Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - 2015-03-16
REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING DIVISION PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: FILE NO: 1KLR Investments-Carman, LLC LU 15-0003 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF: AKS Engineering Johanna Hastay,AICP TAX LOT REFERENCE: DATE OF REPORT: Tax Lots 2500, 2600, &2700 March 6, 2015 of Tax Map 21E07AC LOCATION: 120-DAY DECISION DATE: 5316, 5324, &5362 Carman Drive June 12, 2015 ZONING DESIGNATION: NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: R-7.5 Lake Forest COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESCRIPTION: R-7.5 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant is seeking approval to modify an approved Development Permit (LU 14-0034) as follows: • Modify the approved Resource Conservation Protection Area (RCPA) without reducing the overall size; • Modify the sizes of Lots 3 and 9 and rear yard setback on Lot 3; and, • A minor variance to the 4-foot maximum fence height to allow a 6-foot fence along the Carman Drive frontage on Lots 1-3. II. RECOMMENDATION Approval of LU 15-0003, with conditions. The complete list of recommended conditions is provided on page 14 of this report. LU 15-0003 Page 1 of 16 III. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code (Chapter LOC 50): LOC 50.04.001 R-7.5 Zone Dimensional Standards LOC 50.05.010 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts LOC 50.06.004.2 Fences LOC 50.07.003.1 Burden of Proof LOC 50.07.003.5 Conditions on Development LOC 50.07.003.7 Appeals LOC 50.07.03.11 Modification of Development Permits LOC 50.07.003.14 Minor Development Decision LOC 50.07.007.4 Planned Development Overlay LOC 50.08.002 Minor Variances B. City of Lake Oswego Tree Code FLOC Chapter 551: LOC 55.08.020 Tree Protection Plan Required LOC 55.08.030 Tree Protection Measures Required C. Prior Approvals: LU 13-0038 (RC District Delineation) LU 13-0049 (Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments) LU 14-0034 (RCPA Determination and Planned Development) IV. FINDINGS A. Background/Existing Conditions: 1. The subject property consists of three separate tax lots and is approximately 2.15 acres or 93,526 sq. ft. in size with frontage on Carman Drive (a major collector) and Greystoke Drive (a local street) (Exhibit El). 2. The applicant previously received approval for an RC District delineation (LU 13-0038), Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments to change the zone from R-15 to R- 7.5 (LU 13-0049), and a 9-lot planned development subdivision with an RCPA determination (LU 14-0034). [Note: The site was deemed to be a unified site for purposes of the RC District delineation (LU 13-0038). For the 9-lot planned development overlying the three lots (LU 14-0034), the site is deemed to be consolidated, so that it may then be platted as approved in LU 14-0034, and as modified by this approval.] V. REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES A. Neighborhood Meeting The applicant conducted neighborhood meetings as a part of the original approval. A neighborhood meeting is not required to modify the approval. LU 15-0003 Page 2 of 16 B. Public Notice to Surrounding Area The City has provided adequate public notice and opportunity to comment on this application pursuant to LOC 50.07.003. No comments were received prior to the publication of this report. C. Burden of Proof Per LOC 50.07.003.1.b,the applicant for a development permit shall bear the burden of proof that the application complies with all applicable review criteria or can be made to comply with applicable criteria by imposition of conditions of approval. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence to enable staff to evaluate the proposal. These documents are listed as exhibits at the end this report. D. Classification of Application LOC 50.07.003.14.a.ii(16) classifies minor variances as minor development. LOC 50.07.003.14.a.ii(19) classifies modification of an approved Development Permit as minor development. E. Modification of Approved Permit Per LOC 50.07.003.11, modifications to a development permit are classified as the same type of development as the original permit and shall be reviewed under the applicable review criteria for that classification of development, except that the review criteria shall be limited to those criteria that are affected by the requested modification. VI. MINOR DEVELOPMENT A. Criteria for Review of Application Per LOC 50.07.003.14.d.ii, for any minor development application to be approved, it shall first be established that the proposal complies with: 1. The requirements of the zone in which it is located; R-7.5 Dimensional Standards [LOC 50.04.001] The site is zoned R-7.5. The applicant received approval to divide the site into a 9-lot planned development (PD) subdivision with exceptions to certain R-7.5 standards utilizing the provisions of the PD Overlay. The applicant is requesting approval to modify the sizes of Lots 3 and 9 as well as the rear yard setback of Lot 3, as follows (Exhibit F1): Lot Size In the R-7.5 zone,the minimum lot size is 7,500 sq.ft. As originally approved, Lot 3 met the minimum lot size at 8,179 sq.ft. As modified, Lot 3 would be 7,739 sq.ft. which is still in compliance with the minimum lot size. Lot 9 was originally approved at 6,284 sq. ft. and is proposed to be increased in size to 6,724 sq.ft. which is still less than the minimum lot size for the zone (Exhibits E5-E6 and F1). An exception for Lot 9 to the minimum lot size is permissible and is requested by the applicant under the provisions of the PD Overlay. As addressed under the PD Overlay discussion, below,this standard is met. LU 15-0003 Page 3 of 16 Setbacks The required setbacks for a primary dwelling in the R-7.5 zone are 25 feet for a front, combined total of 15 feet for both sides with a minimum five feet on one side, 15 feet for a street side, and 30 feet for the rear. The applicant is requesting approval to modify the rear yard setback on Lot 3 from 30 feet to 25 feet (Exhibits E5-E6 and F1). Reductions to the required yard setbacks are permissible and are requested by the applicant through the provisions of the PD Overlay standards. As addressed under the PD Overlay discussion, below,this standard is met. As discussed under the PD Overlay standards, below,the proposed modifications to Lots 3 and 9 comply with the R-7.5 zoning standards. Planned Development Overlay [LOC 50.07.007.4] The purpose of the PD Overlay is to provide for greater flexibility in development of land as compared to a standard subdivision, encourage variety in the development pattern of the community, encourage a creative approach in land development, conserve natural land features,facilitate a desirable aesthetic and efficient use of open space, create public and private common open spaces, and provide for flexibility and variety in the location of improvements on lots. If these public purposes are accomplished, exceptions to certain zoning standards may be granted. Following approval of a subdivision with a PD Overlay, a subsequent request for modification from the underlying zone requirements for any lots within the planned development shall be processed as a planned development modification. The applicant is requesting the following modifications to the R-7.5 dimensional standards as approved with the original PD (Exhibits E5-E6 and F1): • Exception to the approved 30-foot rear yard setback on Lot 3 to reduce it to 25 feet. • Exception to the minimum lot size of 7,500 sq. ft. for Lot 9 to allow for a lot size of 6,724 sq. ft. Lot Coverage and Floor Area Calculations An applicant for a PD Overlay may apply the lot coverage and floor area requirements with reference to the total area of the project as a whole or on a lot by lot basis. The applicant originally proposed a total of 21,550 sq. ft. of lot coverage, distributed over the nine lots. As Lots 3 and 9 are being adjusted in size,the applicant should submit a final matrix indicating the new allotted lot coverage for each lot. The applicant should also submit a final matrix indicating the maximum floor area for each lot reflecting the modified lot sizes. These will be made conditions of approval. The applicant is already required by prior condition of approval to provide a copy of both revised matrices for staff review and to record them with a Notice of Development Restriction. Requested Exceptions to R-7.5 Dimensional Standards The applicant is requesting an exception to the 30-foot rear yard setback For Lot 3 and the minimum lot size for Lot 9 (Exhibits E6 and F1). The matrix, below, illustrates the size and setback for Lots 3 and 9 with the requested modifications shown in bold and previously approved exceptions are noted: "by prior approval". LU 15-0003 Page 4 of 16 MODIFICATIONS TO LOT 3 AND LOT 9 DIMENSIONS AND SETBACKS Lot size Lot width Front setback Side Setback Rear Setback 7,500 sq.ft. 50 feet 25 feet 5 min./15 feet 30 feet combined total LOT 3 5 ft. (north) 5 ft. (west) APPROVED 8,179 sq.ft. 65 ft. by prior 20 ft. (east) 30 ft. (south) approval LOT 3 7 739 sq.ft. 65 ft. 5 ft. (north) 5 ft. (west) 25 ft. (south) PROPOSED 20 ft. (east) LOT 9 6,284 sq.ft. 5 ft. (north) 5 ft. (east) APPROVED by prior 55 ft. 25 ft. (west) 10 ft. (south) by prior approval approval LOT 9 5 ft. (north) 5 ft. (east) PROPOSED 6,724 sq.ft. 55 ft. 25 ft. (west) 10 ft. (south) by prior approval Exception Criteria The reviewing authority may grant the proposed modifications to the PD if the applicant demonstrates that the modifications still provide the same or better sense of privacy, appropriate scale, and open space as a PD that complies with the standards to which the exception is sought. In making this determination,the reviewing authority may consider the following: a. Whether the applicant has reserved or dedicated more than the minimum amount of open space required by park and open space contributions[LOC 50.06.005]; The minimum required Park and Open Space is 20%of the gross land area or approximately 18,705 sq. ft. The applicant previously dedicated approximately 33,916 sq.ft. or 36.3%of the site within three open space tracts, with the RCPA in Tracts A and C(Exhibits E3 and E5). The proposed modifications to lot size and setbacks do not result in a net loss of open space square footage (Exhibits E3 and F1). For further analysis of the proposed RCPA modifications, see the Sensitive Lands discussion, below. Staff finds that, with the proposed modifications, the required open space square footage remains greater than the minimum required. This consideration is met. b. Whether the requested exceptions allow the lots to be designed in a manner that provides better access to common open space areas from within and/or outside the PD, better protects views, allows better solar access, maintains or improves relationships between structures, maintains or improves privacy and/or improves pedestrian or bicycle access to surrounding neighborhoods; The proposed 25-foot setback for Lot 3 and adjusted lot size of Lot 9 (which is larger than originally approved) do not have any impact on this consideration. Access to open space, solar access, relationships between future dwellings, and minimal privacy impacts remain the same as originally approved. The reduced rear yard setback on Lot 3 will be adjacent to Tract A and externally imperceptible (Exhibit E5). Lot 9 abuts Waluga Park-West;the lot size modification will also be imperceptible to the surrounding neighborhood (Exhibit E5). This consideration is met. LU 15-0003 Page 5 of 16 c. Whether the requested exception will allow a more attractive streetscape through use of meandering streets, access through alleys or shared driveways, provision of median plantings, or other pedestrian amenities; The proposed dimensional modifications do not have any impact on this consideration as the streetscape, shared driveways, plantings, and pedestrian amenities will remain as originally approved. This consideration is met as previously approved. d. Whether the requested exception will enhance or better protect a significant natural feature on the site, such as a wetland, a tree or tree grove, or a stream corridor; The applicant notes that the proposed modifications to the RCPA allow for the preservation of a tree in "good condition (Tree#723, a 13-inch Oregon ash near Lot 3) instead of protecting two trees in "fair to poor" condition (Trees#630 and 635 near Lot 9) (Exhibits F1 and E4). The applicant has provided a report from a certified arborist pertaining to tree protection during construction of the future dwelling on Lot 9 (Exhibit F2). Even with the reduced 25-foot rear yard setback for Lot 3,Tree#723 will have sufficient protection from future development. Staff finds that, as proposed,the dimensional modifications to Lots 3 and 9 will continue to protect the RCPA and other significant trees on the site where possible. This consideration is met. e. Whether the requested exception will provide better linkage with adjacent neighborhoods, open space areas, pathways, and natural features;or, The proposed modifications do not have any impact on the existing natural resource linkages to the abutting Waluga Park-West south of the site or to pedestrian linkages along Carman Drive (Exhibits E3 and F1). This consideration is met as previously approved. f. Whether the requested exception will allow the development to be designed more compatibly with the topography and/or physical limitations of the site. The proposed reduced rear yard setback for Lot 3 and reduced lot size of Lot 9 allow for reasonable building envelopes and future development that is responsive to the existing constraints created by the large RCPA tract and numerous trees. This consideration is met. Conclusion Staff finds that the proposed modifications to the approved PD continue to allow a design that provides for greater flexibility and creative approach in development of land as compared to a standard subdivision and conserves natural land features. The modified PD results in the same sense of privacy, appropriate scale, and open space as a subdivision that complies with the R-7.5 standards as follows: • 36.3%of the site is still preserved in open space tracts. • Significant trees, both along the street frontage and internally, are still preserved. • All lots continue to meet (or are perceived to meet)the perimeter yard setbacks on the east and west sides of the site,thereby maintaining the same sense of privacy to the abutting existing residences as a standard subdivision. • The adjusted lot size for Lot 9 remains in keeping with pattern of development in the near vicinity, including the average lot size of the R-15 subdivision to the west of the site. As conditioned,this standard is met. LU 15-0003 Page 6 of 16 2. Overlay Districts [LOC 50.05] Sensitive Lands Overlay District FLOC 50.05.010,50.07.004.81 The purpose of the Sensitive Lands districts, as designated on the City's Sensitive Lands Atlas, is to protect the functions and values of wetlands, stream corridors, and tree groves on lands with environmental or natural significance. Once an RCPA has been identified, protected, and approval becomes final, no future reduction shall be permitted unless a modification to the original permit is obtained that establishes a new protection area that is at least as large as the previously area in compliance with subsection 5.b.iii (RCPA Determination criteria), or demonstrates that the protection area as originally designated has degraded through natural causes. The applicant is requesting a modification to the approved RCPA by demonstrating that the new protection area is the same size as originally approved (Exhibits E3 and F1).The applicant proposes to reduce the RCPA by 440 sq.ft. north of Lot 9 and increase the RCPA by the same amount south of Lot 3 (Exhibit F1).The applicant has addressed the RCPA Determination criteria, as follows: RC Protection Area Determination FLOC 50.05.010.5.b1 RCPA determination is based on the consideration of the criteria, below. If no location on the site meets all criteria,then the criteria are balanced in order to ensure that the most environmentally significant portion of the RC District is included in the RCPA. Per LOC 50.05.010.5.b.i, a minimum of 50%of a delineated RC District must be designated as the RC Protection Area (RCPA). The original delineated RC District totaled approximately 67,027 sq. ft. in area or 1.54 acres (Exhibit F1).The applicant created an RCPA that was 31,247 sq. ft. in Tract A and an additional 2,669 sq. ft. in Tract C, for a total of 33,916 sq.ft. or 50.6%of the area (Exhibit F1). As shown in Exhibits E3 and E4,the applicant is proposing to remove Tree#630 (an 11- inch Oregon White oak) and Tree#635 (7-inch Oregon White oak), both located just north of Lot 9 with a contiguous canopy of approximately 440 sq. ft. The applicant proposes to increase the RCPA south of Lot 3 to include Tree#723 (a 13-inch Oregon ash) with a canopy of approximately 440 sq.ft. in area. The modification retains an RCPA with a total of 33,916 sq. ft. in area or 50.6%of the original RC District.This standard is met. The location of the RCPA shall be based on the following criteria: a. The Protection Area shall link to other RP or RC lands on the development site and on abutting properties, if such lands are present; As modified,the RCPA is still contiguous to itself and to the Waluga Park-West contains an RC District(Exhibit E3). This criterion is met. b. The trees having DBH(diameter at breast height)greater than the median DBH within the RC District shall be included in the Protection Area. LU 15-0003 Page 7 of 16 There were 183 trees in the originally delineated RC District ranging from 5-46 inches in diameter with a median DBH of 11 inches. As large trees are scattered throughout the RC District, only 57 out of the 89 trees above the median DBH were included in the original RCPA. [Note: The applicant's narrative, Exhibit Fl, mistakenly states that median DBH was 13 inches.] The applicant is proposing to remove from the approved RCPA Tree#630(an 11-inch Oregon White oak) and Tree#635 (7-inch Oregon White oak), neither of which were above the median DBH (Exhibit E4). The applicant proposes to include Tree#723 (a 13-inch Oregon ash)which is above the median DBH (Exhibit E4). As proposed,the modified RCPA now includes 58 out of 89 trees with DBHs greater than the 11-inch median which is better than originally approved, but still not in compliance with this criterion. Staff notes that three large Oregon white oaks along the Carman Drive frontage of the site are preserved from development through the use of a meandering pathway and special setbacks (Exhibit E3). A fourth large Oregon white oak is preserved in the common backyards of Lots 6, 7, and 8 (Exhibit E3). While this criterion is technically not met,the applicant continues to make a concerted effort to preserve mature trees on the site. c. The location of the Protection Area shall be designed to protect development from blow-down hazards; The approved RCPA is located along the southern portion of the site abutting Waluga Park- West (Exhibit E3). The applicant's narrative notes most of the trees in the approved RCPA are "stand-grown" in a clustered configuration (Exhibit F1). The narrative also notes that the prevailing wind direction in Lake Oswego is from the southwest (Exhibit F1). The previous staff finding for this criterion was, due to the clustered configuration of the RCPA and the prevailing wind direction, development will be protected to the extent possible from blow- down. The proposed modifications to the RCPA do not change this finding as both areas are along the perimeter of the clustered grove of trees (Exhibit E3). This criterion is met. d. The Protection Area shall protect steep slopes and resources close to water areas from potential erosion and water quality impacts; There are no steep slopes or water resources on this site. This criterion is not applicable. e. The Protection Area shall protect wildlife habitat and travel corridors; The approved RCPA abuts the off-site tree grove in Waluga Park-West(Exhibit E3). This location ensures that there is protected wildlife habitat and travel corridors in the area. The modifications are located on the perimeter of the RCPA and do not significantly impact habitat and travel corridors. This criterion is met. f The Protection Area shall be designed to protect a contiguous canopy and a clustered configuration that does not fragment lands within an RC District. As shown on Exhibit E3,the approved RCPA is in two tracts, but provides for contiguous canopy as both abut the tree grove on Waluga Park-West. The proposed modifications are to areas on the perimeter of the approved RCPA;the contiguous canopy with Waluga Park-West and clustered configuration are maintained. This criterion is met. LU 15-0003 Page 8 of 16 g. The Protection Area shall consist of viable plant and wildlife communities; The RCPA, as approved and as modified, contains a viable plant and wildlife community that consists of a variety of deciduous and coniferous trees, including: Douglas fir; Oregon white oak; Oregon ash; Oregon alder; and Western redcedar. This criterion is met. h. The Protection Area shall maintain the scenic qualities of the site. The RCPA acts as a vegetated buffer on the southern portion of the site. It contributes to the wooded quality of the area,thereby maintaining the scenic qualities of the site as viewed from the surrounding neighborhood and as viewed from the proposed PD lots. The proposed minor modifications do not change or negatively impact the existing scenic qualities of the approved RCPA. The trees being removed from the RCPA are only visible from Lot 9 and the tree being included will help maintain a wooded buffer for abutting properties to the east (Exhibit E3). This