HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item - 2001-05-22 - Number 3.1 - CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 3. 1
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY 05/22/01
MEETING DATE: May 22, 2001
SUBJECT: AP 01-04/[LU 00-0028]; an appeal of the Development Review Commission's
approval of a 23-lot residential planned development, with conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
If the City Council wishes to affirm the decision of the Development Review Commission, the
motion should be:
Move to affirm the decision of the Development Review Commission approving LU 00-0028, subject to
conditions (Exhibit B1).
EST. FISCAL ATTACHMENTS: NOTIFICATION (Date):
IMPACT: May 7, 2001
N/A • Council Report, dated
May 10, 2001
STAFF COST: $ Ordinance no.:
BUDGETED:
Y N Attachments were distributed Resolution no.:
separately. Copies are available
in the City Recorder's Office.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Previous Council consideration:
None
*R9f
CITY ATTORNEY E MANAGER CITY e a NAGER
5) 10J 0)
signoff/date signoff/date signo /dat
1
L:\Case Files\2001\AP 01-04\010510rc.doc
``�OE LAKE OSw,CO
ti CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
OREGON
TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
FROM: Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager
PREPARED BY: Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: AP 01-04/[LU 00-0028]; an appeal of the Development
Review Commission's approval of a 23-lot residential
planned development, with conditions.
The site is located at 1875 Atherton Drive. The site is
known as Tax Lot 610 of Tax Map 21E 16C.
DATE: May 10, 2001
ACTION
The action before the City Council is an appeal by Dennis Derby (Exhibit A-1), of the
Development Review Commission's decision to approve a 23-lot residential planned
development, with conditions.
The details of the applicant's proposal are found in the narrative (Exhibit F-1), several
addenda (Exhibits F-2, F-18, F-25 and F-26) and graphics (Exhibits E-6 —E-20). The
issues raised by the applicant are found in the Notice of Appeal (Exhibit A-1)
Such an appeal is enabled by LOC 49.20.110(2)(a)(ii) and LOC 49.50.1100 - 49.50-1120.
The hearing procedures are subject to LOC 49.50.1125 - 49.50.11.65.
AP 01-04/[LU 00-0028]
Council Report
Page 1of14 3
BACKGROUND
On March 16, 2000, the applicant submitted the current planned development application
(Exhibit F-13). The application was deemed complete on February 12, 2001.
A hearing was held on March 19, and April 2, 2001, regarding the applicant's proposal
(Exhibits C-1 and C-2).
On April 16, 2001, the Development Review Commission approved the applicant's
request(Exhibit B-1).
The applicant submitted a Notice of Intent to Appeal the Development Review
Commission's decision on April 27, 2001 (Exhibit A-1). This appeal is being
appropriately processed according to the provisions of LOC 49.50.1100 - 49.50.1120.
This matter is being forwarded to the City Council as required by LOC 49.50.1115(2) and
LOC 49.50.1130 of the Development Code. Because the matter is quasi-judicial,
affecting only one development site, the City Council's consideration of the proposal
shall be based on the record.
Review of Issues Raised before the City Council:
The following is a summary of the issues raised by the applicant in the Notice of Appeal
(Exhibit A-1). The appellant suggests in the notice that the Development Review
Commission (Commission) did not correctly reach a decision with regard to the following
issues:
1. Amount of open space required is not supported by evidence in the record.
The Commission approved the 23-lot planned development, including all of the
open space proposed by the applicant (i.e., 26.1 percent; Exhibit F-1). The
Commission also agreed to allow a proposed"stub" street to be relocated west of
its approved location (Exhibit E-9), but in doing so, required that there be "...no
net loss of open space..."below the approved 26.1 percent (Exhibit B-1).
The applicant notes that by approving the applicant's request to relocate the
"stub" street farther west at a later time [Condition A(1); Exhibit B-1], the
Commission unfairly required that there be "no net loss" of open space as a result.
The applicant suggests that the "stub" street is not required to develop the site, but
is solely for the benefit of the abutting property owner. The applicant suggests
that the Commission agreed that 25.3 percent of the gross site area could be
AP 01-04/[LU 00-0028]
Council Report
Page 2 of 14
4
attributed toward required open space. The applicant suggests that the applicant's
proposed 25.3 percent open space exceeds the 23 percent minimum required,
necessary to comply with authorization criteria for planned developments. The
applicant alleges that there is no substantial evidence in the record to support the
additional open space required above 25.3 percent.
The City's Development Code does require provision of the "stub" street to
enable future development of the property abutting to the south. Two specific
provisions of the Code are applicable in this case.
Section 42.03.085 Cul-de-Sacs and Dead End Streets.
