The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda Packet - 1991-02-20 J ' AGENDA Agenda Book CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HA' • Monday, May 20, 1991, 7:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER • II. ROLL CALL M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 20, 1989 November 28, 1989 (Second Vote) December 4, 1989 (Second Vote) December 18, 1989 (Second Vote) • January 15, 1990 ;' August 28, 1990 September 5, 1990 Iv. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. PUBLIC HEARING . ': SD 6-91\VAR 9-91, a request by Dimension Homes, Inc. for approval of the creation of two parcels from a 10,157 sq. ft. parcel. Also the applicant is seeking approval of a 25 ft. Class II variance to the • Access Development Standard which requires that each parcel abut a public street for a minimum of , 25 ft, Parcel B is proposed to have no frontage on a public street, The applicant is also proposing a Future Streets Plan serving property within 250' of the applicant's site. The site is located at 5302 Rosewood Street (Tax Lot 3703 of Tax Map 2 1E 18AB). Staff coordinator is MietkatLYYheeler, Associate Planner. This agenda item was continued from May 6, 1991, DR 1-91\SD 7-91\VAR 10-91, a request by Birtcher Frank Properties to develop a free standing, : 9,000 sq, ft. retail\medical building on the south side of the shopping center parcel. Two new lots will be created for proposed development requiring a variance to the requirement that every lot have at least 25' of frontage along a public street, The site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection ' of Monroe Parkway and Boones Ferry Road (Tax Lots 101 &200 of Tax Map 2 1E 5AA), Staff coordinator is Robert Galante,Senior Planner, SD 8-91 (a modified resubmittal of SD 53-90), a request by Compass Corp, for approval of the creation of three parcels from a 1,2 acre site, The parcels are proposed to be 13,870, 17,030 and ,,\ 21,540 sq, ft, in size, Also, the applicant is proposing a Future Streets Plan serving property within • 250 ft. of the applicant's site, The site is located on the north side of Country Club Road, east of Knaus Road (Tax Lot 1300 of Tax Map 2 1E 4DB), Staff coordinator is Michael R, Whe,j,ei', Associate Planner, pp 3-91, a request by OTAK, Inc, for approval of 6—lot single family residential planned development 4 (Casebeer Heights), The site is located at 4118 S.W. Glacier Lily Street (Tax Lots 11900 & 11901 of' • Tax Map 2 1E 5CA), Staff coordinator is Illamid Pishvaie, Development Review Planner, . • GENERAL PLANNING 411"OTHER BUSINESS—Findings, Conclusions and Order • PD 9-90—Pacific Northwest Group DR 7-•90(Mod. 3-91)/VAR 8-91-876—Lake Oswego School Dist. SD 9-91\SD 10-91\SD 11-91\VAR 11-91(a—c)\HR 4-91—Kenneth Guenther • t• r 1 ADJOURNMENT The Lake Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to :;s:r:ne and go as you please. L?C Members: Staff: • • R ►:art H.Foster,Chair Torn Coffee,Planning Director • Stanaway,Vice—Chair Robert Galante,Senior Planner fames A.Bloomer Hamid Pishvaie,Dcv,itevicw Planner R:icrt D.Greaves Catherine Clark,Associate Planner ragcr Remy Jane Heisler,Associate Planner N.Starr Michael R.Wheeler,Associate Planner Ncr:nan J,Sievert Barbara Smolak,Associate Planner Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney • Barbara Anderson,DRB Secretary . Kathy Avery,PC Secretary • t. •, l • (I'M /1 360•A•Avenuo STAFF v + P O Boi 369 REPORT N T v W Oregon 9703, M planning 503 635 n290 E^g,aa,mg TO: Development Review Board Members 503 635 0270 3 69..,d 90 FROM: Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner eW 533 635 o 6 SUBJECT: SE) 6-91/VAR 9-91 L ,: DATE: May 10, 1991 W The following exh ibits have been submitted since the preparation of the staff report dated April 26, 1991. Exhibit 13 Revised Site Plan Exhibit 14 Proposed House Plan 0 The materials submitted by the applicant (Exhibits 13 and 14 address the the request for a Class II variance to the Parking and Loading Development issue of Standard which requires each dwelling to provide two off—street parkingspaces in addition to a carport or garage. By submitting Exhibits 13 and 14, the applicant has addressed the deficiencies noted in the earlier staff report. Staff has reviewed the materials and provides the following analysis: ; •. ,.,• . 3 APPLICABLE CRITERIA •-.. - 0 . LI 2 Parking and Loading Stand d (7.005—7,040) ... 0 C The applicant has revised the siteplan ° comply with this standard. (Exhibit 13) to enable Parcels A and B to X = A Class II variance was originally requested because Parcel B did not have the M . �, necessary parking area to provide two off—street parking spaces. With the site plan revision Parcel 13 now is capable of supporting two off—street parking spaces.Since this meets the Parking and Loading Standard the need for a Class II • lL 0 variance is no longer necessary, APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY • >' Social Resources Poli i a • W With the submission of Exhibits 13 and 14 the applicant has demonstrated that ....) this partition is compatible with the neighborhood character and identity and that the stability of the neighborhood will be preserved. The proposed dwelling meets el • • . J " • �. • the setback and lot size coverage requirements for the R-5 zone. It also meets the Parking and Loading Standard of providing two—off street parking spaces. The irregular shaped lot will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood and the applicant has shown that a dwelling ''' can be placed on the partitioned site that is comparable to the surrounding area. t' CONCLUSION Based upon materials submitted by the applicant, staff concludes that the proposal can be made to comply with all applicable criteria. ,.. '•, • RECOMMENDATIQN Staff recommends approval of the proposed minor partition [SD 6-91] and Class II variance k [VAR 9-91] and the proposed Future Streets Plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. A final plan (as depicted in Exhibit 4 and modified by conditions 3, 4, and 5) shall be t submitted to City staff for review and signature of approval within one year of the date of o '-,t:. this decision. Upon written application, prior to expiration of the one year period, the City Manager shall, in writing, grant a one year extension. Additional extensions may be requested in writing and must be submitted to the City Manager for review of the project for conformance with current law, development standards and compatibility with development which may have occurred in the surrounding area. The extension may be granted or denied and if granted, may be conditioned to require modification to bring the project into compliance with then current law and compatibility with surrounding development. The final plan shall reference this land use application—City of Lake Oswego Planning Division, File No. SD 6-91/VAR 9-91(a—b). 0 , ..1„ , t • • 2. The final plan shall be registered with the Clackamas County Surveyor's office and recorded with Clackamas County Clerk's office. 3. The following note shall appear on the final plan: t Parcels A and B are Solar Lots. Development of structures and planting of . non—exempt vegetation shall comply with the Solar Balance Point Provisions of the Solar Access Ordinance (LOC 57.050—57,090) This requirement shall be binding upon the applicant and subsequent purchasers of Parcels A - and B. 4. The applicant shall illustrate Solar Building Lines on Parcel B as required by* LOC 57.020(2)D$the following notes shall appear on the final plan: ' a. Habitable structures built on Parcel B will have their long axis oriented ` within 30 degrees of a true east—west axis and at least 80% of their ` ' ground floor south wall protected from shade by structures and non— • • ' exempt trees; or, b. Habitable structures built on Parcel B will have at least 32% of their • glazing and 500 square feet of their roof area which faces within 30 degrees of south and is protected from shade by structures and non— ` exempt trees. 5. The following note shall appear on the final plan following notes required by ' conditions 3 and 4 above: eM. • a. These notes are for reference only and are not a part of the final plan or plat. 6. Evidence of the above to be provided to the Department of Planning and Development prior to the issuance of building permits requested subsequent to the `J date of this approval. r..; • 7. The applicant shall install a street light at the northwest corner of Tax Lot 3703. This installation shall be a condition of approval of any building permit requested subsequent to this action. 8. The applicant shall install all utilities necessary to serve Parcels A and 13 as a condition of building permit approval. This includes storm drainage (drywells or alternates). 9. The City shall allow the removal of only those trees necessary to site a dwelling or accessory structure on Tax Lot 3703. This removal shall comply with LOC 55.050—55.080 (Tree Cutting Ordinance). The applicant shall provide a tree survey illustrating the leilation, type and diameter of all trees in excess of 5 inches on each adjusted parcel in application for each building permit • requested subsequent to this approval. Development on each adjusted parcel shall avoid as many trees as possible. 10. The City shall record a copy of the approved Future Streets Plan (Exhibit 6) with the County Clerk. The recorded instrument shall reference this land use application— t City of Lake Oswego Department of Planning and Development, File No. SD 6— 91/VAR 9-91(a—b), The lot pattern shall be considered to be conceptual only and does not grant approval for the creation of parcels in that configuration, , r 11. The applicant shall provide a corrected easement that corresponds with the Future Streets Plan (Exhibit 6). • • • • • • • • • A • • SD 6-91\VAR 9-91(a-b) Page 3 of 11 7x La. 3701 o -0- O 70 o<o $ t„ , 00 • • ; w Ac cess Erg Cr.:$er,a.4 CFta x O • LA • fir-=.�61.1 r-_ o �rb dxzo' IVI p I Po. 4,h� III °�t2o' b �o log iel , *.. . c i ...,1 Pr0ros�.d F'v3 5!•r vt..Ew 17' C • k w GU n.' Part t Q 3 �z� �`' �oa/� Parsei B M / �l ., s • • g f P 51,, Li4 41)r4 4,1 ors rheCf'a s7a • f' A,,1 Area. . , . .. . . , / / , . ,. ... . , . , . , . " . . ..„ . .. .. /v 7 . .. , . .. . . . , . .„ . . . • „ , . . / . • j _{4 • a ?r.�"vim• 'a .'� t`�t .1 ` � U 14. tt ' r t Y�, ► �{ °µ Y• ,, 1 .alit'.. ,,4) v ( 1 �,PP�' 1 11 it unrlilu�urM. i `,+yy►lf '. •• F'f�4,f. v Aft,. ! ur Al��111 0 arm um .L 1�AY. �„+ ...- ''�4t J'flr 1, I;t ti.•. - e •Y.r �, 2t.�ua t• t I/ti t II t� r•; t. Y.'' ,■ uiTi'i iiiu1■1■ �•1_ - i L`�k ,. , • ',' .,„ .41''414P.1:1 +t tem..%!~�itlw+��utiu sIF;L �" ;^�� f.°. :l,.Y • ti" n1rr 'vZ—,rwu'1n'�rzo, - LTilide iiammi�i1n� � = '� ,V,54f1;J e , h a� JR!!t._S�r�.-�.�..Zi,r1—�riimU.ut.�1�1uAsslw.+r�.�.n, gT .. w�;wt I I. pi lttr,L 1 Lr 1 jl nr. ..�r,1'r 1h 11 1 1 ---•••"=41 (t.•:•••ii' , r t"7 " '�i� f•"" .i J ° I '1'' ° 1Ir It W.'''.,!IS:i`, S ' 1 ti ,:,..:',, ie • :11, �ft•e ! -" 1 I :....', '�'1 1 .jT ylilt i 'j° 1, rl/ {A��j_ .1 _---_J "' r �r1 �ilt.ly it i'1'1 , 1' Ilt)t 7q_il�lot�lr • • .1.7:: V 1 vi'C,, 't' y '1 �' DORM 2 !!I lu e n1 • s. I. • ./ } 1 , 1 , n ° FE LET u ) . • a ' 4 m 11 1 . 1 i DORM D r ,..II.III Milt* e • NOOK • 'Zv'toi 1Yr. �.1� • I X • I�ITCNEN j FFF , ' FAMILY 1 Nile 1I I i I r1 1.1 f o 1�• •1 , kW • LARAOI ! ,.. 1�I. DINING 1 to • wd.11/ I I1..lob 'I • I l •,`. .t.l�l �w • • .r,� — r r I! I / LIVING • i I . , . 11 PLAN ISM • • MAIN 007e.f° ""' UPPIIR 741 od. , •illpry�r' • designers • y, • • w EXHIBIT' • • �y . F F 60 G•fl ua.v q• �r; ! • 17. . Y• p ,.• . „ . . ..., .. •. . • I T. t J� ti 41 N Itt • • • •Y• , , r f� • STAFF REPORT v LAKE oswEG0 CITYOFLAKEOSWEGO ' •.. ., • PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANT: FILE NO.: '" • Birtcher Frank Properties p DR 1-91\SD 7-91WAR 10-91 PROPERTY OWNER: STAEE: Birtcher Frank Properties p Robert Galante hEGAj_•DESQRIPT1ON; DATE OE.REPORT; Tax Lot 101 &200 of Tax Map 2 1E SAA, May 10, 1991 Clackamas County and Block 10 Mountain Park of Multnomah County Map#4226 PATE OF HEARING; n LOCATION: May 20, 1991 e r' The northwest corner of the Monroe Parkway NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: and Booties Ferry Road intersection •. COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Mt. Park Homeowners ZONING DESIGNATION; NC NC f 4 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant is proposing to a 9,000 sq, ft. retail/medical building on the south side of the shopping center. Minor partitions are requested to create separate parcels for the approved day dare facility and the proposed thew structure, The new lots will "float" within the 13,3 acre shopping center, requiring variances to the Access Standard, II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. Citwof k Oe_ ,o omnrehencivP plan; b Commercial Areas, VII—B, MonroeBoones Ferry site, page 118 B, City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance: M LOC 48.300-48,315 Commercial Districts , . 410) DR 1-91\SD 7-91\VAR 10-91 " Page 1 of 6 , r r f C. City of Lake Oswego Sign Code: • LOC Chapter 47 Signs D. City of Lake Oswego Development Code ' LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards LOC 49,300—49.315 Major Development Procedures LOC 49.500—49.510 Variances • LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval LOC 49.620 Conditional Approvals E. Chi y of Lake Os'vego Development Stan �r c: 2.005—2.040 Building Design 4.005 —4.040 Wetlands +. • ' 5.005—5.040 Street Lights 9.005 —9.040 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering 11.005— 11.040 Drainage Standard for Major Development 14.005 — 14.020 Utilities ,, 18.005— 18.040 Access Standard 19.005 — 19.040 Site Circulation—Private Streets/Driveways 20.005—20.040 Site Circulation—Bikeways and Walkways UI. FINDINGS A. Background: 1. The Towne Square at Mt. Park Shopping Center(DR 18-83) was approved by the City in 1983 after challenges heard by the State Land Use Board of Appeals Y _•• •fir (LUBA). The center is now called Oswego Towne Square. 2. The center was approved to be constructed with a total of 116,535 sq. ft. of floor area to be used for office, service and retail commercial activities. , 3. The 13.3 acre site was approved by the City Zoning Code for maximum 163,000 square feet of retail, service uses and office uses. Retail uses are limited to 60,000 sq. ft. The uses allowed are those allowed in the NC zone and other retail and office uses listed in the City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance 48.315.6 and 7. ` 4. In June 1988, a Development Review Application was submitted and subsequently approved to allow building modifications and site improvements. The main ' building modifications were repainting the exterior of the structures and revising the •signage for the center. Site improvements consisted of a new access location from • �,' ;J the southeast parking lot onto Boones Ferry Road, the closure of an access location • at the northeast corner of the property onto Boones Ferry Road and construction of ' sidewalks along Boones Ferry Road and around the perimeter of the wetland area. ' ; 5. In December of 1990 the Development Review Board approved a 6,000 sq. ft. day care facility to bring the total for the center to 122,535 sq. ft. The day care facility has not yet been constructed. 6. Parking is provided which exceeds Code requirements. An existing wetland is preserved at the southeast corner of the site. The facility is currently accessed from Monroe Parkway and Booties Ferry Road. No change to site access is proposed. • 0 ' DR 1-91\SD 7-91`VAR 10-91 Page 2 of 6 k • . 7. The site currentlyhas all recess City. The proposd improvementwi l not require expansion of services oytl the site. • 8. The property included in this request is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Monroe Parkway in Lake Oswego. It is Y zoned neighborhood commer cial racial and is part of Phase IV of the overall Mountain Park Planned Unit Development. 9. Adjacent land uses icl,',ude condominiums to the west, condominiums and a commercial area to the south, single family residences to the north, undeveloped land to the northeast, and single family homes across Boones Ferry to the east. The property is partially in Clackamas County and mostly in Multnomah County. ,4, 10. Additional site conditions are described in the applicant's narrative `a (Exhibit 3), the and the Transportation Impact analysis (Exhibit 8). The existing buildings and site improvements are illustrated on the site plan (Exhibit 9), 11. The current proposal will allow the construction of. a 9,000 s , q ft. structure on the south side of the 13.3 acre site and will create separate parcels of the new structure , and the approved day care facility. The partition requests are illustrated in Exhibit 15. The site of the structure contains no wetla4tds or stream corridors and falls ' 4, outside the area indicated in the Comprehensive Plan as having weak foundation soils. Landscaping and open space on the property will occupy 43% of the site. No trees are proposed to be cut. B. Compliance with Criteria for Approval: 1. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan The applicant has adequately addressed.the Comprehensive Plan policies that are applicable to this request (See Exhibit 3). No conflict with Plan policies exists. The relevant Plan policies are also implemented in the Zoning Code and Development Standards which are addressed in this report. ;ii. 2. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code ,• a. LOC 48.300-48.310 Commercial Uses • The applicant has demonstrated that the use is allowed in the NC zone and that all site development limitations such as height and setback are met (See Exhibit 3). The structure is proposed to be about 20' high and will be set back 29' from the • street. b. LOC 48.315(1,6,7) Special Requirements The applicant has demonstrated that the total proposed development of 131,535 sq. • ft., including the approved 6,000 sq. ft. day care facility, is well within the 163,000 • sq. ft. allowed by Code. • y 3. City of Lake Oswego Sign Code (Chapter 47), ' 1 ,. The proposed signage is proposed to conform to the standard signage used at Oswego Towne Square. The sign box will be a color matched, metal box frame, OR 1-91\SD 7-91\VAR 10-91 Page 3 of 6 . i ,.1. y l ' r approximately 8 to 10 inches thick by 28 inches high which will allow a 24 inch colored plastic sign band. The metal box will have internal lighting located behind . the plastic sign band. No signage is proposed to face residences. 0 .r 4. City of Lake Oswego Development Ordinance . . .. The applicant has submitted a complete application. Exhibits to support the applicant's request are listed at the end of this report. A development schedule has ,,, : not been submitted. A final schedule should be required prior to issuance of briJding permits. The applicant's variance narrative (Exhibit 4),demonstrates that sufficient hardship exists to grant a minor variance. The granting of the variance ' will not materially affect the function of the site or adjacent neighbors. 5. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards The applicable development standards have . ii addressed by the applicant's narrative (Exhibit 3). Only those areas where r.k itional discussion or evidence is r ` • necessary, or those areas where compliance with the standards have not been demonstrated are addressed below: a. Wetlands (4.080) No development within the wetlands is proposed. The runoff that will be , ' directed to the wetland will be pre—treated in a newly constructed biofiltration swale to be constructed outside of the wetland and the ''cleaned" water will be discharged before the wetland boundary. b. rking and LQading.(7.0?01 The applicant has provided an analysis of parking for the entire center, addin€ • the proposed use. The analysis (Exhibit 3)demonstrates that a surplus of 70 spaces, above Code, will exist after completion of the proposed structure. The ' �� partition request results in the need to require an agreement,or easement, for reciprocal parking between the parcels. • c. Landscaping (9.020) The applicant plans to relocate a portion of the walkway along Monroe Parkway causing a portion of it to follow the curb line. This walkway should be moved to provide a landscape strip along the roadway, A slightly larger ' retaining wall may be required near the building, Staff also recommends that additional trees be planted to the northeast corner of the building to continue the entry street tree scheme. d. Diiiinage (11.0201 The applicant illustrates (Exhibits 3 and 8) that the proposal will meet both the storm water detention and biofiltration requirements for storm drainage. A , final plan illustrating wetland compatible plan materials should be submitted to the staff for review and approval. le DR 1-91\Sb 7-91\VAR 10-91 Page 4 of 6 C e. Access (18.020) • The applicant has applied for a variance to the requirement that each lot abut a street fora minimum distance of 25'. Staff recommends approval of the • request; however, the partition requests will require the provision of reciprocal • access agreements between the created parcels. The agreements, or easements, should be noted on the final plan. Iz • IV• CONCLUSION • The applicant has demonstrated that the project complies with the applicable regulations to the extent that approval can be granted with conditions. • V. RECOMMENDATION f .I Approval of DR 1-91/SD 7-91/VAR 10-91, with the following conditions: 1. A final plan (as depicted in Exhibit 15) shall be submitted to City staff for review and signature of approval within one year of the date of this decision. Upon written UU application, prior to expiration of the one year period, the City Manager shall, in writing, grant a one year extension. Additional extensions may be requested in writing and must be submitted to the City Manager for review of the project for conformance with current a law,development standards and compatibility with development which may have occurred in the surrounding area. The extension maybe may be conditioned to require modification to bring theproject ind to compliance if then current law and compatibility with surrounding development. 2. The plan shall illustrate reciprocal access and arkin a all parcels, p g greements, or easements, between 3. The final plan shall be registered with the Clackamas and Multnomah County Surveyor's l� office and recorded with Clackamas and Multnomah County Clerk's office, 4. A development schedule shall be submitted for the review and approval of sta ff.aff. �' 5. The walkway along Monroe Parkway shall be separated from the : landscape strip, curb by a 5' (minimum) to the ' 6. Additional trees shall be planted to continue the entry street tree scheme' corner of the proposed structure, northeast 7. Final signage plans shall be submitted for the review and approval of staff. h ;' EXHUME i. 1. Tax Map (2) 2, Vicinity Map 3. Written Narrative (proposed structure) 4. Variance Narrative • 5. Partition Narrative 6. Preliminary Soils Report, 3 pp. 7. Transportation Impact Analysis Update, 5 8. Transportation and Impact Analysis, 34pp, DR 1-9l\,SD 7-•91\VAR 10-91 Page 5 of 6 9. Site Plan - a 10. Elevations (North, South) 11. Elevations (Sheet A3)* 12. Landscape Plan 13. Grading/Utilities Plan 14. Wetland Boundary Map 15. Partition Map 16. Letter from Warren J. Young, dated April 1, 1991 17. Letter from the Linds,dated April 10, 1991 18. Letter from Mt. Park Homeowner's Association *These plans marked north/south should be revised to read east/west. RG:ba:kaa ' a' (DR71.1I e � q y •0 • ,! • • • DR 1-91\.SD 7--91\V'AR 10-91 Page 6 of 6 • • • • • ::j J'^ • • • • 1. • , I • • Iq t. • • w • • I• • • • a• • • • • • • .. _nil � {/1'',Dv YDIY/Y Y Y ... .• -. .t f + r .. y' ••+ f tl t , i a . • h w V V • • i k 9 i 'rp• 4'4 o S h ti 4 S % os lb• IvC-C .J' Y . > ° • o,`'ice„ I 4* ° + \ 1 A / V r ` � / 9 >/ r� e %11i'Yf�•Y�,A� ' .I C. ' d.i J*I.YGI,'Iyp / / ' , • Ytf r 8LOCK w• fan ••r � �' o+trnr►{o a' 04.4J.4+If41,7 ' 1' aria/y da!► ,urs d i — . r•/ a. . u-- :4 e.. ., 1 ..1 ` \`� B e4Oc "I' ai a��i N� VV •�'� i' tY��rd7j'A �j'� L'M14 111.0AIf b '/ 1,�` f'f1 1J At I»I \ w✓4f Co✓4/rY �. ,--�-+)' . I . 144,.. �1" sL1 •i1. .� i� r/�. r•A, d«/. IV yYr71n.it'j' N 09 2! 4fl'W• 720 90 \ 00'09 r t 1.. t 4.. ...I IfI/O/.A'111 1 `�.AlllilSCOW #:4. f S 'd •jV0i1'lu 'YW 1II . .. /n+ l'I4"A✓"Mi. IrYr1eit/WYJr ' \ NIOJD Y,/} I I �, IRFII+aD•1+1wA Y as.rie am,,tact , ( r.11 1 co • • v I . 411) + r 1 Trairlsamertiloa -.II:ETCH OF PROPERTY SE OUT IN ATTACI-iZD ORDER g 0 To assist io locating the premises. it i not Lased on a survey, and the company i:1raas.rc3 to liabiliy for variations f any, in dimenions and loation tY,' -��,r, �. '....� � •r. •'++�i i"Z g:�!�iw�TM�,•v•/r�J,_•1 r ,M.».«..«..;'-ti�^'...�♦•� � r,« ®. ,�. i____',ad.,t12 S.,;t fi1k '•�. ;i:f `l.Ts,.'^ a•�i-F ,:;:g.'r ec.:iSS!i7ii$-eaA' ,.14,:ifK-F..i;•;71• iC j v , t .yi L T N . 0 M A H 0 U .! `f -2 I •. .•',a.v. "�'t. „•,"�'-�+.'�t.�.'S'...�.�.ar•4r♦. T^'�:r,�r';�. f�7^ � + � 1 tr 2G0 r. t 1 I •y s �i ,.-�♦\• ` sC:\rc.w I \ ICI '"«2,.,.4 'C_,! gi :1 J� . 1.1` .. r-,� '1 �1f�f� o 6 r •i� t ar0'.1 B I r /? yfS /33\ . 0 4 0� ♦I fit, = j/r i r-� ! - ! ,\ W.N.. ...'01,.J 0 •a'.1"2 I.,,, ..t }ia 'P , - •.....,,,' ),,t,_ -#.• Se ) f_,.: / -....„ ..!.:: .E.:. , . . ,. . _ _ , _ . .,. ;.:, ..,,,r..,241...,1,1„.7,,4.4.,1„,.4., ....-..4.77..... , _. ,. , \ ... ,.. ... ,,, .. ... ... ‘,,, ... • '4 z , ADD o`4„:„..„.., = , 41 ` c /."41 it,/ . ''' 144`iiiitt: ' 17 is ' „ a P/ we iv , / . ..- ..'. �I� / / 4 .,..7 ...' -f________ *. .: ' . G I y� / • y?417 0 ,0`6.f,P f r , ! / r "1 ' • • I ! t Y 111 l! 1 r ft t'41•'A!tbi 1.:00V4S7PCCAll;ii ;' 's :. . 7-ar,-..--:;.■�+~.J ••_ J e•.r . �h by •ty. .Veo•!f'•v JL'1 ji . Y33.r �. 11 c Y; I44A.c. 0 IA ,.1 .� �� t \ \ settet � . , • GCo .., , ....... eij 4 TM= 1 PA / ti 0 Q,�,• /4r .`1-.t1'l2Cj -Y li+_ "7"• 414•:;� j�..,..41 EXHIBIT (,r .' , �, 2 I C") I" „. ' . 1 I n 1 \ .-i �P�71 1 ` I•r / I - yI ., W n' a" /. .fw • Ma i_ . • r's s. a+ — °'"• ,. '1." \ • ' I. � r Ie • . r., _ afae+cw.w• '' .., • • INN • • •n 1/•N I •' ... �� y •, .f • • —_ • St. - .� 11rs I,rN .. ,_— •. . . _ . • • •• u » L- q Well , • S ` .• - Onrush 1•e•a8rca ,✓`ti IIq• _..._.a • _- — _ M••r R NNa �,r I�Ya°° aC •..fir—50�° 0 's se • 4.... • Mill win �•I a•.a. A . 0 Z" / " ..1 '�.:• • + . % u •Wr .` !„=—r. + ••. WIN_If)•fl I . •" • • ,,I fy. R i ; 11 -s-. t • • NO pet hN y I '1 r e ; 11322 in" . 8 .t..1 •••• ..2., 54 0 .., • . it'? .." . • ♦ • . * .a••. 1? /'41•4 _Art t fir••' .._ i •... . _. _ i 7 .... . \--,.. • „,./-_.:,.,...:., - , . , , , . :, . . .. . . ..,,_ _..,, .. ,..., .;,.. . .:.... •. „ , 0 t.... L.,.. . I r ._ZW" C.I,a�' ,..z .:•V ar /' , ... •� , *vim •� I W.4' `Ir •ems' l? �.`r' 114101.448 8% ;a. , 61"T i • s tr s •• , .>s+r. =: .�;�., •tan. —i~ • ` F i B 4. 0 1 N .mot�'Z' . .�: Orp Q� . .`, h'; ISMS/•1▪In" I �.••.' 1 -I ��t... .e •�• ••r,tN :' .$ v eN- 1. _. a•"r lyut• ._ . ,.-.r..._ ... 1.-_.�-m -a so �►�+� 'Ir 1 .- to �•�tf •1._ -._NN INN ;' . . •l �' `• t •a oIMO ., '�try �• '{� • •.•S - INII p▪. _• -• „1 M••I - a .. ATIOO , . . - 1� •r •` al •ply f•• • i••" IMN ! 1 1 f 1 8 ; rr 1 8 i T 1 . •/ a •4 1 Lr .ti,,w n+• _ I t' i 1 t 1 E 1 1 • r 1 7 'i t 1 W • • SaulMire 1 ( 1 " 1zy• _.. ! L IS* 1 I •'•45c..:..... ••Ira • , • t 111.1 tan. ,I 1 , i 1 I a UV. . 1`1J wS ,1• i "r ,wra�r� ,. r•, l i i�.ae tji r "" 1. •MNI I•.. •— _ • J. —• _ _ •. — — /l••rr — _. — ._ ,.... IA 1� '. 8 i iSW I ' • I / Inn 1r•�. ..,i I_ i E3 0 .;„.. 4. —r -i ; . . . 1r l0 ,, -f, ti •y l rt • {, • I i ! NINt 1 '"" • I • I. ref r � / t� tr .•_ _ i 1 . • y. r tip ... .., „ , / . .._ . .... .. ... •. .... t. .... . 1 .... ............ ........„ t N " I.1�• ' i 1 ` � i I f HMO/ i 1 •`I �p r, r +."-1. !T f r—T J1j/ t I� i sr! 1 11 r r 1 ,Wt r. r r r` IL., , .... -..„, _j • I�.. "�-- •.., V. J J• �,.r•+--'_• ..3 if re I I I -+t►r�;"t,.w, onnf f 0iLr ; .•'�1 i In•°+! If LQ F '�'. • . , , . • n •• • 1 • . Q{. • gyp: 1.. 'I' r • • • • • •1 • •' k L. I '! • • • e?� • • • 1;�?t • 1Y.. • Y.Y •M9 Yi • • • , • • Y •Y �t • 4 e., • • y , • • 1) ; BUILDING ND" AT OWSWEGO TOWNE SQUARE • DF;SICN REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION • MARCH 21, 1991 • •. d i UL►._ ; • II'A1t21 '.. �, • • V 'R, ♦ 3!' h•I n �YY 4 EXHIBIT R • ,• • • • , ' ,A `1 4'. e. • • • • • • { t • .• • { .p^•, C • SECTION I - DESIGN REVIEW a PPLICATIOIV r • 6, • • r • • • 1 r SD: '':, ,' • Y • i consent to an on-site inspection by an employee of the City of Lake Oswego. I . Description of Property: ''.'''tax Map , See Below Tax Lot(s) See Below Legal Description, Metes and Bounds (attach copy) : Plat Name Attached , Lot ?dress File No. Signature , i s y• Signature ate 3-1-91 =,::each Owner List 1 4 • Tax Map: Clackamas County: 4226 Tax Lot: Block 10 Lot Size: Tax Map: Lake Oswego: 2 IE 5AA Tax Lot: 101 & 200 • Total Lot Size: 13.3 Acres • • • ` - 14 • P. 9 w .i.�'INN t ,'n:;.�. ' Itt;;TP,; D n .„ OSWEGO TOWNE SQUARE BUILDING D 8837.03 Owner: Birtcher Frank Properties Five Centerpoint Drive Suite 400 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 (503) 684-5000 (503) 684-7272 (fax) Contact: Ken Lewis • , Architect: GBD ARCHITECTS 920 S.W. Third Avenue ; Suite 4000 Portland, Oregon 97204 (503) 224-9656 • \' (503) 299-6273 (fax) Contact Mike Dowd Civil Engineer: OTAK, Inc. • 17355 S.W. Boones Ferry Road Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 (503) 635-3618 (503) 635-5395 (fax) r°':: Contact: Dale Ross Structural Engineer: KPFF Consulting EngineersA. 707 S.W. Washington Suite 600 Portland, Oregon 97205-3523 (503) 227-3251 r (503) 274-8029 (fax) Contact Robert Grummel, P,E, Mechanicalg:lectricai Glumac & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers Engineer. 920 S.W, Third Avenue Suite 2000 Portland, Oregon 97204 (503) 227-5280 (503) 274-7674 (fax) Contact; Steve Straus, P.E. Landscape Architect George Wm. Otten Associates P.O. Box 213 Beaverton, Oregon 97075 (503) 644-5066 (503) 641-3092 (fax) ' Contact: Janet Otten .,; " 8837,03/md1001,103 ➢R , • • • • • • h L� a.. • 1 • } } y• -;• 1 ' SECTION II - HISTORY i'. t �. {Y. ,••... „,' ,..., .,. .',. 0 Y ',•n V' • • I t 1` • 1\, . r � ' ,.. 0 SECTION III - PROPOSAL r,4 . til • OTTEN ST. ASSOCIATES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ( 1 r Post Office Box 213 • Beaverton, Oregon 97075 • Phone(503) 644.5066 •.,a Landscape tescri,.pti_on of The Oswego Towne Center Build ricj "D" The intent of the landscaping as proposed is to enhance the proposed office building, relate it to the existing project, and to • provide buffering for the neighbors to the south and west. ' There will be a sloped area held by a rockery above the plaza area for outdoor eating. This will be planted with rhododendrons, azaleas, Japanese Maple, Compact Heavenly Bamboo, and Kinnikinnick. The groundcover will provide erosion control, and thu ornamental •` shrubs will provide color and texture for visual aesthetic. There will be Barberry and Burning Bush around the west and south walls of the building. New grass and trees will blend into the existing trees, shrubs and lawn areas. The roof mass of the building will be partially screened to the south and west by evergreen and deciduous trees. It will not be a • solid screen so that other businesses of the Center can still be seen. At the northeast corner of the building rhododendrons will screen the mechanical area, and azaleas and drooping leucothe will provide color and texture to the entry to the building. The existing entry plantings and sign will remain. o ' . Janet L. Otten Landscape Architect • x • • • • • I BUILDING "D" r ' @ OSWEGO TOWNE SQUARE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Proposal Data: i Site Area: 579,348 s.f. Building "D" Coverage: 9,000 s.f. 2% of site Gross BuildingArea: 131,535 s.f. 23% of site Net Usable Area: Bldg. "D" 9,000 s.f. 2% of site I , ., t , . , Parking: ., . Standard 280 spaces 59% Compact 178 spaces 37% Handicap 17 spaces 4% f Total 475 spaces 100% Landscape Area: 1 233,068 s.f. 43% of site „ •, Building Height: 25 feet a V. r L 1 ' • .1 1 • • l .