criterion is met. As discussed above,the proposed modifications to the approved RCPA meet all of the criteria except (b),which requires an RCPA to include all trees above the median DBH. As noted,the original RCPA also did not meet this criterion. LOC 50.05.010.5.b.iv recognizes that some of the criteria for establishing an RCPA may conflict on a given site. In such cases,the decision maker may balance the applicable criteria in order to protect the most environmentally significant portion of the natural resource. As shown in Exhibits E3 and E4, the trees that are greater than the median DBH of 11 inches are not all clustered together, but are scattered throughout the site. The approved RCPA met the balance of the criteria and protected the most environmentally significant portion of the RC District. The proposed modifications do not fragment the approved clustered configuration. Even as modified,the proposed RCPA maintains its environmental significance. The applicant should be required to provide an updated RCPA tree inventory and plan to be recorded with the Notice of Development Restriction per Condition A(7) of LU 14-0034. As conditioned,this standard is met. 3. The Development Standards applicable to a Minor Development [LOC 50.06] Fences [LOC 50.06.004.2] Minor Variance Criteria and Analysis [LOC 50.08.002] Per LOC 50.06.004.2.b.i(1),the maximum height for a fence located within a residential zone and within 10 feet of a property line abutting the public right-of-way is four feet. The prior decision (LU 14-0034) included a condition of approval that requires a 4-foot fence along the Carman Drive frontage of Lots 1-3, as follows: A(15). Submit a final landscape plan for review and approval of staff. The plan shall be in accordance with Exhibit E18, with the following modifications: iii. A 4-foot wooden privacy fence along the Carman Drive frontage of Lots 1-3. The applicant is proposing to modify this condition and construct a 6-foot tall fence along the Carman Drive frontage of Lots 1-3 in order to provide more private and secure yards (Exhibits E7-E9 and F1). To achieve the proposed design, the applicant is requesting a 2-foot minor variance to the 4-foot maximum fence height (Exhibit F1). Minor variances are small changes from the Code requirements that will have minimal effect on adjacent properties or users. Per LOC 50.08.002.2.a, a minor variance may be granted if it is established that: LU 15-0003 Page 9 of 16 (1) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, or materially injurious to properties or improvements within 300 feet of the property;and, The applicant's narrative and exhibits include the following findings regarding compliance with this criterion (Exhibits E7-E9 and F1): • A 6-foot fence is not detrimental to accessibility by Fire and Emergency vehicles. • The new lots with frontage on Carman Drive have small yards that will be subjected to large amounts of vehicular traffic as well as impacts from pedestrians on the new pathway; the 6-foot fence would minimize the pedestrian and vehicle impacts to the private outdoor space for these lots. • The elevation of the roadway is about 12 inches higher than the elevation of the fence location allowing a lower perceived height (Exhibit E9). In addition,the proposed pedestrian pathway will also be elevated. • There are 6-foot fences on either side of the subject site; granting the variance will allow development similar to existing development. Staff agrees with the applicant's findings that all sight distance and vision clearance standards where the shared access lane meets Carman Drive will be maintained. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to access for Fire or Emergency vehicles. Staff also agrees with the applicant's statement that Carman Drive has heavy traffic and that a 6-foot fence would provide a better visual and noise barrier for future residents of Lots 1-3. However,this criterion analyzes external impacts when granting exception, not how it would alleviate internal impacts to residents of Lots 1-3. Zoning restrictions, including the fence height limitation, are based upon the City's authority to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare [Holt v. City of Salem, 192 OR. 200 (1951)]. The intent of the 4-foot maximum fence height along front property lines is to ensure a more open, attractive and friendly streetscape for the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. Any variance to the fence height may not be detrimental to the purposes and basis for the regulation. Staff agrees that the vehicular roadway is at a slightly higher elevation than the proposed fence location and is separated by a bike lane, drainage swale and a pedestrian pathway. These factors will reduce the visual impacts of a 6-foot versus 4-foot fence as perceived from the roadway. But, the pedestrian pathway(which is for the use of the general public) is in close proximity to the fence (Exhibit E7). The fence must be designed to not be detrimental to the general health, safety and welfare,which includes its impact upon pedestrians using the abutting pathway, not just as it is seen from a vehicle or bike traveling on the roadway. Staff finds that the proposed 6-foot solid fence will have the effect of creating a perceived "wall" by pedestrians. The applicant also notes that there are two 6-foot high fences abutting the site to help justify the proposed design as non-detrimental to the public health and safety. The existing fences may be (presumably) nonconforming in height;they also may be non-compliant to the 4-foot maximum fence height. As can be seen in the photos, next page, and from the applicant's materials,the 6-foot fences near the site include designs of different construction type, age, quality, and location. The fence directly east of the site is offset a bit from the public sidewalk, meanders to preserve trees, and includes minimal landscaping. The fence directly west of the site does neither and is directly abutting the sidewalk. LU 15-0003 Page 10 of 16 - Fence directly west of site. r 00 . . _ I a! ytom ` 4r•.� 1 -7 1-1 i 1 Iii _} � - 4, ' t 6 Fence directly east of site. ?�C s r -.' , _ __ - -"-' y —_. — - t t -•6 - - 1 In any case, the use of non-conforming (or possibly illegal)fences to justify "no detrimental to the public health and safety" does not meet the burden of proof. In 2006,the City approved a minor variance (LU 06-0068)to the maximum fence height to legalize an illegally constructed 6-foot fence very similar to the proposed fence in alignment and proximity to a sidewalk. This fence was included in the applicant's materials as an example of similar fences in the vicinity(Exhibit E8). As seen in the photo, below, this fence meanders to preserve mature trees, includes landscaping to soften its appearance, and incorporates lattice on the top portion of the fence to minimize the wall-like appearance and reduce the perceived height. (Note:The property owner has planted an evergreen hedge inside the fence to offset the potential internal privacy impacts from the lattice.) Ck 1. :...,•,'-o �+ iR� * 1§ _ _ 'f .0 i.V.a4 lit Mai ia,u ul �LUW1.iuY17.a.,_ ._Cy C u c.1i. -� r ;.. 1� . 1 r 44 4 Fence west of site near Tara Place. k.�; ' V - u —. _ ..,_____-„,:J7:- .._ • - , 4,,,,, , LU 15-0003 Page 11 of 16 Staff finds that this fence is a good example of how a fence higher than four feet within 10 feet of a public street can be designed so that it is not detrimental to the public health and safety, particularly with regards to impacts on the public using the pedestrian pathway. In order for the proposed fence to meet the criterion of not being detrimental to the public health and safety, staff recommends the following design alterations to the proposed fence as conditions of approval: • Meander the fence to avoid impacts to existing trees along the Carman Drive frontage and to offset the proximity of the fence to the pathway. A minimum 3-foot offset should be maintained. • Provide a certified arborist report on the fence post locations and landscape installation to minimize impacts to critical root zones. • Install an evergreen landscape buffer between the fence and the meandering pedestrian pathway. The plan,to be reviewed and approved by staff, should demonstrate at least five different species of evergreen shrubs of varying heights, colors, and/or textures. The minimum planting size should be three gallons and the mature heights of at least three of the shrub species should be six feet. The plants should be in natural groupings. • The top 1-foot portion of the fence should be latticed in order to reduce the perceived height of the fence and maintain a more open appearance as viewed from the pedestrian pathway. The applicant's analysis of this criterion then continues on to argue the second point of the minor variance criterion by stating that the granting the exception does not cause "material injury to properties or improvements within 300 feet of the site" because the proposed 6-foot solid fence is similar in height and character to the two abutting 6-foot fences. The applicant states that properties within 300 feet of the site (with or without 6- foot fences) have become adapted to the presence of those fences and that the proposed fence simply continues the pattern of development (Exhibits E8-E9 and F1). Staff disagrees. Existing non-conforming(or possibly illegal) fences do not establish that yet another 6- foot solid fence will not have a material injury upon properties within 300 feet of the site. Using the applicant's map, it is apparent that there are more examples of yards abutting Carman Drive that outright comply with the 4-foot fence requirement (Exhibit E8). Staff does find, however,that the previously imposed conditions of approval to incorporate design elements that will minimize impacts to the general health and safety vis-à-vis pedestrian use of the pathway will also result in no material injury upon properties within 300 feet of the site, in compliance with this portion of the criterion. Staff notes that the applicant's cross section (Exhibit E9) shows the pathway elevated 8-12 inches above the fence elevation. After reviewing the applicant's approved grading plan (Exhibit E10), staff finds that the grade of the pathway and abutting fence location are at approximately the same 240-foot elevation. While some grade cut may be necessary to construct the required drainage swale along the outside edge of the pathway, excessive cut or fill to construct the pathway is not a part of the approved grading plan. As conditioned,this criterion is met. LU 15-0003 Page 12 of 16 (2) The proposed development will not adversely affect existing physical and natural systems such as traffic, drainage, Oswego Lake, hillsides, designated sensitive lands, historic resources, or parks, and the potential for abutting properties to use solar energy devices any more than would occur if the development were located as specified by the requirements of the zone. While there is a designated RCPA on the subject property,the location of the proposed fence is along the Carman Drive frontage of Lots 1-3, distant from this resource (Exhibit E7). The property does not abut Oswego Lake. The fence will have no adverse effect on drainage patterns on site because the subdivision's approved drainage system will not be impacted. The 6-foot fence would not prevent adjacent property owners to the north from utilizing solar energy devices if so desired (Exhibit E5). Staff finds that, as conditioned above,the requested variance will not have an adverse effect on existing physical and natural systems. This criterion is met. Staff finds that, as conditioned,this standard is met. 4. Any additional statutory, regulatory or Lake Oswego Code provisions which may be applicable to the specific minor development application; City of Lake Oswego Tree Chapter [LOC Chapter 551 The Tree Code is intended to preserve trees. Tree protection fencing is required when a tree protection zone or drip line of a tree that is five inches in diameter or greater is within the construction zone,whether on or off-site. As authorized by LOC 55.08.020, a tree protection application and plan should be submitted for staff review and approval prior to conducting any development activities on the site, including, but not limited to clearing, grading, landscaping, or excavation. The original approval contained conditions of approval regarding tree protection measures for site improvement and dwelling construction;those conditions remain as approved. Fence construction and Landscaping The tree protection zone is the zone required to protect the critical root area necessary for the continued health of trees. As required by LOC 55.08.030(7), no construction, excavation, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless directed by an arborist present on site as approved by the City and supported by an arborist report. As previously conditioned, construction of the fences on Lots 1-3 and installation of landscaping between the pedestrian pathway and fence location shall be supported by a certified arborist report that discusses specific tree preservation methods for staff review and approval. 5. Any applicable condition of approval imposed pursuant to an approved ODPS or prior development permit affecting the subject property. All conditions of approval imposed per LU 14-0034 remain as approved, except as modified by this application. LU 15-0003 Page 13 of 16 VIII. CONCLUSION Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant and findings presented in this report, staff concludes that LU 15-0003 can be made to comply with all applicable criteria by the imposition of conditions. IX. RECOMMENDATION Approval of LU 15-0003, subject to the following conditions: A. The applicant/owner shall continue to comply with all conditions of approval of LU 14-0034, except as modified, below. B. Prior to Recording the Final Plat,the Applicant/Owner Shall: 1. In compliance with Condition A(6) of LU 14-0034, submit an updated matrix showing final lot coverage,floor area, and setbacks to reflect the modifications to Lots 3 and 9. 2. In compliance with Condition A(7) of LU 14-0034, provide an updated RCPA tree inventory and plan. 3. Modify Condition A(15)(iii) of LU 14-0034 to allow the construction of a 6-foot wooden fence along the Carman Drive frontage of Lots 1-3, including the following design elements,to the satisfaction of staff: a. The fence shall meander along Carman Drive frontage to avoid impacts to existing trees. The fence shall set back a minimum of three feet from the adjoining pedestrian pathway to allow landscaping. b. Incorporate an evergreen landscape strip between the fence and the meandering pedestrian pathway. The landscaping shall consist of at least five species of evergreen shrubs of varying heights, colors, and/or textures. The minimum planting size shall be three gallons and at least three of shrub species shall obtain a mature height of six feet. The plants shall be installed in natural groupings. c. The top 1-foot portion of the fence shall be latticed and all structural elements shall be faced internally. 4. Provide a certified arborist report with specific recommendations regarding the fence post locations, fence construction, and landscape installation to minimize impacts to critical root zones of existing trees along the Carman Drive frontage of Lots 1-3. Note: 1. The applicants are advised to take part in a Post Land Use Approval meeting. City staff would like to offer an opportunity to meet and discuss this decision and the conditions of approval necessary to finalize the project. The purpose of the meeting is to ensure all conditions are understood and to identify other permits necessary to complete the project. To take advantage of this meeting, please contact the staff coordinator at (503) 635-0290. LU 15-0003 Page 14 of 16 2. The land use approval for this project does not imply approval of a particular design, product, material, size, method of work, or layout of public infrastructure except where a condition of approval has been devised to control a particular design element or material. 3. Development plans review, permit approval, and inspections by the City of Lake Oswego Planning and Building Services Department are limited to compliance with the Lake Oswego Community Development Code, and related code provisions. The applicants are advised to review plans for compliance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations that could relate to the development, i.e., Americans with Disabilities Act, Endangered Species Act. Staff may advise the applicants of issues regarding state and federal laws that staff member believes would be helpful to the applicants, but any such advice or comment is not a determination or interpretation of federal or state law or regulation. EXHIBITS A-D [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] E. GRAPHICS/PLANS El Tax Map E2 Cover Sheet and Vicinity Map E3 Proposed RCPA with Modifications E4 Revised RCPA Tree Inventory E5 Revised Preliminary Plat E6 Revised Preliminary Lot Dimensional Tables for Lots 3 and 9 E7 Preliminary Fence Plan ES Vicinity Map of 6-foot Fences on Carman Drive E9 Cross-Section of Carman Drive ROW Improvements E10 Portion of Approved Grading Plan per LU 14-0034 E11 Approved Preliminary Plat for LU 14-0034 F. WRITTEN MATERIALS Fl Applicant's Narrative F2 Certified Arborist Letter, prepared by AKS Engineering, dated January 8, 2015 F3 Fire Marshal Memo F4 Pre-application Notes (PA 14-0089) F5 Findings, Conclusion and Order for LU 14-0034 G. LETTERS Neither for nor Against: (G1-99) None Support: (G100-199) None Opposition: (G200+) None LU 15-0003 Page 15 of 16 Date of Application Submittal: January 13, 2015 Date Application Determined to be Complete: February 13, 2015 State Mandated 120-Day Rule: June 12, 2015 LU 15-0003 Page 16 of 16 2 1 E 07AC LAKE OSWEGO S-W.1I4 N,E.1I4 SEC.7 T.2S.R-1 E-W.M. u /aa's r L CIACKAMAS COUNTY "9 ,`�Zl�s U �R�o in=100' iro6 >•v.„5 .4. . so. D.L.C. n i-0t• 4 CHARLES BROWN NO.64 )> »> >),i»J?>>>Dt� > 1 e' Cancelled Taxlots 3S!>ti>:»„s3}°rr9ls>»r»»>s»»>nssil�i)xi g 1TW 1 90ie0 1500 � 9400 �t200 . 1100 1 �' '% „4 �� 7_2 s '�s aa¢6 V . .,. A. �00� /1W SL] Wu MI Y ISM i5 1 8 103 !r 105 //} '/^j 1 C ...w•,. .,w ,.,-- • - • ^5•6$ see w r'G. r• r tr we `1���t e 6 L. ” do a' '1 dre 8W 1 p "Jas+r 0� a 9 ! � q /sss -,�. a 163// . 1 Kn..w 15180 1 1 stir C`!� YI 2.0 �``�� /,1 ,® 2721 nffii 403 _ .00 f> w. w!o,.w 2411 Y � 5S 27wa-qt...s:1') 1, '407's „0 :' " >?oear°❑ c+ • • .100 BB00 .7•'°."0° T300 7500 820. fe'9• *, a e •1 "t_ 409..�� >\4�t , 5p r �w N. —PBacl9ountlarY pp _¢3111 �`�J 9111 a siu B...TRACT B TYIYY IIYI 4M1 s e 81}2° �I' 4154 I �B Of`�PLACE ____.Pnrsla Roatl ftQW R7 z 1§ YI YI 4400 g* 15 _ 6 r 1 tj \� Y}" �..n '.. ---Historical 0 00ttary „ _ a 4 1 w'•1/111 66 gg ' j l 16 „ sti1 :t(Jt � . .v. 1 s y �.Railroad Cented'ne „5 F y,., t / a QAT�,� tY ka is y. 3000 9 <c) a• e Texcndeune. ;4-ANGr'i RD L Y1 7., 7‘' ' ,41 f 8700' X16 •"' "400° �. '',2 p 2 .:',..,„„.,•• W ,." "/'�ters5ptai + • �� ,_s 41% a• .�°'4131 2 •ar .:`. MSP Index t "q nr y w . . v.' TI 4 • ,•, ,�i n, 410 411 1554 H _ e75,3 .. Yi „.4.4- I I 9%V pW Waterlines 7900 7900 9000 • •re l f 1`+19 y qE• t. j`51°/11 J. '' r 5700 4 W 13 5600 Com.2a '°..• '"'•13u�e/�1n 1� 4'_ 1 11 13 , '41� � 1 {A �> 0 0 Lend Use Zunine F e �c ° �/ t2k�5f111 5m4sio�o$' , 51°11+ S ° tniq 1 7? ' 9. 1 "��� rerv�.als�„ 640 �5',','.J�alata f£ 11 PJ ... 121 129•°s''S00� iR0 ? F° {1i � 'R �,/� {.n^-.1 Wa4Br �9I.T' 250 • ^'r 41 i 27.ar4i90P. / 1 • a0/ 14x,1 r�1a /•y� —5acGon Comer Or .4111 6.yr l�+�c 21"?6699003 • ` _ 1H61N Line R .J rO 1► ' .., ,t +=,''o` 4 4 '53( rma 4F R; fll —Gad Lot Line Illr� 27 6 4051 • 28 146000 SIT �r '--'DLC Line g �ro 1v1Q- a" "1t h . PARKHILL w --i OP „ 4L _- Meander Line ° } 17,a 539 F .p '° 1 Dai k?r beq �TR6ET r Ss6ot0 "�64�r. X11 a�, ��+ ° ht1 `Y �'PL33 Seatlon Line.;.00.•84-*Otylifr 2426 1�� " ` * a sf ' �� 231 a6 Tr,, . v: R[abrk Corridor 40' 4 v • //17I 1, ..e'5100 {}' t 6 w Niam cconao zr 11/0.114' o, 3z s 4*M, [.+�V s6700 • ' P # "66yw6ag yt3 ^•' rscru Q „ '` FP 0 F �/� �_ * 24 °6'^"8800.•2! PL.,.P • ._ ... .. R7 • m •24 • dd4A 1 2920 6 -:;,5;01•A 33 6 -0 6tl500 li 1 #fir_.._ .A6'46�403 ,4 4ea ^ 42 i 28W .J ,� sm. t� �l" s< Aa".. 7>.," /71111 '/ +� 6s 2421 a�' r6, ka6� �\ i `rA/_. l/ ao09 Kg' 7422 Y' -rev I. ae ats, \i • iY `/1/'I 2 el ` t ''"24034 •. nr s \<•••;'... 1'„ '' .F a. ...I' 4f Pyr t.- ]4p6 - I.. «'4 s1rs 1.� 3 i _��1 Z°y, s.Q,,/... 4 . \ ,a., l f. 'osa56. 3 _ • a � 'w6240/ty;, 4 22,,.1 �!`J" *44�1a 4;19.4' 25PF of 500 - V SITE 4,;a 1`q1 n. eV °14,7 5 - I 451 +•2405 N �(24sa 16 ,5271 s ') 16.-6• Stlld i 44 1'16/: °"2411 �� { 4 ,a`M " 46 !r)• ta." gr ,,q" .-„,0 � :CJI 2100 r (L 0c • r' !!rte Q 1 -I°6i4t5�4 12 , ,A 'Cr' '. PiG 5w;�5. �� � • ,3". 7-77 f— 9�tS pR0 ,• zss C >< ti '2412 —1 ,ss�,., �,F¢s 2499 n an 2411 SIW h .269 c k i1 O } - r a 7j 66 • . O m 793 r n, • • W ; Li, +6. 8 �a �1y/ ` E :p{ 9 E MAP 2 tE OYAC 6c I. . . ' THIS MAP IS FOR ASSESSMENT 265 - - .^ PURPOSES ONLY "4 ,CENren S 44 s,oF.,s0c:z LAKE OSWEGO seg MAP 2 1 E } N,1 LOCH SUBDIVISION ff ll PRELIMINARY RCPA AND FENCE MODIFICATION PLANS i 8 IN %,r 411 & 14+rI! �^� sr Doom no /p�O r.x�uil l€�oiac l 1 &'1' /- + IE rat I N0 1MUNGEppp LIS a Up TO Lar 4TM\ i-Arg€ E=. CO9 / 3 TAY RAP G+E 0/.` 6i ` �{3 __,,,,,,./..., \ % 4,.5 Lk,,; A 2 �„ IAA LOT amp '/�, 'w3 Y : I. y� AK lir 2 IC Of, \ Z Vf val LLlj v :-._ s4r as n 0 R 4 ••'.,'At\ \'O�t 003�I O CC 0 rrLi- 1L-L2 ,' - :If azo O Cl) —J }�`j1RRr� 6 •f IA%MAR2[mac G0\ TA#Lei xsm L TAx LOT\ q TA[ww 2 Ic Ur j 9 A23-7‘.:06 TRACT A T.d ww t+€MO\ - 0 Q 5 (.) ww nnRa D.PO µPC' Lvov 8 ��; >v. I_ r+ VICINITYNT TO MAP MAP `nid 0, .0 -.•.,-,-,.,„.�;�-O• Tax Lal E. / 0��� --��Fr. - @LE PON ruNOs+E0.c /.'