! m to .,` ..r 4 • • 4 •• 1r 0 '' . . ;- '. R I ., Y I+ a ,a n M... v d � u• t�t -1: i1 ` I • • •1 �. r • •n e 1 I , c , f " - Mi utes of Meeting :� ��" Ti e: 4:00 PM on 6/27/91 '' Lc ation: Office of Barbara Sue Seal Properties P3: pose of Meeting: For the neighbors of Tax Lot 3200 on Lakeview Bl d. to have an opportunity pportunit to review and discuss the proposed va iance requests of John and Donna Ghiorso. v ` NE ghbors Present: Tony Brambilla 3406 .Lakeview Blvd. Calla Rice 3492 S.W. Lakeview Blvd. Ron Erickson 3390 Lakeview Steve and Linda Molatore 3400 S.W. Upper DriveGlenn Chilcote 3480 Upper Drive Buzz Siler 3328 Lakeview Blvd. Ot ers Present: John and Donna Ghiorso Jack Viskov (contractor) 01 Karen Cramer (recorder of minutes ) Jc n Ghiorso opened the meeting with introductions all around and rE uested the neighbors to indicate the location of their residences . Jc n explained the purpose of the meeting was to give the neighbors a hance to review and discuss the proposed variances and then pr ceeded to explain the sideyard setback variances, the lot coverage ' %, and the rearyard setback variance. John then opened the meeting tc questions and general discussion. a ' ' '' St ve Molatore asked if the home would be above the height code. • Jc n explained the height restriction had not been raised, but that fx m the front view of the home, it would be only 11/2 stories high. . St ve asked why variances were needed if the height code was not e} eeded, and John explained they were needed due to the extreme 25. foot drop in the topography and to save the old fir tree located at the front of the property. He explained also that the % of lot cc erage would differ 5% from the house that was previously on the lc ; the house would use much the same footprint as the previous • he se. Y Bt z Slier stated he thought the lot is undersized for today's needs ar felt the sideyard setbacks were fine. He had visualized a or -story structure as being 15 feet from street level, but thought ti drawings indicated it was closer to 35 feet. a • tl t the street view and the lake view were important, not the si eyards. tF TI question was asked if there was a height restriction. No one ki w the answer. G: nn Chilcote wanted to know why the Ghiorso' s Wanted to save the 'Li e. John explained that although they wished to do so, it may not ` N be possible due to root problems during construction. rXHf oT fa..!!! ) VAra I5-11 a►d Minutes of Meeting Page Two b eo Jack Viskov also indicated the tree could be lost due to damage to • the roots during construction, but a new tree could be planted to replace the old one, possibly a shade tree. Calla Rice slated she wants the tree to stayif t possible and thought her neighbor, Sue, would probably agree. 'John added that the Planning Commission also wanted to save the tree. The remaining neighbors present said they would prefer the tree be removed. They also thought the health of the tree might be a deciding factor. Buzz Siler mentioned he thought the size of the old Lree would diminish the visual size of the house. The drawings were then measured to determine the height of the roof .•, from street level; it appeared to be about 27 .feet. Glenn Chilcote voiced his approval of the variances, but doesn' t want the tree to remain. He thought if it was taken out, something else should be planted in its place, possibly a Liquid Amber or something similar for visual appeal. John commented he had received David Johnson' s approval of the variances over the phone (3434 Lakeview Blvd. ) , but would deliver a set of the drawings to him today. d; Ron Erickson approved of the looks of the house, especially from the lake front view. Glenn Chilcote asked what siding they would use; John said drivit is y planned. r d The Molatores mentioned they liked Tony Brambilla' s new roof, as it Baas visually pleasing. They also thanked the Ghiorsos for calling the meeting and allowing their input prior to any construction; the ©theis- agreed. The meeting was adjourned at 5: 00 PM. Respectfully submitted, <,`' ``,-- -41-t.a,2-C...i a/Z-el47eig ' Karen Cramer 4• P.S. Subsequent to this meeting, the Ghiorsos received a phone call from Nellie Zundel (3350 S.W. Upper Drive) stating that she supported the house they were trying to build at this