Loading...
Agenda Packet - 1985-12-16 1 . t CITY OF LAKE OSWEGU • DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA 1 }+ CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 351 First Street „ December 16, 1985 7:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER . .. II. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 21, 1985 (Second Vote) November 18, 1985 , • III. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS , ' • ' •' ' IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTE: Items A, B, and C were originally scheduled for December 2, 1985 but were cancelled due to weather conditions. A. SD 21-85/VAR 51-85/VAR 53-85, an appeal of an administratively approved lot line realignment and two minor partitions dividing two parcels into two lots + each. Action on this request Was postponed from the ii� October 7, 1985 Development Review Board Meeting. The applicants are also requesting a variance to LOC 44.385 regarding the minimum radius of curvature of residential streets being 100' and a variance to the • street width requirement of 20' . The site is located •y.; „ on the eastern side of an unimproved portion of Iron Mountain Blvd., north of Andrews Road (Tax Lot 3500 of TaX Map 2 lE and Tax Lot 500 of TaX Map 2 1E 3CB). B. SD 31-85/VAR 44-84, a request by Willard T. Moore for approval of a variance to a side yard setback ' requirement of 5' to allow the completion of an addition. The property is located on the north shore of Lake Oswego on LakuView Blvd. in an R-7.5 zone. The location is more :specifically described as Tax Lot `' 5700 of TaX Map 2 1E uDB. C. VAR 49-85/VAR. 52-85, a request by James Morrow for Walter Plattner for approval of an 8-foot variance to r, • • the required 20' front yard setback and a Variance to , 4 the Parking Standard. The site is located at 908 S.W. I . «. • 6 "• ,; Cumberland Place (Tax Lot 900 of Tax Map 2 lE 3BD) . 4. i i ') A ' a ,•+ »•4 'a u i .. y a ♦ , „ " y, . a i. 4A. 'iK + . ' , tly • � . A u % 0, .' ,�1 . • _ V , 1• - .. ., + Pi-,k=y ,. . �,i ,i, .4 f s y .; Ai Al '.• AGENDA/Development Review Board December 16, 1985 Page 2 a D. DR 16-84 (Modification), a request by Kristine Plass, acting as agent for Scan Design Furniture, for a a ,h modification of a condition of prior approval and a 1 �, .,„ ,,,,- sign variance to allow signage to extend beyond the limits of the 24 inch sign band required by the Board ± , , �4 for the Lake Place Shopping Center located at 333 S. 4 'rai" State St. (Tax Lots 4800, 4900, 5000, 5100, 5200, �. A:)01'.`, 5300, 5700, 5800, 5900, 6000, 6100, 6200, 6300, 6400 & 6500 of Tax Map 2 lE 10AD) . ' re E. DR 21-85, a request by Terry and Lucy Prince to construct a secondary dwelling unit in an R-7.5 zone. xh' The request also includes a request for a Class II ;. Variance to the Transit Standard. The location of the requested action is on property located at 755 5th Street (otherwise described as TaX Lot 8900 of TaX Map 1, 2 lE 3DB) . y. ot'''r` t"r V. GENERAL PLANNING VI. OTHER BUSINESS FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER . �t r - VAR 46-85 (Glen Chilcote) 11 VIII. ADJOURNMENT t •.t a 1 3542P • 2 y � . r. y a♦ '4 10, '3 a - a ,a ,.• i r +hr • ,a, 1 • • �.. � ... .• ,, ..�• 1e, - i. • .r N, 1, i1 u 1 r ,. •'� ` t Vw1� '. - � � a .•'A '' • g1Vh ,q told b . 41 a IK a / +' a . , a 4 a / i. a d ,q a '' ,V. 1 M:M . Y ' : .•{a. �a. y 6• a r, .a r,: •� 4.1 Nq�r . 6 la, ! 1 ..• �I • na i- ,a n 1 'o,. 4 1 y fr .1, + ,." � ,�t � . '... z.e b� �. ; , l ".f' a t a Ci + - '��.y � .1 x n•t ,1 �• '4 , r I ' . ' , •/ Jr ' ` r nti ADDENDUM STAFF REPORT November 22, 1985 t FILE NO. SD 21-85, VAR 51-85, VAR 53-85 L. APPLICANT John M. Godsey e y OWNERS Barbara Bragg a',d Richard & Virginia Walters LOCATION Part of the east side of an unconstructed portion of Iron Mountain Loulevard. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tax Map 2S lE 3BC, Tax Lot 3500 Tax Map 2S lE 3CB, Tax Lot 500 NEIGHBORHOOD Forest Highlands r , . REQUEST rl This is an appeal • Ra of an administratively approved lot line ti :1 N‘` ' ' realignment and two minor partitions dividingtwo lots each. The applicant is also requestinga appproval fs intor tnc to the centerline radius requirement of100' andravvariancevtoithee street width requirement of 20'. PREVIOUS ACTION 'he Board tabled action on this request at the October 7, 1985 fleeting. Additional information was requested by the Board which included the following: a grading plan and topographic survey at 2' ;r H° ,=. intervals, impacts of the pathway, location of pool pump house, " ". discussion of a -ariance to the 20' wide street requirement,Conservancy Commission review of the project, indicate location of �+ the stream corridor, additional drainage and erosion control information, and further soils investigation. At the October 7th hearing, testimony was received from a number of residents in the area. This is described in the October 7th minutes (Exhibit az). The issues raised included: street improvements in relation to the stream corridor, drainage and erosion control, soil Stability, construction of utilities and affects on fish and beaver population. The exhibits added at the October 7th meeting included: Exhibit EE g Draw2n showing bank and slump areas (Too large to reproduce) / Exhibit FP Appellant's Narrative ;`. Exhibit GG Drawing and Data indicating existing Road and Slopes (Too large to reproduce) Exhibit HH Two Drawings Indicating Unstable Slope Areas (Too large to reproduce) 1 , k 1 Y } �w�` ' . ! .Yt •+ •, n ` , ,� 1 y' ' liM_�.� 1`` . .:1 ,., i ' . / ..,Y . i w, P. f S,'_. ti e '.y '4, 0 1. �' ♦ ♦ i' ‘Vic ..4 ♦b 1'b'bl 3 4 ,10.V`4 , b ,.)iw,y1 �" %, w ,(,.. •./ � �1 .�. 1: ,i m 1 Y k 0, :"Jr ♦..1 fir. r ..14 E. t f r y .. • ' STAFF REPORT/SD 21-85/VAR 51-85/VAR 53-85 � . , . ' " November 22, 1985 Page 2 Exhibit II Drawing indicating road and slump �- areas (Too large to reproduce) Exhibit JJ Correspondence regarding Code requirements received 10/3/85 Exhibit KK Correspondence from Friends of Tryon Creek received 10/7/85 Exhibit LL Correspondence received 10/2/85 • Exhibit MM Revised Site Plan received 10/7/85 a 4 ': 1 Exhibit NN Correspondence received 10/3/85 • ., CRITERIA LOC 49.225 Appeals LOC 49.630 Appeals of City Manager Action ANALYSIS The applicant has submittted additional information which includes the following: ,,.• .A;'' Exhibit 00 - Preliminary Grading Plan *•., ', Exhibit PP - Street Plan & Profile with a 50' Centerline Radius & 5' Sidewalk - Sheet 2 tr Exhibit QQ - Street Plan & Profile with a 100' 'I Centerline Radius & 5' Sidewalk - Sheet 2A Exhibit RR - Street Plan & Profile with a 50' Centerline Radius, 16' Wide Street & 5' Wide Sidewalk Sheet 28 Exhibit SS - Landscape Plan .} Exhibit TT - Addendum Narrative _. � Exhibit UU - Letter from Patrick L. Keeley, Department of Fish and Wildlife Received 11/6/85 ;' • The Addendum Narrative specifically addresses the Stream Corridor, t ' Drainage, Weak Foundation Soils and Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Standards as well as the variance criteria. The letter from Patrick L. Keeley, Assistant District Fish Biologist t + y'` for the Department of Fish and Wildlife indicates that if certain • ' techniques and procedures are followed during construction of the improvements, then "the downstream effects on aquatic and terrestrial a, 4,, life should be negligible". r. �, The street Plan and Profile drawings indicate the trees that Will be i cut as a result of the improvements, which include from 44 - 55 trees. In addition, a significant amount of cutting into the � � ` hillside will result from the improvements. As per the Addendum � Narrative, about 48% of the site Which slopes from 20 - 22% will be • ; .• ,, gz'ded or stripped of Vegetation which is in compliance With the Hillside Prot "ti.on and Erosion Control Standard. The maximum clearing allowed is 658. .§ ' r' 14 °4. xj t p, I. y .,N +♦i. �i �' 4. "a'. b. •R y r •. + - 'Yy,+i . 0? t. .-, • 7L ;,'' s� ,• i ,mis fP. tt:+' " ,, '#' •C , 6. . i4it 4.,,,. B4• �` �•I 4 ' . , , ..t•A',4 -!. J1 r °"' ,•. _.. ♦ r STAFF REPORT/SD 21-85/VAR 51-85/VAR 53-85 November 22, 1985 Page 3 The Addendum Narrative indicates that the Stream Corridor Buffer zone ' extends over the existing road, thus the standards for approval of the Stream Corridor Standard must be met. The applicant has .• " r illustrated compliance with this standard as discussed in the narrative. The applicant has adequately addressed the Drainage standard in the :_ - Addendum Narrative. The point of drainage discharge is down through I the park to approximately the area near the sewer manhole where the . water will fan out over a large area of riprap. t iF�y1 The Landscape Plan is simple but should be effective with the use of hydroseeding and selected trees and shrubs which will also meet .,Vision Clearance requirements. However, staff recommends that further restoration of the eastside of Brookside Road and the area at „ ` .,. the intersr.;tion of Andrews Road be required. As described in the 4; memo from Andy Harris, final approval of this plan will occur at the ' ti construction stage so that modifications may be made as needed to ai .0 1 reflect field conditions (Exhibit XX) . t °k Staff concurs with William H. Doak, Registered Professional Geologist w .• { regarding the soil stability of the site. He has provided testimony and evidence that the improvements should not result in slumping or ? .'•, slides and can be safely constructed. tr The applicant has also addressed the Hillside Protection Standard '•,.0 with which staff concurs. However, it should be noted that Lot 1 k' .' exceeds the driveway slope requirement of 20%. With a slight lowering of the floor elevation, the driveway of Lot 1 can be built in compliance with City Standards. This may require engineered r1 retaining walls on driveway edges near the garage. These constraints i . 4 should be indicated in the deed restrictions so that prospective •;. , buyers are aware of this and can choose the appropriate garage and I. house design. The applicant has requested a variance to the centerline radius ' requirement of 100' and a variance to the street width requirement of V `, I 20' . At the October 7, 1985 hearing the Board requested that staff 0. look into the possibility of allowing a 16' wide road with a 5' width . +..,, pathway. As indicated in the memorandum from the Fire Department, if parking occurs along the street access for fire equipment will not be { '. t+ rovided (Exhibit WW). The Fire Marshal recommends denial of the • ' 1 variance to decrease the street width from 20' to 16' as it would 1 create a hazardous situation. Engineering also recommends denial of Lr this variance request as having the sidewalk be part of the 20' street section would "give pedestrians a false sense of security in : ! times of two-way traffic". M The memorandum from the Engineering Department supports the applicant's request to decrease the required 100' centerline radius ` , to 50' as adequate sight distance Will be provided and the impact on - , + y '` 1 the stream corridor would be minimized (Exhibit VV). ;;- 5 �� ` 1'4 4 I 1} •eww 4 �'� Y� d: I .i " ,ti"+ !,1,' •' M Y,+ ,� • fi ,I• • ' ' " STAFF REPORT/SD 21-85/VAR 51-85/VAR 53-85 ' November 22, 1985 Page 4 ,' Although a 21' street and pathway section would have the least impact on the site, staff does not support the variance request.to decrease r;' the road width from 20' to 16' because of the potential hazardous situation for pedestrians as well as vehicular movement. Staff, +' ., however, does support the centerline radius variance as adequate ' sight distance is provided and the impacts on the site would be less "' • than if improvements e ~R` requirements. It should be nted that the pcode cdoes tallow ea minimum sidewalk width of 3' . staff recommends the 5' wide sidewalk as the proposed improved accesdwasy is a main entrance to Tryon State Park. As a Brookside Street already exists, the street name will need to be "-� A revised. In addition; some type ;, ' ''of barricade is required at the end , ... of the street improvements to ensure the safety of motorists. Final approval of the type of barricade to be used will be determined by .' the Traffic Coordinator. Final construction plans for utilities and street improvements will `^ '1" ' be subject to the approval of the City Engineer, RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the lot line realignment, minor ; '' partition and VAR 51-85 subject to the following conditions: 1 " 1. That the proposed street improvements along the Iron Mountain Blvd. right-of-way and adjacent to the site -' j, . include a minimum pavement width of 20 feet with ' ' standard curbs constructed to City Standards with Y. the exception of the centerline radius requirement � . . as per Exhibit PP. In addition, the name Brookside Road shall be changed to the satisfaction of staff. 2. That a barricade be provided at the end of the `r street improvements to ensure protection of motorists to the satisfaction of the Traffic Coordinator. ra,' , --.0 3. That final construction plans for utilities and street improvements be sub act to the approval A the city Engineer. j of 4. That the developer Comply with the construction measures recommended in the soils reports (Exhibits "-4I G & El) as construction occurs on the site. _ '' " 5. That adequate storm drainage improvements be I,-'' r ,, provided along the easterly side of the proposed Street improvements to the creek. Storm drainage "' collected along the street shall be designed so that run-off cannot penetrate the subgrade of the street. , 4 ',L1- �A t µ+ A • t -' r' IN t . q ♦ t 1P a r • .ff , r . 4.: 9t a�' h .' to • ' - . !-d. ay �' .F. 1f �Y r ,�, t !+ " .;j, � r . .1 i ''''''':::., STAFF REPORT/SD 21-85/VAR 51-85/VAR 53-85• November 22, 1985 ' - Page 5 k x, 6. Additional right-of-way for the street, utilities and/or pathway improvements shall be provided to the J , �' ' City as determined to be necessary by staff. 7. That the developer comply with the requirements of the State Parks Department as outlined in the letter from John M. Godsey, Jr. (applicant) to Chuck = ;; H Amundson (Stake Parks Dept. ) dated July 3, 1985 (Exhibit AA). •'1 8. That a Street Lighting Plan be submitted for staff review and approval. 9. That final review and approval of the Erosion ' Control and Landscape Plan be completed by staff at '',H,' -:L': a controlemeasuresCtion shallps benparteofuthetted construction. Erosn plans. 10. That a 5-foot wide path be provided as per Exhibit • PP. 11. That "No Parking" signs be provided by the developer along the proposed improved Iron Mountain Blvd.• • ,R i t 12. That no construction or fill occur within the stream , Mountaor west Blvd.of the right-of-wayntocUtbank with the ensure protectionson of �, Mountain the stream corridor. 13. With a slight lowering of the floor elevation, the driveway of Lot 1 can be built in compliance with City Standards. The driveway gradient requirement ' of 20% shall be noted in the deed restrictions so that potential purchasers are informed. d 14. A minor partition survey !+hall be registered with the Clackamas County Surveyor's Office. 15. Legal descriptions (metes and bounds) be specified ¢ on legal instruments of title transfer and be ' recorded with the Clackamas County Clerk's office. ` + The instruments for all parcels shall: .y., a. reference this land use application -- City Nos.Lake Oswe5oaPlan ingR 1Department File • . b. cite that any development on either of the our Iota are to be in accordance with the standards outlined in SD 21-85 and VAR 51-85. y" 1 v 7 STAFF REPORT/SD 21-85/VAR 51-85/VAR 53-85 November 22, 1985 Page 6 EXHIBITS (Exhibits A - NN were presented at the 10/7/85 a, hearing and are not included in this packet but will be available at the meeting. ) A Vicinity Map B Tax Map C Contour Map ,' D Site Plan - Not Reproducible ,? E Applicant's Narrative 1. • F Engineering Memorandum Dated 8/29/85 G Soils Report Dated 7/6/84 H Soils Report Dated 8/6/84 il,.f I Arborist Report Dated 8/6/84 z .<'� J Conservancy Commission Minutes of 7/26/84 ; K Memorandum from Conservancy Commission Dated 8/6/84 L Letter from State Fish and Wildlife Dept. Dated 9/10/84 M Letter from State Parks Department Dated 2/14/85 N Letter of Correspondence Dated 7/21/85 0 Letter of Correspondence Dated 7/20/85 P Letter of Correspondence received 7/23/85 Q Letter of Correspondence R Letter of Correspondence Dated 7/20/85 S Letter of Correspondence Dated 7/18/85 T Letter of Correspondence Dated 7/18/85 N U Letter of Correspondence received 7/19/85 A ,,; ✓ Letter of Correspondence Dated 7/17/85 W Letter of Correspondence Dated 7/19/85 .,"' X Letter of Correspondence Dated 7/19/85 Y Letter of Correspondence Dated 7/21/85 Z Letter of Correspondence Dated 7/22/85 AA Letter of Correspondence Dated 7/3/85 BB Staff Report Dated September 3, 1985 * ' CC Letter. of Appeal Dated September 17, 1985 DD Revised Site Plan received 9/24/85 EE Drawing showing bank & slump areas (Too large to reproduce) 1 FF Appellant's Narrative GG Drawing and Data indicating existing Road and ' • L,'" Slopes (Too large to reproduce) HH Two Drawings Indicating Unstable Slope Areas (Too large to reproduce) r. II Drawing indicating road & slump areas (Too large to reproduce) . '. *:4 JJ Correspondence regarding Code requirements received 10/3/85 XX Correspondence from Friends of Tryon Creek received 10/7/85 LL Correspondence received 10/2/85 MM Correspondence received 10/3/85 8 - Y C y �+ i STAFF REPORT/SD 21-85/VAR 51-85/VAR 53-85 November 22, 1985 Page 7 }T` 'r. ,.,, ;'' NN Correspondence received 10/3/85 00 Preliminary Grading Plan ,'� PP Street Plan & Profile with a 50' Centerline Radius & 5' Sidewalk - Sheet 2 QQ Street Plan & Profile with a 100' centerline Radius & 5' Sidewalk - Sheet 2A RR Street Plan & Profile with a 50' Centerline Radius, 16' Wide Street & 5' Wide Sidewalk - Sheet 2B SS Landscape Plan TT Addendum Narrative UU Letter from Patrick L. Keeley, Department of Fish . and Wildlife received 11/6/85 . VV Engineering Department Memorandum Dated 11/21/85 '+ WW Fire Department Memorandum Dated 11/19/85 XX Engineering Department Memorandum Dated 11/25/85 YY List of Trees to be Removed as a Result of Improvements to the Site ZZ October 7, 1985 Development Review Board Minutes } , #. • a: t r 4 d. r ,, 500P/LM/mas ., Y.