The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda Packet - 2000-09-06 PM PLANNING DEPARTMENT FILE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA PACKET SEPTEMBER 6, 2000 114 p City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commiss • Wednesday, September 6, 2000 7 p.m. OREGO$ City Hall Council Chambers 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Members: Douglas P. Cushing,Chair Nan Binlcley,Vice Chair For Information: 635-0290 Douglas Kiersey Bruce Miller Julie Morales Sheila Ostly Agenda Dave Powers 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 Agenda Book * II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 17,2000 IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER LU 00-0043, an application by Beacon Homes, LLC LU 00-0061, an application by BC Kim Olympic Tae Kwon Do LU 00-0070 1AP 00-121, an application by Richard Feinberg V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 99-0060, an application by Hallmark Inns and Resorts for approval of a major modification of an earlier Development Review Permit (DR 1-93) in order to modify condition B(2). The applicant intends to eliminate a pedesrian accessway from Hallmark Drive to Collins Way to construct a fence along the west property line. The site is located at: 15455 Hallmark Drive, Tax Lot 9400 of Tax Map 21 E 8CB. Plans are on file in the Planning Department, City Hall. Since the time allowed for public testimony is limited, you are urged to review the record and be thoroughly familiar with it if you plan to testify. Staff coordinator is Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager. VI. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS • VII. ADJOURNMENT STAFF REPORT • CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANT: FILE NO: William Allred LU 99-0060 PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: Hallmark Inns and Resorts Morgan Tracy LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT: Tax Lot 9400 of August 23,2000 Tax Map 21E 8CB LOCATION: DATE OF HEARING: 15455 Hallmark Drive September 6, 2000 • COMP. PLAN DESCRIPTION: NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: GC Waluga ZONING DESIGNATION: GC I. APPLICANTS REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a major modification of an earlier Development Review Permit (DR 1-93)in order to modify condition B(2). The applicant intends to eliminate a pedesrian accessway from Hallmark Drive to Collins Way to construct a fence along the west property line. II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: Commercial Land Use Policies West End Business District Policies B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance: LOC 48.02.015 Definitions • LOC 48.10.300—48.10.315 General Commercial (GC)Zone Descriptions LOC 48.20.530 Vision Clearance LU 99-0060 Page 1of12 C. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: LOC 49.16.015 Definitions LOC 49.16.020—49.16.030 Application of Code, Planning Director Authority,Fees 11) LOC 49.16.035 Development Permit Required LOC 49.16.040 Development Permits Restricted LOC 49.20.115 Major Development LOC 49.22.200 Burden of Proof LOC 49.22.205 Development Standards LOC 49.22.220 Review Criteria for Major Developments LOC 49.22.225 Conditions of Approval LOC 49.30.500—49.30.510 Application Requirements LOC 49.36.700—49.36.720 Application Procedures LOC 49.40.900—49.44.920 Review by Hearing Body/Notice of Public Hearing LOC 49.46.1000—49.46.1035 Hearings Before Hearings Body LOC 49.56.1310 Effect of Denial; Resubmittal LOC 49.58.1400—49.58.1430 Compliance with Approved Permit; Modifications D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 5.005 - 5.020 Street Lights 6.005 - 6.040 Transit System 7.005 - 7.040 Off-street Parking, Loading& Bicycle Access 8.005 - 8.040 Park and Open Space 9.005 -9.040 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering 11.005 - 11.040 Drainage Standard for Major Development 13.005 — 13.040 Weak Foundation Soils 14.005 - 14.040 Utilities 18.005 - 18.040 Access • 19.005 - 19.040 On-Site Circulation- Driveways and Fire Access Roads 20.005 - 20.040 On-Site Circulation- Bikeways, Walkways&Accessways E. City of Lake Oswego Streets and Sidewalks(LOC Chapter 42) LOC 42.08 Sidewalks F. City of Lake Oswego Sign Code(LOC Chapter 47) LOC 47.10.410 Permanent Signs in the GC Zone G. City of Lake Oswego Tree Code(LOC Chapter 55) LOC 55.02.035 Removals in Conjunction with Major Developments H. Previous Cases DR 15-92(approval was abandoned) DR 1-93 III. FINDINGS A. Background/Existing Conditions: 1. The subject property is located on the east side of the intersection of Hallmark Drive (formerly Lana Drive)and the terminus of Collins Way near the Mercantile Village retail and office center(Exhibit 2). The site is relatively flat(Exhibit 5)and is developed with a 9,726 square foot office building. Parking and landscaping make up the balance of the site,(Exhibit 3). • LU 99-0060 Page 2 of 12 r 2. The site measures 160 feet by 170 feet,with the vacated portion of Collins Way passing through the north half of the site (Exhibit 5). Access to the site is provided via Hallmark • Drive. 3. The rectangular shaped property is bound by commercially zoned (GC) property to the east, north, and south. To the west lies a residential neighborhood(R-7.5). (Exhibit 2). B. Compliance with Criteria for Approval: As per LOC 49.22.200,the applicant for a development permit shall bear the burden of proof that the application complies with all applicable review criteria or can be made to comply with applicable criteria by imposition of conditions of approval. The applicant has submitted the documents required by LOC 49.30.500- 49.30.510 and LOC 49.36.700-49.36.710. LOC 49.20.115 -Minor Development The original application (DR 1-93)was classified as a major development. At that time, development of commercial structures was processed as a major development. However, the current code requires that"construction of a structure other than a detached single-family dwelling...which does not qualify as a ministerial development pursuant to LOC 49.20.105(2)(c)"[LOC 49.20.110(2)(d)] shall be processed as a Minor Development. However, the review criteria for minor developments involving the construction or alteration of structures as described in LOC 49.20.110(2)(d)shall utilize the development standards applicable to Major Developments [LOC 49.22.215 (2)] • Therefore,this application is appropriately being processed as a Minor Development and shall utilize the review criteria applicable to such minor developments,with the exception of the development standards which shall be those applied to Major Developments. A neighborhood meeting was held on April 24, 2000. A transcript of that meeting is included in Exhibit 7. Owners/residents of property within 300 feet of the subject property and the Waluga Neighborhood Association have been notified of the subject application. As per LOC 49.22.220, for any minor development application to be approved, it shall first be established that the proposal complies with: 1. The requirements of the zone in which it is located; GC(General Commercial) Description ILOC 48.10.305-48.10.3151 Per LOC 48.10.305,"Services—Professional Offices" is an outright permitted use in the GC zone. LOC 48.10.310 specifies site development limitations for the GC zone. The site development limitations for the GC zone have not been altered since this site was originally developed in 1993. As indicated in the staff report for DR 1-93, Exhibit 10, the subject site is in compliance with all underlying general zoning code requirements,required by this • section. LU 99-0060 Page 3 of 12 Commercial Land Use Policies(West End Land Use Policies) 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. Review of the development standards addressed below will assure compliance with these policies. 2. The Development Standards applicable to major developments; LOC 49.22.215(2)prescribes that construction or alteration of structures as described in LOC 49.20.110(2)(c)shall apply development standards applicable to "major developments". There are no streams, wetlands, hillsides, or flood plains on the subject property. The following discussion analyzes the additional applicable"major development" standards. Building Design -(2.005-2.040) There are no changes proposed to the existing building. The Building Design standard has been modified since the previous Development Review approval in 1993. Building orientation and locational siting requirements have been revised and the existing building is not in full conformance to these requirements. However, it met the requirements at the time of construction, and since no changes are proposed to the building design or location, no changes are required to these non-conforming elements. Street Lights (5.005-5.020) This standard is applicable to all development which include public or private streets, public • pathways, or parking lots. The applicant correctly notes that street lighting is provided along Hallmark Drive and in the parking lots that meet City requirements(Exhibit 6). Therefore this standard is satisfied. Transit System (6.005-6.040) This standard requires that Transit Oriented Features be provided for all new commercial developments within '/mile(1,320 feet)of a transit street. The subject site is approximately 500 feet from Boones Ferry Road, and roughly 1000 feet from Kruse Way, both classified as transit streets. There are no stops along the site's frontage, although the nearest stop is less than Vs mile away. In order to encourage pedestrian traffic,the applicant has provided 5 foot wide sidewalks along the site's frontage on Hallmark Drive. Transit Oriented Features are defined as features to support a high level of transit use such as sidewalks, accessways, bikeways, pedestrian and bicycle amenities, and walkways within developments. This standard is met by the presence of the existing sidewalks and accessway(connecting the residential neighborhood to the west with the transit corridor to the east) on the site. The proposed fence and elimination of the"accessway" could affect compliance with this standard, but is addressed more thoroughly in the analysis related to On Site Circulation—Bikeways, Walkways,and Accessways, below. Off Street Parking,Loading and Bicycle Access(7.005-7.040) LODS 7.020(1)specifies that for professional office space, 3.33 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area is required. For the proposed 9,726 square foot 32.38 (rounded to 33 spaces)are required. The site provides 44 parking spaces(Exhibit 3). The Parking Standard has also been LU 99-0060 Page 4 of 12 modified since the original approval and now limits the maximum number of allowed spaces to 125%of the minimum number. In this case,the maximum number of spaces would be 42. The parking standard also now requires 2 bicycle spaces be provided. These matters of non- compliance are again existing and not part of any proposed changes ;therefore,no further adjustments are needed. This standard is satisfied. Park and Open Space-(8.005-8.040) This standard requires that commercial development provide open space in an aggregate amount equal to at least 15 percent of the gross land area of the development. However, the standard permits the 15 percent landscaping requirement to meet the open space requirement when no resource lands,Protection Open Space,or Public Open Space or public park land are located on the site [LODS 8.020(2)]. This standard is met by the landscaping standard, below. Landscaping,Screening and Buffering-(9.005-9.040) This standard requires that 15 percent of the net buildable area for commercial development be landscaped. Per the original approval(Exhibit 10)there is approximately 31.3%of the site in landscaped area. This standard is met. Drainage Standard for Major Development-(11.005- 11.040) The applicant's original approval has satisfied the requirements for storm water retention and treatment. This standard is not affected by the current request. • Utilities-(14.005- 14.040) The Engineering staff has reviewed the application and submits the following comments: All necessary public stormwater,water and sewer utilities are present and capable of serving the site. No additional utilities are required as part of this modification request. Access-(18.005- 18.040) As illustrated on Exhibit 5,the site has approximately 172 feet of frontage on Hallmark Drive and 40 feet of Frontage on the terminus of Collins Way. Existing access is provided on Hallmark Drive.This standard is met. On Site Circulation -Driveways and Fire Access Roads-(19.005- 19.040) The existing parking lot provides suitable fire lanes,and the driveways conform to the dimensional requirements of this standard(Exhibit 3). As no changes are proposed to the driveways or fire lanes,this standard is met. On Site Circulation-Bikeways,Walkways,and Accessways-(20.005-20.040) This standard is the primary focus of this modification request. The request is to modify the particular condition of approval (Condition B.2. of DR 1-93) in order to remove the requirement for public access easements to be granted for the accessway that bisects the site and connects LU 99-0060 Page 5 of 12 r � Collins Way to Hallmark Drive.' (For purposes of review of a modification condition,the analysis is based upon the original application—in this case, construction of an office structure.) When the original application,DR 15-92 was submitted,the applicant had responded to the neighborhoods desire to provide a connection to Collins Way, as evidenced in the applicant's narrative(Exhibit 16)and site plan(Exhibit 15). This original approval was abandoned by the applicant in favor of a revised application, DR 1-93, which reduced the size of the building but maintained the connection to the neighborhood(Exhibits 11 and 3). Staff, reviewing the application did not make substantial findings based on this walkway as it had been proposed by the applicant and not"exacted" by the City. In the final Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 13), the City required that the applicant provide an easement for this walkway prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The applicant had never fulfilled this requirement(Exhibit 6). The applicant claims that the City lacked authority to require this walkway(and easement for such) and second, if required, such an easement would be considered a taking of the applicants property without just compensation. In considering this request for Modification of the condition requiring a public walkway through the Applicant's property, two important changes have occurred since the original application: First,the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in 1994 (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. Second,the City has amended its development code in several respects since 1993,but most notably are the changes to LODS 20,the"Site Circulation--Bikeways and Pathways Standard", now titled"On Site Circulation-Bikeways, Walkways, and Accessways." Applicant argues that the imposition of a condition for a public walkway through the Applicant's• property, previously and now pursuant to LODS 20, would violate the US Fifth Amendment because the exaction(public walkway) is not roughly proportional to the impact caused by the development. For purposes of analyzing this application, and the Applicant's arguments, it is best to examine whether removal of the public walkway would be consistent with LODS 20, and if not,whether the requirement for a public walkway pursuant to LODS 20 is roughly proportional to the impacts resulting from the(original)development. 1. LODS 20 Requirement This standard is to ensure that pedestrian and bicycle connectivity is ensured to promote alternate means of transportation in support of the many relevant goals and policies of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. The standard achieves this through compliance with the following approval criteria: 1 Applicant's first argument is that the condition requiring easements for"all public walkway/sidewalks" should not be construed as applying to the walkway that extends through the Applicant's property because it was not intended by the Applicant, and not shown on the plan,as being a public walkway, and hence no easement need be given. Pursuant to LOC 48.02.100(2),the City Manager is empowered to interpret the meaning and scope of approvals granted based on the record of• the proceedings. The City Manager does not agree with Applicant's interpretation—based on the record,the Applicant's plan and original land use application narrative—the purpose of the walkway was represented to be open and available to the public and the approval was merely to require what the Applicant represented would be provided.- LU 99-0060 Page 6 of 12 LODS 20.020(2)states that "walkways(defined as a surfaced strip of land, legally accessible to the public)shall 411 connect at least one public entrance of each building accessible to the public to the nearest public walkway or other walkway leading to a public walkway. Walkways shall also connect to other areas of the site, such as parking lots and outdoor activity areas, to other building entrances,to adjacent streets, and nearby transit stops." The request by the applicant to not provide access easements across the existing accessway, highlighted in Exhibit 3, would fail to meet this requirement in several respects. The applicant could provide a connection to at least one public entrance from Hallmark Drive to the small entrance on the east elevation(Exhibits 3 and 4)with a short easement of approximately 7 feet in length. However, this would not suffice at connecting to other areas of the site such as the parking lot,the main public entrance,outdoor activity areas such as Waluga Park, or to other adjacent streets,Collins Way,for example. The existing walkway that runs along the frontage of the building accomplishes all these requirements by tying Hallmark Drive to Collins Way, and providing connections from the building entrance to a direct route to Waluga Park and the parking lot. LODS 20.020(5)requires: "accessways for use by pedestrians and bicyclists...when necessary to provide direct routes not otherwise provided by the existing right of way." In this case,since the Collins Way right of way had been vacated prior to the original development application being received,staff has to examine this site as not having"existing" • right of way through the applicant's parcel. There was a public utility easement which remained over the vacated portion of Collins Way, however, this easement had to be relocated during the building construction. Exhibit 2 shows the alternate route provided through Douglas Way, which has much greater vehicular traffic(being a through street). The total distance of this route from the site is approximately 1,250 feet(1/4 mile). From the reverse direction, a person wanting to access the site from Collins Way would need to walk a total of 2,250 feet versus 50 feet provided through the more direct route shown in Exhibits 2 and 3. From the standpoint of compliance with the On-Site Circulation requirements for Bikeways, Walkways and Accessways,the applicant's proposal fails to meet the standard. No variance submittal has been included with the application to seek exemption from this requirement. 2. Does An Accessway Requirement Constitute an Unlawful"Taking" under Dolan? The applicant argues that"If Hallmark is required to deed such an [access] easement,the condition violates Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 US 374(1994)2, in that the condition creates an unconstitutional taking of Hallmark's property without just compensation" because: • 2 Dolan can be found with the City's Development Code. LOC 49.22.225 (l)(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. LU 99-0060 Page 7 of 12 • No lawful public access through the property existed when Hallmark filed its application;and • Hallmark's property did not create any adverse condition which a public sidewalk woull, remedy." --Page 6 of Exhibit 6 In Nollan, v. California Coast Commission,483 US 825 (1987), the US Supreme Court required that there must be a"nexus" between the requirement and the public purpose to be served. In Dolan,the City of Tigard required the dedication of a public pathway but did not quantify the degree to which the project would create, and hence the pathway would offset,traffic demand. Dolan addresses the degree to which the findings must show that the exaction is proportional to the public harm created by the development: "We think a term such as `rough proportionality' best encapsulates what we hold to be the requirement of the Fifth Amendment. No precise mathematical calculation is required, but the city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related [roughly proportional] both in nature and extent of the proposed development. The court went on to admonish that"... the city must make some effort to quantify its findings in support of the dedication for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway beyond the conclusory statement that it could offset some of the traffic demand generated." Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 US 374, 375 (1994). Nollan/Dolan require the City to show: (a)a public need; (b)an impact on the public system caused by the proposed development;and(c)that the exaction imposed is roughly proportional (but not to mathematical precision)to the nature and extent of the impact caused by the propose development. A. Public Need The public purpose for pedestrian access can best be shown by examination of the reasons for adoption of LODS 20.020(2)and(5): These standards were adopted to implement the LCDC Transportation Planning Rule—OAR 660-12-045(3)(b)and(d),which required: "(b)facilities provided safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access within and from new ... shopping centers ... to nearby residential areas, transit stops and neighborhood activity centers...;" and (d) internal pedestrian circulation in commercial developments through construction of pedestrian ways and other techniques. Thus, LODS 20.020 was adopted to comply with a state agency rule to reduce current vehicle miles traveled, provide pedestrian paths and bikeways, and provide opportunities for the use of alternative transportation modes. Case File DA 4-96 Staff Report, page 4. The applicant argues that"the City has already determined it did not need a public walkway through Hallmark's property is underscored by the City's decision to vacate Collins Way in 1988 and not to retain a right to access over that property." Applicant's Narrative Statement,page 6. City staff submits that this argument is in error: 1. The City reserved in the street vacation order a utility easement"under,across and • over" the Applicant's property. LODS 14.020(1) includes"sidewalks and any special pedestrian ways and bicycle paths" as a"utility." City staff submits that the construction of LU 99-0060 Page 8 of 12 , t sidewalks and pedestrianways as a"utility" was recognized by the Applicant, in its narrative and development plan(Exhibits 3, 11, 15, and 16), and that therefore the City may have already retained an easement for pedestrianway and bicycle path. 2. The decision to vacate a street is not a determination that some method of pedestrian and bicycle access would not be necessary,just that there were other methods to assure the development of a pedestrian and bicycle accessway, i.e.,development requirement. 3. A council decision to vacate does not constitute a perpetual city determination that public access through the area is not desirable at some later time. B. Impact on Public Systems 1. Employees and Customers. The Hallmark site has 9,726 square feet of office space and 44 parking spaces. The code at the time that this development was reviewed did not impose a maximum limit on the number of parking spaces,as presently limited. It follows that the applicant determined based on his own Needs Analysis that 44 parking spaces(12 more than required at the time)was needed to meet employee and customer parking demand. Assuming that only one employee or visitor occupies each car, up to 44 people can drive to the site. This does not include the people who walk, ride the bus or bike to the site. These people all contribute to the pedestrian traffic on the City's sidewalk and pathway system as those employees and customers either walk to nearby activity centers(post office, shopping, doctors offices)or leave for lunch breaks(at nearby restaurants or brown bag it in Waluga Park), or arrive or depart from the property for work or business reasons • by using the public sidewalk system. 2. Large Parcel This large site, in comparison to other properties in the area, lies squarely in the path of the most direct route for pedestrians and bicyclists who wish to move from the site to the retail area3 to the residential neighborhood and Waluga Park and vice versa. The nature of the large parcel burdens the public pedestrian and bicycle system by restricting movement and directing traffic over a large area. The site was originally platted as a series of 6 lots continuing the development pattern established along Collins Way(Exhibits 1 and 2). Each of these lots had 60 feet of frontage. Had they been developed as platted, a total of 360 linear feet of street improvements would have been required along Collins Way. As a large parcel,a smaller amount of frontage is available for street improvements. This forces a greater use of the City's sidewalks and pathway system and as capacity diminishes along certain sectors of this pathway system,additional pathways must be added. Also contributing to the need for this direct access through the site are the impacts resulting from the additional vehicle trips generated by employees who are unwilling to walk the added distance required to reach their off-site destination and therefore decide to drive. • 3 It is noted that the retail area,Mercantile Village, is generally open to public access and thus facilitate pedestrian and bicycle traffic from Waluga Park to the transit stops near Mercantile Village. LU 99-0060 Page 9 of 12 C. Proportionality of Sidewalk to Impact on Public System. The distance of hard-surfaced pedestrian system maintained from the Hallmark property to • Waluga Park is approximately 1,250 feet. The distance of the pedestrian and bicycle system maintained from Mercantile Village area(either by the City or as required by the owner, available for public access),is 300 feet. The number of employees or customers that would potentially utilize the pedestrian and bicycle system from the site either to Waluga Park or to Mercantile Village is 44(based on the number of parking spaces). There are 20 residences along Collins Way, for which the occupants would access Waluga Park and the nearby retail center. Assuming an average of 2.5 persons per residence, 50 persons that reside on Collins Way utilize the pedestrian and bicycle system. Exaction of a 5 foot wide, 160 foot long access easement for pedestrian circulation and connectivity would alleviate the additional impacts caused by this development and does not affect any existing structures. Staff concludes that the 5 foot right-of-way easement along the building's south elevation is reasonably related and roughly proportional to the impacts created on the public pedestrian and bicycle system by the employees and customers of the Applicant,and the large parcel size,and therefore retention of the public walkway complies with LOC 49.22.225(1)(c)and Dolan. 