Loading...
Agenda Packet - 2000-01-19 PM 7 PLANNING DEPARTMENT FILE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA PACKET JANUARY 19, 2000 osivt City of Lake Oswego • istWDevelopment Review Commission Wednesday, January 19, 2000 7 p.m. OR EGOS City Hall Council Chambers 380 A Avenue Members: Lake Oswego,OR 97034 • Julie Morales,Chair Nan Binkley,Vice Chair For Information: 635-0290 Doug Cushing Douglas Kiersey Agenda Sheila Ostly Bruce Miller This meeting is in a handicapped accessible location. For any special accommodations, please contact Janice Bader at 635-0297, 48 hours before the meeting. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 20, 1999 • IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 99-0042,a request by Venture Properties to modify the existing site plan by increasing the length of the three most westerly parking spaces from 18 feet to 28 feet [DR 27-97]. This modification will require the redesign of the storm water quality facility and landscaping will be reduced from 38.7%to 37.8%. The site is located at 4230 Galewood Street, Tax Lot 2000 of Tax Map 21E 8BC. Staff coordinator is Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner. Continued from the 12/6/99 and 1/3/99 DRC meetings. LU 99-0066,a request by Mr. Howard Franklin for a hearing regarding the proposed Tree Cutting Permit Application TC 99-0166. The applicant,Richard Breakiron, is requesting approval to remove nine trees, ranging in size from approximately 9"to 23" in order to construct a new single family dwelling on the site. The site is located at 15199 Lily Bay Court,Tax lot 7100 of Tax Map 21E 9BD. The staff coordinator is Sandy Ingalls, Planning Technician. AP 99-13,the applicant, WRG Designs, Inc., is appealing the Planning Director's decision [LU 99-0029] approving a minor partition request to divide a 1.28 acre lot into three parcels, including two flag lots. The property is located at 1501 Country Club Rd., Tax lot 2900 of Tax Map 21E 4DB. The staff coordinator is Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner. VI. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS • VII. ADJOURNMENT /7640• .�� MEMORANDUM TO: Development Review Commission FROM: Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager SUBJECT: Additional Exhibits on LU 99-0042 [Venture Properties] DATE: January 6, 2000 I. INTRODUCTION OF NEW EXHIBITS The Commission originally received testimony from the applicant and citizens concerning the proposed modification of the site plan at the hearing of December 6, 1999. At the request of the applicant, the hearing was continued to January 3, 2000,in order to provide additional time to the applicant and citizens to submit written testimony. However, due to a conflict with another meeting also scheduled on January 3, the applicant requested the hearing be further continued to January 19, 2000 (Exhibit 29). • The applicant has since submitted the followinginformation for the Commission's review and PP consideration: Exhibit 30 Letter by Dorothy S. Cofield(with four attachments), dated December 13, 1999 Exhibit 31 Letter by Dorothy S. Cofield (final written argument), dated December 23, 1999 In response to the applicant's testimony at the December 6 hearing and the additional information provided in Exhibits 30 and 31, staff presents the following staff communications for the Commission's review: Exhibit 32 Memo by Evan P. Boone, Deputy City Attorney, dated January 5, 2000 Exhibit 33 Memo by Mark Schoening (City Engineer), dated January 4, 2000 II. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES Staff has reviewed the information provided by the applicant and makes the following findings: • Comprehensive Plan Policies—West End Business District Policies Staff disagrees with the applicant's interpretation of the West End Business District policies as • presented in Exhibit 31. Staff finds that the proposed modification of the parking lot will move the affected parking spaces closer to the residential properties than originally approved. This Page I of 4 will result in additional noise, light and pollution to the adjoining neighbors. The proposed retaining wall does not provide any screening, because it is below the parking area and in fact is • used to elevate and support the parking spaces. The Commission has already received testimony from two of the affected neighbors living adjacent to the parking area that the proposal is unacceptable and in violation of the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan policies, because it creates additional noise and light towards those residences. This concern is well documented in Attachment 2 of Exhibit 33, which shows the relationship between oversized vehicles and the modified parking area. As it can be seen,the three oversized vehicles parked in the modified parking area would be situated well above the proposed railing along the pond, potentially projecting headlight and noise towards the adjoining single family residences. Therefore, staff finds that the application fails to comply with the applicable Plan policies, including Policies 4(d), 5(h) and 6(b). • Off-Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Access [LODS 7] Staff continues to find that the proposed elongated parking spaces are out of scale and not consistent with the overall design of the site plan. Contrary to the applicant's contention, staff finds that introduction of long vehicles with utility trailers will in fact create potential safety concerns on the site. This is due to the fact that 25'+ long vehicles(with attached trailers) would need approximately 36 feet of aisle width to efficiently turn around. Since the existing site plan provides only 24' aisle width directly behind the affected spaces, any long vehicle and trailer parked in these spaces would need to back up towards the southeast corner of the site where there may be a slightly greater aisle width in order to turn around. Staff finds that most vehicles and • trailers would not be able to turn around at that location and would be forced to back all the way up into the adjoining office development to the north before they can leave the site. Staff finds this maneuvering pattern does not meet the provisions of LODS 7.020 which requires that parking and site design should not interfere with the parking or maneuvering of any other vehicle. Backing up 25'-28' long vehicles, with trailers attached to the back, half way or all the way through the site would clearly interfere with parking and maneuvering of the vehicles that use the site. The Commission should also note that the Chairman of the Waluga Neighborhood Association, who operates a utility vehicle with an attached trailer, testified at the December 6, 1999, hearing that these vehicles operate with minimal visibility at the back, with associated safety concerns. Staff further finds that the primary reason for the proposed modification, i.e., being able to park trailers for loading and unloading furniture from the basement, is expressly prohibited by LODS 7.020(1)(a). This standard states"Required parking spaces shall be available for the parking of operable passenger vehicles of residents, customers, patrons and employees and shall not be used for the storage of vehicles or materials or for the loading and unloading or parking of vehicles used in conducting the business or use." [Emphasis added]. Additionally, LODS 7.020(1)(g) requires the applicant to provide loading berth in sufficient numbers and size to adequately handle the needs of the development. The standard states" The off-street parking areas to fulfill the requirements of this standard shall not be used for loading and unloading or the storage of vehicles or materials or parking of trucks used in conducting business • or use." [Emphasis added] Staff finds that all existing parking spaces on the site are needed to Page 2 of 4 meet the parking requirement for the existing 11,400 square foot office building (including 1,800 • square foot finished basement). The conversion of three spaces into loading and unloading zone will make the development non-compliant regarding off street parking. Therefore, whether the applicant plans to use the elongated parking spaces for the purpose of loading and unloading furniture or to park non-passenger vehicles used in conducting the business or use is not allowed. In fact, the applicant's own testimony that they currently use some of the existing parking spaces for the above noted purposes may constitute a violation of this standard. Staff notes that the existing development was approved for general office use. If the applicant desires to have an opportunity to park non-passenger vehicles on site that are used for conducting the business, he would need to create a separate parking area without impacting general office parking area(by example see post office). Additionally, to accommodate loading and unloading of furniture on the site, the applicant must provide a designated loading and unloading area without reducing the amount of on site parking. • Landscaping, Screening and Buffering [LODS 9] Staff finds that the addition of a five-foot tall,40'+ wide wall along the east side of the pond is not consistent with the overall landscape design of the site. The proposed landscaping will not adequately screen and buffer the wall from the adjoining residential properties to the south and west. Staff finds that the proposed wall would cerate a negative visual environment at the southwest corner of the site. For a detailed analysis of this issue please refer to the November 24, • 1999, staff report. • Drainage for Major Development [LODS 11] • Procedural Issue The City Engineer has reviewed information submitted by the applicant, and provides a detailed response in Exhibit 33. It is the City Engineer's opinion that the proposed modifications to the pond design contained in the development application are not acceptable, as was originally reviewed and commented on in the November 18, 1999, memorandum to Liz Jacob. The Commission should note that while this memo was not included in the record, substantial parts of the memo were incorporated verbatim in the November 24, 1999, staff report. Staff has attached the November 18, 1999, memorandum as Exhibit 34. Staff finds that the City Engineer has evaluated the proposed modifications of the drainage pond for compliance with engineering standards, and that he has rejected the drainage pond modification plans. In addition, given the fact that the site is fully developed, staff finds no realist alternatives that could potentially meet the design requirements of the City and the applicant did not present any alternatives during the hearing. Therefore, staff finds that the requirements of this standard, particularly LODS 11.035(1), have not and can not be met based • on the current design proposal. Page 3 of 4 The Deputy City Attorney had stated at the December 6, 1999, hearing that the Drainage Standard for Major Development provides the City Engineer with the authority to review, for engineering purposes, the design of the drainage management facilities in a development. The applicant contends that such a review through a separate process is contrary to the requirements of the Code (Exhibit 30). Staff finds that there are both historical and legal precedents to support staffs findings that the City Engineer has the authority to approve final drainage plans for engineering compliance. As with regards to the applicant's drainage plans,the City Engineer has already testified at the December 6, 1999, hearing that the proposal is not acceptable per the engineering design criteria of the City's "Surface Water Management Design Manual", because the wall and its back fill intrude into an area that should be protected from structures and fill. This issue has also been analyzed in detail in the November 24, 1999, staff report(pages 8-10). The City Engineer has advised that proposed drainage plans fail to meet City engineering requirements in Exhibit 33. [Specifically, the City Engineer disagrees with the consulting engineer's conclusions on such issues as design of the drainage pond, including impacts of the proposed five-foot retaining wall and access to the outlet structures] Staff also notes that the graphic information provided by the City Engineer clearly illustrate the true nature and dimension of the proposed five foot retaining wall, Exhibit 33(attachment 2). • On-Site Circulation—Driveways and Fire Access Roads [LODS 19] This standard requires that driveways, including parking areas, should conform to the • requirements of Off-Street Parking Standard [LODS 7]. Staff has provided detailed analysis of this standard and lack of compliance with the requirements of the parking standard earlier, above. III. CONCLUSION Staff finds that based on the information provided by the applicant and findings presented above and in the November 24, 1999, staff report, LU 99-0042 does not comply with all applicable criteria. Specifically, staff finds that the proposal fails to comply with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies of West End Business District, and the requirements of the applicable development standards as noted earlier in this memorandum. IV. RECOMMENDATION Based on the conclusion above, staff recommends denial of LU 99-0042. 1:1hamid_plreports\l u99-0042m • Page 4 of 4 Boone, Evan From: Dorothy Cofield [cofield@hevanet.com] ent: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 12:11 PM o: eboone@ci.oswego.or.us Subject: Venture Properties Dear Evan: My client, Venture Properties, has informed me that there is a conflict with the January 3. 2000 continued hearing date for the Galewood property parking lot expansion application. Venture Properties owns property in Wilsonville that is subject to the proposed Ordinance 514 (Public Facilities Plan for Water), which is set for public hearing on January 3, 2000. I, and Venture Properties' staff, must attend the Wilsonville public hearing which will undoubtedly be passed by emergency ordinance due to the moratorium ending on January 5, 2000. Therefore, I would like to request that the DRC continue the January 3, 2000 public hearing to January 17, 2000. I understand that the 120-day rule will be tolled for that period of time. Very truly yours, Dorothy S. Cofield cc: Kelly Ritz Renee Cannon • • EXHIBIT 29 LU 99-0042 O Dorothy S. Cofield, Attorney at Law Land Use Kruse Mercantile Professional Offices • 4248 Galewood Street • Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 (503) 675-4320 • Fax: (503) 675-4321 • E-mail: cofield@hevanet.com VIA HAND DELIVERY December 13, 1999 Development Review Commission 380 "A" Avenue Post Office Box 369 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Re: LU 99-0042/Venture Properties Dear Development Review Commission: Venture Properties is requesting to modify DR 27-97 in order to increase the length of the three most westerly parking spaces from 18 to 28 feet. This modification is requested in order to be able to park oversized vehicles and trailers that make visits to the Galewood Office Building. The reason the parking lot was not originally designed for contractors' vehicles is that • Venture Properties purchased the property with an approved design review and building plan. The proposed extension of three parking spaces will result in a minor redesign of the existing storm water quality facility by adding a five foot retaining wall on the east end of the pond. The requested modification will result in a safer and more aesthetically pleasing parking lot, and buffer the residential neighborhood from vehicle lights with appropriate landscaping. The modifications to the storm detention facility will meet all the city storm drainage standards. This letter will address the applicable approval criteria; introduce new evidence and demonstrate that the approval criteria are met. Procedural Issue As a threshold matter, the city attorney raised an issue at the end of the public hearing regarding the need for the approval of the city engineer in a separate review proceeding. Venture Properties disputes this contention as without precedent and contrary to the code. Review and approval by the city engineer does not require a separate administrative review proceeding. Rather, the city engineer's review and approval requirement in Title 11 would be at most a condition of approval for this minor development application. There is nothing in the Lake Oswego Code that supports a finding that the city engineer's • Page 1-VENTURE PROPERTIES LETTER TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION EXHIBIT 30 LU 99-0042 review and approval is a separate review proceeding. No procedures are outlined in the Code for such a review process: there are no separate notice requirements, no standards for review and no • procedures for appeal. In contrast, the Code is very specific regarding the procedures, standards and appeal process for a minor development application. The city attorney appeared to suggest at the public hearing that review by the city engineer constitutes a ministerial decision that would not be reviewed as a land use decision, but as a ministerial decision in a writ of review. Under the Lake Oswego Code and state law, a ministerial decision is one that does not require interpretation and is made under clear and objective standards. LOC 49.20.105. The storm drainage standards in Chapter 3 are not clear and objective, but requires the exercise of discretion in order to decide if the standards are met and, as such, is a land use decision. There is no code authority for the proposition that review of a storm drainage facility is a separate review process. To follow through with the city attorney's reasoning, the review required in Title 11 creates a bifurcation of a minor development application into a land use decision and a ministerial decision each with separate criteria and appeals procedures. There is no support for this increase in bureaucracy in the Code or in precedent. The record from DR 27-97 demonstrates how the City normally processes review of storm drainage. In that case, the application for design review involved the construction of a storm drainage detention facility. Review by the City Engineer was implemented as a condition of approval. Staff Report at 65. Furthermore, the city is estopped from bifurcating this minor development application into a separate ministerial proceeding once it has accepted the application, deemed it complete, • sent out public notice identifying the review standards, and held public hearings. The City cannot arbitrarily decide at the continued public hearing, without notice, that storm drainage review is a separate, ministerial review process or a condition precedent to applying for a minor development application. Review by the City Engineer should be a condition of approval as was done in DR 27-97. For these reasons, the Develoment Review Commission should decline to accept the city attorney's initial opinion that storm drainage review is a separate proceeding. Accordingly, the Commission should review the storm drainage modification as part of this minor development application. Approval Criteria The Staff has recommended denying this minor modification request because it does not 1 For Instance, Chapter 3.5(1) states "Walls adjacent to detention ponds and biofiltration swales are generally not allowed and should be avoided in the design of all development." (Emphasis Added). The underlined phrases are not clear and objective but require interpretation as to when walls are allowed. Page 2-VENTURE PROPERTIES LETTER TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION meet some of the approval criteria. The applicant has demonstrated that all the approval criteria • are met as follows: Commercial Land Use Policies LOC 48.10.315(5) prescribes that specific conditions for a commercial area identified on the City's Comprehensive Plan are "conditions and limitations of each zone." Staff states that Policies 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the West End Land Use Policies IV-A apply to this application. The policies that staff states are applicable are policies, not conditions applicable to an entire zone. Even if Policies 9, 10, 12, 12, and 13 were "conditions" those policies are implemented by specific development standards. Comprehensive Plan, Introduction, p. 5. When comprehensive plan policies are implemented by a city standard, those policies do not function as independent approval criteria and are not applicable to review of an application. According to staff, these policies require commercial development to minimize impacts on residential areas from traffic, lights, visual appearance of parking and loading areas, building bulk and height, noise and drainage? Staff found that the proposed modification will impact the ability to meet the City design standards for drainage, bio-filtration, and parking areas, and will negatively impact the relationship of the development to the adjacent single-family residential areas. Exhibits 1-4 are attached as evidence rebut staffs contentions on these issues. Applicant Venture Properties would like these exhibits included in the record. Exhibit 1 is a letter from Jack Kriz, Vice President of Mildren Design Group, an expert in Architecture and Space Planning. Mr. Kriz details how the proposed parking space expansion is compatible with the architectural design of the building itself, the site as a whole and the building use. For example, in (5), Mr. Kriz states that the "proposal will provide for more compatibility between this office building and the neighboring residences." He states that the "planting proposed in the area of the revised grading and added modular retaining wall will provide for better screening of vehicular headlights into the neighboring yards and homes." Exhibit 2 is a letter from Dan Edmonds of Prograss Landscape Services. With regard to the design standards, Mr. Edmonds disagrees with staff, noting that the additional landscaping will buffer the adjoining property from head light glare and from the view of the parking lot in general. In addition, Mr. Edmonds states that the longer parking spaces are necessary to improve turning and maneuvering for larger trucks, including emergency vehicles. Exhibit 3 is a letter from Renee Cannon of Don Morissette Homes, Inc. She specifically states that the vegetation will protect the neighbors from the view of the parking lot and that the 2 In reviewing Goal 9, Policies 9-13, the policy statements do not have the same meaning as staffs interpretation. cf. Staff Report, page 4-5 and Comprehensive Plan, page 128-129. If there are other comprehensive plan policies, specific to the West End Land use Policies IV-A, the attorney for Venture Properties would like to be provided with a copy of those plan policies. 110 Page 3-VENTURE PROPERTIES LETTER TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION lighting of the building is on a timer so that there is no disturbance from light after 10 p.m. Development Standards • With regard to the Off-Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Access Standard ( Title 7), staff found that the standard 9-foot by 18.5-foot parking spaces are adequate to accommodate the needs of large trucks and cars and that an elongated 9-foot by 28-foot space is out of scale for an office development. Staff's conclusions regarding the parking needs are wholly without merit. The proposed modification is to accommodate the long vehicles with utility trailers that deliver model home furniture and otherwise have need to visit the building because of the nature of the business within. See Exhibits 1, 2 and 3. The Landscaping, Screening and Buffering Standard (Title 9), requires effective screening and buffering to mitigate noise, lighting and other impacts from dissimilar uses. LODS 9.02(6). Staff found that despite additional trees, a retaining wall of more than five-feet high would be an aesthetic degradation of the existing detention pond design and would create a "bathtub effect." Exhibits 1 through 4 specifically address these findings. Exhibits 1 through 3 detail the inaccuracy that the retaining wall will be an aesthetic degradation. Rather, these professionals state that the proposed landscaping will include more vegetation and improve the beauty of the • site. Exhibit 4 is a letter from Chris Beatty, P.E., of Harper Houf Righellis, Inc., the engineer for the storm water drainage facility. This letter provides insight into the specific design of the facility and rebuts the "bathtub effect" finding. With regard to the Drainage for Major Development Standard, (Title 11). Staff found that the construction of elongated spaces will require alterations to the detention/water quality pond that violate the City's design standards. Staff noted the City Engineer's finding that the wall and its backfill did not meet the Surface Water Management Design Manual criteria because they intrude into an area that should be protected from structures. Staff also found that the modification did not meet the requirement of a 4H:1V side slope to the top of the emergency overflow elevation. Exhibit 4 serves to rebut both of these contentions. Staff also found justification for denying the proposal under The On-Site Circulation Standard - Driveways and Fire Access Roads (Title 19), because there was no need for the elongated parking spaces. Exhibits 1 through 3 provide ample evidence that there is in fact a serious need for the elongated spaces, both from a commercial and a safety perspective. Finally, staff states with regard to the Tree Cutting Ordinance Requirements (LOC chapter 55) that "no subsequent construction should be allowed which might potentially negatively impact . . . existing firs." Staff has no basis to assume that any trees will be harmed Page 4-VENTURE PROPERTIES LETTER TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION by the proposal. To date, all of the construction surrounding the storm water drainage facility • has sought to and succeeded in protecting important trees. The implication that this additional minor development would not continue with that program is unwarranted. See Exhibits 3 and 4. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the Development Review Commission should incorporate Exhibits i through 4 into the record and approve the application in favor of the applicant, Venture Properties, Inc. Respectfully Submitted, (Tc2 Dorothy S. field Attorney for Venture Properties Inc. Enclosures: Dan Edmonds, Prograss Letter Renee Cannon, Don Morissette Homes Inc. Letter Chris Beatty, P.E., Harper Houf Righellis Inc. Letter Jack Kriz, Mildren Design Group, P.C. Letter 110 cc: Renee Cannon Kelly Ritz Page 5-VENTURE PROPERTIES LETTER TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION ifrimegmul"""— = EXHIBIT • December 10, 1999 1 IDRLN DbICN GRCL.. Ms Dorothy Cofield, Attorney at Law 4248 Galewood Street • Lake Oswego,Oregon 97035 Re: City of Lake Oswego review number LU 99-0042 MDG Project Number 98084.03 Dear Ms. Cofield: Following the hearing Monday night you asked our firm to further describe how the parking extension is compatible and complimentary to the architecture of the Galewood building. As a review, the three parking spaces immediately south of the building, at the west side of the parking lot, are proposed to be extended to allow the parking of longer vehicles, perhaps with trailers attached. We can state the following characteristics of this proposal where it is compatible with the architectural design of the building and its site and the architectural program,or use, of the building. 1. The proposed parking extension is in close proximity to the private entrance to the Don Morissette Homes and Venture Properties office. S 2. The proposed extended length of the parking is in keeping with the scale of the single story building and the existing parking lot. In fact, the proposed extension compares favorably with the overall length of the entire paved area at only approximately 5% of the existing total length.The existing standard dimension for a parking space does not consider the length of the type of vehicles utilized by a portion of the visitors to this site. 3. The proposed modular retaining wall and guardrail will have no significant impact on the aesthetic appearance of the site as they both will be essentially hidden from view by the proposed landscaping. 4. Since Venture Properties purchased the property after initial review and approval by the Lake Oswego Development Commission, their specialized needs were not part of the architectural programming we completed with the original owner/tenant.Therefore such needs were not a part of the original design process and submittal to the City. As this tenant is a developer heavily involved in the construction industry, it is likely that sub contractors and staff will park vehicles used in their work which can be large pickups,sometimes with trailers. 5. The proposal will provide for more compatibility between this office building and the neighboring residences.The planting proposed in the area of the revised grading and added modular retaining wall will provide for better screening of vehicular headlights into the neighboring yards and homes. The chosen landscaping will better screen the vehicles themselves as upon maturity,the proposed planting will • present a solid plane of foliage.Per discussions with the civil engineer,the function of the retention pond will not be compromised.As shown on the landscaping plan, 118305W Kerr Parkwa,.5ui;, Lake Oswego,OR 97035 503/244-0552 Fax 244- i Ms Dorothy Cofield Galewood Building,parking extension December 10,1999 P:\98084\WP\LTR-dcsdc.l.wpd Page 2 III planting is proposed at the top of the modular retaining wall for headlight screening, some plantings will cascade down the face of the wall, and some plantings will be at the base of the wall for further screening of the wall. 6. By selecting these three parking spaces for proposed increase in length, Don Morissette Homes picked three spaces that are in an area of their own and which provide the most area in the parking lot for maneuvering into and out of the spaces. 7. Recognizing the need for larger parking and actually modifying them will provide for safer use of the entire parking lot as the risk of damage to vehicles will be lessened. While parking exists in the larger area surrounding this building and neighboring buildings, all of it, to our knowledge, is private and of standard or compact size. 8. Reconfiguration of the retention pond, its contours and the added wall, will not unduly compromise access to the west portion of the site or building, especially since the pond is only rarely full. orrdiially, 641- ck Kriz jz • ice President c: Renee Cannon, Don Morissette Homes • • GRAss ` • - -Iz. EXHIBIT Landscape Care and Design • December 10, 1999 _ • - Dorothy Cofield Attorney at law 4248 SW Galewood Ln. Lake Oswego,OR 97035 Re: Lu 990042/Venture Properties Inc. Dear Dorothy, I am writing this letter to help clarify some issues that were brought up by the City of Lake Oswego staff concerning the parking lot improvements at the Galewood office building, located at 4230 SW Galewood lane in Lake Oswego. First I would like to address the issue of the"bathtub" effect that the proposed retaining wall is supposedly to create. As a licensed landscape contractor since 1988 I have been involved in many wetland mitigation projects concerning retention ponds and have seen numerous retention ponds constructed from Keystone retaining wall systems. It is a true fact if these walls are left without plantings that they look stark and unattractive but it is a proven fact that plant materials planted in front and on top of them help soften and create wonderful landscaping opportunities. Cascading plant material installed on the top of the wall planted in 16"of blended topsoil provide the desirable effect of eliminating the starkness. As research has shown, plant material that has South and Western exposures similar to those that exist at the location of the new Keystone wall, will result in mature, full and healthy plantings. Keystone walls also help in reducing silt and sediment deposits directed into the retention ponds caused by erosion. Second I would like to address the head light glare issues caused by cars parking in the three enlarged parking areas. Installing the Thuja orientalis `mina glauca' as a medium sized hedge will reduce light glare and as studies have shown absorb and deflect noise. Installing 16"of blended topsoil into the planting bed directly behind the Keystone wall, on top of fractured drain rock,will provide a great median in which to plant the `mimi glaucas'. The landscape plan also calls for additional evergreen trees to be planted along the South property line above the small Keystone wall. Between all of these plantings not only our we protecting the adjoining properties from head light glare but also from viewing the parking lot in general. Lastly I would like to comment on the need for bigger spots to park trucks and trailers. In securing my degree in Landscape architecture I had many courses on site planning and parking lot design. I would have to disagree with the staff in the summation that the larger spots do not help in parking or turning. Studies have shown that emergency vehicles need these larger spaces to maneuver oversized trucks into position to aide in fighting the loss of life and property. As a owner of a landscape business we find it very difficult to perform our weekly maintenance at commercial office properties due to the distance we must park our vehicles away from the site we are working on. I would like to close by stating that if done properly the retention pond will be more appealing to the eye -tip and less of distraction to the neighbors once additional landscaping is completed. Sincerely, "� Dan Edmonds ice. Prograss Landscape Services Inc. ,4_, Oregon • 29895 SW Kinsman Rd., Wilsonville, OR 97070 ccB#6136 = 11-1;41:14:: _ _ 13236 NE 177th PI.#100, Woodinville,WA 98072 CCB#PROGRI'0770A = _ _ DON MORISSETTE HOMES, INC. DON • MORISSETTE 4230 Galewood Street,Suite 100,Lake Oswego,OR 97035 • Office(503)387-7538 • FAX(503)387-7615 • CCU 35533 December 10, 1999 4 EXHIBIT a Ms. Dorothy Cofield 4 -2 4248 Galewood Street Lake Oswego, OR 97035 RE: CU 99-0042/Venture Properties, Inc. Dear Ms. Cofield: Venture Properties, Inc. purchased the site at 4230 Galewood along with an approved building plan. The building did not have all of the features need for our use. We tried to anticipate all of our needs, prior to asking for modifications from the Design Review Board. We did received approval for modifications to the plan but have discovered that we did not anticipate all of the parking issues thus we need a minor modifications to the . parking lot. The water quality/detention pond plans were approved and included authority to cut down a maple cluster on the south edge of the pond. Mr. Morissette reviewed the area prior to starting the pond excavation and wanted the maples saved by adding a retaining wall. We believed we had adequate pond allowance to save the maple cluster. As we learned later, we did not have the correct cubic space allowance needed, but we fixed the problem by re-sculpting the pond mostly by hand. As you know it is our policy is to comply with all regulations. If we make a mistake we fix it. We were given a temporary occupancy permit in August with the requirements to make some corrections. We completed the corrections and we were given a final occupancy permit within the required time frame. We delayed this minor change request until we had complied with all of the requirements of the Board of Design Review and the City of Lake Oswego. We are proud to be located in Lake Oswego and the employees of Don Morissette Homes, Inc., Don Morissette Realty, Inc. and Venture Properties, Inc. all enjoy our new space and the amenities offered in Lake Oswego. We are asking for a minor modification of our current parking lot to accommodate long vehicles with utility trailers to pick-up and deliver model home furniture to and from the basement using a truck. We have weekly meetings with the construction superintendents and often one of them has a utility vehicle to take to the jobsite. We also have weekly 0 landscape maintenance and that vehicle has a utility trailer. The length of a pickup and . utility trailer blocks other parking spaces. We do not have these vehicles in the lot everyday, but often enough we need to make provision for them. Today rented a 15- • passenger vehicle to conduct a tour for Realtors. I had difficulty maneuvering in and out of the parking lot. If a longer space had been available I would have been able to see the parking stripe when I backed into the space. A longer space would have made it easier for me to adjust my turning without pulling out, adjusting, pulling back. When I returned to the parking lot I had one of my passengers guide me so I would not block another car. In the last 6 years this is only the second time I can remember I have had a passenger to guide me into a spot. Our minor modification will improve the landscaping by intensify the plantings and will result in the pond being less visible to the neighbors. The existing plantings are growing well and already are screening views from my office toward the neighbors. Additional plantings will only add to the existing park-like appearance. One issue that I also want to clarify is the parking lot lighting and the building lighting. All outdoor lights are on a timer and turn off at 10pm. The only lights on all night are in the front near the street and those lights illuminate the United States Flag as required by flag etiquette. Sincerely, Renee Cannon Executive Vice-President Don Morissette Homes, Inc. • MIL-13A HER Harper Houf December 13, 1999 Rig h e 11 i s, Inc. 1311 \t.11♦ SI REF T, VANCOU%ER, WA e6660 • 360.750.1i31 www.hrcivil.com [:'.x 360.750.1141 Dorothy S. Cofield DSC 4248 Galewood Street EXHIBIT Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: LU 99-0042 / Venture Properties Dear Ms. Cofield, Following the Design Review Commission meeting that was held Monday, December 6, 1999, you asked me to submit additional information for the application. It is as follows: 1. According to Chapters 3 and 4 of the City of Lake Oswego Surface Water Management Design Manual, in order to obtain the required 50% phosphorus removal efficiency, all extended dry detention ponds shall meet the following criteria: • Ponds shall be designed to have a minimum hydraulic residence time of 48 hours for the design storm of 0.36 inches of precipitation falling in 4 hours. • Pon ds shall have an outlet control structure located outside the water storage II 9 area. The structure should be located in a place where it can be easily accessible for maintenance. • Ponds shall have a primary overflow to carry the 10-year storm event. The • • primary overflow should be located in the outlet control structure and shall discharge directly into the downstream conveyance system. • Ponds shall have an emergency overflow to carry the 100-year storm, which is to be located at least 12 inches above the primary overflow. • Ponds shall have a minimum of 12 inches of freeboard above the emergency overflow elevation. • Ponds shall have minimum length to width ratio of 3:1, with inlet and outlet piping located at opposite ends of the pond. • Pond bottom is to be level to facilitate sedimentation and shall have 6 inches of dead storage. • Pond interior side slope are to be no steeper than 4H:1V below the freeboard elevation. • Pond bottom and interior side slopes are to be covered with a minimum of 6 inches of topsoil. The treatment area of the pond shall be planted with a vegetation approved of by the City of Lake Oswego. • Retaining walls adjacent to pond are generally not allowed and should be avoided. • The existing detention pond at 4230 Galewood Street is currently in accordance with the City of Lake Oswego Surface Water Management Design Manual listed above with two exceptions: Principals. Charles L.Harper,RE. Daniel S.Houf,P.E. .Anthony O.Righellis,RE. Ron D.Peterson,P.E. Page 2 a.) There are two locations on the south and west side of the pond where interior side slopes exceed a 4H:1V slope. The increased slope in these areas was approved by the City and was designed to save two existing • trees. b.) Currently there are two retaining walls adjacent to the pond on the south and north sides. The wall on the south side was installed as a requirement from the City to provide 2 feet of freeboard. The wall on the north side of the pond was added during construction so that the tree on the south side of the pond could be saved. The addition of the north wall has been approved by the City of Lake Oswego. The design manual states that retaining walls are generally not allowed, however, this particular site has a substantial amount of large trees and is surrounded on three sides by existing developments. On a site like this, it is difficult to design a "text-book" detention pond without removing trees, constructing walls, etc. It is not uncommon to see detention ponds with retaining walls around them. 2. Adding an additional wall on the east side of the detention pond will not affect the overall function of the pond. The pond will have the same volume, and all stormwater will pass over a vegetative surface allowing for 50% phosphorus removal efficiency. Stormwater will receive treatment up to an elevation of 236.80. This is the treatment surface elevation. When the stormwater reaches a higher elevation than 236.80 it enters the primary overflow piping in the outlet control structure and discharges directly into a public storm line. The two existing retaining walls have approximate bottom elevations of 237.50 and 238.00. Both elevations are well above the treatment surface elevation, therefore have no impact on the required 50% phosphorus removal efficiency. • The lowest elevation on the proposed retaining wall is 236.54. Approximately 2 inches of the wall will be below the treatment surface elevation over a length of 15 feet. This amounts to 2.5 square feet of area where the wall will be below the treatment surface elevation. The current pond surface area is approximately 800 square feet. As can be seen, the new retaining wall will reduce the treatment surface area by an insignificant amount and would not impact the required 50% phosphorus removal efficiency. 3. All detention ponds have somewhat of a "bathtub effect" whether surrounded by walls or not. There are currently two City approved walls surrounding the pond giving it a "bathtub effect". Adding an additional wall will not add to the "bathtub effect" because the proposed landscaping will block the appearance of the wall. 4. I would like to reiterate that there is excellent access to the outlet control structure which is located in the parking lot. Also, the existing detention pond has an adequate volume to treat the additional impervious surface created by the extension of the parking lot. 5. At the Design Review Commission meeting there seemed to be some skepticism about how the arborvitae would grow behind the wall where drain rock will be located. As mentioned, topsoil will be placed above the drain rock. Also, when the contractor was excavating for the pond and building, the existing soil type consisted of a well drained gravelly material. The drain rock material covered with topsoil will be similar to the existing soil conditions. Current plant growth appears to be plentiful. 6. An alternative to the arborvitae plantings might be to install a vinyl coated chain-link • fence along the retaining wall handrail. Green or black colored slats could be added to provide an immediate barrier to block headlights. It will also help in eliminating the need for wheelstops. Page 3 If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at 221-1131 . Sincerely, III Ct, A. B Chris Beatty, P.E. HARPER HOUF RIGHELLIS, INC. C: File 111 1 III -- EEEV : .. 0 Dorothy S. Cofield, Attorney at Law f:f,ft` 'ter::. LAKE' 0`��' ' '.of anni ,Dava: r�1 Land Use Kruse Mercantile Professional Offices • 4248 Galewood Street • Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 VIA FACSIMILE(503) 675-4320 • Fax: (503) 675-4321 • E-mail: cofleld@hevanet.com ORIGINAL BY FIRST CLASS MAIL December 23, 1999 Development Review Commission 380 "A" Avenue Post Office Box 369 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Re: LU 99-0042/Venture Properties Dear Development Review Commission: Venture Properties is requesting to modify DR 27-97 in order to increase the length of the three most westerly parking spaces from 18 to 28 feet. This modification is requested in order to be able to park oversized vehicles and trailers that make visits to the Galewood Office Building. Introduction • The staff report dated November 24, 1999, recommends denial of the Venture Properties request for modification of DR 27-97 to increase the length of three parking spaces (LU 99-0042). The staff report is recommending denial, focusing on the design standards for drainage; the potential negative impact on the neighbors and the lack of need for the longer parking spaces. The denial recommendation appears to not be based on the applicant's failure to meet the stated approval criteria, but rather on a subjective perception of the aesthetics of the modification; the number of modifications the applicant has requested and the need for the modifications. None of these subjective factors are approval criteria. Venture Properties has demonstrated that it has met all the approval criteria and the Commission should approve the modification request. The Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies The stated approval criteria are the Lake Grove Business District Policies IV-A. After the public hearing on December 6, 1999, staff provided the applicant with these policies. The applicable policies appear to be Policies 4, 5, 6 and 8.1 The applicant has demonstrated that On page 5 of the staff report, the applicable policies are cited as Policies No. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 which appear to be the policies in the 1994 Comprehensive Plan and are not regulatory and not applicable to the IIIPage 1- FINAL ARGUMENTS/VENTURE PROPERTIES EXHIBIT 31 LU 99-0042 the applicable policies are met as follows. Policy4(d) requires that vehicle access be constructed in a manner whichprotects the adjacent • q J neighborhood living environment. In this case, the neighborhood living environment will be protected by expansion of the parking spaces because arguably oversized vehicles will not be forced to park in adjoining parking lots or neighborhoods. Furthermore, the modification of the three parking spaces will result in better buffering of the adjacent residential neighborhood as explained by the applicant's expert landscaper. Policy 5(h) requires a buffer system which separates adjacent residential uses from noise, traffic, and congestion. Enlarging the three parking spaces will produce a better buffering system than currently exists by providing a retaining wall and landscaping that will shield the residential neighborhood from traffic elements. Policy 5(k) requires alternative surfacing materials that encourage on-site water retention. The applicant proposed using a material called "Grass-Pave" which encourages on-site water retention. However, even without Grass-Pave the applicant's storm drainage pond will absorb all surface water. If the Commission is opposed to Grass-Pave, the applicant will pave the modified parking spaces. However, it is important to note that Grass-Pave fulfills Policy 5(k). Policy 6(b) requires buffering of residential properties from noise, glare and traffic congestion. As explained under Policy 4 above, the expansion of the three parking spaces will buffer the adjacent residential neighborhood from vehicle headlights by providing additional landscaping. • The applicant provided new landscaping plans at the public hearing which show that the new five foot retaining wall will have a planting strip on top of the wall, and shrubbery behind the wall. These factors will provide more buffering than is currently provided to the adjacent neighborhood. Policy 8(b) requires that all parking demand created by new uses be accommodated on the premises. Without the expansion of the three parking spaces, this policy may not be met. The applicant's use requires that trucks with trailers must visit the site in order to conduct the applicant's business. Without a doubt, policy 8(b) requires that the Commission approve the expansion of the parking spaces to avoid impacting shared parking with the adjacent property. Finally, Policy 6(d) requires the adjoining residential properties to provide trees and vegetation on their property to buffer their property from the adjacent commercial area. In this case, the adjoining residential properties have some responsibility under the City's comprehensive plan to provide buffering. development application. The applicable policies are on page 107 and 108 in Volume 1 of the 1984 Comprehensive Plan/West End Business District. Page 2- FINAL ARGUMENTS/VENTURE PROPERTIES 4110 Design Standards for Drainage • The staff report asserted that the most important failure of the application was that it P P PP could not meet the design criteria of the City's "Surface Water Management Design Manual." Staff's conclusion was based on the City Engineer's finding that the proposal was unacceptable because the proposed wall and its backfill intrude into an area that "should" be protected from structures and fill. The City Engineer is misinterpreting the storm drainage standards. In contrast to the City Engineer's finding, the applicant's expert engineer, Chris Beatty, P.E., states clearly that the proposal will meet the requirements for 50% phosphorus removal efficiency. Staff concerns about existing modifications to the design standards were made to accommodate important trees on the lot. Existing slopes that exceed the slope standards have already been approved and the Staff Report's discussion of those existing walls is irrelevant. Any new retaining wall will reduce the treatment surface area insignificantly and not impact the phosphorus removal efficiency. Furthermore, there is no outright prohibition for retaining walls in the Surface Water Management Design Manual standards, but merely a suggestion that walls are "generally not allowed." The implication from the design standards are that walls are allowed if necessary and if the phosphorus levels are met. The applicant has demonstrated that both of those factors are met. The Commission should find that based upon the applicant's preliminary plans for • modifying the storm drainage pond as discussed in Exhibit 4, it is feasible for the applicant to meet the approval criteria of Title 11.035 subject to a condition of approval that the applicant's plans must be approved by the City Engineer and such approval may not be unreasonably withheld if the applicant's final plan reflects its preliminary plans as discussed in Exhibit 4.2 Aesthetics and the Impact on Neighboring Residential Properties Staff also expressed concern over the aesthetics of the modification and its impact on the single family dwellings nearby. LODS 9.020(6). This concern is unfounded. As the evidence confirms, the additional landscaping provided in the modification will result in the pond being less visible to the neighbors and will reduce the glare of headlights. With regard to the "bathtub effect," the evidence shows that the modification, rather than creating a "bathtub effect," only increases slightly any such effect that already exists and that the additional landscaping will soften any starkness and reduce silt and sediment deposits in the retention pond. Ill l/I Ill Ill l/I I/I 2 In its letter dated December 13, 1999, the applicant has fully discussed why the City Engineer's approval is not a separate land use application but customarily imposed as a condition of approval. • Page 3- FINAL ARGUMENTS/VENTURE PROPERTIES Need for Modification • In its discussion of LODS 7.005 - 7.040, the staff report contends that the modification is unnecessary and unsafe. First, a finding of"need" is not an approval criterion in LODS 7.005 - 7.040. Even if it were, Venture Properties has clearly demonstrated that it needs the special spaces to accommodate trucks with trailers moving model furniture in and out of the basement, as well as other trucks with trailers that visit the site. As for the safety factor, the evidence also states that the additional length, rather than compromising safety, enhances safety because it will be easier to negotiate large vehicles, including emergency vehicles. There also is no maximum length that a parking space can be, although there is a standard length of 18.5 feet. Without a doubt, the development standards do not prohibit 28 foot long parking spaces. The applicant has provided twice the amount of landscaping and open space that the LODS 9.005 - 9.040 requires. Conclusion For the above-stated reasons and arguments, the Commission should approve the applicant's proposed modification application with the recommended condition. Respectfully Submitted, 11,4,e J• Cafx.......cce S Dorothy S. . teld Attorney for Venture Properties Inc. cc: Venture Properties Page 4- FINAL ARGUMENTS/VENTURE PROPERTIES • (``{oF`ACE ps'LFCp City Attorney's Office • Memorandum OREGON EXHIBIT 32 LU 99-0042 To: Development Review Commission Liz Jacob, Associate Planner CC: David Powell, City Attorney Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager Mark Schoening, City Engineer Dorothy S. Cofield, Attorney for Applicant From: Evan P. Boone, Deputy City Attorney Subject: Venture Properties—LU 99-0042 City Engineer Approval of Stormwater Detention Pond Surface Water Management Design Manual Standards Date: January 5, 2000 At the 12/7/99 DRC meeting, the question arose as to the application of LODS 11.035(1)(Drainage Standard for Major Development; Procedures) to the application review procedure or to possible conditions of approval of the minor development application for modifications to applicant's storm water detention pond facility: "All drainage management measures' shall be prepared by a registered engineer to meet City standards and specification. These plans must be approved by the City Engineer." The City Engineer reviews the detention pond plans for compliance with the Surface Water Management Design Manual.2 The plans submitted with the development application were not approved by the City Engineer.3 The applicant has not submitted any modified detention pond plans during the DRC review. "Examples of storm water management measures include: ... detention areas." LODS 11.040(3). 2 Surface Water Management Design Manual,Sections 3.5(1)and(2)(a)provides: 1. Walls. Walls adjacent to detention ponds and biofiltration swales are generally not allowed and should be avoided in the design of all developments.The reason[s]are that they inhibit maintenance access, increase safety • hazards,decrease light for plant growth,and are not aesthetically desirable. 2. Side Slopes. a. Interior side slopes shall be no steeper than 4H:1V from the bottom to the emereencv overflow elevation. 'Staff Report dated November 24, 1999:"The City Engineer finds that this proposal is not acceptable per the design criteria of the City's`Surface Water Management Design Manual'(Exhibit 17)..." • Questions and Answers: Can the DRC grant site approval subject to a condition that the approval is to the CityEngineer", PP PP subject g approval of the storm water detention pond plans? Yes, unless the circumstances exist as stated in the next question and answer below. Can the DRC deny a land use application for a storm water detention pond that has been rejected by the City Engineer? Yes, if the City Engineer has rejected detention pond plans and the applicant does not propose alternative feasible plans for review by the City Engineer consistent with the development proposal, the DRC should deny the application based upon non-compliance with the LODS 11.035(1) review criterion. Is the City Engineer's review of the storm water detention pond for compliance with"Surface Water Management Design Manual"subject to the ministerial development procedures of the Development Code? No. Can the DRC substitute its judgment for, or review"on appeal", the City Engineer determination of compliance of the detention pond plans with the"Surface Water Management Design Manual"? No. Discussion: A minor development application is required to meet Development Standards applicable to minor developments. However, for purposes of applying the Development Standards, construction or alteration of structures other than a detached single family dwelling, duplex, zero lot line dwelling or 41) accessory structure shall be considered to be "major developments". LOC 49.22.215(2), 49.20.100(2)(d). Hence the requirements of LODS Chapter 11 are applicable. The proposed modifications to the stormwater detention pond have been rejected by the City Engineer, and according to the Staff Report (November 24, 1999), page 8: The City Engineer finds that this proposal is not acceptable per the design criteria of the City's "Surface Water Management Design Manual"[SWMDM] (Exhibit 17),because the [retaining] wall and its backfill intrude into an area that should be protected from structures and fill. [SWMDM 3.5(1)]. In addition,when a pond or swale serves as a biofiltration facility,the City's design standards require a 4H:1 V side slope to the top of the emergency overflow elevation. (see attached standard detail SW4-001. Exhibit 17-2). ... The proposed alterations are not acceptable because they necessitate additional compromises to the applicable design standards. The wall will intrude into the area that should be kept free of structures,the gentle easterly landscaped embankment will be replaced by a vertical wall and safety will be compromised,requiring the addition of protective railing. In addition, maintenance access to the outlet control structure will be obstructed by the wall and railing adjacent to the building,and a minimal two-foot wide sloped area along the south side will hinder accessibility to the outlet structures. Accessibility was one of the main issues that was required to be addressed in the redesign of the pond. As indicated by memos to staff from the consulting engineer(Exhibit 11-1 and 11-2),one of the requirements of the redesign of the • Page 2 - Venture Properties—LU 99-0042/ City Engineer Approval of Stormwater Detention Pond / Surface Water Management Design Manual Standards around the and was to provide access to the basement stairs,as well as access to the grading P outlet control structures for maintenance purposes. • I raised before close of the DRC public hearing the criterion of LODS 11.035(1) - need for separate City Engineer approval of the detention pond, (review based upon City Engineer standards and specifications)- and if not presently qualifying that either the DRC may be required to deny the application as failing to meet a criterion requiring City Engineer approval (LODS 11.035(1)) or in the alternative that the DRC's approval would not be the final City approval necessary before a building permit could be issued for the project. The applicant argues by letter dated December 13, 1999, page 1, that: "As a threshold matter,the city attorney raised an issue at the end of the public hearing regarding the need for approval for the city engineer in a separate review proceeding. Venture Properties disputes this contention as without precedent and contrary to the code. "Review and approval by the City Engineer does not require a separate administrative review proceeding. Rather,the City Engineer's review and approval requirement in Title[LODS] 11 would be at most be a condition of approval for this minor development application." To the extent that applicant's attorney concludes that LODS 11.035(1) requires a separate determination li by the City Engineer, outside of the purview of the DRC, as to the proposed detention pond's . compliance with additional engineering standards, then we agree. A land use review body may approve a land use development application even though some of its component parts require separate Professional or technical review.4 Applicant argues that because the question of whether or not the City Engineer's approved the storm water detention facility is part of the criteria it reviews under the development standards, specifically LOC 49.22.215(1)(b) and LODS 11.035(1),that the analysis for compliance with the City Engineer's engineering specifications contained in the"Surface Water Management Design Manual"necessarily become a part of the land use review process. Although the question of whether or not the City Engineer approved the facility may be a criterion within the land use application review process, the correctness of the City Engineer's determination does not necessarily become a part of the land use process, for review and "appeal"to the DRC. Terra v. City of Newport., Or. LUBA (Sept. 2, 1999)(Case No. 98-036; Slip Opinion at 15)(where street improvement requirements could have been made in separate proceedings not involving permit approval and thus not be a"land use decision"under ORS 197.015,but where specific street improvement requirements were included as a condition of approval in a conditional use permit decision, the street improvement requirements are reviewed as a part of the land use decision). "When looking at technical standards,there are two distinct concepts: (1) whether certain nondiscretionary `technical' standards are land use approval standards and hence whether approval or denial under those standards is a 'land use decision'; and (2)whether certain land use approval standards • `But see infra,when the City Engineer has made a final decision denying the proposed detention pond plans and the applicant does not demonstrate the feasibility of any other plan. Page 3 -Venture Properties—LU 99-0042/ City Engineer Approval of Stormwater Detention Pond/Surface Water Management Design Manual Standards • require `technical' solutions for compliance, solutions that can be deferred under some circumstances to the second stage." Tenlv Properties Coro. v. Washington County, 35 Or LUBA , at 1036(1998). The commissioners in Tenlv Properties attached as a condition of approval of a subdivision application that a turnaround be approved by the Fire District, in compliance with the Fire District standards, without a determination that any specific construction proposal of the turnaround was feasible under the subdivision plan presented: "The parties agree that CDC 409-3.7 requires an adequate turnaround at the southern end of Janessa Lane,and that the preliminary site plan does not depict a turnaround.The county apparently contemplates(but does not require)that intervenor will prepare a final site plan depicting a turnaround,and submit it to fire district for approval. Petitioners contend that any of the four turnaround designs developed by the local fire district will require lot size adjustments or elimination of one or more lots,potentially affecting compliance with other approval standards such as parking,setbacks, street width and sidewalk requirements.The staff report acknowledges this possibility: "Staff deleted a lot from the original site plan,the subdivision is approved for 15 lots. Not only was this to provide more room for pedestrian space,it was also intended to provide room for a cul-de-sac. If the applicant cannot build the private roadway to both County and Fire Code standards, additional lots would need to be deleted. The final submitted site plan shall meet all County standards or it will never be signed for final approval. Record 70(emphasis in original). "Thus,the county's findings acknowledge that it cannot determine whether the proposed street can be built with a turnaround in compliance with county approval standards,nor what effect a • turnaround will have on the project's compliance with other standards. Instead,the county relies on a second stage review by the Fire Marshal(without notice or hearing)to determine whether the turnaround complies with CDC 409-3.7,and,indeed,whether the project will comply with other requirements of CDC. That approach denies petitioners or other participants any meaningful opportunity to address the turnaround and its affect on other aspects of the project, including the fmal proposed site plan itself." The fatal flaw in Tenlv Properties, as first expressed in Rhyne v. Multnomah County, 23 Or LUBA 442 (1992), is that a deferral or delegation to staff or other governmental entity review to apply non-land use criteria to parts of the development was made before it was determined that the delegated element is feasible under the development plan presented; if there is not a finding that the proposed element is feasible, then the reviewing body can not know what the impact of that element will be on the balance of the plan.5 But the fact that the Fire District will make its own judgment as to whether a turnaround can be constructed in accordance with its rules is not challenged. The Fire District's decision is not part of the land use decision making process because it applies fire code standards, which are not the application of a land use regulations.6 5 See also Highland Condominium Association v.City of Eugene., Or. LUBA (Oct. 5, 1999)(Slip opinion at 15- 16)(Commission's finding that stormwater facilities are or will be available to serve development properly deferred implementation of the conditions to Staff: "If an on-site detention system is required the design must also be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Engineering Division. The***proposed storm sewer systems shall be reviewed for approval under the privately engineered public improvement process by the Public Works Engineering Division.") 6 A land use regulation means a local government zoning ordinance,land division ordinance ... or similar general ordinanc establishing standards for implementing a comprehensive plan. ORS 197.015(11). Page 4 - Venture Properties—LU 99-0042 / City Engineer Approval of Stormwater Detention Pond/ Surface Water Management Design Manual Standards In this proceeding, the feasibility of the proposal has not been shown by the applicant's plan because the • applicant's detention pond as proposed in the development application has been rejected by the City Engineer as not in compliance under his separate"Surface Water Management Design Manual" standards.? (If the Commission finds, however, that the applicant's plans for the detention pond have been modified since the development application was filed, and thus any new plans presently before the Commission have not been reviewed by the City Engineer,then the Commission, in order to approve any modified detention pond plans for land use nurooses, would need to condition its approval upon a separate approval by the City Engineer.) LOC 49.22.215(1)(b) requires the proposal to"comply with ... the Development Standards...." LODS 11.0035(1) requires that the plans (of the storm water detention facility)be approved by the City Engineer. The Code does not establish a jurisdictional requirement that all approvals be obtained prior to submission of the application. As discussed above, the reviewing body could approve the application for land use purposes upon a finding that it is feasible to construct the detention pond as proposed if the plans for the detention pond are pending approval by the City Engineer or have not yet been submitted for City Engineer approval.8 In that event, the applicant runs the risk of obtaining land use approval where a condition of approval is the requirement that the plans be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer--the applicant may not be able to utilize the land use approval for authority to proceed with the development if the City Engineer rejects the detention pond plans. In that event, all of the applicant's hard work in obtaining land use approval would be for naught.9 Applicant argues that the City Engineer's review must be under the Zoning and Development Codes procedure, and presumably be subject to review by the DRC, because the City Engineer's decision • applying the Surface Water Management Design Manual is not based on clear and objective standards in the Manual, requires the exercise of discretion, in order to decide if the (Manual) standards are met and, as such, is a land use decision." The DRC does not have authority to compel the City Engineer to accept certain detention facility plans or to "review on appeal"the City Engineer's determination from an engineering standpoint as to the detention pond's compliance with the"Surface Water Management Design Manual." See LOC 49.40.820(Appeal of Minor Development Applications); LOC Staff Report,Page 8(November 24, 1999). $This procedure is what the applicant claims happened under DR 27-97—"the application for design review involved the construction of a storm drainage detention facility. Review by the City Engineer was implemented as a condition of approval"but the review was outside of the land use hearing procedures and did not apply land use regulations. 9 Having concluded that there is no code requirement as to the order of review of the storm water detention plan between land use and engineering criteria,the acceptance of the application without the City Engineer's approval does not raise any "completeness"of application issues under ORS 227.178(2). It is the applicant's choice. (It would not be a completeness issue,to reject a development application because the proposed detention pond plans had been rejected by the City Engineer. It may be that the City Engineer's denial decision is not fmal at the time of determination of completeness of the application or that the applicant may yet propose another detention pond plan that is consistent with the development application.) Applicant's argument that if a separate review by the City Engineer is required,that the City is"estopped from bifurcating this minor development application into a separate ministerial proceeding once it has accepted the application,deemed it complete,sent out public notice identifying the review standards,and held public hearings. ... The City cannot arbitrarily decide at the continued public hearing,without notice,that storm drainage review is a separate,ministerial review process or a condition precedent to applying for a minor development application"is rendered moot because I conclude that at the time of completeness review it is not possible for the Planning Staff to conclusively determine if the applicant will not challenge the City Engineer's determination in a timely manner or submit alternative consistent detention pond plans. Indeed,the Staff Report may even note the City Engineer's denial but there is the possibility that the applicant will submit new detention pond • plans as late as the public hearing. Page 5 -Venture Properties—LU 99-0042/ City Engineer Approval of Stormwater Detention Pond/ Surface Water Management Design Manual Standards • 49.44.905(Jurisdiction of Hearing Body). The City Engineer's review is not part of, and is separate from, the land use application review process. Not all decisions made by city officials involve the implementation of land use regulations. Bell v. • Klamath County, 77 Or.App. 131, 711 P.2d 209(1985)(a county may deny a building permit for other reasons which do not involve a land use decision--for example, by the ministerial application of a building code or a subdivision requirement--or arbitrarily, as plaintiffs alleged); see generally State ex rel. Parmenter v. Wallowa County Court. 114 Or.App. 362, 835 P.2d 152 (1992). Where a city official's decision does not involve the application of a land use regulation, the official's decision may involve discretionary or ministerial actions reviewable under a writ of review or writ of mandamus. See State ex rel. Travis v. Board of Parole, 154 Or.App. 718, 959 P.2d 629 (1998): Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers v. Board of Com'rs for Benton County. 287 Or. 591, 601 P.2d 769 (1979). The application of construction requirements based on engineering standards are not the application of land use regulations; in other words, the City Engineer's implementation of the Surface Water Management Design Manual is not a "development"to which LOC Article 48 or 49 is applicable. Applicant's appeal rights from the City Engineer's administration of the Manual is not within the land use context and would be subject to a writ of review or writ of mandamus, depending upon the nature of the provisions and the review being challenged. State ex rel. Travis v. Board of Parole, 154 Or.App. 718, 959 P.2d 629 (1998). If the City Engineer'0 rejects the proposed storm water detention pond plans contained within the development proposal and the applicant does not present to the DRC alternative detention pond plans consistent with the development application to show that modified detention pond plans are feasible with the proposed development, then the DRC may(indeed, must?) find substantial evidence in the record that the applicant has not complied with LODS 11.035(1) and deny the development application. The DRC need not approve land use plans for a detention pond facility where substantial evidence in the record shows the applicant can not construct the proposed detention pond in compliance with City development standards.11 In this instance, the City Engineer having made a decision as to whether the plans meet the design standards, I believe the appropriate decision of the City Engineer is final for City purposes and that 1°Neither Section 3.5.1 nor the design manual generally address any forum for appeal of the City Engineer's decision made under the Design Manual. I find the authority to establish the Design Manual in LOC 38.24.510: "(1)The Surface Water Management Utility shall plan,design,construct,maintain,administer and operate all City surface water conveyances and facilities, and the regulations for its control,as well as establish standards for design and construction. (2). The City Manager shall be the administrator of the Program." Although the City Manager may be the administrator of the Program, for purposes of review of the plans pursuant to LODS Chapter 11,the City Engineer is the designated decision-making officer. See also Lake Oswego Administrative Procedures,Public Works and Development Services,Procedure No. 1:"I delegate to the ... Public Works Director[now City Engineer]the responsibilities outlined in ... the accompanying Development Standards adopted by Resolution R81-59,as now exist or may be amended and in Ordinance No. 1851,as now exist or as may be amended." This delegation of authority does not reserve to the City Manager the right to review on appeal any decision of the City Engineer,and indeed,the Procedure establishes no appeal procedure. 71 The Commission's determination of compliance is with the development standards,which requires that the City Engineer approve the plans as in compliance with the Surface Water Management Design Manual. The Commission is not determining whether the plans comply with the Design Manual but only whether the City Engineer has approved or rejected the plans as in compliance with the Design Manual. If the City Engineer has not yet approved or rejected the detention ponds proposed in the development application,then any approval by the Commission upon a finding of compliance with the development standards would require a condition that the approval was subject to a requirement that the City Engineer • subsequently approved the proposed detention pond plans. Page 6 - Venture Properties—LU 99-0042/ City Engineer Approval of Stormwater Detention Pond/Surface Water Management Design Manual Standards further judicial review would be by means of a Writ of Review. The time for filing a Writ of Review is 60 days from the date of the decision or determination sought to be reviewed.12 ORS 34.030. • In conclusion, the City Engineer's rejection(whether rightly or wrongly13)of detention pond plans presented at the time of filing the development is substantial evidence that the development application fails to meet LODS 11.035(1), that such rejection is not subject to DRC review, and the DRC should deny the development application under LODS 11.035(1) unless the DRC finds that there is substantial evidence in the record that an alternative detention pond plan has been proposed by the applicant and it would be consistent(feasible) with the presented development plans, in which case a condition of approval could be fashioned to the effect that any DRC approval of the application would be subject to the City Engineer's approval of alternative detention pond plans consistent with the City Engineer's Surface Water Management Design Manual specifications. \\FINANCE\DATA\CAO\Boone\Planning\Speci ficCase\Venture.Properties.Engineering.review.doc • 12 A writ of mandamus is appropriate to compel a decision to be made but is not a writ to review the manner in which the decision was made. Hence,a writ of mandamus may be filed any time during which an official has an obligation to make a decision. 13 It is not within the scope of this memorandum,or of the DRC,to determine whether any objections the applicant has to the • Surface Water Management Design Manual specifications are valid or not. That is for the City Engineer(and any review of his decision)to determine. Page 7 -Venture Properties—LU 99-0042 / City Engineer Approval of Stormwater Detention Pond/Surface Water Management Design Manual Standards Memorandum To: Liz Jacob, Associate Planner From: Mark Schoening, City Engineer Re: LU 99-0042/Venture Properties/Dorothy Cofield's letter of 12/13/99 Date: January 5, 2000 In the Venture Properties application,the City Engineer has had to call upon several staff members for input, including the development reviewer,construction plan examiner, senior drainage technician,surveyor,construction supervisor,and construction inspector. Their findings have been compiled and documented in the memo to you dated August 6, 1999--revised due to applicant's modifications on November 18, 1999. Significant parts of that memo were incorporated verbatim in the development review November 24, 1999, staff report for LU 99- 0042. November 18 is the indisputable date upon which the determination was made that proposed revisions to the pond represented further comprises and were unacceptable. There are several design elements in the proposed drainage pond modification plans that compromise the City engineering design standards to the brink of extinction. Attachment 1 to this memo highlights some paragraphs from the City's drainage design manual where the current pond or their proposed revisions are non-compliant. Margins are annotated where appropriate. Finally,the Development Review Commission should note that the visual impact of the proposal is not accurately portrayed by the "Retaining Wall'A' Profile" on the bottom of the design sheet, • Exhibit 8. This illustration uses a drafting convention in which the horizontal and vertical scales are not equal to save space on paper. If the horizontal scale is "corrected"(stretched out to match the units of the vertical scale)the rendition looks like Attachment 2 to this memo. The proposed revisions to the pond continue to be unacceptable. EXHIBIT 33 • LU 99-0042 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN MANUAL • CHAPTER 3-STORM WATER DETENTION. 3.1 PURPOSE. �� *��� �r The purpose of storm water detention is to maintain runoff rates from new �(� developments at the natural undeveloped levels for the development property. � 3.2 WHEN REQUIRED. , >� The storm water detention requirement applies to all major developments. 3.3 REQUIRED DETENTION VOLUME. The required detention volume shall be the maximum difference between the runoff volume for the 50-year storm event from the proposed development property and the runoff volume for the 10-year storm event from the pre-development property. 3.4 DETENTION VOLUME CALCULATIONS. Provide detention volume calculations using the City's"Detention Volume Worksheets". A computer spreadsheet for the City's"Detention Volume Worksheets"is available upon request. 3.5 DETENTION POND&BASIN DESIGN CRITERIA. wA-S Rt=wc.T.�.�TL.1 _..4 1. Walls. Walls adjacent to detention ponds and biofiltration swales are ? R,h,Tree -Th generally not allowed and should be avoided in the design of all Tzt✓;-ri F YReSLEAS developments.The reason are that they inhibit maintenance access,increase DtS oVEa2E j tJ2i ut, safety hazards,decrease light for plant growth, and are not aesthetically on18TQ G 7 t ON • desirable. 2. Side Slopes a. Interior side slopes shall be no steeper than 4H:1V from the bottom to the Ex STt.. PUN n emergency overflow elevation. -bo s NOT C DMPL.`1 b. Exterior side slopes shall be no steeper than 2H:1V liv S 044 At.E-A5 FRO'oSE.5 R'vLSi w-S I N C.R.EkSLL U1=`S>r d t- NCty-Comp tJ AA►cE S Chapter 3 -- Page 2 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN MANUAL 3. Berm Embankments. Design pond berm embankments to meet the • following criteria: a. Pond berm embankments higher than six feet shall require a design by a registered professional engineer. b. The minimum top width of berms and exterior embankments shall be four feet or six feet at a manhole location. c. Cuts and fills shall be no closer than 3 feet plus one-fifth the height of the cut or fill from any property line. d. Pond berm embankments shall be constructed on native consolidated soil free of loose surface soil materials, roots, and other organic debris or on adequately compacted and stable fill soil approved by a registered professional engineer. e. Pond berm shall be constructed by excavating a"key-way"equal to 50 percent of the berm embankment cross-sectional height and width or as designed by a registered profession engineer. f. Pond berm embankments shall be constructed of compacted soil (95 percent minimum dry density, standard proctor method per AASHTO T99)placed in 6 inch lifts,with the following soil characteristics: a minimum of 30 percent clay, a maximum of 60 percent sand, a maximum of 60 percent silt, with nominal gravel and cobble content or as designed by a registered profession engineer. g An approved grass or vegetative ground cover shall be established on all exposed earth on the pond bottom and side slopes. h Berms constructed on slopes greater than 30%shall require a design IIIby a registered professional engineer. 4. Outlet Debris Control Structures. a. Provide a debris control structure for all outlet pipes. b. Design debris control structure that have good maintenance access, AC55 -To weST good flow characteristics, and are easy to clean. Erb OF Pou D 'D%f FicuLT 5. Primary Overflow. a. Design the primary overflow system to carry the 10-year storm event for the total upstream drainage area. b. Locate the primary overflow system in the outlet control structure. c. Design the primary overflow system to be accessible to maintenance workers and equipment. d. Design the primary overflow system to provide controlled discharge directly into the downstream conveyance system. e. Provide design calculations as required. • Chapter 3 — Page 3 L CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN MANUAL 6. Emergency Overflow Spillway. Na SPILLtkreLl RuvlrDee All ponds shall have an emergency overflow spillway or other overland Ponlu REUES oN location that will safely pass runoff from the 100-year storm event over the O" Fi.a' STauc.TURE pand embankment in the event of control structure failure or for storm events 'To PIPE 5up_Pl.uS exceedingdesign of the control structure. Spillways shall meet the followingWA-re Do gaut -rH>: 'Dowu STR.eatM criteria: sysM a. Locate the spillway from the top of the berm embankment to a City approved downstream conveyance system. b. Design the spillway to carry the 100-year storm event for the total upstream drainage area. c. The invert elevation of the spillway shall be at least 12 inches above the primary overflow elevation. d. The minimum spillway depth shall be 12 inches from the top of the berm. e. Provide a vegetated spillway designed to protect the spillway from erosion should an overflow event occur. 7. Maintenance Access Requirements. (For all detention and water quality treatment facilities) OK— a. Provide a maintenance access road to the pond flow control FbiL'-,0,v cater'OL 4T2vtrujZE )S A Ccrc4,Sail structures, to pollution control structures, and to other drainage P gom p,2K11u6, LOT structures requiring vehicular maintenance. The intent of the access road is to provide access for vacuum trucks used to remove sediment • and oils from the sumps in control structures. b. Provide a maintenance access ramp to the interior 4:1 side slopes of pond, basins, and biofiltration swales. The intent of the access ramp u er -ra ov+bE D is to provide access for trucks and excavation equipment needed to remove sediment from these-.facilities. c. Provide a maintenance access path to the top of each inlet pipe and u H,T®A«-ESS Doe outlet debris control structure. Provide a flat area adequate for a ro NARR w.tutcw.irf, person to stand above all outlet debris control structures. The intent is pavx,"",T t -ra TOP OF to provide reasonable access for a person to perform routine and E.A4 15,a,4/14KE,4Jr; emergency service. 