location. , f li yn Addendum to Minutes of Meeting Subsequent to the meeting, I had a phone conversation with Dave Johnson who owns the house directly to the north of the property. Dave had reviewed the plans and was in agreement with the variances ' with the exception of the height of the building, as it would damn o his view towards the west part of the Lake. together with our architect (Ralph Olsen) andlseeli Dave if we oI d would eet any adjustments in the plan. I hope to meet with Doveafterweake have had this discussion. • I should also state that the meeting with the rest of the neighbors • vent extremely well, and everyone was very supportive of the structure as it was presented. • • • • John Ghiorso lip per • . I,• 4.4 Y , 1 . ' r , a {... .c if Irk • .e 1.' . / ,. -'ki... ,. 7 )U / £iii 3/ / 1 . ., .•. . . 34 41 s 1 '"1"' re &/C XSV` 3 39' 4Xt 40,V y j r • ••••• . Z.,/Ai& 4 /a/111-4-) • .•.. 0400 zuj uppp „ ,(?....tu • bvf P-AA Orc-a 3.5z8- CAV-Litet.t.) • . .�y • • t 1 1 Y , • • • • • t . • 1 Ali 0 r• Ponlind Venoour.Uslronotl.n Ate.Solo Act"'Ptapcl d_tl6,6lutt lht„IletahLALIO1.Shidt.P.Llal at 1111 51101uli CLAW ute_14r-1116 Ltaee.iaJhe-1'h►de.11e duttloallae_aLlhe..Situtlute SOLAR VALANCE POINT STANDAND I WhniG,ltunteatna Um yyuaalttn the,Plltlanee.In.lelshuttuedeel,aallae 4' INSTRUCTION SHEET: FLAT LOT 11 the t sat.runt EAST•WEST lha'Shade Ileductbn late'II 1 line loon par reel b the northern bl tote II the tWOdme tuns EAST,WEST b0 Ihel lnleiseeu the shed.;OM, Oilier Vol shade Itdud'an Mt and menwe the e. and the pitch hi S In 12 0i[deport dltlance lo 11 110m the rhel0utn 101 lull. Wits the d gene.to the shade teducton Ins horn r "-s .1 ts.z a+et In.rr�e!Polly tonal.end et tingle seedy levtnnef N olhn aontl, mu0 end Ili. plich N lett Ihan d In 17t p ` „•,..y a,.. S d1 x+r .o it aslant.Point Ilelulatd A r•a step biotite lot eatcniallno the soli/ nonh.tn lot lugk at the hoe blithe h ' Y >;..wce p,�v.t nt rtJrteoad NI,.. t ,s' SI(ADE POINT.CAWi;a•. SHADE 1'dNT«IlIOOE / -�" - (�.�t1,.5 1h1Uh‹.to Shad.)leJucbn r ;,-*,t„,,' ; _g1-a InE11QX161Utti SllAa.E.T.OJ LLOE►GHT FQ TRUCTUNE ,V/ (lot.I Nanhrrn lot lens • r Ywai VOID.me Nmum clads laatA h1yM dander[la le Ole Tow house so II me prole[ /0' 1c.411 4.>rat).e4,nl,.In ns01au1, 0 5 '` , • - l.q th.n Sat 17 Noel Nth �.�„r "� t• z:aais rid t+n11h•Saulh.flltnentlnt4lot She l al i In It 0..1 Mich w Mope ,, ` , F».a v 1lnnhtlRl 011111E \✓-11 1 >.neen441,1A Ina le the ale w0h the Imartsl.Wes..m a iota i11N1T. CgaDC IE 11 (AVEE AVE rl%tDE - era..errs+rtl sod 184111 0%1 IM MnMlmwll pout of she lot e.t.a....us srnd.relopiWe lite inch es a street,aster i el0hl o1 way •1' fa 12 ne n,hm,ot the 101,Ibe northern lot Ins Is Me ha them Woe al the {^�' ti,` 31 __� ,.', aka 1'l.a,,. lb.(all{hanlen,I t 0a0 toe lo elcMi.d him she Iplill u011P1t inboL� SHADE c al:Yra'N.G II Ili.IMlodne wra NOIlTlI SOUTH \l Milt UO%C, DM lAlICG 0 111G SIIAUL IICh UC710N tail ,,.._/ n woes htrm We noahemmast a lest MA I-� a-tI•�T� pool of the rWOe,but seduce Ilia '[roll � .. haloht meafutemenl by Ousts 131 IL—Mara tat Cntnnlltnt�Hllh..lht,ldllltdutLL.S�ld CuhL311ndald • 1 leel, Ij t I Iliad thrGble below by oinn.clli,UN low lull hind Itte el lsts)'notching Ili.[Mint.to row hs�•Tmotl liofll l �•�- lhuclwe'.thede Ieduelloh Otte(Igoe CI whh the column(bp of IWe)m$lch,np tout toll norm ,_•.• 1:-7 c.4 11 It7111 e1r1 tough d,menflon(Oos Al, Ilia luttnitluio(mint Ott ohs We meannum nho.,td hello of Ill ihtdr .C lbl letl tamest)of de lnatiw e. Wile Ill mlrbnutamest)Iliad.poat M l hld In Our 0 been+ lit.lampu u.JSt11tIWunlca3uttJa Is lot a dolanco el OS'lo Ilse dude tnurttan line end a oorlls lough lit d,m.al,on of 10, h,ch Itsutle In a maslmum shads talnl High'it db lent li Ilse nhenbet In Doe 0II Null to or got MI 1 lleaiup to.wtao. Dude el Ilie bone bl Mne, Ihan the shade point height of►tut woo..(hue 01 low howl.0101,1e1 wall Ilie Inashnunt main point h.)pht elandatd, t -,•r. 114:34.u1.l0:Milli Smith Upnemataat utctm '"-'""InGC."n'"Finlltill11:041illtliiit ia.I L7<LI1LIt+'i i seta l tell_ -:.... w,r.pnpendtulat lu Ile nullh4111 lit ton.ttetue'bam It,mid pulnl Ununte eo Honk tooth la donation tin hsr) I l II t Ito nam,ttn tot lour end gong Cl 1 loulhedy shwa..anti C lilies du Shade 1001 91 20 IS Co 13 ID 63 OS 33 .SO t'te+1r "sa 1.n01h al lest one is Ott no,lh tooth cem.nlltn of the loL AWutuon(Jab ,y O net c10 tu'+rlh 400tn deualbn la tout bl root t1e eV/Mean, leannedaln �,__�. a,v,v.