3. A cul-de-sac or dead end street shall be as short as practicable, but in no
event more than 1000 feet in length. A cul-de-sac shall provide a
turnaround without the use of a driveway. Dead end streets shall not be
permitted against an Urban Growth Boundary unless a foreseeable
continuation shall be demonstrated. [Emphasis added].
Section 42.03.105 Provision for future extension of streets may be
required.
When a land division that creates a street abuts a property that could be
further divided, the approving authority may require the street to be
continued to the boundary of that property when necessary or beneficial
for the purpose of future extension in order to ensure access or to comply
with any requirement for connectivity of streets. Reserve strips and street
plugs may be required to preserve the objectives of street extensions.
[Emphasis added].
The Commission appropriately considered the applicant's design of the proposed
street system, including the proposed"stub" street to the south. This stub is
required for two reasons: 1) To accommodate the existing easement for road
purposes, benefiting the property owner abutting to the south; and, 2) To comply
with the provisions of LOC 42.03.105, above. The applicant addressed this
provision in the narrative (Exhibit F-1).
The amount of open space that would be attributed to the project has been an issue
for this application from the start. Staff advised the applicant that portions of the
proposed open space were not of a quality, or performed a function other than that
which could be considered to be open space. For that reason, acceptance of the
application was delayed while alternatives could be explored, and alternatives
developed.
AP 01-04/[LU 00-0028]
Council Report
Page 3of14 J
Once accepted as complete, the staff report continued to reflect staff's belief that
the narrow strip of land south of the proposed right-of-way of Atherton Drive, and
the small, detached Tract "B", would not be considered to be open spacer.
However, following consideration of the applicant's proposal, and staff's analysis
in this regard, the Commission found that, based upon enhancements proposed by
the applicant, all four tracts could be considered to contribute to the overall open
space of the project(Exhibit E-9). As a result, the Commission agreed with the
applicant that the project yielded a total of 26.1 percent of the gross site area as
open space.
The applicant noted in the narrative that open space in the amount of
approximately 26 percent was proposed(Exhibit F-1) in order to balance the
impact of reduced lot areas and proposed setback reductions. This amount is
further reflected in a table found on the Site Information Plan (Exhibit E-10).
The applicant now suggests that approximately three percent of the approved
amount of open space should be considered negotiable with respect to the final
location of the proposed"stub" street. The disputed amount of open space is
4,800 sq. ft. (i.e., the estimated additional area to be displaced by the longer,
relocated "stub" street; Exhibit A-1).
The applicant had proposed extensive reductions in lot area(i.e., 16 lots less than
15,000 sq. ft.), and setbacks (i.e., 22 lots requesting side yard reductions; three
lots requesting rear yard reductions). For reasons discussed in detail in the staff
report (Exhibit D-1), staff recommended approval of all lot area reductions
requested, and all rear yard reductions requested. These reduced lot areas and
yards were recommended, based upon the open space amount proposed, to offset
the effects of the smaller lots. Staff did not recommend, and the Commission did
not grant, all of the side yard reductions requested, instead approving modified
side yards for 10 lots (Exhibit B-1).
As reflected in staffs analysis, and evidence in the record, the Commission found
that, based on the amount and character of open space proposed, some lot area
reductions and some setback reductions were appropriate, but not to the extent
suggested by the applicant at two public hearings. It should be noted that the
Commission did approve the request by the applicant to allow reduced side yards
The quote attributed to staff in the Notice of Appeal(Exhibit A-1) is a function of this uncertainty. Staff
has suggested that the minimum amount of open space necessary to successfully address this criterion is 23
percent.
AP 01-04/[LU 00-0028]
Council Report
Page 4 of 14
6
when common driveways are utilized for pairs of lots, and side-loading garages
are provided [Condition A(5)(a); Exhibit B-1].
The Commission approved the reductions mentioned because they recognized that
26.1 percent of the site, as proposed by the applicant, provided viable open space
in the project, to counter the effects of some of the smaller lot areas and yards.
2. Side yard setbacks approved are in error.
The Commission acknowledged the full amount of the site that the applicant
alleged should be attributed toward open space (26.1 percent), and required that
full amount to provided. However, the applicant notes that, despite this showing,
the applicant notes that the Commission denied 58 percent of the applicant's
requested side yard setbacks (i.e., expressed in terms of the numbers of lots
proposed to have reduced side yards).
The applicant notes that the tests of authorization of the requested setback
reductions is, among others, whether the applicant proposes to dedicate "...more
than the minimum amount of open space required...". The applicant suggests that
by dedicating 25.3 percent of the site as open space, that the test of"more" is
satisfied.
