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