• ,f BUILDING "D" OSWEGO TOWNE SQUARE • DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION • r, DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AND STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IDS 1.005 HISTORIC RESOURCES PRESERVATION: T is proposed project or property does not contain any historic buildings or resources • • I. and therefore does not apply. DS 2.005 BUILDING DESIGN: DS 2.202 Standards for Approval: 1.. Buildings shall be designed and located to complement and preserve existing buildings, streets and paths, bridges and other elements of the built environment. a. Design buildings to be complementary in appearance to adjacent structures of good design with regard to: i. Materials ii. Setbacks (for retail/commercial part specifically) iii. Roof lines iv. Height v. Overall proportions • The proposed building will be a single story 9,000 square foot building and will be separated from the existing buildings at the center. The structure will be located on the currently vacant area west of the Monroe Parkway entry drive. The building exterior and architecturai style is designed specifically to compliment the existing buildings. The exterior materials will be synthetic plaster, full glass from floor to • 7'-6" above the floor. The aluminum storefront system will be painted to match the existing and the building colors will also match existing colors. The roofing material `~ • will be painted metal, colored to match the existing. The roof line will come to a ' ' ' full peak similar to the existing buildings. The proposed building will set ap • proximately ` 20 feet from the curb line of the Monroe Parkway entry drive on the east, approximately ' 30 feet, at the closest point, from Monroe Parkway on the south, a vacant landscape area on the west and adjacent to the parking lot on the north side. The building will have an overall height of approximately 25 feet, The foot print will • be 60 feet deep by 150 feet long with an additional 10 foot deep covered walkway • • along the north side, Overall the building will be will proportioned and compliment the existing buildings at Oswego Towne Square. • •� • Exterior mechanical equipment (condensing units) will be required along the east and west sides of the building. At 'he west face, a concrete retaining wall will be required around the equipment in order to accommodate the soil grades. The top of the wall will be surrounded with landscaping that discourages people from getting close to the edge. On the east end, the same mechanical equipment +r will be required. At this end, more attractive landscaping will surround the • equipment and will visible from the pedestrian way along the entry drive. y ' All utility connection and meters will be located below ground and not be visible. • Signs will be constructed and mounted, along the front of the building, in the same manner as the existing signage for the center. There will be no weather vanes, aerials, or other appendages attached to the .r roof. e. Design awnings, signs, and lights at a specific height to define the first floor or retail cornice height. This section does not apply. f. Use trees and other natural elements to help define building proportion relationships and to provide scale to the structure as a whole. Existing trees are small in number and in size. These trees will be removed with a spade, preserved and transplanted after the establishment of the new soil grades. Additional trees will be added to provide screening of the building from the • residents located on the south side of Monroe Parkway and to enhancement the overall landscape appearance. Trees will be located so that views into the center from Monroe Parkway are not blocked and give the appearance of full and mature ' • growth. g. Limit the variety of styles of building elements. The building style will duplicate of the existing development. The exterior skin will be composed of synthetic plaster, colored to match the existing development. • The roof will be standing seam metal and similar to the original development. • h. Screen mechanical equipment from view, or place in locations where they will generally not be visible. Mechanical equipment will be located inside the roof area with the exception of the condensing units, which will be located at the west and east sides of the building. At the west end, a concrete retaining wall will separate the equipment • from the surrounding soil. The wall will be approximately 7 feet at Its tallest location and surrounded by planting that discourages people to get near the edge. • At the east end, the equipment will be screened a by more appealing plant ag viewed from the pedestrian way along the entry drive. i• . Every access attempt shall be made to design and locate buildings to provide F' to desirable views, while not blocking the views of others unnecessarily (density • • reduction not required). • The building will be located and constructed in such a manner that the residential units on the south side of Monroe Parkwayare minimallyimpacted. The building p • . will appear to set into the ground, at the closest location (southwest corner), • • '�' a '�. 7 , n•f r • • A. Building shall be designed and constructed to reduce noise impacts on interior occupied spaces and adjacent property. a. Use solid barriers such as fences, berms, natural landforms and structures to p reduce sound levels. The effectiveness of the barrier increases as barrier height increases and as it is moved closer to either the source or the receiver. b. Minimize the window surface on sides facing adverse sound sources, where possible. c. Heat pumps, or similar mechanical equipment shall be located so that operating noise does not affect use of living areas such as bedrooms, outdoor decks or patio areas and adjacent property. ,r.' The new retail/medical building is a separate building and will be occupied by tenants i ` that perform their services within the confines of the building. With the use of retail or medical, neither will generate the amounts of noise that will create a burden • • • , on any adjacent business or residential area. The closest residential area is located on the south side of the project and will have the minimum impact of any noise that is created. With the placement of trees along that side of the building, the impact will be even further reduced. At the southwest corner, where mechanical equipment is located, the concrete retaining wall will help to buffer any noise that is created. In addition to the concrete wall, the landscape planting around the top of the wall will help to minimize the noise impact. .� Frt �. Buildings shall be designed and construtted with roof angles, overhangs, flashings, rS and gutters that direct water away from the structure. ;• The proposed building is designed with specific consideration given to moving water away from the building. • •,�, C'S 3.005 STREAM CORRIDORS: • This site does not contain any stream corridors and therefore does not apply. • •'' • 1 CAS •4.005 WETLANDS: —He 13.3 acre site does contain a wetland in the southeast corner of the property, A retention/biofiltration swale will be constructed west of the wetland area to pretreat tie storm water runoff from the 9,000 square foot roof area of the proposed development, fter pretreatment has taken place, the storm water will be discharge::. Into an area outside c ' the wetland boundary. The added water will be benificial to the wetlands which has ".' •-rct retained water as originally anticipated when constructed in apprw1imately 1983, '"►e additional water will increase the quality of the wetland plant and animal lift!. A of the wetland boundary drawing Is contained in the drawing section. • • , A • • • r 7.020.8 Number of parking spaces required by type of land use. The parking required for the 9,000 square foot retail/medical building will be figured into the overall development parking plan. The overall parking requirements for the development ;s as follows: Parking Required '° N • . Use Area Requirement Parking Spaces Office 41,958 1/300 g.s.f. 140 Day Care 6,OCO 1/400 g.s.f. 15 Commercial Service 2,400 1/40C g.s.f. 4 ' Office:Medical 1,800 1/300 g.s.f. 6 , Office:Medical 3,170 1/200 g.s.f. 16 '• Commercia .Retail 22,195 1/300 g.s.f. 74 Commercia :Restaurant 8,199 1/75 g.s.f. 109 Comrnercia :Service 6,575 1/300 g.s.f. 22 ; Commercia :Beauty 1,200 1/25') g.s.f. 5 Commercia :Grocery 20,000 1/200 g.s.f. 10C Commercia :Grocery 4,000 1/500 g.s.f. 8 Misc. Retail Electrical Rooms 3,058 N/A N/t Storage 1,980 N/A N/A New Development: Commercia I :Retai I 4,500 1/300 g.s.f. 15 Office Medical 4,500 1/30C g.s.f. 15 •< TOTAL AREA 131,535 529 • -, • Tr•tai Parking Spaces Required 529 !V ,'.U20.9.a: Size reduction (al 85% x 529 450 $� `.020,9.b.iii: TA reduction Qa 90% x 450 405 \.et parking spaces required: 405 r Parking spaces available: 475 • Excess parking spaces available: 70 • .�. • J ,` DS 8.005 PARK AND OPEN SPACE JJ y+ J DS 8.020 Standards for Approval 8.020. 1. '• ' residential development ;I and office campus development shall provide - open space or park land approved by the City i�i an aaggregate amount equal to at least percent of the ' 20 gross land area of the development. Commercial and industrial „• • development shall provide open space or park land approved by the City in an aggregate " amount equal to at least 15 percent of the gross land area of the development. • The 13.3 acre/579, 48; square feet site currently has 245,596 square feet of landscaping r. ' ' or 46% of the site. With the development of the 9,000 square foot retail/medical building, ' p .:N aY I a'• 'r1 p Y• . tr' . 9.025 Standards for Installation and Construction a 9.025 3. All planting shall have an irrigation system installed to meet standards of Turf r rigation Manual, current edition, unless the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction °h' "" r of the Development Review Board that such system is not necessary. P • a w The existing landscaping has a fully automatic irrigation system. With the construction , L;:7 the proposed development and added landscaping, the automatic irrigation system will c modified as necessary to provide proper irrigation of the planted areas. 9.024 4. Existing vegetation may be used in a landscaping plan. Construction shall not allowed within the drip lines of trees which are to remain. Finish grade shall be at t the original grade or well or planter constructed equal in size or greaten. than the drip line. • Il,t/ ;Existing trees located in the new construction area will be transplanted and become a n. part of the overal landscape enhancement plan. I ,ti ., OS 10.005 FENCES " . .. '• ys section does not apply. '° DS 11.005 DRAINAGE STANDARD FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT r U. DS 11.020 Standards for Approval • 11.020.2 Storm Water Runoff Quality. All drainage systems shall include engineering design features to minimize pollutants such as oil, suspended solids, and other objectionable mate*.ial in storm water runoff. ' `-,e addition of the "Building D" project is small por!ion of the overall site. The requirement ..or this development will be to demonstrate the improvement of the water runoff quality =or the runoff generated by the additional impervious surface area. The added impervious ,areas are as follows: (I) Asphalt pavement: 2,720 sq. ft. (ii) Sidewalk & plaza: 4,653 sq. ft. • (iii) Building footprint: 9,000 sq. ft,• ' ' •• Total impervious area 16,373 sq. ft. • . • The proposed development will modify the existing storm water system and allow • :;:' . aporoximately 80% of the site runoff to collect into the existing wetland area located ; do the southeast corner of the site. • �: y � • v 1°r • • Rv = .7(A1) + .3(A2) + .7(A3) + .05(A4) + 0(A5) Rv = .7(0) + .3(0) + .7.17) + .05(0) + 0(0) Rv = .12 Rp = 100 - 24.5/Rv • Rp = 10C - 24.5/.12 Rp = -104.17% • . : The calculation would indicate that since all of the water runoff is collected into the wetland swale, the site phosphorus removal efficiency is reduced to a negative "• value, The negative value would indicate that no additional improvements to the phosphorus removal efficiency is required. 11.020 4. Storm Water Detention. Sufficient storm water detention shall be provided to maintain runoff rates at their natural undeveloped levels for all anticipated intensities i and durations of rainfall and provide necessary detention to accomplish this requirement. or this proposal, all of the storm water runoff generated by the new building and the added asphalt will be collected in the wetland area. • 12.005 DRAINAGE STANDARD FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENTS ul �•;. `+pis section does not apply OS 13.005 WEAK FOUNDATION SOILS This site has not been identified as having weak foundation soils. OS 14.005 UTILITY STANDARD • 1. Utilities Required. the following utilities, whether on or off site, shall be provided • to all development in the City of Lake Oswego, in accordance with City Standards, Plans and Specifications: a. Sanitary sewer systems. 4. • b. Water distribution ,ystems. c. Sidewalks and any special pedestrian ways and bicycle paths. All utilities for the site were • designed and Install during the original development . • in 1983-1984, The current development will extend or tap into currently existing ' Y r • • A D5 20.005 SITE CIRCULATION STANDARDS - BIKEWAYS AND WALKWAYS DS 20.020 Standards for Approval 20.020 2. Walkways may be either private or public, depending on their location. Walkways were installed with the original development. A public walkway exists along Monroe Parkway from Boones Ferry Road to the west boundary of the property. Internal walkways exist along both sides of the Monroe Parkway and theBoones Ferry entries. A sidewalk will be constructed on the north side of the "Building D" development which will connect it to the walkways that access the rest of the center. 20.020 3. Bikeways and public walkways shall be located either in a public easement or • ` over land dedicated to the public. The design of bikeways shall conform to City standards. The public walkway along Monroe Parkway is located in land dedicated to the Mountain Park Homeowner Association. This walkway was constructed and completed with the 1983-1984 development and conforms to the City of Lake Oswego standards. • • • • r , ; 1 , • A • • • • J ' t 1. • qq Chapter 47 - Signs, Billboards, Marquees, Canopies, Awnings and Street Clocks • DS 47.105 Commercial and Industrial Sign Maximum Area per Site 47.105.1 For a single use in one building on a site. A. Sign Band: maximum sign area; the maximum sign shall be 2 feet high by 80% of the adjacent street frontage. .'' B. In addition to the signs allowed by subsection (A) one other sign may be erected. The sign may be free standing or attached to the building or roof, subject to the following • size restriction: 3. Other commercial or industrial signs: The maximum sign area shall be 32 square feet -:! or 3% of the area of the building frontage, whichever provides the best proportional sign, consistent with the design of the structure and with other adjacent conforming signage under this code. • The proposed signage will conform to the standard signage used at Oswego Towne Square. ` ". The sign box will be a color matched, metal box frame, approximately 8 to 10 inches thick av 28 inches high which will allow a 24 inch colored plastic sign band. The metal box will have internal lighting located behind the plastic sign band. The total length of the sign band has not been determined; however, it will conform to the guidelines set forth v the City of Lake Oswego and will be submitted for a separate permit prior to fabrication or installation. � a Chapter 57 - Solar Access This section is not applicable. y • • p , • • • • • • Al • • • • J • u, f A • � ,' N .-ne of applicant Birtcher Frank Properties Pre--App. No. PR-9-91 S , ect Property: Tax Lot(s) See Attached Sheet Tax Map(s) See Attached . .4.34.ress or General Location: 3 Monroe Parkway '\ AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE R T Ken D. Le,vis , do swear or affirm that I am (represent) theinitiatinginterest in �w ( P ) party ti :Imposed 9,000 ,square foot building affecting the land located at ,a Monroe Parkway and Boones Ferry Road , and that pursuant to LOC 48,801/49.601, did on the ;, "' th day of March , 19 91 personally post the notice indicating that the swte may be proposed for Design Reveiw Board application, ` f, a. r The sign was posted at Physical site of the building on Monroe Parkway, (state location on property) ' ,. This 20 day of March , 19 ,. 0 „,,,,.... .. . . . Sign to 1)Z.,— _ , . . • S-bscribed and sworn to, or affirmed, before me this 20 day of March , 19 91 , . ,ii.),' H /.' kidL ' • Not Public for the State of Oregon r. My Commission Expires: 1-25-93 • . • • /N ITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE SIGN POSTING, RETURN THIS AFFIDAVIT TO: City of Lake Oswego Land Devr:lopment Services Division P.O. Box 36910 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 i . ..,:: s: . ... M BIRTCHER .. f31RTCHFR FFt.1\h f'Mit)I'F:ViTIFa l..lFI�rCrncrrr,lntrf�n�r Partners `UM'.1e V tl kr �, , America's PcoQrrx, l aeco.OR 47.,< for SO Years. Trlrrli ne;.�1,,.•4 s::• FA\a, �.. March 5, 1991 Mt, Park Home Owners Association Mr. Robert Ericksson Executive Manager • #2 Mt. Jefferson Terrace Lake Oswego, OR 97035 RE: Pre-Application No. PR-9-91 ` Oswego Towne Square ' • ' ' Dear Bot:•. ry• Birtcher Frank Properties is the owner of the Boones Ferry Road, known as Oswego Towne Square.0 property are at Monroe develop development of a 9,000 square foot building for retail or medical use. Addis.a minor lot proposing the re pro using partition which will require a class II variance. Pricrotollapplying g� r of Lake Oswego, we would like to meet with the Mountain Park Home Owner'sproposing �"' and the surroundingresidents. to the City 'f�` Per the requirements of L.O.C. Chapter 48. Association you are invited to attend a meeting for the purpose1 and 49.610, j • of the building. The meeting will be held t Parkthe Jefferson Terrace on Tuesday, soliciting your input n our design Recreation Center, J/2 March '!9, 1991, at 7:00 p.m. We look forward to discussing the proposal with you. Prior to ' the meeting and you have questions, please call us at 684-5000. that, or if you can not attend Sincerely, BIRTCHER FR K PROPERTIES ,,,,„AA 5. Ken . Le is�, .E. Vice Presijnt of Construction n KDL/km/Gen#32/016 cc: Mason Frank N Tom Kuhn • Y w • , •, r , 0 t Ireei,n,! l,.I,r.IJ. ,.n,,,, rlin„ rills• (, tl.' Sit •a - •wi BIRTCIiEid• Ft.. ( cnarr,llnr4l9r,,, BIRTCIIF:R FRANK PROPERTIES �ulr4• ': LAX barel•. % Partners in TeL rn;t;t••+ :op`: Arne iea9 Progress F .\t,1,•4 : .. • Far 50 Years. • March 5, 1991 • . • 11E: Pre-Application No. PR-9-91 Oswego Towne Square Dear Resident: irtcher Frank Properties is the owner of the property located at Monroe Parkway and =cones Ferry Road, known as Oswego Towne Square. We are proposing the development cf a 9,000 square foot building for retail or medical use. Additionally, we are proposing a minor lot partition which will require a class II variance. Prior to applying to the City Lake Oswego, we would like to meet with the Mountain Park Home Owner's Association a.-id the surrounding residents. Per the requirements of L,O.C, Chapter 48.801 and 49.610, •� °Du are invited to attend a meeting for the purpose of soliciting your input on our design f the building. Thl' meeting with be held at the Mountain Park Recreation Center, 1/2 loq. Jefferson Terrace on Tuesday, March 19, 1991, at 7:00 p.m. We look forward to discussing the proposal with you. Prior to that, or if you can not attend tie meeting and you have questions, please call us ,,t 684-500. ' n • _ 5.ricerely, • • E. RTCHER FRA' K PROPERTIES Fyn . Le '.E. • 4 ce Presi•-nt of Construction t, L/km/Cen//32/016 cc: Mason Frank , Tom Kuhn { >i61,4uar`.ce Chti:sto Cie land C11I11rA,,' .S rthg r rJt[Ii lyentlr t'ntitl,t. I It it, rl;•q ,. • ar 4 .4 , t a.ore t'.'l• hPowill'•, h.' 11 .. . Ir •'I l'• •1 l,•, 4 j'�TT �1��tt yyam�''�� BIRTCil ER Y / Hlli'IY'I11:I( FRANK I'Itt►I'I?It'I II.s I' t''o'".j1. 1`r ., •' Partntrs In ,•1 ,I 11 a 1,51\. .1'I\ • America's Progress 1�1•;;..,t„ . „ . for 50 Years, I \• , March 20, 1991 Mr. Robert A. Galante, City Planner CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 1 380 "A" Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97035 RE: Building "D" C Oswego Towne Square PR-9-91 Dear Bob: q In accordance with LOC 48.801/49.601, Birtcher Frank Properties hosted a meeting at 4 the Mtn. Park Recreation Center on March 19, 1991 at 7:00 t p.m. There were 16 residents ' present at the meeting. Below is a tabulation of the questions and concerns expressed by those in attendance: • 1. Parking lot looked full on the aerial view of the grand opening. How will you provide for additional parking required for a new building? . It was mentioned earlier that the wetlands were thinned to enhance visibility. Won't a new building destroy your visibility? it •` 3. Residents are concerned about the deliveries for the new building. Where are the service trucks going to go? 4• What were the surveyors doing in the wetlands recently? 5. Will the new building create more water in the wetlands? How? • t y. The wetlands are not acting as the original engineers had hopedor. Why? • f We lived here when it was a true wetland and it was beautiful. How can we feel that what you are saying will be an enhancement? • E. What is the grate in the wetland area for? 9. Where does the storm water from the parking lot go now? • -:. Where is water drained today from the storm line? 4" i • --. The City should have watched the wetlands closer - what happened? M. _. What is the idea behind the thought that more water will be in the wetlands? V " • is the water coming from? b here • . Water chemistry change will kill off the wetland plant and animal life. The attempt to enhance the wetlands will be unsuccessful, the wetlands will be filled up and more buildingswill be b�I,1Jt. 11 , t , • 6 .} • 1•' I • • Mr. Bob Galante • Mardi 20, 1991 it rage 2• Q` '4. We are not concerned with the front of the building. We are concerned about the back of the building which is most visible to us. ".a. What sort of uses are planned for the the new building? "9. How was it determined that we need more medical/dental service in this area? • -7. Previous plans had no indication that there would be rear doors. Why now? .B. Residents have strong opposition to this plan and the original shopping center plan• '•' due to safety reasons. The waterfall is an attractive nuisance. "'9. What goes on during the day and at night affects the residents. Summer is usually , filled with late night activities of kids., Residents are concerned about safety and armed robberies at Thriftway. The center is conducive to crime activity because of the area and pockets within Oswego Towne Square that make it easy for these activities to happen. Residents feel that security is not effective. 22. Can chains be installed at entry locations? �". When you met with us regarding the Day Care you were understanding of our concerns that the center was already built to the optimal size. When is it going .^_ end? • 163,000 square feet was approved in 1979/80 which leaves you 30,000 square feet to build. Will you build entire amount approved? u `. y • . It does not seem fair that some City employee did not document the 116,000 square foot limit. 4' What was the Mtn. Park Homeowner's Board of Director's opposition to the building? ~. r .s. Residents are concerned with the increase of traffic. Is the extra noise pollution part of the traffic study? Residents have to live with it. 26. The developer does not care about what the residents have to say - the building will • go up anyway. J .4: 2-7. What kind of legal rights do the Mtn. Park residents have.? 28. If the developer wants a unique center, leave it the way it is. Leave the grass areas to make it stand out. 29. Will there be a service road in the back of the new building? 28. Medical use of the building would make it a prime target for drug crimes. 29. Residents would like a more subtle shade of color for the roof. (Brown or Tan)• • ' l I Residential Comments ' • • Building 1D Oswego Towne Square Residents Name: ae,6 1,1e1.0 , . Address: 2.61; 5W C)rcL6. D i115 . .. Phone #: 1-424. 05 0 , ( '11655 213," P;63 r _. Comments: /� Ltw 0, ►4/' ' �R T, `,1.a /L• 1 v °too el, , j' tt,04 , ..S Tit ' a • r 0 D S C-S t"r � ��,4 ,Gw1 G - }o-w s L -VA? ip.e.t.4.4 I Clitto1/4. tArten U • NA' . n CtAA4A 1?).(kM.A,MI . ,_ • .1 • 1 ?64.1‘..‘,01 natAi, , r (Zt-.1 L014_ On Ark& . • • L - 4 Taken By: , ii,' 0 Date: , ,_ 0 d y ° • . ar ... 44m n;, �. re.. Residential twat Comments ' Building U o 1';..` ;• Oswego Towne Square Residents Name: le-40..44" I 1 L• _ • Address: Phone #: Comments: f.. 4.11,•e. ol,, in vvt a_l__________•e•t, • ,.. ,. - I l• lS ievt a _ Vo.d'i,a.K ea, off j- ? w 2� 4,,,,.... �ro « 1/�s, d, w�f� avi3 ti CG, kb db W•itt, , ,G. • " n 1 NMI ,.l, ( ii,. ,„„k,l. Gw,a, - per--,,,,,, L. �. , tiA, 47 -t #- wd•.d ---- v I 0 , r Wait, v- -t-LA ith•ov‘i Atm,- 1 • l.A.6i-U 6._______5_, H/,16nide_L__.____-f-a . 11 t, v0 0 o i t� hM, Taken By: Date: _ 3/I44 i 4 ,•••bS • , • "• "' •1:-.:„ • , • , ,,•. . , • . • • • .". ' . •c• • •• ••;.',• „ . •• • X ' ••• •••••• r• • . • • • X. •.; .'; ' „ r• • • . • • ••••, • . 1' • •' ••/. • • 41 •• •, ••• • 111 • • '• • • c • ••• X • • • c. .1 •• • • , • 11 • • . •• • • r OSWEGO TOWNE SQUARE MINOR LAND PARTITIONS CLASS I VARIANCE 1 '• ' t B [ p Narrative: !�/� ..y Birtcher Frank Properties, owner, has submitted an application for a Minor Land Partition for the creation of separate lots for the development of the Children's Garden Day Carefacility and the 9,000 square foot retail/office building. The lot dimensions will be sufficient for construction of the structures mentioned. Easements across adjacent f ' ` properties will be granted for access and egress, parking, surface runoff, utility installation and maintenance and pedestrian walkways. The reason for minimizing the land controlled ` by these developments is to keep the responsibility of maintenance and up keep of parking '} jots, landscaped areas, pedestrian walkways and property taxes, for the above mentioned 1 areas, under the control and responsibility of the major property owner, in this case Birtcher Frank Properties. Both of the newly created small lots will not abut a public street. • The creation of these lots will require a variance to Lake Oswego Development Standard ' ' , 18.020.1, which states that "Every lot shall abut a street for a width of at least 25 feet". primar y The p y 'purpose of this standard is to provide access into and out of the property. As mentioned, access and egress as well as parking and utility issues are resolved with the recording of the proper easements which become binding on the major and minor property owners and their successors or assigned. ' a• Statement of Compliance: • 1p . . This variance request is adjoined with the Minor Land Partition application dated March 1991. The Minor Land Partition application addresses and illustrates compliance with �.. , the Development Standards, with the exception of Development Standard 18.020,1. Development Standards effected by the Variance application are Section 7: Parking and ' •'" , goading, Section 9: Landscaping, Screening and Buffering, Section 11: Drainage Standard -or Major Development, Section 14: Utility Standards, Section 18: Access, Section 19: ` - Site Circulations - Driveways and Private Streets, and Section 20: Site Circulation Bikeways and Walkways. The easements granted to the minor properties will insure that each of these Development Standard are complied with. I Summary: The owner, Birtcher Frank Properties, is requesting a variance to Development Standard . . :' -,8.U20.1, which requires every lot to have at least 25 feet of frontage onto a street. The primary reasons for this requirement are to allow access and utility connections and • ,,: —iaintenance. Easements will be granted across adjacent property to allow access/egress, .Narking, utility connections and maintenance and surface runoff. The request is necessary r order that maintenance and up keep of parking lots, landscape areas and pedestrian Valkways remain the responsibility of the major property owner. , . ,d,,' The development of the buildings to be constructed on the newly created lots are consistent �'', • Altith surrounding and existing buildings. The buildings will also be consistent with the . City of Lake Oswego's Comprehensive Plan, Development Standards and Zoning Ordinances. -'his variance will not be injurious to the surrounding neighbors of Oswego Towne Square, ., :ne tenants of Oswego Towne Square or, in the event of sale, the owners of the individual • ,. ..ads. It is bellwed that the approval of the Minor Partition combined with the variance .. all be a benefit to those people since the major property owner will have control and ° esponsibility for the up keep and maintenance of all things common to the Center. U 4. :i� • ',.!, ..,. :.,;:—.;:•..1;::.',.:'.'.... ..... ',... •,.. ,..'•,, • • ''. • . '• 1 , . ,,;,:•,',, ' .. ,., . ' •n... . , • $ .. ... . . , ., , .— • ,..-•i.,..: ... 4., .•• .,,,..... , . ' ,..", - • .. .,''„ ';.''.•••',•::!.:4,..1 , '. ,.•',.':::.• ..: •,• .,,. ..s.,•• 'tJJ-- ,. ,4.4.•-.4,,4 ,„...4 ''':•:;'......'' ''.1 ,', it.....• :. .''',. ... . .• s ... , .., . . . .. ., . . •••.•, .:,.. . .. . '.,,..' ...,,,.:,•,' . ;,. . •.',.,,!.‘.-.0.11:', ‘. ,'':',.,'`‘‘..i'rtAiti'•-i.''.'n ..:. ,..• • ..,. ,. .., . •.• . ... . •, . , . .. ., • , .., '•• '''' ...-.. , .. .. . , .„. .. . .. , , . . ... ., . , ... .•.,. • ...... ,,.. ... . •. ..., ... .,.. .,, , . • •..„. •' .. '.•,,. '.,'. . . . . , .„. . , %,'. • . , , •,: *.. ''. . • ., . , . ' . • •.,.. • . • • „ ,. ..,•'1...., ... . ' ' '• ' • a, ..,• ,a1 , •.; * •, 0 ,4 ..• . .. . , . . . . . . . . , , 4 b MINOR LAND PARTITION AT OSWEGO TOWNE SQUARE : • Narrative: • The owner desires to create two separate pads within the overall 13.3 acre site. The 'f creation of legal lots within the overall site along with easements allowing for ! r access/egress, parking and utility connections and maintenance will allow for separate ownership of the property and structure at a later date, if desired. The minor partition will be in compliance with the Development Ordinances and Standard and LCDC Goals and Guidelines. The creation of Paecel II, within the boundary of Mountain Park Blocks 10-31 will contain sufficient land to place the physical structure of the 6,000 square foot building. Parcel ii of Mountain Park Blocks 10-31 will be given recorded easements over rarcels I and ill of Mountain Park Blocks 10-31, Parcels I, II and of Block 5, Mountain Park No. 5 and Block 1 of Mountain Park No. 10, 4 • The creation of Parcel III of Mountain Park Blocks 10.31 together with Parcel II of Block 5, Mountain Park No. 5 will create a lot containing sufficient land to place the structure of the 9,000 square foot "Builc,ing D". Both Parcel III of Mountain Park Blocks 10-31 and • Parcel II of Block 5, Mountain Park No. 5 will be granted easements across each other and both across Parcel I and II of Mountain Park Blocks 10-31, Parcel I of Block 5, Mountain Park No. 5 and Block I, Mountain Park No. 10 and each across the other. The establishment of the easements in both lot creations will allow use of surrounding property for access ,,,+,, and egress into and out of the property, storm drainage, parking, access to pedestrian . walkways, utility installation and maintenance and general use. t • • • • • • • J } � I r EXHIBIT P2 i -9/ .