�4 ,„iL't�r ' ` h • • , IY /' , ,, , ( I r , , ~µ. .}. - i d • tiN. • ' h CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES :� . 5 Center Plaza West Suite 360 12655 S.W.Center St.•Beaverton,Oregon 97005 [ O 646-4509 646-5436 O�g ILI n .13 > 41 November 18, 1985 w ' 5 V c of Lori Mastrantonio asr � City of Lake Oswego Ce P. 0. Box 369 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 , Re: SD 21-85 . Dear Ms. Mastrantonio: The Design Review Board hearing that was held on an appeal of , staff approval was set over to November 18, 1985, to allow specific questions asked by the board to be addressed. The board requested additional information on site grading and asked /, that topographic information showing two foot contours be pre- pared. Input regarding the impact on Tryon Creek from this development was requested, and a temporary and permanent erosion t control plan was also requested. The meeting of November 18 was II, requested to be set over to December 2, 1985, so that a variance application could be heard at the same time. • . • ; • The grading plan shows the existing and proposed contours as well as walkway, roadway, driveway and building pad locations. The pad locations could differ dependent upon the specific builder, but the plan shows how the sites could be constructed • zl upon and meet the requirements of Lake Oswego code. The roadway has been designed as a 20 foot driving surface with curbs and a "' ` `i 5 foot walkway on the westerly side to minimize the required clearing and grading. Construction will be accommodated • easterly of the top of bank of the old roadway fill except for that portion adjacent to Mr. Gill's property which will encroach , into the stream corridor and require a retaining wall approxi- mately 135 feet in length. Attached is a copy of a letter from Patrick Keeley, Assistant 's , G District Fish Biologist, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Mt. Keeley reviewed the site and the proposed construction with John Godsey on October 23, 1985. The erosion control methods outlined in Mr. Keeley's letter address temporary and permanent erosion control measures which reiterate our plans in conjunc- tion with construction activity. • To date the Conservancy Commission has not held a meeting to reconsider their August 6, 1984, memorandum regarding the previous application for five lots. The present applicati 4 EXHIBIT .1' .ro,0r"! L 1 y Zi17,rMj,,t, •1 y Lori Mastrantonio Page 2 .1 November 18, 1985 addressed the points brought out in the 1984 memo indicating i that their original concerns would be met. Included herewith is a discussion of standards as they apply to this application. Those standards are: Stream Corridors, • Drainage, Weak Foundation Soils, and Hillside Protection and Erosion Control. The applicant has addressed and met the • criteria of each of the applicable standards. A variance is being requested to the minimum centerline radius and to the street cross section or sidewalk requirement. If as sidewalk is required, we request a variance to the minimum street and sidewalk widths that would provide for a street and sidewalk section that would not exceed 21 feet in width. The above variances would reduce the encroachment into the stream • corridor from up to 9 feet wide and 135 feet long to 5 feet wide " ` .' and 40 feet long. Please review this material and grant the application with those t conditions recommended by staff and modified by the board. L Sincerely, (:)1//k(,..,&O-244, ,/ . „ ' ..a John M.M. Godsey"Jr. k Enclosures Y • 10 f: 4 1 V iy., • a_• • it -1 r 12 , 1 .. ) `r A� �' " • j t'. Development Standards , .005 Stream Corridors I ... . According to the definition given in 3.015(5), the channel , adjacent to the site is a major stream corridor. Therefore, standards for approval must follow 3.020. Development must satisfy the criteria listed in subsection 3 of 3.020, and the hearing body must find that all of the criteria have been met. 3. a. The existing right-tf-way that provides access into the site is located at the top of the bank, putting the existing pathway and proposed roadway in the Stream Corridor Buffer Zone. Expansion of the existing 80 foot wide right-of-way to 110 feet wide would be necessary to keep the improvement out of the stream . ' corridor. This does not seem warranted since it would require over 14,000 square feet of additional right-of-way, clearing an • k additional 8,400 square feet of property, and the acquisition and • demolition of an existing pool and structure. b. Moving the proposed roadway off of the existing pathway that Was previously a logging road would not only require cutting more trees and clearing more property but also it would decrease the average size of each lot by over 2,000 square feet. The result would be less desirable odd shaped lots. Therefore, it makes • i better sense to use the existing roadway and allow a more reason- � 1 + able use of the property. c. The old roadbed varies in width from 20 to 40 feet and contains a graveled pathway. Generally the area is devoid of trees and vegetation. our proposal uses this cleared portion of ,, the right-of-way for street, water, storm drain, and sewer improve- ments instead of locating those facilities outside of the Stream Corridor Huffer Zone in an area that has many trees and dense 4' vegetation. The natural features of the stream corridor will be impacted less by using the existing cleared area than by clearing • additional property. "� d, The intrusion into the Stream Corridor Buffer Zone was created over forty (40) years ago when the logging road was constructed. \ :, Utilization of density transfer on these parcels will have little or no impact on tLis intrusion into the Buffer Zone since the , ' n . access to the sites constitutes the intrusion. . , Through the above we have demonstrated that all of the criteria � ` ' for 3,,020(3) have been met, and We Urge DES to allow development r ` as provided in 3.020(1) notwithstanding allowances of 3.020(4). • Under Section 3.025, Standards for Construction, the code requires erosion controls, drainage management and landscaping. ' y A 11 A.a F. ) ) • �"�, J ,. . y 3 ,) ' + � - ,. •. ..:-�ru.�a �.. ,. .. , 2 a Construction within the park is specified to occur between June 15 and October 15 unless specifically authorized by the park manager. The park manager has indicated that he would not authorize con- ," struction outside of those dates unless an unusual dry condition prevailed, such as happened last year. Construction will most probably occur between the above dates helping to minimize erosion exposure by doing the work during the dry months. Erosion control mechanisms include, however, placing riprap in the ditch channel to reduce the velocity of the water and minimize erosion. Fabric .. will be placed under the riprap to prevent water from permeating the old fill area. The area that needs to be cleared to accom- plish construction will be replanted with ecologically compatible trees, shrubs and permanent ground cover. In the interim while construction is proceeding and prior to establishment of the new vegetation, straw bales will be used to channel, block, and filter runoff to remove sediments. The outfall of the storm drainage system will be controlled by a blanket of riprap that will dis- perse and diminish the velocity and flow of the runoff so that the existing vegetation in the discharge area will continue to perform its function of flow restriction, absorption and filtration of - ;i: -'. nutrients. The above procedures have been discussed with Patrick Keeley, a Assistant District Fish Biologist, of the Department of Fish and Wildlife. He felt that with 'the above safeguards and since no . construction would actually occur in the stream bed, the impact on • stream animal and fish populations would be negligible. .'• 12.005 Drainage Standards for Minor Developments Under 11.035(3) the city has determined that on site retention is '•' r not practical nor required of this development. n . . ' The construction plan shows how the system will be constructed to mitigate the adverse effects of erosion and flooding. The areas that will be stripped of vegetation will be replanted with ecolog- ically compatible trees, shrubs and permanent ground cover. Drain- . ` age from the lots will be carried in the street to a point of dis- • s charge into the existing ditch. The ditch will be regraded, lined '.<•- with fabric to prevent percolation, and riprapped to decrease ;. , : , water velocity. The ditch will be reestablished from the end of the street improvement to the point of discharge. At the dis- charge point the water will fan out over a large area of riprap to further decrease the velocity. This dispersion action and ii velocity reduction below 0.5 feet per second will not harm the 4 . , , ' existing vegetation below the discharge point. Straw bales will be used to check water flow and trap sediments during construction ' and while the new vegetation is being established. These bales will be placed at the end of the roadway where the drainage dis- °t charges into the ditch and at the point where the ditch discharges 1` into the exulting Swale. The above design features comply with the requirements of the standard and are acceptable by the Oregon : 1 State Department of Fish and Wildlife, . ,; 14 nf. t. .,,- , i s,. 3 .� r'b 13.005 Weak roundation Soils ` { A The map maintained at the Public Works Department does not include the proposed site in the areas of potential for weak foundation `" ,0 soils. The property, however, is covered on the potential for j+ Landslide Hazard Map. In two letters dated July 6, 1984, and September 18, 1984, William H. Doak, Registered Professional Geologist, reports on the ability . . b to site homes on the existing soil, the stability of the area and the existing road fill in particular. The reports comply with the requirements of 13.035(1) (2) , and since the soils have been determined to be adequate, no further consideration is necessary by 13.035(3). 16.005 Hillside iirotection and Erosion Control The design of the roadway and walkway utilize the existing roadbed to the greatest degree possible to minimize the disturbance of the natural topography. vegetation removal and grading will take , place on the east side o2 the roadway. Debris and constructionn excavation will be removed from the site and disposed of in an approved disposal area. '. + To further minimize the impact of grading and vegetation removal, the walkway would have to become part of the roadway as a joint use facility or the road width 'could have to be reduced below the e minimum standard. The proposed cross section for the roadway is a 5 foot walkway on • the westerly side, a curb, a 20 foot paved roadway, a curb, and a cut bank not to exceed 2:1 slope back to existing ground. William H. Doak, Registered Professional Geologist, has indicated that no eviden.e of prior soil movement was found. The design of the walkway and roadway conforms with 16.020(5) (6) in that slopes in excess of 12% will be constructed in compliance With LOC Chapter 45, slope easements will be provided, structural fills of the roadway have been designed by a registered engineer, and road . , _ standards comply with LOC Chapter 44. . Approximately 23,700 square feet of the site will be graded or stripped of vegetation to accommodate street, driveway and building pad construction. That represents about 48% of the site which generally slopes 20 to 22% and is well within the 65% • clearing allowed by 16.025(2). The erosion control plan will +,; contain specific measures as previously outlined and be contained a�,. to the immediate construction site. Soils will be exposed for the minimum practical duration, and they will be mulched or seeded. Straw bales will be used as check dams, and sediment basins, and these will be maintained by the developer until the site vegetation has been reestablished. » ' i, f I d. • V', ,i40, Variance Request The design plan submitted shows the impact of the 20 foot roadway 4 • with curbs and a sidewalk. This design cross section requires a gabion wall approximately 135 feet in length to keep the required , fill out of the stream corridor. A portion of the gabion wall would have to be constructed westerly of the top of bank into the slope since the right-of-way adjacent to Mr. Gill's property is not wide enough to construct the improvements inside the existing ,, top of bank area. The encroachment into the slope can be minimized by (1) a center- line and cross section variance to the Lake Oswego standards or f• (2) acquisition of right-of-way from Mr. Gill's property. Mr. Gill has indicated that he has no interest in dedicating right-of-way or selling property at this time. The variances necessary to contain the improvements within the existing space • easterly of the top of slope are a centerline radius reduction to 50 feet and a cross section reduction to 21 feet. The existing standards are a minimum centerline radius of 100 feet and a minimum cross section of 20 feet curb to curb plus a walkway not less than 3 feet in width but preferably 5 feet wide. The 21 foot cross section can be accommodated by removing the requirement for a separate walkway or by separating the walkway from the traveled portion of the street by a painted stripe or a line of traffic buttons such as Iron Mountain Boulevard west of the golf course. A third alternative would be to construct a 16 - , foot curb to curb travelway using mountable curbs with an adjacent 4 foot wide walkway capable of supporting vehicular traffic. The reduced centerline radius will have a negligible effect on the motorist since it is close to an intersection and vehicle speeds will be low. Also, the dead end street will only serve 4 houses; therefore, the volume of traffic and potential conflicts will be extremely low; The low volume of traffic will also support reduction of the cross . section and use of the facility as a walkway/accessway. With the (:r75 ' four homesites, the peak hour traffic is anticipated to be 4 vehicles per hour. With that level of use, it is hard to justify construction of a separate walkway facility, especially since the probability that two of the peak hour trips in opposite directions would odour when a pedestrian is present is highly Unlikely. �. -• Section 49.510 of U.O.C. sets out criteria for granting variances. The following are responses to those requirements. The hardship is an economic one imposed on the property owner to construct a retaining wall, walkway and pedestrian handrail to meet City minimum specifications when the projected level of use • does not warrant the expenditures. 16 , 2 Without variances the development will infringe on the slope above the tributary to Tryon Creek. Additional trees would be removed and part of the slope will be removed to provide a base for the retaining wall. The requested variances, therefore, Would minimize the impact on the surrounding properties by minimizing the impact on the stream corridor. The plan sheets included with this variance request show the impacts of the options. Sheet 2 shows a 50 foot centerline radius of the roa1w:ay with a 5 foot sidewalk. This installation requires a 113 foot wall. ' Sheet 2A shows the improvements as required by code. The result is the necessity of a 135 foot wall to prevent filling into the stream corridor. Sheet 2B shows the 50 foot centerline radius and a reduced section that provides 20 feet curb to curb but allows pedestrian use on the roadway. This option would require a wall 40 feet in length along the top of the bank. The developer does not have the ability to acquire the right-of- 1, Way from Mr. Gill. Therefore, the requested centerline radius and cross section variances are the minimum variances necessary to reduce the impacts on the stream corridor. v . The request complies with the comprehensive plan because it provides for vehicle and pedestrian access and protects a • • distinctive natural area in the development plan. . y • `e) i"1 • • e , s ~. bi o . i.G.4.4.1,Ln 7,,,$) . 