The Park and Open Space Development Standard requires a minimum of 20
percent (of the gross site area) for subdivisions [LODS 8.020(1)]; the provisions
regarding planned developments require "more", among satisfaction of other
criteria [LOC 48.18.476(2)(a)].
The applicant has limited this argument to side yard reductions only. In addition
to the side yard reductions for 22 lots, it should be noted that the applicant also
requested reductions in lot area for 16 lots, lot width for two lots, and rear yard
setbacks for three lots (Exhibit E-10).
The applicant also suggests that the proposed development has dedicated this
amount of open space (26.1 percent) in order to protect views (presumably from
the dwellings on the proposed lots), provided access to those views from within
the open space tracts (e.g., in the picnic area), and has provided the proposed open
space and increased setbacks (particularly along the west property line of the site)
to assure privacy.
There is a description in the record indicating that the reason for the 40-foot-deep
AP 01-04/[LU 00-0028]
Council Report
Page 5 of 14 "�
rear yards on Lots 12 — 16 is due to comments from the neighboring property
owners to the west regarding need to protect views of those lots. There is no
evidence in the record regarding the ability of the amount and location of
proposed open space to similarly protect views from lots within the project. The
applicant's narrative (Exhibit F-1) and addenda(Exhibits F-2, F-18, F-25 and F-
26) express only the desire to reduce required yards by demonstrating that
"...more than the 20 percent minimum open space..." is provided (Exhibit F-1).
In addition, the applicant suggests that the proposal also includes a lengthy
pedestrian pathway system within the project to facilitate a future connection
between two nearby City park facilities. This suggestion is supported by the
applicant's narrative (Exhibit F-1). The applicant suggests that all of the above
considerations should be considered to be "gifts". The applicant further suggests
that the criteria found in LOC 48.18.476(2) are not mandatory.
The applicant also suggests that the Commission erred in requiring a 25-foot side
yard setback (west) for Lot 17. The applicant alleges that this increased setback is
not needed because "...views would not be blocked...", as Lot 17 is
"...substantially below the neighboring house view." The applicant contends that
the requirement is not supported by evidence in the record, and will "...severely
constrict Lot 17's frontage for building construction." The applicant further
contends that the increased side yard setback leaves Lot 17 "...too constricted for
practical development."
The site of the proposed residential development is 14.83 acres in size (Exhibit F-
1). As such, it is required to be processed as a planned development [LOC
48.18.470(2)]. Because the applicant has chosen to request reductions in"...lot
size, lot dimension ... requirements of the underlying zone...", the authorization
criteria are, in fact, mandatory [LOC 48.18.476(2)]. Approval is contingent upon
demonstration that "...the applicant demonstrates that the proposed PD provides
the same or a better sense of privacy, appropriate scale and open space...". The
Commission found that the applicant's proposal had satisfied these review
criteria, and granted approval for the reduced lot areas (Exhibit E-10) and lot
dimension (Lot 12; Exhibit E-9). This approval is reflected in the Findings,
Conclusions and Order [Condition A(1); Exhibit B-1].
The Commission applied the criterion regarding the requested reductions in side
yard setback for 23 lots [LOC 48.18.470(4)]. This criterion allows such
reductions if"...the requirements of 48.18.476 are met..." and"...proposed lot
sizes are less than the minimum size required by the underlying zone..." or,
AP 01-04/[LU 00-0028]
Council Report
Page 6of14
8
"...lesser setbacks are necessary to provide additional tree preservation or
protection of abutting natural areas...". The Commission found that the
reductions approved provided a balance between the numbers of smaller lots and
reduced yards, but that the applicant had not provided as much open space as
would be required in order to approve all the reductions the applicant had
requested.
The Commission found that, except for the use of shared driveways and side-
loading garages, the reduced side yard setbacks proposed by the applicant were
excessive, and not justified. The Commission found that it was reasonable to
approve some reductions in side yard setbacks (i.e., Lots 8 — 9, 12— 17 and 22 —
23), but that these reductions were based upon the width of the lots at the building
line, necessary to achieve a dwelling that is at least 60 feet wide (Exhibit F-21).
The Commission agreed with the staffs recommendation regarding the side yard
setback on the west side of Lot 17, increasing it from the proposed 15 feet to 25
feet. Staff described the need to do so in the staff report (Exhibit D-1; page 10 of
39), based upon the presence of rear yards abutting on two lots in the subdivision
to the west (Exhibit E-22).