4. Any additional statutory,or Lake Oswego Code provisions which may be applicable to the specific Major development application; • City of Lake Oswego Systems Development Charges(LOC Chapter 39) As no new or additional services are required for this request, SDC's for water, sewer, and traffic will not be required. City of Lake Oswego Streets and Sidewalks(SDC)(LOC Chapter 42) This section of code contains slope and other geometric design criteria for streets, sidewalks and intersections. Only the section dealing with sidewalk widths is pertinent to this development. For a commercial or office use,this chapter requires a 7-foot wide sidewalk on local streets. The applicant's site plan is non-conforming with respect to the width of the sidewalk, presently at 5 feet. While there is adequate right of way to provide a seven foot wide sidewalk along the frontage on Hallmark Drive,the applicant has not proposed modifications to this existing non- conforming sidewalk. Moreover,the ability for pedestrians and users of the site to access Collins Way and Hallmark Drive through the accessway diffuses the use of this fronting sidewalk and has not shown a demonstrated capacity problem. If the modification request is approved contrary to staff's recommendation,then further analysis should occur related to the capacity of this non-conforming sidewalk system and a determination of whether subsequent widening of the sidewalk will be needed. City of Lake Oswego Sign Ordinance(LOC Chapter 47) All signage shall comply with the provisions of the Sign Ordinance [LOC Chapter 471 The applicant's existing sign is a sign band measuring 31.2 square feet. The sign received a permit LU 99-0060 Page 10 of 12 and is conforming with current sign code requirements. No changes are proposed or necessary (Exhibit 6). City of Lake Oswego Tree Ordinance(LOC Chapter 55) All tree removals are regulated by the Tree Ordinance [LOC Chapter 55]. For removals on commercially zoned property,the criteria of LOC 55.02.035 must be satisfied. The applicant has not requested any trees for removal and none would be impacted by the proposed modification. Therefore, the requirements of this chapter are met. 5. Any conditions of approval imposed as part of an approved ODPS or prior development permit affecting the subject property. The conditions related to DR 1-93 are as memorialized in the findings for that application (Exhibit 13). At issue in this request is Condition B(2).which states that the applicant shall "Provide easements for all public walkways/sidewalks and public utilities, including storm water detention and water quality facilities,to the satisfaction of the City Engineer." The applicant has proposed rewording this condition to read"Provide easements for sidewalks around the perimeter of the property,and for all public utilities, including storm water detention and water quality facilities,to the satisfaction of the City Engineer." This change would eliminate the City's ability to require that public access to and from Collins Way through the site be left open. It is the applicant's position that the aforementioned public easements did not apply to the walkway that bisects the site running from Collins to Hallmark Drive, but applied solely to the 2.5 foot wide portion of sidewalk that encroaches onto the property at the eastern edge of the site (Exhibit 4). • The remainder of the conditions of approval have been satisfied as part of this development. The current request does not affect these remaining conditions. IV. CONCLUSION Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant and findings presented in this report, staff concludes that LU 99-0060 does not comply with the applicable development standards, specifically the On-Site Circulation Standard, Bikeways, Walkways and Accessways as noted in the preceding findings and analysis. V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that LU 99-0060 be DENIED. EXHIBITS 1. Tax Map 2. Vicinity Map 3. Site Plan • 4.5. Detail from Site Plan Site Survey(conditions prior to development) 6. Applicant's Narrative 7. Transcript from Neighborhood Meeting LU 99-0060 Page 11 of 12 8. Applicant's list of Vandalism Acts 9. Applicant's Supplemental Information with photos 10. DR 1-93 Staff Report • 11. DR 1-93,Exhibit 11, Applicant's Narrative(excerpt) 12. DR 1-93,Minutes of 5/17/93 DRB Hearing 13. DR 1-93,Findings, Conclusion and Order 14. DR 15-92 Staff Report 15. DR 15-92,Exhibit 3, Site Plan 16. DR 15-92, Exhibit 11,Applicant's Narrative(excerpt) 17. Arial Photo dated April 13, 1987, showing Collins Way 18. City Council Meeting Minutes dated April 5, 1988 re: street vacation 19. Ordinance No. 1966(Collins Way Street Vacation) 20. City Council Meeting Minutes, dated May 17, 1988 Date of Application Submittal: November 1, 1999 Date Application Determined Complete: July 14, 2000 State Mandated 120-Day Rule: November 11,2000 l:\morgan_t\netdocs\reports\opencase\1u99-0060-hallmark\1u99-0060sr.doc • • LU 99-0060 Page 12 of 12 •-•... `••...... t .. •01 7,00 '..,.,., 4"? '• Lts,.."••••,/ tcc ■••• 3 I(•11 1;0,0". I .1";" ••••••. • C •••••••. , 4.4}- •••••.4c....../ Z 1 E 13 d ....,...... r • 7 • ,I • ............ , .• ..., 1 / 747.42fleakikTAIkk MAP • / 11301 0: •••••........:„...4./..., •••••••.„...... • 7 1 r it MAI' f It My • • f .*-4...... • 2. •-L ? •'. . - .-- - - „ . _... - -."••4„...,.. 10"U II 03401 ',vitro 0.:0,1.01 .. 0.S.W.••GA I.EW000-.ST.-i•••t• - -- '''' • .-- .-. ••••• ---"---"-•••••-:z7 - - • •-'3eauttrs:isdr----'•-••""""••---1.I---7--- x I 3 5' 5 i -. 5 5 5;7 1 T -13 -or ....f.... 4s2 4Z.%, ssT „r / t WOO t., 01100 .1,11 I •••••,,,.. • . E I ‘ f.• •fili fo; I • ii ll s.1,1s-s % i• f, ,..6 A • ... • ... .....,,,....... I / ..• - -.• ----k 4 c• • 6 4. ' t 4 . ::- +---;I-- .,••• t I - ---c...„...... • • .. . - 1 _ .... .t.T„.i.:.r• . 3.1200 • I IMMO I .'7.1 A 4, ___ •..7.-.... •••••,.,... .i.... ' •. -..... L...'•••••••••...,/1, c,.'i ,• ..• I • ••,,J. i : •V 4/ ?7 '''•• .,, ..,... ,7.‘, •'- •.. -... I , ...,... , •__"3 _",t.....14,1 • .,L .......4. 4 41 40 , 3I. _mil _332 _341. _3i -3'4 _334. x• 1: • , 8 •1 ••• "'. ..." (4: ....... .... - '''• - ....";;,, -•--.' ••:71:;11 07,..0"•• •••3- s - if •••••0 sr ..... --i,IA '7. r,.. -,.. .,r-„r -6 r Thr '-s.•.r. Mir --rr- - .- - i':-.: -.-,;•„.:1,---1._____ sir mar i 1 III i ,.. .101..paw 0301 i ,/ / 1 I: . , \ : f. / IP 4.1! ?: t.. • '4.1 / I \ \II ri ..... ...... . L'''. SAICr .,'.4 GROVE:!4ec I ACRrAG7 .-11,' ESTATES 4 • fiC•k. • Z. .N• 4.. .0.. I 7 •it /or, .".- '4 *-..:4 , ,. c / 1...,.. . 5 • - - • Li. \,,,ze. I Ivo repo tvo Jaw 11000 1100 13130 1.00 1300 1100 t• I ... /* .. I al. I 14.1 lool me .. 1.1.• ...,,i 001, . 3 r• • ' / /.1•. • 3 ill . 1 1 i • f;1,11.39 . , ; •t1100 1 3 5 ; :: i ! ' 1 AN'AP- , . i • . .. - r - : .....L__,.. .. . _4,1,,±_j_i. • .....,_i___,_9__,n_____aA.• _.. , _ ,:tlir,:" ;, ' ...isit _ 1 _13.• _121 _3' 24. -DJ. -24/ -.V/14- _./7 i.• ..•••••••C• ••••, s -I • IP , HARVEY ,.41 44-444411 • • • 4 1 / i ,*! r . ..-•----•-•-••-•' Al..' .....".- -- .,.•.•‘•:.•^•" ---.I. -.r i - i- tr r - - d• •,t "I, s r co ,ssilo' Tao 4 14710 ' 41'0'1. 1300'.4:04 105" I t-.."' 1 ":!....11 -:°•,,,,e z. ...! .:.tee 11/1 4.1 4. 4.4 I../ 44/ Mt I ,11114e II di l• : • ••=47.1 -72:1 ! li •.. ;A:1.1.; .. .Z 3 r . • .1 fr---.. . 1 ,...... . .0. .... ,...•,p, -' I:•r% •Z \ • • ie '''' :1 i/.4. .0. ...'',.. I'. t's4 te x,„/• , s :14/j; .,„, - - - .. -L J. ' Z3r. .I. . "'. • I 4 4 4 . gi I:Ion : I 100 'too 'ZOO '300 ".000 P107 .$00 ''00 'COO .103 100.7.i 0•0 • .‘1.lrr f 7 !!!•:. •m s 00 4.4 4.4 .0 •14 till, MO" Ott ll. .11 t, 1 I •,,, • i• I " = 'l.:1. Olt a'. :li I E I „_r• 3;44 i,‘ : -1--.. ....-,--.-% , •• •• : _ssi I Ii ,...• • 00. 1 : z• • ri . II re' .". --.-- w.... , ---Tt:i.4- !c",....,4Jp-; .. _ -57-Ter(' li:-i' ..• -___.....1,.- .."-..'.t.-.-Ls-_-_.•4_t .....- ..e 11 )1- --1-:-S. 'A•"•.:•••••xmr. Tic:7r, '•'-. t- = r.-4-.-.1-...: tzi ' -14..e.,,iii,:--:..:.:-!::::.. .• _ •• I'l ••••••••••-•• . 1 COLLINS WAY ..1°.• _.,-- '" • : _fp •,., t .... , _ -r.-- _7 __7.- ..:,„r3.7..!.__L-7.1. 1_2;±..:•.A._,9. - -L ---. -.7..---...--.--• ......,-.•,7' ,; •Ili P. i,,:3•Olt .! /030j 00.600 10300 100=0 sF0000 TO0001-71034 11101. 1 JO .S`'. 1134:-..$3433-.-.fq,*-4; -I.3.3%-- 27-11903 .-.• rr :: i. •..• ..... lull UV 4111 I on I.. 41.• .14, U./ 014/ ::::-: 7-:,::::.::':: ,,,,•::,.:;,:: II.• . I 1'00 -•-•••::-:-.:•:•:....-:..:•:•:•",, ru..• .I. ...„•.•ft •••••.-.,•.., N' i . I , , •...•..•• ••••• •• ••., • •:„,:•::.: 77:::-,:::::::....-:,..-.... • y 1 4 ;..96°',.. -141; ...),....,,...,..... .'woo . : 6 :•••-• •I < ' i I I I 1 1 3 • I . ;I; :.;:• .-. .&___ ,.• ii; ,...:. •••- 001100 0000 ow>, 00100 tt 300 0•0:o 0100 01403 re 7C.3 101400 01703 I 10X1 11+00 1/100 .7 I 0/100 4 .. •1:1-1- --- 1134 „4411 410 H. 411111 4111 4111/ 014.• .11, 011/ • 0: I . 410/ 1,Z5./ • • • 4 ';i • : r- : ....____• . . 2,J i____-,e_c•.___111 r i. !• - .V:10 \ ? 4. .0 . ,IliC4 -t,.• , 10 1,0100 N i , 31.• = •40 Ar:Rr-'!AG': • . • . . 1 -:......1 • :r.•.: . ....• _32_.._111 .- IT ..e Aid ...,_1 1 • li .• '3 . 11 - it .,.J111_,...z to... re -2? - : .• .1. • •• •-• (-el • 4 r.le ' { DOUGLAS WAY •:,- ,__. - •,'!;...4 4.7 g . • 'O., II .. I j -''-rrrir 711-'-75-r.....76I. ,I.'.17711.1:51 70.1 ..../... .".ll -..7.7. ...' ...-..." 7..).1. • 140:0 • •••:1, ille0 IMMO/:.1.00 I 01100 MOO 0303.1 11 100 01"4 . -'' : '.,..!.7; .• 3 ...TO 0 I I,Wee, • .4.1/ 1.210 . 44 OM 4111••• 1 1 \ :7- 1: , ...... •110. ..,,,.. I I 1 I . • 1.•- r : ‘'..:!' .. 1•1(30 . ••• 4 114 I i • 4/ I 4 J 11 4 : 1 ; 7 . ' .7• : ,,i • ... • ,r,,,:ii ..i 1 •I . . > , ,.... I I . ...r, 0.1030 • .1.s!lido .....-7.•1.1. , . • .L.\-tE S' • 1 I I ....';.2 I • ;': ..; 1 r; ...- _, .. I -.., - - I - i .•• I, - I. - ' -• , -• - - I - --•- i,7_,,...;, ,. ...: :::::.-..:.,:-.... • ....- .,....,.....--....,.. ,--i .•100 0.103 I •• i•toe ..-.. .••• . ••• , ....••••• • . Is,.0 r00 4 TO. 1 , • .1 e, v•,. ..•_..... ,.. ; .... . I I ; i •:. el% .4400 7 - 2 1 1 • J I .....: • EXHIBIT 1 __. I .1'...'i I ,it I 1 I 30 :'• • 4,..e.; . fLU 99-0060 : . .__I . -J•.1 ..:0v,I .,1 -•.•. ,, i..: - - - - . _•'••s:/-•f••",'•%4• i•,..."".a•./)-.- O _ 7 'ado / :.'/•...••,.'•. -••:•,,.Y-•..•. *,..:. >I -., -:. j I .. e. I D5"z •- ...,•: I • .., ,71: / •••'.. .1 '' ';' .• t 1 I r .3•03 0 4 sc .,..• -..% ...: ..:-:...c. r•••,-.--, . . ,. ...." ..;. - OD I 35 `' ry Oil. n..` Y1., • O2835 71 \` /a 290tl I4. .e i:6s T 'a 8 o jO ,G _ •1°n R F \ F.727° 70' �\ 3±? TIc !j• : X n i ,y . -1 I x7{ 3270 ]701- 31W )I93i m _ .. `• if+� r.® y'• tet' 6e'41 .-.. -�.r 7100 x71 3270 CD � „ „ 12 127P � 1 )10] 3184 3173 _ — _ - o us • 3i]5 1\50 111 --- 32� J105 JI W -- 1 3190 1 -- ` pb9 '!�`+C t�v9 3711 rc , 710I 7161 as xx 71W -- y H 41 3240 3209 7110306 /S3B0 - 7178777 ]P97 � 1 ,CI,IS7711:5,1101...............0 '® 3116 � JI70 � ,4�� r r .-+13J6] -- 163 ^r ] ^ , l�r a St' 2 � � ,1 3394 13360 ,,A $ -_—' � 1:i1:I:1TM ', ` N 4, 1 15330 4.4. ^ sCt 6c1[ :::: _A I F, ' i:-.; n , 41 tr...- -•� r_ �: ' , * 16 n+ 1867 14063 •' . y�,,,yy - —` - ��MM 1, ;I i7 tiy7i l' A.0 rat. ��7 34as 3f7f I 3473 J467 33zo 7 • rk�I ytw �. yay,'. � .- i,t.'))34, " ,fu',gq}SI".�.I ,*.5 4,9 :3f1 __7509 $$$ 1 • \.1'IT® •• tt�llJrs 3. +1 f11,131T,!{j5. 6737 ;tx^ �,9� R,�ip�� u III 1•!'a.7 • 77/ 350a '�'':741� 353{0110 111141k10111,0 `� ,� , NN, �, iy� bk+l v5 ,,^ ^ Im d 1,',B]][INE$. 1 1 l � �I •?I' -, "�33f3 Y _ _ 7IVI. I'4 t 7i I otti (h ,o n III t1^t 71 y i0 7,k'1 .1 � �,T� (+ 4f �� t b0� 'Ply, ' V+4] �1'•jK7 .' IVAY�U r i -' •'_'�- 39 n ti ,0 7595 ® �YP'� f I h �.1`�yl . 'T ..s 'aWl • , Ix'7ii; 1J3] 75„ �y ) s +i, 'i'.rc ti Y d..• It ,ice. d�5a.1 ulwtrm0 © a� a �• ( w 6 1'ri„.' a fit^' 1 n•;. Gn K 1 °'4` >61 Cl s rh>.� 1 ld� yet.�{, �� $ VOI:*"ISZhy'' =r s �$ +(� — 7 arc, 73115 ©' 'ter+ 7 iK � 5�'� " �; '�1� ti. •�.1, ry l ` 7' .M. g� 7 ) 3 e ]647 © 2 ,� .T' :R �'"I , , " ,R• ;;`. —".M' . E ,pl + '`,I a '—° •$— b.�o° ab ` �.! I r0. y., l-,. �is (', 1'e "� 4 .+f,4� h.`� -•4 Q 76tl7 4 ^ n Flit 31` 3691 n _ n �7, 3L67.ili111211111,101111111 © ' , '` �A ! r¢ W^��r ,1 ,h1\, �i. 1, Ikl 1 ..1i'`r}$�y-,� + d1ry'fiu. IJ•— u • NES WRY n ©' ® 7100� .;I'\''t1 + 9. i.+ls ,rw�,Y ec .91 I.kf .x7R ^""; a; r ,39 gj, r< 'I •' i eat 3711 ® A / /\ ty�,tjl g�IMF'n yt t I ` `� Y •J(r Iµ �" ; r I� ri p r � � -, / y +}llo�i . b• ro f�,�° .f 0 7• .j `4' :S tip' �*� , L t"!" 11 t. ,k fy t:''♦ nt. i .. 3604 •q` , 3742 t!a V.. t , cz '(Jay _ ®® d� ells 7' "'`,! qq 3739 r 3790 g1 7771 ® 1'17° 1 `" 7 • '1 Mq\ 17 ' 4 4' •Sd �� W ff;; 3763 '\ 1,0 l� ♦,"'• U�'� Ir R, "ThqWa >i r66 3787 3797 LL��. • 7iB2i 9q g 'lbw +" r •': I. n.L..1 # U 1 + o f1 3W0 91 939 a ,•u.)L% t 1 V >. i � ' 1j2 Z Pilli C,L $ , 3873 M 17Zp, 6 aril 1 1 Ilat-''''lit X 4°m R!! `6e. la ni : '41 m 'rF" >t" , 1. ...A ilk •%�� >;i }y,+t4.y1 W 4oa �� Vl r �p W tlICII f: .47 is car- ,,,,,,,,e4,140 ,„,... tn • ' n% 40357 W ,- .A..4%*' .$11111,°41$1° 1� :�® ,p,., , 6 � /•'_'__". J� 40.0 4161 4190 4105 O Q i'a \>tze P°.,`, g gy02d7. 4123 f124 4191 U90 U27 Et Z JuF \'S 1\9 92 ��\ b . `�,,,.• ll ,� t. 4I31 4132 4201 " 4EW a131 lal p O .�1gC ,, 7'C. M toe a � 4� i �� ' k/. ,,•/,! � i.. . f 4179 4100 4231 4230 4179 --Li U I :J� _ � �C , _. 4th � �- � G • a ,f _4207 y 4 4261 42fA 4207 1 J W f� �• v' D' ,{- ® .. 4235 4236 04291 4290 4275 4200 15955 ��',. 10 u 15987 _4263 426 101 4300 4267 0, y 0110r 4248 ® 621\ ©. 4291 4292 4321 4322 4291 iwo 1 I i.l 0--1 16035 6 \ q �.. .11k ' .,.. -, ',, ,I 4319 4320 341 1342 4311 a 4320 _ 4301 I -�:;li, 16043 -4111I\ 4,0 422 4269 6 11 G1 4750 4¢60 q{7 a 36l 4362 :4348 ®.' ",uy I' ,I \b��'6g 42� ®106 4,jbp - 1111, m I ®®,� 4361 5 , ��,`:.tiN�..,., 16079 \bv"` 6'!7! . ; ' O 4282 a+ ° w e, .' i 46 • ��,q{ `�' 1�i :ti o i F.'�P. �_}. \b\° N 6]4e 0 43, 4 J. .4728 433D : F. 7, N v1 ^ • n n,� ..�i,1� Pf ,1''•*li:� aPd, �9609 \b �J, ®�; ® ® IMP‘in N l I I j2° ,.®® ® gam" �� • % r/ - 4796-4362 $/ : !! h ,J I, ,..,+ .. DQ \ lb11 0 J 4470 V riji rb ° ,1'if- ••'P �r� _ F • {466 �V 1,". "...71.,;' C 'i° lu k O.64„,,i, .7` \�,9 \� m _ _ 64 i' d' ,u \. a 6q 4400 n , s, 4381 L9 39V 1 fii3 5362 - - (1 V021 .r , . �4 4... 6O�r\r, 4r.°7 �1546�: � 557,! ' � �1 �n i 4�°014:ia"6 d /\ �° � „\'.\'� r' �, M 0 . AIL _ i,(0....._ • ,., _ ,„..r...r....,... .......—................ el 0 i!{ Cis" "�K ' . . ' • t �� wa Jp Y3:,.--..nr7 1 • r:� rt:c �rr�:�:.r..:::a '--- ,w.y- _ ---__M• _ •.. _ �' , ,•,- rI Ili ;' (1 , _•..c..........• I11�+�. .• Ii ,.. f i t" Acac w4( j- j i @, �. - ,, i+ p� d - �ocri dN _ r �,-•..._.��. - ::.:.,.. • (1 Gor�c.CUM •_ (SY — _ tt _ rre► et+o __ II u .� ..,� ` Tfl ± : 1It tit i i i-87. •••• t I• 4 it j — —. z ft....i Y)— "..•y•= i -1_li` ..I_. _i _LE. tr.[!e♦ 'n. / . ""--.w...r..•..e,� �1 u .r..r y f7 •. .41 ...,.. oc O ill in u • 1-1 E7 a 4 4 i /...L, • Will i1t ii_ • 1476% � :- Liu, J4t. t i t--�► I• I •�:l/lll�ly- Ilya i — '��- -rl -r g y 01 G _ ,, O F.KTRUPED dR$ , 1L(Y 8 pOrtARP b li /� 11 Q ..,. — a • '*' t �,r,� - i SIZE rr_AN MOMS i. Y _.� rear— IS;..,, ; : _ _ J D _ lj--- ,fie.:-::^- IT'�;sa Q� iillii ilk `«•w w a�i•'.~:'.o•-i•:.s.".. . J AL c V -� f"1111 . 4 ;1ii W r cov�rz�[�EaeraI^ Mb••••••ta•1.•••••4 *e, _ 1:rieurd._, . NG.r'.r.RKINu SIGN ""^"' - �- NOV 111 Cl/1 0 moo- Ul EXHIBIT �� i ill, L mug ' In Mg • 3 1 I Ul N NV a ____I \L.__ 1 ..„.,b,_ ______ (1) qi c. N ` N ( t 0 1 f + ) + +I J O I .. ... ,...,. lksso... N... • __ ... /1 ,_ . \ ,....77 _ . ._ i .._,....„,,, ,.....„\\_. ....„,•\.„, ... _ _.. , . - -1..--.4 a 4 0..11... -l•--':'-__,' -- - nefr!".- - •-- •-...--..- .Cr.iatt -;,1 *7'.‘; '••.:..•.:i-er. ,. __ . b. 44‘11, L.....1 :. .. ...... L 11 j �. ' pi pi . 11 F._ irs 1� i / ii 1 II Iit I C Art.. 0C ' :I , 1-,_ II _ 46 Si�,,..rk / 1 — _ Ei►tlq►tSfrLfJ ,. I 1+ a it" in t �Y ( z-IN 41- 1 / II 11 11 I I I... - "'' I � EXHIBIT4 ii4\T /e LU 99-0060 it .QiltJ E N 004 _ — 0.— — -- ---- _._ — — — S _ _ • • SURVEY ..., .: HALLMARK INNS & RESORT BEING PART OF LOTS 28-31, BLOCK 4 AND LOTS 15-17, BLOCK 3, AND VACATED COLLINS WAY, "LAKE GROVE ACREAGE ESTATES" +III ik............. _:ia „1.7r +:11., IN THE NW 1/4 SEC. 8, T.2S.. R.1E., W.M. +tl.. t11.] Z. ;�., +t'I' ;1. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO + "" CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON 11S0 I,t. • 4. S 001S'00' E 107.50' IN a 8 g \ +1141 u.♦P70 ! *,LO., N 09YS'00' }r �1�]] 1 J +1111 aaf.1 , f O _ �d cso R lainro/t Haar •""1D11I•^•'µ --1 iri o z v C r r HIS Ow 11111 = 0A1 O 1 flOY CO.IANT •1� as o Ia t/0 F. [ I11• AIf.10111001acw rlD ,.Y 717• [ to11 O cal ►I••fr `�' . �,e • .110 CAS _--.1 i`.•.t.s I • +III1 ,cc c rrl ll1.l \ (VACATED ORD. N0. 1060) Y a e7---111 +to• _ ,s0 r•� 00-0)030 .f :1 a 7• �` ',y K �O COLLINS -3�1 OY�IM] r11� u 1S +IIf J slow.Y," ! ♦1 .T et •t` I� i,,c 't,.a •— 0w-iq7 > 2,A ' 1 �0 711. r0[CO1C,Lrt 11_wl!Lllc[ +1111 /7P1Y Y011 6 vA1A1 r ❑µ CA/1t eM,l(1 1A1 IIf.J If mtnlar[naa1.L 1 c0401 h l.v. .01 111 n:1/0' IS ORMAlaw ,/^ R , s SCALE I. 20' MASK 10, 'V.l 71a 1 *71/.1 +71]♦ +t171 1.1 c4 i LEGEND: '•' ` A 1•�,rl.11 0 C CUING 1171 raga ,•F• is a.0 Wfl111 +toy +HI 1 —^ 1, M1.11a sirs!..Nlq( w% q +IN] • ♦31311 ,ry,1 .1...) —as— 1.n1Mt IMPl1[ } +J17/ +111 1 .'1‘ O flaw.alMr...w1011 _„ 7- h /Di* s O 11 Ur►0 . 8 i -3 71116 r. s.11 C'-2 z +11J.. 8r 11w11!lM( 1.�7�1),:;11:1".;',(I .� 4 -;,.. . ' +1111 ,�,ti' '../ wr 41 Mtµ 0.1 1My v �� .f z ((� �} . 1111 Cr CA101 SA7r 1 tl. 1141.I .,• 1 !/, .11'• [7L __ r +11 1 N 00'IS'l10' M 10000. .f� • _ • • N01E: m ,] •e M1 1111a I. 414.11044 0.M111 WV C (All 011,4C0' 41l Dr,Mao.I.. e0.111 011, '1'011•1l 01118 11 •.bps 411•, .0 41u Ill., 2 1.1110 1/1 v.M,1 Hu 1/' 1 W ,II• CO ON --1 O UICil / • swan•ea ANUY Ptil'S 01 ASS01'1A:;,S C41/11114,ern 1..1 01w W.WIYIw 1301/ 1.11. Ill-11.1 NARRATIVE STATEMENT • Introduction The applicant, Hallmark Inns & Resorts, Inc. ("Hallmark") asks that the City make the following orders: modifying condition B2 of the Findings, Conclusions & Order of the Lake Oswego Development Review Board, dated June 7, 1993 ("the Condition"), to make it clear that Hallmark is not required to deed an easement to an internal walkway to the City for public use; allowing Hallmark, at its discretion, to erect and maintain a fence, of substantially the same type and appearance as the existing fence, between Hallmark's property and the western end of Collins Way. Hallmark believes the City should make the orders requested because: The above orders do no more than put into effect the intent of Hallmark and the City at the time the Condition was imposed; • - If Hallmark is required to deed such an easement, the Condition violates Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 Sct 2309 (1994), in that the Condition creates an unconstitutional taking of Hallmark's property without just compensation; and This modification does not affect any Development Standard because it merely leaves in place the same transportation situation which existed before Hallmark developed the property. Background The purpose of this application is to resolve an on-going dispute between Hallmark and the City regarding a 5-foot wide, 160-foot long walkway which generally bisects Hallmark's property ("the Walkway) and regarding the fence which Hallmark wishes to maintain at the eastern end of the Walkway where the Walkway dead-ends into Collins Way. Page 1 - Narrative Statement EXHIBIT 6 LU 99-0060 007 Hallmark is a corporation which owns and operates hotels and resorts in the Western United States. Hallmark built the Walkway as part of developing its corporate headquarters in 1993-94. The Walkway roughly follows part of vacated Collins Way, a street which the City vacated, with the acquiescence of the local residents, under the terms of a City Ordinance dated June 9, 1988. Lake Oswego reserved a permanent utility easement over the vacated street and could have retained an easement for access. Lake Oswego chose not to reserve such an easement. The Ordinance recited as follows: "c) A majority of owners of the area affected, as defined by ORS 271.080, did not object in writing to the proposed vacation. "d) All of the owners of property abutting the area proposed to be vacated have consented to the vacation. "e) The public interest will not be prejudiced by the proposed vacation." • According to Oregon statutory and common law, title to the former street reverted to the adjacent property owners with the vacation of the street in 1988. ORS 271.140. And see, Fossi v. Myers, 271 Or 611, 533 P2d 337 (1975); Siegenthaler v. North Tillamook County Sanitary Authority, 26 Or App 611, 553 P2d 1067 (1976). Hallmark purchased the property in 1991, about three years after the City had ceased to use Collins Way. At that time, the vacated street was primarily an eye-sore: it was overgrown and full of abandoned junk. Hallmark purchased the property and began developing it to be Hallmark's corporate headquarters. The dispute between Hallmark and the City arose from interpretation of the Condition which the City imposed on Hallmark as part of Hallmark's application for a ID Page 2 - Narrative Statement 008 • building permit and which was a condition precedent to Hallmark receiving an occupancy permit for the building. Hallmark has never applied for nor received an occupancy permit. The Condition The intent of the City and of Hallmark in negotiating the conditions of approval of Hallmark's headquarters was to allow only appropriate use of the Walkway under a revocable license by Hallmark, not to require Hallmark to deed a piece of property through the middle of its headquarters to the City. The Findings, Conclusions & Order of the Lake Oswego Development Review Board, dated June 7, 1993, contains the following condition precedent to receiving an occupancy permit: • "Provide easements for all public walkways/sidewalks and public utilities, including storm water detention and water quality facilities, to the satisfaction of City Engineer." Hallmark understood that the easements required were for sidewalks and walkways along public streets, not for a Walkway directly through the center of Hallmark's property. Hallmark has provided the City with all easements to public sidewalks. The City once requested an easement for the Walkway, and Hallmark refused to provide that easement. The City did not pursue the issue at that time. Hallmark has never expressed any interest in granting a public easement to the Walkway nor in dedicating that land to the public interest. • Page 3 - Narrative Statement 009 The Dispute Although Hallmark has in the past allowed public access over the Walkway as a courtesy, Hallmark ultimately closed the Walkway to public use because of repeated, inappropriate use of the Walkway, including continuing acts of vandalism. Hallmark left the Walkway open for public use from February of 1994 until late summer of 1996. Hallmark closed the Walkway in 1996 due to repeated acts of vandalism. Those acts of vandalism included repeated major vandalism to company vehicles, repeated damage to Hallmark's property, graffiti on the building and the Walkway, destroyed planter boxes, drunken youths urinating in the bushes, motorcycles on the Walkway, damage to the cars of Hallmark's employees, and youths congregating along the Walkway to drink beer in the evenings. A partial list of the acts of vandalism which Hallmark experienced in 1998 and 1999 associated with the Walkway is attached to Hallmark's application at tab 2. When Hallmark closed the Walkway, the City cited Hallmark for failing to comply with the Condition. Hallmark attempted to resolve the interpretation of the Condition in that action. The Court declined to consider the interpretation. The City agreed to hold the citation in abeyance pending a judicial resolution of the issue. Hallmark then filed a lawsuit asking for a declaratory judgment interpreting the Condition. The Court dismissed that lawsuit pending this application. In the meantime. Hallmark has left the Walkway open, by agreement with the City, and without waiving • Page 4 - Narrative Statement 0L 0 • any right to contest the City's interpretation of the Condition, and has continued to experience acts of vandalism. Hallmark acknowledges that at the time of the development, there was discussion between Hallmark, representatives of the City, and members of the local neighborhood association regarding Hallmark allowing members of the public to walk across the Walkway directly in front of the entrance to Hallmark's building. Hallmark had no objection to public use of the Walkway as long as that use was appropriate. However, Hallmark denies that the Condition was ever intended or understood to require that Hallmark deed an easement to the Walkway to the City. Relief Requested • Hallmark asks in this application that the City modify the Condition to require only that Hallmark: "Provide easements for sidewalks around the perimeter of the property, and for all public utilities, including storm water detention and water quality facilities, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer." The purpose of the modification is to clarify that Hallmark has no obligation to deed an easement to the Walkway to the City nor does Hallmark have any obligation to dedicate the Walkway to the public use in any manner. Hallmark has also asked to be allowed to erect a fence at the eastern edge of its property in order to cut off access from Collins Way to the Walkway. This modification puts into effect the intent of the City and Hallmark during the development process. • Page 5 - Narrative Statement Oil Violation of Dolan Standards Not only does the Condition as modified actually reflect the intent of Hallmark and the City, Hallmark contends that the City could not require Hallmark to deed to the City any property right in the Walkway as a condition of the building permit or the occupancy permit without violating Hallmark's right to be free of governmental taking of Hallmark's private property without just compensation. Hallmark maintains that if the Condition required that Hallmark deed an easement to the City directly through its property, the Condition is precisely the kind of taking which was declared unconstitutional in Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 Sct 2309 (1994). Dolan prohibits a local government from requiring a dedication of real property to the public as a condition of approving a project unless the dedication is roughly proportional to the effects of the project. Here, the City could not have required , Hallmark to dedicate a public sidewalk through the middle of its property as a condition of design review because the sidewalk would have borne no relation to the effects of Hallmark's project for the following reasons: No lawful public access through the property existed when Hallmark filed its application; and Hallmark's project did not create any adverse condition which a public sidewalk would remedy. The fact that the City had already determined it did not need a public walkway through Hallmark's property is underscored by the City's decision to vacate Collins Way in 1988 and not to retain a right to access over that property. Hallmark uses its building as its corporate headquarters and leases offices to business enterprises. There is no retail • Page 6 - Narrative Statement 012 or similar use being made of the property. There is nothing about the building which would require a walkway between the property and the adjacent Collins Way. The needs which the public have expressed relate only to the fact that they now wish to use Hallmark's property for access to Mercantile Village shopping area. On the other hand, the economic impact of a deeded Walkway through the middle of Hallmark's property will be very substantial. Conclusion Hallmark respectfully asks the City to modify the Condition as discussed and to allow Hallmark, in its discretion, to place a fence between Hallmark's property and Collins Way. • • Page 7 - Narrative Statement 013 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS NARRATIVE 1. Your notice to Hallmark indicates that the following standards are not applicable to this development: a. Building Design [2.005 - 2.040] b. Drainage for Minor Development [11.005 - 11.040] c. Hillside Protection [16.000 - 16.040] d. Flood Plaint [17.005 - 17.035] e. Downtown Design Guidelines [23.005 - 23.605] 2. Your notice to Hallmark indicates that the following standards are applicable to this development, and Hallmark has addressed those standards as follows: a. Street Lights [5.005 - 5.020): Existing street lighting is provided along Hallmark Drive, and parking lot lighting has been installed which meets all city requirements and is compatible with parking lot lighting throughout the Mercantile Village area. That lighting sufficiently meets the city's standard. No changes are being proposed to lighting. b. Transit [6.005 - 6.040): Tri-Met transit services exist at Mercantile Village and hard-surfaced pedestrian paths connect this site to the transit facilities. No changes are being proposed. 