Agenda Packet - 1986-02-19 d
AGENDA
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELCPMENT REVIEW BOARD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 352 FIRST STREET
February 19, I9B6
4. 7:30 P.M.
%%%%%IF%1!N%%%%M,F%%%I,%%%%%%%NMMµ%%%1,%%%H%%%%%%RIHFM%M%%%%IF%%j,♦f%%%%%M%%%%%%M%%%MM%.HI%%%%%%%%%%%%%M%%M%%%%%%%d% •
lJ
w ITEM
HEARING FORMAT
%N%M%%%%Y%%%%%%%%%%1F%%%A****%%IFM%%i,%y.%%%%%%%%%%%%M%%%%%%w%%%M%M%M%%%%%%%%q%%%%M%k%%%%%%%%%M%*****,M%%%%%%%%% ::..I
F n I. CALL TO ORDER I. Staff Report
.( II. ROLL CALL 2. Correspondence
III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 3. Applicant's Presentation
'+ IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Public Testimony from others in
` support of application
• January 6, 1986 (Revised) 5. Public testimony from those In
February 3, 1986 opposition of The application
6. Comments or questlons from
d9 ''
4 - - V. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS Interested persons who are neither
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS proponents nor opponents
7. Rebuttal Testimony from applicant
A. DR 01-86-01. A request by Ronald 8. Closing of public hearing 'y. .
. I.. Grimes, Architect, acting as agent 9. Board discussion/action
for the Lake Oswego Assembly of God Church
to repair damage due to a fire and to add Questions from the DNB may be asked of
a new entry foyer to the structure located those testifying before the Board, or
at 17555 Bryant Road (Tax Lots 9300 8 9400 of any other Individual, whenever the
of Tax Map 2 IE IBAD). Board deems It necessary.
• VII. GENERAL PLANNING
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Findings, Conclusions & Order
- DR 22-85 (Glen Chllcote)
- DR 23-85 (HDN Architects/7-11 Store)
- DR 24-B5 (HON Architects/7-II Store)
IX. ADJOURNMENT
II
• The Lake Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your Interest to these agenda items. Feel free to come
and go as you please.
t
The Development Review Board's decision on those matters may bo appealed to the City Council. For further 'I
Information, contact the Lake Oswego Planning Office, 636-3601. ;
Board Members: Robert Blackmere Staff: Topaz Faulkner, Planning Director
•
Richard Eslick Bob Galante, Dev. Review Planner "`'I
Curtis Finch Lori Mas+rantonlo, bev. Review planner
• John Glasgow Gary Miniszewski, Associate Planner •.j
Vern Martindale Reno Dowlin, Assistant Planner 4,1"•'' I
Anthony Wright Marian Siulken, Secretary r`°''
Kenneth xinsll ( ,•` 1
,, 3507P
• r " • wti
gyp ��, „ '.. �� ',a, A /
-.... -. V
• w
f. 7 ,
i•r` CITY Y OF LAKE OSWEGO
1 t �
`-"-A,
� PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
y +
APPLICANT Ronald L. Grimes, Architect FILE NO. DR 01-86-01
fx
!i
OWNER Lake Oswego Assembly of God Church DATE February 7, 1986
LOCATION 17555 Bryant Road 90TH DAY April 16, 1986
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tax Lots 9300 and 9400 of TaX Map 2 lE 18AD
NEIGHBORHOOD Bryant Neighborhood Association
REQUEST
A request to repair fire damange to the church and to add a new foyer. ,I
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
LOC 49.300 - 49.335 Major Development Procedures
LOC 48.195 - 48.220 R-7.5 Zone ,
LOC 48.565 Specific Standards for
Churches (Conditional Use) '
Development Standards (Those applicable): °`
Building Design Standard Utilities
Parking ',
Landscaping/Open Space
Drainage
Comprehensive Plan
EXISTING CONDITIONS . "4
.'
The 2.91 acre site is located on Bryant Road north of the Waluga Jr.
High School. The nearly flat property is the present site of the
Lake Oswego Assembly of God Church. The church is classified as a
conditional use in the R-7.5 residential zone in which it is
located. Approximately 64% of the site is in landscaping and open
space, with some mature fit trees existing near the church building.
' ' A parking area of 50 spaces exists at the tear of the building. The H {
lot is accessed by one-way driveways which are located on each side
of the church building. The building itself is one story in height'
With a total ridge height of 18' . It is sided with a plywood •` ,
siding. According to the code prescribed method of measuring heights
the building is 15' tall. All setbacks on the site exceed the 10' *'
+* yard required by the application of LOC 48,565(4) .
l'" •
The Conditional Use approval (CU 6-72) granted by the Planning „A
. ,x,•
Commission in 1972 required the dedication of an additional 20' of
3 6'6 0 k.
pra
STAFF REPORRT/DRb01-86-01
February 7,
Page 2
right-of-way along Bryant Road, the widening of the south driveway to
16' to allow it to be two-way, and the provision of a petition and
Thereight-of-wa ahasebeent dedicated`andptheesouth drivewaythasabeen ^.
wid widened to 16' , but it is used as a ona�odrive.
beenThe
providedn and
uonremanstrance agreement does not appear
DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS
/ + ' applicants propose repair fire damage to the church (mostly to
The to, , : , the interior) and to revise the building entry by crertting a new
foyer/entry by expanding at the rear of the building, Tlheladdition
• will total 1830 sq. ft.; however,
no additional p'
necessary since the assembly
area of the church requires only 33
spaces and 50 spaces alreadyexist on the property.
e
' The addition
h the existing
drivestructure
be extended extended
provideover
accessnew
to
theheirear and the asphaltwof the church building will be covered ',
rear. The plywood siding
which Will be stained with a
over with vertical cedar siding „
". semi-transparent cedar stain. The trim willtbetbrowe n. The staifn
recommends that the proposed plans comply
' �� Standard.
O;r+` ti' No additional drainage management measures will be required since no
additionalff w
occur rlt of the
addition. erea
o the aition isalreadypaved. Thesite isaleadyservedby
and nonremonstrance
adequate utilities; however, the petition conditional use the
agreement should be provided as required by prior
approval to allow for future improvements to Bryant Road.
Y
r,i ' The applicant has proposed to complete the remodel and addition by
Snptetnber 12, 1986. The staff recommends that the project complies '
. •th all applicable criteria.
`.+ RECOMMENDATION
'�' ` petition and nonremonstrance
+ , a Approval, with the condition that a petition
• t #: agreement be provided for future improvements to Bryant Road.
1...
EXHIBITS
ec ' 1 . Tax Map
i, 2. Applicant's Letter of 1/17/86
3. Site Plan
4. Floor Plan
5. Elevations
r 7' _- 6. Development Schedule
r 7. Color Samples
8. planning Commission Minutes of November 14, 1972
3381
3667P/RG/tnas '
+ N '
+ , • •4., • 1 1 1.T a 1 i1- f•`•4 't F2 -� 1:.+* �� . + •Y Y ,/ 1
+ ,..4-4i'Ja'Yf NO1••l4'P"i' II t�I/
44.0-Af' • p 140
`"190u--- _ _
2.84 Ac. V. z74' ='l
` 501.24'f0'0
274
NY1•19 Sr."4'
1700
m ® b 0.83 Ac. 1
a M.. 11495 , Mo 14
M w 0 t!
0 1
N 1 m
.41800 ..,:• ,` ; 1
^0.23 Ac. R N �� 1Y X0 t l °
1r \n; g11503 rr 9'SS' r�'_6 t +
'° • 1V1. 11 1 7'1 r 4 ,i' r IF-.. f
" • O1. 9t. 4c 2
1.8., At I Mx j
I N< ;;
' $ ryJ c a
rI
�I ar ! a
C !r w Qv }
b. 1 YI CC O t 1 W
L ~�,t 7600 •
4 49602 u 9505 119506 3 9507 f• 9508
:a
44'"' r 11en e c 11601 , M7 11621 q I S LANE .'
` N1coL8 LA ` n62s � .• 9 s „ 1;
mtg. f6
rei Si N 950 :Oft, .ta 4l p374•+' *,. ; m o
qr ♦ 9603 Al .'-.. 4 °�a'`6�° Ia 'Y
'. $f 3 l$ 842 •11651 ~ LANES e Z m "
h h ' ks " 9509 ,� y r{_ _
1� 2 , y" ,,° ��,w 9. . " 11650 4 NI 'z '
A�dD•47So w F.
3 F $ �p ,t." 1k
Si .i f' 7
r ss 9604 P �4'4' 11j610 M 9510 w.. .' >
^a"' 0 4, 11660 n c,
_l
X0 9503 0 " JJ 1J "'"� I m
4 ct
02� 5 11G63 b 2 0 N.sJ,di.14,4 w ��0
r
3 ly ii.B 9 8 !/
i W •vBF'.g 4n• iiA..zL t ,.._._�/ I
N, $ 4 t 9512 ....Os. 3 99 5 lI' `," �17 I
0 2 I1100 ; inn m
$ � ��� 02031tt vvo'WcA1 m 9801 a, ._' ,'
;� K. 9501C2 �♦ �Q' 11 030k �' `�� ,
1 .. . '\\ LAMI H�ivrk ACN[S
if 4!
9
\.
J i d
501C1 .I 9513 %9891 9900
11 ; I 0 421 Ac. t21 I : I. � 11126 �'015Ac. O 41 k s
3,, 8' 4111 n s.4y2 Mt ow.• 7_� 12�, 11165 4A I q e`
1<: 10 .J m l 9700 9514 .o N 0 734
?:
y
v e625 ,, EXHIBIT
.. I: £¢r.o 2., r+u L4. ti•1' tsti...y r ...,•••4 - i6 .z! e.�.✓ Pr!
M/IiAF Pt t R14 GJP \ft : r 't'ROAD
h - ' 3332 •
2 I E 18AD "N
r� 1, i r • • ,, . , 4�r . C4, i i•:' . " !"
Y tv
LAKE OSWEGO ASSEMBLY OF GOT,i r' (- : ;,, •w, I` Y+ ;i
17555 SW Bryant Road 1.) ,',".
Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034 r` +
(503)635-3518
Phil Colbaugh,Pastor Cl•I 1,t 1 :
Y , - Wildon Colbaugh Associate Pastor 's'-"f =` I+k.. tv:`I.li5
Loren Waggoner,Associate Pastor
January 17,1986 �-� '4 :h
City of Lake Oswego
Development Review Board « 1
348 N.State Street F r
{ Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034 x '
• " "gti r'Ec myt
r ATTt4 Mr.Robert A.Galante "` Y
Design Review Planner a1
R v
,
It ` Sir: ,' I t ' c-..
In keeping with our discussion of yesterday(at PRE-APP)and in compliance with
requirements for action by the Review Board,we are herein submitting a brief overview of the its '.y 41:
proposed project. ..,•0.4 .41
« k» The proposed project is a remodel end Miner addition to the existing church facility.The 0.,, it e i;:j
. fire(of 9/6/85)has caused extensive damage to the interior of the structure.but very little �Y
` damage to the exterior. i'' Y .)+` * The church proposes to add on to the existing structure on the NW cornur of the building. • i . Y;;;i!
.,`. An can be seen on the Exterior elevations,this addition is merely en oxtonsion of the Sanctuary ..r S 1
roof lir.e and the addition of two walls.The purpose of this addition is to provide an adequate
« z. foyer at a location nearest the parking lot.The proposed design compliments the existing • .04 t ,
• ' ' structure by not deviating from the existing building forms.The existing plywood aiding will be '•'_ ;''
covered with cedar board siding which will upgrade the appearance of the building.
« A The project complies with all zoning ordinances end goals as set by the comprehensive plan, v
"• 7M, development code and state goals. I
+t T T• `'I
Y t U'I
`• t ' , Respectfully submitted, w
v `: ` ' Xr
•
a
` ',
ri Mt �4
Ronald L.Grimes,Architect
t Yi' •
t .11 ,
to + Y
tr ,• t w "«: ,4.,
1 ,tti,
Y Y .
iY 4., t d EXHIBIT ,i°"`0 ` "+
'' :
��., �'. !' 36b3 ' Pt. i -61 ,�r‘ ••'
Y Y A,• , �• 1
x 1 1+ Y .- t , 4 4 .'' r « L, 'aY jt y �' •
•:a Y ' r t ' i '. o -'..t +
' P t'' '4)t ' fit, 6 . 4 * �4;... i� �aA �t ' '�, ,.f t {t 1r , 1�, 't ' ,�. c ' '' +
1 f ' 01/1 LL MD••VO EV/009N f,0011Vr 0.91A10 ••,V'1 w * •211 -
1
"'{ 1A119 AV INY1 YY:VM' C•YV 9V }nVAV• Al, f/1LI . OriA �.,
fi
._ ' �. . :o r:'N'VV 99W1 X9 l d 1YFiOb ore ♦r A•1•N•••V 093N90 aYvl 11 III I r,
•
V i1 w i
k
1 JI
r7 1JC 4G ��1 2 2 n ,.
k? ^ r
p A t • 2222 .A
Iltit
P1. ; la 1 tl
r, ;' 523i rd 1 'l1Y1.
y
g.Fr 4
M" NrAv. / , 5 f`L 5,''.
yI° 11 ° . { ,k.
5 �,5 L1f 1. t '.
F I
w.� ' Cit E i
� � � 3 g Lr
w Jed` '' S I �i t • ! 3 1 C 1 4�- tri `'i
S
w'. I I I I r,
9 ,J G
t Y i,i5 Ion I 1
w '1 1
0 s
1 R fe
r 9 4 u / a.,
d it t / e
t Y 1 .J + Y
7 f i
f
I % `
i;h av un,11 � ti. .
i
15 I. ' 11.1 Y
! e ' ) M
rt � -:.m esl, 11
3 y We ....
t
f a} e 5
y! • { H' U i '1 1
...",, .,'-';',,'i',..''','''`'''' \ 1,1,.% ,I 1 " I' ,0,1"`:,
it k f a Ap, •
t o. N , _ 0 .III
,
t 5f A I. ''A
\ y(
+!
\ �. rS 14'
._... ........ .. 6,8.1 l iL;g1 wV3•l
. ..rw« ', EXi41B1T .,,;
-
nw
3
f
t
A r ! Y� 'JQ 1 ,-I
'V..} w '!1 1.Y••� Q J X y 't '� �.k w, 5 �� I' •
�e: rr. , •� LSo- ••p ! y•y " 6 f ri + 5
w ,
f 5 I < Y f.,I. t•.• • 5. +' .• J,* e a •.,u .a w " + E r ' ;.> q, ,'i
a.,
-! i('1'�L41. MV Piv• PVP/OaN nova.... PaaMOP S11YY a, 1 1 n
„va! a,1O•w a"I1 M+11N .•G44 tnv ♦nt IVO P9 lIlt.' P '�� ,, e
I�f 1 I �.T
1 .51 " "v INI"d'x I AIVIIV'd aes "a ,faY++aY U97Mi0 ;1NV9 A ,� 1 e
•
i •
5 y }
i1.
• w
r p• y 'l 0
Z t i
�s 1
'•{ ,
i 1 1 ,.i, " i >r'
,a.at
• ',1 VF. 11'
V .
t;Y I1r t: '.
% nr•- -ItlI- xx I= a w�,i,.,.....1Pt.-.aa.tmri
qq t " 5•
l ,e I -_- I S I @ r
O Y' j i II �LL ! ty.l i,y
41 II
r (I( I!It, Y�w1�� 3
tt
r a` 1 d +_ I
1 r 1 ( I ° III �✓ �7r
y° y'g' ' I I I I I a
I I J I
x 1 l is 71,1 t __ "
', I I 1 L 1 (') ,
l➢;• ;;',",!':,''.,.,,,,`I.a i�•: 'Yip I• I I--
'— --_..) 't�
1 l 4
r
s xN t , I C�..-:Ti 1 t �I�
• 1 l 1 A. ' 6 ,
i f( 4+{• t V
.., it,,,Ft'i i Ur--:_ -1--i....T d _ _- n !r' '
,i.� .. 1 11 I p i.
i � , C t"
1-1—{ wt
•
J ,K ,',:
u
3
a w . I MuYt��
t• wN
' '
G 10 i.. 1.% ' 6 'A.,
n.
qL + rrw �tk'rA
:ti .4 EXHIBIT ;
Imo{ I ��
A " ,.
,, n t cii `! 1 • k h i i . + r 1
x 1 + •� rt it
+a3�,A a awl +,,. ♦ e + i *, e 1 IG''r i ,t 1 r. �+.�� 1� + y i.: i„i P 1 ! h.� iYai
u �.�' _!• y%t•'r .•. I`. . ,,4.. :. �_ I. P, ' . p a', .�. 1 w u;, L...ti�:r,
1•". L
rlr r'rMs OI),A60 PM V'1 ; ] `� ._ •i
F � r �t �„
ooal G o nolfw0 EN!'�tllw G4 }Nr LVq nG •<PNa
•
1 kNPAr avr� wsl r4� vnLr aoo ve }+aw+••r prgry58 141'1 Idlil! 1 e
��'�'�' }oyJIN wows, 53WIb7 1 d'IYry01J
wi r
I ♦1I S
1 '.
� 1!
4 r AA. r�l
*" t Ls I 4.
v t ill yr ,r
{__ [
r t ;.i}1 p' Iq...; L,
ti
1 ,
4 J j t r rT ,Y
1`,Yt 1 r
'1 1 it
11
I," I tv rA
1 ,Am d !�'I � pp �.
�tr �' 4 a 11111
t { y ,
s
1 4 e
Ik r " ,//, I ° p
S <
Y 1 rie 7.
_ ' " 1 �+
A
t :, _
ia. 0 2.l , i n ' a N S "..� .
�r 1 _e 1 ` I
L I + . wl L 1 u aj S
C ` •1�plr,i -- I -SFr
Y
1 4 it
`.
1, ANY r 4{. ,
A i T En P _
j. 0 I 1 rni t
111 It
N
1 1# 4 ,EXHIBl
1
1,Y A- ter'
a Arl Kw 4
r `,. r +: y� -, ;. >:. -�,, f 1:P � A ::k .r 4• + yr A 'h `... t.: r M .,'
't •.,,; + " + ...0,' J
•
I" tA.1'' t' '.t '' •" ' • '', . 4 1.+ tl''. $\j�.i•A �:*1 0' 4A0,ji*...14 • 7-°:p,.-.ti'`. ,, Ii :' .r r r A•.1. "..4'"F+ + , .
.
a
LAKE OSWEGO ASSEMBLY OF GOD
17555 SW Bryant Road
`" • Lake Oswego.Oregon 97034 W
(503)635-3518
Phil Colbaugh,Pastor
Wildon Colbaugh,Associate Pastor
L • , ` ' Loren Wa66oner,Aasociate Pastor „� �., •
January 17.1986
City of Lake Oswego
Development Review Board '
348 N.State Street .'r
< F ?•`' '�' Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034
ATTN:Mr.Robert A.Galante
Development Review Planner ? '
Sir:
The following is a proposed development schedule for the church remodel project.•
Approval Irma DRE--February 19,1986
•
Acquire building permit--February 20.1986
", Complete project --September 12.1986
.A.
Respectfully submitted,
Itit.� o
F4 l 1
1 '
t v•
° " 1 Ronald L,Crimea,Architect 15
w rig/gib
•
1 J 4A4' I
..EXHIBIT
338.1 'IL I of `
6. -.•e
r r +A i 4� •'...t D /1 • e� t r y , Jw« A ,' ` Zr • 4 ' ; + I `'
o• 1.i;.e e '� Ir a n �-�'r,a�, `Ft ct e• ,yyw �sw,°A,4 �� ' '�. ti 4 1y. 4.,„ . ,k.? .4+
rI ,
1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 1972
.
The regular meeting of the Lake Oswego Planning Commission was
called to order by Chairman Rohde at 7:30 p.m. Members present
were Joe Glaze, Stove Schenk, Marty Schwan, Ardis Stevenson• { } iJ
•
and Roy Thompson. Staff members present were Bob Mahoney,
Planning Director; Gary Bradshaw, City Engineer; Jim Cox, City
Attorney and Mindy Klann, Planning Commission Secretary.
+' 1972 meetingwere approved as
.• The minutes of the October 24, PP •,r,
mailed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ray Martin - A continued public hearing was held at the request
, of Ray Martin for Planning Commission approval of the balance
of his site development plans for Lake Grove Apartments.
' Mahoney presented the site plans as submitted indicating
) ,, no changesin maneuver area, off-street parking or tree removal.
He also submitted a letter from the Fire Department explaining
their need for 24 foot access through the site. He then recom-
• . mended that the Planing Commission adopt the site plans as
presented. There were no remonstrances. The public hearing
was closed.
It was moved by Stevenson and seconded by Schenk to approve the
•
..t. application for site development plan approval and tree cutting
, . y permit. The motion passed unanimously.
t+. Assembly of God - A public hearing was held at the request of .
the Assembly of God for a conditional use to allow the expansion
of their existing facility on Bryant Road. _ J
,r Mr. Mahoney read a letter from Reverend Jackson explaining their I
proposal for expansion. Mr. Bradshaw gave his staff report
recommending that an additional 20 feet of right of way be dedi- Y ,
cated on Bryant Road and that the applicant petition for the
. paving of Bryant Road.