� ti�r MINOR LAND PARTITION AT OSWEGO TOWNE SQUARE Compliance LOOS 1.005: Historic Resource Preservation ,w. ', t Applicable -'1 ODS 2.005: Building Design 11 Applicable. The Children's Carden building was approved under DR 22-90. The 9,000 • =z,sare foot ouilding on Parcel II of Block 5, Mountain Park 5 and Parcel Ill of Mountain ark Blocks 10-31 has been submitted separately for Design Review Board approval. _ODS 3.005: Stream Corridors 4.vN l Applicable Y.*, /Y LODS 4.005: Wetlands "w Applicable SODS 5.005: Street Lights Applicable • 3DS 6.005: Transit System r , , Applicable • LODS 7.005: Parking and Load Standards '1 1 parking and loading requirement are addressed in the individual applications for the separate buildings. SODS 8.005: Park and Open Space 1 Y 1r ' •1 `w� Applicable d b v• :LOOS 9.005: Landscaping, Screening and Buffering 4.4 '•'c. Applicable ....ODS 10.005: Fences 'wct 'Applicable �ODS 11.005: Drainage Standards for Major Development • -a -age standards and runoff quality are addressed In the individual Design Review ::: cations. Easements across adjacent lots will be granted for storm runoff. -0DS 12.005: Drainage Standard for Minor Development �1 4' '• t Applicable r, i ad ` + LOOS 13.005: Weak Foundation Soils Not Applicable LODS 14.005: Utility Standard Easements will be granted to allow utility installation and maintenance to the individual lots. • LODS 15,005: n. '" Not Applicaple Y LODS 16.005: Hillside Protection and Erosion Control • { Not Applicable v` • SODS 17.005: Flood Plain Not Applicable ..ODS 18.005: Access Easements will be granted across the surrounding properties for access/egress, parking id pedestrian ways. Section 18.020.1 which states that "Every lot shall abut a street { -or the width of at least 25 feet" will require a class II variance. The variance request s adjoined to this application. -ODS 19.005: Site Circulation Standards - Driveways and Private Streets Easements will be granted across the surrounding end properties for access/egress, parking • pedestrian ways. ...ODS 20.005: Site Circulations Standards - Bikeways and Walkways Easements will be grated across the surrounding properties for access/egress, parking aid pedestrian ways. ., a .1 • ,R. .• , , • , . '• • ' • . ', ,,.` •*: d : • - . • • • I ,v; • ';4, . • ; . • .. . • • ; . ,• •, •• '• • ' ' • ,—• • ,• • . . , • ' • •, n. • , • ," , , • • . • •. • • • .•* • • • •' • , .. * •. ' • •, 4 • • • • I •• ' • ,• ,* „ • . ' • • • • ' • • . , • • • •' • „ ,,, SQUIER ASSOCIATES 4 .. _______ 0 .., / GEOTECHNICAI.d: 4.55 Oakridge Road 503.635'4419 �� GEOE',%IRONNE',TkL Posrpffic:Box1317 ° � Fax63S'1430 , CONSULTANTS Lake Oswego,Oregon.� 97035 Birtcher Frank Properties 91628 Five Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400 February 27, 1991 f"r Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 Attn: Mr. Ken Lewis Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Considerations; Oswego Towne Square, New Building Lake Oswego, Oregon Dear Ken: We have completed a preliminary evaluation of information concerning subsurface , • conditions underlying the proposed new building at Oswego Towne Square, and the requirements for founding the proposed building on the site. The facility will be located on Parcel A along Monroe Parkway, near the Intersection with Boones Ferry Road, in Lake Oswego. We understand that the project will include a single-story building with a plan • r' dimension of 60 x 150 feet. The eastern portion of the building will be constructed at close to existing site grades, with a maximum fill of 2 1/2 feet at the northeast corner of the building. While, 5 to 15 feet of cut will be required at the western portion of ” 0. the building, with the deepest cut being at the southwest corner. it 1 • Five back-hoe test pits were excavated on February 25, 1991, Based upon our field ' explorations at the site, we observed the following conditions. At the surface, about -r r ° a 1 foot thick layer of topsoil, softened from recent rain, was observed overlying medium stiff to stiff yellow-brown, mottled, A Y light tan and/or blue-gray silt with trace clay and fine sand. This unit is underlain by stiff red-brown silt with some clay and • trace fine sand to the depth explored with our test pits. About 4,5 feet of fill, • consisting of soft to medium stiff silt with trace to some gravel and scattered to numerous organics was encountered at the southwest corner of the building; however, this material will be removed during construction to meet finished floor grades, At the time of our exploration, some slight seepage was observed in the upper 1.5 to '• 4 feet of the test pits and moderate seepage was observed in one test at a depth of 9,2 feet in a test pit at the northwest corner, A subdrainage system is recom - ••• e • 1 EXHIBIT 4 1 N' ;4'. % • J J t 1 1 1IA •1 h tl ('+'' •••. _ .y'w ge...Yy:ll :re.• ••.i •1 •••]• 1 1'1• r.44�4 \• i• •�/ •• •,/ i, • • ••1 ` ♦• •.a `` L'•' ` • �'1 11. '1 ��"'pi...h �r. •� •1 t.• ,i(( • ,H♦��'w�Arr: • ^� ,'♦71 L�•9• I t..•w• ••1 r, IJ�'Y `\ O• ' �;1 .; �.• !•:jM i♦ ,•e11 1 1. •.{�•• t• •. 1 •'.�0 • Moe 1 Z t • ) Rom,b, N4. - i , 10' ,r ,I : ,`0, •: ' ` • • t. /•' ••1•.� , . r1 / 1 (/, . . . t• •••M•rbl•••• 1 t: '' p ••1 1. �.•,,•' y` ; • '• \'1 ... • 1 �'• \ti.J :1 4.M• •1 • • ' 1 6'� ••: ! ,CCC \••v.6 •',• \ �•J° �y •I I � 1 •� �IM/1" \ Vi 6 •` ••• '� ... J. .. •' •• •., - :�� ..1 .f '1L.'•Si».•••1 '' it ,...°•- :' I!� 1. • 1 •I,, a �j��'.`� !+ _,�f.'/1 11 ' _ i 1 1� v • • � ' !� �� 4 Or• .�: 1 j.:/: �•n. ' 'a!�•1' •.✓•.'� .}••. 4. 1 �' l' 1/:� 1' � •.•1• •1 `-1TF•.l 1« I� 1 °' ,It.. _lily Ii. �� ..,:. •• '• � r.'ll `( J , „I I y 34 j '� K11 � ,■Irl. 1- I ••,`,�, V. It 4' •4 °r n r.•IY 6. •,I•• �pwr••• 1 , i./L1' .•n1• • . ..Al^i`•y oirerd111. Y `".,`,� •'• �1\1 ' t v.? • .�1 0 ►►" ✓ •l L• 6,71 •tiff. _JC. `, ~`1 /��• a •. 7.71 ` it* f ,��. i. � 1� ,^ ,. t • . 1• ••-�� ,,.J�� ♦• ' ' 1•\• i•• 1 Stk , t 1 t `� • rt t.. Y ' ' - - j - `ram, •� •°,��i'.Ct ..4 1 4••\e M -,,/ ' y_�� • ••,, ,strt f- ;-•A ni'. 1'1 1 ., •• %-1 J 1�1 . ',.., `3 •1�1 •' • .d, . .�••+-�•+ ,�••••!t!.• •, i'1' •J•w . •1 •1 1" •.,If , •,r"\ 4` . ••I , % •L•r. 1 MI'1,E .%. ••• - ,- 1 . 1. M�.V 1 • 1 �•/y• • 1 •• liT• ` ` '•I "�� r7;..gi •• ��,',' •�:%./.••Tw..•'1•f1'•' ii ••',•'w�.ti•� t'•', • 1 I'I•/ 1� 1 .:°" •QY/• •;1 t . ( .1 r.,. J /!-t� +�1�,•••/w,i'•• -•. It H"•% it ,IY - • 'ty: '"' ' aik • • r •- •�; •`�1t �Rid111b,,'1�1,: �V I�•1.� •• !•' 4.4 ��•'• 1 � .� • •, ••('� ;1 1'! i • •o , •�,lr IJI70WI• ' �1 j ',G•�:}�rh�Ma•/•-e�h'K •�1\• :. 1��it A•i A•il�: 1• • �, r'? .21, ...a ::, • .°,, • • XI F�`?rA�t "1, •A 1• .... ,J �t • 11�� Jw� , 1`r. r•..r•. . -•C'j•/ .a, /� . 'I , `, ••♦` 1 _ji. ° •i ,' �•�' ', •I`I ,' • 'h l• ;: ' 4•'il.TI •r /,.•1.... `�f 4 V �aj' I�11`S�1.1.!1 ',r• -' 'i , • J • . ,;.• . /� •t ,•�� •. ._. y••S'�111111••••••A , I• YD .._ ♦••°:"L •1 ,•• . d• .J 1 i ` 11.•�.. Y,. I I3 �� /'1 ,4,... 'I 1 , r ,'I ! :,„e..i1 ,�•. • 1 • r,_. N ;♦+'J:1 1/• �� i•'y A;•tip Il `�• 1\•�l �11 '\1•_ •Y./•+ ///' 1 1 11.1 ,1 • i�,„.. �; 1 .4. •, i •_ ••, .J� 11 /T� • •:� . rs,11 jl ,,co), )• • . A. `,. ,... .. • .rT3i�/ i ,'• ��) , .,• �' •; ,r • • .: ,• .J • •C S• 1'1 1 0 °~ �YJ�J�!�!./ 111.� "•• : . `. •IJ • kL►,� �^• •�It�� 1 '' ® • • ._.1 ><�• � ` 'r l;•• •,::',1.!..•^1• ��W1`•`+•1�� .;\J• 1 .1 , i 4�.►'�/� v 1..‘,,..,:,.,.:,....,,,,, " .• w•• �•�` • , • J70Mq 1• .• 1. i 1q('L1, ��•' ��i J.r r •+` I • / ,W •r,'N• \' ii �x�Tt"� y• • , .�• � ,.� ' 1 • ••• M •• ,�,.•• • ••,i Ar`• i•1•w . • ' 1. i . �•• • I•, J.' J ��' i•� I •1 Y.�1 J • hf"t \ •`� ••"•IG 1 ' �� • -•'• I �, .•.::•� �:1. :rj 1' • \ :..+��• • • •I , , , • I' 1 • �•• ,• • ' �441. '• A :1 !••••- e. , ( 1 \ '". I 1 bM•p'�\av�R, `' 1 m' L'r4O i , 1 +•,;••; :.: 4 ' •',)• y�'•:. . ►• ,:'SITE '�•.-'''1; o -_YY.. .-�% • y� tiiii;* •1 y y ... 1:7•.., •' j .'1,.'`^"r•�'� • •1 (IL .• i�i A.S�Ci •i•t ((\i jI riJ1 �•I.,'I`'. , •• '••00, rh.p i •(/ '', •' If• •�1. �iw • J• /1� •••��4SS��_'e. •i*►! •,� ' ��1;• i;iri.•ti i•, .. .-.'. ..• ,•1 \�4• / ►• '.•' ' , • 1/ 0 :w. ..-.. p. I,.'..�,'w� -\ ° P1 �) �9' - _ 1 • NI • • i 1 •'•` • 1 r 1 �Y ' Yi• r�'T-�� • • y . 1• 1�'• 1i° ,a. •,,r••,d:. 1 j j .i.11l l • •• O (�i• . 1 hi `\• 'PP•l • 1� 1 /•• �, ,•••...•w.•..wr.lt':1 r• ,' / /• I r, •1 �.. • • t•�''I:i• 1 1• ,•., • •+1.1t) ,1 ..i•,_,1 •r, •1 '.• • .1�. • •LPG... �, • , . J • .'1. AI . • I I '+ •J « 1 i • \Y .; I,Ir,L T•. ••1 '•• ••••' ° •,r .•':�j•,5.1 w 1'•r, ' •I •'ll 1• It' '. a►:1 ,rYr+•uwi• •..)•''•• •� /N, / , ' , ��i. 1 : '•, r, 1 1, i�•i _ i. • j•, 4, :° •i J /II 1 ••• • .. J ., .. '',, " i •• d. by t .1�.4 • L 1. i •! „ t.�•• •• !1 w •; r 1�� L•i �� •• �) • '� , 1u !� 1 • • �.. • �' .'/ . • + 1• ! •_ :� '• 1 � ( � "' � ••'0• ��• � ` � A4 f�,14.ar', • ‘`•' t�.1,;� �. .•oI.•�-s•••' 'I••-.�••.• 1•', •l; +J/°I ,..4 t. • „ . 1 '% 1 ! • ` • /' -• •r....\ .i l•••i 0"`/1()• •r. •.r1 •r *II s.,'1...l1 • 1 •• 1.1: Y ^}i , !#1 /. • f� \•• ).4,-;,... �• i% • :...,��1 3,•..,r„t.....n.,:y4, '/, �� Ili•. 1• •`t \� •••.�'hr \I .'Y"•' 1•i� ' ••*/ Y+ \ , v - r. r y ,, t ,� t', ,, , ; , •.:r,•;, ,,;�..•`1�,I t• .,,r, /{`YY�.,•.�•• . . • • �• r. JA ( \ ' • • ••�N'. � !,, �.•�IY •,I U t .� • _•. y • ' •�. 1 • •�r�J;4 (PP 1 • Q, ,,� R• rt , ..! yl.. . • .. . • , . ! . • • • rhya • 1"11 < i •+'Ah• 1 •!' \ '•t J, • . '1 AMMt lA11N J/�I''�if A��w • ,• i �� „....14, •1/I•' •i,}'�,'I • \� .• �•� An t,' (• i! '4.P 1• y • 1 A1111.0f11 •. 1 a1 1 Qf\ fllt �. c•♦♦ (jI . •• 1� t L S • 0`'�a ♦ •BI '1.l' .n �Ikh•• i 1 1. .�''�: •♦. 1 ' c�{' �' ./d .r = •i - . 1,, Y ` y ,\\ jf ;•....„, ,A!• i , , .♦ Y1 d 1 . 1 tY,, _,',1 '1. On ,.�I• ., I " • .�Q; 1,' � •''1,4..t • l ., • r• ,`♦ / 1 . 1 • ..•• : • � ' - , • ,' 1 1.xv(1.-1 IN. ,, • .:,• 1 wok.1,111 li .'".4,,P...roek.,41.:,..., „ ..,,;„ ,.t.II ii:f:V.'2„, I i., :16 % .i• tt I 1 • ' J.,:':°.,, aar , „.... 4019,„.. r• ,j,„zu.. turip,... . �•• .•A "•Y1,:IrY ••••�.1 • 1• !•,,; J'' ��.1,• ! irtl 0, •°•� Q�' •° 1 , „ •• • �•,r.�y •� •.1 1/ 1 L��1 •, ( 1 •• �(•\aw+l••N/k,��1^'0 ttr 1 • 1.{ �` • O, ., �, TjIJ,{ir7� 1 • -'C• �' et. .r.,. . • • iii t•� V •k. NO. ' 1 1 • ,�Yr+>.loc „. • •.' ,IY •> , • t. ,.t de Y. . G. 1 t.e. • • • • , . , it 4a1 i • I.a t lfw.� ••„ b ' '• •• Tit �T 1•t i•� •• i• Y •• . � • •Jj Q • i 1 ...•.P•`IY � • `.tIM 1.•,►.• Qlfi • •. � � l• / • ••• ••• ^ • *. 1 1'C z J Y•. • •i!•1 •�•.r,• t11 .'•M ilia „w+ _ t.J•.i• 1• 'HYMI ••.11• _ 1+ Ije' t]L/nG :•' 1, r • '• w ` • •I.1� •:i�l, '\t,,J'1''••• JIf • •'�y41�•y'I,s •.•� °' r•: f♦..: .'A71'ny •1 10�,I.s• ' •�(:(\•.1I'vrerr 1, t ►�` w• •�66a/ .J.1 .0 PIA,: . A t•. ' '1� • ' • • ,�yY N • • . i i. ••r1'W A 1 1.. I� 1 • 71. f� �N'•Y`•ni4 `� • • �• a ..J- 'h� "a•�' \, /$ , iii ` ' r • T t W I .Y I . �, t •• tat rbinlls n ; ►. sl • 1 • 1 ♦ i.1h ••AAUN AVL •• 4. Or f w/I�.• i ,�,1,1.�. Tr1 \ !•I1• }�- I I • a • r �`..w 1,11 •; • N A,'; • •••1irI ) •t1t4Y1t . , t l::ar1. ,I 4. t i•••' �.,� .�,� �i ' �"�I YI (lr .'�'•. , ` AAA�� r . .. . - • 'ram , �'.:Y - • , b ' wT i ! Y L4 1 " r iw r . r • •1. • 4. • • • • • • • 1• r` •1. • Y 1 r t n l rl 1 • . , lD, , 7. ' , KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING • 610 so ALDER,SUITE 700•PORTLAND,OREGON 97205•(503)228.5230•FAX(503)273.8169 `` tp A RECEIVED MAR 19 1gg1 March 14, 1991 ,� • BIRTCHER ,` Project No.: 527.00 Mr. Ken Lewis , " Birtcher Frank Properties 64 One Centerpointe Drive, Suite 300 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 SUBJECT: Towne Square at Mountain Park Shopping � ppang► Center Traffic Impact Analysis Update Dear Mr. Lewis: ' Pursuant to our conversation, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. has reviewed the traffic analysis which was conducted for the Towne Square at Mountain Park Shopping Center in May, 1988. This letter addresses the adequacy of that report in assessing traffic conditions, in light of the proposed changes. • The May 1988 study considered the full occupancy of buildings which at tha t time were , vacant. This amounted to a total of 28,100 gross square feet (gsf) of uses, 12,000 of which " , , . were retail related and 16,100 of which were office related. In addition, the study considered the traffic impacts of three yet-to-be constructed buildings. These buildings ;':'; were each assumed to be 4,000 gross square feet in size, and for traffic analysis purpose, ; were assumed to be a drive-in bank, a convenience market and a general retail. The '' three buildings were assumed to be located as shown in Figure 6 from the May 1988 study, as attached. Revised plans ,, provided by Birtcher Frank in March 1991, indicate that in place of the . originally proposed three new buildings, a single 9,000 gsf building is proposed. This ,. building, as shown in the attached site plan(entitled Building "D" Vicinity Map), is to be located immediately west of the Monroe Parkway driveway to the center. This building is intended to be used for general retail pur poses (i.e. clothing merchandise) or as a medical office building. • • The May 1988 traffic analysis concluded that the then-proposed shopping center K'I expansion could be constructed with minimal adverse impacts on the surrounding road system. The study further recommended that the relocated access should be equipped - a with a northbound left turn lane on Boones Ferry Road. With this improvement, the new shopping center entrance would operate at an acceptable level of service "D" with the • projected traffic to be added by full occupancy of all existing buildings and the then- 4..N.` . y proposed three additional buildings. This improvement has since been installed, thereby iii• EXHIBIT - µ . t. ,IC Mr. Ken Lewis • • March 14, 1991 page 3 • • study. Thus, it is concluded that the traffic operations at all intersections in the vicinity • „1 of the site will remain at acceptable service levels. • I trust that your concerns have been adequately addressed. If there are any questions or concerns that I may be able to answer please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, aniel .. Seeman • Aasocia - attachments • • • • • • 0 0 0 •.: .„ + 4 ?or. .:,..', I.,' ,, 61 • + �- �. .�. '� =. r._u«--�, V\ x-a s.•�+.w�_r_,a\ i-.. • • 1� m .., �'._:'.11 `-- ® + or • • " w11.14'.1„------_ciii: .aC '.-sY -FN��I} fFI .< ,•s ( Rs �pf� w"" a° Y = � � ;�° ON ! LK I NOFED O a A MQ110IIIH0 . • 4f1/4 ;1/40o. � ' ' 1III TT I III II I L — �TTIIT I IITTITE1 J ` 1y011ilallllllQ r aQ11111nINII{l - _ rru ru•y .. �i _ ��.OM MM. .' '�y 3MonroeParkwoya1iiii1afE111i� — ~ at Booties Ferry .;cw _.- __ _, f_______,v IoiliLiittr . . r ,.... �rrr rirrrtil ru alt•»,.M�.r.1.,,Y,+_.»_Y....,_,, \( . _i—_..i✓ ►Y,yI NOua IO. 1W(.+11 tl/w>rI.w4Cgti.M., • A.Yt1+MY t /.] \ , ' . /NY/w{wnkrl) III.IJi 51 '•----_�+r.,� • 1Y Ylnwr AUtf r n• IN taNw•�,� µ • 141 .83 . MINIM • `� lilY/YYWI Val tau I Ns,.....„.\.1 _...._„( Y Yam. . .. •Y•� r+1� at. 1. I IA N J 11 1 /� .O Osw ego "�ow+n° Square' Building •[)• Vicinity Plan Ulkfcliktt MIS r d v "/ 1 f Imo. ..yr" q „ • ' j . ' \'‘)‘ . 0 , t ,{, .. J . 1,' . d 1 • di.tom" to ' I • e 1.. • TRANSPORTATION •r IMPACT ANALYSIS 2111111118111111111121111111013 TOWNE SQUARE AT MOUNTAIN PARK SHOPPING CENTER Lake Oswego, Oregon ,n r. • • • C KITTELSON & ASSOCII TES, INC. . MAY 1988 EXHIBIT • • • . • . • • .. • . •. • (( . _ ..1. \ ` . ' • _ 4 r .* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Study Area Location and Surrounding Land Uses 3 Transportation Facilities Traffic Volumes Current Levels of Service Pedestrian and Bicycle Activities • Transit Service PLANNED HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS ( 16 1 . TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Development Plans 17 Trip Generation 4, - Trip Distribution Assignment of Site-Generated Traffic Traffic Impacts Sight Distance Requirements Accident History Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis t CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 28 REFERENCES 30 . . .i 1111. . . _I_ .. r . 1 1 , ' 1 i •' r , fir. • Yi 1 INTRODUCTION Bircher Frank Properties is currently planning to expand the Towne Square at Mountain Park Shopping Center, located at the northwest corner of Boones Ferry Road and Monroe Parkway in Lake Oswego, Oregon. Figure 1 shows the general vicinity of the site. The 13 . 3 acre site currently has 107 ,000 gsf of floor area which is being used for retail , service and office activities . The proposed expansion includes an additional 12,000 gsf of retail and service uses , resulting in a. total building area of 119 , 000 0 gsf , well within the previously approved maximum of 163 , 000 gsf ! of combined retail , service and other uses . In addition, the proposed expansion includes the provision of a full access driveway onto S .W. Boones Ferry Road approximately 300 feet south of the north property line. 4 . Kittelson & ' Associates , Inc. was retained to analyze 'the likely • traffic impacts of the development as proposed. This report sets ,'' forth the consultant ' s findings pertaining to traffic volumes to be generated by the site and their impacts on the nearby street 4 4110system. • 4 A 4111 • m-1- I • • J)' • 1 A EXISTING CONDITIONS 0 r r It :. STUDY AREA LOCATION & SURROUNDING LAND USE The proposed Towne Square at Mountain Park Shopping Center site is located at the northwest corner of Boones Ferry Road and • Monroe Parkway in Lake Oswego, Oregon. The property is within the Mountain Park Planned Unit Development area ndahas been designated as neighborhood commercial land and approved for 163 , 000 gsf of retail , service and office activities acre site currently has 107 ,000 The ling rgsf of floor area which is being used for retail , service and office activities. The Mountain Park area is •''' Monroe Parkway Predominately a residential community. ,r � provides access to numerous medium- and high- density residential developments on the west side of Boones Ferry Road . North and east of the site are generally low-density , residential uses . Directly across Monroe Parkway lies a neighborhood grocery store and gas 2 station. layout of land 'uses in the study area Figureshows the TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES • • Monroe Parkway provides access to Mountain Park residential uses west of Boones Ferry Road . Monroe Parkway, adjacent to the southern boundaryof the site, is a 36-foot wide, asphalt paved street . It is presently striped for one travel lane in each direction with exclusive left-turn lanes at Greenridge Drive and Boones Ferry Road. Monroe Parkway is classified as a collector •street in the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. Boones Ferry Road is adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site and serves travel between southwest Portland and Lake Oswego. F Boones Ferry Road is a two-lane , 22-foot paved roadway with two-to eight-foot paved shoulders in the vicinity of the site , Boones Ferry Road is designated as an arterial in the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan and as a minor arterial in the Clackamas County Urban Area Arterial Plan. The character of the roadway • section varies from a rural section with ditch drainage to a fully developed urban section with curbs, underground drainage• and sidewalks , depending on the stage of development abutting the roadway. , Boones Ferry Road is presently a county-maintained roadway. Both Multnomah and Clackamas Counties have the re_ � . ` risibility for maintenance of the road adjacent to the site. M'a4 tnomah County maintains Boones Ferry Road from the northern-most to the Countyline, approximatelyproperty line ' 300 feet north of the Monroe Parkway intersection . Parking is not permitted along this -3- ! tl • section of Boones Ferry Road. Greenridge Drive is a local street providing• neighboring residential uses to the so th of Monroe Parkway. Greenridge Drive widens to 40-feet at Monroe Parkway, d although unstriped , provides space for separate right turning traffic. Greenridge Drive has curbs and gutters in the vicinity of the site. TRAFFIC VOLUMES Evening peak hour turning movement counts for key intersections r .t � = were conducted by Kittelson & Associates , Inc , at the intersections of Monroe Parkway/Greenridge Drive/Main Shopping • Center Entrance , Monroe Parkway/Boones Ferry Road and at the • Secondary Shopping Center Entrance/Boones Ferry Road. These manual turning movement counts were conducted on Thursday, April 21 , 1988 . The evening peak hour was found to occur between 4 : 45 and 5 : 45 p . m . In addition, Kittelson and Associates , Inc .. conducted hourly volume counts on Boones Ferry Road ( immediatOly " • north of Monroe Parkway) over the course of the week of April 27 through May 4 , 1988 . Figure 3 shows the p.m. peak hour traffic turning movement counts at the three intersections. • Figure 4 shows the daily volume counts on Boones Ferry Road over the course of a typical week. This figure indicates that the average weekday traffic passing the site ranges from 6750 vpd to 7670 vpd . As shown , Wednesday , Thursday and Fri�6ay volumes appear to be the highest at over 7 ,000 daily vehicles. This figure also indicates that the p.m. peak hour volumes on Boones Ferry are relatively stable during weekdays , ranging from 700 vpd la , to 765 vpd . As expected, Figure 4 also shows that on the weekends Boones Ferry Road carries significantly lower traffic volumes . Figure 5 shows the peak weekday volume profile for Boones Ferry A . Road in front of the site . This figure illustrates the commuter function of this road, in that there are two distinctive peaks rthich coincide with normal weekday working hours . Although 'traffic volumes on Boones Ferry Road were relatively similar during the morning and evening peak hours, the duration of the • • evening peak is significantly longer. Since this is the time r when site-generated traffic is also generally the highest, it follows that an analysis of the Y p.m, peak hour conditions will • .. . reflect the worst-case situation for a typical weekday, All traffic analyses described in the remainder of this report are therefore based on weekday p.m. peak hour conditions. -5- A.� • 0 . , „ . .. . . . . , ,. . . .„ . ,. . • . • ,, .. .. .y . . , • ., .. ..,... .„.. . ..,... . .. WEEK OF APRIL 27-MAY4 1988 2000 -- •' 7665 7075 7195 7000 — 6755 6935 :,/;7' /7 /7 17 / 6000 — 5990 ,/y///// 5000 Ii .//:///: 4000 - 0 7 , . 3000 -- ;' . i 2000 -- :,• 5 ,, :, , , . .. . .. . . 1000 — 71 r// 5 7 65� 735 �480< 9 � / r v 715\ 460/ SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME HIGHEST COUNT PER DAY LEGEND V /.ZJ DAILY TWO-WAY VOLUME • . \\ N P.M. PEAK HOUR TWO-WAY VOLUME pp I" • • BOONES FERRY ROAD 7. " DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME PROFILE . ' TOWNE SQUARE AT MOUNTAIN Figure• K PARK SHOPPING . Ma 19888 -.—..-"ENTER 4 ' + e CURRENT LEVELS OF SERVICE ' �' Level of Service ( LOS ) is a concept developed to quantify the degree of comfort ( including such elements as travel time, number • •`P of stops , total amount of stopped delay, and impediments caused by other vehicles) afforded to drivers as they travel through an • intersection or on a roadway segment . Recent research has . ': determined that average stopped delay per vehicle is the best available measure of the LOS at a signalized intersection. As defined within the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (Reference 1 ) , six grades are used to denote the various LOS; these six grades • are described qualitatively for signalized intersections in Table :. Additionally , Table 2 identifies the relationship between :evel of service and average stopped delay per vehicle. Using this definition, a "D" LOS is generally considered to represent • : ;.:; the minimum acceptable design standard. The calculation of LOS at an unsignalized intersection requires a different approach. The 1985 Highway Capacity Manual includes a methodology for calculating the LOS at two-way stop-controlled Ii • intersections . For -these unsignalized intersections , LOS is defined differently than for signalized intersections in that it is based upon the concept of "Reserve Capacity" ( i .e. , that por- ti.on of available hourly capacity that is not used) . A qualita- t.ive description of the various service levels associated with an -c..:.signalized intersection is presented in Table 3 . A quantita- tive definition of LOS for an unsignalized intersection is pre- sented in Table 4 . The reserve capacity concept applies, only to am individual traffic movement or to shared lane movements . Once the capacity of all the individual movements has been calculated • and their LOS and expected delays determined, an overall evalua- tion of the intersection can be made. Normally, the movement having the worst LOS defines the overall evaluation, but this may ♦ be tempered by engineering judgement. • �r;y" Fast experience with the unsignalized analysis procedure indi- sates that this methodology is very conservative in that it tends to overestimate the magnitude of any potential problems that :a right exist . Therefore, the results of any unsignalized inter- section analysis should be reviewed with this thought in mind. i� Generally , LOS E is considered to be acceptable for an " u..- signalized intersection, although it also indicates that the need for signalization should be investigated. All LOS analyses described in this report were performed in accordance with the procedures described above. Copies of the analysis forms are contained in project files and are available ' for review upon request . In order to assure that this analysis • is based upon worst case conditions, the peak 15 minute period 0 flow rate during the evening peak hour was used in the evaluation of all intersection levels of service . Thus , the analysis -9- 1.4 Table 2 LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Stopped Delay Per Level of Service Vehicle (Sec) •,C' J A < 5.0 B 5. 1 to 15 .0 C 15 . 1 to 25.0 D 25. 1 to 40.0 E 40.0 to 60,-0 F > 60.0 k • • Source : Transportation Research Board . "Highway Capacity Manual" . Special Report 209 ( 1985) d • —11— ` v r.,, l'- '4 i �, " a is ,.✓ � :. r • • a r Table 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA for UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Ir Reserve Capacity Level of Expected Delay to (pcph) Service Minor Street Traffic >400 A Little or no delay 300-399 B Short traffic delays • 200-299 C Average traffic delays 100-199 D Long traffic delays '' r, 0- 99 E Very long traffic delays F • • .,.. *When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. This condition usually warrants improvement to the intersection. • Source : Transportation Research Board . "Highway Capacity manual" . Special Report 209 ( 1985) • .. r Y' 01 -13- a, • t:q • Table 5 SUMMARY OF SERVICE LEVELS AT KEY INTERSCTIONS Existing P.M. Peak Hour Conditions • dnsignalized Signalized Intersection Intersection Ave. Veh. V/C Reserve intersection LOS Delay(Sec) Ratio* LOS Capacity Soones Ferry/Monroe Pkwy B 14 . 3 .65 Monroe Pkwy/Greenridge/ - ---- C 203 Shopping Center Entrance • ones Ferry/Secondary - ---- --_ C 273 Shopping Center Entrance • Note : *Represents p the critical volume/capacity ratio for the intersection. yy • -1g- ' • y 1. 1 -+•�� + t - - ....'. .,+ 1. Ai' +. / + \ ,lt e • !W TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The evening weekday peak hour impact of traffic generated by the • proposed shopping center expansion was analyzed as follows : o The placement and size of the planned added buildings • at the Towne Square at Mountain Park Shopping Center were confirmed. o The total number of future evening peak hour trips , both in and out of the proposed development were estimated for full buildout of the site , under the increased-density scenario as proposed. o Trip distribution patterns relative to major feeder roadways for residential developments in the vicinity were examined to obtain an estimate of trip h, distribution patterns within the study area. ; o Site-generated traffic predicted for the weekday evening peak hours was assigned to the highway network and added to the 1989 background traffic volumes . • • o Traffic demands on each roadway facility were analyzed to identify any capacity or level of service deficiencies under traffic volume conditions resulting from the proposed expansion. o Sight distance requirements were estimated for the proposed new full-service driveway on 1Bnones Ferry Road to determine the proper placement and geometries of the proposed driveway. A detailed discussion of this methodology and the analysis • results are contained in the remainder of this section. DEVELOPMENT PLANS Kircher Frank Prope,:ties plans to expand activities on the site by adding 12 , 000 gsf of additional retail and service uses. These added uses would increase the total square footage of shopping center uses to 119,000, Well within the limit of 163,000 gsf of combined uses approved in the Lake Oswego Zoning Code .: (Reference 2 ) . This additional retail and 5,iervice space Would be provided in the form of three separate 3-4 ,000 gsf single-story 4110 buildings at the following locations: immediately west of the main access drive, immediately east of the main access drive and southwest of the wetlands area , and immediately north of the -17- • .4' ... 1 n e • �..... �b. i`.� e • v • eC �- r ,ljillt II1L . _ Ttorif t� ay ;i Retail 0� i Office wow ► g0e1ta�i.l _�% • a PtsBO O.. ?) �1II01JIII�(5, Retail __ - Depth Bldg r. _ I 60' Desch w <v •; , • • I ,,twilluiliii i �3 ' c' °ow,. . . . . ,.., ,.,,,,,,r:: r- r1 � � * t ''''"' Z% , 1 ,, �OIIIIIQIIIIIO _ ... - �9'yc •• • ® o _ _ . tel „ \.. a �oioloollellr - _ - �_ ; •',`. F 011117 wool — �e� 1 relw ■ p I"r1 e» e ` , ; t •'w ir I �111 IIIUIII1Ir %� 1 meMI ~OM I e iii 0*. .•0 * r 14 . iwurrr M \ ►" pw • • r--------------"—rl"'I p_, e� �,fuRN�''�j7�M' -•y traffic counts . There is currently a total of 28 , 100 y: square feet of unoccupied space in the shopping center. This space is comprised of 12 , 000 gsf of vacant " , retail/service space and 16, 100 gsf of vacant office space. 2) Additional uses proposed as a part of the shopping center expansion. These additional uses , which amount to a total of 12 , 000 additional square feet in three • relatively equally sized buildings, have not as yet % been declared as to their specific use. Thus , in order to prepare traffic forecasts that would represent a • reasonable worst case scenario , land uses that are ' relatively high traffic generators were assumed. These ' . land uses include : ; o Drive-In Bank (4 ,000 gsf) o Convenience Market ( 4 ,000 gsf) o General Retail (4,000 gsf) Trip generation estimates for both the existing uses which are• currently vacant and the additional uses proposed as a part of the shopping center expansion are 'shown in Table 6. c TRIP DISTRIBUTION The distribution of site-generated trips onto the roadway system within the study impact area was estimated through examination of the existing movement of traffic within the study area. These • estimates compared favorably with the trip distribution which was 111, used in the Towne Square at Mountain Park Traffic Impact Study, performed by Wilsey and Ham in 1983 (Reference 4) . It is believed • that the assumed vehicle trip distribution pattern represents a • • best estimate based upon available knowledge of existing and • future conditions . ASSIGNMENT OF SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC 1 Using the estimated trip distribution patterns , the weekday • evening peak hour traffic volumes anticipated to be generated by • this additional increment of traffic resulting from full build-out of the expanded shopping center development were • assigned to the street system within the study area. The • assignment of this p . m. peak hour site-generated traffic to • specific road segments and intersections within the study area is shown in Figure 7 . w . -21- ,. 