4if li Department of Fish and Wildlife i'iia. COLUMBIA REGIONAL OFFICE "';"'"""" 17330 S E• EVELYN STREET, CLACKAMAS, OREGON 97015 or.Ihr.w • October 24, 1985 ' Mr. John M. Godsey, Jr, P.E. P.L.S. RECEDWEIT En ineerin Services • Consulting g 9 � Center Plaza West, Suite 360 NOV 6 Ii. 126 S. W. Center Street • Beaverton OR 97005 PLANNING DEP7. Dear Mr, Godsey: • The erosion control methods, as we discussed at our on-site meeting h October 23, and as outlined in your letter submitted to Mr. Chuck Amundson regarding the SD-21-85 proposal, should not degrade the quality of water . • reaching Tryon Creek, A • • Techniques and procedures that we recommend include: (1) maintain an adequate • vegetative buffer along the stream; (2) seed and mulch exposed soils; ! . t3) restrict construction to dry period; and (4) control surface runoff to , miniinize erosion, We feel that you have adequately addresse t e itemized in your letter (numbers 5, 7, 8, and 10 through 14) to Mr, Chuck Amundson. We also feel there will be fewer erosion problems if you utilize the existing natural drainage way at the lower end of the drainage. However, adequate riprap should be placed at the outfall site from the new ditch so erosion is controlled, The remainder of the natural drainage way should act as a filter for the runoff prior to reaching the unnamed Tryon Creek tributary. • If these safeguards are followed, the downstream effects on aquatic and terrestrial life should be negligible, Sincerely r/ c c(Y . Patrick L. Keeley Assistant bistrict I`ish Biologist • ..M a _Y EXHIBIT " E1 - 18 tau 2/-8 r it t` • 6 �J 1 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Lori Mastrantonio, Development Review Planner` FROM: Wayne Halverson, Engineering Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Braggs-Walters Resubmittal Received on November 6, 1985 (SD 21-85) • DATE: November 21, 1985 " Access The applicant has shown a 20 foot street with a five foot walk on the westerly side and vertical curbs. The final construction plans will have to meet our minimum standard detail for 20 foot , streets. The intersection of Brookside Road and Andrews Road does not have any site distance problems and has been checked out by the traffic coordinator. The City already has a Brookside Road so the proposed street name will need to be changed. The application has also proposed a 50 foot centerline road radius. L.O.C. 44.385 sets the minimum radius of curvature for i residentialcoa streetsbo athe00 feet.authorityLto•C.grant•a96 variance the if the decision making body requirement would impose an undue hardship on the developer. In ', this instance staff would support a variance request for a 50 foot centerline radius only in order to minimize the impact on the stream corridor. Staff has checked the driveway grades based on the plans submitted. Based on those plans only Lot'l will need a slight ," lowering of the floor elevation in order to meet the driveway gradient requirement. The applicant also has requested possibly onarronarrowing5th the fsidewalk n it to three feet or possibly dropping that the sidewalk is necessary since the pathway has been used as an access to Tryon Creek Park for a number of years and that putting the pathway users cnto a roadway would he an undersirable condition. Also the five foot sidewalk is the standard width required of developments although three feet is the minimum that • would be acceptabe if the board feels there is adequate reason to narrow the sidewalk to minimze the impact of the stream corrddor. Staff does not recommend narrowing the street less than the minimum 20 feet required by code. The sidewalk should not be part of the 20 foot cross-section; since this would give the pedestrians a false sense of security in times of two Way traffic. .4 EXHIBIT 19 i- - • Lori Mastrantonio November 21, 1985 Page two The sewer system will he required to be extended and constructed , per Exhibit F which required the sanitary sewers to be extended to the southwest corner of Lot 1 and that the final construction plans will be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Last of all, approval of the revised plans submitted on this project does not mean that final construction approval has been {. `, .. granted on the plans submitted to the City dated November 19, 1985. The City Engineer reserves the right to make refinements to the plans prior to construction approval. i. , /Ppk b 1 l 20 0 i ' ��� — ' i A MEMORANDUM TO: Lori Mastrantonio • ON Planning Department f ' FROM: John McCauley . i Fire Marshal SUBJECT: SD 21-85 4 DATE: November 19, 1985 1 , This memo is a response to John Godsey's letter dated November . 18, 1985. Mr. Godsey is addressing the Development Review Board's authority Under LOC 49.500(1) to grant a variance for i road width. The twenty foot road width requirement comes from the access section of the Uniform Fire Code. Granting a variance to required emergency vehicle access is a violation of a State and locally adopted code. A 16-foot street is proposed with a mountable curb. People will not knowingly drive over a curb and park on a sidewalk. So for all practical purposes, we only have a 16-foot street whether or not we have a mountable curb and sidewalk to drive • )n. People parking on a 16-foot street will in reality block Fire Department access. Therefore, the Fire Department requests that any variances reducing the road width in question be denied. 3529P/JM/mas cc: File `. A' 1 i Exiei �r '> 21 SD 21-A • c • MEMORANDUM OTO: Lori Mastrantonio • Planning Department FROM: Andy Harris Engineering Department RE: Bragg/Walters Partition - SD 21-85 • DATE: November 25, 1985 Stream Corridor The applicant has submitted a plan showing existing topography, the stream corridor boundary, proposed road improvements, and proposed grading. • The new road is sited to use the existing road cut and minimize intrusion into the stream corridor. In addition, gabion ' retaining walls are used to eliminate or avoid the need for fill within the stream corridor. The landscape plan provides for the replacement of removed c )egetation with ecological, compatible trees, shrubs, and permanent ground cover. Th6 City should reserve final approval of this plan Until construction stage so modifications and/or additions may be made as needed to reflect field conditions. The concern is for the east side of Brookside Road and the area of the intersection of Andrews Road. At this point, no restoration is proposed in these areas with the exception of ' hydroseeding, The applicant has addressed and met the standards for approval I but a condition for further restoration Would be appropriate. Drainage • The drainage standards have been met but it should be clearly • understood that the ditch section at the end of the new road is to be constructed along the west side of the existing trail down to a point of positive outfall into the Tryon Creek tributary. Erosion Control All erosion control methods and specifications should be shown on the construction plans submitted for approval. IXHIlIT XL 22 ' 1. - .. K FF . COGO 1 STARTING FILE NAME IS IRONMTS, ii POINT QUAD BEARING DISTANCE NORTHING EASTING ' OINTS IN USE FROM 101 TO 165 POINT NORTHING EASTING 102 19537.664 19689.513 3'FIR RECEIVED 103 19548.830 19694.269 12"MA. 104 19561.600 19691.549 7"ALD NOV 6 198b 105 19555.854 19663.723 12"ALD 106 19555.854 19663.723 3.5'ALD. CITY OF L M USWEGO 107 19548,160 19685.660 PIN OLD art OF MAC ,WORKS ' 110 19688.843 19750.726 2'FIR 111 19697,791 19749.149 12"MA, 112 19678.076 19748.968 18"FIR . 113 19674.108 19745.681 18"MA. 114 19648.699 19742.480 2'FIR 115 19638.798 19737.687 10"MA 116 19661.065 19749,088 6"FIR 117 19633.231 19717,536 20"FIR 118 19636.095 19711.822 12"ALD 119 19653.126 19728.807 16"ALD 120 19697.120 19709.269 16"ALD • 121 19673.584 19609.593 1-12"MA, 1-1 �''f 130 19722.645 19778.095 20"FIR 131 19728,459 19770.021 16"ALD 132 19718.216 19762.755 15"MA 133 19734.939 19771.968 12"FIR • 134 19740.834 19789.214 2'MA 135 19755,562 19797.346 2.5'FIR • 136 19756.093 19767.050 9"FIR • 137 19761.746 19789.226 2'FIR 138 19755.495 19778.843 15"FIR 139 19750.044 19748.358 8"MA-DEAD 140 19774,823 19758.537 9"ALD 145 19780,191 19791.570 10"MA 146 19785,374 19790,964 10"ALD 150 19806,886 19808.752 8"FIR 151 19830.023 19807,849 12"ALD 152 19838,988 19810,115 12"ALD . ' 153 19847.426 19809.401 6"ALD 155 19900.233 19799.125 12"ALD 156 19877.407 19815.878 2.5'FIR . 157 19904,858 19818.402 2'FIR 158 19910.529 19827,309 1'FIR 159 19917,226 19815,750 10"MA 160 19918.566 19801,758 5"ALD , 16i 19933,840 19807,863 6"ALD 162 19951.950 19813,271 14"FIR 163 19952,886 19807,219 8"MA ,, 164 19943.698 19819,695 11"FIR .. 165 /9949,245 19822,057 20"FIR • • cHIBIT ::/ 23y 2.1- . • 1 October 7, 1985 DVELOk'MENT REVIEW BOARD • 6. The applicant shall submit a plan which specifies the location and elevations of all fences, signage, and sidewalks. This document shall be submitted with construction plans. 7. Internal public streets (Mountain Glen Drive, Morningdale Circle and Glen Arbor Drive) shall be constructed in accordance with City Standards, excepting the 40' cul de sac. 8. 5' wide property line sidewalks shall be provided on the north side of Mountain Glen Drive, the east side of Glen . r frontages Drivee ng the FosbergtRoad.e of sidewalksate nd mayn the meanderttos savettgee along . save trees and avoid cut-fill slopes. theecul�dessacinternal 5' wide sidewalk shall continue along 9. The property owners shall dedicate 5' wide strips tofsland to the public for right-of-way purposes along the Fosberg Road frontage. 10. Street improvements to Fosberg Road shall be provided in accordance with Clackamas County requirements. The applicant shall coordinate Fosberg improvements (e.g. , tapering or traffic channelization with City and County public Works staffs) . • 11. Roof drains shall be connected to proposed streets; 4 otherwise, they must be connected to a private onsite stormwater detention system to the satisfaction of the City ' Engineer. 12. The applicant shall pay the appropriate park and open space fees or submit a schedule outlining the assessment and method of payment of the appropriate fees prior to approval of the final plat. 13. A composite utility plan is required at the time construction drawings are submitted. This shall include a . tr Street Lighting plan as well. Mr. Martindale seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. Mr. 48 Finch moved that the variances (VAR 15-85) one and tw roved, dealingr with the Transit Standard and Site Circulation be app Martindale seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. SD 21-85 - An appeal of an administrativel a roved lot line realignment and two minor partitions dividing two parcels into n toand tWo lots each. The property owners are Barbara Bragg and RichatdVirginia Walters. The property is locatedonEI3BC,MTantLot 3500 and ain Boulevard, north of Andrews Road (TaX Map 2 TaX Map 2 lE 3CB, Tax Lot 500) . EXHIBIT -3- . 24 w a " t ' DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD s October 7, 1985 Ms. Mastrantonio presented the staff report. She reviewed the history of staff approval of the minor partition on the property, ('N and recommended that if staff is upheld, the applicant submit additional drawings to ensure that the improvements can fit next to ' the swimming pool structures as it was found that part of it may be ' ' within the right-of-way. The drawings should include a survey indicating the stream corridor and the entire site, the existing two of the east bank in relation to the existing right-of-way and Unimproved road, a tree survey along the east side which includes those trees over 5" in diameter impacted by the improvements and a topographic survey. Jean Siddal, 535 Atwater Road, Lake Oswego, spoke in behalf of the appeal of staff's approval of the minor partition. She submitted a . narrative, Exhit;t FF to the Board. Ms. Siddal said she had no objection to the partitioning of the property but had several concerns : 1) Construction of the street 2) Drainage • 3) Sawer 4) Utility lines needed to serve the lots. Ms. Siddall submitted the following exhibits to the Board, explaining each: a Exhibit EE Drawings Exhibit FF Appellant's Narrative • Exhibit GG Drawing Data Indicating Existing Road and Slopes Exhibit HH Illustrations of Soil Instability • Exhibit II Drawing Indicating Road's Slump Areas e Ms. Siddall requested that if staff is upheld, the applicant be • required to submit an erosion control plan and grading plan; there be assurances that no building permits Will be issued until streets; ,, Utilities, etc. are in; and, a second geology report be submitted. She answered questions for the Board. Dick Moran, Post Office Box 74, Lake Oswego, said a survey is required as part of the application according to LOC 16.035, Sections 6 and 7. He said this application does not contain a survey. He said since there are portions of the property with slopes greater than 20% and the application should be resubmitted by the applicant. He said the r3oard should not consider any development in this area until the pool house is removed. Dede Marriott, 410 Boca Ratan Drive, spoke. She submitted a copy of her testimony (Exhibit JJ). Ms. Marriott requested adherence to the ' the Development Ordinance and Standards (Refer to Exhibit JJ, SD 21-85 file for specifics). • -4- V:.. • Q {j • � October 7, 1985 1 I.,. ' DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD '.I . 1 Karen Harris, 740 Briercliff, represented Friends of Tryon Creek � • Statepark. She said she has walked the site, andtheBoard's e resident t +, �, concerns are for the wildlife in the area, specifically Beaver population. plication.he said Ms. Harrise lsaidife lthat theirssue has oletter , addressedw in this pop application for this site. She eden in response ton the previous sendent consultant to be • She asked that a study done by p approved by the applicant and the Friends of Tryon Creek State Park that ctedlbothsduringa construction nand eafter construction. area would not be adversely affeffe Tom Gill, 1369 Andrews Road, said they are owners of the pool Dune. He gave the background of the constructions of the pool house. Lucille Beck, 1430 SW Englewood Drive, said she waO a member of Friends of Tryon Creek State Park. Ms. Beck wl:,h "e deleted from an wei ucern about the • road construction and that the 5' pedestrian ct the approval of the minor partition because of the impact the additional width will have on the area. She asking thatstheirequirement for the path be had from the applicant � � removed (Exhibit LL) . Pam Blake, 675 Iron Mt. Boulevard, requested that all of the Development Review Board review the site first hand before a decision was made. She asked why an area designated as having a potential for landslide was allowed to be considered as . developable. Chairman Hutchins said that the Wording does not preclude development, but certain considerations must be made before approval to develop is granted. Mr. Wright said that the USDA Soils Conservation and the hysical ces nventory eneraltifs areas general. It has been proved that they do not apply to specific sites and are frequently incorrect. Ms. Blake asked that the Board request a current soils report be submitted by an accredited licensed in Oregon geologist before approval was giVen. She said that the soils report included in the application by Mr. Doak is a year old. Another concern of Ms.Blake's was Water pressure. She requested that a certified drainage , and erosion control plan be filed before approval is given to the children use theo trail,tand ithat iVe fao railing t abey b put e e becauseft that along that pathway. Jenny Hawthorne, 1601 SW 'G' , said that people park at the existing trailhead on Atwater. If a road is put in with a turnaround, people ,will park in that area, and those cars will infringe into the street possibly causing problems with fire trucks in case of fire. -5- Z6 0 1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD October 7, 1985 o John Godsey, 12655 SW Center, Beaverton, spoke in behalf of the minor partition, representing the applicants. He Submitted . additional maps showing tree locations along the adjacent roadway (Exhibit MM). He said they were planning the development of the ,. site with as much sensitivity to the area as possible. Mr. Godsey responded to some of the concerns raised in earlier testimony. He said there are cutbanks which exceed 20% slope. He said Mr. Doak has done borings to check the materials used in the • fill and that information is included in the application. He said they will not encroach on the bank. The .''tire construction will be east of the top of the bank. He said there will be no more impact to the stream corridor than has been done already with construction ' . of the logging road. They plan no 5i11, construction equipment, or removal of vegetation over tt;t ` nnt . • Mr. Godsey said that they have sh ,;, re areas of encroachments into the lots on the sketch (Exhibit MM) i,,stead of going over the bank. This will allow them to stay above the bank. They have shown the I slope going towards the bank in order to minimize the cut slope on the eastern bank. Engineering staff has agreed with this as long as a positive drainage method is used to control runoff. . He said they are willing to comply With the conditions requested by , Tryon Creek State Park. He discussed potential for soil erosion and ' parking on the streets. William H. Doak, Soils Scientist, Geologist registered with the State of ';regon, spoke. He discussed his findings from inspections of the prcperty. He also discussed existing fill in the area, and said there was no existing fill on the site. Mr. Doak said that composition of soil fills was more important in determining hillside stability than the angle of trees because trees could be affected by ice storms, wind, etc. . Steve Gaetz, member of the American Society of Arborists, consulting • architect, speaking in behalf of his partner who was not able to ' attending this meeting, said he was available for questioning. He said that the bending of trees can occur for various reasons, and that the reasons could be determined only by by borings and other research. Rebuttal . - Jean Bidden, said that she is the Director of the Oregon Rare and Endangered Plant Project. She said that based on Vegetation at the tops of the slopes, she is able to determine Where there is water close to the surface and Where there is danger of a slide. She showed photographs of the bowed and crossed trees. Other people Were asking to speak. Sandra Duffy, Assistant City Attorney, said that specific evidence may be rebutted. She read the appropriate section from the Code. . -6- Z"l . IN ` October 7, 1985 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Chuck Amundson Park Mana er of Tr on Creek State Park, spoke. He said he initially commented on conditions for construction of a sewer at Tryon Creek was presented by the original applicant, HCmesite Development. He said the conditions were continued for the V present applicant. He said the changes in the road location could ` 4 howe ethe improvement would adversely geffect� However, he an adVerse efct on the thesalmon. Mr. Amundson said that that the pathway should be kept in the development ' t,l proposal. - Claudiaed if s g ha hru�ropertyuowners3canRsell orkbuild asyl ngaasgtheyo to are decideow whether property was for ,y following all the rules and regulations, or if the hearing people to be allowed to use the property for awprivate eapark.ShS She eaid said that no one would build on property this property acquired had been set out dsetloutdas homesites at the time Tryon Creek Park was Chairman Hutchins said that the public hearing is to allow public input for areas in the code which allow discretion and/or judgement. Dick Moran said that he is concerned with the area of slopes over .. 