Reverend Jackson spoke as proponent and told the Commission that
he was aware of the requirements of the Department of Public
Works and that they would agree to them. There were no remonstrances.
The public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Glaze and seconded by Stevenson that the condi-
tional use be permitted subject to the condition that the south
driveway be a minimum of 16 feet to provide for a two-way access. C.
'' . Mr. Glaze further said that with the knowledge that the applicant
had already consented to the dedication of additional right of t7,+ •$
way on Bryant Rd., he would inolude, the recommendations of the
Dept. of Public Works in the motion to approve. Mrs. Ste ..ltr
accepted. The motion passed unanimously. IBIT Y 90.'
3:a
, .• "j. ♦t� '1 f.fi., 4 ;..§x .. . . . :, .0 R• ,,r. .4
,. IA;, •.,,s j'1 i' . 4;, .. a,.tt.f. ,,,yA ., 4;4vi:I
1 :)
aAe
� A
'Y.
a 1.
vl
w•
•
•
y :61
e4
.it.},
i
4
a.
r_
G .y..., a, .. ', 1 '.y ram,. • :i .
•
A J
w i� r .''w w r i ' `, i Ep .,• �v a n" rie a �� y Elif■ } zt ; el, •►+ A
X r- iaN J'i 1 !Lr A( •., a•.� ! 7 y i Y. i'` ti 0+, a �. .i
S*1 ..va. N j,,+�"+.. 4 ,,.1 • •a ..� ..4'. rrw Gi r . .1 . w1,- ..^ aY. ���^.ti,....
a �•
.0
AGENDA
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
,, v
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 352 FIRST STREET
February 3, 1986
7:30 P.M.
. Wa 41,4MMMMMMMMMMkMkMMMkkMMM44MMMkMMMkkM0MkkkkMMMMMMMMMMkMMkkMM104MNkkkMkkkkMM110-11kkkMMMMkkMk*WMM4141*kkkMNMMMMM44
ITEM HEARING FORMAT
• MMMkMRMMkkMMNMkkMMMMMMMMMMMMkkkkMM#1FMMkMMMMMMkMMIF.IMMMkMMMMMMki1MMI,MMM1Y71MMMMMMMk1MMMMMNMMkkMMMMMMkkM#NMMMMMMMM 4
I. CALL TO ORDER I. Staff Report
II ROLL CALL 2. Correspondence
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. Applicant's Presentation
4, Public Testimony from others In
January 20, 1986 support of application
5. Public testimony from those in
IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS opposition of l'•e application r¢ ° '1
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Comments or questions from
Interested persons who are neither
A. PD 7-85. This application has proponents nor opponents
been remanded back to the Develop- 7. Rebuttal Testimony from applicant
8. Closing ofpublic hearing
ment Review Board by the City Council
rr +" for the limited purpose of taking 9. Board discussion/action
evidence 8 making a decision on the ' '
question of the need for that attach- Questions from the DRB may be asked of {
mont of Condltion'h' to the approval those testifying before the Board, or
..:.:N PD 7-85. Condition 'h' involves the of any other Individual, whenever the
improvement of Bryant Road. The site Board deems It necessor,.
is located west of Bryant Rd., north '
' of Canal Rd. between leather Ann Court
& Oswego Canal (Tax Lots 100 A 103 of
Tax Map 2 IE 17CC). + ,.
�r, a
VI. GENERAL PLANNING
-, ' ,, VI I. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions & Order
- DR 22-85 (Glen Chllcote) "1
.)y ,• f• - DR 23-85 (HDN Architects/7-II Store) ,
a ,t
- DR 24-85 (HDN Archi+acts/7-II Store)
t `' VIII. ADJOURNMENT
The Lake Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your interest In these agenda items. Feel free to come
,,O'. and gb as you please.
The Development Review Board's decision on those matters may be appealed to the City Council. For further
Information, contact the Lake Oswego Planning Office, 636-3601. ,
,, ,
5, Board Members: Richard Hutchins, chairman Staff: Topaz Faulkner, Planning Director ., .,,
Robert Blackmore Bob Galante, Dev. Review Planner
' � Richard slick Lori Mastrontonlo, Dev. Review Planner • ,_
- ., Curtis Finch Gary Mlniszewski, Associate Planner John Glasgow � n
'°' Renee bowlln, Assistant Planner ,
Vern Martindale Marian Stulken, Secretary
• '' Anthony Wright -` ;
3507P \'
338 „.
4
A H
0
`� 4. ,,,••,�i .• /' M� ry. ,'T` 1.1' • x> • fi.. i `{ � ' I'1 N • 04.,�i N' • , 4 , ,y:4 1 ,1 j , 2. 'll. ' ►•
4 MP •.. � „ ..w/1.-,h:,./n°, .t.or.t.. o_r sr �tY ',„.�c, t34, ill• I.a y 4 01,,:., . 4 :1„14 A �• y ? ,',•' t .- .'.` 't ,, p.. ~p
. . • ;.,
•t �.9
,
', CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
APPLICANT: Reed Madsen FILE NO: PD 7-85
` '' OWNER: Reed Madsen/Lee Woodward DATE: January 24, 1986
LOCATION: The site is located west of Bryant Road, north of Canal
Road between Heather Ann Court and Oswego Canal.
r .' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tax Lot 100 and 103 of Tax Map 2 lE 17CC
NEIGHBORHOOD: None
REQUEST: This application is for approval of an 8-lot Planned
Development which was previously approved by the
Development Review Board on September 16, 1985. It has
been remanded back to the Development Review Board by the
City Council for the limited purpose of taking evidence
and making a decision regarding the need for the
attachment of Condition'h' to the approval of PD 7-85. +
Condition .'h' involves the improvement of Bryant Road. yu
PREVIOUS ACTIONS
On September 16, 1985, the Development Review Board held a hearing,
and approved the Heather Estates Planned Development, identified as
PD 7-85. The Minutes and Findings are included as Exhibit 1, 2, 3.
The project is an 8-lot residential planned development for detached
dwellings on a 3.04 acre site. The site is rectangular, with 660
feet of frontage along the Canal Road right-of-Way. As explained
below, the site no longer fronts on Bryant Road, however, one of the
conditions of approval of PD 7-85 was that certain improvements be
" .. "' made to Bryant Road (Condition 'h', Exhibit 3). The surrounding land
uses are residential and the site is in an R-10 residential zone.
Most of the site is subject to inundation by 100 year floodwaters and
' 4. a small portion of the site is in the floodway. All of the proposed
5 Q lots will include building envelopes with finished grades of at least
one foot above the projected 100 year flood elevation. -..
HISTORY
. " ' � . In 1978, the original parcel of land included a total of 3.5 acres
? ' (Exhibit 4). The initial land partitioning was proposed by Brady and
Associates. The application involved a minor partition to create
three lots: two building sites of 10,000 sq. ft. each and a third
larger site subject to further subdivision at a later date (Exhibit .
5, August 14, 1978 minutes). The partition creating two lots and
tentatively a third lot was approved, With a condition that 10 feet
of right-of-way along Bryant Road be rededicated. The three lots
Were served from the sanitary sewer in Bryant Road.
3390
1 !
't •1► ' K 1 ,4, 4'• i 7n• • ti - .• • . . ,• �'c d 1 y, ), _. : . ,, d = Y
'' � . .•. a 1' � .1. .:h' ,i•6'1' •+° ��� ''� . tl � .ti. .Pa ,.. ^ ��1,• ,.:., a ,� .+ > _
}
f..
H
STAFF REPORT/PD 7-85
January 24, 1986
Page 2
In a December 19, 1980 Planning Department Staff Report submitted to t
the Planning Commission (Exhibit 6), it was stated that:
,
The City was approached several years ago by David :
Brady, who presented a preliminary plat of the property ;'.I
substantially as it is presented for the present
request. The processing of the total plat was not
practical at that time, because sanitary sewer
facilities along Canal were only in the planning stages.
r,•'.,
As the staff considered the first minor partition as an
intermediate step toward a subdivision, and had no
desire to burden the developer with an early, sizeable
investment, the requirements for street improvements
2. ` along Canal Road and Bryant Road were deferred.
On December 19, 1980, Tax Lot 105 (the third tentatively approved
' minor partition lot) was approved, as stated in a letter from the
Planning and Public Works Directors to Brady and Associates, Inc.
' .'' (Exhibit 6). A tax map showing the status of the minor partition
lots fronting Bryant and the remaining area is attached as
t - • `; Exhibit 7. Brady and Associates concurrently requested the approval
of the original 9-lot Heather Estates plat for the remainder of Tax
Lot 103. The above letter indicated that the plat review was
tentatively scheduled for review by the Lake Oswego Planning
Commission January 12, 1981.
Y ' The improvements in Bryant Road should consist of a
pavement widening of approximately 6 feet, to achieve a
36-foot width. This will match the curb to curb width
...a'i'.��r adjacent to the Westridge Subdivision, across Bryant
,•,/.e.,,. Road to the east. Construction of a curb and gutter
section and sidewalk along Bryant Road and the
modification and landscaping of the unfinished berm a„
)• presently located there will also be necessary. The u, , ''"
pavement widening should include adequate pavement width
for a transition to the south of Canal Road, back to the .'
existing, narrow width.
; The Planning Commission found the proposed 9-lot subdivision `
acceptable with the above conditions. It was considered by the City
4.,; Council and approved on March 17, 1981 (Exhibit 9), with conditions
r' involving the improvement of Bryant Road. Those conditions read as
,' ''1- follows: e. 7';,1
•
1, .; 4. Bryant Road shall be widened to .i6 feet, with an r'
�, adequate width transition south of Canal Road.
' 5. As a part of the improvements in Bryant Road, there p,
` * shall be a 5-foot concrete sidewalk. The present
h .N
.. deveiopment should be responsible for this r 'i
nr a, 319I �-tyM ..
Y ,
r.
p�
_ u q" A 4 }1)'.!' ` @ '' 9Y4L, 1' !t' to ; ' �1 M1 V
•
}i�,. • -h.•x',. '�N; ,i ` L ' . .6` `!�i1M1.', °r r.�,,,'„, -,YYr. y,�.t' 'IV'' ��tn'i' �..�y4 r^��y •-:a" 11 i�e g•t''!;t!T`;y.l ';' Y` '' '.1�
,. .„ t,h.......,;.; .. . . t..+ ,T.,Ka ti,-: 1 :t.',Z 1 -, :.."yr e 4 '. .9
l k}S ]Ityt I{
• t( 4 4 u ,� rye^ as yf'
t {k,it te sal l{ 4.iW t
t"yM1 �'r t,1 ti, * x ',- -
,l A9r a 6%...
lorA...4-40,•� 3 'itruction, in return for concessions granted at
` i ,�'��`Vti •
` o time of the adjacent partitions from the same
,M F4F ul 'r 4 i , orgy
Alin. ., ''' 4. confirmed these conditions (Exhibit 9) . On June 23,
�1v�asp .: y,nt,3 Director sent a letter (Exhibit 10) to the current
•.'i ? :,;(;erty, Mr. Reed Madsen, stating that the City did not
s;:"'� ,� f a final plat recordation, nor a request for
(� 0 Ae ,tciore the approval of the preliminary plat
latahhad
day 2�,
4 r' •,O3en reapplied for preliminary platpp
t:i:�.e, the more recent city codes prohibited
•� r' d1( d(a'�+ti` nr.-o the floodway. In response, the subdivision was
c ;T ,. HI 0 lots that meet this requirement.
{
P,k4.TRODND
"' ' ' Lresently approved Heather Ann Estates plat is by way
, . .i and Canal Road which is a 20' wide public
•
to majority of which is unimproved. Bryant Road is
o collector street and presently a partially improved .KKK..
'4V', ra,ght-of-Way, 30' wide pavement with curb and
�i; ,�dts on the east side of the street. The surface of
q( ,y=,t o proPiently 1" below the gutter section.
HP
: F,tf Heather Estates staff report dated June 28, 1905 P • ,
H g r�,s„ City Engineering Department made the following
P , W ..; re ammendations:
v :,4;trfl P'F4'�u•Ys ,
s•'7 " � ' 'u, City staff considered the minor partition as an
..M�ro'� 'erA:. '- :cdiette step toward the subdivision of Heather
ti '• 4r'1f , co but did not want to burden the developer with
1h� wws and sidewalk improvements along Bryant Road for
srhks' ,4oree lots. Staff still concurs With the
' .^ a ationc of the 1980 Heather Estates staff repot
• ;r.yant Road be improved as a one-half street
^;,,;,, ,;,,';`cnt tor an ultimate 36 foot street With vertical
1.. ar°�t gutter. This will match the other side that
a :koved with the Westridge development. There
a ' •F {p i aloo be a property line 8' concrete pathway along
• 'tr ' {:,, ono possible modification and landscaping of the
Ii 4 ,1! '`'' .'.ta germ put in at the time of the minor partition •
,4 { .'k:� .{ a of street improvements. There should also be
• 4 ,.:ore tapering of the widened section to the south of
•
''' x' trod on Bryant to provide a safe transition back
t . Widening wti- � cry lnarrow width of Bryant Road. The idenin of
a,.,°, toad will require notification of the public and ,
�; it .t.sJ,' an election. An election Would occur if 25 or
,• cey3aotered voters request a Vote on the street
arrant:! matter.
°" i° ,,,r:;3 is a more in-depth Engineering analysis of the history 1
u
o sre t improvements for Bryant itond and the authority by
r, ir:lsrovements can be made.
+'14 2,f,1�, 3692
•
,
STAFF REPORT/PD 7-85
January 24, 1986
Page 4 ell
In 1974, the east side of Bryant Road was developed by the Joe
HdJiman Co. The development was known as Westridge which encompasses
• an area south of Royce Way and east of Bryant Road. LOC 44.381(f)
requirements states "portions of existing streets contiguous to, but
not included in, any development shall, as part of the development
and at the discretion of the reviewing body, be improved to any
•
appropriate standards of this ordinance". This current City policy• a
has not been changed since 1974 regarding half street improvements.
In 1974, as part of the Westridge development, the City required the
developer to improve their half of Bryant Road. As with all half
street improvements, it was difficult to design. Bryant Road was a
knoll where the present Westridge Drive now connects. In order to
•
• design and construct Bryant Road to the proper elevation of the .
future street, the existing road had to be completely rebuilt. Since
• the knoll happened to be rocky, half street improvements were a�.
impossible due to the impact on the other side. In order to
construct the street as it should be, an agreement was made between
Holtman Development, Clackamas County and the City. It was agreed
that the future street width Would be 36 feet curb to curb but only
30 Feet would be constructed at that time, with the County and
developer paying for the improvements and the City of Lake Oswego
•
providing the engineering and design work. In order to spread the
costs of the improvements, part of the agreement was that the City
take over the jurisdiction of that section of Bryant Road. The City
agreed only if the west side, when developed, would finish the full
street width. The cost to improve 30 feet of the total 36 feet Was ,
too expensive so it was agreed that only 3 inches of asphalt instead
of 4 inches would be put down at that time, leaving the asphalt 1
inch below the gutter section on the east side. When the west side
t Was developed, that side would extend the street out to the full 36
foot width and then overlay the entire Width With 1 inch of asphalt .
to bring it up to a 4 inch surface thickness. It was felt that in
•
this Way the street improvement cost burden would be distributed more
. equally for development on each side of the street.
As a condition of approval for the 1980 Heather Estates plat, the
developer was required to finish the improvements along their
frontage on Bryant Road, including a 1 inch lift of asphalt over the
• whole Width.
In 1985, the City was then approac1ld to finish the subdivision ,
originally was proposed by Brady in 1981. As part of that proposal,
the applicant Was again required to finish Bryant Road fronting the
original development. Engineering feels that this is not an
unreasonable requirement and it is in keeping with current and past
City requirements and policy.
RECOMMENDATYON ' ,
The Planning and Engineering staff recommend that the Development
Review Board affirm its previous action regarding Condition 'h' of ,, .,,,,, . .
PD 7-85.
y
i
STAFF REPORT/PD 7-85 `
imJanuary 24, 1986
age 5
' EXHIBITS
1. Development Review Board minutes of July 15, 1985
• 2- Development Review Board minutes of August 19, 1985
3, Development Reviec! Board Findings
4. Tax Map of Original Parcel
5. Planning Commission Minutes of August 14, 1978
6. Planning Commission Minutes of December 19, 1980
\ , I
7. Tax Map of remaining area of Tax Lot 100 after minor partitions
. 8. Planning Commission Findings and Order of February 1981
9. Minutes of March 17, 1981 Council Meeting
0. June 23, 1983 Letter from Planning Director
11. June 28, 1985 Staff Report to Development Review Board
4
t
4633P/GM/mas
3394
' July 15, 1985 /
• DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
, The Development Review Board meeting of July 15, 1985 was called to %
order by Chairman Richard Hutchins at 7:30 p.m. Board members
present were Chairman Hutchins, Robert Blackmore, Richard Eslick,
Vern Martindale, Anthony Wright, and Curtis Finch. John Glasgow
arrived at 8:05 p.m. Staff present were City Planners Bob Galante
• and Gary Miniszewksi, Assistant City attorney, Sandra Duffy, and
Secretary, Kristi Hitchcock. •
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
) Consideration of minutes for approval was delayed until later in tlpe
meeting so that a voting quorum would be present.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
SV 3-85 - A request by Judith Levien for approval of a variance to •
the 2 square foot size limitation for home occupations to allow a
4 square foot sign to be located at 4225 Oakridge Road
•, ; (Tax Map 2 lE 8CB, Tax Lot 300) . .
,,I Mr. Galante presented the staff report. He said that the sign now •
on the residence is 15 square feet in size. It was issued a permit
•! ) for a commercial business sign in error. The applicant will remove
i that sign and the second sign in the yard and replace them with the 6
• ( 4 square foot sign if it is approved by the Board. Staff
recommended approval of the sign as shown it Exhibit C and felt that
. 'the need for this variance had been adequately demonstrated in that
• exhibit. \,
• No one else spoke and Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing
for Board deliberations.
Mr. Eslick moved for approval of SV 3-85. Mr. Finch seconded the •
'
motion and it passed Unanimously.
• DR 16-85/VAR 32-85 - A request by OTAK, Inc. acting as agent for
Pete Wilson Realty, Inc. for approval of a 20 unit elderly housing ,
r, �' project which required a variance to the 8% grade limitation on
. It j walkways. The .73 acre site is located south of Evergreen Avenue
l between Second and Third Streets (Tan Map 2 lE 10AA, Tax Lot 200) ,
'
Mr. Galante presented the staff report. He outlined the Planning
. Commission approval (July 8, 1985) of the conditional use
application for this project. In that approval the Planning
• Commission recommended that there was adequate justification for
approval of the Variance to the 8% grade limitation, and that the
. 4 EXHIBIT '
qb 3ti95
PD785 'L� _
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES July 15, 1985 k'
e
trees along the abutting property line between the two apartment
• units be saved. Staff recommended approval of the project. Mr.
Galante answered questions for Board members. ,
Proponents
Tom Hamann, architect, OTAK, Inc. , spoke. He described the design
for the project and discussed the variance request to the 8% slope
requirement. Mr. Hamann said that for the 27 existing units now in
the vicinity, 17 were occupied by the elderly (over 60 years of
age) . For those 17 people, there were two cars. He said that for •
the 10 remaining units (occupied by people under 60 years of age) ,
there were 10 cars. Mr. Hamann said that public transportation is
available (Tri-Met on 'A' Avenue, the Lift (only for the severely
handicapped) , and transportation to and from the Adult Community
Center. He said that the cost of rebuilding the existing sidewalks
would not be economically feasible for a project of this size.
Upon questioning by Mr. Finch about the change of grade, Nr. Haman
said that Exhibit H showed the separation of grade.
Mr. Wright said that trees needed to be evaluated for stability and
the possibility of toppling. Mr. Blackmore said that the plans
showed only 3 trees being saved and 13 trees being cut on the site
He asked what effort was being made to save the trees. Mr. Hamann
explained that the trees being cut are directly related to where the
parking spaces Will be located, and due to the cuts necessary to
construct the building. He said that they will save as many as
possible. Mr. Glasgow said that perhaps an arborist could be
retained. Mr. Eslick agreed. .
No one else spoke and Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing C'
for Board deliberations. Following discussion centering on the •
meeting of variance criteria and saving of trees, Mr. Eslick moved
to approve VAR 32-85, Mr. Martindale seconded the motion and it
passed unanimously.
Mr: Eslick moved to approve DR 16-85 With the following conditions:
1. That final building elevations showing details of building
elements and specifying their materials be provided to the
satisfaction of staff.
2. That the location and screening of mechanical equipment be
illustrated to the satisfaction of staff. . •
3. That driveway designs be illustrated and dimensioned in
t. plans and that the adequacy of the existing pavement section
ih Parcel 2 be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City
Engineering Department.