7. ,11 / ,.. TRAFFIC IMPACTS4110 ' • To determine the traffic impacts of the proposed expanded shopping center development on the surrounding surface street system, the site-generated traffic volumes shown in Figure 7 were combined with the existing 1988 observed traffic volumes shown in Figure 3 , resulting in the total 1989 traffic volumes with the completed development shown in Figure 8. Table 7 identifies the results of the LOS analysis results for each major intersection within the study area, based upon the projected total 1989 p .m . peak hour traffic volumes shown in Figures 8 . As this table indicates , all intersections within the study area are expected to continue operating at acceptable service levels under projected evening peak hour conditions . No significant impact is expected from the site generated traffic volumes at all of the signalized and unsignalized intersections studied. SITE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS ,.' . The available stopping sight distance on Boones Ferry Road north of the proposed shopping center entrance is currently limited due to the presence of a steep vertical curve, the crest of which occurs approximately 200 feet north of the north property line. This vertical curve results in a 2-3 percent northbound upgrade on Boones Ferry Road in the vicinity of the proposed driveway location . The currently available stopping sight distance on Boones Ferry Road from the proposed entrance was field-measured . , • This measurement showed that the current sight distance to/from the north to/from the proposed driveway for the shopping center is 470 feet . Free-flow speeds for southbound vehicles on Boones ; ' " Ferry Road in this section were also field-measured. This spot speed study indicated that the 85th percentile speed for southbound Boones Ferry Road travelers was 45-46 mph . This indicates a need for a minimum of 325 feet of stopping sight distance to provide southbound Boones Ferry Road travelers ,. adequate distance to stop in the event that vehicle conflicts arise downstream ( Reference 5 ) . There would be a minimum 460 • feet of sight distance required to permit left-turning exiting shopping center vehicles to safely join the Boones Ferry Road traffic stream . In addition , the proposed driveway would be placed near the apex of the curve on Boones Ferry Road , permitting adequate sight distance to the south. Thus, the proposed driveway as shown in Figure 6 is located properly to provide for safe and efficient operation of the driveway and its interface with the passing traffic stream. 0 . . -23- • • Table 7 ' SUMMARY OF SERVICE LEVELS AT KEY INTERSECTIONS 1989 Conditions with Proposed Expansion and Relocated Entrance • Unsignalized v Signalized Intersection Intersection Ave. Veh. V/C Reserve Intersection LOS Delay(Sec) Ratio* LOS Capacity ,1 3oones Ferry/Monroe Pkwy C 20.4 .66 - --- 'I Monroe Pkwy/Greenridge/ - ---- --- E 59 Shopping Center Entrance • • 3oanes Ferry/Proposed - ---- • --- D 104 Shopping Center Entrance Note : s. :J r_ * Represents the critical volume/capacity ratio for the ' yr intersection. •• • • • • • y 410 . . . n . ,,. - -2S- A•Y • , . .,..„ . „ • 0 . . Table 8 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Proposed Entrance/Boones Ferry Road r : WARRANT NAME Minimum Interruption Vehicular of Peak Volume continuous FlowHour Volume ;'. Minimum Required Volume on Boones Ferry 500 750 8?5 Minimum Required Volume on Proposed Ent. 200 100 100 Boones Ferry Volume 700 700 875 Proposed Ent . Volume 75 75 95 • Warrant Met? NO 0„ NO NO c . Note: The volumes used for the minor street approach discounted right-turning exiting vehicles, bcause of the relatively light volumes and the p.m. peak hour right-turn provision of a separate right-turn , " ' lane. SAG li • -2? . 1 ' through traffic on Scones Ferry Road , thereby preserving safety and maintaining the relatively high • speed character of this arterial. It appears that this improvement could be accomplished withing the existing right-of-way on Boones Ferry Road. In view of this, the estimated cost of this northbound left-turn lane on Scones Ferry at the proposed site driveway is $10-12 , 000. Figure 6 illustrates these recommended improvements , By instituting the above recommendations , projected future traffic volumes within the vicinity of the site can be efficiently accommodated. The timely and proper implementation of these recommended improvements will be ensured by close 1 , coordination with City and County officials. • • • ,11 • • • • • D t i • s • e • -29- 4 y, y. II 0 • I.. I Y ,, • r „ I. le' , 1 ,tN T i . • SECTION IV - COMPLIANCE 1` T r tI, • �, VII-B. Monroe/Boones Ferry Site • 1. The 13 acre site is designated for retail and office commercial uses. The overall building area on the site is not to exceed 163,000 square feet. The site development plan approved as part of the PUD should be revised to permit commercial uses which would be appropriate'for present needs for types of commercial uses. The current existing structure was construction in 1983-1984 and consist of A approximately 116,535 gross square feet of space. The December, 1990 Design Review Board approval of the 6,000 square foot Day Care facility, not yet constructed, makes the total approved development of 122,535 square feet. The addition of this 9,000 square foot retail/medical building would bring the development square footage up to 131,535 square feet. This is well below the permitted 163,000 square feet. .,. Although permitted by the Zoning Ordinances, there is a demonstrated need for additional retail/medical facilities. Based on the demonstrated need, this use should be permitted since it is appropriate ;, for present need. 2. Pedestrian access should be provided. ° When constructed in 19983-1984, the entry from Monroe Parkway was constructed with a five (5) foot concrete way on either side. With the development of the new 9,000 square foot building, the pedestrian way will not be disrupted. `° 3. Development will pay a pro-rated share of the cost of improvements to Boones Ferry 0 Road, and providing traffic signalization which may be required because of traffic generated from the site. Improvements to Boones Ferry Road and the traffic signal at Boones Ferry Road and Monroe Parkway were made during the construction of the original development in 1983-1984. Additional improvements are not required with the development of the 9,000 square foot retail/medical building. 4. On-site drainage retention may be required, as feasible, to protect Springbrook Creek. The development of the 9,000 square foot retail/medical does create additional drainage runoff to Springbrook Creek. Construction will connect the runoff for this particular into the existing storm line known as "Line A" in the original construction. The existing line collects storm water runoff from the entire site and connects it to a 24 inch storm line located along the West side of Boones Ferry Road, A modification to the storm • line will cause all of the storm water to collect in the wetland area, located in the ` ", . southeast corner of the site, The wetland has had a history of not having sufficient water amounts to create the ponding desired. It is believed that during the original construction or shaping of the wetland area, a large portion of the impervious clay layer was removed which allows any water collected in the wetland area to percolate into the ground in a relative short period of time. Two solutions are possible, (I) removing all vegetation form the wetland and rebuild the impervious layer, or (Ii) add additional water. It Is suggested the additional water added to the wetland will improve the quality rf the wildlife and plantlife, • • . • 48.315 Special Requirements: I. All business, service, repair, processing, storage or merchandise displayed on property abutting or adjacent to a residential zone shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed • ey building unless screened from the residential zone by a buffer area planted with year-around sight obscuring landscaping at 6 feet high. The proposed 9,000 square feet retail/medical building will conduct business withinti the confines of the building. 7. Monroe/Boons Ferry Site - a maximum of 163,000 square feet of retail, service uses and office uses are allowed on the 13 acre site. Retail uses shall not exceed 60,000 • -Alt sq.sq. ft. The uses allowed are those allowed in the NC zone, plus the retail, service rvice Ito and office uses listed in (6) above, and totally enclosed veterinarian facility. Building height limitation is 45 ft., lot coverage is 50%. There are not floor area ratio (FAR) requirements. (Ord. 1941, Sec. 1; 9-17-86.) The center has been approved for a total of 122,595 gross square feet of development. The addition of the 9,000 square foot retail/medical building would bring the total development to 131,595, well under the allowable 163,000 square feet. The proposed use will be retail or medical and is allowable use under section 48.305. The total lot coverage will be approximately 23%. • f ; h 0 - •, ...: , •� `.. 1 Y4 • • • -it• ul 40 . . , . 1 • 1 .. •••.. ,, \). , . , ."s ',.' :". .., . ', . .. '.' , 1,,,,, . • ,, •' , ,I.„.%. •" . ,, .- , ,','. ..' . 4 : .' '. '. ..* s''' .,. ,* ..',...: '',' .„ .‘ • ... , . , . , . • .. •,,; • ; :•, .1, .., . • • . . 410 0 • . 9 ,. . •• . • , . ,.. • . . C113D______ ....,........ ___. ... ....._____...._, ..,. : . ...______,... ._ ______ .............,,_ .... ______ . • I EXtErliNG AFENGIOT , ...• ...._ maFtif±,..3 1 ..._. 13 c i ULDIKI il —------ --- - . • • - I I 'ts, . , gil I clr......___ ......_) W • r.1 ............ ..... I lf.g2t \...._,.... : 1 D 2 2 ... 8 _a \ 1 VI 1 '-.1imevt.tt ....tio ....,..... - . , I MIA...44 m...x • R n A • ' ' • I , NN) J I [ L111 _ 44...---->r.,44•44 144.•Arai 7- . t I 6+ -... - I".- .w ' s 141 / 11 )4 • • . . . . 1 1•4....r.n ANA A,. Oa. ''''..,, .1._*•••.• ..,.... "" ,, . low . ., 1 I pAti.., 6 .. . . ... , I n.444.4:44 .,14 6 0 \ , .,.. ,:-....4 _ -.,,,.....a... .... 11.4 g I I ... 1.0 11 -•-..... Iiii.......,._ ......., I••• , ... ... .41.1 IINTIOT,...,-1 . . S.M.MO 11.11.C.Itt.4 10 14ht.•14.41 \ 1.1:„..4,0 TO c..1142 manse te al AL IMO"114.41:11, ' ....• OM leN iota 1/tottl ,..., NEW ), \ a 1...00110 CATION 0.4.1•••• ( . t• 0... c4:11 SO•I la tva4 I 1441'lite.1b nIMI I .... - N. e \ 1 \\ • , .'` tmeli LI.Iti / N i •. GBD •tr•::' '••• ss , /•.,.. )... 1 AliCHBEGIB Is • .. ile• y ltd lw I.0 -...._ t.......s. .N....,,,:‘....... aor ---, wriPA4111,Wart.---.. 1 foolt.si ca NI) r ‘ I N / I6It III 410Chi5be '....., .."1.,. • I.,:ilm11.11.111 \ \ 1,, letSiloi 10 TO RP13•10 \ 111.1.0/ • • • ..'..e-'4414il•A*14**, ....'.•,, \ tY ^ ... i i 1 ". '..........*'S\ \ lib '''''') .' ..., S le 0 ( 1.4.110 Aso A tgltis. . . I 441 u444.4e,r4t In.44 I akiiito , etomitttiott .... jj t i: • 1 * . . t . . ,,, t,i ... „ roic,..to s.r.Ae,N,I, s_,_, , i 1.1.71.4"V' 4 lif 1 WON ..., ••.'• ,.I.7...) tiats0.1 ' • 47,64 '-,.. -' ...,... .. . 171 s s.,,,,,.. , -, -•••• • • • t. X I Pf10p3s__,g.EL,_._ .______SfTE PLAN PLAN ------• (1) Ns. ilotn II 0,... ••••• •••• •• ,, ' — _....o x '3111l11°' 1 - 1'1. .... .. A 03 .• r• • Al • a . • • . , • • . .4 , • . . .• , t Sl..? ' • C . • • . •... . .• . • • . .4 *1 • * •• • . • • , .... • nitl.aa. rl.6wf Me :...n, : .'"..4.. 1• / I . Nltl mowI •{'1 "ADO d . „...____________Lici4................„.......... How PIt IMF• ., r .. —�• O 11 w.nw !wwii g; '4... .,.::: 4.,,,,. 1r.. / I �. I� I� IT �� n i. • _ T . .I ._ _ _ �C a YN . IIhifi �-fy W Li w I r•r nv� Z P O • '"+•IV• I140014y O y• f, W. Y I 1 NORTH ELEVATION %CM• in,•1'-d 0 • GBD , ARCHITECTS I14 it Yh•. ••;. • •�« Mtl nca• 1 4,..141. I • • _ WIWII nutin.in....,r•A 2 SOUTH ELEVATION ..lie, Hu I r. n 5 Ib io' !tl` Iww 1 In Itr1Fl_.2Y 1_ ., Wn [w•4l•w.w/Nh+4t, U/`♦I'-e` IwnNl N. 4.1 `• •.•Iw.to NIW r. W A2 - ., . ,. ,. 41111 011, 0 , ♦ • ..,n11111111111IIIII�IIIIIIII II .......,m ' IIINIIIIIIMI 111Ilhm_I I W ..o,u.«m "'.owe 1nm CO2 / • -'--® . III III WMI V/ W Y M�IlM1ry Ade V O O I NORTH ELEVATION (7 .s r 0 0' lo' 10� is .. • • q 7 1 ODD • AACIIECTB d - 111 rl• •La w • 6 nt/•1, , Itla/•I NI • IWO f lllII `H11 1 _ — MC '�ry1��tl��mw.�LLaN...y_ _ �V� 1 ��-1' ,r-''�— '.;-':nla •.n.w 'nii.i�IZa.mom--,.v.. I MIw4w1 6 ammissinsautto tctoutIt M+a 2 BOUM ELEVATION KNI.IN•1'•0• t104,1 art IICt./Itf•1 NH I.14.4 1614 N110d di ti t t. tf tn' IU' 1�11n1 • f'R1 -_..1 sutra A to - X au • « .•..1 wn.r11.n•�w wNwYi VU'1 1-O' 1 r i Mi.«r�elm.to rru1W Lid., + ammo M...Y0141 ' 41 J • l • _ f jp3 • • • • • • • i • • 1. • fl V,iic ^tl its 1tlONI A; Iyy ii µ,.a tU UNv t M L 4M 1•• t_ r u1( re (et k'l I• (,lle," _(iu.�w. 111 1, f �d ...... ......_... A• WailYJft .• x•-"mac` 1 i''M+/ I -___.��e. .-. ....._.-... .. .. ,. . ..yr..'•r ✓• .- N't w. WIIRI IflM 11 I d. 0, I EXISTING pARI<aAi LOT ., B)LiST NO BUILBII Q ` / IVII.I.W�N Pill 1t*,ee1 1t L% �• -L rm•. 1 AI•i 6 i rpm* .,r,,,,,,....4.1.7rta— •. 1 h EXISTING PLANTW k YG IIr s { `` aQ QT i TO REMAIN ' ,tNQ3 ..1.1 —j1 HIT I I ! I 1 d CC W 6 1 k -/' Qtt�t a • In C� d 1 ' ' "• --Li G _ �a - ._� CI .G( 1 _.,v . U to - y 1 a3 ; �1. t4it QLAZA •�� +r r-i1 ttt ,• • e� 11, w1 •iiii;•1 X • ' Qk � ` � T-'-, 1 .vn` 1 z r Nx. Y 1-^ta�s•ae- "t it'".' ---''.''''. '1,,' ::.".1'1 IA 1\ �'" ° `SS i•,�`gy��1't \ NEW BU1LDINO / O ..fl:L'J!L. ��` \\\��a4pl' r�'1.i1'�., NbN M�•H+:.' ` _- - _ .. �.,.. - �` .71111Ce1.�fI (' ..'.1 R +..,1 tall I'.•.wh DLi/iL 1 ' �`�`�;,1�I'L•�?Y,!+`.`,� � �- lei ROOM ` ..g:`�...I'�.v J 1 2 W .. ' ' uvr1 `Li\`Y, 1 I 1 i 1 1 \ 1 : •-I:- , y y .'-''--...'.-w-.. 't k.--,, - •- el3GU1. ,12,E 1'\�1\\�11'LY'e,,: i ,,`� ri I V Ir .'1 • -- - -a - IA*$ \�� •tA�' �. . • 9•Fs !deli. Y1`4' , , 1I, .P '• ......_. ..e.. y ..,MO w..... ••• - • \ •. 1 1 it 1 . .+��l..-�... -....._......yp,.' ,i W •�1 • • , :::.:1'.1-..-Tx-.-...r.t.-7-=,rt..-.:..-itty.: :.::n.r.....7....r....rrr...r....==.-r...."=. \*.IS\ i • ,._.. * 144110 ea c _ -�� E. — '- ., w PLANT LIST qr"Oe _ , ,, 1�, Id /1 �,y�� _ ..... '1 « ...,.,�... •a•:•� t•wN J L•XlstrlO PLANTr3 -- - .::f» �::•i I:.••••• ..........-.•... "' Hi Iw Lecrw.1/nlw All \ t //��••1f'1I •` •� IO REMAN • n4•le•1•wi• 1 pl.1 .i• i•e 1H A )Y = IN YC Y 1M11 l.r It 11e•IYlrlul •�,L:. l 1 ..'y:, Ilute.'IJ'.M Lei• 1•pl 11•.,..11•e I. r ... 1:�w 1 NM r IJ Ur HAW Mitzi ,. « ,y w• ion• • _ .+w lI W 111L1 auia. Il• 1 1 I.i I. 1 ....f .r w.. u V Iu1011 JVLIV�i 11• 1 I. ••1• IN 1 : Ia1e/11 ••n IY1I.11 / .r II NC wwa.lif` .1 w�.. Cl1 N. 1 1•I•.i,1• , 1 N. r N. fY Li lawvlaol 10rfUU1W i!• 1 i i, Y'1 I. ~ + Ite Iq twa11«I • II eaC autllaJ DaauT1u taut i• ,,,- ::'"Zw' 1 144 YlaooCbe•oe poet lisla• 11• 1 16 i i' ) itelen hot M11.min , JI ev~ IaD000lfDam •uil alluu• 11.11• ( �••...yy�� aI�( ' •.`-••iN ...0 11 Ua eN•••imo.r IJW au11•.M.• 11•11•••.• I.11. \ .I :03.41"bpN.nq 31 L u is ine•Teodle I,w1eTa.t 11• 1••e, 1•.1+ A-• _ ,t Ii • ^ ,««.U. w •1 eo IGMewavlo f 1Y 1,e. 1 1 I. _ NAM *i.e. I. t.'uu1.r 1.14 aNh L11,..11llii. L» • • " — ..aw-. 1" •n•1wi li II II 1r11.idd i/ea wi•.,11Y..+nllylwd . w, 1 le tete rletleittel.Weer _ I. a*hew* 11.1 11• 1 et- 1•I.,a.11...I. 1 Ilu i •' ' I u 1cu 1efM1t4a 11.11.1. 1. IIi.IY I.i lIi1M 1.I.e4 e1.•Ni li fw II11111. • '� 1 psi Novi UW,1 11m NUN. "1••.1�. Y u•1 1,. •..,I M••1•,1/I.1...,le••.el, • - ` .:.1-:.'• y �w..w IIN Iel/i 11—//IM I.111 • (la,,", _ =yM 11 N Yuae nteunU 1• • . lai O. •1 watt/11e11 I < • • • 0 0 ,.,‘.... . ...... .'. i, .. ,.. ,.n. ,,.. ` • ','cry µ;:i. .4t 41r,4 I..•m.,w•w � :�'� • c.�.�nll. ear l ••t i Lw kW./shavba• wlll Irl�ru•. 1 L n l.•t t. Z. ��--�� •. • IwJ1.a IL. 1 I'•• !ORgM!CONitlOL OIVIC! `�,-i+.l.j"p%+a " r`•.,.� ,�`�y I. 1� I ,!!C►ION A-A "•'` L.._ ,..iv:. • • , . i 1,01 .. Vf / I i I - i rT�y�!( f11 t_y r' 1 1i e +- r JW ^Q ti / 1 w � � b t n ' P, .` Q yt! 1 - I I • 1 { 'i ! } ,� 4- 1 r tm� w 0 I }1i ;J r-) r 7 ; 1 -.1 ; r= , N z / z I ,I/I" I/ri, 1j I 11 rLk.et > CV .4t et r '•� 1, 1 O •II I f1 �. 1 illy i ,.1• \ , f., ,% 1, tt O J M L -r l I .y • }jcA 1 • , Q ,1 I, 11...Mi\ r ? .\ 4,_;_,l , k.- I 1'. ttr• 1 \t C W • I II n,l.+l � Y4.) 1 11..w,,, 1��, I,�,1 l 1/'l�. OmrI f , 'I lJ N.I I 'I. •�.. �t 1 , N �I 1 1- r r 1., t It 1 ..... .> ` /F,•/tr I -• i 1, , a - - �t \. . - I F -REhC.14-11Avnr.,R.1.• '1 i I ��._.."n �• ... '.1' 4r j 1 i' q'f ! 1•�\ \.. 1 1 • .� III I -- .. 1' � 11 /N4,.xN V t,'•tiv a `�,1li J 'I 1 • - 1rn s 1V /r J4,kl,If if I y1 j 4 / /1 1 11 •1 \`.� , y !• 1 W ' 1 (( % 1 .. ;;;-:';':' II \� .....„ ii .0...-_- ,- \ Y . �\� Mill , . • • • f 4 r • • 1 1 , WETLAND BOUNDARY MAP Soule PARKING LOT i (Paved surface) Cli Z. storm drsin prole ----rlsc.lYuse ,...,:. ..r, Q) L.r.ccif,ch' a 1... ` • � wetland boUnesry • r �.. V Imhof* .'� , T • ceivert smh. Waist Ilex alp* • vswe = =' prate a slorfn drifn • • • • cuiveft • SA SOpheS • C.' `• FY�rr :4 • ' ' }� 5tandin9 walai 0 100 200 _ ._.....1 t----4 1 1 f _ FEET Ej1Notland eras �� n -- • z ✓ rr ��' • • 1 0 0 I♦- ..._... ., ..- «-.... ...-.......� a.» -...�.rN it e., M • 1 JAC 7 1, 11 -. D..lynad Dale . NIL. . s y 1 i 111 Oro.A Dal. • AM. 11 CNalu Nub • l NIyISIUNS ' • w• • U V 1 , j PANCCL D''% NUIE. ,P/#C 5 C ,• S Y PARCELS II AND 1U MC 10 ENCLOSE 111C ENTIRE x (0+.v�l� o-3�.1 ; AREA OF THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS INCLUDING -d=-� ' C OVERHANGS.FOOTINGS,C1C. - - " Ioh.d CIm /n PARCEL I / i. 1 . • v� � Z W AREA //�d / Q . I1N111111. .J,L/ll i :1' 1'AItl11 NI I1,/Lb 1 _0 D • WM. 5YA.17S srnIJ74 AC - 11 0..L9 y�f y-�� f�" V) hdAAOyll 4^, lfo • V rss, yI.' 3/ Q CC • • tl 4- - (ANGEL IA •�� >... - _.. ....... �%_..., s © .•. (+,null n,7nH fl! `y 5 / 5-Q9'il:Q1:K-...... uutlNDUA11 CO "•. • 41 CIACNAAIAS CO. 0 Q• • / �I / i1, IN J ?6 15 uuuYYY 1. f PANCCL I } } n. • '1 lm, �t \ ,, �t } p ,, 7 JOBS � , 1 OW NEMt:,10•J.�,�.., k L:; _ _ ."'.-..-.. IDIt SJ .° h _. Nil', IU11111, Alf CIIUNII IAflt(f!1 LIIUI(D fI1iD �� f. N 1 . W" N +a0 GA A /.1 IU /5“+11- i • "'" CT1 c� d:' 14.4400 0Y A IU1 2/ IRA 44 __ N 9l:i29�'W- = --. , H +T5307W I. � h '.1 t. �� • +T I"d5"N 105 27 Am77 05 '-75 9U N 55'JP'0'/W' 110101111.......................w ."\ f NY••1fl Il Unl'� A Ti5 7(()t �I............� ,^„�� `— , slFl� ii•w • II (t)li. '0 . 5hil.1 ND. 1 Plol.t1 ND • • '►)e fib, (D R.. �--�^i� ��, 1 U-`-� I " 91 ck FREIGHTLINER CORPORATION 4 4747 N,channel Ave. Portland,Oregon 97217.7699 WARREN J.YOUNG 503/283.8552 • Vice President•Englneering Air„ 'I, n April 1, 1991 k ' . • Lake Oswego Development Review Board c/o City Hall Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 • . a • ( Gentlemen: This note is to advise you that my family and I are definately against the additional retails ace being g planned for Oswego Towne Square. There is not enough space in that area to build anything that would not appear inappropriate, without even # • mentioning additional traffic this matter would be a eollution. Your consideration in ;+ ppreciated. u� Sincerely, J Warrentt0)404000,. "11.147 , J. Young 9 Becket WJY41B/jg Lake Oswego, OR 97035 a r , r CAL I -yr ,' • 4 .' `c development Review Board �, 0 I'J'� City of Lake Oswego � ' DATE April 8, 1991 380 'A' Avenue Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 „ Re: Proposed additional 9000 square feet of retail space to the Oswego Towne Square shopping center. * e believe 13irtcher Frank Properties should be commended for it ' s business acumen in acquiring a distressed property and utilizing it' s management skills in turning a proverbial "Lemon ' into "Lemonade" . By the same token, this highly professional organization knew exactly what it was purchasing, to include the building area limitations as the r.me onistod at the time of the acquisition. ...� ion. " while we raised no objection to the recently approved Day Care Center ''. building expansion currently under construction at the northerly end of the parking lot serving the office structure, we feel differently about the captioned retail proposal. , The open space landscaped area between the retail parking lot and Mon- roe Parkway is, at best, a minimal offset to the extensively lighted facades the owners remodeled to create greater attention to the in- dividual tenants . Such signage serves only to emphasize and enhance the commercial nature of the property and mass of the buildings . . Since the major remodeling of the center last year, and the changes in the traffic patterns, large semis delivering goods to the various " ` t ` merchants, now utilize Monroe Parkway and occasionally Greenridge .:rive. As you are aware, the trucks and vans are precluded from ex- =ting the loading-unloading area to the east onto Boones Ferry Road. his type of truck traffic is generally prohibited on residential streets. Further expansion of retail space, beyond that originally '' agreed upon by the concerned property owners, will likely require ad- . tional delivery truck traffic which we consider detrimental to the residentail community. The loss of parking spaces to make room for the Day Care Center must now be accomodated by the easterly parking lot. hope these comments will receive your consideration when the vari- ance matter involving the retail expansion comes before you. Thank you, s3�ncerely. , // I' H -r 1....,(... ' (.. 6A---t-E` '' argerylou and Burton Lind 244 & 242 Greenridge Drive Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 • �1503 ) 636-8729 EXHIBIT : ::. f OR 1 ..g/ a - Despite Association I Opposition _1 Plans Move Ahead for Tole Square Retail Space The Mountain Park Home residents at the Recreation Owners Association Board of Center on Directors has disc roved a Mazrh 19th to further • PP explain its plans. Tilt: results of plan to add a 9,000 sq ft retail that meeting were not available building at Oswego Towne g as Impressiolis went to press. Square shopping center. The Mountain Park residents with I building would be placed on 1 . ,:p � the grassy knoll directlyopinions on the shopping center project are encouraged to voice across Monroe Parkway from opinions in writing or in I the Greenridge Townhouses. to the Lake Oswe o D person g e Comments received by the meet Review Bo v -hear 1 - and when hear ' board from Mountain Park residents were almost unani- ings are held later this spring, mously opposedThose residents who oppose or to further support the project are expansion of the shoppingen- renter, Visual pollution couraged to sign petition forms at ated by replacing openspace,, re° the Recreation Center x: with a retail building and d- e : 1, clitional truck and car traffic were the most frequent rea- sons cited in opposition Birtcher Frank Properties, owner of the sho m has indicated thatPt planstto sl proceed with its application to the City of Lake Oswego despite the lack of support from the Home Owners As- sociation. The Lake Oswego Development Review Boarrl or City Council will make the final decision on the project, Birtcher Frank held formational meetingar in- area l `12.- d ti rsr= bc, j ` Mountain Park Home Owners Association ®."'®® , a ® '2 Mt. Jefferson Terrace Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 phone 635-356 f t 4 , February 27 , 1991 . .., r " men Lewis 3irtcher rank Properties Five nterpointe Drive Suit 400 La a Oswego, Oregon 97035 , a ` RE: Oswego Towne Square Parcel "A" Building Sear Ken: As you know, the Mountain Park Home Owners Association Board of Directors has voted to affirm its original disapproval of the plans for additional retail space at Oswego Towne Square. 1' ;: From a community perspective, the Board feels that preservation of the open space is far more "valuable" for the shopping center than additional retail shopping space with its concomitant problems of added traffic congestion and visual pollution. The comments we have received from other members of our community overwhelmingly support that position. we believe that the issue of how much commercial space is appropriate ' ‘ for the site was decided by the Lake Oswego City Council during the : iginal hearings on the shopping center back in 1982-83 . A reversal of that decision at this late date would not set well with many in our -immunity. We will try to convince the City that "enough is enough" _4d that the shopping center has reached its optimum configuration from a business as well as a community perspective. S-ncerely, , :,it, •..,,,: :„ . -.---.).4"-------....---a.' .e-e. ..lirl- Robert ericsson a Executive Manager ;� Architectural Committee Land Development Services '" EXHIBIT Ir to •1 f .R. ,� r d ' n 1 •• Y / •! �• r.f •.• • • • • • l 1 ••,tii ti. r.: f P ! • 0 9•. 4, r'. 1S MEMORANDUM o-: TO: Development Review Board 38a'A'Avenue g P 0 Bor 369 Oki Oswego FROM: Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planne 'kV ' Jregon 97034 . 503 6P;5'oio SUBJECT: SD 8-91 q�neei�nq 5:3 535.0279 DATE: May 10, 1991 Bu a.ng 5:3 635 0390 +y` 'iI FAX 5:3 635.0269 This application is a modified resubmittal of SD 53-90, which was denied by the Board on April 1, 1991. LOC 49.640(4)prohibits an application of the same or substantially similar proposal within six months after the date of the final denial. kV Staff has carefully reviewed the current application and finds that it is a substantially different proposal for the following reasons: • Q. 1. The configuration of Parcels 1, 2 and 3 is different from SD 53-90, The 0 frontage of Parcel 3 has been shifted from the east side to west side of the site. The frontage of Parcel 2 has been moved from the west line to be east ,....) of the "flag pole" of Parcel 3. 2. The proposed private road has been designed to meander around existing trees and moved easterly to provide a buffer between properties to the west. •' ` Et The previously proposed road was straight, parallel with the west line of the site. tJJ 3. A storm drainage system has been proposed to accommodate roof, foundation and groundwater drainage. The former proposal did not include _, : a specific storm drainage design. a V; 4. The proposed Future Streets Plan is different than either of the four earlier U , options. The applicant has proposed to employ a Future Streets Plan suggested by an opponent of the earlier application, .Y� For the reasons noted above, staff has determined that SD 8-91 is not the c same or substantially similar to SD 53-90. The application for SD 8-91 • .....) C. was received on March 22, 1991 and determined to be complete on April 5, • 1991. u • ® MW:kaa IS D9 c.21<nepott us l)8-9 t mczn05-10 r. b •'4. • • • .• 1 5 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •. 1 1 1 .�Y . STAFF REPORT 4, �r CITY OF LAKE PLANNING DIVISION . . • APPLICANT: FILENa: Compass Corp. SD 8-91 PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: William &Helen Spears Michael R. Wheeler LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT: Tax Lot 1300 of Tax Map 2 lE 4DB May 10, 1991 LOCATION: DATE OF HEARING: May 20, 1991 North side of Country Club Road,east of Knaus Road NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: CS/MP. PLAN DESIGNATION: , Forest Highlands R-10 ZONING DESIGNATION: • R-10 • ro,� I• APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant is seeking approval for the creation of three parcels from 1 site. Th parcels are proposed to be 13,870; 17,030 and 21,540 sq. f property in size. Also, the are 1 c an is e proposing a Future Streets Plan servingp rty within 250 ft, of the applicant's site. IL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS. A. 'tv of Like Os��eo omprehypl• �n• Urban Service Boundary Policies General Policy III, Specific Policy 5 • Impact Management Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 1 2 3 4 6 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1,2, 3, 8 General Policy III, Specific Policy 1 • SD 8-91 Page 1 of 17 • • r u Overall Density Policies General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 6 General Policy III Wildlife Habitat Policies General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 2 `.. Distinctive Natural Area Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 2 General Policy.II, Specific Policy 4, 5 • General Policy III Distinctive Natural Area: Creeks and Springs a No. 17—Wooded Ravine—Iron Mountain Creek Potential Landslide Area Policies General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 r General Policy III, Specific Policy 3 General Policy IV, Specific Policy 1, 2 • Potential Erosion Area Policies • General Policy I, Specific Policy 1 • General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 2 General Policy IV, Specific Policy 1, 3, 4 r Quiet Environment Policies • :. . General Policy I, Specific Policy 4 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 2, 3 . . w Energy Conservation Policies General Policy II, Specific Policy 5 General Policy V, Specific Policy 1, 3 Water Resources Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 4 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 2, 3 • ` Stream Corridor Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 2 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 2, 3 •• General Policy III, Specific Policy 2 Residential Density Policies ' • General Policy I, Specific Policy 1, 3,4 • Residential Site Design Policies General Policy IV, Specific Policy 2, 3 • General Policy V, Specific Policy 1 • Residential Neighborhood Policies I General Policy I, Specific Policy 2, 3,4 t Highlands Neighborhood) • •0 a SDg-91 Page 2 of 17 A' i , • • Protection Open Space Policies General Policy I General Policy II Public Open Space Policies • General Policy III, Specific Policy 3 f Pedestrian Pathways Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 1, 2 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1 • Transportation Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 3, 4ei General Policy III, Specific Policy 1, 3 General Policy N, Specific Policy 1, , , B. 3 4 5 " v e ` LOC 48.195-48.225 R-10 Zone Description (setbacks, lot area, lot coverage) • C. City of .ake Ocwe�o I�evelonm ►+t r`oag. ,y r LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards LOC 49.120 Future Streets Plan LOC 49.140 LOC 49.22 49.210 Minor Development `' LOC 49.2 Minor Development Procedures LOC 49.610 Authority of City Manager LOC 49.615 Quasi judicial Evidentiary Nearing Procedures Ci7teria for Approval • LOC 49,r�70 Conditional Approvals D. S�t _Lalcc C)sw vel ant Standards: ,.0 3.005 —3.040 c tL Corridors ap5.005—5.040 me Lights—7.040 Parking Loading Standlyd 12.005 — 12.040 12.005— 12.040 Drainage Standard for Minor Development '•+ k, 16.005 — 16A40 Utility Standard 18.005 — 18.0406 HillFide Protection and Erosion Control Access 19.005— 19.040 I"tandard Site Circulation—Private Streets/Driveways E. C of nke�weo Sol Ordi ; LOC 57.005—57.135 , F. Cityf T o akn rl�.=ego TI 11tk1L1g.QIl`�ht> t " LOC 55.010—55,130 •• P, ' t SD 8-91 Page 3 of 17 ' : : , c•b r 4 cr. • q III. FINDINGS A. Existing Conditions: 1. The site is composed of approximately 52,440 sq. ft. in a generally rectangular configuration. • 2. The site is heavily vegetated with trees and understory of a diameter up to 42 • .. 