`-.� 4l70ttml1dt41) II). 10 4u W ,t�f il—iiil` ii GIIAt)l 1'Otlf trttttI to )1 11 11 19 .0 It eS IS .a ,.� 60 36 11 11 )1 11 )9 10 11 17 SS 34 14 11 )1 36 11 )1 19 40 II 30 Cl 11 11 11 II II 16 I) 11 IS 40 Cl Cl a, �4~ 1 r-� -v 41 10 10 JO It 11 11 II 11 16 11 It 11 II tl�� Cl ��rmnl bl line 40 )1 11 11 19 30 11 1 )I 11 II 16 II 11 .` 01 a6�,IA 16_11 11_1 ttt )1 31 11 it )1 14 ' d st- --- - 11011Itt SOUtI10u.lE est:re ».� 1. 10 14 14 It Ii 11 11 11 )9 30 11 )) 11 11 73 1) II I1 )1 11 II 14 11 21 i9 )0 11 II ..------14.,—,,,,--- Wilt,Ile hltphl of the that),twin)lot Tout OUutiwe to the boo below. 10 )0 10 10 11 11 II I4 I1 16 I1 11 )1 10 3 . If II II 11 11 10 11 11 11 74 h1 11 I1 11 1 10 Id 16 11 11 IP 11 10 It 71 1) 14 11 If ,` O06 11,511AOC POINT It6101111 ron Youn Si11UcTUllE 3 14 14 11 11 16 II li 19 10 11 11 10 11 ` . 71.A I1011tll50U111 OIlICN510N rOq YOUq LOf rat t.tlhl►1 �•�IC?Sell• 00%Ot 11A%IAIUtI L UWCU SNARE POINt IIEtCUY i "a ' ,�" .•j - '�( f''�' (:�At�n�:�y>: � 'fit Q1It t Lll(X''';e le'.."'e` °L►� t '1. ,'.itl ,k. I',n;rl tl,,.w.;l. tt,. �. - • .Y • NAitll� ft t 1 .0 EX141B1T • '/a VAR.15-tit Ca-4) • , -r Plapanyd by Cansor1r61tio61 Mannguniant Satvkad,n dh1ttIon at Thu&mkanclotl Assacintos Cotporntion (503)227.0400 • .not-. r - a. u , ,w r • • • • • l• • � r �a I • y • • • 1-. 1 }' a 6 b"a' ,1 • • \,\J !CARTER R'fcr do the FLOOD INSURANCE RATL MAP CrI t C rlVf datt , shown od this map to determine when actuarial rates apply to \y`StOE LANE Ao---- RO St uctures in the zones w'heie elevations or depths lase been.'stab- lished. 11 To determine it flood insurance is available in this tommunitV, ccnti.t your insurance agent,or call the National flnnd In%ut,tnce ✓ "'1\ 4 f ui.'.on a, 'S00)fi,r,.6fi?0 it+ V ,.....".- " ". .‘...''.'''''•••'.' ,/ i\ .., 1" .•' ' \ ) 4/1 !, 111 Sn' \PPPO\l\Ir\I L SG>\LL IN l I E'I 1 H400 av r. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM /...... I It .v FIRM . . FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ,.. 0 .. .. , • / . . .. ',, 0 / CITY OI'" LAKE OSWEGO, --"'� OREGON y CLACKAMAS, MULTNOMAII, AND WASI IINGTON COUNT1 L'S _ PANEL3OF4 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED) ,4 V -4 • a EXHIBIT VAR.IS•til d-4 i COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER 1611i 410018 0003 C k4,yi. ;III I _ '..4., ® ,,�.;Y , EFFECTIVE DATE+ • ®I ,�� b:;:;'t=?° AUGUST 4, 1987 l y�.,�+ ) , ru"ii t"ry I I I ,! I etlerp) I:.,Ir1Lrgeney htanagerrrent Agent.). J � err®n .... o ... p k-"" ,� �/ J�� ,3;< KEY TO MAP —��f • FloodBoundary-- --4 E U ZONE C --�"� 1d Z ' 0•Yt ar Flood litlunJary<@ ' tVE ,a + , t �1.. �'` p� Zone Designations � � '� -=- ��urtMlr z tit i IUO•Ycar Flood Boundary ,e 4 "a ' '.:' v ZONE B (a '� 5.10•Year Flood Boundary .. - t"' a,y ttA'P.n cat'""' • ,t f. r, S`-�'=�11,''- Brie 1 lood Elea tltll) Line ..r......,..�„Y7�^��,,, �'. "l.V �k.,�i'�'Y41Yt'YfP,,� �`�t_ t•,t tG ,Zr . , 1Js• i ` AL +r' 11 rth Etev atlon In Feet" , ✓ i �',><if!,3K tl' j,ine { a,"*�",ittt r4I *t"�.'l t....Crtr r�2� i,a�+'11.Y. ,#•�, y' I ttl , 'L� ,f` Iv"�. •,a11;it1:07'J . �+ Ft35c Flood Elevation In I acf IEL'af271 ` c,-, SA .i 1,. , \tP. ,•?I ,t `a:r.lii,,' `t2r�al w ;, 1, 113)cic llnitorm Within /unc•° .4 , an Z` AI F..evatiuu Reference I�lal l ��„g'rt +a",.--1 �! i"t! t, " ! C:it t Hr:•-CR Zone g , ,j,1* �r.�1. J.,VS+lty'i' ,.40' DBoundus ^"Nit;�, „3r ._' t fi + 4 �1•f,x l};y ua ' _ �} rl;, p•A: >- ,,,•7� Ritar Milo •M 1.5 • • 4 l le ?v�'= heferenteJ to the National r,rntlrtic Vartica Datum ul to` ,,,.,,r1uA''"' . �,• r.:4 k ,,.,41y)_x.Arli. 'ti ta+441 - i'(.a �x f►4•y e1,' t '$ �,- !, - ..- 1 q rf , •* iF ^<k G E t.{eiT„Kt f f� i'. I �"j1 t�e' _ • ' `r li¢ !� �� t-7 � '!'�`t+.. : .y EX?LANATION ()I /ONE DESIC'NATIUNS ��� y ,may, � '��- .a �tt�. :` "" •€R;?%. V'L�'a",S;i* e'..il 14- it.04•{4Ct4'1,>r+11 p.J'' $ 55,E l 7 7 " ,,. , t� ., e,yy•}t13yt �s..tc e,. 7v'tt a�YIf gL.xp}� e t313 • ONE f XPL,ANATION 44;„!: . ;. •.t,,,,, , Y, hY ;1 � J a n' Vi.,'t �f r A Areas of 1dd•stil l' fined; base flood 41G't.ltiorl .I,Ir! ...... — , • ,,0 r .1, ¢,: ?,Ltr .gf' 1 0,1 +�. ls',,r�f 'a�+t'-J • tlanJ•hatdltl f.l tins riot determined. • s � , "# ,`', , e" fr:»" AO Areas of I Ul)t rat �Il Mow tlou'.int tt it, 1+: - o' L,f Skt .j Ie ip'•5.t" t 10. F`t'P,.,!, � `,, •`. M•:. 