=2-
3"9G
' DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES July 15, 1985
4. That driveway cross-slopes not exceed 5 percent. .
5. That a 50' outside wheel radius be provided in the driveway
•
for fire trucks. •
6. That the driveway be signed as a fire lane.
ldings
7� Thatsouthtof thedwesthe ldriveway of thpbearea south of illustrated toetheistaff'sand •
satisfaction.
8. That an irrigation plan be provided prior to the issuance of
•
building permits,.
9. That fences be detailed and dimensioned in plans to the
satisfaction of staff. •
10. That onsite walkways be increased to 5' in width.
x
11. That final drainage plans and calculations be provided to i
the satisfaction of the City Engineering Department.
12. That a soils report be provided prior to the issuance of
building permits to provide recommendations for site
development, temporary cut slopes, foundation support,
retaining wall support and stability of trees within
toppling distance of proposed buildings and adjacent to
proposed cuts.
13. That an arborist be retained to advise as to the viability
.�, of saving existing trees to the greatest extent possible, •
and that a revised tree cutting plan based on these reports .
• . be submitted to staff.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Blackmore and passed unanimously.
•
PD 7-85/VAR 24-85/VAR 25-85/VAR 26-85/VAR 27-85/VAR 28-85 - A
request by Reed Madsen for approval of a nine lot residential ,s,
planned development for detached dwellings in an R-10 residential
zone. In addition, the applicant requested approval of variances to
the Access Standard, Transit Standard, Buffering Standard and
Sections 17.020(3) (a) and (b) of the Floodplain Standard. The site
IS located west of Bryant Road, north of Canal Road between Heather
•
Ann Court and Oswego Canal (Tax Map 2 lE 17CC, Tax Lots 100 and 103) .
Mr. Miniszewski presented the staff report. He summarized exhibits
received too late to have been mailed With the staff report:
C Letter from Christopher KnaUs
R Letter & Photographs from Mt. Hoadley
5 Letter from Scott & Lee Harvens 3691
-3-
•
s
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES July 15, 1985
. t
T Letter from Gary & Beth Boyd
U Letter from Margaret Kirkpatrick, legal counsel for the Ldkd •
Corporation supporting the staff's condition regarding the .y. '•
• pollution control manhole
V Letter from Mr. Durham, Durham Park, Inc. , developer of
Bryant Park
Staff recommended approval of the proposed preliminary plat and the
. requested variances subject to 14 conditions.
Proponents • -
Mel Stout, David Evans & Associates, spoke in behalf of the
application. He gave a brief background of the prior approval for
the site which is no longer in effect. He said that they agree with
staff's conditions except numbers 8 and 9. He said condition 9 was
a condition of the previous partioning approval, and that the ,•
applicant feels that it would cause a hardship to provide half
street improvements on Bryant Road which does not front the
project. Mr. Stout said that the applicants object to Condition 9
requiring an alteration to a berm along Bryant Road for the same
reason. Mr. Stout answered questions for Boa.•d members.
Reed Madsen, Westview Court, applicant, spoke. He said they plan t , .
• develop the property to be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. He said that Lot 1 is owned by Lee Woodard and has
been included in this project because it was a contingency of the
sale of the property. Lot 1 is not a separate tax lot. It is part
of the tax lot being platted in this planned development. Mr.
Madsen answered questions for Board members.
Opponents
Roger Nelson, attorney, 410 Old Canal Road, objected to the variance .
to the Buffering Standard. He said that lot sizes should be larger
than 7500 square feet off Bryant (Lots 1, 6, and 7) in order to be
more compatible with adjacent lot sizes. He said that the size of
the open space would not be effected by designing larger lots. He
said the development will be injurious to the neighborhood if the
. variance is allowed.
Walter Durham, Jr., spoke on behalf of the developer of Bryant Park
subdivision to the north, He said that Bryant Park subdivision was
required to have large setbacks of the structures, and that he
•
• believes 20' rear yard setbacks on the Bryant Park side of the
boundary line and 10' setbacks on the other side are not
• compatible. He submitted a letter, labelled Exhibit V, to the Board.
Gary Boyd, Vice-President of the Bryant Park Association, spoke. F •
represents the association. He read their statement, labelled
Exhibit W.
, r.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES July 15, 1985 r'0 ' ,
•
Hilliary Hoadley, said that setbacks are not shown on the drawings.
He asked that front yard setbacks be large enough to allow 20' of
parking in the front. He said that rear yard setbacks bei;l;, reduced ,
would allow the 20' front yard parking.
Mr. Hoadley proposed that buildings to the north be restricted to
one level, or no higher than elevation 116. He also asked for this
destriction on Lot 7. He said that R-10 setbacks should be applied
to the development. He said that it appears that homes placed close
to the lot line might cause damage to the trees, and asked that an
arborist be retained to assess that possibility.
Mike Hagaminis, Oxford Downs Subdivision, said that 90% of the area ,
of this subdivision is in the floodplain. He cited Exhibit M as his
reference for this statement. He said that the applicant should not
be allowed to fill in the floodplain because this will set a
precedent for future development in the area. •
• Charlie Burns, 18462 Pioneer Court said that this approval of this
development will cause a negative economic impact to the existing
homes in the neighborhood. He said that the subdivision should be
planned with fewer lots which would allow them to be larger.
a
Rebuttal
Mel Stout said that the average size of the lots (2-9) is 7,766
square feet. He said that houses near Pioneer court are planned to •
be daylight basement homes and will be only one story at ground
' level. The second story will be down the slope. He said that
drainage will flow through the natural swale of the site. He
answered questions for Board members.
Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing for Board
deliberations. The Board first considered the Variances. Following
discussion of the variances Mr. Blackmore moved to deny VAR 24-85,
access variance, because it does not meet three of the variance
criteria. Mr. Eslick seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Mr. Eslick moved for approval of VAR 25-85 to the Transit Standard,
accepting the applicants justification. Mr. Glasgow seconded the
motion and it passed unanimously.
Mr. Wright moved to approval VAR 27-85 and VAR 28-85, Variances to
the Floodplain Standard. Mr. Eslick seconded the motion. Chairman
Hutchins said that he had reservations about the fill in this area:
Mr. Wright said he didn't anticipate flows or wave effects which
would cause difficulties with the fill, The motion passed with
Robert Blackmore, Richard Eslick, Vern Martindale, Anthony Wright,
and Curtis Finch voting in favor. Chairman Hutchins voted against
the motion.
-5-
369h
v
,
•
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
July 15, 1985 '
Mr. Blackmore moved to deny VAR 26-85 because there is no evidence
• in the record to substantially address the variance criteria and
there was substantial testimony from the neighbors against approval
of the variance. Mr. Glasgow seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
The Board then discussed the overall application. Consensus was
that the denial of the variance to the Buffer Standard meant that Y
substantial changes would be necessary in the design of the
project. Mr. Blackmore moved to table PD 7-85 to August 19, 1985.
The actions on the variances are to be considered guidance to the
• applicant to redesign the project. `�� .
Mr. Finch seconded the motion and it passed. Mr. Eslick abstained.
Mr. Wright was excused from the meeting at 12:05 a.m.
. . OTHER BUSINESS
The minutes of the meeting of June 19 were approved as amended.
The following Findings, Conclusions and Order were approved for
signature:
4 .
VAR 23-85, Helga Handel DR 5-85, Collins Food internationt.
•
DR 1-85, DR 8-85, Saunders ,
•
DR 18-81, Modification DR 12-85,
DR 14-85 DR 11-85
DR 13-85
At the next meeting, findings for DR 16-85, DR 17-81, and PD 6-85
will be considered.
GENERAL PLANNING
Chairman Hutchins reminded staff that the Board would like another
joint meeting with the Conservancy Commission to consider changes to
the Development Standards.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct, Chairman Hutchins
adjourned the meeting at 12:35 a.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kris Hitchcock
Secretary
271z -F- 3NO
r .• ' [II.
3VELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES August 19, 1965
The Development Review Board meeting of August 19 was called to
order by Chairman Richard Hutchins at 7:30 p.m. Board members in
attendance were Chairman Hutchins, Richard Eslick, Robert Blackmore,
•
and Vern Martindale. Curtis Finch arrived at 8:20 p.m. . John .
Glasgow and Anthony Wright were excused. Staff present were City
Planners Lori Mastrantonio, Bob Galante, and Gary Miniszewski;
Assistant City Attorney, Sandra Duffy; and, Secretary, Kristi .
Hitchcock.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of minutes was delayed until later on the agenda. .
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None s
' PUBLIC HEARINGS
PD 7-85 - This is a continuation of the July 15th hearing inVolvinq
• the modification of PD 7-85. The request by Reed Madsen is for '
approval of an 8 lot residential planned development for detached
•
dwellings in an R-10 residential zone district. The site is located
west of Bryant Road, north of Canal Road, between Heather Ann Court
ad Oswego Canal (Tax Lots 100 and 103 of Tax Map 2 lE 17CC) .
Chairman Hutchins reopened the hearing for public testimony on new
• information submitted by the applicant since changes in the
application were significant.
Mr. Miniszewski presented the staff report. Staff felt that the
modified design Was in compliance with Code Standards and
recommended approVal with 15 conditions.
, Proponents
• Mel Stout, David Evans and Associates, spoke in behalf of the
•
modified application. He said they have reduced the number of lots
by one, combining lots 2 and 3 to create Lot 2 of this proposal. He
said that all the lots are over 7500 square feet in size. He said
that the side yard setbacks for Lots 5 and 6 (previously Lots 6 and
0 7) have been increased from 101 to 151 . This will increase the
setback on the Bryant Park side of the development. He said that
the homes planned for those lots Will be split level so that the
second story Will not be above elevation 120.5. Any further
movement of the homes below 112.5 wAu1d place the building envelopes
within the flood plain.
1
Mr. Stout said they have no problems With the additional engineering
-?,mments reviewed by staff regarding alignment of streets, He •
. ,AsWered questions for Board members, 37 0 1
EXHIBIT
r,
1 , v` ,
i
• `� '
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES August 19, 1985 ,
Mr. Eslick commented on the height of the uphill side of
• •, structures. The Board discussed whether or not they could request
the applicant to limit heights of dwellings on the Bryant Park side
of the site with staff. Mr. Miniszewski said that staff or the
Board cannot determine the building design. The Zoning Ordinance
limits height to 35' . The Planning Department uses the UBC method
in determining the height of buildings. Ms. Duffy, Assistant City
Attorney, said that design was not part of the purview of the
Development Review Board.
Reed Madsen, 3240 Westview Court, spoke in behalf of the
application. He said that everything possible will be done to
cooperate with the neighboring residents. He addressed condition #8
recommended by staff. He requested that they be allowed to
construct a 5' concrete sidewalk instead of the 8' sidewalk along
J the north side of Canal Road. He said the road ends within this
• development, and that bicycles should not need to use the sidewalk.
• •'' He has never seen anyone on bicycle,• in thi2 area.
Opponents •
•. Hillary Hoadley, 18172 Pioneer Court, (next to Lot 5 of the proposed
development), listed his concerns. He said that he is conierned
about the heights of the dwelling which will be on Lot 5. He
aI disagreed with Mr. Stout's elevations, and said that the effect of ,
placement of the home would be two stories facing north. He asked
that setbacks be 20' rather than the 15' requested by the
applicant. He said that Bryant Park has 20' setbacks. He said that
the trees which remain on the east/West boundary to the north are
,� very tall firs, and that building too close could present a safety
hazard to his home.
Chris Knaus, 18164 Pioneer Court, said his property is behind '
Lot 6. He also requested a 20' setback. He asked if the building
envelopes shown on the plans were final. In response to a question !
from Mr. Martindale, Mr. Knaus said that there is a steeper hill
behind his property. In response to questioning by Mr. Eslick as to
the distance of his house from the property line, Mr. KnaUs said it
was 20' . Mr. Eslick and Mr. KnaUs discussed the grade differences
being a visual barrier to the development. '
Mr Cinch joined the meeting at 8:20 p.m. He did not participate in
the hearing as he arrived while it Was in progress.
Scott Havens, 18180 Pioneer Court, said his property is opposite
Lot 1. He asked the developer what type of house Was planned for
Lot 1 because there is very little difference in plane between the
two lots. He said a two story home would look into his back yard.
Chairman Hutchins advised Mr. Havens that the Development Review
Board had no jurisdiction over the design of the homes,
Mr. Miniszewski said that the building envelope Would be as shown on .
the plans, but that there was no control over what type of home went
3 ;'02 ,
•
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES August 19, 1985
within that envelope. Mr. Havens also asked for a 20' setback for
Lots 5 and 6
Donna Waltz, 18381 Heather Ann Court, spoke. She asked if the 15'
setback on Canal Road included the 8' sidewalk, or if the 8'
sidewalk was in addition to the 15' . If it did not include the 8'
sidewalk, she asked how close this would come to their home.
Mr. Miniszewski answered her question. He said that the sidewalk
would be in the right-of-way. He said he understood that the 15'
was dedicated at the time of the creation of those three lots, ,o
r there should be no loss of land from Ms. Waltz's ownership.
Rebuttal
Mr. Stout said that Mr. Hoadley was correct in his statemet to •;:•;,t;k,
topography. He said that more of a second story would be .,:v,•P:10 on
the one end. He said that the footprints vary in size. He said
that the footprint will not necessarily be filled by the home
constructed. Mr. Stout said they feel that the nature of design of
Lots 5 and 6 Will orient the actual rear and front yards rather than
those defined by City code, and that the rear yard will not be
facing Pioneer Court. Mr. Stout said that the applicant does not
. own Lot 1, and thus cannot testify as to What type of home will be
)built on that lot.
He said that the corner 15' dedication had been made for the corner
lot on Heather Ann Court and Canal Road, and that the sidewalk would
be within the public right-of-Way.
Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing for Board
deliberations. Mr. Eslick asked Mr, Hoadley for the distance from
his home from the property line. Mr, Hoadley said the distance was
•
approximately 35 feet,
Board discussion centered on the Width of the sidewalks and the
setbacks for Lots 5 and 6. Consensus Was reached that a 5' Width
for the sidwalks Would be appropriate as it better met the scale of
the neighborhood, and also that width was recommended in the City
Council decision in 1981. The Board felt that since this was a
Planned Development, and within that framework, setbacks Were
allowed to differ from the zone, 15' setbacks for Lots 5 and 6 Would
be allowable. The Board discussed the conditions and possible • •
modifications necessary to those conditions.
Mr, Eslick moved for approval of PD 7-85 With the recommendations by
staff modified by the Board as follows:
1. That a final plat based on Exhibit C be prepared and
submitted to the City in accordance With LOC 49,335.
-3-
3'703
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
August 19, 1985
•
c a
2. That a street tree and tree cutting plan be submitted to
City Planning staff for review and approval. The approved
plan be submitted before the final plat is signed or arty
site clearing and grading is done, Whichever action obcurs
fit'st.
3. The plat clearly show the open space area and the proposed •
4. ' Covenants and Restrictions include a section titled Open •
Space and that section read as follows:
The area designated on the plat as open space shall remain •,
in a natural condition and shall have no trees, understory
vegetation, groundcover, or other natural features unless it
is found to he hazardous. Hazardous materials may be
removed following approval by the City.
4. That a reproducible duplication of the final plat clearly .
depict front, side and rear yard setback lines for Lot 1
' 'r that comply with the R-10 setback standards. The final plat
clearly depict setback lines for Lots 2-8 as shown on
Exhibit C.
5. The 100 year regulatory flood elevation be noted on the
final plat and two permanent reference markers be
established in an easily accessible locations throughout the
site to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department.
6. That Canal Road, Heather Ann Court and street 'A' be public - r'
• streets, be designed to City standards, and that the .+. •^;
position in the center and/or be submitted to the
satisfaction of staff for accommodating existing trees,
grades, etc. of the proposed or future right-of-ways. If
the proposed streets, sidewalks and private utilities cannot
he located Within their respective right-of-ways to the satisfaction of staff, sidewalk/Utility easements be
provided along both edges of the right-of-Ways. Elevations
` of Heather Ann Court at its intersection with Canal Road be n `4
no higher than the existing street grade so that access and
drainage problems not result on developed private
. properties.' The owner shall dedicate 15' of right-of-way on
the north side of Canal Road to the City. Property line
.4 sidewalks shall be constructed as per Exhibit K of the July
15th staff report. •
7. That pavement in Canal Road at the intersection of the •
Westerly cul-de-aac extend to the south sufficiently to
serve as a turnaround.
B. Bryant Road be improved to a 1/2 street improvement '
consistent with a final width of 36' for that facility and
that an overlay be provided over the whole street to match -
the edge of gutters. Tapers into the unimproved section to
be of proper width and length. Improvements shall include 3 ',U
-4-
r
a
. . ., . • • ',..
A-''';',t• '.', ''t .,,,,,,,,i I.:J.; ''': ..., , ' •tt"• •.'ot.•-'•1.4.,,,I.,,, t.,,tt,m.,,,„,,,,N17,,,,,,,A,,,,,,-.11,v-12,4..0; !4, ..,N,tv0,, ii1,.1,,.i..,,,%1, V:to.'; ', r . .4. ,-V.,re. c-‘.''.• ••4,4,.., . ,
'-':'t ... ''•:.'%',V. TA' •!.. ' A••• ''''• Y 4-tn10, AM'41V4'AiN'N''a%g• '''''-V11'.2'04`.•1.4•'•k..V."ffOri.' ••F 'j 'f,..il '..:,,i3.v!,'P.P.,-,,., .4,.11•!:...*...z, ••'4,'44V...••'1701i":•'•4•'%14' ' •••
'• '4, • '. ;',;'•'.-,''':'•1,',‘:',. " '•:, ''''''Sit••,4':,‘'..•10',•'0.,7.'.:,%, ,.,14,.• ',1;(14441'N i'iP W'W7-''''t'•`01.•;te..• ,,1•0'liVIIPAV4 Vil.;1'... 't...',..,4(.."-i.!'•".'1:::;4,,,eg• .4' !P ..'•..f .. , 1'.• • 'I
!:' :1'••;."' ,:'•k.4.7t;4:tV,A, i, 'iigilgi ., /..k4-p• . :z./.%',,;.v.;,,,,,%,
,2
/
'''',,ai'l'''4,,A,i'',.&4 OM, t',4,4:' e !:::.t.,.:•,, , . .... ,,..i.,
,.... •,,, ,,-;%! ,,,, A 1.-P.,Mrviii “ii 1,,_ ,q‘',1/4„,',::•,.. .--:,' , %.,
,,,,,,,,,*-440,,,,,,r.,- „ ,$ ,,,,v- ,,,,..-AA, •,,;,.,••• : , ,q,/
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
';,---,-;;:•, • ..4.-•,40,11,.' -„,,,..„ ,,,TA AA/ SA t '• . : •... ... . 'A.,
,.l.;:.• .t
. - Pt."•t, If, . ./ •ti :.' 41: •'
if —
V.1I',':'',)
" I'•16,' 0 IVA ' • rs:PTCV.:'" : :.:'.; .••.''•
,..,. .,.,,,
an 5' concreLe sidewalk. Application for nf'1-.. r.'
. A„,stoo,„,- „...,,,,-. ,,
shall be submitted prior to submittal of c‘ 2G„' P t.40144:, ,114' .:,6:-,,,il'i ,,r,t,
plans. The five Coot pathway-sidewalk is r0 ci'krf ..4 ,,,.„ ,,,,,A14- ,v,iit',0 ,,,4,1,y, -. A•::, ,.,.,
north side of Canal Road 04= Tr :,14 y.,,,:,•, ,V.•• ',:
4r ''.,,, 44,91; •s.,. 01, ,,.;.I'.: •'•,,, ,
' ?' 14'' ow" Ir If ' •'; 4'1'. .)*-•,Y i
s,, , 1,,•4 il,c4;,41 • r 1,Itit AN, , ,
9. The existing berm in Bryant Road, placed si3 lc; ' -4-4 ' 1,,.. v.- It,f4csk .,::.i+7 . ::' •• ;
partitions, should be modified to meet tr:o !.0 , , TS •;,AT 4 , ,-i.r 4.1 ,.
.,, ef - 4.-.; .2., - ,•
, ', )4-• City Engineering and should be adequately '.a,:-..,: . : ( •p .$1..r...,. '-.•
' '':•••'.1!...•4.••••• .AY.T ,14.,,q'itkik 1,';.,'' -•.1•,, i-' '' '\
r, AVI '34).„‘014 . . ,, , , ,• .
10. The water line in Canal Road be a 10" line.
participation in oversizing. . .
,,, •• , %, iiii. t,,, ? Imr•
if
. -, ,A,,,,3, ,... • ,„,
11. The developer pay the assessment due as
Canal sewer trunk line costs as noted in .13 11j4, ,ee
.0*, vir rot 1,:',‘,' -\ ,Am
12. Storm drainage plans shall include a pollut ,-_,74! , 3 ,,.. ,1 414-. 1„,!;,, ,,•;?. ,.,.'•
,';'-i,-;..••:-,,t): i',1,AA., f,. tp,")):;`,',...!Il", . ..
manhole.