4. inches (Exhibit 3). • u : , 3. The site abuts Country Club Road on the south, which is an arterial. Country Club ' ' Road has four travel lanes and there are bicycle pathways located on the north and south sides. A center turn lane exists west of Knaus Road. • 4. A ten inch water line is located on the north side of Country Club Road. n' 7 h. 5. A 15 inch sanitary sewer line is located in Country Club Road. w``1 6. A stream corridor is located at the southeast corner of the site; the stream is known • as Iron Mtn. Creek and is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a Distinctive Natural Area. 7. A spring is located at the northwest corner of the site. 8. The site is surrounded by parcels ranging in si.7e from 0.25 to 1.39 acre. The area • between Knaus Road and a line 650 ft. east of Knaus Road is composed of parcels between.0.25 and 1.56 acres in size, 9. A fire hydrant is located near the southeast corner of the site, on the north side of • Country Club Road. • B. Background: ,. The site was the subject of an earlier partition application, SD 13-86-08, Upon review of that application, staff determined the need for a Future Streets Plan. The applicant was advised of this need, but a plan was never submitted. The project was apparently r • abandoned. On February 4, 1987 the City Council amended the Comprehensive Plan map and text for the Forest Highlands ''Future Urbanizable Area" (PA 7-84, Exhibit 11). The revisions • • resulted in the current text of the Residential Neighborhood Policies for the Forest " . Highlands Neighborhood (Exhibit 12). These exhibits are provided for the convenience • • of the Board in reviewing written and oral testimony regarding policies affecting this • '1 neighborhood. Two pre—application conferences have been held since 1986. These are PR 49-90 and PR 66-90. The latter led to the submittal of a minor partition application (SD 53-.90), which was denied by the Development Review Board on April 1, 1991 (Exhibit 9). • C. Proposal • The applicant proposes to create three parcels from a 1,2 acre parcel. The applicant proposes to construct a shared private road in an access easement. This road is proposed • to temporarily gain access to the site from Country Club Road until such time as a futur SD 8-91 Page 4 of 17 • F • i. st eet is built. To achieve this, the applicant proposes a Future Streets Plan (Exhibit 5). Tile three proposed parcels each are in excess of 10,000 sq. ft. in area. , D, ompliance with �;.ari� FnA Ann;y�u,��. t. ;, 1 • As per LOC 49.615, the Development Review Board must consider the following criteria i' , when evaluating minor development: i, .' 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval. "`• The applicant has submitted a number of documents marked as exhibits, accompanying this report. Staff has provided additional exhibits. 2. For any development application to be approved, it shall first be established that the proposal conforms to: a. The City's Comprehensive Plan : , The applicable Plan policies have been addressed as follows: i urban_ Service BQuda,rw Poli es S'° These policies require the City to manage and phase. urban growth within the Urban • Service boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic services. Specific Policy 5, which is used as a guide in interpreting the meaning of the General Policy, states that • `. ' new development shall be serviced by an "urban level" of services, including schools. • t. This specific policy also states that these services are to be available or committed prior to approval of development. Exhibit 13 (The City Council memorandum of September J 18, 1990) demonstrates that the current level of school planning and coordination between the City and School District satisfy this General Policy. The recent passage of the 17 million dollar school levy further assures adequate school facilities. • • Impci a_nageme tPoli i These policies require protection of natural resources from development, comprehensive review of development proposals, and payment of an equitable share of the costs of public facilities. These policies are implemented through several Development „' Standards, addressed further below, The policies require assurance that distinctive areas will be preserved, soil will be protected from erosion, trees will be protected from • b3�, • removal, streams will be preserved and that density will be limited to achieve these results. Compliance with the applicable Development Standards reviewed below will • assure conformattce to these Plan policies. Conditions of approval will be imposed when necessary to assure compliance. ,;. Overall Density Policies . These policies require the City to designate on the Comprehensive Plan Map the potential • maximum density based upon known site conditions, The policies also require that the '' •' actual density will be determined by the applicable Development Standards and Zoning Code: These regulations will be evaluated in this report following an analysis of applicable Plan policies, w • • • SD8-91 'n Page 5of17 vfY i,e �' • +r h Wildlife Habitat Policies s, These policies require protection of upland habitat in the form of preserved open space, natural vegetation or fragile slopes. The related development standards are revrzwed i this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. i Distinctive Natural Areaoli Pcic, :�? ` • These policies require the City to preserve tree stands and those features listed as s distinctive. The wooded ravine of Iron Mtn. Creek which runs along the site's southern boundary is a Distinctive Natural Area. These policies are implemented through L,OC Chapter 55, the Tree Cutting Ordinance, the Stream Corridor Development Standard and ' other development standards. These related development standards are reviewed in this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. Potential Landslide Area Policies These policies require that land use activity in landslide hazard areas be in accord with r the degree of the hazard. City resources compiled from U.S. Soil Conservation District r mapping indicates that a portion of the site is in a landslide hazard area. A soils report is required to address this condition. These policies are implemented through the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development Standard,reviewed in this report following ''{ •' '• , ' an analysis of applicable Plan policies. Potential Erosion Area Policies These policies require designation of areas of severe potential for erosion as Protection Open Space, and require erosion control and drainage measures during site planning and construction. Development is subject to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development is subject to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development Standard adopted to implement these Plan policies. The related development standards are reviewed in this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. Quiet Environment Policies These policies require the City to consider noise control in land use planning. Land uses should be planned to keep noise levels and disturbances to a minimum, and to decrease noise levels from traffic in residential areas. These policies require the City to ensure that noise barriers such as landscaping are used to reduce noise levels adjacent to arterials such as Country Club Road. These policies are implemented through the Utility ,/, Development Standard and LOC Chapters 42 and 44 regarding Subdivisions and Streets. • Energy ery Consation Policies `y These policies encourage energy conservation through solar orientation and site planning ' which takes into account the site's natural features. These policies are now implemented through the City's Solar Access Ordinance (LOC Chapter 57) which will be reviewed • later in this report. • Water Resource Policies ` /.• • • , These policies require the City to preserve natural groundwater levels as a water source ,., .�. and to support existing vegetation. Also, the policies require the City to prevent pollution ' Y' of groundwater and detrimental changes in groundwater levels, as well as damage to ` • • SD8-91 Page 6 of 17 j 7 •I td .'• property from high groundwater hazard areas (springs). These policies are implemented o.r o ! through the Drainage Standards for Minor Development, reviewed following applicable Plan policies. Stream Corridor Policies These policies designate major stream corridors as Protection Open Space. The policies allow the City to require dedication of easement in stream corridors as a condition of new development where needed for storm drainage management. These policies also require ,r a determination of a stream corridor buffer zone to protect steep slopes, soil and t vegetation from erosion hazard. Grading is required to be regulated to protect stream corridors. Setbacks from the stream corridor buffer zone arc required to achieve the above objectives. These policies are implemented through the Stream Corridor Development Standard, reviewed later in this report. u % Residential Density Policies These policies require the City to assure that residential density is appropriately related to site conditions, surrounding land uses and capacity of public facilities, especially streets. Densities should be lower in areas of potential hazard, and building should be prohibited s in areas of confined hazards. These policies are implemented through various ' • Development Standards reviewed later in this report. >` Residential_ Sit D�ei�politpa These policies require the City to require residential streets to be designed to control the speed of automobile traffic. Priority will be given in street design to amenities which improve residential livability over vehicle speed and convenience, and to reduce disruption of residential areas caused by traffic. The policies require measures to reduce noise impact on new residential uses along collector and arterial streets. These policies I. , are implemented through the Future Streets Plan provisions of the Development Code [LOC 49.140] and the Utility Standard, reviewed later in this report. Residential Nei ood Policies st Highlands;Neiehborho4rl) • These policies require the City to actively preserve natural resources, particularly wooded areas, streams and stream banks, and wildlife habitat. These policies are implemented Y through various Development Standards, particularly the Scream Corridor Development ,Standard, and Tree Cutting Ordinance reviewed later in this report. • y Protection Open Space Policies These policies further protect the natural resources identified in the Natural Resources • Policy Element. These policies are implemented through a variety of applicable Development Standards. These are reviewed for compliance later in this report. . . Public4_en Space Policies • development approval. These dedications hate open spaces as a condition of policiesrequireappropriate are required to fit the Public Open Space plan and Intra—City Pathway system, wherever possible. These policies are implemented through conditions of approval when the development proposed is not a major r. ' development, • :• ' 411) SD 8-91 Page 7 of 17 ,. M �' f nr•` 1 P ' •fir , , .. y. � ., .. ✓ • The area of the stream corridor has been identified by the neighborhood as being a desirable pedestrian pathway route. This route is not illustrated on the Pathways Master Plan (Exhibit 19). A condition may be imposed upon this action to provide such a pathway. ar , Pedestrian Pathways Policies `;;, These policies require the City to plan a system of footpaths. Possible mutes are along stream corridors, and should be separated from bikeway mutes. A condition may be imposed to achieve this objective. Transportation Policies .• . ➢ ,,:. These policies require the City to design streets in accord with community goals and with regard to capacity, aesthetics, and privacy. The City is charged with developing a system of collector and arterial streets which restrict access to arterials unless alternatives are not available. The City must also plan a residential neighborhood streets system which r assures adequate circulation from properties to major streets and provides a minimum of disruption to the neighborhood. These local streets must be planned to provide access to ' ` • abutting land. These policies are implemented through the Development Code Provisions regarding Future Streets Plans [LOC 49.140] and LOC Chapter 42 regarding Streets and Sidewalks. b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations. '' d Zoning Code Resli;irements and Analysis The sits,is zoned R-10 Residential which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 sq, ft. per dwelling unit [LOC 48.210(1)]; required minimum lot width at the building lines is • 65 ft. [LOC 48.210(1)]; required minimum lot depth is 100 ft. [LOC 48.210(1)].Maximum lot coverage allowed in the zone is 30% [LOC 48.225(1)]. The maximum height in the R-10 zone is 35 ft. [LOC 48.220]. The zone requires the following minimum setbacks: , Front yard: 25 ft. [See LOC 48.015(35),(60); 48.525] Rear yard: 25 ft. Street side yard: 20 ft. on arterial and collector; 10 ft. on local streets • Side yard: 10 ft. The parcels as proposed can meet either current or proposed setbacks. The applicant proposes the parcels to be the following sizes: Area (sq.ft.) Width pot • Parcel 1 13,870 131 ft. 112 ft. Parcel 2 17,030 85 ft. 160 ft. Parcel 3 21,540 85 ft, 186 ft, 0 The three proposed parcels each meet the applicable zoning requirements. , : . , • , 0 SD8-91 Page 8 of 17 • Y„ . r 1, ]• 4 f ' ,. Develop er�t S �g1eRta and Anjy.s1S • The proposed partition is appropriately being processed as a minor development. The Development Standards are applicable to this request. Also, the provisions regarding Future Streets Plans [LOC 49.120] are applicable to the proposal. The Access Development Standard(reviewed later) prevents permanent access from development to an arterial such as CountryClub Road [LODS 18.020(3)]. Additionally, -°;`. the development capabilities of the immediate surrounding neighborhood(planned for an R-7.5 zone with a maximum density of 5.8 dwelling units per net acre) demand that access to vacant or underdeveloped parcels be planned before development occurs so that ,' • future access may be provided. It is worth noting that no right-of-way dedication will be necessary at this time. The City's policy regarding a ft::.ure streets plan includes recording a boundary map and a narrative at the County Recorder's Office. The boundary map outlines the affected q� properties so that the properties are aware of a possible future street extension. The ' narrative identifies the properties by metes and bounds. Staff recommends that a future street boundary map and narrative be recorded at the County Recorder's Office prior to , approval of the final plat. • The applicant has provided a Future Streets Plan option (Exhibit 5). The Future Streets • Plan illustrates a portion of a loop system originating at Atwater Road, traveling first ..,., southerly, then returning easterly to an undetermined terminus on Atwater Road. A 20 foot-wide private drive from the site to the loop proposed to serve the , neighborhood to the northeast. The drive is just over 250 feet long. This plan addresses access to potential development abutting both the Future Street and • the proposed private drive. The large parcels are illustrated to conform with current development levels but do not preclude development at the designated R-7.5 • Comprehensive Plan density. The Future Streets Plan • proposed (Exhibit 5) is suitable fot adoption by the Development • Review Board. The adopted Future Streets Plan would be subject to revision as provided by LOC 49.120(5), which may be appropriate upon application for development of neighboring properties as extensions of the Future Streets Plan are considered. The grades of the Future Streets Plan are within those allowed by City standards • (maximum 15% for streets, 20% for driveways). The areas affected by the Future Streets • Plan must be dedicated as an access an utility easement to be preserved for construction. • This must be shown o►t the final plan, and will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. Solar Access Ordinance Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 57) . w This ordinance request that 80% of newly created parcels must be designed for solar orientation. The parcels must abut a street which is within 30 deg rees of an east-west axis and have a minimum north-south dimension of 90 ft. [LOC 57,020(1)], Two alternatives to the basic design standard exist: 1) design a solar building line, north of which solar access is protected, or 2) orient structures according to one of two performance options [LOC 57.020(2) and (3)], • SD8-91 Page 9 of 17 f • , r ' • A �,s J Parcels 1, 2 and 3 meet the basic design standard and are solar lots. All three solar lots must comply with LOC 57.035 which regulates the height of structures and non—exempt '` • vegetation. This will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. Tree Cutting This ordinance requires a permit to remove any tree in excess of five inches in diameter, •" and provides five criteria against which to evaluate the appropriateness of such removal, The applicant has submitted a tree survey as a part of the site plan (Exhibit 3). Douglas— firs in the inventory range from six inches to 42 inches. Those firs likely to be impacted by development range from 20 inches to 42 inches. It is possible for most of these large trees to be preserved and protected from the effects of construction through careful site planning and the installation of protective fencing along the drip line of the trees prior to construction. A stream corridor is located on Parcel I, the buffer zone of which will provide protection � to the 29 trees (assorted species) within it. A mixture of Alder and Maple lie within the _ building envelope of Parcel 1. Ten trees are likely to be removed to site a dwelling on the parcel. Twelve trees are within setback areas and will likely remain. An additional setback from the stream corridor of 10 feet will protect four other trees. Eight Douglas—firs ranging between 26 and 34 inches are located within or affected by the building envelope of Parcel 2. Six of the eight may be protected during construction • , and preserved because they lie on the perimeter of the building envelope. Two trees are likely to be removed from Parcel 2. The applicant proposes to protect a 34 inch fir. A 26 inch fir and a 25 inch fir west of the proposed private road can be protected; four trees will be removed for road construction on F'areel 2. Fourteen trees will remain on Parce 2. t . 11 ar .r The applicant proposes to preserve ten firs on Parcel 3. The driveway approach to a dwelling on Parcel 3 is designed to travel between two 30—inch firs to avoid root damage and disturbance to these trees. Three trees are likely to be removed from the building envelope. Twenty—five trees are anticipated to remain on Parcel 3, Additionally, eight trees surveyed lie within the right—of—way of Country Club Road and will remain. The route of the proposed private road is the least disruptive with regard to trees and the presence of the stream corridor and has been designed with regard to the proximity of the dwellings abutting the west. • • In summary, the following table illustrates the degree of tree preservation likely to occur on site, which amounts to 73% of the existing trees over five inches in diameter. 0•yM SD 8-91 • t Page 10 of 17 . �' Specially Likely to Likely Pu2tected be Remain to be Cut nJ' Parcel ! 34 7 10 Parcel 2 (bldg, envelope) 8 6 (mad) 0 2 1 Parcel 3 �. (bIdg. envelope) 6 10 3 (road) 4 _...4_____________I Subtotal (% on site) 52 (49%) 29 (28%) 24(223) = 105 (100%) . • Country Club R-0—W _$ p Total 60 29 24 Conditions regarding methods of tree protection will be imposed upon this action, if approved. These conditions may include delineation of the applicant's proposed building envelopes on the final plan and limitation of structures to those areas only, and limitations on tree removal to those areas only. c. The applicable Development Standards Stt am Corridors (3 00 0401 This standard requires the location of the stream corridor boundary or buffer zone (25 feet measured from top of bank). No development may occur within this buffer zone. Additionally, staff recommends that a ten foot setback from the edge of the buffer zone r. so that the effects of construction may occur in the setback and not in the buffer zone. The stream corridor(and Distinctive Natural Area) lies at the southeastern portion of the site, draining southeasterly from a culvert under Country Club Road. The applicant has identified the location of the stream and the buffer zone stream corridor and buffer zone must, at a minimum, be(Exhibit rotec ed throw h the dedicahe area within tion e• g on of a drainage management and conservation easement to the City. An additional 10 ft. wide setback from the edge of the buffer zone must also be maintained to protect the resource. Both of these measures will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. The stream corridor is a desirable route for a pedestrian pathway within this neighborhood. Segments of the pathway have been acquired to the northeast, near Atwater Road,providing ultimate connection to Tryon Creek State Park (Exhibits 20, 21, and 22). • . To implement applicable Plan policies regarding pathways, the applicant must dedicate , the area of the stream corridor and a portion of the access easement to the public for use as a pathway, This will be required as a condition of this action, if approved, • `I , SD $-91 Page 11 of 17 _ k. • Street Lights (5.005—5.040) A street light is located on a utility pole at the northwest corner of Kraus Road and Country Club Road. A utility pole is located near the middle of the site. The distance / between these poles is approximately 300 ft. The applicant must install a street light o the pole to comply with the standard. This will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. �� Parking and Loading(7.005—7.040) This standard requires that each single family dwelling must provide two off—street •• '" pe.kii g spaces in addition to a garage or carport. Each proposed parcel is sufficient size to meet this requirement. Dr inage Stan�Iard for Minor Development (12.005 — 12.0401 This standard requires that drainage alterations, including new development, not adversely affect neighboring properties. Drainage alterations resulting from construction of the proposed private road will be required to comply with DEQ rules regarding • phosphate efficiency as well as to provide for positive storm drainage. Drainage • . • alterations resulting from construction of dwellings will be required to demonstrate ` positive storm drainage upon application for building permits requested subsequent to this action. The applicant proposes to install a 6 inch storm drainage line on the east side of the site ' 'a to collect all roof, foundation and surface runoff. The applicant has provided flow rate '` calculations to demonstrate the adequacy of this installation for three dwellings (Exhibit 8). This installation is proposed to accommodate all runoff generated from development, a 0 well as the flow from an existing spring located near the northwest corner of the site. The installation and related utility easement must be extended to the north line of the site t " • °• to accommodate drainage from the Future Streets Plan (Exhibit 5), when constructed. The applicant also proposes a catch basin at the south end of the private road A single catch basin will be inadequate to accommodate all surface runoff from the road; additional basins or a trench (curtain) drain will be required to adequately dispose of this surface water. This revision will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. Utility Standard (14.005— 14.0401. • , This standard requires that infrastructure improvements be installed underground, where possible. Water and sanitary sewer are available in Country Club Road, Utility and access easements will be necessary over Parcels 1 and 2 to serve Parcel 3, The applicant .F plans to extend public sewer to the northerly property line of the site and storm sewer to ' • Parcel 3 along the ;erly property line of the site. • The applicant's narrative indicates that the proposed sanitary sewer line will have "' adequate cover, The applicant should design the public line to accommodate construction of a floor elevation of approximately 322 ft, at the southeast corner of Parcel 3. " }N , , . ., . SD8-91 Page 12 of 17 • j. , " : :� ,' The applicant's site plan (Exhibit 3) illustrates an unidentified parcel south of the stream corridor on Parcel 1. This area is believed to be a portion of the right—of—way of Country Club Road and should be shown as such. Such a revision will be required as a condition -" of this action,if approved. The design of the private road must be revised to provide an adequate outside turning radius for emergency equipment. The current proposal is adequate for such equipment to gain access to the site from the south, but does not allow an adequate radius for access , from the north by way of the Future Streets Plan 'Exhibit 5), This revision will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. • The easement must be illustrated on the final plan, dedicated as a fire lane and posted as • such by the applicant. This will be required also, if approved, Upon construction of the Future Streets Plan (Exhibit 5), the addresses will necessarily change from Country Club Road to the now unnamed loop proposed to intersect Atwater Road. Imposition of new addresses will be a condition of this action, if approved. A r, portion of the proposed access easement will be required to be abandoned at that time, `; This will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. • �`� Prior to construction of any improvements on the site, the applicant will be required to coordinate the re—striping of Country Club Road from Knaus Road easterly, providing a center left—turn Jane, and tapering to four lanes east of the site, This re—striping will assure safe turning will assure safe turning movements to and from the site during the period of temporary access to Country Club Road. This will be required as a condition of • this action, if approved. . • .t Halide Protection and Erosion Control (16.005 — 16.040) This standard requires protection against soil erosion by limiting the extent of clearing, ° ' cutting and filling of soils on slopes greater than 12%. The applicant notes that, except ' within the street corridor, the site slopes southeasterly at a 10 to 12% grade, The southerly 20% of the site is identified as having a;'otential for landslide hazard �. (Exhibit 14) for which a soils report is required. The applicant has submitted a soils report though no hazard was found (Exhibit 6), The report deems the site stable and • suitable for housing,with certain recommendations imposed regarding ground water ., disposal. These recommendations will be required as conditions of this action, if �' approved. ` ' Access Standard (18.005— 18.040) • This standard requires that each parcel abut a public street for at least 25 feet, The • • • applicant's proposal complies with this standard for each of the three proposed parcels, • The standard also prohibits direct permanent access to an arterial street where an • alternative access is expected to be available. A temporary access may be allowed if future altern',five access can be demonstrated. • o a` The applicant proposes temporary access from Country Club Road and permanent access • • from a future drive to a Future Streets Plan (Exhibit 5). The plan has been reviewed in an • • earlier section of this report. • SD 8-91 • Page 13 of 17 4 rt �a y Site Circulation—Private ,Srreets/Driveways {,19.005— 19.040) This standard requires that driveways for single family dwellings not exceed 20% grad ' r nor 5% cross slope. The applicant's narrative identifies the average slope of the site a 10 to 12% and driveways will not exceed 20%. This will be required as a condition of any building permit requested subsequent to this action, if approved. d. Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS There is no Future Streets Plan or ODPS currently applicable to the site. A Future Streets Plan has been submitted(Exhibit 5) and considered earlier in this report. C. Conclusion: Staff has reviewed the applicant's Future Streets Plan (Exhibit 5) earlier in this report and believes that parcels within 250 feet east of the site will be adequately served. Staff f: concludes that the applicant's current Future Streets Plan proposal adequately serves the r, area, and is capable of being constructed. , Staff further concludes, that based upon the Future Streets Plan ultimately providing permanent access to the site, compliance with the Access Development Standard is , achieved. Temporary access to the abutting arterial (Country Club Road)can therefore ,. be allowed [LODS 18.020(3)]. ` The applicant has provided a soils investigation in compliance with the Hillside , :a . Protection and Erosion Control Development Standard [LODS 16.020(4)(b)] and ` `,, proposes a storm drainage installation to comply with its recommendations and the Drainage Standard for Minor Development. 0 '.' ' ' ' The applicant has demonstrated compliance with the Solar Access Ordinance [LOC 57.020(1)] through design of the proposed parcels (Exhibit 3). Staff further concludes compliance with other noted applicable development ' requirements and standards can be achieved through the imposition of certain conditions, Ilii, RECOMMENDATION s . ' . • . Staff recommends that SD 8-91 and the applicant's Future Streets Plan (Exhibit 5) be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A final plan (as depicted in Exhibit 3 and modified by conditions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and . 10) shall be submitted to City staff for review and signature of approval within one year of the date of this decision. Upon written application, prior to expiration of the one year ` ' . ' period, the City Manager shall, in writing, grant a one year extension. Additional extensions may be requested in writing and must be submitted to the City Manager for ." y review of the project for conformance with current law, development standards and compatibility with development which may have occurred in the surrounding area. The • extension may be granted or denied and if granted, may be conditioned to require modification to bring the project into compliance with then current law and compatibility with surrounding development. • The final plan shall reference this land use application—City of Lake Oswego Planning; Division, File No. SD 8-91. • Sh8-91 r Page 14 of 17 • , ,, a * .. th;•, 2. The final plan shall be registered with the Clackamas County Surveyor's office and recorded with Clackamas County Clerk's office. • 3. The final plan shall be modified to eliminate the appearance of the area south of the stream corridor as being a distinct parcel. This area shall be illustrated as being within the right—of—way of Country Club Road. 4. The following notes shall appear on the final plan: Parcels 1, 2 and 3 are solar lots. Development of structures and planting of non—exempt vegetation on Parcels 1n 2 and 3 shall comply with the Solar Balance Point Provisions of • the Solar Access Ordinance (LOC 57.050-57.090). This requirement shall be binding upon the applicant and subsequent purchasers of Parcels 1, 2 and 3. .. • y Followed by; These notes are for reference only and are not a part of the final plan or plat. 5. The final plan shall be modified to appropriately illustrate the dedication of a 25 foot— wide access and public utility easement along the entire westerly property line of Parcels 1, 2 and 3. 6. The final plan shall be modified to illustrate the dedication of the area within the steam corridor and stream corridor buffer zone to the City of Lake Oswego for use as a storm drainage management,public pathways, open space, public utility and conservation • ° easement. 