1rr�v 'ilr- t • -,... are between one 1 it ,111tl three( I ','et; ,Vt r,l'•:,' „( e'�'. a +e '{+klr•t',t , i1,e,I ZONE+A7 rw I' "•�`.,. of Inundation are yiii,w II, but no rluuJ ha.,pd 11.,,+•, �• .om _ iv �4r�,�e,ttr,S•x' y.,.�rhtlti�tM�r t r a•i t.E( 1d10 11,1 t� '�:'M are JCICr11,II1CJ. F e•s ,+,az,lat' its'��7°�'4`P- . , •-" f '...,t ,•, ', '1 M ` `` AH Areas of I dtl• �,Ir h,lllnw flooding where Jr r.c • r y"rt,--a "'..r.; y'",14"st• ';A;-V-f1 r ' ,4'as:rf:7. IL •'' 14*' are between one (I and three (j. feet; hd5(' '�,,,'-: , tipd In t: , '; xaX.0. u n • n'a q'1< V .E are deter are shown, hut no flood halal=! t,r r y o , m •-7 ,1,7`',i, :: t d- , P•�rt i§tivr ' re determined. --- 4 xn , �tMet4r 1 h,,, I.t .r,..`r.,t I r i ,L u .c r - .r' .t `YY l,.'' AlA1-�13Q }teas Of I drl•vt'ar ttq(1d, bis hood Clt•t.rhnn- J i rinod hazard tavuns drtu nlinad. - ar.• A99 Areas of IO0 year Hood to he prnteaad by tI r .+, protection ss stet`, limier cU115tiu.tIon; it,e,e • - elevations Rita Hoodl Il,t/ilyd t alto,: Hui Ilererlltr••' B �' Areas helween limits of the WO,v.r !hum and J/,� t eat Hood;or I t t tam areas sublet.t !,t 10t,•,ear llu,.. / u1f r, with averate Jrpths Irsv than one t) aunt or ,tr••• tfte t'ufttribuliiig IIr llnaIe area is ie., thantole . u :• ZONE C mile,of aa ls prutrrtrrI by levees •,t .,is lire ua',I• ti„ � / \lcdlum shading; • C Areas of minimal tlunrlirut. (Nu shad ru;) { minimal pFP 00Gl,A D •\teas ut undetermined, hilt possih'i, flutist fi,r.^,1 ' SHORE c., V \teas of lt)d 1r,u 11a5lal tlotld t)'''f, velu,it, 4t+ . -� 4titlnl;base flood elevations and t,.•nd har.0 l La - �,r„• -- +- VARb ."� .1ot determined. �_-- _r _ y V1-V30 Areas of t l)d•va.lr Luatlal flood )s l;n veluul, I t, I. action\;base Hood elevations and flood ha,^ar,t late , Jaterinirtad. N 4• NOTES TO USER rt•t - -- ° t r 'u I. "I•„ I, Hunt, .1 i ,U:Ir. , , r, . y n, '"•ai.' ,> '.n liuutl Irlsllraili IIIIrIur,CS illli HI , t�,l rr, • 4, . ait +� ) l',, ,'1.0 ! 11,1.e+ Suttic .,.t .I Ilnn ' ,r,111N ill ., r .11., ., . ,.t.11',,,iittv:.•, '4.1 ..o-„t I,! J,r i t ,• •,I+ n 1•, . 17 . . ` i • INI I I At. WI N 111 It \I IU', ' �__� PJ IUNI 14, 1074 ppLE r' t 11." is 11.}r'Al2IJ But "stMt r rr7,J I k�o u'r MAN4'<a, tt�ltll • I . e • .a ,�' /'' \ �-- . iA N E LAKE GROVE -�,/ C STREET` � \ ` c JPPE P��F � �.` .�.�,. ...,•7.4,;;1'.4"::...;: 4:':-,i.;','J': `` �/ .,,.••' .x' t - • rJr ar.• � -K r�,i. a '•- .:,'.. . , v• rA' lPt - - ritai i-• c: •f t rVia( « t{°r ..:' r r• i•f't7p•1{ 'C r y r r„,.„ kt+s ,. i , rY. I, ' r Nt . •. t r iYyM1 , '[ Jr r r,w ra �2 s' _-......./........'''''7 4`y� o `aN� +;t,.y/r,'t�,t/rr i1(4, 4,tl;r 1.r,„r a 14�1 xt1• r • .'1 * 4 r -.l�',. 1 tr,Ff,4 Pi '."./ )!r;' tj�xf� '.4 .,.; } [ l'.'� r7 r,1,a,. _ -.•-`• SF °'i+t-fix t u• !W. !° , ¢ 1 r7 A •A° r r.�y.t. `li ,s M1S, *�,,yy�t I/ Y Z 11/ y 'yq r, a,tlrW d rD r..w 1 `T0 ntM l•�y1i {,�'i•t. �h/ °/ {r,,., •,-,r.,. Sr.r r 1 .�. � 1-,�k w\,7,9('•,, IJI R WJ. }+ �, ' ` ".r,1Fr ,,y'1 % .�.r . �N N [ a ra ry.t� My,ti..d �� �''S, 'I!fi4r.:.r �r},rf��� au ..Ir 11 ltl• :‘[n ) t� rl r. aJ! .. • • e t " •a r!>�'lyy'1arr Ly 4t°tt L4,kg1 e ..' hr5 • rt 4{., I Pot,. y ' /'� LAKE %.. ,,`-'0J" Po 1.4 '. ` p U�{r'�.AR,U�a I J,q° sl , • ..i""'" GROVE t • �t;'t}t f....,k jtaaw a 1 -� • �1 1'-fi . :.4. f a v q. i. i 1 Y PARK04r4 • irlSit_,c `AI y,F ''*' $ ts. dii. . r 1, 4+ x I'I! ,�r , f# ° _ i. a ' p++t'+ `+ y.. nt",, ''"v �1 . tg,Lt.i �1. V 1 e',, . tY,, ) , 14 , ed e,,��rik.,,,,:7 l' / � dll rG i ,h }:h� � ,ty t�s 1 •r i�wF; a \"j .q,t 7, ,! `� s r •} r� 'a r r,'. \ • yb1 \N,...4 * t.v.,• .•, .,,,att'1!'.,0[••p.'414.,,V,k,,'Al-1.1w?rt;:t r,'i:.°.)e'' I ra�' n y`QN C"'A7.�.. ).,• r'ti µrV; • ,, ,.•IVu 1.+Y * .v�,7ai,1'�u�,. a-..no. ,4�i. 0-ittiI�i R,,A.t. irirJ.i.11, IL�y `,+; F`'i ',r' .. 1;____jbl1-r.''t , !,. .,°_ / v t •r,l. vo• L,��y,,i `., 3 •* a.•it- �T^'- , Ivgr,. ta. 4 ' ,t., f„�•. +. -.d`n , ✓ kr��•t, .'';i hit 1 .p 'r,•,.t, w 4 . ih ` - - -�,AAA,'r. f .,` - -,r* ,, *qt 1 * 1r it A,hr+ .r � KSLQAtilr`W,J [.t'�tL `i'A 1 Z ,fxy,}'s`-.y t v�,,,Z°°+'sr +I:1 Y,v.. •.i i I' 1 '� ,,YI t•. .v '� �' ,t4Y l= 7"—i�Y• v Z.:"Vila;:-fn�,-f'y'1h4►:,.