8. Design of Maintenance Access Access roads & ramps shall meet the following design criteria: a. The road grade shall be 15%,maximum. b. The road cross slope shall be 3%, maximum. c. The road width shall be 12 feet on straight sections and 15 feet on curves. d. The outside turning radius shall be 40 feet,minimum. e. The road surface load capacity shall be H-20 loading with an assumed CBR ratio of 3 or greater. • Chapter 3 -- Page 4 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN MANUAL f. Road surfaces shall be modular porous pavement or gravel. Modular • porous pavement surfaces shall meet the manufacture's specifications. • Modular porous pavement examples include: Presto Products Company, Geoblock, GB-132 and Invisible Structures, Inc., Grasspave2 . • Gravel examples include: 2 inches of N - 0 crushed rock over 10 inches of 2—0 crushed rock over Mirafi 550X geotextile fabric. Maintenance access paths shall meet the following design criteria: a. The path grade shall be 33%, maximum or have approved steps. b, The path cross slope shall be 3%, maximum. c. The path width shall be 3 feet, minimum. uo a d. The path surface shall provide an all-weather mud free walkable Suppe ri..A foot N4 o access. N s i bES L.o Pr9. ?Room ell UA U... f. Acceptable path surface examples include grass, gravel, and wood ER_ chips. c cm4 Pftomo SE5 G454 &LESS 9. Pond Design Criteria Table. Design detention ponds to meet the following criteria: interior side slopes: no steeper than 4H:1 V to the emergency overflow elevation exterior side slopes: no steeper than 2H:1V top berm width: 4 feet minimum berm width at MH: 6 feet minimum at a manhole location • top berm elevation:storage depth: 12 inch minimum above spillway elevation 3 feet maximum to primary overflow elevation spilhvay depth: 12 inch minimum spillway elevation: 12 inch minimum above primary overflow low flow channel: 2%minimum through the pond bottom slopes: 2 minimum to low flow channel h:'andy`h\swmsdnldmchpt-3.doc • Chapter 3 -- Page 5 4 , • .-- - - r-------- --- //- 7 A ,,,,/ I:: - . -*--1 A 1 (\ 4 ' -.) - • --"-- /(..._,1--1. , • , .....-- --._,-....._--......._..= C a pITIA C I DC.; W.--- Yi _________.I,' ,--------.... . ...,- _.. .-.- ._.-,,,.:z_.- ,:_,__- ---------- .,---- ; ."--, i ,.., .. . ...... f ___.-- ______ _-_:-.--,4, " ''''ir. --- -"---7----S,.. ...F .....-.=••• i 4--1.......-1----1i-- - -1 .- -1--- ....1 P----•r-li -----.--------,_-.-n- 1:=>S- s ..•=6-..-1-F.__ 7, -- .....--•--1.: „ -- ._ _... .4=3, _ -- e-- __ . _ t ty___-_.--_.- --L--ri , ____________ _ _ ___ ___ _ ________ - - - [ . _ _ . . --i. ,-4=g- I ' --I-----------j----e. '-I iter-11 --"Pilie. '-,---,-4---rkr.-----I_ - - I, I--Yrral •Ii‘ _____, —I tc--= .----- 4----- -- 1 II. -441t / — It . ., 1 OW vi i A ..- +,.._..., J i : _.-------- , 11 rrri I II I II [ ,- r I 1---- ..-1-------7---- ,-----"' ,I 1 . .....t,_.. ! t• I ---- - 1 I I I I I II I I i 1 i I II ,i I I I 1 I f 1 1 . t : 1 f _ I I it i I I i----- i t i I I t I ; i I I i i i I 1 f I i / I I t t I I t I / I I I . - I -....fr•-- i ;.- I i I i 9 t i t Illr _- r i t I t 1 i I 1 I i I t I I i _...../'"i" t f------.--------- _ I ,-- -!------ --------rh- 1 I 1 r 1 1 I 1 I 1 i I 1 1 1 __ ____i. __. ... as _ _ _ ___ _.7 - -- 1 I ----1--- r jin I I I I i I ft I ___.-1,---i' ' 1 1r,----- ------_--- .. ....,:.-2--i..-----'-a4- =•-•- A----,:.... ....2-4,===. s•-•- • ..I..--r- F 1 .-= i___...-- . i ----1 i .kr----/- 1-t- ----! .---... 1...-------4 ( - AI - . I ..1._.a 4 4=6. 1..._ L—__ . .. .._—_( ,_ 4. --7.. ii. :a ___, I \ , ., a_ ,. ----../ a--...-- 1-•===.1 -.= .-•••-• a----4.---x--, ... ..='----.-. i .2 3.,:----", ••=7 :.11 - . - , ---1 4-.--..I I i • -..2-4 --1. I 2--- --3 A-----. ---.-f. I i • -.7- , - - --.. ;f- 'e- 4:=7.--.---Afi[. .-• 111 -.. c.l i aii.......t •-=-_=e-.l= =•I-1 G e - _ _ . . T. ‹ z =>- — - ._-._--1.. 4-,-.-.-------* I 2 : - i r3 . 1- . _ f I A = 1_ 24 ) i 4 . 7 -- -, 7 _ 2 3 ..4=IP I--•.-3.-1=4 =1 S. --1--... _. -4 = .-.1 1____1_ ---• (7=1 t 1=> f____4 •----1--...^....- .E T----5 a=. 1 Lz=r. ..=----r---A 1=> i=: I ...c....i 10%4e---•.-3 i.--- N0Aur 1---E--k---i - V. ...s:=>4=:. a=:. '.. .--'t is----1..=".ir---s — 1--1 1=Z I 4---t 1-- IF= O.71-.....-f-- I C.------ ,------- !_.- -- --4- & i >< --I _ _-4:=D• -I- S---.1 ..,... .1 / i - <-_ .-..A2 .-1- i 1"----.1 . ---C--7- I — 1 1 I • 1 If V - 1:: L4 ..e= 7'..., -- -7--LI. _se-4".." 00...".-".e.---7-, L.,.I.../..'-.-.--"--A. .."- - "'- - - 4'4= 1 Z''•. .. --.17-Z-- ...- ----- 0 Response to request for comments FLU 99-U042 Proposal: Modification p to parking at office building Date: August 6, 1999---November 18 revisions italicized To: Liz Jacob, Associate Planner From: Russ Chevrette, Engineering Tech. III Owner: Venture Properties Applicant: Mildren Design Group Site Location: 4230 Galewood Street Tax Map: 2 1 E 8BC, tax lot 2000 This is a proposal to increase the length of three previously approved parking spaces adjacent to the detention/water quality facility on the south side of the site. While this proposal appears to be inconsequential on the surface, it is the engineering staff's considered opinion that this request should be denied because a) it is not necessary for the economic viability of the office building and b) the construction of the spaces would require alterations to the water quality pond that violate design standards. The existing water quality pond has a rather contentious history. In the initial planning review, it appeared that it could fit in the space allocated for it. During the preparation of final construction drawings, however, we discovered that our pond design standards had to be compromised to • allow the construction of the building and parking lot as approved. We reluctantly permitted a short wall along the south side of the pond to save trees whose presence had been omitted from site plans. We permitted deviations from standards to facilitate access to the south wall of the building. Our accommodations do0 not represent a shift in policy, nor do they set a precedent for further compromise. When the pond was completed in mid-August of 1999 and "as-built" drawings were prepared by the consulting engineer, staff found that the pond had not been built for the designed capacity, and the as-built drawings were not accurate. (See letter from design engineer, Exhibit 18). Furthermore, the banks had been covered with barkdust, which is not an approved ground cover in a water quality facility (it can float away). The pond was subsequently re-shaped, and now conforms in most respects to the approved plan. Slight deviations were permitted in the south embankment to preserve a tree that had not been disclosed on the original construction drawings. In addition, a Keystone wall was required to protect the roots of a fir tree at the southeast corner of the pond. (See letter from Liz Jacob to Chris Beatty, P.E., dated September 22, 1999, Exhibit ). Note that the closing paragraph puts the applicant's engineer on notice that no additional walls will be approved. The City's public works inspector accepted the revised pond construction on October 15, 1999. The proposed lengthening of parking spaces to 28 feet requires the construction of an additional retaining wall in the east bank of the pond. The wall would be about five feet tall in the area of greatest exposure. For safety reasons, the top of the wall must have a steel guardrail as shown on • the plan details. The proposal is not acceptable because the wall and its backfill intrude into an EXHIBIT 34 LU 99-0042 area that should be protected from structures and fill (see attached page of design criteria). In addition, when a pond or swale serves as a biofiltration facility, the City's design standards • require a 4H:1V side slope to the top of the emergency overflow elevation. This is a revision to a standard that was in place when the original place and new construction, or alterations to old construction, must comply with current design standards. This is analogous to conforming to present building codes when remodeling a house. The proposed alterations are not acceptable because they necessitate additional compromises to the applicable design standards. The wall will intrude into the area that should be kept free of structures, the gentle easterly embankment will be replaced by a vertical wall, safety will be compromised and requires the addition of protective railing, maintenance access to the outlet control structure will be obstructed by the railing, and there will be an aesthetic degradation of the pond design. In addition, as of the date of this revised memo, the applicant has not submitted a calculation showing the inevitable diminishment of pond capacity that will result from the wall and fill. If the site had surplus open space or was otherwise underused, we would have no objection to lengthening the parking spaces. But when we have had to compromise design standards to allow maximum utilization of a site, we are justified in setting a limit. The longest vehicle that could be expected to use this parking lot on a regular basis is a four-door full-size long-bed pickup truck. These rare vehicles measure about 21.5 feet long. We believe the long spaces are intended for a use other than normal parking, and therefore designed for the needs of a particular tenant. As such, they are not necessary for the economic viability or practical use of the approved building on this site. H:IRUSS_C1LU's199-OO42GalewoodPond.doc • • STAFF REPORT • CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANT: FILE NO: Richard Breakiron LU 99-0066 PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: Preferred Homes Sandy Ingalls LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT: Tax Lot 7100 of January 5, 2000 Tax Map 21E 9BD DATE OF HEARING: 41) LOCATION: January 19, 2000 15199 Lily Bay Court NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Lakeview Summit R-15 ZONING DESIGNATION: R-15 I. APPLICANT'S REOUEST The applicant has requested removal of nine trees. Eight trees are proposed for removal due to the direct impact of constructing a single-family residence, Exhibits 3 and 6. Of these eight trees, four have been identified as dead or dying, and are located within or adjacent to the dwelling footprint. There is one large living Douglas Fir within the proposed driveway boundary that may have to be removed, as well, Exhibits 3 and 6. 4110 LU 99-0066 Page 1 of 11 II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. Emergency Tree Ordinance, ( p on ado tedSeptember 28 1111 1999) B. Lake Oswego Tree Code: LOC 55.02.080 Criteria for Issuance of Type II Permit (1) Dead or Dying Trees (2) Trees that are Not Dead, Dying or Hazardous III. FINDINGS A. Background/Existing Conditions: 1. The subject site is the last vacant parcel in the Village on the Lake Planned Development, PD 3-85 (Exhibit 11). The lot is approximately 9,345 square feet in size, and zoned R-15. No historic designation exists. The rear half of the site is within a Resource Conservation (RC) area (Exhibit 5). Since PD 3-85 was approved prior to adoption of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance (LOC 48.17), the requirements of this standard do not apply to the site. The resource protection issues, e.g., protection of trees and wetlands, have adequately been addressed as a part of PD 3-85 approval • process. Where resource protection has already been addressed by a prior approval and resources are mapped, the requirements of LOC 48.17 do not need to be addressed. 2. A building permit for the site (99-1793) has been reviewed and is on hold pending approval of the tree-cutting permit. Exhibit 13 illustrates the planned single family dwelling to be constructed on this site. 3. The subject property is generally a rectangular shaped flag lot (Exhibit 1). Access to the property is from Lily Bay Court along a reciprocal access easement shared with the adjacent lot to the east (Exhibits 1, 4 and 11). The shared private drive runs along the north property line. Properties abutting the site are zoned R-15, all with single family dwellings upon them along. There is also a Union Pacific Railroad line running near the northern property line. 4. The site is on a moderate slope with approximately a 9-foot difference in elevation from the front of the proposed dwelling where the garage will be located down to the rear of the house. The front, northern portion of the lot is approximately level and the highest section of the site (Exhibit 2). The rear falls off into a shallow "U" shaped ravine that continues into IIIOpen Space Tract A (Exhibit 7). LU 99-0066 Page 2 of 11 • 5. All Douglas Fir trees are mislabeled as Pines in the applicants tree removal application (Exhibit 7) and updated tree removal questionnaire, tree survey and removal plan (Exhibit 3). 6. More than 21 living trees over 5-inch diameter at breast height (DBH) currently populate the site, along with five trees that are dead, dying or hazardous. The predominant trees on the property are Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) followed by Big Leaf Maples (Acer macrophyllum), (Exhibits 3, 6, 8 and 9). Most of the trees on the site are overgrown with ivy, and many have lost portions of their canopies to parasite and windstorm damage (Exhibit 8). Downed limbs, blackberry, ferns, ivy and yard debris predominately cover the site floor (Exhibit 8). 7. The original tree cutting application indicated that 14 trees needed to be removed for new single-family dwelling construction. However, only nine trees are shown within or adjacent to the building footprint on the revised application (Exhibits 3, 6, 7 and 8). Five of these trees are living and the other four are dead, dying or hazardous. A site visit by staff reviewed the trees within the impacted area and determined that all nine trees should be removed. The alternative driveway plan includes one of the living large Douglas Firs that might have to be removed with this tree cutting permit • (Exhibits 3 and 7). 8. The property was posted with a public notice sign regarding the tree removal and a letter was sent to the neighborhood association on November 3, 1999. The application notice period commenced on November 3, 1999, (Exhibit 7) and concluded on November 17, 1999, [LOC 55.02.075]. 9. Mr. Howard Franklin, a neighbor to the east, filed a request for a public hearing regarding the applicant's proposal along with the applicable fee on November 16, 1999 (Exhibit 10). A letter requesting a hearing, dated November 8, 1999 (Exhibit 10) written by Daniel Kearns, Attorney at Law, was received by the City on November 10, 1999 without filing fees for a hearing. B. Compliance with Criteria for Approval: On September 28, 1999, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Tree Ordinance (LOC Chapter 55) by adding section LOC 55.02.041 in order to address removal of trees that are larger than 12 inches in diameter. This amendment affects both Type I and Type II tree removal applications. This • provision will remain in effect until such time as the ordinance is further amended by the Council at a later date. LU 99-0066 Page 3 of 11 The new section is titled "Prohibition of Tree Removal of Trees Greater than 12 • Inches, Exception", and it reads as follows: "Notwithstanding LOC 55.02.035(1), 55.02.042(1) and LOC 55.02.080(3), no tree greater than 12 inch caliper at DBH shall be removed, except the City Manager may grant an exception to this prohibition when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Lake Oswego Code. The City may impose such alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs as a condition of approval of the permit, in addition to any other conditions or provisions provided under LOC 55.02.042(1)and LOC 55.02.080(3): This new standard is applicable to all tree removal applications filed after September 28, 1999, and for all tree removals sought in conjunction with a minor or major development, except tree removals permitted under the Emergency permits, Dead or Dying Type II permits and Hazard Tree Type II permits. Under the new ordinance, in addition to the basic requirements for a Type II 111 permit, including "trees not dead, dying or hazardous" or tree removal in conjunction with a minor or major development, the applicant is required to address the new standards in LOC 55.02.041, if any tree proposed to be removed is greater than 12 inches in diameter. Specifically, an additional analysis is necessary over and above the underlying Type II criteria, to determine whether the proposed development may be re-sited (alternative site plans) or other landscaping designs considered that would lessen the impact on the 12 inch trees proposed to be removed and the development still comply with other Lake Oswego Code provisions, i.e., setback, solar access, etc. If it is not possible to site the development by means of alternative site plans or other landscaping plans, an exception may be granted and tree removal permission given to remove a tree 12 inch or greater in diameter. Because of the varying nature of the removal requests, the applicant must comply with two sets of criteria, per LOC 55.02.080 and the requirement of the Emergency Tree Ordinance, LOC 55.02.041. Trees that are dead or dying must meet the criteria of 55.02.080(1), while the tree removals proposed for housing construction purposes must meet the criteria of 55.02.080(3). • LU 99-0066 Page 4 of 11 • LOC 55.02.080(11 - Dead or Dvine Trees "Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, a tree removal permit shall be issued if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is dead or dying." The applicant submitted a site plan that illustrates three dead trees within the dwelling footprint and another two dead trees adjacent to, but just outside the footprint (Exhibits 3, 6, 7 and 8). Staff reviewed the application and conducted a detailed visual assessment of each tree within the vicinity of proposed construction field using the original site plan that proposed removal of 14 trees. An arborist also inspected the trees along the exterior of the proposed dwelling footprint using the November 18, 1999, updated site plan that proposed removal of only nine trees (Exhibit 3. Exhibits 6, 7 and 8 show field analysis results and removal plans. English Ivy invades most of the trees on the site. The trees within or adjacent to the dwelling footprint range from fair to good in health with few structural defects, except for the four dead trees (Exhibit 9). Staff recommends that a fifth dead tree, located adjacent to the rear of the proposed house labeled "E" on Exhibit 6 be removed as it is very close to the foundation and may be hazardous to construction workers and residents if not removed. Staff also recommends that Douglas Fir#16, that is in fair health be removed as it is located • adjacent to the southwest corner foundation of the proposed dwelling. The remaining 16 living trees not within the dwelling footprint should be preserved and reevaluated after construction is complete. In Exhibit 12, the arborist recommends rotating the garage clockwise and moves the house forward so that impact on trees is minimized(Exhibit 12). LOC 55.02.080(3) - Trees that are Not Dead. Dvine. or Hazardous "The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not dead, dying or dangerous if the applicant demonstrates: "(a) The tree is proposed for removal for landscaping purposes or in order to construct development approved or allowed pursuant to the Lake Oswego Code or other applicable development regulation;" The applicant has submitted plans for construction of a new home (ref: building permit number 99-1793) (Exhibit 13). Building permits for new home construction on residential lots are classified as Ministerial Development per Lake Oswego Code section 49.20.105. The plans have been reviewed and meet . applicable City Codes in regards to setbacks, height and lot coverage. Exhibits 3, 6, 7 and 8 show the trees directly impacted by the proposed development. These LU 99-0066 Page 5 of 11 trees are illustrated on the tree inventory site plan, (Exhibit 6) as numbers 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 21, A, B, C, and D. Only nine trees are proposed for removal 1111 (3, 8, 12, 13, 14, A, B, C, and D). Staff finds that the proposed single family dwelling meets the intent of this standard, which is to allow construction of a development pursuant to the City Code. "(b) Removal of the tree will not have a negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees,or existing windbreaks;" Erosion: For the purposes of tree removal requests, two time frames need to be examined; immediate (during the project) and long term (after project completion). For the immediate term, Lake Oswego Code Chapter 52 governs erosion control when more than 500 square feet of soil is disturbed. This chapter requires that erosion control measures be included as part of the home construction. These measures are to be put in place prior to and during the disturbance activity to prevent sedimentation and soil migration. The applicant states in his updated tree removal questionnaire that"removal of the trees will not have a negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. The building pad where excavation will occur has a moderate slope. Extensive understory growth exists on the site and will prevent any erosion. An erosion control plan was submitted to the Building Division indicating where silt fence would be installed to prevent any possible erosion. In addition all excavation soils will be removed from site." (Exhibit 2) The Building Division administers the erosion control plan. Staff will monitor the site during the entire course of housing construction to assure compliance with the approved erosion control plan. The applicant is also proposing to landscape the site; however, the applicant has not submitted a specific replanting plan at this time. Staff recommends that a landscape plan be submitted prior to issuance of the building permits and mitigation trees planted prior to approval of final building inspection. Mitigation plans shall illustrate mitigation at a ratio of one new tree for every one removed. Mitigation trees shall consist of 2" caliper deciduous trees or 8" — 10" tall conifer trees. Soil Stability: This standard is typically applied to areas of extreme slope (20%+) where existing trees and vegetation have been instrumental in retaining the soil of the bank. When the removal of trees may cause slope failure (landslide, • sloughing, etc.), then either the tree should remain or a solution to mitigate the LU 99-0066 Page 6 of 11 loss of the tree needs to be engineered. This site does not have slopes over 20% • nor landslide features. The building permit plans call for areas of some slope alteration. While the house itself will not require extensive cut and fill (Exhibit 2), the area behind the house will need to be adjusted somewhat. There is a two-foot elevation difference between the rear of the house at 88.5 feet and rear property line at 86.5 feet (Exhibit 2). In order to enhance soils stability in this area the applicant should replant with stabilizing groundcover and replacement trees immediately after excavation commences. Flow of Surface Waters: This standard is typically applied to areas with stream channels. This property does not contain or border a stream. No additional accessway is being proposed, as the applicant intends to use an existing driveway on the abutting property to the north. The plat of Village on the Lake provides a reciprocal access easement on the site and the northerly property as shown on Exhibit 4. The new impervious surface on the site will only consist of a small segment of driveway from the northerly drive to the house and the house itself. The impervious areas will be designed to drain to a positive storm drainage system on the site without impacting the adjoining properties. Drainage issues are addressed by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) at the time of building permit plan review. Protection of Adjacent Trees, Existing Windbreaks: The trees proposed for removal will be within one concentrated area. Adjacent remaining trees should not be severely impacted by the proposed tree cutting as the remaining trees are preserved in clusters or are detached from the construction area enough so not to be disturbed. Individual trees, when suddenly exposed by removal of adjacent trees are more subject to failure caused by wind throw than trees left standing in groups. In addition, to further protect remaining trees on site, staff recommends that ivy be removed from these trees. This will help prevent future wind and ice damage. Trees close to the building footprint 5-10 feet will have protective chain link fencing put in place prior to commencement of construction along the trees natural dripline. "(c) Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics, property values or property uses of the neighborhood." Construction of a new single-family residence is in keeping with the development pattern of the neighborhood and is an outright permitted use in the R-15 zone. This site is currently a vacant lot that is heavily covered in trees and is situated below the rest of the area in a shallow "u" shaped ravine between two existing 411, homes and backs up to Tract "A" Open Space Area. There is little question that removal of any trees necessary to accommodate a house will have an impact to the LU 99-0066 Page 7 of 11 appearance of the lot. However, the applicant is retaining a major portion of trees on the lot surrounding the house. The trees in the rear of the property will act as a • buffer between the developed site and Tract "A". After development 16 trees located along the flagpole portion of the lot, both side yards and the rear yard will remain. The flagpole portion of the lot is the only part of the site that is visible to Lily Bay Court, a public street. The site can only be seen by the two adjacent properties to the east and west of the site. A landscape plan will be submitted illustrating vegetation to be planted on site. Staff recommends that the plan illustrate mitigation trees measuring a minimum of 2" caliper for deciduous trees and 8' — 10' tall conifer trees. These trees should be planted prior to final building inspection. Emergency Tree Ordinance: This ordinance (LOC 55.02.041) gives staff the option of requesting alternative site and/or landscaping plans in order to preserve existing large trees on site. In accordance with the arborist's recommendations (Exhibit 12), staff proposes that the garage rotate clockwise in order to preserve the 24 inch Douglas Fir located at the northwest corner of the proposed garage (Exhibit 6, tree number 7). This revision will also save the large Douglas Fir located to the north of the proposed house (Exhibit 6, # 3), that is good health (Exhibit 9). To facilitate the proposed tree protection the garage door should be placed on the north side of the garage instead of the east/front side of the house. Staff finds that construction of the proposed deck and house foundation on the • northeast edge of the site may interfere with trees numbered 9, 10, 15 and 21 (Exhibit 6). Of these only the Douglas Fir (# 15) is in good health (Exhibit 9). The other three trees are in poor to fair health (Exhibit 9). Staff recommends that the house be situated so that these trees, especially the Douglas Fir # 15 are preserved. Recommendations include decreasing the size of deck by backing the deck away from tree # 15, in particular and/or decreasing the footprint of the northeast side of the house in order to avoid the Douglas Fir's natural dripline and root system. Staff also notes that the Douglas Fir, number 16 (Exhibit 6), located adjacent to the western side of the house is in fair condition and should also be preserved. Staff recommends that a certified arborist be retained in order to evaluate and submit a plan with specific pre-construction and post-construction recommendations for preservation of the trees numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, in order to ensure maximum tree protection on the site. The arborist's recommendations may result in changes to building footprint which must be shown on revised building plans for revision and approval of staff prior to issuance of any building permits. Staff finds that with the recommended changes to the site plan as noted above, the applicant could meet the requirements of LOC 55.02.041. LU 99-0066 Page 8 of 11 IV. CONCLUSION • Based upon the materials submitted bythe applicant and findingspresented in this report, PP P staff concludes that LU 99-0066 can be made to comply with the applicable criteria, subject to conditions. V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of LU 99-0066, to remove only nine trees, subject to the following conditions: A. Prior to the Issuance of the Building Permit, the Applicant/Owner Shall: 1. Submit a revised site plan showing the rotated garage, reduced deck along the eastern side of the house, a reduction in building footprint and alternative driveway location no closer than 10 feet to adjacent trees numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 15, 16, 18, per the arborist's reports (Exhibits 9 and 12). 2. Submit a grading plan showing minimum excavation and fill around trees to remain. The applicant/owner shall clarify how the excess excavated materials will be hauled away from the site in order to minimize damage to remaining tress. • 3. Submit a final landscape plan identifying number, size, and species of trees, shrubs and groundcover for review and approval by staff. This plan shall illustrate mitigation trees measuring a minimum of 2" caliper deciduous trees and 8' — 10' tall conifer trees. All vegetation should be selected from the City's native plant list. B. Prior to the Removal of any Tree. the Applicant/Owner Shall: 1. Flag trees to be protected with bright flag ribbon tied around each tree. 2. Retain services of a certified arborist to supervise removal and protection of all trees on the site throughout the entire construction process. C. Immediately Following the Removal of the Trees. the Applicant /Owner Shall: 1. Install erosion control measures in place. These measures shall be maintained throughout the construction process, and until landscape installation is complete and established. These measures shall include broadcasting hay or grass seed in bare areas, and silt fences along downslope property lines. • LU 99-0066 Page 9 of 11 2. The applicant shall install and maintain tree protection fencing with a minimum of 4' tall chain link fence attached to posts driven into the ground at • maximum 10-foot intervals at the edge of the tree protection zone or dripline, whichever is greater, and at the boundary of any open space tracts that abut the parcel developed. i. This fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade. ii. This fencingshall be maintained until final buildinginspections are p approved. iii. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the City Manger and arborist for the project. iv. No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, or parked vehicles or equipment. v. The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as paints, thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris, or run-off. • vi. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless directed by a certified arborist present onsite and approved by the City Manager. D. Prior to Annroval of Final Building Inspection. the Annlicant/Owner shall: 1. Install all landscaping per the approved landscaping plan (as required by condition A.3. above). EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Grading/Erosion Control Permit Application and Building Permit Site Plan 3. Updated Tree Removal Questionnaire (December 16, 1999), Tree Survey and Removal Plan 4. PD 3-85 Site Plan 5. Sensitive Lands Atlas, RC Delineation • LU 99-0066 Page 10 of 11 6. Tree Inventory Site Plan 7. Type II Tree Permit Application,TC 99-0166 8. Field Photographs, Tree Numbers are the same as the ones on the November 2, 1999 Site Plan 9. Tree Health and Condition Summary by Walter Knapp, dated December 27, 1999 10. Request for Public Hearing dated November November 8, 1999, from Daniel Kearns 11. PD 3-85 Staff Report and Findings, Conclusion and Order 12. Arborist Recommendations, dated January 3, 2000 13. House plans • :Sandy_UCases/LU 99-0066/LU 99-0066R 1111 LU 99-0066 Page 11 of 11 ! • S SITE ' r I_ . I. S R. I E. .....__ W ' S MAP 2 IE 9AA SE_E 1.--10----4 �;___ _ .CKAM,4S C0�1NYY M�o�. 7200 .2,....2,... P , �,.. 1 p '129Q 2 - •a • "we to - •fr 9 4 8 r °rszs 'aa .04ey,� ., •s'3100 - — 60 �d 7500 7300 ,k1—T P 67.7 . —151' W - 1 15487 15200 "0 .5 7000 r� '' • 4.0 "9' 7600 u �, . fO v a.15185 2 �1 "b° � , I /��` r' 15459 G 000'1 ..- Q •t I.' �7 s9'm /J I 'I/-- '`--�f 6 Z .a• 7400 ,. m r* •. E 4 ,� 1 800 J 1�'1 _1 J-J 1 �\ �� >- , • w O 8 A ;..a' 9-.. Jp'�,/� �5,, mos 'j =orb /i TRACT "A„ y sa 1=1 • f ° ." y �,`Y OPEN SPACE e+ CM 920` - ? �07 �'/ ' *;61556.1°9e.° ,'s. d200 , .G. r'�r.a' 9 I37 ''' c,- Gr. 9 z- e s_.. 2e31b.4 ' '?.9300 �. h 15490 655� 4 eo ` 6500 • 15462 $ '9400� �' 9600f:. J� . I. 0"°' j 1619 = L ILLY POND u. 2 3 �y ti 32 e: o 6690 �� / a� 1 '�s�qy `' 4. F' �� 9700 s '� '1' 3 � ,�r. t�� jS • 6 ; ` " ' p o G-- 3 3 °1 2 15521 _ 31 y il±_ J 5 / q. 4, /6300 C� i" ,p," 3�4 n / 1803 • 9800 NR3 Is529 `4. :•. 3o t '9 _ e r6 v ,°s GS 9900 a O ¢ �a : 1 621• A t 15532 e 1- n 0 .7 ^ 9' 1589 _ S3 0 • . ho-• • 1°hl / r 7 • •4 •2 / 0 J t 15527 h 5500 `" A-' /•0 4.. O -._•e 29 aq 25 yr 1606 0 ,' +3 f �Y/y� r iw r Q . s. 2y�e •ui3a jJ91. - M. •' 8 N v6000 v Ill 9 l E +�i,.ss' 7aasas: .5 90 a.. ., 5300 Ar�. 4. v..• YT I v 1579 ..„,.. ia.. vO 2 5, _• I Oo00 '' �' . 15535 , .. ' 56001 .9 Y S% 5900 ` ,t . 13536 ` A. D W 27 '11 m 5390 2 1582 •�. l �/ .I/� Istl .j ...i2�- O :N �a".X s. °.°a-'E „s. . �.s°sy1L�";'• �._ Y 05 °Io d 5800 ioo 'b• 79.E s`. •(,A•44 . ,se 1q. . 27 !� b• 10 0 ej ISfi3 0\ v. -' E • 10100 `�. 5200 r,, g».. �Jo,.,, a3 ++ 1,s4 4 19540 2 6 O ,' 15343 • n 5• 551 _ "7_4 78 • •">i. ,•_*_1 o 0 °-. 5000 ,, ' "" w V. i_J¢$.» s3f' °'+e. ° `g �. / • 9 l`j0 9 15559 • 1 i• 8'..f[p:�v s P q G w_ 234 5 9 �6 �u k " 10900 Z "'�Q- .. ,y°<s:•fi" 2,7 s. 10 200 a' ° °' 11 .1•, � � +2 100 % f551 \Joao° -- y. ••v.15546 \'' -.' .44+ „22 b n4 I •.• 5700 4. W 0 1643 �' 10700 4�106' nr. 2` ° `,�' •�. t' E.L1555 1�!S • • • OUO2 For City Use Only ,� ti City of Lake Oswego Permit# ' -. " I IMF iGrading/Erosion Control Issued By1 U oimos Permit Application (initials) • General-Contractor Name: -dr-,��P/r,�(/ N ,1e--5 Building Permit Application No.: IAddress: /et& /��kNN r 6t Parcel I.D. No.: 4o� 2 di,e k n i I City, State, Zip: Pt,rfr.n�M� f,R % ??�°/ ; Subdivision Name: V!(rage ou A 4Gk� I I Phone: 29 2 D g SZ I.o7" 7-- Excavation Contractor Name: Pr-jarred Ileywe •-) Site Address: /5-09 z. fy i '7'-; r ,,,,,, I Address: Location from Nearest Intersection: ICity, State, Zip: Feet IPhone: Job Site (circle one): Private Public Owner/Applicant pliccant �_ Name: Amount of Work Area to be Excava ted: IAddress: 00 Square Feet ICity, State, Zip: . Existing & Proposed Site Runoff Drains (circle IPhone: one): Ditch Pipe Creek Catchbasin Other: 24-Hour Emergency Contact Name: ,7 tat o a t- Soil Disposal: a O(j IAddress: Disposal Location Address: J I City, State, Zip: it rjar e SatiO It- CN&JQJ n I Phone: 2M 2 - 0g .S` /'8'P- I Estimated Amount: 02Oer Cubic Feet oar 1 I agree to comply with the "Erosion Prevention and Sedimentation Control Plan Technical Guidance JHandbook" and will construct and maintain ESC measures to contain sediment on the construction site. frkgeZdil Z'• ‘ata2.1,4;W /1/o-7r/ 79 wner/Applicant Signature Date � • EXHIBIT 2 H:4FORM S\eroson2.tlot LU 99-0066 pi,J; 03 2044( 5 UnnU u�0.00....•, CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO VILLAGE ON THE LAKE LOT 2 -11 6 9 Z% 5b • r. -D-D -E1S:)- r1. j ♦ j: 5 75•�B 9' -r ♦ tor COVER 9.343 S0 FT R 2128 SO Fr 79.9 ! u LOT AREA _ �•• PERCENTAGE 233 X hi Ir. 39 'i J' 76i. A O • ‹5.1 0 ♦ Ao fl;r— 4♦` LOWER FLOOR •\ '"o'- ro 1 EL..90 0' .._.� r\ JJ.,' r. w_ "mo CDC_ 'MAIN FLOOR S' ,,\ C.' � , 1 r - GARAGE ♦ '� Ti; • �!B•Jo,B•� 9'4, ` #� ��� 1 / / %/ \\\ ♦♦ ti� S79•A W-� �ai A')•J 1 - 4•CONC'`C. / / __\f OC� ^-J�� O7 NT9 /�9/ ` ; \` ...., ORNEWAY �•_ \ _ W 41•51-W ,e . U 17709 P911__'II • __0la•wA05R'---———— _ 8.41 '�� t 7 CALEOERT^ C u — Il R • . .� j ,n9,: i`9h r 4/5/99 TPW O 0A5COR0 OE0004 AS$04u1E5 SC ,.t AOt OAS(SOP TIE ACCURACY Of 00 I0R00PARW 0 A 0000 RISO 4 1T tN .E 1105N0 11 t © R5MA0r M I WADER 10 YMAY AU.Set C0A0111045,WClWWO Mr III A,At0 00 ME SITE AN0*FORA 00005 C.WY 00101IW 0410 ACOs,COl100S '• LAfI f1AJCORD DfJI l A / fOCIATC / IfIC 305 N.W 78TH AVENUE. PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 225.9161 SCALE 1' 20' • 0 1111 41111 0 UPDATED TREE REMOVAL QUESTIONNAIRE • December 17, 1999 Purpose of tree removal. To allow construction of a single-family residence on an approved lot for construction. The property is located at lot 2,block 2, Village on the Lake. An updated tree cutting site plan is enclosed. Building permit has been applied for and the building permit number is 99-1793. A total of 10 trees have been identified for removal for the construction of the home. See attached site plan. Of these 10 trees,4 trees have been identified by Centerline Concepts as dead. 3 of the 4 dead trees are within the building envelope; 1 dead tree is outside the building envelope which would be a hazard tree upon completion of the house. Backaround/Existine Conditions: 1. The site is a vacant lot of the Village on the Lake subdivision. The site is approximately 9,345 square feet. 2. A building permit(99-1793) is ready for pick up approval of the tree-cutting permit. 3. The plan has received approval from the homeowner's association and meets the CCR requirements. 4. The site had public notice posted and the neighborhood association was notified of the application in accordance with Lake Oswego Planning regulations. • Applicable code: 1. The applicable code for dead or dying trees is LOC 55.02.080(1) states that except as provided in subsection (b)of this section, a tree removal permit shall be issued if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is dead or dying." 2. LOC 55.02.080(3)applies to trees that are not dead, dying or hazardous. In this case, "The city shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not dead, dying or dangerous if the applicant demonstrates: a. "The tree is proposed for removal for landscaping purposes or in order to construct development approved or allowed pursuant to the Lake Oswego Code or other applicable development regulation;" Building permit 99-1793 is the applicant's demonstration that the trees needed for removal are for the purpose new home construction on an platted lot in the City of Lake Oswego. (1) 4 trees(identified as 3-6 on the site plan)are in the middle of the building envelope and must be removed for the new home construction. (2) The tree identified as tree number 2 must be removed to provide vehicular access to the garage. (3) The tree identified as tree number 1 was identified to be removed to provide parking for one vehicle. This parking code has been changed since the time the plan was originally review by Lake Oswego planning staff and may not now be required to be removed. The • EXHIBIT3 RECEIVED 0 0 5 LU 99-0066 E1; Lb 1999 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO applicant would like the tree to remain if authorized by LOC, planning • staff or the Design Review Commission. b. "Removal of the tree(s) will not have a negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks." (l) The building pad where excavation will occur has moderate slope. Extensive understory growth exists on the site and will prevent any erosion. Erosion control plan was submitted to the building permit indicating where silt fence would be installed to prevent any possible erosion. In addition all excavation soils will be removed from site. (2) Soil stability. This issue is normally concerned with sites that have known Iandslide features or slopes in excess of 35%. These features do not apply to this site. (3) Flow of surface waters. This standard typically applies to areas with stream channels. This property does not border a stream. NO additional accessway is being proposed, but additional impervious surface will consist of driveway from the existing drive to the house and the house itself. The storm waters for this will be managed per Uniform Building Code. (4) Protection of Adjacent trees, Existing Windbreaks: The trees removed from this site are concentrated where the new house will be built. Adjacent remaining trees will not be impacted by the proposed tree • removal. Trees close to the building footprint(within 5 feet) will have protective chain link fencing put in place prior to construction beginning. Impact on the character of the neighborhood. This lot is situated between two existing homes and backs up to a protected area. The trees that are in the protected area will continue to dominate the general feel of the area. The lot sits down below the rest of the area and the trees do not contribute to a skyline feature in the neighborhood. 17 other large trees will remain on the lot. In particular, there are trees that are along the flagpole portion of the lot and at the sides and rear yard that will remain. The flagpole portion of the lot is the only part of the lot that is visible to the public street. The lot can only be seen by the two adjacent lots based on the way it is situated. The lot will have landscaping put in when the house is finished construction. It is recommended that part of this landscaping include four 8-foot tall fir trees along each adjacent property line to provide additional screening privacy for all neighbors These trees will serve as mitigation for the trees being removed. `( ,5. ,,,AC (/( ` he a t(f.' 1 � -r Buffer zone. There is a 25 foot buffer zone at the rear of the lot. The house will be built to this edge. An additional silt fence will be installed along this border to ensure that natural area in this buffer zone remains undisturbed during construction. • 0 0 06 1 Finally it should be noted that alternative driveway access approaches have been review, but • would require the removal of the same number of trees to be saved as well as increase the amount of understory growth to be removed. 411 0 0 0'7 �1 l '/ 3 105.14' 1 • \�I' 0114'23" W ' I ,/ LE \--- r _ N PINE .' - 2' - I r , MNI `) \ PINE - O `\' 1, a 1. '4 N ] I 1\ I l` cAtCE55 EASEuEN gg _ �lia •I 103 �Ot'Jr1" �/ ^� N 54W'2'r E ^i--=-4 E a i ,4.. s3�x4^ _ / Is :,,...0. ▪ s _ .�ST!!- 7_.\ --G. is. °. \` I; ' 9• = PINE - '/1,'` _ 2� , ; 12 _•.,r 6 ,unE 4''' Seitg1 O 1` 4 PINE . ' lit ' I 1 \ / C r--' Y 'O T.yOf` i^N[�; 1I _ ,i PINE ',1,.y _ > 2:' / A!I! 9 gel 0. a+[ cm,NV( 7�' __Y 4 ,�19, ,I I'` ,. ,, en,ANE \ oiEF,y �,` O \ 43t(.113:. ipEE SEE 47.S. ad ,REE QA 9 E. 1 `L (7) I .`" /MAPLE 1 /MAME nG)1� 4,r N —CLUSTER f CLUSTER f oo /wR V• 1 2 N 1� 7 r 1'12.0• ' 75 gg' 76285g„ E. eN 1 ,,... N NAPLE �A h/ "1'-1 I CLUSTERS L_L—� ' ' —' NOV 1 8 1999 SCALE DRAWING LOT 2, BLOCK 2, VILLAGE ON THE LAKE I --MOVED HOUSE PER CLIENT 11/17/99 MEC N. 1\2 SEC.9, T.25., R.1E., W.M. --ALL HOUSE DIMENSIONS PER RANDY AT MASCORD DESIGN RECEIVED 11/15/9 MEC CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEft I ti 1999 CLACKAMAS COUNT; OREGON I --A SIXFOOT PUBLIC UTILITY AND NOVEMBER 15, 19t39 Centerline Concepts Inc. PUBLIC SIDEWALK EASEMENT SHALL EXIST CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DRAWN BY: MEC CHECKED BY: WGDIII AL , STRUEWALK'T FRONTAGE Dapl.of PI° wNOpm.n1 SCALE 1"=20' ACCOUNT # 995 640 82nd Drive Glad rya, 9702 J d M.VAAL2NLONL 503 650•-U188 Iu 50 0189 J ....r.a. . ,.... , .. .... .i. ;reefi-t.:_-•.,::-,-,-,. .--:it',.;-.-•:: 7...r.rri,r,fritlitr:F--, - ..--_,,.-.:-.2----_,-_ ----.4. ,-;ts. 4.2%,.....!•'. -3 ---:-•!,tp-:- :'--''• --•-'•:';'-' ..--• '-i-,.-.W.,s,.•!.,..-;.-:„.:.:..7,'''....'z••••:,2.4?.:.;.ka----- :-.--..-------.,:4".-•-:.•• •.v.. 16-; ••• :-.!-1--'-',.-.e- -..-t..-7rf„..-:::1 -...... . _ — -------=--._ -,:-;.---,,-..,.•'--,,:--..-i,-? , - 0 ' -,--,---- - IS kJ I OE. PROTECTION NATURAL-AREA • • . 0,0,•!.(cot'__-.—f--.7.- --:_;4-i-1-7, -•-•'-'-------417_.-- - - • 2 ---• tu - - - ,..3 --7.411)-t--;8-- e-50-----1\--‘ -.11‘-,'e,.cy, Esm-t 3 y. S '' .4:b0 ''1- .,, •-(• q_ • NI ey,67 04 .-' .i,A I \r r'', --1-:f•-,t-- 1,,4.4 S F 0 0 • 1 to r110 .Ar.3 VI I 0 •• . 'Aid :.----•':- - --- •vte •A‘•.61 -e. 10°J.-D-°9- -------ig..- :-'-- ': .f.:15•.'`•'''',--- 1 5/03 ...... ,..... (2° 4,1 ‘.4,00 . pvErk;404:4!,-- •;7-„•----,L--:•-•_ cv --,.. ......e.--- :-. :._,- -- .)6,„r_r_E.— --"'I.-- - 't.--.,•'-.,. .. • . - Az, -_-\-,,--rp ' •AA 1.. 1,',..:0,111:, 215icici 15 i q 5 --4-'t---- 9 .,..4-. -. .F• ---7gLIZP • :Vt.,'15. • ,,r) • _____,..N( I.- V-'.-< 1 0 4-9 4_ F: o\P 15 200 lo , - - 8 s. ---,,,- - - 4,1 •,.... TRACT "A" .,.. i 4 4,:k .: OPEN F'.4.•Ce_ i'V'•• '- 7 113 -/- r73, .._..,-4-_-0,,, kis F, t - , ,_ . .,.. : . .,., ,e.A,24s ,F •.: • ,,_-:-.‘01t- B..-..,e74-'-I- ,-. ,, ,.., ?.... ../ __,,,' 02:-.•-ri.4\ .‘tk ' :..._ 6.• • o'i /51c/2 -.--- • a 4 .,9 `;,'..-!-.; c,,.L.,...,.--, ....-0 _ 3 64'47,4,4 .73 :1 o,r-• ..12,---- , 8 -.. .)`' b-ct..k''4,_ >- g ...,-1-• -......s . : • >- 0 - 9 • J t, tg, ,,,d,;(Yr ' it -I ,•\ --,Cd "v - " '3 -..) ,,", •v.SO ' :',- 'c,,, :-' . ..f.,,N ul q, 4,545 5 ru; • : ,-.7 N./ 0 <O.:\ . 17- ..",,,,,....,t .n„-(70.,q, ... . ......... . , . .0b _ :7 "i• 7, 1 4 - S ; ,,\A-: .--. .4. . .. -. L2-1,P,--.,_ .,- . n A ,,. .7• ,-- ...... _ .CO (-Jul -1,011 c, P 9 ,,.• - C N q' Se-€-7'19' crW • \ 38,1.49 5.1y 0 . k....-b5A-Aci.- - - , • • I.--VI 96 e4z io.._3, L.' 540-11 al t'• - - ii b .70- •.f-`-•:•:-•:--- _ 4 6., . .,7::44 tS-14410 dVf.i'' '•:-, • -- OT , . i -4.- gi,--4v fes-"7- - iii ' • 7--_.„.-3--t 32 : ',CC 6 .i -4 I 0 .- ‘...“, c,-, A -7-', -..''cl i.. .Oct ...,./>e fr-' / .- A* . .;:.,....ZT...-...*:::.'776,4-t--. *- - 67 31 , ---._ -0 •,3 10, s, f_. --,:-,I.? .. ,r, \ er f/Acc.h.„..... -- --- _., , Sri-s•.e.... t'''' ) 1 ."0 TO 1.--OT 32 :I. "--44- ....v \ 8,99i s F. ' 3 .21 ,..., .., .,.ii• •.----a.-, :-.. .. ,‘ _a __ . \s,P.- ) •1,-.- ,,p,e).',..., 7, ----__-‘ _.-- - --__ i!.. . . --4 ..L. 0-, I ,t/ ---,,-., _.. - -.-:-.._2.--.., -;, lc (61 0 F 10. 1, Cm0:1--; • '•:'7,:-if- ''--•:!:::sY,",(11 3 0 rif..,- . '4;'Ti,'• 17 10,e,I i .F 2.,ii",'' /s3...---- 2- '! ...`:',\''•. ./ .-:-.Cl•--7,.. 1 ser ..46."E. _. ,,ex-,--'-` 01' Ns'• - ACCESS ES MT EXHIBIT 4 1,,,. -:-',...".6-. d• ir •. f.---__!---01 ,-..,-f.":_4:7;i. ..,..-.. -.-'.--7,.....,.-...,-_-_, • , ,-- ..,T 0 1,...07 30 Yt , / 0 ,1 LU 99-0066 ll 8 ..D---•_G,NDa- 1_., -*- -- .4.2..:4VD •-•"7) • •-•/ 1 5 Si--4.'.:-- ,-24... ,0?, -J // 4 '2- r 29 -.-6-C-ey.i-- _...-- -=,--..:; •-•!--.-;:, i i,347 sp. itt/V5/// . r If I Stream O -►1 Ili . w J o Corridor '' 0 CD N r O ~ O O • -.00'.IIIIIIIIIIIIiihhh. 11111% J O O O • r • .a , Y-W W Wetland • .k...7 `.....6 2 8 ; • , • • • • • • • . . . . . ,p . • • •-- • . • Tree ....13 • • • • • • • 1 • • • . . • . • • • .. • • • • • Grove • • •: • •• • • • • • • • • OOOOOOO • OOOOOO• • 4 • • • • OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO • • . • •LU * • • ICJ OOOOO • • • 'f • • • • • • • • • • • • 113 _ .„... . • • . R • . __ . 1521 e -7-""--- `� ^ Insignificant - 15200 r 15195 .�- W e . . . -Pe - 1 .--- ,---- , (71 ri, > elk,'.S* a • ,,,\ '`<5\ ., `°vu, DR1VE ~ �`'� ��� c� • Gri E itV Z ti \ n J� al P ✓nN . v, ,� I SS14 \ 3 tic y) to Vr .y 61 • y ,l, 6 1 ) n to L :J y W - 15532 '`/J lVo y` \\'� 4, -4- 7,----_________., a ,.. 1/4,.... 50 QQ rss3. y W i 15536 \ 9A, ® z PU rlssgs _W ' L,- ` 5 IF�0 h)\ �` 1563 I SS s •''— 1`� ti� 9 1555 v ss ss I 4e 1555 > �� as '' m ~'al ,15564 O _- 15567 P1 a` rn 4 il r w (V v 15578 15575 oW 00 v '' -1 • P��'� ISS9 15583 j j60 S GE �N 94� 6 15591 I 0 50 100 200 300 1687 1670 c°iN n 1 rs 0 15599 I EET m c [691 1692 f o k.S\ • (5- , EXHIBIT 5 0�� 1708 1700 ����\J rs LU 99-0066 SCALE r 1 INCH = 200 FEET 1699 r L '�5`6, scc3 r 4, �. /r, �575 / MN • • I I 1 . . , , v_____ ____________ \, , ,, --------; 3 `,-� , 1`05.14' TREE INVENTORY \ r26" S-84'04'23" W \ i • IE 1 b PINE PINE �.. — PINE o \' I, 1� _ ��•/- -� N 79 or . :11 1 L'7 I' “, 1 i NZCCESS EASCMENT N eon' �e r PIN( S . A�000 8. /� 11` of�b Fes' N °`� \' I'81 ' \ 1' E' 67.78. -:,' /= \'I, ay. 48 /� ( ,. 36' _ ' ` /C S1ER 79'40.3 " a- +f h V Z�. / ,�' 00 . v not d` '% PINE (\"' ' - �",••� • X O �f l'NIL \ // I I, ; I I' \ 7OI... ` .----2' „u,I t a.eo- ,me/ 0 I,' $ sir 1S li, � = 73 = �> 12' �r1 o co '� I. Douglas Fir 13. Douglas Fir '" y,o. ^y za_ ,. >� pO 1 >A 1F,,, v,,c R 4 w ON cn CD 2. Douglas Fir 14. Douglas Fir e` 'PEE IT 4 .' ' *1411. (�'4',_� p 3. Douglas Fir IS. Douglas Fir ��oE� afAo "• -- i t---k tPf . tpfE n as 21 4. Big Leaf Maple 16. Douglas Fir q �6Pc Q Cluster : ,`,-I E. ( �, l ry3� 6 59 I . Douglas Fir 17. Douglas Fir �� 18�" 4ARE . /MAPLE 47b.5 N -c14.21R CLUSTER 5 `X . Douglas Fir IS. Douglas Fir _ ,Y 1$ Q. I� p 20 ` 7. Douglas Fir 19. Big Leaf Maple 1 E 19 75 g9 LEGEND: Cluster N 75'2859 8. .ig Leaf Maple 20. Big Leaf Maple n X( Trees to be removed Cluster - 9. t ig Leaf Maple 21. Big Leaf Maple - _ Q Trees Recommended Cluster "--' 10. ►I uglas Fir A. Dead Tree i/ N for removal by staff ( PL'�1 MAPLE 1 FA XQ I 11. ouglas Fir B. Dead Tree- CLUSTERS 12. Douglas Fir -C Dead Tree NOV 1 8 1999 .:.i D. Dead Tree gY- E. Dead Tree I SCALE DRAWING LOT 2, BLOCK 2, VILLAGE ON THE LAKE -MOVED HOUSE PER CLIENT 11/17/99 MEC RECEIVED N. 1\2 SEC.9, T.2S., R.1E., W.M. --ALL HOUSE DIMENSIONS PER RANDY AT MASCORD DESIGN 11/15/9 MEC III I I G 1}1Jy CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO CLACKAMAS COUNTY. OREGON 11 -A SIX FOOT PUBLIC UTIWTY AND CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO I NOVEMBER 15, 1999 Centerline Concepts Inc. PUBLIC SIDEWALK EASEMENT SHALL EXIST Ospl.of Pf tnnlnp i Development I DRAWN BY: MEC CHECKED BY: WGDIII 1 AtONG ALL STREET FRONTAGE I SCALE 1"=20' ACCOUNT # 995 640 821,0 Delve Gladslona, Orugan 97027 l M:\Mil\1.2VilO 1 503 650-01BB lox 503 650-0t89 • • � �1I I �. Tree Removal Permit No.- - - Application Receipt No. Date: �,_ 411 \\N„.. alldM • Applicant: . 1 e h 1`.,.1' •1`�.r•7,_cA,�r-t:1 Phone: /1;c, ) i�ge— /72 Property Owner: lr"7 v r."2 31 '1 t`iite< (.. ki, /4?-: t-! )hone: /6 2' 3) lci g -eq 4;••.11- . Address of Tree Removal: / ` `' `' � ' / r� ' '^ Size,Number, and Type of Trees to be Removed: i ?ice -{2_' u-'` :_• �,;,- r/;3 G,;,;,- Fer,',., i- if 11- i?.;'3 — - Reason for Removal: /,,a rt._lni) , r a/r . ;r' Anticipated Removal Date: /,,-;+; )7i;•'- ' -' ��re e ) i/ti hai lC/N;, ,....4?AJ 0elctt ?- - -. I agree to comply with Lake Oswego Code, Chapter 55, regarding tree removal. I grant permission to the City of Lake Oswego for employees to enter the above property to inspect the trees requested for removal. 1:"/ , i�✓ �--'t ..--GCS Signature of Property Owner(required) Signature of Applicant (if different) The City must sign for trees located on public property 4,r N - fr ' e.Y . N u r„W� nee '; bt.n oaf' Permit Type (Fill out with City Staff) • elf r - - - - — - E I Submit: (1)Removal plan • TYPE I,2 DEAD Submit: (1) Removal plan CID OF LAKE O3W` Q (Oversized lots) To Do: (1) Mark trees with yellow ribbon Not.Of PI r1niI�'� " 'O°`"on' ❑ EMERGENCY Submit: (1) Removal plan, (2)Photograph of tree/or mark tree with yellow ribbons ❑ VERIFICATION Submit: (1) Removal plan, (2) Mitigation plan, if required (Prior approval) To Do: (1)Mark trees with yellow ribbon, (2) Stake building envelope& driveways ❑ TYPE II,DEAD Submit: (1) Removal plan, (2)Photograph of dead trees, (3) Mitigation plan To Do: (1)Mark trees with yellow ribbon ❑ TYPE II,HAZARD Submit: (I)Removal plan, (2)ISA Hazard Evaluation, (3) Mitigation plan To Do: (1)Mark trees with yellow ribbon ❑ TYPE II,DYING Submit: (1)Removal plan, (2)Arborist report, (3)Mitigation plan, (4)Copy of notice letter To Do: (1)Mark trees with yellow ribbon,(2)Post sign, (3) Send notice letter, (4)Affidavit Wait: (1) 14 days until the comment period is complete ❑a TYPE II,OTHER Submit: (1) Removal plan, (2)Questionnaire, (3)Mitigation plan, (4) Copy of notice letter To Do: (1)Mark trees with yellow ribbon,(2)Post sign, (3) Send notice letter. (4) Affidavit Wait: (1) 14 days until the comment period is complete City Staff to Fill Out: . Intake Staff/lit*4,': Zone - Tax Map Tax Lot "` Due Date • 410 Planning File#1 t �i --/? t' Removal Approved/Denied z — : -� 3 Building Permit# i , , Mitigation Plan Approved/Denied `! Revised July 1998 I:lformskapplcroslvee removal app-july 98.doc �� _:" t'/Vet EXHIBIT 7 - ,,/•tl/gp LU 99-0066 'J 1p„. e 5 AFFIDAVIT 1 of applicant :\i 441-7, 0N O A) Tree Permit No. —r6 q 9'— 0 / • Name PP / /tt /� �t �t Address or General Location: l c'f �� `� �' � AFFIDAVIT OF MARKING TREES, POSTING NOTICE, AND NOTIFYING NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION I,ti..iat4 akr'`t do swear or affirm that I am (representing) the party requesting a permit to cut trees on the property located at /,5.� / q , ,Iki 1 t/ (t . Pursuant to LOC 55.02.075, t on the 2 day of �av/?M her , 19 , , I personally marked the trees (requested for removal) with yellow tagging tape, posted notice on the property that the site is subject to a pending tree removal permit, (� which is clearly visible to vehicles traveling on a public street I-, /�y/ /�;av � (street name) / and to pedestrians walking or biking by the property, and sent a letter to the ka Ida U,#1, neighborhood association to notify the association of the removal request (attach letter). - ,;f - - - S ;`_ .. _ ,f 1 .. mac_. , s+ . . .i Signature Subscribed and sworn to, or affirmed,before me this day of IN I I', %` I i ! - STATE OF OREGON Mk % ((, i I I r COUNTY OF CLACKA AS �:'_ '. : 1 1 __.,�_Y._W.___ -� -- �..��: 4Notary Public for the State of Oregon we !=`'�� O�ICIAL 3 A�a YdRt L IG-) iAi NOTARY P,J3i IC()F+l?ty[Jns COMMISSION NO 31 tits. f f-• PA COMMISSION EXPIRES JuN 4, 2(►ID My Commission Expires 1 THE 14 DAY PUBLIC NOTICE PERIOD WILL BEGIN ONLY WHEN THIS AFFIDAVIT IS RETURNED TO: fI E C E 1 V E City of Lake Oswego ,`I;L;�. Department of Planning and Development c..P° Attn: Tree Cutting Permits CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO P.O. Box 369 • Dept.of Planning&Development Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Revised June 1998 1:\forms\aaplctns\tree removal affidavit—june 98 0U14 J 4))3A 1111 0 0 . .r BRAD GEAHHARr WY OF LAKE OSWEGO VILLAGE ON THE LAKE ' LOT 2 I i . Ei.). Lb. 'a. `+t5'j599 W ~'..,.. 'a.- ' N `` ey LOr COVER 1.718 SO 9,145 SO FTr ". PfNCENIAGE 777 X y�E ',n /r y A \ J. S 1S�O o ..y'- \, ri y 66. \ 6B. - \y fie. °' .3 I LOWER FLO(� _- g. ` 9 C. ! �„ '� � MAIN FL�70R ��♦ 1 1- a., 3•I l3 It 111 EL.10 6, 9ti ti} r� 11 1 , Z GARA \:),. .o/ e1'r vIrr Ol'R. P'0` s `• j , � 99 yy1 s�o� ` y \\ ♦4 qt. [p�/rL911A.�.�- /r�J�!ate( I /, I✓ •�l'B'r0• F` \r vrr'. '�,.1 - / �\ \\\ `. —_ g •19'EO'- W r • tY i it / vav-- --Q:L 11G - y ,.r;,,. t S.2 • �ll n , 2 r_f j1(ir��1 �, `�3E��c: �ti N ay..l�•Z7'f_���.r� -J� ' N I 105 N. • -r- fS/'-I1,7 l {E.A./ ' CD /0- 2.i"d.� lR-t 5 • , it — dE•ub/e +T!r'rl a r . ii p a��r✓K�r�L_ nr5 r RECEIVED a . m,,,1F; - 5 L /a- 9,5-4 4,l. g 3 -b�,drJ�"5 U5/99 TPW F I3— .."-ht n E;' 4 rgdi‹—no4arei 1 '3 NaV vZ 199y 1 f,R „ flel {rE1.'� �}.1 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 1 ui. rarJ -• to gU T Dot of Planning 1 Development 1 ,9 CO1 FM IlN+9cunAcv.N1C. /Lf ••t�p '{ 1'3,5 A• ��� 4FF FM 11!IN II IS Il OP UK {� \^` ( `.—' 1 d SISKOSNNIN S OP 1 tON it R 1,1E SW N . /,p r F!E'•• ^, Ne9raeexn.v INE ana«w rFNNr �Q 0,L• (F• 1'�. Nl elE COIMIiOVE.MIUOWO Wr r4l ,I l/I n ry114 ON1K91EWO.71 .:4 f R It �J , a Wr POW..MO 1404.1111Ne19 ',11ALArl f1AICORD DUII6f1 A / / OCIATff IfI( 1nLE r' 20 . o .r•105 N.W. 18TH AVENUE, PORTLAND, OREGON 91209 1503) 22.5.9161 I R Wednesday, November 03, 1999 Lakeview Summit Neighborhood Association • ATTN: Buzz Siler 3328 Lakeview BLVD. Lake Oswego, OR 97035 RE: Tree Cutting Permit Number TC-99-0166 Dear Mr. Siler: I am writing on-behalf of Brad Gearhart, the owner of the property located at Lot 2, Village on the Lake, with address 15199 Lilly Bay Court. We are proposing the construction of a new home that will require the removal of 14 trees from the lot. See the attached diagram to identify the location, types and sizes'of trees proposed for removal. Please call me at (503) 780-1121 if you have any questions. Sincerely, K2€L7 Richard C. Breakiron • Consultant Cc: Brad Gearhart City of Lake Oswego, Planning Department RECEIVED 1OCC 1111 gpT oo 3 LAKE OSWEGO ti Daveloprnoni 0 u 1 6 TREE REMOVAL QUESTIONNAIRE • Purpose of tree removal. To allow construction of a single-family residence on an approved lot for construction. The property is located at lot 2, block 2, Village on the Lake. A site plan is enclosed. Building permit has been applied for and the building permit number is 99-1793. A total of 14 trees have been identified for removal for the construction of the home. See attached site plan. Four of the trees identified for removal are already in extremely poor condition. In addition, four of the doug fir trees have extensive coverage by ivy. Erosion impact. The removal of the trees will not have a significant negative impact on erosion as there is extensive under story growth that will keep soils in place. During construction, erosion control measures will be put in place along the low point of the site. These measures have been identified in the erosion control permit. Soil stability. The soils are typical soils of the local area. The lot is not situated on any hazard soils areas of the city. Two existing houses already are built adjacent to the lot. Flow of surface waters. A storm system exists at the back of the lot. Surface waters will be diverted to those facilities. The natural flow of water will not be affected by the removal of the trees. Protection of adiacent trees. The trees on this lot are spread apart and the removal of these trees • will not remove existing windbreaks. Trees to remain will be protected by temporary fencing to prevent damage to them during construction. Imoact on the character of the neighborhood. This lot is situated between two existing homes and backs up to a protected area. The trees that are in the protected area will continue to dominate the general feel of the area. The lot sits down below the rest of the area and the trees do not contribute to a skyline feature in the neighborhood. Other large trees will remain on the lot, in particular, there are trees that are along the flagpole portion of the lot that will remain. This flagpole portion of the lot is the only part of the lot that is visible to the public street. The lot can only be seen by the two adjacent lots based on the way it is situated. The lot will have landscaping put in when the house is finished construction. It is recommended that part of this landscaping include four 8-foot tall fir trees along each adjacent property line to provide screening privacy for all neighbors. RECEIVED 7y9V CITY OF LA, • Dept.of Plannini(Eg E peeve me C 0017 UPDATED TREE REMOVAL QUESTIONNAIRE Li I.( ;ter �''..�• -'" .i :.� November 22, 1999 Copt.of Plannin c, Dove icpmant Purpose of tree removal. To allow construction of a single-family residence on an approved lot for construction. The property is located at lot 2. block 2, Village on the Lake. An updated tree cutting site plan is enclosed. Building permit has been applied for and the building permit number is 99-1793. A total of 6 trees have been identified for removal for the construction of the home. See attached site plan. Three additional trees are in the site plan but these trees are dead Erosion impact. The removal of the trees will not have a significant negative impact on erosion as there is extensive under story growth that will keep soils in place. During construction, erosion control measures will be put in place along the low point of the site. These measures have been identified in the erosion control permit. Soil stability. The soils are typical soils of the local area. The lot is not situated on any hazard soils areas of the city. Two existing houses already are built adjacent to the lot. Flow of surface waters. A storm system exists at the back of the lot. Surface waters will be diverted to those facilities. The natural flow of water will not be affected by the removal of the trees. Protection of adjacent trees. The trees on this lot are spread apart and the removal of these trees • will not remove existing windbreaks. Trees to remain will be protected by temporary fencing to prevent damage to them during construction. Impact on the character of the neinhborhood. This lot is situated between two existing homes and backs up to a protected area. The trees that are in the protected area will continue to dominate the general feel of the area. The lot sits down below the rest of the area and the trees do not contribute to a skyline feature in the neighborhood. 17 other large trees will remain on the lot. In particular, there are trees that are along the flagpole portion of the lot and at the sides and rear yard that will remain. The flagpole portion of the lot is the only part of the lot that is visible to the public street. The lot can only be seen by the two adjacent lots based on the way it is situated. The lot will have landscaping put in when the house is finished construction. It is recommended that part of this landscaping include four 8-foot tall fir trees along each adjacent property line to provide additional screening privacy for all neighbors. • 0 U1 1 re + r �A \ \ I 1 , ,4°� '\1, / CAS N � ., _ ` 9 � z6 1047,,... s�'' e aQ ; P1"£ PINE 0-4 -4'04 i23 u , :►�. tr ! 1 i U PfyF - i r'• / . 1 i !r TO-s s.,N 79'4O'36" I► �CCESS EAsEAIE p , nr\f C Pk \\ P,B, _ a67.78 `` `' 84'0q"2J"E N1 N I l/ tU !E I► i NE P _ t _ '' --j---=-- / �S zi .�.� / I \ i f // !1 \\` pE E0.4� �S y S / f" I I I Pi �' f 14•/ .. I 1' 11 / I 1 \` _b• tiplu f _ m , I 1 Pie ��0 iso Q •��6,� �O m T�,295 46 be_ rehoJed• B, Oh \'' IssEP 2 w. rn 13 m'n plHt LP 1 12.50' • V-, 1 D.00' ,. G g rn zi 1I, `\ __J -.12. f I`o �( V•I 7, ro 0 ID IA 'I a, 1, 1 1 d 1/• Cr. = r- I a - 1.7, 63) , - 28* \...‘... of, �,p,� j a r� /�q �Q. SRM[� �i,� P• ..- IPE �1 cn 1 � ' m � 3 ^O ® 0 - �i N Q� DEAD- DEAD a 11 .0 TREE TREE � IT, i Q, 0t0 1'�� S. DEAD R, 6 Pi we.[', , h ` IREE ik DEAD * C) �0 U. ,111 \ • 47.00' TREE _ `�,t 1 • �.a *DEAD 1 u tc J O C� , 1' i r r1\ TREE -' i I T I. ,NT N _C Uq TE , f r1\ 1, _ I N SrER c - .IkE ill 0 r\ - - Afpp i c �1 \` \_I �etUSl. 1 , 1,;0 s 1. - '3 N 75628'59n E 75.99' N 5a L , - 1 �' 11it, .3 \ 3 O / 4 04"23" W 1 105.14' r,.l re' - iv PINE I _ L^ t to r $ ` " ` '{ � PING \ � PINE - ? �' II, ly N•/ t "� 79'q��51.. o i ' I It T tis �' AeusstASCIIHI N. en,+�� wr` "�y"'v 1 �l000 -.i `I I• ` I It ,,i? bR',, Y ' 0• s•81' �, I y e ;� -L - R I-t I,. . 36 E, 67•7g' t r, E4 /� 1 !� '40 ;, I (� tEa>ex - e GS ..,4E • '7. a•- kw d`"'J J 1 I J IK .• \ _ teen(� t Who ( ° t _� !tl t O • I I: \ I It I I; t {vl,\ r. 1.0. "n/-- 40. .3 \ 73 \ _ c -4 `Jc 1vrt (Y(��co 'I t� i 11, CiRu �rl , �� 1'a`, �' III •'8 `i to ii 1 p! 1 II .-'�y • y % ors i, , ! i 1 • I i • ttj 1: nit +7W r. r+• �- H ) �' Y,PLC 1 LLI.ftC a y�T • tii " I ;��` m "POSER S 1�1us+_t<; C1 u 11 • ` ' , I , t Ty.99 14 w CD 1 + 15285g" E 1- „\ ----- ' , t. ..C.. N if - i' , ,. / 1 IL 'o �� � 51M [ rn - go 'W.i ,Tt a rn a•Ill o I ',n g 0 -. �1,10ED HOUSE PLH CHENI 11/1)/99 IAEC SCALE DRAWING LOT �' BLOCK 2 VILLAGE ON THE LAKE a I N. 1\2 SEC.9, T.2S•, R.1E., W.M. ;7 TO m ALL HOUSE GIMEVSIONS riR RANDY Al M ASCCRU DESIGN , t d "' 15/9 MEG QTY OF LAKE OSINEGO I CLACKAMAS COUNTY` OREGON 11.!1 --A SIX FOOT PUBLIC uH:ITP AND I NOVEMBER 15, 1999 . Cersle:rline Con s Inc. PAl(N+U+3LICC 51DEYIALK ALLSIR!'ET Ek5E6ffl4[NfNIACE SHALL EXIST III I DRAWN BY: MEC CHECKED BY: WCDIII • I SCALE 1"=20' ACCOUNT i 995 too 57n.1 1>rla•,• Caw.&Inn.. » Wednesday,November 24, 1999 ipLakeview Summit Neighborhood Association ATTN: Bn77 Siler 3328 Lakeview BLVD. Lake Oswego, OR 97035 RE: Tree Cutting Permit Number TC-99-0166 Dear Mr. Siler: I wrote to you on November 3, 1999 concerning a tree-cutting permit on the above site. The City of Lake Oswego requested an updated site plan based on their initial visit to the site. The updated site plan identified errors with the original site plan and I am enclosing an updated and corrected site plan. Also thi city planner requested all tress on the site be identified. The corrections identify now only 6 trees to be removed versus the previously identified 14 trees. The City of Lake Oswego planner, Sandy, will conduct a field inspection November 24, 1999 of the site. The site is presently flagged and the trees that removal is being asked for are identified with yellow tape and the corners of the house are identified with stakes and red tape. Howard Franklin has asked for hearing on the tree-cutting permit and this hearing will be held in front of the Design Review Commission on a date in the near future. We have also provided 4110 Sandy a copy of the color rendering of the proposed home and the elevations and floor plans. Best regards, /1°- '1;e/e .,4'7 C:'/".e .)7 Richard C. Breakiron Consultant Cc: Brad Gearhart City of Lake Oswego, Planning Department ATTN: Sandy RECEi E IIIC MY OF LAKE OSWEGO L'spt.of Planning&Dave►cpment 0 . 2 t 4:2Ja ‘tit '".. t,,/ 4.62_ II .: .iitt 'v- cif 26 5-84'04 / , 5i,q/L1)1" O� •'LE 1 - PINE �- i •1 _ cLu - s ;. I 1 t e r ` lb PINE \ PINE \- '' '� 10 /i, . I �.Zt ` 14" `y Inc ; ,./ , .. '' ' , Y ' �� EASEMENT ;N / �t ' PINE • Ni- 1 I �'\ 4: 3E' _ z6"i� `�' ti 0.4)0 r,ti` GI a e 5 Dill 4:410wNE � Ii / \ I � � a 7/� Ez , 67.78 _ ► a_ PINE - I �,so. i /N 1.40'36 1/7°✓ . c r.i,, iy e" i \ 8" - PINE I 1 24 �� •G5A vi-P 50' '. 1.1�0 42 ! 1e , IC I / PINE \-- / E _ .v p 4y Q ; t2 Z. a.,APLe .j I MAPLE 4� '/ 1 1 \ / 1 1\ oN, ,Sfi 1t foSte' 2 -- I 7.50' }��PINE/ - ' °' j. \.` I r / PINE �� �s `�> PINE r 1 I \ jam. — PwE ^�4"' �` \1 I r/ I 1 ", O, � 1 1 t` j PINE \� 24. '��/�(qp�/� (` o . %, e u •�Q. PINE �.% /, PINE j \� 0E.A0 ' ' r Per'^ 6 V F i i T�£E ,,= I • I0„ DQLi 1 L k- 1REE`r•IrN. T EO 47°p ,f / 0EA0 �� ��—�-�i--ri�.a- nth `�S - ;E - * �t 1' '' c, 9S" • 1 1, ` r r1„S ~I, I ) 1 r,j0-+J�jIj9 i / MAPLE 1 MAPLE 1 0 pp . iD 3') ' f +1 6• N CLUSTER 5 CLUSTER ( ` rDIJ . S D' ,PWE , , ,� ` 7 ', bP- , INE 59 7 5 9 91 1, 5'2a "` s Eo o. 1/_t_e4.C, y, Jam' - m 0 '1q 'r I r V45,04 , j �f� / /� MAPLE I1 )/ �I ' g r ` CLUSTERS �� - �� liilll u, x I-. -'am NOV 1 8 1959 .�. v to t� I s BY 13 m m - . 0 2.0 (.7.1 I WALE DRAWING LOT LOCK 2, I VILLAGE THE LAKE • • 0 P0003798 (1536x1024x16M jpeg) • • ' • • ' �f .• • ems X,. j ` s 11 �•• • -• �{' • .•` ON CO 1.E f:0 -j II - 4. / .+'0 -a. r f' iii• + ''., ;•....�A t•� •t.,• . : • 1 •r-• y•am• ` t - vt .• , • ! , •Ili � 1 .`•0 t� J y �Cl { r� . -;a'. �f•i yam • �`?., 0� ;\- ..'• �.,, Tree Inventory# 5 Site Visit 11/9/99 Douglas Fir, fairly good canopy • 0 • P0003799 (1536x1024x16M jpeg) • `' ; �• . ' ' a i . . . • • y'. y I max,:.:!' lr i- ..c: •o . .4*..1,,, ri...• ,,.. .,." 7... .. , ,.,...74111. t 7 „X C--) .-.`st- .14.:1.7' 17•11.-'... '.17.V11:1"....°1/4, • • • ya✓ �; N .` �, �•�' ' • - " '' 7. • • ,: f i 'N • �� • P • - •!% Tree Inventory#3 Site Visit 11/9/99 Douglas Fir, OK canopy cover. Tree close to garage footprint, ivy covered • • S P0003801 (1536x1024x16M jpeg) 411 f j l , �% .Kr, " y • i� . Y.P a n' •• ‘111,10 . A Ill.:.d ! . Niklik410 f Ili '' .b 1/441 . 01._. Ak.. , ilit R I 1.44,110 . . di" . va • Nor -.. ...141(..164040r)le .1• . , 7 rir 4;' 111 111P111•VI ""!S? ', •• • itio • $ - ,0*. lir'. -:4, 4 III ' tit Tri •` CD s�y♦ 'i vim• . ' att- . .. . . . ,.. , .,.,.... ,,, . ,,,. ... , . .,,, ,,,,i, • • fir 's .,�1, • '`° r 'V •t, r • i •t ti • Vie•` Tree Inventory# 9 Site Visit 11/9/99 Big Leaf Maple, ok health, some branches look dead • 0 0 P00031305 (1536x1024x16M jpeg) a ' ite •' • ,,,• ,. JI e. 'IV ir it ‘. ... ,..., ....... . •• II.4 • 0. °: 4 4.. •• • 91.- gl',. 4 • "d ' . -• a" w 41C4 . e` a e •7 let it7 • ' - •-••• 4,- .• C .4."•-.1„ :.-.:,lob ,• -...7.,04"" .....e. .'"••,-,- 4 ."*W • .. or. •. . ;iv. -r a- -.., • 1r tdi:? w •:. " . e — - .." • .. `,•. .-tr' 5'4 "lir . 11 ..., .. .. . A'. - • - .,2„.7.6.:,f --4..,.. , •,., _ . -. . . . I le •• - • • * • . 11 ^ • , 111. • • . . 11111 • ' • ;11. • • • ...,., te,4 7 nii°,.::_:) C i.._•• -41". its 1 : 'f'. I, ' IF: • lit V"' ' -.% •!" : 4:7 74., - i so Prrk • , ••• et . .410 t 04 .A . .• • I •g ' . • • ., ... .. ir 4 • 444P i lir .. .if . i'• t_. ;II ••- -.I , I., . :. m ;.4•.1 1 IP;tem. • 'I.. ...' • ' ' 4 - 6 P. VP" . . • . • .,.it,' '' .1r i‘er 4W, d ' it. •II. - I:i la ., . . „ 0,...-.- Xr A_. 1 .. • .w . • _z --111111111111116 Tree Inventory# 12 Site Visit 11/9/99 Douglas Fir, 21.5" in good health P0003806 (1024x1536x16M ipeg) ..„,, . 1. 1 - I. t 0. '1 I.{ .411f',` •744.4.11. . •••, 1 . . 1 • ' di;21:. Ilk?, 'fl - 'Ill• 4blig ii.drambtS • • ir• lit tit op- ...41/....... _,...., . . .. _., • .111, . Vitk i'l'' - . P• . i• 4,. ... . .., • , . O.'' *e.• ' .. • , . -1 . , „ it 64 V: • .- ilk •. • - . . • . N. I ''•• 't• . 1.411"°:*4 Itti/It..;, %..• ': '•0.• Or 4 •d I,g •. 4/gLi)* •' .11 • •P Is•.W. ' /., •. ' r. .65•. . • IIII ••, . Ali. . ' 0 4 • 41) i ar.; • ,, A's.t • .:.. I ., 104 44414.64111' 1. wt._ • , . 4 „. • _, • -, •-tAilivIco., ' 'A• - ig* 4.`..• • II-",,, .,.'L. ••i r. T`Ji '.*„ ••`.... 3 ; . , • "Ill 4 -1' ' I. . .0 . . . ,.., •*. . 4 %•....f.• . t ' - .., a . ,,.....„,. ' ,...44•01. ..iiz- ',1- 0,.4,..,.. , • , ,_ . . ‘,_ si„,,,,, - •F •• " • V 1 . ,... . r .“ , tit ,,,. I lk ' v6 _...,ply, . i• : Nilo lets. ,. ii . 1 :• , n 4 1;': •!. -e AV. . '.3 .1 •ill. ., • , 00 . .. ‘1 . 6. • , g - -lc .,, III .7t Tree Inventory# 14 to- • Site Visit 11/9/99 Douglas Fir within footprint, canopy ok o 0 L;4.. 7 [ ___ P0003B07 (1024x1536x16M jpeg)1111 _ - 'a !,„,,, '41. , 14,, -4r.,:,..iis,-.1' ,:. h ' -!R� t. ./,, • -.v. ¢ i- •,- r- J • • • •' f 1 F a ' as•,o r • ) - r. -,^-1 AP II ti-kN + .10 : i . • .70 ''• ..'o..' .• ' •; ar*Ii. !Yk .; '2) ,. ;i , . • . 6 , . . ,r1 ito.1.!,'.,i j '• , vs. :. t . .• •S 1 i, ?� • Rom. Y 'i 42 ip , • v A`,•• . v jk . ,.... pcP . '' ',, • . • . " : , ots V qr. i . e, ,,, - , f.J, fit . ..1. , 0 ._ . -.• i ' bi1t I Tree Inventory#7 Site Visit 11/9/99 Douglas Fir 7�i 2 O • • P0003808 (1536x1024x16M jpeg) •. • • • Y I • f • • • • • M. II • ell v. ..• '‘ I it C;:' 0 0. .. ... 1 . I ' ai..:,,I r..,1 , fit t if +fir ► 4 a , r. A. to ay. " I AC 1;:, .%,7,,,,j,,,,,,, ., • .„_ •,. . .. . ..4.7 ... r{ - :v. P. �,r ''+ �: . i'l:4141' -r L. Tort`, ~� ar - :111 • - ,- • �� • SyIll .� t. ' ----lair' r ir6. Tree Inventory# 13 Site Visit 11/9/99 Douglas Fir, good canopy P00031320 (1024x1536x16M jpeg)ID V. lit n : . . . . .. • • ; • • • 1 • f • •• ' .•r w, ..F• S �ws. e ,? '' ' :44k A R•. '• If . .:1 .•.�� ray • r• 4, f "i •�•. f ff v II' <tom: 't.,w • ` M f t. 1r� • ir yt • •.• V T 4 L. 'y •• . • . , i . . • : , •'`.•; t • • • .rpm• � � . . • ,... • • . ' ,:fist. .t• ".• _ r '•• J A•• I ' r)v• ..414. ..•`-may C• .4 i1 'ly.•t ,aka : ... t),• ';S rr .z . • -• . .* `•� . • •Tree Inventory# 16 Site Visit 11/9/99 Douglas Fir within footprint, fl L; v() lopsided canopy 0 , 0--' ' , • .-7--ill --;-;; ,k,_,-% ... • - -, .1,‘,-,A,`"I . . '1 f ' I 1'` _- it �. At. 1. • • • ify 1' y 1i \ 1 .rYi ;) 1• 1 1 t 4 1 . t ,, % • la ' •ate ti • ' ' 1 � f •itA 1 n' •1 1 ,,t f - ra L•' •' • .;,+4j1fil ., :qr .• `. 't - 'y 1� -� • t11 - F • „ - - 4`13 f 4 ... a. s,.'.. 4 �`1 ti , 7 .I t 1, , a, 4 0.t 't f\r fp) . .1 .),'.,i lit-.,:i`,-r� t,'1( 2, 1 . •iC y� .. �, l ••V rr ! DUI<L-� �i ))d LJ1 ja �R,•11' 1 'r °! �" r i-+ • cn .,, .., il•Ole',...,, . ,,,, ., _ _.,,_ S,--\47$\k'Sftt! I,4, 1 Alp'. • '. '',' ''.., - ''. ' ' -:-., w 7[[* +"1 ' i ;3 'iop ,4 1 '�s. 1I1�1f yi4'' '..t ' , • r Ns , t .,„Y� t t �°'?- " 1 c t0. • ? L1.47rd4..'s "-1 %e C",r ' I „ f f l)ty.A .1` ' 1' ON Cp -+ Y 5i � , tliil(I[tiit"1,�P1, „' 1 ..if ,4, 6,3 7 i J!:� •r ,,iii7 .1,its-101>.„" .; ," `�.ii •4 i s 4. 'c 3 NI ell) mi o x '. 115 c.' 1y�„I-� •.-1 bA • o x L• , , :rh -o y ` i try. r ,_ ��i .�`1 k' :j •1 O ` c ` l L , 1, ,i , x 1 . w`V . - f. ' is yyf • riy +`+. �' j �t', ` i.,• "Z1�i. �1 '�,,,i,,!(li� i t1ti�,.( i1 tr;�1i 4 `,, a '" L �1' • • . • , .:4-- • i t'1j� , 1. ` ,f( f-.s. 11..ti' p f i,rw- t ,%I • • . - 1,t.. ''e . . . • • ..1,1...-_N , . is •,:.•(;: ,e;:t. V;;;_.V.1041rk.I7,,:4. , .,. 1 , _ 4.1 ,.,. , 14 �! 1 TI a J .+t' ' it le se' , 0 - A'.`k - ? - 4.: . $ 1 • - _ ate • $� - e# . : ' 4 h� •1 4.1.44, -0 s .• !F t- "te' ( / `} 'ttw F i 4 i rt . *• 4,i • fir._ .. f r I. r , i 1!t• • UI 0 .-1 - A., rl o ' f - , i 't:_, N O • I "I ivci. ,e III ., i ds U i .. • / r, r • • / r ,r •/' ,`/ ft1 - . /.� ,s_ -?ti-sue r..J" r / ie•`- • , a • � •% k,-: ,'..-,.-1,-.-t_ r- ,, r /. Sire!�. .. / ice^ ;.ate 4, 4 I, i i,,lX�f� G�_I i. `' :. 1�•-i �• ' `V 'ktip4 -L (f a ry. y•�, • ( rxx: F t�Ar ' / f+t l 1 J{{ • r- . rl () • • • Ex000021 (1536x1024x16M jpeg) r: e r - .. a'r ,. 614 . 1. a g „ w..- t. .7 S. M1 .t.� ; l i. •pin ,,. •{ y N J .. y M_ �. AaP R a a le pf"'/ " yy rl y ,,e. '' } �'�i : • yka n ! ,' iris- ys „t.� `T ° V � , 1 �l� <,�' f 9 ' iA ��'$ a� fir.c 1 ai i i w 4.: .�:.,. ' `�_ ``'•:' iktp tik 1,,,,,, 4,". '.":`. '^m...V. y FAD ei: ''''Z,4 ': 1 r 7* n Site Visit 12/1/99 Looking north along eastern property line. Paved driveway seen in rear of photo „. ,,, , .,.., k,‘,.,. iii i ',,,,..:,'..i,011'.. :. t.,.'ti'74'. _ _ 'I:I.'- 0 gitt ,....., . ,, .: 7$ it ..,. ...:,..., _. .. _ . .. ..,_:.- . ., ,,,..,. ..... .. . ..„ . .. , .._,. ..,......,. .-! . 4-. k.,..'iif,,t 0 �t 411 1h r ,. f • X r1 i r -Z(• R 00 • F i r1r ,' LN 4 N r r y . r . - Ti iii Nti . o • • 14, s s4 s }rs yam. a .ti.�t4 • -4 -xt s .<- Imo+ --r nl'1 , +'M ,•• _ I.!' j may{ 4{ '' yk . . �`'rh a a+taM " - f�' - ems � . t f 1 5, ��+ f.y. . , . _ •1 ` alr K .µCIF 6. N.. i fr .} `4 r '�RS�i jam'• / !4"P �'.1�,'x r' / , /� e i Ml t if:•-. 0 . a •I046- 34 O 0 0 Ex000023 (1536x1029x16M jpeg) • a j Ay .e... j" /S -.' _ 4- '• • - °If 4. ..- - , % meµ` 1 fa, _ ,' v . 11' ,_ n + • ` • ,v f'` St' '-W' F�:�r, f• t 4 ;j.�°` ,;It , . i •�''` `.. w�♦ •<. • A I d .'Io w`+ �� VI' • C-� /. .. .3 i - : ' - ^ter, ti� ., -. ; . 10111'r r • '''" .• ...1‘ .014 . t .. "-'‘.--'111711°IN •: "1\14.-::::4-,- .21 i 6 cw ' d Site Visit 12/1/99 Looking west through property toward 15195 Lily Bay Court. Pink flags mark footprint. t,_ 1, 0:: , 4 • 1 • • '. 1 s%' u, ;V• ,Y' Sc r • l ;4 - -tea 1 .- a • t iv! , if lr t-:4 41, ! ' " .. ;thy, 1 , ;f -- • ;"4" f °.( - t N . I r. • d f r 0 1-1 ! o��l ct • 0 lat i . � � +' O O\ 4�...1 -h 1. ,� \- .- , '-' c. . . 61 1.4 _ ; . F-1v) 1a a.�_. x,` . r ._-, _ 4,,. ?1 - ,�,.r-'1 • r ,fir. . it r R �� _ a __ • - . �{ ' • • i. L jjLL T ` _ • :1 { I. /, f ., .. '• 4*-• -r•� • . , . l d ( ( M 0(. 31; S S S Ex000019 (1536x1024x16M jpeg) Tr--•- ::.. z — — 7 i t it!AIM tc'Y �.a.11 1�' �"1 .• L. .'"i- .'1 ':,:{". . •4, is r- ` .,�: _ . 11;.. *: , Nit :"4:::. } i, , r � #T ♦ i 11 v. ara' C��r ik , -, , :k,, u1,'_ • ■ik• • °' r c yv ,�, ram. -' Y ry �' t ..w '• ry ti ro .♦ h a NY: ..`►• •1t1µ a. .d. _ C l Al r ' t t ._ 'T t • r . a :tit ;,. ,'z'. . ' r .t.t I.>,.../• * R{ 141►S t' ;ryi l - r •t ` ? •4. """1 a, •i1L. y' .A r 7 y• _. ; v " y • +,,i r s L , •1 ••• ., --; - 1- 17, . i , - , ., ,,,,, • rj ,. j I( T ! �; a �• yy'• h�)�+�� t Y. r g y L' ` R4 .rax C',lk > • fl Y � &fir �,., y � , x��y� _ yj4 f a ..1:4,. i v( a S� _ 9 r : - _ , ¢ a R 1� ,A t. A �yay w, h ,~ r , -Ar•l.} r t �•," P!�r -itk�,+ _ _,, ,...... ..,. ',->,s4 `71\`R•F y� r ` .i k'1.._.y f 7k e. ; ,, 4 '�P`.1n J�`4; 4;.' I. . . -1. ■ 't r�yy a �... l y, fir , ? k { �F �.:°Z ` i ^�„�� t ti,� � r ! fi► ° `�st $ . �.. i' } 1 t1hT �C� `� y � �` =.�cei'�.• :::::,..::,sier:w... r, • Tree Inventory# 13, 14 Site Visit 12/1/99 Pink flags mark footprint 12, 27, 911 MON 15:20 FAX 503 579 6506 BREAK IRON & I1111.: I/1 S Lgju11 RICHARD C . BREAK1RON FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: FROM: Sandy Ingalls Richard C.Breakiron COMPANY: DATE City of Lake Oswego 12/27/99 FAX NUMBER RECIEPIENT: TOTAL NO.OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: (503) 635-0269 3 pages PHONE NU MBE RECEIPIENT: PHONE NUMBER SENDER: (503)699-7473 (503)579-2539 (503)780-1121 (Cellular) RE: FAX NUMBER RECIPIENT: Letter from Arborist Walter Knapp (503)579-6506 ❑URGENT ❑FOR REVIEW ❑PLEASE COMMENT ❑PLEASE REPLY 0 PLEASE RECYCLE NOTES/COMMENTS: Sandy, Here is the letter from Walter Knapp on the trees on the Lily Bay Court tree cutting permit request Note these treetr� numbers are for the trees outside the building envelope. Let me know if you have question/2��z�/PD / Richard Breakiron 4 ::. 13585 SW STIRRUP COURT, BEAVERTON, OR 97008 i w a71/Qgq EXHIBIT 9 t-1 LAKE USW�{i 0 Q 39 LU 99-0066 ,;apt.of Planning&Oval ptna 3 p a yz5 I2. 27 49 %ION 15:20 I':1.1 503 579 650(i I1KI-..)h112U\ & I10l..00J15 ,VJUu: Dec-27-99 02 :44P Walter H_ Knapp 503-646-4349 P_O1 Walter H. Knapp III sii'w,S vre.Farewl Afasagernem Urban Forestry December 27, 1999 Mr. Brad Gearhart Preferred Homes 1918 Ruunymeade Court Portland, OR 97229 Dear Mr. Gearhart- As requested by you and Richard l3reakiron, I evaluated the general health of designated trees on the vacant lot adjacent to 15201 SW Lily Bay Court in Lake Oswego. Trees arc numbered to coincide with the aluminum tags where present, or as shown on the enclosed annotated map. My findings are summarized in the following table. Trees least suited tier retention are shown in Italics: Tree 1 Species Diartr Crown Description No — Lin.] Width II/-1 1 I Douglas-fir 24 15 Vigor: good J 3 Rigle�af rnuplr- 141 - ' 15 1 Igor:,fair. Sinuous'Orin, pli1 on lower trunk. •J3 Douglasfir 10 161 0-went. Vigor:poor. Overtopped but 10-east could he retained with 14. • 4 ..Douglas-fir ?4 15 Vigor: good . 5 Bigleaf maple 101 8 Vigor: fair .j30 21 1 Do#glar fir 12 10 ...Vigor:poor. Old broken top, jxior cro t'ii. overtopped ( 3026 1 Douglas-fir 14 15 }. Vigor: fair. Crown. fair 1 Please note that all of the conifers ott the lot are Douglas-firs. With the exception of tree no. 3 (change noted), diameters were not verified, but appear to be generally correct. Please call me if you have questions regarding my observations and findings. Sincerely, I Walter H Knapp CertiredFuresrer, S4f C errifed.3rbori.s►. AA Enclosure CC. Richard 13reakiron S 1 S NW.Thdru emir Lark,neavdrtnn, UR 97007 plrondFax:(503)6464349 mkt` r' , , �� C - p-c.c. ot7, LQ? s 4 LU -t 0 CITY OF'Li ~ C-,,.: Dept.of Plannin^ eavf.,.,:per:;; I I12.'27, 99 N1ON 15:20 FAN 501 579 6506 BREAK 1 RON & 130GARDI S Z 003 Dmc-27-99 03: 16P Walter H_ Knapp 603-646 -4349 P_Ol i.1,z E/ve mt., j b:41 1-.41 all.,3 a,i bi 15:yilti imEAK I Kori & BoGARDius tip 002 ,..... -------,---,7.77,1-7.77:-.ar.'",-!•'-••••.! ''-.."'• -:7: ''' '''' - . -'''''- ... ' . ' L.; c7 . • sa, Lif gr-; • .. .0, • . -,0 )c . .-1 • -,:_t,,,, el 0 ..1, ›.• CD al AY N . ..- er.-- lc'-,, / 0 di--- f.•', ' 2 / , t"-- I. .4 -,... - *-1,-. _ , w '‘ • , , ,4' - ' -,- ....1- .,./...ide _-.. 1\1 'JFI‘F CNi 2. in I V''''' - ......•• - _ C — i ....1z 1. ..-..: -.• . 7Xef -- : .!-? .) ' /... n.: , ' -Z- t,.., I i .if 1 I‘`... - .., - [ • -., ‘,... ,-- r 0 i 1 1 r 4,I - , .9 ,1 ,..A _ ........2 ..e• --, _ ... -- "a -- .- . \''' e -.... ... I----....:,...1. I I v. i \' '' Pe - --• i '7." ..... r, ily ...... . 'I i-,\ . . ' , 41 I v" • __ 2o.2' —1 /3,.J. 21 '• 1 r," - ,,. • , I ,,, .,:b c,ee. . , ,.., __ , .._ u., .... 9 - . . .CI lel, ...•. \,.."" ..- ----4. 7 LI 2 I rg, ItA, "- -- ...2. :.7. . C.. i 1 3 es — 1 6 5 su .-.-.. .. t ' --2-,- - ti, i- -- 140 0,1• i.„ - ??... l"... -- ti, ti __ - / ,:-- Y..1 — ...- a- •- ct - • \.‘ L•I ii ' r 1 .....' i _ 7.------ M--:ea•00 4.1 *610 i S : ..:* ..- 4r)•:-..- cr ,--, ., 'v.-- _---•___--------------- • 1)-e(--• 27 /fief / 0 G. 4 1 CITY OF LAY_ NO.of Plannin:i .1,Daito;c.prru,. 0 1, 2 Reeve Kearns PCRECE Its _ Attorneys at Law 803 Oregon National Building • 610 S.W.Alder Street Portland,Oregon 97205 CITY OF LAKE OSWF-'GC Telephone: 503-225-0713 Dept.of Planning&Devaiopment Facsimile: 503-225-0276 e-mail: dammreevekearns.com Daniel H. Kearns Direct Dial: 503-225-1127 November 8, 1999 Sandy Ingles Lake Oswego Planning Department 380 A Avenue P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: Tree Cutting Permit Application No, TC99-0166 Site address: 124H Lily Bay Court Request for Hearing IS—Pi cici • Dear Ms. Ingles. This firm represents Howard Franklin, the who resides at 15203 Lily Bay Court, adjacent to the above-mentioned vacant lot at 15201 Lily Bay Court. The City recently posted notice on this property of a pending tree cutting permit application and the opportunity to call for a hearing on the application. On behalf of Howard Franklin, I hereby request a hearing on this application. Please notify me of the hearing date and time once it is scheduled. Thank you. Sincerely, _71<I i �Y Daniel Kearns cc: Howard Franklin EXHIBIT 10 LU 99-0066 0 (: 1, 3 2 e G F'.CL!ENTSFRANKLIN fNGLES-LT1.DQC 1)6.,17,,,,,,10 __,-i:IL:,,LI,."14'44e. '`,•.,',::,,___":"2„'±',';',;j;2_, ..,11:".11,v,,,.:.-4,.,.1,--iii,;;;:iiiiiiii44;..41iii_ :i ,,,,,,,,,_;4;, ,,, .4„;,,,,,:,.,, :'.',,,,', ;1,,'.-Rt!s• 't.,:•.;'-' -'•:,. •,,....', ,','•.,';•,•(,-4.,.' ,,•+-);- i - ', '' 1 l'fi'4::„ ...1 — -t.,. . 2 7 2 9 5 0 .... .,i,..: City 0 i riCtlee (-)Juleclo LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 7 --1 Ci< /46„i 1/EA A r L-41 /e. ‘"--4,1 . 3,OF , 2-1 rIt'.3 itli)cLoc.--, EF0 A9. - • , - . . • , ,,.• ,-,,,-,,,,-z ' (31 ,;2•1(,_. Q)n- 1 6,. ./)6 n , • .., • . ., , ,..: . 1 . ....•i:ii,;,, .. , .. . . _.,. ,).,•:.., . , __ _ -,; • IJ-1)• 'iz I— 1J i—C6 ‘ —a I --„, --, .,. • .' , ,.. 11•71A1 e'v.i,';',; 7i -HI, , i ... --. , - . -. "-- , ',.' -,•-•,,,, :.‘....: ,i,i, .„,,...,..,.,.,,, , ,....,. .._ .._ . City of L" wog°, Orogen by delivered to the parson making payment. •,-'. - " " :•-f:1, ,i' I , i •-4....r- , ! ,-• ,.0,04;,,i t,;•,0101.11 4-:,,•••••• ,,,r • - • . , 4 . , • ' ' ' '' - '. -1-'Lt.,'l'i",1:',,it-'.114,''',6,-,11.%li$,•,C•I'f• ',..., ,trid ',''-' , ' . - ' • , . ''-'',.'. ..11'. P,''',.; 1r ,.;,.,:''' ' !,,,-; 'r‘:,,:•,‘,):•.:44...R,:i.'.W,Tif,...1•,,,).;, , . . 41,,-,,,,,,7,,,,..., , _ ,, . „, , ,,,..,--„t5e-;; ,,,.„.,..' - ,c „,,, ':,!,`,(?,'1,', ,',.,,,,,i,.: :ii.,,I,,,t,' „,,,;A:42:‘,,,,,i;;,,.tr:,:ii144,,,'4,..r,,"itl,i6,,,,,o,,,,,,11,z;,..,,,,:-.41.:4,'fr,,'t,,,,,ITZ:,,.,'-:,,,r,i,,,,,',;'.,,,,;1.,,...,.. ,... ,t,_.......•.,-.1.-,5:,,!!.,,,,.,,,,:...7.:',1,:ii.,,,.-;,,,ti.:>.,„, ,, ._ _64-,.,,,,,,,-.14,444..-•' -?!.,4,-,•,re,•-,.. - ,`--,-, ;-4.-'‘,.'i: -41'1 icio,'F',.(TA-'141.,:i it, , Fc'''',4viii, -...,,Rvo...'f-.*tr.,,;',,-,.... ,,• - . ,,_.";;;, ,, ,...„7„..14,i %.,i...1,;77,,,,,s,1,2,..i, , , r' '': ',',7,'I,',,`;‘"',.:,'Ilt 'h'i.,4,-,:14, ; i'' • ' ;,,,,''' , , 1.,' -'I,'' , • ; •:,- '''R4,4,„0 ,,•-'•-)y- xii,`.• '''!i''' ."t4',, ',• • . ' :, ‘, '1),, .1A q `•:=',,,,.'„,'m, -,''• ' -• ' ' •-!..'1, lz'',.:"..1,•';'!itkoi'''' . :::•:,../0,44.1,,.k.,it:',„ l' ;• , '.. ,•. , ....• " l'-.„ ' ''' 4,',1....',2-41','.',''-', '..• si - 'i.t.-..' ,I,'r-,'..2;tt.`; 'i 1 , ,,,,‘-• ' ,'A°•t,•• 1',",,."4,3-',13)-,3:c,,:!..:,;%,-).!,'141445•11 I''. ,,, '''''' -q-.7 ''',A.41-04 •• ' , iw '-, 'r''''';'. kr:4-,:f:Z.-V-ari:',I'Zi"-1611S4 ''''", 1 . ',:;-•-):,1*,,,',,44 , : - , '.,t- p .._:•8 ,.., ;,':„,,', ,•,,,- , . ._.-,, , , ., , ,:, . .- , ..-...,,,.., ..• ,..,-.„1, T '•' ''.' -.'",,:7 ' '..i:., ' " .c. , , :-.1-.ff; .4, •[..),g,t.,,,-,,,t. , , . r, I ,.. , . 1'' .f.":.`"t5t4)4.+P-u'r"i'if.'htl-i''''''',14illiijiii•44-Tr.K.„.!2'1.:' ,. ','11'1,', !I,,'','",,,.--,:•;`3,..N.,-,-‘ 'I(',•''''. •,. . .1',•..1:11.,41!?•'',4'4,,,, ,'fr.ov,„ ,„-44.,:r'r,',4.,,i''', "' • `;',,,, , '' ,"•,',,"!'ez.::: .ii'll';'1';'‘ :,;41,0V,,,1:::;r:, , ' ',;•;1.1-•,, 4.,.. 11., '',,tVv:.'ikel."'',.,,'''f-'. -. '0.11,!'t'21if.e4•1'3'3''''.''' 1 . '-3/1-''' F":73:3(;,I:k..- . :-.t.':::,.--jii,.k. ;:'7.- tle.'54:;...:4';''I'Z''';1.;(.'"- ' , :,, ' ' :‘,...•,.-," Jr,.., , 3.-: ,-,, ,311' Aiik , . '• "'',' .0,, '', •-•" - 1' -. u"' , '''''3,3- -,'' III iii, ... ,., BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO • REQUEST FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85 APPROVAL OF 101 LOTS EAST OF ) VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85-274 SUMMIT DRIVE . ) (Village on the Lake ) FINDINGS , CONCLUSION AND ORDER NATURE OF APPLICATION This application is for approval of a 101 lot residential Planned Development in an R-l5 zone. The request also requires approval of the following four variances : 1 . To vary the Transit Standard requiring a hard surface path to connect a development to the nearest transit facility [Standard No. 6 .020 ( 1 ) (b) ) - VAR 11-85 . , 2 . To vary the Landscaping , Screening and Buffering Standard requiring street trees along streets abutting a development [ Standard No, 9 .020 ( 4 ) ) - VAR 12-85 . 