20% being included in the buildable prtions afpthe lots. oublic entrane was a concerned about number of trips generated park. Terry Harrison said that traffic was of a concern, especially for 1 pedestrians such as children. No one else spoke and Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing fornal Board neWaseneededs. The before aodecisionard's ncouldsbeamadeaont aSDi21-85, , information ormation w The Board requested the following: - a grading plan prepared by a registered civil engineer . showing existing and proposed grades for the development - a topographic survey made by a registered surveyor - provide contours at 2' intervals - What impact inclusion of the npthhachwill the pool onuth the isitedes te - survey of the right-of-way into - eXplore the possibility of a variance to the 20' street width requirement to allow the street to be less iincwidth - plans, have the ficallyawithCregardion to theleW the possibility of a plans, specifically buffer zone between development and the park - specific location of the stream corridor, natural areas and boundaries - further soils investigation be done to determine soil suability - Plans for revegetation - drainagerelating plans with relation to specific port to g fis ionsd of city - review of testimony code -7- Z • y • • . f th t kt( r A. t e • DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD �4.. 't r � % t- '�','• a ,� The Board clarified that they reguareoo a r, r Y i, ,(;trw'i %� ''' �'"� a LF right-of-way, the stream corridor, tea', .0 a c'"- Ana ` ,'pryi. ��, n ',' , requesting the applicant receive per ,'17 tan_, ` j, 0„ (, :, "N' 4. owners if necessary. They discoscari t' e ' �o� . ' k n, ,t,. • and who was responsible for gatherer, i t a r �u�, k :1,{; c ``F, r- rl ` . • t Mr. Finch moved to table SD 21-OS to t: ,vo- s w ti � c",,` a ;rr ,, information agreed to by consensus ,' i cry +. 4 i ¢�; .1-); that hearing. The motion was oecor,le,3 ! ,7e • ' i ,4` """ X°`.'' ,��'"' ,fix ,,:•,, unanimously. ;,,,a � � aRy y ilk,.1 „��r? '�., , . Mr. Moran requested that thod't who tow' r _c ,,1y ,., .,+a6 �. 1,�3r�, 0,l,,_ availability of additional inforrtatt;( ', rr. ( L 't, 'IN, ,,irtt (r ,ycCct, ' --yn r _- -- "l st+ '... I 'mot .` 4,f.•�'cir-R• q. ,y / ,, r, ,' GENERAL PLANNING �.t F m E Chairman Hutchins said that it in �t7L ` ' '} ,�`'�M'�,-{' 1'4 1,`^+ Ce, !v Commission comment on applications r ,� , it.-;'* ,, r, :� on stream corridors, natural areas, c' p i 4r�'` s; +± be written to the City Council anJ Par , :� Mr,. ',"ki , , ; Commission is important to the B �1 J, s c ,,, �,1 • ' members be appointed as soon as i 'sc r o 1.11..., rc. 7 ,pr ,r sv t r; to give their input to the Deve1oi,:mon" l c t n ti,. ,, 9 1'' ':=: ;,,;, ;�d "j , . . N` 4 1 23 t Mr. Blackmore said he would like to ore o � of�,�, , ,,Z ,w, : ?t rle fd ti, Conservancy Commission rather than c ,, _r �k ti%' g., el t .,,1 r'�t, , ed ' the hearing. ' 1� Y.sr ,° u` It" 'I. o'�'guy, % {fir q d k �t OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Concluoi(:r s ,:., 1 ,1`ts qqq�"""���,/r��p ,,., st` r "'�W1�W+� ',I�r wo.t,' The following findings Were approve:} f• _ R,f`,+'6u-' tt r r} + '^ ' ;° �a' t'`�t'7 'r;`. , DR 2-84 Modification Terry t )`.°. cr+ iY1.'` .1 •I ,rdry�.,,`r t "9^,, DR 10-84 Modification - Thomas ..j_" 'C 4 r� ',0i r f- d,y� , a, 1 DR 19-A5 Oswego Lake country Cr` .. 1 -*6' '�7;y ,"fir, `� ,0 e +,: + "i f' `' 4 }}�� 4 7 irrit ADJOURNMENT %A., ,�r ,,fO i #$ ?e,,r"k r There being no further busineoo t ; c, ,:••-'11 �?- ;4.t.,. � �� J�',. adjourned the meeting at 12:00 a.m. „t,a a',' .4�}F,ois : )' t1':: i���Respectfully+ �1. :J, ti �,'• .4 r1, i� �,.. aKris Hitchcock �t tt 47i,*k� ,r Secretary ei.JA ,.; ,e, irl��, •.,• �, ti, n. , 3�7`L4.4 a ;Y,�• wrt . mjj � . ak C r"9 �f.iN 7� S ,Ott. . , J �H 'dye �� � r �,x ti � , • • _ • •.r.' ' .\.t d • '. a I cs00'- t `,i; STAFF REPORT • i.-.;i November 26, 1985 FILE NO. VAR 44-85/SD 31-85 ` APPLICANTS Willard T. Moore (Owner of Tax Lot 5700, - , Tax Map 2 lE 8BD) Hugh Mitchell (Owner of Tax Lot 5600, , Tax Map 2 lE 8DB) LOCATION 3214 Lakeview Blvd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION T• ax Lot 5600 of Tax Map 2 lE 8DB NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION None REQUEST �,` The applicant is regLlsting approval of a variance to a side yard setback requirement of 5' to allow the completion of an addition and a lot line adjustment. I CRITERIA AND STANDARDS LOC 48.195 - 48.225 R-7.5 Zone Description • LOC 48.650 - 48.690 Variances j LOC 49,140 - 49.225 Minor Development LOC 49.145 Major Development �i' F4. LOC 49.300 - 49.335 Major Development Procedures LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval , Applicable Development standards Comprehensive Plan APPLICATION COMPLETENESS (Compliance with 49.315) The applicant has submitted a complete application. EXISTING CONDITIONS • The existing residence is located at 3214 Lakeview Blvd. on a lot , • that is approximately 75' Wide and 141' deep. The property is zoned R-7,5, The rear of the lot abuts Lake Oswego and the front of ' he r lot abuts Lakeview Blvd. . r, The site blopss steeply toward the lake and has few trees. 30 a > Staff Repoit/VAR 44-85/SD 31-85 • November 27, 1985 • Page 2 DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS , f. , The existing house contained 2000 square feet. The addition which is •.' almost complete contains 1800 square feet. The previous Planning Director interpreted the code to allow • expansion of an existing nonconforming structure within the structure's building line. In other words, an addition could dontinue along an existing building line that encroached into the setback. This would allow encroachment within required yards without requiring a variance. When the application for a building permit for . • this project was submittted, the above interpretation was in effect. , Since that timE, there has been a determination that no expansion of a nonconforming structure into required yards will be allowed. • , The applicant has provided a narrative describing compliance with the 4.,variance criteria and history of the project (Exhibit C) . The � applicant has also submitted a brief note describing the lot line , adjustment (Exhibit D). As illustrated on the Survey Map indicating the lot line adjustment, a very small portion of property from Tax Lot 5700 will be transferred to Tax Lot 5600 at the north end (about 7.80 square inches) and similarly at the south end of the lot (about 4.50 square inches) (Exhibit L) . The lot line adjustment does not significantly alter the lot areas of each parcel. Each lot Will still exceed the minimum 7,500 square foot lot area requirement; Tax Lot 5700 . approximately 10,225 square feet and Tax Lot 5600 approximately 7800 square feet. It should be noted that the applicant initially indicated on the site - plan submitted With the building plans a 4' 2" setback from the house and 6" setback from the garage to the east property line (Exhibit H). The plans Were changed and a revised site plan Was , submitted indicating a 3' setback from the house to the east property • lint. Staff believes it is impractical to require additional landscaping to minimize the impact of the proximity of the additions as there is • limited space between the two houses. As illustrated in the - photographs, there is some existing landscaping between the houses. • However, the vegetation that has been damaged and/or removed as a result of the construction is to be replaced. While it is difficult to recommend approval of a Variance of this magnitude, the main objective at this point is to legalize ah existing situation. The neighbor adjacent to the east Who is most impacted by these improvements supports this request (Exhibit f) . RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variance and lot line adjustment AteeJ requests subject to the following conditionst 31 r • Staff Report/VAR 44-85/SD 31-85 November 27, 1985 ,1m age 3 I 1. That the landscaping removed and/or damaged as a . result of construction be replaced to the 1 satisfaction of staff. J 2. That storm water runoff from the site be diverted to . an approved storm drainage system to the satisfaction of the Building Official. •N EXHIBITS B Vicinity Map C Variance Narrative D Lot Line Adjustment Narrative E Site Plans g Letters from Adjacent Neighbor Dated 9/20/85 & 10/22/85 G Letter from Contractor Dated 10/24/85 H Memo from Building Department Dated 9/17/85 I Survey Illustrating Lot Line Adjustment (Too large to reproduce) J Elevation Drawings (Too large to reproduce) , K Photos a ' r • • ' 3531P/LM/mas , , • A ' 3/ry V r H THIS MAP IS FURNISHED AS A CONVENIENCE IN LOCATING PROPERTY AND THE COMPANY ,, ,. 2. ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY VARIATIONS AS MAY BE DISCLOSED BY ACTUAL SURVEY 01 . ,.I,, First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon _ u ,''r •1.16.0..0b.I.n.1/.a.r.1•IIII INSUR.NCt COY144Nt 01 ORIGON ' •(4Mr 310 S • .W.FOURTH AVENUE,PORTLAND,OR 97204 (503)222.3651 b�2 . , , : . Zes.Q4 e.., ics, /r J` IIf G7 JJ " • A° L 29° J \\�\.� l ,. • \ fly\;4 '\ � C\' P P ,,,✓ t. ,•�z°°, 1 Vt .Y.}-. .\\I . -*' ‘ ��pi rr n 9� •e \ \ QP•` . .rre'� ^ P • s t . � .•» ° ' °° \ t Y \ Jl f 4 .0` - treAt LNt or rlAatw o \6 ' J 'I �0'' ./r ,fit AtKAI P0101 ` . /ttYAr,eW.f 9,S. • • \ • n a ....Sr.. r . •ef••I I. I I , 1 • ' '`re ( , , SEE MAP 2 IE 8 , ' OSWEGO LAkE I , 4 �'t �� A 1 % Per I i : . ,^' .4 EXNISIT 3 3 -- —• r Ir (ram, ry[ry��[ r„�N .;t 11 ".�. i ": ,.. I , Tv'}�+rl :9• at a:;.# :".:�;11�. .,,t.w ;is„.,,,/ • ,f`'•R "�•1` 1�?._, i ,- . ... �� . , .� ettt t ,• 're' YL • I "hh"�7.• f i„•I�.0.4 IN. 1 H• • , V......!'1..••a,• ��� . ,•.1 di a ( ! ..� •°n� 7r . .. :. ottt 0' testa :,e•, " II: F Ut 1 M11 'y'6 •y I., Q iH N� .U. .> •A, ' ,N!%' �' I I Ir_I aa�ii:. 1'H,- uu ''`I«I �� • tlt` - ', .iX II Y_• A� 1 , ; �...-J,t. no i NI rw. J.' ,p!.'• r+�.`,. .•1 .5e.� `� ill aE. ilpt Li' u.' I „u_ , . .411 gl.,. . '\f a .• , : t .d„. L Fi I` ..l i •.1. � ii • • E - J• • s, ♦7 O7� Y ',;pa . •i j•5�.as't" • :',,, i.1u 1:.. _• i q 7 _ '.. I 'T .�,• �` ••Nf', a,c,j 't>.It „«-,yl - p_,.: � 1 h�• ' S tp .� • Q �,';• ••• - , • 111.4.4 n tt`_,, rl't\t �5.•,. \ .a7.7. „ '.,,1 1 J.[, 1 use 1 , •: •gyp .• • 1- ^' [ /dry t '.r'1 " ,i; 1i. i 1 , . NN, ^„*' ` 1 ,, 1 : !• '` . ''. ,•r f ;''' y5 •r"t \r,�Y I y l I 1 . I ✓S,,4 1 t tl.r 1 • Wq( i ".... _ (I • '' . • )t. •aka SF ' Cw I• V.., ./7y'I . _. 1 A. »�-.«.. _' .•/ ( - •L ., 'a ' OA 'tiM I,Y.1 I. • .1 I' E 5 'a •at`i, •� >I I •. ,•� ,i ?I, 1T' `J"�4 , •I ,y • '.iu L,• [i:r `` i•„. dF -� ., I .•,tip k, ,„, i I i a,y }-� owl`e r..� l ( ' •1n.1I a 11 r S . ' o. ,,+ • ' `\a>aa ,..a tete • I :.1.:NI[ w. ..-•I )•,•f 1.N1 1 t• IM I;... .A. I ' •• Mo,S ,, ya �r. ',er ._. .1• ,11•iie • �,...• _ ,'t : ;.l - •NI - I ewr -�aea fe.�l..,i.,�1r.�, ' '1 i1- t t *It I.'.. .. • ( ..• ou[' N,a •_�l l e.H ee.r ,_ .1 R it, 1 tw V.<'t• : .uu 5'I ..r f r .11i_,.., '• .• .,( : . >' ,,WIY J NN Y,`Twt I • • •V, •`' •, ,, • i t •a`t 'at ', 1 , t. I I I , I Nut Nu ••54 ., l.'•+, L./ I p 1� :ele' aN u.t iC5 , .>tp, Ii:• Ile I't� I a 1 • , YII • 5• . 1 I. I N .N 1 i , : f• ,' • ^ 1 r*,.2. {dry▪ ` i•• 1•' .Stir.,,; .1. • • 1.NI 1 . j40 dti'; ' r 'e10 , • .?' 'fir . ;, .,"' • 1 1 �, _ 4... • , "•1 is • V. 1 . 1 1 9 1 .r.. •• 1 . S., Y 1 • I • ./1/ y1 f • ell id I 1. R'. • t,.f 1 •,��',. I •.. ..f� , • ' ', '.4'y11 4 `t, • 1 I. I . f I M ..il ' 05 ,w'i' a•• .I,•»I 1 r 1 1• 1t LN ?Mi. 4, 1 .., , . . ' •, �♦ ,t111i.'C i i j 1_i`' 5 0 , a I 11.. y ~1." •\l� .,,t'4y+ ,p,, s-• d i 1 H Yn , ,.,, 1 , ,�. attl,t 16 1 1 1 . 1 . _ I I ,., .. • ,P,R ( its1 °L• k .+ "Y \Ito \ Lt.j. ...... ... t`� > • / QNM a1 7 i w L.. 1 1 .._J L »J L2 .t - A variance to let an already completed structure remain • closer than 5 feet from a property line is requested to . prevent unnecessary hardship involved in the demolition of an addition to a pre-existing structure. This request • will not be •injurious to the neighborhood and is not in conflict with the comprehensive plan. . PREVENTION OF UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP "' 1. Physical Circumstances and Background ,a. . • When application was made for a permit to remodel an existing !;• house it was approved on the basis that the addition could be added as long as it did not cause a non-compliance with set backs in excess of those that already existed. Since struc- tures existed that were already on the property line, then b the addition was believed to be well within those guidelines. In addition. a combination fence and tree separation between • existing building showed in excess of 4' from those dividers to each house. No survey was done. The pre-existing house and the new addition are no closer than 8' and 10' respectively to the adjoining house and again, a natural hedge and fence cuts approximately down the middle of M that separation. After the permit was granted a two story addition was added to the Southern end of the existing structure and a second story was added to a portion of the existing structure. An existing ". garage was expanded to the West and away from the property line in question. The addition increased the size of the house from 2,000 sq ft to 3,800 sq ft and is in keeping With new construction and ' additions that have been built within 300 feet of the house in the last 24 months. One being a new 4,658 sq ft dwelling and the other an addition that increased another home's square footage to 4,500 sq ft. 2. Hardship Not Created By Person Requesting Variance The existing building Was expanded along the property line so as to Maintain the same relationship with the property line as the existing house had. The planning department approved the ' plan and it was not until my neighbor notified the planning department that the department notified me that the previous ' planning director had been in error and that I would have to request a Variance for the addition I had already constructed. .. RECEIVED EXHIBIT • OU t 2 0 isoa G (has) CITY ci LAKE OSWEGO V. : �!y•8S 3 N GAT, OF PUBLIC WORKS -5D i..L i 3. The Economic Impact of Denial • It is estimated that the denial of this request would result in as much as a $40,000 cost to demolish five feet of the structure and redesign and rebuild so as to be functional. • (See attached letter from contractor) . IS REQUEST INJURIOUS TO NEIGHBORS OR NEIGHBORHOOD The remodeling and addition are entirely in keeping with the physical aspects of the neighborhood. The natural separation that exists between the two houses has all the appearances of • a normal 10' separation because of the physical separation and because of the hedge that has grown up over the years. . PERCEPTION OF NEIGHBORS Many of the neighbors have complimented me in the remodel that removed an eyesore from the neighborhood. The property owner who shares the property line in question has written a letter requesting that this request for variance be granted. He and I have entered into a lot line adjustment that places all dwellings in their own property. / CONCLUSIONS There are no conflicting interests involved in this request for , variance. The placement of the house in a post-t.ion to require a variance was a result of misinformation from the planning department. Because of the above facts, it is clearly in the interest of all to grant the variance. . d • 36 ' t I consent to an or.