--' 4�: YTi-..n1,...v .11'54.,•": r4),T, �r or, c`p .. 'wkt Y",vy it ° .*+1 t•`lw d..,vn,i 9 t.''Aclt� .+ ��R h`. .iy,, 5•.+ t .7, •,4.ii na I ..Ala'' '•U tp ^- p ,� :i Si' , rn ''.. `Aii("i w7•,•tr 4isitt,. 1„4,0 A\t ,` •ai}4.'.A. I ',• _tG • 'r yt ~j): • '`T.+ :'l.p. I�(•A''1��/A]1XVgI:j ka a� n sF <•! �r,r{, w 1 p • {, �•"'��' ` 1,i 1 1+ ",. .f-1 Ij O /l EGrQ n�' , aA 44:1 Y ,{•, Ira '•• } i „ ` C},,t;S: 1.. ,... ".R.lr.•}.,,,A0,ty„ 1~ '7..;;ahtYi niv b)y �a-,°a -CS-t 0- ° n :' n 4i • ii . I r''' it 'CM,f.tty" '.".1T',..Mku, Wt.,' plK x a%,-`4,..I Y .i w-c •J .t " '"`" f i' "' +,.. 'r .f I. ''1�� `,�`, •. t b...4 � 1 i ! 4Y•M, N !.w 4I..,i1+.y• ..%t.� I r., is/,�P/ ,r !- v' v w �TR4ft.,11•••` 1 tr,•••° • •u,r••n$ttf.' ••1'I../1` ,„1.4.i ti"1-... t. f-•.!tir- 3tf.i•w \rM ,A.A p,.. q f„� ,�,• '.�� . . • _ Z.'4�ih iii:•k • w,tt6•V . A'r R .( 1 r.1:`. iti• ``:.. •. 4 ,Y•iI.i tf . ,,, ' r . • ui• "'\.�' , o�(a t �i•',f` q. d. r i. a Lr.,. r 1 te.,ra tic t '• „Y, 9• I . I ek V. .1,, Ayr t `:c �rIe,Jy+) -f1. ; ,f,t a d.il^+ r '1 r i •^M i C [w: " - i '. y, r s R jai;V.h't'' k q tid+ _•• —' "• JiNe A"" ' .�.rft�' l') yC �r 4 / r �� rf�r ` ! p. It d 0( 45''i J k• ,•`, r IA, 4 a, /-` � !S* r W es. �....,tt» •2 F ,! f, `�g�?Ai ,r+rj� `kj;^I .`.-:./ - ,-- . t ,, , ri `Jrr 6�r • -�� J r+ T t� � r tiy�yf. _ t� r '� a ( , . • s / 1. �• a .AY v itJ] al - ZONE C ` I . A7 a «r,/f, tt c,: • / a ,, , " .__ems. ,,,r v • f/ ' . NNW 7�NEC / I " , , RI? ./ ,. • . NI, �Ort ' , '1,1 IP•VS.'401.'k 4 ! W%1`r: �" rx` ZONE C 44 •• y. t!k f •/,A'•,'4., ,.. -� .-_ i Ill x' . y' .j .-. ,tiN t. rr ..if%"'/ 04 >; It 4)Y y: r, py y 1 !1. { • • Iy. r • rXr • • • • 'M •'f. ti . r • • • • • • • , • • • • • p. i + .1 It,• . • tp.. ,Iw • y M r 1I 1 I DAVID O. JOHNSON 2001 N,W, 19th AVENUE . , ., 0 PORTIAND.OREGON 97209 _ .. August 1 , 1991 Development Review Board City of Lake Oswego City Hall 1 P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR . 97034 1 • ,, Attn: Mike Wheeler, Staff Coordinator Re : VAR 15-91 John Ghiorso, Proposer i 3458 Lakeview Boulevard Gentlemen: This letter will serve as our formal objection to the variances proposed for subject property , as it would , if allowed , restrict our view of Oswego Lake that we have enjoyed for over 35 years . Our residence is contiguous to subject site on our West property line. Since 1956 when we purchased our home at 3434 Lakeview , we have had the enjoyment of a sweeping view from our windows and deck of an estimated 150° to the South , East and West . If the proposed variances were allowed it would reduce the panoramic view to thc, Southwest by a significant amount . Existing regulations , including set backs , are designed to protect the kinds of rights I am asserting. It ' s not fair to grant an exception that takes away these rights . I verbally expressed my objections to Mr. Ghiorso, the • proposer, some time ago so that he would not expend un- necessary design funds . I trust the Development Review Board will support our 41 o ctions . „ At; Cor i al ly , L HHIBIT • I • h, f• & Mrs . Davi O . Johnson VAR 15-q( A-d) 3 34 Lakevf L Oswego, OR . 97035 1 • •e , CIL _.-4?..., ' ex) - del 2rea cF lot- - i,25 / \ .: J �' allow aft b'sId1 a1ea 1 s , Z 8 a \ . 35.x.45.915-.11609- 4. . ( (-4 . .. . • Ccvev89eo ', Ne° — es. Vo • 1/1. r, v . • • . 3 „ ,,,.....c...t.: 1.\:\:„....4\ . • . I r. i 1 �: 20. • �. c 5Q won h . tU6S1" I ( r,(01[Ott 0 • ! tut%ambineli Wr�iAof 15Q min. bIUll(� Vf I�Gf,�.1_ V)1 titit ( fro -sa►zt ; Zs r ei � . , . ,• . • • Ted 1 It 6-1',411 EXHIBIT • Ntax,Ducre5e; 35/a ra; 6,z2.q 1Se2— • S,$.s, ; .5 tou..- 611 �IOYsn Ver 15�11 Vat i5-qua-�) .' rum. • . ctl tm• ,0 rY I.I I.i .. .t••I 1 tt.• 1 I - •if•.. +rr 9r •• ,• • • . • slide area ,.arts.Pant �/��jj{{;;r�1tk� �'17�ry/`n ,J�,'�{� YJy. I••�{ �y•ta • �'f7£�t�`'ik !fI f'� V V Y.,r `# f4aa {ai55� ��61�i `Y• JF�•4J} I 1. •FF�,r.{1 4'' te.r4J;1R".},qi. y'f �n�j��,�r: I?r��!llFrrr�sy`-'•�'?J3�+I'^' �"1' 1' r+tJ o ,, ;,� I Jl �'• /�a i 1f:�' r"eIV•ry���i�:rn 2 �J ,1�•t ���r"V� •• �'a,. 1t1 411_.....i 1'.li•l^ ,Zci:lY 1k\.f'ftJ.'� `'Ai.1 F,Ir' ...al tasty •slide area and enu i`t'�v151 /' I kt�i` F`"'phiµ? ,'�iy' y1, ., : J1°1 V'' 101 1�� f .t. ''{'A " J{(:)%4•I ratt r•• ii, ) ,,,ow,' ^,S 1 'wy 4,1 yv e a so I,,!