4-,,,,,,,..„-..,. p,,,,,. k''4?Pr,t,'-'''' gi' i„;''.+.': '.•'„!. '
i,,11"141I 1,
13. Construction plans shall show location of 4
n,' ,%* , 4vz
relative to sidewalks, mailboxes and et:0er -ii# 4'-_,0,:.:v,,:r-,?.-
, . i,,,,i. AV'. 410),..t-•-•'I :,k. , :.'.
Photometrics shall be submitted to verify L- _ *I'
if15Aisti4P '' Or ' '.....v.,,'', i.
14. That the applicant have a soils report dcne,
with recommendations be submitted with Engineering Department
prior to new L.,i „Ak e, ,,,,,,,.;:1,, ;,- ,, ,T..„,',.:,,;. •; •,,1;,,iri
ifif
,,- - ,,,, - ,i,404' ,-,,•0;, -,,,n,40, !,,,‘
.. l''' '•,:lt:Ag,`1--'.•%
it ,t ' ,ev-c.t. Ailit,;,-4,,:••••':,
15. All fill be properly placed and compacted _- ' ,N#
' - a registered civil envineer. Fill on nii 1. : , „,;(p- 47 '1.4,1 111,i ...'1,401,,.4,t.I:
'''''' 1-.'1' i.4‘..:11,
shall be completed and approved prior to ee_o ' it, .17;4Vi::"•...„ .0,1
--.,•,:' .'-i' • . J4.4.,
:41100•4k itAl0 4r,l,
A ,,1,,4
The motion was secended by Mr. Martindale and panne 1 , - • 7,*,
Eslick, Mr. Martindale, Mr. Blackmore and eh 4 i r 17.1Z1",".i' L ' ktl- - l' 4144 = ',••t,' i ":,,,„' 4,
, ‘.,..
in favor. Mr. Finch abstained. e '41',.- ifp.'iI ,;$JA, ,I
''..-J;*,".,- ,,,,,. .:'.0., -1'.,.,..•,1„., eI, 4 0.,,i1S.,•,,le'..9: •,‘.1: , ,
..':i .,..,,,',,.., , „AIWA-4•;'I l. .610.*13.71740.rfii4P,4".4'S'%:::/1'
SD 6-85/VAR 34-85 - A request by Donald.= acid Ilf,ILLe .,••10.-416, Itttpv-• 4,, i'q: ''.,...'.-A,VAis !.•",,
if approval of a minor partition dividing dile lot- LIT;.,r•s4g4 „4,41A,;,x.,44,e ,. y 1,4104-7( ., ,,t; ,n
_.., ... -r, .4., \1,
variance from the required lot depth of 100 toct T- ti,l, NO 01,1,,,44,. „,,t,../ b..4,.
.,, '''.1, P
Site is located on the south side of Ridgewo00,R_J4
Ridgewood Road (Tax Lot 2100 of Tax Map 2 1E1
,.• ..-" ....,.,... .44
k AA ,?,_ • ; .,„ ?,...;,..,•.
.10,.sf-t , .7r,I' '?i,t,.1.: •'.' "
at. ••• :,;•'• , Ms, Mastrantonio presented the staff report. nhe nm' '...:t
.; ,i,,,,,_ ....,,.• : '''*, -°'kia "•'- .1.•;41 ,'4'• -..'7':V'',..'
had applied fur a lot line adjustment. and at ttar' ,- , t.,•,,ek.?44.„./.. ',./...,;•,,,. . ,`,..'k,
'. !.%. noticed that a partition had not been completel ' .. IYA.m4 ..i. •1, ,,Oi.4',,,:tc..-1,
''‘Y ..n',41' ' '1- w,,o, ,ti,•..1..'.A , , ,
determined that a variance Was necessary. She oa,.1 • 4,,,, :,-,11„,0•,,,,;',,, ,.., -r,
has justified a hardship in their narrative, CraHDD-4,, '-., 1
. ' '..1.::•%4 ? ', , have been paying property taxes on two lots -s if
c , • .31 ,,
property, and they have paid for two sewer contT , . ,
. 10nt
i IX ,A"' . Was formed, There are also parcels within 30J •c.c.' ' 1..
,t..., l'' ,4k.f, ;,....4...,..!,,,,,.,...;• ,.; :,,,‘
- ' "1*-;',•:.;,•1 -.,..'! ,i,
which were recorded as partitioned and not leja, , _ '''.:1, 1,.:.',....4.
, . 4 the City process, Staff recommended approval ' • _ jri,
r,4.0 -1 • ,
variance with 5 conditions. . ,0-• ,...
,,i1W
-5- .,.„.0„. .4.4,1, •IA ., ,,,, :.
.0A " •7' t oA-v:' -4• , !,%.
., . ., ,..,,' ::,,..i•V A. tiZtif •••1,e,r ,',,-,:•.,''•
'''f ',...' "'4? le.0-t•,,f .i f,,,,yv •,.,4• • .,
v. ''N ' ' . g 1 1:4141414A f jj,4, , .,... , •,
,..--.., • ',Y. ,N,,. ,.‘,"i-T„.1 -
,.1 lki!''4 Trrf .• ; .. ,r,Ir .-r,..:
' " • ' ', ••,,.--••. .; 4. ,,ri. !,t4;4 f_' ,, !,•., ,40.1...i:4,-4.14:i , .•_ ,. ,y4'.1ktil. 1 . , •7•1:'; ...+' 1:','...,j, .,-._'''.4:'..\,',."•••:d,?•'••.'t-tr 'I.•: • •As'i 4. ,-.,• ••
. ' '; " " -.., ••-' .' ••••;.:1, ,. -.•,• •,; •, .::',..1p,',c,„••.:A,t,..,,,,. ,,...,..0,,,)-01,,,, if,,v,,,i.4,4... 4,4.•', ...A...:L- ii!. • ;•••;!,,.,..s.4 4....,
• , , ,' ,,,'., :', '`'A.,".?.r;p,'2 ,, ,.i.:,, ..*,,,V:i't.-f..:4-!..l';,'ir',,40:Z.r,`:,'tC, - L,r.r,:ty'..,4);,.. fl v, `,.,1 7.,;:':k14-4.4 ' ,,4,' !,,'1 ''-. y '7,, !.., . t;....,-. , 74.:r,,,,,;q%
• ' , '': • '' ' IV , • x ' ,10-ei- • i :el ,1-..0.mti.01..t. . '-,•'.' —",‘l'‘1/4• I ' ' ,''' ' ' , • •• '
• ,e •• ,,-n'1:4 ,':' ,..i i',.41VV,:tk:Y.,„Vt.;,„0, .':, ,' ,"i, ,,; ,Iir;i,' ,.it ' . ,;,.,, *, . 1 ;,, r' 7;c. ...:
.,,, , „.., „ 1„ :I., 0 or t ,o. ', -',.,.,.,, te ' ' ..•' .'''' 0- '. ' ' ;
4"',
k
' ' c• ;�[t,t;PMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES August 19, 1985 ,
,'c, .,f Proponents
, -;nlW Ross, 2L)4 Ridgewood Road, asked the Board to review
,, "*1 iDit D, the site plan survey. He reviewed the history of the
?, 4,.,or . He said that he purchased parcels 4 and 5 in 1969. He said
alert' described in the deed as two separate parcels, and had not
Lr;. ;y1 tact they were not two lots until he had come in to request a
srtne thatathesCmityt. He has engineeringaid staffXes hadon the chargedand himas forwo twoots.sewerHe
•A ,(1.°fi ions. ,,
rvz ,
e. , , c )7s maintained that because of this, the City recognized the
4 . 'I' • 1 t that there are two lots. He discussed the petition submitted
1•
.,� the partition was requested. He said that many of them had •
•' ' F" —xi a petition against the partitioning which was circulated at
,' .a,, , . •ire time as petitions regarding the Village on the Lake
, ' �.; r,:^t. He said that he had checked with some of the signers of
" At petition, and that some had signed in ignorance. Mr. Ross said
v- Faith the variance application, they had sent out copies of the
1s ` „ (t•ative to neighbors within 300' of their property and asked for
EITA.1! , , 0li comments, lie said a second petition had been submitted, and
ti r, 14.*.tbreo properties were represented our of 52. He said that of
0 t, K_ ; ...three properties, only one property abuts their site.
:," r' Ikti3 requested that the Board approve this application. He
' .raced questions for the Board.
:e else spoke and Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing.
' 1',wing discussion, M . Eslick moved for approval of SD 6-85 and
,r, • 34-09 with the following conditions: •
°' 1, A request to separate fees for LID 176 be submitted to the
t' iy; Public Works Department or the owner pay the balance of the
♦.N julD assessments owned before the partition survey map is ‘,
f , COgistered by the County. 4
, iv
'{ 'e A minor partition survey shall be registered with the
't " e yfw Clackamas County Surveyor's Office.
•4
''
, ,.. Legal descriptions (metes and bounds) be specified on legal
i. �"^' instruments of title transfer and be recorded With the
'` Clackamas County Clerk's Office. The instruments for all
:' '*'' . ' parcels shall:
e . reference this land use application -- city of Lake
Pi Oswego Planning Department File No, SD 6-85/VAR 34-85.
• ;,•,. a
I .Ya4 b. cite that any development on either of the two lots are
' '+,y.-'-: to be in accordance •with standards outline in SD ! .
y+
' 'is :',-
6-65/VAH 34-85,
}. That a soils report prepared by a soils scientist or
engineer be submitted to staff for review and approval,
y,h 11 ,..
-6- 3 t 0 h
•
. i DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES August 19, 1985
' I
4. That root and foundation drain lines are run to the
street when residences are constructed. ,
The motion Was seconded byMr. Blackmore and passed with Mr. •
Eslick, Mr. Blackmore, Chairman Hutchins, Mr. Martindale, and
Mr. Cinch Voting in favor.
•
DR 17-85/VAR 38-85 - a request by the Church of deans Christ of
Latter Day Saints for development approval of a` Temple, which
is proposed to be constructed on a 7.29 acre parcel located
near the north end of Kruse Oaks Boulevard and east of
Interstate 5 CreeWay (Tax Lot 400 of Tax Map 2 lE 6). The \
parcel Will be created by the applicants application for a
minor partition (SD 35-85) Which is requested to partition a
16.32 acre site into three lots with a public street. These
applications also require a Variance (VAR 38-85) to the Code
requirements for cUrve radii for public streets.
Mr. Martindale said he Would disqualify himself from Voting on
this application beca1se he knew the designer of the project
• and had discussed it with .him on several occasions. •
Mr. Galante presented the staff report, He submitted
Jadditional exhibits:
•
CC Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Allbright Voicing
opposition to the proposed major partition
DD ReVised Plant Materials List
EE Revised Lot Description of Parcel 2 •
PP Additional Landscape Plan
GG Letter addressed to Mr. Galante from the
applicants
HH Sample of slate roofing material
II Preliminary Foundation Evaluation
JJ Site and Vicinity Section from South to North
• Mr. Galante discussed the conditions of approval recommended by
staff, He said that he had received requested changes to the'
conditions from the applicant (Exhibit LL), and read these With
the appropriate conditions.
Proponents
,fames A, Bean1 1900 Davis Road, Oregon City, attorney and
Chairman of the Portland Temple Committee, spoke in behalf of
the application. He submitted an artists rendering of the
temple (Exhibit KK), Mr, Bean reviewed the history of the •
area, He said that the entire site Will be maintained by
• )landscapers.
��= 37U+7
.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES August 19, 1985
Steven Lee, 5331 SW Macadam Avenue, architect with
. Lee/Ruff/Waddell, discussed the design features of the
.I• project. He discussed the lighting, and in response to - ,
questioning from Mr. Eslick said that the tower lighting would
be from the ground and that the wall lighting would be recessed r,,,
and would be down lighting. He said that the parking lighting
should remain different from that in the Centerpointe project
as this is a private site, and because the steeples will be
constructed of stainless steel. The type of lighting in
centerpointe is a yellow lighting, and the white lighting
proposed would look much better with the white marble. He
described the type of parking lot lighting fixtures.
A Linda Potter, OTAK, Inc., landscape architect, discussed the
landscaping design for the site. She said a complete tree and
• topography study has been done for the site which rated the
overall appearance of trees and understory by an onsite .-
analysis.
k
Mr. Bean, said that the site had originally been zoned single '
' and multifamily, and that those densities had been transferred
to another section of the Westlake development. He said that
the arborist; Mr. Owen, and Mr. Othman, engineer, OTAK, were
present to answer questions for the Board if requested.
. Mr. Eslick asked Mr. Lee for further design information. Mr. •
Lee complied. He discussed the ancillary building as well as '
the temple, saying that they had attempted to tie this building
{
with the temple. He discussed the height of the temple.
Opponents
Robert Schram, 18680 Wood Duck Way, was concerned about the
o natural environment being preserved in this area. He said that
the temple would be very visible from the freeway as designed.
He said that the natural spires of the trees would be ,
preferrable to the temple spires.
Wilma McNulty, 595 SW 'D' Avenue, said she felt there should be
additional consideration of the amount and kind of tree and
undetttory removal on, the site, and that replacement of all
plants removed should be required to buffer noise and filter
exhaust fumes from the freeway. She said that a certified u
accoustical engineer should be required to analyse noise, and
that the Vegetation removal would further increase the freeway
noise. She said that Views would be blocked by the height.
Ms. McNulty Was also concerned that the lighting of the -
building increased its Visibility. She said that the lighting
should be interior lighting and not external, Ms. McNulty was
also concerned that the angel atop the spire was a sign because
it expressed a religious sentimer' and that is not allowed —
under the Sign Code, LOC 47.010. ,he paraphrased that section
of the Code. 3 n 9
..8..
5
DEVELOPMENTREVIEW BOARD
Linda Simpson, 2727 SW Sixth Street, was concerned that the
exterior lighting would exceed the lighting limits set by
codes. She said that the spotlighting was excluded from the
total lighting estimated by the applicant, and therefore the
lighting falsely appeared to meet the standards. She asked
that the exterior lighting of the building be eliminated. Ms.
Simpson also questioned the angel being a sign and its legality
under Lake Oswego's Sign Code. She was concerned that the berm
replacing existing vegetation on the freeway side of the temple
would not adequately buffer noise. She said the structure was
too large and should have a lower profile. In summary, her
concerns were noise impact, tower heights, and the exterior
lighting. •
Linda Schram, 18680 Wood Duck Way, said this structure would be '
too noticeable from the freeway because of the towers. They
should not be so tall.
Rebuttal
Mr. Bean said that the angel on the east tower is required for
the temple. He said that more trees are being saved by this
use than would have remained if this site had stayed single and
multifamily residential.
No one else spoke and Chairman Hutchins closed the public
hearing for Board deliberations. Mr. Eslick asked Mr. Lee
about meeting of light standards. Mr. Lee said they will
conform to State lighting standards which are 5 watts per
lineal foot.
Mr. Galante said that the angel atop the east tower is not a
sign under our codes. He said that the Sign Code does not
adequately address statuary. He read the definition of a sign
from the Code. Ms. Duffy agreed that the statue was not a
sign. She said that religious symbols such as statues,
crosses, etc. are allowed throughout the community and are not
regulated by the City.
The Board discussed exterior lighting and the hours for
lighting of the ektetior of the temple. In response to
questioning, Mr. Lee said that spotlights would be turned off
at midnight, but the wash on the walls and Walkway lighting
would remain as Well as about 50% of the parking lot lighting.
He emphasized that only the downlightinq would remain turned on.
Mr. Bean said that the wall lighting would remain on for
. security measures and all other spot lighting would be turned
off. '
" Mr. Eslick Was concerned about the parking lot lighting: He
said it should be similar to that in Centerpointe+ but that the
;Q
White lighting Would be more appropriate for the temple site.
t
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES August 19, 1985 I
n
Mr. Finch said that the building was sited backwards. The .
• approach to the building should be to the front entrance rather
than all the way around the buiding. .
The Board further discussed lighting. A consensus was reached
that the lighting need not be the same design as that in
Centerpointe, but that there be some elements tying the two
together. Mr. Galante recommended a revised Condition #8 as
follows: '
8. That parking lot lighting not exceed the
photometric characteristics of the Centerpointe
Office Campus site.
Ms. Potter, landscape architect, OTAK, Inc., was questioned
about the accoustical buffering of landscaping versus the
berms. She said that trees and leaves do not provide much
sound absorption, and that is why the earthen berm is being '
constructed to absorb freeway noise. They do not expect the
noise to be decreased over the long run of the site. She said '
that in order to reduce noise from the parking lot for adjacent
residents, they have dug in further for the north area so there •
' will be an earthen berm between the temple parking and the
neighbors to the north. She said an accoustical consultant has
worked with them on the design.
The Board discussed lighting, noise, height of structures and
curve radii of the public streets. A consensus was reached
that the variance met all criteria, and that the application
could meet standards with conditions.
Mr. Eslick moved for approval of VAR 38-85. Mr. Finch seconded
the motion and it passed with Mr. Finch, Mr. Eslick, Mr.
. Blackmore and Chairman Hutchins voting in favor. Mr.
Martindale abstained.
1. Mr. Eslick moved for approval of DR 17-85 and SD 35-85 With the
following conditions:
1. That a soils report be provided prior to the ,
• issuance of building permits.
2, That an irrigation plan be provided prior to the
issuance of building permits.
3. That the applicants demonstrate to the Board's
satisfaction the View nearby residents (Southwood
park) Will have of the temple,
4, That the stream corridor buffer zone be completed On
• the final plat and that all drawings illustrate that '
modification.
-10- 3"I10
•
•
. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
August 19, 1485
• 5. That street lighting plans► including photometrics, r
for public streets be provided to the satisfaction .
of •
the City Engineer.
•� 6. That parking lot lighting not exceed the `
photometrics and illumination of the Centerpointe
Office Campus site. •
7. satisfactionterosion
of thetrol Cityplan be Engineerrovided to the
8. That the extension of the bikepath to Southwood Park •, • '
be illustrated in all site plans and that it be
constructed at the time of roadway construction for
the Temple.
9. That parking aisle dimensions be reduced to a
maximum of 50' (curb to curb) and that the arborist
review the grading plans to recommend additional
changes within the parking lot to insure the
survival of trees proposed to remain. The final
plans shall be completed to the staff's satisfaction.
• 10. That street trees to match those existing within
Centerpointe be provided to the satisfaction of
staff.
11. That a final tree cutting plan be provided to the
satisfaction of staff.
12. That the island with the 45' radius cul-de-sac have
a minimum radius of 25' . .
13. That brick type paving surfaces be specified and
maintained to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
14. That final street plans designed to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer be provided prior to the
issuance of building permits.
15. That Church personnel be available to the temple
site 24 hours per day to allow unrestricted
emergency vehicle access to the site.
16. That no guajdhouse be constructed until a variance
• has been considered and approved by the Development
Review Board, Unless the guard house is constructed
1 outside the setback lines.
-11 371 x .
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES August 19, 1985
17. That final utility plans illustrating all public
utilities, the location of private utilities, Temple •
connection to all utilities and fire hydrants be
completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. _,
18. That final drainage plans including adequate
rip+^,rap, erosion control, and catch basins designed
and located to City standards be provided to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. ,
19. That an easement for maintenance access to the
detention facility be provided to the City prior to '
the issuance of an occupancy permit for the Temple.
• 20. That signage plans be modified to comply with City
Code requirements.
21. That the fence design be finalized to the staff's
• satisfaction.
• 22. That the building wall lighting level will comply
with State guidelines.
Mr. Eslick was asked to delete Condition #22 as it Was
necessary for the applicant to comply with State guidelines and
because the wording would be included in the findings, ,
conclusions and order for this public hearing. Mr. Eslick
agreed to eliminate Condition #22: '
Mr. Blackmore seconded the motion and it passed with Chairman •
Hutchins, Mr. Blackmore, Mr. Finch, and Mr. Eslick voting in
favor. (Mt. Martindale had abstained from participation in the
• hearing.)
GENERAL PLANNING None
• OTHER BUSINESS
,Minutes •
•
The Board approved the minutes of June 17, 1985. This
was the second vote reaffirming the first 3-0 Vote.
The board approved the minutes of July 1, 1985 with
amendments to pages 4 and 5.
The Board approved the minutes of July 15, 1985 With
amendment to the discussion of the variance being
substantially different: It was to be noted that the
Board disagreed With Chairman Hutchins and felt the
Variance was substantially different than the first T
submittal. other minor amendments were to be made.
-12- 3Yij • .
,,DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES _ August 19, 1985
The minutes of August 5, 1985 were approved with •
amendments. A second vote will be necessary to verify
•
• this 3-0 vote.
Findings, Conclusions and Order ,
The following findings were approved for signature: •
DR 16-85/VAR 35-85 (Evergreen Apartments)
DR 17-81 (Chemlawn)
VAR 30-85 (Allen & Meredith Schatz) - Needs Second Vote
at 9/4/85 meeting
Consideration of the following findings was tabled to
the 9/4/85 meeting:
DR 10-85 Modification (City of Lake Oswego City Hall)
PD 8-85 (Joe Hollman & Company)
ADJOURNMENT
There beintheomfurtheratu ines7 sato conduct, Chairman Hutchins
g
Respectfully Submitted,
mitted, •
Kris` Hitchcock
Secretary -
.