3 . To vary the Subdivision Code requiring a 100 ' minimum radius curvature for a residential street ( LOC 44 .385) - VAR 13-85 . 4 . To vary the Stream Corridor Standard requirement for a 50 ' wide buffer zone to a 20 ' wide buffer zone [ 3 .020 ( 2 ) 1 - VAR 17-85. HEARINGS The Development Review Board held public hearings and considered this application at its meetings of April 1 , April 15 , April 17 , May 6 , May 22 and May 23, 1985 . Following the presentation of exhibits and testimony at those hearings, the Development Review Board voted 5 to 0 to APPROVE the request with conditions . FACTS The following is a summary of the facts and testimony presented which were found most relevant to this decision. These facts are presented 3 in more detail in the staff reports dated March 22 and May 15 , 1985 , 5 the applicant ' s proposals , and the minutes of the hearings . 6 age 1 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85 VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85 • 3202P/SY/mas EXHIBIT 11 LU 99-0066 Ot. 45 • 1 1 . The site of the application is located east of Summit Drive , south of Iron Mountain Boulevard, and 2 contains 45 .18 acres . 3 2 . The Comprehensive Plan land use designation is Residential R-15 . This zoning is R-15 . 4 3 . The site borders Oswego Lake to the south and east , 5 and contains within its boundaries , the natural feature identified in the Comprehensive Plan as the 6 Frog Pond . The applicant proposed a protective buffer area around the bay. Testimony was received 7 from the Audubon Society, the Conservancy Commission , and the neighborhood that the protective 8 buffer was inadequate to provide long-term prote ction to the bay . 9 4 . The site also contains a Distinctive Natural Area t l 10 located "east of Summit Drive on knoll" . ( 427 , pg . 28 Distinctive Natural Area policies - Comprehensive it plan) . The remaining site has a heavy tree cover of Douglas fir and other mature native trees . The 12 applicant proposed protective covenants providing for 70% overall protection of trees in the 13 Distinctive Natural Area. The Conservancy Com,:,ission testified that there should be a 100% 14 protection on the rear of lots in the DNA, and 70% protection on the front of those lots . 15 5 . The site is further shown to include a viewpoint . II!16 Testimony was received from residents on Diamond Head and Robinson ' s Point regarding potential crime 17 and privacy impacts . 18 6 . No wetlands or stream corridors are identified on this site in the Comprehensive Plan . Wetlands and a 19 _ stream corridor were identified during the application and hearings process. 20 7 . Access is provided from Summit Drive , a substandard 21 County road . The present intersection of Summit Drive and Iron Mountain is poorly designed . A 22 traffic study submitted by the applicants recommended short and long term improvements to 23 correct the existing situation. Clackamas County submitted recommendations for improvements to Summit 24 Drive , and to the intersection. Neighborhood residents testified regarding the inadequacy of 25 Summit Drive and the intersection . 26 Page 2 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85 VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85 3202P/SY/mas • 0o46 1 8 . Utilities are available to the site as follows : 2 • Police and fire service are presently available to this site and the surrounding Summit neighborhood, since the entire area is within the City limits . Neither department indicated any staffing/capacity problems with the density proposed . 5 Water is provided from a newly installed water 6 main in Iron Mountain Boulevard, via an 8° line in Summit Drive. A sewer trunk is located in 7 Twin Point Drive which flows into the main line in the lake . The applicant proposed that a 8 portion of the site be served by sewage pumps to the trunk line, rather than gravity flow. 9 Testimony was received from a registered engineer stating that gravity flow service was 10 the least costly and most failsafe alternative for the :community. 11 The applicant testified that he would fund the 12 cost of equipment, and installation , and would pay continuing power costs . 13 9 . The applicant proposed variable setbacks to 14 provide better protection of Lily Bay, the Distinctive Natural Area, the views from the 15 viewpoint , the stream corridor , and the overall vegetative cover on the site. • 10 . The site contains areas of slope over 50% , and 17 areas of slope 12%-50% . 13 11 . The applicant requested a variance to street tree requirements stating that the site was i9 heavily treed and that cultivated species would not be in keeping with the nature of the 20 existing vegetation . 21 . • 12 . The applicant proposed sidewalks on one side of Village Drive, on one side of Bay View Lane, 22 and on Viewlake Court from Village Drive to the viewpoint . 23 13 . The applicant proposed a common driveway for 24 Lots 10 , 11 , 12 and 13 of Block 5 to prevent cuts on steep slopes and to preserve mature 25 trees . 26 Page 3 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85 VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85 3202P/SY/mas • 0 6 4i 7 1 14 . Testimony was received questioning the applicant ' s need to apply for an Overall 2 Development Plan and Schedule (ODPS ) . Code requirements for ODPS were discussed. The 3 applicants entered evidence in the record that • their site did not require an ODPS. 4 15 . Lot 28 , Block 3 borders the main lake , and is not included in the protective covenants of the remainder of the plat . 6 16 . Parcel 3 is proposed for a marina facility . 7 That application will be reviewed at a later date . No evidence or testimony was taken on 8 any specific use or intensity of use for Parcel B. Parcel B is not included in the 9 protective covenants . 10 17 . The applicant requested a variance to the width of the gtream corridor buffer area . Testimony 11 was received in opposition to the variance . 12 18 . The applicant requested a variance to the requirement of the Transit Standard to 13 construct a pathway to the bus stop on Iron Mountain . The applicant will build the pathway 14 along his frontage . 15 19 . There are areas of old fill on the site which may be improperly compacted for building • 16 foundation and street construction . 17 20 . The R-15 zone , combined with use of the Planned Development Overlay District, allows density 18 transfer and clustering of units provided that other codes and standards are met . 19 CRITERIA 20 The request under consideration was a quasi-judicial procedure , the 21 conduct of which is regulated by LOC 49 . 610 . Applicable requirements -)2of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, LCDC Goals and City Codes and Ordinances were applied . The following criteria were found by the 23 Development Review Board to be most relevant to this decision :. 24 25 1 . LCDC Goal Requirements : None . The City 's Plan is acknowledged . 26 Page 4 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85 VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85 3202P/SY/mas 1 2 . Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan designations and 2 policies: • Growth Management Policies Natural Resources Policies Residential Land Use Policies Open Space Land Use Policies 5 Transportation and Public Facilities Policies 3 . Zoning Ordinance provisions : b LOC 48 . 085( 4 ) 7 LOC 48 . 205 - 48 . 215 LOC 48 . 470 - 48 . 475 8 4 . Other Code provisions : 9 10 LOC 49 .145 LOC. 49 . 300 - 49 . 335 it LOC' 49 . 500 - 49 . 510 LOC 49 . 615 Development Standards : 12 Floodplains Access 13 stream Corridors Site Circulation-Private Wetlands Streets/Driveways 14 Hillside Protection/ Site Circulation-Bikeways/ Erosion Control Walkways 15 Park and Open Space Transit Landscaping, Street Street Lights Trees , Screening, Utilities Buffering Drainage for Major 17 Parking and Loading Development 18 FINDINGS OF FACT 19 After consideration of the relevant FACTS and applicable Criteria , the Development Review Board found that : 20 1 . The Comprehensive Plan had been addressed as follows : 21 a . The applicant had preserved the Lily Bay as open ?2 space . The protective buffer area proposed by the applicant should be expanded by moving Lot 23 3, Block 2 to another location; by narrowing the right-of-way on Bay View Lane; by removing a lot 24 on the point overlooking the bay inlet ; by allowing flexible setbacks in that area; and, 25 redesign of the cul de sac into a hammerheasd to allow major movement of the buffer line to the 26 Page 5 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85 VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85 • 3202P/SY/mas 0049 1 west closer to the Audubon buffer line . The waters of the bay would be protected by erosion 2 control as required by City code, by a filtration pond designed into the storm drainage 3 system, and by protective covenants prohibiting • removal of vegetation in the buffer area : 4 b . The Distinctive Natural Area as identified is 5 consistent with the Plan . The protective covenants restricting tree cutting will preserve 6 present and future viability of the Distinctive Natural Area . A 100% restriction on the rear of 7 Lots 3-7 , and 9-26 of Block 5 and a 70% restriction on the remaining DNA area would best 8 provide this protection, subject to the provision that a reasonable building envelope 9 should be allowed on each . The restriction areas are shown on Exhibit B, and should be 10 shown on the final plat . 11 c . A view point is provided, and viewlines are protected . Use of the public street itself 12 could also provide a viewpoint with no specific location identified. 13 d . Wildlife habitat is protected in a manner which 14 provided a continuous connection from the DNA through the wetlands open space area along the 15 stream corridor to the bay. The bay and its banks are also protected. 16 e . Rare plant species can be protected by a 17 requirement for a locational study, and requirement for protective covenants if 18 identified. i9 f . Growth management and residential land use policies are met . The Planned Development 20 proposes densities as allowed by the R-15 Plan and zone designation. The applicant has 21 provided detailed analysis and site plans of effects of the development on public facilities , 22 natural features and hazards , and the transportation system. Clustering of lots has 23 been used to limit impacts on natural features and hazards . Both short and long term public 24 facilities are available, or can be made available at developer 's cost or with developer 25 participation as identified in the exhibits and 26 Page 6 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85 VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85 3202P/SY/mas • 0 u 5 C, testimony. Particular attention needs to be directed towards a mechanism to identify options, costs and participants in the long-term realignment of Summit Drive and Iron Mt . • Boulevard . Open space and natural resources policies are g . P P met by the identification and protection of the DPdA , the Lily Bay , the stream corridor and wetlands, wildlife habitat, protected plant species and protection of the water quality in the Bay and main lake as proposed by the 7 applicant , or as conditioned herein . h . Transportation policies are met by proposed short-term improvements to Summit Drive and the intersection at Iron Mt . Blvd. , by identification and provision for long term .0 improvements as proposed and conditioned herein , and by location adjacent to a transit route. 2 . Zoning and Planned Development requirements are .2 met . The use is a permitted use , residential density is consistent with the zone, as conditioned .3 herein; and, flexible setbacks are allowed under the PD overlay . Height and lot coverage must be .4 determined at time of building permit application . No variation from lot coverage was requested. 5 Therefore, the R-15 zone requirement applies . 3 . The development ordinance procedural sections were met . Pre-application conferences were held , an 7 application received, a staff report prepared, notice was sent as required, and hearings were held 8 according to LOC 49 . 610 . 9 4 . The development standards are met, or can be met as conditioned herein . The Historic Resources , 0 Building Design Standards do not apply as detailed in the application and staff report . The stream 1 corridor standard was met by provision of a protective buffer 25 ' on each side of the stream, 2 except for an area near Lily Bay Court , where a variance was requested and approved. The staff 3 reports contain the variance findings in detail . 4 The Wetland Standard is met by inclusion of those wetlands in a protected natural area . The low 5 portion of Lot 27 , Block 5 should be included in the 6 age 7 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85 VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85 3202P/SY/mas • 0L 51 1 protective area . The potential wetlands in the 2 Village Drive right-of-way did not meet the criteria for essential wetlands and were not required to be protected . The staff report of May 15 , 1985 3 contains the analysis for the potential wetlands . • 4 Access - All lots abut a public street for at least 25 feet . 5 . rivate Streets/Driveways - The applicant showed 6 evidence that driveways could be provided to meet code requirements . The common driveway serving Lots 7 9-12 , Block 5 must be built to allow fire access . 8 Hillside Protection/Erosion Control - Lots with slope over 50% were analyzed . The Board found that 9 density transfer was feasible since the R-15 zone allows clustering of units . The applicant is 10 directed to transfer density. Staff is to monitor , and return the Planned Development to the Board if 11 an increase in density results . If density transfer is not feasible , then the criteria for development 12 on slopes over 50% must be met . Changes which do not result in a density increase will be considered 13 minor development modifications and shall be reviewed by staff as part of final plat approvals . 14 The applicant proposed erosion control measures . 15 Conditions are necessary as provided herein , particularly in the stream corridor and bay buffer • 16 area . 17 Park and Open Space is met by dedication of 20% or more of the site as open space . Sites so designated 18 are those identified by the Comprehensive Plan . 19 Street Trees are required on lots having no trees forward of the front building line . Native species 20 shall be used . The variance to this standard should be denied. 21 Bikeways/Walkways/Transit - The applicant will 22 provide a property line sidewalk on Summit along the frontage of the site. The walk may meander to avoid 23 trees or topographical features . It is impractical to provide a path across the existing railroad 24 overpass since it would require reconstruction of the overpass prior to determination of the best 25 location for the realignment of the intersection of 26 Page 8 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85 VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85 3202P/SY/mas • 0L 52 Summit and Iron Mt . The transit variance should be granted . Detailed findings are found in the staff report . • Utilities - The entire width of Summit Drive abutting this site should be improved to City Standards , pending approval by the County of a petition by the City for transfer of jurisdiction of tale portion of Summit abutting this site . The _-Jaii=.nment of Iron Mt . to the north at the intersection, and the other short-term improvements identified by the traffic analysis are also necessary to facilitate increased traffic options for the remaining long-term improvements should be identified soon , and costs apportioned. Telephone, gas and electricity are available and have capacity to serve the site . 0 Street lif'ghts shall be installed as part of the l Summit improvement and on internal streets to meet City code and standards . 2 Storm drainage as proposed meets the standard . Care 3 should be taken to provide minimal disruption of protected areas in installing lines . Erosion should be prevented. Pollution control mechanisms should be used to protect water quality of wetlands , stream corridor , the bay and the main Lake . • Sanitary sewer may be provided by gravity flow to the trunk in Twin Fir , or to a potential line in the 7 lake adjacent to Diamond Head, or by pump stations . City policy discourages permanent pump stations , 3 unless there is no feasible alternative. The Board determined that Plan policies regarding protection of water quality in the lake and the bay including vegetation on the bank above the bay, would preclude 3 installation of a line in the lake, and that construction in the bay buffer area should be avoided where possible. Evidence was presented that the shallow depth of the sewer line near the bay inlet could cause potential safety hazard to swimmers and boats . The applicant should pay all installation costs . The City should investigate a mechanism to provide for user subsidy of ongoing costs as well . All installation to be to Department of Environmental Quality requirements . ge 9 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85 VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85 • 3202P/SY/mas 0 53 1 Sidewalks - Property line sidewalks should be provided on one side of Village Drive and on all 2 other streets . Sidewalks may meander to avoid trees and topographical features . 3 •5 . An ODPS is not required. An ODPS is required when a 4 single site or contiguous sites under a single ownership will be developed in phases . This project 5 is being platted in its entirety at this time. All contiguous parcels under the applicant ' s ownership 6 are included in this application. Parcel B is platted as a tract in manner similar to open space 7 tracts , and all access and utilities to this parcel are included in the plat . 8 REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS 9 The proposal can be made to comply with relevant criteria 10 through application of certain conditions. 11 ORDER IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF 12 LAKE OSWEGO that PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85 be 13 GRANTED, and that VAR 12-85 be DENIED. Conditions necessary 14 for full compliance with City Codes and Standards are: 1 . A reproducible duplication of the final plat shall 15 be submitted to the City which clearly depicts : 16 a . setbacks for all lots as follows : • i7 - rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 ' and shall be drawn on the plat . 18 - side yards may be reduced below the 19 required 10 ' but to not less than 5 ' as necessary to allow placement of dwellings 20 to preserve trees over 8' in diameter , or to avoid areas of slope. The reduction 21 in the setback shall be the minimum necessary to site a dwelling on the lots , 22 and shall not be presumed to be an automatic 5 ' . Viewlines to the lake and 23 to Mt . Hood from interior lots shall be considered in placing dwellings; 24 - front yards may be varied between 10 ' and 25 20 ' . The reduction in the setback shall be the minimum necessary to site a 26 dwelling on the lots , and shall not be Page 10 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85 VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85 3202P/SY/mas • 0 54 1 presumed to be an automatic 10 ' . Front yard setbacks may be reduced to 5 ' for 2 lots within the Distinctive Natural Area, for lots fronting the Lily Bay if • necessary to site those dwellings outside the protected buffer area . 4 Requirements for side and front yards 5 shall be printed in narrative form on the plat . 6 b . sidewalks and all utility easements as 7 follows : 8 Six foot public utility and sidewalk easements shall be shown along both sides 9 of all 40 ' right-of-ways on the final plat . Easements and plat notes shall be 10 required for all utilities crossing private property. The easement may be wider than 11 6 ' if necessary to preserve trees or other natural features . 12 c . all areas designated as "protection natural 13 areas" and "wooded distinctive areas" and a narrative description of the restrictions 14 pertinent to each ; 15 d . all common open space areas ; • e . public viewpoint . i7 f . No access strips shall be shown along Summit on Lots 10 , 11, 12 , 13 , 2 and 3 of 18 Block 5 . Lot 1 and Lot 2 , Block 1 shall show a no access strip along Summit and 30 ' 19 along Village Drive measured from the Summit intersection . Lots 9 and 10 , Block 20 5 shall show a no access strip along Village Drive. 21 g . The driveway serving Lots 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 of 22 Block 5 shall be shown . The driveway will be built to a standard which includes a 20 ' 23 wide all weather surface. All curves shall have a 45 ' turning radius to allow access 24 by fire truck . A turnaround shall be provided if the driveway is curved , and 25 exceeds 150 ' in length . The CC & R ' s shall recognize this easement and provide for its 26 maintenance. ?age 11 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85 VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85 3202P/SY/mas • r t; ,)5 1 2 . Protection natural area covenants providing for 100% 2 restriction against cutting of trees and vegetation shall be applied to the rear of Lots 3 - 7 , 9 - 21 3 and Lot 26 and 27 of Block 5 as shown by the dashed • 4 line on the preliminary plat ( Exhibit B ) . Lot 27 to be added to this area with the location of the line to be determined in the field by the applicant and 5 st ff . 6 3 . Each building permit on Lots 1 - 9 , Block 4 , and Lots 9 - 21 , and Lots 3 - 7 of Block 5 shall include 7 a tree survey of the lot area outside the 100% restricted area , and shall be allowed to cut only 8 those trees necessary to allow construction of house , garage and driveway area , to total not more 9 than 30% of trees on the buildable portion of the lot outside the 100% restricted area . If 10 impractical for building, the plan shall be submitted to the Board for review and possible 11 exceptiOn . 12 4 . Erosion control plans shall be submitted to staff with construction plans showing how erosion will be 13 controlled, how construction impacts will be minimized, and how reclamation will occur for 14 street , utility or storm drainage construction in common open space , protection natural areas , stream 15 corridor , and wooded distinctive areas . Particular care shall be taken to prevent erosion and restore • 16 the area disturbed by sanitary sewer installation in the protected area along the bay. All design shall 17 minimize location of lines within protected areas , minimize disturbance of topography and vegetation , 13 and include restoration plans showing native plant materials . 19 5 . The stream channel be enhanced to carry the proposed 20 runoff without erosion , and provide a dense vegetative filtration system. The design and 21 Proposed plantings for the storm water filtration pond shall be submitted to staff for review . The 22 storm drainage system shall include oil separation pollution control devices . 23 6 . The viewpoint design be submitted to the Development 24 Review Board for review and approval . The design will include measures to mitigate conflicts with 25 turning movements at the intersection of Village Drive and View Lake Court . 26 Page 12 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85 VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85 3202P/SY/mas • 0 t56 7 . Height and setback restrictions shall be shown on the final plat as necessary to maintain viewlines from the public viewpoint . • 8 . A street tree planting plan be submitted for lots 3 with no native trees within the front yard setback . Such plan shall show native species spaced correctly for the species . 5 9 . The buffer along the Lilly Bay is approved with the 5 following conditions (based on Exhibit aq) ; 7 a . The right-of-way on Bay View Lane be narrowed to move the applicant 's buffer line westward for 3 Lots 8-13, Block 2 and front yard setbacks of 5 ' are permitted on Bay View Lane as necessary to 9 allow buildings to remain outside the buffer area. 10 b. Theul-de-sac at the end of the Bay View Lane 11 be redesigned as a hammerhead, allowing building sites on Lots 14-17 of Block 2 to be pulled away 12 from the peninsula . Staff and the applicant to reach an agreement acceptable to both , or the 13 matter should be brought back to the Development Review Board for resolution . 14 c. At the north end of the bay, the buffer line 15 should be widened to follow the rear lot lines • of Lots 4 , 5 and 6 , Block 2 . Lot 3 , Block 2 is to be relocated elsewhere on the site The lot line on Lot 1 is moved to the west . 17 10 . An inventory shall be performed by a qualified plant 18 taxonomist or other qualified professional during the 1985 growing season to determine whether 19 Howellia aquatilis or Delphinium leucophaeum are found on the site and to recommend measures for 30 protection for any located outside identified protected areas . :1 11 . Streets shall be constructed as follows : '2 a . Summit Drive be constructed as either option 3 1 or 2 as identified on page 13 of the May 14th staff report . All construction be to at least '.4 minimum City Standards and codes . The applicant is to construct all short term improvements to 5 age 13 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85 VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85 3202P/SY/mas 0i. 5 '7 1 Summit/Iron Mt . as identified in the traffic study, and also the widening of Iron Pot . on the 2 north side opposite Summit Drive as proposed in the traffic study. 3 •b . The intersection of Summit Drive and Iron Mt . 4 Boulevard shall be improved as requested by the County in Exhibit Y. 5 c . A reconnaisance study for the Summit Drive/Iron 6 Mountain Boulevard intersection improvements will be provided by the developer within six 7 months of the date of this order . The study shall identify options and provide cost 8 estimates for the long term realignment of the intersection of Summit Drive and Iron Mountain 9 Boulevard. The developer shall pay his proportionate share of the costs of the 10 improvements as identified by the agency with jur ;sdiction . 11 d . The procedure for street widening be initiated 12 by the applicants prior to submittal of constructor plans . 13 e . Interior streets shall be constructed as shown 14 on Exhibit H. Design shall include 5 ' property line sidewalks on one side of Village Drive and 15 other streets . Sidewalks may meander to preserve trees or other natural features . 16 • f . A street lighting plan shall be submitted in 17 conformance with the street lighting standard . 18 12 . All construction drawings shall be to City codes , standards and specifications unless approved 19 otherwise by this action. 20 13 . A protective buffer area restricting removal of vegetation shall be established along the Lake 21 frontage of Lot 28 , Block 3 . The buffer shall be worked out between the applicants , staff, Lake 22 Corporation representatives , Conservancy Commission, and Audubon representatives . The buffer area shall 23 be shown on the final plat and included in the section of the CC & R' s which applies to protection 24 of lots along the bay. Construction of a stairway to the Lake to be allowed subject to approval of the 25 Lake Corporation . Plans shall be submitted to the 26 Page 14 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85 VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85 3202P/SY/mas • Gd • 1 City for review. Such plans should provide minimal removal of vegetation , avoid trees over 8" in 2 diameter , andprovide restorationplans as • necessary. The provision of the CC & R' s shall be expanded to apply to Lot 28 , Block 3 . 4 14 . The applicant will work with staff to transfer densities and to modify lot lines as necessary to 5 eliminate conflicts of building envelopes with 50% slopes and natural resources areas so that densities 6 will not be affected . Conflicts which would result in increases in overall density shall be returned to 7 the Board for resolution . 8 15 . A certified arborist be retained to investigate the feasibility of selective cutting to allow enhanced 9 sunlight and view opportunities within Lots 16 -18 , and 20-22 of Block 3 . The study to be presented to 10 the DRBjfor review and approval . 11 16 . No tree cutting or removal of vegetation to be allowed on Parcel B until approval of a development 12 application on Parcel B. 13 17 . That a soils and geological reconnaisance shall be performed on a lot-by-lot basis to: 14 a . recommend basic residential foundation support and soils requirements; b. identify individual lots that may require review of foundation plans and/or site specific 17 investigation studies; 18 c . special inspection of foundation excavations . 19 Soils investigation studies will be required for any foundation footprints ( including deck ) that covers a 20 50% or steeper slope . 21 18 . The sewer design be revised to utilize two pump stations ; one in Block 3 and one in Block 1 . The '2 pump in Block 1 to be relocated from Lot 1 to the access area of Lot 3 . Sewage pumps and pump 23 installation to be provided by the developer . Electricity and maintenance costs to be borne by the 24 Homeowner 's Association, or other mechanism developed to assess those benefitted. 25 26 ?age 15 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85 VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85 3202P/SY/mas 0u50 1 19. All driveways to be designed with turning radii as required by LOC and with driveway slopes of 20% 2 grade or less . Driveways shall be at least 20 ' in 3 length from the back of the sidewalk to the garage 411 door unless the driveway is located parallel to the 4 frontage. 5 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Development Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego . 6 DATED this 8th day of July, 1985 . C/t /4/%. Richard Hutchins , Chairman 9 Development Review Board 10 11 Sa . ` Iro n4, Se, retary / 12 13 ATTEST 14 AYES : Wright , Martindale, Hutchins, Blackmore, Finch NOES: None 15 ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Glasgow, Eslick • 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page 16 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85 VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85 3202P/SY/mas • Jan-03-00 03:41P Walter H. Knapp 503-646-4349 P .01 Wafter H. Knapp SfH/culWr+e 6 Forest Management Urba• 7815 Forestry 7615 SW i)unsanuir Lane Beaverton,OR 67007 Phone:503446-4346 Faac_603-6464341 Fax To: Sandy Ingalls From Walter H.Knapp Fame 835-0269 Dale: January 3.2000 Phone( Pages: 2 R. 1519 lily Bay Court CC: Sandy,here's the letter. Hope It clarifies the questions re'Lily Bay Ct. 111 RECEIVED EXHIBIT 12 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO LU 99-0066 • Dept.of Planning&Development 0LG1 Jan-03-00 03:42P Walter H. Knapp 503-646-4349 P_02 Walter H.Knapp • Silviculture A Forest Management Urban Forestry January 3, 2000 Mr. Brad Gearhart Preferred Homes 1918 Runnymeade Court Portland, OK 97229 Dear Mr. Gearhart This letter supplements my letter of December 27, 1999, regarding trees on 15199 SW Lily Bay Court in Lake Oswego. As requested, I have listed my observations and recommendations regarding the siting of the proposed house on the property. Please understand that these are general considerations, and that specific details will need to be worked out on the ground during construction. In general, it is more difficult to protect trees at the front of a property. This is due to the concentration of construction activities in that area, which often results in damage, especially to roots. Thus, it is often more effective to move the structure forward on the property to allow more room for protection of trees at the rear of the lot. In this situation, the bigleaf maple trees at the rear of the lot are not as important to the site as the large Douglas-firs, which are all in good condition. Based on the site drawing, it appears that moving the building forward on the lot would jeopardize the 24-inch Douglas-fir at the northwest corner of the site However, if the garage is rotated clockwise, the house could be moved forward without adversely impacting the tree. I also recommend that standard tree protection measures, including use of chain link fencing, should be used to minimize damage to the trees that are to be retained. Please let me know if 1 can be of further assistance on this project. Sincerely, Walter H. p[� Certified Forester, S;JF Certified,trburist, IS/1 CC: Richard Breakiron Sandy Ingalls, City of Lake Oswego 761.E SW Dunsmuir LanRrea o s EvrioEpone/Far:(303) 646 1349 I CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 0 C 2 Dept.of Planning&Development .,. 1 ,.. ......40P ..f ee:ie. ,pt.4,, _ " i i vt / . .10 . II , •<<4471. /.5'4',./.. 1k4,) ). 1 Tr . : v ..,. ,,..ri 1 • h. , 1' 1 ' •'; :,• 1-Iktik% ;„. .,.s .i. ,,i ..0 A ...,,. ; " r. ,. • ,,,...1 •ti 6 . ‘y, -.4,W7i-l/2f4.:YP'1WH:.-fiffri l' ilt. - -11.4„,2,,,j4:Ubil4:41 , of 14 ra. - • / .4' . ./ 'it ••• i ,. /fir .e i 7 '44 diA* t.,&011(A ' i'41 a i '' '.ii• •\ • ,,,, A , 4,, ),7 , IP' V . I,i iiriff it{ crip Nip i '441,A li LIAL-4-1. A 1...- ' ff . /, "")0 1,. .,, t, • A 1, .4. .4f il.... ,t14, • 1 1 .1_1 ' "--`14.1..1-'-' -Lit-14 • I I-- -1L-111-L---111..T.1- i •, _IL - -/ 1...1-1 ,4p)\,,,_ ._ -.,-;....1,,, gain "4,, , ..,;'41,1,- • . - 4 :1 - 1' 'iiT ____,..--,-..-_-___. -11---L.. ILILLILlipilr-l-ii:Ilt ) Tli ,.., '•i; --------__ •- : 464 71i,/fre. . ki4A 1 2,11 ..7,--_ 1 ( ki' 1 % • 4.4. • 1,,,,,I I , ‘--1,.: : 37.P4R1,1 'P .'"Li 1 \ „.,...," __Ip.,_1_1\_----1_ i , _t...::4..... .-7.. . "' ,, OW A•F r vi,., ..__L J#-.5 q' ?_,... ;,,,r. i 4v_t_t. ,..Vi,...y„,,i E*1-- 1 I LA_IV.A.A_ALI )- -I i .;: g.11 „..,,_`....1.---.1 ---1------ s•.=. ' 1 . ,,, A,?..). ri_. ; 1 L4 ...'hUi... ..4_.L.,..‘ L.L.i ims. \_-__i_40 1 / h-1 - .% 1 il .-.. _ -716,,, -._ , W;„_1 .1-3ri.'-..4. _, - ' 4-"Mg--P v - --"' ‘711""*-1 3-6-- • 1 , , ',-, ,•,,1 1 • . ctr&-),1 ' ',. IL - -- litU\%..eL - .-74 Ez7k14filorall ,_111_1_1Q. I ','''''' ..f1';;'' ,g.:Al :-=iii - - *IL.. 1•'' TI-LP I-41 7-•11g.i.„ .---..-•--,,,,•,--' LI ri !',N Aim. _ii_i;..- b, , tpuitil.. ip , , ,.,1 Lou_iu '-1 ii , ri - • 1-11-t- ' 1 7 y, sa z il_i_IvIL.IL -a I " Aitio; '.'"•'. /45,if,' ,.11 ,11 rirlii l'''''' 11,Av ,-,1::,,,,-r- _ 'ill-iti..i,_.1 -.1'..1:';':;,1,1•,4 ..1,11....i...1 , ) ..-7. ..,,- „d: . . 0..., r , ;_(..,-1 _ ..r4i•-7.,-;•-•-••.7 N...1 .1 1.'• - '..--li i'r19 II' "-r .(• ' j 4''' . :i.' I't IF'i IIIIIIIII• f. -1 . ..1 I .01 I ;. , i,.....4:-."--.-afr7r 'i."4:1:0-!i,',..1.'; , . 12i1M. , ei, p•prol tim 7:„..1,11.4 'II i . , II . . • T. 1"------.----- ' '- le 1,.. • --,p4v,. . 0.‘ t ' I lq 1/,'" • --k- •10 :...1 piii:A, iti ,. ..,...Wil li ,s,,,%„. ,Illa ,0154.4'it4i.,•:..1-1.,4,.:,..;,..• , .._,.._..::',.:„....,•"1_•,..2i4f....:_k.A.-... iii- • NAII.21 -1...._4 ..ti, t.r.1,,,±-• ..aguit:. .... ..r. ; / A 1, L i. , _.. ,.•-:„*-7, ';'.1.1rf'''''' *': i'''' 1,, maszemil, toornazimItnizaa10_.• _-..:---- , -- 1 -'''="'.. -.• II, i , 1 -..=...-------::-. -_:.-._.:-.. ,7,,. .,,.-64- . solta„t: - ' .1 . ! , -„17-1-/-, • 'um us. , Tv 11-irt-_, .1 " .4-4h4crilf:. ;:',.14:',-. :"...Ai --•'II!, iiiwk . i - . '",: '`'ir4.4••• '; ifib'.1 ' 'I. . ' -I ' • • ,.. _ i-_i. , ..:4 ,;„ ...,,,,,,[op, ..I.f.', r..4 . . .:1 I 'I I,. o.,1 0 I, " , • •,,• . '' ;,,, e• .,t4:x.,;f. ,::1,1k; ! ... •.4-..-1 --10-1 _. -,i. ,. ..-4., ...-.7 ati--,' -'ii 5ii , - ....-,-,L. .,.!1 hp 'Op ' 1-1 1-r11`r I 1 d 1; . .',..,",, 1- lug. !" ,. 1 ,. , 1_..,_y 7. . _el -1,., . LIT I-1, . . .. .::..h 11. !!.. .;A:r1.1..!! I;'.‘1,1: ,.....,. vial:pi\' -1 1 _L. •. , , .ilagEhr . .,. . as A 0 li - J. ----- 'fi lil ,MI . -.... .....- it --- ,---- - kap'•ii- -; ,fili , ,‘ 1.).4.7.` 1.0 --r : s 1 • 1 -' .: -WI 41:le -PM , _..-: ill, ,40 li ..-' IW --II_ I --,t-t 11111' •'' II ikir -,1°.„.1:,% ' •:.- •.: • • - -,, c 1.__ ! =. • .......... 1 1 • 1.1:. /_'4-11. 1bLL 11 la I., ' I( is. 110: LP:- 31.1.1'11.1 A[11,,ii ,1----- _ All ', ,•i .... I.VA.... ..., . i if __!- per%sal 1 , _____ ______,. I ! lig I . i VII I.. 1 tiP1 dilf l'ILit!' 4,,.avit.,,51, 0,, ,-,,: , ,-7,47,-- rl'P''''''''':7'.- 1 -'- - - -- - . L7441-; ' i'•' It.,,I, 1 1 --- \----- -, niummi dts,•••• .1;,;„ 11=11 • 11141 am - =-_---_...,_-___,_--..-_ a-.34 . • 1% 1 .1mmi 1,.5 - itliPi Id :41 17.1 -' ".;)7%.- 1 ' I ' -4._,-:,rirr.it,'1-.::-.: -- - •Iii. Wig ,..„,i, ,-,,,,,,.._.... • , „ _ ,,...:. TI-11Pc,i- F,'-7:4arr-iN - 11'"-- z. +;•...) ..1. - ----,_- .: i- ...,,. • ...„,,_ -___ w •4 I," '4 r.,:t..-1 t 11' , *^tr . -- - . .'------ - • 'fr- • OE . --,..,-,..: "... '-'1.r-1""....v.%"".4....',4,-•-,-,- • - -Ark. ."-r" - O. I , - -• • - -- ,••-••=•••46011144N 'ff ' ;--__. - _ -Nilo- - - - w 'r,..xki.ia,., „ . ...,r.,.._, ••: i•i/- - t 7 , •el*" ._ ----1.:.,;,, 4,-. ..„ . . i . .. - ` ,_ - .; ‹21". '.. - -- - - - t• • . , ,..:, , •',.: .-4-4:0 -&,...4 •--,:_. _ 1;1- • 2 +h. . ... -4,_.7.3 .-\•, . 1 • • . • ..,, .2.1;...y.,% - - .4: . . • 46 'r*Irr • c• lir __.....17.i‘.R'OP 1 '• i.,14,•• I - - • _ - . % A-4i_, -Air. ... 41 ili'llr, P-•'-` Zr.7.- 441=4 •••---. ,0 - 11- = '7.'. /,te - - -. , -• ,--(---1-.--!..--„cct") at,-,-.1....... -_-ir.s. s' -. •.....-te - -1-071,714-..-72-.--c.r--....r..,.... - -e:-D--, r ,li.',, / ,....--•:,,:,: .. -: . 1 - - • , 7••;''''''''f ("--...sin.Ajt- '"I't...'"r it-Zsga•%111r,. _;_;.-14.411jOilar".:.,,,. .;1,....4.41111.4.,L,1,..,,.... ,.,,,,:.,., .:: .. --: -1_ V'r...-4k- . ,, 'II- ....114......,,,,,,,A ,•;,.:vii.4-,;:.-.-....,.„ , ,. .1,d... ......) . ... . ......:"ri ...CAE..- ••.Z. .... I\k VI717 L ETO 1 A ' Mir' . '.4 • 'Y• ' '/ '..,,,, 4•.. ,i., r. q RECEIVED c.A.-.) CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Dopt.of Planning&Development 1 I 36!RAILING .. v )_ u I _ x `iI 0 7.747. == 71= I l=- Fps::, - 01)ILT�l1 - F \....I x k 11 1111 gat g 111- �6t. • I ?€§r 6� �►r EE xx yd �� I!1 o txrru�6ls .roa x0 — — d: 1!!t116 a ' ' ll ,l1 J gE x toil (1B'P/ 6 an v, it 1 )i t x•PAIR/ITC• H ' I w I Y _' °'—' — —I I • g • ('11+f v ' ' I s-r �I nr• I. a 3.-J. 'Ig_1 -_, _�11�s �� © © II 6o ilk!lI ; ® 1 ni I1gl i� i1,q Is: c _II .,_- 4 ---- © �_ � � I I •- - - _ - -• -- _ - L�� I�F k w R(6 + �'4� � ' '4 Z ! ' ' r % \ ��U+��/i .J 6Q ,.-4 1•_6• y.•+• I n i: p16.. I. •S°"„')i. ra. // i1� 1 -i J i o •` � "\ to !"/ • -fis a •'+ �r� ' / a / g2� g II 11.•:. s<4••t• • / / 11 : tr., , i .• •4N'/ `s _ ```s'E. `c` // S 'I 1 Reps 0,4146 1. �� :::D ,,� aw- El_ Ass/ t . . s-,',11.-* ,,g ,,, „,. -0,..,-/ V l Y A ';'"A(''. `YI 1 1 i• // GYI°' •j1' / 4 -i.: E o w a, �i Ss e . r-41 0.6' • e•-bi. ,.-a. p..It]• • M•-O• . 6.•-.i• C9 5. 6� • K'-i3' ]l'-b' I __- I l• ..... • I I ._ ___.- ___ __ -. _-__- 77` 30XTO I� M 7/0 FXDI I 1 I 7/0 X 7/0 FXD. i MI. 1 - u 3 I i I 0 I it o I * rn V •:!‘‘ ;i�An y x �I 4 5I.. nxy • �.- --- L \\ I '�3 (pi -t.ill t. g xi LLig i s J.I I .,08 I XI , t * d • l -git -8 4.4 © A \_ X 1: I b A e. it O i A n 1 n' I' ,1 D j _ Ri x . e` I t_ • I7'8. -:. 2 ` g a 1i A J1 r 0p 0 - LINEN 1 . r Iy __ __ —_ _ — _ ...... fir N - ... 4 i 11: ' L `�4 ,4/ i J 3'-D' S'-e' 5'-D' D I AL 4 F. IDy4 ? f �N i ] R (d O Q I I --L. . - s-L r-� 7-o it - //' •'• N, u� // .. \ (a, `\ o I /30'VEMD . : X" �`` 41 \ /` - 7 - .- _I a eweraa�u ram/ 1 r. v. w't • \ ii' . .. � _ I I a. `'e. i; � I 1 I / \ ra \. 2 1�, . I I � I I III%Art* L 1 I D'e. / I I 4 I 1 I I I I I I I • 1i.D ,.e• I '..5' fi I • • U I `' MM 4•• P.T. —\ 1 �1 4 x CI all. Tl x £ I O •� J a yyix161-1iP FP110.WALL IC I- el • i • 1 \ I ! ..1 'T1i1 /`JJC i -- -t uix • iz + i'P i m nl m6 l6 QQQQ µ 191 ' _. •W� , AWL AUi 11(1.1 — 4 I t-----7r� TYn� 1 ' d P- * - fN 7 x 1p 11 illI Ili ph P a r , ....1 I€1'III x 'IL `'- 09t 'ne 6 I1: \ am nix • nix IF 1II III 6 q 4 I'16 �W� �Wa r 3 X le • 1 • 2 x le PLR�I•T•. •Ili OG- • ri W L ix _ 1- _ I _ x -(0 ,1 \ x . I 1 W j I 5't•' I. 3 3. Y) V I J- W a x � D •) I 5-3' • 3'-- IIli '• fD � • - ' lal -y .. 0L. I Ili .0 T` 3 ABf nn o DiI---t-_I I e I -,� ";a"'^ — ! 40 X; oe r9p3 Z X A.— I I tt *' r-—=1 �t U Z P I n I 1 , 1 ,7 I( N I I �J g a i -:-- —r .4 LDS _ T� T _ i 1 ,-J L-, 6 _ l • 41111) 0 ..._ g J —T • t. /// I 6 M rii 1--I � / Ji e• ya. • \ P D� I . Omy I" ''__J • L g1 �O• I ir Fx _ r� • i ~�•T�FpTIi - c y, • / OH.t0 WITI J •/ //,• //i GRADE �© \ \ i 0 ' .. ':;•< ‹' 0. ,,' „/ `/^ /// 1 • ! MEMORANDUM • o1 "��°SwE TO: Development Review Commission FROM: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner DATE: January 19, 2000 SUBJ: AP 99-13/LU 99-0029 BACKGROUND On December 29, 1999, the Planning Director issued a decision to approve LU 99-0029, an application filed by WRG Design Inc., on behalf of Matrix Development Corporation. WRG and Matrix were requesting approval to partition a 1.28 acre lot into three parcels, including two flag lots. The size of the proposed parcels is 15,557 (Rear Flag Parcel 1), 10,093 (Middle Flag Parcel 2), and 20,170 (Front Regular Parcel 3) square feet respectively. The applicant submitted the requested minor partition on April 22, 1999, Exhibit B. The applicant was informed pursuant to ORS 227.178(2) by letter [Exhibit B(39)] that the application was incomplete. The • applicant took issue with this letter as some of the items were not"completeness items" but rather adequacy issues. However, the applicant's "completeness issue" was not a refusal to submit additional material pursuant to ORS 227.178(2) because new material was submitted on July 16, 1999 [Exhibits B(8-17)]. While the information contained therein failed to address the relevant review criteria, the submittal included all the items needed to make the application technically complete. Staff evaluated this material and prepared a recommendation for denial based on failure by the applicant to address the drainage requirements. After a meeting with the applicants on October 8, 1999, the applicant amended the application and submitted a third submittal on October 19, 1999 [Exhibit B(18-25)]. A second meeting was held with the applicant on October 26, 1999, regarding incomplete issues, identifying final revisions needed to consider the application complete. On November 9, 1999,the applicant submitted and staff determined that the amended application was complete,with sufficient material, in sum, to evaluate the amended application and it is that amended application that was relied upon in the Planning Director's decision. The applicant takes the position that the 120 day time limit(as mandated by ORS )will lapse on December 21, 1999, with the granting of a two week extension. Staff on the other hand believes that the 120 day time limit is calculated not from the date of completion of the applicant's original (now withdrawn) application, but from the date of acceptance as complete for the applicant's amended application, submitted on November 9, 1999. In any event, the application, regardless of whether it includes the original application or is only the amended application, was not"deemed complete" for the 410 Planning Director to make adequate findings to approve the request until all material was submitted by Memorandum to DRC,Januar, 19,2000 Page 1 of 2 1 � the applicant on November 9, 1999. The 120 day deadline would therefore be March 8, 2000. [ORS 227.178(1)]. • The Planning Director determined that with the application as amended by the November 9, 1999 submittal, the applicants had sufficiently addressed the criteria to demonstrate that the minor partition should be approved. On December 22, 1999, WRG Design, Inc., representing Matrix Development Corporation, appealed the Planning Director's approval (Exhibit A). An appeal of a minor development decision is enabled by LOC 49.40.820(4). The appellant has unfortunately not identified specific issues in the notice of appeal. Staff is unable to address any specific concerns as there were none raised. There are, however, numerous issues with relation to this application from the flag lots requirements,drainage,access,and tree removal that staff has thoroughly addressed in the 29 page staff report. A number of conditions were imposed as a result of that analysis in order to ensure that the final development would be in compliance with the applicable standards and criteria. Staff therefore relies on the detailed findings contained within that December 9, 1999, staff report as the basis for its decision and imposition of conditions of approval. This memorandum has been prepared to present the application to the Development Review Commission, as required by LOC 49.44.915. Pursuant to LOC 49.40.820(4), appeals of Planning Director's decisions are heard de novo(i.e., as if no decision had been rendered) at a public hearing before the Development Review Commission. This means new evidence may be submitted prior to and during the hearing. Attached are exhibits received since the appeal was filed on July 12, 1999,as well as the original Planning Director's report and decision. Also entered into the record are: • Exhibit A Request for Hearing; dated December 22, 1999 Exhibit B LU 99-0029 Planning Director's Decision (Exhibits 1 -40); dated December 9, 1999 CONCLUSION Based upon the evidence submitted to date, and the analysis and imposition of the conditions of approval, staff finds the applicants have satisfied the criteria for approval of the proposed minor partition, as noted in the December 9, 1999, staff report. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission uphold the Planning Director's decision to approve the requested minor partition, subject to the conditions of approval applied thereto. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends DENIAL of the requested appeal [AP 99-13] and APPROVAL of LU 99-0029. • l : Memorandum to DRC,January 19,2000 '� „ ti Page 2 of 2 W R G DESIGN I NC . O / C 13 November 17, 1999 , : . )`1c7/ A'.r Kristi Hitchcock, City Recorder 1(1Y �7� •�� r Lake Oswego City Hall .1 _ 380"A"Avenue, PO Box 369 ! -�F'�'�� � Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 RE: Blue Leaf-3 Lot Partition Request for Hearing -Appeal of Decision (LU99-0029) Dear Ms. Hitchcock, On December 10, 1999, the City of Lake Oswego approved with conditions the Blue Leaf— 3 lot partition (LU99-029). We respectfully request a hearing to appeal the above decision, on behalf of the appellant, Matrix Development Corporation,6900 SW Haines Road,Tigard, Oregon 97223. Please find enclosed the appeal fee of$266, as required by the City of Lake Oswego. Do not hesitate to contact me at 603-9933,with any questions regarding this appeal. Sincerely, • Mimi Doukas, AICP Senior Planner WRG Design, Inc. cc: File (MAT005.D2) Ryan Selby, Matrix Development Corporation Steve Pfeiffer, Stoel Rives LLC Jeff Curran, WRG Design 411 PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • `"'^"r-I'^^' 10450 SW Nimbus Ave., Portland, OR 97223 / (503) 603-993: EXHIBIT A / AP 99-13/LU 99-0029 3 Oregon • Ievada City o/r , alze O3wecgo 2731.90 i : . LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON J l-r + RECEIVED OF ► ` Y X ADDRESS • ACCOUNT n C.. ,� { 6t �•'� AP �i `1 •13 - 3 r_ �. : 00'�•G ' rp. ►a-lI f - !_JD �ir v► ✓LC ... _ -c- .'I.f iG�_• �Y 1i �.A�tJ t'�Uf`1. ,y ? ii r. r _ )Et ..a.k.r_. - . - • w„ ~' ` Tbu R.[+etpt to b.d ltv.r.d io tbe p.rw making paymut City, of LOki sw O7Rc. 7171 =y.fi y.k. t-ri �h- III • S 0u :1 4 STAFF REPORT i CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING DIVISIOT; APPLICANT FILE NO. Matrix Development LU 99-0029 PROPERTY OWNER STAFF Matrix Development Morgan Tracy LEGAL DESCRIPTION DATE OF REPORT Tax Lot 2900 of December 9, 1999 Tax Map 21E 04DB LOCATION NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 1111 1501 Country Club Road Forest Highlands Neighborhood ZONING DESIGNATION COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION R-7.5 R-7.5 I. APPLICANT'S REOUEST The applicant is seeking approval of a minor partition to divide a 1.28 acre lot(55,757 square feet) into two flag parcels and one regular parcel. The proposed parcels will measure approximately 15,557 (Rear Flag Parcel 1), 10,093 (Middle Flag Parcel 2), and 20,170 (Front Regular Parcel 3) square feet respectively, Exhibit 31. The access easement area as shown for the proposed driveway is approximately 9,937 square feet. No new public street is being proposed. II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance: LOC 48.02.015 Definitions • LOC 48.02.020 Compliance EXHIBIT B AP 99-13/LU 99-0029 LOC 48.06.195 —48.06.225 R-7.5 Zone Description LOC 48.19.005—48.19.035 Flag Lots LOC 48.20.505 Accessory Uses LOC 48.20.525 Determination of Front Yard for Flag Lots LOC 48.20.530 Vision Clearance B. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: LOC 49.16.015 Definitions LOC 49.16.020—49.16.030 Applicability of Code LOC 49.16.035 Development Permit Required LOC 49.20.110 Minor Development LOC 49.20.200 Burden of Proof LOC 49.22.215 Review Criteria for Minor Development LOC 49.22.225 Conditions of Approval LOC 49.36.500—49.36.720 Application Requirements LOC 49.44.900—49.44.920 Appeals of Minor Development Decisions LOC 49.56.1300—49.56.1310 Effect of Approval/Denial of Development LOC 49.58.1400—49.58.1430 Compliance with Approved Permit C. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards (LODS): 5.005 —5.040 Street Lights 7.005 — 7.040 Off Street Parking, Loading, and Bicycle Access 12.005 — 12.040 Drainage for Minor Development. • 14.005 — 14.040 Utilities 16.005 — 16.040 Hillside Protection Standard 18.005 — 18.035 Access 19.005 — 19.040 On-Site Circulation - Driveways and Fire Access Roads D. System Development Charges (LOC Chapter 39): LOC 39.02.031 System Development Charge Established LOC 39.06.081 Collection of Charge LOC 39.06.105(2) Exemptions, Reductions and Waivers E. Streets and Sidewalks Ordinance(LOC Chanter 42): LOC 42.08.400-42.08.470 Sidewalks F. Tree Cutting Ordinance (LOC Chapter 55): LOC 55.02.035(1), (2) Tree Removal in Conjunction with Major or Minor Development Permit LOC 55.02.080 Criteria for Type II Permits G. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance (LOC Chanter 57): LOC 57.04.020 Design Standard LOC 57.04.035 Protection from Future Shade LOC 57.06.050— 57.06.085 Solar Balance Point Standard • cc LU 99-0029 d u '6 Page 2 of 29 III. FINDINGS A. Existing Conditions 1. The site is approximately 1.28 acres (55,757 square feet) in area. It is rectangular in shape measuring approximately 125 feet wide by 447 feet in length. The property is located on the north side of Country Club Road and directly west of Verte Court, Exhibits 1 and 2. 2. An existing single family dwelling occupies the proposed Parcel 2. Two small accessory buildings are on proposed Parcel 3 (Exhibit 30). The applicant proposes to remove these structures as part of this application. 3. Surrounding land uses include single family homes adjacent to the site and within the immediate area. The surrounding area is zoned R-7.5 to the east, R-10 to the west and south across Country Club Road,and unincorporated County zone R-20 to the north. (Exhibit 2). 4. The lot slopes downward from the rear(342 feet elevation)to Country Club Road (306 feet elevation), with a steep embankment adjacent to Country Club Road (Exhibit 30). 5. The site is characterized by a large number of Douglas fir and big leaf maple trees (Exhibit 30). B. Compliance with Criteria for Approval As per LOC 49.20.110(2)(f), this partition application is classified as minor development. Property owners within 300 feet of the subject site and the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association were all notified of the application. Three letters were received, as shown in Exhibits 36-38. The primary issues raised in these letters regard drainage concerns, tree protection, and the lack of designation of the property as a sensitive lands resource area. Prior to submitting the application, the applicant held a meeting with owners and residents in the immediate neighborhood. Minutes from the neighborhood meeting are as shown in Exhibit 3. It should be noted that the applicant's proposal at the time of the neighborhood meeting was for a small 6 lot subdivision consisting of three pairs of zero lot line dwellings. As per LOC 49.22.200 and LOC 49.22.220, staff must consider the following criteria when evaluating minor developments: 1. The burden of proof: • "The applicant for a development permit shall bear the burden of proof that his or her application complies with all applicable review criteria or can be made to LU 99-0029 Page 3 of 29 UU07 comply with applicable criteria by imposition of conditions of approval. " [LOC 49.22.200] II/ This application was originally submitted on April 22, 1999 (Exhibits 4-7). The applicant was informed pursuant to ORS 227.178(2) by letter(Exhibit 39)that the application was incomplete. The applicant took issue with this letter as some of the items were not"completeness items" but rather adequacy issues. However, the applicant's P q Y PP "completeness issue"was not a refusal to submit additional material pursuant to ORS 227.178(2)because new material was submitted on July 16, 1999 (Exhibits 8-17). While the information contained therein failed to address the relevant review criteria, the submittal included all the items needed to make the application technically complete. Staff evaluated this material and prepared a recommendation for denial based on failure by the applicant to address the drainage requirements. After a meeting with the applicants on October 8, 1999, the applicant amended the application and submitted a third submittal on October 19, 1999 (Exhibits 18-25). A second meeting was held with the applicant on October 26, 1999 regarding incomplete issues, identifying final needed revisions to among other items, the drainage plan. On November 9, 1999 the applicant submitted and staff determined that the amended application was complete, with sufficient material, in sum, to evaluate the amended application and it is that amended application that is now being considered. The applicant takes the position that the 120 day time limit (as mandated by ORS ) will • lapse on December 21, 1999 with the granting of a two week extension. Staff on the other hand believes that the 120 day time limit is calculated not from the date of completion of the applicant's original (now withdrawn) application, but from the date of completion of the applicant's pending amended application, submitted on November 9, 1999. In any event,the application,regardless of whether it includes the original application or is only the amended application,was not"deemed complete" until all material was submitted by the applicant on November 9, 1999. The 120 day deadline would therefore be March 8, 2000. (ORS 227.178(1)). The applicant relies in the amended application upon the the applicant's entire (including original) submittal to the extent that the information does not contradict itself. In the event of any inconsistency between the early submittals and the supplementary information contained in Exhibits 26-34, the most recent submittal has been relied on to evaluate the request. The applicant has provided sufficient materials to evaluate this request, as evidenced by the full body of exhibits attached to this report. These exhibits and the illustrations therein were relied upon by staff in making the following findings. 2. A minor development shall comply with: a. The requirements of the zone in which it is located; • LU 99-0029 0(J [ S Page 4 of 29 R-7.5 Zone Description (LOC 48.06.195-48.06.2251 • The site is zoned R-7.5 residential. The applicant intends to partition the site into three parcels in order to enable the construction of three single family dwellings. There are no specific house plans for any of the parcels at this time. Staff has only evaluated lot size, lot dimensions, and setbacks for proposed building envelopes, based on Exhibits 29 through 34 to determine if a suitable building envelope would be provided by the proposed partition. The following table illustrates the setbacks, lot coverage and height limitations for the three parcels. Since the applicant proposes to demolish the structures that currently occupy the site,the three new homes will be subject to the setback requirements for new construction. [LOC 48.06.215(1)(b)]. Additionally, because proposed Parcels 1 and 2 are flag lots, the requirements of LOC 48.19.005-48.19.035 (Flag Lots) must be met. These requirements enable staff to impose conditions related to setbacks, building locations and height, as well as the orientation of window and other openings on the future dwellings on flag lots. LOC 48.19.025 provides the method for determining the front lot line of the flag lot. LOC 48.19.030(4) stipulates that when a flag lot abuts a lot in a lower density residential zone, the setback requirements of that lower density zone shall apply to the flag lot yard abutting the lower density zone. These items will be evaluated in more detail under the "Flag Lot Requirements"section on page 6. Setbacks presently in effect in the R-7.5 zone will apply to the front parcel(Parcel 3) for one year from the date of this approval. After that one year, the setbacks will be applied as set forth for the underlying zone. However, for the flag parcels (Parcels 1 and 2)the setbacks have been established through the flag lots ordinance and will run with the land in perpetuity or until a subsequent land use review specifically modifies this approval and the setbacks as established. R-7.5 ZONE DESCRIPTION [LOC 48.06.195 - 48.06.225] Site Requirements New Front Lot Flag Lot Flag Lot Construction Parcel 3 Parcel 2 Parcel 1 Requirements Minimum Lot Area' 7,500 square feet 20,170 square feet j 10,093 square feet 15,557 square feet Minimum Lot Width 50 feet 124.83 feet 100 feet 124 feet Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet 222 feet 125 feet 125 feet Setbacks` Front 25 feet 117.1' south 49'west 25'west Side 10 feet 30' east 10' south 115' south 49' west 15' north 39.5' north Rear 30 feet 30' north 130' east 30' east Maximum Height 28 feet on flat lot Can meet Average of abutting Average of abutting OR as per requirement homes homes LOC 48.19.030(3) ' (16.5' at present) (16.5'at present) Max Lot Coverage i 25% 15,042 s.f.potential j 2,523 s.f. potential 3,889 s.f.potential • l.Access easement areas are deducted from gross lot area prior to assessing whether minimum lot areas are met. 2.Setbacks for the proposed flag parcels are established with the front yard facing west,LOC 48.20.525. However,the regular lot, Parcel 3,has its front yard facing Country Club as required by LOC 48.02.015. LU 99-0029 Page 5 of 29 As demonstrated in the above table,all three parcels meet or exceed the minimum zoning• requirements for newly created parcels in the R-7.5 zone. The applicant has prescribed specific building envelopes in order to maximize separation and enhance privacy between the existing homes and the proposed homes on the subject site (Exhibit 31). These setbacks are also established in order to better preserve a number of existing mature trees on site. Sensitive Lands Ordinance [LOC 48.17.200—48.17.210] This standard is not applicable to this project, since the property is not designated with a sensitive lands overlay zone. However, one letter received from Mr. Kevin Mead (Exhibit 37)notes that the property was improperly designated as insignificant. This land use review is not the proper avenue to contest this designation, as the implementation of the overlay zones is a separate action. LOC 48.17.020(2). The standards imposed by the Sensitive Lands Overlay Zone may not be applied upon parcels until and unless the Sensitive Lands Overlay Zone has been placed upon the property prior to the filing of the development(partition) application'. Any proposed removal of trees upon the parcel must comply with the Tree Ordinance, however. See discussion related to Chapter 55, Trees, on page 19. Flag Lot Standards [LOC 48.19.005 -48.19.0351 • The proposed Parcels 1 and 2 are being created through the regulations of the Flag Lot Ordinance. Flag lots are regulated by the applicable criteria of the underlying zone, as well as additional specific requirements of LOC 48.19.005 —48.19.035. In addition to the standard application submittal materials, an applicant for a flag lot creation shall include a conceptual parcelization plan for the property and a site plan showing existing structures on adjacent parcels. The applicant has submitted this information as shown in Exhibits 30 and 31. The reviewing authority may impose conditions in order to ensure that parcelization of the subject property will not preclude the development of surrounding properties, including access, circulation, building location, utility availability,and natural resource protection. I Although the Douglas fir grove on the site was previously designated a Distinctive Natural Area(DNA)by the City's Comprehensive Plan, it was not deemed significant pursuant to the Sensitive Lands inventory resource analysis. Mr. Mead argues that this rating was in error, based on the fact that the site met one of the seven selected significance criteria (Environmental Value #2, Native Plant Communities). It is true that the sitc met the test for native plant communities; however, this only placed the site on a list for further consideration. In the case of tree groves,the Resource Conservation (RC)Overlay District protects significant tree groves. A tree grove may be placed within an RC District if the tree grove has: a. A Habitat Assessment Score(HAS) ranking of at least 35 in the 1994/95 Economic, Social, Environmental, Energy (ESEE) analysis study;or b.A"high"ranking(avg..1 I to 15 points)for scenic values in the study;or c. Is associated with a stream corridor or wetland that has a Resource Protection(RP)designation. This site received a HAS score of 17,a medium scenic value(avg. 7.5 points),and is not associated with any stream corridor or wetland (Exhibit 2). Therefore,upon this further consideration,the site was not designated and as such is not subject to the resource conservation (RC)Tree Grove Protection Standards of LOC 48.17. LU 99-0029 Page 6 of 29 The access requirements of the flag lot ordinance(LOC 48.19.020) specify that accesses • be consolidated where practicable including consolidation with the parent parcel. The applicant has proposed a 24 foot wide access and utility easement running along the west edge of proposed Parcels 2 and 3 (Exhibit 31). A 20 foot wide driveway and firetruck turn around are proposed within this easement. The access will serve all three parcels, including the parent parcel. Evidence showing that a reciprocal access easement has been executed will be required as a condition of approval. The proposed access easement will have direct access to a major arterial. The new driveway will be 100 feet from Verte Court right of way to the east, with no intervening driveways, and 97 feet from the western property line of the abutting parcel with one intervening driveway (Exhibit 29) to the west. No additional driveways are within 50 feet of the proposed access, therefore satisfying the requirement of LOC 48.19.020(4). LOC 48.19.025 specifies lot configuration requirements. The front lot line for the proposed flag lots(Parcels 1 and 2) is defined as the line that is most parallel to and closest to the street, excluding the pole portion of the flag lot. If this standard is not practicable due to placement of structures on adjacent lots, topography, lot configuration or similar reasons,then the front lot line will be measured from a property line that abuts the access portion of the access easement. The applicant states in the narrative (Exhibit 8) that the development pattern of structures on adjacent lots, the presence of many large trees, and for the better protection of privacy, the lots should be oriented so the front faces • west, i.e. toward the access easement. Parcel 3, as a regular lot, does not have the ability to alter the lot orientation; and as a result, for the purposes of applying setbacks, the south property line on Country Club Road is considered the front yard. The applicant's specific building envelope on Parcel 3 provides a 30 foot side yard setback on the east to match the rear yard setbacks of the two flag parcels. The application of setbacks does not prevent the design of the home built on Parcel 3 from being oriented toward the west to match the other two parcels. Staff concurs with the applicant that in order to better preserve the established development pattern in the neighborhood and maximize privacy between the proposed parcels and the properties along Verte Court, it is impractical to comply with the standard lot orientation. Additionally, the applicant has proposed specific envelopes for future dwelling on Parcels 1-3 in order to minimize the necessity to remove trees(Exhibit 31). Orienting the parcels in the standard manner would result in a development with much greater impact on the natural resources, with reduced privacy, and illogical building placement. Therefore, staff finds that the front yard shall be established along the west property line for Parcels 1 and 2. Parcel 3 will continue to measure the front yard from the property line that abuts the public street. (as shown in Exhibit 31). Lot width, depth, and area for the three parcels comply with the R-7.5 Zone requirements as shown in the table above. • LU 99-0029 �� Page7of29 Building and site design standards (LOC 48.19.030) are reviewed primarily at the time of building permit application with the exception of building orientation. Building orientation is reviewed at the time of lot creation. Buildings shall be oriented to provide • the maximum separation and privacy from existing and future dwellings on adjacent lots [LOC 48.19.030(1)]. Exhibit 30 shows the placement of existing dwellings on adjacent lots. The applicant has proposed specific building envelopes to respond to this requirement(Exhibit 31). These envelopes provide a minimum of 30 feet of separation between the proposed homes themselves and 60 feet to the existing homes that surround the proposed development. From Country Club Road, the applicant has proposed a 117' front yard setback on Parcel 3 to maximize separation from the road. The applicant has specified that the subject property will not be divided beyond the proposed 3 parcels. The property to the west(Tax Lot 900) could be further developed, however. A minimum 25 foot separation from Parcel 1 and 49 feet from Parcels 2 and 3 is provided as a buffer from that property. Garage placement relative to street exposure will also be reviewed at the time of the building permit application to determine that no more than 40 percent of the garage wall area is visible from the intersection of the flag lot driveway and street, or if it is visible, it shall have more than one plane, LOC 48.19.030(c). The proposed building envelope for Parcel 1 does not lie at the direct end of the access easement, so it is unlikely that the garage will be visible from Country Club Road, especially considering the 36 foot grade differential and 337 foot distance from the road. The other two homes will also be setback from the access drive; therefore, a garage will not dominate the vista down the • access drive. Based upon the configuration of Parcels 2 and 3 and their relationship to the access easement and street, staff finds that the garages would likely not be viewed from Country Club Road and this requirement would not be relevant. The height limit for the proposed flag lots is based on an average height of all dwellings on lots abutting the flag lots and is reviewed at the time building permits are applied for, per LOC 48.19.030(3). For the purpose of calculating the average height of abutting homes for future dwellings on parcels 1 and 2, Parcel 3 will be calculated as having a 16 foot height in perpetuity, however,this shall not limit the actual structure on Parcel 3 to a 16 foot height limit. The dwelling on Parcel 3 shall comply with the maximum building height requirement in effect at the time of building permit application. The applicant has submitted pictorial evidence (Exhibit 9) showing the heights of dwellings on abutting lots. At this time, structures on the new flag lots would be limited to a maximum height of 16.5 feet, although this is subject to change, depending on the height of surrounding homes at such time a building permit application is submitted. This will be noted on the partition plan or through covenants, conditions and restrictions. Per LOC 48.19.035(1), a minimum six-foot landscape strip shall be provided as separation between driveways that are within ten feet of each other(as measured from the closest edge of each driveway)and where a driveway is within ten feet of an adjacent residential structure. As mentioned previously, the nearest driveway from the proposed new driveway is 97 feet to the west. The structure nearest the LU 99-0029 Page 8 of 29 1 4 ') is 1 � proposed drive is on Tax Lot 900, 15 feet from the property line. Staff finds that • this standard is satisfied and that no additional landscape buffer is needed between the proposed driveway and existing structures or driveways. However, the rear and side yards on Parcels 1 and 2 are required to provide a 4' tall by six foot wide landscape buffer planted with a deciduous or evergreen hedge unless waived by the abutting property owner, LOC 48.19.035(3). The planted materials shall grow to an established minimum height of 6 feet within two years and be maintained at that height. The applicant has provided such a waiver(Exhibit 28) from the subject property owner for all required internal landscaping (between parcels 1, 2, and 3). The applicant states additionally that the existing vegetation along the north and east property lines provides an effective screening that meets or exceeds this standard. The applicant states also that the planting of a formal hedge would be out of character with the existing neighborhood(Exhibit 4). The applicant, as part of the required tree removal mitigation has proposed a number of western hemlock trees to be planted primarily along the Country Club frontage for buffering and along the east and west property lines of the site (Exhibit 34). Staff finds that the proposed tree mitigation will not meet the standards for a landscape screen. The proposed landscape plan(Exhibit 34) also does not presently satisfy the requirements of LOC 48.19.035(1). There is insufficient information related to plant species, quantities, and locations. Of the information provided, the proposed landscaping will not effectively act as a screen or buffer to the same degree that a deciduous or evergreen hedge would. Staff agrees with the applicant that a formal hedge • may not be appropriate in this setting. Staff, therefore, will require a revised landscape plan which includes medium to large growing shrubs from the list of native shrubs in Exhibit 35. This plan shall be submitted by the applicant prior to issuance of building permits. Landscape material shall be planted from 5 gallon minimum size containers spaced randomly at approximate 5 foot intervals along a 4' wide area on the north and east property lines of the subject site as shown in Exhibit 35. A 6 foot tall wood fence is proposed along the northern and eastern edge of the site (Exhibit 32). This fence will be required as a condition of approval. The property owner has also waived the internal fencing requirements, and thus no fence will be required for the north and south sides of Parcel 2. As discussed later in this report under LOC 55 (Tree Removal), the applicant has proposed removing a total of 67 trees, 42 evergreen and 25 deciduous. LOC 48.19.035(4) requires that for each tree removed, a minimum of one tree (either 2"caliper deciduous or 8' tall evergreen) be planted. The applicant has proposed replanting a total of 41 trees, failing to meet this standard. As a condition of this action, the applicant will be required to replant at a minimum 1:1 ratio, as required by this standard. A final landscape plan addressing this requirement will be required to be submitted prior to issuance of any building permits. • LU 99-0029 0 u 1 3 Page 9 of 29 b. The Development Standards applicable to minor developments; The applicable Development Standards are as follows: • PP P Street Lights (LODS 5.005 -5.040) Country Club Road has intermittent cobra head lights. The closest light is at the intersection of Verte Court, about 200 feet to the east of the site's driveway. While a shared access driveway is proposed, this driveway is not considered as a street, and is therefore not required to be lit to the same standards. No additional lighting will be required as part of this development. This standard is satisfied. Off Street Parking,Loading, and Bicycle Access (LODS 7.005 - 7.040) This standard requires that each single family dwelling provide one off-street parking space which may include a garage or carport at least 8.5' wide by 18.5' long. There is ample room unconstrained by topography on these three sites to comply with the requirements of this standard. The applicant's original submittal shows a firetruck turnaround in the driveway of Parcel 2 (Exhibit 7). Staff identified a potential conflict between the ability to park a car and obstructing the fire turnaround. As a result, the applicant has modified the location of the fire truck turnaround to provide a dedicated area that will not conflict with required parking, shown on Parcel 3 (Exhibit 32). Staff concludes that with this change, the parcels can meet or exceed the minimum standard. • Final compliance will be determined at the time of building permit review. Drainage for Minor Development (LODS 12.005 - 12.040) The site slopes to Country Club Road. There is a catch basin at the top end of an 8" storm drain Country Club Road. The catchbasin is located near the middle of the site's road frontage, and is a logical connection point for the outfall of the water quality pond. Staff notes that the site plan(Exhibit 32) incorrectly depicts the storm drain along the property line when it is in fact located at the edge of the paved roadway. Staff also notes that the connection to the storm drain is proposed as a manhole. A cost savings could be realized by changing the existing catchbasin to an oversized model, connecting to it, and eliminating the need for a manhole. Per the City's Surface Water Management Design Manual, a water quality treatment plan is required of development that will result in the creation of impervious area in excess of 6,060 square feet(two equivalent service units) at build-out. In this case, the applicant will be creating three new home sites, each representing an assumed 3,030 square feet (one equivalent service unit, or"E.S.U.") of impervious area. The combination of homes and driveways surfaces will total approximately 18,800 square feet of impervious area. The applicant's original narrative (Exhibit 4)which called for disposing of storm water "above ground, approximately 6 feet from the roofline" failed to comply with the 1111 drainage requirements and the State Plumbing Code. As a result, the applicant has LU 99-0029 } Page 10 of 29 U 1 4 submitted a drainage report and site plan to address these requirements (Exhibits 27 and • 32). The applicant has chosen to meet the requirement with a dry detention pond located at the south end of the property (Exhibit 32). Construction of this dry pond and drainage system improvements will be required as a condition of this approval. The pond, in order to function properly will require landscape material consistent with the purpose and intent of the water quality facility. This landscape plan will be required as a condition of approval prior to the approval of the partition plat. Installation of these landscaping materials will be required prior to issuance of any building permits as they are an integral part of the storm drain improvements. Roof drains and driveway runoff will be directed to the pond, and the collected water will be released into the 8" storm drain in Country Club Road. The driveway will be constructed with a valley cross section , and a private catchbasin will intercept the majority of the runoff and direct it to the pond. Topographic constraints prevent the catchbasin from capturing the runoff from the first 70 feet of driveway, which will drain onto the sidewalk. In the wintertime, this runoff can freeze, causing unsafe conditions at the intersection of the driveway and Country Club Road. To alleviate this condition, a strip drain or area drain located where the driveway meets the sidewalk will be required. This drain shall connect directly to the existing public system, which eventually drains to a tributary of Tryon Creek. • The application contains a worksheet demonstrating that the proposed pond has sufficient 1 volume to serve its intended purpose (Exhibit 27). The site plan demonstrates that the pond can fit in the area that has been allocated for it, and can be constructed with the requisite shallow side slopes. The applicant has further demonstrated that the downstream conveyance system has adequate capacity, so storm water detention is not required. The site, incidentally, is located at the top of a drainage basin, so no additional surface runoff from upstream property is expected to drain to Country Club Road. While the applicant's pond design conceptually conforms to design standards, the site plan is not a construction plan, and several refinements should be made to the pond's location and shape to minimize grading and impact on trees. The most important features in pond design are maintaining shallow water depth and duration of time the runoff resides in the ponding area. These objectives can be met by various pond configurations and creative design features. A final drainage report and plan will be required as a condition of approval. The following items shall be addressed in that final report and plan: optimal pond configuration and location, specification of the release rate and design of the flow control structure, landscaping, and provision for maintenance access. A representative cross-sections of the length and width will be required to evaluate impact on adjacent trees, and to assure compliance with all aspects of design standards. Lastly, the pond will be a private facility, and the upkeep of its landscaping and other features • will be the responsibility of the homeowners. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions LU 99-0029 0Ui .1 Page 11 of 29 (CC&R's)that address these maintenance responsibilities will be required to be submitted to staff for approval and recorded prior to approval of the final partition plan. • Staff finds that with the imposition of conditions as noted above, this standard will be satisfied. Completion of these improvements will be required prior to issuance of any building permits as a condition of approval. Utility Standard (LODS 14.005- 14.040) This standard requires that infrastructure improvements be installed to serve new development, and that said improvements be installed underground, where possible. Services available to the proposed parcels are as follows: Sanitary Sewer There is an 8" sewer line along the shoulder of Country Club Road terminating on the west side of Verte Court. The offsite extension from the terminal manhole to this site's driveway is approximately 200 feet. The sewer will be constructed under the existing asphalt pathway. Onsite, a public sewer will be constructed in the common driveway to the most northerly parcel (Exhibit 32). Service laterals will be installed from the main line and stubbed at the east edge of the utility easement. A sewer extension to the north property line will not be required because the unincorporated territory to the north will have access to the future extension of the sewer in Redwood Court. New service laterals will be installed as part of the construction of the public line. The laterals to each home shall be stubbed at the edge of the access easement. The access easement will need to include a minimum 15 foot wide public utility easement over the areas where the public sewer line will be extended outside the public right of way. The extension of the public sewer and the granting of the utility easement will be required as a condition of approval. Water System and Hydrants There is a 10"water main in the north edge of Country Club Road. A 2"public water line will be extended up the common driveway from this main (Exhibit 32). A fire hydrant is located approximately 125 feet west of the subject property, past the proposed driveway. The Fire Marshall will require a new hydrant be located at the east side of the access driveway on Country Club Road. This is to ensure that adequate fire protection is afforded to future homes in the project, the furthest being nearly 400 feet from the street. The existing hydrant is inadequate due to its distance and placement from the site which requires that the fire truck pass the subject property, attach to the hydrant 125 feet west, and then back up to the access drive. The fire hydrant will be required to be on a separate 6" line with a valve assembly as a condition of approval. • LU 99-0029 v 1 6 Page 12 of 29 Exaction of this fire hydrant as recommended by the Fire Marshal would alleviate the additional fire hazard impacts caused by this partition, does not limit development of the property,does not affect any existing structures, and would have a negligible effect on the value of the property. Staff concludes that this exaction is both reasonably related and roughly proportional to the impacts of the proposed development as required by LOC 49.22.225(1)(c) and Dolan vs. City of Tigard. Domestic water to the homes will be provided as shown in the applicant's revised utility plan, Exhibit 32. A 2" public water line will be constructed under the access driveway from a valve and private laterals will be stubbed to provide future connections to the new homes when constructed. The City Maintenance Staff will install new meters when new building permits are issued. Installation of this line and conveyance of a public utility easement will be required as a condition of approval. Frontage Street Country Club Road is a four lane major arterial with a center refuge lane and 6 foot bike paths. The frontage has a standard curb, drainage, and 5 foot wide curbline asphalt sidewalk. Current standards require a 6 foot wide sidewalk on arterial streets in residential areas(LOC Chapter 42). The installation of the new sewer line will likely destroy the existing asphalt sidewalk. Regardless,this • sidewalk will need to be upgraded to a six foot wide concrete sidewalk along the property frontage. There is little opportunity to provide visual interest by meandering the rebuilt sidewalk because the adjacent embankment limits the available room for such a sidewalk. Near the Verte Court end of the replacement however,there may be an opportunity to meander the sidewalk away from the curb. Final design will be reviewed at the time of approval of final plans. LOC 49.22.225 1 c allows the reviewingauthorityto impose conditions of ( )( ) P approval on a development permit when the condition is reasonably related to alleviation of a need for public services or facilities created or contributed to by the proposed development. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (Dolan v. The City of Tigard)that, in order to require exactions,the local government must apply a test of"rough proportionality"between the impacts of the proposed development and the need for the exaction. There is a"rough proportionality"between the impact created by the addition of two new dwelling units and the need to require construction of a six foot wide sidewalk along the site's frontage. Staff finds that the new dwellings would generate pedestrian use of the sidewalk system directed toward three Lake Oswego Schools, located approximately ''A mile away, as well as generally within the area to access neighbors, transit, and for bicycle needs of adult and children • residents within the project. As Country Club Road is classified as a major arterial, and because it is in the public interest to provide an adequate LU 99-0029 0 1 '7 Page 13 of 29 transportation system, including pedestrian facilities along major arterials, it is appropriate to require sidewalks along the street frontage of the subject property. This will be required as a condition of this action. Exaction of this sidewalk as recommended by the Engineering staff would alleviate the additional impacts caused by this partition, does not limit development of the property, does not affect any existing structures, and would have a negligible effect on the value of the property. Staff concludes that the sidewalk along the entire 125 foot Country Club Road frontage is both reasonably related and roughly proportional to the impacts of the proposed development as required by LOC 49.22.225(1)(c)and Dolan. The proposed sewer line may also destroy the asphalt sidewalk as it extends east off site toward Verte Court. For these areas,the sidewalk shall be repaired as required by LOC 42.12(Excavations)and constructed pursuant to the City's"Standard Specifications and Details"as maintained by the City Engineer. Other Utilities All new utilities (water, sewer,gas, electric,phone, cable) are required to be installed underground. Staff recommends using the same trench for all utilities in order to minimize the width of the trenching and thus reduce potential for impacts. to trees and tree roots. Staff acknowledges that the gas line may need to be located in a separate trench, however this trench should be located as close as is practical to the other utility trench. Hillside Protection Standard (16.005— 16.040) The hillside protection standard requires that developments minimize the amount of disturbance to hillside areas to preserve the topography, vegetation, and soils. The subject property is characterized by a steep bank along Country Club Road with an overall moderate southeast slope on the remainder of the site. The applicant has proposed that the new driveway enter the site at the same location as the existing driveway to minimize the amount of cut necessary (Exhibit 32). There is one other potential entry with a lesser slope in the center of the frontage, but is less desirable in terms of impacts to trees, the amount of cut needed, and the resulting configuration of the driveway. The applicant's revised slope analysis(Exhibit 30) shows that there are no areas of slope in excess of 50%. There will be considerable grading to accommodate the storm water quality pond, but this will be located outside the steep bank area. The building pads will be primarily in areas of 0-12% slope, which will reduce the potential for impact to soil stability in the remainder of the site. Staff finds that this standard will be satisfied as shown in the applicant's grading plan (Exhibit 30) • LU 99-0029 U ry 1 Page 14 of 29 Access Standard (18.005— 18.040) • This standard requires that each newly created lot abut a public street for a minimum of 25 feet [LODS 18.020(1)]. However, per LOC 48.19.020(2), no actual street frontage is required for the flag lots. Instead, it only requires physical access to a public or private street. This requirement may be met either through a dedicated flag pole, or by the granting of reciprocal access easements. The applicant has, in this case, proposed a 24 foot wide reciprocal access easement with a 20 foot wide driveway. Recordation of this easement will be a required condition of approval as part of the plat approval. The access standard also states that"direct permanent access from a development to an arterial street is prohibited where an alternate access is either available or expected to be available," [LODS 18.020(3)]. While the applicant has proposed an access drive to Country Club Road, an arterial street, staff makes the following findings: The site (with one single family house)has a non conforming point of access to Country Club Road. The addition of 20 vehicle trips per day to this access point as a result of the proposed partition does require that the access be reviewed for compliance with current access standards, as the increase in generated traffic would represent an increase to the degree of non-conformity. There are no alternate access routes available to this site due to a combination of adverse topographic features and the developed nature of the adjacent properties. To the east lies Verte Court with no potential to develop a street connection. • . . . In fact, if right of way or access easements `' were obtained through any of the lots along < =:=- .' this street, their size would no longer meet ; the minimum lot area requirement of the R- .,•: -" 10 zone(10,000 square feet). To the north, ^ — the properties are developed with marginal ��t'' ~ • ,` . opportunity to bring access to Cameo Court. -4' �` -• Access would have to be provided through ~, ?� `�, s- -,.. • " _ the private yards of two abutting properties. - To the west,there is an underdeveloped Proposed - ' � r parcel with similar constraints as the subject - driveway - site. This property is more narrow than the subject site and would be unable to improve a full street. The property could, however, be partitioned in a like manner, resulting in additional turning movements in close proximity to the subject site. Staff finds that there is insufficient ability to provide access to an alternate street. The proposed development, similar to, and when in combination with the potential development of the abutting property to the west, will contribute to adverse traffic flows along Country Club Road unless mitigated by shared, consolidated access with the property to the west upon its development. As discussed below, the delay of III development of the subject property may be required until such time as a satisfactory access(shared, consolidated access)becomes available. LU 99-0029 Page 15 of 29 0v l} r Staff finds, however, it is not necessary to postpone the development if the applicant • agrees to provide for future shared, consolidated access at some future time when the property to the west develops, when the full adverse condition upon County Club Road would otherwise be created. To mitigate the adverse impact to the City's transportation system, shared use of the access driveway shall be provided at the time of future development of the adjoining property to the west, if the conditions for development to the west require use of a consolidated access way adjacent to or through the applicant's proposed driveway. Staff finds that this requirement will further the interests of the access management policies in the Comprehensive plan and satisfy the intent of the Access Standard. In the case that the adjoining property is developed as a minor partition (3 lots), access will be provided through the single shared drive. However, if the property is developed as a subdivision (4 or more lots), then the abutting property shall contribute additional easement area and improve the drive as deemed necessary by the City Engineer. The final partition plan(or CC&Rs)shall note that the common drive is a non- exclusive easement for the benefit of the subject property and westerly parcel if said parcel is approved for further land division. A separate CC&R document may be used to address other concerns such as maintenance, but that if the parties are not able to agree on allocation of costs, the provisions of ORS 105.170 et seq. would apply, so that each user of the shared access were to pay the fair and equitable costs of use. "Use"shall include a fair and equitable contribution for driveway access construction costs, taking into account the depreciated value of the access driveway at the time of commencement of shared use with the property to the west. • LOC 49.22.225 (1)(c)allows the reviewing authority to impose conditions of approval on a development permit when the condition is reasonably related to alleviation of a need for public services or facilities created or contributed to by the proposed development. In addition,the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled(Dolan v. The City of Tigard)that, in order to require exactions, the local government must apply a test of"rough proportionality" between the impacts of the proposed development and the need for the exaction. As previously noted, the applicant's proposal will increase the traffic generated by an average of 20 vehicle trips per day (plus the 10 trips per day attributed to the existing home) from the site onto Country Club Road. The trip estimate is based on the ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) Trip Generation Manual at 10 trips/day per single family dwelling. This increase in traffic can be directly attributable to the proposed partition (and subsequent construction of three new dwellings). Pedestrian traffic will also be generated by people who will live in the new houses, and construction vehicles will be frequenting the site during construction. The access standard prohibits direct permanent access to arterial streets where an alternate access is either available or expected to be available [LODS 18.020(3)]. This standard goes on to stipulate that "the City may require shared access with a neighboring site...to provide access to the development if necessary to prevent adverse impacts on traffic • flow." [LODS 18.020(5)]. The applicant notes that"there is also the potential for the LU 99-0029 Page 16 of 29 l�i 20 adjacent property to the west to develop in a similar configuration at some point in the IDfuture...Once that property does develop, the proposed access drive could potentially be widened to a full street" (Exhibit 8, page 15). To ensure that this possibility remains viable, the City will require the applicant to submit a reciprocal access agreement benefiting the property to the west (Tax Lot 900) activated at such time that the property is further developed into more lots. There is a"rough proportionality" between the traffic impact created by the addition of two new dwelling units, the adverse impact caused by granting of an access to Country Club Road and the need for a reciprocal access agreement to ensure that the possibility for a future permanent access be provided. Staff finds that a detrimental condition could be worsened, rather than mitigated, should the adjoining property not be permitted to utilize a shared access. This would result in two separate but close proximity access points creating possible turning conflicts and other traffic safety related problems. Due to the existing and projected future traffic volumes on Country Club Road, two separate access points with a combined total of 40 to 80 vehicle trips per day entering and leaving, Comprehensive Plan transportation policies and Access Development Standards, and the public interest generally to provide an adequate transportation system, it is appropriate to require reservation for future connection to the proposed drive from the adjoining property. This will be required as a condition of this action. Exaction of this reciprocal easement as recommended by staff would alleviate the additional IIIimpacts caused by this partition, does not limit development of the property,does not affect any existing structures,and would have a negligible effect on the value of the property. (In fact, it could have benefit to the developer of recovering some of the construction cost of the road and spreading the cost of maintenance upon more users of the roadway.) Furthermore, the exaction is necessary for the proposed development to meet the Access Standard requirements(LODS 18.020(3-6)). Without such an easement for future shared, consolidated permanent access,the subject site could not be further developed until the adjacent site is proposed for development. Staff concludes that ensuring shared use of the proposed driveway on the subject site is both reasonably related and roughly proportional to the impacts of the proposed development as required by LOC 49.22.225(1)(c)and Dolan. On-Site Circulation -Driveways and Fire Access Roads (19.005 - 19.025) This standard requires that driveways serving single-family dwellings not exceed 20 percent grade, nor 5 percent cross slope. There is a substantial grade in the first 30 feet of frontage between Country Club Road and the remainder of the site. From field investigation, the existing driveway begins at a 13.5% slope at the back edge of the sidewalk and quickly becomes a 17.5% slope until it flattens out near the existing home. The applicant's proposed driveway will follow the existing driveway's alignment. 111 However, since the existing driveway is substandard in terms of width(approximately 9 feet wide), the applicant intends to grade additional area and reshape the driveway slope. LU 99-0029 4 u 1 Page 17 of 29 The proposed driveway will not exceed a 15%maximum slope as shown in the grading plan(Exhibit 30). Driveways must be located a minimum of 30 feet from any street • corner. The nearest street corner is 175 feet away to the east. Compliance with this standard will be assured prior to building permit issuance. Since the farthest corner of a house located on proposed Parcel 1 would be located more than 150 feet from the street, the shared driveway is to be designated a fire access road. This requires that the road be built to a minimum 20 foot width, and that a turnaround meeting the City's Standard Details is needed, LODS 19.020(5). Other geometric design criteria are imposed on the turning radii to ensure that a fire truck will be able to maneuver through the site. As shown in the applicant's latest revision (Exhibit 32), the proposed turnaround is only 14 feet wide, and does not meet the minimum standard. Sufficient easement width has been shown which could accommodate a conforming turnaround width. The applicant has proposed"Turftrack" open-grid pavers in the turnaround. This is acceptable provided that the bedding is designed to handle heavy loads, typically 38,000 lbs. at the rear axle. Porous pavers, it should be noted, do not necessarily have to be planted with sod. In some applications, gravel or cinder rock are preferred,especially if one property owner is expected to maintain the grass due its proximity to his private adjacent lawn. On the final construction plans, the City Engineer will require more detailed specifications on the construction of the turnaround. This information will need to be revised as part of the final construction plan approval. 3. Any additional statutory or Lake Oswego Code provisions which may 0 be applicable to the specific major development: City of Lake Oswego System Development Charges (LOC Chapter 39): The Code requires a payment of a fee for use of the existing infrastructure at the time of development. Any charges that may apply will be calculated and levied by the Building Division at the time of issuance of building permits or additional connection to water or sewer services. Streets and Sidewalks (LOC Chapter 42): This chapter contains slope and other geometric design criteria for streets, sidewalks and intersections. No new public street is being proposed. The existing sidewalk will be destroyed as a result of extending the sewer line and will need to be replaced. There is a rational and proportionate relationship between the need for a 6 foot wide sidewalk and the residents of the project to use sidewalk facilities in front of the property and general use of the sidewalk system in the neighborhood. As Country Club Road is classified as a Major Arterial, and because it is in the public interest to provide an adequate transportation system, including adequate facilities for pedestrian circulation along major arterials, it is appropriate to require a six foot wide sidewalk along the street frontage of the subject property. Additionally, any areas beyond the subject site frontage that are disturbed to accommodate the utility installation will need to be reconstructed according 410 LU 99-0029 Page 18 of 29 'dr72 to the City's "Standard Details and Specifications." This will be required as a condition • of this action. Exaction of this sidewalk as recommended by the staff would alleviate the additional impacts caused by this partition,does not limit development of the property,does not affect any existing structures,and would have a negligible effect on the value of the property. These issues have been discussed in detail in previous sections of this report. Tree Ordinance(LOC Chanter 55): This Ordinance requires that applicants receive City approval before removing any tree whose trunk exceeds five inches in diameter at 4.5 feet above ground. An evaluation of that removal request shall occur as a part of a minor development application, subject to Type II Criteria as listed in LOC 55.02.080(1-4). Per the applicant's submittal, there are 159 trees on site (see arborist's report, Exhibit 11). The front and rear of the property is characterized by a small grove of Douglas fir trees (Exhibit 30). To protect these trees during development of the site and construction of the homes, a minimum 6' high chain link protection fence will be required to be installed around the remaining trees on site at a distance sufficient to protect the trunk and critical root zone of the trees. • The applicant has proposed the following tree removals in order to construct the necessary improvements and allow sufficient area for three building sites. The tree removal will need to occur in two stages. The first stage will be trees removed in order to construct the driveway, install utilities, and build the water quality facility. Remaining trees will need to be protected by a tree protection zone (6' chain link fence and appropriate signage) established at the edge of the utility and access easement. The second stage of removals will occur at each individual building permit issuance. These trees shall be protected during site development and shall not be removed prior to building permit issuance for each parcel. Tree Removal Summary Parcel Evergreens Removed Deciduous Removed Evergreens Deciduous g o v ,5 o Replaced Replaced a o a 1 4 1 2 6 1 4 4 0 0 2 5 I 5 1 I 1 3 6 3 17 3 I 1 21 17 12 19 28 4 Total 42 25 31 10 As seen in the above table, the proposal fails to comply with the minimum one new tree for each tree removed mitigation requirement of the Flag Lot Ordinance [LOC • 48.19.035(4)]. As a result, the applicant will be required to supplement the replanting LU 99-0029 Page 19 of 29 plan (Exhibit 34) with additional evergreen and deciduous trees. All evergreens shall be a minimum 6-8 foot tall, and all deciduous trees shall be 2" minimum caliper. Since the • arborist's evaluation indicates the presence of Armillaria root rot which has affected many of the fir trees on site, replantings shall be of a specie that is resistant to this affliction. Examples include dawn redwood, coast redwood, white fir, incense cedar, bigleaf maple, madrone, western redbud, and tulip tree. The planting of new trees in direct proportion to the number and type of trees removed will, over time, reestablish the character and aesthetics of the site and neighborhood. The use of storm drain systems, and engineered slopes and retaining walls will prevent erosion and protect soil stability. Staff finds that the retention of the trees identified to stay in the applicant's tree removal plan (Exhibit 34) in conjunction with the trees identified by staff to remain will provide suitable protection of the existing windbreak and other existing trees. Staff has a large concern with the amount of large trees removed along the west property line to accommodate the proposed drive. Staff believes that by shifting the drive as shown in Exhibit 35, 8 additional trees(#584, 585, 586, 587, 588, 589, 590, and 637)can be retained. Additionally, staff does not believe that trees#546, #517, #508, #509, #502, #503, and#640 need to be removed in order to construct the site improvements. Limited grading and use of small crib walls will be able to retain these additional trees. Trees within the specified building envelopes will be reviewed at the time of building permit application to determine which trees require removal to accommodate the proposed home. Due to the close proximity of several trees at the edge of the building envelopes, the • applicant will be required to either maintain future dwellings a minimum 10 foot distance from the edge of the trees located outside the building envelopes with the use of tree protection fencing or will need to construct the homes with the use of pier and beam foundation construction. No trench style excavation or linear digging (perpendicular to the tree roots) within the drip line of the trees shall be allowed. In the case where a trench must be dug within the dripline, such excavation shall be done by hand and supervised by a certified arborist. Large roots (over 3" diameter) shall not be cut unless absolutely required for installation of utilities. The arborist shall make recommendations to City staff to address any impact inflicted on trees, and the applicant shall immediately implement such recommendations once approved by staff. Trees within the shown building envelopes that are not needed to be removed to site the home shall not be approved through a verification process, and will be subject to the Tree Code in effect at the time of the tree removal application. The applicant will be required to submit a final tree removal/tree protection plan prior to approval of the final partition plan. Solar Access Ordinance (LOC Chanter 571 This Ordinance requires that 80%of the parcels resulting from a minor partition approval in the R-7.5 zone must comply with the solar design standard [LOC 57.04.020]. In this • LU 99-0029 2 4 Page 20 of 29 V. ACTION TAKEN • Staff approves LU 99-0029, to the followingconditions: PP subject A. Prior to annroval of the final nartition nlan. the annlicants/owners shall: 1. Obtain a demolition permit for the existing structures on the subject site and obtain final building inspection approval after the demolition is complete. 2. Submit a final plat [dimensioned as depicted in Exhibit 31, except as modified by conditions A.4. and A.5. below, referencing this land use application -- City of Lake Oswego Department of Planning and Development, File No. LU 99-0029] to City staff for review and signature of approval within one year of the date of this decision. Upon written application, prior to expiration of the one-year period, the City Manager shall, in writing, grant a one-year extension. Additional extensions may be requested in writing and must be submitted to the City Manager for review of the project for conformance with current law, development standards and compatibility with development which may have occurred in the surrounding area. The extension may be granted or denied and if granted, may be conditioned to require modification to bring the project into compliance with then current law and compatibility with surrounding development. • 3. Register the final plat with the Clackamas County Surveyor's office and record the plat with Clackamas County Clerk's office, within 30 days of receiving the signature of authorization by the City. 4. Label lots 1,2, and 3 as Parcels 1, 2, and 3 respectively. 5. Provide the following notes on the final platg: a. Parcels 1,2 and 3 are Solar Lots subject to the Solar Access Ordinance [LOC 57.06.050 - 57.06.090]. b. Parcels 1 and 2 are Flag Lots subject to LOC 48.19.030 and the specific condition imposed by Case File No. LU 99-0029 and applicable Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions(CC&R's). c. Access to Country Club Road shall be provided solely through the joint access driveway. Parcel I shall not take any other direct means of access to Country Club Road. d. The above requirements are conditional restrictions of the City of Lake Oswego and are not a part of the plat. • 2 If the County Surveyor should reject the information as appearing on the plat,then the information shall be contained within a restrictive covenant upon the property,which can not be amended without the written consent of the City. LU 99-0029 .' "J Page 22 of 29 6. Illustrate public and private utility easements on the final partition plan for the public water, public sewer, and private drainage improvements for review and approval by staffs Furthermore, illustrate a reciprocal access easement and legal descriptions benefiting Parcels 1, 2, and 3. This access easement shall also provide for future shared use (non- exclusive easement) of the access driveway for the abutting property to the west(Tax Lot 900) at such time that said abutting property may be required, if the conditions for development to the west(abutting property)require use of a consolidated access way adjacent to or through the applicant's access easement, subject to the abutting property's obligation to compensate the applicant(or applicant's successors in interest) for the depreciated value of construction of the access easement and for future maintenance costs, as provided by agreement,or if no agreement, then ORS 105.170 et seq. shall control. These easements shall not be amended without prior written approval from the City of Lake Oswego. 7. Prepare and submit Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) for staff review and approval that address maintenance responsibilities for private driveway, private utilities, dry-pond storm water quality facility (landscaping and infrastructure), and required landscape buffers along the east property line of Parcel 2 and north and east property line of Parcel 1. The CC&R's shall also stipulate the location of the solar building lines and setbacks for Parcels 1 and 2 as shown in Exhibit 31. The CC&R's shall additionally obligate the future owners of Parcels 1, 2, and 3 to agree to share access (non-exclusive easement) with the abutting property (Tax Lot 900) to the west, upon such time that said property is approved for further division by the City of Lake Oswego and • the abutting property is required to use consolidated access easement adjacent to or through the access driveway. Reimbursement of the pro rata share of construction costs, taking into account the depreciated value of the access driveway, and maintenance responsibility shall be as agreed to by all interested parties, or if no agreement can be reached, then such responsibilities shall be as per ORS 105.170 et. seq. Include the following information in the CC&R's: a. Parcels 1, 2 and 3 are Solar Lots. Development of structures or planting of non-exempt vegetation on Parcels 1, 2 and 3 shall comply with the Solar Balance Point provisions of the Solar Access Ordinance [LOC 57.06.050 - 57.06.090]. This requirement shall be binding upon the applicant and subsequent purchasers of Parcels 1, 2 and 3. b. Parcels 1 and 2 are Flag Lots. Development of structures shall comply with the provisions of LOC 48.19.030 regarding Building and Site Design Standards, including height limitations, garage placement, and landscape buffer and mitigation requirements, except as modified below: i. For the purpose of calculating the maximum allowed height of future dwellings on Parcels 1 and 2 (the flag lots), sixteen (16) feet shall be the used as the height of the dwelling on Parcel 3 in perpetuity. This height restriction shall remain in effect no matter in what order the houses on Parcels 2 and 3 are constructed. The actual building height on Parcel 1 • LU 99-0029 0026 Page 23 of 29 shall comply with height restrictions of the R-7.5 zone in effect at the • time of building permit application. ii. The setbacks for Parcels 1 and 2 shall be as shown in Exhibit 31 of City of Lake Oswego Planning and Development Case File No. LU 99-0029. c. After construction of dwellings on Parcel 1, 2 and 3, trees measuring 10 inches or greater in diameter at DBH may be removed only after they have been shown to be hazardous to life or property by a certified arborist, and after a Type II tree cutting permit has been obtained from the City. Mitigation trees shall be required on a one-for-one basis. Mitigation trees shall have a minimum 2-inch caliper for deciduous trees and a minimum eight-foot height for evergreen trees. d. Access to Country Club Road shall be provided solely through the joint access driveway. Parcel 1 shall not take any other direct means of access to Country Club Road. 8. Submit a final tree removal/tree protection plan that reflect the modifications resulting from Conditions (A)(11)(a) and (A)(11)(d). 9. Submit a revised tree mitigation plan that shows replanting a direct proportion of evergreen trees(shall be a minimum of 8 feet tall and consist of a mix of dawn redwood, • coast redwood, white fir, and/or incense cedar)and deciduous trees (shall be a minimum of 2" caliper and consist of a mix of bigleaf maple, madrone, western redbud, and/or tulip trees) for each evergreen and/or deciduous tree removed. 10. Prepare and submit final construction drawings for review and approval by staff that illustrate the following: a. Storm drainage plans substantially in conformance with exhibit 32 except as modified as follows: i. Addition of a strip or area drain at the south end of the proposed shared accessway tied directly into the existing system on Country Club Road. ii. The route of the private storm drain line shall avoid trees, and where necessary, shall be hand dug or bored under tree roots. iii. Revised pond configuration to minimize impact to trees and tree roots iv. Include representative cross-sections of the length and width of the water quality feature,profile of storm drain lines, and design of outlet control structures, in order to assure compliance with all aspects of design standards. v. Show location of maintenance access for dry-pond storm water quality facility. 1111 vi. Illustrate landscaping for the dry pond area. 0027 7 LU 99-0029 Page 24 of 29 b. Public water service plan that includes a new fire hydrant on a separate 6" line with a valve assembly and 2"public line extended up the shared driveway. • Show plan and profile for these extensions. c. Plan and profile for the sanitary sewer extension as shown in Exhibit 32. d. Plan and profile of the proposed shared driveway , together with specifications of the turnaround. The driveway shall be shifted to the east at a point just past tree# 561 in order to preserve trees# 584, 585, 586, 587, 588, 589, 590, and 637 as indicated in Exhibit 35. The road bed shall be built on existing grade where possible around these trees to limit disturbance to tree roots. A licensed engineer shall certify that the turnaround will be able to support the axle weight of a loaded fire truck. The drive shall be a minimum 20 feet wide, paved with a hard surface material. e. 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk along the site's frontage on Country Club Road and a note on the plans that any off-site areas disturbed by utility construction shall be repaired to City standards and the satisfaction of staff. f. Underground service of all utilities. To the extent possible, all utilities shall be placed in a single trench to reduce impact to trees. 11. Prepare and submit for review and approval, a final drainage report. This report shall address the revised configuration of the dry pond, specification of the release rate and design of the flow control structure. • 12. Submit a revised grading plan for review and approval of staff to address tree protection concerns as outlined in condition(A)(10)(a)(iii)and(A)(10)(d). 13. Complete construction of the all public improvements as approved by staff, or provide a financial guarantee for their construction pursuant to LOC 49.58.1415. B. Prior to construction of any improvements or any other site work, the applicants/ owners shall: 1. Provide evidence that Conditions A.1. through A.13. have been satisfied. 2. Obtain tree cutting permits for only those trees to be removed in order to construct the necessary site improvements, in accordance with condition A(9). 3. Install a minimum 6' high chain link fence along the edge of the grading limits as shown in Exhibit 35 as modified by condition A(12)to protect trees that remain. Fencing shall also be established along the western property line to protect trees C. Prior to issuance of any building permits. the applicants/owners shall: 1. Provide evidence that conditions B(1)through B(3) have been satisfied. • 2. Provide evidence that the final partition plat has been properly recorded. LU 99-0029 0 0 2 S Page 25 of 29 3. Submit a final landscape plan to address the landscaping and buffering requirements of LOC 48.19.035 for the review and approval of staff. Areas requiring additional landscaping are shown in Exhibit 35. Landscape material for the buffer shall be selected from the table in Exhibit 35 and shall consist of 5 gallon minimum size containers planted at approximate 5 foot intervals. Existing vegetation and trees may be integrated as screening pursuant to LOC 48.19.035(2), where practicable. If at some future time, vegetation on Parcels 1 and 2 is removed to the extent that the adjacent properties are not substantially screened(plantings maintained at a height of six feet along the east property line), the property owner of the parcel on which the vegetation was removed shall be responsible for providing screening and landscaping in compliance with LOC 48.19.035(3), unless the abutting property owner agrees in writing that vegetation and/or a fence is not necessary. This requirement shall be recorded with the aforementioned CC&R's. 4. Complete construction of all public improvements, the shared driveway, and the storm water quality facility, and provide the City with certified"as-built" drawings complying with the City's standards for record drawings. 5. Obtain separate tree cutting permits for each parcel to remove only those trees within the building envelopes as shown in Exhibit 31 in order to site the proposed dwelling. Trees • that are not needed to be removed to site the dwelling shall be subject to the review criteria and process for a Type II tree cutting permit. D. Prior to final buildins inspection annroval for each parcel.the annlicants/owners shall: 1. Install required landscape buffer and required tree mitigation per the final landscape and final mitigation plans, as well as a 6 foot tall wood screening fence as shown in Exhibit 32. Each parcel shall only be responsible for the installation of landscaping and fencing as shown for that particular parcel as part of final building approval. E. Miscellaneous: 1. The applicant/owner shall note that all setbacks, lot coverage, and height requirements governing subsequent construction shall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date of recording of the final partition plat, except for parcels that are subject to special setbacks as listed in Condition A(8)(b)(ii), above. Following that date,the setbacks, lot coverage, and height limitations of the underlying zone in effect shall apply to development on Parcel 3 [LOC 48.20.515(3)]. 2. After construction of dwellings on Parcels 1,2 and 3, all trees measuring 10 inches or greater in diameter at DBH may be removed only after they have been • shown to be hazardous to life or property by a certified arborist, and after a Type II tree cutting permit has been obtained from the City. Mitigation trees shall be LU 99-0029 0u29 Page26of29 required on a one-for-one basis. Deciduous trees at planting shall be a minimum of 2-inch caliper and evergreen trees shall be a minimum of eight feet tall. • 3. The applicant/owner shall maintain buildings a minimum 10 foot distance from the edge of the trees located outside the building envelopes with the use of tree protection fencing or if constructed closer, shall construct the homes with pier and beam foundation construction. No trench style excavation or linear digging (perpendicular to the tree roots) within the drip line of the trees shall be allowed. In the case where a trench must be dug within the dripline, such excavation shall be done by hand and supervised by a certified arborist. Large roots(over 3"diameter) shall not be cut unless absolutely required for installation of utilities. The arborist shall make recommendations to City staff to address any impact inflicted on trees, and the applicant/owner shall immediately implement such recommendations once approved by staff. S • LU 99-0029 0 :: 3 0 Page 27 of 29 Exhibits 1. Tax Map 2. Vicinity Map 3.Neighborhood Meeting Notes 2/25/99 Applicant's 1st Submittal, Received April 22, 1999 4.Narrative 5. Cover Sheet 6. Existing Conditions, Tree Survey,Topography, Structures 7. Proposed Partition Plan Applicant's 2nd Submittal, Received July 16, 1999 8.Narrative 9. Building Height Survey 10. Sun Angle Calculations 11. Arborist Report 12. Cover Sheet 13. Existing Conditions,Tree Survey,Topography, Slope Analysis, Structures 14. Proposed Partition Plan, Solar Building Lines, Setbacks 15. Site Plan, Grading Limits, Utilities, Fire Access Road 16. Sun Shade Diagram 17. Tree Removal, Landscape Plan Applicant's 3rd Submittal, Received October 19, 1999-Full size (18"x24") drawings in file 18. Drainage Report • 19. Cover Sheet 20. Existing Conditions,Tree Survey,Topography, Slope Analysis, Structures 21. Proposed Partition Plan, Solar Building Lines, Setbacks 22. Site Plan, Grading Limits, Utilities, Fire Access Road 23. Sun Shade Diagram 24. Tree Removal, Landscape Plan 25. Drainage Swale and Turnaround Detail Applicant's 4th(Pending)Submittal, Received November 9, 1999-Full size (18"x24')drawings in file 26.Narrative 27. Revised Drainage Report 28. Landscape Screen and Fencing Requirement Waiver 29. Cover Sheet 30. Existing Conditions, Tree Survey,Topography, Slope Analysis, Structures 31. Proposed Partition Plan, Solar Building Lines, Setbacks 32. Site Plan, Grading Limits, Utilities, Fire Access Road 33. Sun Shade Diagram 34. Tree Removal, Landscape Plan 35. Illustration of Staffs Recommended Changes to Site Plan 36. Letter from Ian Underwood and Mary McGlone,dated August 23, 1999 37. Letter from Kevin Mead,dated August 22, 1999 38. Letter from Florence Kennedy,dated August 22, 1999 • 39. Letter of Incompleteness to the Applicant,dated May 14, 1999 40. Engineering Staffs Reviews of Applicant's Submittals LU 99-0029 Page 28 of 29 i) j L • Prepared by: 12 - q - (9 y organ Tfacy Date Associate Planner Approved by: €77--7-,777 q4; /„.V Tom Coffee Date Assistant City Manager Reviewed by: 111/ �I (-t r z 9�f 9 / van Boone Date Deputy City Attorney Date of Application Submittal:Anvil 22. 1999 Date Determined to be Complete:August 9. 1999 State Mandated 120-Day Rule: December 21. 1999(with waiver) I:lmorgan_tlnetdocs\reports opencase\Iu99-0029-matrixUu99-0029sr.doc LU 99-0029 Page 29 of 29 . OCT-31-98 15:12 FROIM-FI DEL ITY CUST SERVICE +5032275478 T-765 P.03/06 F-510 MEW 2605 2606 n. ,seava- it r„�.��c�ai,a i. ..1.,.„ rM �-1 1 _ 1 uue • 16oC: I 1.1121 2 95 Ge. I C 0 1 26Q4 + 2607 1111 t71l1 1 5 ' Illsl = I1 .dl • G • ..y i RIDGE' 6 2603 I:Z, "• \\\:\\\%\‘.,:t 2608 Z Ci I311/ . Wei a w /217F3 11 t • N z 1- • , , 'i' 2602 j S 1 • ! 17151 T 4 Z60 • 1 _ 0.46ac ? MN 1 INM i M 1 ,,, , • W „a+ a.-. . l; Q °\ o4 2801 I— . � '�' c��K�s1401 i §I K 0.32Ac 1 I j . -,\:"...\\.\\ .... • • • i NO. 3 I ('b"AVEN UE) CLUB COU N'TRY MKT- ROAD- _ - _ r - - - - �- -y—s :� ,. ;4. 0 0 • I; I s OW AC 0 1 I 3000 3100 3200 a Jwt 0 97 M. • 0.14 Ac 029 Ae A Nit ' cit.i _ O w -,- i 1 i asr6 -- SEE MAP 2 11 &.)r 11 1. • I01-• Z90 _ Srr7 lA�t . i �{'.E� ,--- r 1 :ray.�]'..z ... ..To.. ._1.N+J.:}}I•, 1 .V 1.-.M/..Li @Pala%44:=XV. 411! MAP EXHIBIT 1 LU 99-0029 i . _ 0v33 +C.AC,(ANAS COUNTY. t• 'CLACKAMAS COUNTY va•!..?? AKE U?WL1aU j ._9.a NEXT MAP PAGE 6 \ti \• } 1•.•.• .�' .' - - � ' : N% Ki _,i':', .Y(!>t ON • ECK st9T.E. enRK FTIR ST NEADOWS - WAY - '■��N 1, -R /$ i" \ 73050 Y ! tire �' ZUAL i ..n1rr •I • $ e e $ I ig iit • fisW 13959 ¢ :3062 1313t I L E 1 •.� meg! _ sift -4CW�� .:+ • VIEW LANE':::;::. 13061 :30e0 (‘7-7:711:41;17172 .--. 138• 807 :3330 i + g ' � - . e� ®4Q.13079 W 13201 ' I § : I _ I § x I u F go $ r 13092 I :I; u I mI $ :3101 ; 33•C TIMBERLINE • ' - - DRIVE 8 § 53 § - 950 . :3209 KRAUS:3211 RESERVOIR I1324o I : I i it i 8 e i i ' 1• + R (� " . :3237 :321`. I 11 N s lJ 13305 lli/e/4 �� 13310 \ rt '' le 8 rJ " I 4 u COUNTRY 0309 —I 0 �f ' 1 13371 1376� 13311 13322 COMMONS M*.41, .. 1330: 1,,13337u'� 13300 13.01 13a30 se" �' • � m� 1 o �17ttlimpois �► �� >= 1.d I3360 CU - 13440 i lt 1 ��� I• k—i: 13s23 �� I. • v :3395 I13585 I • - OSWEGO' D'• :3601 13612 + Gt]IJNT'Y. 0.0 13615 w`4 '• { ,1 •1 I • • • • •�• (<• 13501 13699 -_ ,0 t»74' t�- I .•j:. -..� :3790 �13719 I ;R-/z 5• I_ - .n,, �Z _, J r u - m 1 ` 13781 LJ - . ' iI:370: S ', � -H:�.;hip dy 1<� �ryA RQAD Y Vi. Y .tr8 b O d 4 :380013988r S3e8P- iE38e2 13765 u S - u' I •b ��� - u 13961 ; . 1 ••• - I ,.� cour,rY - r I. 3962 f 1100 lsecm jcm ♦ ti a .. ' ' IRON MTN. C EEK -' • ' • NATURAL AR A 114!211111 1.160 ut21 "u120 r it • Q AKE OS1tl ® w U l3&11 e 11I30 -� L� _ I I COON'T I.124 t•115 1 • 22 YY��� •-t '•Call '1a3s ` 'ice. 14151 g § fig\ a 4 _ •00 Bess aa gg it _ ;''''.. 1 all . COUNTRY V o � - 1-1 - CLUB ROAD lilt 1934 1997 + I PAW.WY=E OL_COWRY CLW itti s� - - - 1981 t985 1.280 ®� �. L S 11'C 14360 ,1, 1957 1•370 ®1a371 1951 tow CV 1670 y1dr 6 11tlC 1860, 011 71,35 001011 1.4 T `J 1141Pdg. a s OSWEGO LAKE COUNTRY CLUB GOLF COURSE { • s Alcilli .15, ...,,,, „,:, °6 R-15 0u' 34 R-15 EXHIBIT2 ts i 1 , ,. LU 99-0029 g ti ��• g \ YNEx1 W R G DESIG N I N C . • MEETING NOTES Project: Blue Leaf RE: Neighborhood Meeting Date: 2/25/99 Location: Lake Oswego Adult Community Cenfer WRG#: MAT005 Prepared By: Jeffrey A. Curran, P.E. Project Manager Present: Ryan Selby, Matrix . Mimi Doukas, WRG Jeff Curran, WRG Neighbors (See attached attendance list) Distribution: City of Lake Oswego CF File(MAT005.d2) A neighborhood meeting was held to discuss the proposed 6 unit(3 duplex development). A general project 11111 overview was provided along with some of the specific details including utility services, access, setbacks, tree removal, and typical building style examples. The neighbors expressed significant concern regarding the project with the focus on several key issues. A letter from Kevin Mead representing the Forest Highlands Neighborhood was also submitted and read at the meeting. A copy is included with the application. The key issues raised are itemized as follows: • Proposed development density is generally inconsistent with surrounding low to medium density development. • No precedent has been set for allowing Multi-unit development in established single family areas of Lake Oswego. • Existing zoning requires single family development. • Strong reference was made to a Forest Highlands neighborhood plan (not adopted by the City)that would clearly preclude muti-unit development in this area. • Concern over"cookie cutter" layout— not compatible with existing architectural style and diversity. • Existing trees were part of Tree Grove 16 on prior Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. • Reference was made to Statewide Planning Goal 5 regarding protection of significant natural areas. G 1WRGIFORMSIPROJECTTEAMICORRESUATGNOTES.DOC PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS EXHIBIT 3 10450 SW Nimbus Ave., Portland, OR 97223 / (503) 603-c LU 99-0029 10 i�rty Oregon a 17evada l t ) 2 _ J Blue Leaf • Neighborhood Meeting Notes February 25. 1999 Page 2 of 2 • Mrs. Kennedy was very concerned about grading and drainage. She feared that development of the property uphill from her lot would result in increased runoff and potential slope instability. • Several residents were concerned about access to Country Club Rd. Suggestions of a right in/right out access were offered. • Economic impact to existing home values was raised. The estimated price of the duplex units was in the low to mid $200's which is ''significantly' less than adjacent homes. • Duplexes could easily become rentals and the general consensus among the neighbors was that"renters" don't share the pride of ownership with homeowners and will not take as good of care of their homes/yard/etc. Rental homes were not generally acceptable to the neighbors. • Fear that approval of this multi-unit development would set a precedent for more multi-unit developments. • Architectural style would lack creativity and result in generic -towering structures". • J\DATAW1AT0051WORD\NEIGHMEETING.DOC • 03/02/1999 23: 22 5036357875 MEAD �j PAGE 01 ;FAX IDate 311/99 • I Number of pages including cover sheet , • PTO: Mimi Dukes FROM: Kevin Mead • • ,Phone Phone Fax Phone Fax Phone " ' 't';:-ro;r I CC: s' EMARKS: Q Urgent ❑ For your review ❑ Reply ASAP Please Comment P y ❑ • 6iml: Attached is a copy of the letter Mary McGlone read at the recent meeting involving 1501 Country Club Rd.. I 4vould like this entered into the record for the meeting. Additionally, I would like to have an opportunity to speak Yvith you regarding a possible meeting with the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Steering Committee. I have contacted the planning dept. to get a specific zoning reference on the PUD petition. This will certainly be something that will encounter much debate from the community as it sets a precedent outside of existing zoning 'ordinances as well as our current plan and draft plan. A comment was made at the meeting regarding the lack of an existing neighborhood plan. This has raised quite a stir with the 3Ssbciation as it appears that communications Coming from the planning commission to your organization are intended to convey the lack of a consensus on planning for the community. The Forest Highlands Association took a firm position on not wanting designate the transit corridor property owners (i.e. Verde Ct. & others)that they would have to bear the brunt of density displacement or multi-unit development. This has been a major stumbling block with the planning commission as they would have like for our community to actel7t large scale density displacement. would ask out of courtesy that you contact Diane Davis- Chair of the neighborhood association. I am sure Diane tan arrange for a meeting with members of the Assoc. regarding your proposed development. Diane can be Leached at (835-3473) do want to communicate that I have fully reviewed the ESEE resource conservation overlay for the lot in question. There is an egregious error in the designation of the lot as being insignificant. I am consulting with the folks in the Salem regarding this. I'll have a response for you soon regarding the disposition of a possible appeal tegarding the Salix & Assoc. scoring on this lot. Regards, Kevin Mead 11111 037 03/02/1999 23:22 5036357675 MEAD PAGE 02 • To whom it may concern: • The controversy over density infill within our community will continue to be debated. One issue that has already been debated and rejected by the community is the concept of density displacement and incor•lxxration of multi-unit dwellings within the community. I am confident that an effort will be made to convince the neighborhood that three multi=unit duplex buildings will create less of a footprint vs. six single family residences and thus should be perceived as a better alternative. This alternative is not the best solution for our comrntmity and is certainly inconsistent • with all planning aspects within the neighborhood. The overwhelming consensus agreement reached at the Thursday night 8/28/97 Forest Highlands Neighborhood Assoc. meeting by a quorum vote 30 to 3 (section 4 of Forest Highlands by-laws) was to restrict any type of multi-unit development anywhere within the Forest Highlands community. The preservation of the community character to include medium to low density single family residences only and no multi-unit development is also reinforced by three community surveys(Peter Wright Door-to-boar, Jane Heisler and 1991 Lake Oswego Community Attitude Survey). Existing density of the community is approx.3 units per acre. The current distribution of density is as follows: R-20 —39% R-15 - 27% R-10 - 30% R-7.5- 4.5% R-5&R-3 are under 1% Nowhere within the Forest Highlands community does the precedent for multi-unit family housing exist. • pensity Displacement&Multi-Unit Development • The concept of density displacement is dangerous far our community for the following reasons: • • Encourages multi-use dwellings within our community where none currently exists. This type of development is contrary to the community's wishes and also violates existing Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan and possibly Lake Oswego Zoning ordinances for Forest Highlands_ On page 49-6 of the L.O.zoning ordinances,a duplex is defined as: A building on a lot designed to contain tow dwelling units and used for residential purposes. The existing zoning requires a detached(not adjoined)dwelling designed fbr residential purposes. Any attempt to designate or portray a duplex as as anything other than an attached two residence dwelling will be considered misleading and should be challenged under the existing code definitions. • A new zoning precedent will become part of our neighborhood if the duplex development is allowed. This will pave the way per the existing zoning ordinances for more liberal zoning interpretation of what is currently allowed In other words,approval in one section of the neighborhood increases the prospects of approval in other similar open space. This issue is clearly spelled out in the current Lake Oswego Zoning ordinances. • Multi-use development is clearly inconsistent with the neighborhood's neighborhood plan character, respect for child and citizen safety,environrnental goals,capacity and zoning. • Existing zoning codes designate R 7.5 as being median to low density and per section 48.06.195—it should consist of one family dwelling unit per lot. Section 7 of this code designates cluster developments. In order to comply with the code,the buildings must be grouped on lots that contain less area per dwelling unit than the minimum required by the zone 0036- f a 03/02/1999 23: 22 5036357875 MEAD PAGE 03 • Draft Neighborhood Plan • • Page 9,item 418 C -Changes to high density residential(R-O, R-3, R-5)shall occur on lots alaog major or • minor arterials along transit routes and within'/.mile of shopping. Tbis development is considered multi- unit higher density and does not meet the specific criteria spelled out within the zoning ordinance, The development will not be within'/.mile of shopping opportunities_ Page 7,bullet pt.43—Calls for consistency and compatibility of new construction with existing neighborhood so that new residents identify so that new residents identify with the larger neighborhood Page 7,paragraph 3—The traditional cookie-cutter approach to development at the densities discussed and with the infrastructure now available would destroy the character and quality of the neighborhood as it exists and should not be allowed. All of these elements have been drawn from the Lake Oswego Comp. Plan. This development would clearly violate the plan. DNA Designation The property in question has been previously designated as a Distinct Natural Area under the L.O.Comp. Plan. This was modified wider the newer ESEE site-specific significance determination analysis. The analysis conducted by SaliX Associates showed that the area is a coniferous forest dominated by large Douglas Firs. The summary on page 55 of the L_O.Comp. Plans states that: Statewide land use Goal 5 requires site specific mapping and an ESFF analysis for distinctive natural areas. The Goal 5 process must be used to add new sites to the DNA list as additional distinctive features are brought to the City's attention and as endangered species are identified. The net effect of the remapping for this parcel was to reduce or rate insignificant the previous tree grove designation and allow for density infill. Additionally, Goal 5 states that the highest valued natural resources and DNA's within Lake Oswego's USB boundary may merit full preservation within there are no conflicting uses identified Other DNA's may merit a more limited level of protection. The designation for this parcel as managed by the L.O. associate planner is for no level of protection to be assigned. The net effect of the new resource map actually reduced acreage previously protected under the pervious designations. The Notice of Legislative Public Hearing"Nature of Application"should be contested by the } FH Neighborhood Assoc. as it was intended to clearly indicate the location of natural resources that would I be subject to the Sensitive Lands Ordinance and not to identify those areas that will be removed from the list. At the very least,the property in question should be reconsidered for protection measures. Questions What will be the cost per sq. foot for construction and landscaping? How does it comply with recent comparable cost per square foot dwellings built in Forest Highlands,i.e., SW Knaus road/Goodall homes and SW Knaus homes midway between Cameo Ct.and Forest Meadows? Is there consistency in cost per square foot build-out? What is the specific code allowance that will entitle development of multi-unit dwellings? • What is Matrix Development Company's sensitivity to the existing neighborhood plan and 1999 draft plan? r ZI2z1 _ „ j 1/ fiAu� +fit , ;,,►, ' few 101( teey,t.s DT' 6 G k la i �� 0U39 (33/02/1999 23: 22 5036357875 MEAD PAGE 04 f , s • To: Peter Wright &Forest Highlands Steering Committee Members From: Kevin Mead Subject: Meeting with Tom Coffey&Jane Heisler Dear Peter: As a follow-up to our most recent conversation on Sunday, 9/14 and neighborhood meeting Thursday, 8/28, I wanted to reinforce the consensus position of the community which I hope will be strongly • • conveyed at your meeting on Wed 9/17. I believe the meeting is intended to provide the city with an update of our progress on a neighborhood plan and to explore the broader issues that are at the core of our plan development. As we discussed, it cannot be emphasized enough that the two core issues facing this community are: 1)Level of acceptable density zoning and overlay and it's impact on our infrastruct v 2)Acceptability of multi-unit development and density displacement Issues including, sidewalks, pathways, streetlights,bike paths,transportation are all important but should not be considered as a positive tradeoff for high density impact on our children's safety and education; micro-environment denigration;broad based negative financial hardship; infrastructure collapse and overall lessening of the quality of life that has been a major attraction to our neighborhood The overwhelming consensus agreement reached at the Thursday night 8/28 meeting by an approximate 30 to 3 vote and reinforced by two community surveys(including the 1991 Lake Oswego Community Attitude Survey)and a variety of sub-neighborhood low density preservation acts(Atwater Group, Lower Knaus Group, Cameo Ct. Group,Forest Meadows Group, Redwood Ct.Nerde Ct_ Group, Country Commons Group,Pink Horse Group,etc.)clearly defines the communities intent and interests as low density zoning without compromise. Additionally, the community consensus also has agreed that multi- unit/cluster development or use of such in a density displacement overlay is not in the best interests of the community at large and is not consistent with the Forest Highlands Neighborhood plan nor the linkage of the neighborhood plan to the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. The foundation of our community-based zoning and density plan is predicated upon the majority community members desire to preserve our unique character and infrastructure by not accepting anything less than R-20 zoning as the minimum acceptable overlay for all annexed portions of the Forest Highlands community. Not only is the overwhelming community member majority interest but it is also supported by Page 7,bullet pt. #3,page 7,paragraph#3,page 9, item#18 as well as other sections of our own neighborhood plan Additionally, several sections of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan also support preservation of like zoning and character preservation as being compatible with the existing neighborhood zoning and character. Additionally, the need for increased housing to support population growth projection in our community is not supported by the Oregon Board of Realtors Sept. 1997 statistics which show a 20.4%increase in the number of residential dwellings available Sept. 1997 vs. Sept. 1996. Barbara Sue Seal (8/28/97)statistics for Lake Oswego show a substantial new number of 1997 available listings vs. 1996 including 41%of the properties being listed under S200,000. E • 03/02/1999 23:22 5036357875 MEAD PAGE 05 411 The concept of density displacement is dangerous and will certainly be used as a tactic to imply that clustered homes will preserve in-fill open spaces and still help meet our city imposed density overlay. The reality is that density displacement: 1)Encourages multi-use dwellings within our community which is directly contrary to the community consensus. • 2) Allows for zoning precedents ill our community other than consensus R-20. New precedents can be used to allow more liberal zoning and interpretation of what we will allow/accept_ It may also help substantiate legal interpretation which would encourage similar zoning allowances. 3)Multi-unit dwellings are completely out of character with our community thus violating the integrity of • our Forest Highlands Neighborhood plan and the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. i• 4)Multi-unit dwellings impact our community's resources beyond capacity (roads, safety, schools,ect.). 5)Most importantly, density displacement does not guarantee that all other open space in-fill sections of Forest Highlands will not be developed. The revised overlay created by Ralph T. showed that even with density displacement we would have approx. 359 potential units in our community. The original target homes# for Forest Highlands as communicated by Metro&Mary,Peaslee's Monday, May 19 newsletter shows 300 homes. This represents a 19.6%increase in dwellings above a Metro imposed target level. The 300 home target level has already been deemed objectionable and unacceptable by the majority community consensus. Please keep in mind that these numbers have been developed by a professional architect/developer and should be considered as a realistic density imposition upon our community. By encouraging defiisity displacement, we would actually be encouraging density levels above what is already targeted for our community. Peter,Mary&Diane, your job of helping to represent the interests of this neighborhood are obviously a major challenge. One overwhelming objective of the community is to preserve our neighborhood by standing firm on low density(minimum 1/2 acre lots)and no multi-unit development Your vigilance, dedication and attention to representing these two intractable issues will serve our community welL Additionally,you have an extrapolated backing from the community of 90%in favor of strongly preserving these issues as evidence from our Thursday night 8/28 consensus vote. Peter,your public t. position of representing these interests to the city as communicated that evening is appreciated. I urge you to not compromise the will and intent of the community on these issues. Please let us know how the discussion goes as we will want to provide an update to representatives from the Association and community on the positioning of our interests and progress in protecting our community's integrity. Thank you, R Kevin Mead CC: Various Forest Highlands Committee Members Sherry Tuppens 7.D. 41) i , W R G E S I G N I N C . • February 5, 1999 Dear Property Owner. Matrix Development is proposing to construct a 6-Lot, duplex residential, Planned Unit Development. The project will subdivide approximately 1,28 acres of property into 6 duplex lots (3 structures). The project will be located north of Country Club Drive and west of Verte Court. The property is currently zoned as R- 7.5 (Medium Density Residential). LOC Chapter 49.36.705 requires that developers of all Planned Unit Developments to contact and discuss their development with any affected neighborhoods as outlined under this Section. The applicant has sent notification to all properties within 300 feet of the proposed project, and has informed the neighborhood association of this proposal. The applicant will be holding a meeting at the Lake Oswego Adult Community Center located at 505 G Avenue on Thursday, February 25, at 6 pm. At this meeting, the applicant will present a site plan of the proposed development and will answer any questions regarding the proposal. Minutes of the meeting will be recorded, and submitted to the City with • this application. If you are unable to attend the meeting, or have any questions regarding the proposal, please do not hesitate to call me at 603-9933. I look forward to speaking with you at the meeting, and hearing your comments. Sincerely, WRG Design, Inc. otia„Ze , Mimi Doukas Planner/Associate Landscape Architect i ati�. :n:rrri \\WRGDIDATA\DATA\DATAWIAT005\WORDWOT1F DOc • A n • PLANNERS ■ ENGINEERS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • SURVEYORS 10450 SW Nimbus Ave., Porrland, OR 07223] / (503) 603-9933 (fax) 603-9944 Oregon f/evada S' ,t ?'_'. to ere.eJr:'or ai .0 2Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional ser'1ces. also wish to receive the IIITA2Complete items 3,4a,and 4b. following services(for an a a Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return;his extra fee): card to you. ai e 3Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the bade if space does not 1. ❑ Addressee's Address U permit. c a Wnte'Retum Receipt Requested'on the Tailpiece below the article number. 2. ❑ Restncted Delivery m a T1:e Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the cats �_ • delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. E. - 3.Article Addressed to: 4a.Article N imoer at 11 Pcc �-c�� Q (.( 2 4b.Service ype ° -1 1 N �‘ YY6K ? fV 1.\ OK ❑ Registered ❑ Certified cc • U U) ► e-LA-flee/t,S 3D3� pCr2ls �uQr 0 Express Mail 0 Insured m ` ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 COD G Lk� , OSL,-sGro o2 c,t764.i 7. Date of Delivery ---(/ —�j% o ed By: (Print Name) 8.Addresie's Address(Only if requested t � .\c C (.1,-1 ` � and fee is paid) ca L 14 c r6. aturl)(Addressee or Agent) o yy _ co PS Form�3.1i, December 1994 102595-97-6-0179 Domestic Return Receipt III Z 274 249 E43 US Postal Service Fiec p t for Czert3died Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International May See reverse, Sent to St 1UJr.> t)OK , Street&Number Lie(4n 604,s, 3 ' ,1 s� ra-r Pos Office,State,&ZIP Code nfz.. c"\-7034 Postage o, Certified Fee I • 4 Q Speaal Delivery Fee ( • %5 Restricted Delivery Fee in rn I Return Receipt Showing to " Whom C.Dale Delivered I a Return Receipt owring to Whom.i I 2 Date,a Addressee's Address I TOTAL Postage€Fees I $ 7' 8 vo Postmark or Date E 0 u_ ui III r� � 0043 J (GtiN , ( :.' ) S 1erl AT I3730 s J. G�►45co (. .e05wea f, 9 740,4 aKi Mca JJ / 372- kiJAJs . L .6- q a3 ere ( u.vvtersein t3733 SA/0 KC- us (fie( 4,0 '763 q- ,6t-e BBete/ : /77 .C6.ck 61.e1\1 MULL 43¢33 /14A/A Y PK`( L.0 • 91d3� 1(001 cbw 3.3.1-10 CUD g 0 3-103y A i,((r4 M c,a-FLAti-nl L 50. C ket,Y r14_ rt11. LC7 c-t?0 3f• Itta.A.-...cu.-. Pf-L4-4-0-_ 1‘bprio\k-,,,,, ,,,-,0 uti,-„ cz,,i-k tf4stt 9 S G,,,„ I V ; -2- r i 1315.30 ✓-1/ut a Lb ci7 0 31 • Y -oLCoM6 L4-!o) P wa,10 CT- La 9203-4- ._ . i s 1-tom I Lt I (c , C-V. La S' 7 0 3 Y 1A '4br - < Ina( C. , c. Qoac, --;20 t4IN vl tit__ / D.2W0 . UZI - vi-/P-rE 6r ?70.0 .7--4,,_ g.„17,#.8,,,,. IPA? CArnc CT L 0 CITY OF LA!- :-: �`�SWEGO S Gast.of P!annin; &Cave!opment 0UP*4 iTABLE OF CONTENTS I. GENERAL INFORMATION 3 II. REQUEST 4 III. SITE DESCRIPTION 4 IV. PROPOSAL SUMMARY 5 V. APPROVAL CRITERIA 6 Development Code 6 Chapter 49 Development Code ' 6 Zoning Code . 7 Chapter 48 Zoning Code 7 Development Standards 11 14.005 Utility Standard _ 11 18.005 Access 11 19.005 On-Site Circulation—Driveways and Fire Access Roads 12 Other Ordinances _ 13 Chapter 38 Utility Code(Sewer,Water, and Surface Water Management) 13 Chapter 39 System Development Charges 13 Chapter 42 Streets and Sidewalks 13 Chapter 44 Subdivisions - 13 Chapter 47 Sign Code . 13 Chapter 55 Trees . 13 Chapter 57 Solar Access 13 Chapter 58 Historic Preservation 13 VII. CONCLUSION 13 i Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat EXHIBIT 4 City of Lake Oswego LU 99-0029 5 Izrr. s • GENERAL INFORMATION • Applicants: Matrix Development Corporation Plaza 2, Suite 200 6900 SW Haines Street Tigard. Oregon 97223 503.244.8159 ext 222 Contact: Ryan Selby Applicant's Representative: WRG Design. Inc. 10450 SW Nimbus Ave. Portland,Oregon 97223 503.603.9933 Contact: Mimi Doukas madL.wrgd.com Property Owner: Matrix Development Corporation Plaza 2,Suite 200 6900 SW Haines Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 Tax Lot Information Tax Lot 2900, on Clackamas County Tax Map 21E04DB and is addressed as 1501 Country Club Road. Location: The site is bounded on the south by Country Club Road, located generally west of the intersection of Verte Court and Country Club Road. Current Zoning: R-7.5 Medium Density Residential Comprehensive Plan: R-7.5 Medium DensityResidential 4110 P Project Area: 1.28 Acres i 55,757 sf R •%. E 10 c. Capt.of panni::: ;Csvoloµment • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat Page 3 City of Lake Oswego ��.� 4 • II. REQUEST The applicant, Matrix Development, request approval of a three lot minor partition plat. The site contains approximately 1.28 acres. Overall, this application is consistent with the standards set forth in the Lake Oswego Development Ordinance. [II. SITE DESCRIPTION Location and Parcel Description: The proposed partition is located north of Country Club Road, generally west of Verte Court. The property may be specifically identified as Tax Lot 2900 on Clackamas County Tax Map 2I E04DB and is addressed as 1501 Country Club Road. The property slopes down towards Country Club Road. and contains a large number of mature evergreen trees. There is currently one single-family residence, located generally in the center of the site. This structure will be removed as part of this application. The site is designated as Medium Density Residential (R-7.5) on the Lake Oswego Zoning Map. This application is consistent with the standards set forth for development and land division in the R-7.5 district. Site Access The site currently abuts Country Club Road along the southern boundary. Description of Surrounding Area Table A: LAND USE Area Plan Zoning Land Uses north Low Density Residential CO. R-20 SF residential 1111 east Low Density Residential R-10 SF residential south Low Density Residential R-10 SF/Golf Course west Low Density Residential R-10 SF residence Table B: PUBLIC UTILITIES Service Provider Size Location Distance from site Water City 10" Country Club Road adjacent Sanitary Sewer City 8" Country Club Road adjacent Storm Drain City 8" Country Club Road adjacent • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat Page 4 City of Lake Oswego 0 ;" 7., 1 1V. PROPOSAL SUMMARY Site Plan Overview: The applicant is requesting a three-lot partition plat, utilizing the flag lot standards in an R-7.5 district. Access shall be provided through a private drive within an access easement on the western boundary of the site. All utilities are available within the Country Club right-of-way. No service connections or physical site improvements are proposed in this application. Instead, improvements such as service connections shall be reviewed on a lot by lot basis with individual building permit applications. Similarly,no tree removal permits are requested in this application. Site Access Access to the proposed lot is provided through a flag-lot configuration with direct connections to Country Club Drive. Streets and Rights-of-Way Because the site is designed with a flag-lot configuration, no rights-of-way are proposed in this application. Country Club Road requires no additional right-of-way and no additional street improvements. Storm Drainage Improvements A water quality facility has been proposed on the southern end of the site, directly adjacent to Country Club Drive. This area is the lowest point on the site, and will impact the least number of existing trees. Sanitary Sewer Improvements Sewer service is currently available along the southern end of this site, within the Country Club Road right-of-way. Private service connections shall be the responsibility of the individual 411 property owners at the time of development. Water Improvements Similar to sanitary sewer, water service is currently available along the southern end of this site, within the Country Club Road right-of-way. Private service connections for water shall also be the responsibility of the individual property owners at the time of development. 1111 Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat Page 5 City of Lake Oswego ` 00 V. APPROVAL CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT CODE Chapter 49 Development Code 49.20.110 Minor Development Comment: As a three lot minor partition plat. this application is considered a Minor Development according to Section 49.20.110 (2)(0. Therefore, this application shall be reviewed by the Planning Director with the opportunity to request a hearing. 49.22.215 Review Criteria for Minor Developments 1. A minor development shall comply with: a. The requirements of the zone in which it is located; b. The Development Standards applicable to minor developments; c. Any additional statutory, regulatory or Lake Oswego Code provisions which may be applicable to the specific minor development application, such as the variance provisions, the Streets and Sidewalks Ordinance, the Solar Access Ordinance, and the Historic Preservation Ordinance; and e. Any applicable condition of approval imposed pursuant to an approved ODPS or prior development permit affecting the subject property. f. The Building Design Standard for development in the DD Zone. • Comment: All applicable standards and provisions have been addressed within this application. Please refer to specific sections for a detailed discussion of how this proposal meets the applicable criteria. 2. For the purpose of application of the Development Standards and Lake Oswego Code provisions pursuant to subsections 2(b) and 1(c) of this section, partitions involving the creation of a public or private street, construction or alteration of structures as described in LOC 49.20.110(2)(d) and subdivisions shall be considered to be"major developments." Comment: This application proposed the partition of a single lot into three flag lots,without the creation of a street. Therefore, this application is not subject to the standards set forth for"major developments". • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat Page 6 City of Lake Oswego 3V -19 ZONING CODE 11111 Chapter 48 Zoning Code 48.06 Residential,Medium and Low Density R-7.5,R-10,R-15 48.06.195 Permitted Uses; R-7.5,R-10,R-15 Zones Comment: No specific uses are proposed in this application. However, the eventual use of the three proposed lots is for single-family residential development. This use is a permitted use within the R-7.5 district. 48.06.200 Conditional Uses; R-7.5,R-10,R-15 Zones Comment: No conditional uses are proposed or requested in this application. Therefore, this section does not apply. 48.06.205 Maximum Density,Density Bonus Comment: The maximum site density is determined by dividing the overall net area by 7,500 sf. Since the applicant is not proposing any public or private streets,the net area for this site is 55,757 sf. Once this are is divided by 7,500 sf, 7.4 dwelling units are permitted. Three single-family lots are proposed in this application, well below the permitted 7 dwelling unit density. 48.06.210 Lot Size; Lot Dimensions; Density Transfer Comment: In accordance with the R-7.5 standards,all proposed lots are a minimum of 7,500 sf in size. The minimum lot width is 50 feet,and the minimum lot depth is 100 feet. All lot dimensions are shown on the Preliminary Plat for verification of City standards. 48.06.215 Setbacks Comment: All required setbacks have been shown on the preliminary plat for review. In accordance with the • R-7.5 standards, the following setbacks shall apply: Front Yard: 25 feet Rear Yard: 30 feet Side Yard: 10 feet(20 feet adjacent to Country Club Road) 48.06.220 Height Limits Comment: This site does contain a significant slope from the north to the south. Therefore, the proposed buildings may not exceed 35 feet in height. No structures are proposed at this time, but height restrictions shall be confirmed prior to issuance of the building permits. 48.06.225 Lot Coverage Comment: Again, no structures are proposed at this time, but lot coverage standards shall be confirmed prior to the issuance of building permits. Lot coverage shall not exceed 25 percent of the total lot area. 48.19 Flag Lots 48.19.010 Authorization; Application Requirements 1. Flag lots shall comply with the requirements of the underlying zone except where noted in this article. All land division creating a flag lot shall also comply wit any specific residential design criteria contained within an applicable adopted neighborhood plan. Comment: This application is in conformance with the R-7.5 standards set forth in the Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance. The R-7.5 standards are discussed in detail under section 48.06 of this application. Please refer to this section for specific information. No neighborhood plans have been adopted for this region of the city. 2. In addition to the general application requirements for land divisions, an application to create a flag lot shall include a • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat Page 7 City of Lake Oswego 1 ; r- .. '.lt.: J6 • conceptual plan of complete parcelization of the subject property. and shall include a site plan illustrating the location of existing structures on adjacent parcels. There reviewing authority may impose conditions in order to ensure that parcelization of the subject property will not precluded the development of surrounding properties. Such conditions may be related (but not limited) to access, circulation, building location, utility availability, and natural resource protection. 48.19.015 Exceptions Comment: No exceptions are requested in this application. Therefore, this section does not apply. 48.19.020 Access 1. For land division creating flag lots, the reviewing authority shall require that access to the flag lots shall be consolidated into a single shared driveway wherever practicable, including consolidation with the access of the parent lot. Comment: The primary reason for using a flag lot configuration was to limit the number of curb cuts onto Country Club Road. This development shall have a single curb cut with a shared driveway to access all three proposed lots. Lot one shall be accessed from the shared drive,and will not have direct frontage onto Country Club Road. 2. Flag lots shall have access to a public or private street; however, actual street frontage shall not be required. Comment: Individual lots do not have actual street frontage, but access to Country Club Road is insured through the establishment of an access easement across the western boundary of the site. 3. Driveway widths shall be a minimum of 12 feet. Driveway length, construction standards, and turnaround requirements shall be determined by LODS Chapter 19, "On-Site Circulation-Driveways and Fire Access Roads." Comment: The proposed driveway shall be a minimum of 12 feet in width, constructed to City standards. Please refer to Chapter 19 for a full discussion of the driveway standards. 4. No more than two driveways shall be permitted within a distance equal to the minimum lot width of the underlying zone, or within 50 feet of each other if no minimum exists, as measured from the closest edge of each driveway. Comment: As previously noted, only one driveway connection is proposed to Country Club Road. Therefore, this application is in compliance with this section. 5. All buildings on flag lots must post an address at the beginning of the driveway. The address shall be no less than 6" tall, must be on contrasting background, plainly visible, and must indicate the direction of the building. Comment: All lots shall be addressed according to the Lake Oswego standards. This will be addressed more fully prior to issuance of building permits. 48.19.025 Lot Configuration Requirements 1. Determination of Front Yard: A the time of land division review of a flag lot creation, the front yard shall be determined as follows: The front yard is measured from the lot line that is most parallel and closest to the street, excluding the pole portion of the flag lot. • If this standard is not practicable due to the placement of Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat Page 8 City of Lake Oswego 0 ;; � 1 structures on adjacent lots, topography. lot configuration, or similar reasons, then the front yard will be measured from a property line that abuts the access portion of the flag or easement. Comment: Due to the orientation of existing structures to the east, the ideal orientation for structures will locate the front yard adjacent to the access easement. This will orient the proposed structures "back to back" with the existing single family homes. 2. Lot Width: Lot width shall be measured by a line connecting two points on opposite side yard property lines, that will result in a line parallel to the front yard. Comment: The minimum lot width is 100 feet, measured as set forth by this section. 3. Lot Depth: The lot depth shall be measured at the mid-point of the front and rear property lines of the "flag". Comment: The proposed lots meet or exceed the 100 foot minimum lot depth requirements of Section 48.06, exclusive of the"pole"or access easement portion of the lot. 4. Lot Size: Area of access easement of flagpole shall be deducted form the gross acreage of the flag lot. The"flag" portion of the lot shall b equal to or exceed the square footage of the underlying zone. Comment: The gross site area of each lot exceeds the minimum lot area for the R-7.5 zone as outlined in Section 48.06, exclusive of the"pole"portion of the lot or the access easement. 48.19.030 Building and Site Design Standards 1. Building Orientation: For land division the reviewing authority • shall require that buildings be oriented to provide the maximum separation and privacy from existing and future dwellings on adjacent lots. The reviewing authority may require conditions of approval to include measures such as specific building locations, increase setbacks, additional height restrictions, location and orientation of windows and other openings. Comment: As previously noted, in order to relate to the existing single family homes to the east, it is best to orient the proposed structures with the front facing the access easement. This will insure that the structures are "back to back"with the existing structures. This will also provide a 30-foot rear yard setback as a buffer to reduce the impact to existing homes. Therefore, standard height restrictions are sufficient to provide privacy to the surrounding property owners. 2. Garage placement shall be reviewed at the time of building permit application to ensure minimum visibility of the garage from the street. Garage placement shall meet the following requirements:... Comment: Garage placement shall be reviewed with the building permit application. Therefore. this section does not apply at this time. 3. Height Requirement: Single family residential structures and accessory structures shall not exceed the average height of all dwellings on lots abutting the flag lot. Where a vacant abutting lot is present, a height of 16 feet shall be used in calculating the average. Where an existing structure on an abutting lot exceeds the maximum height permitted by the underlying zone shall be used for the purposes of calculating the average. Comment; As required. the proposed structures shall not exceed the average height of surrounding structures. Conformance will be reviewed with the building permit application. • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat Page 9 City of Lake Oswego • 4. Where a flag lot abuts a lot in a residential district of lower density, the greater setback requirements of the more restrictive district shall apply for those yards which have abutting property lines. Comment: This site is bounded on the east and west by R-10 property. Therefore. R-I 0 setbacks have been used for the rear yards of the proposed lots. The rear yard setback for both the R-10 and R-7.5 zones is 30 feet, as shown on the preliminary plat. 48.19.035 Screening, Buffering,and Landscape Installation 1. For land divisions, a minimum six foot landscape strip shall be provided as separation between driveways that are within 10 feet of each other (as measured from the closest edge of each driveway) and where a driveway is within 10 feet of an adjacent residential structure.... Comment: The proposed driveway is more than 10 feet from any existing driveways or residential structures. Therefore,no landscaping is required to meet this section of the ordinance. 2. For land divisions, existing mature vegetation and trees shall be integrated as screening where practicable. The review authority may require dwelling and garage placement or orientation in a manner that will minimize the removal of specific trees, hedges, or other vegetation that would serve to screen the proposed structures from existing and potential surrounding homes. 3. The rear and side yards of the lot where the new development occurs shall be screened from adjacent property with a six foot tall fence except where a four foot fence is required by LOC 45.15.020(1)of the Building Code4m and except where the abutting • property owner agrees in writing that a fence is not necessary along the common property line. In addition, a landscaped buffer within the rear yard setback a minimum of six feet in width shall be created long the rear property line and height and planted with a deciduous or evergreen hedge, a minimum four feet in height at planting which shall grow to a height of six feet within two years and shall be maintained at a minimum of that height,except where abutting property agrees in writing that a landscaped buffer is not necessary. The above requirements pertaining to the "rear yard" are not applicable where the rear yard abuts Oswego Lake. Comment: The applicant shall either install a six foot high wood screen fence with landscaped hedge or submit a written waiver from the adjacent property owners. 4. Tree removal mitigation: A minimum of one evergreen or deciduous tree, of a species which will attain a minimum of thirty feet in height, shall be planted at a 1:1 ratio where practicable in order to mitigate the removal of existing trees necessary for site development. Deciduous trees at planting shall be a minimum of 2" caliper and evergreen trees shall be a minimum of eight feet tall. Comment: Tree removal shall be addressed with the building permit application. No physical improvements are proposed at this time, therefore no tree removal is required. • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat Page 10 City of Lake Oswego DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS • 14.005 Utility Standard Comment: The applicant is not proposing utility service connections in this application. Individual service connections will be requested and reviewed with the building permit application for each lot. Water.sanitary sewer. and storm sewer services are all available within the right-of-way for Country Club Road. All services have sufficient capacity to service he three lots proposed in this application. Service laterals shall be constructed to City standards, installed underground,and located within the proposed access and utility easement. The cost of all utility improvements shall be borne by the applicant. 18.005 Access 18.020 Standards for Approval 1. Every lot shall abut a street for a width of at least 25 feet. Exception: The street frontage of a lot created pursuant to approval of a row house development may be reduced to 17 feet in the R-0, D-D, R-2, R-3, and R-5 zones. 2. Access design shall be based on the following five criteria: a. Topography. b. Traffic volume to be generated by the development. c. Classification of the public street from which the access is taken (residential,collector,or arterial) d. Traffic Volume presently carried by such street. e. Projected traffic volumes. 3. Direct permanent access from a development to an arterial street is • prohibited where an alternate access is either available or is expected to be available. A temporary access may be allowed. 