3. Additional sidewalk required is in error.
The applicant suggests that the Commission erred in requiring that a sidewalk be
constructed along the north side of Meadowlark Lane, west of its intersection with
Atherton Drive. The applicant notes that he had submitted evidence into the
record, noting that Lots 17, 18 and 19, which are through-lots abutting both
Meadowlark Court and Meadowlark Lane, do not require that a sidewalk be
constructed on Meadowlark Lane (Exhibit F-18). The applicant further notes that
a sidewalk is proposed along the south side of Meadowlark Lane. The applicant
further alleges that, because Meadowlark Lane will temporarily terminate at the
west property line of the site, and because its future extension will only serve two
or three future residences, there is no need to provide separate sidewalks for
limited pedestrian use. The applicant further suggests that the cost of the
additional sidewalk is significant in light of the proposed pedestrian pathway from
Stafford Road to the westerly property line of the site, south of Lots 1 —6.
The applicant suggests that LODS 20.020(1) does not require sidewalks on both
sides of a City street.
Staff notes that LODS 20.010(1) is not applicable to the applicant's proposal
AP 01-04/[LU 00-0028]
Council Report
Page 7of14
9
because the project is neither commercial, industrial or institutional, as noted
below:
LODS 20.020. Standards for Approval.
1. Commercial, industrial and institutional developments of one acre or more
shall provide a pedestrian circulation plan for the site. [Emphasis added].
a. Pedestrian connections between the proposed development and
existing development on adjacent properties other than connections
via the street system shall be identified and implemented, where
feasible.
The following are the applicable provisions of the City's Development Code:
Section 42.08.400 Sidewalks.
1. All new development, and structural additions to existing commercial,
institutional and industrial buildings which increase traffic shall construct
new sidewalks or improve existing sidewalks adjacent to a public street
along the development property frontage to the City of Lake Oswego
"Standard Specifications and Details." Any deviation from the "Standard
Details" shall be specifically authorized by the City Manager. [Emphasis
added].
Section 42.03.050 Local Residential Streets--General Standards.
2. Local residential streets shall be designed to provide a minimum of
disruption to neighborhood livability while providing adequate and safe
circulation from residential lands to collector and arterial streets.
4. Local residential streets will be designed with aesthetics of primary
concern, subject only to considerations of function and public safety. The
design standards for local residential streets shall be flexible so as to
permit adaptation to the social and topographic features of particular
neighborhoods while providing for the safety of pedestrians and bicycle
riders.
AP 01-04/[LU 00-0028]
Council Report
Page8of14 10
5. Sidewalks shall be provided on at least one side of all through streets.
[Emphasis added].
While the Code does not require a sidewalk on both sides of the extension of
Meadowlark Lane, as noted above, staff recommended such an improvement to
address public pedestrian access, as discussed in detail in a memorandum (Exhibit
F-17). The Commission accepted that recommendation by imposing Condition
B(1)(d)(vi) [Exhibit B-1].
Staff notes that no pedestrian connection from the south end of Meadowlark Court
to Meadowlark Lane was proposed by the applicant. Similarly, no pedestrian
connection from the sidewalk on the south side of Meadowlark Lane to the west
end of the pathway in Tract "A"was proposed. The applicant has proposed a
segment of Tract"A" linking the pathway to Meadowlark Lane, although no
pathway improvement is proposed.
The Commission supported the issues raised by the Engineering staff in Exhibit F-
17 by requiring the sidewalk to be extended along the north and west side of
Meadowlark Lane [Condition B(1)(d)(vi); Exhibit B-1]. However, an easement
and improved pedestrian connection should also be required from Meadowlark
Court to Meadowlark Lane, between Lots 19, 20 and 23, or between Lots 18 and
19. In addition, an improved pedestrian connection should be required between
the sidewalk on the south side of Meadowlark Lane and the pathway in Tract "A",
west of Lot 1.
Should the Council agree that a sidewalk along the entire north and west side of
Meadowlark Lane is not required, at a minimum, these two pedestrian
connections should be required, and the sidewalk on the north and west side of
Meadowlark Lane extended to the west line of an easement for such purpose.
LODS 20.015. Definitions.
2. Walkway: A surfaced strip of land, legally accessible to the public,
improved to accommodate pedestrian traffic, including persons in
wheelchairs.
AP 01-04/[LU 00-0028]
Council Report
Page9of14 •
1 1
LODS 20.020. Standards for Approval.
2. Walkways shall connect at least one public entrance of each building
accessible to the public to the nearest public walkway or other walkway
leading to a public walkway. Walkways shall also connect to other areas
of the site, such as parking lots and outdoor activity areas, to other
building entrances, to adjacent streets and nearby transit stops. [Emphasis
added].
Staff notes that walkways are required to connect open space to other areas of the
site [LODS 20.020(2)]. The provisions of this standard support the need to
require the pedestrian connections mentioned above.