-Lt"~ _ gI O,' O 0 (la f��(d f ,� ,�` 4 O 0 s 0/.71.E ,rte,- -0 OP 1.0+N1,, LLg 1-i 231,5 411 J/ LEGENDS A r`/ Ji I WSi1NO PRO _ __ Iaus Q Q STORM SEww CLEM Cur t P SITE MAP W E>ow STORY SER.caro sASX a 1.1 MT m SC. I— nwLEarArs TREE SR.OM. • ® d ME XICAANI a K GAS METE D U WA.DLOMxar v T GAS VALVE m 3 OWNER: TOTAL SITE AREA: I I- NATER NM o r MY wit ANON WA.vALLE va K EVATR P. • IKLR INVESTMENTS-CARMAN.LLC 93,526 5F±(2i5 ADRELA) BOW acs YALLE R. r KKR 00L1 '?' 850 NE 122ND AVENUE AF MEAT MALE p' jr '°AER ANCM11 Lez 0 PORTLAND,OR 57230 SWEAR SEVER PEAR MT o DOER PEOEnAL PROJECT PURPOSE:_ LU z S.SEW!MORE 0 • {UAWMCATwS SAULT CO UJ Sax T -- IOU RCAPOE 01.1011 KO a APPLICANT: RECUESHNG A MINOR VARIANCE TO MODIFY THE APPROVED RCPA 80UNDARY 1 V STREET I101T . Ctl%RUI/AARs RIYR a AND ADJUST THE FENCE HEIGHT ALONG CARMAN DRIVE TO 6-FEET VAueox ® MICHAEL J.&SUSAN N,FOOTE 764 10TH STREET ICC C] EXISDNQ ____ LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 BENCHMARK: LLL -`a IxNI-0r-Ver u[ —-- -- —--—--— VERTICAL DATUM:ELEVATIONS AVE BASED ON RS-BUILDS FROM THE PLAT ' Q LaxnARr ua PLANNING/CIVIL ENGINEERING/SURVEYING of'MORRISON ESTATES",A BRASS DISK 04 A CONCRETE CURB ON THE WEST PROEM LVE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE FIRM: SIDE OF SW ROOSEVELT AVENUE IN TH€CENTERLINE PROJECTION OF SW 033TERWE HARRINGTON AVENUE THE BRASS DISC IS STAMPED CITY OF LANE OSWEG0 066 ----•— AKS ENGINEERINC&FORESTRY,LLC BM L 236.59 ELEV THE 001130L ELEVATION 1S 23859(NOVO 29) THE .T ape - CONTACT MONTY HURLEY/CHRIS GOOOELL BASIS OF ELEVATION FOR THIS SURVEY AND PLANS IS 238.59(NOVO 29}. w,-..._ otr E.Of MOW 12965 5W HERMAN ROAD.SUITE 100 X,12D ET uw WK. _�__�.� TJALATN.OR 97062 f/111 02/0M.AS..PN: 503-553-6151 SHEET INDEX ORA.EDGE�T I iQKE LIE - - - FAX 503-563-6152 r ........... I-COVER SHEET NTIH SITE AND VICINITY MAPS4.6(11Y-Z\•,. C >42-SOPA MODIFICATION PLAN 1..2 , •...i. ROW urs 1 S %MEAD ERE tea, «_ SITE L0CAT10N: 3—MODIFIED RCPARA TREE TABLE 1- 4-PRELMINARY DETAILED TREE INVENTORY TABLE W UUAtwR/ATws Lit —..'- 0 5316-5324-5362 CARMAN DRIVE 5-PRELIMINARY DETAILED TREE INVENTORY TABLE O =1 pees NW wE --- ---.-- LAKE 051K20,OR 97035 6-PREUMLNARY PLAT dN.ron. O GAS LRE -- ---w- .,. ------0— 7-PREIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY TABLE O MB-PREWMINARY CARMAN DRIVE FENCE PLAN W N WOR T xE SOU _--0 -_w-'— SITE DESCRIPTION:. oR WADER �� DATES Lw€ _---+h----�'- —wR / TAO LOTS 250D,2600 AND 2700,CLACKAAIAS COUNTY WADER3��9 ASSESSORS MAP 2 1E D7AC,LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 7,TOWNSHIP 2 SHEET SOUTH,RANGE 1 EAST,WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN,CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO,CLACKAMAS COUNTY,OREGON 1 / RCPA MODIFICATION: ,'„,./1%.'1':6; LEGEND / 40.27 TOTAL AREA WITi11N APPROVED AGFA BOUNDARY: ,� 1 w,a6g I RSA �r 0 a 34,663 SF± `2// - n ` is,plv, MOOfm FEN 120302wr -------- z A 00 0 r1s T.0.4 Mu 2 1100 00 a 00070 AWA rAFA �¢ latM� 'E7m?1s TEE 015 OM OR TOTAL AREA BEING REMOVED FROM APPROVED -- 7000 a x e,,,,, , l .AoKW ROMEOAS 7 � Lig AGFA BOUNDARY: 440 SFf / E4,Q�` 7np ] d] 6021MOM 0140 201. uEs: ii—1 gs 1¢° TOTAL AREA BEING ADDED TO APPROVED REPA :./..s.#4.,„..2 7F� rte)®°a'I }q�A ` 7•a B96FC0q ERpus ME _1(..)(- 1.i;1;:4;pW Q• ,Tr'' lxp# \BosAvc DEMOB TREE ,r'� Z d BOUNDARY; 440 SFf / P 395 73.5'0 ,,, �/J C15 TOTAL AREA WITHIN MODIFIED AGFA BOUNDARY' /� 00', �y,',.1' ]° 141WGAEGO 0 Co W' 34,663 SFf �- t 0` _ 79zCygs7 p�074/. AAPaeY�iSFTAX MAi 6P 7 144"E 77.47 �' 0 Q 0 100709 ` " «49F*AVAASA.. U_} a 00 • ]q}g1 IR10Fi6 RWA }xi ♦♦ XK ➢, #. O -, aia3 Geo , 7116 �, Im ° 4 04. m �J� 6y: Ci} Iex 0,1.>2,<" ng -K 7'S IBES]MA 1[�r V/ V_ W M ]94 fi TI@ y 11iO,V WOE 005 DR 4% +asw- f J o; /P' y0 .e ,# 0 gee 1n0 7n � 9ef. r /'f 'r" `g ,1E 0390 0, f .IgL051m°P �.[ / / wjp'l B R?D 4 ^¢.rB �'1¢ f1 lJ ill ==411, 0 O AFEOFET ' CEFITFED _1 2 1--Ig l/ y' OAA J Owl V 'O 6}9'a `\'V W®�� ' Q'O 5•['00 °1 '6101;"ATE MSAoa ".2- � BRUCE R BALDWIN Q / 4,:r . 618,&._ `� AA..04.1626 001/1' .1 67 3 Q5i1 / �ly��ry0°0 ,., .b/� \'` Z d 6E6fi2'/ d../ L/O 91 O Oc9]5624 fiSIV \ I1QJ 1061E ..MM" NX LOT 2E6 fib 692 O 690 0 \ LL 70 40 1 II OM 0 109 x F� O' A • 53E3[AEKIONE M W] FF9 d11 ff�� hfiW Y y YI - Q671 O6A5 V E'l 6990 O lAX I13F 2M91 J99 Iso 723 MAP P 11 o,ec O '41:3;.°6°V4-FEE 85= \\ `. SMR G0.9MG'QA ils]s(� - OQ 6% 1- 10291 GD , 670/,' 5A 6572*''065(637 653 649 6443 MI 6! PAX LOT 50.20 U \\\ .../.." 019 Aa IMO 100101@ 032 0 O 028 0 00 12.3.I 11VP 2 104/5 10 77 _ HE LCT x124 yyy"'..`e'J x 2 MRP 2 1E0 05 EO 6e 017 ,061E FAMEAT a4055NA 4,,,, ,./—..,,,,,,,,„ ,x 344 00NDMRA ITFI�7�y9��(Z) 6181 \ �_ �SOY.7 5501 KM OKK6 q1 lAX WI 3Xail 61E 6ti5 O91f 4�"s3 1p 'h H01{� • 0- ��''I1 ��yy'� }AA MAP•z IE DUE 61E " O x 41 torp-/i Y`O.fin SET 014413101 W 6 a 19 6Z�' 15 O 6 \ O 0]6)41 OA42 Q j JPE9' �� 51 •`�[J��,,`�,��V�'''��jj}}�1 i \ :AQ "@Ai [oIF°F CV'cNY 2 / 30PO , 611 O� V 60.1 r \. �" ', 1AX Lot 7.114 fAMWT OE\ 1w55 6442 H' FAY MAP 1 IF MC Q 0,9 5[0 63 190E 131 O 6 3000 am 5559 ANAL 13032 ria E➢(E6 RWA 12A LOT 2441 1004 6 6U*00,3'1',--1.-.0740030 11vG t ImAt Eel V TAA MAP1 IE 0720 6p3z �' 5111 OAfA31100 Bi 09 6]3 IY52 TAX IDI MP Y -t r -0 5025' 0.0 6u1.1, lJ 0ah TM MW 11E mu ME i w ei 1 Y154. 1 TAX IDI 4i➢1 /_; 0476. p(y�} MOW 0' 'Ex.0, 1011 0/ E]C 2 1Ek12 0A 532 MAP x IE R0.DO +�. 0 w SC" O p��A� DAR CU 10/20,5 u xmm I , \\\ TAx NC:1E E7AF v79 w6rsmNF ox 4��1 .�' RI- F,M ''4 S.V i-- \ _ Off' X yO� 5i, 'A0] ��4Cj� W f C _ / G ' _ / 1c5 LOT Pns 7 TAN MAG 11E 0760 SJi co \ �+J 2253 0406100 OE FAY s0I 1301 9 PAX 410 1 IF FAO o lc x2/u CI i L'7\ 111., MI 2 1x16 y A2%M9'E 07/44 Co) \ , MM i �-6 31$ /� 2604 405020E LK ,WB 0044000 TIE m 1x17 20 M8 I =30 PEET 3959 yy 5379 OK/ME 110 0}Ac yr 1 l n ySHEET\ 13 ]6 gErDR NoEja 'q}lTAX TM 016 2 W p £000—S L fl1 17-3 .1.191HX3 Tl PI 4$ t 9 818 ° S 3 f $ i @a$S s s 4 g 4 aQ t0a `2I € gals4 %4$ " " 9 fxzEFa ! r tl ii8E E fida!e!!9iEi€Ea E aBr ett§ MFl6B.0!IBlil81 e 'aa x. 1. _ g _ _e ¢ ze ' g"?. Vi`k '''4'-'7 8 €�a RRF FBgaS 8 FS 3 x !RBaz�'' ?f i" !� s �a Kt.m zrif0 Rill - Qg �a' � °� ac dao � ,Ig Ia t;Im UUV ' _1iII,IIh 4a e-0g iiggiOtv5J u cR €; iP $L Ra = i sl'lif!" s as. s ao li €liE s� s ,a is 0ea sigg s - s a 3O S3 8 Q ': vas oaEe;a �a.04.oz� ooamr�z 13a.. a&z,a Sa e a 3 $a��"s�e 'st iq MRtTiYYiY u+G.e IGIGGGIF=y.£: CH, 6Ia1G`GGC omg..GCs%—,......,C_...-.W--oaonao6 .-- I9 -4---Imt---..- ----mma•"— IA Ilii _°sin if!I gL th iF ga:ia(,v,iti? , q.Q s ga$$;g&mEa=_ ea % r,if tfag j.—.0 iii; aMFrilf1521fO $ ii1 !.Val1 ilii' EEMh ffilitiii, gk gig_ gad:s8+ _iiii[iiii=iif i?ivi F� as gp �� ? 7e 1 6 Er K g$„ ; a 11 1 g@g gt t p 'Ax a tir;is il4 44 i I F a, I r il ii$iiiniiiniixUixiaiiiiiiiiiixd Fz nai aniiiijimeikzia%iiii5i,sash=-iisii5"ixiiiiiiiki zaPTLi s,is I g—ig.iii iii�3�= 44gg. iiiiii A 3'.,m .diThriiiiiNgEdi��3S'�iii,:inuinill.iggggi ,?? ., . .;: in mpH i x e a 5 i S 1 _ ; ': AFSFNWRf6lPY�� LOCH SUBDIVISION ":n se • � '' MODIFIED RCPA505, w 9 a I TREE TABLE MODIFICATION PLANS TAS al5a t`- E LAKE OSWEGO OREGON ENGINEERiHG ' PLANNING - SURVEYING ® TAY Lars P2530.Ma A 2>m MGAIUS[OWN AA6SCP'5 IUP 2 IE CAC FORESTRY • LANDSCAPE ARCHRECTHAE . S 2000-9L ni S-3118IHX3 !EIEEE=M§TR9LS29 igiEEIIEEEemEEErENvfxmaZHEEEESVe ce_NREPA xcRaw..-,,P cER;6:R $PW§ 2 § j 9099^9 9 TFT ° R ,C 22,212222 9 9 ° 22 o 000099199 3 °el$J., s74 g as S ;al .Iaa. S R°.a `aa e8 2'88 - 8 aa� o 2aa�a8s - I,ff 4!:TI IgI£ g! =i TI q sTM "r9las 1 2nAila,g@ 8sgi �xgla§[xsf� Assa4, Ix, a s r;� a E Zia'1x ` g iin el g $,tiwwIw wg ;ani .t gla 1- 1. g 7 i = ;;gin;& _ x° ,. a V.VVV.. -a '4V-M- V.' " 3 .o9 I8 B k'88 'a2 i. ° .a8 '8v�,d88� 8O ' S cll'U'vo-sa �a F."888 8 _$ss 0 g8$,r3 iS 3g ao V5E 1 la ail;I8 g 8 ' ss I i i g PEI IIIA MSF I W a : 4a s a 162 2E o2'. 6ii lgE0:1132 io61, s i;1 21/81 0�agaaasa 80t , g_ Isal 3 aelUsew 7H,i5Reie AlJlmPOM a rc mt G.+W a^.c,m ., NSIttl„SRV,IG., ., o6',/.n em,m _i „�P ma EUri a se z: fiV mE�agei . - M F. = 8 ___a'6. -.--8&° 89 � �.�I �B�o - � -'E, �'e _ w.8 8„ .&e _ Al g- _--- _--a$$, $a 9a$s_av 8aaaa�$ o -nag$ = ��v '-$g -'&a ka='���8=- �° - e. illi -8g 1 "$elOi JBIELEq, "11[ aEga S :8 a $ :4'44224'=ll°ge_ I '1 "[HiVg" 1 ss$ 7"i13gaa _ 1 g : a, s 31 s x� 9 6a� z8s $� ..:t. ,r� q_ m "' 3 i$ a 'g -i 31 i 2J �a S $ g e a �g:l ac _irs € 1x3 aha s IP c .i v g .,' ag a F1nE. I x "aa .. .,— ;11 a g=� a 3f 3y ;A nl - 94 Pl 2. E 3 '�5F 3 a i R 8 aq 5 2. I� r o G aI 3EA aaagg"ag� aagiE gaga0aaEaam aaaa:as"aaaslaaa4aaaaAa Eagacnara ca"sa anoagaaaBaaamaa m p is as M s 9cl9g y-95.09. 20 g9 :a :°999 R { p9 Sss9 q9 ° o s,¢ =$s=1gaaaasaasassggxasa�s�i a°aa�� � sa 9esa°�aa �aa� �: 8'$g gF, ea x;0 13ielif lillhU$ linia3sSas :NillU a a 8 �exeaogs{a ar8a y f f, bfPP HIINi8i S 5 E:i59 9P�EQPx'P9 EA3g°c Sg3 �sas - a a a xi_ & 8i y98Pg Qg"E x,xx _ as g,,,_s$ S''P $ 1 iNIm plt521110 ea:d 1 A 3i,a us€s€a V.4 lg §a; ggia ° 1 mg �ao lh l€. FEli OseEOeN ! e K • Ey sla g ''i21fl000lofla laiiiji¢$iia a"s36wailas'dcssaitlits i3l,e i' ll RIf g314..s s� a3 ? 8899. Cnlm8l9890889899C8#9889w8 i8Smm---. Y3Nu.mn 99 9y,.,, e.,-w Ce;pmmNavGGm .,.6"SImu�GmL,emGGeM-- mGG s a-l4,sls�lea$aami aaa€laa 'gl�gu:miaaalmin 4',o-=E";o88a a ,4�masaa4 Iilo4 aaala Ontl € a _ =lesalaa=._ .eaaaoP -Isp..'s_''aa"44&"2422"m, _6�: a"g8`g4:g:.. as's_"al l_aas"e nags 2322€$ 2 I a - if a TA ��3 3 a 8§ 33 a . $ 4 09 "1.,;-: 5,1;!IYN a x99 a ' a gQ5 s = $a § i s 5 $ grt a n& a .“; o a i 6 $gl G$ a F8$-la R “ft 7. c 3 R a.s 8 ,s g s a 3 R $-. E - �r. 9 - cd a 's z a 1 3 m m zg e : I� --eT -„n %k 9iE s i 8e "8 Y 9 lg ml iiii1IIIlSI 333I3I AiSagH3iiSilild UMHI Ileh. .: i1 HI5AM- P 3(I:: LOCH SUBDIVISION EMENoMEM,us E PRELIMINARY DETAILED ''Nw�x,'F"' AKS m �_ 1 I MODIFICATION PLANS F e� l TREE INVENTORY TABLE mm meg ' LAKE OSWEGO OREGON ENOINEER3NO PLANNING • R RVEYING !a 9 i 9 g; TAY L0TS 2506,2660,k$00 0/4.25 MOM 9059 GA3 MOP 2 IE On FORESTRY . LANDSCAPE ARCI;NECTNNE us Pxnwc NIL EEEF NPs macmwi-EnUSTNEr,I.urmT--.WRAP w PEA s 9 «� �EgsaGN � si � N aN Pr . � 1 01 1 3 e� ve L fg qg,511?ff f ea.22,it 8€gT,gi sE bfat 0 111 m 7.1 i ye .R TA.?, a 'SHa� s� a piss �'' 0 gpia z,-mg h a l z ,l;gise;as e,,4 $aa3a_$a L s a v ";A5 3 gP paE it ldii z �@ ffi c1 a N �N So 33 I0 mN,,E+,.,- eS e. .1.1 1GIGKII� ..-N, GG,o.d a-, .w '^ ,n6-.fSCab .:2z1-lzz;a.::t :,.““iu?,1?., .ar e .e:z:zzz �c- e_FIIM: a_lti 1f ,,3 i2Y'.^"e-1 .. .. Li Epee EH1-” = a ,T ': :3Egiill fF'�oe'i.1 �'u i H 44444 aa4agasa a :T Ti 3 43t ..a a ._at4-44. n' 0 444 4441i6xe'N1-I^3+ag 'a 4 1 - ---- I __ ---- �. "R sa eg ?“• A gprn.`a R$ER7 _ssssa9E kk • 1iilqiViir iingala12al lii irNII . isozz s. a Y t 9, iEAKç LOCH PRELIMINARY DETAILED MODIFICATION PLANS �,-m9,m • L` c LAKE OSWEGO OREGON ENGINEERING PLANNING - SURVEYING a-§ 149 LES LEM 26G0 5 210E a.,CCUNIY A55ES2.CF'S INP 2 IE 0710 FORESTRY . LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE r-- 9 9 +c n n ]YLO 31 L dill iYl _ Wiz DA An 1 HS 'oar 0E 4,I 3TY1S 5YL0 31 t 421 all / \\� 6 I+ 210103 III / 6S6£ 321,01311 L d 0{Nl f tl3AlYbk A01' 1112101311 co s51` ill O u° a' �r`���0� ��» } S CyO�O ` f Imo— O CO uo O ��y r r*! I 64/� ones31T 100lw Im110.01 . � J" ]� -1 r •`• D1G2101 vel rmtlt3s wxL `famaJ A 345.04 � 21212133031n .! " - ~ ¢ti_t""' 2— , .10.311 201¢0.00 sr A am 10. 110 P. l \ � C'... .¢ P 1If31E;,Y3 3Y1MY00 ialf q,,c \ LJ •. 1,j 212235 WA M3tl 4N , \ $ _ 5ia1A!• Hams=Ydffi'$ N. .= 1\ lS SM3i WL031101211 \ 3^ sIR 1PVYd)tl Y . OYfL ia7 OYl 1T1� • lYMNO \1� pg1 £^Y'g Orr L ' 12012Ve 1 \ 211*` 9'Y / 3Y10 31 Z 11x1 0.1 yl21.3s.rl / •`L '----N, NC 111 rn1 Z Z 1211[1 20041 5L X ',Y]fm35 [7,-,,..e..,,,* 7YL0 31 L titin NYl l� T X�Y�. 2114 f51p]� L7 y ' 201 1111131 / love 3$122. /'1.� iS 'S# 9 131122 - -I- 1,sT �' - \ Mt 0g1 ,p S 0", 031 J, .yy 'V au111m ri -- 64 \P,C -05 0 .cep mars �" %j �' V., ' tiY#y P '4 17 r3aY x31 i 'Q \ .s urns -01,/ �1 ___ ,o' --- 4 4r \ tri ` �:1 tr y.pl. ., .� - fibs ,a� ,d ',4?* �' \ \ Q YAtl$ \\ 60i1 0 �""1Ik. \ '1'".t AYA 4 Al �feozonic >.A ]YC0312 MI Xn 1 f - ,S' Cf m101,e 03 it r/ ,. ♦ 7" ,,,,,94.1- mrA 4bNf s ❑_ Y.// 32111(211 /• C xhX,„C II. 'Sly '.o 1 JJ \ \ �, p '�1 . 9Yt031 S an Al � 016"x, .A a, / 0 co1Pl NO 141 XVI ,d(1\ 'Y'" 4 SF 0 ® 1 L !iT-4s �pSAs / �x�,x PEW'S IP � V! L\ 4YYA 30h'AL \ +j6 4 1 F'�n'J4v , Vm Z reel LYId301M31dV[N39mM'iliL13123➢W!1A1L141238 N \ •\ / p �z$ v0 •;+` \ ]210 11 1 13 0 OF 9¢� 4 Mt lir AY1 j/ s 9.d45v Si;I 3.1d.11GOLN1 4113 Iit,CL2LI pp 8f I Y7 I w& 21 1 12. d13,02. 210I 0101 I)3.OL51 311111 13 / I /r L v :8 GAIR 125[Ms I;11-01 1 00.1.11 POs[ W / 1/21 LLSSCYNs 13111 I,IYALY.1 3000 I u 40K I 1115031 rlvb 1 sua.1111 / g Zig TS.Ann L P yt A Wp PLANNED DEWPLOPIAENT OVFRI AY TABI F. he 1,1 i z a. am51w3.sumnm-15 inn l_ _ 91x6xW v ..e 1�so s y' LmOimenskEE °d g 55 MMWnwn Area 4,5 1.100 r ±1.239 I Del 1-THE[KIM LOT NEA FOA LM 3 003 8.119 SF n 41.5441,4 0514 MI 1 6100 I +wr a i ' Moxlmen.30.18 rvegAl(Pi 1 I Mel p� $ . ullv7M0: Ze' I 2 .^:x,,., !rum!u1 u s • t5s v'F Goraaelhl NA 504 �.8 8 1 i N RNrr 1. SISrst We UV �srs 01 -RE OI6LMN REAR s]AAO(100 LOT 3 WAS 362 j.i5Jg.1 IE. Eoi1Sde{la Min, 10 Me0 se#mee 5ewo.STamfif1.• 11/7o•z11/7o• 11Y. IS 01 Z seeAWmrmiNiA1N,5Rycn3Wm.sna010 ,.5. I Side.e;mml to 4,0411.,4lm11 OM 15 ry 15 9 NA' NA �/� ,O . _. . - - — .. . . .. —— Mar;mem UL z56 I MotLU- -nr flax Area: Q 4 0 • Mexmr••LIAR L,4M I 3,566 I Met I-THE SSW/WAC FLOOR AREA FOR IDI 3 VAS 0,010 SF ..—IO g CI • .. .nrl. , .r.. ml "' n n TS r .vsaaN h nen ,.r nee .e. ,.8 .n��...,, O 'I • 4 3r1 N O W ® p o • J M g Qs JA 0 LLJ ..:y .. 1019-51x'6oil 0-TlLot k .y H W - L .e re [r...„2,2., IE SWNAN =vox±i enu q rot rane.l < Z m 1 • 04d15Arm WI 1,91 I �,72M1 j-11IE 000400 LOT 0000 ILP LOT 1 WAS 6.204 S —I I-U Q 004Oavm 111-••1 NA I .A I NA ,..0..,,,,,NW/Jr] 50 I 30.14 I • a r - - .r 004345mYeOmn Rs1A1pY. [ I ON I Mel >'A�.. 0- } F.,,,,,,,,,Ym11 A nrt 'CZ CarovOIN•"••1 z LLJ �. nan_(1)21 3'0 s Nn (c roan 141/Ill Tote 95,s AM -TIE[OND IHBIN SR 7)507 FLP LRT 0 WAS 451 > Lu I 50010 Side(MI MI. Ates -If ipso._SONH SCE SL6A91 F6 0014 WS 41 W I siii,rs.sosseal o.lfrei Is IS 0 in .. Ede Aaloeemr mArt.4VC.Oe[fw 1N.ni 1/11 10 I NA Lex J SMe AAjeaeM le 4m*rFm1611, is NA NA LIJ - 00±4±1:00(81 1519 1z,340•r••„.I 1001 II (L - - ..•.. Moeinrusll �FO•••'••••I 3.710 I 741 I-1IK Q'®Ilr1 YAM 0000 Agi'A Rs TOT 9 WAS 3,692 Y • •NWLYFS A M[WFl0A1M1 IS9121 PLARNO DE1flDRhAT 05010/2 STMOARPS NOTES: wm 801 i 5E515 1, I&1 ••ASSla8.5 A NAT L01 1.STAMM/AWES P00511Fll ARE BASED B16 STMWNI - 05 6tliED ••RAC-LSI SET AREA LOCCLLKE9 PRIMATE 00679 024±0Ali(NAE POOR-15 LAI R 6 6R 661 5051.001-I MOOR ''0111 01/10/2011 MF RAE LOT Si UM%LIMED N TOO%LUN. 58 0.0 305ED LII 606041[01ASSET(E6 MUMMY 9/00100901 RUNS.5101 5) 1 ALL Y730411 ll5h4106E AS 910001 LN INE l•: 9 • 0010010 0ASRm 4901 i✓E ISRF Of TOR ROME 31)14 0154N01T. PAfl3611ARY PUT t ti; I Y .mw PER61YIA6 0f MOM.IAT AREA 3 MUCK ROE NBT PRET OF VOUSID0N R` y`r' 0••99'9 M Aet 6 1K YM ALLOWABLE LOT EOYEPA6 FOR IOTA.9110171,110 0(FOSSPI -1. y 111 WET 6446±011 AREA[061.111 0] . { 9.99006 CAMIL1A1105.am0 s e I(ulu.0±1444-1.00±7),018] M xm�A. i I Ammo.600 St 061619 FOR WE�EIY 00 11015 00 61(104 A GRAR,5±3<•6 14016 50±1001 NOM M 1)001 NEA FOR AN 1UIWVN LOT 15 410.010 ID MEM 110±41±10(1 D 00±1030.M LONG A5 0E 10TN RAF AREA FOR CANE in DOES ROT MEM TE(41016/100 ASSEGAIS FLOOR MEA PER LOC 9302001.0 DIL1 II Y JCS!MU 8 3959 SKEET C. 7 i / �� A ,r /1645 V. a . W a+{ p- Aeo Pn?Tu Tai r, E ACu �_ 4 7 • Z A. - / FACIA".SLA ll ; J i p �- - -0" / A I a 7� t r _ O iAv car woo g,.-;„€i 9 1 MP 11€6]f 5 @a.i _ I I I / (� � 6:SMIIk OMS OR �8 �i w� w. 14 4 'r, r - 0 PE 1[M roll 1LL 170EFN 1251.52 NW EIIS1WG C "i* 1 i s_..14 i,, �EEs.TO ariuN+AvraovrzA,L rlsuafs nu RE rumr To I5 z y o 12 ' Y 4. r I wars o+1w 040ancim 0+0i0,r,,,.Ot 1 / = �0 14792.2 017-1141.41011701 E5120.50, x91 Zy • QW _ NQS;' Q 3 '� Z Cl? y,{i Z I.,F''+'�TCT.aE r.�&..IL 1,,'T �' O 0 0a \ \ J Q 441 70'1 00 4 / CID N,_ f O0Pa;Q 16219 19{1 oaxs m \4. Z / m Nom, `�,�t f S ....rgw.,I V D 4 `0'01 V �i f 3\ FH TAN�M e,!•�: \8,3 - .� Q Q f \ I _0!I&HWE Y4 — N U CO ti-*�AA� \ A ;� <jyf� ' AD ' r W s. G, ', p.�s0 ,0255mire1425LW TAX LOT OM \ O . . A "L 0 Q pa NArzlE mu (6 o \O0 �a �: AM 16,9 6 , -0 . 6'A LA�'� '1 ''f� 0 0' —p 1267 �coss oR �� 7 0 O o@. 0 - ..a�' " 4 Z a 6 . O O o \ 51AAP 2.65.5101If Y b IXIICT� V Ll.l 5225 MAP 2 2 0.2 DA 1715 2411 4 0 SlA , 0 rAMlo.aw 0 j.a cop O — o 0 0 U * (ID +; 0 "J'# 1-5 •`' TAS LOr:OW S z Ili1 0 0 0 • r9 NwzlE mu s Z L.L Tar 2211 9.15 ,Nd 0 O 162216E OMS D6 5571 9692.22425 bR0 \O O - \ ,AM La,zazo B O ,•'CL 0 O J SM5 gE Lrr... 0,'� 0 o -.,eco 0 0 oc 1 F ,,0a . � cc 0 W IAMIYAPLOT IF e�4S 0 - 0. euE ,,O 5559 ROYAL 6565 99. 0 TA LOT 012, TOM MAP 21507AL S. ' //-.�.. .. ,.(.� ' m.,x ar SI 5311 110510X1 69 /%! 0.'...'", (l" IAM 001'@W amm m. 191 0 _ 100 NAP 2 10 UAL s 1p�p.i -'J - OAIELS/1015 I-- IA5 UN ND PANTV 2911 MIP 1 IF 2 t�`SA" Y • \55 L ' 1 IA%NAP 1 IE OAS 5319 dEvSrOKf MR J ��^**,�`t , T-' I C X 9 212224.2 ar Y i� a a —I AhR Pmn o m \\\ CO 4,1 1413 959 2.652.12E ri£52510E will s5MLE Th 20317129E NE2 AE N 3g�g 551C6061EOL 11 E. A'I0]136x3 it 1 I1[1095 , IS 5.2176 60 COOL 11 AE 10-r0'T19AELV5 1.5 ACL61MWA117112 0112921 M61L0L SCAM r"_ 51IEET HL5AI1 ns I.6.32 ITS 5250E 101025(1 AREA FALLS SMELT 11164TM PAI@ s'.246 Io o 22 IR 24 o2 IA Up .,. „ . ------_____L_________I L_____ ___________t_. _____ ___ -----7 � 1 SW BONITA RD I 1 1 Q I I,illk ------: i 1 Q4. _______! ! 1 _______ T ,. dr SW LANGFORD LN ef I 1 1 i 1 1 i % kitir01PAL, dkl?,64 i 11 , �� 0,,1•1P T 411,41,10. .,),1/4 pP 0 it 11111 v BURMA RD Q`oyP Tipp VS' PROJECT n ,� SITE 10 I TAX LOTS THAT HAVE A 6-FOOT TALL FENCE ALONG CARMAN DRIVE DATE:02-10-2015 CARMAN DRIVE PROPERTIES WITH 6-FOOT TALL FENCE EXHIBIT A AKS ENGINEERING & FORESTRY, LLC 12965 SW HERMAN RD SUITE EXHIBIT E-8 NOT TO SCALE TUALATIN, OR 97062 www.aks-eng LU 15-0003 PHONE: 503.563.6151 FAX: 503,563, iu DWG:3959 COVER-ADJUST 18.5911 Tl MAP RIGHT—OF—WAY CARMAN DRIVE 1 1 T7--- t45' f2'- 10' --- 6' I . X12` { � _ 'f_ 8"_12� ''- Ar MEANDERING SIDEWALK STORMWATER DRAINAGE SWALE PLANNED FENCE ! 1 LOCA110N FINISHED GRADE OF LOTS TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION ALONG CARMAN DRIVE FRONTAGE NOT TO SCALE DATE:02-10-2015 • CARMAN DRIVE FRONTAGE TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION 1EXHIBITR AKS ENGINEERING & FORESTRY, LLC 12965 SW HERMAN RD SUITE EXHIBIT E-9 TUALATIN, OR 97062 www.aks—eng LU 15-0003 PHONE: 503.563.6151 FAX: 503,563 11 DWG:3959 FENCE 18.5911 9-SECT. N r ` //j��" so .�,1 28 f 77 /.1.,..,... ir,. --,r,.„*„„,,i r..q6 / •r° /,,7 7/1 ,,,,,,,,,,,, (1,tor or:9., 11 11 �f ifs / ;1/4".'4/ ' :� }1 ,1724 j� / Lia72 TAX LOT 4600 y / .n l 10726 TAX MAP 2 1E 07AC Y1 J'q@ } 3 7 4 10727 ` 1 f // `tib 1� .,•,///',.. s ' `ti'1, 743 1 1 o / / vr; ; 3 � � /:: ? 9 \L::..:\ \ ` f:/e4:`,„:4:1474:5:1,7/4111)/7„,;/1.::.,:.2..;.41:/ /r "//' / 760 /i \ \ / / Y, 35 \ /� !/ ` �,/ / �/�9 j id, 1' >aD 7 �7 >34 ` TAX LOT 470i} \ .11//', '767. a- 1 #f3< `\ TAX MAP 2 tE 07AC 4 g•) -',-.4','"1")'"' fd! dy "/".":" ,, '` / 1 TP4RARY ` r t. y ..,.!°_,:2416P9,,7_?-5- , `i �7 S- f/l��/ f f/ti ,,,,,•; ., ,,.,' ' �. ',// �f AT rd oLE r i' L fl Fl 23 ...--"-----7---'-\\\\''"--<:---r:2-----------------"--- \ -1_,;---,..,--X.,roeitr4Sf.t, s ipe . Is`k\c"?' '..;\k ...3 _-,;:e„..--",",.'.. i'.,K=:-/, /mss ` .i 4FCAa°` r sj�0� -�ji�� �' // �� .44.V.1*.fm, �'-`��a ,,,, cs'C�"�yc�- 1 \,,,,.! /rs�- � 241 vi 1.." 72a / !' O � � ��,' ; 001;.' l 721 / " f��! i'' ,� r `�' �i�' -'� d i• ...2c.., >1- 71E3/ TAX T 4800 s '�` �/ �i i / �\\ f ` as ;i5 k\ MAPLo2 TE 07A oi •t`4 fir ��5�.✓ •rte a90 ' 1 Y 'O; t \ --\ \ 1`',�a 71 .::78°6-7:1121:4 j ,i., s. . 103'8 • r t,,,_..e..;;., _____ \ ,,:;,.71:-.;,446%.1, 7rr., .,_,Ir0„. (9—''''' \ \ -- - -----mi..,— 11.---. ....----..------- ' 7\ 4 a 1 O ' ,4,,,,,.,- ! 5 � 7i0 7OT 7005 O //f `\ \,.. 5;''' _____:::,\::.-:4--, r: Q 70? 70'3 0 \ \ *799. `den,' \ \ �. \ ,Ah \ t J n3� f��o / „ ?c�8 / 7aR r. M _ -I i1' II / // r ,_1•1•_1•_1•.__— �-`T- ,,� +�— ' // / c., q f / / I. C7 l f / / • ww H I Ntu I,E4ImI -- — ' 1 ! i c, I new I 16a'n'I N,tE I s,oryE's>r all' T le 1 MX I I3103T 110,121 E 7 ! ! rs ssm' I�cx• In,r SLOT I zrire I.5.5,5 rl�j //i •/ 1 II1} 1 /11 i -at' Y.09 I[pll 1 1 1•1•,_1•1• rf / sv -so 3 - 5 \ NOTE: r 0L94C5 WPVN� WE01 FOP B Y1T • �r 3 1 St 4 ^\ mWEPO / d \� 1 Z . fJ 2$ /`� `\ 141193 ^ \ \\ \ v As r \ = cn 84 ti 10 ‘,$,C.1,-' - Y.OnP 2 V 072.0 � /' LJ 0 1 Y\[�\- 3 E Ips[ ---"" ' r"/la...kw :/ 2 to,�F: 4 , lye /2121 `\ �, W V ' sw-a.s. ;1:051 -s,- �i 4 / { 212121 LI `j .T x 4.0 " \ \ \ [n N$ ` / 310101 a ..''�/`, ,,,_,4 ‘,...,-.7\4„.,:„., NJ/OF w0 .^`\ '.' f runes-21+21. 4\ t 'IT�&r-re+m 'a �l\,_, ., w Y.w a,c DAC ,�9.. \ � MEM. 4" j /J/ J \ l `.. \11I 3 y , G,..` .\ •, "�i4,\ / Gw.a, g' 4 r / /-�3 / \f ' ;' s[reYaS , - `,---"' .-----. ' '•-,,\Ire':30:: ,:/.1-111;1 111:1 511;401\;:411%.:37.:,•>/....\1,21" 61'DA CI Z vvtrt o1,c 0,� xy'4-•yi 1 55.2n �,, XS A 'k .fir, 1015_..- \ KVz I€01210 +,\ V .Pf IMO SOWN Cr 0 coD tAX MO 2 1E Ng .�• I.i.01 2.120 i..r.t Q �1I'� I \. \\\\\ -,--"''''''''. IIl ma-2,e GM. „4,21 W s F142.mamvenav 1�/iEhY g, \ \ •-•<•:----------;\< � .Vm ILAk OM VW. I •\•t OWiMNF comer F,dy •. > , al0 f4 1' '\ I :suenp 9f • ita1Wp {E ENG \ ✓WAY IQter �T ���� .�'` { WE.01J10/�2010 A51f11f➢ `` /5'0[42. ) S 900 UK LOl 3450 // ` •`� 1•x01 \ �\ % WIN.°° 1w 11w s If 0rw /f � /+. �" °° yT a V.- � G � 07 \✓ °R AS _ d/6fG < 22.669 51" 3 r �' /c f/ �' 1.04`,- IP.. S' U .-- `\ x \ NO 11 3,19 R 959 ..„-.4c.,,,'- 'l -1 -" ,.5[WP 2 I 012.0 \ AB MW@EA �. 1�.= \\ w P �I 38 inc 0141 IE OW ' .N. , .� 902.18 1'.90 MET SrlE�f g t/ Y /• /f'F 1.,0107241 S '...