+ • •very unstable soil f ` La►uYc.Urrl f ; 1 C VW::t'� .y�(7N� ylftld� fix•?yr fn m 5 h?r f h(�••'Z`YI N�'-Iv'"'M•W.�q.i•jN •r t.•j ii j ',we'ak foundation so I 11 Z.. I , ii slide hazard • • • ,AN \•\ • \3 1. t EX T r _a3__ s 1��.' r VAn.15-91 a•vi) '' 4r`,' Sept 18 1987 DParr y . 1, it :'Q••h4, ip I.. ' • -40"1v`14 •94 • zh».••,1 led .• r• a' • •Cn ♦, ,I •.. .. -in...b•.rt 1 1 .;', ,,3, " .• 101.01.4 • • 4 • '. 1 • r 50 ILAFIEAS , . . . . .. . , . . .. CITY LAKE O . . • , . . ALA VICINITY ... . . . ....____ . , . . ,. . . 3 k. II. . SCALE: 1 II_ 8 00' • f 800 1600 2400 3200 ' 4000 • , • ".., FEET J SCALE • Zry__ •Y.•�1 sllIde• areaY • k�1• 1 • �m 4�i1� sp �i�� �kij ' .': yr• I t ), {/7II•.0 x.yeye .Y . p • • r .►,, I, 4 l:,l'P!kS` i:N r•a t 'it'Oit .'fir• f•r 4 - . ••�•.G�7�Y. e�" -1 ya►..bR..'Abi: •n.,i ar- M. • 'sllde area and 1 • `t,• 4•..J A i r I,''mow raj ... s 1 r i j 1 •.. t•• M 1.Y •..LEP _!I" • .N'' 'ItITI.f . .. • •wea so i ' . Oety� unstable soil ' r o r+ �. ,. idd,• \ J•..: .r ,„ ,1'S�1?�J`rl�l o1Y^`y�Y":.,',i' •'�.aw, ,. .�". :•',� 1 d f. .0)(4 rr f.I -IT I ._ ♦ M'•,," .,„ar +/ + .J...- 1,,3'1-II•.' ,,.• V4:i�•zA,,Irt'tiv.f'„f+ IWt i '•r •{Y -"_ .• A3�4 ••• cC _~ i _ I 3 ,I I' h•r/ '....1;:„.:'k "d�! Y r '%44.r. ' i6 N• p' •' •r ...�...,'.•.n Iq'• QQii hi. ! , 1 r_ I •I fr .Mi j �w..i • ..l•t�'•1 f;' 41 �` i.. \ .c• 'ilk''\'i`k` ., "i i I ,1 ;•1rf ci4 t' Its' ,tf. 1 t ''r - ' a '`. ; ,�. I ! IL)` ,,w i ',,• IY ,�,' i.4♦ -<'•- I .1 t, /• ,r. y, y 1C. ./�•,. � 1 I 1 1••�..� (ii '-i'R�`1`.R,V•-c:.snr. ..l` J •i��h 1e. `u6`. 1 ' i 1 ,"/ l i'r'-�•5 t ,tj •15; ;r 1 !�`'4 'r t .`' ', 1, ,,, I, +� r'y.� < •< f� n r.r+ r ,1,:‘,; 1- i,4, +,. S '4\I �.i'.f S II' .r't �;,i •'' "CC �ie. A o-ti yr (]/�., S , :5•r r J 1 a 1�iti x+ + �+ / �' .:5 ,l ^,q9 4 ,, i :t •,': ,: 1 1di., h i't•. ,rPA., •[�1..+. ` r W } • rf \ {C� 1 1. y,.:.. s`` .." ♦- r'• + , Vt 1 ' ! " Ifs'' .1,11r ' .e:ti ise',1J�'•Er; s',.r4,' � •w 1 N .,';. • �.' t:%�rr �,:' ,••/ +•r•�r\ '• ,5/0•. , + 1 ' •---",:.,:. ,50,,'r,� 'U• Te'F":' r'r,t4',"•1!; ut--Nvtlt ti. A•+-\'ir', r' `' _r~ 't' _Z `'S � -�1 �"irfl 1/_ + . :�°i�•+.I c1� 1' rf; a.t�++ ..1. 1 i +`" " `� d ','Bice 0- .�} j i I I•t ���"t�; • '�tl.'vl� ,S.'v jt��+t�,��trtt�, I 't�','`^ t,`'{`�i1�3111',1'++. ;�`-,w� � t,r '',,'"�'�� �'• , '� 4, ,' • 4,.:r:L-.w.-_ yy _ L� t, f'11A� I ♦ '?1•w•. r Jr t 1 +1•..J. � C I'•r.... Qq}}����2.i{ ♦•� i� r1r ,S 1`•' .., Yi .,,J, `: .n• •r 31 � IC�fr1 T 'Jt -k ...1:j.?v!Iw:.{>r .Yr-1�1•CrhSluMrf ,.�...1� , 1L✓ +° _.PP 1„'" • ♦r„ .r I!, `v�J 4� ,y ,, +•.�,,.. I;wr.,-1 .�+J'4'N �"'i a,tiK';t+' '^+-yr, a{ +1�rI{ '� t, C1� + / 14 � yI�. 4+��•j .J, ;% I a + 1 y 111,,I. t. I%'� ' Via ''i rl l• . '..1. .s1 .t♦.rr. i..i• i 1 I I ,(ra,.t•✓'1,F IY'• r�h+'+ft)+S r i tU...,",31.4r ~j' t+'_ \_ •Q.:.i • ` . j • : : r' i, I �" r1T �"'t +f !f Lwr "r tlf,, • 7� '�•,7j �.• , a.. 0 ,t��iidf !'4•,, ,� It MIly !„ I I 1 ' 1 , --'I I I ,'tY 1 II i._.dr_..i., nirnlre, el. • .„ 't4k,si + " • \ �• >, �� ��` '� 111 T • ✓ �� �� J ..• t r , r I 1 I l fe +, rdjN�ll � / ```` ` • yin ^I;I it \yf I i•(11 / ' ' < r �'1.'. • uCC �+ : i I ; i 1 + L I 1 id I '1_. I ""1. 1,• a+, r.• ✓/\ \, . :,.'`. e•., A , �, +.' w.r.a"•" ..,.. i rJl.-r , o t 1 1 1 I I 1 �, • _ .1 -`, �_ ♦ N�4. 1..•� , r y{ �'� i• ` 'is .: I.N a�o.r ,� • j i. ,t, a I r 1 I I L. _ i d ° \>.\`. 1aly SIi}"/u�4r1;t�. ,I, I y�Ia1 YY'' •%�� , ru•ow.. 1.. i f ; { I ,, r ,`' \\ �r �(+`0'.' 1 1 �, .I� +1'�'M'I+,•�5+911t�},t 1 -. ,l, ': ..,,- , I - ; I.. I . -' ..,L_ i ,+-,I .ay ' �i,t r:,a., �. r ' - 1. r�,a";t dij 1'41(Q�••5 , t,. • i ' , I 1 I / .., +. ?�t .L t'y a`�4�et S�;ti 1 V. LI . S I a ivy r'n 7 1 ' I ' ' 1 , 11 1 I I `1 C' �� 1� rlti I 1 r . _.. .,-- -'"�—r—`—^---r�-. ...•..-117" .. .. , ' ,\` ,�, .. ` ` t` irk ."0.. ,\ . v ' , I ', i '1 + 1, .,'iC ,4,. q 's` fir'" rc•1,. e/� ,5 Vt y *' \ . y getcl' l+ I I i ' 1 .‘1.'''''. ,''r�'ki>•ia+41• M y�4\ S t,; • rf" ,�> �M r'r�.l;r r•' ., .at'lH�''p f 1 .• .: :IN.‘1\'' 1 .. - , y s �,P' S •1 t. � _� •/ ,+Sri)+ar����,•'1`t'�' , ') 3,��r - t K' ,I' ,,a°'` ' , SITE G ,**e ,, C•11,.•4`I�,��,,i , .1 td Y1s.aL... +'. ..... .-*1 I 9 '' p..1P W E •N�...\i'i''''i lft� + ( •sty.. f.I'f i :e i 1 + y`C 4 1 ! , S ;•\`S `�' • i' le' ,!4(, f„II�If1�t�+{'''• .41 ra A S � ' T , ••. •" !S y` „,1"J •.M+ r \ i1•\' • its'a'I1,,. \ 1N A. t ,,rl'''I.f 1. 