Staff notes that, regardless of the number of lots that may result from the future
redevelopment of the abutting property to the west (Tax Lot 900), such
development must at least account for public pedestrian access through that site to
Cook's Butte Park, further west. In approving the plat of Ridge Pointe Planned
Development (PD 1-85; Exhibit E-22), of which Tax Lot 900 is a part, the City
secured the rights to "...a 60-foot-wide public roadway easement and public
utility easement..." over that property, leading to Cook's Butte Park.
The presence of such an easement adds further support to the Commission's
requirement that the sidewalk be extended along the north and west sides of
Meadowlark Lane.
ALTERNATIVES
As per LOC 49.50.1160, the City Council may:
1. Affirm the Development Review Commission's decision denying the applicant's
proposal, LU 00-0028; or,
2. Modify the Development Review Commission's decision regarding the
applicant's proposal; or,
3. Reverse the Commission's decision, by approving applicant's proposal; or,
4. Remand the matter to the Commission for further consideration.
AP 01-04/[LU 00-0028]
Council Report
Page 10 of 14
2
CONCLUSION
Based upon evidence in the record, staff concludes that the Development Review
Commission correctly found that the applicant's evidence fully supported approval.
The Commission found that the applicant's request for approval of a 23-lot planned
development satisfied the relevant approval criteria, and appropriately approved LU 00-
0028, with conditions intended to assure continued compliance with the Code (Exhibit B-
1).
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon evidence in the record, staff recommends that the Council affirm the decision
of the Development Review Commission approving LU 00-0028,with the following
additional conditions:
The Applicant/Owner Shall Submit a Final, Revised Site Plan (to be incorporated
into Conditions A—F, as appropriate), for Review and Approval by Staff,
Illustrating the Following:
• A six-foot-wide pedestrian pathway improvement between Lots 19, 20 and 21, or
between Lots 18 and 19, from the south end of Meadowlark Court to Meadowlark
Lane in an easement of at least 15 feet in width, dedicated for that purpose.
• The sidewalk along the north side of Meadowlark Lane be extended to the west
edge of the easement required by Condition G(1), above.
• A six-foot-wide pedestrian pathway improvement in the open space west of Lot 1,
from the sidewalk in Meadowlark Lane, to the pathway in Tract "A".
AP 01-04/[LU 00-0028]
Council Report
Page 11 of 14
13
EXHIBITS
A. Notice of Appeal:
A-1. Notice of Intent to Appeal; dated April 27, 2001
B. Findings, Conclusions and Order:
B-1. Findings, Conclusions and Order, LU 00-0028; dated April 16, 2001
C. Minutes:
C-1. Minutes of Development Review Commission hearing; dated March 19,
2001
C-2. Minutes of Development Review Commission hearing; dated April 2,
2001
D. Staff Reports:
D-1. Staff report, LU 00-0028; dated March 9, 2001
D-2. Memorandum, LU 00-0028; dated March 16, 2001
D-3. Memorandum, LU 00-0028; dated March 19, 2001
D-4. Memorandum, LU 00-0028; dated March 30, 2001
E. Graphics/Plans/Written Materials/Letters:
E-1. Tax Map
E-2. Vicinity map,by staff; not dated
E-3. Vicinity map,by Otak, Inc.; dated March 14, 2000
E-4. Map: Zoning, by Otak, Inc.; dated March 14, 2000
E-5. Map: Aerial photo,by Otak, Inc.; dated March 14, 2000
E-6. Cover sheet [Applicant's Sheet 1]; dated January 31, 2001
E-7. Existing features and slope analysis [Applicant's Sheet 2]; dated January
31, 2001
E-8. Disturbed area slope analysis [Applicant's Sheet 2A]; dated January 31,
2001
E-9. Preliminary site plan/preliminary plat [Applicant's Sheet 3]; dated January
31, 2001
E-10. Site information plan [Applicant's Sheet 4]; dated January 31, 2001
E-11. Composite utility plan [Applicant's Sheet 5]; dated January 31, 2001
E-12. Sanitary sewer profile—Line A [Applicant's Sheet 5A]; dated January 31,
2001
AP 01-04/[LU 00-0028]
Council Report
Page 12 of 14
14
E-13. Grading and erosion control plan [Applicant's Sheet 6]; dated January 31,
2001