• Y
•
289z
3''r'13
-13-
I BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
OF THE
2
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
3 A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A 8-LOT ) PD 7-85/VAR 24-85/
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ) VAR 25-85/VAR 26-85/
' 4 AND FIVE VARIANCES ) VAR 27-85/VAR 28-85-302
(HEATHER ESTATES)
5 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER
6
NATURE OF APPLICATION
7 A request for approval of a 8-Lot.residential planned development
8 for detached dwellings in an R-10 residential zone district. In
9 addition, approval of the following variances was proposed:
A.
10 .,
11 1. Access standard that requires every .lot to abut a
street for a width of at least 25 feet. (VAR 24-85)
• 12
2. Transit standard that requires the provision of .a
13 hard surfaced pedestrian path to connect the '
development directly to a bus stop or to adjacent
14 ) paths that lead to a bus stop. (VAR 25-85)
15 3. Buffering standard that requires lots in an R-0,
R-3, R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zone, located on perimeter
16 of a subdivision and which are adjacent to lots in
an R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zone upon which single family •
17 dwelling constructed, may be not less than 75% of .
• the minimum lot area of lots in the adjacent zone.
18 (VAR 26-85)
19 4. Floodplain standard LOC 17.010(3)(b. ) requiring that
each lo.t to be used for dwelling sites be accessible
20 to a roadway, no portion of which may be less than
one foot above the elevation of an'intermediate
21 regional. flood. (VAR 27-8.5)
22 5. Floodplain standard LOC 17.020(3)(a. ) requiring that
every proposed lot in the project contain a building
23 site with the elevation no lower than one foot above
the elevation of an intermediate regional flood.
24 ' (VAR 28-85)
25
. 26
1 PD 7-85
' Page GSFM:KH:301z 4 EXHIBIT •
/ iI a3C14
1 y ,
I. HEARINGS
2 The Development review Board held a public hearing and considered
this application at its meetings of July 15 and August 19, 1985.
3 Following the presentation of exhibits and testimony at those
4 hearings, the Development Review Board voted (4-0-1) to APPROVE the '
residential planned development. The Board also approved VAR 25-85, ,.
VAR 27-85 and VAR 28-85 and denied VAR 24-85 and VAR 26-85.
' • 6 FACTS •
' The following is a summary of the facts and testimony presented which
were found most relevant to this decision. These facts are presented '
,W 8 in more detail in the staff report dated June 28 and August 9, 1985,
9 and the applicant's proposal, Exhibits A, B, J. and L of the July 15
10 staff report and Exhibits B, C, and D of the August 9 staff report.
11 1. The subject property is a 3.04 acre rectangular site with
660 feet of frontage along the Canal Road 'right-of-way.
12 1
2. Between the first and second meetings, the applicant
13 changed the number of the proposed lots from 9 to 8.
Associated with the change in the number of lots came a
14 change in lot sizes, configurations, some setbacks, and
design and status of Street A (See Exhibit C of the August r
15 9th staff report).
16 3. The applicant changed the proposal as described above to
eliminate the need for Variances to the Access and Buffer
•
17 Standards (VAR 24-85 and VAR 26-85).
18 4. The eight proposed lots range in size from 7,800 square
feet to 1".,184 square feet.
19 5. The sur� :s'n(ling land use is residential consisting of
• 20 three si;:gt� family dwellings on lots located between ,
Heather Ass". 0.ourt and Bryant Road to the east, Bryant Park
?1 subdivision to the north, and single family dwellings
south of Canal Road.
• 22 6. The site is located in the 100 year flood plain of the
Oswego Canal. The existing elevations at the site range
• 23 from 104' near the canal to 120' at the northernmost '
• property line. Most of the site area is below the 100
' • 24 year flood elevation. A small portion of the site along
.25 the West boundary of the canal is in the floodway, The
100 year flood plain elevation at the site is 111.5 and
the 50 year elevation at the site is 110.2. All of the
26
,age 2 PD 7-85
GSFMtRRt301z
key 1 -. r. ..
It s
i . •
1 proposed
owilllhave finishedt 6t gradesnofuat least1112.5vfeet. V
2 r
7. The applicant has proposed to include all of the floodway
3 area in the open space tract where filling, tree cutting
and any construction will not occur. .
8. Several large trees are located on the site, primarily
5 Oaks, Ash and Douglas Fir.
tadin
wat
r
6 9. therfloodwayawhichahasabeencincludedsinntheg penespacehin
• 7 tract,
• 10. Access to the site is Bryant Road, which is classified by
8 the City as a collector street. Bryant Road is a
partially improved street with a 50' right-of-way, 30'
9 wide pavement with curb and gutter only on the east side.
10 11. The City reviewed and approved a very similar development
11 for this site in 1980. At that time, the development of
the site was not pursued because of the cost to extend
• seWer lines. Three lots were allowed to be partitioned
12 between Heather Ann Court and Bryant Road as an
intermediate step toward the completion of the
13 subdivision. At that time the City did not require that
improvements to Bryant Road be done because the
1t improvement costs could not be absorbed by the sale of
only three lots. A requirement that Bryant Road be
15 improved was deferred by City staff until the development
of the remainder of the land from Heather Ann Court to the
16 canal was proposed. In the meantime, -the ownership status
of the remaining area between Heather Ann Court and the
17 Canal changed.
18 12. Canal Road has a 20' wide public right-of-Way, the
majority of which is Unimproved.
19
13. Heather Ann court is presently a private cul de sac built
20 within the last ten years to provide access to the three .
lots fronting the cul de sac and has a 34' right-of-way
21 with a 24' paved roadway.
22 14. The City Engineering Department has indicated that Canal
and Bryant Roads in their present Condition 'cannot
23 satisfactorily serve as access to the proposed project.
24 15. All necessary utilities for the development of the site
are available in either Canal or Bryant Road right-of-ways.
, , 25
26 3 PD 7-85
Paljt USFM:KH:301z
3716
A
I 1 16. Engineering staff considers the proposed road elevations i' •
. acceptable since emergency vehicles are able to negotiate
2 50 year floodwater depths for Canal floodwater without
. major problems.
3
17. The subject site is identified on the Comprehensive Plan
i 4 as having potential for weak foundation soils.
5 18. The nearest available transit facility is located at the '
corner of Jean and Bryant Roads which is almost one half
6 mile from the site. . • •
7 19. All of the proposed lots have at least 25' of frontage on
a public street and all the perimeter lots are larger than
8 7,500 sq. ft.
9 20. Most of the testimony in opposition of the project
involved concern that; 1) fill may redirect floodwater •
10 direction and cause flood damage to adjoining property; 2)
some perimeter lots were smaller than that required by •
• 11 code; and, 3) dwellings on proposed building envelopes of
I lots adjoining the northerly site boundary will create a
12 negative visual impact.
13 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
The request under construction was a quasi-judicial procedure, the
14 conduct of which is regulated by Major Development procedures, LOC
49.300-49, . The following 335 Plan Policies and ordinance .
15 requirements, criteria and standards are applicable to this request:
LOC 48.195-48.225 R-10 Zone District Standards
• 16 LOC 49.300-49.335 Major Development Procedures
• LOC 48.315(13) Procedure for Determining
17 Actual Number of Units •
Allowed in a Major
' 18 Development for Residential '
• 0 19 Use
LOC 49.500049.510 Variance Procedure
20 APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS •
21 Floodplain Transit .
22 Stream Corridor Access
Wetlands Site Circulatign-Private
Weak Foundation Soils Streets/Driveways
' 23 Park and Open Space Site Circuylation-Bikeways/
Landscaping, Street Trees, Walkways
1 24
E 25
26 *
4 PD 7-85
Page GSFM:KN3301t
3 i i7
•
1 Residential Density Parking
screening, Bufferingq Utilities
• 2�' Drainage
3 Comprehensive Plan:
4 Residential Site Design Policies
Floodplain Policies '
_ 5
FINDINGS OF FACT
6 After consideration of the relevant facts, applicable Policies,
7 ordinances, criteria, and standards, the Development Review Board
8 found that: •
1. The reasons given by the applicant for approval of
9 the variance to the Access Standard did not
constitute an unnecessary hardship. The modified '
10 design of Street "A" providing public access to Lots ,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 conform to City Street
11 standards.
12 2. The request to vary from the Buffering Standards as '
proposed at the July 15th hearing did not constitute
13 a minimal variance. The modified proposal
considered August 19th involved perimeter lots that
+ 14 are in conformance with the Buffering standard.
Floodplain
15 3. The applicant could not comply with the Flood P
standard requiring that every lot in the project
16 contain a building site with a (natural) elevation •
,no lower than one foot above the elevation of an •
17 intermediate regional flood. The natural grade
below 111.5' includes the majority of the site and
18 creating lots for single family dwellings only on
the remaining land area above 111.5' would
19 constitute an unnecessary hardship.
4. The applicant could not comply to the Floodplain
20 Standard requiring that every lot be accessible to a
roadway, no portion of which may be less than one
21 foot aboVe the 100 year flood elevation. Heather
Ann Court is below the 100 year flood elevation and
' 22 compliance with the above standard could Worsen
directional and depth characteristics of 100 year
° 23 floodwaters at the site. Staff considers the
proposed elevations of the new streets at the 50
24 year flood level a minimum Variance as emergency
vehicles could negotiate one foot floodwater depths.
. 25
26
5 PD 7-85
Page== GSFMtKHt3012
3718
•
, , e a t .,a:p1h`�1,, t- ; t i<41A... ,.. ,,,'t) ''s 1i, ',n,.h ' f! ktVea 1J,1+ ldi t.
S.', rl�.1 • fi - li 1. e�, yR v+ �r•J C 7 47 , ,y tr L1 1,♦ a'-6 {t �•, r 1 '' .1,V'
e1 e" ,1 ro H! ttrr t ,•'.6' lCY'�''•]` 4r,, .,,.r "`n -''•' J .J.A '+,+' � 1 1� 7 G ' yr d r rt, 1 iu
' 1 5. The density of the Planned Development an r~„°0'it:; 4,ft ..,,,,a,-,,�; "1.t",11 .,; "'
conforms to the existing density l the asp:t" i t t-4,, rx7,i ,,a", ;�'ti�,S
2 and the zone district requirement. ;,,' i.cifs r! Iry '.,,,,, :tuf',44.'k,�
41,r1
• 3 6. The applicant has addressed the neighbOra� 4'('` Any,. I
`l' 4 t"1. 1 '`
i7 ;, jiJa 1kt 1)1�.
by: �; ,o�
r lr')' wlj
a) Minimizing the volume of fill at tt.e n:h r ) � ;/ '
V �r �r� ? s1) 1 ,ri", ri/s ,
and allowing for floodwater circc.lar,~�.,�r' 'tp +fi y-, ; A No,, '
t�4 ,�s '� i( 3rtTll +h s� :st, t
t.
,d- 6 b) Increasing building setbacks for -0 o"n r , .• t ,rY ' v �' T„i
and 6 from the northerly boundary of , 1' } �" ;elf s,, , ,, l "* '-�
o- �� 1
site from 10' to 15' kl�sr g .4 r ,''
y 7Y
c) Reducing the number of lots froii 9 4'1) `: y, � ' ''' �' °� r �, t�q S +lrJ�•
8 resulting in larger lots that meet c , _ 4�, x , .G�R�4 •t ,
' x standards along the perimeter of the .J �1Jy�1K;k y '" f 4 ,i+rt�Srr it11 '
r !. , ,,�aR dlto
qn 1 ; 1
10 7. The project has been well designed an are , 7•,., ,; ,;,1
many constraints; especially flooding? a �_ `f-a( 4Rw V. ,�'.-,gyp'
11 development patterns. �'+ �.., ,, 't���� ; N. '�+;'"'N ZI..
k, ,, � 1 '' rt e r,rL.it h
12 REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS .� �" tK: k�1s a=r' J! N% ,
' The proposal can be made to comply with relevant [ *; 'a � ,,4r,."y�(�}',4, C�" ,r",' i� '1
13 ordinance criteria and standards through applic.st;o 41l J , . �,. , ,..•, ,, i(y
j SN1. ,�4 Ij If`t!1' R. � • f fy,;•
conditions. tx` 4 =fa '..
,r ORDER AO r ,
,. 14 IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 13OAP l� "ta' r� N tl , ,N4
t"
OSWEGO that: K' "' .'
15 1. Variances VAR 24-85 and VAR 26-35 c: ac `" Pir4 ' ' iJ r. `i1'14,',iili .,p �a.
16
?.. Variances VAR 25-85, VAR 27-85, VAR 0 �,' t c �Rr�y�� �"'r'�0 � )1�� rg��
approved. '. *t' 1",ti 1..E i. g,� ;,. , ''
3. Planned DeVelopment PD 7-85 as proptxC�C 3 ,-"q4: , y'r�'l ��1,,44.'iv ,,` 4' '4'p;r-,f ` `1
18 Au ust 15, 1985 meeting be a s rnved r.lt f J+ �t )�t.„er s ,�4, `t rat,
19 conditions set forth in Section 4 belcua . ,47 t.,;t a9�M fafy l ' i ��+, µr`'
)'• 4. The conditions for approval for PD 7-05 atl, x4`` ' i.,» ,i`1' •''�'�7',44,����n`K�aS�
i t •t.eM r �,r', a
to 20 follows � t> ,, � :., i s1 ^KY +1t'
21 a, That a final plat baseu on Exhtbt,k 1 ,.', 4�f�.�,,€;r .�+ . taw s,, l'+44�f' "r
+3'' 4 lase ,, r �1� 15'r r, l 14
prepared and submitted to tht: CI*17 i, /7 t 1 t'
22 accordance with LOC 49.335. , e rI'r.. + Ra,� �. F"ti
<ttts C' 1'p� 41. + i r+"KV 9
23 b. That a street tree and tree eus't n ; r i'Y ��;t,1 +" 'it 4) ,.A.,tt��t-n�.,
submitted to City Planning Staff f ? .'A` '° t4 `` �:~ . ,
24 approval. The approved plan tag a.+ r, 4 , !� ,, ;� et
before the final plat is nignnd or r =4Y kdet�' % 5 T , ' , 'I�yt4 n `41
25 clearing and grading in donee whic to ru ' ,,, ilh4 4. ',4'",,#
occurs first. '4- Yti' t ,. Y 4�`'4 r f 's.Y:��~,,! x4e s
26 ;', >ysr,t i ett,a '
;+ 6 Pb 7-85 '4. 'ar , M '! 't'?', �.y . '`41. '
Page GSEM:KB:3blz % #“." L �
,4r1 l+M 0 .;
;, v�4t'"1 I�g �i, K r!
e 1 = t 0 }41, "r; .Y�''iir N, 1� 1.lI !1 /)., �Y' 1�r, el'
w�f�IF+tA"�' , r f�t'r ti
i/ l ` t 4 Iv�t,1, t f 1�1 Y tR 4,
, ..a k, • 4 ,,n 4! ,1ALeh ,,�.j>bp.`C ''' , ., . !"',%."N'�4F,0 1.,e,,'".".,i' ,-I.' K /r>1,..>hf1,
v` „t A, '.�1s,I•41 , , , 1',, 14 •.0 F .1 C w- tzisl y
, � ,. R14`',Ya4Y ' �� t 1. '‘Ns- 4•.1 i '% ,, �- atM�� .•4o.,.M�. Y.
1 ,• 1 i '.
.
•
`1
c. The plat clearly show the open space area and
1.. the proposed Covenants and Restrictions include
'''' i'� a section titled Open Space and that section ' •
•
+. = read as follows:
The area designated on the plat as open space
k ,;.a shall remain in a natural condition and shall
r' n
/• i',{ have no trees, understory vegetation,
groundcover, or other natural features unless
,f N- it is found to be hazardous. Hazardous �,
"7A-'` materials may be removed following approval by
. the City. ",
Pk}- ,
o ,t . ;0., d. That a reproducible duplication of the final
A t�+LiTif,p i'.:, plat clearly depict front, side and rear yard
+s -,.,��, it setback lines for Lot 1 that comply with the
' , 1 r � M `-,13 •:i R-10 setback standards. The final plat clearly
i,f �,cyz .•
�; '.,, depict setback lines for Lots 2-8 as shown on
<< �. ;,,Vv 4,-4 Exhibit C.
1 1" �r µ
J V + I p 4<a,` ''= e. The 100 year regulatory flood elevation be
ryw,� 1i;, noted on the final plat and tWe permanent .
• 13"d ., Q,t reference markers be established in an easily •
1if� ' accessible locations throughout the site to the '
r,5 lll' fp` satisfaction of the Engineering Department.
• ` .. f. That Canal Road, Heather Ann Court and street
I' ...,,.Y.;,-A.', 'A' be public streets, be designed to City
' '1` tyh.1gr' r�' standards, and that the position in the center
+.r'74, and/or be submitted to the satisfaction of
.. v' "3. o�� , `a' staff for accomc,odating existing trees, grades, •
t"t, i..0, "1/' etc. of the proposed or future right-of-ways.
� '+ W; If the proposed streets, sidewalks and private
,kn ,M;tl, •:'< Utilities cannot be located Within their
ti'x,r c.,: respective right-of-Ways to the satisfaction of
�',r's, �x` staff, sidewalk/utility easements be provided
„.. , ib�„, along both edges of the right-of-Ways.
�� t,�`, rkr Elevations of Heather Ann Court at its
M?� �; 4..., intersection with Canal Road be no higher•than
' a� the existing street grade so that access and
4, M z= drainage problems not result on developed
,p, private properties. The owner shall dedicate
•+ , ;,•- 15' of right-of-way on the north side of Canal
'„y 1 Road to the City. Property line sidewalks
shall be constructed as per Exhibit K.of the
•
July 15th staff report.
" <, g. That pavement in Canal Road at the intersection
of the westerly cul-de-sac extend to the south ,
sufficiently to serve as a turnaround. '
PD 7-85
G: lM:KH:301z
• • "7 Il till
e
as
1
,
•
1 h. Bryant Road be improved to a 1/2 street
improvement consistent with a final width of ' a
. , 2 36' for that facility and that an overlay be
provided over the whole street to match the " •
3 edge of gutters. Tapees into the Unimproved
section to be of proper width and length.
. 4 Improvements shall include an 5' concrete
sidewalk. Application for street widening `
5 shall be submittal prior to submittal of •
construction plans. The five foot
6 pathway-sidewalk is to;enter down the north
side of Canal Road
7 ;
i. The existing berm in Bryant Road, placed as
a part of the partitions, should be modified to
meet the requirements of City Engineering and
9 should be adequately landscaped.
10 j. The water line in Canal Road be a 10" line, •
• i with City participation in oversizing.
11
k. The developer pay the assessment due as ,
•,l repayment to the Canal sewer trunk line costs
12 as noted in this report. • •'
13 1. Storm drainage plans shall include a pollution
14 control manhole.
15 m. Construction plans shall show location of
street lights relative to sidewalks, mailboxes
• and street trees. Photometrics shall be
16 submitted to verify proper spacing.
17 n. That the applicant have a soils report done.
The report with recommendations be submitted
10
with' construction drawings to the Engineering
14 Department prior to neW fill being placed at
the site. .
20 • o. All fill be properly placed and compacted under
direction of a registered civil engineer. Fill
21
on all building sites shall be completed and
approved prior to sale of lots.
22 . •
23
4 ,%
2
. .. 25 '
26 s
8 PD 7-85
• Page GSFM:KNt3012
37N1
d ,
a .
1
•
L
3
I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the
4 Development Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego.
5 DATED thislbth day of September, 1985.
2
/if/tie
8 ichard Hutc ins, Chairman p '
Development Review Board
9
10
r
11 •
12 Se ret y
ATTEST:
13
AYES: Hutchins, Eslick, Blackmore, Martindale
• 14 - NOES:
ABSTAIN: Finch
' 15 ABSENT: Wright, Glasgow
16
17 j
•
18
19
• 20
21
22
23
• 24
25
26
9 Pb 7-85
Page'° GSFM:kHdOlz
3722
•
L.
I I
— - , "'4 U �
0�
'� p Q r, , • r
.
'',N w . tr �
,x
,,,
.1
c
F.
� 0 _co y
Q
w f ep,
,.
� Y
„ Sol
no
b
. ' / 1,t, 4. n r
• ob w h
x t $
4 h
d M
n .o��,N�
CV, ' , Z a r '
A F—. e
•
I i
,,g ,N
C v
aC N Z i.ik
�= ttO I`. •
/... .01
rC
w 011k ip N M
. s u
400
. z ,, F, /2\0%
cn
' ▪ 0 l7dNb'0 J
-, N
O N __�. .o�-ram` C.) ,.,� 09 ,1! ,
., . (n 2 w Vre
i - 11
U il .4 I 2.
r 3723 xNit��r 'AI
s
/- tr
PAGE 1
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 14, 1978 a
V
I The August 14, 1978 meeting of the Lake Oswego Planning Commission was
called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Joe Glaze, Chairman. The following Planning
, • Commissioners were present: Joe Glaze, Burton Goodrich, Tony Marquis,
Tom Peters, Ardis Stevenson. r:dward Frankel arrived at 8:10 p.m. Mike _
Montgomery was absent. The following staff members were present: Patrick
Barnum, Planning Director, Bob Amptman, City Engineer and Linda Drew, Secretary.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the July 24, 1978 Planning Commission meeting were approved
as mailed.