'I , ,��• ram.I 1` • V • s '44it(1 tr. itt„" ff".s' P ` .•.r • '�iL .'•. , :. ( " • F+ ''J.�I fb i� +r t. `H.4, •r! �j�•/// 5, >{ • r ,y sSyi'1:•> 'L 1 ;it �1 ' , ♦++r ali :,. S y f'y�.t• s•,i t1471 4, ••1( 1 + k.k• t .1; C t N.?" ° 1'p) • };gyp• t Gd P L r a 1 Q ° aye V. v 1 +a'r t t' S' p i ,o, ,,i{•t f t r' ' � ilr +� {I)!1 /4••. , ►'• �' ti F•'.I 1 'U }IA' ,f.1 ill' , t r' t (��il^rt�l�a' �'� rd iS �, i 1 1 11 1 I ��,' r^s''i�"`I\�� � 1r ,•,( 3• E '?' '�1' �. i. •Q ^ r ✓r rrr 1 y ^. .!C've -.•, 1,. r 1r rr .5. -1 -d ..\ �,'.'*r''J r s I r "�W ,l�yn.i'. '�' .. 4 / 1 I�t I. i r 11 { s 1 , 1 1 l 1 I r✓' t,r'• M t . ♦ ,l „ . J • , ,.. ,'-, {' �•' , ` {1 ...«�" _ �m ' �� "\ ^.r1' rl •1' t I�TLL • It { t • • '•' , ..«_ •+ n , r yr: .rr• +t 'i �,•1 1 J P J i r J.. 1 ( �� {t1.' la i r-." ' • • :• yl _.-. y ,. •� I a I 1 1 I I 1 i' , . II 'rr f 1 'T .. , K .•.++ 1 ••.r. Al. 'Ai,.+_•I w•rn r1 _ r iNlriNl' . ' I , *'''y.,,•. ^ I%/./ 4,• ;' - ",°7.t r 1 I l� m : I I I ? '1 ',.'1 •'b 1 I,i #1 • :4i,. �''' �.-nr 1 m�. _,� -1 i �r ` . . 1 _6 L1? I' rr ,, %P.. „r+tu.e+i w/w ri'.w• . >_, �_.....,... } ® l.yt•,yy 1 -.'i, ,�"Ty , vol.'.�•.w st, lf "jS1 'Y` r l�'i J 1 1 r ,;•• '+i.'.' Y 1 :t• ,'� { { { i2 ' w�i A }AI • FY wrj, t`„,, ,,1 .j .. ..� r • • y�nr ) °t yr h� iS ` ' r ~t y I 1 'f 1�11�/ Y•, f I •• r.�,... ,. �.., .. • r I 'Y ' ,,+ _i :316•. ....-..«_ 'S%'` \l)i + till•11, I, ( I ° + , Ylr ,. : r S. G I S �i1 ? i�v a ;' \rF , M,pf�r4 , 1�:, I ►: ,�• nit.: Hit • 1 1 'r` .J ,'vl ` .r , 1 ' j 11 ••+ • a i '� "`rN. s-._ .1 ;r. +•�, „ �w a� ,..�,.zT�. li iG:6X�' t �, lip. 4 '. ' - , I r �s ..+jT L.' _:' u :it: r d' 1 ltf•' i I ,i 111 , L ! ly " •, • , +w • l , it t Y r •• t ti. h+• t,y • • • � . • • • • • • • • i___M-" ta"r•"TyT►Tw'�'7c•raT•r •a cnlsiHi v7ev .. . - ..... •. ..• . u y i �r1" .I• IjS.ISIgI$ISI 'I I 1 8 ieiaal yl�Ylg I .� i /'`;-�` 1 ,; M J ' i ,I1 13 \I I 2 uoo ..,1w".. ` \ W+ •-I JcU1ttH .T.'Ei1�P.v 1' 1— :HtiEton ^ f.• neao� 1..,s >3 I r�♦J,1e\ • .1•I,`o' I P heol .ueoo I : ` - • �\ ._ - latea 1.- . 1 I NAN I''�,\Y aeaa"�1� aT r J'''o 1 I� 1eWi♦-.,-.1,., LI•Ami ,I 'i 1 1•�"CH of c I I I 1 Iee �aue.`� _ «I 1 I J �` '' I — I`� 1 1CT I V✓/r ee`' L,,...1'�„ r— a-- — ueao (((```ore IIA�1 I I �� \ Nuqo .,loot£HIZP_. \._ . I L_I— ` 96a I I I L as -r' ^T - _ `\ �L-`- »BUS SHOP I- ._ u •m '1" I Ld.n_1i w� .. ..1 I ..� ! • �tNr Ic42.--I 1 I _ I I I r. g I lI t also I I uaal., d�"\ \ .--- " M° f r a L lerrr Qr �{ AN .O0 __.p S S I �' auo�I I I . a \ \ + 1PON•' ` LANE anovE kb I b gl=I,'y:gm erto'1Rlr utu S I a I veal lnoo I� r••, 0 m _L - •1 - a ��.� lsho I G11kUE SCHOOL ,e �� •�j\ �,,' erne \eta � / /ti a' v L ( islet uHo 1 7 N 4•� r ,O �' ,, -.i ;626.rgo I r4b 1 -. o - e �L -1 / e. P. I I 1A110 n ♦ �o ," `7" '°r ......_.1... I. ..,_, . . _ '+ I art ',naro area \e1e •� I I L 7- _ J \ •y, r .'�' + : • ,,,�sr�a* , . LAM[ - %. - b ., ti Cr. 1 •I / ^ '�•� I I laur=leilaT \ \ '• ♦ .`h'cr tut lasso ✓3 a vt 0,, s.4 \4,„"\ ❑r~ 1 i /4T., 1.. I� I L �1�un \ '1 ••R_O GC _ �• ; - —leeeo '• , I h° . 'w ti -_I L y" �ar1 I v ( I Iwae 1 % \`' \, , ,„. + 'asp: r1.1� ,.,��-'bl.7l:.� I I I Y t if aen1 alia 1 I j I I aaa4 W I_r leer 1° \\� �i/i , \\ .\ .� loth U -I O IJ ' \ '.� r 1 Y r V 1'I•y I sr! I w 1 Y' .tea `, Ht.io ��°�.� I b• ,:, o�% I 1 as. I I + I I E vies Idea H I u I� L. Iare:l 1 e I t II u I u I yl . r'M1\ \\yr,✓e i� larva leers I v.i `\ r i e �e�.e1� hn�\LE. ,1,� .�: ea L " Y o\\ \ Jo�,✓ `1e�ti t .ate ,e ,.' ` a'm \ \ I u 1 v — ¢ r U\ / :'Hot Lf rol,i‘ . �� � " .r :4�✓,ea y 4 J J y a \ � 1 N \N klEbi de-:,,,, \b\ 1 / N ialir;. ,.\ e I aloe, 4, S d w .\ ✓ 11"S'0 \ I 1 ' 1 \ 1 a 1 mot 1�b p ✓ a 1 » �0�� " \ \ .� 1 S \ \ \ !Cl, 1 -("Y Y ! \ 'all-. "\ F / +r,, • . �" - ilosal g 4 «"° \ \ .✓ °, \ 1 \ \,'1 \ 1 1 1 N ' tl\� f"\10 lee+ 'eae0\ Y J/1 `\ �r u %, --R• , _ 'r I ,.. .-,r \ \$ 1 `a 1 \I1 JJ". t+ \\ \'�'G t'u 1\ 1 9 ✓f ' _ _-.z,., `•e ✓' ......to T'i,\ /�Ha°� 1pD�a k..`` \ \. 1 5 ° \ \ ! u \ : 1 I • a •,r \\.,.-i ri ,�{ !-.' 'itbl ,.I I \.• ��h •.. i\ , \\e11 \ \ \..-✓ 3 oos „ C. \ .� rN ,ea° \ .\ \ S \ b \ Y `:, 2. Y 1"<%\"f C L.I .\ �; \ ` .J 1 1s sa \ \ . \' % \ \ \ 8 1 " L I Y. 4. *-skl , 1. �t � ,�. r 1° `�` \ 1st°`'�o i' \ \ u.N\ `'.. .S TL \ N \ \ \ .,,y•-",1' H I '-Ji 01•1 1 N\ '"1 I,a7n1 A1'/ ,�\ \\ 11�\ 1,a�o\ o v `�\6\\ %. \ \ \ \ \ w1 \L\"till l' 1 •" p ��_ �� a!r, • \\ \ '\\iO�OJE ale°tA\ \1 _\\G\ \S �� \\ \ \ �'f 1 1\Y Io1Y1 N 1 p t2la ) % V V \ Y e..