E-14. Grading and erosion control notes and details [Applicant's Sheet 7]; dated
January 31, 2001
E-15. Street plan and profile—Atherton Drive [Applicant's Sheet 8]; dated
January 31, 2001
E-16. Street plan and profile—Meadowlark Lane [Applicant's Sheet 9]; dated
January 31, 2001
E-17. Street plan and profile—Meadowlark Court [Applicant's Sheet 10]; dated
January 31, 2001
E-18. Open space/street tree plan [Applicant's Sheet 11]; dated January 31, 2001
E-19. Street lighting plan [Applicant's Sheet 12]; dated January 31, 2001
E-20. Light pole specification; not dated
E-21. Map: Sensitive Lands Overlay(portion); not dated
E-22. Plat: Ridge Pointe; dated August 19, 1985
E-23. Plat: Atherton Heights No. 2; dated March 17, 1993
E-24. Standard Detail A 1.02: 28-foot Urban Residential Street; dated May 21,
1999
E-25. Standard Detail A1.03: Typical Residential Turn-a-round; dated May 21,
1999
F. Written Materials:
F-1. Applicant's narrative; dated February 1, 2001
F-2. Narrative addendum; dated January 5, 2001
F-3. Memorandum of understanding; dated January 4, 2001
F-4. Draft development agreement, with exhibits; not dated
F-5. Notice of Council Decision (annexation); dated September 7, 1999
F-6. Notice of final City Council Decision on Annexation; dated September 10,
1999
F-7. Neighborhood meeting minutes and attendance roster; dated March 4, 1999
F-8. Geotechnical investigation, by Geotechnical Resources, Inc.; dated March
21, 2000
F-9. Drainage report, by Otak, Inc.; dated July 24, 2000
F-10. Traffic Impact Study, by DKS Associates; dated March 13, 2000
F-11. Letter from J. Ellis, Ph. D., Lake Oswego School District; dated September
13, 2000
F-12. Solar Access Evaluation; not dated
F-13. Application form; dated March 16, 2000
F-14. Narrative (portion), PD 1-85; Ridge Pointe; not dated
F-15. Exhibit X (portion), PD 1-85; Ridge Pointe; not dated
F-16. Memorandum from P. Sample; dated March 22, 2000
AP 01-04/[LU 00-0028]
Council Report
Page13of14 I
F-17. Memorandum from R. Chevrette; dated March 8, 2001
F-18. Narrative addendum; dated March 16, 2001
F-19. Table: Open space calculations; dated March 19, 2001
F-20. Tables (2): Lot Area and Lot Width Comparison; dated March 19, 2001
F-21. Table: Proposed Setbacks versus Lot Width; dated March 19, 2001
F-22. Comprehensive Plan Policies: Park and Open Space policies (portion);
not dated
F-23. Development Standard: Park and Open Space [LODS Chapter 8]; not
dated
F-24. Planned Development Overlay Authorization Criteria [LOC 48.18.476];
dated June 1, 1998
F-25. Narrative addendum (received at hearing); not dated
F-26. Applicant's response submittal; dated March 28, 2001
G. Letters (Neither for Nor Against):
G-1. Memorandum from C. Jordan, with attachments; dated March 23, 2000
G-2. Letter from Stevens Family Enterprises LLC, with attachment; dated
March 19, 2001
G-3. Letter from J. Evershed; dated March 19, 2001
G-4. Memorandum from A. Stevens; dated March 22, 2001
Letters (In Favor):
G-100. Memorandum from Clackamas County Department of Transportation and
Development; dated January 29, 2001
G-101. Letter from A. Stevens with attachment; dated February 27, 2001
G-102. Letter from Three Rivers Land Conservancy; dated March 20, 2001
Letters (Opposed):
G-201.Letter from Stevens Family Enterprises; dated March 15, 1999
G-202.Letter from Palisades Neighborhood Association; dated November 8, 2000
G-203. Letter from L. Panetta; dated March 1, 2001
Application Submitted: March 16, 2000
Application Determined Complete: February 12, 2001
End of 120-day Period: June 12, 2001
[1\case files\200Pap 01-04\010507r0.doc]
AP 01-04/[LU 00-0028]
Council Report
Page 14 of 14 1 6
W
U)
c
u gb�zs l
v:- g $ " rgp.o9
kk:t'' N9b yb` .3 ja4� 4Vcn M ti N �a
u�026'53 4''
.941! �(._ �cl c, 1 ior.�zt t
a- z 3 1 � 3g t z� `� a ;� � �8
s
, 5....._o__---a iletk-'1111111%111hih i L........
}Oi.c. +`.. b a CJ 5 90 r A 5 4,43 A
Os
615 r1\A �'I"5 601
IA
.i / -\ $1,0 yam
. $ 624 ikcs 1
( . l'A ia451
l�.J \� �Otit./---\tu) 41 ,� bl�`j 7 { O'1111
w
/ram 7 '� \ —,Q,2o a � 0
/� 1 ,\ - b` v f
•
i
Z t Y
��1
it 7
3x1� i
i J
/ 5i r SEE P 5 311�' ► �.