� j' y 7JY IMP z 1f O)AG ` 14 MINOR MODIFICATION AND MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR THE LOCH SUBDIVISION DATE: February 2015 SUBMITTED TO: City of Lake Oswego Planning Department 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 APPLICANT: Michael J. and Susan N. Foote 764 10th Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 ALICS ENGINEERING&FORESTRY 12965 SW Herman Road, Suite 100 Tualatin, OR 97062 R E °E" t-E u CD P: (503) 563-6151 m F: (503) 563-6152r 2 www.aks-eng.com FEB 2 1,� w - City a`I L6w Community Development Dept. MINOR MODIFICATION AND MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR THE LOCH SUBDIVISION SUBMITTED TO: City of Lake Oswego Planning Department 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 OWNER: 1KLR Investments-Carman, LLC Attn:Steve Lommen 850 NE 122nd Avenue Portland, OR 97230 APPLICANT: Michael J. and Susan N. Foote 764 10th Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 APPLICANT'S AKS Engineering& Forestry, LLC CONSULTANT: 12965 SW Herman Road, Suite 100 Tualatin, OR 97062 Contact(s): Monty Hurley (nonty@aks-eng.com) Chris Goodell (chrisg@aks-eng.com) Phone: (503) 563-6151 Fax: (503) 563-6152 Web: www.aks-eng.com SITE LOCATION: 5316-5324-5362 Carman Drive ASSESSOR'S INFORMATION: Clackamas County-21E07AC Tax Lots 2500, 2600, and 2700 SITE SIZE: +1-2.15 acres ZONING: R-7.5 (Residential) AK( MINOR MODIFICATION AND MINOR VARIANCE FEBRUARY 2015 LOCH SUBDIVISION-CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 16 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Loch Subdivision was approved by the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission on September 15'2014 through City File LU-14-0034-1856. (Currently,the project is in the City's construction plan review process.) The land use application included approval for a 9-Lot Planned Development Subdivision with a Resource Conservation Protection Area (RCPA) Determination to protect a large grove of trees located on the site. In addition to the creation of a substantially sized tract set aside for the RCPA,the site design (including project infrastructure and customized building footprints) was tailored to avoid and retain a number of large trees located on-site(but outside of the RCPA) and minimize and avoid impacts to several trees located off-site (primarily located in the Carman Drive right-of-way), but in proximity to the site. During the review of the application, staff identified additional measures deemed necessary for the protection of a tree located off-site within the Waluga Park-West property adjacent to Lot 9 of the Loch Subdivision. The additional protection measures resulted in a condition of approval requiring an additional setback for Lot 9 from the Waluga Park-West property (10 foot setback instead of a 5 foot setback). Although the purpose of the condition is understood, it creates impacts to the planned future home footprint that was specifically adapted to Lot 9 on this highly constrained property. In order to accommodate the additional setback required by the condition of approval described above, the applicant is submitting this application for a Minor Modification to the RCPA adjacent to Lot 9. This modification is illustrated on the updated preliminary plans that are included with this application. Even though the requested adjustment to the RCPA adjacent to Lot 9 would only reduce the size of the RCPA by+/-440 square feet (a de minimis amount), the commensurate amount of area is being added back to the RCPA from Lot 3. In addition,the application also includes"flip-flopping"the previously proposed 10 foot side yard setback for Lot 9 along the adjusted RCPA boundary with the five-foot side yard setback previously proposed adjacent to the Waluga Park-West property. The planned adjustment to the lot dimensions/area of Lot 9 and the RCPA, along with the flip-flopped side yard setbacks, will allow for the additional tree preservation measures called for in the conditions of approval,while still permitting the originally planned building footprint to be realized. Similar to the situation with Lot 9, the planned building footprint for Lot 3 was also designed specifically for this lot (and to avoid impacts to existing large trees in the adjacent Carman Drive right-of-way), with an internal rear yard setback of 30-feet provided. The adjusted area (and setbacks) resulting from the increased size of the RCPA (and decreased size of Lot 3) creates a minor encroachment into the planned future building pad for Lot 3. Therefore,this application includes a request to modify the previously proposed 30-foot rear yard setback with a 25-foot rear yard setback. This setback is internal to the project, does not affect privacy to any adjacent property, and is the minimum amount necessary to achieve the meticulously planned building footprint for Lot 3,while avoiding impacts to the aforementioned trees along Carman Drive. In addition to the above,the applicant has given further thought to screening, buffering, and privacy for the future homes located on the lots planned to front along Carman Drive (Lots 1 through 3). In consideration of the existing volume and speed of vehicular traffic as well as the vertical elevation of the roadway in relation to the property,the applicant will be seeking a permit to install a six-foot tall privacy fence along the lots fronting on Carman Drive. Because these yards front on a public street, a fence with a maximum height of only four-feet can be placed here. It should be noted that this is a typical approach to provide appropriate screening and privacy along busy roadways, as is evidenced by similar fences (six- foot tall) being located along Carman Drive on the adjacent properties on either side of the subject site. Therefore, a minor variance to allow a six-foot tall fence in this location (consistent with the adjacent properties) is also sought through this application. AI( MINOR MODIFICATION AND MINOR VARIANCE FEBRUARY 2015 LOCH SUBDIVISION-CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PAGE 2 OF 1 S 17 II. DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION This application consists of the required City application fees, City application form,written narrative, plans, reduced size plans, mailing labels and other necessary information. This application has been prepared pursuant to direction provided at the Pre-Application Conference and subsequent discussions with City staff. All information specified on the submittal checklist is included. III. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 50 -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE The following Articles of the City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code (LOC) have been identified by City staff at a recent pre-application meeting as being applicable to this application. In order to conserve paper and for the sake of brevity, only those Articles that are related to the application are addressed. CHAPTER 50 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE LOC 50.02 BASE ZONING DISTRICTS LOC 50.02.001.1 Residential Low Density Zones LOC 50.04 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS LOC 50.04.001.1 Residential Low Density Zones LOC 50.05 OVERLAY AND DESIGN DISTRICTS LOC 50.05,010.5b RC District Protection Area LOC 50.06 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LOC 50.06.004.2 Fences LOC 50.07 REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES LOC 50.07.007.4 Planned Development Overlay LOC 50.08 Adjustments,Alternatives. and Variances LOC 50.08.002. Variance Standards LOC 50.08.002.3 Classification of Variances CHAPTER 50 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE LOC 50.02 BASE ZONING DISTRICTS LOC 50.02.001 Residential Districts 1. Residential-Low Density Zones AKSMINOR MODIFICATION AND MINOR VARIANCE FEBRUARY 201 5 LOCH SUBDIVISION-CITY OF LAKE OSwEGO PAGE 3 OF 18 18 a. Districts The residential-low density zone districts are R-15,Rio, and R-7.5. b. Purpose To provide lands for single-family residential development with densities ranging from two to five dwelling units per gross acre. Response: Consistent with the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map,the property is designated R-7.5. LOC 50.04 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS LOC 50.04.001 Dimensional Table TABLE 50.04.001-1:RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONES DIMENSIONS Comments/Additional R-7.5 R-W R-15 Standards DENSITY 1- 50.04.001.1.b MinimumW 80%ofmax 80%of max 80%of max Maximum(units/acre) fzj MIN.COT DIMENSIONS(3) 50.04,001.1.c Area(sq.ft.) 7,500 10,000 15,000 Width(ft.) 50 65 80 Except PD L31 Depth(ft.) — — — Response: The above table shows the R-7.5 Zoning District dimensional standards. These are the base zone standards that were modified through the Planned Development Overlay approval of the original application. Lot 3 Based on the original application, lot 3 was approved to be+1-8,179 square feet.The requested adjustment to the RCPA reduces the approved size of lot 3 to+/-7,739 square feet,which still exceeds the minimum lot area of the underlying R-7.5 Zoning District. Lot 9 Lot 9 of the original decision was approved to be+1-6,284 square feet.The requested adjustment to the RCPA increases Lot 9 to +/-6,724 square feet, which is still below the base zone standard, however,the requested modification to adjust the boundary of the RCPA, is to allow the same building footprint of the original application while maintaining the required 10-foot south side yard setback(property line abutting Waluga Park). ,01(5MINOR MODIFICATION AND MINOR VARIANCE FEBRUARY 201 5 LOCH SUBDIVISION—CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PAGE 4 OF 1 8 19 MAX.FLOOR AREA 50,04.001.1.d Base Calculation: Additional floor area allowance per residential unit providing 3,000 sq.ft.+((actual lot size—5,800 a garage(sq.ft.) r- sq.ft.)x 0,19] 600 750 1 850 Response: The above table shows the allowed "Maximum Floor Area"for lots within the R-7.5 Zoning District.The original application was approved based on Lot 3 having a maximum floor area of 4,052 square feet. Lot 9 was approved with a maximum floor area of 3,692 square feet. Lot 3 The requested modification to the RCPA will decrease the size of the lot 3 to+/-7,739 square feet. Based on how maximum floor area is calculated,the maximum floor area allowed for lot 3 is now 3,968 square feet, which is met. Please see sheet 7 of the preliminary plan set for individual lot details. Lot 9 The requested modification to the RCPA will increase the size of the lot 9 to+1-6,724 square feet. Based on how maximum floor area is calculated,the maximum floor area allowed for lot 9 is now 3,776 square feet, which is met. Please see sheet 7 of the preliminary plan set for individual lot details. YARD SMACKS R•7.5 50.04.001.1.e Primary Structure Front(ft.) 25 25 25 Side Adjacent to Street(ft.) Arteria!/Collector 20 20 20 Local 1 IF 15 15 Interior Side(ft.) Total 15,5 min. 10 10 Rear(ft.) 30 30 30 Response: The above table shows the R-7.5 Zoning District's setback requirements,which were modified through the Planned Development Overlay approval of the original application. The only lots affected by the requested modification are Lots 3 and 9. Lot 3 The newly configured RCPA decreases the originally approved rear yard setback of Lot 3 from 30-feet to 25-feet. No other setback standards approved by the original decision are affected by the requested modification. Lot 9 The newly configured RCPA increases the square footage of lot 9 in order to adjust the building pad of lot 9 to accommodate the required 10-foot side yard setback along the property line of the abutting Waluga Park. However,the requested modification will reduce the northern side yard setback from 10- feet to five-feet, which is still within the allowable side yard setback standards of the R-7.5 Zoning AKRMINOR MODIFICATION AND MINOR VARIANCE FEBRUARY 201 5 LOCH SUBDIVISION—CITY OF LAKE OSWEGD PAGE 5 OF 18 20 District. TABLE 50.04.001-1:RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONES DIMENSIONS Comments/Additional R-7.5 R-10 R-15 Standards DENSITY 50.04.001.1.b Minimum W 80%of max 80%of max 80%of max Maximum(units/acre) 1.2j Lai Response: The planned density for the Loch Subdivision/Planned Development will not change as a result of the requested modification. LOC 50.05 Overlay and Desitin Districts LOC 50.05.010 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts LOC 50.05.010.5b Standards Applicable to RC Districts iii.Except as provided in subsection 5.b.iv of this section, the location of the protection area shall be based upon the following criteria: (1)The protection area shall link to other RP or RC lands on the development site and on abutting properties, if such lands are present; Response: The requested modifications to the RCPA approved in conjunction with the Loch Subdivision include minor adjustments to the edge of the RCPA in two areas. The requested modification involves a+/- 440-square foot reduction to the RCPA along the northwesterly side of Lot 9 and a+/-440-square foot addition to the RCPA along the southeasterly side of Lot 3. The previously approved RCPA is located adjacent to RC lands on the abutting properties to the south (Waluga Park—West). The requested adjustments to the edge of the RCPA will not affect the link provided to the adjacent RC lands on Waluga Park-West. (2)The trees having diameter at breast height(DBH) width greater than the median DBH within an RC district shall be included in the protection area; Response: The requested modification removes tree#630 (an 11-inch DBH Oregon White Oak in poor condition) and tree#635 (a 7-inch DBH Oregon White Oak in fair condition)from the RCPA on the north side of Lot 9. Tree number#723 (a 13-inch DBH Oregon Ash in good condition)will be added to the RCPA on the south side of Lot 3.The median DBH of the trees in the previously approved RCPA is 11 inches. With the modifications,the median DBH of the trees in the modified RCPA will be 13 inches. The requested modifications to the RCPA will increase the median DBH of trees within the RCPA. (3)The location of the protection area shall be designed to protect development from blowdown hazards; Response: Most of the trees in the RCPA are "stand grown"trees, meaning they developed in a stand environment and typically have stability properties that differ from "open grown"trees. Stand grown trees AK MINOR MODIFICATION AND MINOR VARIANCE FEBRUARY 201 5 LOCH SUBDIVISION—CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PAGE 6 OF 18 21 typically do not perform well as individuals,and are prone to failure and decline when adjacent trees are removed. A clustered configuration helps to maintain the natural protected configuration of stand grown trees,which minimizes blowdown hazards. The requested modifications to the RCPA will maintain the clustered configuration of the approved RCPA,which will continue to help protect the development from blowdown hazards.Additionally,the RCPA is located in the southern portion of the site adjacent to, and abutting,the Waluga Park—West RC District area (which has the same characteristics as the on-site RCPA tree groves). This provides wind protection for trees within the RCPA (especially when considering that heavy storm winds in this region typically come from the southwest)which further minimizes blowdown hazards. The two trees planned to be removed from the approved RCPA near Lot 9 should not increase blowdown hazards as the trees behind them will remain protected by the adjacent tree grove on Waluga Park—West. The addition of one tree to the RCPA on the southern end of Lot 3 should not increase blowdown hazards as retaining an additional tree will add to the protection for adjacent trees. It should also be noted that the two trees planned to be removed from the RCPA are in poor condition (#630) and fair condition (#635), and the tree to be added to the RCPA is in good condition (#723). Trees in poor and fair condition are generally more susceptible to blowdown hazards than trees in good condition;therefore, removing trees in poor/fair condition and adding a tree in good condition should further reduce blowdown hazards. (4)The protection area shall protect steep slopes and resources close to water areas from potential erosion and water quality impacts; Response: The project site does not contain steep slopes or water resources or water resources adjacent to the project site.Therefore,the requested modification will not have an impact on steep slopes or water resources as these features do not exist on or near the site. (5)The protection area shall protect wildlife habitat and travel corridors; Response: The amount of change proposed affects approximately two percent of the entire RCPA area previously approved, and affects only the edges of the RCPA which are located adjacent to development and human activity. The requested modification will remove two trees in poor/fair condition and adds one tree in good condition, resulting in a net loss of one tree in poor/fair condition. There are 100 trees within the approved RCPA. The net removal of one tree equates to a loss of one percent of the trees in the originally approved RCPA. Given the minimal amount of area affected,the location of the area affected, and the minimal difference in number of trees to be preserved, the requested modification will have a negligible impact on the protection of wildlife habitat and travel corridors established by the previously approved RCPA. (6)The protection area shall be designed to protect a contiguous canopy and a clustered configuration that does not fragment lands within an RC district; Response: The approved RCPA was designed as a large block clustered configuration that protects a contiguous canopy which does not fragment lands within the RC District, and is connected to the larger RC District area located on Waluga Park—West to the south. When viewed as a whole,this configuration provides a large clustered block of non-fragmented continuous canopy within the regions' overall RC District area. The requested modification is on the edges of the approved RCPA and does not impact the general contiguous canopy and clustered configuration established by the previously approved RCPA. The modified boundaries of the RCPA are consistent with the outer edge of the canopies of trees to be AKSMINOR MODIFICATION AND MINOR VARIANCE. FEBRUARY 2Q 1 5 LOCH SUBDIVISION-CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PAGE 7 OF 18 22 preserved within,with the exception of tree numbers 631, 636, and 639. These trees fall within the RCPA due to the extents of the canopies of trees behind these trees within the RCPA. By locating the RCPA boundary to protect the canopies of the adjacent trees,the stems of these trees subsequently fall within the RCPA boundary. City staff has previously indicated that this was acceptable, as moving the RCPA boundary further out to protect the canopy of these trees would subsequently include the stems of other trees, and the cycle would continue to the outer boundary of the entire tree grove in this area. The outer edge of the canopies of tree numbers 631, 636, and 639 are shown on the preliminary plans. Additionally, a letter from a certified arborist is included with this application that specifies measures to protect these trees. (7)The protection area shall consist of viable plant and wildlife communities; Response: The requested modification is essentially swapping one small area with viable plant and wildlife communities with an equal small area of the same viable plant and wildlife communities. While there will be a net loss of one tree,the two trees proposed for removal are small trees with small high crowns. The tree to be added is a larger tree in good condition with a full crown. The approved RCPA, planned area to be removed and equal area to be added, all generally consist of the same native, undeveloped, natural forest area.Therefore,the modified RCPA will still consist of the same viable plant and wildlife communities established by the previously approved RCPA. (8)The protection area shall maintain the scenic qualities of the site. Response: The RCPA acts as a vegetated buffer at the south half of the site, and contributes to the wooded quality of the area,thereby maintaining the scenic quality of the site as viewed from the surrounding neighborhood and approved lots of the Loch Subdivision. The requested modification will remove a small sliver of the RCPA on Lot 9 with an equal area to be added on lot 3. The area to be removed is only visible from Lot 9, while the area to be added is visible from multiple lots as well as Carman Drive and adjacent properties. Therefore,the modification will enhance the scenic qualities of the site. v. Once a protection area has been identified and protected pursuant to this section and approval becomes final, no future reduction in the RC protection area shall be permitted, unless the property owner files for a modification to the original permit and establishes a new protection area in compliance with subsection 5.b.iii of this section that is at least as large as the previously designated protection area, or demonstrates that the protection area as originally designated has degraded through natural causes pursuant to LOC 50.07.004.8.a, RP/RC district overlay procedures. Response: This application a formal request to modify the original permit (LU 14-0034)that established the on-site RCPA of the Loch Subdivision/Planned Development.The requested modification establishes a slightly revised RCPA that complies with subsection 5.b.iii of this section and is at least as large as the previously designated protection area. vii.In order to put property owners and occupants on notice, the applicant shall execute a covenant running with the land that references the protection area and the City of Lake Oswego Department of Planning application file in which the protection area was established. Response: After approval is received for the requested modification, a revised covenant running with the land that references the RCPA and the City of Lake Oswego Department of Planning application file (LU 14-0034)will be recorded. AKSMINOR MODIFICATION AND MINOR VARIANCE FEBRUARY 2015 LOCH SUBDIVISION-CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PAGE 8 OF 1 8 23 LOC 50.07 REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES LOC 50.07.007.4 Planned Development Overlay d.Authorization ii. Dimensional Exceptions (1)The reviewing authority may grant exceptions to zone requirements(except for the zone requirements and limitations listed below)if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed PD provides the same or a better sense of privacy,appropriate scale and open space as a PD designed in compliance with the standard or standards to which an exception is sought. The reviewing authority shall consider the factors listed in subsection 4.d.ii(2)of this section in determining whether to approve the exceptions. Response: The requested modification to relocate a +/-440 square foot portion of the established RCPA by the City's land use case LU 14-0034 abutting lot 9 of the Loch Subdivision to the area adjacent to Lot 3 of the project provides the same sense of privacy and appropriate open space of the original approval. Lot 3 As a result of the requested modification to RCPA, Lot 3, which was originally approved at+/-8,179 square feet, will be reduced in size by 440 square feet for a total lot area of+/-7,739 square feet.The requested reduction of lot 3 will also reduce the rear yard setback from 30-feet to 25-feet. The minor reduction to both lot size and rear yard setbacks of lot 3 will not reduce the "sense of privacy" of the affected lot (Lot 3). Lot 9 The requested modification to relocate a 440 square foot portion of the RCPA will increase the area of Lot 9 from +/-6,284 square feet to+/-6,724 square feet.This modification will allow the building pad area of lot 9 to be shifted to the north,which will reduce the north side yard setback from 10-feet to 5- feet.The requested reduction to the north side yard setback will allow the lot to develop with the intended building footprint while maintaining the required 10-foot setback adjacent to the abutting Waluga Park,thus preserving the "sense of privacy"for the affected lot (Lot 9). (a) No exceptions shall be approved for the following zone requirements: (i) The special setback requirements for steeply sloped lots in the R-5 zone[LOC 50.04.001.2.e.i(2)]and R-0, R-2,and R-3 zones [LOC 50.04.001.3.e.iv]; (ii) Height of building; (iii) Use; (iv) Open space;and (v) Density. Response: The requested modification does not include any of the above referenced exceptions. This modification requests only to relocate a small portion of the approved RCPA, which will not reduce the square footage of open space approved with the project. The lots affected by the modification request (Lots 3 and 9) are not considered steeply sloped lots. Building height, use, open space and density of the AKSMINOR MODIFICATION AND MINOR VARIANCE FEBRUARY 2.01 5 II LOCH SUBDIVISION-CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PAGE 9 OF 1 8 24 overall project are not negatively affected by this request. (b) Lot Coverage and Floor Area Limitations. (i)The aggregate lot coverage for all of the lots shall not exceed the maximum lot coverage based on the net developable acre of the project; (ii)The total floor area of all lots shall not exceed the aggregate of the floor areas as determined based upon the respective lot area and the floor area methodology required by the zone. Response: The requested modification to relocate a +/-440 square foot portion of the established RCPA by the City's land use case LU 14-0034 from abutting lot 9 of the Loch Subdivision to the area adjacent to Lot 3 of the project,does not require the affected lots to exceed the maximum lot coverage or total floor area allowed in the R-7.5 Zoning District. Lot 3 Based on the requested modification,the aggregate lot coverage and maximum floor area for lot 3 will not exceed the maximum allowed by the R-7.5 Zoning District. Sheet 7 of the preliminary plan set shows the resulting dimensional standards and allowed maximums for each lot. Lot 9 Aggregate lot coverage and maximum floor area for lot 9 will not exceed maximum square footages allowed by the R-7.5 Zoning District as a result of the requested modification to the RCPA. Please see Sheet 7 of the preliminary plan set for dimensional standards of individual lots. (2) In making the determination under subsection 4.d.ii(1)of this section, the reviewing authority may consider: (a) Whether the applicant has reserved or dedicated more than the minimum amount of open space required by park and open space contributions[LOC 50.06.0051; Response: Under the original approval for this project(LU 14-0034) approximately 33,916 square feet of open space was planned and approved by the Development Review Committee (DRC) to be dedicated as on-site open space in the form of RCPA tracts.The requested modification to the RCPA relocates an approximate +/-440 square foot portion of the RCPA abutting Lot 9 to the area adjacent to Lot 3 of the project.Therefore,the requested modification does not increase, or decrease the amount of open space within the Loch Subdivision. (b) Whether the requested exception allows the lots to be designed in a manner that provides better access to common open space areas from within and/or outside the PD, better protects views, allows better solar access,maintains or improves relationships between structures, maintains or improves privacy and/or improves pedestrian or bicycle access to surrounding neighborhoods; Response: As mentioned above,the requested modification to the boundary of the on-site RCPA will not increase or decrease the amount of the open space with the project.The modification only applies to the relocation of a small portion of the RCPA (approximately+/-440 square feet). AK5 MINOR MODIFICATION AND MINOR VARIANCE FEBRUARY 201 5 LOCH SUBDIVISION-CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PAGE 1 0 OF 1 8 25 Lot 3 The result of the requested modification to the RCPA on Lot 3 will not have a negative effect on access to open space or solar access and will increase the relationship of the future home on Lot 3 with the adjacent RCPA (Tract A). Lot 9 The intent of the requested modification is to allow Lot 9 of the project to be configured in a manner that provides the same building pad of the originally requested Subdivision/Planned Development, while maintaining the required 10-foot setback to the south property line imposed by the conditions of approval of LU 14-0034. The requested configuration will also provide better solar access and a better relationship between the future single-family home and the RCPA(Tracts A and C). (c) Whether the requested exception will allow a more attractive streetscape through use of meandering streets, access through alleys or shared driveways,provision of median plantings, or other pedestrian amenities; Response: The requested modification to the RCPA(Tract A)will have no impact on the streetscape, accessways or pedestrian amenities associated with the project. (d) Whether the requested exception will enhance or better protect a significant natural feature on the site, such as a wetland,a tree or tree grove, or a stream corridor; Response: Based on the original application, over 50%of the existing tree cover is preserved. According to LOC 50.06.005, addressed in the original application, only 20%open space is required for the project. The requested modification to the RCPA(Tract A), does not reduce the RCPA and will result in the removal of two trees in fair to poor condition (Tree#630 and#635) and the inclusion of a tree considered to be in "good" condition (#723).Therefore,the modification to the RCPA will have no negative effect on the DBH factors existing in the previously approved RCPA(Tract A). (e) Whether the requested exception will provide better linkage with adjacent neighborhoods,open space areas,pathways, and natural features;or Response: The existing landscape is the major feature of the project site as over 50% of the existing tree cover will be preserved.This feature is preserved in RCPA tracts on the site. Every attempt is being made to allow for this significant preservation and to allow each of the lots to focus on major tree amenities.The requested modification will have no impact on the existing linkage with the adjacent Waluga Park. (f) Whether the requested exception will allow the development to be designed more compatibly with the topography and/or physical limitations of the site. Response: The requested modification to the RCPA will allow a single-family home to be designed on Lot 9 that is more compatible with the topography of the lot.The relocation of+/-440 square feet of the RCPA to the northern side of the RCPA(Tract A) will not have a detrimental effect on the development of Lot 3. AK MINOR MODIFICATION AND MINOR VARIANCE FEBRUARY 2015 LOCH SUBDIVISION-CITY OF LAKE QSWEGo PAGE 1 1 OF 18 26 (3) Side Yard Setback Exceptions The reviewing authority may grant exceptions to the minimum side yard setbacks of the underlying zone, without the necessity of meeting the requirements of LOC Article 50.08,Adjustments,Alternatives, and Variances, if the requirements of subsection 4.d.ii of this section are met, and: (a) Proposed lot sizes are less than the minimum size required by the underlying zone; or (b) Lesser setbacks are necessary to provide additional tree preservation or protection of abutting natural areas; (c) Side yard setbacks shall not be reduced to less than eight ft. except under the following circumstances: (1) Structures on abutting lots within the development are separated by no less than 16 ft. when all portions of the structure within the standard setback are no greater than 18 ft, in height. (ii) Structures on abutting lots within the development are separated by no less than 20 ft. when any portion of the structure exceeds 18 ft.in height within the standard setback area. Response: The requested modification will have the following effect on Lots 3 and 9 of the Loch Subdivision: Lot 3 As a result of the requested modification to RCPA, Lot 3, which was originally approved at+/-8,179 square feet, will be reduced in size by 440 square feet for a total lot area of+/-7,739 square feet.The reduction of Lot 3 will reduce the rear yard setback from 30-feet to 25-feet. Because the modification increases the adjacent RCPA, an additional tree is preserved that is in better condition than those being removed from the RCPA adjacent to Lot 9. According to subsection (b) above, lesser setbacks may be approved to provide additional tree preservation or protection of abutting natural areas. Lot 9 The intent of the modification is to allow lot 9 of the project to be configured in a manner that provides the same building pad of the original approved Subdivision/Planned Development, while maintaining the required increased setback to the south property line (10-feet) imposed by the conditions of approval of LU 14-0034. The requested configuration will reduce the north side yard setback of Lot 9 from 10-feet to five-feet,which will result in a better relationship between the future single-family home and the RCPA (Tracts A and C). According to this standard, exceptions to the minimum side yard setbacks may be granted based on lot sizes being less than the minimum size required by the underlying zone.The requested modification will increase the size of Lot 9 from 6,284 square feet to 6,724 square feet, which is below the minimum lot size of the R-7.5 Zoning District (7,500 square feet).Therefore,the requested reduction to the north side yard setback from 10 to five-feet can be approved. (4) In the R-7.5, R-10,and R-15 zones, where the parcel being developed is less than 75,000 square ft.in size, the following additional provisions apply: AKSMINOR MODIFICATION AND MINOR VARIANCE FEBRUARY 2015 LOCH SUBDIVISION-CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PAGE 1 2 OF 1 8 27 (a) Rear Yard Setback Exceptions (i) For lots where the rear yard setback abuts open space land, the rear yard setback may be reduced by up to 50%of the base zone requirement. (ii) For lots where the rear yard setback does not abut open space, the rear yard setback may be reduced by the percentage of the gross site area that is designated as open space, but in no case greater than 20%of the base zone requirement. (b) Lot Size Exceptions Lot sizes may be reduced by the percentage of the gross site area that is designated as open space,but in no case greater than 20%of the base zone requirement, Response: As indicated in the narrative of the original application,the project site is larger than 75,000 square feet.This subsection does not apply. IV. MINOR VARIANCE REQUEST TO FENCE HEIGHT LOC 50.06 Development Standards LOC 50.06.004.2 Fences b. Location and Height FMLJ Standards Note:If the below provisions address the same subject as provided in the Foothills Building and Site Design Standards, LOC 50.11.007,Appendix G,those standards shall supersede the below provisions. i. Fences and walls in residential zones shall not exceed six ft. in height unless otherwise provided below: (1) Four ft. in height when located within ten ft. of a property line abutting a public or private street or an access easement which serves more than two lots. This restriction shall not apply to properties which abut an access easement but which do not have a legal right to use the easement. Far purposes of determining fence height under this subsection,alleys are not considered as public streets. Response: The Loch Subdivision is located in the R-7.5 zoning district and the rear yards of Lots 1-3 of the subdivision back up to Carman Drive. According to this standard,fences in residential zones placed on property lines that abut a public or private street shall not exceed four-feet in height. Due to topography, Lots 1-3 are approximately+/-18 inches lower than Carman Drive. Restricting fence heights along these lots to four-feet will compromise the privacy of the lots and will not be consistent with fence heights of adjoining properties to the east and west of the Loch Subdivision, which are six-feet in height. Therefore, a minor variance to increase the maximum fence height along these lots by two-feet (six-feet maximum) is requested and addressed below. AKSMINOR MODIFICATION AND MINOR VARIANCE FEBRUARY 2015 LOCH SUBDIVISION-CITY OF LAKE t?SWEOo PAGE 13 OF 18 28 LOC 50.08 Adjustments,Alternatives, and Variances LOC 50.08.002. Variance Standards a. The reviewing authority may grant a minor variance from the requirements of this Code,except as expressly prohibited,it is established that: i. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health or safety,or materially injurious to properties or improvements within 300 ft.of the property. Response: The requested variance should be approved because granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, or materially injurious to properties or improvements within 300- feet of the property. The approved Loch Subdivision fronts on and includes outdoor yard space adjacent to Carman Drive, a City Major Collector Roadway. According to 2014 City of Lake Oswego traffic count data, nearly 7,000 vehicles per day travel along this section of Carman Drive. Therefore, a significant amount of consideration has been given to treatments that will provide for the thoughtful integration of and separation between the public realm (Carman Drive right-of-way) and private domain (yard space for Lots 1 through 3 of the Loch Subdivision). It is critical that this treatment include appropriate measures ensuring a functional, safe, and attractive environment that facilitates multi-modal travel along this section of Carman Drive as well as provide sufficient protection and screening for private outdoor yard space for the future homes adjacent to Carman Drive. This application strikes a proper balance between the needs of the public and private spheres described above as follows: Public frontage improvements that are being provided with the Loch Subdivision include paving and striping to provide additional width for vehicular travel and a new bicycle lane, a gravel shoulder for safety, a low impact vegetated drainage swale,and a six-foot wide hard surfaced pedestrian pathway(which meanders to preserve a number of significant existing trees). In addition, properly spaced street trees are being installed along Carman Drive. These are all significant improvements within the City public right-of-way, which are being provided by the applicant. These improvements will encroach significantly closer to the applicant's property than before. So much so,that in order to accommodate all of these public improvements,the applicant is dedicating 10 additional feet of right-of-way to the City along Carman Drive. In consideration of vehicular traffic on Carman Drive and other activities that occur within the public right-of-way, an appropriate barrier that provides for separation and privacy is necessary and desirable where the public right-of-way and private rear yard spaces intersect. A six-foot tall sight obscuring fence is a common tool that provides for reasonable privacy and separation. However,the City of Lake Oswego Development Code [50.06.004.2.b.i(1)] restricts the maximum height for a fence to four-feet abutting public or private roads. A fence less than six-feet in height, even a four or five-foot tall fence with a lattice extension on top, or a combination of fencing and hedging does not provide the same level of privacy and security that a six-foot tall, sight-obscuring fence does. Many breeds of canines can easily leap a 4 foot tall fence, and successfully weave their way through hedge type landscaping, potentially lessening security for parties on either side of the fence. Lattice type fencing tops are see through and therefore provide significantly less privacy than a six-foot tall sight obscuring fence. Therefore,this application includes a minor variance to the maximum permitted fence height to provide a six-foot tall sight obscuring wood fence along Lots 1-3 of the Loch Subdivision where they abut Carman Drive. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, or materially injurious K MINOR MODIFlCAT10N AND MINOR VARIANCE FEBRUARY 201 5 LOCH$UBDIvI510N'-CITY OF LAKE QSWEGO PAGE 1 4 OF 1 8 29 to properties or improvements within 300 feet of the property as follows: • As illustrated in Exhibit A, a six-foot tall fence is consistent with the fence heights of many other properties fronting on Carman Drive in the vicinity, including properties directly abutting the subject site to the east and west. Therefore, a six-foot tall fence will be consistent with and completely within the context and character of other existing abutting and surrounding properties. • The finished grade of the outdoor yard space adjacent to Carman Drive varies, but in general will sit approximately+/-12 inches lower than the surface of Carman Drive. (Please refer to Exhibit B.) Therefore,the apparent height of the fence from Carman Drive will be less than six-feet, thus minimizing any apparent height differential. • Properties located on the north side of Carman Drive across from the subject site are buffered by open space, landscaping, significant distance, and fencing of their own. The closest home in that direction (Lot 12 of Morrison Estates) is over 130 feet+/-at its closest point to the future fence for the Loch Subdivision. In addition, that property has a six-foot tall fence surrounding it as do the others in Morrison Estates facing Carman Drive. • There are various additional factors (some of which have been mentioned above)that contribute to a finding that two additional feet of fence height(provided by a six-foot tall fence)will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, or materially injurious to properties or improvements within 300 feet of the property. o Proper vision clearance will be provided at the site entryway with the provision of the fence,thus assuring safety. o There is a significant distance (+/- 14 to+/-28-feet) between the fence and the road surface of Carman Drive. o Significant trees are being preserved along the site's frontage along Carman Drive. o Street trees are being planted along the site's frontage on Carman Drive as shown in the preliminary plans. o Additional landscaping is planned at appropriate intervals along the fence,facing Carman Drive as shown on the preliminary plans. o The two additional feet of fence height will further obscure views of the private outdoor rear yards adjacent to Carman Drive. This will help ensure that motor vehicle operators, bicyclists, and pedestrians along Carman Drive remain focused on elements within the public realm and not the abutting outdoor yard space that could potentially distract and thus reduce public safety. The above described existing conditions and measures being taken as part of the application ensure that the minor amount of additional fence height (two-feet) included along Carman Drive will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, or materially injurious to properties or improvements within 300-feet of the property. Therefore, this criteria is met. ii. The proposed development will not adversely affect existing physical and natural systems such as traffic, drainage, Oswego Lake,hillsides, designated sensitive lands,historic resources, or parks,and the potential for abutting properties to use solar energy devices any more than would occur if the development were located as specified by the requirements of the zone. Response: The requested variance should be approved because a six-foot tall fence will not adversely affect AKSMINOR MODIFICATION AND MINOR VARIANCE FEBRUARY 2015 LOCH SUBDIVISION^CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PAGE 15 OF 18 30 height could adversely affect in any tangible way. Therefore,this criteria is met. Oswego Lake: • The fence will be located nearly a mile from Oswego Lake as the crow flies and a mile and a quarter by roadway. A substantial number of residential lots,Waluga Park—West,streets, a railroad right-of-way, trees,topography