• '1 eam'a -y- . \ \ w�` ��\ \,. y 1'P\I•0 i \ \ 1 r „•s'"ti i�\\ • �'\g\ ' ! l .y\\ \ ,d..11 Al. 't' -\\ �• .' ��'\1J,e at \� -, p••1 \ \\\\ r" � `' ,. Mk 1"hU4 ' \I \ ' Q O\ �\ \'', y��++ .b\ ! Y is V�� S.1,�lpl• �,�' ✓�'. ya aara \e ILASS '*o r L7 R. ', r sea i ,a rt�H7 a1 N y P I) '.,.. y r u ■r \;;:loitvl A$`(t--., O'N.,,•;',... �• i ' .... of'S.�J,t, '.i ,IU%a 1 +1ee" '-j \,y h . ' �� •. .r, r i 1st ye •", \\% 1 - - N.,Vi> -�.M 1 a\°• 1a��11 Np1 / \ 1 '.\0.\y \SHOAA$x '' '')'ly .11.Ot . .` nekl map EXHIBIT • • 34 . • VA215-91(4,d) • u r Q m, ' .u, • • - • • • • 1., a • • 1 ». P DAVID O, JOHNSON 2001 N,W, 19th AVENUE PORTI AND,OREGON 97209 'il;: September 5 , 1991 Development Review Board City of Lake Oswego Ef9g1 City Hall '.P. . P. O . Box 369 ,. k• Lake Oswego, OR . 97034 ' N Attn: Mike Wheeler, Staff Coordinator Re : VAR 15-91 John Ghiorso, Proposer y 3458 Lakeview Boulevard Gentlemen : This letter is an addendum to my previous letter dated August 1 , •° `, 1991 to your office in reference to subject variance request . , . ' .`. It is my understanding that there is an error in the notice of public hearing under VAR 15-91 items (b) and (d) which indicate a 1 foot variance that is in actuality a 24 ' variance request in both instances . Our particular concern rests with variance item (d) - a 24 ' • variance to the Oswego Lake setback . This would place the south front and east side of the proposal structure in a position to obliterate a large part of the most scenic portion of our view. u Please refer to tho attachment to this letter which are pho- tographs taken from our deck looking in a southwesterly direc- tion. Above each photograph I have indicated the approximate loss of view that would result from the approval of variance ( d) . I believe you will agree that the variance would have a severe visual impact as well as a future economic one , and I therefore . 4 again request the denial of this variance. r ..---- Cordially , . 4- i �..____. EXHIBIT, i Mr. &, Mrs . David •O. 'Johnson 3434 ''LakeviewVa21�-91 a_d Lake Oswego , OR . 97035 • ' •. RESIDENCL Mr. & Mrs . DAVID 0. JOHNSON • J 3434 Lakeview Blvd. Lake Oswego Re ; Variance 15-01 (Ohio+r'so •`. • SEP 61991 • -- APPROXIMATE LOSS OF VIIIJ �l .w • wv, - ?v�wj'y`"'��` -.moo - .A •• ''� 'L�-i. i,,. +�L, 'SS •G; • • .,S . *4,,;4h ' r i r • ;I ', a I.0'•� 1•I•tq •1 f I vll r IMF Y'yr °•.t` N.L tu.. y ,,- i_ .,15..,.•'�' YII I"1{`% 1I{I ,I 1L III I11(11#:t • ',• r r. . r d ' •4p.,• -� 7S 1. V� lDull'1i1�fll11,I1,,'=`:a;j11RJ +,1. ,I 1,1 • v . t i••�?•�•�i• 't'11) it' 'ICI' ' ; I • • I, 1't yyi "'r`'..� , + ' • , t i. ••••••• ,,�',,'0* (*.p •I.• I -,I• p •11'/ 'IS; i I,,a�' V r • ^ / y ' ' , • r ti . • l r 1 • # „1 ` i * +i ♦• N.. r ,. • , i. � e�r �� / ` " jl '�. , t . C -r •:r �C •� jr � +;, 7P / �� 'I/+ ! I:, > + 4 ....A♦ • Present view southwesterly from Johnson Ilex k. • H- APPROXIMATE LOSS Of 111 W -- - • • . . • 4i ' , .tea iYit. y ' 14 , .. " ,•t!' • 11 • • .y. % % .... •" 4M f, Y • 4 ` ` --••1 �1 y {�• y.l, + .n••,rt q'rlj�SNI.nM ;1�„�,'i r •..11�• V air h.-.• v. 1 • .i`'a+' a . -,` • • • '"C • y/fp �t1'.••.••' a T•. .1y.y a 1I .# y+� "tl. n' -• ^4 �y fl ,y.•',v'j1`.�•'y� ' f♦ .t ' Ilp�, .�ql.i . --,••_ 7 a♦L, -,....:,t kli. %•,y as r0 1 .;T ....�L it,,.•'•J F IC.t•••t'r`f j•r:.Vr •aI --a,.- t • = h"Z'9.�,fp• 3'r,"'y .y t'dJi�k}G/1�•jl�y�.+� A...ri a - P � •t"71�„r N,'w '., �:, ..w-. •:1,•••tdMtn,J• !•♦' • „..4t 1',.cyt J.�"J S 4 TJ.«( lyY l,`!, , 'i. , , .• �'• �� .?;et,' •vkyr.' .•, - �I`+..:a-S•1 f' �..?,�« '--, •2••••r, ...0 ..,' ••.'",u . �,l K'1�,-.r•S .:.3;;..,.�,.,:•<; _skic • Kt 7. ,. ,,{ ..'L^t,Aat�i ."�• ,t .�°'a.y_ , a?ik i • ' / •� fTAIi'"�•"`:t' 11.'taS••-a :. ...q.^' 7y1• ,A„.. .r,r14 • • r'rt �`.rt.; .... 'y , +•,rw+A++t t t.t.. •..44,+..,.r, ...,,,, '`u r� -.,., ''.cac-'.`.R.•` ...i.. r .lSN: .,• ' • J +,r.•i`..a .:• al►s .• • 1. � i`ti.t aif t. J t�l ,; r:•q�JirL i moot, ra p :. ✓.-y - � :a Ir.• ,. � ,,. a• s' °i ^ 1�`_`�u �.-t • • ,,• �•• • • . T « " � .-•%u" Z7:�..- 't'• •2y-.. a,,i,1 rv*` iN ''; • I ' .• . • • • " .Y/' • • • • • • tt • 'asp,"` � • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • ,1 • • • 1 • yh • U i • . r ao o a - •