7. The final plan shall be modified to illustrate a 10 1r,ut—wide setback measured north and west from the boundaries of the drainage management and conservation easement mentioned in Condition No. 6 above. No structures shall be place nearer to the stream corridor than this setback line. 8. The final plan shall be modified to illustrate the location and extension of theprivate roadway easement to and along the northerlyreo a line of the site the first esign of 1 : Prye which provides a minimum 28 ft. outside turning radius to City standard (Exhibit 10) necessary to provide emergency access es shown in the Future Streets Plan (Exhibit 5), This easement shall be dedicated to the City as a fire lane and illustrated as such on the �. final plan. 9. The final plan shall be modified to illustrate the area from the westerlyprojection , northern boundary of the drainage management and conservation easmn re uired ine Condition No. 6 above, south to the northerly right—of—way line of Country Club Road as _ public pathway and temporary r p rary access easement. The temporary access easement shall extinguished upon construction of the proposed private rod nection as illustrated in e , the approved Future Streets Plan (Exhibit 5). The public pathway easement shall be permanent.• • 10, The final plan shall be modified to illustrate the location of building envelopes y,::.z.- g final plan as shown on Exhibit 3. A note identifying that no structures shall on the be constructed outside of these building envelopes shall appear on the final plan, 11. Evidence of the above to be provided to the Public Works and Development Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits requested subsequent to the date of ' this approval, VA r (\/ ,,,) ' . SD 8'-9 1 ,. Page 15 of 17 ' N tl 4 ? r 5", ,l:' `/ • ''` 12. The City shall allow the removal of onlythose trees necessary cry to site a dwelling or , i,^ accessory structure on Parcels 1, 2 and 3. This removal shall comply with LOC 55,050— 1 55.080 (Tree Cutting Ordinance). 13. The City shall record a copy of the approved Future Streets Plan (Exhibit 5) with the 1 f, . County Clerk. The recorded instrument shall reference this land use application—Cu} " of Lake Oswego Planning Division,File No. SD 8-91. The lot pattern shall be considered to be conceptual only and does not grant approval for the creation of parcels is in that configuration. i a• 14, The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the soils report(Exhibit 28). " .a These recommendations shall be a condition of any development permit requested subsequent to this action. 15. The applicant shall install a storm drainage line along the entire easterly property line of s, 'or the site, necessary to collect and convey all groundwater(springs), roof and foundation drainage, and future storm drainage from the Future Streets Plan (Exhibit 5) to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Installation of such a system shall be a condition of approval of any building permit requested subsequent to this action. 16. The applicant shall install a street light upon an existing utility pole on the north side of Country Club Road near the site's southeast corner. This installation shall be a condition of approval of any building permit requested subsequent to this action, 17. During construction, the applicant, or subsequent owners, shall install temporary highly visible fencing along the drip—lines of all affected trees over 20 inches in diameter as illustrated on Exhibit 3. 18. The applicant shall, upon construction of a road connection as illustrated in the approve Future Streets Plan (Exhibit 5), abandon and physically close the temporary access to Country Club Road by removal of pavement from a line projected westerly from the northerly boundary of the drainage management and conservation easement, south to the ,,M• northerly edge of Country Club Road. Upon the closure of the temporary access, the addresses for Parcels 1, 2 and 3 shall be changed to that of the Future Street. :,if. 19. The applicant shall, prior to construction of any improvement, re—stripe Country Club Road from Knaus Road to the easterly property line of the site, to include a center left— turn lane, and taping to the existing center strip according to AASHTO standards. EXHIBITS 1. Tax Map 2, Applicant's Narrative , ) • 3. Site Plan 4 Vicinity Map 4 r 5. Future Streets Plan 6. Soil Investigation by McDonald, dated January 27, 1991 7, Phosphorus Removal Efficiency Worksheet 8. Preliminary Storm Drainage Analysis 9. Findings, Conclusions and Order, SD 53-90, dated April 1, 1991 10. Typical Residential Turnaround(Standard Detail) a ' ,', 11. Findings, Conclusions and Order of the City Council, PA 7-85, dated February 4, 1987 (portion) • • Y , SD8-91 ` Page 16 of 17 { ti ,: 12, Residential Neighborhood Policies I (Forest Highlands Neighborhood), revised April, 1987 "• ` 13. Council's Memo regarding Schools,dated September 18, 1990 ' 14. Soils Hazards: Source: USDA Soils Conservation Service (composite) l:i. Engineering Geology; Bounce:Lake Oswego Physical Resources Inventory 16. Letter form L. Saunders,dated April 29, 199117. � Letter from D. &D. Martinsen 18. Letter from IC. & M. Matthies 19. Pathways Master Plan, dated December, 1988 20. Map of City owned property (open space) 21. Map of Tract A(open space) within Atwater Place planned development 22. Findings, Conclusions and Order(portion), PD 4-90, dated July 16, 1990 23. Minutes and register of Neighborhood Meeting of March 20, 1991 re+prepared by Compass Corporation n { I$D91.21 � MW:buk ' I s 1 � ' NI ' ' + V ` 1 ` • ,. ,i• •• ' flflr•,./ 1 1 A , 4 `'- Y • , % SD 8-�91 , Page 17 of 17 • • • �•1 11 p0' •• • • • •3,". C '4 { :11 ;t o !• i• • 1\ { � • 1 N•r7 1 � i 4Y iy Y 11 4,11 t \ 1 ('w - }w i "t, - v +' a� '—'4 a 1, i :. e, .r' .� 'i +fr ' p... j, •. fY4• 0.52Ac. nke a (If— - , id') •jr r ,3551 q e4 +1 ) r' 5110 1., ' , 0 o 1 Ac 1 \It C Ac. c I r cry ' 13562 •, p 4 .. m 1• a I I °A ,yV a y .DI.ire .'7 9 Y.0 iS� t s x od Y , n '',11.50 Ac. '� • . e ` '° 20 ` :ua , . . CSJ I .v•Pl•e+o n , w� 0 900 800 e N. p 1,00 Ac. `0 1.56 Ac. f 1 13962 1005 d� 1100 — 1000 0,45Ac. 1 1200 y I 0 0 27Ac. I p 1.39 Ac. c ,i . J Yp * 14110 1055 Cr ,..- /Ja ! —., o ( 1 v Z I • : •"1.•'. ,i,t .,' �' 1 g 1400 • 1300 N '� vI�' � 0.25Ac 120Ac, , ,1- ` . µ C 1 ". a N ,I ° 1 ' 0o y ! ,,"' ' 1500 , + i • q%i 4,"„ 0 40 Ac. �'6 . . 1 , R " ` ' . lob . a 1413 5 ,` L. ..... k ..' 0 �S �AC E0 -2035 : ,6. ♦ y pl) N 00 1 t✓ srXS t•r rI 3• t N ,, ' i•� � V 0 ,Ic i to Y IeRtsr y_!13 ' v ' /.fd • 1•,v ,J t • _y V w. _ .•Der. 1 fit, t9 =1y V -srJ/ 70 sa f 1106 SdNidt]rd ,, : - - —j i -v T k':/3~ '0C,• M 6 'di• I i'..Kr.`•-...-.. •`''.'- W" .. .. • 4 . Z,� - i,a•�'f,1.1+ 1 •o tf a., : ! u * v1/6.JT /t.9.9 ...1 7'., NO.['r/J-Iv k "s,.. 4N0 v40r..fr f.•d.s'7• .•',f O oN+ r8Q "'�r�'.esi6 7'. ed' rM! IVd„St P v `."fin w.vE 00, s r .v/t G$ vz A r.4.to, ,r 1 w/r/v rud d,en.0rere �s�4 .0. 4 EXHIBIT SEE MAP d, 1E 4 ..- , ; �.-. 1 du" W • • ' • . . -• ‘.. I WI 11. , • '.• • • . -, .• I •.° • ' •ta;.. I , 4 • • , . I ,g • • ,• • . • 1 • • ,' • • • • l'es` • • • ,• ' • • It •' • , • •• = • ' • NARRATIVE ,' " INTRODUCTION '.A ' This application involves a request for Development Review Board a rov al partition. The tract is identified as Tax Lot 1300 of Tax map 2 1E 4DB The sub ectnor 0 property is located on the Northerly side of Country Club Road and approximately 100-feet easterly of IKnaus Road right-of--way. The property is zoned R-10 residential. y'. • 1 The applicant is proposing to divide this 1.2 acre tax lot'into 3 lots of approximately equal size. The 3 lots will all exceed the minimum size by more than approximately 40%. The �: • lr< only access available is off Country Club Road. The applicant is Velottco Inc. and the ,�-a owners are William and Helen Spears. The site is undeveloped, contains numerous alder, maple and Douglas fir trees, and has a drainage corridor established for the creek. Utilities are available in Country Club Road. No variance is requested, Compliance With City Of Lake Oswego Development Standards G. HISTORIC PRESERVATION a•' The subject property is not on the State of Oregon or the National Register of Historic N,.. places. + ,. (:.; BUILDING DESIGN No structure exists and none are proposed at this time. Building envelopes are illustrated on the plan. These building envelopes generally exceeds code set-back minimums preserves a maximum number of trees, and STREAM CORRIDOR This ro er p p ty,!ontains a predetermined drainage corridor. The limits are depicted on the plan map. The proposed minor partition excludes this area from development, The applicant proposes to dedicate this stream corridor for storm draina r+.� a open space conservation easement. Due to the uniformity of the slope, configurationmanagement and as • of , the lots and the required set-backs, an additional five-foot buffer is proposed along part of the stream corridor, to additionally protect the stream, but not to significantly limit the , A building envelope. This five-foot buffer would be a "no development area" in addition to . :a the stream corridor. The southerly limit of the stream corridor is within the Country Club Road right-of-way. Construction of a public trail within this corridor may not be environmentally sound or even legal. The topography is very steep adjacent to the road .. and would not be satisfactory for a trail head. The more logical trail head would be at some point East of thi-, 'rect. • } 1 EXHIBIT 1. • ;'.... J +: `' STREET LIGHTS No public streets are proposed for this minor partition. A street light will be installed on 0 ., * ' ; ..,' _• the existing utility pole on the north side of Country Club Road near the sites southeast corner. TRANSIT } rBus service is available on Country Club Road. ' PARKING p Two off street parking spaces, not including the garage, are required for each residential unit. There is adequate space on site to construct parking for all three lots. The required ' parking will be constructed in compliance with the standard when the houses are built. DRAINAGE OF MINOR DEVELOPMENTS • The drainage way begins at an existing 48-inch concrete culvert adjacent to Country Club Road and continues across the property in an easterly direction as an open channel. Collection cf storm water from the private drive is to be directed to a sump-type catch basin and discharged into the existing drainage system. Phosphorous removal efficiency computations indicate that no additional storm water control facilities are required. The sump-type catch basin will trap phosphorous and other sediments. A foundation and roof drain system will collect rain and near subsurface water and discharge it in the stream corridor. This system will effectively collect shallow subsurface water on applicants' tract. ' Sizing of this system will be based on rain fall intensity and impervious areas. The foundation and roof drain collection system and the sanitary sewer pipe line trenches will effectively intercept the carry-away near surface ground water. 1 UTILITIES A • Water . ' A 10-inch domestic water line exists on the northerly side in Country Club Road. A fire hydrant is located near the southeasterly corner of Knaus Road and Country Club Road , ,, and would be adequate to serve this property. Three separate Ovate: meters will be e installed within public right-of-way. No public extension of the water system is proposed. Sanitary A sanitary sewer exists in Country Club Road, The public sewer would be extended to the property and along the westerly line to serve these three lots. Invert elevations of this • . .p existing sanitary sewer were verified and the results indicate that the gravity sewer can be ` extended as illustrated. A public sanitary sewer line would be constructed from the existing0 manhole in Country Club Road to the north limit of the tract. Service laterals would be directed towards each lot. .I ..! 1 } L • 1. i:. ' Storm A storm sewer collection system is illustrated on the plan and discussed in "drainage or ' 1 minor developments". No public system is proposed • '` HILLSIDE PROTECTION AND EROSION CONTROL ' The stream corridor contains steep slopes created by construction of Country Club Road. • The balance of the tract slopes from north to south at approximately a 10%-12% slope. No ° `• .. grading is proposed within the stream corridor or proposed buffer and the balance of the tract is less than 20% and therefore meets code requirements for development. All ~' i ` • 1 1 development will be designed to minimize disturbance of the natural topography and vegetation. This application does not include construction future of houses or clearing of proposed building envelopes, A soils investigation was made by John McDonald : Engineering (enclosed). No hazard of slope instability was noted. The proposed sanitary sewer coupled with proposed storm collection system will act as a cut-off trench to carry ;h away near surface ground water. No wet lands were identified within the proposed area development. ACCESS "• + This standard requires that each lot have a minimum 25-foot frontage on a public street, �' ,. , ;: This minor partition would meet the standard with one conventional lot and two flag lots, '` w Lot 1 would have approximately 136 feet of frontage on Country Club Road and Lots 2 & 3 " . .* - 0 would have the minimum 25-feet each, The only access currently available to the site is . .. Country Club Road. The City has a moratorium to limit access on Country Club Road. A future streets plan has been developed which would reverse the private drive and terminate the Country Club Road connection at some time in the future. The traffic impact to " , Country Club Road will be minimized by a single access point. Extension of the left turn refuge stripping in Country Club Road is proposed to permit safe entry and exit to the .,.0--44 proposed development. Site distances, both directions on Country Club Road, exceed F y a safety standards at this location. The future street plan indicates a road pattern with possible connection to Atwater and points East. The private drive would connect to this future public street. The lot layout depicted in the future streets are larger than the zone 4 designation and more in character with existing development. The proposed 20-foot r , private drive would have a curvealinier alignment to buffer adjoining neighbors to the west and protect existing trees. This buffer ranges from 5-feet to 40-feet, An emergency vehicle turn around is illustrated on the plan. The location of this private drive is dictated by R topography, the stream corridor, existing trees, proposed lot lines and building envelopes, The proposed privat., street horizontal alignment is illustrated with 30-foot radius curves at the outside edge of pavement. The vertical alignment is controlled by topography and is in the range of 10%-12%. . .; D �.,... .`.tl:' • 4 . f 5 , •:1>� r ,G., '. r.,+ a .5.0 $ . y , ,t. . .. r + `••t ' '' ' ' r COMPLIANCE WITH TREE CUTTING ORDINANCE " ' A tree inventory has been provided. This inventory illustrates size, location, and species of �.. 1 trees over 5-inches in diameter. Five Alder and Maple trees, 6" to 12" diameter range, are " proposed to be removed in construction of the driveway aF shown. The proposed building0 , . . envelope accounts for and protects major trees. The building envelope size allows for flexibility, architectural design, and individual buyer taste. ' 1 COMPLIANCE WITH THE SOLAR ACCESS ORDINANCE The basic design standards of the solar access code (LOC 57.020) has been met by the 0 ,..,,. ..--,,,,:. ,., proposed layout. All three lots meet the requirements of the code as solar access ordinance. "" i COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ZONING ORDINANCE This current zoning for this parcel is residential R-10 with minimum lot size of 10,000 , square feet. All lots exceed this minimum by approximately 39% to 100%. Lot 1 has approximately 13,870 square feet, Lot 2, 17,030 square feet (with flag) and Lot 3, 21,540 square feet (with flag). These proposed lot sizes are in character with developed property r to the west. The required set-backs of 20-feet front, 25-feet rear, and 5-feet minimum with total combined minimum 15-feet side, and maximum 30% of covered can be met with these oversized lots. Proposed building envelopes have been tailored to meet or exceed minimum set-backs and provide protection to significant trees. NOTIFICATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD Based on title company report dated March 13, 1991, notice was mailed to all owners of record within 300 feet of the subject property. Copies of this notice are enclosed. A certified notice was also sent and received by the candidate for chairman of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association. In addition, notice was had delivered to the Vice A. ,.;. Chairman Elect. An informal neighborhood meeting was held March 20, 1991 to discuss '• this application. COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Compliance with the applicable ordinances and standards has been illustrated. i he Lake Oswego's Comprehensive Plan has been approved by the State Land Conservation and „ Development Commission. The various standards, ordinances, and codes implement the , Comprehensive Plan. This application complies with the Plan. CONCLUSION The proposed minor partition is consistent with the City Zoning Ordinances and Development Standard Requirements. Based upon the forgoing analysis, approval of this ,.• application is reqLested. V 10- 1 • 10 . • 0 T P.T'. 1'.:''' . l.'L1 , .•. � , / a i / r r 1...J J-.11,W Ply, •�' / t. 0. I It v�' ,, 1116' it's ",'>'—;;• •° , �'i a NMI / i.'' V.q �•'� e.+ .q V•, � / a / /�H 3 •�, s ,6 21,540 Sq.FI.1)toa, I I - +� ti 1 �� 16.700 Sq Fl.rfo Fly ,' o r r. • r 1 , End of " It' - 1 r Condro.11nn ,�,_ �, ,1 ,� , OWNER , \ • A r +, '' 1 2050 AN ANU NLttN SMEARS i`t6t e' PORYLAND, ORLON 97225 161 C;a ••1 r+ ,tb a �.�• V 1 1" ^ uT +,11•"'' DEVELOPER VOLonco, 1Nc, LL"'�-'• 5rcrira•J 5.alluy 1 . , • A + ~ ,•I • +il HICIIAOL STLPIILN Vat011 •ti•' ?^P \ Y' u.• I 11' 600 NORTH 2NU Slptal « 1 Q'y, _ Y L Wd•• ,, 1+• w 4-";::'( IIApplsaUpO, PLNN7,yLVANIA 17101 a• r•, Y 46.1 d \}} 17,07' Sq.NI.Moot o - II• SlorP.omoLl e Ir . ,u .Z:;SSSn o t Id.lso plq FI rro Flag ." ,, APPLICANT . , r u t:0I1PAS5 COpPtlpN nUN ■•/•y ! J0 ,' I 4Y• I -' •, 0 6564 5. E. taka Rpm) • 4 �" '1 1/ t... .1 t.. .2 1 {" " , n H1LNA0Kit, 0atooq V1222 1 `A .4 r uLt r•)o 1 1y.oppn..dt"� .�' ,1 ,s• TAX NAP 2 l[ 400 ♦ polldly i.-A v ,• , e.l„1,3. ,.. • , i LY :` ZONE 1 • t.F.til ND •pf Jr• :ru• :u+•, N �•'1 .4) SUM,tuul.lo,ling N • 10 • p` i w ii'11. �I yt + "1 ) • 1• �,I,v ^ - AREA 1.2 hots �. 1 + d .• EXHIBIT u ` . •1 Via:. �� II rib 5q I'I I tin - L -_�o•" ," al IG X P7 1 B t• II1 .�.A= ` ors ` •r' III I.liable. I• �r'a Y 1 ♦ I i SiD g —91 rt. is 55 ' ra•, t j......—"....—,rtl. •a j• Datum: City braes Disc 471711 •.I ij'�1., ,1 • '�+-1--�1 .1 � . 4� I1 Elev.dsi1.11' ` ` .. n4 I „ 1V'Y la I L1' a� ( ♦� ,. r f•w,. INN , ate. j A.. A 1 511•a. + tl 10 !b Itl YO 30 aJ Ste tiitiktiA• Vt� -� 5e.1 r.1II l S allby,.�., COUNTRYL•Lllb HOAb TOPOGRAPHIC AND TREE SURVEY u"wMMS° UuwlNla° Minor('6rllllon Applltailon) 111:6 COMPASS CORPORATION y', Itul t v�_ l--,!._ 'll 1V 11 rAR LO7 1�CD — - _- ,�..-. 4. • INONe(t11IeI0 >'IMIYtY11k r1.,1,uN /al .02/t ci t il0 nAMN1N1 H.N. I/4, S•E. n.,all..lal,ln iy 1 1/4, SECtIOH 4 T. 2 S., k 1 E. .r un w•u.n onlar,plrllJ iwlilli irl CLAtNANA; CtlUN1Y, ONttltlN • ' aA 4 } ,. i y I i I 1 ! I •',-- - : )--' 0.14 4 i 1 I t L L. -1._-�•� i lI l i l'+ %;• �, a �__ I " 1 I I ' '. 1 f. 8 r= I . 1 1 S /- 3, tr.. e• L- 1 i 1 • I • 1 1 • l 2 1i 1 I M / Y ilYy[nLIN( 1 Dnlpt 1 I Q 1 1 I ,— r—a 1 S 1 i 1 % 1 o % Alit 0,.1 1 • 1 E , i I a a i I t 1 >i I a I I = I I,: /� Mti .4„ E.,,11 --^I_ _ L.1_.L..,.,I_4-1. -. - _ ...IL A. L.I_LR._l1.5-1.- 1. _J._.A_.1 /..` i ,YY iY GI 3 '• ° 41,144 ,:.1P4 F i I r // �•�11 • 'basil I 1, I l� iiI ..8 1 i / /,7;& /7 % i. —I '�M07- =� = ; • 11',4,-\ `• r sass 11 sy„ ,�7..yy 4%1\Pii " -L • e/ / / / / ��-J-.' . . tt —e___!kl • \\w.� I111Tn1'.. �Lt'YY�1S elej • ' / r L:- 4 .R -LQ om _• 1 • +^' 12 1 • II: I Na '4171,� !•/ / '' I ;g_ .--...... i........... ± r�1`H I I I l F.f //�/ I l i l w I w ,i • _,1L.-..r• n» - * 5 —7.� _--_.1 a y'c�•`-.. `'' I I--I/, /,i!I- ` I 1 •I : 13 N P —I__.,,.—r r 1,.1. I 1 \ 1 I I I / I 1 1 1 I 1 I `'� N� —� I I I I I I-I 1 I 1 .'»« I 1 i I 1 1 1 ) :J.-- ___ y _ �_ ......_...I i-" I ^I ___ Ir_---1 I I I ( I IiI ( I I;= �._. I,,,.II _ I 1 1 I: , . - : 7 _�� w,l,,_-_-_ -i i 1ii II I I ' I �I �i li�-�1 �1 li l Sl I!rL..I I T"—, ItN,tls 1 1 i nnq 1+«•• I. 1 1 i 1 Icif"r. 1 S 1111 ill 1 'I 1 AQ 1 1 I� , _—4 I0 . 4 1 . 1 1T'— )-- I�. A `- t` I 1 !4,' I«„I `ae,.w;w! ..1,. ill« 1 1 I I 1 /1 -ftl—_i ..as3. l ' ,•w . 1 ' 11 wwrr .1 I I I r /1 1... _I _I.,-. I-- ' 1 i . a.M W ,.i. - I 1 1 I i A — ti- ---I ,,::, SITE I 1 I I I • �1 )-•V`+ 2 1 6 i i } i i I,e.. 1..' k;%, 1 I• I •"� I I 1 I 1 I I Q I I• I I I ! c CWbll�t �. 1 (r 1: 4 ✓: F , , I 1�1 B 1. 1 - 1 1 I 1 I• 1 c • I CLUa ROAD .; 1 •'Vi, Y.W.ON44•I.•44..Yr NN i • h. • • x I " xM 1. LAKE OSWEGO COUNTRY CLUE . -+ Y '' EXHIBIT 4 . .rd t-�t 1 ' I 3 0 , • . • e>tl ,1 1 p°BCd1 9 110 • • • • • 0 ' • • .p' 3 to " r r .: fi -•"--- '• 414, .-". •-•—• •-•.. _ R� f i 0,7 1�•1 1 19. jai ar ` i .•.• • I.� ‘,,....' '...,. .:.•''1.- � �It _��.�,? � �i�'2 oegco" ,,;r � ;,' `,» ^ I ' FUTURE STREETS !; ,�'� /1 ,r-'--; ,i ;;� i41r ��‹ ,:,, TS PLAN• 37 ... 1 el 141 E .1 t ., :„ , / ( ter"'`•. ,•1'�00._ ri 'Q/ , / 'Q 1 zu �sce 11 /'7--• — j 'N. l I C oft/ 1 , ,` ' tg, I T x i • I o 30 r�I `t t � - ' + e 3rb� 14000z { r Io100 ,- • pA I�nt s� � . -. . ..., 7.....a.-4/").7'/// '/ 1...._____ '` I 1 -- / r t) ' J w �"'� FUTURE STREET PROFILE I z _„ • 0 _.;1 --...-• _ ti 1 ,qrI;P24 { > ; SCAL1 70J6 �`J 1' ' Tti;H, , v . 14 jt BI 300 - ta ' .al. ar • ,v ``° r y ,tl/., —� k) ►I ; Rom^? • < '. ♦ may"• 8c' tl y f ,p - � _s..,,,• ice._ 1.2- I- . 1 1.• s ".44 1 1 ~' �h.-' t _ ,,,,_ `'.-�•-.-'r..:.�i1.- _ �O^�Ls '*�1` �n�tf��♦ 7.•`� Jti/y l.�-...,• Y Al .,. ,.... •" ' rs .. k �J_ r _ ,.. R 1t 6n ram:,; Lec¢ '• f Xll�lelt •d r ,,oa , uNrrl� ' r . • • 11' • 4 , • t t, • . . t � . K. { DIY 5^ / • • • • 4 - 1 � 1 • a � • • • • • • • • • • • ' • • • • • • JOHN McDONALD ENGINEERING SOILS•CIVIL-GEOTECHNICAL Ground-Penetrating RADAR 10116 S.E.STANLEY AVENUE PORTLAND,OREGON 97222-4351 • . (so3)77a•oo77 January 27 , 1991 Compass Corporation 'l" 6564 SE Lake Road Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 SOIL INVESTIGATION OF TAX LOT 1300 NW1/4 SE1/4 S4 T2S R1E This lot is located in Lake Oswego on the north side of Country Club Road just east of Knaus Road. A small creek crosses Country Club Road here and emerges on the site. Other than the steep slopes next to the creek the slopes on the lot vary from 6 to 15 percent. The DOGAMI Bulletin 99 hazard map shows shallow ground water in this general area and the purpose of the investigation was to decide how this would influence the proposed development on the site. • Three boreholes were made with continuous sampling at the locations shown on the attached exploration sketch. The soils _ ,`' were given hand classification tests to decide whether they were of silty of sandy nature. Their colors were referred to the standard Munsell soil color plates for clkues to the soil moisture regime and to the pattern of soil development. Soil firmness was assessed by using a test that was equivalent to the Standard Penetration Test. A weight was dropped on a penetrometer rod and the number of blows needed to drive the penetrometer a given increment into the soil was recorded . Borehole 41 was near the creek bank. 0 to 1' Very dark brown organic silt , , , 1 to 1 .5 ' Brown silt, soft and wet 1 .5 to 3 ' Black concretions and then mottled strong brown and grayish brown silt 2 to 2 . 5' Equiv. SPT Blow Count 9 3 to 4 ' Brown silt with trace of fine sand, faint yellowish brown mottles 4 to 5 .5 ' Silty fine sand , brown with dark yellowish brown spots �. 5 to 5 . 5 ' Equiv. SPT Blow Count 10 `, 5 .5 to 6 ' Black organic sand 6 to 6 .5 ' Dark yellowish brown sand 6 .5 ' Crusted rust layer with water above 6 .5 to 8 ' Silt, very dark gray and dark greenish gray 8 to 8 .5 ' Medium sand, Very dark gray, saturated , equiv. ''' '::: SPT Blow Count 16 8 .5 to 9 ' Very dark brown peatysilt y gray . EXHIBIT 9 to 10 ' Very dark ra fine sand �+410 ` C.,=.' • a.. ", ' wl . Fl , •� I� • i/. ,,, 2 Borehole #2 was on the line between Lot 2 and Lot 3 . 0 to 1 ' Dark brown organic silt •. I; 1 to 3 ' Dark yellowish brown silt 3 ' Stopped on a stone • • Borehole #3 was made near the center of Lot 3 0 to 0 .5 ' Dark brown organic silt ' 0 .5 to 2 .5 ' Brown silt, saturated A ' . 2 .5 to 3 ' Pass a stone, then start mottled strong brown and grayish brown silt 3 to 7 ' Pass a stone, then medium sand with strong brown and grayish brown mottles, trending with depth to dark yellowish brown silty fine sand 7 to 8 .5 ' Brown medium sand 8 .5 to 9 ' 9" of grayish brown silt and then a black and strong brown crusty rust layer . . . 9 to 10 ' Brown fine sand According to the Clackamas County Soil Survey the soil on site and in the neighborhood is Cascade Soil . The distinctive feature of this soil is the mottled layer, which is waterproof and which makes the groundwater flow in a seasonal shallow perched water table. Both Boreholes #1 and #3 showed this mottled layer. Actually, there were about three separate layers • of water flow in the soil here. 0 The DOGAMI Bulletin 99 maps show shallow groundwater in this area and they consider it a hazard for septic tank placement as well as for collapsing into excavations . The ground slopes are so gentle that there is, in my opinion, no hazard of slope instability. It is recommended that construction features , such as the new street, have a cutoff trench to catch and carry away the near surface groundwater . Oftentimes it is possible to make the storm darin so it catches all the water and shields the entire ' developments For houses, daylight basements are not recommended, unless a deliberate program of a de-watering trench is implemented so that soil erosion into the excavation is prevented. It is recommended that the house crawl spaces be built up with a foot of compacted gravel with the foundation drains placed at the uphill bottom edge of the gravel fill so • that the shallow groundwater is immediately captured and is not a continuing source of crawl space Water . In my opinion the site is stable and suitable for housing development, provided that measures are taken to deal with the „ groundwater . a F, r,, '1f ,'`I'i i ' Very truly yours, . ,,-,.PA ,: 1 ` fl3.1/ < c,' , ,-• / ' 4 . " ,7?„5"2„, • x„, .0\''0 0 ' //<": — od..b., if ycry ,v`z,, ,T, tiir Ji w !;. .�.�..� alma OM. EXPLORATION SKETCH , I Borehole #3 TL 1300 Map 2 lE 4DE I January 27, 1991 John McDonald Engineering i.. ;. LOT3 :Q.1AUS 0.4D Borehole #2 I I LOT 2 • • I ._. _. /I''''" . LOT 1 / f . i I Borehole #1 i 0 i I COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • • • y' ry • • • • • • • • • • • • r• ft afat'4 .. 9 y; ar' r& PROJECT NAME: Tax Lot 1300 - 2 1 E 4DB FILE NUMBER:_____ _ , ( DATh March 21, 1991 Phosphorous Removal Standard Rp = 100-24.5/Rv Where: •ti Rp =Required phosphorous remomal effeciency in percent. Rv=Average site runoff coefficient. • Rv= (0.7X Al) + (0.3XA2) + (0.7XA3) + (0.05XA4) + (0.00XA5) (0. ) ( .12)+(0.3)(0)+( .7) (.12)+(0.05 �6 + o.o o.o ) ( ) ( )( ) - 0.21 Fraction Acres of Site Total Area= , 1.2 Al = street area to drains 014 A2= street area to swales - A3 = roof& parking p ng area 0.15 12% 4 A4= pervious vegetated areas 0 91 7Fi2' A5 = area retained on-site - - 100Z . Rv= 0,21 I. RP = 100-24.5/fl.21 = -18.3 Exceeds Requirement, EXH1B1T CEQFORM `F. • i,„ • • • •1 'r M� • • • • • • • i o .tow 1 TAX LOT 1300 - 2, 1E, 4DB PRELIMINARY STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS , ., . TOTAL SITE: 1.2 Acres ' ASSUMPTIONS• • * Near subsurface drainage from proposed Lot 1 will flow directly into the stream corridor. The proposed sanitary sewer and private drive will cut off near subsurface and surface water and discharge it to the drainage corridor. * The balance of Lots 2 & 3 will be collected to storm facility on the easterly side of • tract. RATIONAL METHOD: �e , Q = CIA '. C = Runoff Factor = 0.55 I = Intensity (Assume 50 year) = 3,43 A = Area - 16,700 + 14,4S0 — Q.72 Q — (0.55)(3.43)(0.72) = 1.36 cfs " 4EXHIBIT r .r �� ti a' • y l OREGON STATE HIGHWAY DIVISION - HYDRAULICS MANUAL sth/c•c I: ti /4nic: 8-39 o RUNOFF FACTORS FOR STORM SEWERS i. Approvoci: ir��, AlSak15•14" Cl'Ioclive l,)ule.a:' , h, TABLE 8.5 RUNOFF FACTORS FOR STORM SEWERS Flat Rolling Hilly 2% , 10% Over 10% Pavement & Roofs 0.90 0.90 0,90 �•1` Earth Shoulders 0,50 '' 0,50 Drives & Walks 0.75 0.80 0,85 Gravel Pavement 0,50 0,55 ' 0,60 v, J , City Business Areas 0.80 0.85 0.85 '•` Apartment Dwelling Areas 0,50 0,60 0.70 Suburban, Normal Residential 0.45 0.50 - —Dense Residential Sections 0,60 0,65�'�' 0,70 Lawns, Sandy Soil 0.10 0F15 0.20 Lawns,,Heavy Soil 0,17 0,22 0,35 Grass Shoulders 0.25 0,25 0,25 Side Slopes, Earth 0,60 0,60 0.60 Side Slopes, Turf 0,30 0,30 0.30 ' , Median Areas, Turf '0,25 0,30 0,30 Cultivated Land, Clay and Loam 0,50 0,55 0,60 Cultivated Land, Sand & Gravel 0,25 0.30 0,35 Industrial Areas, Light 0.50 0,80 Industrial Areas, Heavy 0.60 0,90�-- • Parks & Cemetaries 0.10 0.25 4, Playgrounds 0,20 0,30 • Woodland and Forests 0,10 0,15 0.20 Meadows & Pasture Land 0,25 0.30 0,35 Unimproved A:e,is OF 10 0,20 0.30 • gY PRELIMINARY STORM DRAINAGE SIZING TAX LOT 1300 - 2 1E 4DB •r- 1, ' • SEWER F'I F'E S ' __.- up to 10 pipes. ?or __r- 'Return:, only +or •Flowrate and diameter to end. 04FATE DIAMETER FRICTION SLOPE VELOCITY Ej ( IN) (FT `1/6) (X) (FPS) . ?b 6. t:u:) 0. 010 5. t-o 1 6. 9_" • , , • F • o. i L• 1, • • • • • 1 1• . • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • I 1) . • • • • • • •r ' • (el • '' 4• 1 2 BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT IENT REVIEW BOARD ti. 3 HE • CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 4 , a A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO SD 53-90-867 CREATE THREE PARCELS FROM) (William & Helen Spears)7 A 1.2 ACRE SITE. ALSO, A 8 FUTURE STREETS PLAN, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER a 0 RE OF APPLICATIQLV n A 11 The applicant is seeking approval for the creation of three parcels from a 1.2 acre site. The 12 parcels are proposed to be 18,520, 13,650 and 15,769 sq. ft. in size, Also, the applicant is • 3 proposing a Future Streets Plan serving property within 250 ft. of the.applicant's site. The site is y =4 located on the north side of Country Club Road, east of Knaus Road, Tax Lot 1300 of Tax Map 2 r 5 lE4DB, _6 • 17 HEARINGS 1.3 The Development Review Board held a public hearing and considered this application at its =a meetings of February 4 and March 4, 1991. 0,0 == CRITERIA AND STANDARDS :y A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: '3 Urban Service Boundary Policies • General Policy III, Specific Policy 5 -- Impact Management Policies 05 General Policy I, Specific Policy 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 — General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 2, 3, 8 L General Policy III, Specific Policy 1 ..