etc. exist between the planned six-foot tall fence and Oswego Lake. Therefore,the two-feet of additional fence height will in no way adversely affect Oswego Lake. This criteria is met. Hillsides: • The Lake Oswego Development Code does not define the term "hillsides". However,the Code (LOC 50.06.006.2) does refer to Potential Sever Landslide Hazard areas and the map(Engineering Geology Chapter of the Lake Oswego Physical Resources Inventory(LOPRI), March, 1976)that illustrate them. The subject property is not located in such an area. This is confirmed with the survey of the site topography that was included in the preliminary plans of the Subdivision/Planned Development application that indicated the subject site is essentially flat. Therefore,the two-feet of additional fence height will in no way adversely affect hillsides,which do not exist on the property or within the nearby vicinity. This criteria is met. Designated Sensitive Lands: • The subject site contains sensitive lands in the form of a tree canopy [a Resource Conservation (RC) District Overlay]. A Resource Conservation Protection Area (RCPA) was established as part of the Loch Subdivision application and is illustrated on the preliminary plans. To ensure for the preservation and protection of the RCPA, a+/-32,000 square foot open space tract(Tract A) and a +/-2,700 square foot open space tract(Tract C)which are included in the subdivision. The distance between the planned fence and Tract A is variable with the closest portion being approximately 110-feet and the furthest portion being approximately 190-feet. The distance is further still to Tract C. Single-family homes,a shared access drive, and outdoor yards will be located within these areas. Therefore,the difference between a four-foot tall fence and a six-foot tall fence along Carman Drive will be imperceptible from Tract A and Tract C and in will in no way adversely affect the sensitive lands. This criteria is met. Historic Resources: • According to the City of Lake Oswego Cultural Resources Inventory (from City of Lake Oswego Online Maps),there are no identified historic resources on the subject site or in proximity of the subject site. In fact,the nearest property with a historic resource designation is located at 16400 Bryant Road. This is in excess of a half a mile from the subject site. Due to this significant distance,the minor difference between a six-foot tall fence along Carman Drive as opposed to a four-foot tall fence will not adversely affect that historically designated property or any others.Therefore this standard is met. Parks: • The Loch Subdivision abuts Waluga Park—West to the south. There are no other parks located in proximity to the subject site. The distance from the planned fence along Carman Drive varies between +/-310-feet to+/-360-feet to the park. This is a significant distance,the area of which contains significant vegetation (in a RCPA) and will include a number of single family homes, a shared access, and AKRMINOR MODIFICATION AND MINOR VARIANCE FEBRUARY 201 5 LOCH SUBDIVISION- CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PAGE 1 7 OF 1 8 31 other associated amenities and improvements. The park is neither visible nor directly accessible from the site's frontage on Carman Drive,where the fence is planned. Therefore,the difference between a four-foot tall fence and a six-foot tall fence along Carman Drive will be imperceptible from Waluga Park —West and in will in no way affect the this or any other park. This criteria is met. Use of Solar Energy Devices on Adjoining Properties: • As demonstrated in the land use application for the Loch Subdivision, existing trees (to be preserved) will cast shade across the site in such a manner that solar energy devices are not considered an effective option for future homes on the subject site. For the following reasons the two-foot differential for the fence height (from four-feet tall to six-feet tall) cannot adversely affect adjacent property owners from using solar devices on adjoining properties: o The fence will be located on the north property line. o Shade is cast by objects to the north (in the northern hemisphere). o Carman Drive is located to the north of the planned fence. o The Carman Drive right-of-way will be the only area shaded. o The amount of shading created by a six-foot tall fence is miniscule. Therefore, it is not possible for a six-foot tall fence along Carman Drive to adversely affect any adjoining property's ability to use solar energy devices any more than would occur if a four-foot tall fence was built. Therefore,this criteria is met. f. Variances from maximum fence or retaining wall height restrictions pursuant to LOC 50.06.004.2. Response: Pursuant to this provision of the Lake Oswego Development Code, and as described in detail above,this application includes a minor variance to the maximum permitted fence height to provide a six- foot tall sight obscuring wood fence along Lots 1-3 of the Loch Subdivision where they abut Carman Drive. V. CONCLUSION The required findings have been made and the written narrative and accompanying documentation demonstrate that the proposal is consistent with the applicable provisions of the City of Lake Oswego Code. The evidence in the record is substantial and supports approval of the application. Therefore,the applicant respectfully requests approval of the minor modification to the Loch Planned Development Subdivision and the minor variance to allow a six-foot tall fence along Carman Drive. AK MINOR MODIFICATION AND MINOR VARIANCE FEBRUARY 201 5 LOCH SUBDIVISION-CITY OP LAKE OSWEGO PAGE 1 S OF 1$ 32 FENCE EXHIBITS MINOR MODIFICATION AND MINOR VARIANCE FEBRUARY 2015 LOCH SUBDIVISION^CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 33 34 TUALATIN VANCOUVER SALEM WWW_AKS-ENG.COM 12965 SW HERMAN RD.,SMITE 100 TUALATIN.OR 97062 P:(503)5636151 F:(5031563•6152 ENGINEERING a FORESTRY January 8, 2015 Michael Foote 764 101h Street Lake Oswego,OR 97034 RE: Arborist Letter - Loch Subdivision (City File LU 14-0034) — RCPA Modification Mr.Foote: This purpose of this letter is to address tree related concerns regarding the RC District protection area(RCPA) modification for the above referenced project. The approved RCPA is proposed to be modified by reducing a sliver area of the RCPA on the north side of Lot 9, and adding an equal area to the RCPA on the south side of Lot 3. These modifications result in the addition of tree#723 to the RCPA, and removing tree#630 and#635 from the RCPA. Also, the modified RCPA is adjacent to tree #631, #636, and #639. While these trees are included in the modified RCPA,the RCPA boundary does not extend to the edge of their canopies. This letter identifies protection measures necessary to preserve the added tree(#723)as well as the trees in the RCPA that do not have full canopy protection. The Loch Subdivision Preliminary Subdivision Plans, dated July 18, 2014, includes a preliminary tree preservation and removal plan that details preliminary site specific tree protection measures, recommendations, notes, and specifications for trees to be preserved during site development. All of the trees listed above are proposed to be preserved during site development, which does not change with the proposed RCPA modification request. Therefore, the preliminary plans are still sufficient for adequately addressing protection measures for these trees during site development. Regarding tree protection measures for trees to be preserved during future dwelling construction: Typically, tree preservation and removal related to future dwelling construction is addressed separately during the building permit process for each individual lot, as the full details of individual lot "build-out" and dwelling construction is unclear at this time. At the time that these details are known,they can be evaluated with regards to existing trees and then specific tree preservation measures can be recommended for trees to be preserved. What is known at this time is that trees within the modified RCPA will remain during future lot build-out and dwelling construction, and should be adequately protected. The modified RCPA boundary is the edge of the canopy of tree #723. Utilizing the edge of tree canopy (RCPA boundary), in conj unction with the five-foot construction setback from the RCPA boundary as required by City Code, should provide adequate canopy and root zone protection to ensure that this tree is not significantly impacted. Root zone disturbances should be avoided within the five-foot RCPA construction set back. Tree #631, #636, and #639 are near the proposed RCPA modification boundaries, and have canopies that extend beyond the RCPA boundary. Future construction near these trees warrants some additional care on a case by case basis. Potential options include an additional root protection zone, bridged foundations for the portions of structures within the root protection zone, canopy pruning, etc., depending on the specifics of the future dwellings and lot improvements near these trees. EXHIBIT F-2 LU 15-0003 35 Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, AKS ENGINEERING&FORESTRY, LLC Bruce R.Baldwin ISA Certified Arborist PN-6666A ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor 36 E 0300 B AVE - P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego Fire Department Case File/Permit No. 2 LU 15-0003 v - 1Lake Oswego, OR 97034 / 503-635-0275 °at'sO Date: January 22, 2015 To: Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner From: Gert Zoutendijk/Fire Marshal Email: gzoutendijk©ci.oswego.or.us Phone: 503-699-7454 Fire Department - Plan Review Comments I have received the information for the project summarized below and completed a review of the submittal on 01/22/2015. A summary of the review has been provided. Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions, comments or concerns regarding this information. Case File/Permit No.: LU 15-0003 Project Location: 5316 Carman Drive Scope of Project: Approval of a modification of a development permit in order to adjust the lot size and setbacks for lots 3 & 9 FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS LOC 15.06.610 OFC 503.2.1 -Acess Dimensions The Oregon Fire Code is amended by Lake Oswego Municipal Code 15.06.610 to read as follows: Dimensions. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width and uniform surface of not less than 15 feet one way, 20 feet if two way and a vertical clearance of 13'6", unless an exception is approved by the City Engineer and Fire Chief. Private roads or public streets where landscaping islands are used shall be considered one way each direction at the island. Exceptions- Single family dwellings on lots: a. Driveway serving one lot: a 12 ft. paved driveway surface, with a 1.5 ft. shoulder on each side, is permitted. b. Access lane serving 2 - 4 lots: a 12 ft. paved access lane surface, with a 4 ft. shoulder on each side, is permitted if the habitable structures on all lots provide an alternative suitable method of fire suppression, i.e., automatic fire sprinkler systems, approved by the Fire Marshal. c. Access lane serving 5 - 8 lots: a 16 ft. paved access lane surface, with a 2 ft. shoulder on each side, is permitted if the habitable structures on all lots provide an alternative suitable method of fire suppression, i.e. automatic fire sprinkler systems, approved by the Fire Marshal. Note: No parking is permitted on fire apparatus access roads that have a width less than 26 feet wide. Access lane will have to be 20' of drivable surface. If the drivable surface is only 16'with the 2' shoulders, applicant will have to provide residential fire sprinklers in the homes. EXHIBIT F-3 LU 15-0003 37 Lake Oswego Fire Department-Plan Review Comments Case File/Permit No. LU 15-0003 11 , D103.6 Parking Signs and Requirements D103.6 Signs. Where required by the fire code official, fire apparatus access roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING - FIRE LANE signs complying with Figure D103.6, Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12 inches (305 mm) wide by 18 inches (457 mm) high and have red letters on a white reflective background. Signs shall be posted on one or both sides of the fire apparatus road as required by Section D103.6.1 or D103.6.2. D103.6.1 Roads 20 to 26 feet in width. Fire apparatus access roads 20 to 26 feet wide (6096 to 7925 mm) shall be posted on both sides as a fire lane. D103.6.2 Roads more than 26 feet in width. Fire apparatus access roads more than 26 feet wide (7925 mm) to 32 feet wide (9754 mm) shall be posted on one side of the road as a fire lane. WATER FLOW FOR FIRE PROTECTION • WS-0003 Hydrant Location Approved Hydrant location with distance and size of the structure is approved. WS-0007 Fire Flow Approved Fire flow for fire protection is adequate. GENERAL COMMENTS G-0002 Alternate Method For any deficiencies in access or water supply applicant could propose an alternate method in accordance with the provisions of ORS 455.610(5) in the form of fire sprinklers as approved by the Fire Marshal. Page 2 of 2 38 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE V O NOTES okEGfDa CASE FILE# PA 14-0089 LOCATION 5316. 5324, and 5362 Carman Drive (Loch Subdivision) TYPE OF APPLICATION PD Modification (LU 14-0034) and Minor Variance for fence heieht STAFF COORDINATOR Johanna Hastay. AICP.Associate Planner DATE OF PRE-APPLICATION November 21. 2014 ( 9 am STAFF ATTENDEES Johanna Hastav(Plannine) All Lake Oswego code chapters and articles referenced in this report are available on the City's website at http://www.codepublishine.com/or/Iakeosweea/. 1. TYPE OF APPLICATION Minor Development [LOC 50.07.003.14.a]:The applicant is requesting approval to modify a recently approved resource conservation protection area (RCPA) boundary which was established as a part of a 9- lot planned development per LU 14-0034, a small change to the lot size of Lot 9, and a minor variance to fence height. These are classified as minor development per LOC 50.07.003.14.a.ii(16) and (19). 2. PROCESS SUMMARY AND TIME FRAME Please see LOC 50.07.003 for Review Procedures. • Pre-application Conference • Application submittal. When ready to submit the application, please call to make an appointment with the staff coordinator listed,above. • Staff review for completeness, up to 30 days • If incomplete,the applicant has 180 days to submit new information • When determined to be complete,the City shall provide a final decision within 120 days of the completeness date • Notice of Application mailed and start of 14-day comment period • A public notice sign is posted on the site • Staff report is published,typically 4-6 weeks later • Notice of Decision is mailed and 15-day appeal period starts • If not appealed,the decision becomes final • In case of an appeal,the project will be reviewed by Development Review Commission and then the City Council if further appealed. • Schedule a meeting with staff to review conditions of approval EXHIBIT F-4 Page 1 LU 15-0003 39 3. NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT: Located in the Lake Forest Neighborhood Association,the abutting neighborhood associations are Westlake,Waluga, and Lake Grove. A neighborhood meeting is not required, but it is strongly recommended that you speak to your neighbors about your project. Labels Required for Notices of Application and Decision: Provide two sets of sticky back mailing labels with property owner name, address, and map and tax lot information. The mailing labels must include all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the site. If there are fewer than 50 properties (excluding the site and City-owned properties) within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site, the notice area must be expanded by 10-foot increments until at least 50 properties (excluding the site and City-owned properties) are included in the notice area. Provide a map showing the 300'+ radius and mark all properties included on the mailing list. 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Current Comprehensive Plan Designation: R-7.5 Comprehensive Plan policies do not need to be addressed for this type of application. 5. ZONES AND SITE SPECIFIC STANDARDS fLOC 50.021 Base Zoning Districts FLOC 50.021: This site is located in the R-7.5 zone district. 6. DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FLOC 50.041: YES Residential Low Density Zones IR-15. R-10. R-7.51 FLOC 50.04.001.11: Lot dimensional standards were approved as a part of the earlier PD per LU 14-0034. The requested modification is only to Lot 9 and appears to increase the lot size slightly. The plans do not show the new lot lines, lot size, or setbacks. The application must provide details of the proposed dimensions and setbacks. For Lot 9, if the approved 10-foot south side yard setback(property line abutting Waluga Park) is modified, staff will defer the decision to the Development Review Commission (DRC). 7. OVERLAY AND DESIGN DISTRICTS FLOC 50.051 YES Sensitive Lands Overlay District [LOC 50.05.010.1-50.05.010.61: The subject property contains an approved Resource Conservation Protection Area (RCPA) per LU 14-0034. The proposed plans indicate that a small modification to the approved RCPA is requested on Lots 3 and 9. Once a protection area has been identified and protected pursuant to LOC 50.05.010.5.b, and approval becomes final, no future reduction in the RC protection area shall be permitted, unless the property owner files for a modification to the original permit and establishes a new protection area in compliance with subsection 5.b.iii of this section that is at least as large as the previously designated protection area, or demonstrates that the protection area as originally designated has degraded through natural causes pursuant to LOC 50.07.004.8.a, RP/RC district overlay procedures. To modify the RCPA, please address the following standards in detail and provide all the required information: LOC 50.05.010.5.b.iii RCPA Determination Page 2 PA 14-0089 40 8. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FLOC 50.061 YES Fences [LOC 50.06.004.21: The maximum height for a fence within 10 feet of the public right- of-way is four feet. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to increase the maximum height to from four to six feet along the Carman Drive frontages of Lots 1-3. Please see minor variance discussion, below. 9. LAND DIVISIONS FLOC 50.07.0071 YES Planned Development (PD) FLOC 50.07.007.41:The purpose of the PD Overlay is to encourage design creativity and flexibility in land development. Exceptions to the underlying zoning standards were allowed per LU 14-0034 because the applicant showed that the design provides the same or better sense of privacy and the same appropriate scale and open space. The City may consider a modification to the approved PD (for the size of Lot 9) if PD standards are met per LOC 50.07.007.4.d.ii. The following factors may assist in making this determination: • More open space than the minimum requirement • Lot design or configuration with better access to common open space, better privacy, improved pedestrian access • More attractive streetscape • Better protection of significant natural features • Better linkage with adjacent neighborhoods, parks and open space areas, pathways, and natural features • More compatible with the topography and/or physical limitations of the site 10. ADJUSTMENTS.ALTERNATIVES.AND VARIANCES FLOC 50.081 YES Minor Variance fLOC. 50.08.0021: An adjustment to the maximum fence height is considered a minor variance per LOC 50.08.002.3. Variance requests must meet the following standards: i. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, or materially injurious to properties or improvements within 300 feet of the property. ii. The proposed development will not adversely affect existing physical and natural systems such as traffic, drainage, Oswego Lake, hillsides, designated sensitive lands, historic resources, or parks, and the potential for abutting properties to use solar energy devices any more than would occur if the development were located as specified by the requirements of the zone. Provide specific details as to how your proposed development complies with these standards, especially in terms of any potential impacts on the properties abutting the site. Conclusory statements are not acceptable. Please note that it may be difficult to support a 6-foot fence in this location. At maximum, a 5-foot fence with additional landscaping along the right-of-way side of the fence to minimize visual impacts may be more appropriate. If a 6-foot fence height is pursued,staff will defer the decision to the DRC. Page 3 PA 14-0089 41 11. REVIEW PROCEDURES (LOC 50.07.0031: These are applicable procedural regulations and are included in the pre-application notes for informational purposes only. No response to these code sections is necessary. LOC 50.07.003.1.b Burden of Proof LOC 50.07.003.5 Conditions on Development LOC 50.07.003.7 Appeals LOC 50.07.003.11 Modification of Approved Permit LOC 50.07.003.14 Minor Development Decisions 12. PREVIOUS CASES LU 13-0038 (RC District Delineation) LU 13-0049 (Comp Plan and Zoning Map Amendments) LU 14-0034 (9-Lot PD and RCPA Determination) 13. DOCUMENTATION NECESSARY FOR A COMPLETE APPLICATION The following items are required to be submitted in FIVE COLLATED SETS, unless otherwise noted. The attached"Checklist for Application Submittal"also lists the required documentation and shall be completed by the applicant and submitted with the application packet to help assure all items are included. When ready to submit, please call to make an appointment with the staff coordinator listed, above. Procedural Information: • Application form signed by property owner(s). • Proof of ownership, such as copy of deed or title report—ONE COPY. • Mailing labels including: name and addresses of all property owners that are within 300+feet of the site boundaries (a minimum of 50 properties are required to be notified, excluding the site and City- owned properties). See the Neighborhood Notice Requirements handout for more information. Please make sure to add tax lot and tax map information for each lot above the respective address on the mailing label—TWO SETS • 8%A x 11 reductions of all oversized materials—TWO SETS • An electronic copy of all application materials(thumb drive or disc) —ONE SET Relevant Graphic Information: • A scaled site plan/preliminary plat illustrating: - All approved lots with lot sizes(as modified for Lot 9) - Setback callouts (as modified for Lot 9) and dimensions on the plans - Location of fence on Lots 1-3, including proposed design, materials, and height - Utility/access easements - Location, size and type of all trees 5" or greater in DBH on the site. - Proposed RCPA boundary and the 5-foot RC construction setback. • RCPA Modification: A list of all trees 5" or greater in DBH in the RCPA ranked by size from largest to smallest. Identify the median tree diameter on the list. Written Materials: • A narrative addressing all applicable standards identified in this report in detail. • Technical reports: arborist report-THREE SETS May require additional information upon application submittal. Page 4 PA 14-0089 42 14. MATERIALS SUPPLIED AT THE PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE • Application form • Checklist for Application Submittal • Mailing Label Instructions • Memo from the Natural Resource Planner 15. APPLICATION FEES* PD Modification $1,587 Minor Variance $3,098 Modification of an RCPA No fee Records Retention Fee $54 Fire Review Fee $140 Additional Pre-Application fees: One follow-up meeting to discuss issues addressed at the pre-app: No charge 3rd meeting forward: $170 (50% of the pre-app fee) • Note.: fees change on January 1, 2015. Please verify the required fees prior to application submittal after January 1, 2015. NOTICE TO APPLICANTS: The standards noted in this checklist are those which staff believes may be applicable to your proposal. Additional standards may also be determined applicable at the time of a development submittal. The burden is upon the applicant to review all applicable City documents and address all the relevant standards. Verify the fees prior to submitting application. Please note that amendments to the City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code typically occur on a yearly basis. Prior to submission, the applicant should confer with City staff to determine if any Code requirements have changed. A pre-application conference does not lock in the current standards. The application will be reviewed for compliance with the standards in effect on the date of application submittal. Page 5 PA 14-0089 43 44 1 BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE pro ed. 2 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ■pp 3 4 9-LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ) LU 14-0034-1856 5 WITH RCPA DETERMINATION ) R. KENT& MARLEIGH MATHIOT(0) 6 ) MIKE & SUSAN FOOTE (A) 7 ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER 6 9 NATURE OF APPLICATION 10 11 The applicants are requesting approval of the following: 12 13 • A Resource Conservation Protection Area determination; 14 • A 9-lot single family residential planned development with five flag lots; and, 15 • The removal of 32 trees to accommodate the proposed development. 16 17 The site is located at 5316, 5324, and 5362 Carman Drive (Tax Lots 2500, 2600, and 2700 of Tax 18 Map 21E07AC). 19 20 HEARINGS 21 22 The Development Review Commission (Commission) held a public hearing and considered this 23 application at its meeting of September 3, 2014. 24 25 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 26 27 A. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code {Chanter LOC 501: 28 29 LOC 50.02.001 Residential Districts 30 LOC 50.04,001 R-7.5 Zone Dimensional Table 31 LOC 50.04.002 Special Street Setbacks 32 LOC 50.04.004 Solar Design Exemptions &Adjustments 33 LOC 50.05.010 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts 34 LOC 50.06.001 Building Design 35 LOC 50.06.002 Parking 36 LOC 50.06.003.1 Access/Access Lanes (Flag Lots) 37 LOC 50.06.003.2 On-Site Circulation— Driveways & Fire Access 38 Roads 39 LOC 50.06.003.3 On-Site Circulation — Bikeways, Walkway& 40 Accessways 41 LOC 50.06.003.4 Local Street Connectivity 42 LOC 50.06.004.1 Landscaping, Screening, & Buffering 43 LOC 50.06.004.2 Fences 44 LOC 50.06.004.3 Lighting 45 LOC 50.06.005 Park& Open Space 46 LOC 50.06.006.1 Weak Foundation Soils EXHIBIT F-5 LU 15-0003 45 1 LOC 50.06.006.3 Drainage Standards 2 LOC 50.06.007 Solar Access 3 LOC 50.06.008 Utilities 4 LOC 50.07.003.1 Burden of Proof 5 LOC 50.07.003.5 Conditions on Development 6 LOC 50.07.003.7 Appeals 7 LOC 50.07.003.14 Minor Development Decision 8 LOC 50.07.004 Additional Submission Requirements 9 LOC 50.07.007.2 Flag Lots 10 LOC 50,07.007.4 Planned Development Overlay 11 12 B. City of Lake Oswego Streets and Sidewalks Code FLOC Chapter 421: 13 14 LOC 42.08.400- 42.08.470 Streets and Sidewalks 15 16 C. City of Lake Oswego Tree Code f LOC Chapter 551: 17 18 LOC 55.02.010 - 55.02.080 Tree Removal 19 LOC 55.02.084 Mitigation Requirements 20 LOC 55.08.020 Tree Protection Plan Required 21 LOC 55.08.030 Tree Protection Measures Required 22 23 D. City Charter: 24 25 Chapter IX Public Improvements Section 40 Major Road Expenditures 26 27 E. Prior Approvals: 28 29 LU 13-0038 (RC District Delineation) 30 LU 13-0049 (Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments) 31 32 CONCLUSION 33 34 The Commission concludes that LU 14-0034 can be made to comply with all applicable criteria 35 by the application of certain conditions. 36 37 FINDINGS AND REASONS 38 39 The Commission incorporates the August 22, 2014, Staff Report (with all exhibits) as support for 40 its decision supplemented by further findings and conclusions. In the event of any inconsistency 41 between the following supplementary matter and the staff report, the supplementary matter 42 controls. 43 44 45 46 LU 14-0034-1856 Page 2 of 18 46 1 Following are the supplementary findings and conclusions of this Commission: 2 3 1. The Commission was informed that certain corrections were necessary regarding the 4 development parameters outlined in the Staff Report for Lot 7. Lot 7 is actually 5,831 sq. ft. 5 in area and the setbacks should be adjusted to better reflect the lot orientation. As 6 recommended by staff, the proposed 15-foot rear yard setback should be described as 7 "west" and the side yard setbacks as north and south. The corrections are included in the 8 conditions of approval, below. 9 10 2. Staff recommended an additional condition of approval to switch the north and south side 11 yard setbacks on Lot 9 to 5-foot north side yard and a 10-foot south side yard setbacks in 12 order to provide additional protection for two Douglas fir trees in the Waluga Park-West 13 located to the south. 14 15 LOC 50.07.007.4.d.2(ii)(d) permits the reviewing authority, in deciding whether to grant lot 16 dimensional exceptions, to consider whether the requested exception "will enhance or 17 better protect a significant natural feature on the site, such as a ..., a tree ....". 18 19 The applicants testified that this action would unreasonably restrict the building envelope 20 on Lot 9 and requested that setbacks be determined during the building permit process with 21 the assistance of a certified arborist. 22 23 The Commission finds that, in order to approve a Planned Development (PD), setbacks must 24 be determined at the time of approval of the PD. See LOC 50.07.007.4.d.ii(1), (3). The 25 Commission further finds pursuant to LOC 50.07.007.4.d.2(ii)(d) that a 10-foot south side 26 yard setback is the minimum necessary to ensure the long-term health of the two fir trees. 27 In addition, the applicants must work with a certified arborist to determine specific tree 28 preservation methods as a part of building permit review. The new conditions are 29 incorporated into the conditions of approval, below. 30 31 3. The Commission discussed the proposed reduced lot sizes and protection of significant trees 32 outside of the proposed Resource Conservation Protection Area (RCPA) per LOC 33 50.07.007.4.d.2(ii)(d). The applicants' "conceptual development plan" (Exhibit E8) shows 34 the approximate footprints of the future homes and also demonstrates the extent of future 35 tree removal on the individual lots. The Commission finds that although the reduced lot 36 sizes (and associated reduced setbacks) are necessary to ensure compliance with the 37 required minimum density of nine lots, many trees will likely be removed when the 38 individual lots are developed. The proposed RCPA meets the criteria for the reasons stated 39 in the Staff Report and the Commission finds that there was no reasonable way to modify 40 the proposal to ensure protection of more trees located outside of the RCPA while 41 preserving the minimum density requirement. Further, the Commission finds that, with the 42 modified side yard setbacks on Lot 9, there were sufficient conditions of approval to protect 43 significant trees, such as four large Oregon white oaks, from future development as much as 44 possible under the PD criteria. 45 46 LU 14-0034-1856 Page 3 of 18 47 1 4. The Commission received testimony from neighbors abutting the site to the east regarding 2 existing drainage issues and their concerns about the proposed development exacerbating 3 those issues. Per LOC 50.06.003.3.b(ii)(3)(a), the applicants are required to demonstrate 4 that alterations of drainage patterns, e.g., surface runoff, do not adversely affect other 5 properties. The Commission reviewed the applicants' drainage report and proposed 6 drainage plan and finds that, while the on-site infiltration rates were low, development of 7 the site should improve upon the current surface water runoff drainage conditions as new 8 stormwater runoff will be piped to approved drainage facilities rather than ponding in yards. 9 No additional conditions of approval are necessary to meet the drainage standard, 10 11 ORDER 12 13 IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that: 14 15 1. LU 14-0034 is approved, subject to compliance with the conditions of approval set forth in 16 Subsection 2 of this Order. 17 18 2. The conditions for LU 14-0034 are as follows: 19 20 A. Prior to Recording the Final Plat. the Applicants/Owners Shall: 21 22 1. Complete the public notice and election requirements prescribed in Section 40 of the 23 City Charter. The applicants/owners shall coordinate with the Engineering staff to 24 complete this process. 25 26 2. Apply for and obtain a demolition permit for the existing structures on site. The 27 applicants shall note that this may require an asbestos report from a licensed agency 28 to the satisfaction of the Building Official. The demolition permit shall be 29 accompanied by proper applications for tree/Sensitive Lands protection and erosion 30 control, 31 32 3. Submit a final plat for staff review and signature of approval within one year of the 33 date of this decision, prepared in accordance with Condition of Approval A(5), below. 34 The final plat must be dimensioned as depicted in Exhibit E7 and reference this land 35 use application —City of Lake Oswego Planning and Building Services Department 36 Case File LU 14-0034. Upon written application, prior to expiration of the one-year 37 period, the City Manager shall, in writing, grant a one-year extension. Additional 38 extensions may be requested in writing and must be submitted to the City Manager 39 for review of the project for conformance with current law, development standards 40 and compatibility with development that may have occurred in the surrounding area. 41 The extension may be granted or denied and, if granted, may be conditioned to 42 require modification to bring the project into compliance with then current law and 43 compatibility with surrounding development. 44 45 LU 14-0034-1856 Page 4 of 18 48 1 4. All plats and public easements submitted to the City of Lake Oswego shall have 2 accompanying vector based electronic drawings or maps consistent with the 3 prevailing technologies in the Civil Engineering and/or Surveying fields (e.g. current 4 or near current versions of AutoCAD). The electronic drawings shall conform to the 5 mapping requirements for plats adopted in O.R.S. Chapter 92. 6 7 5. Submit a revised final plat that is substantially similar to Exhibit E7, with the 8 following modifications for review and approval of staff: 9 10 a. Label the open space tracts as Private Open Space Tracts A, B, and C. 11 12 b. Label the shared driveway on Lot 9 as a private reciprocal access and utility 13 easement benefiting Lot 8. (The access easement may be required to be shifted 14 north partially onto Lot 8 to remove all possible grading impacts from the 5-foot 15 RCPA construction setback on Lot 9, to the satisfaction of staff) 16 17 c. Label the shared access lane on Lots 1-7 as a private reciprocal access and utility 18 easement benefitting all lots. 19 20 d. Provide a public sanitary sewer easement over the private shared access lane (off 21 Carman Drive) for the public sewer extension into the site. 22 23 e. Sufficient right-of-way dedication along Carman Drive frontage to ensure that the 24 required street frontage improvements are located entirely within the public right-of- 25 way. Provide a public sidewalk easement for any portion of the sidewalk that meanders 26 onto the site in order to preserve the trees at the southeast corner of the site. 27 28 f. Provide a private reciprocal access easement for the four parking spaces on Lot 2, 29 benefitting all lots. 30 31 g. Provide public utility easements for all utilities that are planned to be located 32 outside a public right-of-way, to the satisfaction of the franchise utility companies. 33 34 h. Provide private storm easements for the site's detention facility and the common 35 private storm lines throughout the development which will provide conveyance 36 from the individual storm facilities on each lot, and conveyance from the 37 infiltration swales along the shared access lane. 38 39 6. Determine the final floor area allocation for each lot for a total of no more than 40 32,898 sq. ft. Submit final matrices indicating lot size, lot coverage, floor area, and 41 setbacks for each lot (showing both square footage and percentages) prepared in 42 accordance with the findings in the final approval and/or as shown in the tables, 43 below: 44 45 LU 14-0034-1856 Page 5 of 18 49 ALLOWED LOT COVERAGE AND FLOOR AREA Lot Size in sq.ft. Allowed Floor Allowed Lot Coverage Lot Coverage Area in sq.ft. in sq.ft. Percentage - Lot 1 4,950 tbd 2,300 46.5% Lot 2 7,054 tbd 2,300 32.6% Lot 3 8,179 — tbd2,450 30% _ Lot 4 5,179 tbd 2,375 46% Lot 5 5,332 tbd _ 2,525 47.4% Lot 6 5,373 tbd2,2_50 42% Lot 7 — 5,831 tbd 2,400 41.2% Lot 8 6,639 tbd 2,650 40% j Lot 9 6,284 tbd 2,300 36.6% 1 Total 54,821 32,898 21,550 I 40.2%(average) 1 ALLOWED SETBACKS AND HEIGHT Front setback Side Setback Rear Setback Side and Rear Building Setback Total Height Lot 1 5 ft. (north) 15 ft. (west) 5 ft. (south) I n/a Per R-7.5 20 ft. (east) Lot 2 5 ft. (north) 29 ft. (west) 20 ft. (south) I n/a Per R-7.5 5 ft. (east) Lot 3 5 ft. (north) 5 ft. (west) 30 ft. (south) n/a Per R-7,5 20 ft. (east) — Measured from (flag lot) access easement 5 ft. (west) Lot 4 ( g 10 ft. (dwelling) 5 ft. (east) 15 ft. (south) 25 ft. 26.7 ft. 18 ft. (garage) Measured from Lot 5 fla lot access easement 5 ft. (west) ( g ) 10 ft. (dwelling) 5 ft. (east) 15 ft. (south) 25 ft. 26.7 ft. 18 ft. (garage) Measured from Lot 6(flaglot) access easement 5 ft. (west) 10 ft. (dwelling) 5 ft. (east) 15 ft. (south) 25 ft. 26.7 ft. 20 ft. (garage) Measured from Lot 7 fla lot access easement 5 ft. (north) ( g ) 10 ft. (dwelling) 5 ft. (south) 15 ft. (west) 25 ft. 26.7 ft. 20 ft. (garage) -- Measured from Lot 8 fla lot access easement 5 ft. (west) ( g ) 10 ft. (dwelling) 5 ft. (east) 30 ft. (north) 40 ft. 26.7 ft. 20 ft. (garage) -- 5 ft. (north) Lot 9 25 ft. (west) 10 ft (south) 5 ft. (east) n/a Per R-7.5 2 -- - 3 LU 14-0034-1856 Page 6 of 18 50 1 7. Submit a "Notice of Development Restrictions" to be recorded with the final plat for 2 review and approval by staff. The Notice shall include the following: 3 4 • Exhibit "A", lot coverage, floor area, and setback matrices required by Condition 5 A(6), above; 6 • Exhibit "B", a site plan showing the 5-foot landscape screening along both sides 7 of the shared access lane as it abuts Lots 1-7. The site plan also shall illustrate a 8 4-foot fence on Lots 1-3 along the Carman Drive frontage. 9 • Exhibit "C", a site plan showing the protected Oregon white oak trees on or near 10 Lots 2, 3, and 6; 11 • Exhibit "D", a site plan showing the RCPA and the 5-foot construction setback on 12 Lots 4-6, and 8-9; 13 s Exhibit "E", the table of RCPA trees (including Tree#, size, and species). 14 • Exhibit "F", a site plan showing the landscaping and 6-foot solid fence in open 15 space Tract B abutting Lots 1, 7, and 8. 16 17 The above exhibits shall be no larger than 81/2" x 11" and shall not contain lettering 18 smaller than 10 point font. 19 20 The Notice also shall include the following information: 21 22 a. Setbacks, lot coverage and floor area shall be limited to those illustrated in Exhibit A, 23 unless modified by prior written approval by the City of Lake Oswego. 24 25 b. Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are flag lots. Development of structures on these lots shall comply 26 with the provisions of LOC 50.07.007.1 regarding building and site design standards, 27 including height limitations, garage placement, and landscape buffer requirements. 28 The following site development restrictions apply: 29 30 i. The maximum height of the future dwellings shall be 26.7 feet, measured from 31 the ground to the ridgeline of the roof as defined by LOC 50.10.003 "Height of 32 Building". 33 34 ii. The front, side, and rear yard setbacks shall be as outlined in attached Exhibit 35 A. In addition to the setbacks outlined in Exhibit A, all primary structures 36 shall be located at least five feet from shared access easements. The front of 37 the dwellings on Lots 4-7 (and the associated dwelling and garage front yard 38 setbacks) shall be oriented towards the shared access lane to the north. The 39 front of the dwelling on Lot 8 (and the associated dwelling and garage front 40 yard setbacks) shall be oriented towards the access easement on Lot 9 to the 41 south. 42 43 iii. Maintenance of the 5-foot landscape buffer along both sides of the shared 44 access lane as it abuts Lots 1-7 is the ongoing obligation of the owners of 45 these lots. See attached Exhibit B. 46 LU 14-0034-1856 Page 7 of 18 51 1 iv. The City of Lake Oswego Fire Department has determined that the fire apparatus 2 means of access to Lots 4 and 5 do not meet the minimum requirements of the 3 Fire Code and State Building Code requirements. The Building Official may allow 4 an alternate to the minimum requirements of the One-and Two-Family Dwelling 5 Specialty Code as authorized by ORS 455.610. The owner or owner's 6 representative shall install the approved alternate method for fire suppression on 7 Lots 4 and 5, an NFPA 13-0 residential fire sprinkler system, to the satisfaction of 8 the Building Official. 9 10 c. Tree #795, a 45-inch Oregon white oak on Lot 6, shall be preserved from 11 development until such time as the tree is determined to be dead or hazardous 12 to people or property by a certified arborist. See attached Exhibit C. If removal 13 becomes necessary, the property owner(s) shall apply for and obtain an 14 appropriate tree removal permit issued by the City of Lake Oswego. 15 16 d, Trees#747 and 757 on Lot 3, (a 33-inch and a 29-inch Oregon white oaks, 17 respectively) shall be preserved from development. See attached Exhibit C. All 18 development on Lot 3 shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the trunk of 19 Tree #757. As such time that either or both trees are determined to be dead or 20 hazardous to people or property by a certified arborist, removal may be allowed. 21 If removal becomes necessary, the property owner(s) shall apply for and obtain 22 an appropriate tree removal permit issued by the City of Lake Oswego. 23 24 e. Tree #762, a 40-inch Oregon white oak in the public right-of-way abutting Lot 2, 25 shall be preserved from development until such time as the trees are determined 26 to be dead or hazardous to people or property by a certified arborist. See 27 attached Exhibit C. If removal becomes necessary, the property owner(s) shall 28 apply for and obtain an appropriate tree removal permit issued by the City of 29 Lake Oswego. 30 31 f. Private Open Space Tract B shall be landscaped and fenced as shown in attached 32 Exhibit F. Maintenance of the landscaping and fencing is the ongoing obligation 33 of property owners of Lots 1, 7, and 8. No buildings or structures other than 34 fencing shall be allowed in Tract. B. 35 36 g. Lots 4-6 and Lots 8-9 are subject to a 5-foot Resource Conservation Protection Area 37 construction setback where their respective side or rear yards abut Private Open 38 Space Tracts A and C. This is illustrated on Exhibit D. 39 40 h. Private Open Space Tracts A and C shall remain in their natural condition to 41 provide a scenic, aesthetic appearance; protect natural resources; provide 42 passive recreational uses; and maintain the native vegetation of the open space. 