-site inspection by an employee of the City of Lake Oswego. Description of Property. Tax Map 2S- f✓ Tax Lots) 5700 \ Legal Description, Metes and Bounds LOt Tal.a t1i ai <1ti 1 1 as Address t of lot Lakeview Blvd. i, 0File No. Signature Signature Date II ‘ vim_ a Attach Owner List 1 ..1, 14/1w 04- r 010. 1 .0„,.. so,...c..,-,AAL,...;L.,,12115.4..Avro1/47. ThAA- entsr4N; „‘ urv61 RA,M.-. 0 . 1 a. 5,1114.10 • .. ,Q, I 1028P/8/83 -5- IXHllslf I D r. Ulf 3 fa - , r • ' ' September 20, 1985 1 1111 Mr. Bill Moore 50 SW Second Avenue, Suite 523 • Portland,OR 97204 Dear Bill: As per our conversation this morning I am proposing the following to resolve problems existing on the property boundrys between your property and Lakeview Blvd.and mine. 1. Remove windows on the south end of the east wall of your house and guarantee that they will not be re-established. 2. Guarantee no building will take place in the area south of the south face of your housa'bs it now exist. 3. I will trade the land that is currently under your garage expantion for a parcel of land that would be developed if a turning point be established about twenty feet north of the south east corner or the east property line and the east line re-established from that point to the south property line so that if the east line were to be extended south it would be tangent or common with the east wall of your existing boat house. 4. Guarantee that no window or visual penetration will be cut into the east wall of your existing or future boat house. 5. Devert storm Water occuring on your property from flowing on to my property. 6. Replace vegetation destroyed with like material both in size and randition. 7. Fill ditches and remove dirt piled against lumber in my side yard. • 8. I agree not to extend my house or garage beyond the current grandfathered status and or any closer than 5' where not grandfathered, to my western property line. IXHIBIT A 1 Page Two Mr. Bill Moore r'', All of the above conditions are tenative and subject to City's unconditional approval, that they (the above conditions) would not further compromise the future sale or development of my property. Please notify me if you have any misuderstandings on these points. . Sincerely, Hugh Mitchell . HM:gcp 1ZS-0rzz .,. . 63(ic� PI'of• , • r1 ,. , .,,k, , , • 39 i The Mitchell, Nelson Group 0-114 Incorporated October 22, 1985 Land Planning Landscape Architecture Urban Design Mr. Gary Miniszenski, Planner City of Lake Oswego Planning Department P.O.Box 369 Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034 Principals John A.Nelson pear Gary: 'fhomis E.Nelson Huh S.Mitchell Ted James Holden As per our conversation In your office this past Thursday, I would Robert Poster like to respond positively to Willard T. Moore's request for a variance at 3214 Lakeview Blvd, Lake Oswego. Also, in response to your request, I am enclosing a copy of a letter outlining mitigating conditions that I requested of Mr. Moore. These conditions have been accepted by Mr. Moore and I feel both parties (William T. Moore and myself) would be served by the execution of the enclosed conditions and the approval of the forementioned variance. 1 If I can further clarify or explain,do not hesitate to call. ry Sin _ , gh it HM:mjs cc: W.T. Moore A WA. 'I S.W.Mitts Street DE C E II d E D'urtlnn1,Oregon 47204 (5111)225.1I822 It,;Quul al Mu 04 OCT 23 1981 I', iSound se,,ttl PLANNING DEPT. Ittkky Atiiuulil4s Sall Like City Saullnni California Lonµ Reich 40 • litlige r _ I a RECEIVED . 1 #'T IC ' 00 2 b Iwp 1. 40��1�R�y� Iw 4.rY`(P� uu}ii V i October 24, 1985 . , Mr. Willard T. Moore 50 5. W. Second, 4523 Portland, Oregon 97204 Dear Mr. Moore: After reviewing the construction documents and visiting your house renovation project at 3214 Lakeview Blvd., I believe the following is required to meet existing zoning requirements of 5' setbacks. 1) Demolition - Remove the east walls, windows, floor framing, plumbing rough-in, electrical rough-in, and entire roof system over the new addition. This is a two story demolition project and it is impractical to believe significant materials will be salvaged from the operation. 4 It is necessary to remove the entire roof, as it is a thection ridgeof the shiftsspan of and thethe rafters, As changehe room narrows, length. Demolish 16' concrete foundation / Demolish approximately 20 sq. ft. of the corner of the new garage. Cost $ 6,500,00 2) Concrete - Set up and pour new foundation for east Wall. Cost $ 650.00 3) Framing and siding - reframe east walls, first and second floors, roof system. Cost $ 7,850.00 4) Re-rough in plumbing and electrical and kitchen Wall. Cost $ 2,200.00 5) Re-roof with shakes. 41 Cost $ loom() XNIl! 6) Refit gutters. G t P Cost POST orFcE11oX676 $ 450.00 1l h -r eJNEbEN9EAtN,MOON 911M 40 bl 1$ M1oNE 1o1 1M.1111 y i L.1!!!!!! . , Y Willard T. Moore 'Page 2 r 7) Rebuild corner of garage. Cost $ 2,000.00 ' Total cost $ 20,650.00 While this is all technically possible, I have serious questions about the use of the lower level as a kitchen/family room after • the space is narrowed by five feet. I believe this will require further remodeling of the dining room area to make the space µ• ' workable as a kitchen. The reworking would include an additional • 10 foot extension toward the lake to end up with the same number • of square feet of livable area. This extension plus the changes , . of windows on both floors and the moving of the bath tub would add at least another $14,000.00 to the above cost. • As I understand it, cabinets have been purchased for this kitchen area at a cost of $8,000.00. The kitchen redesign will ' probably preclude the use of these cabinets. With all this taken into consideration, the total estimated cost impact could be as high as $42,000.00. r, ,, ' If I can be of any further help to you on this project, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, a 1/ / Brian Keicher Project Manager, , Searidge Builders ' ' / . . j Paw onict box on 2 ' GUNMEN PEACH,OREOON 971eb PHONE SOO.7W•Ha • l m • t,--•,t,'"",„: • .'.• "••..;,1 ..!,,,•.•:,I".' f •• . •?'""ti..„1 . r„, "." I' ,P.,,i . '.. I' . L A..",,, •.0.'1 , ,/,..,,,,,N, A .", , ) , :, ,,- ,•••,,,-1 ,, " I, . i •' ' •'• "•,,,,,10'• ',4t•e'''," ,V',•31',•,..,•.4,,V,,.1.'te.e.V.C1'.!;:t„ 1/4,1. ',,,,1 A• ,i, t.,4`e,k.,4,,•',,e'14..... •.., .:./,,t,.. 't,i ,,,.i e , c, .<„ t-..„., /.1,). • \,,,„„,•*,, : ,., - i .'I 0 *•••4'••'`' • ' •''' • 4" 1 l'.'••,•''.4,;••• '1:I'',"' '•'1.".44.1,1 't?4,•••A,l1 '•••', k :".1.„,j.4/4:1544itA,z...1(::.•‘•• ...-•••11•;,,•4.t.41,•fk4'7..'.. ,,, • • .','`.+•'I-•'',,'4, ',/ .r. .'.:'0 til'",a,. arik4*.VAte,,.4 "Al =•$`'''irq 1 ‘\-• t-\ . .. - ....'.• ,,,, "04434 ',:,4145 ,.* e“ 4,),e...t .,,(.,b, 7 ,', , • , "--:" T':k lAtgrt't.'4Vt94.: ''Mtrii,"‘e6' .)I. ......, ",f" Iitt 0 .e,i.eciA -4.4 .k,,i .-.+Nr,. x,„,. „vv., $7,1',.•nt4ttf,%'.'-t,4. - ',4‘.*$:.,Nt,41,V '", ', IA •„_.,..i.,-,-1---are .4 ; ' '''ett',W0e1 le"'E:1 'oiy.,-7,- , :,,..,1 ‘740 '''‘rf ' •,t'" '$ 4 -, •15.44,4,44. tA,- ,• . $1.„.A. i, 6)ti,„p' ,...,.. 0 • lAW•I'Lkiii t'''' e ' , ' '4V 11 ' . ,• ' " ''. .. .-,) it.7-68D,d 0670 0 24Elal0RANDUM • '40.,,L•vihw,ee,-‘1. i . . IL. ik,.4' 0.;,•. )'' ' " ' ,, 4,'"' ,.0.--•-•. .. i„, . ,.,.. ', ....,t0L070 ,,, ' , ib,1","5. r 1`, ,',.7- -,', ike,I ,!,:ti1/4'' ')'.'4''.0-•C4'1_0.'4'*T'*' 1,,. -.1W+•.il'i.,4 et-1, ',, 'kl:LOrt! :'' , 4'i'043.rt, • - '4,, , (Ali i fki ti44, .0;, f'd e•,tiirt ''' 4,-,,,,,,,„ii. ., 1,0•401:,„,,,,..,. ,,,,,i,„;.;, ..,,,,f Fe ' ' ,toolk.5,--to, „,,,, '-'1 1 0 1 a WI I tt4.1F141%"44, l'iAt f''.k‘. .t a•,-,,t,. „3,4,4,4.t,Aii. 11,s-i,'-.; ,, . . Lad Ma t r an t on i o. A a t.11$1 • ,. -, 1'IA.14,Y#6„.11kt;i1 TIF 41i;,704.'et. fii,,,,1„.. ', , .• :,0-0 i FROM: Ron Bespflug, Building Oitictill tr,k• '1,'!4' , 1- '')?:'''',45etj,h'—rg.:tZ:,./V'et 1 y.t:,t. ,ty.ilit'itr 4A•'' •',..,4.'"1,,.';'''1 - .4- • :4. ' •,:' ,,til,AIN.-i,0444,N, - , • ,. t t 5118 114 , f,,. .44•MPP''• ',•iv,4ttl,e$' -1' '-"Ai 9.74"--4,. '''''''' '", '• ,1'i'...x• ,•-„'' SUBJECT: 3214 La kev i ew (Perla ,....v..:„ • !z.,,, ,i• , , ,,t,,roff,,,I,•,,,s.,,, 4,1,,,I)44,T •,et-, ,, L. Willard T. Moore '•,;„,,Altkilh,W,,, 0 1'4',4,,,'S',.9.0.i. tgii14, ", 'e , " '',,.0, ' ' '• 74,SeTttlkgii• ''l 4''`..e.4,93,- Iv:" / . September 17, 1985 DATE: • ••:,1,-.4, - ,i',!tt,z44 4 ; /01, gliriris. c ••114-,. ,,;•• ...- . . Perini t number 588-G4 subm I t led p I en" tot ."0,.t_i-.,Aa , -," 4 ,. ' 1,0*.',44,A.A`1,,k4.,4,20'44742„..' t„.e.t• ,, a ira Byer I*7 •.•° ..-nli ' ' . ' % 'i, 0.. I` N' t '' .',.',: -$ •". • 1 28 4 and we r it) theft TOY iewfbd by ,,,,,,,k,k - •• . 4 ( irk 5•t I, 4, 'i,i'\1 0''':',e'. Tidman for Planning and AI ox Arsentev to; tx...*Ja:0„4,,),4. - ,,,, " , .,,,,,,,f41._ ,•;',1?",4144,1e..1.pnil.,"1. ,e,....,,to, . , (attached) . ,.1:61,-‘..—4'•Ar. ,i6,441A 14,Iir•Ar4 .i.eilk; '4. • •• ; -,•,'' ,',', ;'•i t o r ev 1 se the i r p -3:',., ti ,, .rf ,4.4 ,,,,s, , „T.,40,1., # ,, et.. . , . ,, ) f...., ,,,‘• The owners then decided ';':,::,A„,::11.:);•_,:; z7 "7,:0,,,:.'"k' '.',:7:14-41/41t.':,,,,,),'11.,:.,: ' A , \ . .',::',q, ,,....;. .,,.„‘ ,, ...,4-41,1,st."Lvitelsi„?.:,21),,,4-411,A4,,t ‘ t,-1"1/4 k's'ir . • -•:i ''.'t '''.li, April pa. 1985, plan B was reviewed U0‘7.2''!"..,4C.,,r,,.,;74i,\.,0Will,,,sjy::-3,,,,,,,I.,.4.1,1. On Building avid Stan Tiernan for PI:inning w 101 ;t,-, , 'fr',..1%;.,;,•'";‘,., (attached). .. ir 4.?.., )' .1'...'' ',40. 04€6-.....?," t'-`r......,t',iiii • . ''' ' '3,44,,,t,,t4„ „-!:1,1i,....V% ..../.,:•,.t.4 ., ,, .-1, '.0 4,411',' ., 'f:,,,,,,, 4,,,. ,:-.... J.10..,..••-e-• ,..gk-6 t.,', , " ,,,,,, . 4 , ' . ----------- ,7'•%1,1,44,114 ti, rti t:t '''''.4 ' it, •.r''`,/ *1 ' . 4 --- i4e÷:',,,,tp. I. or4, ,e,si•, •4A,"•1'''' ‘,-44 • ' All portions of the building that a re le a t b".0 • 14;,,.1f.,., . ;lit property line ,tit now have to be pithl:$1.04C ci ittfI „ 1. - t.o.,h " ""'"',•-•-!.''L.,.'at well. No ope n i ng a a r e a I I owe , , ,...„,;4-,t-Pr.,v„. ,,,,,14,i441$ AtAf11,4,0 .,. jLaP-.1,i „.•,,t, , .":.,'", •,.,,,• f„,1 . i ",, '0"s ,', parapet wall will have to be censtroOtiou sL.•.0,,..,#",,,,,,.1,.,,,,,,Vi :1:,!,:tr ..,!..4,044.,:o, •. h,.;. ,„Iv; ,.,,, ,t1 ,,.. roof at the three foot line. ',10:),•••.. . . .,, ,,,,,,at,i,,"•4.1,1"%•kl.,ri;SA ,, .11:,,,.... )` -,P,o1:'1',"•,' . ,',•:•-, 't,J,•., ...,:,,,, R r.cand ENDAT ION I ",,,4 L.'f1/40 ,.4.i.• „gi,,,.... .-,, . , -,,r47 ot 4:‘,,'.i ,`.•‘41,t...."..,/,.. I.• A• ' ••e/Ak'r.• * e *Tel/ .. c• •4,'4, • er, 4% 44'tt'l ttil 0,":.- "i ',I.*. go* '1-le ". .io.44,04t IN'ial' • .,,.s. .# 1:t The bonen Is now framed to the inspection, I would suggest the pr'6).V, ,:1,,k,.!s4.117... 04,,,,i,/,44,01-a•,. i'r,.,,.=,., -ie. ' '..!;it.,,,f tv• '17‘,,c . se 1 ut I on can be wo r ked out on the ttottotc3 q•JC.'15,,,,Ay-$7:,,,I.R..0,A1- ...J4.10,... .;v1 I ..11., ot, :::jp,01 . ,, , ,, ''''',lal 411.0,f9:1' ..4••• g'';`` P.A. :«)7tf(4.- • '' • - .' , `,. , ,.c.t.,:ItAhylitler 4 .,-4.,.- „,•,...Likth. . , ..,„.:,:f ,W41572.: •., . cr-,c n,, 4. / .4,4` "1 -t-3 r , .t,rt.ovr ,1;: '1,,,, •4wftei-ezt r• ,i7y... ,,,,,iik4„;,.),,,,,,,, ..% • . ,. ' 1,1‘..'41'.''''''' "4.C.12• 71•Vri1/41.••. ...1,t• ,,,.••1,4 . /4' , 07.41 • ' ''* •:44•4444'At4fi.71,V.'74frit ' 1*13,10,....y44 ' ' . . .., i..., ,,,,,,,43r,.,,Lirto; ;•:i'4s4Phimtl':^qi't11.1aVtil'ig,i‘12.l.'-4-`1,4 .."'• 0c ' , 'I • Al •• ..1-4,AV.:,ttYsit r,,,t,;tA''',Weisli,$ Itt4'Vit''.1.1rntIt',1,1 AN7feit,,,k*ta,iit.Mlit;''',Pe• 1•4444144if.' .2.'", ,, ... , -,..,,,,,, 4i,Ii.;.t,,,,Z4( ,'„kt• :..1„ ..t , 1 ' •4 ,.- '7,,rAtffi,V.-"•••• ;''('-n-'"4.-W.,.1" '4100 lel ,,vrit.,44,J,t,,,Th''' ' i .-e • , '';t,,, ,'.,. v,,=%.,,v4;,•-,:fcAt.,41,.. k‘J-,&.4.;,-1, ,A,6 Ir„. .4„...... V'''‘,fr5,5v,,,,,,,,,,,,,e•iAr,,'1 Ert„1,-05,, „,,, : t . ''', :,,,SI,,,.. "1,:,..- V',i'•f4P4• , t';''A ` lb . i-I,-.j •• 4. .. A"' ' to...,4,‘i,i,Y, •. V'''' ,, ...,..1410.,„4.) i., et, R.,,.,. 1 , , • ,,,,:4- ...,,,. ,4 ii 4,,q, , W.,,N • V i • , ,•)• : ' , '.+./., -' •' .44.10.,,ti,''z .. r •A I / 1, \t.`, '';:tA*V44:-'1:131:1'1 ;;;174,g I • .,- ,/,, l'Aa .,,,,•,,%,'.,.,,_,‘„)f,,,,A;,v., ,‘, 1 *h*C..44,11..11 ' "'r`, 4, ,NA,,,, ,e;‘ -,. . .— ' , • / 4- ''U'41,T 1...; ; ',J,i7 .'''' :'''''•41' f,/ 11' ' ' e.' 44.1e"kt • ‘1.1 0 r.'' ,,'3.4r'.,:6 '1' ', ,:' ,44.**tS.Ze Z.ie,..‘ ', ' .4 • ''' ' 1 L • • ' '•,4, •• A .•''' '. • 01 ....,• '''‘,1, r'4`,..V 934.t•ff'•'1\,;(,, 1 1;„1"140, • f..A.,• VI'e-1 1•••.• ' :•kl? "I L• , I.' •,..., t ,,,1' ' •..:.":•"4, 1 0. ....tk'••, -.4": I., -,, r .,• ',....f 0,-,ft,AT.'..kcr.,., 4,, t'1/1:A 1/2,.'' 1 'f,.1.',,,..,-,,,.. .,„..,1 , , • .,, , t , ' •' '' j'•.1''A ' ' •T. “. .1 . '''' ,'...,''' ''' ' 1 ' '41'%..r'' ''..141.0.4 ''';'' it I••\'t .' ' i•-• ,•,--i;,t." 4 ,1 \II : '..\.1‘, 7 •'. . .V,. . . .•,t,'.0. INk% X%"' ,', .",' t ' ' 1 •0 %VAN I % e . ;..1, 1,,," ''.'0'i'0.'-‘. ,'.. , +AI , . ' „v'e•" , , ' t4 f , a ....Iti7 v uJ Q � 6. i 'l 'r Lli- 2 2 '' • i @^^Kj > a W f) l�\1 A°� Q ' mi `3'�r „1 �t E1 J, p?, Q yI ts. $4 �? • , Q ' r .. .1' ''1':.) 4-.ii, • , ., '',.\ rtl 84 4..2 ,71'` i _ . ,..12tG * 3 , 14 ,. - , , N- • t--I_ fl V2 Ili ,, C; 1 titI 11 - 0> r � ., / I 1 ..�� v3 ,/, ( . V C".611111:' .-.• .0- ' it es . z ' 1 , .:110 s N �� a\�� yl 1 's C ' \?%; --._-1 , 8 ro 4M 1w _ • t 5 i . 0: ?t O 'C• '�• ins ; tti '/ "tt . �� ' Ns N ,' �; . 140 4 4 ' ' PS erZ. V`->*15TJ1 , 6 2L I 1.7 , E , , , • ...„-, .„...„ ,--,,,,I,,- ,,, . .,,,-- Li :, ‹ y.,,,,,, 1 7...e..1.,?L. . \ , :I'''''...e''''.' 41 t.fi „c:-..--"',., •.-11 ' t:/_c",. $.c. , e-) Jay �1I S /, . ...,,� • t) 7r-% Q1�i • r J 1 ' • t` • I .f A 31..4 :::`--, '"---.... ... t® i r •• 1 . . . . \ I..; i ': ir) , ..q fli 1 --- .. N\ Gs7.t II . 4...,?<G; . • . c, . -1,4., f—st 7 .. _. ......%.) w •p V:M� Sri ,a.u i,' �, 1 I -..1 � ' , s .2 tli 5 is 4 ,f5'ZL il..i-tt N° • P . I I, . 1. c � J' / A. ` -�� ' S \ • l ii 4 ri! 1, ,. . r ' �, n /, i ;i ,' of It . , ' a / ,.. ' . t •.•at,.- Htlr �� L H ljSrL7:j4 t __ 1191WXi .. .. . .p .1 'l' t 0111A 'l 1 V . i; , 1t • , Amu, lei , ..:fic , exile .... ,,. : ..., .,...,..: ::;:iil 1' - .. I R .. ; • •a .. 1 1 r • drilatai A 4 ,d • • r • Ili • air ., • . . r w , r •. •• i 1, i. . tiii- .. i . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1I._ .i _) . . 4...4...1. .4 ' • . . . , v ..k.n . , ''''.7"'. Fit w i ...........t , ,S 7 .. • ; •.....^,.......'L n - i .. .,,'f•.ts '.G. Old ,, ,.�tlr,r • • 11'. 7. .,/t Nt . 0 .. -1 - . 2 _ ..• , • SQ1 t..lq CV, s" ' '� '' '`-« C.6-hh 'OVA . ,.. 1: ‘. .h. . .a 1161HX3 .. . . . .. ...„ ... ., . ,- . 1.;,pii,... ,..-:.... .. . . , • . , .. :. :„ . • . .,...., ts... i .. . .. ' . +'1 t '. 1 : . . • s . , Lh 11•7. �,�. I : t . . Vf.._ ' . . ' •N ' .” 1 0... • : t. \ .1 .. 1110 .•R•• 1 •4 • . }4 i , r. . ... / ,II• ' • 'i 1 Ir,. • it . - • a C, N I • • • • j• •ti • ••.:4 51..: it - ....A . I 'n L!y ISM rve, if,�rYgr Af J•' '•3 •• 1 • ;t ' 1 • \ 1 t ' 4 I ......7j1° Atti. ;,, i)3,;,. . .. ,,t,... 'It • ' ►. Lrr / h �: :v' 41 ''‘ g '.4. .• :.-1". A7 . / - . P• .1. . r V 1.J .• ° N • r N N N N " J 4-1 0 % ro N N • _ ....4 t, •- .fix:" /r 'j 1 1 0 NCI 0 l r N 0 1 • t / S Nil : ' 4 9 "I .014 y 1 Cy.yt . A:7'4- -„It.,44, 411., . tit (7 "VI .[..-.172:••••:.]: - ,_. • • The house faces north onto Lakeview Blvd. • , t 1 1';s , .,xi1.' I. q'.'•,:a. • ^ a O • , 4 , '. f • 4: * The location of two garages facing Lakeview Blvd. in relation 5 0 to the common property corner indicated by white stake in the foroiround. 4 r... RFV ' .r,� 11f' f ,t V V p Looking northerly with the common property line at the right edge of the structure, .si , ‘ ° ti . , t N.,. . . , ,c////(4 . i ,,, ' e- ' 1 . .„, • , ,„0 . . . . , , . . ........ • . k. • ., .,„ .... ., . ,. , , . ....... . ,., ., ,. , ,., . . . . . , , ,....-0 . ,....., , ---..,‘ ,.. , .._ , . . . .. 11001.11^ Wry �i Y i' /. ''' !I 1� y Looking northerly: encroachment into max Lot 5600 beriins at approximatPly tight edge of doorway. 5 1 R. , • I •r. , j1 ' • , , 1,1, 1 / , , • ao ) 1 1 +,,, ,' ` va R R • \, N \ • \•�, / 'c I, • rt1 • R ,; • 0 / /77 ' ;�1'h I 1V, • • -i rr- r r i- r r r r^ r r- - •r ,1.