7
r 8! �' ,;� , _ T a f--- w 3
A i p¢py Z� 1 60 �a tJ
\ r A,b�Ac rT
vi oD� rr
t111691
..„00,
R lE V '218 5 UtF15
4r:,!
y ,tkii) \ t) ,t
g00 20 54 A c. 7 ;P a N
a .
0 c�2pc vak .
r z,4. sp '
1.
n4 L ' �AS7
0 .
•
6I s
< S ,
t. Q F- ro
0 .- zf` B [h]
i 0.3 7.._' -.-__�r 1
�1 s84' d` ) a tC '1E3A 1
SEE N"
0 7 lwr." ry \ Iry ;;, - N ....,_. , ti-•
•.9Ao\./j k, '� bq0�`�\\6q• l6 `r / tf �' r \ �N c-_� . : ^ E/i
66' 1 °, ry HAVEN ROAD ._._.- \196/ of�•9, ' c/ •. ./9 ,46932 ' I/'__ kP� `., ^N / ^. =s_ \N+ .\p `
EN ry 16B70 \Q.; \i•9!, '\bq\ -1--_ my.. I i l 1443 1440 -\^ 11 r m �''''�7 Lm l�P1 s \
_ .fir Grv ' eI aI u1N NIg Im (� 18 i, _ =971 �° 9112J�/19,j\ \90�. :`351,16940D '"1 o N 1 ' m I' J \r
:\c ° ; I ° ° Is r J 16872 `„,„ ,964 • l9 „ ,-- i,% ,0;1 z ...—II II 1445 NTREE ' i I '\ t e \‘''-'
c , 1 I 1 -�' , `/ \,-11t69?: (L^1by5111697 2 - -`j';� ,-- C9-- I^ I CIRCLE ^ 1• \rs�'
W _ . 19 34 /9B2y/9 ,93 C 16/T r1 ' _ N _ _ . \
•¢ 1 ry 1 ry N > I��U• u 1 B I 91 C _, ',_ 41 4 Y_11695 ry rl_:y'" s% rI L'N' 7+ '° N V I m " \ �\
�.. ¢ 1 m I Im_ N IN I al 1w l a `° I� N I . ! 7731699 - I �. a ` -
It W v1 w I N 1 1 v �0 GREENTREE I, _ ROAD .r /L/
c ry ,, 2250 I " I e I o f! ! rill"l a ',!.., 1 S co. a S I m II i I e �. '- LJ17102
Z 17127 m
�' 1�� �° 2272' no4ol u,zS m - I 1 - -. W PALISADES I—z
_ --1---
J.-� e V 0 / 17080 Iz-� an = I ,n I , - ¢ I7149 n /
-. s I ELEMENTARY
--� 1 \% 3!! -.2�Po t /7 f 17090 �T`_`` I17171 CAMPUS WAY ` SCHOOL 17171 r 9_
r•4 T. 1 ro ago / \" ,,\0@3. _ \ c II `` /m . ry a . 117193,i /^^b_
w I N \ �'PP(f( N / \ \ o I, m 17123 r\, \.\ /qua /ice ru Q, ° /
r I s v\ \ \N� \ i� \\923 / 1 iN`1I- : I _ I 1_ _ I m . 92 1
ro S c \\N` ov,., \ a LE N 17168, % I 1A 4' •
N \ \\ !‘11 `G \ 1925 �� U J I N N N UI U ,JJ -
_' • )/ -`� P2 \ G N , $ —LI \ ,, \19,7 MAPLELEAF ROAD 17220 1I� I ^
1 c_— 3S NNc P 17200 17230 -C !y ! 1^ ^ o I 'o W
Li 1172'7 17270 I__ ee '' 2A3f \ -\ O --‹ ,Ds -J - I. N + m o I o g 1 4` '7225 w 17224 17217- • ^ •
I __ J 1 °q )-V243 'Z 17244`I \\°! I m ° I ry I ° i ° ___ _ KQAVOOD DR.
I 17255 17274 22,7 _°2250 W__ /99/ !95 �,_--•-- 7- -_,,_ I 17251 W 17252 17341 r17304
N / N . '7278 _ _`]" d0 17268 11.14
.I ^ F. 1 ^ ' ' ^ I : 1 ', F• r< > _ •
I N-_
�¢-ry y 4 W 4 2280 I - E. 2001 "8° 14 S u� u 1 u 1. 1. 1 ., 1 .1 . U v`7726 I _ a 1712226I 17325 LAKE OSWEGO
u S N I 2920�L fT FERNs/000 DRIVE ° -f---
a /ry DELLu OOD 2300 I f/' -. / 1 !- - N 1 7 N l m I m a I 1 I N I ul 17350 I 17349
/ 1 1 V / 2,790 24 'i 17400 17601 Iry N o m m I ° ° N _ W .