PETITIONS b COMMUNICATIONS
There being no p' tition•, or communications to come before the Planning Commission
the meeting continu?A vith.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Glaze briefly explained the public hearing procedure for the benefit
of the audience prior to opening the first hearing.
SD 23-78 (Brady Partition) - The request of Brady and Associates for approval
of a minor partition to create three lots from a single parcel located west
_ of Bryant Road and north of Canal Road. (Tax Lot 100 on Tax Map 21E 17CC).
•
l Approval would create two building sites of 10,000 square feet and a third larger
site subject to further subdivision at a later date.
Pat Barnum presented the Staff Report, exhibits and staff's recommendation for
approval of the partition subject to the conditions listed under Public Works
Considerations. Pat Barnum presented a letter from Hilary A. Hoadley, F.E.
which was received on August 14, 1978 and entered It as Exhibit D, in opposition
to the partition.
Public Hearing was opened and David Brady, the applicant, explained that he Is
seeking approval of a minor partition of basically three lots, encompassing the
total parcel of 31 acres. He is not asking for approval of the whole 31
acres, but is showing the intent of future development, he said. The three
lots Would be in the R-10 zone and would exceed all R10 requirements. The rear
of the houses would be on the Bryant Road side. Mr. Brady Is proposing a minor
lable at
e
sartition
Withu
uapproval of not time to develop
becase sewer is could go aheadandh ire
start , ,
construction on two houses without expending funds for engineering on an
unsewerable subdivision. /
There was discussion by the Commission of drainage and possible siltation of
the Canal. Also discussed the possibly of a dedicated street along the rear lot:
line. Bob Amptman felt there would be no problem with drainage and silt if
,
only these two lots were developed.
EXHIBIT
S ell
3T 211 7-851,
r
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 14, 1970 PAGE 2
r--- -.-
Mrs. Charles Snowden, 18148 S. W. Pioneer, spoke in opposition. She felt that
the approval of the entire three-lot minor partition with a roadway along the
rear lot lines is the same as approval of the entire subdivision. She stated
that during the rainy season this area Is a swamp. Improper development and
removal of trees could cause the water to run off onto adjacent properties, she
said.
Jean Knauss, 18164 Pioneer Court, said that she felt that the removal of fir
trees would cause a great loss of privacy on,the southern perimeter of Bryant
Park Subdivision. The 4iltatlon problem was also of great concern to her.
David Banks, 18180 Pioneer Ct., noted that his home faces toward the parcel
to be developed. His concern is how this property is ultimately going to be ,
developed. He whs also nonnsed to tennis court that might be built close to
his rear lot lion.
Fred Payne, representing Ashram Builders, stated that this is the third tiro..
that this particular property has come to a public hearing of which he was
not notified. He is building a house on Tax Lot 901 and it is presently on the
market, he said. He felt that the development of the Woodard property would not
affect the property value of the home owners on Pioneer Court, He mentioned
, improvements to Canal Road made during his home construction.
- The Commission stated that he would in the future be officially notified of
any public hearing meetings if he would leave his address with the staff.
Rebuttal .
i
Lee Woodard, Lot 12 in Pioneer Court was in agreement with Mr, Payne that the
development of the property would not affect the drainage or add to the silt
problem. He felt that the Westridge 36" storm sewer line was not completed
before winter and filled with mud and silt. The line was subsequently
flushed out and the silt washed into the canal. That was when the major silt
problem occured,
Dave Brady spoke again saying that drainage problem would be investigated and
trees would be preserved. Storm water from roofs would contain little silt
and would increase the runoff of clean water he said, which might assist in the
removal of silt, The tennis court is merely a possibility but would be a
benefit to the property owners as the present tennis court is to the property
owners on Pioneer Court, 1
There being no further testimony the public hearing was closed, Chairman Glaze
was sympathetic with the question of privacy. However, he felt that when
people build in an R-10 area that is the risk they must consider. He disagreed
that the Commission is approving a proposed future development. Chairman Glaze
then made a motion to approve the minor partition with the conditions recommended
by staff, There Was a vote on the motion which passed with Glaze, Goodrich,
Marquis, Peters, Stevenson - for. Frankel abstainee because he had arrived late.
- SD 22-78 (Ridgevlew Condominiums) - The request of B 6 B Development for approval
of a 63 unit condominium plat in the Mountain Park Planned Unit De • --•••-
The property Involved is located along the west side of Eagle Cres EXHIBIT
3'1 25 5 21
y..,
AP STAFF REPORT ~
. December 19, 1980 '
PC FILE SD 43-80 (Heather Estates)
APPLICANT Brady and Associates/MBA Properties
LOCATION North side of Canal Road, between the Tualatin River-Oswego Lake
Canal and Bryant Road.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tax Lots 100 and 103, Tax Map 2 1E 17CC
SUMMARY OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST This is an application for approval of a 9-lot, • ,
single-family subdivision at R-10 residential density.
SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS The property is located within the city limits .
•
of Lake Oswego and within the city's urban-service boundary. It Is presently
zoned single-family low-density (R-10). The Comprehensive Plan proposes a D4 ,
residential for the property, which is presently vacant. There is no distinctive
arc., nomination for the site, but a portion of it is shown as having severe potential
for weak foundation soils. A portion of the property is indicated as being within
the 100-year flood plain, and the flood elevation has been checked against the ! ,
Corps of Engineers information. The property consists of approximately 3.3 acres.
The adjacent Heather Ann Court ;has been approved to City Standards, Bryant Road
' is an unimproved city street and Canal Road is right-of-way only, with no street
construction. All necessary municipal facilities are available to serve the site.
The .fully developed plat of Bryant Park is located immediately north of the property, '
• while Westridge Subdivision lies to the east across Bryant Road and Oxford Estates
Subdivision and a portion of Bryant Woods Planned Unit Development lie to the west
across the Canal.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The applicant proposes to construct a nine-lot,
single-family subdivision, meeting all the requirements of the R-10 zone, The ,
, minimum lot size will be 10,000 sq, ft. and the maximum lot size will be approximately
12,600 sq. ft. Dedication of additional right-of-way is proposed and construction ,
of associated street improvements will be necessary.
NARRATIVE The westerly portion of the property is shown as being located within
the 100-year flood plain area of the Tualatin River-Oswego Lake Canal. Several •
staff members had indicated in our initial discussions concerning this project
that they were not aware of any previous flooding in the area, The applicant has
contacted numerous residents in the vicinity and has received signatures on a
petition indicating that no flooding has been noticed within their tenancy in
the area. A. number of these residents have lived in the neighborhood for 15 to
20 years.
` The same general area which is identified as being potential flood plain also is
shown in the Comprehensive Plan as having a severe potential for weak foundation
soils. It will be necessary to have special information provided regarding founda-
• tion strengths prior to construction of streets or residences within the subdivision.
Canal Road is not expected to remain a dead end street but will most likely serve
as the access to the area south of it for future development. This acc S will ko
• through the extention of the proposed Heath Place south into undevelo a E X H III
,'" This southerly extention might extend as far as Old Gate Road, Accord '� F
• staff feels that the name of the street should be changed to Heath Str
Road, 3'r'26 f'07- Fs:
STAFF REPORT -2- 1 DECEMBER 19, 1980 ,
1
The ultimate width of pavement in Canal Road should be 28 feet, to accommodate the
future traffic and a bike path which is proposed by staff to be a part of the pave„
roadway. Only 20 feet of asphalt would be necessary for the present subdivision,
with the remaining 8 feet to be added at the time of the development of properties
lying further to the south of Canal Road.
Construction of pavement in the intersection of Canal Road and Heath Place should '
extend to the south sufficiently to serve as a turn-around, temporarily. The
existing right-of-way of Canal Road west of Heath Place is not planned to be
developed as a street, but staff is suggesting that it be used for utilities and
, for a bike path which might cross the Canal at some future date. The turn-around
at the end of Heath Place should be modified into a "T" shape with the top bar
being approximately 70 feet in width. This will divert the private driveways
away from large trees on lot six and seven and produce sufficient turning radii ,
for large automobiles.
The City was approached several years ago by Dave Brady, who presented a preliminary
r plat of the property substantially as is presented for the present request. The
processing of the total plat was not practical at that time, because sanitary sewer •
facilities along the Canal were only in the planning stages. As a result, the city
approved administrative partitions of three lots, between Bryant Road and Heather .
Ann Court. Heather Ann Court was improved and dedicated to the City by Mr. Brady.
The three lots created were served from the existing sanitary sewer in Bryant Road,
t
As the staff considered the first minor partition as an intermediate step toward
• a subdivision, and had no desire to burden the developer with an early, sizable
investment, the requirements for street improvements along Canal Road and Bryant •
Road were deferred, Now that the entire subdivision is proposed for development)
it will be necessary for the improvements of those two streets and the associated
utilities to be constructed.
The improvement In Bryant Road should consist of a pavement widening of approximately '
6 feet, to achieve a 36-foot width. This will match the curb-to-curb width adjacent
to the Westridge Subdivision, across Bryant Road to the east. Construction of a
• curb and gutter section and sidewalk along Bryant Road and the modification and
landscaping of the unfinished berm presently located there will also be necessary.
The pavement widening should include adequate pavement width for a transition to ,
the south of Canal Road, back to the existing, narrow width. ,
The widening of Bryant Road will require notification of the public and possibly
an election. An election would occur if 25 or more registered voters request a
vote on the street-widening matter.
•
The proposed 10-inch water line in Canal Road reflects the City's request for over- ' ' '
sizing the line for future extent ion to the south. There is an existing 3-inch Water
line In Canal Road) installed by Rivergrove Water District) from which the property
was requited to de-annex at the time of annexation to the City of Lake Oswego: The
line Is inadequate for fire protection, but may serve the properties south of Canal
Road temporarily. ,
Sanitary sewer system of this development will discharge into the newly-constructed •
12-inch main in the Canal. According to the agreement which is being worked out
between the City Council and the developer of the river-run subdivision, the develop- •
ers of this property will be required to partially reimburse the cost of that sanitary
sewer facility, ; EXHIBIT
r
STAFF REPORT
-3- `' ' DECEMBER 19, 1980
A 24" storm drain exists in Canal Road. It appears as though that line will be,
• adequate to serve the present development, with the addition of a few catch basins. •
There is an existing swimming pool and chain-link fencing located on the proposed lot
1. They are presently used by the owner of the lot immediately to the north, who is •
4ssoclated with the present development. The location of the pool appears to be 9110
that a home could be built on lot 1, with the pool being integrated into its design. ,
' STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff feels that the proposed subdivision represents a
satisfactory development of the subject property, and we would recommend approval
• subject to the following conditions:
• 1. That Heath Place be renamed Heath Street or Heath Road.
2. That pavement in Canal Road at the intersection of Heath Place extend to ' ,
the south sufficiently to serve as a turn-around.
3. That the turn-around at the end of Heath Place be modified as outlined ,
in this report. •
4. That Bryant Road be widened to 36 feet, with an adequate width transition
south of Canal Road. (The staff would be willing to allow a width increase .
• of only 2 feet, if a public election should be called for and the improve-
. ment requested should be defeated).
5. As a part of the improvements In Bryant Road, there should be a 5-ft,
concrete sidewalk, It is suggested that the present development should
l be responsible for this construction, because of concessions granted at i
the time of the original partition.
6. The existing berm in Bryant Road, placed as part of the partitions, .
should be modified to meet the requirements of the City Engineer and
should be adequately landscaped. ,
7. The waterline in Canal Road must be oversize to 10" size; with the
understanding that the City Engineer will request the City Council
to reimburse the developer for the oversizing.
8. The developer must pay his share of the assessment 'or the sanitary
sewer main in the Canal, at the time of connection to the line,
9. That a soils report be provided by a qualified soil scientist or
geotechnieal engineer prior to the construction of streets or utilities,
•
EXHIBITS
"A" -- Portion of Tax Map 2 lE 17CC, showing the site and vicinity
"B" Preliminary, Plat
4 EXHIBIT
PI)
I ee 0
3728
�. . V V Q ..•1 Y. tr � J.11, JLYVcJ
or
lL f 1. r
•
Q QX.
O 3 ��M in U
t
LI
1 /
\ : j//"9 n°lo
•
,,I ti ti
� ffti v
Ali
•
11
•
ci
. 11--pi I *c
o O iCI f��,ee�caf'• -. ., I1 .
Z _NOOOO p0� . '.r .tmary
.1z
00 00 00 •e �Q �ss,
UNmo,Malninw < c4h �,,.
Z w i�i+ �° MN I �
-f o� it
C ti
•
-fp ;`t C� fd/
r....
• 2 VS u'igi.
41
lit fs ,
\p •
w `
\ \ *~
h. , p •
Cr. >... ‘41111 f
I—
•
• h•y
•
0
u II
W ti` NY bZZ • _ Sp
1:7
w .G ti co
o-e �.Bt B J ' O c.
G"• 0. to o `d�
Y Q E , it
` ;V ep(�• M ram., 7 r`
U cr) �° Ntv7d ti ��
'yr'i. 6 Is r f o p O .-. �e '•
woe tr it re I'
f.f 4 lD to ` p J 2 9
tp
•
V u,
1
•
1 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
+
2 OF THE
3 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
0. 4 A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A 9-LOT ) SD 43-80 (Heather Estates)
SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION ON PROPERTY )
5 LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CANAL
ROAD ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
6 AND ORDER
• 7 NATURE OF APPLICATION
8 This is a contested case proceeding to review an application by the owners of the subject
9 property for approval of a nine-lot, single-family subdivision on Tax Lotr 100 and 103,
10 Tax Map 2 1E 17CC.
11 HEARING
° 12 A hearing on this Item was held on January 12, 1981. Appearances were made and exhibits
' 13 . ?tered as indicated in the minutes of that meeting and in the staff report of December
14 19, 1980. '
15 CRITERIA •
16 The review of subdivision proceedings is governed by the sections of the City Subdivision
17 Code found in LOC 44.010 through 44.840.
18 FINDINGS
19 1. The property involved is located within the City Limits of the City of Lake
• 20 Oswego.
' 21 , 2. The aforesaid property proposed for development has available to it all City
•
22 services.
23 3. The property is undeveloped and is adjacent to primarily developed property
24 to the north, within the Bryant Park Subdivision, and to the Westridge Subdivision
25 across Bryant Road to the east. To the south are a number of large, sparsely-
26 developed lots and to the west lies the Oswego Lake-Tualatin Riv ,
EXHIBIT
• Page 1 SD 43-80 (Heather Estates) 3730
•I ;5
• r ! `, r
• Y
1 4. The subject property is located within the Urban Service Boundary of the City
2 of Lake Oswego.
S. The subject property adjoins the undeveloped right-of-way.of Canal Road, and
takes access from Bryant Road, a sub-standard City arterial.
4 S 6. There are a number of large trees. located on the property, a small number of ,
'
6 which would be affected by the development of streets and utilities. '
7. Testimony Indicated a potential drainage problem to the vicinity of the proposed
7
8 Lots 7 and 8, which City staff testified could be handled through the proper
9 development of storm drainage .facilities.
8. There Is a swimming pool located on the property which would become Lot 1,
' 10
11 and the disposition of that pool would depend upon the future ownership of the
• 12 proposed lot.
CONCLUSIONS
13
14 The Planning Commission concludes that this proposal 1s in conformance with the Comprehen-
sive Plan of the City and with applicable City Ordinances. Further, the Commission concludes ,
15
that the City does have adequate facilities available to provide necessary service, or
16
17 they can be provided at the applicant's expense. The Planning Commission further concludes
. that there is a necessity to protect against storm water problems on a portion of the
is .
property and to provide for certain Improvements to existing utilities.
4 19
20 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL '
— 21 The Planning Commission further concludes that the following conditions should be attached
22 to the approval of the request, to assure complete compliance with City Codes and Compre-
23 hensive Plan policies and with good design criteria:
24 1. That Heath Place be renamed "Heath Street" or "Heath Road".
. 25 2. That pavement in Canal Road, at the intersection of Heath Place, extend to the _ '
26
south sufficiently to serve as a turn-around. E X HIiBIJ
� 4
. Paget SD 43-80 (Heather Estates) �,
,
a
( (' -
1 3. That the turn-around at the north end of Heath Place be modified into a "T"-
2 shape, with the top bar being approximately 70 feet in width. This would ,
3 divert the private driveways away from large trees on proposed Lot 6 and 7 ,
4 and produce sufficient turning radii for large automobiles.
5 4. That Bryant Road be widened to 36 feet, with an adequate width transition
6 south of Canal Road,
7 5. As a part of the improvements in Bryant Road, there should be a 5-foot concrete ,
8 sidewalk. The present development should be responsible for this construction,
9 in return for concessions granted at the time of the adjacent partitions from
10 the same property:
11 6. The existing berm in Bryant Road, placed as part of the previous partitions,
12 should be modified to meet the requirements of the City Engineer and should be
13 adequately landscaped.
14 7, The water line in Canal Road must be oversized to 10 inches, with the understand- �,. ,
15 Ing that the City Engineer will request the City Council to reimburse the developer
16 for the oversizing, •
17 B. The developer must pay his share of the assessment for the sanitary sewer main
13 In the Canal, at the time of connection to the line. .
19 9, A soils report must be provided by qualified soil scientist or geotechnical engineer
20 prior to the construction of streets or utilities,
. 21 IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of the proposed Heather °
. 22 Estates Subdivision, subject to the conditions above, and suggests its adoption by the City
23 Council,
24 DATED this 9th day of February, 1981.
,.
25 i HI¢�X
26 ,� 1.' .'-' zg, ” ,
Peg+e 3 Sb 43-80 (Heather Estates) PO A
3"I 3? A
Jie _ *i,. i-,. ,: '1'6',,,Y:t•t S 4.%t;,�,�tt E :aF 4k {v'r.,lift,,i'• a, ty�0,,v1,,,},�.'C.'• !° µa s,( •lib ,ri �'','4T;l:W s4. i ;,..r p ',. r i•.l;'a
t rt? . • .', h\w j .'>` r .iv, § ..Y " " ,. y4 +t,, tr.„�-y's�yii` t , x<,y ro iq i'IV 9 '" y'� '„
+ , 1 " r ?t 'Y) ' t •y 1..1k`• t.i• •f.'n f,�y%' t 'V.''+y Tp�A:l'dfk?pyl i',,:r ''AC.� ,41,' !I�•ti '1 +�16,,�T.1dt.g1}'1..J1114 I 1t, a .t•4 �tt
� r 1 t: '•�,u ., T'' ! "a'yya f 7v + �C't. s c�- u,'�at'F;�ih' y ..l:Sy � J. Y � ,��4, ,�. , r" r s t ,.
1 • ` .t..,. :,141 ,:• :' ,'M rt'04 +'..'S ra a•r' • .l• ,r>, , d• Ivki-',4'..,.•,K.,w1, ,•itwet7s� t,1{h `ay}.1 I 1,lypyr, t•,:. 1 +7.f fY�' r� r u" Y Yb y��,:•,';
i rc VW ,eA fie`' raP ,/V kt,•, { rr�,+.%))71,,4w 1
" 'it‘:,sr k r f°'• Sy p ,r a, '�`r,.1hn 1.11
v fi .
' +ti t� Councilor Avery asked if the parking lot concetst vreicr3 Y:0,�t '' Zf „„ , s'cta�,, ;°3� fix) �' "
°' 1� Commission by;Shauna rtrieger of 520,"rill has• been recr+t,T,'.'. *ti ` :,Ldit y i i'. 'isr 'r'>. tt' `',
4y, ,?: plied that it has. 4�u{, ++ y a 1,+ fiv. f ',l Eew
yr ,�'y�..yyr�M't�S�r��Y'a�.i}�➢C' tJ* �r ,I.i/4J
,++ Dennis O'Neal of 641 Sixth Street, opposed the tea 1, 0,!,r i,' ), 4r",+ itt1t,, rv+,l„ t 0
�`,r« r y
,e:: continuous zone changes based on the Comprehensive plan Sa""+a),I3r�;,'+y, i ?, ^,�4"� . t.d�i ',' x ti 1'�+ `
the new zoning ordinance. Mayor H. Campbell ex lufc r y s y� " ,Cyr)t g" '' t 7y'" ' 'r' 'ry�
a;, •� y P p � ,�R���� ,'6 �_�.�5� '^'4W��( ,{ {h,�� �lt�x�'h�'Irhe'
by Council that is related to land use must be ce:asiS OAA a, 71,4t.; INflr , �ti a ` `
sive Plan, and the proposal before Council ,is conait tKgatfi�k", �Z rA ttk Q h yif0'4;l,`�ry(1 ' `,W1:1 . '4 '':
'' w d..tv'�"oy{•d e ti�y;lr�b�'��r � ;� r,yy 7 �,�',
r r e t1 a t'� !',i'�'`l:4 '^(**,i.+1,§'t!Y ti� A� rC Yh•i'
The public hearing waa closed. k' ,r�'t.,.* ,, ,`§k�.f�'« 4 ,1r40t,,a,+ .,,5
i ' , ,,� �;,. Moved by Councilor Avery; seconded by Councilor }1M61 'bC1htY'r r:`` + �'' ,g,n�''t+r u a+f"y "x'1
p b � � ar
the requested zone change from Duplex DK-3 to eekli t 1 ail Y' � ,'t��5 •, ° 7. . u
located at the southwest corner of Fifth Street :+ e r'wA`p la L is
r °' 1 r4 Ylt r 4 + S 1 r I
be directed to prepare the necessary ordinance. Utz 5+r�� !, �� '� �, r�.�.�• � •�Y.,p .'.