•-•r`"41101.4 3 al 5 a) Y ' 0 • - M • . •r1 • u A 0 • ry, rI ru r• • 0 r., tl I, III • ii II 1 r .1 • ry o. I: I I • w r) o V. �/ I N 7 b H - b o / ; itilia it al .11111111111111/ 52, • • 1, '' STAFF REPORT Li November 20, 1985 LL NO. VAR 49-85/VAR 52-85 APPLICANT James Morrow for Walter Plattner LOCATION 908 S. W. Comberland Place LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tax Lot 900 of Tax .Map 2 lE 3BD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to a front yard setback and the off-street parking requirements involving ngithein line construction of a two garage. The new earage but at another elevation, ` with existing driveway and existing g The proposed garage would encroach on the required front yard by 12 feet. If the garage is constructed, existing off-street parking on the subject site would partially be eliminated. CRITERIA AND STANDARDS LOC 48.215 R-7.5 Setback Requirements LOC 49.200 & 49.300 Development Code Procedures for Class II Variance LOC 49.500 - 49.510 Variances Applicable Development Code Standards: • ''' Site Circulation - DriveWays Parking ComprehensiVe Plan • potential Landslide Area Policies - General Policy Iy, pg. 27 ' EXISTING CONDITIONS As seen on Exhibit A, the subject site is approximately a 90' X 120' rectangular lot With 10,596 sq. ft. in an R-7.5 zone. The site has been improved with an existing residence some 33' back from the front ' property line. A 15' Wide driveway with a grade as steep as 27%+ presently serves the garage Which is part of the existing house with a floor elevation of approximately 100' . As seen on Exhibit A, the grade at the site changes from 88.82' from the street right-of-Way line to 100' at the existing garage floor level within a run of 53' . The average slope is 20% but as seen on the profile, 5' from road edge (89.5' ) to 10' from the front of the existing garage (99.19') constitutes a 24% slope. • 53 4 • Staff Report/VAR 49-85 November 18, 1985 Page 2 Cumberland Place has a 60' right-of-way with a 13' roadway. There is 20' of road shoulder from edge of pavement to the front property lihe. The total distance from the edge of pavement to the front building line of the existing dwelling is 53' . APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The site does not include any significant historical resources, stream corridors, wetlands or floodplains. The site does not have weak foundation soils. The applicant is presently not considering the construction of additional fencing on the site. The site is located in an area identified in the Comprehensive Plan as having potential for landslide hazard. Review of the proposed garage and , new driveway construction for compliance with drainage, utilities, ' and Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code will be done when the applicant applies for a building permit. COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ' A garage is an accessory to the primary use allowed in an R-7.5 Plan district which is a single family residential structure. Regarding General Policy IV (Potential Land Slide), all cuts and fill Will be reviewed by the Building Department for compliance with Chapter 70 of ' the Uniform Building Code. • DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS The project involves the construction of a new garage in front of and 10' below the eXisting residence that includes a garage With a floor level of 100' . Because of the level of the existing garage and Cumberland Lane, the present driveway slope is extremely steep. To alleviate the slope problem, the new garage Would have to be much lower and would encroach unto the front yard setback by 12 feet. The roof of the new garage Would be used as a terrace. The depth of the parking area would be reduced by 24' leaving only H' from the property line to the front of the new garage door. However, there would be more than 25' of depth for parking if a car was allowed to hang over the right-of-Way line. That could be possible because the edge of the pavement is 20' from the front property line allowing some 25' of parking depth. EXtensive street Widening of Cumberland Place Would not be likely because it is a cul-de-sac. The applicant has addressed the following Variance criteria regarding the garage encroachment and offstreet parking (EXhibit D) . , 1. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship. 2. Development consistent with the request will not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located. 3. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the property. JAI • Staff Report/VAR 49-85 November 18, 1985 Page 3 4. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the proposed front yard setback and offstreet parking standards. A. EXHIBITS r A Site Plan B Tax Map C1 Construction Plan Elevation (Front - North) • • C2 Construction Plan Elevation (Side - East) C3 Driveway Grade Differences & New Garage Section D Applicant's Narrative d 3510/GSRM/man L tI i AFFIDAVIT STATE OF OREGON ) Counties of Clackamas, ) SS Multnomah & Washington) being first duly sworn, Ir Mar and ksn ' on oath aepose and say that I am the secretary of the Planning Department of the City of Lake Oswego, Oregon, a municipal corporation, and that on behalf of said City, I posted copies c of the following public hearing notice: VAR 44-R5/SD 11-85 I posted said copies of said public hearing notice on 1985 in the 1 o4-h dayeof toTwit ryher — - the following p • One on the bulletin board of the city Hall of the City i of Lake Oswego, Oregon. m ' One on the bulletin board of the Police Station of the • City of Lake Oswego, Oregon. one on the bulletin board of the Library of the City of Lake OsWego, oregon. All were posted face outward in plain view of the public. • r A ecr tary--1""� an i g Depar men • 1 4 , 1. i. I 1104P/2/83 56 r . 41 t - AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING r 4 STATE OF OREGON ) SS County of Clackamas i. • I. Marian Stulken , being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the secretary of the Planning Department of the City of Lake Oswego, Oregon, a municipal corporation, and that on November 21, 1985 , I caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the attached list a notice of public hearing on December 2, 1985 , a copy of . which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. ,, I further state that said notices Were enclosed in envelope , • plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office at Lake Oswego, Oregon with postage prepaid thereon: /� - lid-r-�' lelet, . . P anning Departmen Secretary i File No.: VM AA-aq/Sn 31-85 11021r/3/U3 • %' 57 - , , k - , ,,, .: ‘4". • . -. ., • ,..,.., .,..t,,...:,'.•..4,',°,4„ . , • . , 1 •, '4'' °,-.• ••'''''''"''''•'•-•' '4', (- ,,,,, ,, • , , , els,,,,_,, , ' • • - - ., .,, ,,•'•...., '44c..P.,.- .-4,"4.•-;,t ,,, ,.:-.4'06''Zi,•*,','%,w,,ir.tlYA,'. -(‘'''....• • — '-''• •'•••••'• '' ' ' -7v,t., ,•.,::: - , . ' - • '',';..•• - ' iti 411,..i.'14'.4.040.104„,41p.,-Aft-27,44:-''''?4 'On.y.f.h4k4 f . ' '' „.• ,i••,-1.,,,. •.• •,, ...,:•.,/ - •--- -.\-. •,'.‘,..:„.,,:t1,.4,..- oe•,-0,,,,,',.. •%:.,‘„.-..,0^•• - . .;....,„.11, •.).J.,4,,,,.., ,..., , . 4 wr, 44,4 ,w.,,,,,r,t, 4.7,., ,,,. : • . Aqr 4".„..h•,k. ' .64%A... ro:..;r. ,',. ' 1 ' .,,,,,,•!,:,-' ,,gp..I,I -12pi,i,z....4r..u.,,, „t„,.)42: 4.Arii, -, ri. • -74, ti- ,e.• ii,:ils..,:, • • 1 1.I-3 im, o li.•c , Vt ,dtl• , I • ''.'1, --kk.,014, ,.•,-, 't,',,) ' . • ,,:,,,,, •,:,,,,,,, .4„.„,,4,- , 11.11 :44 C4 .;"' , ' — a ivy- 4-2 -I ... •„,r1:-.) ,,-, ,..., , ,,,,,,,,i,„?.c,,p. 4,4, '1•,.....11 A,C.a ',. rAN' "Vt.'''t,.'" ___. -'-'1f,ig'',P...-.•J,.; NwrA vi,;E:0- mr„,,... .4;y:fi -.1...„,. ., - , , ,f i.,..„...1 e:, ,ir?c/s '%, ..-- -(.1 4-.fi ' `wt:0,411i'.:',,i1.4,,,r 'l. )-.4-'''''r t°,,k't pi tA,...17-1,' • . y')r--1? 1C-.'•j ,,6, ''')44401.1,'Pf:1; --, -` 't,i, 3,,.A1' ''''l ill 4.4.f,,',.: .... . .._.- — '4...' P‘,/^,P IP\i;IfC.414V0 ., -'•'V,,,:t. .!6. . , M, A•.i2g-1.at,t.—I s o...c.-.ici.edtte.IIk _..•,••. )ec/r- - ,p:, "'''':'":"::'Kri'i!' -'„10,,.., ,,0,, V4' l,,„'n„')-,v,,0;*/„'3,,,.,.,.t74f..ntt,1'lVe-.A.ii-i...'v..i%V4.4i4,,i,i4.•,,-,N,,'.414,. 1,r rIr"'t,.v,;4Ii,,ig`t,- 4 1 v1 — L 4°dalf f.kzi.ti.,.-r4.4l=r',1..%7i.-i1,..-7.,i,,i.;'';%,'g.`,1•:,.',',:'4,,I'' .;,6''•, .•7,• • ', • rii4;r ,:.KI/Je•fieor..cf* *e'.4 %.0'1' '• - -4''''' , IK00..T4,•,,4cgt,,10111. -riltctiOte •.* ° '' 1 • 4,. -1..G.. ., , , " ,.- 2ra 1•+- 44.,.'1 + k 41 ,•;1.,,,L- ,4AW1 V;'-4... . , I .1 ,i1-0,,,,,,w,. -,, -----,,:v.,41.,,,F74 ,...:.• . -ei .... ...- ----• • , ,),) x ., , ;_., ....,,,,,,, ,,, ...t7 ,,...,,,,,,„iir...,,„•1 ,'?, , — • Ifi' kl, ;L'' ., ,..„„,:y kr,A,r4 ,6 kr ,,,.,,..cor,•4',154,,,44,,• 1, \ ', ,r.rpl.... •=ts, VII'. , .,,Z A# , • ei . •# "‘',•% i", ', • C3•1"2F FT-1 1 . ‘,.!"3 T4t ._ .-_, ,_.,..A....‘„,„• -,r,---, 4, , ,..4., ,,I.. ,.'t't„.4 •.,-,kz-ist,4'••• , ',.,..,,-,,r. Itittio'X',V,0s.4.T4'.••'''p'''''°••- " . .. v .*cs- ••°,‘,41 : I , fl.,4,.• ,, )4..NFri.c,t0,41,0 .,11-ii4:•7 , iy, , . • , t ,roit.ev 1. :%-n ,,,...t•ttr.lit ,,orku.i,,,r,'• A m1'4) 4 q'' ''' '1.1;''i'4.7 ..'1 1 i:: '''''.v'',',A'...• . 'pift14.'i•t,-, lit 1"3,'"." . - .7,..4 (. 5,L,001 + 'eN7/9 ..* -i '..211•4C...1 TS-.2". :9'.." '' ' •,' ..'it, ,tt.r , ly"$‘ ly'4,-4M"1,;„'4*-7;:r, ,.. ,.. , , ,„ . , .4,..„ , 1 -...v.64, tr 4, , '. , • • • . . ...•,. 'I -rl.'b . '';'!Ail.' t; • .. ..,.... ,,,:t.,:. ,./ (I, .i.,,,-11 i , -... .. .............::: a_te,s.N. . ''''' '',..-,,,,,,,%•.,,,,•'''1:;!il '4,1944g:Alk , ILI:tir,,,Icr1;i1.rlibi:rve','"X''''''74('°%„%z', i: ' ' '' •' li . , A.- . -.- ,,,,,, . ,, 1'01'4).,- 1`..'‘i" '''.i•'44 .,,P,1.4igil ti ' I.4 ;•-,,,go-,,„ ,i0,04,-WiL .,,e,t, „' $i.•«4,79141 4 ,', ,•t'i• . • 1 4 "--:' l'''i••...""31.''/.N.ji,,, v., , ..77.* ,,..p •ilz•?kti,A'%.1tTir- .".1;.,k. - • 111 ,•1,,.4. ...4N,•• .3Y.t• '1'.' '(4'111',7,•4-1„:.0,1,4',,„54.'ki '`iit,A'Ji''. • ''.,i'..AO •4• A .1-4.0'44s,•31)11`4':'14,i! r . . 41 8' tl.:,4,jiair.:„c4,,:r Ni ''','..f44414..4.:ktk•p', '-'",rAi: '",,N01,1*-A 11 ". :r ' ... , . , il ..-1 I lift ,,'' ..'"' .6','VjC';',:",,Iirfi,,,,-1,:::IP,,?,,,,,..',14k4..,10:‘,'.','X'15,;;Vel.,,it. *tfi'Vi.„,:ic,,sitkil?...,:;,?,;it,?,,,'-(4.074•4i.,?,111‘4,4;',..,,,,,N.,‘...i , )41 o' lit,.-:.•,,' ..;..44,,i,.:;„,r,. V.J.7.,,,,..,,,;,,,,,,,4,42.*%.,.:4,,g.i k••1,641,:ttWikitit*Ta. • . . 4 i "- ,, , ••..,,,,:0,,,.:!.ct,,r,,,,,g1,,,ht 1'1;,/,,,,'Nt.'..;F:Mill,',14 , ,..•:,,".c4A.',:;ktili,44,grA-'1. ' . - 11. 1 '..' rtki'''.. g114.1),irk i...'t:Vt'l •4't,r'iNg,k,14f rAtA •".'',i j'''''' ,i,._.,h'!k;-$'':,••0.1,)A.00614AMI.,,,''')n;ribl*.k..‘''..'.. T)-A.,0'"Ilk ' 1.•. , ... _ . ,i. 11,'-iitt‘tp,A1,t,„;:'‘otlIkl, ,c,;?...'",5,!,,,4.,‘ 1..,,,..4.14;k,;,/..„„,,,,,,,;roskt(ri.l• . l'' ,,i,. 4..„,,,,•,, t.i.44, ...,,,„ ,I.,,,„„,,fr,, 7,,,,,,4,,,,, a tr's71,6'; ' ,---.(014R,,,VA i,,, ''',0)%•4v4V,rflait'ifiv61.,rit,l'ilniVt")..ki.'''-k,Arrt,kik;c0A ,. ,..,;,'",.." . ,;,:$,:z.,k,•••; '.''-4.4 ,-.4:,,fii,'§',•%.`'..ort-i'.•;4- . ,-'''.,,,,..4,ve.`. ii.t• ' . ' '.". gt•A-:•'../v4i4gia'.:',k•-°"*.•7, - 1 i.60.9-4.••.1.:, 'r - ,7- ,,,.. ri,.;4:: .,, .44'''''%1•TI',0 ,''f:,'"'4'H--••; A','.; .i'1•'• ,‘ :' ' :,.. ':).'•,,'' ,- - ,P;elklilit:A111;;.'V-4.kl%. 1!';:iiti,9404.40 2 ., - i':',11',;'1" ' , ::3 '''' '''?:.-,?' :'1•,.Vii ..f.tt,'iOV'q.1'0';',.`"It",f-. ' tq' 4;';') 4' , 0,,, !,.,, ,',of.,..i...,4 ru,'„'!)i...,4.0,401`•F'-' q.,,ist,N• i' itsi l'',", ko'V,',.0.1.4 "-,.Vd_..',.....‘':',, ' ,m t•':'..f it ‘''.r---;..)•,: . AWN: e.).i, .444_,,t., ,,• • . -•)q, ..,.e._„,•,:;.,14..,.,,o.,,,,,,,,..,w,,,,,,,,..„,t,irk v.. ,,,x,k,,, ., ,,, ''''lek'Ci lithlr7A0s:43.1,1'1,,, 014,1,,,,I.Sst -.• ,.. ,. „,., ,..,,,, . , ''iy'' ••'"'s ''• 4.144?‘•:.‘,.JAA 1 .\ i';,'-, , '''..,';-. :',• a •• , ii•'it(*(ti,k::'1,':i•P'%,,••,;V•64':'''''. ' ''''. '''''''''''''''''. ''. ' ' ,... . , . • . . . . . . . • ~,,,, k 5% 1,: '1..;;(31.4'1 ,k.' F• M , • 1701 �� /so',w� Y. n 9Q�o gsFMr„r, •• /,` \ \ '. 80.-(N‘s.1, ,_ -.... a F A _. , . .P. r,, , —,v." Y.) i ,_<" /,' "'Co . a \ ,, 54,401' ,.,,. , ,i ; •. e 0 �� too". \ A • ^ R r V , `;9 /Op" v - p 0- 0 , ti�/>(• 4 ? elV W < 291 •�,a `7 �y 4600 'G/�. ''a l 4. 1 c 0 \/ + 70 1440 2 �... 0 93 . I 1 3 .,r �, ; 64o p 6500 s60 , h+' N A Q; 6/ i_ ;1 II al .� 3 ``\\ 49pp ,• e • __.._ 62r`0- --- `r1� AVENUE ,. 16 73 00 •y• I6IUCt ^l7', 1« I l,s000 lb W o ?00' �.�1 in I.6900 2��' Ct M EXHIBIT IP 5ri;rsz-as . • . , � . ' � . � . � . . � T . ` ` . H \ . ' \ � �� . .. F� -__- . \ ' ` . \ � ' \ ! . \ ' p:u."rz �~ \ HISIT ^ . . ~ , . . . =' ,]rL � ^ � . 6 | � . ' - ' , . n / c i . l E. 1 4-, Ftty m Ni I PI�, � i 4/4 K V y us v • / 4 7w f11 A 1 ,'''." r ,,,,\..1......,,,,,,:- ....... 4b1 4 • , 71 .Ft-j. ! rw ) L11 : . ;.1 7 ,I i _�_ IlI . .f...... .........1! �. h 1 0 i ct 7. I' l it i ,.1 1 `, , st y - z • - z9 f 0 a,—.7,_.. o , jL • , , , 1 , �� h , . .,Ali .,...: _I, 1__ I , / .i.z..s,, ,,._ . . . . , v. 4, , / A._ 1 . .,...f . . . , liy. \ 1.1 „,... . . • I/1HX8 i I-• '•� N t 0/ { r. r i 1 , 1 I r l I , a � I ' W � I P w ' . • �, ; n I Q1 I- 1 rr lt `� , i t . , J t 1 . -01 1 , C r —,--I �.L , :_ - .:., _... I ,y tii I/ . . A n 1U / ' N. ' a > '� }. I- 1-- 0 I �Li! • V/ , t -4' t42.- , - eJ] I o ilI i i• - • I WA'TIVR * :LABS II VARIAI'CC RLQ EST description: The variance requested involves a proposed ',. two-car garage located in the front yard of an existing residence. The proposed garage floor level would be approx- imately ten (10) feet below the present garage floor level.. ,w The new garage would project approximately twelve (12) feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback. The roof of the garage would be developed as a terrace which would be S ... ate or below the existing adjacent grades.. Development Standards: a. Variance is necessary in order to replace existingthe garage and driveway as the grade of the. driveway steep (27,;+-) that the garage is inaccessable in snow or icing weather. During normal times the owner employs wheel.-blocks as a safety measure for parked vehicles. Parking on the front yardet is not commencesp4stob5e as the feet in frompthe rising to to the edge of the street paving.. The driveway was. constructed at the time a residencee was,.which was prior to the time the app. property. Automobiles parked on roadways are subject to the ravages ownerstautomobilesa osexposuresythat areddetrimental.ct the . . } b. )evelopment 'pf the requested variance would not be . injurious to the neighborhood as the structure would be recess- ed into the ground with only the north (garage door) end, and the terrace railing viable from the street..side. Visable intact would be minimal and no additional noise or traffic would be generated. Drainage and earth retention considerations are to be , addressed inthe design of the garage and retaining walls. c. The request is miniLum in that the 24 foot garage dimen- sion from the front of the house would permit some latitude in dintienional requirements for off-set away from the present hcuse foundation. U. No changes in land V.se or zoning are requested. i EXHIBIT VA K41 t 524 6 3 , . STAFF REPORT December 4, 1985 LE NO. DR 21-85/VAR 54-85 APPLICANT'S Terry and Lucy Prince LOCATION 755 5th Street • : LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tax Lot 8900 of Tax Map 2 lE 3DB NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION First Addition REQUEST i The applicant is requesting approval LS construct a secondary • dwelling unit on a 6000 sq. ft. parcel in an R-7.5 zone. , Additionally, the applicants have also requested a Class II Variance to the Transit Standard. CRITERIA AND STANDARDS LOC 48.547 Specific Standards for Secondary Dwelling Unit LOC 48.195 - 48.220 R-7.5 Zone Description LOC 49.200 Minor Development Application LOC 49.300 - 49.335 Major Development Procedures LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval • . fPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Building Design Drainage for Major Development , Street Lights Utilities Transit Access • Parking and Loading Site Circulation - Private Parking and Open Space Streets/Driveways Fence EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is designated R-7.5 by the Comprehensive Plan and is currently zoned R-7.5. The 6000 sq, ft, parcel lies betWeen 5th Street and an improved alley. it contains a single family residence, Single family dwellings are located on abutting lots to the north and south as well as to the West across 5th Street, The Lake Oswego Library And parking area are located directly across the alley to the east from this parcel. There is an American chesnUt tree approximately 36" - 40" in diameter in the front yard of the existing single family residence on 5th ' • 64 I Staff Report/DR 21-85/VAR 54-85 . December 4, 1985 Page 2 Street. One other small holly tree is also located in the front yard . , of the existing structure. A 6' wooden fence follows the southern property line from 5th Street to the alley and then follows the z eastern property line along the alley to the northern pi,.,perty line. A 4' wire fence follows the northern property line from the alley approximately 60' and then turns into the existing residential structure. Fifth Street is approximately 14' - 15' of pavement in a 60' right-of-way. The alley is improved with approximately 20' of pavement with curbs. PROPOSAL • The applicants are requesting approval to construct an 800 sq. ft. secondary dwelling unit above a new two car garage and storage a structure. Additionally, the applicants are also requesting to vary the Transit Standard requirement to provide a hard surface pedestrian pathway to the nearest bus stop. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS r • A secondary dwelling unit may be allowed in conjunction with a single family dwelling when the following specific standards (LOC 48.547) are met: ' 1. The site is large enough to allow one off-street F: o parking space for the secondary unit in addition to the required parking for the primary unit. The proposal meets this standard (Exhibit A) . 2. Public services are available to serve both dWelling units. • Sanitary sewer is available in the alley. The secondary dwelling unit may "Y" into existing house service or tap the main directly. Water is also available to the secondary dwelling unit, Separate water meters are required by City Development Standards. 