4. Direct access from a development or a structure to a residential street is required unless such access is not available, 5. The City may require shared access with a neighboring site or an extension residential streets across adjacent properties to provide access to the development is necessary to prevent impacts on traffic flow. 6. If no satisfactory access from a public street to a development is available, the City shall require postponement of the development until such time as a satisfactory access becomes available. Comment: The unique nature of this site prohibits all opportunities to provide residential access to the proposed lots. No residential streets currently abut or stub into the site. The site is too narrow to dedicate sufficient right-of-way to construct a public street. Therefore, the applicant is only able to provide access from Country Club Road, which is a major arterial. Rather than providing direct driveway connections to Country Club Road, the applicant is proposing a single access easement along the western boundary for a shared access drive. Driveways for individual lots shall not access Country Club Road directly,but shall be located along the shared drive. This will serve to limit the number of access points, and will allow property owners to avoid backing out onto Country Club Road. Consideration should also be given to the small size of the development, and the low number of overall trips it will generate. Therefore,the proposed access system is consistent with the Access Standards. 18.035 Procedures 1. Determination of the location and configuration of an access shall be based on a traffic study,unless otherwise approved by the City Manager. Comment: In the pre-application meeting with the City staff, it was determined that a traffic study would not 111 Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat Page I 1 City of Lake Oswego 5 • be required for this site due to the small size of the development and the amount of existing traffic on Country Club Road. No real conclusions could be drawn from such a study. 18.040 Miscellaneous Information 1. The expense related to modification of an existing street to accommodate proposed access including all traffic control devices and lighting, shall be paid for by the developer. Comment: All construction expenses shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 2. Access from a major development to a collector or an arterial shall be not less than 100 feet from the nearest intersection of street centerlines. Comment: The intersection of Country Club Drive and Verte Court is over 100 feet away from the proposed access easement. 19.005 On-Site Circulation—Driveways and Fire Access Roads 19.020 Standards for Approval 1. Driveway Approaches—Locational Limitations and Restrictions Comment: The driveways proposed for individual lots shall be reviewed with the building permit application. 2. Driveway Widths Comment: The driveways proposed for individual lots shall be reviewed with the building permit application. The shared access drive shall be 20 feet wide and constructed of asphaltic concrete,per city standards. 3. Driveway Grades Comment: The shared access drive shall not exceed a 15 percent grade. Individual driveways shall not • exceed a 20 percent slope. 4. Fire Access Lanes Comment: The proposed access drive and individual driveways meet the standards shown in the City's Standard Details for fire access roads. 5. Turnarounds Comment: The proposed access drive exceeds 150 feet in length. Turnarounds are provided at the driveways for the individual lots. Turnarounds may not be located within the required parking areas. Based on the parking available within the garages of the proposed units,the driveways do not serve as required parking stalls,and may be used as a turnaround facility. 7. Easements Required Comment: An access easement shall be recorded for the shared drive prior to recording of the final plat. • • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat Page 12 City of Lake Oswego 0 5 • OTHER ORDINANCES • Chapter 38 Utility Code (Sewer,Water, and Surface Water Management) Comment: The applicant is not proposing utility service connections in this application. Service connections will be requested and reviewed with the building permit application. Water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer services are all available within the right-of-way for Country Club Road. All services all have sufficient capacity to service the three lots proposed in this application. Chapter 39 System Development Charges Comment: System Development Charges shall be computed and assessed prior to the issuance of building permits. No permits are requested with this application. Therefore,this section does not apply. Chapter 42 Streets and Sidewalks Comment: This site has full access from the existing Country Club Drive. This street and sidewalk meets all City standards and requires no additional improvements. No new streets or sidewalks are proposed in this application. Therefore, this section does not apply. Chapter 44 Subdivisions Comment: This application is proposing only three lots, and no streets are created. Therefore, this application is considered a minor partition,and is not subject to the subdivision standards. Chapter 47 Sign Code Comment: No signs are proposed in this application. Therefore,this section does not apply. Chapter 55 Trees Chapter 57 Solar Access 57.04 Solar Access for New Development 57.04.020 Design Standard • 1. Basic Requirement. A lot complies if it: a. Has a north-south dimension of 90 feet or more. Comment: All proposed lots have a north-south lot width greater than 90 feet. This proposal is in compliance with the Solar Access requirements. Chapter 58 Historic Preservation Comment: This site does not contain any historic landmarks. Therefore,this section does not apply. VII. CONCLUSION The above discussion sets forth sufficient evidence to permit approval of the proposed three-lot minor partition plat as shown. Approval of this amendment would be in compliance with the zoning ordinance and in support of the goals established by the Comprehensive Plan. • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat Page 13 City of Lake Oswego cc 0051;L� a1 .„----0 4 . illo ,.... _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ _ _.._i . . T ( i vERiE Cam 611 10 n Tbee ,' I I I I • 1 • I I I I �/ I n 2607 • / IL I I i. r IL2 04 IL NW! [J/ I I 1 I �eeo I n I I I I 446• - - - - Y b 3' 500 6'25"E � 5 WQ. w QI I 2 I I s - �: I I lU m EI I 0 i I c4 N!f ry 1 — - - - - - -CD . �,I 1 II 446.61' 500 11'4I"E • Le• i1 Ul 1 `' n Sire • �1 _ i E ,q--!!! 'x �-�' ~jam 11t i ragl I 1 1 >> RECEIVED 41//,, 1J • �o i ENGINEER PLANNER ojdEinhaiannIng 6 Developme■ COVER SHEET %o 03 Y JEFF CURRAN,PE MIMI DOUKAS, ASLA Co: COVER SHEET BLUE LEAF ✓ELOPMENT WRG DESIGN, INC WRG DESIGN, INC CI: EXISTING CONDITIONS O -I IITE 200 10450 SW NIMBUS AVENUE, SUITE RA 10450 SW NIMBUS AVENUE, SUITE RA C2: PRELIMINARY PLAT LAKE o5WEG0. OREGON VJ 41NES STREET PORTLAND,OREGON 91223 PORTLAND, OREGON 91223 PROJECT NO. - MAT005 GO,OREGON 91223 (503)603-9933 (503)603-9933 APRIL 16, 1999 0 5159 , ` ELLIE LEAF W R O ■ • 1 O N .I'I 11111.111 I Io,so erw w,row1a R.go11 4 eo71rwNa,-ev7 nnx,11 31eo3-1em7e4 1 111 1111 III N 1111 11111E1 A 3-LOT PARTITION f='LAT 0 25 50 100 200 LAKE OE'UJECsO, OREGON P.wo+•a+NIIM+• -RII Mr 11l11cn•wwrnol.• 1 7 '' i t ' . I I- YERTE touter - - Ir-- - - —1 • \ I i 11 i / - - - - I - - - - -- - - ' I " / . I TL 2605 / I I I I I I I I I' II' / _ \ ' I / I I 4� TI: ' Ol-'rr ai \ I. / TL 604 1 1 Tt�2i'O2 _90 \ I _I , ` -- - - I. 9i +�t. 'err, lr\ I \ \ \` \ 1 1 . I I TL2�0ID / _' _ '1 cc`_�� 8rt�� r\� `�� \�� \ \` \� `\ \\ , 1 I I j~ \ \ S '� -A.---......_ _ -d �tC ``6t 446,b '�. m6'zs'II� \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ 1 11 Ill • \ \ \\ •`\ \ I. " \ \ V • 1 1 h, �I C] \ `� \ �1 �� • \ fill .. •' m M. ` i \- ylD f' 1 n L1 CP . /t \ I \\r \O�\ \ \ 1 kI „ I 4 \ 1 V 6? �� \ 1 1 I 1 • y 1 y' l] IL 2400 1 0 l�l, /� / \ \ \ EX BUILDING \N n Y/ 4T 1 i �, /,)," i� \% \ <: 446b1t''N i25(.' I''4I" ..._ •` ` I I ti TL 900 I 1 rt E. CEIVEI) I • , _ EXISTING CONDITIONS o CU BLUE LEAF rn ci1tf OF LA .E l.'tni (;ri0 LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON CCdt�t.of Pl6riltla�1 t7aUtiloptrie ett PROJECT NO. - MATO®5 APRIL 6, 1999 — w R G 0 • • I N I N C. 't I' I O•w N A . •m4 III II II II III II II111 ff am'.o)-�-•vl w.roWd QeyPAX so►I•os.sw . _ ,_______41 • • , 1 7 . \.... „ ., g ` — - q. VERTE COURT - _ � - - - � I f '---7- -T. 7- -1 . • i 1 1 1 / 1 I I '' I I 1 , I I 1/ 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I 1 — — 446.63' SOO'6'25"E ker e ?14s' 1o1J w Si( w al ,. e r 3 ek r I r 1 20, n C.) al 1 -_i-a_--1 1 1 I ISTBK 0 U C.". :� I LOT I I I LOT 2 I I LOT 3 1 —' ; CO CO 1 6) I IbAO1 SF 1 I I3.385 SF 1 3• I 25b0O SF 1 IllI 039 AC i ss'I i 031 AC I al I 0.59 AC I i- L J 1 L J 1 L J - 1 F en • — 0 � fir- - - - - li n �+ KwUU N a C345' It71J' 7�0 Q 5 w EX:;0'Rill/ I 446.61' 600'11'41"E I I I r : 1 1 REw .CE8 ' : �� I r- }X PRELIMINARY PLAT o SLUE LEAF -1 {'. L nJ `^l I y LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 1p ::':f.Of PIJIlnimi Dogik.f]ment. PROJECT NO. - P1AT005 APRIL IS, 199'3 (V U W R G 1111 D ! • 1 O N I NO. IIL IO400 OWINlebm Ave.FbrtWt.(Oregon 1113J! III II 1111 11 111J s e03164,3-e5!3 FAX eo3laoj-ees. 0 15 30 60 120 ^•."e'.•.01• AaU• ,aft GENERAL INFORMATION • Applicant: Matrix Development Corporation Plaza 2, Suite 200 6900 SW Haines Street Tigard,Oregon 97223 503.244.8159 ext 222 Contact: Ryan Selby Applicant's Representative: WRG Design,Inc. 10450 SW Nimbus Ave. Portland, Oregon 97223 503.603.9933 Contact: Mimi Doukas mad@wrgd.com Property Owner: Matrix Development Corporation Plaza 2, Suite 200 6900 SW Haines Street Tigard,Oregon 97223 Tax Lot Information Tax Lot 2900, on Clackamas County Tax Map 21E04DB and is addressed as 1501 Country Club Road. Location: The site is bounded on the south by Country Club Road, located generally west of the intersection of Verte Court and Country Club Road. 11111 Current Zoning: R-7.5 Medium Density Residential Comprehensive Plan: R-7.5 Medium Density Residential Project Area: 1.28 Acres/55,757 sf (life kiF gib(:Pli 'h h ��Oavei�omant • EXHIBIT 8 Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat LU 99-0029 City of Lake Oswego 0 0 U O Revised June 26, 1999 Y • II. REQUEST The applicant, Matrix Development, request approval of a three lot minor partition plat. The site contains approximately 1.28 acres. Overall, this application is consistent with the standards set forth in the Lake Oswego Development Ordinance. III. SITE DESCRIPTION Location and Parcel Description: The proposed partition is located north of Country Club Road, generally west of Verte Court. The property may be specifically identified as Tax Lot 2900 on Clackamas County Tax Map 21E04DB and is addressed as 1501 Country Club Road. The property slopes down towards Country Club Road, and contains a large number of mature evergreen trees. There is currently one single-family residence, located generally in the center of the site. This structure will be removed as part of this application. The site is designated as Medium Density Residential (R-7.5) on the Lake Oswego Zoning Map. This application is consistent with the standards set forth for development and land division in the R-7.5 district. Site Access The site currently abuts Country Club Road along the southern boundary. Description of Surrounding Area Table A: LAND USE Area Plan Zoning Land Uses • north Low Density Residential CO. R-20 SF residential east Low Density Residential R-10 SF residential south Low Density Residential R-10 SF/Golf Course west Low Density Residential R-10 SF residence Table B: PUBLIC UTILITIES Service Provider Size Location Distance from site Water City 10" Country Club Road adjacent Sanitary Sewer City 8" Country Club Road adjacent Storm Drain City 8" Country Club Road adjacent • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc. -Page 4 City of Lake Oswego V!1 G G i Revised June 26, 1999 IV. PROPOSAL SUMMARY • Site Plan Overview: The applicant is requesting a three-lot partition plat, utilizing the flag lot standards in an R-7.5 district. Access shall be provided through a private drive within an access easement on the western boundary of the site. All utilities are available within the Country Club right-of-way. As shown on the Site Plan, a short sanitary sewer extension will be required to provide service to the site. Service line connections are also shown for waterlines. Site Access Access to the proposed lot is provided through a flag-lot configuration with direct connections to Country Club Drive. Streets and Rights-of-Way Because the site is designed with a flag-lot configuration, no rights-of-way are proposed in this application. Country Club Road requires no additional right-of-way and no additional street improvements. The shared private access drive has been shown on the site plan, and meets all fire access codes. The driveway for Lot 2 has been designed as a fire turnaround facility. Access for Lot 3 shall be from the shared access drive as well, to limit the number of driveways on Country Club Road. Storm Drainage Improvements No shared storm drainage facilities are proposed or required for this application. Stormwater improvements for individual lots are discussed in LODS 12, Drainage for Minor Development. Sanitary Sewer Improvements • Sewer service is currently available along the southern end of this site, within the Country Club Road right-of-way. A short extension of the existing line will be required to provide service to the three proposed lots. This extension is shown on the Site Plan. Private service connections shall be constructed with the installation of the shared driveway. Water Improvements Similar to sanitary sewer, water service is currently available along the southern end of this site, within the Country Club Road right-of-way. However, no public extensions are required to service the proposed lots. Private service connections shall be constructed with the installation of the shared driveway. • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc. - Page 5 City of Lake Oswego Revised June 26, 1999 V • V.DEVELOPMENT CODEAPPROVAL CRITERIA Chapter 49 Development Code 49.20.110 Minor Development Comment: As a three lot minor partition plat, this application is considered a Minor Development according to Section 49.20.110 (2)(f). Therefore, this application shall be reviewed by the Planning Director with the opportunity to request a hearing. 49.22.215 Review Criteria for Minor Developments 1. A minor development shall comply with: a. The requirements of the zone in which it is located; b. The Development Standards applicable to minor developments; c. Any additional statutory, regulatory or Lake Oswego Code provisions which may be applicable to the specific minor development application, such as the variance provisions, the Streets and Sidewalks Ordinance, the Solar Access Ordinance,and the Historic Preservation Ordinance; and e. Any applicable condition of approval imposed pursuant to an approved ODPS or prior development permit affecting the subject property. • f. The Building Design Standard for development in the DD Zone. Comment: All applicable standards and provisions have been addressed within this application. Please refer to specific sections for a detailed discussion of how this proposal meets the applicable criteria. 2. For the purpose of application of the Development Standards and Lake Oswego Code provisions pursuant to subsections 2(b) and 1(c) of this section, partitions involving the creation of a public or private street, construction or alteration of structures as described in LOC 49.20.110(2)(d) and subdivisions shall be considered to be"major developments." Comment: This application proposed the partition of a single lot into three flag lots,without the creation of a street. Therefore,this application is not subject to the standards set forth for"major developments". • 4111 Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc. - Page 6 City of Lake Oswego iJ V t Revised June 26, 1999 ZONING CODE • Chapter 48 Zoning Code 48.06 Residential,Medium and Low Density R-7.5,R-10,R-15 48.06.195 Permitted Uses; R-7.5,R-10,R-15 Zones Comment: No specific uses are proposed in this application. However,the eventual use of the three proposed lots is for single-family residential development. This use is a permitted use within the R-7.5 district. 48.06.200 Conditional Uses; R-7.5,R-10, R-15 Zones Comment: No conditional uses are proposed or requested in this application. Therefore, this section does not apply. 48.06.205 Maximum Density,Density Bonus Comment: The maximum site density is determined by dividing the overall net area by 7,500 sf. Since the applicant is not proposing any public or private streets,the net area for this site is 55,757 sf. Once this are is divided by 7,500 sf, 7.4 dwelling units are permitted. Three single-family lots are proposed in this application, well below the permitted 7 dwelling unit density. While some of the proposed lots are rather large for this district, no further parcelization is proposed for this site, as noted on the Preliminary Plat. The size of the lots results from the unique characteristics of the site,including vegetation and topography. 48.06.210 Lot Size; Lot Dimensions; Density Transfer Comment: In accordance with the R-7.5 standards,all proposed lots are a minimum of 7,500 sf in size. The minimum lot width is 50 feet,and the minimum lot depth is 100 feet. All lot dimensions are shown on the Preliminary Plat for verification of City standards. • 48.06.215 Setbacks Comment: All required setbacks have been shown on the preliminary plat for review. In accordance with the R-7.5 standards,the following setbacks are required: Front Yard: 25 feet Rear Yard: 30 feet Side Yard: 10 feet(20 feet adjacent to Country Club Road) Due to the unique constraints of the site, solar access requirements, and tree preservation requirements, alternate setbacks for each individual lot have been shown on the plat, which meet or exceed those required in the underlying zone. Please refer to this plan for specific standards. 48.06.220 Height Limits Comment: As a relatively flat site, the proposed structure on Lot 3 shall have a height limit of 30 feet. The building height for Lots 1 and 2 are set forth by the Flag Lot ordinance. No structures are proposed at this time,but height restrictions shall be confirmed prior to issuance of the building permits. 48.06.225 Lot Coverage Comment: Again, no structures are proposed at this time, but lot coverage standards shall be confirmed prior to the issuance of building permits. Lot coverage shall not exceed 25 percent of the total lot area. The proposed setbacks result in an area that is less than 25 percent of the overall lot area,providing assurance that this requirement shall be met, regardless of the final building footprint. • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc. - Page 7 City of Lake Oswego R Revised June 26, 1999 t}U G 4 • 48.19 Flag Lots 48.19.010 Authorization; Application Requirements 1. Flag lots shall comply with the requirements of the underlying zone except where noted in this article. All land division creating a flag lot shall also comply wit any specific residential design criteria contained within an applicable adopted neighborhood plan. Comment: As discussed in Chapter 48.06, this application is in conformance with the R-7.5 standards set forth in the Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance. Please refer to this section for specific information. No neighborhood plans have been adopted for this region of the city. 2. In addition to the general application requirements for land divisions, an application to create a flag lot shall include a conceptual plan of complete parcelization of the subject property, and shall include a site plan illustrating the location of existing structures on adjacent parcels. There reviewing authority may impose conditions in order to ensure that parcelization of the subject property will not precluded the development of surrounding properties. Such conditions may be related (but not limited) to access, circulation, building location, utility availability, and natural resource protection. Comment: As shown on the Preliminary Plat, no further parcelization of this site is proposed. The large lots proposed for this site are in response to the existing topography and vegetation. 48.19.015 Exceptions • Comment: No exceptions are requested in this application. Therefore,this section does not apply. 48.19.020 Access 1. For land division creating flag lots, the reviewing authority shall require that access to the flag lots shall be consolidated into a single shared driveway wherever practicable, including consolidation with the access of the parent lot. Comment: One of the primary reasons for using a flag lot configuration was to limit the number of curb cuts onto Country Club Road. This development shall have a single curb cut with a shared driveway to access all three proposed lots. Lot 3 shall be accessed from the shared drive, and will not have direct frontage onto Country Club Road. 2. Flag lots shall have access to a public or private street; however, actual street frontage shall not be required. Comment: Individual lots do not have actual street frontage, but access to Country Club Road is insured through the establishment of an access easement across the western boundary of the site, across Lots 2 and 3. 3. Driveway widths shall be a minimum of 12 feet. Driveway length, construction standards, and turnaround requirements shall be determined by LODS Chapter 19, "On-Site Circulation-Driveways and Fire Access Roads." Comment: The proposed driveway shall be 20 feet in width, constructed to City standards. This drive will also meet the Fire Code standards for access. Please refer to Chapter 19 for a full discussion of the driveway standards. 4. No more than two driveways shall be permitted within a distance • equal to the minimum lot width of the underlying zone, or within Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc.-Page 8 City of Lake Oswego i1 G J Revised June 26, 1999 50 feet of each other if no minimum exists, as measured from the • closest edge of each driveway. Comment: As previously noted, only one driveway connection is proposed to Country Club Road. Therefore,this application is in compliance with this section. 5. All buildings on flag lots must post an address at the beginning of the driveway. The address shall be no less than 6" tall, must be on contrasting background, plainly visible, and must indicate the direction of the building. Comment: All lots shall be addressed according to the Lake Oswego standards. The approximate location of addresses and mailboxes has been shown on the Site Plan. This will be addressed more fully prior to issuance of building permits. 48.19.025 Lot Configuration Requirements 1. Determination of Front Yard: A the time of land division review of a flag lot creation, the front yard shall be determined as follows: The front yard is measured from the lot line that is most parallel and closest to the street, excluding the pole portion of the flag lot. If this standard is not practicable due to the placement of structures on adjacent lots, topography, lot configuration, or similar reasons, then the front yard will be measured from a property line that abuts the access portion of the flag or easement. Comment: Determination of the front yard location and general lot orientation is a significant design decision for this development. This is an infill site, and must be considered in relation to the surrounding homes to the east and west. Strict application of this standard will require that all lots be oriented to face Country Club Road to the • south. This would be in stark contrast to the orientation of the existing homes on Verte Court. All lots on Verte Court are oriented to the east,with the rear yard adjacent to this site. The applicant has proposed to orient the lots and buildings to face the access drive, to the west. This will accomplish several things. First, the new lots would be oriented "back to back" with the existing homes on Verte Court. This will increase the physical separation between existing and proposed structures, thereby increasing the overall privacy of all residents. Second, a western orientation will increase tree preservation for the site, specifically along the shared property line with the eastern properties. By locating a rear yard setback along the eastern site boundary, several large trees will be located within a building setback, and subject to additional protection by the tree ordinance. If the City requires a southern orientation, the proposed buildings will be spaces further apart to the north and south, increasing the encroachment into the large stands of existing trees. This is in direct conflict with the tree preservation ordinance, and is not"practical". Third, this orientation will increase the privacy for the new structures. If the lots are oriented toward Country Club Road, the front windows will be looking into the back yards of the lot to the south. No amount of physical separation will alleviate this loss of privacy. Fourth, if the lot to the west develops in the future, it will need to develop as a flag lot as well, and will face the same dilemma. As a final building design, it simply makes sense for the lots to face each other across the access drive,rather than have five to seven lots all facing Country Club Road. Staff has pointed out that "lot" orientation is independent of"building" orientation. While this may be technically true,the standards were developed to establish a"front yard". To orient the building differently than the lot and it's respective setbacks defies the intention of the ordinance. From a practical standpoint, the applicant will be forced to explain the conflicting orientations repeatedly as the property proceeds through the building permit process. Based on this, the applicant has proposed a building and lot orientation to the west, toward the access easement, as required by the ordinance. 2. Lot Width: Lot width shall be measured by a line connecting two points on opposite side yard property lines, that will result in a line • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc.- Page 9 City of Lake Oswego , Revised June 26, 1999 U LI • parallel to the front yard. Comment: The minimum lot width is 100 feet, measured as set forth by this section. All proposed lots meet or exceed this standard. 3. Lot Depth: The lot depth shall be measured at the mid-point of the front and rear property lines of the"flag". Comment: The proposed lots meet or exceed the 100 foot minimum lot depth requirements of Section 48.06, exclusive of the"pole"or access easement portion of the lot. 4. Lot Size: Area of access easement of flagpole shall be deducted form the gross acreage of the flag lot. The "flag" portion of the lot shall b equal to or exceed the square footage of the underlying zone. Comment: The gross site area of each lot exceeds the minimum lot area for the R-7.5 zone as outlined in Section 48.06,exclusive of the"pole"portion of the lot or the access easement. 48.19.030 Building and Site Design Standards 1. Building Orientation: For land division the reviewing authority shall require that buildings be oriented to provide the maximum separation and privacy from existing and future dwellings on adjacent lots. The reviewing authority may require conditions of approval to include measures such as specific building locations, increase setbacks, additional height restrictions, location and orientation of windows and other openings. • Comment: As previously noted, a western building orientation will maximize the separation and privacy of both new and existing residents. Details such as window locations and final height have not been determined at this point. All building design issues shall be reviewed with the building permit. Because the applicant believes that the lots and buildings need to have the same orientation, please review Section 48.19.025(1) Front Yard Determination for a full discussion of how building orientation relates to the surrounding properties and natural features. 2. Garage placement shall be reviewed at the time of building permit application to ensure minimum visibility of the garage from the street. Garage placement shall meet the following requirements:... Comment: Garage placement shall be reviewed with the building permit application. Therefore, this section does not apply at this time. 3. Height Requirement: Single family residential structures and accessory structures shall not exceed the average height of all dwellings on lots abutting the flag lot. Where a vacant abutting lot is present, a height of 16 feet shall be used in calculating the average. Where an existing structure on an abutting lot exceeds the maximum height permitted by the underlying zone shall be used for the purposes of calculating the average. Comment; As required, the proposed structures on Lots 1 and 2 shall not exceed the average height of surrounding structures. Exhibit F contains a photo survey of surrounding structures. Using this base information, a building height limit of 16.5 feet was established. Conformance will be reviewed with the building permit application. • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat y WRG Design, Inc.-Page 10 City of Lake Oswego U U G ./ Revised June 26, 1999 4. Where a flag lot abuts a lot in a residential district of lower density, • the greater setback requirements of the more restrictive district shall apply for those yards which have abutting property lines. Comment: This site is bounded on the east and west by R-10 property. Therefore, R-10 setbacks have been used for the rear yards of the proposed lots. The rear yard setback for both the R-10 and R-7.5 zones is 30 feet, as shown on the preliminary plat. 48.19.035 Screening, Buffering,and Landscape Installation 1. For land divisions, a minimum six foot landscape strip shall be provided as separation between driveways that are within 10 feet of each other (as measured from the closest edge of each driveway) and where a driveway is within 10 feet of an adjacent residential structure.... Comment: The proposed driveway is more than 10 feet from any existing driveways or residential structures. Therefore, no landscaping is required to meet this section of the ordinance. 2. For land divisions, existing mature vegetation and trees shall be integrated as screening where practicable. The review authority may require dwelling and garage placement or orientation in a manner that will minimize the removal of specific trees, hedges, or other vegetation that would serve to screen the proposed structures from existing and potential surrounding homes. Comment: The applicant has proposed alternate building setbacks for each lot that meet or exceed the standard of the underlying zone. This was done to insure the protection and preservation of the large stands of existing trees on the site. Trees are specifically protected along the east, north, and south. Tree mitigation is required for the trees removed for construction of the private driveway. The mitigation plantings have been • concentrated along the eastern boundary for additional screening for the existing homes. 3. The rear and side yards of the lot where the new development occurs shall be screened from adjacent property with a six foot tall fence except where a four foot fence is required by LOC 45.15.020(1) of the Building Code and except where the abutting property owner agrees in writing that a fence is not necessary along the common property line. In addition, a landscaped buffer within the rear yard setback a minimum of six feet in width shall be created long the rear property line and height and planted with a deciduous or evergreen hedge, a minimum four feet in height at planting which shall grow to a height of six feet within two years and shall be maintained at a minimum of that height, except where abutting property agrees in writing that a landscaped buffer is not necessary. The above requirements pertaining to the "rear yard" are not applicable where the rear yard abuts Oswego Lake. Comment: As shown on the Site Plan, the applicant is proposing a six-foot screen fence along the eastern property boundary. Due to the heavy amount of existing vegetation and the proposed mitigation plantings along the eastern boundary of the site, the applicant is not proposing a"hedge" screen. The existing and proposed landscape material meets the dimensional buffering requirements of six feet wide by four feet tall. Mature vegetation creates a far superior screen for the existing homes than a new hedge planting. In addition, a formal hedge planting would be out of character with the natural environment of the neighborhood. 4. Tree removal mitigation: A minimum of one evergreen or deciduous tree, of a species which will attain a minimum of thirty • feet in height, shall be planted at a 1:1 ratio where practicable in Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design,Inc.-Page 11 City of Lake Oswego r• • f'' 6Revised June 26, 1999 v" • order to mitigate the removal of existing trees necessary for site development. Deciduous trees at planting shall be a minimum of 2" caliper and evergreen trees shall be a minimum of eight feet tall. Comment: Tree mitigation has been shown for the trees removed for the construction of the shared driveway. Because the final building plans have not been determined at this point, it is unknown what trees will be removed and mitigated within the building envelopes. Approximations of tree removals for building construction have been shown on the Site Plan. Actual tree removal will be finalized at the time of building permits, with appropriate mitigation measures. Due to the heavy amount of existing vegetation on this site, mitigation for the driveway trees has been shown at a "tree for tree" replacement rate, consistent with the standards of this section. Replacement plantings have been primarily located along the eastern property line to maximize privacy between lots. Please refer to the Site Plan for specific plantings. • • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc. - Page 12 City of Lake Oswego 9 Revised June 26, 1999 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS • 5.005 Street Lights Comment: Russ Chevrette, Engineering Technician III, stated in the pre-application conference that no street lights would be required for this application. 7.005 Off-Street Parking, Loading,and Bicycle Access Standard 7.020 Standards for Approval 1. Vehicle Parking According to Table 7.1,one parking space per dwelling unit is required for single-family dwellings. Each structure shall have a minimum of a one-car garage to accommodate the required parking. In addition, each driveway will permit an additional vehicle to park. These parking facilities are all located off a public street, and are a minimum of 8.5 feet wide and 18.5 feet lone. 2. Bicycle Parking Comment: As a single-family residential development,no bicycle parking is required. 12.005 Drainage Standard for Minor Developments 12.020 Standards for Approval 1. Drainage Pattern Alteration: Development shall be conducted in such a manner that alterations of drainage patterns (streams, ditches, swales, and surface runoff)do not adversely affect other property. Comment: No significant alterations shall be made to the existing drainage pattern through construction of this development. The majority of stormwater currently drains to the southeast corner of the site, eventually joining • the Country Club Drive system. This pattern shall be retained. Earthwork shall be limited to the proposed drive and the building footprints. Building pads have been set at an elevation that is close to the existing ground elevation and no retaining walls are proposed. The roof drains for the proposed homes shall be released above ground, approximately six feet from the roofline. This will allow the percolation of stormwater into the individual yards, reducing the speed and concentration of the stormwater. 14.005 Utility Standard 14.020 Standards for Approval Comment: Sewer service is currently available along the southern end of this site, within the Country Club Road right-of-way. A short extension of the existing line will be required to provide service to the three proposed lots. This extension is shown on the Site Plan and will be constructed by the applicant prior to the issuance of individual building permits. Similar to sanitary sewer, water service is currently available along the southern end of this site, within the Country Club Road right-of-way. However,no public extensions are required to service the proposed lots. Private service connections for water and sanitary sewer shall be constructed with the installation of the shared driveway. All services have sufficient capacity to service the three lots proposed in this application. Service laterals shall be constructed to City standards, installed underground, and located within the proposed access and utility easement. The cost of all utility improvements shall be borne by the applicant. • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design,Inc.-Page 13 City of Lake Oswego Revised June 26, 1999 0 7 .1 • 16.005 Hillside Protection Standard 16.020 Approval Standards 1. All developments shall be designed to minimize the disturbance of natural topography,vegetation and soils. 2. Designs shall minimize cuts and fills. 3. Cuts and fills shall conform to LOC Chapter 45. Comment: Earthwork for the proposed driveway has been minimized in the interest of tree preservation. A short retaining wall has been proposed on the west side of the drive for additional tree preservation. In addition, the driveway has been shifted to the north at the entrance to preserve two additional trees for buffering and screening to the east. All cuts and fills shall conform to LOC Chapter 45. 4. Development Prohibited... Comment: No landslides or movements have been reported for this site. Therefore, this section does not apply. 5. Cuts and Fills: On land with slopes in excess of 12 percent, cuts and fills shall be regulated in accordance with LOC Chapter 45,and as follows... Comment: For those areas in excess of 12 percent slope, grading activity shall be set back a minimum of 3 feet from the adjacent property. As previously noted, no landslides or movements have been reported for this site. No structural fill is proposed. The majority of the proposed earthwork is actually in a cut condition. The proposed retaining wall shall be constructed per Section 2308(b)of the Oregon State Structural Specialty Code. 18.005 Access • 18.020 Standards for Approval 1. Every lot shall abut a street for a width of at least 25 feet. Exception: The street frontage of a lot created pursuant to approval of a row house development may be reduced to 17 feet in the R-0, D-D, R-2, R-3, and R-5 zones. 2. Access design shall be based on the following five criteria: a. Topography. b. Traffic volume to be generated by the development. c. Classification of the public street from which the access is taken (residential,collector,or arterial) d. Traffic Volume presently carried by such street. e. Projected traffic volumes. 3. Direct permanent access from a development to an arterial street is prohibited where an alternate access is either available or is expected to be available. A temporary access may be allowed. 4. Direct access from a development or a structure to a residential street is required unless such access is not available, 5. The City may require shared access with a neighboring site or an extension residential streets across adjacent properties to provide access to the development is necessary to prevent impacts on traffic flow. • 6. If no satisfactory access from a public street to a development is available, Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc. - Page 14 City of Lake Oswego Revised June 26, 1999 J U 7 1 the City shall require postponement of the development until such time as a • satisfactory access becomes available. Comment: The unique nature of this site prohibits all opportunities to provide residential access to the proposed lots. No residential streets currently abut or stub into the site. The site is too narrow to dedicate sufficient right-of-way to construct a public street. Therefore,the applicant is only able to provide access from Country Club Road, which is a major arterial. Rather than providing direct driveway connections to Country Club Road, the applicant is proposing a single access easement along the western boundary for a shared access drive. Driveways for individual lots shall not access Country Club Road directly, but shall be located along the shared drive. This will serve to limit the number of access points, and will allow property owners to avoid backing out onto Country Club Road. There is also the potential for the adjacent property to the west to develop in a similar configuration at some point in the future. In earlier discussions with this property owner, it was clear that future development was not going to occur in the near future. Once that property does develop, the proposed access drive could potentially be widened into a full street. Consideration should also be given to the small size of this development, and the low number of overall trips it will generate. Therefore, the proposed access system is consistent with the Access Standards. 18.035 Procedures 1. Determination of the location and configuration of an access shall be based on a traffic study,unless otherwise approved by the City Manager. Comment: In the pre-application meeting with the City staff, it was determined that a traffic study would not be required for this site due to the small size of the development and the amount of existing traffic on Country Club Road. No real conclusions could be drawn from such a study. 18.040 Miscellaneous Information 1. The expense related to modification of an existing street to accommodate • proposed access including all traffic control devices and lighting, shall be paid for by the developer. Comment: All construction expenses shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 2. Access from a major development to a collector or an arterial shall be not less than 100 feet from the nearest intersection of street centerlines. Comment: The intersection of Country Club Drive and Verte Court is over 100 feet away from the proposed access easement. 19.005 On-Site Circulation—Driveways and Fire Access Roads 19.020 Standards for Approval 1. Driveway Approaches—Locational Limitations and Restrictions Comment: The shared access drive is located at least 200 feet away from an adjacent curb cut, which is in excess of the separation standard. The driveways proposed for individual lots shall be reviewed with the building permit application. 2. Driveway Widths Comment: The driveways proposed for individual lots shall be reviewed with the building permit application. The shared access drive shall be 20 feet wide and constructed of asphaltic concrete, per city standards and in conformance with the Uniform Fire Code. 3. Driveway Grades Comment: The shared access drive shall not exceed a 15 percent grade. Please refer to the Site Plan for the proposed driveway grades. Individual driveways shall not exceed a 20 percent slope. • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc.-Page 15 City of Lake Oswego O u i 2 Revised June 26. 1999 • 4. Fire Access Lanes Comment: The proposed access drive and individual driveways meet the standards shown in the City's Standard Details for fire access roads. 5. Turnarounds Comment: The proposed access drive exceeds 150 feet in length. A turnaround has been provided at the driveway for Lot 2. The standards state that turnarounds may not be located within the required parking areas. Based on the parking available within the garages of the proposed units, the driveways do not serve as required parking stalls, and may be used as a turnaround facility. 7. Easements Required Comment: An access easement shall be recorded for the shared drive prior to recording of the final plat. 411 • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Hat WRG Design, Inc.- Page 16 City of Lake Oswego Revised June 26, 1999 0 6 7 3 OTHER ORDINANCES • Chapter 38 Utility Code(Sewer,Water,and Surface Water Management) Comment: Utilities are discussed in LODS 14 Utility Standard. Please refer to the discussion in this section for specific utility information. Chapter 39 System Development Charges Comment: System Development Charges shall be computed and assessed prior to the issuance of building permits. No permits are requested with this application. Therefore,this section does not apply. Chapter 42 Streets and Sidewalks Comment: This site has full access from the existing Country Club Drive. This street and sidewalk meets all City standards and requires no additional improvements. No new streets or sidewalks are proposed in this application. Therefore,this section does not apply. Chapter 44 Subdivisions Comment: This application is proposing only three lots, and no streets are created. Therefore, this application is considered a minor partition, and is not subject to the subdivision standards. Chapter 47 Sign Code Comment: No signs are proposed in this application. Therefore,this section does not apply. Chapter 55 Trees 55.02.080 Criteria for Issuance of Type II Permits 1. Dead or Dying Trees Comment: The applicant is proposing the removal of the following trees based on poor health conditions. • These trees are dead or dying, as determined by a certified arborist. For specific information on the condition of individual trees, please refer to the Arborist's report in Exhibit E. Several dead and dying trees are scattered throughout the site. The applicant is proposing removal of these dead and dying trees in the interest of public safety. Removal of these trees will improve the health and condition of the remaining trees on the site. In addition, denial of the permit would result in the eventual decay of the tree, without replacement trees. Therefore, no mitigation is proposed for these trees. Based on his initial investigation, the project Arborist believes that a significant number of the existing trees in the southern cluster suffer from root rot. Further investigation is currently underway to determine the extent of the infestation. In the interest of public safety and future liability,the applicant is requesting removal of the diseased trees, subject to the final arborist report. Mitigation for the root rot trees has been proposed at a "tree for tree" replacement rate,for the purpose of soil stability. 506—disease 570-dying 656-dying 539—root rot 519-dead 571 —diseased 521 —root rot 540—root rot 541 -dead 572 -dead 522—root rot 542—root rot 545 -dying 573 - dying 523—root rot 543—root rot 555-overtopped 600-overtopped 527—root rot 556-overtopped 601 -dead 528—root rot 557-overtopped 638-dying 537—root rot 2. Hazard Trees Comment: The applicant is proposing the removal of the following trees due to a hazard condition. For specific information on the condition of individual trees, please refer to the Arborist's report in Exhibit E. Again, 11111 Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc. -Page 17 City of Lake Oswego Revised June 26, 1999 A 0U74 • no mitigation is proposed, due to the resulting improvement for the existing trees through the removal of the listed trees. Removal of hazardous trees serves to protect the public safety and do not provide any public benefit. Therefore, the applicant should not be conditioned for additional improvements. 569 634 652 662 628 635 661 3. Trees that are not Dead, Dying,or Hazardous a. The tree is proposed for removal for landscaping purposes or in order to construct development approved or allowed pursuant to the Lake Oswego Code or other applicable development regulations; b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface water, protection of adjacent trees,or existing windbreaks; and c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics, property values or property uses of the neighborhood. In making this determination, the City may consider any proposal by the applicant to mitigate for the loss of the tree by planing new trees or other vegetation. The City may impose such mitigation requirements as a condition of approval of the permit. The mitigation planting may be required on the property or elsewhere in the City. Comment: The following trees need to be removed for the construction of the proposed drive. Mitigation has • been proposed on a "tree for tree" basis, as shown on the Landscape Plan. The existing trees create much of the identity for the project. consequently tree removal has been minimized wherever possible. The proposed tree removals will not impact soil stability or the flow of surface water. Trees on the lowest portion of the site have been retained for additional stability of adjacent trees. 505 554 585 636 507 558 586 637 508 559 587 639 509 560 588 510 583 589 518 584 590 Chapter 57 Solar Access 57.04 Solar Access for New Development 57.04.020 Design Standard 2. Protected Solar Building Line Option. In the alternative, a lot complies with this section if a solar building line is used to protect solar access as follows: a. A protected solar building line for the lot to the north is designated on the plat, or documents recorded with the plat; and Comment: Solar building lines have been shown on the Preliminary Plat. This restriction shall be recorded with the Final Plat with the tree-preservation setback lines. 1110 Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc. - Page 18 City of Lake Oswego Revised June 26, 1999 U U 7 5 b. The protected solar building line for the lot to the north is oriented within 30°of a true east-west axis; and, Comment: Solar building lines have a bearing of S 89°40'E. This meets the east-west orientation requirement. c. There is at least 70 feet between the protected solar building line on the north and the middle of the north- south dimension of the lot to the south, measured along a line perpendicular to the protected solar building line; and, Comment: The solar building lines are located at least 70 feet north of the center of the lot to the south, thereby meeting this requirement. d. There is at least 45 feet between the protected solar building line and the northern edge of the buildable area of the lot, or habitable structures are situated so that at least 80% of their south facing wall will not be shaded by structures or non-exempt vegetation. • Comment: As shown on the Sun/Shade diagram, all habitable structures have at least 80 percent of this southern face protected from shade. This diagram shows the shadow pattern of the proposed buildings for 10:30 am and 1:30 pm on January 21 at and altitude of 45°30' latitude. Sun angle calculation charts have been included in this application for additional reference. Chapter 58 Historic Preservation Comment: This site does not contain any historic landmarks. Therefore,this section does not apply. • VII. CONCLUSION The above discussion sets forth sufficient evidence to permit approval of the proposed three-lot minor partition plat as shown. Approval of this amendment would be in compliance with the zoning ordinance and in support of the goals established by the Comprehensive Plan. • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc.- Page 19 City of Lake Oswego Revised June 26, 1999 e S . Building Height Survey Blue Leaf Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc . . .. .. . 4 $.111., • .. J A J 4.41' . . r • '• • '.•.•3 .'1 ;'•7\,,,,. • - '', ' '1:•7-,. , '" ' ' ',._.' ' ' it 7k, --- - • - :,..'-.7.44.----=, • ' ' :- , .,. , . . - •( t.•. 4,-. • •-.411 • ., . .,. %,S— 7 c • .tryr mig_ . ...:-.;&•!'%.11,A-.1...f•9•ri',.f't)-el/' 4..COS: a.• ••;.,-.., -..",-,.3., .::•..•—, ..,,• „...-., i....‘, s..11 'I ,—_____ .. p;..,,,,.. ., ,,..1t. . .,_ .....1 . . . i. •1'.:* , - ' ., '. 1.-"Ij. j it'..1 .i.if• .'"'"... ' ,,re . •-h.- i - .:1:1..1z2.1,* _ . -4 ••" , --— --- __. • t-,- . •.:"...... 1,...:: 1,. ....- .....4 -_----- -- ..„4. rt. N. • ` ,..,..t. -. , - , ^j's+•.-. . . ,:, ., •t..yr -...c. I , ___-_.,---.--.._::-_,- - , 4,1i• . :- i .• .r .., , L..- •..1.- .•'•--.-‘-'•••Lkt. _,. • . - ,_ • Is- .. ...;-' ..-. .,..~•;-: -.'-'vv..4., ,Ne • - ..... . I. .t‘.. - '''','.'1. 'A74...1''.• .•Nit . .14414.j44‘..t"it,...7....1.'':.4-.'11:1: ti..17. ,. 1.... r.. rt. . , . : :^0-., i/1-'c. "4...,"4'..7'71 i-•••j'APA,74./. 2 . I • .0,114—..:Vi3.1,. tii,s,tiLit.0 . 1._.;.._:d._i.1Aa.1• • ; t-•••-, ...,A. . I .. •"..1',...• ,''.41-,'4 r ,.1'--.:1 --, . , r • e T. ..-•• ,,... ,; ..,... , .:V.,ii -"._' ",14,..'.›,, "..,... r a:,e,,•!:' .0'31,,..t. .' ' 7...trie.-..aght,;:vt.,1,4,4,.e.• ........,,,.... . ..4., '1- a.;Alta•i'Afft.4.14,.., 4?rerV4:11.11.1:;'A. ''' 4.1'11",: t 1,. . • ''Syl`...4..A.”46".••••4141....3 bl 7 ni‘41(0.441:144,. .ti.,!:•••I r!.",ot' .. • . . :'-','.1."4.,....: i'1'M.":,.''..:"',..1 1:'1',134••)1. k:• ,: 4 7k.'41`,.1..4, 14" Pl. ft•_ ,4 "„,,,. ,',..t..C.46..e.*-,•,-•.„ I re.:,,,p-,,,,,F.:. Fy,•"ttri•,...,....,,,,t4„,1-. 1.••,. •:::,.' i',, .•,.,..-1,...:, '.. ' .. , -. " -- , , -- ar • . ' ',•.„,..'" ''-','''‘"{:,:- ‘', 4.1 ..1..A.44.,•"‘441 ,AS., /4'.••• •••1'.".f` •'''''''`.'•.''' t ••'' •-•7 •-.0'4 :do.. .. ' . .. - • ' . '.'i,y, '' 1,!'''..k7,t.••:•1•-•:•' ',••!-"_$-,..‘7...1.,,,q4.,•%,.• .••144,, - _..s••.....—At;.1e "N"•44:i•e'... 'tc'''.1 ^,..rt 2 1.% 1,, '''4 7 ',•,?...-.:• . .I. , . _. .._ . ,. ,• ,, ' • '.......,e..-'LA hip.14.:,,L.f..,„,,,,•-,'• .`,e;N.tIvES • --n".,,....,...,.. „,,I,1.4k Lr.(;•••,•t .,' ei.',,V1.7.)1•••';•'•:--' ••••••••;-7,••••...\ •-,, , 1. „ . ' - , • ' ' ' .• ' - ' .-ta,i 1 .-54'i,. - $'g,'•,...e."-=',.g.:•'"",Y.7•4 ., •_ ... ,-.1 -... , ' .. ••,• •:•,t44' 4,,v.i..t.....1.4.,,7,vottav,-i-c,-,.. -.. _, - .;,,-,-Ko. .,:-.N:..,.i--.•.- ...:;.-;14.-:-.% • Ti'"&i•':*1.1:1:"1"'s4 "•• '- .•••••''--4,44;'":*ri. ,",.-. • - ... .,-. :.',,..,' . • . • I. . -;;;,.:7-•;•:/;;-7:,";.. .1('SO C.k4'5:7•E;.A'-`,..--.... .4,• .:':i 0: 4,41,0, 14.:47.,.."•- ,..,.1,' ,,,eilit .":,;,::;(--:-..,..,:i...,4•.-:::: ., ... • . .. 1 t1 ..,,,..,.....-....1,- - I,...-..,,,,..p. .041fitzsacLi..A.,,,,,,,14. •-.1.,. 7'....itZt "-. ..7:t.:. ••a.%* •. - . .e....."r7i1:0:.:141;AC•itt''' ':::"'St'.4,`/I'..?.•;..;...1.4•-•'''• ..''•L-.:.;%"74c.1...0.nile3,4"3.•74-1•'IZ....1.4i1.1.' •,....4..,. 1...,...4,tl f 6.. ,. _vs.,...,-,...i, .-...., , ...,.... ._ ,, ...,..,--..tr.... ,Ort-P•"t-..i%,.' -= 1..:1:...,:Zr..'•;-:,•41:.“.-...•g'W "A•- . '';i 41 :.,,4,9, L.'. ..:.,,,..:,,`,..-^',-- ,-•, • 14.t.1',.:-.' ' t-1 M 1 X\.,z i Ca 13860 SE Verte Court .; 8 —1 • ,0 • Estimated Building Height: 16 feet , , r Building Height Survey Rlue Leaf Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc • ,-...1• ...4 , ,-.:.4+,11Zi.zi:•:. "Iy.: `',7,5!::,‘"'"".V '"go " '. i!...,..i. ''''.* , • ...a ‘,-. .......""a • '' - 1.••'.:ge • g "'. 1 . .-. 4 gg. Y=. • , t / . ••:,,. _ -..-4p4;i_..;,,..„/ . •,,A .....,p).1. 7' , ',.. . A..:*;.,;.._...;, . , ..: i. :, ...-.,,44\1!, -0•, ' ‘ '' ••••41,,,i; . .•,..... .gz,i ..., ...,N•Ak.t.-1 , til' '-'WI' --,4.•'''' *•1 • ''--r-1 • -•-z.--: . '7-.--...,,-":-Lar• •• . Al •.k.'''"-•"):V" ----'1..'f,', d': az-y-• : z •:::-,,-,.....-... •,--........;:4.4,....::.....4-„,v.....;„!....Tr-4-.1., ,I.A., .., ,r.,,,,,„ #4,„, ,‘..1`....,..,.4.0..,...i..if: 1 ,.y.. •,,1 ,-...... ..1. ,, • 't 1r, -.•, -..,..._-,.,_--1,:::---:A.-.:•..; „.„„14. ....,f;...„...g,.x.„01., ,..,,y.,,, .- : ,,4„„,,sti f.,4,, ili.. „.. .. '7' `-,,,.'',::-.7..f.:f• li.:( c•f.'::#1,,-..,,.‘".,'•..,.... •:.4. ,':#1.,..---Avl 1. ,' ."t''' :I.' .....t..,,..4.1...40.,,,‘_,--...iro.-41 .., ,-;._,..t ru...... .,. A i IA.,,P.,'''..1 • : '. -.,',...-.A.%Iv', . t It,,,l''...;*:,5e ?..7.,-,,...-••.•.,:....441,:l 3,, ##.... " :'. .,.ri''CM;'`,7:1•..1 .1 ..r. •70 , -..,1:AO' • :.,..; '.s. .t.',.';'" x....7-Vlizi. k-,; - . •.44.. A'ie..••.1‘ 3:. •r ' '14:sti. k I:11. #.. •-••• !...;$1._/:,?:f.•4,-,,,-•,,,,,, :t----..--:':-.4. ..s. •\ 14.4: `k`t.1 • . k ••,-• . • 1.k Is.... '''S- 2i•'it:. ..1‘..!*** y ef .y.r.be 0 ----------,1 ...*.r.N.,'',.....,..',1*... ' -#--1-= .. .- .J .• k‘k.t 41 .,t,'•L.• .p,'..F. - . ....I.C...c k`. '';'1.0- CD ,. ....., , ".... .... .4.,. , ,, 41`. .. 4,....• .4-J.,/••• - • ••;(4....•• ..,..1 .. •- b.. , "--P-''.--.44-• 3 :i:...:4'...;;;'141';;'-..'.:...--.':-:-44-7--.2•*•.:,•-.':__"rtie-trIr;'", ....- • ., ...: • ,....,,,.., - z•-_--,-,..• -_ -,,,-.7,- • 1-...et. c...- 1 . , ‘,. ... ,,„_, ••,-• • - -,,-• - _ -...,.-.,....:0,1„..,,,. _. ... %. .....,... ., •,.. . - •• utz...,.. •;:,•- •c447'..tti• - -..-2 - - ' '-.. !..t- if• • —.,1 . 7:,2.)-1--.,:--'.• ' • •si .4').6.t•l• M.tij .''''.• .•" , ' -' :1 ''' -"',...• • i i •Vtt:f•'.;.%,k., .!C ' /la ..,,.• :-,• ' ....-, ;,.. .iz' . ;: .•-......ii 1 ..,#:--, Y,StIlL1 4, P,4.1,,,t, -A • , '.' .ts, , ..1 i'N!••• 4%.1;_;... fi, Nrk. 2,';,. ,i 1,'T., g..).I') .... t...:1 ''.1`."g.,! v..--•...... -'--- -- •-•- .' '•. r, i.,','. ," #' ?1, .• •- :"..;-41.11 ---•••,' '2,- • ,* °,41` - A „ ,, !.;.3-,4.-• )0 A ia_1167 vilerit let*, t"....k 4• 14.'''S,e?'•#‘ II' I,,'t ''t'' ,- -. l'i• . ,'' 44:..4!!,,vir ,r4.040.0. .,...1.eiri-viv.." ...t. ;41: 6.,t,.:0,,.„‘")•;•:, ..0%,.. ..f!i!...1.,'..",..-..s,,.. -I 1.% .`...1.0• .. .- ..rr, ,.''.. , 7 C .1 A.,.'i '..7i:/, 7'7- --7."- '•"'''''t '''' ....:.,;....,e,....A•1 it.g • ?gm- •. *,.g.!(•••;Xes„...=,,,:;,vg. gl..f. •••''gh•;fgg?".'y '--"••-•--........r..-2.„'....1.1..,•rs .1.•3.; r., . /.:, e ....e''• . v• .••t•••• ..r.•.. ..<1•_.•1,.1.' : !• ... ...,.4. ,.. . =1.1.•4 ' • r ..,, •tr'zi .17.'t .1.-.4- • itt,;"%•:.t.....“•*-=;•-•• • ...-•t• -...--,Mil.r.,7),scir ••••-ar -1 - - • ' ' - 416‘...74:4P^....., .i......,• ;.::•''.*'•''' .?•'-• ,i,",-4/..1."(''•:!.•''',',..-1,`-.i.._, . . - , :- . ., , . ,.,.. ), • ••,,,44.,144 eg.• • -„,.....n,-,-. .'t. - - --- • • • •... _t, ::•• '",,..-:ihhathr::.-•'''' .i,frt.. .••••-•.._„ia.,:.••-•:.----; - • .-.••!- . • li..:....---77;•-.7.•,.,- •;,::•-•-•:,,• -.`r-tr.1-41 •,'7-"Lr' ' ' .724*. .1.';:•-•,:-'...,•••• - — -•s•-••-•-ag:r-gr.•r.-t•.7:-''-,;-':!i--,-.-.Tr,,r..f•.?,.2.....:..”...•.-2”,,,..`.'.'.`.'....,..':-,'.,. .;'•I t-;;t.;.;4,,,..e'.,t-'4'N.1:1!i24.•P t.0'.''I ' ' . •' ''. 'd' 7i s:Vi•1 4701:';':,.4..: , 1 1)0I•'i V.1 1'...9-1 4"••F"r.t"h--,1'1‘k 1•.t0-1. •Vfrt.•-.t\*N,••i•-••r•:•;....t-.:..••`"'0i'T,,.1 V••-•4:.•6.,‘.•.A'-t::;•'.'.'i0,,,,-,..rr.,..,.. •.'.. ••••::. .. • . ..-• .,..- 44,,:0-,..,••,..%.y....::..-,0:4' , rig-i;• -h, 14-, r!'4....17,-.:7g0 4:.' • ; • ' , . ..'-•••- ."...1.'',..1i''i...,b.14,444t;`.L.D.44; 0'11#...:TN.. # `I , v1-.4,,•,...,-,.,a,1 .... , , *74,t4 . • -'' 'r34 *1108Seitir., . . ." ' • '...,e'.. ....'.. \:\t?"-Vv.ii..,1,,-..h,,t,..4: ,v.......,,..'1.',-,...,.:,..... ,..,.,....7.,, ... ....,..,,,,,,. .*,.vs-tNi , t• - ‘. i;-,•,.•-„:,,,a . ., ,•• . ...-..,-:ri..,•;=,:y4-1,-.14•.4,,,, f.-;.„. ,4).:•,;:w•,.:.-?...--t:- ..-----.". •,..- -. , ... .1..itsgstaltirata,.a.-kgia--_,,...• .. .._ . • 13850 SE Verte Court • Estimated Building Height: 16 feet III 11111 III 0 0 .__1111 Building Height Survey Blue Leaf Partition Plat WI{G Design, Inc .41'1..,.. ^ - ,"•:: -' . _ _ ,.... 1;••.e"-- c ' ,I . ' .. •1.'"- 1' ' ' . • . • • ' ; ...:.•••' • ,„ , ' relgegl'•"-• l•-'' r '.?•1.•.-% ;Po'." ''' .. Q‘' •".... : ',..„,.; .....:. _.;•/,/•••.•4' I.e.'s-S. . ' - • ,..,. ' •'', .e.rter,l'...e•-44- -,'...:.•,•. 4: - 't.:7".•- ixn• :l'‘...:%,•'fl• -*•" , • . '' .....10-4'ef.,:ik 4-•••-t.-'," . 'L.' 04. ,. 1 . - t"A ); .... 7 "'I' - •;':••••:4.- ,ailatierii.24!.... •••••, ....,r4,- . • ••-..4..-•_1_,J.,---- -•---.1-1'."-„..•,••....-:'0?,P••••" -t".......7• " -."7-" 4.--; . ' • -R•dc.:. ----" ----='--- - -_____-_-___,,_ •-•66.1 4,:. It •_ta.. •• :-„,,•_.... _.,-7.,,t.r:..•=•--- ...Aiitim,,,, ...7 ," . ' . ' .. ....4'477" "'""i. ---•....,••••••Zi-..".-- A" e , q I.r,'-,:, CD ..f.,"0 ...........\1: . .. _-_-. - -_. .... ; ,•,C;444,'•-."7/;•"..... ..-- -16/A'1;."'2."""". -".4.1:4.--`-;:—.4"L'k ...'..4.::.t.":‘.1'It': .-:::.:-.•-• -4* li ::. , ..,., . ,t•,,_,...Ln.rax,5...;-3 ' ...c...;kj""•%:, fi.akik •-..4.- ------....-.4%•tpx ,44:-7 I—.." 1::. ''.1 '12:417,,,t-.1.••••-••• 1 ...,","../...-•',., . 4,.. ..1 .- ,,i, -,1 ...c, 1J . .... ..- . L :::,. „ --1.-...-,,,4, •-—,,_.f2,,- ,-.-Tv; --)---*:.- •r -- i • ........s. ,, ..-,...i. .?,,,,rz l!' i.,,x;::::-—__.- . _ . „,:•.--ft,-•• • 14'1,4 ••;'145.104.-IN" P•n'tl'•- f" . "'' ."7-"""---.." --"' ft'';%11 --' '''"-• - i '9.,t!".:41.-.1.-Ilr..1....-7-n.".rwe;r. -lc .4•'•-•I'':'•,%••N -'k•'.• •,••''i'' '•'MEgirj,..g, • .. • „:••''."' . .., ,•••••••'• ".. •,.. 11,• 4.41r,.....4._ •- , - - .: i,-. .•`;').k..t. V' - -•. ' •'•••'''. C14 v' ' .... '111.V. ' "4 I • • 'II.;t -, , ...41'.54.4. ,:?,:r t•••••.,:,, #,..• ...t.g..- ' . •• 1 .1) • 4' •"ikV,V741.‘r•••-lel.r4.7'..... :I.VIN.'" • ,' ' 1• el'.".. .44t.'.."SN'sigt''''X 1145441°,x'-• _. . . . ,,•14 ., ,,t I. .,,,,,. . ,.:',74._,,, 1,-,,..., ,,, -,,i'L•,:.,..Jf 4VZ.":-'5..,"', ' • , . ...kkek,'AT7,57' t ". , '-'. ' ' . ..' ' .' ''. 4:'"4.rh.‘:?? ' , 1 ... (". • ' `4,..1.4r.•:••"4e."..P:r• Z'‘.........C4°...I ;,i ,..." 1 ---”I 1 . , l• 4. ••'....:-•••.:1*...1i1V4* •-: — 41 I'• . '4,: .4'.•,5"....: - ,.. '74•40i....eiM"..--,-,. ,....:"..,...„,tz..........::. z C'i•-..iHr••''Itt:51';1. .,,:;,,*•i'. : '•,,b 4 + •.... ,...,,; .•Id - . , • 1 r• 1. ,,t....7.%'4•47•0•••••Set'n....514'...••••Z; .' ,, 1 4('`•.",..•!,:., ‘,1 -‘•di n I. 4.44; ., ...-._,...-_,,...,,,,:.,,,,-..--z,....,,, , . . . . - ,,,--- - --. , .. 41 1 „4 ........e. ." ., 1. ft4.‘_,..4.7;,_!..11‘....,,,.. c.•s . ••• .„.,•I • ....7,1.5:1 , .% '. .$ ..‘ it„II'', ,,,ii...-?,.. 0,,'•i':.•kr , .. • 4 ' ..., ',,i.2 , , 4ft ';A.," !tr.,':.. " ..4 t 4 4 4.4.1_ 1:.,,-,14,..t.,...#;6,.,e%.,'".:: , wok,„... , 'e.,.,,', ..,,,,';',„1.., .., , '44...1'4-,....r •- ' 4, •• -•iIel 1 I•tt, . 11-1 ' a •'.. '''''./..,"iWgI•M•La- I ' :..al".. 2,1 4.^I • •..;I n •.,..•.4.:P.. . • 13840 SE Verte Court • Estimated Building Height: 16 feet Building Height Survey Blue Leaf Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc • • r, 14444 _ ' + 4;Vr Irk,.:4:1; .�. 4• �- - 1,...:.:Ite-4z0,..,°V,4:fil.4:-f.., . . . ,:.:..'-i.7-7 r•-,' ' .,•,,,-••-..,'.- .'.- '" -4 6 .i 'v1.r•'1:.. •� ... ` .:! ',t+. .a, f7 4 _ i i 4 :� "T :�_ � i1e i,' t ' k.1 y„�,i PJ��.� �, L. k �t"� 34 ,�5.+'f"E• r ri7tf{�AY'0 a ..� • .. • :S - ' T ,.k. .!Lig... .r,i, .r.iif ti Y t • K'�w 1 t ,Nvti, 1 GT Z K. ..-ry J, y�7 I11 L 'la' j. �.`;"y9 11L.L, i5'i � , .. al.^ Y ' N•J �aS iW•�� •. •r l •T 4{..•- A � 4 Y °W„I Lie. 'i i �R, !. 4 ! '. I' r •}t ,rw. (�.,,}ry' •1��V 1 fir'•"{ • � 1A� 4 �" 1'�i,,,�} 4�."" fit „ t h !1` •:7 ArM „`7'C J. '•110.,.. -�'Yu' ..... '. V� wr IR r R +N+ 81/grii .l"y'Yt yCN:-1 4• y" r -�. - !.. , �':�. .r'�� 1 5 L t� �• y z.na.li.»•+•'� .1,\;/,�'�r! ^' .. • 13830 SE Verte Court • Estimated Building Height: 16 feet III III 1111- _____4D 0 0 Building Height Survey Blue Leaf Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc • • .._, .;..,. -....7s....., ,,, i ......tio .. - ..). -• .ii ,,, , •'• • . • lr ' - ••. - • ..., 1p-ik. " •-r ,''' ••4,.. -/air*I"`- • --- .. • • • • :i...."/ •- ' - •' 1 -.11, I“ .'....7•:T.- - I ' C--; .g_.:1:,:f7-triov,"14;k t•:“."M ..1...., ' ,.. I Z.11•.-.„--L.L_...,;1 • ' '. -',....17,,zrar.2701.---=- 1-----,...-. . -...' 1•1, 7.. - ' , , g., ; il.... • • :.• -.....!.......z-•-.;. 1.-T.-:t ''.--1 , r - -..qn•-g4;',.. I . - !.,1411.sai,-- _ ‘•-.------=-•-;--- . .. .t7.raor.7.:4.§5t.-ri, 4 • + ir.-.4 . ••• 1,4:- Id I ,-.11,1 ''' 4' . -, -,,a,-,,.,,,,,a ,'Ir f p . . ,.., . - .- • - .' Nii-***474t. g. .- E., .: a 17-, .4, .., ...i.,. , - d ......"-='..-.•rl gq. . •:. r • . ' ' .1 • . , ? :•.', .. '4.'''"'.:1;,''..-1",',1•,_41/4-11'.:I.-1T:`'''.....1.,-,..4,c`r,c4, rri`frir:it, • . ' ''',,,.. ..; - "...„ :,,.•• -- 1••••• .. ,‘**7:::''' ..: --4..t:Z;1...TE,47 •,,,t,11,t':!!'";,,43;-.,,.3.;',-,!, • L'!2•-7,-,v:tt• :`I.;.,..S,'4-%;1‘..--''''V.04:,ti'',7 -,'',',&:Xte,•r.-#:,:k Za44.1i't,:4!..4,,4,1;,s.,)(,T.:,,,1,,....r-mil,trr. .-.-.0.'"4.,---,:: '.. '-. ,- -.• 4 ' •'•'it, . 4 4'4 . . 4 ' - • -'...•;'1'.4'1'1/4 Fi•`...r.''':k.''.Y.R,':-:`.-...4'4',.-'.4),11.—rz4-.•14i.'i'.'''',.@4'....0.:',r•fr.454'.,'''''''.,,..-''''-'.4',..4114-.....^''Ll.4`4.1‘"';'''V''?.'4.'-'4.1'''''IM-7",----'14.-14.te4:41:4-' ,..t.,7,...-0.-.:'4;4;,,,,,',J.,,-.z.t,..v.cirie•--ne lligy11140, ,4^ri-,-,4 az,,':4.1..„-%3',''..0.4it...:-,fr..... ry ..,,,,,,,, ,,.0., : ,',,, -,.,„n..t e:-,. ' , .P, r* 1 1,441! ..,,...,.1.X. ••pivtp...i.,•,....7,,:ti..rsi.444t,r.....j.tr.L,.1,';'?„—-',:,,t,.,,,..;,1,i ':1„,N,ri;,...v.,ic.,.%,1,,,4 ....-4,.V..;._ -,-;4-i 7,',..101.;e`',4.•%.,,,.i7. I: ',I I: ' 4 ' ''r ' •3,;, 1,,.ni.','.•...4,- ' . I' ' ,"4. .... .......4.1 4%; .'i'A4'4,lir,"11,07r..,.,r'5,:P,'.4.''2‘'''t:'1"‘I'rrt IT 4.h`+: •14,.',,,,Fir,,'N1,..,.:,.f.;-,,,-.4.`.1,. ;.... .,,,'',,,l'e'4,..,!,;:,1,.1!l'i,I'll.;,:,' •%,•.1`e•*,-,'r:!(:.,1/4,‘E,17%.'t'':;t.,,,I1',14V4:4,ANo..'1„Zi'Mri-0.,,4,.,..:(0.*!4",;i'.,,,?:.:".:,‘').i.,1-1.1..,:,.,,Iekif;vij::-.;kV,•:. , _ , '-'...'',..,-'3?-.:V.,vf,R....0a40.4" kit • ' "nr't"Wf.',;4‘"71; , „.i.,:ip40..?,1-,-,2....,-,',1,,:v Al ,, .,. . .. , _,. ,, . . - '''?' ''•1`. *:':. 0'....A.ct.:1+9.Nok:.•21010:‘`. -'.'). 3.''‘Ivilfe41,.phi ..jli':1'..4;t*I'l.'f'-41.fil''P':•:1•1".4.';';'-'4!:- , ..,,,.; ,-. -..4,,,,;.‘is..-s .-,,i t.ficec.0... ti-,1,';':-.1 . "' • 13820 SE Verte Court • Estimated Building Height: 24 feet Building Height Survey Blue T,eaf Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc ... ! r �� :,�� '.,t, I •... i ! , ?k�. N!:•>:^4 �t!.pjo fir• .I.:file r., 111 y C • • 1, r r 5 9 N., .,, . ,...___ `r � ' " II r`• ( _'� i.imi CCfI ..r.::, �• 1. n .7RL �j•' :a f ,.`,IT,,;31. r� •' (•-. --��,. �Y ,...,.n Ell-11 �, �li,,(��f'xi •$;4 4:.. * • I"!rYi:.� �`.t• . yd y. s, v .ram kr r� { .. f • tt + �! ;:4:ft�+$ rw"i'M n ; n• Z C ep'� 6't!� ••+"�^. '�- it ,,f+r �r,'� 5 R. y- 4 i tt i. t.2k. r. .J. a• i j'rlr ,,,st-..-i *Thai{ t:A �, p '°4 0:74"7;'z4 . k•1i ? 'i;( r� ,� t't.' *k .�'�^.r1 5 • 7• ':4y t71 y .•..l' }r+Ylt J r. s.s t.%' �, • r• y.. i...,, y !�, i.r�' 1te, .9.,C.,�.J tt j'}'Ej,10 1 urti+. , 4.* t1'11 �y L r-.'i,. . - 4 �Mq,�, I rt`pi y',41 diti. r e'le ,,,:,p,�r'4' t.t:,.`,E.: 17,� r�• ^lit Iti,-' 'A' .. _ •.. . % , , _ . 1•+ �4t:h� , di y . 'f' ?J'x' •�'a° l q"'t ti t'x ,. - ,. 2 '+ w/4 ,, „ `.. +:t �J r'�'Lf. F' J . -rcd41•.�rcr� .. • 1505 ("ountry Club Drive • Estimated Building Height: 16 feet • . • Building Height Survey Blue Leaf Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc • • • CO • • ,ram "`'; l• r �• e L�r• c . r t96 r`Mb 'r' i k ,•• y'>� E � ,r� ,`'1,�-'a'• ~� • 13733 Knaus Road • Estimated Building Height: 12 feet 0 S it unAngle http::,www.susdesign.comrsunan,ie • • (7-ieso SunAngle et This shareware Javascript program calculates solar angles based on location, date, and time. •y► ' Instructions - Notes - FAQ -Mailing list -Shareware - Comment -SusDesign home HaAy i Inputs Latitude , 45.5 4i, North South ``, Longitude 122.5 East I West Date January !I 21 1999 v Time 1 : 30 (eg, 12:34) = AM i+PM 7 24 hr • Time Zone • U (GMT - 8:00) US/Pacific J Daylight Savings 40)Yes/ No tr 'aa fir. „s ;c — Calculate! _ CM 0 ... ... t "r Quf Puts ra-t.�t =.D v cprnent Declination • -19.93 degrees(positive is Northern Hemisphere) Equation of Time -11.24 minutes Local Solar Time ' 12:08pm (+1-indicates next/previous day) Hour Angle - 2. 19 degrees (positive indicates AM) Altitude Angle 24 . 54 degrees Azimuth Angle - 2.26 degrees(positive indicates east of south) • Time of Sunrise ; 8 : 47am (clock time) • Time of Sunset ; 3: 34pm (clock tune) EXHIBIT 10 . . kiU .r I LU 99-0029 ) y{5 iunAng le http://www.susdesign.com/sunamne •,.,....„ ,...,.,.. ._. SunA. -n,, _. , , ,. .....„,_..„...„„ __,....,Aw ,.,,_.,. :,,,e, .„. .. ... .. s/f This shareware Javascript program calculates solar angles based on location, date, " • and time. Instructions - Notes -FAQ - Mailing list -Shareware - Comment -SusDesign home r= Inpufs Latitude 4 5. 5 ' North South 'VA Longitude 122.5 East 4, West ,4_ `, ,,, :.,,,\ ,:,,„,,,, Date January i• 21 II 1999 J Time 10 : 30 (eg, 12:34) 0,)AM -. PM _ 24 hr Time Zone :: ;GMT - 8: 00) US/Pacific II III Daylight Savings 0 Yes ' No fir— • :tee :, . � `' } y:\--1 Calculate; � �7�/ ; Outputs Declination -19. 96 degrees (positive is Northern Hemisphere) Equation of Time -1 1 .20 minutes Local Solar Time 9:08am (+;_indicates next/previous day) Hour Angle 42. 80 degrees (positive indicates AM) Altitude Angle 13.88 degrees Azimuth Angle 4 1 . 14 degrees (positive indicates east of south) Time of Sunrise 8 :47am (clock time) Time of Sunset 5 : 54pm (clock time) • 0U86 Walter EL Knapp Silviculture and Forest Management Urban Forestry • June 18, 1999 Mr. Ryan Selby Matrix Development Corp. 11130 SW Barbur Blvd. Portland, OR 97219 Dear Mr. Selby: I have completed the tree condition survey for the Blue Leaf project in Lake Oswego. The enclosed a spreadsheet documents my findings. Both paper and electronic files have been furnished to WRG Design. Please note the suspected root rot center in the area south of the existing residence. Any • Douglas-fir trees considered for retention on this part of the site should be examined closely for safety. This should include a root crown excavation on some trees, which is beyond the scope of my current work Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the tree condition survey. Sincerely, Walter H. napp Certified Forester, SAF CertifiedArborist,ISA tar ;° ,� :r.. QrJ Enclosure • 7615 SW Dunsmuir Lane,Beaverton, OR 97007 Phone/Fax:C EXHIBIT 11 LU 99-0029 u U 8 7 p ye5 BLUE LEAF TREE CONDITION SURVEY Page 1 of 7 Tree Survey DBH Ht CR CRad Crown I Vi or Hazard No, Descr. Species [in.] [ft.] [%] [ft. Class Tree �roup Class Condition!Description 501 TR D 06 red alder I 6 20 12 P I Branches only south side, powerline 502 TR D 08)c red alder 8 20 12 P I Lean; under powerline 502 red alder 8 20 10 P I Lean; under powerline 502 red alder I 8 I Gone 503 TR C 26 Douglas-fir I 261105 I 50 15 C I� I 504 TR C 26 Douglas-fir I 261110 I 30 201C F I I bne sided crown on southwest 505 TR D 10 Ibigleaf maple I 10140 I 201 F I 506 TR D 06 Ibigleaf maple I 6140 I 301 IVP I I Basal scar, sweep Old broken top at 40'. Crown recession inside 507, 508, 507ITR C 20 (Douglas fir 20I110 40 30IC F IG 509 Group • 508ITR C 24 Douglas fir Old broken top at 40'. Crown recession inside 507, 508, 24I110 40 3QIC F IG 509 Group 5091TR C 18 Douglas-fir I 181110 I 40 3011 F IG I 5101TR D 10 'red alder I 10130 I 101 F I 5111TR D 08 'red alder I 8120 I 10' P I I (Basal scar, lean, powerline 512 Douglas-fir I 14190 30 1510 VP I (Weak stem 517 TR C 17 Douglas-fir i 17190 20 1510 I 518 TR D 12 Ibigleaf maple I 121 10 I I I 5191TR D 12X1red alder I 121 I I I Dying 5191 'red alder I 121 I f I I bead 5191 (red alder I 121 I I I (Dead 5201TR D 06 (hawthorn I 6 '20 I �0 P I I (Lean west I ' 'Suspected root rot center. Numerous dead branches, 521 TR C 24 (Douglas-fir 24 115 20 15IC P Iwindthrow in vicinity. I I 'Suspected root rot center. Numerous dead branches, 522 TR C 24 (Douglas-fir 241115 20 15IC P Iwindthrow in vicinity. I ' Suspected root rot center. Numerous dead branches, 523 TR C 24 Douglas-fir 24 115 20 15 C P windthrow in vicinity. 524 TR C 30 Douglas-fir I 301115 40 15 D F I I Crown one sided (south) 5251TR C 18 (Douglas-fir I 18125 20 10 VP I !Topped at 25'. 5261TR D 10 Ibigleaf maple I 10130 20t0 VP I (Lean, crooks/breaks in top 5271TR C 18 ! lPDouglas-fir I 181110 30 151D I (Thin crown, suspected root rot 5281TR C 18 Douglas-fir I 181110 30 151C I 'Thin crown, suspected root rot Prepared by: _ Walter H. Knapp '- Silviculture Forest Management -D Urban Forestry L0 III III6/18/99 9926 Blue Leaf Trees.xlsiifile BLUE LEAF TREE CONDITION SURVEY • U PaOof 7 free Survey DBH Ht CR CRad Crown V or Hazard No. Descr. Species Fin. f ft.] 1°Io1 [1t. Class Tree Group Class Condition/ Description 529 TR C 42 Douglas-fir 4 110 60 3o D E Old broken top at 50' (topped?) 530 TR C 12 Douglas-fir 12 100 40 15 I P One sided crown, crown thinning, poor taper 531 TR D 12 bigleaf maple 12 25 0 VP Severe overtopping, crown recession, live limbs on east 532 TR C 24 Doug s-fir 24 120 40 30 C G Full crown on east, sparse on west (interior) 533 TR C 24 Doug as-fir 24 120 40 30 C G Full crown on east, sparse on west (interior) 534 TR C 28 Doug as-fir 28 120 50 30 D G Full crown on east, sparse on west (interior) 535 TR C 12 Doug as-fir 12 90 20 10 0 VP Weak crown 536 TR C 18 Douches-fir 18 100 40 30 I F Full crown on east, sparse on west (interior) 537 TR C 24 Doug as-fir 24 120 30 20 C P Crown recession, thinning, suspected root rot center 538 TR D 24 bigleaf maple 24 65 30 0 P Leaning east, recent branch failure during calm period. 539 TR C 12 Douglas-fir .1 ..90 30 10 0 P Crown recession, thinning, suspected root rot center 540 TR C 20 Douglas-fir 20 110 20 20 C P Crown recession, thinning, suspected root rot center 541 TR C 28 Douglas-fir 28 DEAD Windthrown. Appears to be Armillaria root rot (root exam) 542 TR C 24 Douas-fir 24- 110 30 15 C P Crown recession, thinning, suspected root rot center 543 TR C 24 Douglas-fir 24 110 30 15 C P Crown recession, thinning, suspected root rot center 544 TR D 08 bigleaf maple 8 50 10 0 P Overtopped, poor vigor 545-1R D 08 bigleaf maple 8 0 P Dying 546 TR C 30 Douglas-fir 30 130 40 20 D G Good crown 547 TR D 08 bigleaf maple 8 40 40 0 P Poor crown - overtopped, leaning 550 TR C 24 Douglas-fir 24 120 40 20 C F Thinning crown 551 TR C 36 Douq as-fir 36 90 60 30 D G Full crown on west 552 TR C 36 Douglas-fir 36 90 60 30 D G Full crown on west 553-TR C 24 Douglas-fir 24 90 40 20 C F G Protected by 533 554 TR C 18 Douglas-fir 18 90 30 10 0 P F Protected by 533 555 TR D 08 Oregon crabapple 8 15 0 VP Overtopped, poor vigor 556 TR D 08 hawthorn 8 20 0 VP Poor- overtopped, poor crown 557 TR D 08 cherry 8 20 0 VP Poor- overtopped, poor crown 558JTR C 28 Douglas-fir 28 100 50 25 D G Full crown on west 559 TR D 08 bigleaf maple 8 30 10 0 G 560 Th D 08 bigleaf maple 8 30 15 0 G 561 ITR C 30 bou i as-fir 30 110 50 25 D F Major butt swell. Good crown vigor 5661 Douglas-fir 12 90 20 10 0 VP Overtopped; very poor vigor • 5691TR C 18 Douglas-fir 18 C HAZ Windthrown tree (541) breaking out top Prepared by: Walter H. Knapp -.) Silviculture Forest Management O Urban Forestry 6/18/99 9926 Blue Leaf Trees.xls tree file BLUE LEAF TREE CONDITION SURVEY Page 3 of 7 Tree Survey DBH Ht CR CRad Crown V gor Hazard No. Descr. Species [in.] [ft.1 (%d Fft.1 Class Tree Group Class Condition/ Description 570 TR C 12 Douar as-fir 1! 0 VP Dying 571 TR C 18 Doug;as-fir 18 C VP Very poor vigor- suspect root rot center 572 TR C 20 Dougras-fir 20 Windthrow (cut) 57'3`TR C 18 Douglas-fir 18 110 30 20 C VP Numerous dead branches, dying crown, deformed crown 574 TR C 20 Doug as-fir 20 110 40 20 C P Suspect root rot near center 575.7TR D 12 12 Gone (missing tree) 571,—,TR D 12 bigleaf maple 6 40 15 0 P 577'TR D 08 bigleaf maple 8 40 15 0 P 578 TR D 08 bigleaf maple 8 40 15 0 P 579 TR C 24 Douglas-fir 14 110 40 15 C P Missingstem. Poor crown, numerous dead branches 580 11R D 14 the 14 60 15 O F Lean � % 581 TR C 30 Douglas-fir 30 110 40 30 D VG Good crown 582 TR C 30 Douglas-fir 30 110 50 30 D VG Good crown 583 TR D 10 cherry 10 40 50 15 G 584 TR D 10 Oregon white oak 10 30 0 P Overtopped, crown recession from large Douglas fir Vigorous crown, no excessive dead branches, edge of 585 TR C 36 Douglas-fir 36 110 50 20 D G property 586 TR D 08 Oregon ash 8 40 G Edge of opening, open crown 587 TR C 30 Douglas-fir 30 110 40 20 D F Some dead branches and crown thinning 588 TR D 08 hawthorn 8 0 P Overtopped by large Douglas fir 589 TR C 18 Douglas-fir 18 90 60 15 C G Good crown characteristics, few dead branches, well 590 TR C 28 Douglas-fir 28 110 50 20 D VG developed crown Good crown characteristics, few dead branches, well 591 Douglas-fir 28 110 50 20 D VG developed crown 593. Douglas-fir 24 110 40 20 D F Crown condition is marginal 594 TR D 18 California laurel 18 20 G Landscape tree in front yard. 595 TR D 10)• folly 10 15 F Landscape tree in front yard. 595 holly 10 F Landscape tree in front yard. 596 TR D 06 deciduous 6 15 F Landscape tree in front yard. 597 TR D 20)%fiolly 20 20 F Landscape tree in front yard. 597 holly 20 F Landscape tree in front(ard. 598 TR D 30 madrone 30 50 D F Exceptionally large specimen in marginal condition Prepared by: Walter H. Knapp C.) C Silviculture Forest Management Urban Fotry I 6/18/99 9926 Blue Leaf Trees.xlsfile BLUESF TREE CONDITION SURVEY S POof 7 Tree Survey DBH Ht CR CRad1 Crown Vigor Hazard No. Descr. Species [in.] [ft.] (%] [ft.] Class Tree Group Class Condition/ Description 599 TR D 06 hawthorn 6 15 0 P Leaning, heavy ivy infestation, poor condition 600 TR D 06 bigleaf maple 6 25 10 VP Overtopped, receding crown 601 TR C 24 Douglas-fir 24 DEAD 605 TR C 36 Douglas-fir 36 90 70 30 E Full crown, open grown, exceptional vigor 606 TR D 08 hawthorn 8 15 F Overtopped,leaning, marginal condition 607 TR D 08 hawthorn 8 F Overtopped, leaning, marginal condition 608 TR C 30 Douglas-fir 30 110 60 30 D E Excellent tree, open grown, full crown 609 TR C 30 Douglas-fir 30 110 40 2611D E Excellent tree, open grown, full crown 610 TR D 12 cascara 12=20 0 F Built into fence 616 TR C 30 Douglas-fir 30 110 40 20 D E Excellent tree, open grown, full crown 617 TR D 07 hawthorn 7 20 0 F Leaning tree 618 TR D 07 hawthorn 7 20 0 F Trunk extends 30'to west, poor crown characteristics Straight tree with minor fork at 30', good condition for 619 TR D 16 bigleaf maple 16 60 I G species 620 TR C 12 Douglas-fir 12 70 30 10 P F Tree would not withstand open conditions Tree would not withstand open conditions, tree is extremely 621 TR C 08 Douglas-fir 8 30 10 10 0 P P suppressed Tree would not withstand open conditions, tree is extremely 622 TR C 06 Douclas-fir 6 30 10 10 0 P P suppressed 623 TR C 21 Douglas-fir 21 100 40 15 C F G 624 TR D 10 bigleaf maple 10 30 15 P tree leans heavily to east over adjacent property 625 TR C 36 Douglas-fir 36 110 40 20 E 'Excellent tree, open grown, full crown 626 TR C 48 Douglas-fir 41 110 40 30 E 'Excellent tree, open grown, full crown 627 "n C 21 Douglas-fir 21 90 35 15 C G E 'Marginal crown for stand-alone tree Severely overtopped; crown not suitable for long term • 628ITR C 18 Douglas-fir 18 40 10 10 0 VP IP High retention 6291TR C 36 Dou`las-fir 36 110 40 201D r IGOne sided crown, poor retention as individual 6321TR D 08 hawthorn 8 20 10 IF ''Tree leans, deformed crown, overtopped 633 TR C 36 Douglas-fir I 36 110 40 151 IF IG tilarginal crown for individual exposure • 634 TR C 21 bou. las-fir I 21 50 30 1510 VP I Extreme L tem heavily infected with red ring rot (conks) • 635 TR C 18 Douglas-fir I 18 90 30 1511 F I Extreme gunk infected with red ring rot 1 6361TR C 14 Douglas-fir I 14 70 30 1510 IP I Overtopped, poor crown condition 6371TR C 26 Douglas-fir I 26 100 50 201D IG Prepared by: C:a Walter H. Knapp C- Silviculture Forest Management C:D Urban Forestry 6/18/99 9926 Blue Leaf Trees.xls tree file T BLUE LEAF TREE CONDITION SURVEY Page 5 of 7 Tree Survey DBH Ht CR CRad Crown Vigor Hazard No./ Descr. Species rin.I fft.] (%] (ft.) Class Tree Uroup Class Condition/ Descrj ,tion 636 TR C 14 Douglas-fir 14 30 d {5 0 VP Very poor crown, one sided (0 vigor5 639 TR D 06 hawthorn 6 15 F Overtopped, shrubby 640 TR D 08 bigleaf maple 8 15 0 P Broken fop, poor form 641 TR C 36 Douglas-fir 36 110 70 30 D E Open grown on west side of prop 642 TR D 08 cascara 8 30 I F Leaning trunk,,poor form 643 TR D 08 hawthorn 8 20 0 F Leans over adjacent property 644 TR C 36 Douglas-fir 36 110 40 20 D G 645 TR D 14 bigleaf maple 14 50 0 F Crown developed on west side 646 TR D 06 hawthorn 6 15 0 P Leans over property west side 647 R D 18 bigleaf maple 18 50 I G 648 TR D 12 Oregon crabapple 12 20 0 P Crown recession, tree appears to be dying 649=TR D 06X4tawom 6 25 F Leans over adjacent property 649 hawthorn 6 25 F Leans over adjacent property 649 hawthorn 6 25 F Leans over adjacent property 649 hawthorn 6 25 F Leans over adjacent property 650 TR D 06 hawthorn 6 25 F Leans over adjacent property 651 TR C 28 Douglas-fir 28 100 50 30 D F Very open crown, tree should be examined for root rot Tree wound not stand in open, poor crown, suspect marginal • 652 TR C 12 Douglas-fir 12 90 30 15 I P F High root conditions. Old injury at lower trunk 653 TR C 19 Douglas-fir 19 110 30 20 C F G Candidate for group retention, not individual 654 TR D 12 bigleaf maple 12 30 0 P Directly overtopped by large conifer 6551R C 24 Douglas-fir 24 110 30 20 F F Marginal crown for retention as individual tree 656-TR C 06 Dou_las-fir 6 35 10 5 0 VP Deformations on lower trunk, tree is dying 657 TR C 08 Douglas-fir 8 40 15 5 0 VP Crown receding 658 TR C 28 Douglas-fir 28 110 35 20 0 F G Interior type tree 659 TR D 20 bigleaf maple 20 60 I Good vigor but somewhat overtopped 660 TR C 30 Douglas-fir 30 110 40 20 D E E Well developed crown on north side 661 TR C 25 Douclas-fir 25 110 30 10 C F Extreme Stem infected with red ring rot (conks) - 662 TR C 18 Douglas-fir 18 90 30 10 C F Extreme Stem infected with red ring rot (conks) 671 TR C 36 Douglas-fir 36 110 60 30 D E E Open grown on east side, well buttressed trunk 672 TR D 18 bigleaf maple 18 60 C F Open grown on east side 673 TR C 18 Douglas-fir 18 100 40 15 I F Interior tree, poor trunk buttress 674 TR D 18 bigleaf maple 18 50 I F Leans over north property Prepared by: Walter H. Knapp C':) Silviculture Forest Management Urban Forestry 6/18/99 9926 Blue Leaf Trees.xls tree file r_ III III III 0 BLUE AF TREE CONDITION SURVEY Pa of 7 Tree Survey DBH Ht CR CRad Crown Vigor Hazard No. Descr. $ ecies (in.1 Eft.] rol (ft.1 Class Tree Group Class Condition/ Description 675 TR D 16 bigleaf'maple 16 50 I F Leans over north property 676 TR C 30 Douglas-fir 30 100 46 30 D G Full crown on north side 677 TR D 10 bigleaf maple 10 40 0 P Deformed top from suppression 678 TR C 30 Douglas-fir 30 110 40 30 D G G Interior tree but well buttressed crown Tree has broken top, deformed trunk, very low vigor, leans 679 TR C 17 Douglas-fir 17 20 10 20 VP over property to east 682 TR D 07 hawthorn 7 15 10 0 F Edge of property Double top (old broken top) at 40'. Narrow crotch. Ott none none Douglas-fir 29 40 20 D G property. Species Key Common Name Scientific Name bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum cascara cherry Prunus spp. Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii hawthorn Crataegus spp. holly Ilex spp. California laurel Umbelularia spp. madrone Arbutus menziesii C.a Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia Oregon crabapple Pyrus fusca C.A2) Oregon white oak Quercusp,anyana red alder Alnus rubra red ring rot Phellinus weirii Prepared by: Walter H. Knapp Silviculture Forest Management Urban Forestry 6/18/99 9926 Blue Leaf Trees.xls tree file BLUE LEAF TREE CONDITION SURVEY Page 7 of 7 Tree I Survey I I DBH I Ht I CR I r'dI Crown I Vigor I Hazard I No. Descr. Species I fin•1 fh•1 rA n• Class Tree I Group l Class Condition/ Description Sunnlementa► Notes Column Headings: Tree No: Same as survey point number. A 1-inch diam. aluminum tag is nailed to the north side of each tree at about 5 ft. ht. DBH: Diameter at breast height, 4.5 ft. from ground. Diameters taken from survey; a few changed if obviously different. CR: Live crown ratio, expressed as a percent. Generally applicable to conifers. Indication of vigor and capability to withstand exposure. CRad: Crown radius (feet). Main use is in determination of tree protection area, site planning. Crown Class: D = dominant; C = codominant; I = intermediate; 0 = overtopped. Higher crown classes generally indicate more vigor. Vigor: An overall assessment of the tree's health and condition. Rated for the individual tree and in some cases for the tree if retained in a group. Hazard Class: In this table, only trees with high or extreme hazard are shown. Note that some trees could be infected with root rot fungus, and should be evaluated closely if considered for retention. This would probably require root crown excavation on some trees. Condition/ Description: Explanatory notes given for most trees. Prepared by: Walter H. Knapp Silviculture Forest Management Urban Far • 6/18/99 9926 Blue Leaf Trees.xls e file I • i ; lip s*----- __ _ _ _ _ __ -_ _ __J VEITTE COURT � I 1 I TL 7605 ,' I / I I I I I I ; ., IL 7604 1 IL 24.05 TL 7601 IL 7601 N I I I I I I IL 7100 / I i I —__ _ • I 8 mm'Ib'75" 4.16b3' 1 1 p I 1 1 • TL 7400 I I __ —0 E 1 1 _/ z r - -__ Nmm•Il'41'W�6b1' I I 11- 70 1 IL!00 y IL 0 I 11p I I c) - �r'E05 1.--;e . ANIN I maul N .+ L; •1 of PI711b1 , 1' v.I tpmm�l L1 1 tom orifeer," a., APPLICANT ENGINEER El 2.NNFR SHEET INDEX COVER SHEET RYAN SELBY JEFF CURRAN,PE MIMI DOUKAS,ASLA CO: COVER SHEET MATRIX DEVELOPMENT WRG DESIGN.INC 1.1JRG DESIGN, INC CI: EXISTING CONDITIONS BLUE LEAF PLAZA 2,SUITE 200 10450 SW NIMBUS AVENUE,SUITE RA 10450 SW NIMBUS AVENUE,SUITE RA C2: PRELIMINAR7 PLAT 6900 SW HAINES STREET PORTLAND,OREGON 91223 PORTLAND,OREGON 91223 C3: SITE PLAN LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 91223 (503)603-9933 (503)603-9533 C4: SUN SHADE DIAGRAM PROJECT NO.-MAT005 (503)244-8159 CS: TREE REMOVAL/ JUKE 25.15'55 Q LANDSCAPE PLAN I` rn VID = 5LL1E LEAF © V �O = 116 I� i� I -Tv R vD co M410 IGI M..r Atm,Poe timed.Qose•MI 111111 1111 ID I 11111111 a 101160I.IlU YAM,IO.I60LTM4 A 3-LOT PARTITION PLAT ` m 25 50 VC WC LAKE OSWEGO, •OREGON ^"a-'.rr1.1.4w1e4Y.Mo 111.4•41.1M0r N ,- I IF - - jI' 1 �/ERTE COURT I ' I - - - - - -1 I ` F. \ 6 t 1 I I l I I / �T -T b i I 1 TL 2605 /__....._.. 1 :.