Councilors Henderson, R. Campbell., Avery and i'Ltvot r'� s 444. +hp .D wr '•
T». 1 Y , ! , ,I.
r �1r��{��' ' �'� 'Pa4,tf�5T"�'�,,Y�,jSFfl'�{ `,t , ,
E. Public hearing on request of Brady 6 AssociateG+`F1 pev• t , 'rele�j�„�r',,,,„,„„F..:, 4
xl r,9a i er*r with i�4+ •s, t
of Heather Estates Subdivision. r 'FA;+*"a t 1, ik t' �t it r t, ;44
Councilor R. Campbell noted that page 1 of the' J'KS4P nrC'' 3ik,t d}0.a.1.� ',ki,Nk,:�,y� .> °
1981 says that the applicant is Brady & Associate CM i r 1' •£;1 ,,4,0,45.1.
z 1'r•'t Y'; 1:'i 9�t,�iF .1`k.. t,<,`' Ii,t..
is not correct. He explained that Bruce Bruit tx It °�1 Pa' 0,f,,,r "kC, t 4�+ � it ' "'
r t t,
• " partnershipthat has a piece of this subdivi.sis , i4 4 # kj3 ?4 + 7.1 f rt ' ��Uly'.31 4,'M''+1 r; '•"' i' 1 '
t,k ;` way involved. Because of his connection with i A, r a7-;ti nts"",(0 ,,f \+c� ,, ;y� ,,,.� r1 35 r s §
` elated that he has no conflict of interest in tE is .« 04t'4 ,akt °-+ �C R',NW trIZrrl!'�4r'7 .7;4,4'„� Zi
.r ". contact. Other Council members present lik�rwibe 'n ?r,w+i1;, t)`�y`am` ' ;�,.,^�l",^r +;rf��;
1+ ° tort L< w�Is P+?reels P=�t 14�y 7 a�,+, Pat Barnum presented the staff report on t►.tis ite:a r zy'r,�r ', v t`a +tiv �y';A4�f,t,$,.. ,,�iiPlanning Commission on ,lanuary 12th with nine cat=lit' 's;.1,;4x't y,. F • `„ " g z+.m(rN0,�; , (p
each condition and answered questions from •Co-3ce i;,l ro ��"" �'t" "•F'" 3 r'Y' f�Fp 4 ,"�} '41 a� "y'.'
< , , , r.r Y i1tlt a� jr'k7i}'1tr uS( c + ,rt=,
y.. ,, r ! .`, tg,,, ,s, an;fik4;k� to .,, fi a �,to
r . ra, 9 �y a '7 a,, a 4. "i .,
There were no oral or written comments from tho ,..tit a kt,'f` ,r,; S f 4,,,ty ,, t' r' '''' '.;
''; closed. i'r ?r/}1y x K4L1 /fir ,r'n 'r P' � 'ky' `• ' Sa
• W • a{ ' { iY FI'� "��,y�,Fr�1P4�4 �, Jr., , U ]
» Moved byCouncilor R. Campbell; seconded t+� !tu �t rl'+ille '011iri �fSt � h';I hi'.;%''I
P ; a t:r , t 90, `tr 4 n
in q Conclusions and Order of the Planninz CC `rti fir'#, 1;` "1"i` 4 F,I Wp.1 1 fi"ttr t '° " ` +'i
the preliminary plat of Heather Estates Subcivi.0l(c 2tyN1�(j yt!„44. p,.-4 ,',4^,�, t* ,,m �? {�Y t• .. _;�'
• conditions imposed by the Planning Coamiooion. ,1t'1 "'10,,e1�er µ•t11;',4 d; ` l4,iarn,,,t cka^ , ,
I+ , t' M,'Y'J I,t 9 iy' ti t` rti �, >4 ? 1, 1,(
,t . ^r j`25ga)?d of 1!r'i , ii" rAh.lit
3i a 'tMoved by Councilor R« Campbell; seconded by F!aY hW]"� ',� �; a �+r ,a, , '.� U>` �� F S'�` '
• be modified to read "tha.t Brant Road be wide,.c4 0t 54 , k,: ,, tj'>� 4 j ,, �,a,,,p.,t�j1, ��t`t5 +?""g PP a t y N i , t,• l4 4 t
•
with detailed design to be approved bythe City i-';� 14.,= ; ? t ^(,a r'•1 1E tti,t,� �,• a,f,; C'r,
i ,�, *r1G �«
with Councilor R. Campbell and Mayor H. t�iMr ell i.k, 1 '+ ,, 1 'l�lrzy T^ (.d^..r j ''A' ,,
Henderson and Avery voting "no" y ` 't,le^(? ,",'kk.,l e;+t i's1,A+(ti>t,,s' ' P-t,,,, a`r'� ry ..
k' ..1a4. � 1� Y�� r rY l At�c
�I . , I Fr,., ni, t11. fret ,.
Councilor Avery said that Condition 9 should t':.' ' 'f ee`�, » ,,fi� i1, , 't,', :, `` fi>,' 4•'
to a, •4`•i + > '!"'a,n�.r{, ++ ,. �` ..
word soils . The City Attorney said a regasisct.: �, o, t,���r,a sty + ,, ,ly„,,yrt,Aty . y ,
report provide a design that would be act`opt ott1r, 3 ; j,, .14 ek i,. tag ,"",t,s� j»s� y,t.(4
. "A soils report must beprovided b a qunlifictl t fi aq ''°r,,,e `
p 1' d�„ � j16x, " �,� r ', t +,•1 ",.i
engineer which concludes that the construction (-,. t � h'+ I)" ,,(a0.34r,,, i`'' i 4 c
,t''� t l YY1l �' 'is'� ^.Y,ty�i r r'r�d,�I
subdivision to cityStandards is feasible. 'i31',,LRr�"1'N" Jt t+ *`?'+ .�e`tt"t'.'.',({,1y t zj n
�1" Yi�!{I�I/ll V«y. Ohl �� 4 •a�T�,e� -fl �� fi '1
,y,rS ,mzy � l,r ayta I'd
Moved by Councilor Avery; seconded by Maytar f1. f •It't ! 4 }t` s'� `,i r ;'�,� -0 ;14'.
conformed to the language provided by the Cite A::r 1 k 6• ",•,.• i .n+,+,"a"nAr Y.
with Councilors Henderson, R. Campbell, Avert/ a J '.,: „,t '�" I+ e `� as Nw{,,{r$z` ? ` j't'`�
• Regular Council Meeting i1:y,' lei *f rF,'y' ' �wr{4' A' ti . S »'Y'�-
8 g ti. f+ 1 �1ta Srtt at',K
March 17, 1981 page 4 k �lafi rt ,�+t� r�� a� �rle l
r lrf� , x L ,,rr r
LI
- ,. ,,f, e. i1
r rs .prr, as es.amended (Condition 9), passed with Councilors Henderson,
- P -4,AA1, Avery and Mayor H. Campbell voting "yes".
i { , .' ' ' 444V Avery asked that staff verify the information shown on the prelimi- 1
; ;0s;3_,,, , -. v tom,, which indicates the applicant to he Brady 6 Associates/MBA Properties. j'
r'' L:iiC:::am said this is not of prime importance on the preliminary plat--the '
. ' 2f,Cel plat is the critical one.
P. Public hearing on proposed change in zoning code to allow commercial recrea-
• '' tion facilities as conditional uses in industrial zones.
- Pat Barnum presented the staff report on this ite:u which is legislative in
nature. He said this action has been suggested by various applicants over •
the past year who were interested in sites for commercial recreational facili-
ties. In considering this change, the Planning Commission discussed several
a alternatives before recommending to Council adoption of an ordinance modify- '
ing the Industrial Park conditional use procedures to allow "Commercial
eV Recreational Facilities".
-•, Mark Eisenzimmer, 16420 NE Fargo Court, Portland, spoke in favor of the code
. change. He noted that he had appeared before Council previously as a poten-
tial applicant for this type of use in the Lake Grove industrial area, and ,
he urged Council to implement the proposed change.
Robert Garvey, general contractor, spoke in favor of the change.
Susan Herald, 900 Fifth Street, told Council she represented 89 Lake Oswego
. citizens who oppose this change. She said it will cause additional traffic
q; ,, problems and diminish the amount of industrial land in the City. She added
that Dee Denton authorized the voicing of her objections to taking any prop-
erty away from the industrial area for any use other than industrial.
Selby Potts, 18816 Longfellow said the subject district has no sidewalks '
-'''''' and he opposed the zoning code change because of the traffic problems that
would follow,
-.p, R The public hearing was closed,
The City Attorney told Council some good questions have been raised absut con- -
formance with Comprehensive Plan industrial policies, and these should,be
answered by a staff report back to Council before action is taken on an ordi-
9 , nance, He added that in order to amend the zoning code it must be concluded
that the approval is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the land use
goals, or vice versa. _
. Moved by Councilor Avery; seconded by Councilor Henderson that the proposed la
zoning code change be denied. The motion passed with Councilors Henderson
and Avery voting "yes", Councilor R. Campbell voting "no" and Mayor H.
Campbell abstaining.
i The meeting was recessed for approximately lb minutes, then reconvened.
Mayor H. Campbell declared that since he was on the prevailing side on the
last motion, he will move for reconsideration of this matter at the next
Council meeting. .
J dArlit•
r Regular Council Meeting I E X HI! T
March 17, 1981 page 5 G
t '�'3i1
• q .
/
' (r)
i ,
1 \ til!!!!1//
m
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
June 23, 1983
•
Reed Madsen
3240 Westview Court
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
.
, Dear Mr. Madsen:
John Godsey has asked me to advise you as to the status of the
Heather Estates preliminary plat.
The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on April
21, 1981. The subdivision r.-s1e (LOC 44.310) in effect at that
time required final plats to the submitted within 6 months of
preliminary approval, or for this plat, October 21, 1981.
However, the Development Ordinance (LOC Chapter 49) was adopted
in September 1981 With an effective date of October 15, 1981.
.
The Development Ordinance repealed much of Chapter 44 including ,
LOC 44.310.
The new code required submittal of final plats within a year
after preliminary approval. (LOC 49.330) At the end of that •
year, if not ready to submit the final, the developer may .
submit a Written request to staff for up to a one year
extension.
• 1
, Preliminary plats Which were Valid oh October 15, 1981 were
given a year to either b:.t submitted as final plats or request
an extension. Therefore, Heather Estates preliminary plat
Would have continued to be Valid Until October 15, 1982.
The City has no record that any final plat Was submitted or any
.4 request for extensions received during the period between
a October 15, 1981 and October 15, 1982.
. . Therefore, the approval on the preliminary plat has lapsed find
it must be resubmitted to the Development Review Board as a, new
application Under LOC 49.300 - 494335,
J
EXHIBIT
6la
• 3°735 �'Ti 7-p5
1411 NMI iH SIAMI Sik1I t/I't15t Oil t I lit)k 16'I I I Aki nSwlrb,okit;nN 9/014/het)616.101
.
Letter/Reed Madsen '
June 23, 1983
Page 2 •
The staff person who would be working with you to submit an
. 1 application to DR8 is Lori Mastrantonio-Meuser. Please contact
her or myself directly to facilitate this submittal and
retrieve as much information as possible from the earlier
submittal. .
I understand that you are aware of the 100 year floodplain
impact on your property. This will definitely be an area of
concern during review. We Would like to work with you to
resolve this it; a mutually satisfactory way.
Sincerely, •
e,, de_/)2i
t
Sandra M. Young //, C�
Acting Planning D(fector
•
• 1465P/SMY/mas
4 ,
r
i •
: ,
li .
I. PE N I s
STAFF REPORT
r •
June 28, 1985 •
FILE NO. PD 7-85/VAR 24-85/VAR 25-85/VAR 26-85/VAR
27-85/VAR 28-85
OWNER(S) Reed Madsen & Lee Woodward '
,. APPLICANT Reed Madsen
LOCATION Roade site
between located
Heatherwest
Ann Court Bryant
and Oswego north
Canal. Canal
LEGAL !ASCRIPTION Tax Lots 100 and 103 of Tax Map 2 lE 17CC , '
`NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION None ` , , ,
REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval of a 9 lot residential planned ,
development for detached dwellings in an R-10 residential zone
district. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval of
variances to the: .
1. Access standard that requires every lot to abut a
street for a width of at leasts 25 feet. , •
2. Transit standard that requires the provision of a
hard surfaced pedestrian path to connect the
development directly to a bus stop or to adjacent ,
paths that lead to a bus stop.
3. Buffering standard that requires lots in an R-0, •
R-3, R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zone, located on perimeter
of a subdivision and which are adjacent to lots in
an R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zone upon which single family
dwelling constructed, may be not less than 75% of ,
+ 44 the minimum lot area of lots in the adjacent zone.
4. Floodplain standard LOC 17:010(3)(b.) requiring that � .
each lot to be used for dwelling sites be accessible
to a roadway, no portion of which may be less than
one foot above the elevation of an intermediate
regional flood.
5. Floodplain standard LOC 17.020(3)(a. ) requiring that
every proposed lot in the project contain a building
site with the elevation no lower than one foot above
the elevation of an intermediate regional f•' sd. .
t
4 EXHIBIT
I t J 3731
4
, . f'
r.
Staff Report/PD 7-85/VAR 24-85/VAR 25-85 •
VAR 26-85/VAR 27-85/VAR 28-85
June 28, 1985
Page 2
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
LOC 48.195 - 48.225 R-10 Zone District Standards
LOC 49.300 - 49.335 Major Development Procedures ,
LOC 48.315(13) Procedure for Determining
Actual Number of Units ,
Allowed in a
Major Development for
Residential Use
s . LOC 49.500 - 49.510 Variance Procedure
APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
• Floodplain Transit
Stream Corridor Access
Wetlands Site Circulation-Private
Weak Foundation Soils Streets/Driveways
Park and Open Space Site Circulation-Bikeways/
Weak Foundation Soils Walkways •
' Landscaping, Street Trees, Parking
Residential Density Street Lights
Screening, Buffering Utilities
,p Drainage ,
Comprehensive Plan:
Residential Site Design Policies
• Floodplain Policies •
Open Space Land Use Policy
APPLICATION COMPLETENESS
Information submitted by the applicant for review of the design of-
the project and information for the consideration of the requested
Variances Was inadequate for the review of this request for the July
Development Review Board Meeting as explained in Exhibit C. The
applicant submitted an addendum to the application June 14th making
• • the application complete for the July 15, 1985 Development RevieW
• Board hearing.
PAST ACTION w
N '. A subdivision application (Heather Estates) for nine lots on this
site Was made by Mr. Brady and Associates and MBA Properties to the
Planning Commission on January 12, 1981. The Planning Commission
found the proposed subdivision acceptable with certain conditions.
The subdivision proposal (SD 43-80) Was also considered by the City '
Council and approved April 21, 1981 With conditions found in
,, Exhibit E`. Based on code requirements more fully explained in ,
i Exhibit E, a letter sent to Mr. Madsen from Ms. Young, the oWner of
,R the property had one year to either submit a final plat for City
• review or request an extension. The City has no record that any
Staff Report/PD 7-85/VAR 24-85/VAR 25-85
VAR 26-85/VA1t 27-85/VAR 28-85
,..VAR
28, 1985
Page 3
final plat was submitted or a request for an extension. Therefore,
the approval of the preliminary plat had lapsed.
At the time the project was initially proposed, the nine lots were
larger and included area in the floodway that is presently being
proposed as open space. The westernmost cul-de-sac has also been
relocated and redesigned based on new floodplain data and open space
code standards. A more detailed description of what was initially
proposed and what was required by City staff is in the December 19,
1980 staff report identified as Exhibit G. •
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The subject property is a 3.04 acre site that is basically
rectangular in configuration. The southernmost boundary of the site
has some 660 feet of frontage along the Canal Road right-of-way. The
•
site ranges in elevation from 104' near the canal to 120' at the
• northernmost property line with complex elevation variations better
• • described in map form (Exhibit 0) . The site is located in the 100
year floodplain of the Canal. A small portion of the site along the
west boundary in the canal is in the floodway. Several large trees
are located on the site, primarily oaks, ash and Douglas fir (Exhibit
•
,,) . There are small seasonal pockets of standing water at the site.
the 100 year floodplain elevation at the site is 111.5 and the 50
year elevation at the site is 110.2.
Based on the LOPRI study, the site has potentially weak foundation •
soils.
The surrounding land use is predominantly residential consisting of
three single family dwellings on lots located between Heather Ann
court and Bryant Road to the east, Bryant Park Subdivision to the
•
north, and two single family dwellings south of Canal Road.
The. Oswego Canal abuts the property on the west. Access to the site
is by Way of Bryant Road which is classified by the city as a
collector street and; Canal Road which is a 20' wide public
right-of-Way, the majority of which is unimproved. Bryant Road is a
partially improved street with a 50' right-df-Way, 30' wide pavement
with curb and gutter on the east side of the street.
All necessary utilities for the development of the site are available
in Canal or Bryant roads. A 24 inch storm sewer exists adjacent to
the site in Canal Road. An 8 inch sanitary sewer lateral is
available at the southwest corner of the site, A 10 inch water line
exists in Bryant Road. Heather Ann Court is a cul-de-sac that Was
built Within the last ten years to provide access to the three lots .
fronting Bryant Road. A 6" Rivergrove Water District line also
,fists in Canal Road adjacent to the corner developed lot, The road
Was built to meet the City standards applicable at the time of
construction and in anticipation of providing access to the remaining
Undeveloped land westward to the Canal. The cul-de-sac is a private
34' right-of-Way With a 24' paved roadway, 3'i'3 9 •
1
S
VARff 2685/VARPD 27785/VARR284$55/VAR 25-85
June 28, 1985 �'
Page 4
DMheRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
• The application is proposed for approval of a 9-lot Planned
Development for single family residential structures with an open . ,
space tract along Oswego Canal. No structures or fill are proposed .
to be located in the floodway. Canal Road is proposed to remain as a
. public street and be improved on the northside with a 15' dedication ,
of right-of-way and provision of paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk.
Heather Ann Court is proposed to remain a private street and be •
improved to City standards presently in effect. A new interior
a cul-de-sac is proposed to provide access to lots on the western
portion of the site, the dimensions of which are shown on Exhibit J.
The applicant has stated that no improvements are proposed for Bryant
Road.
• The applicant's narrative identified as Exhibits A and B thoroughly
describes the project, provides a development schedule and addresses
the variance criteria as they relate to each of the five requested
variances.
•
' ZONING CODE STANDARDS a
The subject site is located in the R-10 zone district. The Planned
Development Overlay is available in the Zoning Ordinance to provide A ,
the project designer flexibility in the development of land in
residential zones. With the use of the Planned Development Overlay, .
setbacks, and length, width and area of lots can be less than the
requirements of the zone provided the overall site density is not
exceeded and the Buffering Standards is met, Lot coverage may be
applied for the as a total, and not on a lot by lot basis. The , 1
• proposed project is in conformance with the density requirement (See
pages 9, 10 of this report) Lots 2, 3 and 4 do not meet the buffering
standard. The applicant has provided justification to deviate from
the standard as Shown in Exhibit B.
The 10t width and depth standards in the R-10 zone are 65' (at
building line) and 100' respectively. The setback requirements of
the underlying zone are:
R-10 Zone Setbacks
Front Side side Adj. to Local St. Rear
20' 5' min. width 10' 25'
total combined
15' minimum
Front lot lines on corner lots may face either street based on the
City Manager's decision as per LOC 48.215(3). Staff considers the
applicant's choice of locations of front lines and yards for the 4
corner lots of this project to be appropriate. ,
3"+'4 0
♦ a .y - it v
1•
AStaff Report/PD 7-85/VAR 24-85/V 25-85
' B A26-uVAR 27-85/VAR 28-85
.
une 28, 1985
Page 5
LdA9 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 do not meet the minimum width standard • .
of 65' at building line. All nine of the proposed lots meet the
minimum depth requirement of 100 feet. There is no building envelope ,
proposed for Lot 1. Staff recommends that the above R-10 setbacks
standards be applied to that lot. The proposed setbacks for Lots 2
3, 4, 5, 8, 9 basically conform to the R-10 zone requirements. Lots
• 6 and 7 have front yard setbacks of less than 20 feet. The building
envelopes have been located close to the common boundary of Lots 6
and 7. The applicant located the building envelopes to reduce the
need to cut existing trees at the rear of those lots (Exhibit N); and
to minimize cuts and fills and retaining walls by locating building
envelopes as close as possible to the unnamed cul-de-sac bulb. Staff
agrees with the designer's above rationale but has one reservation . .
with those building envelope locations. The applicant and the
subsequent buyers of Lots 6 and 7 should be aware that when dwellings .
are to be constructed on those lots, that at least 20' of offstreet
parking depth from the property line must be provided in front of the
respective garage doors. As seen on Exhibit J, the configurations of
• all nine lots can accommodate conventionally sized homes within their
proposed building envelopes.