11 c. Parking [7.005 - 7.040): The parking standard requires 3.33 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or 33 parking spaces (10 x 3.33 = 33.3). The development contains 44 parking spaces (28 standard spaces, 14 compact spaces, and 2 handicapped) designed in accordance with the parking standard dimensions. No changes are being proposed to parking. d. Park and Open Space [8.005 - 8.040]: This standard requires commercial development to provide 15% of the gross land area in open space or park land. The development provides 32% open landscape space. No changes are being proposed to park and open space at the development. e. Landscaping, Screening and Buffering [9.005 - 9.040]: The standard requires 1 5% of net buildable area for landscaping and/or open space. The landscape area requirement will be satisfied to the same extent as the park and open space requirement above. Furthermore, the landscaping has been designed to compliment the existing surrounding and natural features of the site. The application proposed adding a section of fencing to the existing fence across the west property line roughly where the vacated Collins Way meets the existing Collins Way. The fence will be of the same construction as the existing fence on - 1 - Hay-0852k1I57k 014 the western side of the development. The application meets the standard for 4110 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering. f. Drainage for Major Development [11.005 - 11.040]: A biofiltration storm system is provided on site and calculated to meet city drainage requirements. The parking lot and storm drain lines rom roof drains will drain through biofiltration areas to catch basins in the landscape areas and then be connected to the relocated storm drain line. No changes are being proposed to the site drainage. g. Weak Foundation Soils [13.005- 13.040]: Refer to the Soils Investigation by Fujitani, Hilts &Associates dated June 19, 1992 and addendum dated March 4, 1993 which were submitted with the original development application. No changes are being proposed to the present site soils. h. Utilities [14.005 - 14.035]: All utilities have been located in accordance with all city standards. Hallmark has provided to the city easements for all utilities. Hallmark objects to providing any further easements for the reasons set forth in section k below. No changes are being proposed to the site's utilities. Access [18.005 - 18.040]: Access to the site from Hallmark Drive is provided near the middle of the northerly and southerly property lines. Refer to the David Evans & Associates traffic analysis dated June 30, 1992 and addendum, which were • submitted with the original development application. No changes are being proposed to the site access. • j. Site Circulation -Driveways and Fire Access Roads [19.005 - 19.040]: Driveways and parking lot aisles meet all city requirements. The maximum parking lot grade at any point is 5%. No changes are being proposed to driveways or fire access roads. k. Site Circulation - Bikeways, Walkways and Access ways [20.005 - 20.040]: A 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk is located adjacent to Hallmark Drive and meets all city requirements. In addition, a concrete walkway is located between the west property line and the sidewalk. It is this walkway which is at issue in this application. The walkway was planned and intended to connect the entrance to the Hallmark Building with adjacent Hallmark Drive. Although Hallmark allowed the walkway to remain open at the western perimeter of the property, where existing Collins Way dead-ends into the site, at the request of the neighbors living in the area, Hallmark never intended to allow the neighborhood or the City to obtain enforceable rights in that property. Since the original development was approved, the City has indicated that it expects Hallmark to deed to the City an easement to the property where the walkway is located. Hallmark has objected to giving the City any right to that property, and Hallmark continues to object to any such • - 2 - Hay-0652k\1571 015 rights. Hallmark insists that, if the City claims right to that property, the City is unconstitutionally taking Hallmark's property without just compensation. Hallmark • incorporates herein its Narrative Statement which was filed with Hallmark's original application for a modification, and continues to rely on that application and its supporting materials. In addition, Hallmark maintains that the modification meets the applicable standards because the walkway connects the entrance to the Hallmark Building to the nearest public sidewalk. Furthermore, Hallmark maintains that the City determined that access over Hallmark's property was not needed for public access when the City abandoned Collins Way and determined not to take an easement over the abandoned street. Hallmark points out that the Waluga Neighborhood Planning Committee Vision Statement(attached hereto) stresses the following goals: 1. A design which provides clear transitions from the different types of property developments; 2. Designs which discourage and minimize cut-through traffic. The Vision Statement goes on to say: "Single family residences represent an island within the Neighborhood Association which need to be maintained and protected from the encroachment of businesses and cut-through traffic. We are striving to maintain this island of residences which provide access to schools, parks and11111 businesses, accommodates bicycle and pedestrian travel, encourages neighbor interaction, gives children places to play and provides a safe and friendly place to live." Hallmark suggests that, rather than encouraging the"small town" feeling which the Neighborhood Association desires, the Walkway provides a gathering place for trouble-makers and encourages vandalism. The Walkway also encourages cut- through traffic and blurs the transitions from the residential area to the business area. Finally, Hallmark points out that its neighbors are not restricted from access to the local businesses. There are well-maintained and attractive public sidewalks from Collins Way to the Mercantile Village area. 3. Your notice to Hallmark indicates that Hallmark must comply with ordinances relating to streets and sidewalks (chapter 42), tree cutting (chapter 55) and solar access (chapter 57). Hallmark has complied with those ordinances as follows: a. Streets and Sidewalks (Chapter 42): The application does not involve any streets. Therefore 42.02.010 through 42.04.210 do not apply to this application. -3 - Hay-0852kU ST 016 The terms of 42.06.310 through 42.06.380 do not apply because those ordinances • relate to violations of the city code. The application complies with the terms of 42.08.400 because the sidewalk adjacent to the property meets those standards. The terms of 42.08.410 through 42.12.670 do not apply to this application. For the reasons set forth above, Hallmark maintains that the walkway through the middle of Hallmark's property is not a public sidewalk and is not subject to the terms of Chapter 42. Furthermore, the walkway is not a"public right-of-way" or "easement". Therefore,the terms of 42.18.1010 through 42.20.005 do not apply to this application. b. Tree Cutting(Chapter 55): The application does not involve the removal of any trees. c. Solar Access (Chapter 57): The application does not affect any solar access. • • -4 - Hay-0852k\I57\ • 017 Waluga Neighborhood Planning Committee Waluqa Neighborhood Plan Vision Statement The Waluga neighborhood represents a diversity of public facility, business, single family and 1110 multiple family developments desiring to share a planned community which maximizes the quality of living. The Neighborhood is striving to create a "small town" atmosphere which supports mass transit and maintains the current balance of land use and density, and provides clear transitions from the different types of property developments. Retail businesses are patronized by both the neighborhood and community. We are an active partner and supporter of the Lake Grove Business Association which encourages business development and planning along the southern and eastern borders of our Neighborhood Association. Commercial businesses, on our east, west and north borders provide valuable jobs and revenue to our area. All businesses shall be developed which maintains traffic on major arterials and discourages cut-through traffic. Multiple family dwellings are a prime means for buffering single family residences from the Business areas within the current zoning allowances. Residents of multiple family dwellings share in the use of bicycle and pedestrian pathways.' We want to assure we do not exceed our current mix of multiple family— to — single family density, which exceeds Metro guidelines. New developments shall be located at the periphery of neighborhoods, near business, mass transit and major arterial streets. Designs shall discourage and minimize cut-through traffic. Single family residences represent an island within the Neighborhood Association which need to be maintained and protected from the encroachment of businesses and cut-through traffic. We are striving to maintain this island of residences which provide access to schools, parks and businesses, accommodates bicycle and pedestrian travel, encourages neighbor interaction, gives children places to play and provides a safe and friendly place to live. Waluga Park, a valuable resource within our NA, is a resource which we want to continue to • expand, improve and protect., without impacting neighborhood traffic and parking. We believe it greatly enhances the livability of our neighborhood and provides a cornerstone for our neighborhood. It is the goal of the Neighborhood Plan to assure that new planning and development support the vision for our neighborhood and that all residents are provided the opportunity to participate in the issues facing our neighborhood. • VisionR3.doc 04/20/00 6:04 PM Page 1 of 1 0 18 1 • TRANSCRIPT OF MEETING WITH WALUGA NEIGHBORS - RE: FENCE Location: Hallmark Inns & Resorts Office Building 15455 Hallmark Drive Lake Oswego, Oregon April 24, 2000 - 6:30 PM WJA: We have filed an application with the City(Lake Oswego)to go ahead and try and fence off this walkway. Just to give you a little history on this issue, we built the walkway as part of building the building here in 1993-4; and we moved into the building in early 1994. The history on this walkway, prior to when we built it, was that Collins Way ran all the way through here and that part had been vacated by the City of Lake Oswego about 1988, • or at least this half had been vacated. We bought the property, in 1991, so that was three years after this part had been vacated, this was just a mess in here, there was debris all over, and an abandoned oil truck in here and just a bunch of junk in here when we bought it. Anyway, we went ahead and built our building, and voluntarily put the walkway in, and most of you know the history of the walkway and us shutting it down previously. What happened basically, and the reason we shut it down was that between the time—from February 1994 to August 1996, when we shut it down, we were experiencing continuous, expensive, acts of vandalism—damage to the building, damage to our cars, and things like that. During that two year period of time that the walkway was open, the damage that • we incurred was in excess of$40,000, and included having our Chief Financial Officer's car"keyed," having one of our tenant's car door kicked in when he tried to chase some EXHIBIT 7 LU 99-0060 `, O H 2 skateboarders out of the parking lot; having the windshield wipers snapped off our • company truck; having graffiti spray-painted on the ends of the building; having graffiti spray painted on our tenants' windows, and many things hie that. Finally, we posted notices here on the walkway and I sent notices with pleas for help to the Neighborhood Association, at that time a lady was running it, and we didn't have much luck with it. We finally said, "God, $40,000 worth of damage is enough." And we closed the walkway. We then became involved with the City in litigation and after coming to an agreement with the City that we would try to pursue what we are going to try now, we vohmtarily re-opened the walkway in 1998. It's been open now since May 22, 1998. I'll give you a copy of the vandalism we have suffered, and are continuing to suffer, since • then. The vandalism has not stopped,the damage to our building has not stopped . . . Woman: Will it stop any more, closing that? They can come around the other way. WJA: Well, let me tell you what happens. During the two years that we had the walkway closed off, we had virtually no vandalism, and neither did the office building across the street. The minute we re-opened the walkway, the vandalism started again and it started with the people in the office building across the street again. But during that two year period of time, that the gate was across there, we had virtually no acts of vandalism to our building. Quite frankly, the main reason there was no damage was that it wasn't convenient for people to go through here, they had to walk around. It's mainly kids in the neighborhood—and I understand that, that go down and use Waluga Park, and if you read through this list of vandalism it's a • pretty interesting list of problems that we've had with kids coming through here, 020 3 that have stolen stuff from the 7-11 Store, and come right up through here. Our feeling was, that we really— we tried to be good neighbors, and we would love to keep the pathway open except we have now incurred over $10,000 worth of more damage since we've opened it up again. And we feel like we're not willing to keep incurring all of this&image for the sake of keeping the pathway open, so that's why we filed an application with the City to try and close it. Woman: What about putting something in where we have electronic type locks . . . WJA: It's either all open, or all closed. The City's position is, if it's going to be open it's going to be public and it's going to be wide open. Now we have had the • police out on numerous, numerous occasions, and the police have told us that they are powerless to stop the damage. They said that we had three things we could do: 1. We could put lights on the south end of our building, and on the west side to try to stop the graffiti that was getting spray painted on the building. And last year when we had the building painted, and we re-did the whole exterior of the building, two weeks later kids stood out here and threw beer bottles right through the side of the exterior, with major punctures. We had to go back and completely re-patch it again. So we put the light fixtures out there. Twice now we have had to replace the light fixtures because they go in and they break them, the kids come and they break in the lights completely. We put them on with a motion sensor so that they come on with motion. S 2. The second thing the police said we could do, was to hire a 24 hour a day security guard. 021 4 • 3. And the third thing they said was to close the walkway down. Woman: I live up on Collins Way and live in a high house, you know, second story, and I work from my home. . . . I used to see kids going up and down the street during the day and everything, and some of them leave a lot to be desired, you kind of wonder about them. But,you know,I haven't seen that for quite some time. I haven't seen that kind of traffic going . . . WJA: Oh, the damage is almost all happening at night. • Woman: I just don't see those kinds of kids anymore, that I used to see, like running up the street or running . . . WJA: Most of the damage we suffer is happening at night. We used to have a lot more problems during the daytime, but we don't seem to have much of that right now. Before, in 1994-1996, we had a lot more problems with skateboarders, and kids that were out here, and that was daytime stuff. We're not having much of that now. But we are having the other kinds of problems, and they are all night-related problems. Woman: . . .what about going around, in the earlier conversation about putting the pathway around the perimeter of your property in order to come this way, etc. . . . • L. . 022 5 • WJA: We had a couple of problems: 1) We would have needed to pick up a couple of feet of property from Kurt Dalby to go down that side over there in order to have the width on the sidewalk that we needed; and he wasn't willing to sell or donate that. 2) And then we have a problem with the main power vault; there is a main transformer vault that would have been right under the walkway. PGE said it was $25,000 to move that vault, which put the cost out of reach. As you go through the gate you can look over and see it. The City said that we have to have a meeting with you and explain our side on this issue, and I don't know what else to do. We're continuing to incur problems and, quite • frankly, we're really sick and tired of the costs that we're having to incur, and the City doesn't really seem to want to do an awful lot about the van •'ism Quite honestly, it's a really low priority for them—and I don't know what else we can do. We are now over$50,000 in damages paid out to correct these problems. Woman: Why does it have to be an either/or? I don't understand why it can't be gated with some sort of electronic lock for the neighbors only. WJA: We had a meeting one time with the City Planners and the Mayor— and they said, "if it's a public walkway, it's going to be public, and it's going to be open." Otherwise, you get into the same problem that the City had with gated communities in this area,which they have disallowed because you create an • exclusionary situation where you are banning certain people from coming through. 0 2 3 • 6 . . . All I know is that we are continuing to have big problems and we don't see a way out of the problems. . . . The gray building over there,they are experiencing the same problems. In fact, I've had a number of conversations with the owners because they said that their damage started back up again virtually as soon as we re-opened the gate. Man: Do you think that you antagonize anyone? On your list of vandalism you mention the confrontation between Mr. Hay and the man who cuts through your property. WJA: I certainly don't think so! We have had several problems with one man in particular, the guy looks like he's 40-50 years old. He is a tall, lean guy and walks • a lot . . . Woman: Oh, I know who that is, kind of bald . . . WJA: Yeah, he's bald-headed, and he has never walked the walkway, goes straight across our bushes, and that's where they have gotten into the discussions, their arguments with him, . . . I've had one with him about it, because I've asked him not to trespass through our landscape area. Woman: But I don't think he's a neighbor . . . he doesn't live on our street. WJA: Well, I don't know, he just goes through there all the time. • 074 7 • Woman: Not one of our neighbors. Yeah, I see him walking, you know, all the time . . . WJA: He goes walking all the time, in about five-foot strides . . . he's tall, and lean and bald-headed. Woman: He doesn't live on our street, I don't know where he comes from . . . yeah, I see him every day. WJA: Twice a day he cuts across the lawn across here and down through our bushes and through the side of the building. I have asked him repeatedly not to do it, and he • just flips me off and keeps on going. WJA: Anyway, the is goingto have apublic hearingI m sure, and you will all have City to be notified of that and you'll all have an opportunity to come down and . . . Woman: That's what I was wondering, if this was already permanently decided . . . WJA: No, not at all. The City is real interested in having the neighborhood association and the neighbors know what is going on and they'll get around to scheduling a public hearing on this in front of the Planning Commission. And then I don't gibknow,maybe one in front of the City Council, I don't know when. You'll all be notified of that he aring. 025 8 Woman: You have any idea yet of a timetable on that? • Man: Would you be willing to support a compromise, like she suggested? WJA: I don't think that's up to us now,I mean, we presented that as one of the options when we met with the City the last time, and they said we couldn't do it. It'-s something that I think you guys could raise in front of the Planning Commission . . . to see if they would do that. Woman: I think that's what we need to do right now. • WJA: All I know is we want to do something that's going to stop the malicious mischief and vandalism. Man: We'll give it some thought, and I can see that as addressing both of our concerns. Woman: It's great access for us . . . it's too bad that the people who are not doing the damage are the ones who have to suffer. It's too bad the parents of these kids, you know, of these monsters. . . but, it's not fair that we should have to suffer because of them. But we need to come up with something that will make everybody happy. WJA: I understand that, that's why we were originally willing to go ahead and just put • the pathway in voluntarily—to create a way for you guys to get through here and �"`� 026 9 • get over to the shopping center and stuff. We just didn't have any idea that it was going to end up costing us $50,000. Man: You guys blocked the pathway off yet we haven't incurred any of the types of damage or vandalism that you have! WJA: Right. I can tell you why,we are a convenient drinking place on weekends, that's why we come here and find the place a mess. . . four times we've come back on a Monday and had broken beer bottles all over the parking lot because the kids party in here in the parking lot on the weekends. They are not going to party in your • front yard. Man: I would suspect that they party in the park, they party in other parking lots, the side away from the neighborhood side, although none of us likes to see the vandalism and that continuing damage. WJA: I need to go through the hoops in having a meeting with you folks as part of the application process, but I certainty anticipate that you're going to object to it. Man: Well, I think that we basically have. • WJA: happens see what ha ns to our application down the road, I guess. 027 10 Man: Have you thought about electronic surveillance? You could purchase a system • that will cover parts of the building. WJA: We've just purchased a system but it hasn't been installed yet. They're wide angle, like fish-eye, lenses, and the consultant that we bought them from said it can cover from that end of the building down to this end. You know, we're not going to have any coverage on the North side of the building because it's basically dark on that side. The camera wouldn't really get anything. Man: You know, in reading through this list of vandalism, with the exception of a couple of incidents . . . the people who did these things are primarily kids. • Woman: Maybe you can put announcements, or something in the school paper, or something you know like "You're on Candid Camera" —something to let them know that now they will be watched and be able to be identified—, might be something, in Lake Oswego and you know, the high schools,—and getting to the school level, in bringing it to the administrators' attention, maybe being able to disseminate information to let them know that `you're now going to be on camera" and that might be a deterrent. Woman: You never know, a lot of them might be more Jr. High age. . . • WJA: . . . I wish I knew . . . we've had problems with kids of all ages, I mean, I have (' 28 11 • come in here and found adults that I've found behind the building and chased out of the lot. Well, you will all get a notice of the public hearing, and I appreciate your coming tonight. WJA: How would you say you feel about it, would you be opposed to the closure? Man: Oh, absolutely. Man: I would also. Woman: And you know I would. Woman: Oh, absolutely— even though(?) . . . II/ • 029 • i1 k_ ii322_ /G;(. 44ElzeaA Gas GGG� �3L2- CO LI I M s vVD �, &OrJ-VL '- e / s L7 C L.L.INJ L.. 04,1 6 - L --.Z`a' V _ • r30 • Hallmark Inns & Resorts Office Vandalism (Fence removed on 5/22/98) Date Damage 1998 1. 5/27-5/28 Planter boxes positioned beside front entry doors were slashed and destroyed. The boxes were pulled away from the building into the parking lot and the planting materials and flowers were thrown around the parking lot. (police report filed-damage estimate S150.00) 2. 5/29-5/30 New planter boxes were destroyed, plus extensive graffiti was spray painted on the northwest corner of the office building. (police report filed-#98-2035—damage estimate$700.00) 3. 6/5 New planter boxes destroyed for the 3rd time. About 5:30 p.m. Mrs. Ron Hall(Ron is Walluga Neighborhood Pres.) and her 2 kids were driving past the building and noticed a large group of skateboarders in the parking lot. She stopped and asked them to leave. She then went home and picked up her husband • and returned to the building where they discovered the destroyed planter boxes. Neither Mr.& Mrs. Hall nor their kids recognized any of the skateboarders. 4. 6/23 A major problem occurred with a group of 4-5 drunken kids(approximate ages 17-20)who were urinating in the bushes on the west end of the building. One boy took off all his clothes and appeared to be under the influence of drugs. The police were called but by the time the police arrived, the boys had left the property and headed west on Collins Way. The police left to go search the Walluga Park area. (police report filed) 5. 7/16 A man on a motorcycle rode down the office building walkway and through the pathway opening. Two Hallmark employees were having a break outside the building,yelled at him, but he cussed at them and "flipped" them off. (police report filed.) 6. 7/27 The same motorcycle rider involved in the 7/16 incident once again rode through the pathway and down the office building walkway at a high rate of speed. This time he narrowly missed one of Hallmark's employees. 7. 8/10 The same motorcycle rider involved in the 7/16& 7/27 incidents,plus a second motorcycle rider rode through the pathway and down the office building walkway. (police report filed) 8. 9/13 A problem occurred with a group of 7 skateboarders EXHIBIT 8 LU 99-0060 0 31 who were jumping over some of the plants in the parking lot. • They had landed on two of the plants, breaking them. When asked to leave they complied after a lot of verbal abuse and profanity. 9. 9/30 The right rear tire was slashed by a knife or similar sharp object on a new Oldsmobile van just purchased by William Hay,owner of Hallmark Inns& Resorts. The car had been purchased on 9/24/99. (police report filed— damage cost S236.00) 10. 