36 The number of occupants is limited to no more than two persons in the secondary unit. The proposal does not address this standard, It can be met, however, by requiring a deed restriction specttying this requirement be added to the title instrument. ' • 66 r • . Staff Report/DR 21-85/VAR 54-85 ' - December 4, 1985 Page 3 . 4. The unit does not exceed one bedroom and an area of 800 sq. Et., or a total FAR of 0.4 for all ri 1- buildings. No more than one additional unit is 1 allowed. 4 The proposed secondary dwelling Unit is designed to have one bedroom with an area of approximately 792 sq. ft. NOTE: I LOC 49.015(8) defines dwelling unit as: "One or more habitable rooms which are occupied or which are intended or designed to be occupied by one family with I housekeeping facilities for living, sleeping, sanitary facilities, cooking and eating." By definition, the area of the garage and storage below the secondary unit is not included in this 800 sq, ft. area calculation. 5. The unit is in conformance With the site development requirements of the underlying zone and LOC Chapter I 1 45. The proposal is in conformance with the R-7.5 Site development requirements including the lot coverage . requirement of 35% for an interior lot. NOTE: LOC 46.015(31) definition of lot Coverage inclUdes the area of all buildings, including garages. Lot Coverage Calculation Building No. 1 (Primary Dwelling) Bldg. Area = 918 sq. ft. ) Building No. 2(Secondary Dwelling) Bldg. Area = 792 Sq. ft. ` Total Building Area = 1710 sq. ft. ( Gross Site Ares = 6000 sq. ft. 'Wilding area Gross Site Area = Y. 9e J 1710 ; 6000 = 221 Ii65 ,1 1 x 1 ' Staff Report/DR 21-85/VAR 54-85 December 4, 1985 x Page 4 LOC 45 (Building Code) requirements will be n addressed during plan review by the City's Inspection Services Division. • ' 6. The following minimum area standards shall be met 1 person - 250 sq. ft./2 persons - 500 sq. ft. • The proposal meets this standard. . r• 7. One Unit shall be occupied by the property owner. The proposal does not address this standard. It can be met, however, by requiring a deed restriction , specifying this requirement be added to the title instrument. . 8. The Development Review Board may impose conditions . regarding height modifications, landscaping, buffering and orientation of the secondary dwelling unit to protect the privacy of the neighbors. Two street trees should be planted near the alley; one on each side of the property. The street trees • should match those planted at the City Library. APPLICABt. DSVNLOPMFNT STANDARDS The site does not int:lUde any Historic Resources, Floodplains, ' Wetlands, Hillside Protection/Erosion Control, Weak Foundation Soils, Stream Corridors or slopes over 25%. . • Building Design (2.005) - This standard specifies that a proposed structure is to be complementary in appearance 1 to adjacent structures (i.e., materials, setbacks, height, etc. ). The proposed development is a two-story structure with a • • • gabled roof at a 4/12 pitch. The applicant has not • provided the staff With exact siding choice or roof . • material but has stated Verbally his intention to keep • its appearance similar to the existing house, The . applicant Will need to provide the staff with specific ; material choices prior to building plan review to ensure its compatibility With the existing structures. ' . '4 Street Lights (5.005) - See Utilities Standard. . Utilities (14,005) - This Standard applies to all /° development requiring connection to utilities, Utilities (i.e., sanitary SeWer, water distribution, r(} sidewalks, street lights, streets, etc.), Whether y 6 ? • V . Staff Report/DR 21-85/VAR 54-85 December 4, 1985 Page 5 on/off-site, are to be provided to all development. Utilities are to be installed underground unless exempted by the City Manager. The cost of all .., utility improvements are to be paid by the developer. City services are available to serve the .. site. The nearest street light is at the intersection of 5th and "E". Transit (6.005) - A hard surface pedestrian path is required to connect the proposed development to the nearest bus stop. The nearest Tri-Met bus stop is located on 4th Street between "A" and "B" Avenues , ' (approximately 2-1/2 - 3 blocks from the proposed _ development) . Exhibit G outlines the applicant's ' • response to and justification for a variance. The • criteria for authorizing a variance are cited in LOC 49.500. a. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary economic hardship as the nearest bus stop is approximately 2-1/2 to 3 blocks from the property; further, there are practical difficulties involved in addition to the cost ) in constructing a pathway such a long way I between the development and the transit stop. b. Development consistent with the request will , , not be injurious to the neighborhood. No sidewalks currently eXist in the vicinity of the site to link the proposed development to the bus stop On 4th Street. Should the variance request be denied, the placement of the path would be different from the existing character of the neighborhood. By not constructing a path, no negative physical impacts such as visual, noise, traffic or increased potential for drainage, erosion or , landslide hazards Will result. . c. The request is the minimum Variance necessary to make reasonable use of the property. If the request for the variance Was denied, the ' economic impact of the construction of the path would significantly increase the overall cost of the proposed development, Such an increase would possibly make the feasibility of the development in doubt. 65 , ; Staff Report/DR 21-85/VAR 54-85 December 4, 1985 Page 6 A single family residence already exists on the site and the surrounding area is typically single family residences, with no other secondary dwelling units. However, a secondary dwelling unit is a permitted use in this residential zone if certain specific standards are met (LOC 48.547). d. The request is not in conflict with the \ Comprehensive Plan. Should the request be denied, the overall cost of this development (including the construction of the path) would threaten the economic feasibility of building the secondary dwelling unit. Therefore, the request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan as the Plan encourages providing a full range of affordable, smaller housing types which will help to diversify the City's population. • NOTE: An amendment to the Transit Standard 77(705 - 6.040) to modify the requirement that major development always provide a pathway to the nearest transit stop is currently under consideration by the Planning Commission. 4 Parking and Loading (7.005) - This standard is applicable to all development Which generates a parking need. An off-street parking area for two vehicles 1 (excluding a garage) is required for single family residential development. One off-street parking area is required for a secondary dwelling unit. Exhibit A shoWs the location of the three required parking spaces. The Traffic Coordinator has stated no adverse traffic impact is anticipated with this configuration although 10' sight distance clearance at edge of driveway is required. The proposal complies with this standard, Park and Open Space (8,005) - All major residential development must provide park or open space at 20% of the gross site area. This proposal has the area to accommodate this requirement, The total percentage of the building footprint and paved areas is 44%, therefore leaving 56% for open space and landscaping. Pence (10.005)/Vision Clearance (48,530) - No fence may exceed 6' in height in residential zones. The maximum height of a fence in n front or sideyned forward of the front building line nny not uxnnutl 48' in height. 69 • • Staff Report/DR 21-85/VAR 54-85 December 4, 1985 . li Page 7 ' 1 An existing fence in the eastern portion of the parcel .. near the alley would need to be moved out of the 10' sight distance clearance for the driveway. . Drainage for Major Development (11.005) - Application of a this standard is to insure any alterations of drainage patterns, due to development, do not adversely affect r other properties. The applicant will need to connect rain drains to existing City storm lines. Driveway . areas can drain to the alley where adequate storm drains .. ' . exist and no additional drainage management measures are • ti/ required. �' Access (18.005) - This standard is applied to major development and all partitions. The lot has 50' frontage on 5th Street and meets this standard. V ' Site Circulation - Private Streets and Driveways, (19.005) - This standard applies to all major development. The proposal illustrates a 36' wide driveway width at the property line. Unless otherwise approved by the City Manager, the maximum width of a i residential driveway measured at the property line is to be a maximum of 1/2 of the lot's frontage but not to exceed 24' . ' A 1CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The request is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan outlined in ' the Residential Land Use Policy Element. The Plan encourages providing the community With a full range of affordable, smaller housing types Which will help to diversify the City's population. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the following conditions: 1. Deed restrictions be added to the title instrument Which reference City of Lake Oswego Planning File No. DR 21-85 and: a. Limit the number of occupants of the secondary dwelling unit to no more than two persons. • b. Require that one unit shall be occupied by the property owner. 'I . 2. Evidence of the city Planning Department file , reference number and deed restrictions on the title . I instrument must be provided to the city planning "t 70 • • s• Staff Report/DR 21-85/VAR 54-85 • • December 4, 1985 Page 8 ' Department. No building permit will be issued until �. this evidence is provided. 3. The property's driveway be designed to conform with the Site Circulation - Driveway Standard. 4. Street trees, to match those planted at the City Library be placed on both sides of the applicant's parcel next to the alley. • 5. The applicant must provide information on specific material choices which demonstrate compliance with the Building Design Standard prior to building plan • review. • • EXHIBITS A Site Plan B Building Plan C Proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit/Garage D Elevations of Structure Vicinity Map E Tax Map G Applicant's Justification for Variance to Transit s, Standard 3541P/RD/mas 71 ' p y i"tibrC R4 4� 1 i1Y r, IYetY ... 'arltd .if 'Y A h _,e....«...,..-._�.k»,�.. *�^Y�tr .\YEry i;., - '� ✓4{q+t11• `R':�iVi �y�tr1 j' r ! /r-f S f' i �� ,, • 41 7�J j` /,I ..�. r ::y .,.!. • fi/y)( hvr— food • x Lot .�'94D !4x A., r `o(„1 ..•,.._t 1 y( �v c FF/.. � r • , I 3cas r rtinl'USF 17 , 1 1 I SEcuNJ7NX Y ix I, 7,. • F' 'Dog ki.in/Cr —1' • f i K i Pr+c:ti 1• 'ri 1�K `" 1 . q/_ . q3 J RECEIVED ;,, , , `4 OGIY5,i985 i 1 CITY OF LAKIE USWEGO i I / i t / DEPTH Of PU514C WORKS 2:/I h'. ev,z;k4 t,6#N PO C3' / ,:. A 1,1*0 y • d IXHIBIT A , 1r, ,. Qu , 72 • . Y -`+A-Zb® „ d191HX� r• _ ..__.�. .. _.,.__.._.___.....:.. ,� ..... 2=:.�--.._ ,. ., Pam°+ rNI- r �! 73 t-- IT • r� C. 5) w q �� ^ c I i rl �. �' �' 11 151 _ ��� 1 it e T.' If'lI rl e I �` ra .9 V ms. „ N I f N --_� ,i �� a ' "1"- 9.� SI �,J ti• it 4: ''' r . .,. ,. _:.7.4 h I h t I i. f .i.._..,� a ion ,g Ur A'0 +ter y�r.w " t •-j +7.-- -. .._..,... —._....,. :.�irc,.e!T.rw.. =..., .. e'.."e.:w_ ti:.tt'.1:??"'.. j.L'S:�LI „!'..,' • I I 11 1 e^ n 1. ,,• r .« • " i I , r ' L Q t 1191HX3 i r.. _ It..9 1..--..........] �1 i, =` T eras, • _W I •. Jr. a i k, Ur 1E- . .. . , , , :,,,.., , , y O, •.‘ . yi t ni , i 1I i . _ .., _.... . . . •_. , ... • WIC :.. , . .,. ,. r------1 , , , , 1 i 1 , . e , , i-1-1 ' '. • n1. It n ., .„• Y +' p r ° r�t p1 y I 11 a 4 .;,1 I I i y 1�.� Ih', , 1 N V 1 '1. M' K 4 0 N • n 1 b i' "li• w t �• * �. sir �' ° G " � fi w ti ` T — 1 ' .a• rii, ..� I Y. .... I k�r I• 1 * y ,,,,::: ttl: il .Lr.. l e . SAC Y. ELEVA1IOf� t ‘F , ' a . r ♦ r 1 '^R l r h .r. ,fie i.1 fi IL • 1 1 ,,. . ....., , EXHIBIT , I -II R E ETV �° :„ 1 Itr�a1 4)10E +'a . r OCT 25 1'� �. l) Ay 4 I 4 #, 4'' `, a, + 1' r '^ —T o ii '- 1190NX9 sae4. ,, n 4 ... .. ? bf, Y d f „ err =` _ �,�. e Y �I J (� r '�y r „ ,,.„„:.,... t.R., i i ,.2..t.„ -------,-.,_-..--- ••-•• ,, ,, z. ..:_..Hi,"'1:1 r17 ' %� p, •7 • t 4 p' '1 7:7 e r�i ��m-� n. to. f'i L T ,y� �1• �Y AMIN !rn«r ,u r -' f IIf •a�l �.,] I I ,., X `~J L,.,..‘...,,,'''. . i/ ' .0. " iftill ‘Inil" .1= c;444..,.,22:1 40 f-llriu-,J • < MilfirpriAi ,y At ♦!,'' rrnf(T - 1 f /n. �? k1x.i ``I 7: . (rnt "I.Y. : .w♦I l E� .ol ♦,n fti �1 t S}�4 « a y ARNIM �. 111110144111 f ♦e .�'. • 7 • (rN I♦ mile �.-. r. 7d n1 777 nn No :,, 1 4� 7 7.i 7 IC... ! .J! ' " d r( � ( gam L a ,1 4 n l ~ lnl� a +, •I1�J(<�f 1 1� F, 11 to .� d' /a, ; !t t r W �I' lTn((r_'_��,I ,� _,w�, III V'� ,r, •1 ,1 1 .,,` • rifts , •q i 1rv.�• oh, ,ll III •y'K f 1 • ,,,,:bl ,j I ' rj , h 1�(T� i ,11 ''• qI , .�Ca ri6 ,- I ''w` '? ' q tot j 1, mini(rn((r Q ' 11 R r♦r rrl' /e1 y t, '' • ! ti.,, •1,1 10 Of V 11, r C +a +1' 11, ° !'d qq ) (rN �"' j 1 yl( : v• +h ur +I ' 1! j : w testa ' ♦ 7 i eN"�+Nfor :::°''''.::': ./ 1:51116111: -I. ih Ill ' '� ��,t .. aa` l ; 7 p ' ` , `� t 'i 1, i,T =- Inalleyjse J yMl I ♦ J,r, _.. x .: ,a `W� .L oli.d ..•'►.ems ,`•�j t N! almumi. / r a4,"to Mini X r oft ,nun d d loll !, 11, n,rr �4 ao` r R M, 1 •,r' ,e,1 _ f v , ,alf a al ,ew , l j j 7 d.a _,/, ; i '' Q L�l ,J d 1 41l 4014 iN1 L...I ,,,1-..1�,. If4 I t i .� ♦e � 'Ykt: 7 j *1. '�' r r�Y • ;tN"' 1-,.. J NH 11U ... F L ou IW 1+ : �o • 1e ( •/ + t 1 i/, 1 .fr, 0 ,,,Ira t1N • u,l �.�+-� OV '1. r ^% y r•1� y �i ,t .ti�I r/. � ,i♦ r ,d+ram �a♦P �...�diu u l r� ie�, ..76 - I �, t r , y �� q we r+ wi ; r fjd• rf a �, « rr :., eu d .+ d •rl,e d'� p -; IrpV♦esee ypr • ,ofr roil ,. / .i lip ,�', ` b� rl YA r ISI c �y ty "„V ,, • 5, i_. 1 UUU IP +. k �, rif > ,y.. . L . a'`.a,�...i,► ..`t..r ;•`i,1+� l •1,f6/1•f p r 1j1 /�' , $ G :� fit: ,_• � ,i.', is Y 'A '�r t' - 4 1 u ;�'. i 1 C) 9 9O0 w . 7 q r V 1 4I100 »800 g 1'' ' ' • I d I • `;'zoo 10ob �' • ,, �� 41 .i 7 I a.. ' '4,, . n 900 /100 4 �I t r• ,� • 1 4 •1 I e 4�. I. • AVENUE y8501 ',. I`r jti+ x: 8600 �° 9300 ..4 3' ` ' »I I' `#� ---tom I ,, G ",1 ,C L. 8500 . 87001 C' I ': 1515 1 15 ` ,� ' .. 2 SuF, 0 r7400 i�8400 S7e 880, ' ; V, , • $ $750o sit, ` � •300 � 1 l • *i1 I 5ti 7600 8200 1 w l• • - r`1 U t I 12 4 r o u 9000. -^as- " 1 SIN 1 7700 810fS I 4 ti • 4 x + L c �` p 9100 --ti,-- 5 ► aI t 7800 / . 9200 , _try 9 1 , ;�7900 — -, `,i rr / »• 8 i • -- ru a a1a. , do,: ,,,,. v AVENUE } r a_V, ii '' i . 18406, - _, ILti12200 • ' 1 •19300 ••, is `' WI ,; 0900 1 • 10801 1080� ,',, '; NKu 41 .12000 ti 4 14 • I� II1o0a a 1 110700 y '3 4 1 13200 12400 ' u 11900 �- - 4 y rt • •« t, j ` - ` i a 10600 tir r ,{ 13100 • 12500 ,Z 13 <x.+ 4II200 , 1 ' •/ ° 2 4• 119[ll • +1 "--- __.. 4 R 9 13 ,,, • 5 (n 1 1 ^ d"' 10500 13000 12500 E -. -+ • II C II$00 " jai. a EXHIBIT i2 �xl x ' • 11 7U6 116U0 , I10300_A 12700 10 ` t 'b4a_ I f, 12901 12800 ` In• I� 4 I Ian" ' 'a y ' i d I I j I J t A % ,, t 4 ' T r VI t , a`; c" f ``I • v ::° CF4. :a .•1 4 " � 37 ° 800 e a h200 ' 1 ° ;z2oo 1000 ' 0 c..; * 4. iav • Ylr2oo,"' ' � N/ 0 AVENUE ' "1 7300a. 8501 A. d {' ° •r r. � 19 8600' q,, t, I 7100 V �; 9300 '„a•' • 8500 �i 8700 a r ,tip' • „ 55 15 a '000 ^ 7400 8400 2 Su 1 V is` ---�--._. 1° , , Si* 8800 ..AP tF ; 14 ti I u 300 C 0 75 0 6300 ' H, I 5i T600 ` e,o‘l: i 0 I 4 { pa • ` 9200 I y d '_`"' • 12 .• 4 'o 9000 "— -- " ',� ,a `7700 8100• 5 12 4 • 4 b �-- -..... ,' I • v C 9I00 -u'— _5 , , e ip ,._.,_tea, _ r • r z I 7800 ,' 8000 9200 . --- 6 4 9 v s 7900 -- -- • � ` tty, 1 L 1 ''. `:• 8 t 3 B!�' 1 i• • SI$4066. u y AVENUE • I i 1 12100[�� ,• :"° : 0a � 0 • 10 4° „ c ! t` 1 12'J00 - 2 S' ,� ° ` --" 4 y I I100 • 1 } r. 13200 3 ti4 • I d 10T00 ; S 12400 4 ti' �' • 1 11900 "`rae-- Mi'1 • ,, 13100 r 12500 p,e '1 a..11200 d j 108p0 es`'� ' ` I `13000 • 12600 2 - y �". �' 10800 �' II 4 ` k 11800°" :.. EXHIBIt i a�' +, • • 117.. y 129Qp 1 12700 1 116d0 4. I OQ00 i • 7 IW 4' 00,1- -:5, 1030 y• `, 12901 12800 u u„d_ _k»'1� 1', 0 fi h•y 1 •"�,♦ . w. b. i't I ICnn Ill ,y ki ''' ..,, i:`'{ + Y' t Subject Property: 755 5th Street i d Like Cswego, OR 07fl34 7-'11 1♦ Variance is nec'' 1Tir tr` rrt;n .L nt unneGc'ssal 1hardahin. .-...._�e..._.� -..ate. + • `' ! To LU uire a new r'..dicated tun'rct walkway 2-1,'2 blocks to the bus stop would 1 4 create a financial harcic.hit, t'.tt would mkr thr secondary dw llinct unit project financially Unrriu(I. !! i "'r 2. hevelo merit, consistent with rry ur st will not 1x' injurious to the nei hborhood. As there are no sidewalk- ta• pathways in tilt, arra or subject property, T feel s1 this will not be injui'itor; to thn nei,Atixirhooc1 3. The Variance is the minirtrt :irian neressal to make reasonable use of the �.. ..... ..�... �a.......ie.�a•,.�.