43 The City may approve activities that enhance the natural qualities of the open 44 space and meet the above purpose of the open space. Trees may be removed 45 only after they have been shown to be dead, invasive, or hazardous to life or 46 property by a certified arborist, and after a tree removal permit has been LU 14-0034-1856 Page 8 of 18 52 1 obtained from the City of Lake Oswego in accordance with Chapter 55 Tree Code 2 and/or Sensitive Lands (LOC 50.05.010). A mitigation plan shall be required as 3 part of any tree removal permit application. Improvements in this area, which 4 are in keeping with the above purpose, including public utilities and pedestrian 5 pathways may be approved by the City of Lake Oswego. No buildings or 6 structures shall be allowed in Tracts A and C. 7 8 Private Open Space Tracts A and C contain a delineated a RC Protection Area as 9 illustrated in Exhibits D and E and as determined and documented in City of Lake 10 Oswego Planning and Building Services Case File LU 14-0034. Future 11 development in these areas is subject to the City of Lake Oswego RC Protection 12 Area standards set forth in LOC 50.05.010, including but not limited to: 13 14 i. Tree removal within the RC Protection Area is subject to the tree removal 15 permit requirements of LOC Chapter 55 (Tree Code) and the Sensitive Lands 16 provisions of LOC 50.05.010. 17 18 ii. Manual removal of invasive or nuisance plant material (such as English ivy, 19 Himalayan blackberry, and poison oak) within the RC Protection Area may be 20 allowed, so long as native understory plants are maintained. 21 22 iii. The RC Protection Area is intended to remain in its natural state to maintain 23 the natural function and character of the resource area, which provides food 24 and shelter for native wildlife. 25 26 CONTACT THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES 27 DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY ACTIVITY INSIDE THE RC 28 PROTECTION AREA. 29 30 The RC Protection Area may be modified as provided in Lake Oswego Code 31 [LOC 50.05.010.5.b]. In the event the RC Protection Area is removed from the 32 subject property, a release of this Development Restriction shall be recorded 33 by the City of Lake Oswego within 30 days following a request by the 34 Grantor(s). 35 36 8. Submit maintenance agreements for the private shared access lane serving Lots 1-7, 37 the access easement serving Lots 8 and 9, any public or private utility easements, 38 and the parking spaces on Lots 2, for review and approval of staff. These agreements 39 shall be recorded at the Clackamas County Recorder's Office at the time of recording 40 the final plat. 41 42 9. Submit a stamped and signed survey of the RC Protection Area boundaries, as 43 illustrated on Exhibit E5, along with an 8 z/" x 11" reduction to be used as an exhibit 44 in the Notice of Development Restrictions. The following information shall be 45 included on the survey: 46 LU 14-0034-1856 Page 9 of 18 53 1 a. Clearly label the boundaries of the RC Protection Area. 2 3 b. Label distances and bearings of the RC Protection Area boundaries. 4 5 c. Label the 5-foot construction setback from the RCPA. 6 7 10. Submit CC&Rs of the HOA for review and approval of staff that address the following: 8 9 a. Ownership, use, and maintenance of open space Tracts A, B, and C. 10 11 b. An operation and maintenance plan, for the stormwater facilities in Tract A and 12 along the frontage of Carman Drive, and a schedule for annual inspection and 13 maintenance for these stormwater facilities by the HOA to control non-native 14 vegetation. 15 16 c. An annual maintenance report for the stormwater facilities. 17 18 d. Upon transfer of the HOA from the developer to the homeowners within the 19 development, the City shall be notified of the name and address of a contact 20 person for the HOA. 21 22 e. Upon election of new officers for the HOA, the City shall be notified of the new 23 contact person. 24 25 f. The City's right to enforce the provisions of the CC&Rs required, above, including 26 the right to recover all expenses of enforcement, the right to lien the lots to 27 secure enforcement expenses, "non-waiver" of enforcement, non-amendment or 28 rescission of the provisions of the CC&Rs required, above, and indemnification to 29 the City for claims arising from the failure to properly design, locate, construct, or 30 maintain the open space tracts or stormwater facilities. (Suggested text for this 31 requirement may be obtained from the City Attorney's office.) 32 33 g. The ownership, use, and maintenance of the following features: 34 35 i. The four parking spaces on Lot 2 with an access easement for all lots. 36 37 ii. Access easements for the shared access lane for Lots 1-7 and the access 38 easement on Lot 9 benefitting Lot 8. 39 40 11. Submit final construction plans and an itemized cost estimate for review and 41 approval by the City Engineer. The plans shall conform to the City's design standards 42 and the drafting specifications found in the City's booklet "CAD standards and Design 43 Requirements", May 2006. The plans shall include the following material, design 44 features and notes: 45 46 LU 14-0034-1856 Page 10 of 18 54 1 Carman Drive 2 3 a. Widen the pavement along the entire site frontage to achieve a minimum 12-foot 4 travel lane and 6-foot bike lane (measured from the existing painted yellow 5 centerline) and construct a minimum 3-foot wide compacted crushed rock shoulder. 6 7 b. Construct an 8-foot wide vegetated drainage swale along the site frontage. 8 9 c. A public storm main in Carman Drive, oriented along the site frontage. 10 11 d. Construct a 6-foot wide asphalt pedestrian pathway behind the drainage swale along 12 the site frontage and connect to the existing abutting sidewalk at each end of the 13 site. A minimum 1-foot level area between the drainage swale and the front of the 14 pathway and a minimum 1-foot level area between the back of the pathway and the 15 right-of-way line shall also be provided. 16 17 e. Street lighting to comply with the provisions of the lighting standard. A photometrics 18 plan and illumination details for the required street light shall be submitted, to the 19 satisfaction of staff. 20 21 f. An 8-inch public sanitary sewer extension from the intersection of Royal Oaks Drive 22 and Carman Drive to the northeast corner of the site and terminate with a manhole 23 in Carman Drive. The design shall take into account the grade to allow for future 24 extension beyond the development. 25 26 g. Sufficient public right-of-way dedication along the entire site frontage so that the 27 above described improvements are located entirely within the right-of-way. The 28 only exception is that a public sidewalk easement will be allowed for any portion of 29 the sidewalk that will meander onto the site in order to preserve trees. 30 31 h. An 8-inch public sanitary sewer main into the site from the new main extension in 32 Carman Drive in order to serve Lots 1-7. The sewer shall be located in the shared 33 access lane within a public sanitary sewer easement. 34 35 i. A shared access driveway approach onto Carman Drive for access to Lots 1-7 to City 36 standards and AASHTO standards. The maximum width of the shared access lane 37 approach, where the approach meets the right-of-way line, shall be 20 feet. In 38 addition, no parking shall be allowed on either side of the access lane; signage in 39 compliance with the Fire Code shall be required. 40 41 j. Shift the access easement on Lot 9 north partially onto Lot 8. As an alternative, the 42 applicants may keep the current access easement location on Lot 9 and limit all 43 grading associated with the driveway and shoulder to the 5-foot RCPA construction 44 setback. (Note: If the latter option is chosen, the applicants shall provide a certified 45 arborist report that details specific tree preservation measures to ensure the long- 46 term health of any RCPA trees in open space Tract C that may be impacted.) LU 14-0034-1856 Page 11 of 18 55 1 k. Individual private sanitary services and storm laterals. 2 3 I. Water services to Lots 1-7, to the satisfaction of the Lake Grove Water District. 4 5 m. Installation of a fire hydrant near the intersection of the shared access lane and 6 Carman Drive, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal and City Engineer. 7 8 Grevstoke Drive 9 10 a. An 8-inch public sanitary sewer main extension at the end of Greystoke Drive for 11 approximately 10 feet, terminating with a manhole at the right-of-way 12 line/project boundary line, in order to provide sanitary service to Lots 8 and 9 13 and to prevent diagonal laterals from being constructed across the end of the 14 street. 15 16 b. A public storm main extension from the existing manhole at the intersection of 17 Royal Oaks Drive and Greystoke Drive, to the site's west boundary line, in order 18 to provide conveyance for the runoff from the development site. 19 20 c. Water service to Lots 8 and 9, to the satisfaction of the Lake Grove Water 21 District. 22 23 12. Complete all public improvements or provide a financial guarantee to ensure their 24 construction per LOC 50.07.003.9. The financial guarantee shall be based on an 25 itemized engineer's estimate of the public improvements that is in turn based on 26 plans that are far enough advanced to support the estimate, to the satisfaction of 27 the City Engineer. 28 29 13. Per LOC Chapter 52, apply for and obtain an approved erosion prevention and 30 sediment control permit issued through the City of Lake Oswego, and install and 31 maintain all BMPs as indicated in the permit. These measures shall remain in place 32 as indicated throughout the development period. 33 34 14. Apply for and obtain a verification tree removal permit for the 31 trees approved for 35 removal to construct the public improvements and completion of the approved 36 grading plan. The verification tree removal permit submittal shall include an 81/2" x 37 11" copy of the tree removal plan and a mitigation plan showing 31 replacement 38 trees in compliance with Condition A(15), below. Replacement trees shall not be 39 dwarf or ornamental varieties and shall be at least two inches in caliper if deciduous 40 or at least six to eight feet tall (excluding the leader) if evergreen. Replacement trees 41 located within the RC Protection Area shall be a native species identified on the City 42 of Lake Oswego's Master Plant List. 43 44 45 LU 14-0034-1856 Page 12 of 18 56 1 15. Submit a final landscape plan for review and approval of staff. The plan shall be in 2 accordance with Exhibit E18, with the following modifications: 3 4 i. Illustrate the size, species, and location of a total of 31 Type II mitigation trees (a 5 mix of native deciduous and evergreen trees that meet minimum size 6 requirements of LOC Chapter 55). 7 8 ii. A minimum of 19 of the required 31 mitigation trees (required due to 9 development activity in open space Tract A) shall be spread out into the RCPA 10 behind Lots 4-6 with a minimum of 12-foot on-center spacing. In addition, at 11 minimum four of the seven proposed vine maples shall be replaced with 2-inch 12 caliper Oregon white oaks. 13 14 iii. A 4-foot privacy fence along the Carman Drive frontages of Lots 1-3. 15 16 iv. Modify the proposed seven Norway maple street trees along the Carman Drive 17 frontage to a different (non-invasive) species of maple. 18 19 v. A note instructing the removal of all burlap and wire baskets from all trees and 20 shrubs prior to planting. 21 22 16. Pay the final plat review fee. 23 24 17. Provide a written agreement between the applicants and a certified arborist 25 demonstrating that the arborist will review the final site, utility, grading and 26 landscape plans to assure long term survival of trees and will be present on site at 27 any time excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity occurring 28 within the tree protection zones, to ensure proper protection of all trees to remain. 29 30 18. Submit a preliminary title report or lot book report showing the status of title and 31 any liens and encumbrances. 32 33 B. Within 90 Days of the Recordation of the Final Plat. the ADolicants/Owners Shall: 34 35 1. Submit a final title report, or lot book report from a title company demonstrating 36 that the final plat was validly recorded and that the private and public easements, 37 Notice of Development Restrictions, and the maintenance agreements as required by 38 conditions, above, are valid and subsisting, and that the parcels are either free and 39 clear of liens or encumbrances, or that the holders of the liens and encumbrances 40 consent to the creation and recordation of the plat, dedication, easements, and 41 Notice of Development Restriction. 42 43 44 45 LU 14-0034-1856 Page 13 of 18 57 1 C. Prior to Constructing the Public Imorovements or Issuance of a Site Grading Permit.the 2 ADelicants/Owners Shall: 3 4 1. Obtain a street opening permit for any work in the public rights-of-way, including 5 underground utility installation. 6 7 D. Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit on any of the Lots.the Aoulicants/Owners 8 Shall: 9 10 1. Demonstrate compliance with Conditions A, B, and C, above. 11 12 2. Complete all public and site improvements as required by Condition A(11), above, 13 submit certified "as-built" drawings, and receive a certificate of completion and 14 acceptance by the City. This includes the construction of the private sanitary 15 services, private storm lines and laterals, private water services and private franchise 16 utilities serving all of the lots. 17 18 3. Install all mitigation plantings in open space Tract A pursuant to the final landscaping 19 plan, as required by Condition A(15), above, to the satisfaction of staff. 20 21 4. Post a performance bond or letter of credit to the City that is equal to 120%of the 22 value of the open space Tract A mitigation plantings as required by Condition D(3), 23 above, for a 3-year period, to the satisfaction of staff. 24 25 5. The required yard setbacks, height, lot coverage, and floor area for each lot shall be 26 as illustrated in the Notice of Development Restriction, Condition A(7), above. 27 28 6. For Lots 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8, provide a certified arborist report that outlines specific tree 29 preservation methods for the Oregon white oaks required to be preserved per 30 Condition A(7), above (Trees#747, 757, 762, and 795). The reports shall outline 31 specific protection measures that will maintain a favorable root environment for 32 preservation of these trees. For Lot 9, provide a certified arborist report that 33 outlines specific tree preservation methods for the two Douglas firs located on 34 Waluga Park-West (Trees# 10046 and 10050 per Exhibit E5), to the south of the site. 35 36 7. The shared driveway for Lots 8 and 9 shall be constructed so grading for the 4-foot 37 shoulder is contained wholly within the 5-foot RCPA construction setback. In 38 addition, provide a certified arborist report that outlines specific tree preservation 39 methods for any trees in the RCPA Tract C that may impacted. The report shall 40 outline specific protection measures that will maintain a favorable root environment 41 for preservation of these trees. As an alternative, if the applicants have shifted the 42 access easement north partially onto Lot 8, no grading within the 5-foot RCPA 43 construction setback shall be allowed. 44 45 8. All development on Lot 3 shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the trunk of 46 Tree #757. LU 14-0034-1856 Page 14 of 18 58 1 9. As applicable, site plans for all lots shall include street trees, shared access lane 2 landscaping, fencing, and open space landscaping as shown on Exhibit E18 and 3 modified by Condition A(15), above. 4 5 10. On Lots 4-6, 8 and 9, illustrate the RCPA boundaries and the 5-foot RCPA 6 construction setback on the site plans for all future development applications. 7 8 11. The garages on Lots 4-8 (flag lots) shall comply with the Flag Lot garage appearance 9 and location standards per LOC 50.07.007.2.e.ii, to the satisfaction of staff. 10 11 12. Submit an engineered design for on-site subsurface stormwater disposal systems 12 and/or planters on each lot, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The infiltration 13 systems shall be uniquely designed for each lot, and shall take into consideration 14 runoff entering the lot from the adjacent private driveways (if any). The systems 15 shall also be oriented and located as prescribed in the geotechnical report (Exhibit 16 F5). 17 18 13. Install construction protection measures for the shared access lane bio-cells in order 19 to protect the facilities during dwelling construction, to the satisfaction of the City 20 Engineer. 21 22 14. Submit updated geotechnical reports for each lot, as deemed necessary by the 23 Building Official. 24 25 15. Show the vision clearance triangles on the site plans of each building permit 26 application. On corner lots, the nearest edge of the proposed driveway to the 27 intersection shall be no closer than 30 feet when measured from the projected curb 28 of the street that is the most parallel to the alignment of the proposed driveway. 29 The four off-street parking stalls and any associated landscaping along the private 30 shared access lane on Lot 2 shall also meet the vision clearance standard. 31 32 16. For each lot, apply for the appropriate tree removal permit, if necessary, and submit 33 mitigation plans. For mitigation, deciduous trees shall have a minimum caliper of 34 two (2) inches and conifer trees shall be a minimum of 6-8 feet high (excluding the 35 leader). 36 37 E. Prior to any Final Building Inspection or Occupancy of any Dwelling on any Lot,the 38 Applicants/Owners Shall: 39 40 1. Install all Type II mitigation trees as required by Condition D(16), above. 41 42 2. Install all street trees, fencing, and landscaping, as required by Conditions A(15) and 43 0(9), above. 44 LU 14-0034-1856 Page 15 of 18 59 1 3. Provide certification from the engineer of record that the stormwater planter for 2 each lot was constructed according to the design and is functioning properly,to the 3 satisfaction of the City Engineer. 4 5 4. Post-construction protection measures for protecting the shared access lane and 6 Carman Drive drainage facilities shall be left in place until after the final dwelling 7 construction has been completed. 8 9 Code Requirements: 10 11 1. Tree Protection: Submit a tree protection plan and application as required by LOC 12 55.08.020 and 55.08.030 for review and approval by staff, including off-site trees 13 that are within the construction zone. The plan shall include: 14 15 a. The location of temporary tree protection fencing, consisting of a minimum 6- 16 foot high cyclone fence secured by steel posts around the tree protection zone, 17 or as recommended by the project arborist and approved by the City. 18 19 b. A note stating that no fill or compaction shall occur within the critical root zones 20 of any of the trees, or that if fill or compaction is unavoidable, measures will be 21 taken as recommended by a certified arborist to reduce or mitigate the impact of 22 the fill or compaction. The note shall also inform contractors that the project 23 arborist shall be on site and oversee all construction activities within the tree 24 protection zone. 25 26 c. A note that clearly informs all site contractors about the necessity of preventing 27 damage to the trees, including bark and root zone. The applicant and 28 contractor(s) shall be subject to fines, penalties and mitigation for trees that are 29 damaged or destroyed during construction. 30 31 d. A sign shall be attached to the tree protection fencing which states that inside 32 the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior written 33 approval has been obtained from the City Manager and project arborist. 34 35 Notes 36 37 1. The applicants are advised to take part in a Post Land Use Approval meeting. City 38 staff offers the opportunity to meet and discuss this decision and the conditions of 39 approval necessary to finalize the project. The purpose of the meeting is to ensure 40 all the conditions are understood and to identify other permits necessary to 41 complete the project. To take advantage of this meeting, please contact the staff 42 coordinator at (503) 635-0290. 43 44 45 LU 14-0034-1856 Page 16 of 18 60 1 2. The land use approval for this project does not imply approval of a particular 2 design, product, material, size, method of work, or layout of public infrastructure 3 except where a condition of approval has been devised to control a particular 4 design element or material. 5 6 3. Development plans review, permit approval, and inspections by the City of Lake 7 Oswego Planning and Building Services Department are limited to compliance 8 with the Lake Oswego Community Development Code, and related code 9 provisions. The applicant is advised to review plans for compliance with 10 applicable state and federal laws and regulations that could relate to the 11 development, e.g., Americans with Disabilities Act, Endangered Species Act, etc. 12 City staff may advise the applicant of issues regarding state and federal laws that 13 the City staff member believes would be helpful to the applicants, but any such 14 advice or comment is not a determination or interpretation of federal or state 15 law or regulation. 16 LU 14-0034-1856 Page 17 of 18 61 1 DATED this 15th day of September, 2014, 2 3 4 Bob Needham Isl 5 Bob Needham, Chair 6 Development Review Commission 7 8 Janice Reynolds Al 10 Janice Reynolds 11 Administrative Support III 12 13 ATTEST: 14 15 TENTATIVE DECISION—September 3. 2014 16 AYES: Needham, Ahrend, Creighton, Melendez and Prichard 17 NOES: Poulson 18 ABSTAIN: None 19 ABSENT: Johnson 20 21 WRITTEN FINDINGS September 15. 2014 22 AYES: Needham, Ahrend, and Melendez 23 NOES: Poulson 24 ABSTAIN: None 25 ABSENT: Johnson, Creighton and Prichard 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 LU 14-0034-1856 Page 18 of 18 62