10/13 The police were called due to a disturbance in the parking lot at approximately 8:00 p.m. A pizza delivery man who was trying to deliver pizza to the building refused to get out of his car because of a number of"scuzzie looking" kids in the parking lot. The delivery man called his supervisor, who called the police. Bill Allred & Bill Hay were also contacted. The police arrived and the kids ran west on Collins Way, toward the park. The police said that they had also received a report of shop lifting by the same group from the 7-11 store on Boones Ferry Rd. The police searched the entire "drainage"area northwest of the Hallmark building then headed for Walluga Park to look for them. The police also brought in a police dog team to help search the bushes and "drainage" area. 11. 10/31 On Halloween night several pumpkins were thrown against the Hallmark building plus several more were smashed in • the parking lot. Also,at least six beer bottles were smashed in the parking lot. Because of the large amount of broken glass and pumpkin mess,a professional parking lot cleaner was called in to power vacuum the entire lot. (damage cost$175.00) 12. 12/27 Multiple beer bottles were thrown against the west end of the Hallmark building. The bottles caused multiple punctures in the Dryvit exterior skin of the building,which necessitated major repairs of the damage. (Damage repair costs $1,115.95) The entire exterior of the Hallmark building had just undergone a major repair and repainting job by the origional Dryvit applicator at a cost of$35,000.00. The work had been completed on 12/16/98. (police report filed #98-4967) 1999 13. 2/18 In an effort to reduce vandalism at the west end of the building Hallmark installed three motion detector lights on the west and Southwest corner of the building. Cost$960.00 including running new electrical wire to the light locations. The lights come on automatically when any motion is detected. 14. 2/25 All of the new motion detector lights were broken by vandals. The lights were replaced by the electrician with stronger,more • 032 damage resistant light fixtures. Cost to change the lights and • repair the wire damage was$567.90. (police report filed) 15. 5/3 Graffiti was spray painted all over one of the windows of the first floor tenant. Cost to remove S125.00) (police report filed #99-1532) 16. 5/15 At 10:40 p.m.Dr. Terry Dischinger called Bill Allred at home to tell him that there was a large gathering of kids in the Hallmark parking lot drinking beer. Allred drove to the building to investigate. Upon arriving, the kids all took off running down Collins Way towards Walluga Park. There were large quantities of broken glass throughout the parking lot, plus the kids had broken off portions of the extruded curbs surrounding the flower beds and landscape areas. Because of the large amount of glass we had to call in a professional parking lot cleaner to power vacuum the lot. Cost to clean$175.00. (police report filed) 17. 6/3 Two planter boxes located adjacent the front doors of the building were slashed and broken. The flowers and planting materials were thrown around the parking lot. Damage estimate$150.00. 18. 6/10 Graffiti was spray painted on several of the 1"floor windows. The windows had to be scrapped with a razor and then cleaned. Cost to repair$125.00. • 19. 7/6 Upon returning from the July 4th break we found the parking lot littered with multiple broken beer bottles. Because of the large amount of glass we had to bring in a professional cleaning service to power vacuum the lot. Cost$175.00. 20. 7/23 Bill Hay,owner of Hallmark Inns& Resorts,got into an argument with one of the neighbors on Collins Way. The man continually cuts thru the landscaping beds on the west and north sides of the building. Bill asked the man to stop but was cussed out by the man and told to"F k Off." 21. 8/23 During the previous weekend someone destroyed all three of the motion sensor lights located on the west end of the building. Cost to replace$575.00. (police report filed) 22. 9/7 Upon returning from Labor day weekend we found the parking lot littered with multiple broken beer bottles. Because of the large amount of broken glass we had to bring in a professional cleaning service to power vacuum the lot. Cost$175.00. (police report filed) 23. 9/23 Bill Allred had a run-in with the same neighbor involved in the 7/23 incident. The man refuses to stop cutting through the flower beds and landscape area on the west and north sides of the building. After numerous warnings since 7/23 the man was advised that the police would be called if he didn't stop • trespassing. 033 24. 10/31 On Halloween night several pumpkins were thrown against • the south side of the Hallmark building. Cost to clean the windows and door was$110.00. 25. 12/27 Upon returning from the Christmas week-end,Hallmark employees found that the windshield wiper blade arms had been snapped in two and the left rear tire bad been slashed on the Hallmark pick-up truck. Cost to repair$461.36. (police report filed.) 2000 26. 2/16 Numerous broken beer bottles were found in the south-west corner of the Hallmark parking lot. The glass was confined to the landscape area and 3 parking stalls. Cost to clean up $45.00. 27. 4/24 An 8"slash in the Dryvit exterior skin (on the wall by the garage door) of the building occurred. The damage happened sometime after the meeting with residents of Collins Way about closing the walkway. Estimated cost to repair$600.00. Lake Oswego police were notified (Officer Scott Warner responded.) • 031 KELL, ALTERMAN &.RUNSTEIN, L.L.P. RECEIVED • ATTORNEYS AT LAW JUN 200`1 SUITE 600 MARY ELLEN FARR 520 S.W.YAMHILL 51'KEET CITY OF LAKE OSW GO 503-248-1856 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-1329 Dept.of Planning&Development mefarr@kelrun.com TELEPHONE 503-222-3531 FACSIMILE 503-227-2980 June 20,2000 Mr. Morgan Tracy Associate Planner City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue. Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 RE: Our Client: Hallmark Inns & Resorts, Inc. Modification Application • Dear Mr. Tracy: In further response to your letter of December 6, 1999, I am supplementing Hallmark's earlier materials with the original and four copies of the enclosed photographs of area around the property at issue. The pictures are numbered. The numbers correspond to the following descriptions: 1. View looking east on Collins Way toward the Hallmark Building which is in the background. This photograph was taken from the corner of Collins Way and Quarry; 2. A similar view to#1 to show the condition of Collins Way for pedestrian purposes; 3. A south view of the pedestrian pathway on the west side of Quarry, directly west of Collins Way; • 4. Same as#3; EXHIBIT 9 LU 99-0060 • 0 3 5 Mr. Morgan Tracy KELL, ALTERMAN dr RUNSTEIN, L.L.P. June 20, 2000 Page 2 5. South view down Quarry, directly opposite the west end of Collins Way. The pathway is to the right of this picture and not visible. The stop sign on the left side of the picture is at Douglas Way and Quarry; 6. A view to the east toward Douglas Way from the Quarry pathway; 7. A view looking east on Douglas Way showing the pathway on the south side of the street. This is also the same pathway used by grade school students going to Lake Grove Middle School which is part way between Quarry and Boones Ferry Road on Douglas Way; 8. Another view looking east on the Douglas Way path. The red pickup truck in the picture is in the Middle School parking lot; 9. Directly north of the Middle School parking lot, the sidewalk for the Equity Group building begins. This is a picture looking north down the Equip Group parking lot towards Boones Ferry Road. The intersection of • Hallmark and Douglas Way is just on the other side of the brick structure in the center of the picture; and 10. Another closeup picture of the view looking toward Boones Ferry Road in front of the Equity Group Realtors. Hallmark Drive intersects Douglas Way immediately at the end of the metal fence. In addition, Hallmark supplements the record with the following measurements: 1. From the east end of Collins Way immediately adjacent to the Hallmark property traveling west, across Quarry to the walking pathway is 743 feet. This is the maximum distance anyone would have to travel on Collins Way to the walking pathway; 2. From the west end of Collins Way south to the west end of Douglas Way is 295 feet; 3. From the walking pathway on the west side of Quarry to the intersection of Douglas Way and Hallmark Drive is 970 feet; and • . y 036 Mr. Morgan Tracy KELL, ALTERMAN & RUNSTEIN, L.L.P. June 20, 2000 Page 3 4. From Douglas Way to the south side of the Hallmark Property is 174 feet. Therefore, the maximum distance a person would have to walk from the proposed fence across Collins Way to the other side of the Hallmark property(assuming that the person cannot walk across the Hallmark property) would be 2,182 feet which is approximately .4 miles. That measurement would only pertain to people living right next to the proposed fence. Everyone else has an even shorter route to the Mercantile Village area. Although Hallmark notes that there is not a sidewalk over the entire distance, Hallmark once again suggests that condition(and the potentially added distance) is the result of decisions which were made by Lake Oswego, and not Hallmark, including Lake Oswego's decision to abandon Collins Way. Please add this letter and the enclosed materials to Hallmark's application for a modifica- tion. Hallmark continues to supply these materials without conceding that the intent of the condition at issue was to require Hallmark to deed an easement or any other right to its property • to Lake Oswego. Thank you for your continuing cooperation. Please feel free to contact me if you need further information. Very truly yours, E� ,I w Mary Elle Page Farr MEPF:vs Enclosures cc: Mr. William Allred(w/encs.) • • 037 I. ` ifr 4., +: itt ., ,. . . . ,• . F_ ,, , . i 1 ; .'�. — t re r FI. V r ,_ . ,.. N.. . . . , ••.)k 'ke, , . , II, i , • ,A, } r, ! 4 � p,.. ,, a A• rQ. :.4; I. ° ,�r.,..•��.� FJJJ,!-- • 7 rc4 .. 4 P �'b i k� ] �ti .• `r I• .R' •1 , Tyr , �Y � spy P �. s I �� ,-., . - • •,... . '..i ti...z.,.... . • li % '••;,::--; 34"ire .. ,.-1.. '.. lit.0. ir. i i . i! - G!. s �w �J�', , , 1. w te, „ S ,1 '1't!ii:, • • 0 • ,s. -..., ii,N, - ' '''' ' !,,, ` 1"..018:4 1, it .`<s.•. M V • i+ . T. .. - - Zug it •r , � c ` *' - Y i y i r _. , _ _ . .._ _ .... ..ir,4 __ _ __ — , - , , - , _ .... ti........art- - • • __ . . ,iii , _ f 3 • 39 0 • .yap r j; t 3 l'i.-' • - ,..' :- ,..0,......-: (. 1., I� • 4 .r r - I 1 n L r ly \ .' rY* * Iy 11 1 I N. �,` ` '4411 �.lr► ' 4 q. ,i, 4 r ,I li 1 r 0 0 . ' ' •*,,fit t * -' ; ? .I`. •17 , I. f ! • •t'� . 41.tis� • ) 0. ' . 1- ''',1 iiiile10 , ,.. .al me MISV*111.11 111' 1 J. i. r (. • • fi i ,. .. .,ti•....IfW; %&`•.''''PI:, ::'','•' . „,., ' .:::7,. .:' ,,. : : .1 ,L ‘s; • • '' St : 1 i t _ r •_ A_k I iliv ."ii , a� ' , kii : ,,,,..f 1' . ,.. OL. •,.. ,..1, ., 44 . ; ...,., ;,,Ir ' ... \ xl � �4.•, 1, ., ,�( al.- ;' • • • 7\3 4........7 • 1, .., . ' t , .. ••••• Mib W..' ' • / • ''.• ' -' " ' A . ..., 4 . i,• r, •Nr •Niii. . .." , 1 At . ; .•': . 10, - • , ', . i.)! • - • .."1, 4 ....... • . .•. ,' : r,,,, 4 ,.. ... 1 / ' 4V ,.. - -. J• . ilt: 1 6 4 1' .. .i. , 4 . Cgli lir" . ilir ? V -- --- . -. 1 i , .• 1 ,. • if- I l' ' 1 • i ... 4 ii . .... ... . ,...q,... . . • i • , , - • --. ir....1 ii• .,- a. ' 1• -u. • i'‘.e.. • ..v, . 4 i ' r" - . . .0 ..,.,. ;-• .. , .. • FS t 4 1 ' - - • ver ..... . 1 i}. • -- , i • .,'...ovi. : - ,, .,,,$)• •;3, 'i 1 s, . _ . .,, „... • f; I 1 it •-I. 4.-s., .. .47;-:. 4.. , .• .. •! ,.. I../.., 'l', l• -11. • 1 41 1 1 . • $ ' , .'. . . . .....ii . ...... - . ., • 1 : 1 , . , , . 1 _. , • •4 •• ' 1 ) ei i 6 I' ii'•.- , [ . '. .! . 47.4 : l. ''. ri V. . IP ,4.• .• ' .11, . 0. • . . . 1 , .. ' 41.r. •..1!.. . ' I = .i' • ,' . , It 1 ,l F.0 .,, 1.1''',...,''' ,•.4 1. 1 I. ,.14.1,.• , •e ,f, ,t4.1. 1" -.it '0. r• it - . . s • . - : . . TiV:.'sTZ: ii AP• / ' '' ,i. ''•e' • ..1 '-‘',„ . . -4 :e . . ., t ., • :„, , .„ . • • • `ff.: : , rt .1 I/1/4.i- !•• ‘.:", 1 ' \ , • • '7:5.,-,-- I !I. 1, 1 ,. . ... . . •, i,. 1 1 i,' • • hh1 .'.4' ..-, • l• v 1 •� d , CT • ( E • .. .1 r di""'''.:„. ' F ti.1 • rit ;a >Z w fig, ,.. ' .,' ik _ ly" i • 0 0 STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANT: FILE NQ,: Hallmark Inns & Resorts, Inc. DR 1-93 PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: Hallmark Inns & Resorts, Inc. I Iamid Pishvaie LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT: Tax Lots 82(X), 9.100, 9500 & 9600 of May 7, 1993 Tax Map 2 1 E S BC DATE OF HEARING: LOCATION: May 17, 1992 East of Lana Drive & north of Douglas Way NElG11I30R1 IQQ.1IA 'SOCIATIO N: COMP, PLAN DESIQN/LTION: Waluga GC ZONING DESIGNATION: GC 1. APBL1.CA NT'&REQUE.SI The applicant is requesting approval to construct a-9,726 square foot office building. [I. AP LICA.13LE RriaLAIQNS A. Clly_.of Lake_Oswego Cotnhrchens _PI : Impact Management Policies General Policy II • General Policy III Weak (Foundation Soils Policies EXHIBIT 10 General Policy II LU 99-0060 045 • Genef. 'olicy IV . Social Resources Policies General Policy IV General Policy V Commercial Land Use Policies General Policy I General Policy IV General Policy V West End Business District Policies IV-A Transportation Land Use Policies General Policy I - General Policy IV, Specific Policy 3d B. City of Lake Oswego_Sign Ordinance: LOC 47.105(2) Commercial Sign Maximum Area per Site C. City of Lak4 Oswego Zonirll~41:iinance: LOC 48.300-48.315 General Commercial Zone Description D. Citys?aake_O egoJevelopme_m_ro e: LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards LOC 49.300- 49.335 Maior Development Procedures • LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval LOC 49.620 Conditional Approval E. City of t:�-_c_Oswcbo_D__e_yeiop?nnctit Standards: 2.005 - 2.040 Building Design 5.005 -. 5.04(1 Street Lights 6.005 - 6.04(1 Transit S-VF.1 m 7.(X)5 -7.0-10 Parking S Loading Standard 8.005 - 8.04() Park and Open Space 9.005 - 9.040 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering 11.005 - I !.040 Drainage Standard for Major Development 13.005 - 13.040 Weak Foundation Soils 14.005 - 14.040 Utility Standard 15.005 - 15.040 Erosion Control 18.005 - 18.040 Access Standard 19.(05 - 19.0-10 Site Circulation -- Private Streets/Driveways 20.005 - 20.040 Site Circulation - Bikeways and Walkways III. EINDING S A. Ex tin>„_Conditivlls: 1. The site is located on the east side of the intersection of Lana Drive and Collins Way near the Mercantile Village. The site is vacant and relatively flat, with • heavy understory vegetation DR 1 -93 06 Page 2 of 11 • 2. The site is i6O' by 170' in size with Collins Way, which has been vacated, • passing through the north half of the site, Exhibits 1 and 2. 3. Access to the site is provided via Lana Drive. All public services necessary to serve the site are presently located in the vacated Collins Way right-of-way. 4. On October 19, 1992, the Development Review Board approved a 14,350 square foot office building on the site. The project was not finalized by the applicant. B. Lroposal; ' The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 9,726 square foot, wood framed, two story (synthetic plaster finished), office building. C. CotpL-Ince with Criteria for Approvals As per LOC 49.615, the Development Review Buard must consider the following criteria when evaluating minor or major development. 1. The burden of proof, in all cases, is upon the applicant seeking approval. The applicant has submitted the information required by LOC 49.315 (l)-(12), These documents are listed as exhibits which accompany this report. 2. For any application to he approved, it shall first be established OW the proposal conforms to : • aa. The City's Comprehensive Plan, and, Applicable policy ,croups are listed on pages 1 and 2 of this report. The applicant's narrative (Exhibit 11) provide a thorough analysis of these policies. - Impact Management Policies: • These policies require protection of natural resources from development, comprchensivc.rev'iew of development proposals,and payment of an equitable share of the costs of public improvements. The policies require assurance that distinctive areas will be preserved, soils will be protected from erosion, trees will be protected from removal, streams will he preserved and that density will be limited to achieve these results. Exhibits 6-8 il!ustratc the proposed public improvements in the project. Compliance with the applicable Development Standards reviewed below will assure conformance to these Plan policies. Conditions of approval will be imposed when necessary to assure compliance. - Weak Foundation Soils Policies: - These policies are intended to protect development from damage caused by weak foundation soils. City resources compiled from U.S. Soil Conservation Service District mapping indicate that the majority of the site has a potential for weak foundation soils. The applicant has addressed these policies by submitting Exhibits 16 and 17. geotechnical investigations of the site. The reports conclude that the proposed structure can he constructed on the site. The report contains several DR 1-93 Page 3 of 11 097 geotcchnlL,tl design recommendations which nee t be imposed us conditions of approval on this project and incorporated into the final building design. - Social Resources Policies: • These policies require protection of features valuable to community identity and preservation of the natural and aesthetic qualities which are the pride of residents. These policies also encourage citizen participation in the development review process. The applicants have held a meeting with representatives of the Waluga Neighborhood Association. The neighborhood views arc presented in Exhibits 20 and 21. Other policies are implemented through application of specific development standards such as the Open Space and Park Standard. Compliance to the applicable Development Standards reviewed below will assure conformance to this Plan policy. - Commercial Land Use Polices: (West End Businessm District Policies IV-A) These polices require the commercial development to minimize impacts on residential areas from traffic, lights, vist'al appearance of parking and loading areas, building bulk and he*.ht, noise and drainage. The applicant's narrative (Exhibits 11) addresses these pout:.::, except for building design and parking standards which are discussed in more detail later in this report. • -Transportation Policies: These policies require that streets be improved as planned when demand requires. The site plan (Exhibit 3), applicant's Narratives (Exhibits I I and 12) and traffic reports (Exhibit 13-15) adequately address these policies. The traffic related issues will be discussed in more detail under the Utility Standard later in this report. b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements said regulations • including, City_ofl.;tke_ sw_rgc�Sign Qrdinanc : LOC 47.105(2) - Multiple Tenant Commercial or Industrial Bi'ilding A building identification sign is proposed to be located at the main entrance, Exhibit 11. The applicant has also indicated that each tenant would have an individual sign band on the building, LOC 47.105(2)(a). Staff recommends that all signs be confined to the monument sign` either at the building entrance or at the site entrance areas. If the applicant intends to install sign bands on the building, he should be required to present adequate details on location, size and color to the Board for review and approval. LOC 47.105(2)(C) limits the complex identification sign to 32 square feet in size. No graphics or color specifications have bccn provided by the applicant at this time. To assure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance, the applicant will be required to apply for a sign permit application (a minor development) to the satisfaction of staff. City oft akc_Ch e 2onittjOrdittance: LOC 48.300--48.315 - Commercial Districts (General Commercial) The proposed office u:,:: is a permitted use in the General Commercial zone. The site • plan (Exhibit 3) illustrates adequate setbacks for the proposed building and parking DR 1-93 Page 4 of 11 (14 8 area ulon', le west property line, which abuts a me. Marta densityresidential zone e (R- 7.5), ILOC 48.310(I)(1)1. As Exhibit 4 illustrates, the building height (12' for the II west end and 24' for the east end) is.within the maximum 24' allowed by LOC 48.310(1)(5). 'Finally, the proposed lot coverage (16,4%) is within the maximum 50% allowed by LOC 48.310(1)(3). The applicant has submitted several traffic reports (Exhibits 13-15) which address the requirements of LOC 48.315(10). The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed these reports and generally agrees with its conclusions and recommendations. The study indicates that the proposed office building would have little impact on surrounding streets as a result of traffic. All intersections will continue to operate at levels of service "D" or better, At the intersection of Douglas Way and Boones Ferry Road, the level of service is "D" during the PM peak hour traffic. According to LOC 48.315(10)(D), implementation of a transportation management program (TMP) is required of all owners and employers whose development affect the intersection and cause it to operate at a level of service "C" or worse. The traffic reports identify several - preliminary transportation modes that need to be implemented to satisfy the TMP requirements. The applicant should be required is provide a final TMP program in . compliance with LOC 48.315(10)(B) and the 1983 Bunke Traffic Report to the City Traffic Engineer for his review and approval. City uLLake Oswcga eve1opment Ordinance: LOC 49.300-49.335 — Major Development Procedures his development ^•view application is appropriately being processed as a major III development. The development review procedure for major development is found in LOC 49.300- 49.315. The applicant has submitted a complete application as illustrated in the exhibit section of this report. The applicant has also held a neighborhood meeting with Walu_ta Neighborhood AssoLiation and the property owner; why live within t00' of the site iLOC 49.3101, Exhibits 20--24. City_of Lake Q wezo Tree c'utyin Ordinance: Orlv one tree greater than 5" in diameter which will need to be removed in order to construct the required street improvements on Lana Drive, LOC 55.080(2). This tree, a 14"-16" cottonwood, is located within the existing public right—of—way. As 9 illustrates the applicant will provide new street trees (Armstrong Red Maple) along this strut. . City of Lake Oswego Dc:elopmcnt Standards; The site dens not contair any Historic Resources, Stream corridors, Wetlands, Hillsides or Floodplain; therefore, these standards are not applicable. The applicant is . not proposing any fences. The applicant has addressed the applicable criteria in Exhibits 3-19 and 25. This report will address those standards which require additional discussion or where modifications to the applicant's proposals are recommended. Building Design — (2.005-2.040) 111. The applicant has provided narratives (Exhibits 11 & 12) and graphic material (Exhibits 3-5, mid 25), including a color board, addressing the requirements of the IJR 1-93 - Page 5 of 11 0 4 9 1.. l^ YA y 1 r •ire• . ... "� . `r . },e'�; .• l\ 1' Buildin�;TTesi rt Standard. This information dctncr. ,retires that the proposed 'p pc veil building is 0 designed to he complementary to adjacent structures of good design in overall design, material and color. As Exhibits 3 and 9 illustrate, the proposed landscaping along the building frontage on Lana Drive will provide an attractive strectscape and a pedestrian oriented environment. The landscaping along the south property line will help create a unified environment with the recently approved prniect to the south (Equity Office Building) by using similar plant -;:'',:ria'fs. Exhibit 9. The applicant has not provided an•. information on the k a:iion t de.,inn I'::' arcs of waste enclosures in the project. irit'5rmation should be submitted for review and approval of staff prior to issuance of n ; building permits. Street Lights—(5.005-5.040) There is an existing street light located on the west side of Lana Drive, at the westerly projection of the north curb of Collins Way. As Exhibit 3 illustrates, this light will be . relocated to the northeast comer of the site. The final location, type and photometric data, including the illumination ratios, should be submitted for review and approval of City Engineer. Exhibit 3 and 1O illustrate the proposed lighting (150 watt I IPS) in the parking area. Staff recommends that the parking lights have Type Ill shielding (high cut—off fixtures) in order to minimize potential impacts and glare on the adjacent residential uses to the west. Transit — (6.005-6.040) Currently, there is no hard surface path which connects the site to the transit facilities at S Mercantile Drive. The west side of Lana Drive is projected to have a sidewalk from • Douglas Way to the newly realigned Mercantile Drive. Exhibit 3 illustrates a 5' sidewalk along the site frontage: therefore, satisfying LODS 6.020(1)(a) & (b). The adjoining property to the north, owned by St. Vincent's Hospital, i:; required to construct a sidewalk • along their frontage on Lana Drive when the Hallmark Inns' properly develops (conditions of approval for DR 7-88). Parking and Loading— (7.005-7.040) As Exhibits 3 and 11 illustrate, the applicant is providing 45 parking spaces (12 spaces in • excess of the minimum requirements) in accordance with LODS 7.O20(H)(e)(ii). This includes 29 standard, 14 compact and 2 handicap spaces. Park and Open Space — (8.0054.040) This standard is met by the Landscape Standard, below. Landscaping, Screening and Buffering — (9.005-9.040) Since the site contains no Distinctive Natural Areas (DNA), protection open space or public acquisition land areas, the 15% landscape requirement of LODS 9.020(1) can also satisfy the open space requirement of LODS H.020(1) and (2). The applicant is proposing approximately 31.3% of the net buildable land area site in landscaping and has provided a detailed landscape plan for Board's review. Exhibit 9. This plan shows "Armstrong" • red maple as proposed street trees, in a 2 1/2' wide planter strip along Lana Drive. • Staff finds that the proposed evergreen hedge along the west property line provides an adequate screening and buffering to the existing residential uses along that area, Exhibit • DR 1 93 Page 6of I 050 ' . -. � lr,; ',:.A rs 44•t iy y 'r. ri. 7% t ` 1- r w I + ;:•• . .f4 ,1 .R}.. -A f. , .‘tL..`e: :''._s.R..,n _.•'� ,'; f. - ' - ' ,.2..': .