Compliance with the lot coverage requirement is reviewed at the time
gilding permits are submitted. For the applicants and the
subsequent buyers information, the coverage standard for dwellings on
R-10 lots is no more than 30%. •
The applicant has designed this project through the Planned .,
• Development process in response to the limitations created by:
1. the original parcel. configuration;
2. the presence of the Oswego Canal floodplain and
floodway;
3. the presence of large distinctive trees at the site;
and,
4, surrounding existing development patterns.
Staff considers the applicant's design of the project not only
appropriate but well done based on the above mentioned limitations.
Because some of the proposed lots have irregular configurations, it •
is important that setback lines for each lot, including Lot 1, be
shown on a reproducible duplication of the hardboard and final plat.
APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS
,,e Building Design and Fence Standards do not apply to this major -
development application. The site does not include Historic Resource
or Hillside Protection/Erosion control areas. The development
standards applicable to this proposal are discussed as part of the 3'}'41
applicant's narrative (Exhibit B) and addressed below: {
t
,4
VARf26R85/VARP27D �85/VARR284855/VAR 25-85
•
June 28, 1985 e
Page 6
Floodplain - This development standard regulates land
uses and how development can occur within the
floodplain. The site ranges in elevation from 104' to
120' . Most of the site area is below the 100 year flood
elevation which is 111.15. The 50 year flood elevation
on the site is 110.2. The elevation of Heather Ann
Court serving Lots 1, 2 and 3 ranges from 111.41 at
Canal Road to 108.8 at the northwest corner of the
turnaround. The first floor elevations of the house at
the corner of Canal Road and Heather Ann Court is 1
111.32. The first floor elevations of the dwellings on
the adjoining lots are both higher than 115' above mean
sea level.
The floodway (See Exhibit 0) along the Oswego Canal is
that portion of the floodplain needed to convey the
waters of an intermediate regional flood while causing
less than one• foot increase in upstream flood elevations.
Structures and fill are not allowed in the floodway and
the applicant has complied with that restriction by
allocating the subject floodway area to an open space
use (Exhibit N). Residential structures may be allowed ,
in the floodway fringe (floodplain lands outside of
flowleast one footsabovet other e Vel f structure the
(111.5' ).floodelevation �
be at
In the case where land is subdivided within the
Floodplain, the development code states that each lot
intended as a site for a residence shall:
a. contain a building site with a ground elevation
no lower than one foot above the 100 year flood
elevation;
b. be accessible to a road no portion of which is
less than one foot above the elevation of the
100 year flood elevation; i • ,
c. be served by sewerage and water supply systems
designed and constructed to prevent health
hazards during inundation by an 100 year fllod.
• The applicants proposal is in compliance with
Standard 'c' above, and he has proposed to vary from
Standards 'a' and 'b' . Narrative addressing why a
variance should be approved for Standards 'a' and 'b' is
found in Exhibits A & p.
Staff has reviewed the applicant's narrative addressing
the four variance criteria for each of the above
standards (a & b) and has determined that the variance �.,,
criteria haVe been met. Staff also considers the --....
A
. S I
' Staff Report/PD 7-85/VAR 24-85/VAR 25-85 i
VAR 26-85/VAR 27-85/VAR 28-85
June 28, 1985
Page 7
variance to the road elevation minimal and acceptable •
since emergency vehicles will be able to negotiate 50 .
• year floodwater depths without major problems.
Regarding the standard that each subdivision building
site have a ground elevation 1 foot above 100 year flood .
level, the applicant has proposed that a variance be
approved to allow the provision of engineered fill
elevating each building site grade to 112.5' in the
floodway fringe. Staff considers this an acceptable .
variance in that fill can be used with discretion to
make reasonable use of the property with minimal impact .
to large trees on the site and height and direction of
floodwaters.
• Stream Corridor - The west boundary of the proposed
project parallels the Oswego Canal. The open space
proposed for the project will provide a buffer zone of
over 130 feet in depth along the Canal where no tree
cutting or fill will occur.
•
Weak Foundation Soils - The subject site is identified
on the Comprehensive Plan as having potential for weak
foundaton soils. The applicant is not submitting a
soils report because all proposed building sites will be
prepared on engineered fill. Engineered fill will be
provided on each lot as shown on Exhibits L and M
assuring soils stability before lots are sold to
individuals for dwelling construction.
Wetlands - The applicant has indicated that some clumps
of vegetation characteristic of vegetation found in
wetlands were found within the canal floodway. As all
the floodway has been placed in an open space tract,
Wetland plants will be protected if the applicant not
• only restricts filling and the cutting Or alteration of
trees, but also restricts the cutting tit alteration of
all Understory vegetation and ground cover. Staff .
recommends that the applicant include a section in the
Covenants and Restrictions (Exhibit B) titled Open
Space. That section of the CC and R's should read as
follows:
The area designated on the plat as open space
Shall remain in a natural condition and shall
have no tree removal, cutting or alteration of
trees, Understory vegetation, ground cover, or
other natural features unless it is found to be
hazardous. Hazardous material may be removed
following approval by the city of Lake Oswego.
Parks and Open Space - All major development shall
• provide open space land approved by the City in an aggregate amount equal to at least 20% of the gross area 3743 '
a..
. Staff RP27785/VARR28-855/VAR 25-85
VAR 2685/VAR
June 28, 1985
Page 8
of the development. The applicant has proposed that
23,556 square feet of land fronting the Oswego Canal be
an open space tract for the benefit of the living
environment for the landowners of the project and not
,' the general public. The land is not proposed to be
dedicated to the City for park use.
The gross area of the project includes 116,409 square
feet. 23,556 square feet allocated to open space is
includes exactly 20% of the site. This open space area
includes wetland venetation and the canal floodway. The
applicant proposes to maintain the open space in an
• undisturbed state and as recommended in the wetland
section of this report. Staff has recommended specific
measures to implement preservation of the open space
through the use of deed restrictions.
Landscaping, Street Trees, Screening, Buffering -
Because this is a development for single family
residences, a landscaping plan is not required. The
standard does require that street trees be provided at a
proper spacing. Street trees proposed for the project
are scarlet Oaks planted no closer than 30' apart along
Heather Ann Court, Canal Road and the westernmost
cul-de-sac.
The buffering standard applicable to this project reads:
Lots which are located on the perimeter of a
development located in a R-0, R-3, R-5, R-7.5,
R-10 or R-15 zone, and which are adjacent to
lots in an R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zone upon Which
' are constructed single-family dwellings, may be .
not less than 75% of the minimum lot area per
unit of the adjacent zone. •
Lots 1, 6 and 7 bordering homes off Pioneer Court Will '
be larger than 7,500 sq. ft, which meets the standard.
Lots 2, 3 and 4 do not meet the buffering standard of at
least having 7,500 sq. ft. The applicant has applied
for a variance to this standard and thoroughly addresses
the variance criteria in Exhibit B. Staff considers
this justifiable especially considering the fact that
Lots 2, 3 and 4 are buffered from adjacent lots by the
presence of streets and that the smallest lot is just
18% less than the required minimum of 7,500 sq. ft. a
Residential Density - Density for the project has been
calculated by the applicant as follows:
37 4 4
1
r
• t
a �
1SjARf26-85/f VARP27-85/VARR28-855/VAR 25-85
L ne 28, 1985
Page 9 ,
Gross Developable Acres 2.672 acres = 116,409 S.F.
Actual Area of Project Streets = 18,588 S.F. '
Net Developable Area = 97,821 S.F,
Site Zoning - R-10 = 1 unit per 10,000 S.F.
Maximum Number of Units = 97,821 10,000 = 9 Units
Density Transfer Calculation:
Area in Floodplain = 104,768 (90% of site)
Area over 25% Slope = 10,496 S,F.
Area w/Landslide Potential = None
' Stream Buffer required = None
Existing public open space = None
) Density Transfer Proposed:
Area in Floodplain = 104,768 S.F. (However,
ground elevation of
building sites will be •
raised to one foot above
the 100 year flood
elevation).
Area over 25% Slope = 5,000 S.F. (One-half of
the over 25% slope area
will be eliminated by
location of proposed,
engineered fill for the
• building sites) .
Area w/Landslide Potential = None
Stream Huffer Required = None (The site boundary
is approxi-
mately 40 feet from the
bank of the Oswego Canal
and the proposed open
space adds an additional
1 buffer of approximately
100 feet) .
Public Open Space = None existing (The
proposal will provide ,
private open space area
equal to over 20% of the 3745
site) .
Staff Report/PD 7-85/VAR 24-85/VAR 25-85
VAR 26-85/VAR 27-85/VAR 28-85 .
June 28, 1985
. Page 10
,Total Developable Area: . '.
Proposed to be Allowed = 97,821 - 5,496 = 92,325 3F
S.F.
Total Number of Units = 92,325 S. 10,000 = 9 Units
The above calculations conclude that the proposed
• density transfer is in conformance with the residential
density code requirement.
Transit - Development that is considered "major .
development' must provide for a hard surfaced pedestrian
• path to connect the site with nearest adjacent transit
facility or to adjacent paths which lead to a facility. I
The nearest available transit facility is located at the
corner of Jean and Bryant Roads. The applicant has
+, requested that a variance to this standard be approved
. based on facts addressing the variance criteria
submitted in Exhibit B and a requirement that a pathway
7
be built along the Bryant frontage. Staff considers
. this variance request approvable based on the applicants .
justification.
Parking - Two off-street parking spaces, not including
• garage, are required for single family Units. Two
. parking spaces would require an 18' x 18.5' area. If
the proposed parking is between a lot line and a garage
door, an 18' x 20' area is required. Driveways on lots
fronting the Westerly private cul-de-sac must have
adequate depth (20'+) to prevent cars from overhanging
the sidewalk along the perimeter of that cul-de-sac.
The above standard can be met based on the size and
configuration of the proposed lot. .
Streets - The ultimate width of the pavement in Canal
Road should be 24 feet, to accommodate the future , ,
traffic. Only 20 feet of asphalt would be necessary for
stfi
3;'46
,•w
,� ,, ,t�,440 t)tff,fi t1 idly r,
• gar ,a+�,v��,d,rk"�d� 4�;u �`. ,u;
i1� 'tik'1 yrf'h{�r�ie�t.7e4 ; e
,7^,,r+N 0, 49x404,p, ; are!
,S,,Y' ti r '1�'� tat lax �?e �'v:* �'
G , �•�f ,n �1 re-- r it ,�a +�a
• t r� Staff Report/PD 7-85/VAR 24-85/VAR 25-85 ,` . ,- k+ r
} n
� ntief�,t� � l,t � ^"J�'c
AR 26-85/VAR 27-85/VAR 28-85
'^ ' une 28, 1985 "'A
Page 11 ,;t" +, C' .'),‘'''Al
U the present subdivision with the remaining to be ad004 ��a-,,, su ,;,,, {, 1 .
at the time the property to the south is developed ) }-px ,�5�+l y"��y•
•,4
aS,aM1, The plans submitted show 20 and 24 foot proposed ' day` re, �
streeets. Standard specifications of the City of Lake 0 � � _~,,
Oswego require the asphalt to be 20 and 24 feet with �3 � F
curb and gutters on the outside of that. Also a three ,,A 4"fi '/,'
foot gravel shoulder will be required as per City code q;r
N• ' instead of two feet proposed. Final plans will have to `"�., •,'Yj.'-
meet current City specifications and codes. If. l`." `
fY •
• 4 ``+ The applicant has proposed both Heather Ann Court and ;'. ,,: 30
the westerly cul-de-sac as private. Staff has no �',. " '''
objection to the westerly cul-de-sac being private but ''h', f
would require that the actual improved area be designed
to City standards. The Fire Marshall has determined s R
" ' that the intersection of the Westerly cul-de-sac with
canal Road would provide the required fire vehicle .
turnaround. y {
ti r r
;,
The private road will also have to be declared as a fire + 1 r
• access.
Staff recommends that Heather Ann Court be public and "i
designed to City Standards. All streets to have 20' of r;.i ` "
c 3§
-A •, asphalt, and be built with curbs and gutters. Since the
:1/
, area of Heather Ann Court is low and in the floodplain,
the design of Canal Road and Heather Ann Court is very
important, especially to the existing home at the corner
• of Heather Ann Court and Canal Road, Heather Ann , ?
Court's final elevation should be no higher than the
• existing house on the corner of Heather Ann Court and
Canal Road, Final design of both Canal Road and Heather
Ann Court elevations should not cause drainage or access •'
• problems on the private properties. Proposed plans show : ',,
a mountable curbs on both sides of Heather Ann Court.
r This is acceptable to staff provided that elevations
stay the same to continue to provide access to the e
corner dwelling.
The Comprehensive Plan requires sidewalks 0 be property
line where possible. The plans show cUrbline '
sidewalks. Since the building sites have to be 1 - 2
feet aboVe the proposed streets, staff feels that
property line sidewalks should be required. The
developer will also be required to establish two ../
, permanent reference markers which state the elevation of
the marker and the elevation of the 100 year
floodplain. These markers are to be put in a readily •
accessible spot to the lots, The marker would be for
the Use of the home builder and City to confirm that t., a ,'
'" lowest floor elevation of the neW homes is above the irii e„ . '►
floodplain. '
• r,
'
*• 6
•
Staff Report/PD 7-85/VAR 24-85/VAR 25-85
VAR 26-85/VAR 27-85/VAR 28-85
June 28, 1985
Page 12
° • ' The City reviewed a very similar development on this
6 site in 1980. At that time, the development was not
" constructed due to the lack of sewers but three lots
were allowed to be partitioned off between Heather Ann
Court and Bryant Road. The three lots were able to
4 connect to the existing sanitary sewer in Bryant Road.
At that time, staff considered the minor partition as a '°
intermediate step toward the subdivision but did not
want to burden the developer with street and sidewalk
improvements along Bryant Road for just three lots.
Staff still concurs with the recommendations of 1980
that Bryant Road be improved as a one-half street
improvement for an ultimate 36 foot street with vertical
curb and gutter. This will match the other side that
was improved with the Westridge development. There
should also be a property line 8' concrete pathway along
Bryant and possible modification and landscaping of the
• existing berm put in at the time of the minor partition
in lieu of street improvements. There should also be
adequate tapering of the widened section to the south of
•
Canal Road on Bryant to provide a safe transition back
to the narrow width of Bryant Road. The widening of
Bryant Road will require notification of the public and
possibly an election. An election Would occur if 25 or ..
more registered voters request a vote on the street
widening matter.
.
A 10" waterline is proposed in Canal Road of which the
•;�* City will pick up the oversizing cost from an 8" main.
The 10" line is art of a future looping plan in the
City's water system.
The sanitary sewer serving the development will
discharge into a sewerline in the main canal. According
to the agreement with Quadrant Corporation, who
constructed in the line in the canal for the River Run
development by Childs Road, the developers of this r�
•
property would be required to reimburse Quadrant for
• ,`' 4 their share of the cost of that sewer line. This cost
,'i. ,- has been agreed upon to be $675.00 per lot.
h
The proposed street drainage will flow to the canal
through a storm system. One pollution control manhole
• t'"' Will be required to minimize suspended materials in the f
storm water from depositing in the canal. Staff Will
Work with the applicant to assure that final
6'i' construction plans meet current design specifications,
'' codes and ordinances prior to approval.
k ' The applicant has shown street light locations and type ., +
'1 • e of fixture proposed on the landscape plan (Exhibit N). ,
• The final constrtXbtion plans will have to show the 3 4 9 :
k � y.
,' r ;; ' `p' w yi ' . . ti - .
r ` '
i
staff Report/PD 7-85/VAR 24-8:1/VAR 25-85
-Up 26-85/VAR 27-85/VAR 28-85 „-','
ane 28, 1985
Page 13
photometrics and location relative to sidewalks, street
trees and proposed mailbox sites.
• RECOMMENDATION
4 The staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat and •
the requested variances sub;lnct to the following conditions.
1. That a final plat based on Exhibit J be prepared and ','f
. submitted to the City in accordance with LOC 49.335.
2. That a street tree and tree cutting plan be
submitted to City Planning staff for review and
approval. The approved plan be submitted before the
final plat is signed or any site clearing and
grading is done, Whichever action occurs first.
3. The plat clearly show the open space area and the s
proposed Covenants and Restrictions include a
section titled Open Space and that section read as tF'1,
c,
, follows:
The area designated on the plat as open space �:;
shall remain in a natural condition and shall r
have no trees, understory vegetation, ry
+ groundcover, ur other natural features unless it
is found to be hazardous. Hazardous materials .�
may be removed following approval by the City. , rj i
4. That a reproducible duplication of the final ,� ,.!
plat clearly depict front, side and rear yard "'` ;`
jj
, - , ' setback lines for Lot 1 that comply with the
R-10 setback standards. The final plat clearly
depict setback lines for Lots 2-9 as shown on
Exhibit J.
II •1 „' t
5. The 100 year regulatory flood elevation be noted Ji i
on the final plat and two permanent reference � < F'I
markers be established in easily accessible , 0
Satisfaction rofg the tEngineering the site oDepartment.
a w'•, 6. That Canal Road and Heather Ann CoUrt be public
streets and be designed to city standards. � .:.
. .+.,_; Elevations of Heather Ann Court at its
•k intersection with Canal Road be no higher than r: ,
�' the existing street grade so that access and
drainage problems do not result on developed '
private properties. The owner shall dedicate `
151 of right-of-way on the north side of Canal
, . ,,A Road to the City. Property line sidewalks shall
be constructed as pet Exhibit K. 374
{• Y.l
M � { , e 1
Staff Report/PD 7-85/VAR 24-85/VAR 25-85 .
VAR 26-85/VAR 27-85/VAR 28-85
June 28, 1985
page 14 ,
7. That pavement in Canal Road at the intersection / ' .-
�� ,. ,• of the westerly cul-de-sac extend to the south,
sufficiently to serve as a turnaround.
B. Bryant Road be improved to a 1/2 street ,
improvement consistent with a final total width
of 36' for that facility. Tapers into the
unimproved section to be of proper width and
length. Improvements shall include an 8'
concrete sidewalk. Application for street
widening shall be submitted prior to submittal 1
of construction plans.
9. The existing berm in Bryant Road, placed as part . .
Y"?' of the partitions, should be modified to meet ;.,
, the requirements of City Engineering and •' '';
should be adequately landscaped.
;.:fi 10. The water line in Canal Road be a 10" line, with
City participation in oversizing.
' S� 11. The developer pay the assessment due as %
repayment to the Canal sewer trunk line costs as
+' ,r noted in this report.
12. All fill be properly placed and compacted under
9 ,` ' direction of a registered civil engineer. Fill
on all building sites shall be completed and
' •; approved prior to sale of lots.
J
13. Storm drainage plans shall include a pollution
y * ,... control manhole.
14. Construction plans shall show location of street
lights relative to sidewalks, mailboxes and
street trees. Fhotometrics shall be submitted
x x. y to verify proper spacing.
1
<.
Y
e . '
4
t •ti
•
Staff Report/PD 7-85/VAR 24-85/VAR 25-85
AR 26-85/VAR 27-85/VAR 28-85
tune 28, 1985
Page 15
• +z
GXHIBITS
tI
A Application Narrative Addendum - June 14, 1985 •; ,*1
B Application Narrative - March 17, 1985
C Completeness Letter - June 7, 1985 ' , ,, N'
D Resubmittal of Plat Letter - July 29, 1983 , °'
B Status -af-.P �Y etter - June 23, 1983 i 4'. •
F City Council Findings and Order - April. 14, 1981
'" G StafF Report for Original Preliminary Plat Dec. 19, 1980 4
H Tax Map
I Preliminary Perimeter Survey =,
J Current Preliminary Plat Approval
K Utility Plan ''�
L Grading Plan
4' M Cross Sections for Finished Grading
N Landscape and Street Lighting Plan 4` `r °_ ,
tr,A a } .1. 0
O Site Analysis Approved Plat of 1980
P PrevioUsl
.11 1 A �
"4Yt 1235P/GSFM/mas 1
t I w
I I
,
stir ,4 ',
;`•I 1
,1
I M P;
y
(✓ I Ip l
il
I :4 , ' ,I
/11ItPa
y
1.
i.r, •
1� .'4 `
3'
51
I{