� Overall Density Policies -- General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 6 General Policy III - Wildlife Habitat Policies 3 2 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 2 -= Distinctive Natural Area Policies 4 General Policy I, Specific Policy 2 General Policy II, Specific Policy 4, 5 01, • General Policy III 1 SD 53-90-867 '� EXHIBIT , s410 V) (- q . r' • 1/ • 1 ' 1 • 2 Distinctive Natural Area: 3 Creeks and Springs e No. 17 —Wooded Ravine—Iron Mountain Creek 4 Potential Landslide Area Policies 5 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 F n ' 6 General Policy III, Specific Policy 3 7 General Policy IV, Specific Policy 1, 2 g ' I 6 Potential Erosion Area Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 1 '� 9 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 2 10 General Policy IV, Specific Policy 1, 3, 4 4 11 Quiet Environment Policies _ u 12 General Policy I, Specific Policy 4 ' 13 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 2, 3 '. M 14 Energy Conservation Policies General Policy II, Specific Policy 5 ` 15 General Policy V, Specific Policy 1, 3 4 16 r; • Water Resources Policies 17 General Policy I, Specific Policy 4 • r 18 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 2, 3 19 Stream Corridor Policies 20 General Policy I, Specific Policy 2 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 2, 3 ' 21 General Policy III, Specific Policy 2 22 Residential Density Policies `3 General Policy I, Specific Policy 1, 3, 4 24 at• • '',` „5 Residential Site Design Policies ` General Policy IV, Specific Policy 2, 3 2 6 General Policy V, Specific Policy 1 , • Residential Neighborhood Policies I 28 General Policy II, Specific Policy 2, 3, 4 "° Protection Open Space Policies • K a General Policy I f • General Policy II 31 32 Transportation Policies , . • ' 3 3 General Policy I, Specific Policy 3, 4 General Policy III, Specific Policy 1, 3 3 4 General Policy IV, Specific Policy 1, 3, 4, 5 .1 `AGE 2 SD 53-90-867 ' I • ., 4 n �' .r ~ i 2 B. ity of .ake Oswego 7 nin Ordina 3 LOC 48.195-48.225 is R-10 Zone Description (setbacks, lot area, lot 4 coverage) 5 C. City of k . OsTvggo DPv loo LOC 49.090 LOC 49.120 Applicability of Development Standards LOC 49.140 Future Streets Plan LOC 49.220-49,210 Minor Development ' 9 LOC 49.215 gp LOC 49.610 Minor Development Procedures Authority of City Manager Quasi-judicial Evidentiary Hearing 11 LOC 49.615 Procedures LOC 49.620 Criteria for Approval Conditional Approvals • 12 13 D. .Ciittv_of La_k_ P Osu,Pgd Develotim nt Ctau ��: 1 4 3.005 -3.040 t 15 5.005 -5.040 Stream Corridors Street Lights � i 6 7.005 -7.040 12.005- 12.040 Parking &Loading Standard 17 12.005 14 Drainage Standard for Minor Development g 16,005 - 16.040 Utility Standard Hillside Protection and Erosion Control 18.005 - 18.040 • Access Standard + 19.005 - 19.040 Site ':0 Circulation -private Streets/Driveways E. S i�aice Oswe n Sole-? Qf r fACCPss f?rri'n n(`P� r 2 LOC 57.005-57.135 .A 3 F. Sv of_ Lake Oswegi„PPs,,i+;,, 4 . ,�g Otdinnnre; "z • LOC 55.010-55.130 P. -:5 CONCI.i 1StnT • The Development Review Board concludes that SD 53-90 does not comply with all applicable criteria, - :2 FINDINGS ANiIRR cnlia The Development Review Board incorporates the January 25, 1991 staff report 22, 1991 staff report addendum regarding SD 53-90 as support for its decision, supplemented by : r the following: 3 SD 53-90-867 w t' a� • 2 1. Based upon the testimony of G. Abel, the Board determined that the dwelling on the 3 abutting parcel to the east would be adversely affected by drainage resulting from the y 4 construction of the three proposed dwellings on the site. The Board found that the applicant had not submitted evidence which demonstrated that drainage would not S adversely affect neighboring properties. 6 2. Based upon the testimony of J. &S. Nachtrab and J. Duclos, the Board determined that a r dangerous condition would be present at the intersection of the proposed private road at 8 Knaus Road. The Board found that the proposed 20 ft.—wide access is not appropriate to accommodate the traffic generated by four to five houses. • 10 3. The Board found that the applicant's proposal lacked building envelopes which would define the area affected by development of three proposed dwellings. 4. 12 4. The Board determined that the site should be subject to a requirement that a pathway be • • constructed along Iron Mountain Creek. The Board directed staff to review the pathway 3 location suggested in Exhibit 48 and to forward the results to the Planning Commission 4 for suggested revision to the Pathway Master Plan (Exhibit 21). =5 5. The Board received the following exhibits at the hearing on March 4, 1991: • f 15 Exhibit 39: Memorandum from W. Halverson, dated February 26, 1991 a.'' Exhibit 40: . Memorandum from P. Harris, J. Baker, dated February 27, 1991 N 25 Exhibit 41: Letter from William &Helen Spears, dated March 1, 1991 9 Exhibit 42: Letter from L. Saunders, dated February 28, 1991 Exhibit 43: Letter from F. Hayes (Chair of Forest Highlands Neighborhood 20 Association); dated February 28, 1991 Exhibit 44: Letter from N. Johns, dated March 4, 1991 -- Exhibit 45: Letter from L. Green, dated March 4, 1991 22 Exhibit 46: Alternative driveway plan,Future Streets Plans Options "E" and "F", • 3 submitted by J. Duclos at hearing March 4, 1991 Exhibit 47: Letter from F. Hayes (chair of Forest Highlands Neighborhood 24 Association) dated March 3, 1991; submitted at hearing March 4, 1991 ., -- Exhibit 48: Letter from T. Oliver dated March 4, 1991; submitted at hearing March�..- 4, 1991 . :5 2� 6, Staff recommended the addition of Condition No. 20 requiring the extension of public sanitary sewer to the nonherly property line of the site. _9 0 7. Staff recommended a revision to Condition No, 3 and the addition of Condition No. 21 to address concerns about restriping of vehicle turn lanes in Country Club Road in response 0 to Exhibit 39, a memorandum from Wayne Halverson, Engineering Development Coordinator. • • 2 8, The Board received testimony of Bruce Goldson, Compass Corporation (applicant). Mr. ' Goldson noted the following: o 3 4 • The proposed parcels are 40 to 91% larger than required. • Sight distance from the intersection of the proposed private road and Country Club • WAGE Road is between 600 and 700 feet each way. 4 SD 53-90-867 0 .. .• • tT i I,.. 1 "• tl 2 3 • Thirty driveways take access onto Country Club Road between Knau ' 4 Avenue. s Road and "G" ' '.''' .1-' 0 m Existing sanitti 5 ary sewer is deep enough to accommodate proposed development, with 6 4 to 5 feet of soil cover. 7 Mr. Goldson suggested the following revisions to the site plan and recommended mmended 8 9 • Moving the proposed turnaround northward in order affected by i to avoid cutting construction one of two trees 10 11 • Planting four Douglas—fir trees along the site's westerly property line 12 • Measuring stream corridor before establishing stream corridor 13 setback therefrom buffer zone and 14 • Use of highly visible fabric fence instead of chain link fencing 1S construction activities. to protect tees from 16 9, The Board received testimony in opposition to theproposal 17 Hayes, E.Leuthe, G. Abel, H. Sankow, S. &J. Nactrb, . Saunde from J. rs,,nd J. Haber,Duclos, F. Johns, and T. Oliver. s, M. N. • 18a' 19 10. The Board received testimony neither in support of nor against, Pennington. garnst, the proposal from R. ' . 20 21IZER 22 IT IS ORDERED BY l'HE DEVELOPMENT REV City of Lake Oswego 23 IEW BOARD of the that �S;D 53-90 is denied. 24 Y 25 2 6 '4. •.•:., . 2 49 40 • .S: .. , r 2 33 34 • • • PACE 5 SD 53-90-867 M: • A d • 2 3 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Developme J 4 Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego. 5 66 DATED this 1st,____`day of April , 1921. 7 9 10 Robert H. Foster, Chairman ' Development Review Board 11 12 13 -__- , 14 Secretary — 15 15 ATTEST: ORAL DE I ION F hnlar4rA ,u, 18 +o AYES: Stana Stan-way, Greaves, Foster, Sta and Bloomer '� `0 NOES: None -,1 ABSTAIN: None • ABSENT: 22 Sievert and Remy Z3 TEN_____ r rS• An 2 ,- AYES: S l;anaway, Foster., Starr Bloomer ... S NOES: None ABSTAIN: Sievert, Remy 1S ABSENT: Greaves tt 3- • .i�itii, 0 . , • 6 SD 53-90_867 .. 1 '. ,:, .;..' Allilieltillilaftanv ,..4, R/W OR FIRE LANE LIMITS —t-FZ V' A---/ /�P 21�f .fe® a i+\ep 1 a /rye ‘ Q / 1 � ice' ` i I i 24� MIN. VARIES yK>'/ Ok • ��'�� / \ / .•,•,,,,,, ,...•':','',... ..,' I., 12' R/W OR FIRE ,'/ 4' 0 LANE LIMITS '�'.""�i \ � cv \. // ,/ .....""/ \ .. . .... \' 4' i� R/W OR DIRE •� \ / /r`�LANE LIMITS Co.. + / J-1 I I / ( • ca 4 ��', `��., i I 24' MIN. ' 1� VARIES e a : .. , , , r 20i ., .,. .- ,., 24' MIN. I &p�17F ;� VARIES .I �'��a�Ne�, p I 8144 °� „y 7 " .1 EXHIBIT IO O►�/'>�j�GNP 1 B, �91�*•�► • So -"I► FAr rt. AMA DEPARTMENT ots�on DRAWN CHECK DB RA 5 , .. . ..,. .,. .... ` TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL ,cA,.c af'M PUBLIC WORKSTURN-A- R ry NTS rAT 1981 ' OUND i►[LT 6iwino NO ` CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO • `UYR'✓1WR..•t Yr�r.alb to disc oI A - I .O� • .1 , ■ • • 11 pN l , y: � 3 A 4, o '�/ M1•. 1l r v� 1 ,.• /!.. / • BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 1� EXHIBIT A Request for Approval of a I I Cam):�:. Text and Map Amendment � Lake Oswego Comprehensive to the ) PA 7-85-420 5r -=r� prehensive Plan ) (Forest Highlands ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER Nature of Application To amend the Comprehensive Plan map and test for the Forest - Highlands "Future Urbanizable Area" which includes approximately 1 246 acres . 5}.Hearings .... The Planning Commission ssion held public hearings and considered , : � this application at its meetings of September 23, 1985, O• ctober .; :._ 28, 1985, December 9, 1985 and March 10, 1986 and by its Order 'PA 7-85-351 recommended a ` approval . The City Council considered this application on the record made before the Planning ing Commission at the Council ' s January 20, 1987 meeting. Criteria :- legislative request under consideration is a geographic amendment , legislative change regulated by LOC 56.135, 56 . 157 ar,d a ._ 56 . 158. _ Applicable requirements and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan , LCDC policies-` Goals and administrative rules , regional planningo es, yi.. and City Codes were considered . F indincrs and Reasons Three staff reports were written on the Forest Hi !- planning issue . Highlands identified as the September 13 , 19 : , a Jnua Y February 27, 1986 and Those are rro 12 , 1987 staff reports . The original land use proposal (Exhibit L) • . contained in the Septe 'c,E7 r 1FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER -} . .-. a .. , 1.. ., .• f ,`' ''` •i �5. • , .. ':1:r r-. C f .K and providing a decreasing density gradiant while moving away fro the arterial streets , will maintain and strengthen the low density single-family residential area which is developing in the interior 4 of this area . . Residential Neighborhood Policies ' , General Policy: c •l, _ "The City will : ' ` I . Maintain a semi-rural character and low-density , , • "` single-family land use in the Forest Highlands neighborhood c and allow no urban development or extension of City services ,_ as long as Future Urbanizable designation applies. " General Policy et "II . Actively preserve natural resources, particularly wooded areas, streams and stream banks, views and wildlife 14 habitat. " The amendment conforms to, or better implements , the Residential Neighborhood Policies , by removing the Forest Highlands neighborhood from the Future Urbanizable designation . . The amendment proposes residential plan designations which were determined after taking into account for the character of the landform, the neighborhood and the obligation of the City to provide housing opportunities . The amendment responds to a , schedule agreed to by LCDC through the Comprehensive Plan acknowledgment process , The City' will continue to rtauire preservation of natural resources throughout the Forest Highlands area as those lands are annexed and developed pursuant to the 4 .i. ,; Ci ty ' s Codes . • 4, 4"`' :b a - FINDINGS , C t c:LUSI'ltis AND ORDER r .�: Via. • .1.. , ` • • e. M. residential development . Through the application of the Ci ' ky s Zoning and Development Standards, coupled with the topography of the area, residents will be afforded privacy as the area is ,''fi/ 4;• developed . f.. 5 CONCLUSION The proposed geographic amendment , PA 7-85, is in co _ with the requirements of LOC 56. 158. mPl�ance x ORDER , IT IS HERESY ORDERED by the Cri .: Council of the City 7-85 be approved of Lake Oswego that PA `.. TO as follows : 1 . The Comprehensive Plan Map be amended II as identified on Attachment A. I11 2 . Amend the Comprehensive Plan text as follows : 13 * 01 A. Residential Neighborhood Policies section regarding ' the = � Forest Highlands Neighborhood, page 86 : Delete General Policy Z . It "I . Maintain a semi-rural character and low-density 1- single family land use in the Forest Highlands I5 neighborhood and allow no urban development or extension n of City services as long as Future Urbanizable I designation applies , 11 Renumber General Policy II to General Policy • 1 T . Delete Specific Policies 1 and 2 for General Policy I . ( R-20 o "l • Maintain existing low-density r lower) residential land use . " `4 i` "2 . Limit extensions of sewer into the area to r= provide for imminent dangers to public health and safety, until rage u-= FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER �1 4, 0 • 4 . . . such time as the Futur . . , - e Urbanizable designation is is "• . . . , changed to Immediate Growth . If sewer extension into -' Forest Highlands is required while Future Urbanizable 4 applies , the provision of sewers and other public C facil ities will be planned to avoid causing the forced r` • 6 subdivision of large parcels as a result of relatively • S high assessments . " z a Renumber Specific Policies for General Policy II to IC Specific Policies for General Policy X. B. II Amend the map on Page 12 entitled "Lake Oswego Urban Service Area" to remove the identification of Fo 12 Highlands rest ,' as a Future Urbanizable Area. 13 14 C. Delete the third paragraph of Specific Policy 2 and a `� +� IS of Specific Polic 3 . Y for Urban Service Boundary General Policy III, p. 15 . Io This order was presented to and approved by the City Council of 4 the City of Lake Oswego. '� 15 Dated � .this da Y of February, 1987 . • z 19 , i William E. Yo ng, Mayon c LI Vote at the Council h f meeting ' a o January 0, 1987 :. + �� AYES : Young, Durham, Fawcett , Holman , Sinclair, Waggoner , 'r y`� 99oner • NOES : , Wo1] er • ABSTAIN : � ,1 S EXCUSED : " ^c . No. 790C I. Tl FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS ANOtROER • , .., 0 e ,. , N N =' •4 q • _ . =. a a, = . • • LAN ILVtiNftti12.66LEI ARSA areallitu."1117..Te." msg...... .6 R.,.3 ' i ...., / , ____ils, __ . ,...._ r 1 . 1 11 •�r '' ." a qqg�gr� �■ 1 7.4 i. - _ - El` , .1..14 . i .-• •-•-•-. . • --e .. r 1• !av t. I a•'•,. 1 . � . •• — .. ••11 ` ,�. �: .11 71/ t+ •1 It# ' t c r + ITi .'\ 1�y1.4 , ...._ -Y (.. bQ`.,4 {t4 ppy" Yy r M i,«i° ,�, Z r lx ,t~ \\l ill 6 , ,`.. re f ,: ' .._ , ii. - ,, .... ar. wear" y y — , _ f$C,', .� al lip°I•T. 'f , rr,�� ` - � .- ' •�' 1 1.1 1 a p • Uri -.1""', ,....'"' .., • • ri Illei p� I J�.1 ' 1+ h •.�, ` ' 0- A 1 1 .ram- 1 r • 6.6 04464 • ATTACHMENT A r r " 1 •• • - r . ` 1. • ro Irl • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ` • • • ' • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . { i , {pip 3tEL3DENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD POLICIES •~ -ecogni:icn of the need for land use policies which respond to unique conditions in individual (.7" .Ehborhoads the City will adopt Neighborhood Policies as part of the overall Comprehensive Plan.neighborhoods are covered by neighborhood policies as of the time of initial publication of the omorehensive Plan, The neighborhoods covered by neighborhood policies include: the Forest Highlands tm.mhborhood; the Old Town Design District; and, Lakewood Bay Bluff Area, (PA 06-86-01-382, 10/17/86) 11B0ECTIVE: TO PRESERVE THE INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER AND IDENTITY OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS Forest Highlands Neighborhood ,' GENERAL POLICIES —he City will: Actively preserve natural resources, particularly wooded areas, streams and stream banks, views and �1 , wildlife habitat. .r szezific Policies =MR" SEWERAL POLICY I: Actively preserve natural resources. -,s :-ty will, in cooperation with Clackamas County: Designate the two western branches of Tryon Creek which cross the area from west to east as zrotection Open Space. The stream banks and vegetation will be conserved, Where stream corridors •" must be used for utility lines, construction will assure minimal site disturbance during and after W '' 4 - y • :nnstruction activity, and prompt replacement of disturbed vegetation, = require bridges rather than culverts where streets cross streams, ` pquire drainage management designed to 9 prevent rapid runoff and downstream erosion, . :,::Dort designation of greenways, that is, open space corridors, as recommended by the Forest - ghiands Neighborhood Association. (PA 7-85-420, 2/4/87) N . • r • " • , • • P. .t `• Et EXHIBIT • o D s ,, , , t3 • 1 . ; • 4 • r' ;r . • • • • • • • • • i• • • • • • • • : • • • �r • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • VI- -C --i 9/18/90 • • �, MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Board Members Planning Commission Members 4: .. Mayor and City Council EXHIBIT From: Date: September 18 , 1990 13 c2i'H Subject: Interpretation of Comprehensive Plan Po so ~�I to School Capacity licies Relating This memorandum is an update to the City Council 's prior memoranda of August 19, 1989, October 17, 1989, and December 5, 1989 . The initial August 19 memorandum contained the City Council 's initial determination of the school capacity issue. The October 17 , 1989 memorandum contained updated information and data received by the City Council at a joint meeting with the Lake Oswego School [?%strict Board held on October 2 , 1989 . The December 5, 1989 memorandum contained updated information and data relating to voter approvala School District facilitis improvement lbond 0issue,000 LonNoake vember • 1989 . This memorandum contains school district on 7, the 1990/1991 elementary school year and information concerninctions gresidential development activity for fiscal year 1989/90 . It contains information received by the City .Council at a . joint meeting with the Lake Oswego School District Board held on August 21 , 1990 . ''''-4: ::: As a result of certain determinations by the Development Review Board in its consideration of two applications for residential development that there was a lack of elementary sc,°,col capacity, the City Council conducted an inquiry into the necessity for the enactment of a moratorium on residential development , in accordance with the provisions of ORS 197 ,505-197 . 5 of denials of residential development4f1 . A patter-; state law as a applications ; ; defined `moratorium. The he Council has been made aware rf • '"` the exclusion from that definition of actions " in accordance with" an acknowledged ComprehensiveAttorney , Plan, and, on the advice f �� concluded that the exclusion is n=7t applicable 1 `, to the current situation , of a moratorium without the SCity first e lw omaking the es not m fiit the ndings • required by the statute . • The tooc:lusion of 6 of the 7 Council members at the end of that inquiry was that the facts currently existing do not provide the basis for the Council to make the require findings to justify the need for a moratorium, d by state law The resulting dilemma is obvious: �` Development 5n the one hand the • ,t) anent Review Board denied two applications for lack of u school capacity based on City Comprehensive Plan pattern which state law classifies as a moratoriums nds (a) , a Council has concluded that facts do not exist to maketheyet the r • Memo: Development Review Board and Planning Commission Members September 18 , 1990 Page 2 required findings under state law that are a precondition to the enactment of a moratorium. • It is the purpose of this memorandum to provide to both of the City land use hearing bodies the Council 's interpretations of the � Comprehensive Plan policies regarding school capacity . It is ' necessary to have consistency in decision making from application to application, and between the hearing bodies and the Council . These interpretations reconcile the apparent inconsistencies between state and local law in a way that gives deference to the superior state law while giving effect to the Plan language through an interpretation process that has historical precedent . These interpretations are based upon factual determinations set ' forth in Attachment No. 1 . The interpretations provided in this memorandum will maintain a ` ' consistency between state and local law. The Comprehensive Dian '::• ; , ' policies , with regard to school capacity , will be satisfied unless the Council in the future declares a moratorium. Because facts will change over time , so may the conclusions concerning Comprehensive Plan compliance and the current lack of •the factual preconditions for the enactment of a moratorium. Staff will update the factual portions of this memorandum on a regular basis , in coordination with the school district, and keep the Council and District aware of the changing circumstances . Future Planning staff reports will rely on this memorandum :yen ' r addressing the school capacity issue . The Council expects tna,: • _f Comprehensive Plan compliance based on the school capacity issue is raised during a hearing on a residential developme•;r. application, each hearing body will reach the conclusions set • forth in this memorandum. This issue is not static and will oe ; � . with us for the foreseeable future . The Council is committed to ~ improve the current data exchange efforts between the Dist:: .It and the City . The Council wants to insure that applicants receiving; devel meit ' ` • ' approvals are aware of the current school capacity situa -. an understand that the Council is very concerned about tli5 is = aw and has the authority to enact a morator. ium at a later 'late if • ustified by ie facts , The Council lirects stiff t " cleo'3l' o apprapria_e language to be included in the approval or.lersr t" 4- . reviewed b'.+ the hearin.� bodies , to accromplish t'1;.s purpc)4e , Attachment ',1; , 1 provides the factual Eindinrls the Council • wl to re�ga r t y t.ie school capacity issue upon Wh n to?s'B interpretations are based. Attachment \in. 2 is a listini3 of t. : 4110 — ' '' factual inforlati n relied upon to support those Einar'; , Attachment Nlo. 5 c )ntains the interpretations of the relevant • • Plan policies . R V •� Memo: Development Review Board and Planning Commission Members September 18 , 1990 Page 3 • The City Council sincerely expresses its gratitude to the members of the Development Review Board who have been faced with the difficult job of dealing with this issue in the first instance, • and who have done so with professionalism and obvious greet concern for the community as a whole . +''. 0 Atty/Correspond-7 Attachments 1-3 Ik . • 1 al ; i'• i u :. +,4 R • "i a.Y i . t , , . i . • 45 C. • ATTACHMENT NO. 1 , ',� FACTUAL FINDINGS ( 9-18-90) The City and the School District have coordinated concerning the impact of development on the ability of the District to meet its legal obligations to educate the children of the District. A " significant portion of the School District lies outside the City limits and the City has no control over the impacts of growth ;;;. ' . occurring outside its boundaries . The City has received no communication from other jurisdictions served by the District that they perceive a problem or intend to limit development due to school capacity problems . ,'.'. The District has provided the City the following facts : 1 . Attendance in the 1988-89 school year at the Lake Grove "' Elementary School exceeded the capacity the District_ determined necessary to provide an urban level of service at that school . The Lake Grove Elementary School population was significantly reduced for the 1989-90 school year. Enrollment on June 1 , 1989 was 651 students . Enrollment as of October 2 , 1989 was 530 students . Enrollment as of June 1 , 1990 was 453 students . The adjusted forcast for the 1990-91 school year is 500 students . . 2 . The District has short term plans in place that address •`, a the current capacity problems on a District wide basis By implementing these plans , the District stated it gill continue to provide an educational experience to its students that meets District standards . 3 . Through use of the short term plan, the District can accommodate a maximum capacity of 3 ,772 elementary students . 4 . The District as of ,Tune 1 , 1990 , had an elementary school enrollment of 3 , 241 students . Based, en ma•.imu^ . • capacity and current projections , on October ; , 1990 tne • District by implementing the short term plan will lave unused capacity system wide that will accommodate 31'a ,- additional elementary students . 5 . The District has a long term plan to provide capacity i �n addition to the 379 seats to be made available thrti ;n the short term plan. These long term plans include el additional elementary school and remodeling e '<istin; Y. •0,, Facilities . 6 . The maximum capacity of 3 , 172 students , •assu,rmin; a "' continuation •af the current rate of growth, dill acc•omrmodate new students into the 1991.92 school year. , . .,. . :-.,,•• •:, ., ` •••. ,: .,::*,: ,?.;;; .•,•1'.,. •,, ,•,•r, .1. ,, ,;,.,,_'.. • ...,.„ ..,'•.. , t. ..; . r•: z` , r ?.. . .. ',', , ,, ,...* .•, •••• . ;.4''t ' .';•••,' •:,•',. • •• • •-, ',• ' ' .• - •• - • .. • • f • 1. ,•• ',.., , IQ fAVC•trrk e0--- 1..,/Lt. .., ..._...... .-.. __ ILC5-12- . (2-1[7 1-1..ON -6.2 tt(fr -. -( 6 3 ) •..• , • . , . E..t.1 11. \9ki 14( -6 , . ./ e.....ii /. _1.7]..._....d...a.Z .......... ____M _._ • ,. LQ)-1 06 0.... ).... 2J t . . , 1 ‘,.1 Ait-FFali) _.............._______...... _ ., .. , ,. ..,. ,..........i " .... .... ..... _.......... .. .• ., . . , . 6.. .._ s", t...(.. .3. . . (---- .... ...•.• ....... • ,.. ,„. .. -.- ... . .. .. .. , • ... , . . . ,. •.-1- 1 Z--' . 0/-VLI4.7 . • ,. • ..."' . elle6/1_ i / . - --r:-.--'• ' -"----.C.. -.."--------....' *'' . ..• . . . r-- -----.) '..V....:11.,10(.j I(.1L' s: ,:• .• .... . ..... . ' 4,..* • '• .. i. ,,. .. • . ..• •, •. . .. .• . . . ,;.... • . - . . , . .. . . ... .. „...... " , . ••• ••• ••"1 •". " •'.. ."•"••'' • li I 1•'..t• '1.• ". . I 6,, • • •1 ti r. ,d1 ‘•=7.".L:.,:t•''6••••• • .•7" . i I lg ;:-I : i ''./.i...---' • 1 . 0 4 6 • 6 p.., . •• . P. PP •••••6.op - 666. sv6. • 6 • • • • • •• .66...m. • v•• a p . p p ._,pp.p• pp*poop p• a6p a •14 AR p 2 2 1991 •. , • • • • . . • . ., • 4. • . 4 • . ..., . . • . • . . : • , . ... ,L • • , • , • • 4 • • • ." i I *.' • • NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING FOREST HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD DATE: MARCH 20. 1991 TIME: 7:70 TO 8:70F•M DISCUSSION: A MARKED UP COPY OF FROF'OSED 7-LOT MINOR PARTITION WAS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT. THIS ILLUSTRATION PRESENTED A ROAD PATTERN FOR A PRIVATE DRIVE ON WITH WEST WITH BUFFER OF VARYING WIDTH TO RESIDENTS. A SECOND MAP OF THE LAND WITH IN 700-FEET WAS DISCUSSED FOR THE SITING OF FUTURE STRIXTS PLAN. FOINTE OF CONCERN BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD INCLUDED: TRAFFIC AND SAFETY IG /' ADEQUATE BUFFER TO OTHER RESIDENTS FUTURE STREETS PLAN AND HOW IT MIGHT AFFECT LAND VALUES LOCATION OF SEWER AND UTILITIES , THOSE PRESENT FELT THAT THEY COULD NOT MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS WITH MIGHT AFFECT OTHERS NOT PRESENT. VERBAL COMMENTS RECEIVED: DATE:MARCH 15, 1991 CONTACT: MR. RAYMOND MAIER 1417S S.W. KNAUS RD. LAKE OSWEGO DISCUSSION: UPON RECEIVING NOTICE ASK ABOUT DEVELOPMENT. FELT THAT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WAS SURE TO HAF'FEN SOMETIME AND DIDN'T HAVE PROBLEM WITH THREE LOTS ON TRACT. INQUIRED IF THEY WERE FOR SALE BECAUSE HE KNEW SOMEONE LOOKING FOR F'ROF ERTY IN AREA. 4EXHIBIT 23 So 2-91 PREPARED BY COMPASS CORPORTATION 1'. 4 1) .... • r t u 1:' • " I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the 3 Development Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego. 2 3 �: DATED this —,CLLh day of_ r„i y 1990. D b Robert H. Foster, Chairman Development Review Board 3 10 2.1 Mom, Vte/144 . 12 Secretary _3 14 A'i-1'EST: 1 • `a ORAL DECISION—June 18. 1990 1 i AYES: Stanaway, Greaves, Foster and Remy • =.3 NOES: Sybrowsky and Bloomer , �. `._ ABSTAIN:None ..0 ABSENT: Starr �i 2LR UEN FI ND rNg it , ,c V ,. (Fire, 4.` AYES: Greaves, Remy and Bloomer NOES: None 1r ABSTAIN:Starr • • y ABSENT: Stanaway :• "'`' WR1'i1'F.N FTNiz rr� ?S.iS aIy l6 1990 (SPcond Vote) ' " AYES: Stanaway, Foster and Remy 'I- __ None • 3 4 ABSTAIN:Star_ and Sievert 11 ABSENT: Greaves and 13looner 3 4 =rh,.z .a_* illi6 PD 4--90-790 • • 1 C. PXkrj&AtLyatrgttlmpjax 2 enxasi: 1• Comply with the street widening election provisions sons of the City Charter, 4 D. Pri : • rQrm c; • 5 1. All construction improvements shall be completed, accepted and as—builts submitted to the City. :, • 6 • 7 2. The common driveway shall be posted as fire lane, as 8 19.020(1)(e). per AS 9 3. A deed restriction shall be recorded on Lots 1-4 rohibi 10 division of these lots. P ttng further 11 12 1. The final plat shall be submitted within thin one year of the date of the Order reflecting the Board's decision. • 14 2. Staff review of the preliminary utility plan.only verified the location a I5 capacity of utilities to serve the site. nd ' 16 3. If fill is placed on any lot, the extent of the fill shall be shown on as—buil 17 accompanied by a statement that the fill meets the minimum requirements .g bearing soils adopted by the Uniform Building Code. qutrements for 19 4. A tree cutting permit shall be obtained prior to removal of any trees that are 5" • ., . .' 20 or greater in diameter. 1 ti M i . rA ' • t.26 1 . I 5 PD 4 90-790 . ' - „ . ti y r .Qr . 8. Show a 15' public drainage easement over the common driveway and k� 1 downstream storm drain line. • " « 2 9. Show utility easements of adequate width on the final plat for those lots 3 where public and/or private utilities are to be installed. Where utilities or landscaping will be constructed on side or rear lot lines, provide a note to future property owners that removal and/or replacement of fences for 5 public access to utilities shall be at the homeowner's expense. 6 10. The common driveway shall be designated as fire lane at. the plat as per 7 DS 19.020(1)(e).8 11. Provide private access easement on all lots that are served by shared 9 driveways. 10 12. Provide a public drainage easement over the public open space Tract "A". ,1 12 B. Prior to Final Construction Plans Approval: 13 • 1. Submit a final grading plan, as per City standards. This plan shall ? vegetation.minimize disturbances to the existing topography,o Phy, trees and understory 15 • 2. 6 2. Submit a final drainage plan, as per City standards. 17 3. Submit a final erosion control plan in accordance with the "Eros $ ion Control Plans Technical Guidance Handbook". L5i 4. The proposed half—street improvements on Atwater Road shall match the existing improvements on this road. 1 5. Design, locate and construct the storm drain line in Tract "A" to protect existing trees and minimize disturbances to existing topography and • understory vegetation. 6. Consult an arborist to recommend construction specifications to protect 2 • existing trees and to supervise the actual construction of the storm drain 25 line in Tract "A". 2 7, Provide a restoration plan for the disturbed areas in Tract "A", 2 8. The sanitary sewer line between Lots 2 and 4 shall be moved north to protect the large maples at the north side of Lot 4.z 9. The half—street improvements on Atwater Road shall be designed for a minimum 20 year life. 3: 2 • 10. The sidewalks along Atwater Road, east—west section, shall be placed along the north side of public right—of—way, unless determined to be 3 3 unfeasible by the City Engineer, 11. Submit a detailed soils report. • • p 12, Pay the pathway fee ($22 per linear foot) for the Atwater Road pathway, 4 PD 4-90-790 1 11 q ,• • IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD of the City of Lake Oswego that: • 1. PD 4-90 is approved (subject to all the requirements of R-7.5 and R-10 zones, with 5 the exceptions described in section B.a.2), subject to compliance with the 4 6 conditions of approval set forth in Subsection 2 of this Order, 7 2. The conditions for PD 4-90'are as follows: 8 A. Prior to Final Plat Approval: 9 10 1. Submit a reproducible duplicaton of the final plat which clearly depicts: 11 a) utility easements; 12 b) sidewalks; c) setbacks as follows: . 