�A, I'. s • -r r - ' ,. . • 0 9. Staff al.O finds that the pro posed material alon * the south property line is { l plantb rimil.u- to the Imes used in the recently approved project to the south (Equity Office Building) creating a unified environment along the common property line. Staff recommends that the applicant submit an irrigation plan prior to issuance of any building permit. Drainage for Major Development - (11.005-11.n.10) The storm drainage and water quality issues have been addressed in Exhibits 6, 7, 11, and 19. Public drainage facilities are available to the site. The site contains two drainage areas, Exhibit 6 and 7. Area "I" contains the proposed building and has approximately 25% of the impervious area on the site. Area "II" contains the proposed parking area and approximately 75Ve of the impervious area on the • site. Each drainage area is proposed to be served by a vegetated swale functioning as both storm water detention and water quality facilities. The swales are proposed in the required landscape buffer areas along the west property line, Exhibits 7 and 9. As Exhibit 2 illustrates, this arca is the high side of the site. The applicant is taking advantage of combining the landscaped buffer and drainage requirements into one area. This concept works well where there is ample room. In area "I", adjacent to the building, the space provided is generous enough to allow a variety of landscape buffer materials. Staff finds that the proposed swale in this; area is more than adequate to meet City detention and water quality requirements. Staff finds that the detention and water quality swale for area "II" does not meet the City • requirements. The proposed swale is too small in surface area to meet water quality treatment requirements. l)ue to the slope of the parking lot, the easterly portion of the parking area along Lana Drive is too low to drain to the swale. Therefore, this area drains directly to the public storm drain without any detention or water quality treatment. Staff has identified two options for addressing the issue identified above, as follows: - Option' I: This option requires a revision to the proposed site plan to eliminate five parking spaces along Lana Drive and placing the storm water detention and water quality swale in this area. This would provide detention and water quality treatment for the entire parking area. it would also mean less impervious area and would eliminate the need for the extra stomm drain line for the southeast corner of the site. In addition, the landscape buffer at the west end of the parking area could include a wider variety of materials. - Option 2: This option requires a modification of the site plan to eliminate three parking spaces at the west end of the parking area and enlarging the proposed swale along the west property line. With this option, the eastern portion of the parking area would continue to drain directly to the public storm facility without any detention or i water quality treatment. There would also be a need for an extra drain line for the southeast parking area. Storm water detention and water quality facilities are required to be private. The applicant will be required to provide a public storm drain easement for the existing public • storm drain line. • The applicant should be required to provide a final drainage plan and maintenance plan/agreement for the proposed storm water quality and detention facilities to the satisfaction of City Engineer. This plans should comply with the requirements outlined . , DR 1-93 v. §. 051 a c 1' t • .,t f � • •r • in the Set Water Quality Facility Technical Gui lance !handbook (Brown & Caldwell). 11 Weak Foundation Soils— (13.005-13.040) • 'I ae applicant has provided a detailed geotechnical report and an addendum report (Exhibits 16 and 17) which conclude that the site is suitable for the proposed development. Staff recommends that the all recommendations listed in that report be followed by the applicant and be incorporated into the building design and final construction plans. Utilities— (14.005-14.010) . • Based upon znalysis of the utility plan (Exhibit 7) and applicant's narrative (Exhibit 11), staff makes the following findings: As Exhibit 7 illustrates, all public services necessary to serve the si:e are presently located in the vacated Collins Way right—of—way. Due to the location of the proposed building, relocation of several of utilities is necessary. The water and gas lines are shown to be reroutcd'along the south side of the proposed building. It also appears that the sanitary sewer line needs to be relocated since the existing line is directly under a supporting post in front of the main entry to the building. Once the utilities are relocated and new easements provided, the City will quitclaim the easements it retained on the vaca'cd Collins Way right-of—way. Lana Drive was constructed as a half street by development on the cast side of the street and now functions only as a one—way street. The applicant must complete the west half 0 of Lana Drive to match the improvements on the cast side, with the associated drainage improvements, as needed, to drain the eurbline and tie into the public system. The resulting street will be 24' in width, curb to curb. Once the street improvement abutting the property is completed, there will remain a 10' wide asphalt one—way strip from the south property line to Douglas Way. This section is currently posted "one—way" southbound. The minimum width for two—way streets is 20' and, considering the added traffic generation, the off--site section of Lana Drive will need to he widened to the minimum standards by adding 8'-10' of asphalt from the south property line to Douglas Way, This improvement will only be required if the project proceeds prior to construction of the Equity Office Building to the south. In order to protect the adjoining residential area to the west, construction traffic should be prevented from using the residential street (Collins Way) as an access. All cable utilities are currently underground and there is a hydrant at the intersection of Lana Drive and Collins Way. Staff review of the utility plans only verified the capacity of public facilities and services to serve the development. The exact location and size of these services will be determined prior to approval of the final construction plans. Erosion Control — (15.005-15.040) Exhibit R illustrates a preliminary erosion control plan for the site. A detailed erosion control plan should be submitted with the final construction plans. This plan must comply with the state mandated erosion control requirements outlined in the "Erosion • Control Technical Guidance !handbook" adopted by the City. DR1-93 Page 8 of 11 052 . .,, , ,.. . . y .;�-4 r:r d _+^ r� Jt'',.;:Yt,-4ivi..�i rv+'*r, ._ ., ,-: j., l .. • , 0 .. Access— (18.005-18.040) il . As Exhibit 3 illustrates, access to the site will be provided through Lana Drive. Site Circulation — Private Street/Driveways— (19.005-19.040) The applicant's site plan (Exhibit 3) and narrative (Exhibit I I) adequately address this standard. The Fire Marshal has reviewed the site plan and recommends that areas noted on Exhibit 26 be painted in red and designated as no parking fire lane. Site Circulation — Bikeways/Pathways— (20.005-20.040) Exhibit 3 illustrates the proposed internal sidewalks in the development. These sidewalks will provide a pedestrian pathway connection•from the residential area (to the west) to the commercial development (to the east). This standard is met. - d. Any applicable future streets plan or CDPS There arc no such plans which affect this site. IV. CQNCLUS O Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant and findings presented in this report, staff concludes that DR 1-93 can be made tc comply will all applicable criteria by the application of certain conditions. The applicant is also required to provide detailed information on location, size and color of the proposed sign bands for review and approval of the Board. II V. REMAIN LEND.ATIO N Staff recommends approval of DR I-93, subject to the following conditions: A. Prier to 1sstt.anee or'I3_oilclitta Permit,_t1te Af?plic; tit_Sh;tll: • 1. Submit a final grading plan for review and approval of City Engineer. 2. Submit a final erosion control plan in accordance with "Erosion Control Plans Technical Guidance l iandbook" for review and approval of City Engineer. 3. Submit an irrigation plan for review and approval of staff. 4. Submit a final drainage plan for review and approval of City Engineer. This plan shall incorporate staff recommendations regarding storm water quality treatment • facilities as described on page 7 of this report. The applicant shall also submit a final maintenance plan/agreement for the proposed storm water detention and quality facilities in accordance with "Surface Water Facility Technical Guidance I landbook" by Brown and Caldwell. 5. Incorporate all recommendations of the soils report (Exhibit 16) in the final constntction plans. h. Prohibit construction access from the residential portion of Collins Way west of the site (except for required right—of—way improvements as approved by the City). • 7. Show relocation of the existing sanitary sewer line from under the proposed building footprint. DR 1-93 Page 9 of 11 0 5 3 !}+ ti r�I � ;• �., w{ r Y Z r i.'r 4 1. .i.rtr . 3.ry i ... 7:. • -• ♦. it` l )' - r~ _ - 8. Show the additional street improvement (8'-10' of asphalt) for the off—site section • • of Lana Drive from the south property line to Douglas Way. This improvement shall only be required if this project precedes prior to construction of the Equity • Office Building to the south. 9. Submit a revised site plan showing the location and design features of the waste enclosures for review and approval staff. 10. Submit final plans showing location, type and photometric data, including the illumination ratios, for review and approval of City Engineer. The parking lot lights shall be designed to minimize glare into the adjacent residential uses to the west. 11. The applicant shall submit a final Transportation Management Program (TMP) in accordance with LOC 48.315(I0)(B) and the 1983 Buttke Traffic Report for review and approval of City Traffic Engineer. B. Prio; toissuance of Occupancy Permit, t c Applicant Shall: 1. Complete all construction improvements, have them accepted by the City and submit as—builts to the satisfaction of City Engineer. 2. Provide casements for all public walkways/sidewalks and public utilities, including storm water dete '.ion and water quality facilities, to the satisfaction of City Engineer. 3. Areas noted on Exhibit 26 shall be painted in red and designated as no parking fire • lane. C. During_Conatraclion of the Site.the Applicani_Shall: 1. Adhere to the erosion control guidelines in the listed in "Erosion Control Technical Guidance Handbook", as approved by condition A.2, above. • EXHIBITS 1. Tax Map 2. Survey Map • 3. Site Plan • 4. Building Elevations 5.• Floor Plans 6. Preliminary Grading Plan 7. Preliminary Utility Plan 8. Preliminary Erosion Control Plan 9. Landscape Plan 0, Preliminary Lighting Plan 1. Applicant's Narrative 2. Supplemental Applicant's Narrative, dated April 16, 1993 3. Traffic Impact Analysis by David Evans and Associates, Inc., dated July, 1992 4. Addendum Traffic Report by David Evans and Associates, Inc., dated April 1, 1993 5. Addendum Traffic Report by David Evans and Associates, Inc., dated April 15, 1993 6. Geological Investigation, dated June 19, 1992 • 7. Addendum Geological Investigation, dated March 3, 1993 • R. Photometric Data DR 1-93 054 Page :0 of 1 1 • • . 19. Drains egnal si s, dated April 12, 1993 � Y p 20. Minutes of May 26, 1992, Neighborhood Meeting with Neighbors and the Waluga •- Neighborhood Association, with attachment 21. Minutes of March 24, 1993, Neighborhood Meeting with Neighbors and the Waluga Neighborhood Association, with attachment 22. Receipt for Certified Mail to Waluga Neighborhood Association 23. Affidavit of Mailing 24. Affidavit of Posting Notice • 25. Color Board (Too Large to Reproduce) 26. Map Showing the'designated fire Lanes mn tDR93.1k<etpnii.DR 1-93 • • • DR 1-93 Page 11 of 11 0 5 5 • • • ( 5r a r • 041) 4 . Comprehensive Plan 'Policies: General Policies 1 . The city will encourage development of commercial areas to meet the community' s consumer needs. --- The site is already located in commercially zoned land (G. C. ) 2 . Plan for commercial centers as community focal points . -- The site is located in the West End Business District and adjacent to the Mercantile Village. As such, -the site is both mutually supportive of both commercial and service activities, plus it is convenient to the public . -- The site plan and executive office building use is in keeping with the general character of the community. 3 . Plan for the development of commercial districts scaled in size to the area served . -- The site is located in the West End Business District. -- The site is already zoned General Commercial . --- The building will meet all applicable desirable gross leasable ;square foot, building coverage or floor area ratio. -- No zone change is required. 4 . Encourage private investmelit in planned commercial centers . - The site is located in the West End Business District. -- No private incentives are required due to all new development. 5 . Assure minimum commercial intrusion on residential areas . -- The project ' s location, adjacent to the Mercantile Village area and in close proximity to both Kruse Way and Lower Boones Ferry Road, will minimize through traffic on neighborhood streets. -- The site ...s a collector or arterial street and not residential (part of the site is a vacated portion of a former neighborhood street ) . -- A traffic impact study is being prepared to determine street/intersection impacts. - The building design, site and landscape plans minimize the project ' s impact on the adjacent residential area. Great consideration has been given to the visual appearance of parking and loading areas. The building' s small size and two story elevation is compatible with both the height and scale of surrounding commercial and residential development . -- The development is a low-intensity executive office building. 1 EXHIBIT 11 LU 99-0060 n57 410 111 West End Business District IV-A - The policies developed for the West End Business District apply to this request . Applicable policies are discussed below. Policy 1 . Limit commercial land. -- No new commercially zoned property is being created . The property is already zoned commercial . 2 . Pedestrian, bike and auto traffic. -- Pedestrian, bike and auto traffic can connect via sidewalks or public streets to the adjacent Mercantile Village development or to other West end Business District businesses. 3 . Not applicable. 4 . Not applicable . 5 . Size and scope of project . -- The size , scope and scale ofthis development is fully compatible with both the district ' s height and the adjacent uses . b . The height and setback standaras are fully compatible with West End Business District standards . f . There are no significant tress on the site. g . The landscape plan will blend into the adjacent residential area. h . The landscape plan, plus the building setback, creates a buffer zone from the adjacent residential area . 6 . Protection of residential neighborhoods . a . The landscaping plan creates a buffer zone with the adjacent residential neighborhood. b. The landscape plan and planting material will protect the adjacent residential area from headlight glare . The executive office building is primarily a day-use facility which will minimize noise problems . 7 . Not applicable . B . Davelopment of adequate access and parking . a/b. There will be adequate on-site parking as part of the development . There should be no on-street parking on adjacent streets. L • 05 8 111 9. Protection 'f Boones Ferry Road p.3 arteries! street. -- The site is not adjacent to, or abutting, Lower Boones Ferry Road. 10. Protection of Kruse Way as arterial street . -- Access to Kruse Wa" will be from Mercantile Drive. Section IV—D Policies — The policies developed for the southwest quadrant of the Kruse Way/Lower Boones Ferry intersection apply to this request . Applicable policies are discussed below. Policy 1 . Commercial land use between Lake Grove School and C )1lins Way. -- The site straddles the previously vacated portion of Collins Way . 2 . Traffic capacity on Kruse May and Boones Ferry.- -- A traffic impact study is being prepared by David Evans & Associates. This will help preserve capacity of both Kruse Way and Boones Ferry. 3 . Proper access points. -- This project will improve the existing street system • • through the widening of Lana Drive to city/county street standards. 4 . Limit direct access to Kruse Way and Boonea Ferry. -- There is no direct access to either Kruse Way or Boones Ferry from the site . 5 . Not applicable. 6 . Connection with residential area. -- In our landscaping plan, and a*. the request of —Es residents of Collins Way, there wi' 1 be both a pedestrian and bicycle path connecting the site and the adjacent neighborhood. 7 . Not applicable. 8 . Not applicable. 9 . Quality of life. -- Quality of life in the adjacent residential neighborhood will not be compromised because of the quality of the overall site design and integrated landscape plan. 10 . Nut applicable. 3 059 �Ih. � ,�,` I' .. �''I S -Sjr y_fCy 4� 7J � 1~f Y l~ ,� ,�� a `,.,`,�,� . �. .: i_ •u.. h.• 1 1 . Not applicable . 411 12 . Site plannincf .. -- Great consideration and s'i:udy has been given to the site plan ( approximately 33 riJ:ferent site f,cudies were reviewed) , to ensure that the development ' s accenn .. - circulation , parking, landscaping, design and drainage are properly related to both the adjacent residential area and adjacent commercial developments . 13 . G.ineral design obje;tives . -- This development will be a small ( 9 , 817 8qua: a foot ) Executive Office Building, which the owner will occupy as its corporate headquarters. a . The size and scale of the bu..) dina is in keeping with other development in bake Grove and adjacen'.. development in the Mercantile Village . b . The building is primarily oriented toward the adjacent Mercantile Village greenbelt a:ee . c . The parking lot is separated into small clusters of parking through use of landscape islands . . d . Residents of the adjacent Collins way rc'sid . n* ial area will have both pedestrian nnr; bicycle acuass across the site to the adjacent Mercantile Village area. e . Loading and service areas will be separated from411 pedestrian areas. f . Not applicable . 4III 0G0 l'yA Y - III DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS VARRATIVE HALLMARK INNS & RESORTS HEADQUARTERS MERCANTILE VILLAGE AREA LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 1 . The following standards are not applicable to this development: a. Stream Corridors • b. Flood Plain ' • c . Wetlands d. Hillside Protection/Erosion Control e. Greenway f. Residential Density g. Residential Energy • h. Historic Resource Preservation i . LID Formation/Segregation - 1 . Drainage - Minor Development k. Fences • 2 . The following standards are applicable to this development and have been addressed as follows: a. Weak Foundation Soils: Refer to the attached Soils Investigation by Fujitani , Hilts & Associates dated 19 June 1992 , 410 and addendum dated March 4, 1993 . b. Park and Open Space: This Standard requires commercial development to provide 15% of the gross land area in open spare or park land. The proposer! development provides 32% open landscape space . c . Landscaping , Street Trees, Screening, Buffering: The landscaping has been designed to compliment the existing surrounding and natural features of the site . The landscape area requirement will be satisfied to the same extent as the park and open space requirement above . • d. Building Design : The 9, 817 S.F. two story buildings has been carefully designed to integrate and complement the appearance of adjacent buildings in the Mercantile Village area. The exterior of the building will have two colors of synthetic plaster ( "Dryvit"- type) . The building sets back 34 ' at the first . floor level and 44 ' at the roof level from the westerly residential property line and the two story building height is a minimal 24 ' high. The propo.;ed development ' s impact on the residen:ial . properties is additionally mitigated by landscape buffering/screening within the required 10 ' parking ' setback. 061 •av T In addition, there are no existing buildings on the site, the existing streets serving the s' .:e will be utilized ( Lana Drive will be upgraded to r•ieet city standards ) and the building has beer: carefully designed to integrate and complement Illo appearance of adjacent buildings in the Mercantile village .: area. is e . Parking and Loading: The parking standard requir9s a minimum of one space per 300 square feet of gross floor area or 33 parking spaces ( 9, 815\300 = 32. 7 ) . The proposed development contains 45 parking spaces, standard, 14 compact, and 2 handicapped designed in accordance with the parking standard dimensions. :,: f. f . Access: :':': Access to the site from Lana Drive is proposed near the middle of the northerly and southerly property lines . Refer to the attached David Evans & • Associates traffic analysis dated 30 June 1992 , and attached addendum. g. Site Circulation, Driveways and Private Streets: - Driveways and parking lot aisles will meet all the city requirements. The maximum parking lot grade at any point has been designed to be 5% . h. Site Circulation - Bikeways and Walkways: A 5 ' wide concrete sidewalk is proposed adjacent to Lana Drip e and w� 11 meet all City requirements . In ;,` addition, a concrete walkway has been located at .,. ' the west property line to connect to the residential portion of Collins Way at the request of the ?neighborhood Association. i . Transit : Tri-Met transit services exist at Mercantile Vill :nee and hard-surfaced pedestrian paths connect this site to the transit facilities. j . St. let Lights: Street lights exist on Lana Drive and parking lot lighting has been designed to meet all city requirements and be compatible with parking lot lighting throughout the Mercantile Village area. k . Utilities - Sewer, Water, Gas, Storm D.- .in, Electrical , Telephone: All utilities exist in vacated Collins Way. New connections to the proposed building and - relocations for all utilities will be made in accordance with all city standards. 1 . Drainar(e - Major: A biofiltration storm system is provided on site and calculated to meet City drainage requirements. The parking lot and storm drain lines from roof drains .ili drain through biofiltration areas to catch basins in the landscape areas and then be • connected to the relocated storm drain line .. 0G2 : - Ili . • m. Signs: A building identification sign is proposed to be located at the main entrance. On building tenant signage would be confined to the sign band area or at entrances and would meet all of the City requirements. n . There are no bus shelters, exterior drinking. fountains or exterior mail boxes planned for this facility. o. The following are not incorporated into the exterior building design: mailboxes and Downspouts, chimneys, awnings,a other appendages weathervanes, aerials, attached to the roof or projecting above the roofline. Those elements that are exposed to view (such as windows, doors, lights, signs, decks and railings) have been coordinated and designed to complement each other. Those elements not exposed to -iew (such as utility connections and meters, ters, foundations, mechanical equipment, d stairs) have been carefully integrated and i screened. p. There are no building awnings, signs have been limited to a sign band at the first floor height. On building lights are recessed in soffits under 411 the first or second floor overhangs . q. The building has been designed with a minimal palette of materials in a clean, contemporary style that will blend well with adjacent contemporary structures. r. The rooftop mechanical equipment will be located behind screen walls centered over the building core and not visible to view from adjacent properties. The site is virtually flat with open views only to :r s . the north across a rolling, grassy landscaped area of Mercantile Village (which may be able to be developed in the future) . The building as located 1 on the site will not "Block the views of others unnecessarily. " t. The site contains no existing lardforms, trees, shrubs or other natural vegetation worth preserving. New landscape materials and the building mass will greatly improve the existing site appearance. u. The west elevation includes an exterior deck area for tenants to enjoy the views. Tree and landscape materials have been clustered at the main building II entrance and spaced around the structure at column locations or at window bays to provide scale and enhance proportions. lil, ' v . The site is virtually flat and the spread foundation system will be min' mally exposed, and finished to match the building exterior material at grade . 3 - . 063 i ill w. Building entrances are clearly marked, minimally • recessed for weather protection, secured, lighted and alarmed. Hardware will meet all code requirements including handicapped accessibility . x. The building is designed as a suburban corporate j headquarters building and will be constructed of high quality materials, insulated to meet energy codes and attenuated to reduce noise internally . I There are no noise generating elements which would impact adjacent properties or which would require solid barriers . y . The westerly property line will be landscaped to 1 ' provide a natural visual barrier to the residential properties. z . The roof will be sloped to drain to internal concealed roof and overflow drains that will pipe the water to the storm drain system. 3 . LCDC Goals and Guidelines: This project meets all LCDC Goals and Guidelines . 4 . Comprehensive Plan Policies : This project meets all 1 Comprehensive Plan Policies . Refer to the attached narrative. 1 411 1 1 1 411 i . 064 Mr. Oldnam moved to continue DR 16-92. Mr. Magura seconded the motion and it carried with Mr. Horning, Mr. Magura, Mr. Stanaway, Ms. Morales, and Mr. Oldham voting yes. Alk lir ram' DR 1-93, a request by Hallmark Inns & Resorts, Inc. for approval to construct a 9,726 sq. ft. office building. The site is located on the west side of Lana Drive, adjacent to Mercantile Village (Tax Lots 8200, 9400, 9500 and 9600 of Tax Map 2 1E 8BC). Chairman Stanaway explained the quasi-judicial hearing procedure. He inquired whether any Board members had any ex parte.contacts or any conflicts of interest and there were none. He then requested a report from staff. Mr. Pishvaie distributed a revised Exhibit 3. He explained that the applicant had received approval for an over 14,000 square foot office building on the site in October, 1992. Since that time, the applicant had revised their plans. Mr. Pishvaie explained that the new request had several major differences and was a much better design. The original request had a drive-through feature and two accesses onto Lana Drive. The present request proposes landscaping in ev ce;s of 35% over the site. The items that were of concern to staff were the proposed signs for the project and the storm water detention and storm water quality facilities. Staff had identified two options in the staff report to improve storm drainage and water quality designs. Through discussions with Public Works staff and the consultant, a third option was identified and was acceptable to staff. Staff recommended approval of the request with fifteen conditions. Mr. Pishvaie modified condition 7 to include showing the relocation of 'ate existing gas line from under the proposed building footprint. Applicant Bill Allred. Chief E. ecutive Officer. Hallmark Inns and Resorts explained that they had already received approval for a larger building, but they had decided to down scale the building because of other commitments. The office building would probably have a single user, but may have one other tenant. He explained that whatever signage they decided to use, they would have to go back to the Board for their approval. He discussed traffic management 110 issues and explained that in their present office building, Hallmark Inns and Resorts has a traffic management program with flexible working hours, 5/17/93 DRB Minutes EXHIBIT 12 LU 99-0060 n65 Vim' +may . carpool incentives, and a bus pass program. In ordc: to accommodate a water detention and biofiltration system, they had decided to eliminate five parking spaces. The drainage swale would accommodate the natural drainage from the site and would be located in one corner of the site and would meet the City's standards. Mr. Allred thanked Mr. Pishvaie for all his assistance with the design of the office building. Mr. Allred felt that the building as proposed would be a very nice addition to the community. Mr. Oldham inquired whether there would be enough parking spaces after the elimination of five parking spaces for the drainage swale. Mr. Allred responded that they originally had twelve parking spaces more than the City requirements so they would still have seven extra spaces. Mr. Magusa inquired how many employees would be occupying the building and Mr. Allred responded that there would be around 16 employees. Mr. Allred went on to explain that Hallmark Inns and Resorts was a hotel development and operations company. Their present office - building was built in 1978 and located in Portland. They also had a silk screening business in which they produced merchandise to sell in thei, gift shops. He said that the building would be underutilized but there was expansion potential and the company may hire more personnel in the future. Mr. Allred referenced the color board and described the proposed exterior facade of the building. Mr. Horning pointed ou: that the plans showed a roll up door. Mr. Allred explained that it would be used for shipping and receiving to facilitate deliveries. Mr. Horning inquired about the width of Collins Way. Mr. Alfred explained that the street was one way west-bound only. They anticipated that most cars would use Mercantile Drive for access. Ms. Morales inquired about the mechanical units located on the roof top. Mr. Allred explained that they would be screened and wouldn't be visible. Proponents Bruce Goldson, Vice-President, Waluga Neighborhood Association, 4260 Country Woods Court, Lake Oswego 97035 stated that the developer had met with the Waluga Neighborhood Association and general agreement had been reached between the developer and the neighborhood. They were in favor of the downsizing of the new proposal. 