° •1 0 i O - '----W---J I° ' n380 173@1
�5 N 6 Na o°, 6j^ s o ' 1 ' ' o I _Il 1- o 1 _� MUNICIPAL GOLF C
�, ° �� N 2 i ER .7, V410 ¢ 174❑ t840 _�' -T ! —tr _ I I
l �0 1 \ N'\''''''
'NN FN N"iy�` �\ '� � 1\ ._ I m I m N f, N 17389�'
\�N '•\ I 1,` .: \\ JJ �s,\�iT\ P{ `0'0 1030 \ I: I a u' '^ I N N I m I ROAD
'��o \N y. F- /2d 7\\P-`-IC�.`./! \ `'o �\\�0 �PALIS DES CLOVERLEAF N�
/l
73p�'N\ 1.'-'1:
76 .�22p! 222\' o1:1 \.�Oe l� •\J!J/ .,`az�' RESE VOIR
r HILLSID COURT c --1 \ .\ J' ' I b,°0 \\,6 a 176.41 `�
i 2150 ry \I I y 2103 706 1770,- \'0i 1: O N 17
u ' ° 1 2100 '
�o•1 o W---,_ ___
W-�17701 J 17705
' y -., l\- 1 = 17796 1 ri 17703/r49 177001--- 17704 \\' . MAINT
CU 'k m `2401 Ol ¢1775� l 1 \ Bu1Li
la \ I7734
N ,\a \ u Iry DRIVE / "`7765 LAKERIDGE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
• F \ O JE0.�GpN \\l,apl `i7eu 11 I m m II /2qo 222\\ _ 17766
-L_Jti 1 -
\TB02\ .. �r790 J I' N / J / 2?/ 2201 w 177841
.�C� S (.....1.9 { p 0:—
\\1� (s \1 ,-2, \ H/ICSIDE LANE 23@l ; 22�_ 17802
',d� m \ oR1�E m W z\BB 1
X ry 1 rv77,
o \ q` m ,\'a• '1 m I m I Di I \m rf' OVERLOOK
i L.-die
m \,. `,-' I. j,,p_.3 ', m I = I17903 a 1 17901
�+ �1 m ro m 1 7902I^ - N
'/` V7079 m '\ \ l a m i \l0a• ,,.--1--- 1jg11 O 1 I l'915
I7B97® - CHURCH Or
�} 1` m 5'\ ry Qj ;14' �1 �_' 1 17912 I LATTER- 117927 I 1 LAKE ❑SVEGO 1
9 17899 P ��' ` V�0_,,) I Les 2 --4 \792\ 7._____I
0,320 1 SAINTS I-
u 1 _ _° COUNTY / 17942
n p /
' m
>J N�9J 0 /: 2751 / ---1---------
T a i m i 17979
\ i .-�r' 17931 1 /
j70. Ns, 1 ---- '7930,,� y 1 n h/9bb BETHLEHEM
CHURCH
.`-,,q\\kT1T
17941 17940 1798 \;oJ, ,i /a i 797i• - 0�\D \+'• h``•l,�91 A 17986790 .'1-A'70f I 12316 2321 17950`Q,",(I'° m' g1 iQ 117965' 17994 __P /
Ti---1 38
_ �e, a� . . o r / o
LUS
- - N �N \?T \Opp\ / •�4
• • • J YY �i/
1 e - -- • NI;" 2060 9 180\per C!
I 2060 16020 17999
- ru "
°
` 2105 ._ 0 1B021
,_1 4 2090 18031 IB030
8280 y - �\4'r1S ergo `� /'/
•@320 m .COOKS • .•' `� 2/;— _ l -
-
8360 • BUTTE
HU11'� n 4/=460% 1 7
Z,k5 E I N .. TS 1 , R12SE
B.ga \\ I m �^184j0 l/ 1 ' hUNr
8440 PARK •A,�184@3 I��t 1873 /-- 1
3480 •
•��\ \0' 18451 1 �� I
l W I ' \$ �- i j P6E I
\J SUB. STATION I
18320 f - 1 1
¢ , I y 1
1
ti / D5
•a vEco I ---_
�r'� LPKE I B691 1
COUNTY ` I i
I? Inc ki.;;BJ I \ I
Il. \ 1
\1 . NEXT MAP PAI
• Li 17 16 1