�o. _r.... i� t �y r'roportx. t i The request is rea??y tht• rut;• way available to mil:r possible the requested use of the property. • • R 4. The request is not in e'c,i`ltrt=i,,itll the c't npn h•.nrito plan. ?tc3sin, we feel that the r'ttr;i,,rf:i: supporta thr 'rrrrixht:.nsive plan as the prukkrty is zoned for surh use. r � 't • E A wid • M , .A ,w, V'M " EXHIBIT \y V d t+t r 6 Y ,yl t tt rt, f; 41.85 YY ' 't` S 0 ' y ! I \ 1 1 4 \ . M t a ` STAFF REPORT December 4, 1985 ,• DR I 16-84 (Modification)FILE N0. i1 ' , `' APPLICANT Kristine Plass, acting as agent for Scan Design {, -- Furniture i r ,I ;'9 t.: LOCATION 333 S. State Street (Lake Place Shopping Center) LEGAL DL"5CRIP'PION Tax Lots 4800, 4900, 5000, 5100, 52006300, 53006400 , ••'-:.:"•:::•;•,, ,•:•: 5700, 5800, 5900, 6000, 6100, 6200, and 6500 of Tax Map 2 lE LOAD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION None w . • , '1 APPLICANT'S REQUEST A request to modify a previous condition of approval restricting signage to a 24" sign band to allow portions of the lower case letters of the Scan Design sign to extend 6" above and below the 18" n letters proposed for the sign. This request also requires a variance • to the 24" sign band size required by the Sign Code. ' M i•,; ,, CRITERIA AND STANDARDS LOC Chapter 47 Sign Code , a• .' LOC 49.300 - 49.335 Major Development Procedures is y Development Standards: '',,: ,•, '1 Building Design EXISTING CONDITIONS AND HISTORY • P On August 6, 1984, the Development Review Board approved the design * for a 45,528 sq. ft. shopping center Which is now substantially 7::::1' complete. The approval required sign band letters to not exceed 24" ' in their vertical dimension (See Findings dated August 20, 1984; L`:. Exhibit E). The applicant has already erected the Scan Design sign • in lower case letters Which partially exceed the 24" limit; however, ' they had indicated that the sign would be modified to comply with the • 24" requirement if the Board does not grant apprWVal. The existing sign is not illuminated and consists generally of 18" high letters, ,., `• ` � . A portion • of the "g", the "d", and the "i" extend 6" above and 6" �� ` ''• •. below the 18" green letters to create a 30" vertical dimension. F.- . 4 tf I ANALYSIS ti ,`; The applicant requests that Condition 4 of the previous approval be �,.� blt'" 'y ,); eliminated, or modified, and that a Variance be granted to allow the "d , 1• 81 , i l �'J 1 'y r STAFF REPORT/DR 16-84 (Modification) r. ,' •` December 4, 1985 ,'I Page 2 30" vertical dimension. If the Board modified or eliminated the t condition of approval, any future variance request would be reviewed by the staff since the newly adopted Sign Code allows staff review of ' eN,'''''.'. • sign variance requests. It should be noted that the new Sign Code specifically restricts sign band lettering to 24" while tt;e old Code ; x, l allowed the Board some discretion without the need of a variance. The Board established the condition to insure that the project Would -` comply with the new Sign Code and also conform to the appearance of al •� the building. , �' *' .4 The applicant has submitted a letter (Exhibit C) and a drawing (Exhibit D) comparing the proposed (and erected) sign to a sign with ' all 24" upper case letters. The staff agrees with the applicant that • the sign proposed, which is the Scan Design logo, has an appearance that is more complimentary to the building. The overall impact of ;' the proposed sign with 18" letters (except for eXtentions noted) is ',.> less than the sign with all 24" letters allowed outright by Code. The staff finds that a hardship exists due to the specific ,`ek4f1 1r '�,� • circumstances related to the sign proposal because the applicant's , choice of lower case letters could restrict the use of the compahy ` logo on the storefront even though there is no detrimental effect. l�R, � ' . The request is the minimum request necessary to make reasonable use ,, . of the storefront's signing opportunities. a `).' 'r' `RECOMMENDATION 'I` ° k� ..j Approval. The condition of approval can be eliminated since the newly adopted Sign Code does not allow a sign band to exceed the 24" • " limit. " A 1 ' w • $A u y • EXHIBITS A Tax Map "` yyf B Vicinity Map a +ti t C Applicant's Letter of November 17, 1985 1{ ;.,' D Applicant's Comparison Drawing �' r'' 1 f •,a E Findings of August 20, 1984 ` r�' ,r• F Photo f 1y e , r j yy; L �,. 1 rt• 3540P/RG/mas ' '.'y 4Y v.4„1. P o' , ! ,, ' !« V0 Ir • y IF.. y 1 J1 A I ,,. • •'• 4t` .' ♦ .. " �I-_ Y Y 1 '•' < d r 1 rJr 1 Y 'N 1 i ' • i ` ,• • I ,v r \; ,l oe ,,...",...,...LEONARD .....,,.,.,...... 4,-...J 4o STREET ,� ♦Jr I .,o ( C• YI d.' lil' ir1 a,- Jo i •} raA ■.� d;, ,'�. y 4 ,, ti 7100 1 I7000I E900 (6800 2oc r I I ,: ;' I y I I I 1 ' SEE SUPP'L, MAP 6. r ' 5\1 I I� 1 1 F• , 1 00 21 2,0 19 18 17 16 I5 700 I.1 COURT, . a.: 7� VIEW • ',. w.A 3` ! 2 IE IOAD `140 { i00 '• , irac •\ "• •I 0 • 0 1200 I; 1'I50( ' JAc ` r y Y .. STRI + � ,. 1 IS . I. ' 1 ,!d 151"'-on� r gl sn 9 5,710+n ( t111 •>•" t ;Jjj;;\\(\\ S% \ T°TI ^2ooq ._.� , L y 1 rd I In LLB. sj L �.1=. ,e r •v•i `\\ \\ 4. 4700 I �) 2100 1 220?1.. .... ;, r.JI. • • . " S., 31 „ 21 ,. 1 I , 71 ,t. 61 l• 5, Je 41 ., ,• D WILBUR STA ,„ "14$I I� 9we J' l I ' 1. �. �.' ( 1 '`i r — 6 1,,. is` i. 10,. 11,+-- 7. 1, 10 I I 12f 13 141 4 16 1,2 1 1 + 25011i'S40124oG , • 1 ;•` a 4 00 a2�, 1 4400 4500 4�00 ... s �• i j I_ r1 ,! I d r I + ' 3 15 I I I +?7001 • ' . 4200A 1 , p 4 1,J I ,,_r. J,_ I I J9 i` I JV.!+�....!'..-- 2+ -._._2a-131...,.. 9 ,o d �± 16w 4f0f J. 4000 3900 1M1U1.0 37r,1� 3600 I rr: q 280 I >� 1 Iv..... x 2 00 2900 3000 1 3100 , 7 Q Cr, 0 t 9� 6 '•_Iu .• 71._. 6 5 4 ... 3 2I I _7 sJ " 3 r. '. , n '''' 83 9..16_85 ,, C P+M, ; LARD PSTRE f. • Q, " r 1 . *. ,. ... , } 4 'fie• ' 'j'i. w , \ , 11 . i ,,, ' : :., x , , . :..,... . . . ., • ti. 1 y' !Ibt ' ,. \' •hn. \ • ‘c.... •••.., . 4J � _ // �� f , fr s Ji,1 , t ( MErli! 7I. ry' .fir - I t., r �, ,{ ° s.,,',,,-L,f;...',...,,,,...:::',:yro,,,,_, fu::::-10 , , _,--„,.. — _ 1 11',,' • . ,1 1 _,... , ! ,\- ., ,,, .. - . ,.._ ::, N.,. ._ , 'r - 1,•,.., - . ' ' ' . , \ I c [...., Td Z ' l ., e \ ''''''''''; , ,_ , :' ' I i''''I 4i)— . —37--- .:,r„..:.:,:::r,•';',' ,;:, ., .. r r* _ 1�Lr 1�ty11�,� �' • "tt 1.fi'.'.. + 1• ♦ ,• r I,C .ate,. �, r {K rr1y, .,AC i�s � ' • k .., - i , 1 . 1 1 1 . . . .. . . .,. w I�� r \_�`•- ii 1 �. ,i)., • . • • . ‘ ..7""1011 : '' r • • - , ,, (ft r• t � -_- , �j I . 1) I 0 l-!! �� ( ..�IC 4 'te a , I"' i1f ., H I B I T ', a.»t=' ` jti 0'Y r� It � \ - t� ., q r+. '" ' , I J 1 r Y fl v jJ1 . db , +;� i 17 ! ! .,.3 ' 't tit $ 51F' � scan design , ,,'''"' .A L y. • w; e, w ,ten-' :.}a ! r,'r; Bbb Galante City of Lake Oswego 'A {'" . n P.O. Box 369 .0. Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 November 17, 1985 Dear Mr. Galante, Scan Design Furniture has been in operation in the Northwest for over 21 years. During this time the Scan Design logo has represented fine quality Scandinavian } '' 1 furniture which our customers have come to recognize. Our new Lake Oswego location promises to be a key asset in generating business in the Lake Place shopping center. '" The body of the lettering in our present sign in Lake Oswego is 18" in height, . ';'' '' • with the exception of the "d" and the "g". These letters extend an additional o x+ , Please see enclosed example #1. If the size and the type of the lettering 1 were altered the sign would appear as in example #2, to fulfill the city code + • allowance of 24". As you can see example #1 offers a more pleasing design, is 9 complementary to the scale of the building, and is in keeping with the Scan Design " Y eF ' logo, I am prepared to present actual scale examples before the upcoming development , review board if needed. We beg your permission in allowing us to continue use of our sign in its present 4. 4 r: manner. Your consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated. ' gip • Sincerely Yourp, r itAte 1. .I(1-,). i Kristine Plass r Portland area manager RECEIVED NO 19 IS8 { " T 'rsi71 " to. . A ,1 DEPT. OFOP _ a V 10760 S.W.Beaverton Hwy • Beaverton,Oregon 97005 " (503 Viz- /6-8'S �" M ,, (.'' J .(„e •i a i°" r ri: : y- ,k ( AM11 I,� 4 rt . �. ; „- deSI. . __ . . . 4...; 1 _ __ _ - - r e i :I r . • 1 j {4 ' ♦ . b �I •....! ,� c - I- _. - ._ . , _____________ ____ • . , , 1 , . • RE �, EIVED , i, ` `A4 EXI.IaIT ,'.. 86 cir ur ' - , • DEPT. OF pR I��BS y • A., 4 ' i,' r , a ♦ �a y m P w Y .• ♦' .'i. 44'' 1 , y BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD OF THE 2 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Ok3 A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A) DR 16-84--168 :., ,, - : SHOPPING CENTER AND A ) VARIANCE TO THE YARD RE- ) (First Western Dev. of Oregon) 4 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER � • . s : QUIRED ADJACENT TO A RESI- ; 5 DENTIAL ZONE. � . ` • 6 NATURE OF APPLICATION 7 A request by First Western Development of Oregon for approval of a 45,528 square foot shopping center. A 5 foot variance to the 25 foot yard required for a structure adjacent to a residential zone is also E1,/ i' 9 requested for the site located on the east side of State Street between View Court and Wilbur Street (Tax Lots 4800, 4900, 5000, A ; 10 ' 11 5100, 5200, 5300, 5700, 5800, 5900, 6000, 6100, 6200, 6300, 6400 and 6500 of Tax Map 2 lE IOAD) . 12 HEARINGS 13 The hearing was hald on this request on August 6, 1984. Appearances were made and exhibits entered as indicated in the minutes of the , 14 meeting and in the Staff Report of July 26, 1984. The request was 15 approved with conditions. y ,'6 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS LOC 49.300 - 49,335 Major. Development Procedures ` 17 LOC 48.300 - 48.315 Commercial Districts • LOC Chapter 47 Signs 4,,,,,i 18 LOC 48.530 Vision Clearance . 19 Development Standards: 20 Building Design Utilities Street Lights Access A. 1 1 21 Transit Site Circulation - Private 4 Parking Streets 22 Landscaping Site Circulation - Bikeways Drainage for Major and Walkways 23 Development " ' ° Weak Foundation Soils 24 25 Comprehensive Plan: + Commercial Land Use Policy Element - East End 26 Community Business District - pp. 68-71 Page 1 2598P/DR 16-84 RG/mas ' EXHIBIT int y Y 1 ( i 1�� S • 1 t 1 LCDC Goals: • 2 Goals 2, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15 3 CONCLUSIONS �, i 4 The Development Review Board concludes that this project fulfills all criteria and standards to the extent that approval can be granted 5 with the following conditions: , . 6 1. That the applicant demonstrate a positive action by Council on the vacation request, which preserves adequate access to nearby properties prior to the issuance of � -+ 7 building permits. . 8 2. That textured (split-faced) concrete block be Used on all . 9 building elevations. 10 3. That site lighting he as provided by the applicant, but the internal photomet,^ics be modified to the satisfaction 11 of the Public Works Director. . 12 4. That the sign lettering be 24" in its verti :al dimension. 13 5. That the ground sign be reduced to a maximum of 50 square feet. 14 6. That a parking table update be provided for each future • 15 change of tenant/use which requires a greater parking . • • ratio. 16 7. That accessways, traffic control signage, and street 17 improvements be provided in conformance with the Planning Commission action (ZC 7-84) and the State's planned street 18 improvements, as Well as Exhibit M (Traffic Impact Analysis) , 19 8. That an irrigation plan be provided prior to the issuance 20 of building permits. 21 9. That a tree cutting plan be submitted to staff, and that an arborist be retained to report on the health of the • ;;2 existing trees and on specific measures to saVe trees during construction (as shown on the applicant's Exhibit , 23 S) to the satisfaction of staff. �� - 24 10, That storm drainage plans be provided to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, 3 25 26 Page 2 2598P/DR 16-84 RG/mas . Fg sq1 o S • 1 11. That a soils report be provided prior to the issuance of building permits. i 2 12. That noise sources be identified and that mitigation measures be provided to the satisfaction of staff. 4 13. That left turns from the shopping center to Wilbur be . restricted to the satisfactiol of the City Traffic 5 Engineer. i 6 FINDINGS AND REASONS 7 The staff report prepared on this item, dated July 26, 1984, is by '-.. , this reference adopted as the Findings and Conclusion of Law to 8 support the decision of the Development Review Board with the .. 9 following changes or additions: 'D 1. The applicant submitted, at the hearing, a development schedule (Exhibit V) , a data sheet on tree grates proposed 11 for use (Exhibit W) , a revised landscape plan (Exhibit(ExhibitT S) , ), • a revised site plan a section drawing of the screening of mechanical units (Exhibit X) and a color and 12 ;materials board (Exhibit P) . These exhibits demonstrated ' compliance with the applicable criteria and standards to ° 13 the extent that approval could be granted with the 12 conditions listed in the staff report of July 26, 1984 14 with minor changes and additions as described in the following items listed. ,s ' 2. A letter from Ed and Nancy Rochette (Exhibit Q) asked the 1G Board to restrict left turns from the shopping center onto Wilbur Street. This request was reviewed along With the 17 minutes of the Planning Commission's meeting of July 9, 1984 regarding ZC 7-84. The Board believed it was 18 necessary to restrict left turns onto Wilbur and added Condition 13. That condition did not specify how that 19 would be accomplished; but left it to the discretion of the City Traffic Engineer. The applicant testified that a 20 physical barrier would be acceptable, as would signage. ' 21 3. The letter (Exhibit Q) addressed the need to save trees; - as Well. The Board modified condition 9 to require an 22 arborist to survey the condition of the trees and specify , ,t measures to save trees during construction. The Board 23 believed that this data could be reviewed by the staff provided adequate direction was given by the Board. 24 4. The letter (Exhibit Q) asked that the Board condition the 25• development to restrict fast food restaurants. In discussing the issue, the Board Concluded that it was 26 Page 3 2598P/D1t 16-84 • RG/mas 1 90 af— it ., 1 • 1 1 restaurants with drive-through window service that could create traffic and other site problems, but that their 2 decision should not restrict any particular use through a conditioned approval. The Board did note that restaurants 3 with drive-through windows require a conditional use �"" review and that the applicnt had stated as part of this 4 application (Exhibit C) that no such restaurant would be , proposed. , 5 5. The Board reviewed the applicants testimony and evidence ' 6 in support of the variance request. No conflicting , ' evidence was submitted and the Board believed that ' 7 adequate buffering was provided between the shopping center and residential property, and that the variance 8 request could be approved. ORDER 9 IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO that DR 16-84 be APPROVED with conditions along with the 1• 0 variance to the yard requirement. DATED this 20th day of August, 1984. it . • 12 13 71 ;c40/40 92, /42(dr,-, . . Richard Hutchins, Chairman r 14 Development Review Board 15 -�' r=�- r , . 16 - ,� 17 SebXe ary . „..„ • a 18 ATTEST: 19 AYES: Hutchins, Eslick, Fulton, Glasgow , • NOES: None 20 ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Wright 21 22 • 23 24 ' 25 Y 26 y Page 4 2598P/DR 16-84 RG/mas 1. 91 , i 1 � ., J , • • 4 ,. scan cies+m Y I S i c.11‘4 LC3 A'Te•0 • A�r l-eke p N a 1 XH HIT 92 v�. Ib^a5 • • • • • / 1 r r� • • • • • • • • • • • • • • lr r { r • 4 The meeting scheduled for December 2, 1985 was cancelled due to weather conditions. I ) m . a I , I 1 ' 93 ti l'.:.L,„,, CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO '"'4 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD , ,� AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER 531 S. W. First Street December 2, 1985 1 . I. CALL TO ORDER • II. ROLL CALL ' III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 21, 1985 (Second Vote) November 18, 1985 IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. PUBLIC HEARINGS r, A. SD 21-85, VAR 51-85 and VAR 53-85, an appeal of an administratively approved lot line realignment and two minor partitions dividing two parcels into two lots each. Action of this request was postponed from the October 7, 1985 Development Review Board Meeting. The applicants are also requesting a variance to LOC . 44.385 regarding the minimum radius of curvature of residential streets being 100' and a variance to the street width requirement of 20' . The site is • located on the eastern side of an unimproved portion of Iron Mountain Blvd., north of Andrews Road (Tax Lot 3500 of Tax Map 2 lE 3BC and Tax Lot 500 of Tax Map 2 lE 3CB) . B. SD 31-85 and VAR 44-85, a request by Willard T. Moore for approval of a variance to a side yard setback requirement of 5' to allow the completion of an addition. The property is located on the north shore of Lake Oswego on Lakeview Blvd. in an R-7,5 zone. The location is more specifically described as Tax Lot , 5700 of TaX Map 2 lE 8DB. C. VAR 49-85 and VAR 52-85, a request by James Morrow for Walter Plattner for approval of an 8-foot variance to the required 20'• front yard setback and a variance to the Parking Standard. The site is located at 908 S.W. Cumberland Place Tax Lot 900 of Tax Map 2 1E 3BD) . • .,.2 1 . r . ,# • I AGENDA/DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD • December 2, 1985 e Page 2 ,;• ,.i VI. GENERAL PLANNING VII. OTHER BUSINESS • FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER - VAR 46-85 (Glen Chilcote) VIII. ADJOURNMENT • • .1 n, n .. 1 3528P 2