1-1e was concerned with the location of the waste enclosure referenced under • Condition 9. He felt it should be located somewhere other than the westerly 5/17193 DRB Minutes Page 3 of 5 • 066 side of the property since it bordered the residential district. • Mr. Stannawav inquired if there was anyone who wished to testify in opposition of the request and there was no one. He then closed the public hearing for Board deliberation. • Deliberation • Mr. Oldham inquired about art alternative to the location of the waste receptacle and Mr. Pishvaie responded that staff would work with the developer to alleviate any concerns by neighbors. Mr. Oldham moved to approve DR 1-93 with the conditions listed in the staff report and a change to Condition A-7, which would read "Show relocation of the existing sanitary, water, sewer and gas Iines from under the proposed building footprint prior to issuance of building permit:.". Ms. Morales seconded the motion and it carried with Mr. Horning, Mr. Magura, Mr. Stanaway, Ms. Morales, and Mr. Oldham voting yes. V. GENERAL PLANNING None. IVI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Board was not able to approve the January 4, 1993, January 20, 1993, February 17, 1993, March 1, 1993, or April 5, 1993 minutes because of a lack of a quorum on each set. Mr. Pishvaie explained the importance of getting the minutes approved and suggested holding a special meeting at the end of the week. It was agreed that staff would look into the possibility of holding a special meeting on Thursday morning, May 20, at 8:00 a.m. VII. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings. Conclusions and Order Mr. Horning moved for approval of 5D 12-88/V1AR 19-88/PI) 5-88(Mod. 4- 92?/SD 13-92/HR 2-93. Fi dings. Conclusions and Orden'. Mr. Magura seconded the motion and the first vote carried with Mr. Horning, Mr. Magura and Ms. Morales voting yes. Mr. Stanaway and Mr. Oldham abstained. The Findings. Conclusions and Order for pp 7.92 were not available for the Board's review. • Mr. Stanaway explained that the Mayor would like to meet with the Board to discuss some development issues that affect both Metre and Lake Oswego 5/17/93 DRB Minutes Page4of5 067 • 068 • 1 BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD OF THE 2 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO • 3 4 5 A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO ) DR 1-93-1013 CONSTRUCT A 9,726 SQ. FT. ) (Hallmark Inns & Resorts, Inc.) 6 OFFICE BUILDING ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER 7 8 • 9 NATURE OF APPLICATION 10 The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 9,726 sq. ft. office building. The site 11 is located east of Lana Drive and north of Douglas Way (Tax Lots 8200, 9400, 9500 and 12 9600 of Tax Map 2 lE 8BC). 13 14 HEARINGS 15 The Development Review Board held a public hearing and considered this application at 16 its meeting of May 17, 1993. 17 18 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 19 A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: • 20 Impact Management Policies 21 General Policy II 22 General Policy III Z3 Weak Foundation Soils Policies 24 General Policy II General Policy IV 25 26 Social Resources Policies General Policy IV 27 General Policy V 28 Commercial Land Use Policies 29 General Policy I 0 General Policy IV General Policy V 31 West End Business District Policies IV—A 32 Transportation Land Use Policies 33 General Policy I 3 4 General Policy IV, Specific Policy 3d PACE • 1 DR 1-93-1013 EXHIBIT 13 LU 99-0060 069 1 B. City of Lake Oswego Sign Ordinance: 2 LOC 47.105(2) Commercial Sign Maximum Area per Site 40 3 C. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance: 4 5 LOC 48.300-48.315 General Commercial Zone Description 6 D. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards 8 LOC 49.300-49.335 Major Development Procedures S LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval LOC 49.620 Conditional Approval 10 11 E. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 12 2.005 -2.040 Building Design 13 5.005 -5.040 Street Lights 6.005 -6.040 Transit System 14 7.005 -7.040 Parking &Loading Standard 15 8.005 - 8.040 Park and Open Space 9.005 -9.040 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering 16 11.005 - 11.040 Drainage Standard for Major Development 17 13.005 - 13.040 Weak Foundation Soils 14.005 - 14.040 Utility Standard 18 15.005 - 15.040 Erosion Control 19 18.005 - 18.040 Access Standard 19.005 - 19.040 Site Circulation -Private 20 Streets/Driveways 21 20.005 -20.040 Site Circulation -Bikeways and Walkways 22 23 CONCLUSION 24 The Development Review Board concludes that DR 1-93 can be made to comply with all 25 applicable criteria by the application of certain conditions. • 26 27 FINDINGS AND REASONS 28 The Development Review Board incorporates the May 7, 1993 staff report on DR 1-93 29 as support for its decision, supplemented by the following: 10 1. The Board received testimony from the Waluga Neighborhood Association 3 '- regarding the location of waste enclosure on the site. The Board found that the 3 2 proposed structure should be located away from the adjacent residential uses to the 3 3 west in order to provide adequate buffering in that area. 34 PAGE • 2 DR 1-93-1013 07 0 • • 1 ORDER 2 IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD of the City of Lake 10 3 Oswego that: 4 1. DR 1-93 is approved subject to compliance with the conditions of approval set forth in Subsection 2 of this Order. 5 2. The conditions for DR 1-93 are as follows: 6 7 A. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit, the Applicant Shall: 8 1. Submit a final grading plan for review and approval of City Engineer. 9 10 2. Submit a final erosion control plan in accordance with "Erosion Control Plans Technical Guidance Handbook" for review and approval of City 11 Engineer. 12 3. Submit an irrigation plan for review and approval of staff. 13 14 4. Submit a final drainage plan for review and approval of City Engineer. This plan shall incorporate staff recommendations regarding storm water 15 quality treatment facilities as described on page 7 of this report. The 16 applicant shall also submit a final maintenance plan/agreement for the proposed storm water detention and quality facilities in accordance with 17 "Surface Water Facility Technical Guidance Handbook" by Brown and 18 Caldwell. 19 5. Incorporate all recommendations of the soils report (Exhibit 16) in the 20 final construction plans. 21 6. Prohibit construction access from the residential portion of Collins Way 22 west of the site (except for required right—of—way improvements as approved by the City). 23 24 7. Show relocation of the existing sanitary sewer line from under the proposed building footprint. 25 26 8. Show the additional street improvement (8'-10' of asphalt) for the off— site section of Lana Drive from the south property line to Douglas Way. 27 This improvement shall only be required if this project precedes prior to 28 construction of the Equity Office Building to the south. 29 9. Submit a revised site plan showing the location and design features of the 0 waste enclosures for review and approval staff. 31 10. Submit final plans showing location, type and photometric data, including 32 the illumination ratios, for review and approval of City Engineer. The parking lot lights shall be designed to minimize glare into the adjacent 3 3 residential uses to the west. 34 'v11. The applicant shall submit a final Transportation Management Program (TMP) in accordance with LOC 48.315(10)(B) and the 1983 Buttke PAGE Traffic Report for review and approval of City Traffic Engineer. 4110 3 DR 1-93-1013 071 1 B. Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permit, the Applicant Shall: 2 3 1. Complete all construction improvements, have them accepted by the City and submit as—builts to the satisfaction of City Engineer. 4 5 2. Provide easements for all public walkways/sidewalks and public utilities, including storm water detention and water quality facilities, to the 6 satisfaction of City Engineer. 7 3. Areas noted on Exhibit 26 shall be painted in red and designated as no 8 parking fire lane. 9 C. During Construction of the Site. the Applicant Shall: 10 11 1. Adhere to the erosion control guidelines in the listed in "Erosion Control Technical Guidance Handbook", as approved by condition A.2, above. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 • 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 31 32 33 34 PAGE 4 DR 1-93-1013 1111 072 • 1 2 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the • 3 Development Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego. 4 5 DA 1 ED this 7th day of June , 1993. 6 7 S ' away, Chairman 9 Development Review Board 10 11 12 Secretary 13 14 Al EST: 15 16 ORAL DECISION —May 17 1993 17 AYES: Horning, Magura, Stanaway, Morales and Oldham 18 NOES: None . 19 ABSTAIN: None • 20 ABSENT: Stiven and Sievert 21 22 WRITTEN FINDINGS — June 7, 1993 23 24 AYES: Horning, Magura, Stanaway, Morales and Oldham 25 NOES: None 26 ABSTAIN: Sievert 27 ABSENT: S tiven 28 19 10 31 32 33 34 PAGE 5 DR 1-93-1013 073 074 4�",..s4,A�-� ,5;_.. '?,t;-,;� .r f, a� LL:L. �'�' �. ;;;;- STAFF REPORT CITY oF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANT: EILEILQ.: Architects Barrentine. Hates. Lee MA DR 15-92 L'ROI'EKLY OWNER: SI EL: • Ilalltttark Inns & Resorts, Inc. Hantid 1'ishvr.ie LE GAL.IN.:SCRIP 1Qi1: DA21<Q1_R1:1.'_QRT: Tax Lots 8200, 94(X), 95(X)& 96(X)of August 7, 1992 Tax Map 2 IV. KIIC • DATED.'11E1lt ING: LOCATION: • August 17, 1992 East of Lana Drive & north of Douglas Way HLIG11LOR11401) ASSOCIATION: COW, PLAN AN DESIGNATION: Waluga GC ZONIN(G 1)ES1(iNATION: GC 1. API'LICAN'I"S_RI:QUES7' The applicant is requesting approval to contilrucl ;t I.1,350 square foot office building. 11. Al'PLICARLL.RLGUL1'1'IONS A. City of Lake.Oswego Comprehenzi'T Plan: impact Management Policies General Policy II General Policy III 1111 Wet,k Foundation Soils Policies General Policy II General Policy IV EXHIBIT 14 LU 99-0060 t)It15 ' 075 • Social Resources Policies • General Policy IV General Policy V Commercial land Use Policies General Policy I General Policy IV General Policy V West End Business District Policies IV-A Transportation Land Use Policies General Policy I General Policy IV, Specific Policy 3d • B. City_a_Lake_ sw_e.Lo Sign Ordinance: LOC 47.105(2) Commercial Sign Maximum Area per Site C'. City_oLLake_Os iebo nin, Qrdina_r3ce: LOC 48.300-48.315 General Commercial ?,erne Description D. City of Lakc.O wsgoDc1!c1opme11LCode: LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards LOC 49.3(x) - 49.335 Major Development Procedures I.00 49.615 . Criteria for Approval • LOC 49.620 Conditional Approval E. City cif.I.;tk4_Qs�ti�ebo_Develc)lmier3t.Sland;irkls.: 2.(X)5 -- 2. )4O 13uik1ing Design 5.0 )5 - 5. 140 Street Lights 6.(X)5 6. 140 Transit System 7.005 -• 7. 14(1 Parking & Loading Standard 8.005 8. 14() Park and Open Space 9.O05 - 9.040 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering 11.005 - 1.040 Drainage Standard for Major Development I 3.005 -- 3.040 Weak Foundation Soils I.1.(X)5 - 4.040 Utility Standard 16.005 - 6.040 l lillsidc Protection and Erosion Control 8.(X)5 -• 8.0-10 Access Standard •• 19.005 - 9.0-10 Site Circulation - Private Streets/Driveways 200)5 - 20.(140 Site Circulation - Bikeways and Walkways III. FINDINGS A. Existing Conditions; I. The site is located on the east side of the intersection of Lana Drive and Collins Way near the Mercantile Village. The site is vacant and relatively flat, with heavy understory vegetation. • • 2. The site is 160' by 17rt' in sire with Collins Way, which has been vacated, passing through On, MI:II. ! ell of the site. Fxhihits 1 and 2. DR 15-92 • Page 2 of 9 y/ w, 0 7 6 ,..• - -, — - • - • _::.,.,.:.,,,_ ......-„,..... L. .-.„ ;,,,,:. e '1'444, ..., , 3. Access to the site is provided via Lana Drive. All public services necessary to O serve the site are presently located in the vacated Collins Way right--of--wary. 13. Proposal: . The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 14,350 square feet, two story 1 (synthetic plaster finished), office building. C. Compliance.with_Cri1crialor.AAAroYaL II As per 1.00 49.615, the Development Review Board must consider the following criteria when evaluating minor or major development. . r • 1. The burden of proof, in all cases, is upon the applicant seeking approval. The applicant has submitted the information required by LOC 49.315 (I) -(12). • These documents are listed as exhibits which accompany this report. 2. For any application to be approved,it shall first be established that the proposal conforms to : a. The City's Comprehensive Plan,and. t Applicable policy groups arc listed on pages 1 and 2 of this report. The applicant's narratives (Exhibits 1 I & 12) provide a thorough analysis of these policies. • — Impact Management Policies: These policies require protection of natural resources from development. :, comprehensive review of development proposals, and payment of an equitable share of the costs of public improvements. The policies require assurance that distinctive areas will he preserved, soils will he protected from erosion, trees will be protected from removal. streams will be preserved and that density will he limited to achieve these results. Exhibits h anti 7 illustrate the proposed public improvements in the project. Compliance with the applicable Development Standards reviewed below will assure conformance to these Plan policies. Conditions of approval will be imposed when necessary to assure compliance. — Weak Foundation Soils Policies: These policies are intended to protect development from damage caused by weak foundation soils. City resources compiled from U.S. Sciil Conservation Service District mapping indicate that the majority of the site has a potential for weak foundation soils. The applicant has addressed these policies by submitting Exhibit 13, a geotechnical investigation cif the site. The report concludes that the proposed structure can he constructed on the site The report contains several geotechnical design recommendations which nerd to he imposed as conditions of approval on this s. - project and incorporated into the Ianal building design. 9 — Social Resources Policies: R: These policies require protection of features valuable to community identity and r, . qualities which are the ,ride of residents. - preservation of the natural and aesthetic quahu� 1 DR 15 ')2 Page 3 of 4) 0 7 7 ,1 ft..:lc . heSr polictr:a also encourage citizen parti.:ipation in t le development review process. 'i'lrc applicants have held a meeting with representatives of the Waluga • Neighboihood Association. The neighhoncmxl views are presented in Exhibit 20. • Other policies are implemented through application of specific development standards such as the Open Space and Park Standard. Compliance to the applicable Development Standards reviewed below will assure conformance to this Plan policy. Commercial Land Use Polices: (West End Business District Policies IV-A) These polices require the commercial development to minimize impacts on residential areas from traffic, lights, visual appearance of parking and loading areas, building hulk and height, noise and drainage. The applicant's narrate'': (Exhibits 11 • & 12) addr:tities these policies,except for building design and gaming standards which arc discussed in more detail later in this report. -Transportation Policies: • These policies require that streets be improved as planned when demand requires. The site plan (i.xhihi' 3). applicant's Narrative (Exhibit 1 I ) and traffic report (Exhibit 14) adequately address these policies. The traffic related issues will be discussed in more detail under the 1Jtility Standard later in this report. h. The applicable statutory and ('tale requirements and regulaiiens including, ('ity ,?C I.akc 0;iwcgo Sign (_)rdin;urrc:: 1.00 47.105(2) - Multiple Tenant Commercial or industrial Building • Exhibit 5 illustrates the proposed complex identification sign on the south elevation. I.00 47.105(21(C) limits the sign to 32 square fee: in size. The applicant has also indicated that each tenant would have an individual sign hand on the building, LAX' .17.1(15(2)(a). No graphics or colOr specifications have been provided by the applicant at this time. To assure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance, the applicant will he required to apply for a sign permit application (a minor develo,mtrnt) to the satisfaction of staef. city of i.afar Oswego Zoning Ordinance: l,OC 48.300-48.315 - ('ormmercial Districts (General Commercial) The proposed office use is a permitted use in the General Commercial zone. The site plan (Exhibit 3) illustrates adequate setbacks for the proposed building and parking area along the west pror:r,y line, which abuts a medium density residential zone (It- 7.5), ILO(' 03 10(1 It 1 .I. As Exhibit 5 illustrates. the building height (271--6") is within the maximum .")' allowed by I.00 48.310(1)(5). Finally, the proposed lot coverage (3•1.32%) is within the maximum 5(1', allowed by i.00 48.310(1)(3). The applicant has submitted a detailed traffic report (Exhibit 14) which addresses the requirements of 1.0(' 41.(.315( 1(1). The ('it. Traffic Engineer has reviewed this report and generally agrees with its conclusions tried recommendations. The study indicates • that the proposed of tice building would hay,- little impact on surrounding streets as a result of traffic. All intersections will continue to operate at levels of service "1)" or better. DR 15.92 Q? 8 • I'age •1ofu „_, : - .ter - - _ ..xis.., •.�.x"..ctt _ �_ , ~+a,..c_...,..+_ At the intersection of Douglas Way and Booties herry oad, the level of service is • "D” during the PM peak hour traffic. According to LOC 48.i 15(10)(D), implementation of a transportation management program (TMP) is required of all owners and employers whose development affect the intersection and cause it to operate at a level of service "C" or worse. The traffic report identifies several preliminary transportation modes that need to be implemented to satisfy the TMP • requirements. The applicant should be required to provide a final TMP program in compliance with LOC 48.315(10)(13) and the 1983 Bunke Traffic Report to the City Traffic Engineer for his review and approval. City-of Lakt:4Q go_Dc_Y_cloprnenLOrdi,ancc: LOC 49.300W9.335 — Major Development Procedures This development review application is appropriately being processed as a major development. The applicant has submitted all the information required by subsection 1-12 of this section. The infomiation provided can be reviewed in the exhibit section of this report, City_oll.-ake.Onyego.—►ree Guttin Ordinance: Only one tree greater than 5" in diameter which will need to be removed in order to constnict the required street improvements on Lana Drive, I.0C 55.080(2). This tree, a 14"-16" cottonwood, is located within the existing public right—of—way. As illustrates, the applicant will provide new street trees (Armstrong Red Maple) along this street. 1111 c. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards; The site does not contain any 1 listoric Resources, Stream corridors. Wetlands or Floodplain; therefore, these standards are not applicable. The applicant is not proposing any fences. The applicant has addressed the applicable criteria in Exhibits 3 -19. This report will address those standards which require additional discussion or where modifications to the applicant's proposals are recommended. Building Design -- (2.005-2.0-10) The applicant has provided natTatives (Exhibits 11 & 12) and graphic material (Exhibits 3-5, and 211. including a color hoard, addressing the requirements of the 13uikiing Design Standard. Staff recommends that the proposed building does not comply with-the requirements of the Building Design Standard. The structure abuts Lana Drive, providing no landscape separation between the building and the sidewalk. In comparison to the other one and two story commercial buildings along Lana Drive, the proposed building appears to loom over the street and sidewalk area. in addition, the building when viewed from the east, west and south appears to he surrounded by concrete and asphalt. It will appear to turn its hack to the street and by doing so not create a complementary relationship on the east side of Lana Drive. 1111 'l'hc east elevation (Exhibit 5) will create a single plane.of structure along the street :u,•► sidewalk unbroken v.:cept for the garage entry to parking. This elevation is not complementary to the '.greet and pedestrian ::;ilk alongside the building. Staff DR 15-92 079 Page 5 of 9 • recommends that the building r'ndlur site design be modified to create a more complementary relationship with elements of the surrounding built and natural (landscaped) envir..ainent. • On its own, the building and its design elements are well designed and the structure on it-larger site, or one with more landscaping. would be a good addition to the southwest quadrant area. If approval is giver, the applicant should illustrate the location and type of tenant signagc in elevations and by providing "Design Guidelines" for future signag,e. The building size, with associated parking requirements, wig' also make it very difficult to satisfactorily address the drainage standard (storm water quality requirement). This.issue will be addressed in more detail.later in this report. Staff recommends that the building design/size be, modified to address the issues raised in; this, report. • • Street Lights-(5.005-5.040) There is an existing street light located on the west side. of Lana Drive, at the westerly projection of the north curb of Collins Way. This light is concealed in the foliage rf a nearby cottonwood tree. An additional street light, at approximately 150' of the existing light, will he required. As an alternative, the applicant can replace an existing nonstandard street light on the cast side of Lana Drive with a standard light (both pole and fixture), taking advantage of existing underground wiring. The final Iocaturn, type and photometric data,.including the illumination ratios, should be submitted for review and approval ,af City Engineer. Exhibit 8 illustrates the proposed ligh'ing in the parking area. Staff recommends that • the parking lights be changed from 25(1 :o 150 watt HPS in order to minimize !anemia' impacts and glare on the adjacent residential uses to the west. Transit - (6.005-' .040) Currently, there is no hard surface path which connects the site to the transit facilities at Mercantile Drive. The west side of Lana Drive is projected to have a sidewalk from Douglas Way to the newly realigned Mercantile Drive. Exhibit 3 illustrates a 5' sidewalk along the set: frontage: therefore, satisfying LOOS 6.020(1)(a) & (h). The adjoining property to the north, owned by St. Vincent': I lospital, is required to construct a sidewalk along their frontage on Lana Drive when the Hallmark Inns' property develops (conditions of approval for DR 7-88). Parking and i.oading-- (7.005-7.040) As Exhibits 3 and 9 illustrate, the applicant is providing more parking than the standard requires (56 as compared to 48), LOI)S 7.020(7)(c)(ii). Providing this excess parking restricts the applicant's ahility to properly address the Buildieg Design Standard (previously discussed) and the Drainage Standard. Staff's analysis of the site plan, landscape plan lExhihit 9) anti utility plan (Exhibit 7) indicates that the proposed site design would restrict the applicant's ability to comply with the stoma water quality. requirements. 'Ibis issue will he discussed in More detail later in this report. Staff recommends that the proposed parking spaces along the southeast corner.ol the site he removed in order to provide adequate area to address the storm skater quality issue. DR 15 92 - 030 Page 6 of 9 ri YJ Park and (.4. i Space - (g.005-8.940) 0 . This standard i; met by the Landscape State+ :r'1, bcto''• t_und:.coping. Screening and Buffering-(9.00S-9).040) Since the site contains no Distinctive Naut..aaal Areas (DNA), protection open space o: public acquisition land areas, the 15% landscape requirement of LODS 9.020(1) can also satisfy the open space n•quirement of LODS 8.020(1) and (2). The applicant is proposing apprtxcrnatcly l;.36% of the net buildable land area site in landscaping and has prov d"d a landscape plan for Dora:,t's review, Exhibit 9. This plan shows "Arm:wrong" red maple as p-oh•)sed street trees, in a 2 i/2' wide planter strip along Lana Drive. A review of the proposed l:ti:;1::e'p, plan indicates that the tt,:tjority of the landscaping ec,nsi:.es of na sw strips along the property lines,especially a 5' and 6.5' strips along the noi th and so nth property lines, respectively. Staff finds that.given the scale of the proposed !J'tit_iing. additional landscaping would be necessary to break down the scale and si'.c of 'lie building and to make it more compatible with the surrounding natural and built environment. Statl recommends that the landscape plan lye f:•':alized to show !hr •allowing information: - Additional landscape area Number of plants to he planted, to a:t',•v for .;:icctu,,Lc field inspection. - An irrigation plan 11111 Drainage for Major Dcvetatpiacnt - (11.005 1.040) The storm drainage and waatcr quality issues h;_ve been addressed in Exhibit: 6, . 