- I 11 I I i 1 , 21E _. I / TL l60.4 l . I I .... TL 2603 .._ --- h--1�2 l , •• - _- \ 1 1I 1 -�` \� 1 1 I > l' a ID u a " .s Iiii - •�' 1 jK \•i \ TL 740C' _4a, '1 • °▪}` \ 1 ,. I •z e •r-b 4 •: • Vr':• `. \ I ,.@uR L,NG n `^C ;1 y ,l • �1� -.' \ -- --7- — . ' ' "I".. ,t sz,.,"4 • t.. `� - - r 3j. -_St(` ,• �- 1�,.,,,,,s ";;i.;1 r ,'1%.r 4 r pt` 7R:'t •_40'R/W EX 60' RAU ; I 1 TL �— ._—1 I 1 L 8OO WAI - E%151►Ca LATER L!E - ' A01'L ARA1t515-191117 Sift PR✓;POSED 1141ER LK EXISTING CONDITIONS Cdor Range Beg Range End Percent Area 1 1 000 11.99 647 35078.38 OAN----- EwS1eG SANITARY 6000RLeE BLUE LEAF 11.00 19 99 183 15410 81 PROPO$D SANIIARY SEILER LIRE LAKE OSWEGO.OREGON 7000 4999 1S 408656 In E%IS1I0 COMMPROJECT NO r-,dTOOS 5000 100 00 Cl 34 67 In PR7POSED[OCCUR JUNE 25.1999 -a tea- • -- .- PROPCSCD It10E _ U /��► '7�EfTT�7T7�f ill t1kwR1!wgtsm, L4'7116I I°RT06ED EAFIIaIA7R✓< !a R X /, ■1111I llhII[IE+ I EXISTS*CO14ERCU6IREE 1.waw,.••.....•rolweo•gm.,1>!> _ ,, lEll Ell IV I III II NI IIY a erl•o,.,,, •u•xtl.et».. EXIS7IG DEC 151F1FE IVOR.00Mt..•.AA:MGM..o.1.n••.ww a.. CO 0 15 20 60 120 N c...) VD • 0 0 im- • � / • W ; 1 _ _VERTE COURT _ - I 6 m • 1 / .------ I -7- —I- —I I ' 1 1 1 1 /' 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I ki(0 ir .iii..,u,-1,(L.i lr?/n1G•11C I. I..,111'/°`,'ii1Ii <] ( l 1 .'ArLh,i'L �IF (0) ''II) m rS 00'16'25" 446.6,3' _ ti i lill in f 1 I I v sea I Le' 1a LOT 2 , ae s LOT 3 1 n� 3 U W LOT I �' I Id,63d Sr I+ I 7D+60®5P I 1 rcl 0 I 036 AG I g 1 n h r' 2 AC E CL.Ern,1 lemma loom Nma.0Y I .+els..,Ln.*i rR. g I Rl \I i co L "m" -""rs r" J L NNW LIMM se MINT j e I T \ I___,I 1 1 —r — -- — 07 if 4A 2 1 �- 043 .___ .... ry , Al/ MA' EX 60' RAU EX 60' RAU_I j — — I N00.11'41"W 4661' [ D�Cr /YA I I1 SOLAR BURDRG LINE-TTP- 6 J...l,. Y i/ iC A 1 W I t I is I .v1 4.•/.1.h11111YN1:i I,J.P1'•I,MINII PRELIMINARY PLAT BLUE LEAF ' LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON PROJECT NO.-YIA7005 JUNE 25,1995 U C Xo N v/ W c V) rill 11111111 I se fel w'•!.f)~•,b� 60f Tom; 1-)30 60 I20 Il I1 III 1111 II2 III I1 0 15 .L ..« �, .,...1 ... N A 1 . . .) £7 - - - — — — — ram; !L � � n 7 z 9 W OEv 1' i S' - a 41) W� V..' L W 3 F W I 0 i r—r—r_r�.r—ram, [ +� r--a.- tea_=_ -11111110......i ter_ V ( .c 7•m:£5;q, , ►w v ' -'' 1 ' -0. \S110 '_-.1,- / .4., i ! 2 6:..... 1 :I IL WI ,,,,-. ,-,..,- ,. loop' ' ! i _� � i u4 iS i ,v f - s / .' .Iib� .u-s3£11 111fl► 1 • r� ^� -4 r1fi, _ % %iai 663�To',YL I I _ di i� s r 11 I U i I, , S wf 3 ' . . 8 • .---) ,.._,- ri alr SI ~: I i10111-\ 1 i_ _ _ N :�t E r� ..-I. -,40 . '�.. Q+ r F e , \ ti Ig i - -4V- • ,, NO . � d 80 SES . L. — - - Us 005.7. ..O5.6£.o8 S 0 _ Ik I\1'1 • EXHIBIT 15 LU 99-0029 0u9S \ trO gg G + 11- 6a • S EIh n iJ � 3 $ ' 1 ..9LL r_____ _ _ __, \_____ i ,,, ., ,„„ LI I I \11\1 I Hi— I —1 —— t—— — nl ill ii-1 '1! Al ill _ 1 \Lai 14iii 11 IE! 11 CI lb 411 ,_ '-- _\_� _ I 1 I I 11 ;:,, /— ill — ill 1 i Ili 1 t _slit 0 1 L F 42 _ _ __ 1 _7 \t_ 1t it2: \Ii N% • EXHIBIT 16 LU 99-0029 O9 9 \--- _ _ all. I I 1 j VERrE COURT - — 4— / ....... I I II I I / I I 1 I I I .. ..., ; I r I ~ _� \� E I I ! 7 M r: ; It 1 I1 �• v - fit. *! ' ` :,,,4.--7:—:--t---_--., _ yr s + �}T� 1))� ? II I m Sr r.,'t 44 I L.&ix 1— ''LOT 2 1.4• •� ,i Lb� I_,. 1.e, �� U FFE: !36 1 I I F E, US I • 1 RE ,R , 4 I x s4 I I I � 1I yy _I ' � z �` II • I �i •Iql I I • 1 aI I ` LI\ I. "� s t r Y / �I� , i. (;JD - ' . . . 1.i..._• ',.../.7";,-gria_111111, — — —{�i 111 f `gt, , Lç ' '", � •�w. .<f i :i 1 • ,t •f� ` �ef•�•4j. E m' RAW Ex 60'R/W -�'' Gam' ,�, .. 1 f . , • I I I I 1 k ILEGEND 1 I c:r.,n1 Lr c 'I -.0 * DISEASED TREE 10 BE RF77014D xr. Ex61110 TINIER L1f X rFEE 10 OF.RE1'C)vE0 am DULDIG PEnSii 1 D...TER LHE TREE REI"IO VAL/ X IKE 10 BE RE110vE0 FOR DRIVE cpA51Rcio. LANDSCAPE PLAN E x511G SA1 iAR15EYER LIE BLUE LEAF C.!) 21 1-A' Dos.LAs so PR711YE0 ntlniART SEVER LIR ���qqq LAKE OSILEGO.OREGON W A 7'CAI t7GLEAF MAPLE In Ex15r1G CCH10.R PROJECT NO. -MAT005 r' mi5 I 'CAL Or&GDt AS.I In PROPOSED Calr0at JUNE 23.1999 LIn l/ _ ` ) I rci. RED ALDER _ _ �,J PROPOSED iETCE CO () I rcAL 07E004 unit OAK ' _ --- --• LIMITS O PROPOSED EARIWI7RC ri la � R - CM r O - /I,.. �� 0 I IN•cAL DERRT Ex,5116 CQ6ER7W TREE FE ,s.w w...,a.....ro.�uw ap.1n11 tJ \,, ����� VIA 11 I IIH Haul 0 2 Iwr ut. 11Af1IItlRi a ee>:A.o1 VIM ..x.selilo,r,.. Ex�511G DErn,3'SE ..•.aw.•o.•w.,..o•c.n.o.,.r..u•••a. VO 0 1S 30 60 120 III III III Sent By: WAG DESIGN INC. ; 503 603 9944; Oct-19-99 10:49AM; Page 1 w R G • DESIGN I N C . • I J'.I- ;.l FAX TRANSMITTAL To: 144 to4iirociii Date: Z\ '�Company4.40No. Pages including cover: ‘:::t Fax No: 5 — Hard copy to follow: Yes o From: i . 4411 Re: l'- WRG No.IProject Name: 144.1.400111 °4?-.•Cg 1 gL gStr IIIFor Your: ❑ Review and Comment 416s Requested OUse nformation/File Comments: I Aitera.se, Lid cRA__Ctu It41,944.5b idistilt ii0e0 Cot it tifthi-ardnete . 4400* le,41'4 rG 4 . ord•Tirlii440 1 tam rG.WRG\FORMSPROJECTTEA.eCORRESIWROTRFAR.00 J 41) Planners Engineers Landsc a Architect EXHIBIT 18 • 10450 SW Nimbus Ave., Portland, OR 97223 • (503) 603-9933 • LU 99-0029 E .rx•.r_ :s t , , e} 1 r1 1 Sen' By: WRG DESIGN INC. ; 503 603 9944; Oct-19-99 10:49AM; Page 2 W R G DE S I G N I N C. • October 19, 1999 Morgan Tracy Lake Oswego, City of 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE; Blue Leaf Downstream Storm System Capacity Dear Morgan, We have completed a cursory downstream analysis to evaluate the capacity of the existing 8" storm drain Based on the existing road improvements and the proposed development of the Blue Leaf site, we have calculated a peak 25-year storm flow of 1.7 cubic feet per second (cfs). The existing 8" storm drain has a capacity of approximately 3.21 cfs based upon as-builts provided by the City. We therefore assume that adequate downstream capacity exists in the system and no upsizing will be required. Please contact me should you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, • WRG Design, Inc. Jeffrey A Curran, P.E. Project Manager Enclosure (Stormweter Calculations) cc: File(MAT005.d2) PoVRGDIDATAIDATATOATA\MATO 51WORO\TRACY10 19 DOC PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • SURVEYORS 10450 SW Nimbus Ave., Portland, OR 97223l�/ (503) 603-9933 (fax) 603-9944 • or,,,„„ • Ilpvcula 0 11,! 11 Sent By: WRG DESIGN INC. ; 503 603 9944; Oct-19-99 10:49AM; Page 3 W R G ' D E O I C N I N C SUBJECT 01 C uE• 4- C)11F BY -' .— DATE p//7 l cf__ PROJECT NO. , uS- SHT / OF ID . /MeiCP2 '-ki 11$4.,641j ot&C#4 1d?f S t 4.rst, . oe, .met .AC ._... .4,,,,t i Cc 'w"- : : .. ... .......:0.•yd /1"IV /,4. 1144✓6 06. -____. ...... _ • i . • • )_ elfi5 nm'r ._ re-' /*� rim- ,a4sm�► ' e, s-c-- tt ��,ts<..r.�'O . . ID 1 r •• ...- --..t_.... . __r._... .-i..«. ._. _ 7 .. : t . • - • _._..__.._ - • , - - Arc oPlanners Engineers LandscapeArchitects Surveyors ■ 10450 SW Nimbus Ave.,Portland,OR 97223 • (503)603-9933 • (503)603-9944(fax) ■ li tUA 1..- J • • •• - Z 13 J f ..,w.M. • • BOONES FERRY PC-OSWEGO SEC. . . alarn �! •BOONES FERRY 'RD-OSWEGO DR • N._ •! ti G�ACKAMAS CQ - c • - F[O.ROAD PROJE.T F15Gt[ . M AL fir.Ale. netWhielt e 41 8 OREGONs(s) � s `s 7Ti • • icvr>►1 A5 :U,i r u t N tt I rC• +Z •r ? t65 •i9 070 '� sad Eiaior ` IC CD 1 31 T-I 1412: •- Retrd,447\ lip RAaa 8C Al3a•.. Rood/lop. t/3 \ i • AbodARD. �. _ . �. i Di Etc. 0.V - , 4s:rtwerF!pA--� r•- a7 ; �8' :o _._ // f /Q Coop h�-lO • n _ - -—�— -—- �'Ser !�ZT�__� .-' _. _:..:<_ sue- 'Q+ .1+�-/B' . . - . --1--- _ _ � • t • y540v.-. •-- • - r --s a i•/:7 ; r—ram - _ l--r—_ ---'rrr"_---- -- - • s 4 \ M.R�) r . . m'tl A ia,ir'.a a< (T:rY `3. �f � - S/60/• ?6, - - y ' :... �.y � -� ... Ittli.. ' 1-a� 1 :• ♦±i♦+; .}la/. :l-r••1i� . -1 '.4- .�,}•1...."�L i.i_ -.' �.�—jj11 -.. j�j}+;, y � 1ii t#. fi, ai._ • 14 ..... III •i_ �� f • '_ H 1�'.1 �1� ;}_!-: - }`T- - . 't•i-�y*.�/.:�iw�y ..•t— '� .+•N •,� : y- ' `�«ri—�•/•a. +� f T '-+�J - r • f � �•.• _ -_,_. 't. f't 4 S S gy/3 - ,+ _ tc, .< .. 25 YEAR EVENT - PROPOSED STORM CALCS. - RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY rE m Project Blue Leaf o m Client: Matrix m Job No.: MAT005 IMPERVIOUS C= 0-BS STORM 2 Orip: 17-Oc-99 Desinrc J.Curran PERVIOUS C = 0.30 DEFAULT n- 0.012 Rev. Z Rational Hydrology Pipe Siting (via Meaning's Galion,VIM now, I-I Pipe Upstream Downstream Initial Total I A A - C'A Total O Upstream Downstream Len. Slope Dia. n Q V Flow This Reach's Tc c, Node Node Subarea Tc in'hr IMPERV. PERV. !nor. C•A CIA In Cap. Time at Downstream ,.. Tc Elevation Elevation Node (rim (min! (frMrrl (acre) (acrel {acre), (acre) (dal IRl (ft1 (fl) % n cfs s min min I 1 Project Exist 8" 10.00 10.00 2.50 0.62 0.53 0..88 0.69 1.72 340.00 322.00 300.00 6.00 8 0.012 3.21 9.18 10.54 10.54 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I II („ - - o ca 0) 0 rw co to A A I.-4 1 J1 o o rt to I rc to 0 I 1 in 0 D I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I -o v 10 m xr C. Sent By: WRG DESIGN INC. ; 503 603 9944; Oct-19-99 10:50AM; Page 6/6 I ' 1 .1i 1Ud 11 I t,,... _ _ _ ' 1 S 89'39'SO" E 125.00' I o _ ___ ____ _ _ __ : :i ; K g r c_._ly.,. .. .. ...f.,,,,,.. . .-• ,.1e.,_ i •-ig m i ..•.:1,J- - ....A:d. .., 17*,!:: : .i. . gq - i r Fr Ij. :L ' {:pry '���`�; Ei,S \,---- _.. .. 6' i ' r{ �- J 'i 1. I !/ �j I I 1T Ni.- - %3;11+� 1A T� -- I 1 i e . I E rt . F A i I 1 r ._ II,. ir y I r �' 1 P ♦ 1 ' te+ • . •- . ¢• • I I 1 0,1- ( r i . is' ; s i n' ;•r n' . s r, f . , 1 i ! lilliii i • •�\ J� �y .fir fS�.' !fe- I i dA\ t z, 1 ( 1 i l g r I� l\�• I �.. ., r I 1 I I I Willi' ' a -�9 _ I I 1 _ _ - - ,� - I 24E3= __.�.�L _ 4 t • " r ii i COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE I 111 L , • �I I ..icfl I Ix -- -- -- -- --- 3 III l'Jf3 • !II SI _ VRTT - _ I I ill: n 7606 I I 1 ,/ I I I �[ ,', TL 760I 1 I IL 2602 ( TL]601 I• i 1 TL 7.609 1 I 0� I 1 I -----TL7600- 5 11 s I g 00'Ib'Z5"J d4663' el I 1 in D 1 I 1 4 UI 3 I I I 3 I I an to 'al J I 1 n7.100 ri I ' ^_ c4p inI I ---/ Z (P 1 I- 1 —--—--—--—-- Nm0'Il')I'W 446b1' I E--► 1 '. i I 1 "'li 1 13 n 800 7L 900 I I tE _ ,l H I I J e Kan PAWa illi ir'qui.P- kIIIII pa It11111re �► „Oir t417. 0,4eeP ilk, APPLICANT ENGINE4R PLANNER SHEET INDEX COVER SWEET RYAN SELBY JEFF CURRAN, PE MIMI DOUKAS, ,k5LA CO: COVER SHEET MATRIX DEVELOPMENT WRG DESIGN, INC WRG DESIGN, II.0 CI: EXISTING CONDITIONS BLUE LEAF PLAZA 2, SUITE 200 10450 SW NIMBUS AVENUE, SUITE RA 10450 SW NINE IS AVENUE, SUITE RA C2: PRELIMINARY PLAT 6900 BUJ HAINES STREET PORTLAND, OREGON 91223 PORTLAND, OF EGON 91223 C3: SITE PLAN LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 91223 (503)603-9933 (503)603-9933 C4: SUN/SHADE DIAGRAM PROJECT NO. - MAT005 (503) 244-8159 CS: TREE REMOVAL/ OCTOBER 12, 1599 LANDSCAPE PI AAI C6: DETAIL SHEET 5 L LI E _ 4F l,rTJ"'9r IL... LU 99-0029 no —rr111 R aural TION 'LAIT � �; H I vERTE COURT � � � I \ X 1 �` _\ T T I u . , , 1 TL 2605 / 1 I 1 I / 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 Li �4t ,. / / TL 604 I ��'Tt 2602 I TL 2p01 \ ``\ I 1 / r 1 TL 2603 I —.-*w� I' \I • I I I 1 - I ,,..1 11 I 1/ — . _ _ ilr '+1P. ~fir st 1, / tot , `\ . 1,. ,\ I, 0 1 •if :r • 4 ,4,T fl14 O f y �.. 6' • o b O �• b' i i w•� � f� �y U : u t I ! °„,' i • 4 -v...1 .• \\ill. A . y4. .1, ,\ Ist,.:pb, 1.. 6 A Ay •t 7' '�F ' '.. 10 Q oa v OI • .O 9 V ., 7�fi iE \ AAUK�P `�i•�•''v,i ...!.. 'u ' Wt'Fa{+ 1 P o 1 1) ' r IA. lo CD �"'� I o 1 it.a I it \\ A gyp# b \ 1 u I I �� i ' .y 1 e' A . A 6s \ . �6 , Ili 00 A b 1 A '-1 �° ,., y T. 1I 1 • w • fit. :4 , v„, i s 1. t st.. ,t= +' 4. \\, a+ t.. i— TL 2400 ' .s4 V . . ' v9tM \ 'r • ; li y1 °*y s s � '{' I • . . i ., 3' g A \ ` Vs, .;I \\ EX fTIIII.Ull14 �' 'I A' , h $. eo 4' 9 /�.• I — — . - .. ;, r -,. Friiir. , it \ . EX 60 RAjj,It l I I ' TLi00 TL B00 l i 1 'I : • N ' "'' EXI6TI i WATER LIE SLOPE ANALYSIS- ENTIRE SIZE 9 Beg. RangePROPOSED WATER LIIE EXISTING CONDITION Color Range End Percent Area 1, I 0.00 11.99 64.2 35078.38 EXISTING SANITARY SEVER LIE EL UE LEAF 12.00 19.99 28.3 15470.81 PROPOSED SANITARY SEVER LIE 20.00 49.99 7.5 4086.56 In E)a6T116 CCHTOUR LAKE OSWEGO.OREGONPROJECT NO. - MAT005 .' 01+1,,In 1 0 .. 10; L14 50.00 100.00 0.1 34.67 122 PROPOSED CONTOUR OCTOBER 12, 1999 —•—•—•—•--•— PROPOSED FENCE ��111 0 )k LIMITS cF F7aOPOSED EXHIBIT 20 - ...t). ion. EX'6T��"ERclIS LU 99-00 II �TII-111 Q—iflfifl ij ewsTm Decmuals 1 * ___I 0 411! i1Y 1 „_ YERTE COURT _ � _ _ • // --1 / 1 1 I 1 f I I I • / I 1 1 : ' I - r I I I/ 1 1 , / 1 �11 I I �:Ilfi ) II �...1•1 11 II i I-_, Ill li'�1/. I ►((_vI1--',II l�,;." , . I� ���'^))INI �I I _'}�f 1( ',i �,,�1" ? i � .�} I } 5 00'I6'25" 446.63' 1345' I I01.1' I 2 ' ' Q I 1 i friL . in r --' I - �Im'I-�sm'� -J I 1 J III 39.5' I LOT I '1 15' r LOT 2 1 LOT 3 1 CV 16,801 SF I I3385 SF 25000 SF I Ill.l' - 1 I y I 031 AC 0S9 AC U 1� I 039 AC U11 I TIOp4a 06/o2s AC EXCL earn u/l (I 360 6F/O.44 AC EXCL E6rn1 1- _, T I HEIGHT LIMIT,I*PET N I I N1 �"�-'I4' 1-� Q I HEIGHT LIMIT,M FEET HEIGHT LI h '.r0 T 1 I to to \\�� 1 N 111 IS) th - - — U 1 n / z -- --- 1 — — ,!.— I I I 134' ry 101' - ---- \ ' EX 60' R/W EX 60' R/W I N0011' I'Ul 446.61' / 1 SOLAR BUILDING LINE-TIT —// • I 24' ACCESS a UTILITY ESMT I I 1 • 1 I 1 PRELIMINARY FL BLUE LEAP LAKE O5wEGo,OREGON PROJECT NO. - I1AT005 OCTOBER 12, 1999 tEXHIBITh �I, fn., I 21 I LU 99-0029 _ 1 • r- VERTE COURT la - I - _ I \ X • ;• j I r lU I; _ _ _ _______ . . 1 I I I i ! I I I I.I \, 1 ..: ,I ________ .. , , _ / SIX FOOT WOOD SCREEN FEN • ��� �\ WITH EXISTING AND ENH \ I I _ LANDSCAPE?PER- -�� 1 lit - ,5EE LANDSCAPE PLAN ._ S 00.16,'25"' \ I — — - r ^ `}6 63 �� I t�dt" -- .�v► — gyp,-.—.-1� •—•-2 k�' ........:4 '' ' 1 0 I f1 \\' e f i>,. \,� 1 T'r , ( L'i i4b T, ii I I I e a I1 .__ ) if, l m diI - - -. -- : '' i �, _��_- _ :.II �V ter-_:. _� 10I1 _�ram.._, , — — 4, ` 1 . 1' 3.5 I ' ' Jr '5', r LOT 2 t• I , I U • Ill LOT I lF- j 1 1 LOT 3 u,r ._...� -- V FFE: 33e, I I I I WE: 326 I I FFE: 3)1,`^ j \\ - V 0 . a 1 1 I -I 4:4- I I 1 : C, Ln I 1 HI 1 I I J.w- I4'I I I, &EEE SEE DETAIL �1 1 134' I + \ EX �` IL %VI' a % illgiglIP- PfOPFI NYDRANiI ; n . � I n ' 6r .. Z ; V\,.. ' �UIVA r '` 16•vila0 R/LU I EX 60' RAU 1441A'r1`•41"ID 44(7.6"1' '. BI out LIMITS OF PIS111 ED LAND PROP BAN g R MANHOLE / I 1 ' I SWALE A-A BEE DETAIL 24' ACCESS 4 UTILITY ESMT SHEET C6 MAILBOX AM ADDRESS LOCATION— I TLFF1RACK GRASS PAVERS I SEE DETAIL SHEET C6 !-EC�ENp EXISTNG WATER LINE 7, PROPOSED WATER LINE SITE PLAN EXISTNG SANITARY SEWER DE SLUE LEAF PROPOSED SANITARY SEDER Lit LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 321 ExIStMG CONTOUR PROJECT NO. - MATC)05 322 PROPOSED CONTOUR OCTOBER 12, 1999 —•—•—•—•—•— PROPOSED FENCE ' \ b ll l l l I II 111I -k LIMITS PROPnSt 22 ._ \ 1 9 IIII III :::::: LU EXHIBIT _ _ _ - - , 7 0 T-- 0-- - - - - 11111 ' f / -..., I 1 I 1 11 \ /1 I I — 10.30 I I I / I / - - - - - - - - - ANGLE - � ALTITUDE 10.30 All SHADOW 1.30 PM SHADOW PATTERN PATTERN ; 10.3 n r l � 1.30 � 336 � ` 328 ~� I ,321 1 I I I CD ,—= I I r........-s-I SOUTH WALL - LOT 1 SOUTH WALL - LOT 2 10.30 AM SHADE PATTERN I0,30 AM SHADE PATTERN 0 SF/840 SF ■ 0% SHADED 42 SF/E40 SF • 8%SHADED �l SOUTH WALL - LOT I SOUTH WALL - LOT 2 1.30 PM SHADE PATTERN 1.30 PM SHADE PATTERN 0 SF/840 SF • 0% SHADED 0 SF/S40 8F • 0%SHADED SUN/SHADE D I AGR,4 SLUE LEAF LAKE OSaEGO,OREGON PROJECT NO. - MAT005 OCTOBER 12, 1.599 EXHIBIT 23 III linall1 LU 99-0029 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1iA' 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 + ° YERTE COURT - , 1 / — Hi k 1 t , 1 I 1 1 `1I I I I i 1 i -.\ I ' / I I - _ I/ •, j -... --I I �_ f '" - — - �� �iy_. �� �.o� - .� . �.,} s -�Tr_ —•'— ' �#�(i� Le s adf'���n-2 y}��� + rx��.,,, � � \ ' I 1 • h�' It Yl •o '! 7. ,', ,. . .. . , ., Q 1 t' r :':A' ., . 'w II A • WI', ; , �Q �e I , , 1▪ �` a; . �,' •a6 ) •M`,' t 1 r" ---,,_ y ...1 . , T --1 R i! • —rw` 't` n wiy'ar ,iir ,1 f t 1 , A i 1 r 4t. Lodi I i, ri, I LOT 2 L 3R ,, •t '° 1 ' , ; i 1 a • FFE. 33$ I I P E 32E FFE, it ✓1• ,{ r• st •1 `.; '� 'II I 1 a, 6 ,, •it o1=d1i 1 1 ip ',. s.'' `I; �', ,j;� 6 r:Q xiw °t II.1 .+ I,�' y� 4V1 i1 1 1 N 7Y 7 T\' 1 t . 4 Q,0 ti%, ..6 1 I .-, 1 _n*dI \ t! ' 11+'R, 1 L \C J i r —q J rt ��F v ,y b it- o• \ o / 4 \ q} *�� d r u ';./✓,� .. i O Ili, , ,. - . . 3 : , '.. i.:..--4. . _16,-.. • - .. - , , . • l'\ . A 'l''. .. , '' 01%.*E. 0 I$C., I - .4 , 'ilk • ,t .„� o _ J ... • \ ,, .„,---7- Vv®F..\ EX 7,0' RAU 1 EX 60' R/W I ?1 1 1 LEGEND • * DISEASED TREE TO OE REMOVED USING WATER LNE l X TREE TO OE REMOVED WITH OIrLONGF'ER11T TREE REMOVAL/ '' TREE TO OE RIMED FOR DRIVE COTRICTIGN FMa0P0EED EATER LNE MOv LANDSCAPE PLAN i EXISTNG SANITARY SEILER LNE t f~ 6-E' Dour�AEraR PROPOSED SAtUTARf88lERLNE BLUE LEAF () 4 2'CAL OIGLEAF MARE 322 EkISTNG GONIOJR LAKE O511/EGO,OREGON PROJECT NO. - MATiS05 tr) I 2'ca. oFeacti Am322 PROPOSED CONTOUR OCTOBER 12,1999 (4. 1 rCAI Rim --.—.—'—.—•— PRGPOEEDPENCE .-., (j I r CAL oR6GON MITE OAK LIMITS OF PROPOSED EA - ir. 'I III Ll1ll111_1111 I (:) 1 Ha'cal CI-ERRT EXHIBIT 24 . )k EXISTING GOAIFEROUS TR T 7 77nn 1110 EXISTING DECIDUOUS TIC LU -CO 1 t • • • v I+ n���T.uap oeeRtB —— 6P'IEAD OVER 6A14c6 AND MML 91M1 If II 21 NUESrnN 411 PUEM srsm 0, DOr1OT5 CF 114E 6014LE IQS 4E: NISI K a R PU YCPM MO d :: _�•AM PAWt 14K SEMII15iSAE1 .1{51k1 01IIIIIIII • r T�f li —�— • I n ,, ExlGTmaARA2P- II Ii' IlnII !•l'I.Ij!� � fP II' 'I I p y .I; I i I li ri I o• i ; la rl I II! .JI:I 11 II I I I I J ; ,I 1.1' I'' aAl' �Mu>d w4c ohm 0? 1!1 I I I I I GRA66 LINED dad 1'OEEP' j 1 j, I I I 1, I,LY .y LNN PM 4.0r W46NED*PAR"DOCK 11. R C DETAIL: $WALE PLANTJNG SECTION A-A O DETAILI SWALE PLAJNG SECTION B-FS © tir s PA La TUFFTRACK GRA55_ YERS _ POT TO WALE GRASS LINED NOV TO SCALE Nor TO ecALE C:G 1-...5. —+ W DETAIL SI-4EET CLUE LEAF LAKE O8WEGO,OREGON PROJECT NO. - MAT005 OCTOBER 12, 1555 EXHIBIT 25 LU 99-0029 • • • ; 1 _ GENERAL INFORMATION • Applicant: Matrix Development Corporation Plaza 2,Suite 200 6900 SW Haines Street Tigard,Oregon 97223 503.244.8159 ext 222 Contact: Ryan Selby Applicant's Representative: WRG Design,Inc. 10450 SW Nimbus Ave. Portland,Oregon 97223 503.603.9933 Contact: Mimi Doukas mad@wrgd.com Property Owner: Matrix Development Corporation Plaza 2,Suite 200 6900 SW Haines Street Tigard,Oregon 97223 Tax Lot Information Tax Lot 2900, on Clackamas County Tax Map 21E04DB and is addressed as 1501 Country Club Road. Location: The site is bounded on the south by Country Club Road, located generally west of the intersection of Verte Court and Country Club Road. 411 Current Zoning: R-7.5 Medium Density Residential Comprehensive Plan: R-7.5 Medium Density Residential Project Area: 1.28 Acres/55,757 sf CITY " .7..)4'r'.. �J !.as alarm;'; • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat EXHIBIT 26 City of Lake Oswego LU 99-0029 November 8, 1999 17 Ft`yt J1 1J II. REQUEST The applicant, Matrix Development, request approval of a three lot minor partition plat. The site contains • approximately 1.28 acres. Overall, this application is consistent with the standards set forth in the Lake Oswego Development Ordinance. III. SITE DESCRIPTION Location and Parcel Description: The proposed partition is located north of Country Club Road,generally west of Verte Court. The property may be specifically identified as Tax Lot 2900 on Clackamas County Tax Map 21E04DB and is addressed as 1501 Country Club Road. The property slopes down towards Country Club Road, and contains a large number of mature evergreen trees. There is currently one single-family residence, located generally in the center of the site. This structure will be removed as part of this application.The site is designated as Medium Density Residential (R-7.5) on the Lake Oswego Zoning Map. This application is consistent with the standards set forth for development and land division in the R-7.5 district. Site Access The site currently abuts Country Club Road along the southern boundary. Description of Surrounding Area Table A: LAND USE Area • .Plan a{-r = -_Zoning Land north Low Density Residential CO.R-20 SF residential east Low Density Residential R-10 SF residential 411 south Low Density Residential R-10 SF/Golf Course west Low Density Residential R-10 SF residence Table B: PUBLIC UTILITIES ervrce ' r-Providei" .S�rze • Water City 10" Country Club Road adjacent Sanitary Sewer City 8" Country Club Road adjacent Storm Drain City 8" Country Club Road adjacent Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design, Page Inc.-Pa e 4 11111 City of Lake Oswego C November 8, 1999 0 -i [, IV. PROPOSAL SUMMARY 411 Site Plan Overview: The applicant is requesting a three-lot partition plat, utilizing the flag lot standards in an R-7.5 district. Access shall be provided through a private drive within an access easement on the western boundary of the site. All utilities are available within the Country Club right-of-way. As shown on the Site Plan, a public sanitary sewer extension will be required along the private drive to provide service to the site. A public waterline will also follow the private drive, as shown on the site plan,as well as a new fire hydrant. Site Access Access to the proposed lot is provided through a flag-lot configuration with direct connections to Country Club Drive. Streets and Rights-of-Way Because the site is designed with a flag-lot configuration, no rights-of-way are proposed in this application. Country Club Road requires no additional right-of-way and no additional street improvements. The shared private access drive has been shown on the site plan, and meets all fire access codes. A fire turn-around facility has been shown on Lot 3, to be constructed as "grass- crete". Access for Lot 3 shall be from the shared access drive as well, to limit the number of driveways on Country Club Road. Storm Drainage Improvements Roof drains have been designed to be piped to a water quality pond, located on the southern portion of the site. After treatment, the water is released to the existing storm drainage system in Country Club Drive. Stormwater improvements are discussed further in LODS 12, Drainage for 1111/ Minor Development. Sanitary Sewer Improvements Sewer service is currently available along the southern end of this site, within the Country Club Road right-of-way. As shown on the Site Plan, a public sanitary sewer extension will be required along the private drive to provide service to the site. Water Improvements Similar to sanitary sewer, water service is currently available along the southern end of this site, within the Country Club Road right-of-way. A public waterline extension will also follow the private drive,as shown on the site plan,as well as a new fire hydrant. 41110 Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design,Inc.-Page 5 City of Lake Oswego November 8, 1999 0I I .y V. APPROVAL CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT CODE • Chapter 49 Development Code 49.20.110 Minor Development Comment: As a three lot minor partition plat, this application is considered a Minor Development according to Section 49.20.110 (2)(f). Therefore, this application shall be reviewed by the Planning Director with the opportunity to request a hearing. 49.22.215 Review Criteria for Minor Developments 1. A minor development shall comply with: a. The requirements of the zone in which it is located; b. The Development Standards applicable to minor developments; c. Any additional statutory, regulatory or Lake Oswego Code provisions which may be applicable to the specific minor development application, such as the variance provisions, the Streets and Sidewalks Ordinance, the Solar Access Ordinance, and the Historic Preservation Ordinance; and e. Any applicable condition of approval imposed pursuant to an approved ODPS or prior development permit affecting the subject property. t. The Building Design Standard for development in the DD Zone. Comment: All applicable standards and provisions have been addressed within this application. Please refer • to specific sections for a detailed discussion of how this proposal meets the applicable criteria. 2. For the purpose of application of the Development Standards and Lake Oswego Code provisions pursuant to subsections 2(b) and 1(c) of this section, partitions involving the creation of a public or private street, construction or alteration of structures as described in LOC 49.20.110(2)(d) and subdivisions shall be considered to be"major developments." Comment: This application proposed the partition of a single lot into three flag lots, without the creation of a street. Therefore,this application is not subject to the standards set forth for"major developments". • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc. -Page 6 City of Lake Oswego November 8, 1999 1 1 1 �� i1 .') ZONING CODE • Chapter 48 Zoning Code 48.06 Residential,Medium and Low Density R-7.5,R-10,R-15 48.06.195 Permitted Uses; R-7.5,R-10,R-15 Zones Comment: No specific uses are proposed in this application. However,the eventual use of the three proposed lots is for single-family residential development. This use is a permitted use within the R-7.5 district. 48.06.200 Conditional Uses; R-7.5,R-10,R-15 Zones Comment: No conditional uses are proposed or requested in this application. Therefore, this section does not apply. 48.06.205 Maximum Density,Density Bonus Comment: The maximum site density is determined by dividing the overall net area by 7,500 sf. Since the applicant is not proposing any public or private streets, the net area for this site is 55,757 sf. Once this is divided by 7,500 sf, 7.4 dwelling units are permitted. Three single-family lots are proposed in this application, well below the permitted seven dwelling unit density. While some of the proposed lots are rather large for this district, no further parcelization is proposed for this site,as noted on the Preliminary Plat. The size of the lots results from the unique characteristics of the site,including vegetation and topography. 48.06.210 Lot Size;Lot Dimensions;Density Transfer Comment: In accordance with the R-7.5 standards,all proposed lots are a minimum of 7,500 sf in size. The minimum lot width is 50 feet,and the minimum lot depth is 100 feet. All lot dimensions are shown on the Preliminary Plat for verification of City standards. 48.06.215 Setbacks Comment: All required setbacks have been shown on the preliminary plat for review. In accordance with the R-7.5 standards,the following minimum setbacks are required: Front Yard: 25 feet Rear Yard: 30 feet Side Yard: 10 feet(20 feet adjacent to Country Club Road) Due to the unique constraints of the site, solar access requirements, and tree preservation requirements, alternate setbacks for each individual lot have been shown on the plat, which meet or exceed those required in the underlying zone. Please refer to this plan for specific standards. 48.06.220 Height Limits Comment: As a relatively flat site, the proposed structure on Lot 3 shall have a height limit of 30 feet. The building height for Lots I and 2 are set forth by the Flag Lot ordinance. No structures are proposed at this time,but height restrictions shall be confirmed prior to issuance of the building permits. 48.06.225 Lot Coverage Comment: Again,no structures are proposed at this time, but lot coverage standards shall be confirmed prior to the issuance of building permits. Lot coverage shall not exceed 25 percent of the total lot area. The proposed setbacks result in an area that is less than 25 percent of the overall lot area,providing assurance that this requirement shall be met,regardless of the final building footprint. 48.19 Flag Lots 48.19.010 Authorization; Application Requirements 1. Flag lots shall comply with the requirements of the underlying zone • except where noted in this article. All land division creating a flag Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design,Inc.-Page 7 City of Lake Oswego November 8, 1999 0119 lot shall also comply wit any specific residential design criteria contained within an applicable adopted neighborhood plan. • Comment: As discussed in Chapter 48.06, this application is in conformance with the R-7.5 standards set forth in the Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance. Please refer to this section for specific information. No neighborhood plans have been adopted for this region of the city. 2. In addition to the general application requirements for land divisions, an application to create a flag lot shall include a conceptual plan of complete parcelization of the subject property, and shall include a site plan illustrating the location of existing structures on adjacent parcels. There reviewing authority may impose conditions in order to ensure that parcelization of the subject property will not precluded the development of surrounding properties. Such conditions may be related (but not limited) to access, circulation, building location, utility availability, and natural resource protection. Comment: As shown on the Preliminary Plat, no further parcelization of this site is proposed. The large lots proposed for this site are in response to the existing topography and vegetation. 48.19.015 Exceptions Comment: No exceptions are requested in this application. Therefore, this section does not apply. 48.19.020 Access 1. For land division creating flag lots, the reviewing authority shall require that access to the flag lots shall be consolidated into a single shared driveway wherever practicable, including consolidation with the access of the parent lot. • Comment: One of the primary reasons for using a flag lot configuration was to limit the number of curb cuts onto Country Club Road. This development shall have a single curb cut with a shared driveway to access all three proposed lots. Lot 3 shall be accessed from the shared drive, and will not have direct frontage onto Country CIub Road. 2. Flag lots shall have access to a public or private street; however, actual street frontage shall not be required. Comment: Individual lots do not have actual street frontage, but access to Country Club Road is insured through the establishment of an access easement across the western boundary of the site,across Lots 2 and 3. 3. Driveway widths shall be a minimum of 12 feet. Driveway length, construction standards, and turnaround requirements shall be determined by LODS Chapter 19, "On-Site Circulation-Driveways and Fire Access Roads." Comment: The proposed driveway shall be 20 feet in width, constructed to City standards. This drive will also meet the Fire Code standards for access. Please refer to Chapter 19 for a full discussion of the driveway standards. 4. No more than two driveways shall be permitted within a distance equal to the minimum lot width of the underlying zone, or within 50 feet of each other if no minimum exists, as measured from the closest edge of each driveway. Comment: As previously noted, only one driveway connection is proposed to Country Club Road. Therefore, this application is in compliance with this section. • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc. -Page 8 City of Lake Oswego November 8, 1999 V 1 .. �_' 5. All buildings on flag lots must post an address at the beginning of • the driveway. The address shall be no less than 6" tall, must be on contrasting background, plainly visible, and must indicate the direction of the building. Comment: All lots shall be addressed according to the Lake Oswego standards. The approximate location of addresses and mailboxes has been shown on the Site Plan. This will be addressed more fully prior to issuance of building permits. 48.19.025 Lot Configuration Requirements 1. Determination of Front Yard: A the time of land division review of a flag lot creation, the front yard shall be determined as follows: The front yard is measured from the lot line that is most parallel and closest to the street, excluding the pole portion of the flag lot. If this standard is not practicable due to the placement of structures on adjacent lots, topography, lot configuration, or similar reasons, then the front yard will be measured from a property line that abuts the access portion of the flag or easement. Comment: Determination of the front yard location and general lot orientation is a significant design decision for this development. This is an infill site, and must be considered in relation to the surrounding homes to the east and west. Strict application of this standard will require that all lots be oriented to face Country Club Road to the south. This would be in stark contrast to the orientation of the existing homes on Verte Court. All lots on Verte Court are oriented to the east,with the rear yard adjacent to this site. The applicant has proposed to orient the lots and buildings to face the access drive, to the west. This will accomplish several things. First, the new lots would be oriented "back to back"with the existing homes on Verte • Court. This will increase the physical separation between existing and proposed structures, thereby increasing the overall privacy of all residents. Second,a western orientation will increase tree preservation for the site, specifically along the shared property line with the eastern properties. By locating a rear yard setback along the eastern site boundary, several large trees will be located within a building setback, and subject to additional protection by the tree ordinance. If the City requires a southern orientation,the proposed buildings will be spaces further apart to the north and south, increasing the encroachment into the large stands of existing trees. This is in direct conflict with the tree preservation ordinance, and is not "practical". Third, this orientation will increase the privacy for the new structures. If the lots are oriented toward Country Club Road,the front windows will be looking into the back yards of the lot to the south. No amount of physical separation will alleviate this loss of privacy. Fourth, if the lot to the west develops in the future,it will need to develop as a flag lot as well, and will face the same dilemma. As a final building design, it simply makes sense for the lots to face each other across the access drive,rather than have five to seven lots all facing Country Club Road. Staff has pointed out that"lot" orientation is independent of"building" orientation. While this may be technically true,the standards were developed to establish a"front yard". To orient the building differently than the lot and it's respective setbacks defies the intention of the ordinance. From a practical standpoint, the applicant will be forced to explain the conflicting orientations repeatedly as the property proceeds through the building permit process. Based on this, the applicant has proposed a building and lot orientation to the west, toward the access easement, as required by the ordinance. 2. Lot Width: Lot width shall be measured by a line connecting two points on opposite side yard property lines, that will result in a line parallel to the front yard. Comment: The minimum lot width is 100 feet, measured as set forth by this section. All proposed lots meet or exceed this standard. 3. Lot Depth: The lot depth shall be measured at the mid-point of the • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design,Inc.-Page 9 City of Lake Oswego November 8, 1999 rl 1 n front and rear property lines of the "flag". Comment: The proposed lots meet or exceed the 100 foot minimum lot depth requirements of Section 48.06, • exclusive of the "pole"or access easement portion of the lot. 4. Lot Size: Area of access easement of flagpole shall be deducted form the gross acreage of the flag lot. The "flag" portion of the lot shall b equal to or exceed the square footage of the underlying zone. Comment: The gross site area of each lot exceeds the minimum lot area for the R-7.5 zone as outlined in Section 48.06,exclusive of the"pole"portion of the lot or the access easement. 48.19.030 Building and Site Design Standards 1. Building Orientation: For land division the reviewing authority shall require that buildings be oriented to provide the maximum separation and privacy from existing and future dwellings on adjacent lots. The reviewing authority may require conditions of approval to include measures such as specific building locations, increase setbacks, additional height restrictions, location and orientation of windows and other openings. Comment: As previously noted, a western building orientation will maximize the separation and privacy of both new and existing residents. Details such as window locations and final height have not been determined at this point. All building design issues shall be reviewed with the building permit. Because the applicant believes that the lots and buildings need to have the same orientation, please review Section 48.19.025(1) Front Yard Determination for a full discussion of how building orientation relates to the surrounding properties and natural features. 2. Garage placement shall be reviewed at the time of building permit application to ensure minimum visibility of the garage from the • street. Garage placement shall meet the following requirements:... Comment: Garage placement shall be reviewed with the building permit application. Therefore, this section does not apply at this time. 3. Height Requirement: Single family residential structures and accessory structures shall not exceed the average height of all dwellings on lots abutting the flag lot. Where a vacant abutting lot is present, a height of 16 feet shall be used in calculating the average. Where an existing structure on an abutting lot exceeds the maximum height permitted by the underlying zone shall be used for the purposes of calculating the average. Comment; As required, the proposed structures on Lots 1 and 2 shall not exceed the average height of surrounding structures. Exhibit F contains a photo survey of surrounding structures. Using this base information, a building height limit of 16.5 feet was established. Conformance will be reviewed with the building permit application. 4. Where a flag lot abuts a lot in a residential district of lower density, the greater setback requirements of the more restrictive district shall apply for those yards which have abutting property lines. Comment: This site is bounded on the east and west by R-10 property. Therefore, R-10 setbacks have been used for the rear yards of the proposed lots. The rear yard setback for both the R-10 and R-7.5 zones is 30 feet, as shown on the preliminary plat. i Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc. -Page 10 City of Lake Oswego November 8, 1999 . i ;� 2 48.19.035 Screening,Buffering,and Landscape Installation • • 1. For land divisions, a minimum six foot landscape strip shall be provided as separation between driveways that are within 10 feet of each other (as measured from the closest edge of each driveway) and where a driveway is within 10 feet of an adjacent residential structure.... Comment: The proposed driveway is more than 10 feet from any existing driveways or residential structures. Therefore,no landscaping is required to meet this section of the ordinance. 2. For land divisions, existing mature vegetation and trees shall be integrated as screening where practicable. The review authority may require dwelling and garage placement or orientation in a manner that will minimize the removal of specific trees, hedges, or other vegetation that would serve to screen the proposed structures from existing and potential surrounding homes. Comment: The applicant has proposed alternate building setbacks for each lot that meet or exceed the standard of the underlying zone. This was done to insure the protection and preservation of the large stands of existing trees on the site. Trees are specifically protected along the east, north, and south. Tree mitigation is required for the trees removed for construction of the private driveway. The mitigation plantings have been concentrated along the eastern boundary for additional screening for the existing homes. 3. The rear and side yards of the lot where the new development occurs shall be screened from adjacent property with a six foot tall fence except where a four foot fence is required by LOC 45.15.020(1) of the Building Code and except where the abutting property owner agrees in writing that a fence is not necessary • along the common property line. In addition, a landscaped buffer within the rear yard setback a minimum of six feet in width shall be created long the rear property line and height and planted with a deciduous or evergreen hedge, a minimum four feet In height at planting which shall grow to a height of six feet within two years and shall be maintained at a minimum of that height, except where abutting property agrees in writing that a landscaped buffer Is not necessary. The above requirements pertaining to the "rear yard" are not applicable where the rear yard abuts Oswego Lake. Comment: As shown on the Site Plan, the applicant is proposing a six-foot screen fence along the eastern property boundary. Due to the heavy amount of existing vegetation and the proposed mitigation plantings along the eastern boundary of the site, the applicant is not proposing a "hedge" screen. The existing and proposed landscape material meets the dimensional buffering requirements of six feet wide by four feet tall. Mature vegetation creates a far superior screen for the existing homes than a new hedge planting. In addition, a formal hedge planting would be out of character with the natural environment of the neighborhood. The applicant has submitted a waiver to the City stating that they will not require themselves to screen the proposed lots from each other. Therefore,no sideyard screening is proposed or required. 4. Tree removal mitigation: A minimum of one evergreen or deciduous tree, of a species which will attain a minimum of thirty feet in height, shall be planted at a 1:1 ratio where practicable in order to mitigate the removal of existing trees necessary for site development. Deciduous trees at planting shall be a minimum of 2" caliper and evergreen trees shall be a minimum of eight feet tall. • Comment: Tree mitigation has been shown for the trees removed for the construction of the shared driveway. Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design,Inc.-Page 11 City of Lake Oswego November 8, 1999 t� ., `� J Because the final building plans have not been determined at this point, it is unknown what trees will be removed and mitigated within the building envelopes. Approximations of tree removals for building construction have been • shown on the Site Plan. Actual tree removal will be finalized at the time of building permits, with appropriate mitigation measures. Due to the heavy amount of existing vegetation on this site,mitigation for the driveway trees has been shown at a "tree for tree" replacement rate, consistent with the standards of this section. Replacement plantings have been primarily located along the eastern property line to maximize privacy between lots. Please refer to the Site Plan for specific plantings. 411 Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc.-Page 12 City of Lake Oswego rr�� November 8, 1999 V i rT 4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS • 5.005 Street Lights Comment: Russ Chevrette, Engineering Technician III, stated in the pre-application conference that no street lights would be required for this application. 7.005 Off-Street Parking,Loading,and Bicycle Access Standard 7.020 Standards for Approval 1. Vehicle Parking According to Table 7.1,one parking space per dwelling unit is required for single-family dwellings. Each structure shall have a minimum of a one-car garage to accommodate the required parking. In addition, each driveway will permit an additional vehicle to park. These parking facilities are all located off a public street, and are a minimum of 8.5 feet wide and 18.5 feet long. 2. Bicycle Parking Comment: As a single-family residential development,no bicycle parking is required. 12.005 Drainage Standard for Minor Developments 12.020 Standards for Approval 1. Drainage Pattern Alteration: Development shall be conducted in such a manner that alterations of drainage patterns (streams, ditches, swales, and surface runoff)do not adversely affect other property. Comment: No significant alterations shall be made to the existing drainage pattern through construction of this development. The majority of stormwater currently drains to the southeast corner of the site, eventually joining 111 the Country Club Drive system. This pattern shall be retained. Earthwork shall be limited to the proposed drive and the building footprints. Building pads have been set at an elevation that is close to the existing ground elevation and no retaining walls are proposed. The roof drains for the proposed homes shall be tight-lined to a storm drainpipe, which will convey the stormwater to a water quality pond on the southern portion of the site. After treatment, the water shall be released to the existing storm drainage system along Country Club Drive. Please refer to the development plans for additional information. Storm drainage calculations have been included in this application for review. 14.005 Utility Standard 14.020 Standards for Approval Comment: Sewer service is currently available along the southern end of this site, within the Country Club Road right-of-way. As shown on the Site Plan,a public sanitary sewer extension will be required along the private drive to provide service to the site. This extension will be constructed by the applicant prior to the issuance of individual building permits. Similar to sanitary sewer, water service is currently available along the southern end of this site, within the Country Club Road right-of-way. A public waterline extension will also follow the private drive, as shown on the site plan, as well as a new fire hydrant. Private service connections for water and sanitary sewer shall be constructed with the installation of the shared driveway. All services have sufficient capacity to service the three lots proposed in this application. Service laterals shall be constructed to City standards, installed underground, and located within the proposed access and utility easement. The cost of all utility improvements shall be borne by the applicant. • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc. -Page 13 City of Lake Oswego November 8, 1999 I2 16.005 Hillside Protection Standard • 16.020 Approval Standards • 1. All developments shall be designed to minimize the disturbance of natural topography,vegetation and soils. 2. Designs shall minimize cuts and fills. 3. Cuts and fills shall conform to LOC Chapter 45. Comment: Earthwork for the proposed driveway has been minimized in the interest of tree preservation. The driveway has been shifted to the north at the entrance to preserve two additional trees for buffering and screening to the east. All cuts and fills shall conform to LOC Chapter 45. 4. Development Prohibited... Comment: No landslides or movements have been reported for this site. Therefore, this section does not apply. 5. Cuts and Fills: On land with slopes in excess of 12 percent, cuts and fills shall be regulated in accordance with LOC Chapter 45,and as follows... Comment: For those areas in excess of 12 percent slope, grading activity shall be set back a minimum of 3 feet from the adjacent property. As previously noted, no landslides or movements have been reported for this site. No structural fill is proposed. The majority of the proposed earthwork is actually in a cut condition. Please note that no development is proposed on land in excess of 50 percent slopes. This was a concern raised by staff in the past. Upon further investigation, the site does not contain land in excess of 50 percent slopes. Therefore,Section 16.020(7)does not apply. • • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design,Inc.-Page 14 City of Lake Oswego November 8, 1999 18.005 Access 41111 18.020 Standards for Approval 1. Every lot shall abut a street for a width of at least 25 feet. Exception: The street frontage of a lot created pursuant to approval of a row house development may be reduced to 17 feet in the R-0, D-D, R-2, R-3, and R-5 zones. 2. Access design shall be based on the following five criteria: a. Topography. b. Traffic volume to be generated by the development. c. Classification of the public street from which the access is taken (residential,collector,or arterial) d. Traffic Volume presently carried by such street. e. Projected traffic volumes. 3. Direct permanent access from a development to an arterial street is prohibited where an alternate access is either available or is expected to be available. A temporary access may be allowed. 4. Direct access from a development or a structure to a residential street is required unless such access is not available, 5. The City may require shared access with a neighboring site or an extension residential streets across adjacent properties to provide access to the development is necessary to prevent impacts on traffic flow. • 6. If no satisfactory access from a public street to a development is available, the City shall require postponement of the development until such time as a satisfactory access becomes available. Comment: The unique nature of this site prohibits all opportunities to provide residential access to the proposed lots. No residential streets currently abut or stub into the site. The site is too narrow to dedicate sufficient right-of-way to construct a public street. Therefore, the applicant is only able to provide access from Country Club Road, which is a major arterial. Rather than providing direct driveway connections to Country Club Road, the applicant is proposing a single access easement along the western boundary for a shared access drive. Driveways for individual lots shall not access Country Club Road directly, but shall be located along the shared drive. This will serve to limit the number of access points, and will allow property owners to avoid backing out onto Country Club Road. There is also the potential for the adjacent property to the west to develop in a similar configuration at some point in the future. In earlier discussions with this property owner, it was clear that future development was not going to occur in the near future. Once that property does develop, the proposed access drive could potentially be widened into a full street. Consideration should also be given to the small size of this development, and the low number of overall trips it will generate. Therefore, the proposed access system is consistent with the Access Standards. 18.035 Procedures 1. Determination of the location and configuration of an access shall be based on a traffic study,unless otherwise approved by the City Manager. Comment: In the pre-application meeting with the City staff, it was determined that a traffic study would not be required for this site due to the small size of the development and the amount of existing traffic on Country Club Road. No real conclusions could be drawn from such a study. • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc. -Page 15 City of Lake Oswego November 8, 1999 v �,� i / 18.040 Miscellaneous Information 1. The expense related to modification of an existing street to accommodate • proposed access including all traffic control devices and lighting, shall be paid for by the developer. Comment: All construction expenses shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 2. Access from a major development to a collector or an arterial shall be not less than 100 feet from the nearest intersection of street centerlines. Comment: The intersection of Country Club Drive and Verte Court is over 100 feet away from the proposed access easement. 19.005 On-Site Circulation—Driveways and Fire Access Roads 19.020 Standards for Approval 1. Driveway Approaches—Locational Limitations and Restrictions Comment: The shared access drive is located at least 200 feet away from an adjacent curb cut, which is in excess of the separation standard. The driveways proposed for individual lots shall be reviewed with the building permit application. 2. Driveway Widths Comment: The driveways proposed for individual lots shall be reviewed with the building permit application. The shared access drive shall be 20 feet wide and constructed of asphaltic concrete, per city standards and in conformance with the Uniform Fire Code. 3. Driveway Grades Comment: The shared access drive shall not exceed a 15 percent grade. Please refer to the Site Plan for the • proposed driveway grades. Individual driveways shall not exceed a 20 percent slope. 4. Fire Access Lanes Comment: The proposed access drive and individual driveways meet the standards shown in the City's Standard Details for fire access roads. 5. Turnarounds Comment: The proposed access drive exceeds 150 feet in length. A turnaround has been provided between Lots 2 and 3, to be constructed of"grass-crete". This surface material is subject to approval by the Fire Marshal. This turn-around facility has been located within an access easement to control access for emergency services. 7. Easements Required Comment: An access easement shall be recorded for the turn-around facility prior to recording of the final plat. • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design,Inc. -Page 16 City of Lake Oswego November 8, 1999 v i o p. OTHER ORDINANCES 4111 Chapter 38 Utility Code(Sewer, Water, and Surface Water Management) Comment: Utilities are discussed in LODS 14 Utility Standard. Please refer to the discussion in this section for specific utility information. Chapter 39 System Development Charges Comment: System Development Charges shall be computed and assessed prior to the issuance of building permits. No permits are requested with this application. Therefore, this section does not apply. Chapter 42 Streets and Sidewalks Comment: This site has full access from the existing Country Club Drive. This street meets all City standards and requires no additional improvements. A new six foot wide concrete walk is proposed in this application, consistent with City standards. Chapter 44 Subdivisions Comment: This application is proposing only three lots, and no streets are created. Therefore, this application is considered a minor partition, and is not subject to the subdivision standards. Chapter 47 Sign Code Comment: No signs are proposed in this application. Therefore,this section does not apply. Chapter 55 Trees 55.02.080 Criteria for Issuance of Type II Permits 1. Dead or Dying Trees • Comment: The applicant is proposing the removal of the following trees based on poor health conditions and in relation to the proposed development. These trees are dead or dying, as determined by a certified arborist. For specific information on the condition of individual trees, please refer to the Arborist's report in Exhibit E. The removal of these dead and dying trees is justified in the interest of public safety. Removal of these trees will improve the health and condition of the remaining trees on the site. In addition,denial of the permit would result in the eventual decay of the tree, without replacement trees. Mitigation has been provided at a "tree for tree" replacement rate. Based on his initial investigation, the project Arborist believes that a significant number of the existing trees in the southern cluster suffer from root rot. Further investigation is currently underway to determine the extent of the infestation. 506—disease 555-overtopped 521 —root rot 542—root rot 519-dead 556-overtopped 522—root rot 543—root rot 541 -dead 557-overtopped 523—root rot 2. Hazard Trees Comment: The applicant is proposing the removal of the following trees due to a hazard condition. For specific information on the condition of individual trees, please refer to the Arborist's report in Exhibit E. Again, no mitigation is proposed, due to the resulting improvement for the existing trees through the removal of the listed trees. Removal of hazardous trees serves to protect the public safety and do not provide any public benefit. Therefore, the applicant should not be conditioned for additional improvements. 628 634 635 • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design,Inc. -Page 17 City of Lake Oswego � 1' n November 8, 1999 2 . 3. Trees that are not Dead, Dying,or Hazardous a. The tree is proposed for removal for landscaping purposes or in order to construct development approved or allowed pursuant to the Lake Oswego Code or other applicable development regulations; Comment: The following trees need to be removed for the construction of the proposed drive. Mitigation has been proposed on a "tree for tree" basis, as shown on the Landscape Plan. The existing trees create much of the identity for the project, consequently tree removal has been minimized wherever possible. However, the proposed drive has limited locations in which it may be constructed. The proposed location is consistent with the existing driveway, and will minimize tree loss along the southwestern boundary of the site. The lots have a minimum depth requirement, which is currently barely met by this proposal. Any shift to the west would create substandard lots. Staff has pointed out that a shift of the street to the east may allow the preservation of additional trees along the propertyline. This is not as simple as it may appear. The size of the trees along the western boundary is significant, and the root zone is extremely wide. It does not require much disturbance to this root zone to severely damage the tree that is trying to be saved. In addition, the removal of adjacent trees will compromise the structural integrity of the remaining trees,creating a threat to the public safety. Trees of this size should not be preserved in narrow strips, but rather in clusters, as proposed in the southeast corner of the site. This development has maximized the quality of tree preservation by concentrating on existing clusters. 505 554 585 636 507 558 586 637 508 559 587 639 509 560 588 546 510 583 589 550 518 584 590 b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on • erosion, soil stability, flow of surface water, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and Comment: The proposed tree removals will not impact soil stability or the flow of surface water. The proposed driveway will help to control soil stability. With most of the site containing slopes less than 12 percent, soil stability is not a high risk. Storm water facilities will control the flow of surface water, as explained in LODS 12. Windbreaks are not altered,because the majority of the trees have been preserved in clusters for added stability and mass. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics, property values or property uses of the neighborhood. In making this determination, the City may consider any proposal by the applicant to mitigate for the loss of the tree by planing new trees or other vegetation. The City may impose such mitigation requirements as a condition of approval of the permit. The mitigation planting may be required on the property or elsewhere in the City. Comment: Property adjacent to this site has developed as single family lots, similar to those being proposed in this application. The pattern of tree preservation is consistent with the surrounding properties, and will not have a detrimental effect on their properties. Specifically, the properties to the east will retain many of the trees that currently abut their property. Approval of the removal permits will certainly not restrict the use of surrounding property. The applicant has proposed mitigation for all trees to be removed on a"tree for tree"basis. Chapter 57 Solar Access 57.04 Solar Access for New Development • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc. -Page 18 City of Lake Oswego jl Revised June 26, 1999 t i .i�J 57.04.020 Design Standard 2. Protected Solar Building Line Option. In the alternative, a lot complies with this section If a solar building line is used to protect solar access as follows: a. A protected solar building line for the lot to the north is designated on the plat, or documents recorded with the plat; and Comment: Solar building lines have been shown on the Preliminary Plat. This restriction shall be recorded with the Final Plat with the tree-preservation setback lines. b. The protected solar building line for the lot to the north is oriented within 30°of a true east-west axis; and, Comment: Solar building lines have a bearing of S 89°40'E. This meets the east-west orientation requirement. c. There is at least 70 feet between the protected solar building line on the north and the middle of the north- south dimension of the lot to the south, measured along a line perpendicular to the protected solar building line; and, Comment: The solar building lines are located at least 70 feet north of the center of the lot to the south, thereby meeting this requirement. d. There is at least 45 feet between the protected solar building line and the northern edge of the buildable area of • the lot, or habitable structures are situated so that at least 80% of their south facing wall will not be shaded by structures or non-exempt vegetation. Comment: As shown on the Sun/Shade diagram, all habitable structures have at least 80 percent of this southern face protected from shade. This diagram shows the shadow pattern of the proposed buildings for 10:30 am and 1:30 pm on January 21 at and altitude of 45°30' latitude. Sun angle calculation charts have been included in this application for additional reference. Chapter 58 Historic Preservation Comment: This site does not contain any historic landmarks. Therefore,this section does not apply. VII. CONCLUSION The above discussion sets forth sufficient evidence to permit approval of the proposed three-lot minor partition plat as shown. Approval of this amendment would be in compliance with the zoning ordinance and in support of the goals established by the Comprehensive Plan. • • Blue Leaf Minor Partition Plat WRG Design, Inc.-Page 19 City of Lake Oswego Revised June 26, 1999 'J 1 ,j • i • • STORMWATER QUALITY AND CONVEYANCE SUMMARY • Water Quality As required by the City of Lake Oswego, a water quality extended dry detention pond has been proposed to treat the new impervious run-off from the Blue Leaf development. Using the Extended Dry Detention Worksheet provided by the City of Lake Oswego, the required volume to be treated was calculated to be 564 cubic feet. The pond has been designed to hold 640 cubic feet of water, and will release this water over a 48-hour period through a discharge orifice. Stormwater Conveyance The existing site topography slopes to the south. There is an existing 8" storm line along Country Club Road that flows to the east. At the intersection of Verte Cf. the storm line changes to a 12"pipe. The on-site stormwater collection system will connect to the 8"storm line on Country Club Road. Grade of the existing 8"storm line was assumed to be 4%. See the attached map for the drainage basin used to check capacity of the 8"storm pipe. Using the Rational Method, it was determined that flow in the 8" pipe will be 1.99 cfs, while the • capacity of the pipe is 2.62 cfs. Conclusions Based on the attached calculations, the water quality pond will meet the required standards, and the 8"storm line will convey the 10-year, 24 hour storm event. 11111 EXHIBIT 27 LU 99-0029 vs � J m 5/28/96 EXTENDED DRY DETENTION WORKSHEET (January, 1996) ' 1 Project Name: 1ii P Leg * 1 • City Project Number: • Computed By: 'Met,/ '1<rL� { Date: 11 S) `� Company: I WIC — D (5: Address: Phone Numbers: 1 New Impervious Area Calculation. acres Total Site Area: ac . ft. ,75 sq, ft/lot= 11,�?`ssq. ft. home sites: = 3_ lots © 3sq. ft.ft buildings: _sq• ft parkina area: sq. sidewalk area: sq. ft. street area: -sq. ft. other area: sq. ft. Total Impervious Area: 1534L.�,y 3 acres Design Flow Rare. Design Storm: 0.36 incnes of rain falling in 4 hours. ' Calculate the volume to be treated. IIIsq. ft = S6 y cu.ft. Vol. = (0.36)X(1 ft/12 in.)X Ig 1 volume 1 imp. area Calculate the design flow rate over the 48 hour storm period. Flaw rate = cu. ft./(48 hrs. X 3600 sec.) = 0,4033 ifs volume Ac+gal Po etel Vo/ u "7e DQ.pth P 1 t,,S 1 F.eebo&rd 1A :,- ! !„TV __ LAY. ..%..:,o" :C; Capt.:f s=lanniaFJ_Dciti_,gr;ni S v i J4 ■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■ ■■■ ■ ■■ IN ■■ ■■■ ■■■ �■■■■■■■ 1VI TRIX • DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION November 5, 1999 Morgan Tracy City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: Blue Leaf Partition Plat Buffer Waiver Dear Morgan, Matrix Development would like to submit a waiver of the buffering requirement s of LOC 48.19.035 (3) for all internal lots in the Blue Leaf Partition Plat. Therefore, no internal sideyard screening shall be required for the three proposed lots. • This letter is submitted on the request of the Lake Oswego Planning Staff. Please note that this code section is designed to protect adjacent properties from new development. It is not designed to protect new lots from each other. The concept of submitting a waiver from the applicant to the applicant is somewhat repetitive, and does not improve the built-environment. This letter shall also grant a two-week (14-day) extension to the 120-day review period for the proposed application. This extension allowed Matrix to provide additional evidence that the proposed development is in compliance with the Lake Oswego Development Code. We appreciate the willingness of staff to work through these issues. Sincerely, 2\0*C45 %-7. 7 "14 r" t 7, Ryan M. Selby t; . ,— ; Vice President • Plaza 2.Suite 201 69(10 SW Kline`street EXHIBIT 28 Tigard.Oregon 97223-2514 LU 99-0029 503.620.80K0 -Telephone 5((3.59K.K910-Pcn iJ 1 10 YEAR EVENT - PROPOSED STORM CALCS. - RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY Project Blue Leaf Client Matrix Job No.. MAT005 IMPERVIOUS C= 0 90 STORM 6 Orig: 5-Nov-98 Desion: T.Miller PERVIOUS C = 0.40 DEFAULT n= 0 012 Rev Rational Hydrology Pipe Sizing (via Manning's equation,full flow) Pipe Upstream Downstream Initial Total 1 A A C'A Total 0 Upstream Downstream Len. Slope Dia n 0 V Flow This Reach's Tc Node Node Subarea Tc in/hi IMPERV. PERV Incl. C-A CIA in Cap Time at Downstream Tc Elevation Elevation (min) (min) (in/hr) (acre) (acre) (acre) (acre) (cfs) (ft) ftNode - t ) Ift) (in) (cis) (fps) {min) (min) 1 8"pipe 10.00 1.84 0.83 0.84 1.08 1.08 1 99 ( 4 00 8 0.011 2 62 7.50 I I I I I I I I I I I I I � I I Blue Leaf Impervious Area = 18,814 sf Pervious Area = 36942 sf 1/2 of Country Club Road �-' Impervious Area = 35'* 500' = 17,500 sf Totals Impervious Area = 36314 sf= 0.83 ac. Pervious Area = 36,942 sf= 0.84 ac. • . • . . 7;41 • . . it .t.•-' - ..•',-- 0 :( • , ... -,. V•••. . .. , te..., 1 l•p, .... t,,j- ..,,„,.. 4p... - . .-- . ..-44-,c--.\ \ \ • ., ......., . ; .4.,..,0,„,.. ....i. - ... . .. ........, :.;,. ,,, , ..• ,:...4 :11Y • '1 .. . I .'... --... -rt:t--- 7:4°t41# . : I, J. • ....."':: ••S.,se . _ •• . i . aro ..,-. . 64 .., • _.. • • .-4`,i \ \ • : .; ••-•.. • j__.-,,,,., :-.., rr . li. -::141( t ..:- - .!.' ,. ';-; . 71/ ••. • - - t _ ,, , ..s. . .. .. • . . , •• IF • • • ., .• ' 4k 4 A. _ • •-:. A$ i .. ,..L, ._ .., 4.. , -. i• \ • 7. .4.' - ' ‘,• ,.' •-.411 \ ' • ... v , • A 7 . , . 1 -•.., yi.. •IA 1 • **--.-. -:lr"-•••••• • • 6. ..--.. • . \ 'i• " - - -, _.„, kpl ' .4 , • • :. •••1•. 4 • - , - . • . . _.- •••i• %Pee 7 sC •' ..„1 ... . . -- s,, AT (.. . - • .t. -1 , .*-1.16•'4 .k:'-' . • . • 411% - - .., .,i_ 3(7..... • / ...,i;t. s Ca641141*..7L-91'' ' *4. • • • , .o.N.. Ait.t...:;, -ik. • . ...J..... . ., L' ' '....*4•,-,,,ci. : -- --e..-.----, •et. 4., - •-r. •.,••• 41:. . , eeigk L • I '-•:4 • 'V,.r. Si•44..- 1.).'I' I 11 -..4 I • 4 4 . .• re:* ' .. ft. . ., e --- .. ;.4.1. • ;41.,:e- .• 1, .p.•,.... • .7 1 .. 0 r- • • L.1 alt- - %-• •J...t,•: 'ilk .. .....,., . ,,. : ,',.."fi',. I.,;.14 I . 1 .4 14 I * ':• 1.,..1, , .i.- -..t...,,...,. ', . .......,-.,....;: . 4 • , • it. ...' . . ..,.....:9t..__ ....,_, • ...r....,". . ...,....•" , - .1 . 4..4,, . „„,...„. ,,•••••••;.. , ..f. ..... : ..,t.,,,,„ . i. 4 •-,--)i:lig‘'. ,. 4..., ' . , • .. lir., .‘..t.... . ‘-, •• • i jot l'7-7'..7 • - . . , ,- .1.,. , ., , , ilk" r , . T.; ri 1:.: i , _, ..v.,,„.4*r . .,:10:‘ . •••• - e1' Lt7i--- . c ... . , , ... , , .. .,:v.„..,.... .••:. ,. 7' *•, .• 4, - ,-.7...f.:',.aiiis* Air ::'.• ":•.."..L.:._:.., . • •- .4.044 4,•:•.•:• '.4,7'•. ... . , •. ...L..... . '•,..1...S. ‘-' . '. ' ;. f ....W.i.eS,......i'''' .‘-` .1%_ '•. IligF el A i .2.1 MOP ., -)4'"IIP 4i ..' ';' I' '16.-..• 6 ''''•id ... , .. . • fe. ... ..: .,,tri,... ; .,:,_.,.,,,.f ,. ••1.hair • - . ; 0%.• •. r• - : ; .1.1 Jt... . 4..'Art.i.- g• : . ''.;•..,.?' . ,. ,. •1; Tillir . • •:- . -% 3 .. ,_ ,. .14. :. , .:*". , •..h, .4 , .,0* i• *'•'.s'•'-'•• .' • .-4 --- • . ,, 4 Sill''''' ''''' . . , • PA.;,. .,. it .., 1,,o.... • ,...:, . ,. .. . • .....-_:„. • , . ...., ,:... , .v • .,.. , .. .,, . .., . .. ..,, .. . • 3 -•-•- •=--• . - .:::--_L- -. •Au•.•'-v,.c.„--d: Ititt41. ..,. •tje . --• .4)10. • • r ,k' t • _ ' .- . ?•'''- • •. • •••: .: -641 , g,, . 1.../' ••. . o,,,,p‘ •tr. .--.- •,, 0 / .. k-: ;-- .t. ' ...,tt. l'ilk-..., *N.', f . • ' si:. ‘. 01. 1 .it ....',., '''.. : •. ' ' • ..../ IVIIYIL?. ‘‘. . . _ fix ' - ,".. • A -.-.• . ',..-:.,,; 1...I , Il• . ; •4.:..2*"..', N -• -7 4 .., . .II ..t.- ..h. .• ilk,,,,lti .. • --. ' t ;v.' • . :,..X.. 4.a.. '..i... .. irk, I -i'N---. . • NI. - t. . ,. . . OP i_l•1'. IIP: t° • 1 4 '' 'L 1..; .-. ,., •- ..... , . -I •. -kat.. ..• 1,.. .--J. .P.„4,,,• , --..,:4...;.. a - •- .--• " • •Mr .1%.". . if" "-.' ' ...i 1.. ' 1:1' At''It.d., ' '.'" •1 ""r 1 :1;-.0./.. t. • . '...• tit -‘-..` .0.1 ... „.. . . -:.• .' ...., r;.• 041%-.,..2 -,-,. ,Iii,,b*1.7.-cliv.4,,,,i7.4.... ...r....._, . N., ...v• .: .24. t, , .,......, • - * >, For ... .4,. .... ,s• l r ••• 6 -`6. . . op- • •••".•-gun.. ..",.. .....VP.".. -. 1. III C a' 4• i. -r- . •' '••I • RC . ' - - 'Id*.:. . • A-- '.: • tt f .. - ,,,,,,,‘,. -.1. •eij 4 :I 1• '416.-.•"•:',!•1•71, 0‘107:1*.: p..• -4--•••••••• .i• .10a. • •- - : "' .- •••11L. -•Itir'r '''-idk3,4 ‘, • ... i1/4. ...;„,..ist. • ^f-;' !•,,...1 4 1 or..:.• Pi . 4__.' I 4 . .6,,,:. . , 4, -v..„,. . . .- . ... . i,• ..• c*its`k- i'. .- ~- ,. ,••:-..../.41 ii," ' • - ."• ,': .2). •,,, -..t.,-1, ''-'7" T- at t ' • .t f ,• • .• F • 401111 *_, • • •* ''!...*..i. 1, ' - . , . C.: •-. • '' . ,roko, _ 4,: .., IENTts 1,,., 1,„ sr. : • , y ••-% ‘ Iii:-.1'.1)L1,11 It? 6 7 r- • iki.... wk. ,: .IP. •. I.... if, , . • • 4,.•' ..ii.r.'3,:;..1.- .:..., . ' .. -,- '`,. ; -1b.: , 1 - -...• 1 , •,.. . ...;,'.,-.....t •••"Nib • al -•:,• Irw.----‘46, ' . .• - ' kir., _. IP' I k- vitt:. p - -,-,iefief..!,:. ,,, . , .., • . . •• • ..t.tv•...a%'l'" ‘. 1.6. . - - ' . 11/. 4, J. t -,i ' ,... "' . ,.f4J, ' 6.• .701 ..'' :-.`•'' ;• 1 # ;„• l' .,, -.111;....tr...‘..r11. .1. _,L46-41t.oeit _ _ ' L -, • :,. 4. .. . 4. -.. -• •' ' - i ';''' -''f lea-40- '-' • . • • .-- •P'l '-• j 48.0, . • , 17 -• . • . ..,,,,,A• ..p.,, -,•.,- 5, . i ......4 • 1:. - ... ,.. .5% , ... . 1 1. h, .f•r‘ ...or-4 ,.0•Te•,1* '. •• • - :••• 4.--- - i 'vr*`' ''.. Sc... < -...• -. . . ••,..eu:.,... ,;_.•„;,, . ..., : A,-; - „.....„. ... • *. - ..4 • - , --' .. - .' ...-- •.•0.• ..t.,v - , - . , . -,-; . 4 i 0 . . 1 .. . ..fr .. L .,• ,• LLI , r ..f• "4'. ' • • • " •..1. ''.4' 1 -.4..(.....:r 4r4•7',,...',...1r-.. •-:t -* ..'•. /-1 MirP- j . .......'ir''' ' ... * • .4. * J•44,1•••••)•• A , • < . •••• ' ..._'•••711.... •• '•; iciit •-. . - -..'•• -'1\N:•- :,111M1 ,, .. r.•:1:5,' ii'ei: -. , . . 44: '!. 9'.!, .' 'i: . ...*.''',4 ,. •-/, . .. .• ,, '' 1, ' -, - . 1::!t;:i:',`...,''.,• ... . A.•.'.:••••••,..44•,'.:'• .1s:'.1!..! ' .4, #. . ir c:...,- •••••••N-••••••••• . Z, • ,4,,.;,„:. • • . :. : I ..--'' e• • "st or •; .7-,III,. .1 , '• • . ....., b• •:*-- •...'. Ai •41 i Y . i!,J,i r' 4fzitAIL.:',70'; :1-..4"...;72'• -,...... --, - •.'' ' .. .4•hiso"--•• \ ..-':^;:i;t.•'' V • ... • s': 0• ',Asir • ' f •...IP • LA .... .- •''.., -' ::*• .-1Th r. i: 410ft.- b......4W'g, ?:'.i.r.:.,'V ti• to- - ... ,......... , ..6... .: _ . , . g •*. -_, `1 ..`I.1164,,,..‘ .1., t cor • .! ;A... iv •-, ,.. ' .1...o. .t_ . ,._,, ':4 oorai•0 t lk*1. , •-.....• ....v. 4 .10:-...i . ;'11 i.•3 (.••fr .'t- „ 114.000. Jr 1..7 4 - .. ' ." .4•ii,---... .:11";..J• .. • • \` ' , • • * - .•-,...:1;••Note_.._ .-14.•i.' • .•••••• . •S, • - •-\../. ' a,,Ellit./..j ..' .r. L Piz. '....".•• '...' - • 0 .11101,0A01111m SIIIICOUNTFIY ROAD II 0 C L li B , ..- . . ... • ' • *To.• •..' •- "-..'- . •tr.r:.-• - - •--'6' . ' ,.• .4•11....gila ' '44- -' .• .41......24-Ir.!. •••-2= •". ,. , .--(-, • -. ...4C.,.=..- ,.W. •4.•4111P. j.44. ar . ."-V"''',••""."‘. :Ilet4 ‘,,..•••• .21...• *,.-rne:•+•.- ,..ili.--fir • •-- • ..... - - ;....... -... .. •••• ..1,-.•-•-- _., Zaill. •0'.. .... ,,,• a • -,...J, 0 ,IC- 1=r7i._xo• '11"ritn•it. .- ...WIC"- •or.'""-Z-LV. --.4 .. .11 . .. ., .IIIRTOP ler YO" - me . ..4606,_ ,.. .... • . .• pir,j r73,---1,. • - ••:.'41 a'40. ‘ • - i... ..... ' Ik '.• ' '' ''• `" ":-:- -wiz& . •-. -. :.-- , . ,,,ottse vr,..,,,f•. .,•• ';!-TrIcr.. I,•....11 2.',.., i:-Irti _' • - -N--__ %. , . .111,4.ig 1' ,0 lar•r•-i",..• ., , .,..., '.6 •. _,*7 ': 115 " .' 'sr.,.••:••• .-*".c.. ,' * '-• s4- ....ir- Or' 4411. 40 it'i.).*:.,...1r. .....-;.•-V% "r• ,:i•.••ril:''',7-- ... , • .. • '',,.. .%" • 0,6:1..‘ •o••:,-2.-, ' :,., . . .-, - • -,. • - it. . „...., . • ' • 4• -- , il:, _ - '''f• • "iL ....alLikr• ' "'I ' ,"! .".t••••1 ! .. :••••.._,..-•'-.1.;:r-r--:.i••• -.4 ,ALL-- ' .. • ' •-- - •• , . ' ---:.;' :=.•••• ‘••••: ' - _ •• -- - '''--.•,:•••4 ..% . '1•41,91I • ' 4/401, PP ifolik 7 Ire. r.• i4*•'t, _.......-;;;!.. -- uw----- . _. . • . -.I. ., .-iitk. .0 \ likk la ' j..-,%."•::` "' 11,01,'7 411.1= 010 ‘4.7„,404 46'4 INK . ' 4......-- I '..,:,', C.,. . ..• • Oti, . ,100....T: : - leo': .‘1': L...... . ... •.'. I I(' '''.7.i.. ...P• ,,,,g,-./.. .,.. -sr, -- J • . . ...,. • J 'a a ., ' *:g--iikAt., -J7' • • , .4 IV . . ..:.. - . : ..s. --.... ' . . .,, .t ,, 44 •S ir litt; • ., '•:. . % ".1k '. ' • IiiiiiiikH. 1:1 r .-. .. • , ••, , • • . ----- •,, • • #. . , .,1,, .„,,iit . . • \is:ow. . :•.,,.e.; Ir. , 1,4 3 3 ):hi.:161: 11 4" ' ••• • ''''' ' :• • „ . - ,. ..,. '- • \ , ".., ' 1 - ' " , . , ‘i - .- • • -.. lb • • •:/....._.--------------7:_e• ..2.;•, •C 1. jr- , . . ,,.. , k * a Ili[ii.-. - • • • *. .0 ''... .--/. 4..5,11I.. ..,....4, Aft .' '''' '.... .. , .ida I,:- • I'' - -' 2, ...'. ------- • . _.. -- • I f CHART 1 INTENSITY OF PRECIPITATION FOR 10 YEAR STORM ( FANNO 10 AT FANNO CREEK STUDY AREA (N 45°29'00"W 122°42'30") Intensity, Inches Per Hour MINUTES .0 .1 .2 .3 I .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 5 2.60 2.58 2.55 2.53 2.50 248 2.45 2.43 2.40 2.38 6 2.36 2.35 2.33• 2.32 2.30 2.28 2.26 2.25 2.23 2.22 7 2.20 2.19 2.17 2.16 2.14 2.13 2.11 2.10 2.08 2.07 8 2.06 2.04 2.03 2.02 2.01 2.00 1.99 1.98 1.97 1.95 9 1.94 1.93 1.92 1.91 1.90 1.89 1.88 1.87 1.86 1.85 10 1.84 1.83 1.82 1.81 1.80 1.80 1.79 1.78 1.77 1.76 11 1.75 1.74 1.73 1.72 1.71 1.70 1.70 1.69 1.68 1.68 12 1.67 1.67 1.66 1.65 1.64 1.64 1.63 1.62 1.62 1.61 13 1.60 1.60 1.59 1.58 1.57 1.56 1.56 1.55 1.54 I. 1.54 . 14 1.53 1.53 1.52 1.51 1.51 '1.50 1.50 1.49 1.48 1.48 15 1.47 1.47 1.46 1.46 1.45 1.44 1.44 1.43 1.42 1.42 16 1.41 1.40 1.40 1.39 1.38 1.38 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.36 • 17 1.36 1.36 1.35 1.35 I 1.34 1.34 1.33 1.33 1.32 1.32 18 1.31 1.31 1.30 1.30 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.28 1.28 1.27 19 1.27 1.27 1.26 1.26 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.24 1.24 1.23 20 1.23 1.23 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.20 1.20 21 1.19 1.19 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.17 1.17 1.16 1.16 1.15 MINUTES 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1.15 1.12 1.09 1.06 1.04 1.01 0.99 0.97 MINUTES 30 35 40 45 50 60 90 120 0.95 0.86 0.79 0.74 0.69 0.62 0.49 0.42 Reference: NOAA Atlas No. 2 BES August 7, 1990 ( FANN CHART viJO f i \ -VERIle COURT - ---1 ________, ., I TL 2605 // t ��, I I >� 1 I 1 .,„a Z41 j ,, , k% '1r• ) t) I I !W7 V ((l iw •`f1 >ti d / n]ao4 /t5'J''� iv ( I n 2601 `` fs`k ,.,/ /I0/15 TL 2603 TL 2602 1 I V I 1 I tP --IL]emm __ 1 fi ' I 8 00'16'25"13 446b3' • I I I /: . I I Y I 1 I Q ri'er Ar 1 G7" 1in n]4mm :^ , --------- —�T IJ0®'ll' I"W446b1' tnp IL emm l) TL eoo 1/ rm O 4.)' .5, 1 ----- --`-------- ------ -- I I II », die LI— —-- ! t o .*�1..u1.c I :'\ I 1 oilI i (I I 1 ..;.1to 1,111L.. P . - II/ i .c.") RLcEiyED ' . 444,I, oeiajLeEeo':'k 4 , iwit- _ I 13109, i " CI Y OF LAKE SWEGU r,1F6� ■ f' I of Kau Jug t ..ap".. i . kV, APPLICANT ENGINEER PLANNER SHEET INDEX COVER SHEET RYAN SELBY JEFF CURRAN, PE MIMI DOUKAS, ASLA CO: COVER SHEET MATRIX DEVELOPMENT LURG DESIGN, INC WRG DESIGN, INC CI: EXISTING CONDITIONS BLUE LEAF PLAZA 2, SUITE 200 10450 SW NIMBUS AVENUE, SUITE RA 10450 SW NIMBUS AVENUE, SUITE RA C2: PRELIMINARY PLAT 6900 SW HAINES STREET PORTLAND, OREGON 91223 PORTLAND, OREGON 91223 C3: SITE PLAN LAKE OSWEGO,OREGOI LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 91223 (503)603-9933 (503)603-9933 C4: SUN/SHADE DIAGRAM PROJECT NO. - MAT00E (503)244-8159 C5: TREE REMOVAL/ NOvEMBER 8, ISSS LANDSCAPE PI AN /_-, II^ 111111111 EXHIBIT29LU 99- V- 1111 Ull, IIII Hi IIDIIIII A 3-LOT P,4151. U. E4. E4F ION PLAT 9 ?, ORECsON / 1 • i \ � I '- _ —1 ; -_ . V: \ ', _ _ YERTE COURT - - — _ - - -y _ I I I / TL 2605 / ma I I I . I' / I 1 \ - ���4ZL ,,I w l ' TbZ�m2— TL F04 TL] ®3 4', ...:. : l' , i IL 2500 1/ y _ ' !CI vrc rh —y�`=. II: 1 1 1� ‘.:_,..., c/1,.\\, 4 * ) .\\c''‘-. \.-:: S. i--4 '''. . ''', \ ‘'llts e:`,-.,F.,-- ', .:4.:47.--'-'" ';-1.'..: '1::'' A.e''k\ \ Vt: '''.4*---•\ '., -, _, . .. ,,\,_, . 4tItt...), ,,If.,s_,., ...„ , ‘, !,..;__.?:. . Ir... ._.t,-7 i,,, s,i, t, ..,‘,1 :.., .. ., _, _, I i 1, )1t)%01,- . ‘4.1.- ----• , L,L / ,.., • - ) a_ �a / y r F' 1 }s. A. 0 1 j � s 0. � 1 )1 .�' , �\ A \‘ $�t.F,fli( 1 I 1 � 1 1 0 r \ ' } \ V 1r-� 1- '''. � r :r ,$ram` \ �. �^'\ }fit .1_. o. I TL 2400 y----•'� 'I. 1 - A 4 S . • -. .-` _, (` \ EX BUILDING _� t q - - - $ �A 4'r 1 -s 47.,,i),:- ,kr) s ?:,,..*: ',. 1 11 r ` I`"� �'�.� . 4Qa I. ��. ----- I'''''''''' u ,. ti„,:\-i, �:k JA4 )..., P+.# s C' �rl o� 1r,��` EX�,.�O' RAU EX 601' RAU 6 I 1-1 :I:.LA,rfai.s I I I. I I TL 900 I I r tYnl I;'rrr.; '-- LEG Na I I CAl EXIBIPIG WATER LINE /. SLOPE ANALYSIS - ENTIRE SITE PROPOSED WATER LPE EXISTING CONDITIOt, Color Range Beg. Range End Percent Area l 0.00 11.99 64.2 35078.38 J' - EXIBTIT6 SANITARY SEILER LRE t PROPOSED SANITARY SUER LLE 12.00 19.99 264.3 15470.81 BLUE LE 4 LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON I! •'77•."1,4eT mart l 20.00 49.99 7.6 4121.23 322 EXIBTaYa CONTOUR PROJECT NO. - MAT005 50.00 100.00 0.0 D 0 322 PROPOSED GONTOIR NOVEMBER 8, 1999 —•—•—•—•—•— PROPOSED FENCE -- 1 unnmuSMunmAn,n naunurmnuomao LPIITB of PROPOSED EA EXHIBIT 30 --- pI III I� ❑Il.l II7�I 1ll7�I� I EXIBTWi CONIFEROUS TR I I LU 99-0029 EASING DECIDUOUS TR E ± 1 I I -� YERTE COURT _ _ _ 1 1 - - - - - —Q- - I I /''..... U.I - - I -1 , I I I , , I I / I I I I ,,I/ o U U U L RCELOZ TD©I { Da II Ul1� oLf os Eo ' l.� (r s 000'16'2. " 1 44 10' ii 124' I 100' 222 Q I 9 i in el in 03 1 N r - - i ..._....Rio'1 30'-r ---1 IA -1 "'ail lU - 395' LOT I I5' 15' r r LOT 2 LOT 3 1 II"I.i' I v.,, 0 I �_I'wI 12,494 SF 21,139 SF I - 9 15�51 SF 029 AC -, 0.64 AC I r� inI WEIGHT LFtlr,nla FEET 1 I(1ooa3 ernm AC excL.e 1 I none VIDA*AC exCL eenT)I ♦f- n I iVI L IEIGHT LIMIT.K FEET J I L HEIGHT LIMIT. 30 FEET_J _ _ I CO 110 ♦\♦ r n / ' f z 113 U 1 in t 4 124' Ire, / ,,, EX 60' RAW I EX 60' R/lU-�- MOO-11'z I"W 446.61' 1l;.ii::. VV!_!.1 SOLAR BUILDNG LINE-TYP 24'ACCESS 1 UTILITY ESMT I /, PRELIMINARY FL/ BLUE LEAF LAKE OSUIEGO,OREGON PROJECT NO. - MAT005 NOVEMBER H, 1999 EXHIBIT 31 4110 LU 99-00� _ (4-- YERTE COURT - - - _ - - - - \ --® 0 _ I t 1 0 I 0 1 ,s 1 - - - - - - - - - - T — - -- - -\ \ I ail ,/'---i T I I / , , , . , , , , , 1„ , ,_„ . . , 1. i y .. \ j -, IAUIDJCAPE BIffER- --M - -in • Ir`\ -• `~\ t } -EEE LASNDaCAWE AN .Y. S 00'I6'25"�! 46 b3' `• .... 1 F.l P .I' �(�/ -.`��I. _ ` t p Y'j��` _ \`� • t•�+_. •�``,, �' f� c,�X. it AWE N ! -' {�. 14 ,.,1''— 1'if\ ...,,,,- ONpMU,wx,kw"w"'N '0,1_�i0.' N...0.0,nMl� Mw, xM wl ,_ - 7--4,1 L \ i' ! �`I — �.�i J /N�`w �- •,I I.5—Jr'. /^4I '.�. `\ /'f''", 1l•'r rVlp; . ��` "'.''y I tt-^ LOT 2 L0 1..,i c. 1LI �, 6^ - ., . `''r �'= '_ :�: ' a►.__ '��/`' ` v. IAA 'Id.' u I --. l j("� r 1•R �� ' , E: see FEEL. 7 . Ili- / � 1IF s ��-/ C�• 0 '! ` }.. ., nnmA' ui�rnl 1 , ihun, (� ', h �I//' I .. IL ,, r,,,. t•Tl I - 1^�`' J. ' N al 1--\�-- - 1n Sh �- 1" i4111,1" t V 4 �i' _. 11) 1 ..I.':\.-- :L \''"'Miy"I ,„IIw,,.,AJ� - - -r�1 � 5� �� ,'- .I �" jl���. , � ,�'� 1Ol .I,.•• l-'S,. V.- I":,1- v y '. YAI _ =�, r�k PRL�P Fi NTDRANT - - ?. D..) :.A.r, 1z�..) " i '"��.�.� �•blenfmrsimfriligiliniltr '•D,.. C®fJ � ��i�a - -@ ww EX bra' w�u I C L 01T LR1Ra C DI6TtTREED LAM / 1J '. ,' • r FRCP STORM DRAM L NE PIdOP a/W•; :: MAN }IDL� I f'ROP 6'CONCRETE WJQ 24' ACCESS 4 UTILITY ESMT I )11 I E i L•C I:r L!L:I I MAILBOX AND ADDRE85 LOCATIGN I TUTTRAGK GRASS PAVERS1 I I WE DETAIL SWEET Cb c.0 ur Lnhl-.a'r.'r.,. NOTES LEGEND I •1 I I:...q, PAM 9INT at rt-24 MA.1NB MI PAM Mk IT TOTAL 1'PERVIOUS AREA 31bX - - NI - - EXISTM WATER LNE III If PAWL WSI P[4 4 n PUI SEMI MO E •••••-••1 O II MY DIA M MOM B[ID 9W1.HAW O ••••••••� TOTAL PERVICU6 AREA 613% PROPOSED WATER LNE W.IC.P N D[BAY OY U01 COL Q7UPA IBIIp!NO DAOOIE L11U.0 IEIIIOD um I Rent 4AJTW&WTr Pr UM IBD.m P t PMOMW W,W NW WADI _ ; � Pr •,An EXISTING SANITARY BEUER LIE SITE PLAN K UM1101(UPI'POS1CO Mt C1101 W MOM KM LVIQNIY.PAO WSI BAIT NI LLDWB 0-9-4,—.-4 R LEA! WIPI[79u1 IBAD DAM Q PASCO IA N ,-,-, OA �/LUE � J�[I H PROPMED SANITARY SEI ER LNE LAKE OSWEGO,OREGC 322 EASING CGN1Ci1R PROJECT NO. - MATme O DETAIL: TI TRACK GRA55 PAVERS w PROPOSED CONTCOR NOVEMBER S. 1999 3 NOY TO —•—•—•—•—•— PROPOSEDFENC .,,I,,,mnuuu,w,m,n,uuminunuiniluwi LI1TS Cf PROPC EXHIBIT 32 /r`i III II-1] IRA 11 E I EXISTM CGNFEI LU 99-0029 EXISTING DECIDU 1 :y I - — 1 1 I a 1 1 1 1 -I_ --- 10190 ______\ 1 t_____ I .... - — - _ —I ALTITUDE ANGLE 10.30 AM SHADOW U30 PM SHADOW -- — PATTERN PATTERN _. 10.3 r 1030 1 336 1 I 328 *, 321 I M�.0. 1 I I 1 1 I . e-ri I -I ��I SOUTH WALL - LOT I SOUTH WALL - LOT 2 10830 AM SHADE PATTERN 10,30 AM SHADE PATTERN 0 SF/840 SF • 0%SHADED 42 SF/340 SF • 8%SHADED I I L t i P.1':t i ii SOUTH WALL - LOT I SOUTH WALL - LOT 2 430 PM SHADE PATTERN 1130 PM SHADE PATTERN 0 SF/840 8F • 0% SHADED 0 SF/840 SF • 014 SHADED atv of irr:r-.c:'r. SUN/SHADE DIA&R BLUE LEAF LAKE OSWEGO,OREGOF PROJECT NO. - MAT001: NOVEMBER 8, 1999 I • �Il I�.I.I 1 III®P I EXHIBIT 33 n III LU 99-0029 4, 0 • — 410 ` \ - VERTE -OIJRT - ® _ - - I I I I I /..____. in I ot-il / r_ __ _ _ I I 1 I I 1 _.......__ . , / I .. .• .... I - _ _ --._-` _ __ _-I......_. ill. hp \\ / I ./ •• , .., ...., • '. )14.,..••140 t-' • \‘.--rti li 4 "Ci y )� ( 1�r. �4 ILot q ,� J s� ,. yy. 1. , �, V I -\.:'; "'1•'-1-ilP'' '1,1 At4 I'"'iti' 1 041 "." :1.3 \i' 'I Pi.- 4., y FFE: Li 11 i mil(, I T. ��--� I --�--- — 1_J *�,f s..i r f "tiA i I C�7 oil —'T � : js 1_ ���#--- - - Annie... ... ;. �:�-.\._.. _ ‘iZ:.,,1"iT ft. '‘)\ A\"•-:-.1ti k-..A '•-• ' 'tt,t,A --• - gel 5, ;,•.7imilLNI,i,17-ft , -.-Aggirig,„k. - •Il ay RAII EX 6.01' RAJJ i, I I tI 1 I I ,,,,1 .,., .,I 1 LEGEND _I I' * DI9EA5ED TREE TO BE REMO\) *Al • EXISTAYa WATER LINE X TREE TO BE REMOVED IUTN DI D?Ys PERMIT PROPOSED WATER TREE REMOVAL/ X TREE TO BE REMOVED FOR DI rE CONSTRUCTION L.ANDSGAPE PLAN 1 NT IIE9TEId,EMLOCK ,......itl EXISTINGD SANITARY SEILER ore 0 31 E' SANITART SELLER LIE !BLUE LEAF tfy�, UYs LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 4 2'CAL BIGLEAI tAPLE - 322 - - EXIST CONTOUR 3� PROJECT NO. - MAT005 4 I 1'CAL OFtc t 18N 7u PROPOSED CONTOUR NOVEMBER 8, 1999 0 I 2'CAL RED Al.ER —.—.—.—._..— PROPOSED FENCE �7-�-�7- 0I 2'CAL Ofeoct HITS OAK IIYWII..,,,. ..... ....:IMgIr u,I LIMITS Of PROPOSED I III I 1_it_--. _ ( ) I I In'CAL CFERRI EXISTING CCN6ERCIS..91 EXHIBIT/�34 t ------ i EXISTING DECIDUOUS 11 LU 99-W29 • • i _ \ %s - \ ....."..../ I _ — _Native Tall Shrubs for Coniferous ForestsT. 1._ _ _ _ _ ` Common Name Botanical Name I / Vineleaf maple Acer circinatum I / Tall Oregongrape Berber's(Mahonia)aquifolium I / western wahoo Euonymus occidental's n 1 Occanspray 1-lolodiscus discolor I - I ( Indian plum Oemleriacerasiformis I� ---- I ' // mockorange Philadelphus lewisii - ' Red-flowering currant Ribes sanguineum _ 'rTolrt1e. (t'cl po?IDA \ / O Baldhip rose Rosa gymnocarpa ore:o+I a ,)- ., p r itseb.l�,6L I`y Nootka rose Rosa nutkana �g - i \ / vt�� ^ ,y 101�—� Clustered wild rose Illosa pisocarpa �tM.- d Gon u .n \ / fw b.FCJ y stk ,4r»\s "ti redix..s,IMPKGI'on eBs• 1 --__Salmonberry Rubusspectablilis '�` L I/ 7ii ' Blue elderberry Sambucus cerulea OPrm .L�h�l ; se...A- WITN EXISTING AND ='• . a_ Red elderberry I am ucus racemosa _ LANDeCalFE eIFFERp�- -- --nr Douglas spiraca ISpiraea douglasii \ for GIN�orla�6�vfwt drain I ''?\. 1\. __ a'�•, / r� Snowberry ISymphoricarpos albus \.N/ $. I -•. \ (-7-1k .. _ • .• '-‘-t).-- . --1 .„ ...., --.6 ; 1 : ,.,: �✓ 1 to '1,, ....r y\..‘ •�o% , ;/� $,W�,drn ).- �� �Wrfl-4144,, 4.76........: ..., . %, ����'� / ��� 1� y— 11' • j0.` tWtf • C-- i�, ; l r 1 di 9.5.\\ t` .j �' 5' \� � LOT 2 �, I Lr7fi\3 ! -• ;;a'4 '�'r `� . Ill coY f 1 ...,,_,, ��� 1 • .,,7 ',,:� �,�a. i ,i i `- �}Q i t'rE 336 \ •L4i N i • ,- _ -� I 1 I ".'I \ 1 l- _ I' t ) ` i�.'(\ �, • ` �N ' 1 ' \rn — --- /i P••ii. 'L�---- ......_1„ fill•-gi. •,-.1;101. ...._... :-•:°.... 17-7111::411):67:110.. 4.1/41 :,t.:). — . ':' . moto ; . i-. ..) ,e.- -_ -.0 $14%----7- - co ,\\.,44, \‘._ \ . (,, , , ,, , ,i., litivriiiii .._ •...,.... , ...,,... . ..,,,,,,. ,. __,._ , . . 7: - - - __=,t• _ .-0,_ .--- ,-.- . ., . , _1 ----_ . •••• _.. - \ ..7:1‘ 1 :'. ..: A2) )ItaltM,: faii rffligallgel!!elf '• •1-. /,' . A 1 l: r n 12 '' /, .� `s �4115'. 4*- W s, '�eT. . . . 'L $LOW-OFF f�- FROP STORM DRAM LIIE 24' ACCE O UTILITY ESMT PROF'SA/4 SEILQ2 MA i4O1.$ ('I p.,.14 _ ® 3I l-Drtvv.E a?I.nvit71 (For Sewargwefe•)10(',/„pcl,,,,,-MAIL$OX AND ADDRESS LOCATION S'I'"'p TJf1RACK GRA.56 PAVERS L..k Pe u 4 e 'Chill GEE DETAIL SI•IEET C6 NOTES, 0.1. � Zo e(�ro 0'� • I EXHIBIT 35 LEC ENL LU 99-0029 BE TT-24 MICE*CELL PAVER S75TEa IT TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AKA 32bz WAT I • • • 0 1 `r DECEIVED Ian Underwood and Mary McGlone 2 3 • 13728 Knaus Road CITY OFAUG LAKE OSi999EGo W Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-3320 Dept.of planning b Developrne August 23, 1999 Morgan Tracy,Associate Planner Lake Oswego Planning Department Lake Oswego City Hall P.O. Box 369 380 "A"Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Dear Mr.Tracy: In regard to the proposed Matrix Development project at 1501 Country Club Road, we would like to submit the following concerns: 1)The Tree Grove Issue. Despite the fact that the lot was declassified as a designated Tree Grove recently, Liz Jacobs in the planning office said to us that it was probably a • mistake and should not have been removed from the list. Recent headlines in the Lake Oswego Review have deplored the very large number of permits for tree removal that the city has issued in recent years. We are,of course, supposedly a Tree City. 2) Drainage. Drainage problems to the east of the proposed site are a serious concern for neighbors on Verte Ct. who are already experiencing difficulties without any new additional impervious surface. 3) Privacy issues.The two story buildings on the proposed site will loom over the Verte Ct. yards with views down into the neighbors' houses. 4) Neighborhood Precedents. The Forest Highlands Neighborhood is one of single family dwellings with acreage. The Matrix design of multi-dwelling duplexes with rental possibilities is totally out of character with the neighborhood. It is not within 1/4 mile of shopping centers as suggested in the guidelines for these type of units. Consequently, we feel these buildings are the wrong design and purpose for our neighborhood. We hope you will consider these issues in your decision making process. Respectfully yours, Ian Underwood Mary McGlo EXHIBIT 36 LU 99-0029 • • • 0 .1 1't d August22, 1999 RECEIVED Page 1 411 AUG 2 3 1999 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Dept.of Planning&Development August 22, 1999 Lake Oswego Planning Department Attn: Morgan Tracy P.O. Box 369 380"A"Avenue Lake Oswego,OR 97034 Dear Mr.Tracy Attached is an appeal notification sent to Mr.John Borge, Principal Planner for Clackamas County. The information pertains to the Matrix Development Corporation's planned development of 1501 Country Club Rd.. The reason this was sent to Mr. Gorge is that proposed zoning or land use planning changes to include design incompatibility,neighborhood character violations,natural resource amendments are to be reviewed by both City&County jurisdictions in the Forest Highlands area. Any change in the Forest Highlands Dual Interest area is subject the terms and conditions of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)between the City of Lake Oswego and Clackamas County. According to the agreement,pg. 2 item A.—The development of a • comprehensive plan amendment to include zoning changes(1501 Country Club)for any area in dual Interest Area shall be a coordinated City-County planning effort. The County shall be responsible for preparing all comprehensive plan amendments in the Dual Interest Area. Additionally,the County shall not change the existing zoning or Comprehensive Plan designations of land within the dual interest area if the proposed change would be incompatible with the nearest City Comp. Plan or Zoning Designation as shown by Attachment B. This document was dated Nov. 17th and signed by William K. Klammer—Mayor. The proposed development is clearly a violation of the Comp.Plan &Zoning designation for the Forest Highlands Community. Please see pg. 219 Comp. Plan—Forest Highlands—Special District Plans,as well as pg. 56 DNA's. Also,definitions from the L.O.zoning ordinances to include Duplex vs. Single Family units are clearly spelled out. The appeal is specifically predicated upon the improper designation of 1501 Country Club Rd. from a distinct natural area protected under the L.O.Comp. Plan to an insignificant natural resource. The revised designation affecting Forest Highlands came because of the 1997 revised sensitive lands ordinance natural resource protection program. Please see the attached information for a comprehensive review of the improper designation and how it was derived. This information will be submitted to the State Land Use Board of Appeals under legal representation. We ask for a meeting with the planning commission or a designated representative to review the information to insure that you have every opportunity to provide input into the appeals process. We ask that the planning commission not approve the partition of this property until the neighborhood coalition under support from the association is given a chance to discuss this issue with the planning commission or designated representative. In addition to the attached appeal,I would like to point out that the process for a zoning adjustment/ interpretation/waiver under consideration is in direct opposition to the terms and conditions-of the • Intergovernmental agreement between the City of L.O. and Clackamas County. AccordiWtr written notification dated Feb 5, 1999 from WRG Design,Inc. -Mimi Doukas,Principal Planner, EXHIBIT 37 0 i -t LU 99-0029 y s ftkii 5 August 22, 1999 Page 1 the proposed development will subdivide 1.28 acres of property into six duplex lots(three structures). • The property is currently zoned R-7.5 which will require a planned change in zoning in order to accommodate multi-unit development. Any attempt to position a Duplex development as appropriate for a single family R 7.5 zoned area will surely be perceived a selective intrepretation of the zoning ordinance. Page 49-6,item 16 of the L.O.zoning code defines duplex as a building on a lot designed to contain tiiiiiimadeff_Ifflis and used for residential purposes. The exiting zoning calls for single family units which are defined under item 18 as a detached thmirruieFiiiit depsigned for residential purposes. Any change to accommodate multi-unit development(two dwelling units+) is a change from the R-7.5 overlay for the community. This is clearly a zoning change and cannot be spun any other way by virtue of L.O.s zoning definitions. Therefore,the proposed development process has not satisfied the IGA requirements in addition to clearly violating the improper designation of 1501 Country Club as an insignificant natural resource(see attached). Tha nk you for your attention and review of this document We look forward to discussing this issue further as it is of great concern to the neighborhood. Regards, ft.07 Kevin Mead (503)635-7737 • S ... II/ R. Kevin Mead 13730 SW Cameo Ct. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 3/1/99 Mr. John Borge Principal Planner Clackamas County 902 Abernethy Rd. Oregon City, OR 97045 Dear Mr.Borge: • Thank you for sendinga copyof the IGA between Clackamas Countyand the City of Lake Oswego. This will be helpful as we refine a submission to the county to incorporate several planning initiatives. Please review the attached appeal for the ESEE overlay resource mapping conducted by the City of Lake Oswego for a parcel in the community of Forest Highlands. The lot is shown as county property at the time of review. Can you provide some guidence and assist in processing the attached appeal and request for amendment. I can be reached at(503)635-7737. Regards, Kevin Mead • 0i 51 tea . ; . .. �A ;' it . • .,I.:.....:46-... -:'.7;..,S.r. :t.:':.. • r. III URBAN ti GROV TH MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT For the City of Lake O Oswego o o d Clackamas County D Inte ��..� Q��tM., 199;, between. the ea corporation of the State of Oregon, and This A Lent, made and entered into this day of .CITY OF OF LAKE OS��O (City), a municipal core CLACKAMAS COUNTY (County), a political subdivision of the State of Oregon. WHEREAS, ORS 190.003 to 190.C30 allows units of local government to enter into agreement for performance cc of any or all functions and activities which such units have authority to Pe1i°m" and S y County, Stagy AS, Statewide Planning G )al 2, Land Use Planning, requires that City, Federalagency and special district plans and actions shall l bedcoflS ORS Cheater andtent with the ocomprehensive p } comprehensive plans of the cities and counties and regionalplans 197; andWHF_R CDC) requires forth Commission eachiU S , the Oregon Land owCoc ed merit oon f compliance to submit an aiv=mcntt settingforth Growth• the jurisdiction reouesting ehensw' e g g coordination within the Regional L the means by which comprehensive; plannino Boundary will be implemented; and, d for the preparation, adoption AREAS. OAR 660-11-015 rec.uires the responsibilitygrowth management amendment of the public facility '•clan to be specified within an urban agreement; and WHEREAS, the } City and County have a mutual interest in coordinated of ladurb e planning, and compatible comprehensive plans, at d coordinated planning andprovision facilities; and • e Cityand the Cot nty, to ensure coordinationand t consistent onsisArea te thicomprehensive mmpr mainRegional pyREAS, to plans, ennsider it mutually advanta.;eous to establish a Dual Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) within which both the City and County maintain an interest in comprehensive planning and dcvelornent; and t y and Country :harr common land use planning objectives for lands within W�G,e,S, the Ct } the Dual Interest Area. These object ves include: 1) Obtain good long-range planning by: A) Providing a smooth ti ansition when lands are annexed; • !_ 1 52 B) Providing certainty and predictability via consistent policies and standards for development; 2) Protecting neighborhood character and livability through a coordinated City and County planning program; 3) Ensuring high standards of urban design compatible with the character and desires of the Vsurrounding communit ; 4) otecting and enhancing natural resources;__dj 5) nsuring the provision of pti blic facilities and services is consistent with the City of Lake Oswcgo's Public Facility Plns; 6) Orderly annexation of(crrit(ry; 7) Clear delineation of the responsibility of the City, County, special districts, and franchise holders in providing service:. and managing growth within the Dual Interest Area; • 8) Promoting cooperation betveen all parties involved in land use planning and service delivery; 9) Promoting timely decisions pertaining to land use and service delivery issues; and 10) Achieving fair and equitable financing for public facilities and services. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the County agree that the following UGMA policies shall be the basis for comprehensive plann.ng, plan implementation actions, and decisions relating to development in the Dual Interest ,Area and they shall be interpreted to carry out the stated purposes and objectives of this agrei:ment. Both parties agree as follows: 1. Boundary The Dual Interest Area shall incluce unincorporated land within the Urban Services Boundary defined in the Lake Oswego Comirehensive Plan and shown on map Attachment "A" to this Agreement. 2. Comprehensive Planning Plan Amendments and Public Facilities Planning A. The development of a comprehensive plan and comprehensive plan amendments for the area in the Dual Interest Arn:a shall be a coordinated City-County planning effort. The XCounty shall_be responsible preparing all legislative comp h nsive Ulan amendments in the Dual Intcre 0153 _ Unless agreed to by the City, the County shall not change the existing zoning or • Comprehensive Plan designations of land within the Dual Interest Area if the proposed change would be incompatible wit::: the nearest City Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Designation as shown by the attached matrix (Attachment "B"). B. The City and County shall agree to coordinate and participate in the development and implementation of a neighborhood-planning program within the Dual Interest Planning Area. The C:ity, in coordination with the County, will develop neighborhood plans invol.'ing portions of the unincorporated area within the Dual Interest Area, including the rural Lake Grove, Bangy Road, and Fo Highlans_Ls 4 areas. Upon completion,:neighborbood plans shall be considered for adoption by both the City and County. These neighborhood-plar-ning efforts will not affect properties subject to the existing Settlement and Ainexation Agreement, At a minimum the neighborhood plans shall include: s:e • Future developmet:t and its compatibility with the existing neighborhood character; • Provision of urban services and facilities; • Coordination of service provision with the affected special service districts 1111 and franchise holders; • Transportation; • Open space and natural areas; • Active involvement of affected area residents, businesses, and property owners in the development and implementation of the plans; • A method for following the development standards and review procedures contained in adopted neighborhoods plans; and • Amendment of the- County Comprehensive Plan and/or Zoning Map to ensure implementz.uon of any neighborhood plan which is mutually adopted. C. The City shall be responsi plc for the preparation, adoption, and amendment of the public facility plan within the Dual Interest Area required by OAR Chapter 660, Division 11, Public Faci]. ties Planning. Preparation and amendment of such a public facility plan for water, sanitary sewer, surface water management, and transportation facilities shall provide for coordination with, and -participation by, the County, County service districts, other special districts, and franchise holders within the Dual Interest Area. S 3 Oi54 • • State Board of Land Appeals: RE: Property in Question: 1501 Country Club Dr.- TG-16,NW of Country Club Rd. and W of Verte 1 Ct.(DNA 34)in the City of Lake Oswego. This letter is to appeal the decision regarding the improper designation of"insignificant natural resource" for the lot located at 150I Country Club Rd.,Lake Oswego. This insignificant designation came as a result of the L.O. 1997 revised sensitive lands ordinace natural resource protection program. The lot is currently under review for a 6-lot,duplex planned development. A public hearing was conducted on Feb. 25 where concerns regarding the natural resource site were raised. This letter is dated four(4)days post-public hearing&collection of testimony. The proposed development will severely damage the character and native forest that has earned it previous recognition and designation as conservation area. Prior to 1997,the lot had previously been protected under the formal"Distinct Natural Resource"designation under the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. The lot is characterized as being dominated by a Douglas Fir Tree Grove. The iot lies within the community of Forest Highlands. The community of Forest Highlands where this parcel resides has been designated under the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan as one of only two"Special Districts"within the City of L.O. . Nomenclature within the Comprehensive plan states the following regarding this designation and applys to this lot: "The City will actively preserve natural resources, particularly wooded areas, streams and stream banks,views and wildlife habitat". Attachments&Supporting Documents • Attachments provided include: • Goal 5 Statewide Planning for Land Conservation and Development Rules • Appendix F-Significance Criteria • Planning Commission Memorandum dated Jan.31, 1997 explaining the ESEE remapping process • Salix&Assoc. Wildlife Hapitat Assessment and Supplemental Criteria for Education, Scenic& Recreation • Lake Oswego Section 5 of Comprehensive Plan highlighting Statewide Planning Goal 5 • Forest Highlands"Special District Designation" • Planning Commission"Notice of Legislative Public Hearing". • Plat Map showing exact location of natural resource. Evidence of improper designation of property in question The method for determining significance includes seven criteria,or values to determine which natural resource subsites are significant for Goal 5 purposes. Adoption of this criteria is outlined in the Lake Oswego Dept.of Planning and Development's memorandum dated Jan. 31, 1997,entitled;ESEE Anaylsis and Resource Overlay Zoning Maps Briefing on Feb. 10, 1997. Page 2,paragraph 2 states: "A resource qualified as significant if it met one or more of the seven significance criteria. Under the wildlife habitat assessment score as conducted under the jurisdiction of the City of Lake Oswego ESEE overlay revisions June 9, 1994.One of the seven criteria to determine significance is: • Environmental Value#2 -Native Plant Communities states: The site contains one or more native plant communities with a high degree of ecological integrity as determined by FES or Salix. 411 Examples occurring in Lake Oswego are Oregon ash,Douglas fir,and Oregon Grape. 015 The Wildlife Habitat Assessment conducted by Salix Associates (see attached) for the property in question • states the following: "Isolated coniferous forest dominated by laree Douelas Fir trees. Additionally, Oregon grape is also designated under the Herb species. It is quite appearant that this lot has full. met one of the criteria and is characterized as being dominated by one native species and including another as sited in the above Environmental Value#2. This alone places this lot in the"Significant"classification and should not have been overlooked. Page 1 —Division 16 of the Oregon Administrative Rules(Chp. 660, Div. 16), 660-16-000 (3)states that a determination of quality requires consideration of the relative abundance of the resource. The formal written statement by the agent of the City of Lake Oswego contracted to conduct a scientific analysis of said property shows that the property is dominated by large Douglas Fir—a known Oregon native tree. The insignificant designation of this property is not justified by the very definitions outlined by the City of Lake Oswego and the Oregon Administrative Rules—Goal 5. The parcel was wrongly designated as insignificant as it did not meet or exceed Environmental Value!i3 - Wildlife Habitat rating of 35 or higher, as determined by FES or Salix. Not meeting the Habitat rating of 35 or higher is only one of the seven criteria outlined and is not intended as being the sole criteria for determiniation of significance. Under appendix F(see attached),the method for determining significance dearly states that each Tree Grove is considered "significant"for Goal 5 purposes if it meets one or more of the seven following environmental and social criteria. The Disturbance ranking is to be contested as it is defined in two parts. First as: Human disturbance to include garbage accumulation and domestic animal use. Currently these two elements(garbage and domestic animal use)do not exist on this property. Animal use may have been present during the time of evaluation but is no longer a part of the property. Additionally, the Biological disturbance was ranked as high due to the presence of English Ivy. The definition of biological disturbance includes invasive weedy • species such as blackberry, loosestrife,and reed canarygrass. English Ivy(H. Helix) is not considered to be a weedy species by all almanac accounts. It is defined as a popular evergreen climber and not from the weed family. This ranking on disturbance is incorrect per the definition of the Goal 5 and L.O. sensitive lands ordinance. The Forest Highlands community has been formally designated as a watershed for Tryon Creek. Statewide Planning Goal 5 requires communities to provide programs that will protect scenic, historic and natural resources for future generations. The Forest Highlands Neighborhood Assoc. has drafted a proposal and notified the L.O. planning commission to be in full compliance with the Clean Water Act and Comprehensive Mgmt. Plan for Tryon Creek. Such denig ration of 1501 Cou ntry Club which will increase impervious space run-off where a conflictinguse exists will be considered insensitive to the Watershed designation. Protections under these designations are outlined in Metro's title 3 of the Functional Plan on water quality and floodplain. This parcel is the acid test for preservation measures outlined within the City of Lake Oswego's own Comprehensive Plan. A recent article in the L.O. Review by a City of Lake Oswego Counciler was solely focued on the need to preserve the quality and character of our community by limiting and better managing tree removal. We request a restriction of development on this property and a formal reinstatement of the significant ranking for the property until further discussion regarding conflicting uses can be initiated. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Regards, Kevin Mead Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association • II 0 1 511 'I_ Name 14 0 Nn& • �c� o 0 CI W(( Address 15I-�b c(A) (A+neu (4 . Lq 0S , 4„ Phone Number C5D 2Ac0 W-1 i31- `Q441 Resource Number Tr _l hdiaagr eekwith thenproposed.mapping of sensitive lands and would like to testify at a Planning CommissioHearing. I;disagree with,the location of the resource. disagree with:the significance rating of the resource. t/ L•would liketo.present other testimony regarding the resource 4110 mapping. 1 I need more information to decide whether to testify. Please call me during the work day at a1(77 Signed ` • III . .. • . 0 15 ,,,,., :.,..... %. 7Pr . . ,..f.._ ., Z . ..„.,......., i 1 i 1 fi 1 1 , „ _' . ' . ,;-44 .t, •• ...-. .t,.,..1'... i i I --- • t ..,. , ..... ___ ______L. I '-:-v .,', .4-';''%ic ;''''. • , 1 .;-- ' ''..% `,. •I , :.; : ..___._._ .,, IB -11H , . -.4 ..,,:',-• ' / I - I k • Ri=t- , -rfEE &gout-, • , . .. ..A. Ic • • ,? I b"'.1)11.4......3,23....a.....—.. ..i,r . _____........„.....„.„3„,- -_ . — . ____T • I . .„..,... \ . • I 11.4•A‘ diNIT 66, i t, i — • ' • - • .i , •:.! _I 1 .4.• CHUROH : i I e _.„:„....„...........T.:„...„........4, ____.. 4, •.11 1 •-. ; of CO . •° - i--: ., .. '-`.. "----1( . . • , i ., 1 (...) ..- .... ---- -_,_ TG-1‘2 w ----i z • . --,, --; - - --- ...., 2/-----1. .N......../... ‘ 1 :.. . •J::',. • RATED COUNTRY Nor- si64iFICA NT- 1. - • • •., , I SUP • City of Lake ,,, , - •:;:?.. i. 0 RP--.1- -- - Inclividua,1 Properties -• '•'••••'):, ..- .,•• 5( • : .. 0 . •::;,..t .I--- ... ...-.:m . W or WL ---• Strca and/or Wet ;, • A ' ...11, TG or dot pattern = Scale: I " = ...., r ...: , , City of Lake •...,,, . ...• 1994/95 Natural Rcsc . ,-......4.-- ...;... Individual Properties IN ••••. •,i. Section qd , Site .- i.- *•,! ,,. e.• LEGEND ,., 4111. ... • ..,_: , ... ., •-. • VA .. . .:... ,...„,: ,...., .. . ...„, . ,.......„. ? , ,,,..„.... . . ...., _. S. 1 i .. 11 Pig .:41-1-111v((s 1:-. • C\ U fAlip • 0 • °REGO •DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Memorandum , DATE: January 31, 1997 0,-TO:: Planning Commission Members FROM: CraigWalkenhorst,Associate Plannerc-J N ' RE: EBBE Analysis and Resource Overlay Zoning Maps Briefing on February 10, 1997 ,.. . .,. . CC:':-:• 'ix.7-4;;Ron;Bunch,'Benior Planner - '''_• b;.Lev, NaturalResources Coordinator • ..... _ — „ A.§ yatiargiAylAre,',.t4e:next step towards implementing a revised Sensitive Lands ,Iirotectto4P,rogramlisito consider the adoption of resource Overlay Zones to the COmprehensimeiPlan.and'Zoning Maps, and to adopt the background inventory and analy.sisjpirithe.Goal 5 administrative rules. :. -Therp4oxsaloyFr)ay zones consist of two new resource districts: "resource ..conservation:,4(R )I . and„resource protection" (RP). These zones establish two levels of ..:protection. ThpACDistrictiwill apply to significant tree groves and the RP District will , ,.. T,,,, ipply to signific.intistsayn.s.and wetlands. Within the RP District, there are two ot.. ,;',:-.:-.,::,4.%,,.i;AcoliNassifiatio • RPjel.gsqi,,and.R.P.Class II. These classifications are representative of the ., ,Tr_'• . . -'''-•'41Fquality o the reqourceland(deternuneitil.e.corresporiding buffer requirements only. All . --ci•:.other requiremen-t.i'!in!;the RP'District apply equally to both classes. .•-• `fr•v'f • ,44Rtri-".-' t', „. , "",1; ..:1';','•`;' ="4/-..'-ft'e'. •s••,:,• ,".',..,:,,,•4,;.$-.:-.:',i:!r0"..44,4";:: ;.='-..* ,,,`;'•:04.11:.P )N 4-: , ••• • , • .-..e:' '‘ '''.,.•_!-An in entory ofIstreamicorridors, tre6groves;and wetlands, and the Economic Social '- --`i-lEnergyfrfiEnvironmentiliTSEE)Ar4lysis have been completed pursuant to Statewide -...t‘1lanmn' g Go:ial 51iTlieliSERValysiiiis'tthe.dc:icument that supports the principles of the ,..-- o dinance the actual designauo&oDoverlayzones on individual properties. . 2-7:4- '' . -' .' ,'.• r.-•'''".•••7•40',' t.,'• ' ‘'::- ,- ....afi1/4 " S'1.:::*`,! .'r ' . • .., ,.. 'ti-..,,:' tf,„; -,,,',::7-,' i4".• •-t•*,..j:C•t'WT.''53tY5 .5 vs •' . • . g) !.41,'. ''',',6;:1::•‘?'1_:4,AF'.1.,3', ';;*,4.8:;1::::..i.''' .-‘.. ' 1[6.e.„ ...t.,, ''-•;* 7 •'-, •-•'',A;''rfS.':.:-v ' .. 0 1 5 9 :..--.''''9.:..4f: '• - .- ::. .' "r,,,, •..::.....,‘..: .380"A"Avenue • Post Office Box 369 • Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034 J. PlannineiDivision•(CM)41c_nion • 7 .:1-J:--T.,: ' — -imi le 1 From:1;99,1:to 1992 Fishman Environmental Services (FES) prepared an inventory of the ,,..,.. ;; : t,City�, slnatiral resources. The main objective was • • to rate important resources for their r � ? wildlif' a habitat value. In 1994, the City contracted Winterowd Planing Services to completeAhem' ventoryaccording to Goal 5 Rules. The Winterowd inventory and . • y abuilt upon the.FES inventory work and provides the basic foundation for the .•,, proposed rotection,program. The inventory categorized resources into 28 Resource • r,;': Approximately.950 acres of"significant"stream corridors .,, ; efrofte ,."'�,,-,r"* • _ wetlands and tree y;:groves were:identified. This represents almost 14 percent of the City's total area and ' •'°~,about perrcentiof the City's parcels. 'ice•T_-+ r `v Y •.'''' ""`""' ��, A resource- '; i,; a._Ssn� �, r qualified.as "significant"if it met 1 •r more of seven significance criteria. r•', ese seven criteria are.'-�"`fs "�" • divided between environmental and social values. Attachment A'explainstheicriteria application. FES provided a Wildlife abitat Assessment ssment Score . ::,., -},(HAS which,coyeredltheenvironmental criteria. The HAS is a numerical ranking which represents theirelativewildlife habitat values of a given natural resource site. Six features 'ar4valuatedlo determine.the total Wildlife Habitat Assessment Score: Water; Food; 'Cover, Disturl ance;•..Linkage• and Unique Features. r ✓. }�+' -;•s;4 ,•,41 ;.:°: Significant�t`resource:sites"were then evaluated to identify conflictinguses and' . the Envir ental;Soc•ial;;Economic and Energyconsequences analyze • :` of both protecting and ,_ .... not protecting the;resourcedallowing•the.conflictin,,,, >':t� ..,.,,�.,�..., ,;�,s -. g uses). Finally, appropriate ;:3 : 1' pro gam` n t ;were!assigned to:each resource �.. • . p � :.,.�, y,,.:, using the quantitative measure of the tirac;. ,R'il• e abifat Assessment�Score:(HAS) and the certain social values. Further urther • . xP this assessment; e k,M:Y 4,a lanation of 1 m thodglo is included within.�3 r r�*�k Y . . _ ;, .:. �gY the ESEE studysummary t��.t, �,v ti'-'.• hich• ,�, ,be,available by thettime:'ofithe'briefing, ,I`,y•:::1A'detailed atlasiofiindividual,properties at a scale of 1:200 wa • � .; • s produced as a result of the � 4. •+y{¶above processTheiatlas,mdicatesahe;location of the resource overlay boundaries. These ,j ; A ! .:.ma.s• „i. be usedito:amendthe:Com rehensive Plan and Zoning Map to establish the • •�-�1- 'Sensi e Lands �` - _,P..... ii '.�;,;c„ �.i; Overlay)Distncts.to'whiclvn tw-- y;*.,.,i.� : >v-;,,� irl;—'' - .,.., proposed Sensitive Lands Standards will • ::�,„.�,� . . Pro e' `.;• p rty,gwnmiwk1 be:ableito•prese evidence and testimony disputing the ;: �, :.w ;, p•roposed designation:or:the!boundaries:of the overlay zone. Staff is sending out a status • . `' ,. ,ri letter(and tucniform)ito:property owners with inventoried• ,.V, �, ;, ,; ntoned resources, in order to aid in .,a• g the forthcoming;hearings,andto outline the process for contesting a resource ;ft , „M?,,. .designation A,sample,draft of.this.letter is included as Attachment "B" •:.:4, s .. . s� .::: i 44•It is importantito;emphasize.that this supporting documentation of the inventory and ' 4� f Mµ;analysis comprises the;evidence to support designation of properties with overlay zones. H n,," } ,t '• `. Certain pro•erty owners'may contest:the validity of this evidence. If the location or ��. ''q':', w,: quality Omappedlresource�is.contested, and where at!.*'i:- -K staff has evaluated the inventory �`) ,,T,,- • •• ••tip •• : and found theseto be correc it r�•.� .' .. he t, will then be the responsibility of the i , • 'tirO , o er(:�pro�vid4eyidence,to•support their claims. Because each property that ,5�,:. . designatedbeenassessed according to strict Goals ►., • procedures, the contested WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORM The Wildlife Habitat Assessment data sheet is a modified version of the data sheet used by the Cities of Portland and Beaverton when they updated their comprehensive plans. The form is divided into three parts. The first presents general site information: Unit no., Location, approximate Acres, Score, • Observer, Date, Habitat classification, and comments. The second part consists of three essential wildlife habitat requirements: water, food, and cover. Each of these components is sub-divided into anumber of aspects and rated. WATER is of critical importance to all wildlife species and permanent water is the only place where some species can survive and reproduce. Quantity and Seasonality: A permanent water source provides water year-round for a variety of wildife species. Seasonal water limits wildlife use. Quality: Continually flushed water is usually cleaner than stagnant water and usually contains greater concentrations of dissolved oxygen. Deficiencies in dissolved oxygen can severely limit aquatic species diversity. • Proximity to Cover: Wildlife will use water more readily if it is close to vegetative cover. This allows escape from predators and protection from weather extremes. A canopy over water shields the water from the sun preventing thermal rises in water temperature. Diversity: A site with a mixture of wetland, stream, and pond or lake has higher wildlife value than a site with only one of these features. FOOD is a basic requirement for all wildlife. The greater the variety and quantity of food, the greater the potential for attracting diverse wildlife species. Variety: Food was categorized into five types: browe, berries, seeds, nuts, and invertebrates. If five types of food were present, the site received ten points. If three types of food were present, the site received four or five points. Quantity and Seasonality: Sites having large quantities of food available year-round received a high value of eight points. Sites with little or no food available, received a value of zero. Proximity to Cover: The presence of adjacent cover to a foraging site provides protection for foraging wildife. • 01131 a) Passive Recreatioru.l. Opportunity: bird-watching, contemplating, etc.,opportunities present;this is determined by ranking medium or Chigh in.Environmental Values 1-4, or in Social Value 5 (scenic) •. b) Public Accessibility: public right-of-way or easement makes the site accessible to the public • c) Environmental Sensitivity. passive recreatonal use will not seriously compromise the environmental values that make the site significant in the first place; Environmental Value No. 1 is particularly relevant in this instance. • • • • • • • ,• i • • U1I) L •'` - �� • • • • • ``J3, • b) Feasibility of Access: • Low= No public access Medium= Limited public access (e.g., no identifiable road or path) High= Public street or pedestrian way abuts site c) Educational value: • Low= Does not provide an urban setting for environmental learning opportunities; i.e., does not ravk high or medium in environmental values 1-4, above. High or Medium= Provides urban setting for environmental learning opportunities; i.e., must rank high or medium in environmental.values 1-4, above. - - - Social Value#2: Scenic Quality Of the three following scenic categories, the site has a Salix ranking of"hig}i" in at least one category, and "medium" or higher in at least one additional category: • a) Unusual or particularly attractive vegetation or feature(s)1 High- Distinguishing vegetation or features present in abundance, or outstanding Medium= Distinguishing vegetation or features present Low= No distinguishing vegetation or features b) High visibility for large numbers of people: Low= Not clearly visible from a major street(collector or above) • ) or public area Medium= Clearly visible from a major street or public area High= Clearly visible from a major arterial (1-205, Country Club Road) or heavily used regional public facility c) Screening value(e.g.,incompatible or unsightly land uses): Low No significant screening value Medium= Screens incompatible land uses (e.g., single and multiple family residential) ligh= Is essential to providing effective screening between clearly incompatible land uses (e.g., industrial and residential uses . or residential and.a major sleet) Social Value#3: Recreational Opportunity Meets all of the following criteria: • Note: Since this criterion is somewhat s,Ibjective, it is critical for the contractors to describe the particular vegetation or feature, and what makes them distinguishing. Moreover, this criteria, if.appiied as the sole r Cason for determining significance, should be carefully reviewed brthe City Council, • � I I; 3 Environmental Value#3: Wildlife Habitat Rating The site has a Wildlife Habitat rating of 35 or higher, as determined by FES or SalSte' "Explanation of Habitat Rating Sheet," attached to Appendix F, • a See s' methodology. WPS used 35 as the cutoff -for an explanation of the ratings' which was 35.9. We number after figuring the mean FES and Salix rating, rounded down to 35. WPS also noted t�that subsites plantsspec esnder-35 Lirnit d vegetation or, gs were generally signifi�'antly degraded y being partially filled. Nevertheless, twelve subsites for wetlands and streams,with HAS below 35 are included as significant, because of their high scenic ranking. • into two categories on Stream conidors and wetlands were clasP�rfiedhave WTI ratings of 50 or above. �ffJ1i rating. Category 1 wetlands and str of 35-�9 Generally, Category 2 wetlands and streams have a WH rating Category 1 wetlands and streams rank in the top two-thirds of significant wetlands -and streams; Category 2 wetlands and streams are in the bottom third of significant wetlands and streams. (This rating is important because it determines whether the stream corridor or wetland has a30' buffer— in he case of Category 1 streams and wetlands, or a 25' buffer—in the case of Category 2 streams and wetlands.) (.. Environmental Value#4: Water Quality Function Of the three following water quality categories, the site has an FES ranking of 111/ "high" in at least one category, or medium or higher in at least two categories: a) Stormwater Storage. b) Sediment Trapping. c) Nutrient Retention. " attached to AppendixSee FES' "Explanation of Water Quality Function Ratings F; which describes the wetland function requirements for each rating. This value applies only to wetlands and streams, and does not apply to tree groves. 2. Social Values Social Value#1: Educational Potential • Of the three following educational categories, the site has a Salix ranking of medium" or higher in "a" or "b'' below, and has high or medium environmental value. a) Proximity to schools: Low= ?0.5 miles from a school or educational facility Medium= < 0.5 miles, but not adjacent High- Adjacent to a school or educational facility • i) 1 �t4 • APPENDIX F SIGNIFICANCE..CRJTERL-\. • Method for Determining Significance . We applied seven criteria, or values, to determine which natural resource subsites are significant for Goal purposes. Each tree grove,wetland or steam corridor is considered "significant" for Goal 5 purposes if it meets one or more of the seven following environmental inrjjcia criteria.. Project ecologists r?-iked eachrnatural area$ubsite and the contractor • m�-ae a significance determination based on expert judgment. Once an NR area has made the "significance" cut, conflicting uses are identified. If there are no conflicting uses, then the NR area must be protected. If there are conflicting uses, the contractor will identify these, as well as the ESEE consequences of protecting the resource site, allowing the conflicting use(s) fully, or allowing both on a limited basis. Thus, even for "significant" subsites, the Planning Commission and City Council may decide to allow the conflicting use fully and not protect the resource site based on an articulated public benefit(e.g-, active park use,housing or employment). I. Natural Resource Values Environmental Value#1: Unusual or Threatened Species • The site has a documented occurrence.of one or more of the following: a) Rare plant or animal species, or elements meeting an ecosystem cell Criterion,as identified by the Oregon Natural Heritage Program. (Sec "Excerpts from ONHP Plan,"attached to Appendix F.) A cell, in this instance,is an artificial.unit used to measure natural areas. It contains an aquatic,_wetland, or upland ecosystem, as defined by the Natural H nee tage • Act, or a rare or threatened plant or animal species b) Plantor animal species which are state or federally listed as proposed, threatened or endangered species. c) Critical Habitat areas as defined by US Fish and W. Idlife Service. Environmental Value#2: Native Plant Communities The site contains one or more native plant communities with a high degree of ecological integrity and a corresponding low level of disturbance, as determined by kES or Salim Native plants are those known to occur in Oregon before.the arrival of European culture, or know:to have arrived in.Oregon by natural range extension. Examples occurring in Ld:e Oswego are Oregon ash, Douglas fir, and Oregon•grape. Fifteen subsites have significant native plant communities. • _ Lt7J COVER is a basic requirement for all wildlife. It protects them while they drink, forage; il reproduce and rest. Structural Diversity: There are potentially five layers of vegetation: 1. grasses, sedges, forbs ... 2. blackberries, ferns, Oregon grape, snowberry... 3. elderberry, Indian plum, red-osier dogwood... 4. hazelnut, Oregon ash, willow... 5. black cottonwood, Douglas fir, Oregon white oak... If one layer is present, structural diversity is low and receives two points. If three layers are present, structural diversity is medium and receives 6 points. If five layers are present, the site receives 10 points. Variety: A variety of cover types improves wildlife protection. An area having a wide variety of cover such as a forested wetland with Oregon ash, willow, spirea, sedges, rushes and smartweed will .be more valuable to wildlife than an area having a monoculture of reed canarygrass. Seasonality: Cover will benefit wildlife more if it is present year-round. Year-round cover refers to evergreens and dense shrubbery. Escape: Escape is a function of density of cover. The third part of the form includes values in addition to food, water, and cover. The components examined include disturbance, interspersion, and unique features. DISTURBANCE is biological and human. Biological disturbance includes invasive weedy species such as blackberry, loosestrife, and reed canarygrass that prevent growth of native plant species. It also includes agricultural disturbances of cultivation and grazing. Human disturbance includes garbage accumulation and domestic animal use. It can be very detrimental to wildlife. HABITAT LINKAGE refers the connectivity of the site to other natural and open space areas_ It provides wildlife space to travel and disperse. Isolated sites surrounded by roads, fences, railroads, or developments have a low linkage value and are less valuable to yildlife than contiguous sites with high linkage values. UNIQUE FEATURES inlcudes sensitive wildlife and plant species, rarity of habitat, educational potential, habitat stability, significant nesting habitat, and scenic quality. 111 01136 K r " r, resource;is.subject to the same criteria. Therefore, the property owner may be required to havetatqualified professional perfonn an ESEE as well. T,oYsummarize,.in order for an individual to challenge this evidence, it must be demonstratedtthat: there is a resource mapping error, or h te; uali Hof q ty the resource was mistaken, or sy�j„ ,��;`;thejESEE:inadequately orimproperly balanced conflicting uses • ":%Staff further;ex lain the, rocess:of review for contested sites at the briefing. In 'vf.additio examplsmateripls<withbe distributed to explain the inventory and analysis :.;evidence in more,detail:'If have any questions,please call me at 697-6576. file:;l:eseelpcmemo.doc • • • JI" . • • 4 , •- � Y • k, stir . a 1 t)'! r J r 3 ' . '�M:vt;3 ••`e +-` a),t•• •Passive Recreational Opportunity: walling, bird-watching, contemplating "'• ' ` ."x,'*, �.ti ';h` f ' "'; etc. .opportunities present; this is determineda ..� .;,. �,„ ;* ,.. t; by ranking medium or • t .3. '4� '.. .high in Environmental Values 1-4, or in Social Value 5 (scenic) b): Public Accessibility: public right-of-way or easement makes the site �'- • accessible to the public c) Environmental Sensitivity: passive recreational use will not seriously `.`'' compromise the environmental values that make the site significant in the -... `::. first place;:Environmental Value No. I is particularly relevant in this • instance. • • • • ^`,ja • YY1liiff . 'ilia'. ti4..: • xyYr• . :I l,.j 1 • C 'i 1.,• iit}.'v'aA. raj.. •#"t''.a _ Yi, • .� , 4y'. !ttx'' re f ! I (��] 4 4 , .r ..,. y.�... .. .o .1.... _..A.o' � • •fit• 1 V. ,l'Y= �1r .. . i.tf;': • . b) Feasibility of Access: jai. Low= No public access Medium= Limited public access (e.g., no identifiable road or path) High= Public street or pedestrian way abuts site c) Educational value: • Low= Does not provide an urban setting for environmental learning opportunities; i.e., does not rank high or medium in environmental values 1-4, above. High or Medium= Provides urban setting for environmental learning opportunities; i.e., must rank high or medium in ""' ±'' —.environmental vaiues 1-4, above. - -- - . - Social V/alue;#2: Scenic:Quality iva�aor ; . :Ofjthe threeifollowingtscbnic.categories, the site has a Salix ranking of"high" in a �. �r• nC�M1:?lrw•JCL, a ......r • ' . ,-.atlleast one'Icatego y, nd; medium";or higher in at least one additional category: -=''^.}a)" Unusual!oriparticuiarlyi attractive vegetation or feature(s) .. High'==` : .Distinguishing vegetation or features present in abundance, ',, .. or;outstanding v . Medium= Distinguishing vegetation or features present �.. ". );ow,' No;distinguishing vegetation or features .y;;w,; b) High. ,,bility foraarge.numbers of people: 0c. Low . ,'Notclearlyfyisible•from a major street(collector or above) $A �,a:,z:: , :.oripublic area ,..i.,' .''d'`' •'Medium: Clearly..visible from a major street or public area gh*:`' Clearly,visible'from.a major arterial (1-205, Country Club Road)or'heavily.used regional public facility •,--, c)nS,creening:yalue(e.g•;incompatible or unsightly land uses): • *;.. % ow: ' No;significant screening value . ' *. °,1 ediumz= ;Screens:,incompatible land uses (e.g., single and multiple • Jt • family,:residential) ::i `; gh`ti `IsTessen'tialtto;providing effective screening between clearly '~ .ry..r ,,-••vTM,-,- ',�'1'•" dr.. ; ,' - incompatiblellanduses (e.g., industrial and residential uses Y`" otresidentialiand a•major street) Social Takla#3: Recreational Opportunity ,• Meets;allrof the.following.criteria:' Note:.:Sincethis criterion is somewhat subjective, it is critical for the contractors to describe'•!tfie: particular vegetation. or feature, and what makes them distinguishing. •Moreover;',,this•criteria, If.applied as the, sole reason for determining significance, should be 4111111 : car,,efullytreviewe,dibythe City:Council. n 3;`'; . Environmental Value#3: Wildlife Habitat Rating II :Thelsite;has,a Wildlife Habitat rating of 35 or higher, as determined by FES or S'� See;Salix' `Expianadon of Habitat Rating Sheet," attached to Appendix F, 'fortanexplanation of the ratings' methodology. WPS used 35 as the cutoff '�'r° ''' the,mean FES and Saiix rating, which was 35.9. We numberaftcr;figuring. n F :clo rounded;down.to 35. WPS also noted that subsites with under-35 ratings were generallysignificantly degraded by invasive plant species, limited vegetation or, "-'�w`t beingpartiallyfilled. Nevertheless, twelve subsites -:.:for+wetlands;and streams, '.4 • H�ASlbelow 35 are included as significant, because of their high scenic ranking. - _ Streamjcorridors and wetlands were classified into two categories based on their :+ yi ., Category.1.wel an u wetlands strums have WH ratings of 50 or above. ,.,-,Catego .ry � 2 wetlandsand,stieamsihave a WH rating of 35-49. Generally, , •. . :I`•��goryy l,wetlands,andstreams rank in the top two-thirds of significant wetlands 4,�d eams;Category,2 wetlands and streams are in the bottom third of -;signifi, cant•wetlands and:streams. • (Thisirating is.important•:because it determines whether the stream corridor or ''"�a; ` a,25'•buffer.—:in..theicase.of Category 1 streams and wetlands, or a '',1'5.4buffer— in'the case,of Category,2 streams and wetlands.) a, ; ham'fd r '• ({ �r EnvironmentalNalue#4: Water•Quality Function 10 : ; .:h4r ,,'Oft e eei£ollo giwater.quality�categories, the site has an FES ranking of ,,-:_,;?, ;Qf the thr`: : 4IR.J Y._.. or higher in at least two categories: ,- :�:: ' high in at;least`one category, or.medium `~ '.''� 'a)''''Stormwater Storage. ti, = i _ - b)' SedimentTrapping- "..� : . utrient Retention. -' s . • See'FES' "Explanation of Water Quality Function Ratings," attached to Appendix N,'` �:a_ q` F; which describes the wetland function requirements for each rating. ' . ::;: ,_, -�'•" . to tree a��: i�rr*4F: This value applies'only to `wetlands and streams, and does not apply g groves. , . v?;. . '2.: Social Values �. t '' .'. " •..•, • ; -..: V: e#1: Educational Potential �€��/��..•�,�.� �,� ,;T:• ,Socials alu ranking of '`^41j, ' ham`, k l}r; - ,�Ogg win educational categories, the site has a S alix ;. ; ''a 1 ;i...+—z-: :v + e three;follo g 4h - ' "''• ' f'' in "a" or "b" below, and has high or medium environmental ��''� �`•: :, ?.1'``+� ��•ct..medium.,'or:higher. '1r..' .3.7 ;; :T' � ,Value:�; " • '°'' .•N.":ii; ' N"»t:' a);';Proxi.mity to schools: ..': ',, r'`- educational facility v - .: ,. ., '' x r<Low= > 0.5 miles from a school or fi '4. " a •5 f - <0.5 miles,but not adjacent f 11 �'!`'''''•., kt; ? 5 a a school or educational facility III ,_.,):',.. . •,:,.,-,.:•,,p-...,-,4.,,,,,,N--,.:.,0-A t . •;,,•iHigh= Adjacent to .• ,,,q, ,,,..-,-,-.„--„,-...,,,,,,,,4, --„4,„ ,r- it,- fit. I tx i ,,,,,,:. _• .:,- N ::$' ; : I 1. 1 a 1) ti 'l .,. ..: ATTACHMENT A APPENDIX F SIGNIFICANCE CRTTERIA. • ( Methodtfor Determining Significance . • e'lappliad seyen:criteria, or values, to determine which natural resource ubSitel!are significant.for Goal 5 purposes. • • Each'tree groye,•wetInnd or stream corridor is considered "significant" for Goal 5 purposes if it:meetstpne or more of the seven following environmental and social • - iteria: qii:9jct,ecologists ranked each,natural area.subsite and the contractor , ....._ . . -"iinadeiasignifican.ce,tetermination based on expert judgment. .. . . -...,4----7.., - - .t.,..,- ,-. • .•• .. . .oncefanINRi,akeailias made the "significance" cut, conflicting uses are identified. Ifitlaervaremoconflicting uses,then the NR.area must be protected. If there are ....;?..;conflictingtusesAthecontractor will identify these, as well as the ESEE • , _ ..:4:::44 èonsequeiiesofprotecting the resource site, allowing the conflicting use(s) fully, , ....!..:10,04.1r-ii..,4.v.pf-rt• ' !r-•- .. . .,. . • - . •F- -;..,„‘,H7 obr allOWilla;Ithr ortalumted basis. Thus, even for "significant" subsites,the .. • ' '.. , -'..-:-+!--:-.'3Plaiining ebmniiiSioz and City Council may decide to allow the conflicting use 1,.F.,',,t,',;• S'.-0.-4,,d ),6 ......i.44,-.0., • ...... .• --,-..1:,': A-tdfullykandinotiprotectitlielresourceisite based on an articulated public benefit (e.g., .,‘ • ,-,,,..'. • -•:-.„1.r.,,;;;;:s.. ..,,,,,,,,,b-ge.,•.. ••,l'e,s4.0c. ' Xit,a'cactive,parkluse-housingior employment). '....4t4Wii,V7' 'r 1' .. . .• • • -;: 6 ... .Nataral,Roource Values - .. f••'• •', ..•-:.•••!-A-..:..:- — • , ‘ • ..•.••-•:,:•••••!4-!';- • • •' niironnientalT,alue #1: Unusual or Threatened Species - - •.:Thiteihas!ardocumented occurrence.of one or more of the following: - -••-aritare;p1atitt,onailimal species, or elements meeting an ecosystem cell • , - • •... , ..erited9N.asIdentified!by.the Oregon Natural Heritage Program. (See "Excerptsfroni3ONTER,Plan,"attached to Appendix F.) A cell, in this • ins-tance isiarkartificialiunit used to measure natural areas. It COIItain an aquatic, wetlasd., or upland ecosystem, as defined by the Natural Heritage • Act, ora rare orthreatened plant or animal species. • b) Plantor,Finimnl!species which are state or federally listed as proposed, threatened;or,endangcred species. :,..o).:CritiCalliabitat,.areas as:defin.9d by US Fish and Wildlife Service. ' .. t••- • - . -...&1Envirpnmental Yalue:#2: Native Plant Communities .... - ...' !'•••••••'..,,?,;.il, . . e srte!contmnsione)orjmore'ipativetplant communities with a high degree of .,.'4'..!.4ecological:mtcgrityiand:acorresRonding low level of disturbance, as determined • .t'by FEStorSahx.'Native plants are those known to occur in Oregon before the . .., ri, „A.p.-•,,..: arnvalOfjEurppean:culture,.orjknown to have arrived in Oregon by natural range 1 r.- • ---r,,:- ,-4:7,',.--;,,,,e, e2dension.vExanwlesioccurring:nr Lake Oswego are Oregon ash,Douglas fir, and ,..;•. i ,...-54.,. ....,;,,,„-!..,v,..,_•,47,. 0'',.',4i,..."`'.-,',Tie:"'",! 7,--..-. .': Orego grapeN•Fateewsubsites-!have significant native plant communities. ,4 ---- '', . ?...,64;.14.."Afis? I 1.:311: w ot Lztjol Ih%.'S5T'AtPi/i. - - •.„ . . : .........Y,'.S..2....::: : 0,i 7 1 WILL:.,r-t HAI:iIIAI ASSESSMENT � 11�1 I' A • SITE NUMBER LOCATION ;.J uPn ACRES P TO t# SEC MAP NO —STalir 1 n,� IVr iv V ICJ(. ve :Observer: CG I>- IL" �:Oosery . Date: Habita " mm_ents: Tcs�CAZ// is r1;u.,�' -,;� / / �AtSt/A 'L _ / .t'Tn, -'4.y?•LL c- 416.f :z,1 tent.r., I'�,. r' L I tt9 1, .e, 1 r4 l /i44' _Gt./YG✓ � / r -•.t� r' <�i. •• lv �j��I r-1 s, ' ' ....is i/i-� i: a;.-•SG?vt�L.. (,t-A-�--G ;e4.-Z' ,1,. `7t /I7 ! N/i!�J Q nt,c recommendations: G •1.:,..,ue: ,74+4s •Z `I Gi:`r Existing Res tored Degree • ��,. Score Score CommentsQ Intl &-.. :n I11' ty one seasonal perennial Seasonality.: (j «; : ; ,t, , >yj 'swQuality I'stagnant seasonal flushed contin, flushed lipi:^�` i:>i:�%;f:�7�> .. C21if :.T'•.\,Yf>ai/(�?( \ I :yA w• ,. : .�'i �:�!iiY...-. is';j=t ,'•.^�'�',n•FrC''/+PtfnlJ` � hPrprimiLyitp;CogeiJI{none nearby imm.adjacent i \ • a k j �' ". .: . • '.....- IOi : <'i�):fi:4.:<.Y y:{.:;. 6'< f} I " versity�(Sstreams �„r`;" ;(1),present (2)present 1 F (Ponds]& etlands) (3)present w r:tY iCt:• '';'s•-• I j - ;Var"let37 low medium high O _Quntity-& none ... �..:.� J o.�...u• ;,:d . O; •Seasona it . limited year-round /Proximity to Cover 1 none nearby lnn adjacent J yL. :,� •iV•>.w+i. r.6. . , xe :P)MaaL3 c1 . I Structural Diversity low medium n„ higi • ) / I ,4 V"+i-•�t?6 S-•f•'lyFit7F<,gil ii } .r,41 p bA;V Variety �� ,>:..'.•�:,;�1::;... - , •� 'LI(Nestin :Dlow- medium h � g,i enning),i uft <w-<J�< :,.,;,.. high I UPI -Seasonality••.-, yI`none limited f �ryy�,��ktVgig wtj year-round ` Es�pei(Density): :low. medium ...� high ��,, ,, . ADDITIONAL VALUES ..a�,..,:, /Biological !hlgh->,' medium ;.. - :, ,.., ..,;;,... low DISTURB' D ;;:'•.J •,:` -.k f ::. r= c ..! i � '' ; marl ` high 's medium: low I r ftj. f :'v:4sf;:':. ••-gs CMY.Yy.<!:: 1 1 low e`%'' it • .f.• ?:;:;:;..; I , r. I ' I�TAT LI KA,'GE `" �'t`•:1': '*medium' highOil ,7,,,i�'• i- ;.0-.10-a.,q4Utl.:-,:..Nr�•� v"1•."0� rrifr1.-i f X r •I i h�.�� . I UNIQUEEEATIlRES Flora Nesting ,. I �) ` "' ' (;points es adby.,iiEduc;.potential. ,. :-� : .>.:,1I,_,.,.:. Hab. stability I I I : : t;'- I. SITE FEATURES Topography: F7�,: --:.:-,,. Water Features: yi ., Major Structures or Roads:- Gil-r,.,,.,41. 1-44<> k'i t_ Garbage: --- 1,E.1.,?,. .-,: '>;-I.IVEGETATION =ki; may'_ {* Dominate Species > 20%) 'ark tr• A:, "1lt,4'" TREE SPECIES SHRi T?? SPECIES HER B SPECIES WETLAND 0 ' '' , N 4'_'.:: .cy\r rY ;;Y A :;:ti< � SNAGS ,,ls, 4 .i, ,14 ;jy,._j; ,, ,;I ,,, WILDLIFE Species/Sign Observed � to, '`t BIRDS 3. • �, ; : ` r MAMMALS HERPTILES T E IL. i:1%-.titw lt't iw' , "IY.'. .-MANAGEMENT; ; '- :, .'h,,, RECOMMENDATIONS r:" . ,, i1'� ,., . 0� L 73 ,i . S ` ` l tSa s;so cat.e •lx/XAls 2: 52 Potter, Eugene, OR 97405 / 503.343.2364 / FAX 503.683.4501 • • a,ri h•:l}��..� ..r.i a�i�Ui1�P.r,'LL:{rY?,7•'.-••.: ,t., , 5 ;,'$'r6 Sll s o le u e, , • •. •atingt Criteria.for r ,�, :.., Site IDS , -- 1,:� ;'.';�._,'J duca o 4 Scenic,' and Recreation.Characteristics f,, a� k..;s�'�. -.. :,. ..;. . Observer ('„� /�.til III ,.,- . : �� ,notestln�/belo\v each•table as needed. Date.) -\;. ci�}- { 1•r J - �f " :''' EDi7CAT10 AL POTENTIAL; ,' f�t�' K�� Educes t r lion Rating r•Fjactor' Low ?? ,F,: Medium High . L tc schools t i,�v5 v./4m-v' 1/2 m►. adjacent �;,: 1 . 2 3 4 5 !6) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .' I 1 I up • I I 1• , 'v` f .tbility o a cast ::- no access limited access r, A` 11 2 3 4 $ good access 6 7 8• 0)10 11 12 13 14 15 -it' ' CAuc4 pl ltva uotd•�arsertunique wildlife or plants, not special somewhat special very special 3' flood for water quality,education, etc.) ry P it • ,fie; ,. •Ali y.e�t. iy I•Cotes: ("-- 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 •,. d•!^u 2. SCENIC:VALUE 1q Scenic Rating . Factor I Low l Medium I High • ' •visibility-fromilargc:population and or major transit limited visibility somewhat visible very visible route 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 U 9 10 I 11 12 13 14 15 unique:features: gealir ter s, cliffs, wildflower displays, not present limited ,rate. �.. • .. / 1 present III• ` 2 3 4 5 I 6 7 (I) 9 10 I 11 12 13 14 15 offcrs‘viawsto,otheriscauc:sites, and/or screens I no ,:,;, ituightlyiireajfrom;view limited yea• 11 2 3 0 5 I 6 7 8 9 10 I 11 12 13 14 15 yo_tc4,4' le..1}Grk&�,� pap' - —,_ .;.,� AeSTME:l,CAS ,� l Z $ S L. 'f r5 9 to t i. 12. 13 v}t 5 '3. RECREATION;OPPORTUNITY N_• Recreation Rating AA '(TGroves;only;.wetlands function rating already includes recreation.) ",�. Factor [ Low Medium I High accessibility difficult i reasonable easy 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 (8) 9 10 I 11 12 13 14 15 variety or uniqucness.of•opportunitics • no limited ycs 1 2 3 4 MI 6 7 8 9 10 I 11 12 13 14 15 1 sensitivity to recreation impacts highly sensitive mod. sensitive Iow sensitivity 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ('1)12 13 14 15 Jots: Wildlife or unusual plant species noted during visit: III . , .. .. • a. 0 17 4 -';;-:r1:(` :;1uveniory;sresearch;andrplanning for wetlands,.forest lands ;Ind .__I _____-- nrl.,.. .,.... I S.altx Associates 252.5 Potter, Eugene, OR 97405 / 503.343.2304 / FAX 03.653.45ui Site ID## -f& -1 Co L.O. GOAL 5 .FIELD PROCEDURES Observer • Date 1. Check resource site boundaries against existing mapping. Map and briefly describe new (potential)'Goal 5 sites, if any. Notes: 2. Map existing and/or probable conflicting uses based on surrounding land use, transportation, and.topography. Notes: r• 3. Map impact area.;boundaries. (where resource impacts extend beyond boundary of protected sresource•or..where impacts of conflicting use extend beyond development boundarydrito;protected;resource area). Circle any of the following applicable numbers, and:letters•("E'•' denotes existing, "P" denotes potential): A) '`'Examples- of impact areas' created by resource areas impacting potential conflicting':uses: /E P 1Y.'=."''Protecting tree grove could result in blowdown hazard for nearby • residential: use. C9P 2) Tree grove protection could result in reduced solar access for adj. residential. E 0 3)" Protection of NR area with recreation potential could result in noise, trespass, or litter impacts on adjacent uses. . • E P 4) Wildlife damage (e.g., deer browsing or beaver gnawing) could impact nearby flower and vegetable gardens. .E •P 5) Other: . B) Examples of impact areas created by potential conflicting uses impacting resource site: ..:::g P,.. •1') • .Stormwater runoff could result in scouring and reduced water quality _'' • <' -.(thereby degrading habitat). ' IP-� 2)• Noise'(industrialtmachinery, automobiles, children playing, lawn mowers) ' could disturb sensitive wildlife .,u or recreational use. 1_ -:gP. 3) Development could isolate populations of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, . resulting in,local decline or extinction. ,fE;R . s. 4) : Light pollution could affect sensitive wildlife species. : T '.E:IP'' 5) Children and pets :nay kill or harass wildlife. ,` fP 6) Human presence may disturb sensitive wildlife species and/or trample -. sensitive vegetation: or soils. ' ! ;-:: E P. 7) Dumping can bury or pollute sensitive plant or wildlife habitat, and water :!•,;c7:- r, resources. �-'' TP. 8 Roads and traffic cmortality. an result in wildlife mortality. P'_ 9)!4:_,' Tree removal associated with development may expose a resource'siteio'-' . . : ,.... increased windthrow. •,•:. _ ,'.P.." "- ::10) 1;;:'.Buildings adjacent to or visible from a resource site could;bloc•� C� 0• s •..: t>r.;.- .'.� :�.;��`��: 'de rade views ,. .�` . �r 1: 4;s:,=:; :.. ,g„ from the site or views of the site from other►'loca'o Res tP„ ,12. 2i 19)•t'",~'�Other: N1 ~~-v -,� !f '�,,,, ''S N or j j r� ` ;. , . �f i*S.i� ii.1l.•` 1. ., /" ` .?,si, •-' �1:;V.[':'-I iito', research,aadlpLranning;for•:wetlands, forest lands, and other:naturel. 7I Jv ref o rut , sf'tf i' vw�_ 1 Pr [�c� hyviI)L t_uBA- t,-peci i OREGON'S STATEWIDE PLANNING PROGRAM oGR The Statewide Planning Goals The Department of Land Conservation and Development r Since 1973, Oregon has maintained a strong sto:ewide LCDC's administrative arm is the Department of Land program for land use planning.The foundation of that program Conservation and Development(DLCD). DLCD is a small state is a set of 19 statewide planning goals. The goals express the agency with its main office in Salem. The department has field state's policies on land use and on related topics, such as citizen representatives in Portland, Newport, and Bend. involvement, housing, and natural resources. This booklet contains the complete text of the I9 goals. The Land Use Board of A Most of the goals are accompanied by"guidelines, The which p (the has a special "court" (the Land Use Board of are suggestions about how a goal may be applied As noted in Appeals)that reviews appeals of land use decisions. LUBA has Goal 2,guidelines are not mandatory. The goals are,however: three members,known as "referees."It is based in Salem. they have been adopted as administrative rules (Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660,Division 16). Citizen Involvement City and County Planning It's no coincidence that Citizen Involvement is the first among Oregon's statewi goals are achieved through local Oregon's 19 planning goals. Extensive citizen participation has been the hallmark of the state's planning program from its outset. comprehensive planning. State law requires each city and Every city and county has a Committee for Citizen Involvement county to have a comprehensive plan and the zoning and (CCI)to monitc:and encourage active citizen participation. The land-division ordinances needed to put the plan into effect. state's Citizen involvement Advisory Committee (CIAC) also The local comprehensive plans must be consistent wh the encourages such participation in all aspects of planning. statewide planning goals.Plans are reviewed for such consis- tency by the state's Land Conservation and Development The Local Comprehensive Plan Commission(LCDC). When LCDC officially approves a local government's plan, the plan is said to be "acknowledged." It The local comprehensive plan guides a community's land use, conservation of natural resources, economic development, and then becomes the controlling document for land use in the area • covered by that plan. public services. Each plan has two main parts. One is a body of data and information called the inventory, background report, or Oregon's planning laws apply not only to local govern=:ants factual base. It describes a community's resources and features, '�' but also to special districts and state agencies. The saws It must address all of the topics specified in the applicable strongly emphasize coordination—keeping plans and programs Y statewide goals.The other part is the policy clement. That part of consistent with each other,with the goals, and with the plan sets forum theommunity community's objectives and the edged local plans, policies by which it intends to achieve them. The policy clement A Partnership • of each community's plan is adopted by ordinance and has the force of law. Oregon's planning program is a partnership between gate LocalLocal plans may be changed through plan amendments or and local governments.The state requires cities and counties to periodic review. Plan amendments are smaller, unscheduled . plan,end it sets the standards for such Local overn- planning. g adjustments to a plan.Periodic reviews arc broad evaluations of meats do the planning and administer most of the land-use an entire plan that occur every four to ten years. A plan may be regulations. The resulting mosaic of state-approved local PP modified extensively after such a review. comprehensive plans covers the entire state. Each plan is accompanied by a set of implementing measures. 1.; The state does not write comprehensive plans. It doesn't There are manydifferent zone land or adm;n;sler permits for local planning actions Like are zotvn kinds.The two most common measures variances and conditional uses.And unlike some other stases, g and land-division land -usec o Every city and county in Oregon does not require environmental impact statements. Oregon has adopted such]and-use controls. Need More Information? vatio The Land.Cansarn and Development Commission Oregon's navatio tanninIfyou need information about a certain community's cornpre- eP g program is directed by the hensive plan or-its zoning and land-division ordinances, contact Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC): • the appropriate city or county planning department. If you would I The commission's seven members are unsalaried volunteers, appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state senate. like more information about Oregon's statewide plug The term of appointment is four years. program, please contact the Department of Land Conservation I ` 7(la id Develo meat_ •: ,� it p • • � � ,,,\ � \. �\ .`t\•;`.� �\ ` 1 ayaA :.y"\i ~:.�:: ; >i�ti4�, .�t .C . q\. ADX4 \ • \J; �r tt,\ � isir: R �'" 'Q !i,„, E ., • oi,i;�,,,.,:,,•� , .„ f�/ ...,.i//, �j�/`= tl �,, 11 •• N.., �7 �C G„ ,: j '. �t p .b... gyp• CO. .:.LLr1\ 'li� "♦ ...`C\ .��'` �� vP�^, 67uw r, >f"a (� „v� in4. ,.rG.,�•CJ 1111111 I • '"Y x V s DREG ON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 6607 DIVISION 16 —LAtiT7 CONSI1t{VATION AND DEVELOPMENT COr 1I IISSION "' DIVISION 16 the Commission based upon contradictory information; REQUIR m EMENTS AND APPLICATION (b) Delay Goal 5 Process: When some infora- OCEDURES FOR COMPLYING lion is available, indicating the possible existence of WITH STATEWIDE GOAL 5 a resource site, but that information is not adequate to identify with particularity the location, Inventory Goal 5 Resources quality and quantity of the resource site, the local 660-16-000;0.) The inventory process for government should only include the site on the Statewide Planning Goal 5 begins with the comprehensive plan inventory as a special category. collection of available.data from as many sources as The local overnment m s 1t8 inteht possible'including:ezperts in the'field, local citizens re afive tq p res r clsite throu� a p an poi -o and`.l'aneiow�ner.s:'?The local government then 84 Tess Lie r o ,l !i1, )�(ttti pr ect hrou e analyzes and refines the data and determines U i o 1'U'L Is 1[1 t he ftztureL e p an s could whether there is,sufficient information on the inc u e a tune-tritrn tor this review. Special location, quality,-.and quantity of each resource site implementing measures are not appropriate or to, raper y';complete the Goal 5 process. This required for Goal 5 compliance purposes until analysis also includes whether a articular natural adequate information is available to enable further ea is "ecologically and scientifically significant", . review and adoption of such measures. The state- • oraniopen:spacesarea:is "needed", or a scenic area ment in the plan commits the local government to is."outstandir gi,•as;outlined in the Goal. Based on address the resource site through the Goal 5 "thecevidenc_e.,and•local government's analysis of ?rocess in the post-acknowled guaent period. Such those:data;�the'local o e�}z�e i. then O?terrnines suture actions could require a plan amendment; 'whi } S� �f� di ricance and (c) Include on Plan Inventory When informa- inc u es:those sites on use. ai pp.an inventtion is available on location, quality and quantity, (2) A'"valie.inventory of a Goal 5 resource and the local government has determined a site to under subsection.(5)(c) of this rule must include a be significant or important as a result of the data determination;of,the location quality, and quantity collection and analysis process, the local govern- of each,of.ttie-resource sites. Some Goal 5 resources ment must include the site on its plan inventory (e.g., natural,areas, historic sites, mineral and and indicate the location, quality and quantity of aggregate sites, scenic waterways) are more site- the resource site (see above). Items included on this specific than others (e.g., groundwater, energy inventory must proceed through the remainder of sources). For site-specific resources, determination the Goal 5 process. • of location must include a description or map of the boundaries of the resource site and of the impact Stat.Auth.:ORS Ch. 183 & 197 area to be affected, if different. For non-size-specific Hist.: LCD 6-1981(Temp), f. & ef. 5-8-81; LCD 7-1981, f. Sc resources, determination must be as specific as ef.6-29-81;LCDC 3-1990, f.&cert.cf. 6-6-90 possible. • (3)'The.determination of quality requires some [ED.NOTE:The text of Thmporary Rules is pat printed in consideration of the resource site's relative value, the Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation. Copies may be as compared to other examples of the same brained from the adopting agency or rho.",e..ietary of State.j resource in,at least the jurisdiction itself. A determination'of.'q ' ' 'on of S Identify Conflicting Uses the:relativpub inc r.ce o the resource of any given 660-16-005 It is the responsibility of local quality). 1'tie-l-level ail detail that is provided will government to identify conflicts with inventoried depend on how-much information is available or Goal 5 resource sites. This is done primarily by "obtainable".-. examining the uses allowed in broad zoning (4) The,inyentory completed at the local level districts established by the jurisdiction (e.g., forest including options-in subsections (5)(a) (b), and (c) and agricultural zones). A conflicting use is one of,this..rule,,Ivill;be,adequate for Goal compliance which, if allowed could negatively impact a Goal 5 unless it, can.be,shown to be based on inaccurate resource site. there conflicting uses have been data, or does,not.adequately address location, identified, Goal 5 resource sites may impact those quality or qquuaanntity..The issue of adequacy may be uses. These impacts must be considered in raised by-the..Department or objectors, 'but final analyzing the economic, social, environmental and determinataon•is made'by the Commission or the energy (ESEE) consequences: Land Use Board of Appeals as provided by law. (1) Preserve the Resource Site: If there are no (5),BaselVon:data collected, analyzed and conflicting uses for an identified resource site, the refused.by:the localjgovemment, as outlined above, jurisdiction must adopt policies and ordinance pro- a jurisdictioulhas three basic options: visions, as appropriate, which insure preservation (a),Do Not.Include on Inventory: Based on of the resource site. information,that isllavailable on location, quality (2) Determine the Economic, Social, Environ- and quantity„the-local government might deter mental, and Energy Consequences: If conflicting mine that.a .particular resource site is not uses are identified, the economic, social, a n- important,,enough:to warrant inclusion on the plan mental anal enp, o� ire conflicts inventory, or,is;not:required to be included in the uses must e determined. Both e imps on be0 inveritory•,based;on thetspecific.Goal standards. No resource site and on the conflicting use must be forth.er..actsonipeedibe•,taken with regard to these considered in analyzing the ESEE consequences. sites: The,.la.caljgo,vernment is not.required to The applicability and requirements of other justify in its comprehensive plan a decision not to Statewide Planning Goals must also be considered, include a particular site in the plan inventory where appropriate, at this stage of the process. A unless challenged by the Department, objectors or determination of the ESEE consequences of ,.i 1 7 r 1 - Div. 16 _.. I OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 660,DIVISION 16—LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION identified'conflicting uses is adequate if it enables a allowed, not allowed, or allowed conditional) d jurisdiction to provide reasons to explain why under what clear and objective conditir • decisions are made for specific sites. standards. Reasons which support this de I, must be presented in the comprehensive plan, and Stat.Auth_:ORS Ch. 183& 197 plan and zone designations must be consistent with Hint.: LCD 6-1981(Tmp), f. & ef. 6-8-81; LCD 7-1981,f. & this decision. ef.6-29-81 Stat.Auth.: OILS Ch. 183 & 197 [ED.NOTE:The.toxt of•Ilbmporary Rules in not printed in Hint.: LCD 6-1981(Tcmp), f. & cf. 6-8-81; LCD 7-1981, f. & the Oregon'Admtn.ietrative Rules Compilation. Copies may be of.6-29-81 obtained firom.the,adopting agency or the Secretary of State.) [ED.NOTE:The text of Th mporary Rules is not printed in De_velopPProgram to Achieve the Goal the Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation. Copies may be 680-164)10'Based on the determination of the obtained from the adopting agency or the -...,oto y of State.] economic, social, environmental and energy consequences, a jurisdiction must "develop a Post Acknowledgment Period program;to:achieve the Goal". Assuming there is 660-16-015 (1) All data, findings, and decisions adequate"information on the location, quality, and made by a local government prior to acknowl- quantity-oftthe.resource site as well as on the edgment may be reviewed by that local government nature of-the:conflicting use and ESEE con- in its periodic update process. This includes sequences,• a.ju.risdiction is expected to "resolve" decisions made as a result of OAR 660-16-000(5Xa), conflicts..with,specific sites in.any of the following 660-16-005(1), and 660-16-010. Any changes, three..waya listed below. Compliance with Goal 5 additions, or deletions would be made as a plan shall also•be based,on the plan's overall ability to amendment, again following all Goal 5 steps. protect and conserve each Goal 5 resource. The (2) If the local government has included in its issueofadequacy of the overall program adopted or plan items under OAR 660-16-000(5)O the local of decisions:made under sections (1), (2) and (3) of government has committed itself to take certain this rule flatly be raised by .the Department or actions within a certain time frame in the post- objectorst•but.final determination is made by the acknowledgment period. Within those stated time Commission,,pursuant to usual procedures: frames, the local government must address the (1) Protect the Resource Site: Based on the issue as stated in its plan, and treat the action as a analysis ofthe ESEE consequences, a jurisdiction- plan endment. naav__dgtgrni;e,..4 at the resqqurcP sit is o� sucn f� im o e, relative to the dditilctlng uses, and the( "tSta Auth.:ORS Ch. 183 & 197 consequences of allowing conflicting uses are Hist.: LCD 5-1981(Temp), L & of. 6-8-81; LCD 7-198 so, eat-thattthe resource site should.be protected ef.6-29-81 d all conflictin uses um on 1.ti6site and posse e impac area 1 enti=ed in OAR [ED.NOTE: The text of Temporary Rules is not 660-1 7000(5)(c). Reasons which support this the Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation. Copies may be • decision'mustibe presented in the comprehensive obtained from the adopting agency or the Doc,k.tnry of State.] plan, and plan and zone designations must be consistent with this decision. Landowner Involvement (2) Allow Conflicting Uses Fully: Based on the 660-16-020 (1) The development of' inventory analysis_ of ESEE consequences and other data, identification of conflicting uses and adoption Stateyjde•,Goals, a jurisdiction may determine that of implementing measures must, under Statewide the conflicting use should be allowed fully, not Planning Goals 1 and 2 provide opportunities for withstanding-the•poasible impacts on the resource citizen involvement and agency coordination. In site. This approach may be used when the addition, the adoption of regulations or plan conflicting use'for a particular site is of sufficient provisions carries with it basic legal notice require- importance, relative to the resource site. Reasons ments. (County or city legal counsel can advise the which .support,thi.s decision must be presented in planning department and governing body of these the comprehensive plan, and plan and zone requirements.) Depending upon the type of action desitions must be consistent with this decision. involved, the form and method of landowner (3) ' i onflicting Uses: Based on the notification will vary. State statutes and local analysis�oconsequences, ajuriscuction may charter provisions contain basic notice require- determine'that.both the resource site and the ments. Because of the nature of the Goal 5 process conflicting,use areimportant relative to each other, as outlined in this paper it is important to provide and that,'th,e: ESEE consequences should be for notification and involvement of landowners, balanced-so•aata w the conflictin use but in a including public agencies at the earliest possible li itedway so as to ro r ) ilt: p opportunity. This will likely avoid rob) some` pp yy yy Y _problems or toe Io imps � seLt� oA disagreements later in the process and improve the '.1..,.._. alUtiif1�,� L,designate with. certainty what local decision-making process in the development of Goal 5 ro uses)andtactiyities are allowed fully, what uses and the plan and implementing measures. aetivitiesiare,not,allowed at-all and which uses are (2) As theprocessgresses and mr 'allow edreonditionally, and what specific standards specificity about the nature of resources, identif: or, limitations,.are.placed on the permitted and conflicting uses, ESEE consequences and imp conditional`uses.a.nd activities for each resource menting measures is known notice air,site:?W 1ateverrmechanisms are-used, they must be involvement of affected parties will become more ssppecific;enoughoo;that,affected property owners are meaningful. Such notice and landowner involve- able";to d,e,termine what uses and activities are ment, although not identified as a Goal 5 (November, 1992) '� i 7 J 2 - Div. 16 c. OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 660, DIVISION 16—LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION requirement is in the opinion of the Commission, local governments shall address ORS 517.750 imperative. 517.900 and OAR Chapter 632 Divisions 1 and 3i (2) Local governments shall coordinate with t Stat.Auth.:ORS Ch.183&197 State Department of Geology and Miner Hist.: LCD 5.1981(Temp), f.& ef.5-8-81; LCD 7-1981, 1. & Industries to ensure that requirements for t: of.6-29-81 reclamation of surface mines are incorporated in programs to achieve the Goal developed : [ED.NOTE:The text of Temporary Rules is not priuted in accordance with OAR 660-16-010. the Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation. Copies may be (3) Local governments shall establish pri obtained from the adopting agency or the Secretary of State.) cedures designed to ensure that comprehensiti plan provisions, land use regulations, and land us Policy permitson e necessary to authorize mineral an Po 660-1 - 25[LCD 5-1981(Tem ), State Depate artmentnt of are an coordinated with th p Geology and Minoru f. &ef. 5-8-81• Industries_ Local governments shall amen( LCD 7-1981,f� & ef. 6-29-81; • comprehensive plans and land use regulations, a: Repealed by LCDC 3-1990, necessary, no later than January 1, 1993. f. & cert. ef. 6-6-901 (4) T:ae provisions of this rule shall be effect-ivE immediately. Mineral and Aggregate Resources 660-16-030-•(1) When planning for and Stat.Auth.:ORS Ch. 183 & 197 regulating the development of aggregate resources, Hit.:LCJ.1C 3-1992,f.&cert.ef.6-10-92 • • III e- 45 Open Spaces, Scenic & Historic Areas & Natural Resources ip Section 5, Distinctive Natural Areas • GOALS, POLICIES, AND RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES GOAL The City shall protect, enhance and maintain the wooded character and natural features of Lake Oswego that are distinctive natural areas* prized by residents. POLICIES 1. Protect,enhance,maintain and restore the :unctions and values* of existing and future Distinc- tive Natural Areas(DNA's)such as: a. Water and air quality enhancement; b. Fish and wildlife habitat; c. Community identity benefits*; d. Open space,passive recreation,and visual enjoyment; and, e. Public protection from natural hazards, such as areas subject to flooding, geological instability,or high erosion potential. 2. Designate the specific locations of DNA's on the DNA Map (Figure I), Hydrology Map (Figure 3) and Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan (rear cover pocket). 3. Supplement the DNA list in the Comprehensive Plan,pursuant to Statewide Planning Goal 5, as additional distinctive features arc brought to :he City's attention and as sensitive, threatened or endangered species are identified. The City shall emphasize protection rather than mitigation of the functions and values of Distinc- tive Natural Areas. Enact and maintain regulations and standards which require: a. Preservation of the functions and values of DNA's; b. No net loss* in the quantity or volume of DNA area functions or values when develop- ment is allowed within a DNA resource, buffer or edge. Such development shall only be allowed after an alternatives analysis and a finding that a development cannot reasonably • be placed entirely outside of the DNA and its bufferJand plge areas; 40 , si LAKE OSWEGO CCwooc, Goals Open Spaces, Scenic & Historic Areas & Natural Resources • `�• ClDistinctive Natural Areas l Section 5 • BACKGROUND Statewide Planning Goal 5: Open Spaces. Scenic and Historic Areas, andNatural Resources "To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources." Statewide Planning Goal 5 requires communities to provide programs that will 1)ensure open space; 2) protect scenic and historic areas and natural resources for future generations; and 3) promote healthy and visually attractive.environments in harmony with the natural landscape character. The Lake Os- wego Comprehensive Plan identifies many special natural resources called Distinctive Natural Areas.* Goal 5 requires communities to inventory these natural resources. The inventory is required to include a description of the location,quality and quantity of these resources, and an identification of conflicting uses. Where no conflicting uses have been identified,resources must be managed so as to preserve their original character. Where conflicting uses have been identified,the economic,social,environmental ental a energy (ESEE)* consequences shall be determined and programs developed to achieve the goal. • The Comprehensive Plan identifies 85 Distinctive Nat ural Areas* (DNA's)on the"Distinctive Natural Areas" map (Figures 1 and 2). DNA's include a broad range of resource types from tree groves and streams to individual trees and plant specimens. Springbrook Park, "Frog Pond," the south fact of Iron Mountain,numerous trees in First Addition and the banks of the Willamette River are some of the sites and features listed as DNA's. A list of the DNA sites accompanies the Plan map and briefly describes each site. The Distinctive Natural Areas list is intended to be dynamic in nature, with new sites added as they are discovered and inventoried. The Comprehensive Plan categorizes specially protected resources s as either Protection Open Spaces or as DNA's,as follows: • Protection Open Space: Protection Open Space(POS) includes the same types of resources as DNA's, such as tree groves and wetlands, but they are not individually mapped and have differ- ent regulations. Development is allowed on POS lands "when compatible with natural systems that are present." Specific locations of POS resources are identified when a development pro- posal is submitted for review by the City. Some intrusion into POS resources or diminishment of the physical area of the resource is allowable so long as the resource is not severely compro- mised or entirely eliminated by development. • Distinctive Natural Areas., DNA resources are distinctive features or natural areas that have a• unique or fragile character or provide community identity benefits.* The City's expectation for DNA resources is that they be fully protected if possible when development is proposed. If 0182 GOAL 5 OPEN SPACES. SCENIC R HISTnRtr, a r:�t c P ►,i„-ri In A t Goal 5 Open Spaces, Scenic & Historic Areas & Natural Resources ❑ Section 5, Distinctive Natural Areas development is allowed to intrude into the DNA or to displace any of the physical area of the resource,mitigation can be required so that there is no net loss* of the resource area, functions, or values. Mitigation is a way of compensating for or replacing resource loss, and may include tree planting,wetland or stream enhancement,or in some cases,creation of a new resource such as a human-made wetland. City development standards allow density transfer, clustering, and Planned Unit Developments as ways of retaining natural resources on a site while still allowing development to occur at the density of the underlying zone. When tree cutting is proposed within a DNA,review and approval by the Development Review Commission is required. DNA resources such as trees, Oswego Lake, distant views, open meadows, woodlands and river banks altogether define Lake Oswego's character, and can be lost as development occurs. Because Lake Oswego residents value the natural beauty and character of their community,they nominated as Distinc- tive Areas,those features they wished to preserve in the 1975 Lake OswegQPhysical Resources inven- tory (LOPRI). All of the LOPRI-nominated sites were designated as Distinctive Natural Areas on the resulting DNA Comprehensive Plan map.The inventory was part of a broader effort to adopt the City's first Comprehensive Plan under Goal 5 of the Statewide Land Use Goals. •In the years following 1976, the LOPRI data was used to create policies and development standards to • protect open spaces and natural resources. The inventory was also used to identify initial priority sites for public acquisition as open space. Three DNA sites identified for public acquisition in the Compre- hensive Plan have been purchased by the City or otherwise protected, including land on Iron Mountain, the"Frog Pond"at Village on the Lake(private)and a large section of Kruse Oaks in the Westlake area. Under Goal 5,local jurisdictions are required to inventory and provide protection programs for a variety of natural resources that are included in the Ci:y's DNA listings, including: • Land needed or desirable for open space; • Fish and wildlife areas and habitats; • Ecologically and scientifically significant natural areas; • Outstanding scenic views and sites;and, • Water areas, wetlands, watersheds and groundwater resources. All of the above-listed resources must be evaluated and mapped on a site-specific basis through the Goal 5 Environmental, Social, Energy and Economic (ESEE) analysis and a conflicting use analysis. If no conflicting uses are identified, the resource must be managed to preserve its original character. If conflicting uses are found,programs must be developed to resolve the conflicts and one of three alter- natives applied: 11P Preserve the resource site; b. Fully allow the conflicting use [the use(s) allowed by the zone); or, 11/ A c� vl 'J � 54 LAKE OSWEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Gou/5 Open Spaces, Scenic & Hist oric Areas & Natural Resources ,_. • -h . 