1, and 1l-19, Public drainace taci!itics are available to the site. As shown on Exhibit 7, a 12" storm drain line. presently located in the south half of vacated Callins Way, will he relocated to the south of the propi.d building in a utility easement. Based on an analysis of the record, staff makes the following findings: Storm.Winer Detention:The information provided for the parking lot detention facilities (Exhibits I(>- 19) shows that it will he (lit-field; to store the required detention volume in the parking lot. The facilities will also be hard to maintain due to the small orifices needed to release the storm wa!•r 1n addition, with such a small parking area the periodic flooding of the lot may ' ance to those °.,sing the parking. TO satisfy the storm water detention r^'ltaircment, staff recommends ovcrsizing a1 segment of the proposed 12" storm drain line running through the .ite and providing storm water detention in this line. Surface.Water•Quality.Facilities:Thc, • t ,-' . '>ctwecn the .,ropose„ vegetated swages, the landscape plan and the 2 ' " . . overhang from parking area, Exhibits 3, 7 and tt. The grass- lined s. ,:•:d to be constructed with gradual side slopes (no steeper than 3:I) and with c' loth to laeavide sufficient contact for water flowing through the vegetation (giacst. Staff recommends that the proposed • grading and utility plans (Exhibits (a& 7)do not pros isle enough width to constrict the designed swale width along the south pre . 7y titre. Stall recommends Hiatt the building size he sliehtly r'duced (with fewer parking spaces) in order to ac•ctnnimxhu e a wider swaie arid l.)ndseaping arra, DK I:+-92 0 al Page. 7 of 9 -. . . _ • The applicant should be required to provide a revised maintenance plan/agreement for the proposed storm water quality and detention facilities to comply with the requirements outlined in the Surface Water Quality Facility Technical Guidance Fiandboxtk (Brown & Caldwell). The detention-and storm water quality facilities are accessible for maintenance equipment form the parking area. Weak Foundation Soils - (1 3.005-13.(W0) The applicant has provided a detailed geotechnical report (Exhibit 13) which concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed development. Stuff rccomr:ends that the all recommendations listed in that report he followed by the applicant and be incorporated into the building design and final construction plans. iltilities - (14.005-14.040) Bi!sed upon analysis of theutility plan (Exhibit 7) and applicant's narrative (Exhibit I I), staff makes the following findings: As E::hibit 7 illustrates, all public services necessary to serve the site are presently located in the vacated Collins Way right-of-way. Due to the location of the proposed building, relocation of the utilities is necessary. The sanitary sewer and water lines arc shown to he rerouted along the south side of the proposed building. Once the utilities are relocated and new easements provided, the City will quitclaim the easements it retained on the vacated Collins Way right of way. • Lana Drive was constructed as 4 half st;ee( by developrrenz on the cast side of the street and now functions only as a one wav street. '11ie applicant must complete the west half of Lana Drive to match :he improvements on the cast side, with the associated drainage improvements, as needed, to drain the curhlinc and tie into the public system. The resulting street will be 2::' width, curb to curb. Once the street iniproverie'ni ,hutting the property is completed, there will remain a 10' wide asphalt one way 'trip from the south property line to Douglas Way. This sec!ion is currently posted "one w;tv" soutl►hound. The minimum width for two-way strc:'ts is 20' and, considering the ;added traffic generation, the off-site section of Lana Drive will need to he widened to the minimum standards by adding 8' 10' of asphalt from the ::oath pmperty line to D!ntglas Way. in order to prole,: the adjoining residential area to the west, construction traffic should he prevented from using the residential street (Collins Way) as an access. All cable utilities are currently underground and there is a hydrant at the intersection of Lana Drive and Collins Way. Stalf review of the utility plans only verified the capacity of public facilities and services to servo the development The location and size of these services will be determined prior to approval of the final construction plans. ilillside Protection and Erosion (Mittnil - (16.005-i 040) No erosion control phut has been submitted by the applicant. A detailed erosion control plan should he submitted with the final construction plans. This plan must comply with . . the state iiiandated erosion ctnitria requirements outlined in the ''Erosion Control Technical Guidance I lainihook" adopted by the ('itv. 1)t. 15 'r 0 8 2 5_ •4F^Re' .. le-q Af ..-.rr--aa, h rf . di• f �. ( • • yr ,.l i< , L. . • I • Access — (18.O05-1 tt.()•10) As Exhibit 3 illustrates, access to the site will he provided through Lana Drive. Site Circulation — Private Street/Driveways— (19.005-19.040) The applicant's site plan (Exhibit 3) ard narrative (Exhibit 11) adequately address this standard. The Fire Marshal has reviewed the site plan and found it to be acceptable. Site Circulation — Bi%eways/Pathways— (20.005-20.040) Exhibit 3 illustrates the proposed internal sidewalks in the development. These sidewalks will provide a pedestrian pathway connection from the residential area (to the - west) to the commercial development (to the east). This standard is met. d. Any applicable future streets plan or ODDS There are no such plans which affect this site. IV. CONCLUSION Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant, staff concludes that the proposal does not presently comply will all applicable criteria. The applicant's proposal does not adequately address the Building Design and Drainage for Major Development Standards, as discussed earlier in this report. V. RECOMMENDATLON Staff recommends that the application be continued to a date certain so that the applicant address all the issues outlined in this report. I;Xil.I.133JTS I. Tax Map/Vicinity Map 2. Survey Map 3. Site flan/First Level Floor flan 4. Second Level Floor Plan 5. Building Elcva.ions 6. Preliminary Grading Plan 7. Preliminary Utility Plan g. Preliminary Lighting Plan 9. Landscape Plan M. Landscape Plan Description II. Applicant's Narrative 12. Supplemental Applicant's Narrative, dated July 1 5, 1992 13. Geological Investigation, dated June 19, 1992 14. Traffic Impact Analysis, dated July, 1992 15. Photometric Data 16. Drainage Analysis, dated 30, 1992 17. Water Quality Analysis, dated July 17. 1992 1 K. Supplemental Drainage analysis, dated July 2►, 1992 • 19. Supplemental Drainage analysis, dated Julv 24, 1992 2(1, Minutes of May 26, 1992, Neighborhood Meeting with Neighbors and the Waluga Ncighhorhuod Association 21 Color Board (Too Large to Reproduce) tid��n ��•�.cM��,.iuc i; >> Dr; 1 5-•92 Q 8 3 • • • 084 i • Co • w - _ �, a, 0 • . r � l j ( x v•-• ,,,c, � o m a; •4 a, II; �1. V 1. + • kI ; .••...........-• ••• 1 ; -., i . . .tea I ITI r. • I I • ! I —1_ jai a!T's3•o2101 I 1 t.. t I i ••t + •».••• ? fir .; t 1 1 1 t :1 i 1 1 ,I 1 1- 1 i ..• • 4 •I iill O , ' GNI i-07 ' ' +,-ti a tt_-1��1,1 Iiil a • . 1 l 1 i'i i1111.1 -- ` .. 1 ' • • I 1 • I • :i E y • •r :.. ... _.. I i • • �. •a ♦a•� .•�1... . - •. t •••. r.•.••.. 1 ! ..1•.•.». a ..• t �» �. 1 '• 11' I •L1 ; i • j' •'y 1 i 1 IIIi • 086 .:.44: °t �...-. • PZ:ti:^r{ .x• :. �'�`::.`�r•%��.i s�..'�.'. .. �_ "ai ivy i•. - ►.)EV LOPMENT STAINI)ARI)S NA ItftA'I'Ivf? HALLMARK INNS& RESORT'S I'II ADOUARTERS MERCANTILE VILI.AGI, AREA LAKE OSWEGO, ORIG(.)N 1. The following standards arc not applicable to this development: a. Stream Corridors h. Flood Plain c. Wetlands d. hillside Protection/Erosion Control e. Greenway f. Residential Density g. Residential Energy • h. Historic Resource Preservation i. LID Formation/Segregation • j. Drainage - Minor Development k. Fences 2. The following standards arc applicable to this development and have been addressed as follows: • Weak Foundation Soils: Refer to the attached Soils Investi,,ation by-Fujitani, 1 lilts & Associates dated 19 June I09)2. h. Pail and Open Space: This Standard requires commercial development to provide IS".'r of the gross land area in open space or park land. The proposed development provides I7.(1 open landscape space. c. I andscaping, `street Trees. Screening. Buffering: The landscaping has been designed to compliment the existing surrounding and natural features of the site. The landscape area requirement will be satisfied to the same extent as the park and open space requirement above. d. Building Design: The 14,35(1 S.I . two story building has been carefully designed to integrate and compliment the appearance of adjacent buildings in the Mercantile Village area. The exterior of the building will have two colors of synthetic !,taster ("I)ryvit"-type). The building sets hack •Itr at the westerly residential property line and the two story building height is a minimal 28' high. The proposed development's impact on the residential properties is additionally mitigated by landscape buffering/screening within the required I(1' parking setback. 411/ • rXNI8IT EXHIBIT 16 LU 99-0060 ' IF ri.. :.�tl<-j?�sR •.,. ?'�win.,:,.,:tr.�.c r y.� _,�¢, -- „�-,.....,. i?a..srn '•swea=01' '_ . �►�.oas'�x.,::.::fr ..dti � ctiC �i�4li:iri��-`ems: �� J�: 1�.rt�-.*•.ti,c,'-..d>4.€t�� • e. Parking and I..oading: . The parking standard requires a minimum of I space per 300 square feet of gross floor area or 48 parking spaces (14,350 S.f. \300 = 47.83). The proposed development contains 56 parking spaces (27 standard, 26 compact (46.4%), and 3 handicapped) designed in accordance with the parking standard dimensions. Access: Access to the site from '_..ana Drive is proposed near the northerly and southerly property lines. Refer to the attached David Evans & Associates traffic analysis dated 30 June 1992. g. Site Circulation, Driveways and Private Streets: Driveways and parking lot aisles will meet all the city, requirements. The maximum parking lot grade at any point has been designed to he 5%. h. Site Circulation - Bikeways and Walkways: . l`, 5' wide concrete sidewalk is proposed adjacent to Lana Drive and will meet all City requirements. In addition, a concrete walkway has been located at the west property line to connect to the residential portion of Collins Way at the request of the Neighborhood Association. Transit: •Tri-Met transit scrvics exist at Mercantile Village and hat d-surfaced pedestrian paths connect this site to the transit facilities. Street Lights: • Street lights exist on Lana Drive and parking lot lighting has 'wen designed to meet all city requirements and be compatible with parking lot lighting, throughout the Mercantile Village area. k. lttititles - Sewer, Water, (;as. S ornt Drain, Electrical, Telephone: All utilitie . exist in vacated t'idlins Way. New connections to the proposed building and relocations for all utilities will he made in accordance with all citti standards. Drainage - Major: A biofi:rration storm system is provided on site and calculated to meet City drainage requirements. The pari,i►;g lot and storm drain lines from roof drains will drain through 1. 41filtration areas to catch basins in the landscape areas and then be •::onnected to the relocated storm drain line. nr. Signs: A building identification sign is proposed to be located at the main entrance. On building, ten:mt signai;e would he confined to the si, n hand area or at entrances and would meet all of the City requirements. :t, I.t I)( ' ( ;+►ads anti (;uidclincs: This project meets all I .CI)(' ( ;trails and (;►tidetines. Comprehensive Plan Policies: This project meets all comprehensive plan policies. Refer to the attached narrative. 088 110• • 4 . Comprehensive Plan Policies: General Policies • I . The City will encourage development of commercial areas • to meet the community' s consumer needs. -- The site is already located in commercially zoned land (G. C . ) . :' . Plan for commercial centers as community local points. -- The site is located in the West End Business District and adjacent to the Mercantile Village. As such, the site is both mutually supportive of both commercial and service activities , plus it is convenient to the public . -- The site plan and executive office building use is in keeping with the general character of the community. Plan for the development of commercial districts scaled in size to the area served. - The site .is _located in the West End Business District . The site in already Zoned General Commercial . The building wi l I meet all applicable desirable gross learablc square fool , building coverage or floor area ratio . No zone change in required . 4 . Encourage private investment in planned commercial centers. -- The site in located in the West. End Business District . - - No private i uceut i ven are required red due to all new development . - 11 . Assure minimum commercial intrusion on residential areas. - The project. ' s location, adjacent to the Mercanti 1e Village area and in close proximity to both Kruse Way and Lower Boones Ferry Road, will minimize through traffic on neighborhood streets . - - The trite is a collector or crteria] street: and not residential (par. t of the site is a vacated portion of a former neighborhood street) . A traffic impact. :study .is being prepared to determine .;t rent./i nt.er sect. loll impacts . The building dehic)n , site and landscape plan:; ulinitni ::e the project an impact on the adjacent residential area . (,1e.';It consideration has been g.lVell to the visual appearance of parkin(' and loading areal:; . The building' s snl.rl I i ::e ilnel I wn :;t my eIovaI ion is compatible with • both I Ile' and :wale of rtur tuuntlinel culutnel e• ial and r-e+:; i rlemt i a 1 eleVe. 1 eel+In�•111- . '1'llt? tJPVPinlllne'lll i :; .1 low 1Ilt +'n5it./ e'xe'cttt t \'e' eat t ie e ! � 1►u i l d•i net. 089 • �_� _ ' ,�r..:t e. !'C�', r, 'f•. � t p g; a _..t `rda+!'ti".'*'�` " `3,.-. +•r.' 410 410 411 West End Business _District IV-A - The policies developed for the • West End Business District apply to this request . Applicable policies are discussed below. • Policy - 1 . Limit commercial land. --- No new commercially zoned property irr being created . The property is already zoned commercial . Pedestrian, bike and auto traffic. -- Pedestrian, bike and auto traffic can connect via sidewalks or public streets to the adjacent Mercantile village development or to other West. End Business District businesses . 3 . Not. applicable. 4 . Not applicable . �, . Size and scope of project . - -- The size, scope snn scale of this development is fu 1 ly compatible w,i t h both the district ' s he i:ght and the adjacent uses . h. The height and setback standards are fully compatible with West End flusi nets District standards . f `i'll('.r'1! ale no Hfinilieant trees on the n i t e . _• q . The landscape plan will blend into the adjacen! Mercantile V i l 1 drier landscape area . h . The landscape plan , plus the building setback , !:r eate.s a bu f f.vT :lone- from the fl(i li1C!'flt residential area . 6 . Protection of residential neighborhoods. a . The landscaping plan creates a buffer :one with the adjacent residential neighborhood . lb. The landscape plan and planting material will protect the adjacent residential area from headlight- glare . The executive office building is primarily a day-use facility which will minimi::e noise problems . '1 . Not app Ic:4,hle . jt . Development of adequate access and parking. d/h. There wi l i be adequate on site park.i ncl at: part of 'the development. . There should be no on-street parking on adjacent streets . • • 090 i. .-.ti 4 '•;''' :t -MI • - t?`- x 'y s _,._,_ j=- + .:aryl.W1H•rw �. J:dW yy..s• 1 ;•t r - a v*- 9 s,1rl;f s }.+.i..._s.:r 4:4,- 4i-a .,i}: - • 4";1,,, ( , 411 . 9 . Protection of Boones Ferry Road as arterial street . ---- The site is not adjacent to, or abutting, Lower Booties . Ferry Road. . 10 . Protection of Kruse. Way as arterial street. . -- Access to Kruse Way will be from Mercantile Dr- i�e . Section IV-D Policies - The policies developed for the southwest quadrant of the Kruse Way/Lower. Boones Ferry intersection apply to this request . Apnlicable policies are discussed below. Policy 1 . Commercial land .use between Lake Grove School and Collins Way . vacated portion of - - The site straddles the previously Collins Way. Traffic capacity on Kruse Way and Boores Ferry. A traffic impact study is being prepared by avid Evans & Associates . This will help pcapacity of both Kruse Way and Boones Ferry. 3 . Proper access points. 0 This project will improve the existing street system through the widening of Lana Drive to city/county street: :.t an ardt; • 4 . Limit direct access to Kruse Way and Boones ferry . T1'her(. is no direct_ access to ei t.l1CT KTU.'"1 Wily C)1 Boone:7 Ferry from the site . . Not applicable . b . Connection with residential area. In our landscaping plan , and at the request of ' re:; idents of Collins Way, there will be both a pedestrian and bicycle path connecting the site and the adjacent neighborhood . V . Not applicable . B . Nut cippl icab l e . q " Quality of life. Quality of life in the adjacent residential 'ter i ghborhood will not be compromised l'.ecftt5', of the quality of the overall site design and integrated f ,rndncape' plan . . 411 10 . Not ;q)pl ic:pbly . 3 091 7 ` L°•.. am - •:A+ .' - _: ' ` � �yR. 1 ,,,t�s �T•s_ l I�Y�{ �.. k.,,,r :�,� "-•Y.. • •C�i+� a..-�JF"-itt ��- •. Y!P,•.?�'�T?+ rAl;Y f«� .'�kr '.r3.'?!►'�I`1f .. •�fiYls••.-.� 'r.'" .." -1 . • *_ , ...7� �-,' .. I I . 11„t applicable . • • 1 . , Site planning. - Great. consideration and study has been given to the s i t e plan (approximately 2 3 different site stud i en were r eceived) , to ensure that the development ' s access circulation, parking, landscaping, design and drainage are properly related to both the adjacent residential area and adjacent commercial developments . ; 3 . General design objectives . • Thin development will be a small ( 4 1 4 , `.)OO square foot ) Executive Office Building, which the owner w_i l l occupy in; • i t ' s corporate headquarters . a . The size and scale of the building in in keeping with other development in Lake Grove and adjacent rievelnpment in the Mercantile Village . b. The building in primarily oriented toward the adjacent Mercantile Village greenbelt area . c . The parking lot is separated into small clusters of parking through use of landscape islands . d . Residences of the adjacent Collins Way residential area wi 3 1 have bout pedestrian and bicycle access across; t hc_ Hie If) the ad 1,:.•esnL Mercclnt. i 1 e V i l ) aqn area . e . Loading and 'r v i ce ar can wi t l he `.:e1 iirated f r 4-Un I,rcic:::t_r i .11t ar r•iln . .. . Not i:•111:1 _ t•dt:l • • 111/ 4 � 92 • BEFORE ORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 OF TIIE ('ITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 2 3 4 A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO ) DR 15-92-975 CONSTRUCT A 14,350 SQ. PT. ) (Hallmark Inns & Resorts, Inc.) 5 OFFICE BUILDING ) FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS & ORDER 6 7 8 NATEURI:_OLAP_PL1CATIOE 9 The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 14,350 sq. ft. office building, The site 10 is located west of Lana Drive. adjacent to Mercantile Village, Tax Lot 8200, 9400,9500, 11 96(X) of Tax Map 2 I E 8I3C). 12 13 IJEAIi1N_GS 14 The Development Review Board held a public hearing and considered this application at 15 its meetings of August 17, and September 9, 1992. Aoki CRITERIA_ANt)_STANDARDS 18 A. City_DELake_U 1 CLnizclzettsiv�l'�an: 19 Impact Management Policies 20 General Policy II 21 General Policy III 22 Weak Foundation Soils Policies 23 General Policy 11 General Policy IV 24 . 25 Social Resources Policies General Policy IV 26 Gcmcral Policy V 27 Commercial Land Use Policies• 28 General Policy I �9 General Policy IV General Policy V 10 West End Business District Policies 1 V--A 31 'I'rirtslutrtation Land Ilse Policies 3 2 General Policy 1 General Policy IV, Specific Policy 3d IP 3 • 4 It. City_ulttkc_Uswego.SistLQrdinancc: IDC 47.IO5(2)Comtnercial Sign Maximum Area per Site PAGE I DR IS 92-975 093 . ... � /. _tL r :,.t ,a�-s f. .ter::"Q - •• . •. e 1 ('. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance: .. IA)C48.300-48.3I5 k3encral Commercial Zone Description 3 1). City of Lake Oswego Development Cole: a c, LOC 49.090 APplicability of Development Standards LOC 49.300- 49.335 Major Development Procedures 6 LOC 4'4.6I5 Criteria for Approval 1.00.'.9.620 Conditional Approval 8 city_oLLak Oswego Development Standards: S 2.005 -2.040 Building Design 10 5.005 -5.040 Street Lights 11 6.())5 - 6.040 Transit System 7.(X)5 -7.040 Parking & Loadk,• standard -.. 12 8.(X)5 -8.040 Park and Open Sp:.,:e 13 9.0()5 -9.040 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering 11.005 - 1.040 Drainage Standard for Major Development 14 13.(X)5 - 3.040 Weak Foundation Soils 1 15 I 4.(X)5 -- 4.0.10 Utility Standard 16.(X)5 - 6.040 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control 16 18.(X)5 - 8.040 Access Standard 17 19.(X)5 - 9.040 Site Circulation •- Private0 Streets/Drivcways 18 20.(X)5 - 20.040 Site Circulation - Bikeways and 19 Walkways 20 1 CONCLUSION • 22 The Development Review Board concludes that DR 15-92 can be made to comply with • 23 all applicable criteria hy the application of certain conditions. 24 25 I1NL)1NOS11NI?1EAS_ONS 26 • The Development Review Board incorporates the August 7, 1992 staff report and the 27 August 27, 1992 staff memorandum on DR 15-92 as support for its decision, 28 supplemented by the following: • 19 I. Additional exhibits listed below were presented to the Board at the hearings of 1 0 August 17 and September 9, 1992, and entered into the record: 31 Exhibit 23 Letter by I larding Fletcher Company (Todd B. I larding), dated 32 August 17, 19(.;.. 3 3 Exhibit 24 Perspective 34 Exhibit 25 Colored Rendering of Landscape Plan II Exhibit 26 Colored Rendering of East Elevation/Landscape Plan PAGE 2 l)R 15--')2--975 . 094 i; �• '` �\ n+. 1. .. } l" } { ,T�'J il,. ILt',SPY' S 4°T l fi y _ • a 0 Exhibit 27 !;trl;gested List of Conditions of Approval . Exhibit 31 Colored Rendering of Perspective Exhibit 32 Colored Rendering of Revised landscape Plan 3 Exhibit 33 Revised Site flan 4 2, After review of the evidence in the record and the testimony from the applicant and 5 citiZernti, the Board made the following findings: 6 Exhibits 28-30 demonstrate that the storm water quality and detention issues 7 have been adequately addressed by the applicant to the satisfaction of the City 8 Engineer. - The Board found that the scale and massing of the proposed building have been - 10 reduced by additional landscaping in the parking area (approximately 200 1 1 square feet) and incorporation of an indented planter along the cast elevation, as 12 :;;iown on Exhibits 31-33. The Board found that these design modifications 13 were adequate to soften the building facade and create a pedestrian friendly 14 environment along Lana Drive. 15 • 16 ORDER 17 IT IS ORI)ERNI) 13Y "I'I IE DEVELOPMiiN'l' REViE►'J BOARD of the City of Lake ]-8 Oswego that: 19 . 1. DR I S-92 is approved subject to compliance with the conditions of approval set 20 forge in Subsection 2 of this Order. 21 2. The conditions for l)R 15-92 are as follows: -22 A. J'ritrr_IQ.Apprnval oaf A Building Permit: 23 I. The applicant shall submit a final grading plan for review and approval of L City Engineer. 24 25 2. The applicant shall submit a final erosion control plan in accordance with "Erosion Control Plans 'Technical Guidance Handbook"ok" for review and 26 approval of City Engineer. 27 3. The applicant shall submit a final landscape plan (in accordance with 24 Exhibit 32) showing the following information for review and approval of 19 staff: 10 -- Additional landscape area, including additional landscaping along 3 1 Lana Drive and the indented planter along the cast elevation. Number of plants to he planted (to allow for adequate field 3 2 inspection). 33 An irrigation plan. • • 34 41. The applicant shall submit a final drainage plan for review and approval of City Engineer. The applicant shall also submit a revised maintenance plan/agreement for the proposed storm water quality and detention PAGE 3 I)R I5 -e)2 .975 095 • �+.`•}� � stci� •� '�'t' 1'I;�;,y�f ti� ^_ _ �� .•'�}F ,y c�r�' ,�'1+„y'7 '�. `*+'" Y��l. '`• I � :i �i � . .• ... Av:s.41,41,V* . iSii ii::� .� -Y}, •:��sj$y*i�'t — ; .iroF a._ , r'r 4r�' �.-i' !!.;.a- :_f� ,s • facilities in accordance with "Surface Water Quality Facility Technical • 1. Guidance Ilandboxok" (Brown & Caldwell). 5. The applicant shall incorporate recommendations of the soils report (Exhibit 13) in the final construction plans. 4 6. The applicant shall submit a final Transportation Management Program 5 (TMP) in accordance with L IC 48.315(10)(B) and the 1983 Buttkc Traffic Report for review ar,.; app-m-:': of City Engineer. 6 7. The applicant shall pro'+. 't onswaction accr ss from use of the - 7 residential portion of C••:'.lins W .vest of the site (except for required 8 right•-of-way improvement as :r!'oved by the City). 9 13. EtiQfluASSUatlCC of Occupancy F unfit: 10 11 I. The applicant shall complete al: construction improvements, have them accepted by the City rein submit as-builts to the satisfaction of City 12 Engineer. 13 2. The applicant shall provide easements for all public walkways/sidewalks 14 and public utilities, including storm water detention and water quality 15 facilities, to the satisfaction of City Engineer. -' C. I)uriltl;Con.tructitm_of_thef_rojtcl: 17 • I. The applicant shall adhere to the erosion control guidelines ir. the 18 - "Erosion Control Technical Guidance l-landbcxok", as approved by 1.9 Condition A.2., above. 20 Additional_!ttfyrnt;ltign 1. Staff review of the preliminary uti:ity plans only verified the location and 0. capacity cif utilities to serve the site. 23 2. A tree cutting permit shall be obtained prior to removal of any trees that are 5" 24 or greater in diameter. `6 3. All construction plans shall be designed to the satisfaction of City Engineer. 26 fj 29 10 31 32 33 � I 34 PAGE4 DR 15 02 075 096 i41'5. irJr.tli ,r �«" y ti; � .r• 1 l CERTIFY TI IAT TI I1S ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the 2 Development Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego. 4 l)ATEI) this l'It Ii day of or t_o)v r . 19 92- 5 6 g S p . away, Chairman Deve opment Review Board 9 10 12 Secretary 13 14 A'I 1 S'1': 15 URAILPL;�ISIUI�IScpts:mbs_r_9..1992 -j AYES: .Stiven, Foster, Stanaway and Remy 18 NOES: None 19 ABSTAIN: Sievert 20 ABSENT: Bloomer and Falconi 21 W_Rr 1'LN_ItINDINIOS _ Oct uhc'r' 1(;'t2 (1'i r• ;t Vol2 i•) 23 AYES: 1'cu;ter, Stan:canny and Item 24 NOES: None 25 ABSTAIN: :;ievert 26 ABSENT: Bloomer and Falcon 27 WRITTEN FINDINGS - October. 19, 1992 (Second Vote) 28 4:9 AY1' : SI.i yen, Foster, St atiaway and Item Z 0 t:O1's: None 31 Alt','I'AIN: Id()oilier and SIevert 3 2 ABSENT: I-;i 1 r'rri i PACE S 1)R 15-92-'975 0 9 7 • • DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS NARRATIVE Hallmark Inns & Resorts Headquarters, Mercantile Village Arca Lake Oswego, Oregon • ID • 098 i 10 411 illQEVELOL'MENT STANDARDS NARRATIVE 11 HALLMARK INNS & RESORTS HEADQUARTERS MERCANTILE VILLAGE AREA LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 11 1 . The following standards are not applicable to this development : a . Stream Corridors 11 b. Flood Plain c . Wetlands d. Hillside Protection/Erosion Control 11 e. Greenway f . Residential Density g. Residential Energy h. Historic Resource Preservation C: ..