0 Section 5, Distinctive Natural Areas c. Specifically limit the conflicting use [the use(s)allowed by the zone]. The ESEE and conflicting use analysis was begun in 1991/92 by an environmental consulting firm with an inventory update of wetlands, stream corridors and tree groves. The ESEE were inventoried was begun by a planning consultant in 1994. The results will in determining the boundaries and relative values of D 1✓C analysis of the sites that NA sites inventoried in 1975 used t�ndstol dcvcl'ty appropriate regulations and protection programs. op andSince the mid-1970's, much of the easily developed vacant land in La and in the 1990s, the City is almost completely developed and manyof thee Oswego difficult develop becau City almostof completely environmentalb° has beeining n developed,Hndarc in the 1975 LOPRI have been built on, degraded in regulatory constraints. Some of the DNA's parcels of land arc natural resource issues when developments arep proposed,and ity or lmtnisl�ed in size. Citizens often identified protected. there is an expectation that DNA's will be Increasingly, the Federal Endangered Species Act is raised bycitizens impacts on natural resources. The Act protects endangered, • a on Act will need to be taken ens concerned about species.cc The g red, threatened and sensitive inventories are evaluated and placed under protection programs. as Lake Oswego's natural resources Summary of Mator Issues The following are some of the issues, changed circumstances and conditions which were considered in the update of this element of the Comprehensive Plan: ■ Statewide land use Goal 5 requires site specific mapping and natural areas. The Goal 5 process must be used to add ew sites tote DNAsls for distinctive distinctive features arc brought to the City's attention and as endangered list as additional ■ The Endangered Species Act requires protect' species are identified. d cies. Some species of plants and animals in the USB may fall within these cat nc d scat endangered spe- egories. � Under Goal 5, the highest valued naturesl resources and DNA's merit full preservation when there are no conflicting uses identified. Other DNAOswego's more limited level ofprotection. USII may DNA's may merit a • GOAT c nok. /1 , 1 W R G DESIGN • • I N C . 1 February 5, 1999 Dear Property Owner. Matrix Development is proposing to construct a 6-Lot, duplex residential, Planned Unit Development. The project will subdivide approximately 1.28 acres of property into 6 duplex lots (3 structures). The project will be located north of Country Club Drive and west of Verte Court. The property is currently zoned as R- 7.5(Medium Density Residential). LOC Chapter 49.36.705 requires that developers of all Planned Unit Developments to contact and discuss their development with any affected neighborhoods as outlined under this Section. The applicant has sent notification to all properties within 300 feet of the proposed project, and has informed the neighborhood association of this proposal. The applicant will be holding a meeting at the Lake Oswego Adult Community Center located at 505 G Avenue on Thursday, February 25, at 6 pm. 0 At this meeting, the applicant will present a site plan of the proposed development and will answer any questions regarding the proposal. Minutes of the meeting will be recorded, and submitted to the City with this application. If you are unable to attend the meeting, or have any questions regarding the proposal, please do not hesitate to call me at 603-9933. I look forward to speaking with you at the meeting, and hearing your comments. Sincerely, WRG Design,inc. L 1 Z' `s A€ t4 ferkv Zemo Mimi Doukas n Planner/Associate Landscape Architect lt} ixj (Q- i ,1ui vamuctvib `pw & (6 ilextvi 7.etki - OtAktki ZI? -- 7.,7,o/NI 0 06-PIAA 201.6 _ ((\tk1 NL ibv 1 ‘kizio.},Q,,,,t . QUA 1 20-o6- sWile,ci- zom(69 iAWRGDWATAIDATAIDATAWIAT0051WORDWOTIF.DOC y < 0 PLANNERS a ENGINEERS a LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS a SURVEYORS 10450 SW Nimbus Ave., Portland, OR 97223 / (503) 603-9933 (fox) 603-9944 �- J C\';'1A ) ql ,, \,7 ;0..4. r sit I3TN • �, rrl ,.. , -70 • OR ly - _ _ _ IS' • . .:, / -4. , • • 1.- auy i��h'f%�R�RC Sie i - . _ J •r �o �� JTTAM Q NCO JI D ,� ---�._ • /-. ), �� a ` ~ Y' �� '•� �' is 5✓t' G� (� FAILING �� Grly x �Nct4,id3 ._tn6Ltilukly�-�~ \� • _. . ' .. I; `�E SW REENWI -; ��h\ < 'C _ •/zSc�•.�a:�t• •..,�. Y -. ,•rt I � / is/.. 3.1�`a - 9:_,_I: in r �W 2 4.� - - SW FOREST � ., :ys4ci .� \, `'', /- KN \ MEADOW * + ,. o •c ¢ G��DALL G w RD 1000 R IIFF 4,ai ar PHfLLS IQ e _... -' "m.c,:_:,, k, HOOD- i CT �, o WIT ^ Z�'J rt�o r o >f ytD�w,►r \NTAIN �- a,TI lBER INE p P u m .. 4p CT • • V �_� :.,--,-----. o -. .�-� , �COt�cjR `< � UGH y R - •1s s .--f 1 C/Zir, �--N 4 — Q cOMs 3 �,y �RxI ZOVAL�. PE88LE `V "1.- c r �--��` _ 4/tisliE IA RREIZq BEACH a '-•a i . • S� /� ....; ;:.'....--.. AKE E $ CWNSON TER N o : PAt?K' F cT ,� ; o��ze Ce)f��.tee, co SySREYA pR� ` 3 MIteum •: .. . �v0 E I RD !i&W : AflER AY ,?000 .A SAT ! C4rL G ®r COFPI? Nr ILif o CC Of JR HS Qr/���E�( 1i00 y "t:I��U r (R� ��11.‘���� �t 90C o y D ` o LIB ., �;1 Q� �YFiii �I 100. p l C�' i. �y� !� 8 1 i�o > J t L z �' +�LJ 600 �+ ii 'DO o,fj y I-Lj .. r OSWEGO LAKE. CO%YTRY CLUB. 4;�E:. r ��``- o8 604400 1 ......_______, 7K 3 SEE ^� . `�B G7 �p .,.• ,iiiiiH 3 YAAFpUiN•Cl;': L2^ 4 �'"' �}� L w - S RD CR - -1 DR RES F p,I Rwq ! �o�a ,O t boob ago # �:11117 ':' ;l �r coo��� SW (�P • �\j� 8>rRWIC;DEI I ER - . G$Ec, Q,t CD ��� 1: �� �F EA `_� EILLTS �. 1:4, c1. O� Q ' _ , _ate . =� �sROfHR RD • �,GE, r \ ' 1 . WESTprq�Ht��� CT4- =� IP��� � ii ,.......,e AIM. PA DR = �%<�\ 1 .'' VAtLET .SA RD FOREST E •• B► -44111 :WATER!:ON PARK '� o°` oe PAR au Ow\: a v Q 'TH': .�i: ORE=• - _ EN -f' _ _. .. P +'r GROW aonr p •i� �I YlEW I — ILU 14* NO E ISLA D �� -- �� .� CFI }DEL --BEST oh' .'r.1. • �•'C �FE •^^VTEM CT n�I . , Special District Plans 1 . 1 .6,„„ , 1 ❑ Forest Highlands Neighborhood •• . ... .k •'�„-' fir• ~ • � • �.' by s F • •. .\, . • ', ;Mt '' .' -'' itoose. ' . .1,6.:)7,....f,;7:;•, ..:1;,•;:...n...itirizz;•-..... ...:' .........,... . ' / . - ". . i. • • • Ns o 'er• : The City will actively preserve natural resources, particularly wooded areas, streams and stream banks, views and wildlife habita L • • t , 1si37 Tryon Creek you would like more information about this organization. call 636-4398. Lake Oswego Land.Trusll'he Lake Oswego Land Trust's mission is to protect the scenic,open space, wildlife, natural, and historic resources of the greater Lake Oswego area. The Trust does this by acquiring land or securing conservation casements. A consArvation easement is a legal agreement whereby landowners maintain ownership of the land. It is a new method of resource • protection where the landowner gives up the option of developing or destroying the resources on the land. The Trust also oversees a stream stewardship program and participates in various restoration projects. The Trust is a publicly supported, 501(c)(3)nonprofit organization,For more information, call Debbie Craig, President of the Lake Oswego Land Trust, at 636-2451. Lower Willamette River Watershed Alliance The Alliance was formed to ensure that the Lower Willamette region remains a priority watershed, eligible for state watershed health funding. The Alliance has tentatively agreed to limit its activities to: information sharing,•provision of technical assistance and regional monitoring, and advocacy for regional water quality and watershed health.The.Alliance's diverse membership includes educators,citizen groups, water quality regulatory agencies, developers,farmers, and other organizations concerned with watershed health. For more information, contact Mike Houck or Rosemary Furfey at 797.1700. NEIGHBORHOOD'ASSOCIATIONS There are 15 neighborhoods found within or immediately adjacent to the Tryon Creek Watershed In alphabetical order, they are: Arnold Creek,,BirdshilI Briarwood-Fielding, Collins View,Dunthorpc, Englewood, First Addition, Forest Highlands, Forest Hills,Markham,'Marshall Park, Mountain Park,Multnomah,Riverdale, and West Portland Park. The associations for these neighborhoods,are at different stages of development,.arc organized in various ways, and partake in neighborhood-specific activities:For;more;information about the watershed's neighborhood associations, contact Portland's Office of Neighborhood Associations at 823-4519. Regulations and Zoning of,the Tryon Creek Watershed This section outlines the regulatory framework which exists to protect the natural resources of Tryon Creek Watershed. State and local regulations and planning goals arc key to the watershed's preservation.They arc the focus of this section. Statewi+de'Planning.Goal.#SGoal 5 of the Statewide Planning Goals requires cities and counties "to conserve open space and ID protect;naturalland'scenic resources." Oregon Administrative Rule 660,Division 16, spells out the requirements and application prncedur , foneomplying ith Goal 5. Essentially,jurisdictions must go through a 3-step resource evaluation and protection process:ifrrst;'inventorylresource sites; second,analyze the economic, social,environmental, and energy (ESEF) consequences of resource protection;;and.third,�.determinc the level of protection required for the resource. Statewide Planning Goal 5 is the force behind most agency watershed protection efforts. City of Portland Comprehensive Plan (PCP)The PCP provides a framework for making decisions about Portland's future growth;and;deyelopment..;The'CP is implemented through the zoning code and the siting of public facilities and infrastructure. ThePrimary,00mponents.ofithe PCP are the Comprehensive Plan map, the city's regulations for development and redevelopment, and Portland's•zoning,code. The PCP'has.a,set of planning goals. The purpose of PCP's Goal 8 is to"maintain and improve the quality of Portland's air, water and,landryesoufeessaudprotect neighborhoods and business centers from detrimental noise pollution." The objectives and policies,o0,,C1 Goa118;meet;.or.excced, the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Open Spaces, Scenic&Historic Areas, and Natural Resources)iPCP:.Goal 8 commits the city to regulate development in groundwater areas, drainage ways, natural areas, scenic.areas;,riparian'areas, water ways, and wildlife habitats. Various city ordinances mandate city planners to: &nbsp; • conserve.aquifers;idraiµaage•ways, wetlands, water bodies, riparian areas,and fish and wildlife habitat; • prioritize;properties;fokpublic acquisition; • coordinate city,regulations with similar regulations of county, state, federal entities; • avoid,harm,to.natural;resources; • • niitigat_e.unavoidablehanm to protected natural resources; • maintain:vegetatiye;cover, • improve water,quali_ty; and • • Prevent.soil;crossionjanui stormwater flooding. The,PCPeis;the controlling document—any resource protxtion plan or watershed enhancement program should further the goals and policies of the:PCp ThePCP provides the framework for the development that occurs within the Tryon Creek Watershed 1tcor. J 1 J J OF LEGISLATl v b 1 LJ iLiL 11L. . P NOTICE Iv1MISSION /-� � • �,, :�,:. :af;r,'1'�� PLANNING CO 0 ,-.6•60„..0010g."114.. .1?..,,.:„. . . . . . .. -4-40=-7-,,.. .; .,,,,;•oingiT' ,, .. '..':. 1�''•: Conduct of the Hearing: The Chair will open the .. tia. fir'• — ,'��'' public hearing and describe the hearing procedure and .')' '''FIL he io•n2and Ue'or the nature of the legislative decision, and staff will _` ' , w�hie COVV.lbeg.uthorized:, • present its Report. The Chair will then open the . , t.;:'4.t.• " 0' public hearing and take testimony or evidence from .. '' ; '•' T'e.l ake ,O,swego City interested citizens and organizations. At the end of ,YY "``' public testimony, the Chair will close the public ' -- � Councilrecently'approved x . •„ ''. a SensitiveiLands hearing and return the matter to the table for .-�_, Y Ordinanceias part of a deliberation and decision. ::: sed Natural Resources How To Testify: All interested persons are ;Fo. ; LP,roteetion'Program. encouraged to appear and testify either orally or in In order todmplement needed changes writing. As a general rule, the following time limits to the..Ci s+curr shall be observed: minutes each for individuals and } ent Natural Resource the City is 10 minutes each for recognized neighborhood Protection,Program, organizations, homeowner associations, government proposingqoningand Comprehensive or governmental agency or other incorporated public Plan;map amendments.to designate ; interest organizations. The Planning Commission Resource.Conservation(RC) and may modify these time limits, however, depending on R'esowce Protection'(RP) overlay 1 the circumstances. The time limits shall not include fillizones.•'Bhe purpose of these overlay ; time taken up by questions and response from the •,zones!is,tolclearly;indicate the location Planning Commission. Any person in attendance may oaturalresourees that would be ftncede his or her time for testimony to another person, subject to:the:Sensitive Lands i but in no case shall any person's testimony be Ordinance. increased to greater than 10 minutes. In order to be T11:e.Apri1 1.4, 1997 public hearing considered and become part of the record, written zuilVbe}or,consideration of only those comments or testimony must be submitted to the "`' Planning Commission at the hearing or must be resouree;6.•' for which property received by 5:00 p.m. on the date of the hearing at the :-ou ners1b.ave no disagreement with the following address: '-overlay designation. Property owners aids ,...•.,..,. ,a.r,.+,• •,, 'thatrareicontestinkl•g�the overlay zone will Lake Oswego Planning Departi' .4 ,.0. ,. • EXHIBIT ie'lic i subsequent hearings. Lake Oswego City Hall �be3scheduled for, f 4.. �.ty : P.O. Box 369 ;�i;.LY�.: 380 "A" Avenue Pa 1--‘17/-2Cdy On 1119nday,,Apr,i0.4,.1997, at 7:00 p.m., in the Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Council!Chambrstattgity•Hall,380 "A" Avenue, How To Obtain Further Information: The the Citylof°LakelOswego:Planning Commission will applicable approval criteria and all evidence relied on hold:a'legislative'publicthearing to determine whether by the applicant are available for review at the above the:map amendments comply with the State and the address. The City Staff Report will be available ten Cityls criteria'for'approval. days prior to the date of the hearing at the above File'No::.'PA.2-97/ZC 2-9741 address. Copies of all of these documents may be»,� obtained at cost. The City staff person assigned to ,pplicant City;of'Lake Oswego, 380 A Avenue: ' - this application is Craig Walkenhorst.Associate ••�'=Lake Os�w�ego;�OR 97034 fir, phone: 635-0290. ''LYoeationloflrroperty: Various sites City-wide r;.., �, ti Arower S aces, jnic & Historic Areas & Natural Resources Open P 1 . ion 5, Distinctive Natural AreasI _. _ Sect • - , S GOALS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES , POLICIES, COAL \\N wtt,5 46 TIS qc.y.A\ 0Pc,( shallprotect,enhance and maintain the wooded character and natural features of Lake The City * prized byresidents. Oswego that are distinctive natural areas ` POLICIES �\ o«. 1 POL 1. Protec t enhance,maintain and restore the functions and values* of existing and future Distinc- , tive Natural Areas(DNA's) such as: a. Water and air quality enhancement; b. Fish and wildlife habitat; c. Community identity benefits*; d. Open space,passive recreation, and visual enjoyment; and, eolo is e. Public protection from natural hazards, such as areas subject to flooding, g g instability,or high erosion potential. si ate.the specific locations of DNA's on the DNA Map (Figure l),Hydrology Map(Figure 2 De gn Comprehensive Plan (rear cover pocket). 3) and Land Use Map of the e 3. Suad it lement the DNA list in the Comprehensive Plan,pursuant atewides fanning Goal ive, threatened as or additionat'distinctive features are brought to the City's attention endangered species are identified. 4. The City shall emphasize protection rather than mitigation of the functions and values of Distinc- tive Natural Areas. 5. Enact and maintain regulations and standards which require: C� a. Preservation of the functions and values of DNA's; p_: No net loss* in the quantity or volume of DNA area functions development shall onlyibet` b. i e ment�is allowed within a DNA resource,buffer or g analysis and a finding that a development cannot reeasonably r, _allowed after an alternatives ,,..,, �.... - be'placed entirely outside of the DNA and its buffer and edge areas; °;_,: .<;�;,d ,.�,: 4 AVM , r 56 LAKE OSWEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN , j tJ. S. 0 a , Vth : r ZONING CODE • .c zoned R-0, 3 or 5. designation other than R-0, 3 or 5. The height of . en a new development or the alteration that does not qualify .as new tension or reconstruction of an existing construction shall not exceed 35 feet on flat or development occurs in a R-0, 3 or 5 zone which sloped lots in the same circumstance. abuts an existing less intensive residential use, a 4. No structure in the WR zone can exceed setback shall be established on the lot zoned R-0, 24 feet in height. Height is measured from the 3 or 5 of a depth of at least the height of the surface of the water. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; principal building on the lot zoned R-0, 3 or 5. 11-16-82. Ord. No. 2027, Sec. 1; 04-02-91. Ord. 6. There are no setbacks required in the No. 2053, Sec. 4; 04-07-92.) WR zone, subject to compliance with LOC Ch. (Ord. No.2099, Amended, 08101/94) 45 Building Regulation requirements. Medium and 7. Front lot lines on corner lots may face Article 48.06. Residential, either street. The City Manager shall determine Low Density R-7.5, R-10, the front lot line after taking into consideration R-15. the orientation of structures on the site and nearby lots, the ability to meet setbacks without 48.06.195. Permitted Uses; R-7.5, R-10, variances and physical site or solar access R-15 Zones. i limitations. Street access should be local streets. 48.06.200. Conditional Uses; R-7.5, R-10, 8. Setbacks required by this section may be R-15 Zones. reduced pursuant to the provisions of LOC 48.06.205. Maximum Density, Density 57.06.090 without the need to receive a variance Bonus. pursuant to this chapter. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 48.06.210. Lot Size; Lot Dimensions; III 11-16-82. Ord. No. 1908, Sec. 1; 2-19-85. Ord. Density Transfer. No. 1974, Sec. 2; 10-18-88. Ord. No. 2053, Sec. 48.06.215. Setbacks. 3, 04-07-92.) (Ord. No. 2091, Amended,04/19/94) 48.06.220. Height Limits. • 48.06.225. Lot Coverage. 48.04.155. Height of Structures. S 1. On a lot or lots being developed as one 48.06.195. Permitted Uses; R-7.5, R-10, - project of' 1/2 acre or greater in total area for the R-15 Zones. 4 R-0 and R-3 zones and attached development in Uses permitted in the R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 the R-5 zone, the structure height may average zones are as follows: 40 feet over the entire site with no individual 1. One single family dwelling per lot. i structure exceeding 50 feet. 2. Zero lot line dwellings. n 2. On lots of less than 1/2 acre, or for 3. Raising of produce, provided no sales a, detached residential structures in the R-0, R-3 office is maintained on the lot. a4 and R-5 zones, the height of a structure which 4. Animals kept for owner's use with no r• qualifies as new construction shall not exceed 28 commercial activity allowed. Large animals are feet on flat lots or 35 feet on sloped lots. The permitted only in the R-10, R-15 zones and only 'w height of an alteration that does not qualify as under the following conditions: re new construction shall not exceed 35 feet on flat• a. The lot area-shall be a minimum of d; or sloped lots. one acre. The total •number of large animals p 3. A structure that qualifies as new allowed on a specific property shall be d: ' construction shall not exceed a height of 28 feet determined by dividing the total area of the re on flat lots or 35 feet on sloped lots on any lot property by 15,000 square feet per animal over s in the R-0, 3 or 5 zones if the structure is closer the age of six months. ' than 60 feet to a lot carrying a residential (Rev. 04/02/96; bp) 48-14 ( 1 411 j1 J 1 -,,E,LO PMENT CODE means or way by d. Area in stream buffer areas of major vehicles have ingress to stream corridors, wetlands and Distinctive m a lot or use. Natural Areas, _ :,rccessory Building: Any detached e. Area in public open space and parks. ddtdtng the use of which is subordinate and Procedure for site by site density consistent with that of the main building and determination is defined by LOC 48.08.280. which is consistent with the buildings and uses 13. Development: Any man-made change to allowed in the zone in which it is located. improved or unimproved real property,including, 4. Alter: To change or modify the but not limited to, construction, installation or construction or occupancy of a building or alteration of a building or other structure, change structure or use of land. of use, land division, establishment or 5. (See Commission - name change. Ord. No. 2091: termination of a right of access, storage on the Sec. 4, 4/19/94). land, grading, clearing, removal or placement of 6. Building: Any structure used or intended soil,paving,dredging,filling,excavation,drilling for supporting or sheltering any use or or removal of trees. occupancy. 14 Development Permit: Written 7. Buildine Envelope: The area within the authorization for a development to proceed as setback lines required by the Zoning Ordinance described in an application, such authorization for any lot. having been given in accordance with this 8. Buildine - Main: A building within chapter. which the principal use of a lot is conducted. 15. Distinctive Natural Area: A distinctive 9. City: The City of Lake Oswego; its natural feature identified in the Comprehensive officers, employees and agents. Plan. 10. City Manaeer or Manager: The person 16. Duplex: A building on a lot designed to holding the position of CityManager or any g contain two dwelling units and used for officer or employee of the City of Lake Oswego. residential purposes. 11. Commission: The City of Lake Oswego 17. Dwelling, Multiple: A building on one Development Review Commission or Planning or more lots designed to contain three or more Commission, depending on context dwelling units and used for residential purposes. 12. Density Transfer Acre/Acreage: 18. Dwelling. Single-Family: A detached Potentially hazardous or resource areas within dwelling unit designed and used for that purpose. which development may occur or from which 19. Dwelling Unit: One or more habitable density may be transferred to buildable portions rooms which arc occupied or which are intended of the site, only after it has been demonstrated or designed to be occupied by one family with by the applicant that development can occur in housekeeping facilities for living, sleeping, compliance with criteria established by the sanitary facilities, cooking and eating. Development Code and Development Standards, 20. Dwelling. Zero Lot Line: A building 1 LOC Chapter 49. Density Transfer Acre includes providing two dwelling units on two separate lots the following: and used for residential purposes. a. Area within the floodway and the 21. Easement: A grant of the right to u • floodway fringe as shown on U.S. Army Corp of designated land for specific ` Engineers flood maps, g Pe purposes. �. 22. Family: An individual or two or ,ore 4- b. Area of over 25% slope, persons related by blood, marriage, egal c. Area in known landslide areas or in adoption, or associated by guardi hip, ' areas shown to have potential for severe or conservatorship or a foster care relatio• hip, or ` moderate landslide hazard, a group of not more than five pers. s not so - iii (Rev. 04/02/96; bp) 49-6 illiF I V dcts bddh4 - , ��/ 6 1 1 9 4 9" 5(1,0 1/ p ie 7aZ `r. .E § 49.30.505 a. Minor developments described in en. If LOC 49.20.110 (2)(e)(f). er J.a•property b. Major developments described in oci as application, the LOC 49.20.115 (2)(d) through (h). thorize.the application in . 2. A preapplication conference is not ,.> i -.Planning Director may accept required for other development applications, but rs c !':.',cation for review. For the purposes of may be scheduled at the request of the applicant esi( s section, "owner" includes a public body or or when required by the Planning Director. • ma blic agency with authority to exercise the 3. The purpose of the preapplication 1? wer of eminent domain. conference is to discuss the proposal, the rd. No.2088, Enacted.03/03/94) applicable criteria and the requirements for completing an application. nc ).30.510. Application for Development. (Ord.No.2088,Enacted,03/03/94;Ord.No.2129,Amended. An application for a ministerial, minor or 04/02 ) i f ajor.development shall be made on such forms •f d contain such information as the Planning 49.36.705. Neighborhood Contact Required f rector may require. for Certain Applications. r 'd. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) Prior to submittal of an application for a .a partition, subdivision or a major development, c tcle 49.32. Application Procedures - the applicant shall contact and discuss the h Ministerial Development. proposed development with any affected e-' neighborhood as provided in this section. The I 32.600. Review by Planning Director. Planning Director may require neighborhood r contact pursuant to•this section prior to the filing 32.600. Review by Planning Director. of an application for any other development I rial Developments shall be reviewed permit if the Director deems neighborhood i a ved by the Planning Director pursuant contact to be beneficial. LOC 49.22.210. • 1. Purpose. The purpose of neighborhood i. i d. No.2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) contact is to identify potential issues or conflicts J regarding a proposed application so 'that they tide 49.36. Application Procedures - may be addressed prior to filing. This contact is Minor and Major intended result in a better application and to Developments. expedite and lessen the expense of the review process by avoiding needless delays, appeals, 36.700. Preapplication Conference. remands or denials. The City' expects an .36.705. Neighborhood Contact Required applicant to take the reasonable concerns and for Certain Applications. recommendations of the neighborhood into 36.710. Filing an Application; consideration when preparing an application. Determination of Completeness. The City expects the neighborhood association to .36.715. Extensions or Continuances. work with the applicant to provide such input. .36.720. Withdrawing an Application. 2. The applicant shall contact by letter all recognized neighborhood associations whose .36.700. Preapplication Conference. boundaries contain all or part of the site of the 1. A preapplication conference with the proposed development and all property'owners inning Director is required for the following and residents within 300 feet of the site. If no velopment permit applications: recognized neighborhood 4ssociation is )i►i aff.v ,v. 04/02/96; bp) 49-19 • / • , • 'i .i :)J 108044414'-- - ', v• •La 25 Potter, Eugene, OR 97405 • 541.343.2364 • fax 541.341.1752 • 15 September 1998 R. Kevin Mead Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association fax: 635.7875 Kevin. You inquired about TG-16 in Lake Oswego, and asked if I can confirm a determination of"significant." • ,.� No, I cannot. We were not part of the determination process. Our task was to conduct field '' inventories and rate various educational, sce tic and recreational qualities of each site. Each quality was �'� ': rated on a numeric scale -- about 15 differen qualities, as I recall. We passed those on to Wintcrowd 414• Planning Services, they packaged them all to ether, assessed relative values, and made t►, recommendations to the City on whereto draw the line between"significant" and "not significant. ^rj What happened after that, I do not know. T teoretically, the City Council adopted the inventory, which then resulted in an "official" status for TG-1 i, and all the other sites. A.: "CG" stands for Christie Galen of Fishman Environmental Services, who assessed sites for wildlife .4' habitat values a couple of years before we di i our work. N As Sorry I cannot be of more help• The decisiofii-making process occurred after our portion of the project was completed, without our knowledge or p,u-ticipation. _4" Cordially, C / Bruce Newhouse, AICP ' VS/\* Inventories, research, and planning br wetlands, forest lands, and other natural resource . TO-AL P.01 RECEIVED AUG 1999 1381+0 C.' vrerte Court Lake "swego, Cr 97034 4110 CITY OF LAKE OSWEG0 uust 22, 1999 Dept.of Planning&Development • Lake Oswego Planning Department Lake Oswego City Hall P. C. Box 369 380 ..'_venue Lake Oswego, Cr. 97034 Gentlemen : ttantion: ''.r. Morgan 'Tracy, :_ssociate Planner Pe: Pile No. : LU99-0029 Deference is made to your Notice of Minor Development ::pp1ica- tion, dated '..ugust 9, 1999, to which I am submitting the following facts relative to any development on 1501 Country Club Drive: 1. serious drainage problem exists with that property and the adjoining homes on Verte Court, bordering on the mast. Behind my house, 1381+0 Verte Court, there is a bank which causes my home to be located much lower than the property scheduled for development. The houses in this row are having drainage problems now. I have had. gushers of water coming out of the side of the bank, running into the flat area, filling it and running beside my 4110 sidewalk over the sidewalk and over the driveway to the street, i.e. across my entire backyard. Late at night I have had to dig trenches to get the water out of my backyard, so I wouldn' t have a flooded house; water which is gushing out of the bank and eventually run- ' ning across the yard to the street. I have had experts look at the situation and work has been done to alleviate the problem somewhat; however, the gushers coming out of the bank are coming from the proposed development property. This is causing the bank to inch downward and it threatens to liquify during prolonged rainy periods. .7ith building above my property by the proposed development, I have great fear the damaging drainage problems will be greatly ac- celerated. 2. Developers were, and Probably still are, proposing three large, two-story duplex buildings directly behind me, which will mean six families living behind my house in very close proximity. This will cause, a. Noise Pollution b. '.ix Pollution c. Visual PQitUtion d. Loss of Privacy 4111 EXHIBIT 38 _ LU 99-0029 Lake Oswego planning Dept. /2 Since my backyard measures only 30 feet from the house to the • back fence (20 feet where my sun room is located) , I will have a. huge wall of buildings to look at, causing visual pollution, and no nriva cy whatsoever in :ay backyard and hone. The develw)ers stated that the buildings will be 40 feet from y fence, but that measurement has not allowed for 20-foot ratios each, reducing the 40 feet to 20 feet, adding noise pollution to the visual pollution_ and lack of privacy. There will -probably be as high as 12 to 18 cars behind me with my bedroom only 30 feet away, causing noise =oilution, and, of course, that ...any cars will cause more air _`ollution. I have an allergy -^roble. now. 3. Country Club Drive is close to the saturation _mint now with the heavy traffic it supports. I have to ':;:.it as _auc=- as 10 minutes to exit from Verte Court. .dd as high a number as �1E cars from this development, another 15 or more cars for the two develor- ments one block away Last and 'jest each side, and this becomes an unbelievable traffic mess. 4. I believe that the City wants to preserve trees. I have a huge tree, at least 2 1/2 feet diameter, located 13 feet from my bedroom. Removing any trees by a developer could cause others to fall down by weakening the windbreak. iiy big tree is depending on 1111 the trees on the developers property for the windbreak it needs. If a development occurs, I shall most likely have to remove the tree because of the removal of its windbreak, or live in terror that it will fall on my house. if the City wants to preserve trees, the best use of the property could be a wildlife area. 5. 't the present time, the property proposed for this develop- ment has been &nd is an unplanned wildlife refuge. I have fed, for 13 years, at least 15 different species of birds, 2 species of squirrels, chipmunks, etc. 6. Verte Court homes were built approximately 1976-7, mostly single-level homes, except those on the Last side where the hill drops s off, have daylight basenents. To my knowledge, the surround- ing area does not have dual-family hones. They are mostly upper- middle class homes, whose occupants have, up to now, been able to enjoy peace, quiet and privacy. :. development of dual-family, two- story homes, could ruin what has been a lovely and quiet neighbor- hood . Should the developer decide to build compatible housing, such as one-story individual homes, the neighborhood could retain more quiet and eye-appealing features, plus more privacy. Dual- family, dual-level buildings are bound to depreciate the value of Verte Court homes. I uf) v 1 Lake Oswego1Planning • ?e resen_tatives of the Planning Del)art_:tent are welcome to come to : * ho::?e to review the facts I have stated. above. Thank you very :much for your attention to the =_Dove-tatters. Very truly yours, (f r ►-� - Phone : 635-8537 4110 4110 v19j rA "v.% • , _ 0 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Ryan belby Matrix Development Corporation 6900 SW Haines Street, Plaza 2, Suite 200 Tigard, OR 97223 May 14, 1999 RE: LU 99-0029, Three lot partition of 1501 Country Club Road Dear Mr. Selby: The above referenced application has been reviewed for completeness. Staff has found several items that need to be submitted prior to determining the application complete. These are described more fully below: Zoning Requirements. With regard to lot size of the proposed parcels, you need to submit a revised plan showing lots after access easement areas have been deducted. Lot orientation requires front lot lines be parallel and closest to Country Club Road. • Setbacks will need to be redrawn showing the proper orientation of the parcels as follows: Front=25 feet, Rear=30 feet, East Side (abutting R-10 zone) 15 feet except for Parcel 3 since this is technically not a flag lot which should have 10 foot setbacks. The West Side setback is a minimum of 10 feet but cannot encroach into the access easement. The height limit for Parcel 3 is determined by calculating the difference between the highest and lowest points on the proposed structure footprint. If the difference is less than 10 feet, then the height is limited to 28 feet. The height limit for Parcels 1 and 2 are limited by the Flag Lot requirements. Flag Lot Requirements. 48.19.010 (2) Include a conceptual plan of complete parcelization of the subject property. Note the lot areas have been decreased as a result of the access easement. If no further partitioning is anticipated,this should be clearly stated and even included in the proposal. If subsequent parcelization is anticipated, there are serious questions relating to infrastructure and utilities that will need to be resolved. 48.19.020 (5)The site plan must indicate where addresses and mailboxes will be located. 48.19.025(1) Lot Configuration. There is nothing impracticable about the placement of the homes on the neighboring lots that forces a sideways configuration of the proposed lots. Issues regarding separation will be addressed through 48.19.030 (1) 48.19.030(3) Building Height. You need to provide photos and height estimates (or survey) of all the abutting homes around the subject property to establish a baseline • average height for this report. • EXHIBIT 39 i 9 9 LU 99-0029 Icktqe 380"A"Avenue • Post Office Box 369 • Lake Oswego,Oreg Planning Divieion- (5031 h35-n2en • Building Division-;5031 635-0390 • Engineering Divisi. 48.19.035(3) Fencing, Landscaping. Either a written waiver needs to be submitted as • part of this application or you will be required to install a screening fence. Additionally, a landscape plan for each six foot wide rear yard buffer is required as well as for any tree removal mitigation. 48.19.035 (4) You will need to identify and address the criteria for the trees that will be removed as a result of this partition as discussed later in this letter. For each tree removed, at least one tree must be replaced. Indicate these mitigation trees as part of the landscape plan or on a separate sheet. Lake Oswego Development Standards. I have included a copy of Russ Chevrette's comments from the pre-app for you to review again. I have stricken the irrelevant parts now that you have proposed a three lot minor development, rather than a major subdivision development. LODS 5, Street Lights. A street light will not be required along Country Club Road LODS 7, Parking, Loading, and Bicycle Access. Respond to the applicable criteria in your narrative. LODS 12, Drainage for Minor Development. You neglected this standard entirely and this one is very crucial. On Page 5 of the narrative there is mention of storm drainage improvements, yet there are no plans, illustrations, or engineering calculations provided to determine what this facility will look like or how it will perform. LODS 14, Utilities. Please refer to Russ' comments. Of greatest concern is the fact that there is no sewer fronting this property. An extension will be required. It is also • somewhat inefficient to run three separate services requiring three trenches and • • possibly three periods of excavation to the sewer line in the street, but this isP-1, 1r' allowable. I would instead prefer a small combined private service for these homes. ,,,,,t4i Similarly the water service should be combined into one trench and installed simultaneously. '11)a►►i�, ,,, LODS 16, Hillside Protection. A slope analysis showing areas of slope between 0- I j eu Oc 11%, 12-19%, 20-49% and 50%+ is required. In this analysis, show the amount of land area within each category, and the amount of land area in each category that will be disturbed for the common driveway and home sites. A grading plan is also required. LODS 18, Access. The access standard prohibits direct access to an arterial. Access management is another vitally important part of this application. Of particular interest is whether eventual joint access (with some improvement) with the property to the west would be acceptable. If so, it should be included in the proposal. LODS 19, On Site Circulation. On the grading plan, illustrate how the common driveway will meet the 15% maximum grade. Include vision clearance areas on this plan as well. 19.020 (5) A single family home driveway will not meet the city's standard details for a fire truck turnaround. The common driveway along with a suitable turnaround will need to be constructed as part of the approval of this application to prior to final plat approval. Page 12 of the narrative mentions the proposed driveways and access drives meet the City standards shown in the City's S LU 99-0029 Incompleteness Letter L C Page 2 Standard Details; however, there is no evidence to that effect. Please include any • details of the driveways that you might have. Chapter 55, Tree Removal. You are required to address tree removals in conjunction with this minor development. You will need to number the trees in the field, and then identify each tree's size (diameter), species (common name is okay), and relative condition(good, fair, poor). The locations of the trees have already been plotted. Indicate which trees will require removal in order to situate the proposed access drive, utilities, and any necessary grading as part of the site improvements. Using a different symbol, show the additional trees that will most likely require removal in order to situate the homes. Trees and tree protection, as I'm sure you are aware, are a vitally important part of this application. Chapter 57, Solar Access. Bad news and good news. The narrative fails to address the entire test for meeting the basic requirement. While it accurately notes that the first part of the test(north-south lot dimension of 90 feet or more) is met, the second part (front lot line oriented within 30 degrees of east-west) is not. As you have proposed the front lot line is oriented north-south, or 90 degrees of east-west. On the bright side, since there doesn't seem to be any impracticality in orienting the lots pursuant to LOC 48.19.025(1), the front lot lines become east-west oriented, and therefore will comply with the basic requirement. Please revise the site plan and narrative to demonstrate compliance with this standard. • Three copies each of the above information should be provided. Enclosed is an acknowledgement form for you to return indicating that you either intend to submit additional material within 180 days or you do not intend to submit the additional material. If you choose to not submit additional material, the application will be reviewed with the information provided. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, C. MORGAN TRACY Associate Planner Encl: Acknowledgment Form Russ Chevrette's Pre App Comments C: Mimi Ducas,WRG Design, Inc. • A t�''�'�� LU 99-0029 Incompleteness Letter Page 3 May 14, 1999 RE: LU 99-0029 Dear Mr. Selby: • Y As indicated in the attached correspondence, your application has been deemed to be incomplete. You must acknowledge, in writing, your intent to provide the material required to complete the application, as identified in the attached correspondence. To do this, please sign below and return this acknowledgment by May 31, 1999 to: Department of Planning and Development Attention: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner City of Lake Oswego 380 "A" Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 If you indicate your intent to complete the application, you will have 180 days from the date of this letter to submit the required material. If you fail to submit the material within 180 days, your application will be deemed void. The casefile regarding the application will then be closed. If you do not return this acknowledgment, such action will be considered to be a refusal • under the meaning accorded in LOC 49.36.710. Your application will then be processed based upon the information you have previously submitted. Note that failure to submit sufficient evidence or material to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria is grounds for denial of the application. ACKNOWLEDGMENT I (0 intend/ 0 refuse) to provide the additional material identified in correspondence from the Department of Planning and Development, dated May 14, 1999. Signed and Acknowledged (Applicant) Date S 02 0 1 Response to request for comments PR 61-98 Proposal: Subdivide up to seven lots on Country Club Road Date: October 20, 1998 To: Liz Jacob, Associate Planner From: Russ Chevrette, Engineering Tech. III Owner: Jade Claase Applicant: Mimi Doukas, WRG Design Inc. Site Location: 1501 Country'Club Road Tax Map: 2 1 E 4 DB, Tax Lot 2900 The following comments have been based upon a site visit and pre-application materials submitted on October 6, 1998. A revised site plan with greater density was received on October 15. Engineering staff will be evaluating this proposal against the codes and standards listed below. The applicant is advised to address these comments in the application's narrative and graphics. For an application to be considered complete, the level of detail must be sufficient to demonstrate that the standards of approval are met in their entirety, and that the project can in fact be built as proposed. DS 5 —Street Lights -- The new street will require nstallation of standard "shoe box" street lights with an avera;e.spacing of L feet. e watt >~iPS s. a}l-c 'fffixtures on 25 • foot brown Whatley fiberglass-poles. ew light on Country Club Road will not be required if a new internal light is placed near the corner. mg' Atecr r 410,4 7v 3 •I" Alt rt: P.bT. , DS 6—Transit Svstern -- The site is an TriMet route #78. This standard will be satisfied by the construction of an internal sidewalk connecting to the asphalt path along Country Club Road. Di311.01 A4West oe.o►NeA07 s7401a.4441.4 DS 11 — 7.;� 1; ivr-De*e+oement -- Storm water detention and water quality treatment will be required of this development. The detention requirement may be waived if the applicant demonstrates the downstream system has the capacity to handle a 25-year design storm. A drainage basin map will be provided at the meeting. All storm water management facilities shall comply with the standards found in the City of Lake Oswego Surface Water Management Design_ Manual. A copy of the Manual is available from the Engineering Department. Additional methods may be found in the Surface Water Quality Facilities Technical Guidance Handbook (August 1991), adopted by Portland, Lake Oswego,.Clackamas County, and Unified Sewerage Agency. A complete application must include a drainage report in narrative form as well as the calculations and worksheets. On this site, there will be competing interests in siting the drainage facilities and the proposed open space along Country Club Road. We encourage exploration of unconventional and innovative solutions to minimize the impact on desirable stands of trees. DS 14— Utilities —The following utilities are available as stated below. In narrative and graphic forms, the applicant is required to explain and illustrate how the proposal will be served by each • utility, and whether or not any extensions or improvements to utilities will be required. Site plans must contain enough information to demonstrate that utility extensions, if required, can in fact 0 2;)3 physically serve the site. In areas of critical elevation or questionable utility capacity, the applicant shall provide surveys and/or engineering calculations to demonstrate the feasibility of the utility plan. Sanitary Sewer: The nearest sanitary sewer is located in the north shoulder of Country Club Road,just west of Verte Court. Extend an 8" sewer to the new street, �.A ..,.&. �.. .1.. �., ., / -L., (Mu Lea6E4 APetitAa 9) H ....!c.. r va .,.w. Water System and Hydrants.: There is a 10"water main behind the curb in Country Club Road, and a hydrant about 100 feet west. Install internal hydrants as required by the fire marshal. Hydrants shall be served off an 8" line. Storm Drain System.: The public storm drain terminates near the southeast corner of the site in a curbside catchbasin. Extend the system into the site and to the north property line. Provide storm drain laterals to each lot. We are especially concerned that all surface water is intercepted by catchbasins so that there will be no surface runoff from the new street onto Country Club Road. Frontage Street: Country Club Road is classified as a major arterial. It contains two travel lanes on each side of a wide center turn refuge, and 6-foot bike paths in each direction. Except as noted below under Chapter 42, no improvements to Country Club Road will be required. Internal Street: The design of the new street must incorporate a minimum a 20 feet of pavement, and provisions for positive drainage containment and interception. Given the lay of the land and the confined width of this site, it does not appear that a rural street with gravel shoulders and drainage swales will fit on this site (a 40-foot right of way would be required). ti Curbing is the only alternative that will reduce the right of way and manage storm water in the least amount of land. When a street is constructed along a neighboring property line, the City requires a minimum 3-foot buffer strip between the adjacent property and the back side of the • curb. It is also the City's policy to limit the number of access points on its arterial streets, and to promote street designs that can be used by adjacent undeveloped properties. In this case, the adjacent westerly parcel has significant redevelopment potential, so our position will be to require the new street to be along the west line of the subject property as shown on the preliminary plan. Assuming the adjacent parcel will be developed at a greater density someday, the west edge of the new street does not necessarily have to be curbed at this time. At some point in the future, the adjacent owner could add 4 to 8 feet of asphalt and a curb to access the new street. Street construction will involve cutting the grade of the existing driveway. We believe the road cut will irreparably damage the roots of the large fir trees on the west property line, and perhaps those of the trees located a few feet over the line. The applicant should engage in early conversation with the adjacent owner, and address any concerns of this nature in the application's narrative. DS 18—Access —This standard requires a minimum frontage on a public street, and must be used in conjunction with minimum lot width dimensions for the zone, if applicable. Planning staff will determine whether or not the proposal complies with this standard. Engineering staff will evaluate the traffic safety aspects of the access point. This standard also provides the City with the authority require shared access with neighboring sites. This authority will be exercised in approving. the placement and design of the new street in this development. • 0204 =' Finally, this standard states that "Direct permanent access from a development to an = • arterial street is prohibited where an alternate access is either available or is expected to be available." The applicant should provide an exhibit such as an aerial photo to demonstrate that the proposed access is the only reasonable access given the constraints imposed by the surrounding development and topography. r` DS 19—On-site Circulation: Driveways and Fire Access Roads —This standard regulates driveway slopes and other aspects of geometric design. In this proposal, it only involves the driveways for the individual lots, which will be dealt with at the time of building permits. There should be no difficulty staying within maximum slope requirements. 54r-cc A e,,..4,,tik5 LOC Chanter 42: c.' 4 .4 n,us -- This section of code contains slope and other geometric design criteria for streets and intersections. In the narrative and in graphic form, demonstrate compliance with all applicable sections of this code. From our field investigation, the existing driveway begins at a 13.5% slope at the back edge of the sidewalk and quickly becomes a 17.5% slope until it flattens out near the existing home. The maximum street grade is 15%, with a relatively flat(5%) landing area for the first 25 feet. A complete application must include a preliminary street profile. On a grading, show the limits of cut and fill, and explain how the cut area will be sloped back or retained. This chapter contains new language effective February 19, 1998. It requires the construction of a five foot wide sidewalk on the internal street. Furthermore, it requires developments to reconstruct substandard sidewalks on their frontage. In this case, the 5-foot asphalt sidewalk on Country Club Road will have to be replaced with a 6-foot wide concrete 111 sidewalk. LOC 48.20.530: Vision Clearance—Illustrate compliance with this standard on the site plan. If the bank along Country Club Road will need cutting back, illustrate it on a grading plan. Although we believe there is adequate stopping sight distance over the crest to the west, the applicant is advised to substantiate its adequacy with field measurements according to standard (AASHTO) engineering practice for the 85`" percentile eastbound speed. Traffic Study There is a far greater random variation in the day to day traffic volumes on Country Club Road than the number trips this project will generate. A traffic study would not produce any useful conclusions. Miscellaneous Information: • Final construction drawings shall include an erosion control plan complying with Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans Technical Guidance Handbook adopted by the City of Portland and the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County, and Lake Oswego Code Chapter 52 (Erosion Control). • Final construe:ion drawings for public improvements shall be drawn according to the City of Lake Oswego CAD Standards. Design Requirements and Standard Details.. The Manual is available from the Engineering Department. Details may be downloaded from our website: wwww.ci.oswe go.onus. 0205 - • • • 0206 Memorandum Date: December 9, 1999 To: Morgan Tracy From: Russell Chevrette, Engineering Tech. III Subject: Revised plans for Maple Leaf---LU 99-0029 WRG Design submitted revised drawings that were circulated to me for comment on October 13, 1999. The revisions are primarily found on sheet C3,and they incorporate many of my earlier suggested revisions regarding the sewer,water line,and the need for a different turnaround concept. The revised plans include a new feature: a swale is located along the east side of the driveway, and new details of the swale and turnaround have been provided on sheet C6. (I told Jeff Curran of WRG that a swale planted with wetland vegetation was one of the approved water quality treatment facilities in our design manual. We did not discuss feasibility) To the best of my knowledge, no revisions to the narrative have been made to this date, and the requested drainage report has not been submitted. The following comments are offered in the interest of providing immediate feedback,and under the presumption that no other materials will be forthcoming. Engineering staff has reviewed the swale concept and finds that it does not meet the design criteria for facilities of this kind. By definition, a swale must have a bottom width of no less than four feet and side slopes no steeper than 4H:1 V to achieve a treatment function. A one-foot deep swale would therefore occupy a space that is 12 feet wide from top edge to top edge. The grading shown on the tree removal • plan (sheet C5) illustrates a much narrower swale. The site plan(sheet C3) illustrates and un-dimensioned swale and refers us to details on sheet C6. The detail sheet illustrates a swale that is not to scale, but stipulates 3:1 side slopes with no specified bottom width(requiring a minimum of 6 feet by this detail). Furthermore,the design manual requires treatment of 100%of newly constructed surfaces. The first third of the new driveway does not drain to a water quality facility. Too many design parameters are non- complying or left up to chance for engineering staff to recommend approval, even with substantial conditions. We must also note that the swale will be breached by at least two driveways and a turnaround. At those locations,the swale will be culverted and cannot serve a biofiltration function. Two or three-car wide driveways can be safely assumed, and the turnaround will require about 26 feet of culvert. In total, 80 to 100 feet of swale on the flattest part of the site will not be performing its function. South of lot 3, the swale will retain its integrity but the grade steepens somewhat and there are no design calculations provided to prove that the design velocity for adequate treatment has not been exceeded. There is also no explanation offered as to how the swale discharges over the bank when it reaches Country Club Road. Since the applicant is proposing to cut most of the Douglas Fir trees due to root rot fungus, it appears that a more elegant WQ solution would be to construct a small pond or meandering swale though the area south of lot 3. In conclusion,this application's greatest shortcoming is the lack of a drainage report explaining what is needed to meet the drainage standard, and the worksheets and calculations necessary to substantiate its claims. In addition,the report must state who will have the responsibility of maintaining the swale. We cannot accept a swale that is a front yard feature crossed by driveways. In our experience,property owners will find it a maintenance nuisance and they will fill it in. (We can point to Rebecca Lane in the plat of Rosewood Estates as our"best failure".) EXHIBIT 40 LU 99-0029 �J O 2 0 I pct y t' Response to request for comments FLU 99-UU29 • Proposal: Three lot partition on Country Club Road west of Verte Court Date: November 24, 1999 To: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner From: Russ Chevrette, Engineering Tech. III Owner/Applicant: Matrix Development Site Location: 1501 Country Club Road Tax Map: 2 1 E The following comments have been based upon several site visits and in response to final application materials submitted on November 9, 1999. DS 5—Street Lights -- Boones Ferry Road has intermittent cobra head lights. The closest light is at the intersection of Verte Court, about 200 feet to the east of the site's driveway. The insignificant increase in traffic produced by this development does not warrant additional illumination on Country Club Road. DS 6—Transit System -- Boones Ferry Road is a transit route. There is an asphalt sidewalk • connecting this site to the nearest bus stop. This standard is met. DS 12 —Drainage. Minor Develonment --The applicant has submitted a drainage report and site plan to address this standard. A water quality treatment plan is required of development that will result in the creation of impervious area in excess of 6,060 square feet (two equivalent service units) at build-out. The new homes and common driveway are estimated to produce 18,814 square feet of impervious area. The applicant has chosen to meet the requirement with a dry detention pond located at the south end of the property. Roof drains and driveway runoff will be directed to the pond, and the collected water will be released into the 8" storm drain in Country Club Road. The driveway will be constructed with a valley cross section , and a private catchbasin will intercept the majority of the runoff and direct it to the pond. Topographic constraints prevent the catchbasin from capturing the runoff from the first 70 feet of driveway, which will drain onto the sidewalk. Staff recommends the installation of a strip drain or area drain where the driveway meets the sidewalk, and conncecting the strip drain directly to the existing public system. The public system eventually discharges into a tributary of Tryon Creek. The application contains a worksheet demonstrating that the proposed pond has sufficient volume to serve its intended purpose. The site plan demonstrates that the pond can fit in the area that has been allocated for it, and can be constructed with the requisite shallow side slopes. The applicant has further demonstrated that the downstream conveyance system has adequate capacity, so storm water detention is not required. The site, incidentally, is located at the top of a drainage basin, so no additional surface runoff from upstream property is expected to storm drain in Country Club • Road. 0 S While the pond design is conceptually conforms to design standards in a general sense, the • site plan is not a construction plan per se, and there remains opportunities for refining the pond's location and shape to minimize grading and impact on trees. The most important features in pond design are maintaining shallow water depth and residence time. These objectives can be met by various pond configurations and creative design features. A final drainage report and plan will be required. Items remaining to be addressed are: optimal pond configuration and location, specification of the release rate and design of the flow control structure, landscaping, and provision for maintenance access. A representative cross-sections of the length and width will be required to evaluate impact on adjacent trees, and to assure compliance with all aspects of design standards. Finally, the pond will be a private facility, and the upkeep of its landscaping and piping will be the responsibility of the homeowners. This partition must have CC&R's that spell out these responsibilities. DS 14—Utilities — Sanitary Sewer: There is an 8" sanitary sewer line terminating in the shoulder of Country Club Road on the west side of Verte Court. The offsite extension from the terminal manhole to this site's driveway is approximately 200 feet. It will be constructed under the existing asphalt pathway. Onsite, a public sewer will be constructed in the common driveway to the most northerly lot. Service laterals will be installed from the main line to the east edge of the utility easement. A sewer extension to the north property line will not be required because the unincorporated territory to the north will have access to the future extension of the sewer in Redwood Court. • Water System and Hydrants: A 2"public water line will be extended up the common driveway from an existing 10"water main in the north shoulder of Country Club Road. There is a hydrant in the north shoulder of Country club Road, about 130 west of the driveway. Storm Drain System: There is a catch basin at the top end of an 8" storm drain Country Club Road. The catchbasin is located at the approximate center of this site, and is a logical connection point for the outfall of the water quality pond. Staff notes that the site plan(sheet C3) incorrectly drawn the storm drain along the property line when it is in fact located at the edge of the paved roadway. Staff also notes that the connection to the storm drain is depicted as a manhole. A cost savings could be realized by changing the existing catchbasin to an oversized model, connecting to it, and eliminating the need for a manhole. Frontage Street: Country Club Road is a major arterial consisting of two west bound lanes, two east bound lanes, a center turn refuge lane, and six-foot bike paths on each side. The north side of the road is curbed, and there is a 5-foot wide asphalt sidewalk. No street improvements will be required on Country Club Road. The existing asphalt sidewalk will be destroyed by sewer construction. Its replacement shall be according to current standards, which, in this case, mean a 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk (per LOC Chapter 42). There is little opportunity to provide visual interest by meandering the sidewalk because the adjacent embankment limits the available room for a sidewalk. Near the Verte Court end of the replacement however,there may be an opportunity to meander the sidewalk away from the curb. Staff does not advise a meander because the resulting landscape strip would become a"no man's land". The owners of the lot at the corner of Verte Court would not perceive the landscape strip as their responsibility to maintain, and it would become a weedy eyesore in short order. Internal Street: The internal street will be a common driveway jointly maintained by the • three lot owners. CC&R's will have to be devised to address maintenance issues. The driveway 2 2r9 ^ will be built to conform to the minimum standards of a fire lane. A turnaround will be provided between lots 2 and 3, and its dimensions will accommodate a large vehicle such as a fire truck or • garbage hauler. The applicant proposed to use "Turftrack" open-grid pavers in the turnaround. This is acceptable provided that the bedding is designed to handle heavy loads, typically 38,000 lbs. at the rear axle. Porous pavers, it should be noted, do not necessarily have to be planted with sod. In some applications, gravel or cinder rock are preferred, especially if one property owner is expected to maintain the grass due its proximity to his private adjacent lawn. (More fodder for the CC&R's.) On the final construction drawings, we will require more detailed specifications on the construction of the turnaround. Other Utilities: All utilities will be installed underground from the existing poles on Country Club Road. The common driveway should be depicted as a public utility easement on the partition plat. Some of the private utilities, especially natural gas, prefer to install their facilities outside the paved area, so the easement might have to be wider than the paved surface. The applicant is urged to contact the various utilities prior to drafting the final plat. DS 18—Access — Access to the arterial street will be provided from a shared driveway. There are no alternate access routes 4 available to this site due to a combination of adverse topographic ---_ • t .c..it features and the developed nature of * ' •= • ' the adjacent properties. The adjacent ' property to the west, however, could ' %'-:• ' : - y• • someday be partitioned in like " _ - `.x- manner, resulting in additional � tuning movements in close III proximity. Staff suggests that the applicant's shared driveway should _ __ _ afford the opportunity for providing - - access to the westerly lot as well, if - _ _ the westerly lot is ever partitioned. , The conditions under which this could be accomplished are probably too involved to be adequately covered by a note on the partition plat. The plat should simply state that the common drive is an easement for the benefit of the westerly parcel if and when the westerly parcel is approved for partition. The applicant may wish to record a separate document, subject to city review and approval, that more thoroughly addresses specific concerns such as maintenance. DS 19—On-site Circulation Standards - Driveways and Fire Access Roads -- The proposed access driveway has been designed to not exceed 15%slope. With the construction of the proposed drainage system, and the installation of a strip drain or area drain where the driveway meets the sidewalk, this standard will be satisfied. See additional comments under DS 14— Utilities, Intenal Street. LOC Chanter 42: Streets and Sidewalks --This section of code contains slope and other geometric design criteria for streets, sidewalks and intersections. The only applicable section of • •, :, -4 it :..a 3 r this chapter pertains to the sidewalk on Country Club Road. The existing asphalt sidewalk will be ireplaced with a 6-foot concrete sidewalk after the sewer construction is completed. LOC 48.20.530: Vision Clearance — Staff has observed the available east/west sight distance on Country Club Road and finds that it is adequate. Left turns into and out of the proposed driveway are facilitated by the existence of a center refuge lane. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL On the final plat: Include a note stating that the common driveway is, in addition to a reciprocal access easement, a public utility easement. Create a drainage easement on the southerly lot to accommodate the water quality facility. Prior to recording the final plat: Complete the construction of all public improvements, or provide a financial guarantee for their construction pursuant to LOC 49.58.1415. Submit CC&R's that address the maintenance responsibility issues of the shared driveway,the emergency vehicle turnaround, and the water quality facility. • Prior to approval of the final construction drawings: pp Submit a plan and profile of the proposed sewer and water line extensions. Submit a final drainage plan and supporting calculation for the water quality treatment facility. The plan shall include representative cross-sections of the pond, designed outlet control structures, a plan and profile of associated piping, and a strip drain or area drain before the driveway meets the sidewalk. The water quality treatment facility shall be designed according to the standards found in the current edition of the City's surface water management design manual. Submit a plan and profile of the common driveway, together with construction specifications for the turnaround. The engineer shall certify that the turnaround will be able to support the axle weight of a loaded fire truck. Prior to issuance of the first building permit: Record the final plat. Complete all public improvements, the shared driveway, and the water quality treatment facility, and provide the City with certified"as-built"drawings complying with the City's standards for record drawings. • t' � 4 �� Response to reouest for comments [LU 99-UU29 Proposal: Three lot partition on Country Club Road Date: October 6, 1999 To: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner From: Russ Chevrette, Engineering Tech. III Owner: Matrix Development Corporation Applicant: WRG Design, Inc. Site Location: 1501 Country Club Road Tax Map: 2 1 E 04DB, tax lot 2900 The following comments have been based upon several site visits and in response to a revised narrative dated June 25, 1999. DS 5—Street Lights --There is a street light on the utility pole at Verte Court, about 125 feet east of this site. The City does not normally require additional street light installation on in-fill minor development. This standard is adequately met. DS 6—Transit System --Not applicable to developments creating fewer than four living units. DS 7—Off-Street Parking.Loading and Bicycle Access -- There is an apparent conflict • between the fire department turnaround on lot 2 and the contemporaneous use of this area as the driveway in front of a presumed garage on lot 2. Even though the required parking for lot 2 could be interpreted as being located inside the garage, it is unreasonable to assume that the driveway will always remain unobstructed. Fire apparatus turnarounds are posted with no parking signs. Enforcement of no parking in front of someone's garage is impractical and is a recipe for conflict between the City and the property owner. DS 11 —Drainage. Maior Develoament -- This standard is not normally applicable to a minor development, but engineering staff believes that LOC 49.22.215(2) requires the application to conform to major development standard because it is creating a private street (the shared driveway/fire lane). Even if it is determined that this standard is not applicable, significant elements of the major development standard are linked to the Minor Development Drainage Standard (DS 12) by cross-references found in the latter standard. Engineering staff takes the position that the shared driveway/fire lane is physically identical to a private street, and that the project's bottom line obligation to address drainage issues is the same irrespective of which drainage standard is used. DS 12—Drainage. Minor Development -- Since the applicant has responded according the format found in the minor development standard, staff comments are listed under this heading. This proposal fails to comply with this standard and other drainage related regulations in several respects. �r. il.. Drainage off the driveway is not addressed. On similar proposals, we have required 1111 measures to ensure that stormwater does not enter the roadway. While we are not asking for an actual design, there must be evidence in the record that compliance is possible before the project can be approved. DS 19 reiterates this requirement in more specific language. The applicant states that roof drains will drain onto the lots 6 feet away from the buildings (page 13). Lake Oswego requires the discharge from roof drains to be taken to "an approved system," per the plumbing code. There is no evidence in the record demonstrating that an approved system is available for direct connection, or that one will be built. The application does not address applicable water quality requirements. This proposal is non-exempt because the impervious area that will result from the development of three homesites and the private road will exceed 6,060 square feet. Staff estimates over 15,000 square feet of impervious area will be constructed by the time the project is built-out. See the attachment to this report(LO design manual, Chapter 4, page 2) for an explanation of the non-exempt threshold. DS 14—Utilities — The site can be served with minor extensions of all necessary utilities. No utility extensions to the north property line will be required because there is limited development potential to the north, and recent sewer construction and pending storm drain improvements in the vicinity of Cameo Court will adequately handle the territory to the north. There are, however, some discrepancies between the utility site plan and the narrative. The resolution of these discrepancies require speculation on the part of the City which, in effect, inappropriately transfers the design and the burden of proof from the applicant to the City. Sanitary Sewer: Throughout the narrative,the existing sewer is refered to as"adjacent" 411 and"along the southern end of this site." The site plan, however, is a more accurate portrayal of the existing conditions, and what will be needed to provide services to the three lots. The City's sewer system currently terminates at a manhole located in the north shoulder of Country Club Road near the west edge of Verte Court. The offsite extension of the sewer(from the existing manhole to a new manhole at the site driveway) is approximately 190 feet. The continuation of the system up the driveway will require an additional 225 feet of public sewer, terminating in a manhole at the north end. The site plan does not illustrate the terminal manhole,and is drawn in a fashion that makes it appear as if the sewer in the driveway will be a shared private system. The City does not allow the construction of shared private sewers. Water System and Hydrants: There is a 10"water main in the north edge of Country Club Road, and there is a hydrant in the shoulder of Country Club Road about 125 feet west of the proposed driveway. There is a discrepancy between the narrative's description of what will be built to service the lots and the way it is illustrated on the site plan. The narrative states no public water extensions will be necessary, but the site plan illustrates only one line going up the driveway with three services taken off that line. No pipe dimensions are offered, so we assume the drawing intends to construct a conventional 2"line up the driveway with standard'/4" or 1" house services teed into it. Staff assumes the drawing is a more accurate portrayal of the consulting engineer's intent than the verbal description. The 2" line would therefore be a public line with a blow-off assembly at the north end, and meters installed on the service lines to each lot. Regarding hydrant location and fire suppression, LOC Chapter 15, which adopts the Uniform Fire Code, contains regulatory language when a building is located more that 150 feet • from a water supply on a public street(UFC 903.2). The application does not comply with this 13 regulation because all three building envelopes are located farther than 150 feet from the water source (hydrant) on the adjacent public street. The Fire Marshall may waive the requirement at his discretion, but there is no evidence in the record that the Fire Marshall has been approached for a waiver. Unless a waiver is obtained, the applicant will be required to install a fire line and hydrant in the shared driveway. Storm Drain System: The site slopes towards County Club Road. Staff notes that there is a catchbasin along the curb in the approximate center of the lot. As mentioned above under the drainage standard, the application falls short of explaining how site-generated runoff will be directed to an approved drain system. The City should not be expected to second guess how this will be achieved, and should not be placed in the position of designing something for the applicant and conditioning the development to construct it. Frontaee Street: Country Club Road is a four lane major arterial with a center refuge lane and 6-foot bike paths. The frontage has been improved with a standard vertical curb, drainage, and a five-foot asphalt curbline path. No improvements will be required to the street, but see comments found under the heading "LOC Chapter 42"for sidewalk requirements. Internal Street: Comments for the internal street are found under DS 19 because a flag-lot private driveway is proposed. The private drive/fire lane will have to be designed to bear the weight of an emergency vehicle. Other Utilities: All utility connections will be provided underground from a utility pole located adjacent to the west edge of the proposed driveway. Future utility extensions/connections: As noted in the applicant's discussion under the Access Standard(narrative page 15),the property to the west could be developed in a fashion similar to the current proposal. Staff finds it would be an unreasonable duplication of utility construction to have redundant parallel sewer lines and water lines a few feet away on the • property to the west if and when the westerly property is subdivided. This is an additional reason to require the construction of public sewer and water lines in the shared driveway. Minimum pipe sizes will suffice (unless a hydrant is required). Staff will also require the entire width of the access easement to be a public utility easement abutting the property to the west, enabling the future connection to sewer and water without additional easement acquisition. DS 16—Hillside Protection — This standard is applicable because there are isolated areas in excess of 50% slope. The slope survey is not stamped by a surveyor, so the source of the contour information(aerial photos?)remains an open question. The narrative states "the driveway has been shifted to the north at the entrance to preserve two additional trees for buffering and screening to the east." Staff believes this statement should be corrected to state that the driveway has been shifted to the east to provide buffering and screening to the neighbor's property to the west. The curve in the driveway appears to be an attempt to align the driveway between desirable trees onsite and other trees on the west property line. Nevertheless,the proposed driveway cut appears to severely impact at least two significant fir trees on the west property line, and those trees are designated for removal on the tree removal plan. The stated conservation efforts do not clearly fulfilled by the proposed driveway alignment and grading. The narrative should contain a more in-depth analysis weighing the pros and cons saving one group of trees versus another, with specific references to their tag numbers. Unless such an analysis is provided, it is difficult to justify that the proposed alignment is the best among several variations. • 01_' i4 DS 18—Access — This standard prohibits the permanent direct access to an arterial street. The • application does not offer a future street plan for alternate access or a plan to convert the private driveway into a future public street that would comply with public street standards upon conversion to a public street. No variance for the permanent driveway onto the arterial has been sought. The City has an established record of requiring variances to this standard when a new permanent access will be created,even if the variance is obviously the only way to develop the property. The flag lot resolution (R 98-28) involved a review of this standard and resulted in an amendment to the section requiring a minimum frontage on a public street, but it did not amend the section prohibiting permanent access without a variance. This is sufficient reason to delay or deny the application in its present form. DS 19—On-site Circulation Standards- Driveways and Fire Access Roads -- The private drive's proposed 20-foot width complies with this standard. The 20-foot width could be reduced to 12 feet or so once it reaches a distance of 150 feet from the most remote building wall, or once it has cleared the required widths associated with a turnaround, whichever is the most restrictive. The narrative's statement that the drive will not exceed 15% grade is supported by the finish grade lines on the grading plan. The site plan, however,does not comply with the turnaround standards found in this standard and the Fire Code. This standard refers to applicable sections of LOC Chapter 15, which adopts the Uniform Fire Code with local amendments. The Fire Code requires a fire apparatus access road(with turnaround, when required)when the most remote building wall will be over 150 feet away from the currently available access, which is Country Club Road. The most remote corner of the home on lot 1 will be about 400 feet from Country Club Road. The private drive • must therefore satisfy all aspects of a fire apparatus access road. A turnaround is required when an access road exceeds 150 feet in length. The Fire Marshall has adopted variously shaped turnarounds, some of which are particularly suited to "tight sites" (see attachment). The applicant proposes a hammerhead turnaround incorporating the driveway on lot 2. This is not acceptable on two counts. First,turnarounds are posted as no parking areas, so they cannot be coincident with a driveway in front of a garage door where we presume parking will occur, even if the required spaces will be inside the garage. The Uniform Fire Code states"The required width of a fire apparatus access road shall not be obstructed in any manner, including parking of vehicles" (902.2.4.1). Staff rejects the applicant's argument as specious. Where will guests park? Second, the proposed back-up area falls short of the required dimensional standard by 20 feet. Sixty-five feet are required from outside edge of access road to the end of the transverse leg of the hammerhead. The site plan provides 45 feet. The applicant has not complied with DS 19 standards for approval, and staff does not believe it is appropriate to substantially redesign the project for the applicant and condition an approval accordingly. This application should be denied on this basis alone. LOC Chanter 42: Streets and Sidewalks—The application does not address this chapter. The only applicable section of this chapter pertains to sidewalk widths. It requires development occurring along a street with nonexistent or substandard sidewalks to construct or re-construct them according to the matrix found in 42.08.400. The applicant will be required to replace the 5- foot asphalt sidewalk with a 6-foot concrete sidewalk. (Note: the existing sidewalk will be completely destroyed by the sewer extension.) �- 1J , , r LOC 48.20.530: Vision Clearance — The application does not address this section of the zoning 40 code. From our field investigation, there will not be a problem with vision clearance, provided that the entrance onto Country Club Road is accomplished in a forward direction. Traffic Imnact—The site-generated traffic is too small to have a measurable impact on Country Club Road. The center refuge lane provides a safe harbor for eastbound left turns into this site. Miscellaneous -- The Tree Removal/Landscape Plan has a confused legend. Trees shown to be removed with building permits have been transposed with those scheduled to removed with road and utility construction. It is also very difficult to distinguish between the existing trees and the proposed planting. Different people in the office have reached different conclusions when examining this sheet. CONCLUSION The application fails to address applicable standards to the degree that is necescary to grant a conditional approval. Staff would have to make too many substantive additions and alterations to the narrative and the site layout, particularly with regard to drainage and access, to grant approval. This would represent an unjustifiable shift of the burden of proof from the applicant to City staff. RECOMMENDEDATION: Denial. H:IRUSS_C1LU's199-0029Matrix.CCRoadlreport.doc • I 0r„ 1 tl