% i . ' LID Formation/Segregation j . Drainage - Minor Development k . Fences 11 2 . The following standards are applicable to this development and have been addressed as follows: a . Weak. Foundation Soils: 11 Refer to the attached Soils Investigation by Fujitani , Hilts & Associates dated 19 June 1992 , and addendum dated March 4 , 1993 . b . Park and Open Space: This Standard requires commercial development to IP_ provide 15% of the gross land area in open space or park land. The proposed development provides 32% ii _ open landscape space . c . Landscaping, Street Trees, Screening, Buffering: . The landscaping has been designed to compliment the existing surrounding and natural features of the 6� . site. The landscape area requirement will be satisfied to the same extent as the park and open 11 space requirement above . d . Building Design: The 9 , 817 S. F. two story buildings has been carefully designed to integrate and complement the li appearance of adjacent buildings in the Mercantile Village area . The exterior of the building will have two colors of synthetic plaster ( "Dryvit"- type ) . The building sets back 34 ' at the first II floor level and 44 ' at the roof level from the westerly residential property line and the two 11 story building height is a minimal 24 ' high. The proposed development ' s impact on the residential properties is additionally mitigated by landscape buffering/screening within the required 10 ' parking iisetback . • n 9 9 410 In addition, there are no existing buildings on the 111 site', the existing streets serving the site will be utilized ( Lana Drive witi- be upgraded to meet city standards ) and the bu_lding has been carefully designed to integrat- t:nd complement the appearance of adjacent buildings in the Mercantile village area . e . Parking and Loading: The parking standard requires a minimum of one 1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor area or 33 parking spaces ( 9 , 815\300 = 32 . 7 ) . The proposed development contains 45 parking spaces, 29 standard, 14 compact , and 2 handicapped designed in accordance with the parking standard dimensions . f . Access : Access to the site from Lana Drive is proposed near the middle of the northerly and southerly property lines . Refer to the attached David Evans & Associates traffic analysis dated 30 June 1992 , and attached addendum. g. Site Circulation, Driveways and Private Streets : Driveways and parking lot aisles will meet all the city requirements. The maximum parking lot grade at any point has been designed to be 5% . h . Site Circulation - Bikeways and Walkways : • A 5 ' wide concrete sidewalk is proposed adjacent to Lana Drive and will meet all City requirements. In .addition, a concrete walkway has been located at the west property line to connect to the residential portion of Collins Way at the request of the Neighborhood Association. i . Transit : Tri-Met transit services exist at Mercar.t. le Village and hard-surfaced pedestrian paths connect this site to the transit facilities . j . Street Lights : Street lights exist on Lana Drive and parking lot lighting has been designed to meet all city requirements and be compatible with parking lot lighting throughout the Mercantile Village area . k . Utilities - Sewer, water, Gas, Storm Drain , Electrical , Telephone : All utilities exist in vacatea Collins Way . New } connections to the proposed nuilding and relocations for all utilities will be made in accordance with all city standards . J . Drainage - Major : A biofiltration storm system is provided on site .and calculated to meet City drainage requirements . The parking lot and storm drain lines from roof ( drains will drain through biofiltration areas to catch basins in the landscape areas and then be connected to the relocated storm drain line . 1 411 . . . . . . . 0 III m. Signs: A building identification sign is proposed to be located at the main entrance . On building tenant signage would be confined to the sign band area or • at entrances and would meet all of the City . requirements . • n . There are no bus shelters, exterior drinking fountains or exterior mail boxes planned for this facility. o. The following are not incorporated into the exterior building design: • Downspouts, chimneys, awnings, mailboxes and weathervanes, aerials, and other appendages • attached to the roof or projecting above the roofline. nose elements that are exposed to view .. (such as windows, doors, lights, signs, decks and railings) have been coordinated and designed to complement each other. Those elements not exposed . to view (such as utility connections and meters, foundations, mechanical equipment, vents and stairs ) have been carefully integrated and screened . .. p. There are no building awnings, signs have been - limited to a sign band at the first floor height . - On building lights are recessed in soffits' under • ;.he first or second floor overhangs . q. The building has been designed with a minimal • palette of materials in a clean, contemporary style • that will blend well with adjacent contemporary structures. r . The rooftop mechanical equipment will be located behind screen walls centered over the building core and not visible to view from adjacent properties . s . The site is virtually flat with open views only to the north across a rolling, grassy landscaped area of Mercantile Village (which may be able to be • developed in the future ) . The building as located on the site will not "Block the views of others unnecessarily. " t . The cite contains no existing lardforms, trees, shrubs or other natural vegetation worth preserving. New landscape materials and the building mass will greatly improve the existing site appearance. u. The west elevation includes an exterior deck area for tenants to enjoy the views. Tree and landscape materials have been clustered at the main building entrance and spaced around the structure at column locations or at window bays to provide scale and d enhance proportions. • v . The site is virtually flat and the spread foundation rystom will be minimally exposed, and • finished to mated the building exterior material at • grade . 1 0 I • .t...-ryt LvktFL�r;t'��s• -t Y .f F:. � tt° a .a_i•., "' i r`: �,.•,: S w. Building entrances are clearly marked, minimally recessed for weather protection , secured, lighted and alarmed. Hardware will meet all code requirements including handicapped accessibility . x . The building is designed as a suburban corporate headquarters building and will be constructed of high quality materials, insulated to meet energy codes and attenuated to reduce noise internally . There are no noise generating elements which would impact adjacent properties or which would require solid barriers . y . The westerly property line will be landscaped to provide a natural visual barrier to the residential properties . z . The roof will be sloped to drain to internal concealed roof and overflow drains that will pipe the water to the storm drain system. 3 . LCDC Goals and Guidelines: This project meets all LCDC Goals and Guidelines. 4 . Comprehensive Plan Policies : This project meets all Comprehensive Plan Policies . Refer to the attached narrative. • • � `7 ,. cr...,-=* - 1-4`.'-fl .. * _'.•.ff i.0•-i•--•i,i•cti„.,'..':;.,...;-_-..-•'..-*.,,,'4„.'•. '''.• jo,:,i,)•'•)••1 1i,.'•.,i.,:,.-,i.,.:.'....t:.,.,'...2,••,••••'' 'A..i';=i•:•...t 41,i,-. ..;•,-,,,i 4.. '-'.0.—N. .4.'':.."-''.' .,*,1_,'--„,,.-,:.10.,'Y.,3..A-.'.•=.,1r-' ,. -r..,2 ,•.' :k'',r eP0'.','li',,,' '-,1..?,,-,,,•.i'.:if',.,,!ss,,.,„..7_,.. ., (l•-::;\''.j1 7r,-,A,'-'+"1":";t.;t1,.,'..,;t.:'':'Z.3:;-•,,:;W,E , sl'1;.i T,,,,s,,_'.,PL'',,t:.,'I if-;:i.t. .;K, ,1,1',',1,.1x,jiZ,.."i:r,';,4:t„,4>,:,i,:1--i::,','1:7,,'..,.Y,.1;,,,4.-;:',''-q'7%f._r.:4:,,Y)7•A,,,,'.,`:1;..'„.:Lj*,..7,:,-,-...2.1,:-4,..7.:,.,F,',r-14q:'.1,.,1 11.,.'.,,!-:,.`.;,.,.„.-'..-1-.,,-s‘.::4,,.:i'';..'.-,.:,',-_.:,.4,,:.',,',-',;'...;,:,.I!.,4,,,,./,^..',.-!,' - . 1 • r im—cCstroDMn itz,-r,,,.6&i•.„,.,,,4,,.,$:..,., ,,....4 ' . , ; "-5-.Z1',1;., „,..,,„,14ii,±tt,.*:;'1*••*:,; : -.'••': ••4,,44:Y;'„.--_2'7,V,.%:''`.r,...',... .:''_:2._, •-:.'' ' . .-.',.'4g.i,:-.!.iit,"1.7!.1;;Atr. ,1;..-41",i"....:4,5'4 Fko?....1,...;„arf,,c„-:', "- .,',i T:: .t'''':f.-.;•:.:...:' .4.1:i''' '. -."',....,1`."-.r,w.F.'•;‘•"?"14,:.• • :,- ;4. `:•:••1 _1..'',. --7,f.,1.' '• ',..•.,5 -St,---Yz.-..,...F. :...:J"....-; .- •:.. •.- .. :.- :,,:., -....,.....:; ::‘,§,.,,;i:•,:? •.. ..-1,;.;:kt:•-•. li:. .34;.s.,--tittl.-..:44';141t,im%i ‘,• ,,,.i„,... .1:-..,...'-',;,-,••••2.-.',.• -<",•:.;',. .,,. '•_5,2 ,.; ,t-4,•,.., . ,...e.,4). .-.• , ,„:10.,,jr„,-- .-'''.,:n-,e. „Fr,'! ,4.,...,,,,t.,..,,,..4„0:4,:t•-„,iirli.!„.4tIcif: -....i.„. ;•,•:4„.7.*74,3,;;;744444i '. .'-',‘,... : -'-';',.,i• , .,...,;tuAg.i:?1 ,...: ---,..1504. ,'„,jir,e,v;iv,,:-::::.::•.'sr-qi!,T;; ;.' '''.`p" 'c.,,'!1'..V:)4•,. '....S..E.A.I. • -',, - .. :,11pe,',i:4';'1.:=-,,`,"-;•:T., i '',.' •• ' ' -11'.'..:'''''.•?;64. -' '':'..11.*;:'!'„ ."0,•inf4'..;.:.,..:::•,....:-:(41t;',41 : , ',..1`. -IC ';,•„'4':,‘`.5,,,:‘,74:4,-vi-,:.,, s• ,.' ' • . :.:Ja.,a,;-`4,Z.4,,-..:4::•'‘. ,, , , ,-,;•i.,1 ,, ' ''47,,tt:'"f!.••''Ilr •••,:i,;;;•:-'::141,:. 4 ir•,, i In"' • •,,..fig!•1:i ',-,- ' " .,1'....,,,0".'1•:*t''t,, ...:`....,:gii.':e41%;›...1.5." ''''''z,4,;*I'f?':,•1'. '''''i.f..4'::,:.1-•:jii.:•?:',,•••114': ' 1'4.. ' .X!,%•1,:.?,..-,......' ,:';i11,-i;.,', ,_. y ' .,, ,._..1:: :.--',..t.,S.,.,.,...;:f 14.,,:i,, ,-1 ' • • .., "'' ''''' ,'•at''•NI.,:' :'-'11\ ' '''''.1:4'.i' '''''XI4Q4ititliii7 ',.;^:4",:$4'i 4'''; 4P'ffiit:::"?17.;.:.;;'?.:1i '. . .1, .‘e' ''''''`,t'':;j::::: ..::IP's'...'‘:C7,,''. . . ` -•":-?ij''''. . ....e,,1)'.,• ' . ."- '1'f ..i...", : ` '' "'150:.' •%,..:,-,..,' '''.,4. - •••''• ';••••.:`•••..-V••••44",:,,;,..,.2'..' ...;•-•.....,`,4 - ••••::.;'''';''',1,.,'' ...ty. `a,' CC- 'P'...:.:.'::..4-:... .-'•;, 1, ' • • ' " " : l'-'"`".'.:‘• 5-,....... ., •••- • - ..;.;-:-...X.;4':,..,. .4t..i 'II . ‘`' ,"f ilY"7',4;.:,••:;'...;^;:-..:',"'-:;44:.".“.:s.' ...„..„740e.W11,4344.43%';', ;i,,-*,,O,-V,,::;:ht; ": •, : 2," '4•1"Ii..‘'i'..;vet%-- • ' ..' .' . .:':,,,,,"., . . ,'„. ';":",g-•.•`fr.10.-:•1:A,0.• .. . ... .. 1 . .,:,killt,4,-*•;14A7':',.4.0%, t"4:-..-!..2•Z':.ka ;;9:- ',-'.:.' 404:: .., .,,„ 6 ..". . . ‘-',','.1,4=1,-.,—...-.Avit•A B., 4 .:: .,.......,....,...:..........,..„-, ... . ,.... ,..._ ........., ,-'........,..:,.,..„..,,.., „ , , . - Z44% ''. ,f14'''14,:(1... 3I'l •71 .:'. • :.. ir,4.-,ii:!.::,1:-:'..:''...:"'''. :. '. .:" ,. '' ..c.k..A.-,-...<.1. ,, . - ..„. .:,• ..11•%!!.i,.. .,It.: . . • •..4.,....„.,.,:,..:-.:••••,e.,,,m,,,,•..:••?.• . • ...,•-•,..,..-- , ,-. ,:,,,- ,..•. , . -..,•••,,, •,-:. :. :R: - ...,-•',2. . -.,-.-,-.7,.•‘ ''rt:tf. t`,,,,,,1:., -!it...4 if.'i;,„,,..,.f-.w.s.,4107,:4,:;,.....;.:.',74.;";;::-,,,•;:. . . • • . 111-.i.,. •i,° ..".- ' - ,..L. •A; •."L 04.1.,••1"1,:t.Zr'4'i.'et 14#R,...Z 3'.:$5,t ,.`."asqlZ:'.i, ;:c.'-:11,7.,,,:,;,:?•:%!?...i. ' ' ''-.'' 4.•'1,'' . .,1,431'$'5!. '. '.: ''''';'..1%'s:''..f.'6.4144 r n'''. ..' .:2+:,'?',1::!V:i..!;;;:::4!....:;'''' ;',::T1, ... ":_ . -' t . •;*, .:'i•;" ;;;s ' ‘46.'.,'‘i .. .. • ...--,k,,,-* ' I 1 i 2 I 0 1 44'.':' '''''''' Ptik:,-tAfti •:.;.; - ,4 '' •:'- ''.z-- r •;••• ' .r.: - ' •• -; .:;.•, i1-4.,.1.,..;1,s4tlik.,i4e441 Ott. . c it "i i , 4,?, , :;,,,, ., a ,-;::: ,,_. :„.,3 -.4,,..,---7,--, ,.r. .‘. ',*..,-1 •-..--i_-,-,:y;;:z...._ ,:..- - ...t, .1*4-.:,,,b,,:.-. ..,,,,__,-. _1„.,..„... .,,.eity,2:isti:.:„,-,..;1..:.'--,..,. .1 00, ...i .,:447 1 --,m7',7.:-4,:::::t.,1,:t:;,...;,:.„.,,,,,v,,....4,,,,,,-.---,, ._%,„-.7.,,..,-„,^41,.4.T.,":,,F fl,.t?.::,, -''. .;.,'-.4,',1. A ,,:;-:: 5-,;::::"416,. :.-'‘,.- ;.7:---;,c•:.Igir-r'''si,,,g.,i...-,,,..,,,......:7,:,1,,,,..:61-,, ,':•;,:: 44 4 .."4,..561147-,:: . ..-, .<,..,,"..„,„Av‘::_.,-‘,.. ..:.4;:-.1.,-1,,.,,•••• •.,,,,„_!,-,,,,-,-A's ,,,,),..,••••, t..,..;‘,....-r....;..-.•,;.,.- --!t...v.,-....,...:44..-•••• , - , ;,•-•,,. ,:44,--grTz.,,,,.\-. -• -,..,•-•:?..,,,;,•••,•. '...,-.7:••••__.. •- .- Milk. 4^'-..!7 0... 1 .7.:F.,tr....,,, ,; AI-111.7.! "Ajr.&,,,,,.,.-.,;i:?.,,.7, .7-i''':-70•1°P.:.'"Ii,.; 41N•*''' ,".•..'"."1: .., • .:'',' ....:7..,,,.. ,,- ,, :,..il'r•,...,,,,, ..,.z.,4 *„.• : , ..-.• 7.....,••••••?-7--,„:7,-..,-71',f. .•t.-: -. .. . .. ... . •••••:, • .,,..;...,..,-,-. . ,.,•,-, --- • ••. . -.'„'.....„.„..,•:;_.....;•'. - ..;.,.., .. ...et.' • ...ml.. f L...,-28.. -1 I ,.....;,...4-.7,0...4177,,r•OP .....:!.".;":<,!-'w,r,,,,,:;,.,.i.:4-:,„ 1 114t 1;;:; w.,,,,,a, -..,-„,.il-,-3,:lb,..3 s. '.'• '-'7',' i...".'. - ''.: :' : .:,!.,1'';',I,•-, . ;i::'• ..., ' '*•F'P' .. : ,..-,,.-0,...gm=,..,.:-......, ,t,--„v.-, s .,',,2 T„-Vt: . . • .. - , . :•... ,..- •.'...:.:, .'.-.:::.,:-....',,,, ..:.4.-: •,,, •„„f.,,,_••,: . 7-. .-,--..;......,--,-, -,'.,, ,-.--n„.--,,,-,,,„•: ,..p,1-.•r, . . !s. . .. : `,.:'..:.i. ,.,:,...,1 v..-•., . s.:.:.-,,,,... .,,--„--z,7---i:' t-- •404.,‘ ' ... .,---_---..-:..,. •'''...2:' ,---;y.,--...1:',,--, - --.--- _ —,. ...... __. * . < , . ..;;;VA* . .......• x 2f:;,:;.. ..‘• •'''',.:*. ,d-.,....,:,?,:•- ••• .,...1_•-,.....:':•,.....:, :, ••-,,,,,-• 7 ‘,":„... :..,. -40,.. . :'''---1*'• '.•-- 't ."- , ,,,,,,,;..Yisii....'-:*.*:-..• ': (T) ' 1-' ')'`.' ' -..-.-.1ii?.r.'.....irLIT::: :-..,*).-;•IP..-'47Vi-:. - - '*. ' :•-•.:4'...... .f.'. . -• i .4 ''.*•..- . ....-- - .„4., i T--,- sv`, .<,.."*.4.1e4F-;•,..i. -,..-.,,,1)-. .. • • .• ''',Ff'.::-...' tii:.' ..,_ .--.1 , .-1,, i‘-' * • 2.--' ito_t -'• - CY 5,:.:,.J.,..;,.; f - c•\.1 , .. ::,• ..rk .„ ' • .•.1"::'`:,3!1. -i.L''., .:,' - l''- ',' --. ' c,„j ,,, .. _:,-.,,.-, ik::::•.-:•?..N.:•,•• tr;- ,, it. •-.F.Tir' '--- .... .. ,-- . .... - — .. . ..., •' ''....1. ,,,eq.1.-f'..........,,. c.) -' -• /---N,_, , . .i.4,.. . , : ''''",--..,...:„4 .:.- .: -••'.....-„,.. ..,,,, ..-.. 1:..,-7:4 ' ak.'" .".."..f....,-.'..:;•';,:`'ii4 y -(.=_NQ P, .6.,•,',. ...,-...,"; , - ,;., k -=-4--A . . • . • . - i . I - - - -- : • 'Ir • .... • ....._.;:,5J-..- --..' .,. - -. .-•,:., ' .it,F-44.t.,:t. ' : ... • :. - ....,:. ..........:,'' -.L. ,:::.:1.2f,...:...:,...,. .- .: , ) .4. ".:•• „. ....4.4„ • : -:-,..... • . . , • -,... - . ... . . .,:r......,.1„.::',..,..... ......, .. ... ' . ....,.::. ••. ••,.. ... . .. • ..: - . ,,,,,...,•:„.„..,....:..1. ,„..5.1„,... : . . 4.').,.,...,...,.....• . . . : ......4..,_•;-- ... - •• .,....„,,A.... •..w.::1-,;•...... ... • ' -.'-•..',''';';.,-- :-,''',7..'sf...'i-12.:"...r.' .„''''..:.:' rj:-',.. .. ---I.--- '.---T ] i4'.'"4.. . ' . . • ..:-. . , .,,, .......-.1- ..,i,,-.• . .. ..- _--"---'e: ,,-$'''•'-----:" . .- T' . Agi 11 .'' '": : . . (./ .''.•:.'.''' *• . ..t...., -T.:* .,,, --:,.. • . ,• _-.g.' .& --, •4- ... ..... - .‘i.,'.'k 1••-•.;.-- *•%.,4 • .° Q— . . . • • .- IA ,:;•1 — r la ... ......:::-..!:i. , '..., ...• . :,-/•. ' • . ' 1.---'- - . '•. .-.• . • .. ' -;: ..- :e4...4 NC5..;''-:.' ..... . . . ... .,. . . ,,,• _, .. . ' ........--._ <-,-).= •,411/1 -., r"-_-- ,--- 1.';'',.,.* . '..:,•.,,..N.•'.:•,: '. .• ,• ', •.:..':':''*".'.'",i..,'•i‘l.t.•.,,.-""'t.'4.:..?'.;:;'s'-':,'..'`-....,;';.,.':..1i'1.y'.:`;.,.'r.''(.'1.r'!';a;,,'--i0''1,r"1::;;2,."':'.•-'''.',iiIie'.''4,m',,,..:,.''..,....:,:•;-.:.•..'.,.-..'.'.'.','R-..';..'qs.'.k%'•.'•..',•:..::•,".."::.::..;q;.-C:1;4.',,..t...,4•..':.'g'3'.'.';'.1'',.,'...'•••,1.v..,...,......'.'P"..t,,'-.-',,,"' -._-:•,-.,•-:-'.'.....•4 . ,..• ',. ,?:--...,.,fi,".;.,,.',#,,.'..,.;.7:.::.;.,,-,''-''':""''i•-':-:.}'1,r;..,,,A•..'4 --;'d,'...,.• O•k;.a41r61r.•.,.','-,: •.-,.i,..-..---:I..,iP.,,,i 6".,i,L-..':'i-'.-`,.,•":.-ris.4 r'.:-'1.•,1..„:.-.*.:I....”,..:„,.._-...,'.s........t,-...-. ..: ...?..4"',,'.,i:',Z:.,..,i-,A,x,:.'..:.-„g.,,e;A,".-I,'3',71,:..,'.".,.,...i.i'...,:n?,,?..•.$e.:,,-s,_E..:..4P9.0V.,i,q..,.0 4.,,':.-.,;'-:-..,.-,,.....,A..".7:.",.-,,>.'',.,••,.".,-.:-?,„.): ';,•,4...,N.:,•`,.,...:..'... 2R_s, i6, Q - ,r•,'--• fAr(f1Affil1k ',..:' ,4.4i''''..*:':4:2‘,.;,..14:.•':', ;:. '''•,. •,-'',';'.. .•'','S, - ,- -:'..-.4.----' •-',',1:' ' ' - - • ' ' ' . k1/2';"ii.•-•:. ilit,y.,,,,,,i ...,, -*,-,..,-,,. -,..-.-0.,•,,... .,,,4::',.,my..,,,,,..-.--..:.:-.-;,°•#74-:•,.-1.. ,...,.., - . •••-;;.,,::., • • ' - • • oci 'fr, W:t t.e.r•r'I.:rn t:.--;._ _ !- e'd that. anothr �:,,nt,�l i n i n,t a :•, 'r" Tax Lot, 7 1 Ot7 • trt?- , V,•, .. zal , s;r7t.1;1r-e rOetrtrt. ' >l(l r1r1 Ltit, �snn:.t t 1 ttnc.t t�t-srrJ�rinq :/ ► ,fir i ltr')po;(:(J for vrtca l: 1 ran, wa ',Wntr r' X t 0 4 . 1, (rF;F)r) . '' f 4 to L'}►r. r7wnar• (•)r' Tax ' tir . t•J..I to r•m,)rl .:'_-1`. t.rl•.t the only y acCt,t-.' to the two properties will be throtarjh it new street planw2d . Ho -. (2cunci I to approve_ Lht, street vocation . c+nu else :rink.: an: Mayor Young closet] the public hearing . Cour,ci : .r i le r- moved approval of the street vacation and -to direct staff to prepare an ordinance for the next Council meeting. Councilor. Durham seconded ::he mot _-Dn and it passed with Mayor. Young and Councilors Pawce== , :/agg ano r. , Durham, Sinclair, Holman and Llol l r voLinc: "aye" . VI . ORDINANCE - SECOND READING ANt) ENACTMENT A . ORDINANCE 1962 , Va ':at ng a portion of Knaus Road . sir. Harvey r-ep.)rt'_-1 the public ho.aring on this street vacation had beer. held at the April. 5 meeting and the ortl'i.nanCIJ had beer. -ppr"oved for first reading l('iinrJ at that tine . ' 410 Council.-,- Fnti,rc,.:'.;: moved to approve Ordinance 1962, vacating a portion of Knaus Road for second reading and enactment . C^i:nc _ ', ,,- tiaggoner seconded the motion and it: passed with '. Young and Councilors Fawcett , Waggoner, Durh.:i , 5inciair, Holman and cWaller voting in favor. Mayor Yc�n road Ordinance 1962 by title Only . VII . RESOLUTIONS A . RESOLUTION 1?,-88-17, A R.ESOLIJTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE . CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DECLARING THE INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO VACATE COLLINS WAY' ABUTTING LOTS 15, 16 AND 17, BLOCK 3 THE PLAT OF LAKE GROVE ACREAGE • ESTATES Ir . - Harvey n :i , t r• r_oE.igu ra l ,3 t •i r, "t?�:t; r,-. lon for this ;;:holo area '.lace in 1978 . of tha • .t 11. i n:. Way - . b As part t , t w:l e vacated. The matter.- was hold up awaiting deed„ construction of a cul de sac at: the end tlf Collin, , . The resolution before Council wilt sot the •'irll_L• ptihli'c he'fring, at which time • ] Ct•.unci 1 will r'°: - _ "'•= wh_ttThor or nit to proceed with the vaction . • EXHIBIT 18 LU 99-0060 • • C T rY COUNCIL MEETING N ez 4/5/8.9 PAGE 4 OF- 9 I • • • ,o� • ORDINANCE NO. 1966 A SPECIAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO VACATING A PORTION OF COLLINS WAY ABUTTING LOTS 15 , 16 AND 17, BLOCK 3 , IN THE PLAT OF LAKE GROVE ACREAGE ESTATES . The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows : SECTION 1 . The City Council determines that: a ) The City Council initiated the vacation of the portion of Collins Way abutting Lots 15 , 16 and 17, Block 3 , Plat of Lake Grove Acreage Estates by adoption of Resolution R-88-17 . b) Notice required by law was given for the public hearing held on May 17, 1988 , for the purpose of considering the proposed vacation. c) A majority of owners of the area affected, as defined by ORS 271 . 080, did not object in writing to the proposed vacation. d) All of the owners of property abutting the area proposed to be vacated consent to the vacation. e) The public interest will not be prejudiced by the proposed 411 vacation. SECTION 2. The street to be vacated is more specifically described as 50 feet in width and bounded on the west by the northerly extension of Lot 15, Block 3 , Lake Grove Acreage Estates and bounded on the east by a north/south line 160 feet east of the west line of said Lot 15 . The area to be vacated is generally shown on the attached Exhibit 'A' . SECTION 3 . The portion of the public street described in Section 2 of this Ordinance is hereby vacated, subject to the following reservation: a ) The City retains a permanent Utility Easement in the area described in Section 2 of this Ordinance for the purpose of constructing and maintaining utility facilities including the right of the City, utility providers or their agents, to go over, across, and under said property for the purpose of installing, maintaining, or reparing said facilities . Ordinance No. 1966 Page 2 EXHIBIT 19 LU 99-0060 IQ SECTION 4 . The City Recorder shall file with the Clackamas County Clerk, Assessor , and Surveyor certified copies of this Ordinance . Read for the first time by title only at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on the 17th day of May , 1988 . AYES : Durham, Holman , Woller , Mayor Young , Fawcett , Waggoner NOES : None ABSTAIN: None EXCUSED: Sinclair Read for the second time by title only and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on the 7th day of June , 1988 . AYES : Sinclair, Holman, ttioller, Mayor Young, Fawcett, Waggoner, Durham NOES : None ABSTAIN: None EXCUSED: None William E. Young , 4a or Y • • r ATTEST: sti Hitchcock, City Recorder STATE OF OREGON ) ss . County of Clackamas Thq. for'egp'igg instrument was acknowledged before me this day of �� (J q"L, , 1988 by William E. Young, Mayor and Kristi Hitchcock, City Recorder , of the City of Lake Oswego . r•G" 1 Not y Public for Oregon My Commission Expire: $ /„.3 9,17- APPROVED AS TO FORM l J - - oieman C Attorney Ordinance 1966410 Page 2 10$ 60. 4•••:,' .,.. .0 , I /..7.11 + -I— •+ 14 -1-- 5 0 4- '. 700 j 2800 12900 3000 i 3100 3200 • .3300 1 3400 3500 ' 3600 t 4347 i 4319 14263 4179 4151 9123 r w . , . S40 N . 5 A ' .. MERCANTILE _.� f— J c r 1 .4 SFr I Ri,�# . �. ,c.- 4 5 :o• 44 so• 4 3 ec• 421 41 40 so- 39 6 3 8 ` ' 7 ° 36 35i_ _34L _331_ ___321 — 31 -,.Q _29_ _2£ H A R VEY �" `'"�z �`�+ `� HARVEY WAY • .co.n /:ro.cprro ed/'.varto.•%s•r *} . VACATED 81-36060 �' 60• ✓ •t. ./.. ttlA. J+.H .s..1 _ ro• 5 6o- 6 6c• 7 f 60'"8 .7c ao•. 60• I 0:_...sc=I I. :s7 1 2 4�.0 13 14T 15 T —16T —17 T 18T19t T 0 T'�'. -.2 _• 6600 �63500 20 6 900 , 62 01 6300 6200 6100 166 c. • 900 �71_, .e' t 4236; 4Z08 4160 4152 ► ,124 VILLAGE • -°�_ i s h � { a /aI .vo I • . , o- 60• .So- 1 .0• Jao.%o. e0' ..r.-_I_S_.... .--I ;L`_* .VI!•4l•.• . -- .�'a.. 1 • 4- t 4' + 7100 7200 7300 7400 7500 7600 7700 7800 79001 80ui In e" y� w 4361 1 4341 4321 I 4301 4291 4261 4231 i 4201 14191 4 • .�I Ih ^ �i U) h ! h 4161 LI — I • e (3 .F \Jr •".. 3141 8200 0 1, '�9� 0 2m .46..o•H.J25z -- - s -4-01- -3_ -�co-_3-8 37 3- • 36 .4rc.35-,..- 3.-_^ :—- z.o '," so e s..d2 284 c,, • �26� = `� •'wi :::: :. ::':::::: .03: :•. -.:,•:: • - VACATES• BY ORD. 1820 D.! 6- COLLINS >< -= > Xs0. � '. .� ., •WAY - - _.._.. _ _ VACATED BY ORO.1020 Dh * d0. �- -- _ . .._.__. ....,�:.:.:?.::'tn:.•}:=:} i?t:fy?:j,Y..a••�I6at+' :` 5 6 s. 7 3a.. $� s., 'Jam ,•0-1-z{—,=---13 . :: : ;;',".,... : •.�•.�• .• - __. - 10500 10400 10300 10200 110100 II0000 9900 9901 9830 i<9F,O0 9500 ,9400 I 00 �y 9100 ;, 690 h 4362 4342 4322 4300 ! 4290 4260 ! 4230 4200 4190 Nrolie , :' 39 0 15481 9700 1 I cc t{ Q. c•Qt • . • y I ti a ^I of ,� ,�, z 1 °, .900 u:s ¢p• 60• 60. 6o• .o0• "' c 5 o• G.:•' 6.7_ .:.:n• 1 E.o• d[f' lit :.i— I Jo JO ..‹.::.• 11000 I 1100 11200 11300 11400 11500 11600 .1I700 ' 11800 I1900 12000 12100 12200 a h 12500 yam 4311 4291 4263 4235 4207 4179 4151 4123 i I i W Z 0 I r• 15561 N I { CC d F1 • I . � h. ...I N I 19 set ^, h �,i h • • a h i ;�' i n, --_.__._,moo•:: 1 HIBI ' U. z �� 12600 ��c r� r��r�, E T A , OR-b . 1 §66 .� y ,i.• 3900 1 K � ' ._i) ,ssi 6r,• 39 66. 38 60. 37 I 60' 36 60. 35 ,:� • 34 --..• 33 - :=2 3 I 3Q+ 1 : ' ,r•• a 7 .. _ • - - • • - • 1 I IID � 1 � 4 ' w Y i a.p , 1�t � s `y .r, l . � ki4 }€iar at i 1 n- t7r?- ° ,rc, 4,r r"�.r ( CITY COUNC I I. OF LAKE OSWEGO . :� ., .-,f, 1.--ly 17, 1988 111 I MEETING MINUTES , r • '. ; s.•;unci ) meeL nq Lf) r)t'dt.r at I* 7 : ; 2 f1 .m , Councilor--; r)-t":::;' nt wore Durham, Holman, Woiler, .,'4 Mayor Young, Pawc..,tt and i1.i(j'jorlor. Councilor Sinclair war: 1 uzen* ':,I. Staff pr':;':nt , : '7.: .Peter Harvey , City Manager-, Jim >," leman, City At_s.orno•y, Kr. isti. Hitchcock , City . KarenPecordoL , aren Scott , -,.:.ist•ant: City Man..l:p•t-, Planning and i Development , Paul tisanes , Direcl_or. of. Public Works and 11 ),_ {)tl'. dine , nits'(,::l. or Maintenance Se rv'icen. I I . MINUTES flay S , 1988, Pegular 'le,_:% inq . Councilor Woller moved to approved the minutes of May 3, 1988 with page 4 , third paragraph corrected to read "Holman" instead of "Durham" , Councilor Waggoner seconded the motion and it passed with Councilors Holman, Waller, :savor Young, Fawcett and Waggoner voting ' in favor . Councilor Durham ab^:ai next and Councilor Sinclair was III . ORAL COMt•1UNICATIOFNS Jim Frasier, 1835 Cedar Court, raised two concerns with d:evo opment: of an ad :cent lot, The first concern was that the allowable height of 40-45 feet would obstruct the view r" or the lake from his property. ?•1r. Frasier '•:, second ' concern is a request to partition the piece of property . adjacent to his lot . This would add two homes instead of one, with the definite potential to block his view . He • - feared that this allows too many homes on the street . Councilor Fawcett Inked ?1r. Frasier if he had checked into ' zoning of the area when he purchased the property. Mr. Frasier said he had researched the zoning, but that sewer ,{ linos pumping to South Shore are now allowed , Allowing building on formor-ly unbuildablo lots. Mayor Young said that Council would consider the ,, ,-,rir?1unlcation pletr, r compli!tiOn of normal business, - Following U Ual policy . IV. PUBLIC HIEARINGS A . Vacation of C'J1. 11n3 Way west or Mcrcant:? to Dri1/r'. EXHIBIT 20 LU 99-0060 111 4 • r. w tl" ',tie :;1)',k, 1')r )r IrJrl Ln';I. t. lr.: i7topr)!;r'r: .' I I"r_r;l Warjr)r)n . ! moved adoption of Ordinance 1966 ( first reading by title only) vacating a nor-Lion of Collins Way, retaining an easement: for uI. i I itie, as described . C',r)n+":i i ')r F;)wCI•Li seconded I.hj' and ; I parsed with Councilors Dtrrhnm, Holman , 4J rI , Mayor Young, F''iwc':I.I. and War)rp)I1r'r.. V.)LInr; in favor-. rtay6r Young road r)r+l i narr^o 19.66 by Li Lle • Mayor young r_,t•JrranrJed the agenda at t.hIC point . ) accommr)'i•tt_e I }trrr. pr1, ;r.rrt in the -trr'1 i.'.nee L', Lr; ,I: i f+! V I I . REPORTS E . Vieira-I)arr- ,,r PivcrirOnL Devr., 1(.-ipment Phar;c TIT ('Jirr:11 and Oral Pepr)rt at Council Ftr; : ting ) . Mr . Harvey said that. when Council executed the Development Agreement with 'Iieira-Darrow for the rivnrtrnnt an .. sr . _ i )n provided that plans for Phase III were to come back to Council for review prior to going through the development process . He said EDC is also reviewing Phase lit plan::, and will report to Council with a recommendation)n when analysis is complete F1►r . Harvey said there are two main items for review: 1 ) "authorization to sign the Overall Development Plan and Schedule ;nodi `icati.on application . Since the City 411 in involved through the pub ; is pr')p`-r-t_y involved in the OT PS , it must sign the application . 2) Review and possibly conceptually aLprcvin, the concept of: shared parking between the commercial lot and the park lot . Final approval of the plans would ,occur when reviewed r;v the, Development Review Board . Randy Tyler, Vicira-Darrow, discussed the conceptual model for. Oswego, Pointe . He said plans are to enlarge the commercial space, which creates a need for more parking spaces . These spaces are not possible with the available acreage. By sharing with the park lot on we kday9 , and Lh!' park sharing with the commercial lot .,n y;r,r_kenr1„ b.)Lh use; will benefit . Ed Darrow discussed the design concept for the middle � This was another and southerly view structures . .- u i rrimenL of the development agreement. Cr.!neil had no c bJecti .�rt:; tO ca-, ir-Ini.ny the. ODPS lonl icat. i.on, r_he COnco1)t or shared parking , or Lhe r;� r1Cr.+�)Lt1.1, 1 di::; i � rt fr,r- the vi '_w !,trttcLur.r�5 . ) l • C I•rY cOt;NC r 1, M i r3(.J'rEs 5/17/88 PAGI•: -2 OF 8 - 11