13 front yards 20', sideyards 5'., street side yard 10' and rear yard 25' 14 (15' for Lots 1 and`2); and d) conservation easements. 15 2. Modifythe site � 16 plan to show expanded conservation easements, as � 7 depicted on Exhibit 12. Provide the following note on the plat: • ' 1 g "All natural vegetation in the conservation easements shall be • 19 preserved. Trees may be removed only after they have been shown to be hazard to life or property by a professional arborist and a tree ' ' 20 cutting permit has been obtained from the City of Lake Oswego. No µ fences shall be allowed within these easements (including the4110 21 property lines)." • 22 3. Provide a plat restriction prohibiting individual access from Lots 1-4 to 3 Atwater Road. ..YY 4. Dedicate 5' additional right--of—way along Atwater Road (along north 25 property line). `6 5, Label Tract "A" as "Public Open Space Tract 'A", and provide the �' • following note on the final plat: 2S "Tract 'A' is a natural wooded stream corridor to be protected in its r ,:° natural condition for the purpose of providing a scenic and aesthetic 0 appearance, protecting natural processes, and maintaining natural vegetation. Improvements which are in keeping with these purposes 31 may be approved by the City of Lake Oswego, No buildings shall be 3 allowed in this area," 33 6. Identify Lots 1-4 as solar lots on the final plat, . 3`` T. Provide a plat restriction, or other appropriate legal instrument to be recorded at the County Recorder's office, subjecting Lots 3 and 4 to the ACE requirements of LOC 57,035 (protection from future shade), , ,:. .• . 3 PD 4-90--790 r EXHIBIT 12..(4• S© 8--9t • • • • {; � • • . . • ' • • . . • , . • , • . . , . . „ , •. . . •,. • , . • •• • • •• ; • '• . . n • . , •• . . • •.• • .• . • • i • . . • . • • • • • • • • . • • I . •. • , • • • 4 4' • • • • 40• • • . . • • . „ • • .. . 4 1 rw A TWA T n 'no AI �. rll YI IM1IYII 111 SI U 11 1 UI I plllf� '[w��yyiII• h • 11,4J1 a.1//1 11 Y .11 I NYt11, •�,,. �' T .'tx- _..�_,•�„� 111 Ir.Isn l.,lr•I .1.,1•111 N...I." [..?• • yTr'rvl. • •.'''. n•Irl•• hNrn Ihl�• 1 Mr'll••Iw r•Nr Y•1 •'1 \ , 1 ' •r 111 J t 1:M••4nnuNd d n•nn,. J •'I�1 �. •. IbI1N•lol bN NU•1 Pw 4444 11 �'77a •GRAV r. •4•UI.144 nr 1•r•1 ••r4,4:::::4 olio. “*1 /Li1Fi 1j L�• �^.�. fNT fL C Ps RULI[ON ••1. 1 4. •1'plla r•, qF ' RAN DETAIL I 11 p ls Olt Ilw h•p1,1,1•..•IFI•n•ne•1 • AT RIG 1 IL ///^'4! ID I$ry 1 11•Nd•1d M•Ipnl plll•N. 1•h ..11i full•t ,11 ✓ ( 'rr •�. 11.It 1 au I'1114 i11,N1••1♦lot 11N r.wNlilil •Ilr 1.1• 1 •/ ' l /� IYI ; VI• •' • • , '• ' , • /,1 1 1'w III„iry::.:i::•"•Ii�1�eel +I1./1111•�: 1.YI L IN •11M iNl 1 Irnl Nr •F I„h .11 00000 • / .. ► '+..YI:,1.�/ • IIIF•1 Y•IIRI Ilu1 Id n1 N111••Ir ..X' ,._6' ( ill 4. .11,, I4.411 I.lor•• I.i VII, . Il l "....•n.•I 11•u1r11.1 I.11111•1•.1 1 1 1.111,.r d ,I .1.•YII 11 1i�•� 'rn, , 14rM•11 rNi.nl lmhnl. • IepV4r p •' 1..INI.1 1••,r• "' Mtf EROSION ro , IIN4F1.4r rI.YI•Ilhl•Il•1111M 1 1 1 ,.1[M I11 P,�1.prdrl I Or IUIIA/W CMY=f/w41[R 11 1/t/1•t NIM11a:7 ( 1:n •II11h1 1N..;1; F�N ill an i i'NI d p • r 1 IL I •\�' I Y[ 1, O� « tM INt111'rryY1l .I•J IINI M.111FN IF,.YI�I r /I,., IIJI hJl1,••r:°• .� • tots to IT l'MrY/NO It IV.(.[R Ir,V•n,.11llun• '4'V.: • • •• 44.0114I0 11044 I I I� '.[ ' •N. • "u•pll• 1 1r•f.�lll 11 '1�'• 1 •� \ ;;g: .II'r•�I ,)II.M nr�t S If -^_• .. -...+..�•«.a -• • HI 14 HI 14�9[ 4 �' 'ti� 1 \•.. �'..., T/ NI 'n•� ' ' # ' Ivr..., Sflits r71� •• .,,it.. g. 4.• 'Y� r / I N .. � 4J 1 1 1 1 y. • lurllllh lNll * 4,1•'1• 1`+ 'I1 •'. .r, ., l •., .: 1 Y1.1111.1 1. 1 I • , p w nNNlnl� NY •:y 11\ "4/, �•\. ,Y .•t; ' /. ` r !N «11:11 •11 '•1 IIL I •R ld r`y', •1 ,d TRACTrQ,1 • rt.. ' F� PIpryAYp nM/r i .... ri • _ In 11 u.uhn / '• e..4 M • fir ��l�ia/. N1 t'.? N' '''''''''',4.„. • 1\ .. i I.II MI N• I1' . .. ,-. - ....saw. IIYI IY f I •' 1 I'• d .17 I • .1 • " L nrnh To s w p�rPETERSI.. :[ PETIIIE c, aswrc�a —'' l',."III, on ;, „• IE X FI ATWATEf� pt ACE •-r.,.l ' T r :=l;'«:'.11 ma CNUSIt1N tNNf1111L "' [ :i:Irna:n lal,I.Is PLAN iioLt.__ `.•. • L• • • • II N Y ' • I n . a oximaat 1tr 3 h IIJe I I3311 WsrG w.m.•... ro•vs I I ,X I ,� +: I ,h I' , I I o e 41 Iq .__ o I ^�°� IaJtl u,n, nir1� , I 410 I 01 .l ' '` e: a,>.... � ��$ 'w e b n I uea0 I3t71 r .. UN 1 Y,,. COMMUN5 • • ! �� J lalel + I I Ia701 v °h ♦ 111p a j I74 1 1I3I30 I : 1 : I , .e 43 ti / ' ,,~, All k r • ~I IaaYa 1140i t • I. ,"r�IiJ�ey I I I I "et.l !!•� I qq ! n , ,,n \ z 4 a I I ; Ifi d ° 1 ♦• f• I 7f`t::'!:. ♦q r I I L .Jan 1 I I 1 w° °j w_"„ I I" I ° #vNf(� e7 u O u1 u "i?•' I7tl 17 1 wN I� .1 I' I Iv w "{1 °p , '. �.•...._,•-y„ —. •••"•�'u• \\1000• Iae01 1 17-ae7 1 Nee6 Y ,_._ I ^S•. I I I I 1 I . ° , .. '_'.—.I--!1 :O. —..._ 6I j �•:Ea.` ..A , N.1' M•'. l .. I 1 I I r Auu;.t I t3e11 I IJela u . - - "00 \ I -- 1at01 I I .1I I 1 a7o I M�Unu. l 0 1 pea0 ' I \ \oo°a \ ladnl Ilaepe geeo i i-. large I I S I I I I ' , 1 e -Lfi AMI . •', a°0, °eO - I - .�r- .. 'T '—'—� I I I I I i I I o (�t I 1 - 1 I - -11 uric II 1 It - ...I I { i' t11 IAOM 1 :T._.T.- - I I 1 10741 •w I 000' fweo , 1 . 1 \ oral " � I u I I ! I I I S I 1�1 1 I 1 $ -u I 1 I """""""' I t S 1 u 1 v I C II 11 u n r I l li I I 1 � slru_` tl--b g 'g I3e3" 113701 nNA�,s,.�I_ ( 1 ' :: b I I jl I L' I I !;I ! 1 , j»��4 1, 1I s . ^�- YV4 u CJ IVC' Jeee Npe1 11pe1 �1_ .., +u I 4 I L1 u I Y f A - 7 A •...L1 A_ I!1 1-LL' -Wrist s- '"--.�...1 ' : I"' '' • n g ern lu411 6 g $ueeo 1 o r ;11 1 I 1 I iJee 1 I . I.. I ,• I , • e IJYYO laeJo „ ai ((p�� bri - n ...• _.,- CpUN 1IJYe0 11»0Y uoea .1 • /1°° : I . I y i. y. 1 - ,_ -// ._.. I ,. V �gJ �- �.. , ..I u , .. Ifot� f „1 ♦ i I j iaoel d?I,eO° '1_. . I I I �rt I TL 1700 I °� I e7' 1 `. 11 _ 1 u a - - - Iw,C „IG) UI F • aed7 - ."• , , L. r�o� t1 1 3 \•p°� ce1NNCYJ I ., Js� 0 °e ' •d� ur/1rtn1`I — I ' 1 a N. p�1 ,1 'V _. -. _ � 111d1 I Jb laeal I1 CIIU11c11 `. Il iooll,too I I I ..,y'r •7R 1 f 11 u17,:' I _ I1 I I I I f c ♦. ,..5`0 ,f I de,0 1 d clmler „G L r t 1w y ♦ ♦ e ° h - /IN 1, u 11111/3O tr,: -I ., I I I I I .'a t�i.q� y r♦ l• ' � ,, '' I dodo w until It I • u '+S�• �.� 1°= " ;j�•Inl U ( '. ' I 1 . 19 ti I I I I ' r . +o V / t --..i�.._.�_—....a 8 s. b >1,Nhh I,• ..f iaa I I I i I I 1 ' a .1b,•Iib •, k ", U+',�r 1 ! _ZY. I _ —�._. COUNipY �'.`'� CLUB 1 g Ir Ir._ l _��."__.1. ° ±,:1 , acre rue, 'b • �� W 1 10rhi •ean ti+ Alf { :e I a'h om �, 1� I , F tt Li Mao •, t 11 1011 1 , to t.l;t+ w` 90 1 7't" 7•-r 1 1 iota 1 I I,o 1; 1 ,.-+^a 1 1,I, : 1 fNa t • t, J viol I 11, :Ida 1050 • Y o , va I/4 10 n ,'''' t•f • n , ' e 1 �b 1 T. �� uu ✓ '� J',. "J'qb �,1, IAHG b5Wlbp Ct111NTIIY CUM `;I�! • „ra, . .� 'a� XH10 ' y V `� Ir .:, 01,k1t ' '1 17 1�,1' ,� ID r'' V > t •. t., „ 4, tt 4 •b , 1 t 1 pjK) 'pm 1-atcrtl — Ir N.;,.,, b 11U • r t, • 1 ib"t L t1l a . + dp o, Mrlvn �,y� ) ' / 2. Liwtrr° Nand " 'C,L,t ~'i \ r I ‘_ 4 N ��' ), Iron Mt. III•rl. .. 5.--- „. �\ '�, .r, �� 1_ -fir 4. RIM' 1111111 r. r A S. •11n4M 1x111 Ilf IVU 5n J 7. South rrl hood 0-F.- © }` ...1".i" Poo.199 S PORTLAND !' " 7. South hharn .. e. uryant Mend yl t �. , ,- +1 9. Noyca Nxy +r � i / �� 10. Ifnxhf Pafh. ^.M rII a �r y rl..- `•� t a^I"0'N Irobara Perk Irinkxy • 31 `' ; �n_.__J ___ r____1 Imo, ,f. ©' 11. Jaan Imad y,w /" tt -j 12. Raaaa Mudd I 13. Boohoo Party a. `.., 1._ ut , * ./ tt_-..� 1 `Y 14. M Mormon ` _ I♦* i s r^ , 0 al a Avnnun i t .1; -t- Ae.r'ti rt .1 o-.•. _1 tats-' 7�it ,14-.-..Avow. ' "+. /p Andrawx lima. -t. • �,, \`'ll�, ;-l. .:.�I1�.aK 1 � •',;�-_' `/� 15. 1'a/club Nlrnnl ult. .c....,- .I_ `Y ~-_�' ,t • f I'Ifxt e[lout ' .�.u,. ,- Ilbmluri� About .aa._, - .:- r Mtrraw ..•<,1 lv I)) - ., 1 .:..Z ''' ,�,3 .1. - /r 16. Carman DrIvn ^+R �/ '. "11 I. . Nat uxa tllrnel 11111 1 7 I. ,a / le. Paaborq hand .y ` r'' i ;' . r ,_;' 7 • , ., tTi !•t i N� f I\ ///�/�-'L \ �r... .-±{�' rl ti _ 'U / 22. Ilryxn4 Ilonrllunll 21 ..T V'� `r �i / 1' 2]. Jaen hundlunll 21 4�k V' j. 'ye r .,r� +.�� '1v 24. Funbnt4 lined tun1I :, •�^•Y I I•iar�-t•• \ C� i' i ♦ _ _ i �. 1 i•'-•-`•ram y 25. woo Vrlbu r • }} r p•• I., 20. Ulnrlour, Ilrlvn `'�1 1 14 , t� I I -it �S L7 'Ld''' {{ �-j��/�/�a1, 27. Old Illvor hand ..f,• :��_.- 1 - j ' i 1'1� • � U .� \,rt`'y 2e. Pllklnatbn Mond _MW•_ 21. ell.Id., Ilnnd .. « i \ .. '`7��'r1j N I ,, '.'.}. In. Indd fame:. �i' -IxaN ,yI .1'..- r, •J1r,fUUl I ~ rurnxe� Dtr+at J.: A'.♦.___.. 5 'S 111--,1�, r ..441 r 4 r + --7 LIGJ!! ? l' ]1. Cherry Lone �, •'-� 4 I yt 1. ]2. Chapin hand ^' q r NTH. �� - r ®.♦' �Aj, .1 IR, / 1 �; �'� ]]. Nryent Noodb Pork. C ]4. Y.vnrgroen ' 7 ®•--- ; fii. •3 I _1 .t (� I 4 4th St. - loth It. g ` �{ t , V � I i .1' 35. Cxrmon Urlen "� 7�1 "i. 'h _ J�� Imo: .1r -rs ely/ 36. Lanu�on' t yrp. j /�'wJ 37. uuurylau Clraln ^kt_ I. r14. .=.^✓•• I ",.r l:R'aI.Z'a�: .t�`. ri' �:� /;. ]R'-\Il ronkxtda oat '; .rs\ _ "` ]9. kylonrin Urlvr -� `-- "� ,,r•�/ ,i ce-; ,.� .. t.r t.. r 4tl. Ilurdln Ilrfud .y It••)•. ` •�milA�' Al Noco Raton r_`- *to. .'r,/ 'r•�t ( •� AIrteN �'�"j .i +r ' ,,, 42. 'neut. l nd Dr rvl Cp y I �]. Y.neuu MunU .-..,.,t � `'�yIf' �C,p'NMDD tW.AND OSwEq ..:�`�+..L' r tlau'�=f.1�i' A t �r•'. 44r Coodnl l Ilona t 7i _ gyp , . ,�a j��,� /�"7 ��jjl:1 '41 re �� 4 . .fnM fur Ilan I r t �`'_' :Y a, �•rrrr,y`�' • 1.P�� a }. � .v�L.0: ,.l�.y A 1. wUmU l y 14f r k 1•:1d t t\ r• . � r1C Ae. I1f unlU1• Ilu.nl •• _ ar✓p `• rl- ,r, ..•• 1� 49. /radnun 11udd 'i 'a .. J • al raNn ,,sevr , ..]l!_,, . , .A✓ - iA1t" SN• r'li•nnnrr ll• 1•r,.,• ' 7 y- . r v.1 . 'ri- • ' tit - ,a 4%, 11 V,11111 P. ,�I I' �► a \• �- .�I I JL_etr �� d41L`` <'4 a �." - !••,• t .;�GloC11[dC+* i :(�15111 i,',, . �.., '4- rt_°,^- spa r I..- f ei. I II ✓7 -1 r ' % �!•, • �` �t „\ +fit + \\ t'ery •il:�.��i}' �^ �-1 r' i�Jtt{�s 4 ojy p1(�!'� . .i \i r ♦/ �' �� ' M .. • =- 1'_� l J a of \'+ -_ l Arhw .'•�.. nit ' COW i. uldi,� F ,• j1I�[/ ..,r 1 ^ /'.�'-IT� 1 -^I.� - r� � � .. -`�,,� ♦�.- \ULANb - a. =-'Y.ri' �;L ih.f.a hrJlY � ..... r: "� 1 ( 1 ,4'''ti 1 V. ► 1e^ ' . `4• .•.,� Iq ♦-',dlr•Il \«...L 11;""r1 g .d,/ (' J .. .µ, . v,,. ..•. �'r`ttl'� • ti. - ;.Y�-1 fv�„�la.. . .. + �.T ....s'f� i 1 `+ . 1%\0„+ vxr -" "Ill'AT :, .� .>�, ,�,t ILL __ _ d EXIS7�NG `` ` opt.. ',MOO 1 c l� 1 1 r Y � ; r;Iii ` F'.\;A!• 1. ..1 ...-` 1 . +�•_ , atrrri'd,i sA Mt .1 PR O P O S ED ��a� 1A, *kCS1 'INN „,0 . ,� ri r • h.Zr • ,�µ j lb r"e 1�,ty��'�//��h�;/��r»hill \� ,i Y 1 4+ J. ,,,,2- , i .V.,,:\S•,,,dr-,1/2:1=',„ . iii 1 1 4e.t.V.r.),•,-.-i."4., ,„,,,..:4:: 411 .,...,00. ., ,,..,m, .. , . ,..4...., lei r'-' 4 f_. ‘ I . ,-, tc4 \ '44,-... 41--P A4 ' WAY S. ),, -)...40.:: 'yr N,, 6.11 rRya 0p M I 1.,1/ Q,.. � • '. �-. .: /LAKE OSWEGO I ks1,} ., y , �r1ll ... � AND VICINITY _ ______.,../• / @' E X H I B I T .. �.`, r, DECEMBER 1988 ; a ��(/, l 9 _ 1% �iw..a Come . NOTES PATHWAY COFUIIDORS ARE SHOWN As ' 4 ' - '- =-� 2,M 'AaPRdXDAATE I.oGATIONB ' . a . "��j uf1'A A� ,1;,:�l R . Wheeler . Coordinator �� .; - + Services Division `. • .a.:d Itevpl stamen ert ;v of Lake Oswego , Oregon 97034 File SDa-91 a EXHIBIT . . ,scessor `lap ii. 2 1E 4DB IC , S Tan Lot 1300 ar• ",r . Wheeler : wo would like to file our objection to the proposed action on lot 1300 seeking approval for creation of thee parcels from t:ho 1 . 11 acre site . Our objection has to do with both the development: of S lot and with the proposed Future Streets Plan serving property - % "- hin 250 ' of the site . First . we have seen the Compass Corp. map and plan for case file , , } ,=._91 , This proposed action would add a minimum or 6more vehicles . . 1 ' to an already problem traffic area. This type of developement .. uld encourage and open the adjoining property for more building and 7''' rp vehicles onto this same Country Club Road/Itnaus Road .{ ersec't ion. ?tit' second objection has to do with the Future Streets Plan ;Jo ed. Would it not be much more efficient to have ra Future . Teets Plan put together for a larger area at one time than to ask a .' '. iI,terested opinion on such a small area as this? This plan is a Y'r , -•:me en:Ample of disregard for the neighborhood. We , in our . :.- : ghborh"od and in the Lake Oswego area, take great pride in our ' ; -Rs :Ind our natural wild life areas . This "new" street plan would i ;troy the character of our property and the neighborhood. And • -.'iere is this street planned to go? The land involved, which is : ,scent to our property, contains so many springs that it is wet and r ` - :-sh-like 800 of the year . Atwater Road is a narrow and busy street r The proposed street plan would put at least another 25 vehicles %to Atwater Road. Where is the plan to buffer the noise of all this w ;• _ xt'g through our property and past our home? This plan would -. 1roy the monetary and the aesthetic value of our property % , u --ea: e , tell us how we will be compensated for this in your future y .: • This street plan would also necessitate removal of the six( 6 ) r during fruit trees and the unusual Ponderosa Pine tree we planted + ' - years ago to be a natural divider . This last year we had a family 4 -f dear visit our fruit trees . In the past , we have had red foxes , • :, sipmunks , squirrels , and a number •of different varieties of birds en ; :..r rr'opertr , Please , please , keep in mind the special character of • ». :• neighborhood so it is not lost in the future of this beautiful. C. e �et°4,.,�i1` Ken & Margaret M.aYthies . 1000 Atwater Road ( tan lot 101 ) , } -: Lake nswetto City Council . ., ,.• •, • •. . • . .._ . ,.., 4-25-91 . ' •. ' ,' .'• •,,, . ' • . • --.--... k - ' • ' ,' 1 ' • . ', ' To: The Lake Oswego Development Review Board . _e. I i.. . ... , , .• _ --- --- From:-- Dave- and---Dolly--Mart-i-nsen-- -- . . 13962 Knaus Road '.'.. ' .• ' _- -— ---.- -Lak e.-0 swe go.,---ate g on -- Propos ed-action_on_cas e_file SD..8•791. . i :,-/ (; .• . . . ,.• „ . : ___ _____ . -________________.....—.....,... . . . .. . . , ... . .............___. . .. .••• . .:, :pie; • .• ,'. . . • . ''' ' ' =1 ---.._ t, .___ ..__Af, e,r djgsttssipn s w i. l_t ./.. t. the_fol,cshq w _live_in the neighborhood that would be affected by this proposal , • we._r_emain, with them strongly_ppposed to the pr000sed action .. . at this time. The future streets proposal needs a lot more . wcELty....ALatjpore peoole. Thank ou for your consideration, and for the enormous time and energy you are willing ts:5.-bin -:. out -EcTeriliri'e"arFiroTiaate development in this area. • • • • . — • ,•.,• .. , -TiTirdWedry-§Yours , '---- - `- - • ' ,,11,4 ,.kA, ...E.-e"-----• . . . 0 -s-7 ____________ Davi-d-and-Dolty-Martin's err--- - - - m'• ' ' ::(..› • ' - ---- _______ 42/diy_rif_(re_44-.24. .. _______. - • . .. . , • , -- ., „ --, ______ ____ _ __ __ •• 4 • -. • • . ,. -----...---•---.------.•--•----• -----. •-a*,..... ...---.....----------,-.- ...,....,-. ,. . •'4, '---*-4'-------4--'-'`-.-4. - '-`'.---.....-.'-• -`**-4.-..-..-4 , s 4 ' k 4 . .., i — •• -•-••-• 4 EXHIBIT ., ., . • . , . I 7 . , • — . • a ' . • , '• - . .. .. ,.. . . - . • . . • , . . il — . . • 4' • . . ' • . • ' . . — .. • - . , • ' ' . • • .. , ' ,' '' .• 11 f,. When addressing this 1,2 acre parcel(minor partition) in Forest Highlands,g , you are also addressing the 30 plus acres of urban growth forests. A "Future Streets Plan" will not only pave the way for in- t creased "infill" development, but destroy the environmental integrity of adjacent property owners, create a major impact on the health of ALL SPECIES--people, wildlife , trees, and micro-vegetation. Most certainly, this is poor land-use planning, decimating General Policy I: "Actively preserve natural resources." CITIZENS HAVE A FIGHT TO PROTECT STABILE COMMUNITT1R FROM EXCESSIVE . z . DENSITY AND EXPANSION AND THE RIGHT TO A HEALTHFUL ENVIRONMENT 111 FUTURE GENERATIONS HAVE A RIGHT FOR A SUSTAINABLE TOMORROW... INCLUDING ALL SPECIES WHO SHARE OUR EARTH. The above CITIZEN RIGHTS justify my request for an abatement of 4' • application SDB-91. • A Very Concerned Citizen, ora Saunders 13790 S.W. Khaus Road Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Tel„ (503) 636-1169 or 636-1360 • • • •• M tr'+ ID C icy Ft 1y Mr. Robert Foster, Chair Development Review Board, City of Lake Oswego APR 2 9 .12,91 380 'A' Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 April 29th, 1991 RE: File NO: SD8-91 •Location: Northside of Country Club Road, East of Nnaus Road. To: Mr, Robert Foster, Chair Development Review Board & Members It is indeed, most alarming to be informed that "WE, the people" • have been thrust into an adversarial position, once again. • The primary issue, as I view it, must be resolved by NATURE and ., HER staff. NATURE must be the self-regulator--.not man/woman, ordin- • ances, nor man-made developers. If our natural resources are deci- mated , then economic disaster will surely follow. History is mirrored in numerous repeat performances. Here are • • some historical (hysterical) reminders : Los Angeles, CA; Phoenix, Arizona; Austin, Texas; Santa Barbara, CA; SanJose, CA; Seattle, WA-- and the l iat keeps flowing, an ongoing thirst for "greed." All of these scenarios involve serious degradation of stabile communities . for the sake of a fast buck. These are basic values. . .0 4Wke4 4 §. Challenging our value system is long overdue. Business ethics must some to grips with dome critical thinking regarding the environment. When Nature 's resources are depleted, then the economic side of this environmental equation will also plummet. The crises will evolve ' s into an irreversible nightmare--LOSS OF RESOURCES and LOSS OF JOBS/ • o .+ EXHIBIT • 1. ..G.2,1"60 5o0_q r, • A4 4 r ,. t n. i. t . t 1 '.1 ., -1 r' 3• of a . „ 0 4 .tr •. ( • .. • • 11 1 dR- .`l,. .• • -II ,'1 y IY , Y • 4 ' ' .'\' ' 0 ••' • , 4. \ ,(« I ' .�� , • , q , . ,fit, ti • - •� 1 9. 1 • r` f fir.kr 1J / d '::::- . ..',..,:.:,. 31 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY i t s• . Septic Tank Fields - Ratings are for tank absorption field. ' Criteria for rating is ability to absorb effluent. Features are: permeability, depth to a ' seasonal water table, flooding, slope, depth to bedrock or hardpan, stoniness, .b , rockiness. (Restrictive features are listed.) • . Shallow Excavations - Ratings are for excavations requird,ng digging to less than 6 feet. Features affecting rating are: seasonally high water table,flooding, slope, soil texture, depth to bedrock or restrictive layer, stoni- b •ness, rockiness. (Restrictive features are listed.) . Dwellings without basements - Ratings are for structure L 3 stories high sup- ti. ' ported by foundation footings in undisturbed soil. Factors are related to capacity to support load, and resist settlement under load, i.e. , wetness, flooding, density, plasticity, texture, shrink-swell potential, (Major re- n strictive feature is listed.) • Dwellings with basements - Rating is for structure 4. 3 stories high, with foundation footings in undisturbed soil. Factors are: ability to resist settlement under load and ease of excavation. Resist settlement factors as above. Factors affecting excavation ease are: wetness, slope, depth to bedrock, content of stones and rocks (Restrictive features are listed. ) . Small Commercial Buildings - Ratings have same factors as above, with a re- duction in the acceptable slope limits. Local Roads and Streets - Rating covers all-weather all-year traffic roads; : 7'. -"--::: subgrade of underlying material; a base of gravel, crushed rock or soil 1 „ stabilized with lime or cement; and a flexible rigid surface. Roads are ; '.4. graded to shed water, are built from soil at hand and most cuts and fills are less than 6 feet. Soil properties considered are: load supporting capacity, 'stability of subgrade, cut and fill material available, wetness, slope, depth to hard rock, ease of excavation and need of fill. (Restrictive Features are listed.) • • ?oadfill - The predicted performance of soil after it has been placed in a croperly compacted and drained em bankment and the relative ease of excavation , at borrow areas. .. Shrink-swell Potential - The relative change in volume expected of the soil + when moisture content changes, i.e. , amount soil shrinks as it dries or swells ` when it gets wet. • • =dditional characteristics include pending, cescribed in the ENGINEERING GEOLOGY repo •• seismic and other characteristics 9 I. 30 4' .. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY u:r . Drainage - A composite description of adequacy of drainage, which includes the factors of permeability, slope and runoff potential. . Permeability - The quality of a soil that enables it to transmit water and au ° ;l` air. Slow to rapid permeability refers to a range of 0 to 20 inches or more of water per hour. Shallow Water Table - Water table is given in depth to the nearest half-foot of a seasonally high water table. Greater than 61 00. 61 ) means is below 6 feet or exists for less than one month a year. Kindsaofr. aaere ble shown are: apparent (A) , or perched (P) . f water to . • Slope -. The ratio of the change in the vertical rise to the change in the horizontal, calculated and expressed as a percent. For example, a 12% slope changes 12 feet vertically in a 100 foot horizontal distance. ▪ Runoff - Rain runoff potential. SCS describes soils b to rate of infiltration of bare soil after prolonged'wottin9. Facto hdrologic rsuin-as fluencing runoff are: water table, slope permeability when wet, depth to permeable layer. High runoff indicates great amount of runoff; low indicates a great absorption. ▪ Erosioh Hazard The susceptability of soil to being washed away by water. Factors include: soil texture, organic matter, permeability, rock fragments and consolidation. , `, . Landslide 'Hazard - Potential for landslide, relative to rating scheme, page 10. Charted Limitations and Suitabilities For development uses, degrees of soil limitations were shown on the Chart. Ratings used were slight through moderate to severe. listed when the degree of soil limitation was more thaneslight1ve features were + . Slight limitation means soils have properties favorable for rated use ; minor limitation can be overcome. . Moderate limitation can be overcome by special planning design o .'aintenance (i.e. , runoff control to reduce erosion, artificial drainage, or some manip- ulation of the soil or modification of construction plans) .. Severe soil limitation means soils have one or more properties uhfavorable ror - the rated use, i.e. : steep slope, bedrock near surface, flood hazard, hien shrink-swell potential, high water table, low bearing strength, This df limitation generally requires major reclamation, design modificationdegrpe special maintenance, which is usually difficult and costly fo a severe 1_.-1- tation. t; • 1., . • • (4./-' I •• 01. .. „ C.., t / ,.l.k k- ...c - ,__ 014 :.b ,„ _.--- i _ -,„„ ., ii . . -.........„ , ,;.., :,,, . , ( III 4 1,1 1•,...,_ .P ' \ fII,. irit'.-4. gIvIe „ I.. f ek 1' ea ,,, g6.t0 • M. . ..,�„. ,,+� ' kV � l� LAKE OSWEGO ,..w. , ,, .., .4. PHYSICAL. RESOURCES ..1,.: . ,., p I` �.�... INVENTORY *• . m 0 411111" i.. m if r„,.6 ,,lo .• „......A., (74 -11/f.,%, •„ it • ,7r t/ 4 ,� A .. i , -.t V; r .. ••. 'i t '� ". INQIN1111N1{ l0 Ala } a10 or N f r, �.i a p Gee le r� tf, �/, awou�oWAt[n�1 ' v , . ,1 ••,' • \J... "`"... r i�iA t�t iMn11T1 t{� _.� l3. '��``�+��.�?„ n CI Ammo::: 1 l u !� //�V_,,,JI , ,�'- T, , �\` tuM[I111111 tY An■t/1oYN mimic, I MtI[nRNe[FOW1Y 4.11;44,1 • .• . . ,.. . ..,. . .. , if —Ae- •:' CP 4r.,,, 6 „.4 ) ''/.< pir Or:. 7.— ". "• .o. ...001111114g )014 . .e.thiiiill001. •. \:: :ZI 400. a . (". II •/ lir ' , 1 t irr? 14 1 _J-1 i '4)ap• . tk ,,,,,404: ,,,,, ii\ (.7) 4, , y : y Awful , fixecaT 4 . ,(.. . ... to 4 1 \\01\ ,M.....:D , . ,i10 .•• 11,154, ,....qe CU r i . ) ••o ) 6 6 ' i •44 1 )Ir , / ''r . ti 4. 4;W C J I 7:3 41. sl/ .:* ,..,1,,t) .c---i-z, .. -,„ ,,, ( Ir . • y . • I _cgs- /�` /' ,I � 1 it �C ly .._ �� n+r�. `,, „1 14•1\ 1 (:`:,..1s 1,• "/ '1 •..• ', • . ,., -.-4- •,. ,,,,_ .. ,1,)f i, / • ,,, 11. . 1.`, .may t L. �„ I r1 f: 1: • . y GINEERING GEOLOC`{ : ,*- ,- , ' 10 DESCRIPTION OF CHART TERMS fi ,.. . . . , .. . . .. . .., ,, . •. . '' reviations S_ - slight Med-rapid - medium to rapid _ ` y''cc - moderate Slow-med - slow to medium • Sev - severe Sli- mod - slight to moderate , rye medium Mod-sev - moderato to severe w - high Perc - peacolation "E,sr well, mod slow, mod rapid - Slo - slow moderately well, moderately ` slow, moderately rapid • .7.7.` rted Characteristics and Hazards* ., w.ao Symbol - Land area has been divided into map units which outline areas • ' rescribed by the charted characteristics and limitations. 4 ' . Soil Unit and Name - Soil Conservation Service soil unit and soil name. +' . See SOILS section of this Inventory. ) ' . ..J-.ified Soil Classification System - Symbols are used to describe soil units;.- column 3 (Surface Soil) and column 4 (Subsoil) . This system classifies :oils according to particle size, plasticity, liquid limit and organic matter.Soils are grouped in 15 classes. There are eight classes of coarse-grained_oils in the Unified Classification System: • .a , l'LL - well-graded gravel SW - well-graded sands • : - poorly graded gravel 5P - poorly graded sands Gn' - silty gravel SDI - silty sands • C_ - clayey gravel SC - clayey sands --ere are six classes of fine-grained soils: • '"'_ - inorganic silts - inorganic clays (lean clays) - - organic silts of low plasticity 3' " - - inorganic clays of hioh plasticity (fat clays) I- - organic clays of medium to high plasticity o 'r- - inorganic silts with `^i oh liquid limits m.ts --_s Engineering Geology Chart has relied heavily on Soil Conservation Service r -- Survey and tnterprete:_ons. The following definitions of chart categor- ° area therefore thanks in larga part to SCS methodology complete discuo- 41110 s-on or which is in tha report `'lscribed above. . 4 Y,,, .p F _ U 27 • Table II: CHARACTERISTICS AND LIMITATIONS OF EARTH MATERIALS 0 , , 1 _ LIMITATIONS AND SUITABILITIES • QF.Ai• SEPTIC SHALLOW DI:FILINGS SMALL LOCAL ROADPILL TANK EXCAVA- w1Th0::. WiTr. .OKKhhC1AL nOA 3 AND SUITABILITY ADDITIONAL LTSOL FIELDS TIONS BASEMENTS (BASEMENTS 7,411ILDINGS STREETS CHARACTERISTICS -r slight severe: -•mod: mcx : cob- sli•sod: mod: low good-fairs Isles. low low strength aobblea,lar Clackamas soil has hi strength strength strength strength steel corroeivity & }' ' mod: mod-sees mods :gods low sev: mod: low good-fair: mod-high concrete —1-2 elope slope. low slope.low strength, slope strength. cobbles.1o. corrosivity strength strength slope slope strength Fording of water tom- mod-sear mod-son: sev: mod-sev: faint low Mon in low areas mod-mews E-•1-3 severe: elope slope,low slope,low slope.low slope.low strength. Boulders common local- . elope cobbles strength strength strength strength slops ly between 1-$ & 0 , canal -I-t+ severe: new: slope, sev: slope. sev: slope, sev:. slope sov: slope, tairlarr„ Seismic: G • elope cobbles low stren. low ntren. low :roan. low stren. r �• sev: wet. says wet. moat wet, nevsMat moo-sees mod: wet, lair-pOGrt g•-2-1 slow pert low low wet.low low Met, low Mod-high steel corro- %� '• I strength strength strezzth strength strength sivity • slope.aet, ale ewer, mod-sev: od slope, Bay: slo wet. mod-sev: mod-sev: fair-poor: Springs common adjacent E-2-2 perm. perm. strength. strength lowslop wet, low wet, low to uplands in SE k i wet strengthstrength, strength area slope Ponding of water common ° r sev: ■lops, sea: wet, in 7rr areas E-2 3 sevt " sews " strength son: " sWet,slowe :strength plows wet Se1n:a. : V on steep nl, e . • wet, sloe low t SyrenTth no" strength am mods wet mods low sev: wet, mod-sev, -wed-sev: fair-poor: __`-1 alo.pera, low strength, low slope.low wet. low wet, low Some solla have big vet strength wet strength strength, strength strength soil shrink/swell (SCS w• et steeldcorroslvityhl „ , men mod-saws mod-sev: sev: wet, sev:slope. mod-sev: fair-poor: 'rending common low sr-" r-3-2 slo.perc. wet.:tlope, low stren., slope. wet, low wet, low fiat. law esa. Seismic: V on ' mot low wet,slope low strength strength. strength,, steep slopes. Loa ' strength strength wet slope strength soils. ,- I w e9V: we , neV:wet,low sev:wet.low sev:wet row owt Not, Plow: wet, I excn Shrink/swell clayey strength strength strength lown stren. low ernes. excess orgy cs S-1 qsev:floods sev:flooda, sev: fl000.s soys wet, sev: wet, sev: floods tw etra low Seismic: G & P � alo,perc. low low low low gth strength strength strength strer.rth 1 strength �, • sev: floods sevt floods sev: floods sev: wet, sevtwet, sev: as fair-poor: F-3-2 slo.perc. slope.low slope,low slope.low slope.low above slope,low • 4 . 4 slope strength strength strength strer._th + slope strength tt . c'' scut floods sevsfloods. sev: floods, set: flop sere flood,' sevsfloods poor: for lod-i steel corro- slo.perc, wet.low low •'�- wet strength strength N wet, low wet, low strength, sivity. Flow areas. ng ng strength strength strength wet comsaor, in low ar • ysevt as sev: as sev ad sev: es sev: an Seismic: G & P g �`,' • shovesab: as poor: as F-2-2above above . 1 Vy above above above above + slope + slope + slope + slope + slope + slope + slope revs floods sev: sev: sevsfloods, sevsfloods F- rapid pert floods. floods: Met,dob- low 3evt fair-got:dt wet Met low bles, low strength strentregttgh strength ho, low Seismic: G & P ' strength 'strength s.. ' sev: as sevt as sev: as sews as ev: se 'sev: as fairs low � above above above above above above strength,s (►• 1 + slope - slope + slope + slope �+ slope + slope slope 3 I " ' ss`loliA h' • v� sevsf.loods, sevsfloods, sevsfloods, sevtflaodso sev:floods, sev:floods, poet's wet, al_h steel corresl- slo,perc, Met wet, low wet, low wet, low wet, low low virp. Fending of ! wet strength strength strerrth ttren.tn strength h .+let co--on in low , heat as nevi as serf as sev: as new se sevt as sews an arias, Seittlet F. o r�,.,Z i above above above above above above 1 above Lau strength soils. 1 + slope + elope + slope + slope + slope + Slope + elope ti it ii fotehtlnl Se7►bit neSpbse • a E - Eidetic V - s:recur or Viodo+elastic F ++ Fluid C S:anular 2 b a. L, { N4 Table II: CHARACTERISTICS AND LIMITATICrNS OF EARTH MATERIALS `` CHARACTERISTICS HAZARDS sM ALLou UNIFIED SOIL WATT TABLE EROSION LANDSLIDE w.r= SOIL NAME CLASSIFICATION DRAINAGE PEHMEA- SLOPE RUNOFF HAZARD Nt.IARD . (1n r _:±2:CD. UNIT suxrAri U2501L SUITEfeet) S ESOIL 77E RACES " Hrledwell moderate >6' 0-7slow slight slight -'_- 31 silt loam 1 ML GC.GM wallc (14-10) (14-16) -w- B31 Bried► Ill GM GC,cM well moderate >6' 7-12 mod ' mod , all-mod ` ) gravelly loam (16-22) - 43 Lacourell loam ML SM,GM well moderate 76' 12-20 wed mod-sev mod-eav 1, + 37 Clackamas SM,ML GM.GC somewhat mod slow .> t 6' 120-30 mod. sev I(22 3 gravelly loam poorly tnpld , low 0-1.5(F) (20-24) 2- -1 12 Vertol ticaaty Y.L.ML-a. ML ' very slow 0-12 slow slight sli-scv » 47• Aloha silt loam ML ML somewhat slow 1.5-2.(P) (24-2t1) 48 Amity silt loam ML ML/CL poorly iaod slow 0-1.5(P)12-20 mrd mod severe E"`'-'' 72 quatamn silt loam ML ML well mod >6' (F) I 84 Powell silt loam ML,ML-a.ML,ML-CL somewhat slow 2`-3.,(2)- _ __, ,_ ,. y poorly mod slow 1.5'-2 (n, w 92 limberly silt loam ML ML poorly (26-30) slow 0-1.5' P) 20 . ?~-2= 75 Bor�stedt silt ML ML to CL mod well —30 rapid se♦ sav _ • oem 1 195C Delano silt loam CL-4L,CL ML,CL poorly slow 0-14(P) (2)-28) ti 16 Covaamlty clay CL CH poorly very s.►aw 0-1' (F) 0-L2 slow- slight» a11- sav 38 Woodburn silt ML ML,CL mod slow ,-3. (PI mod mod lo 58 Dayton silt loam CL.CL-ML CL,CR poorly very slaw 0-2' (P) I (�5-32) ;',, '«-4: ;omewbat ^- mod- ( 86 Dubay silt loam ML,ML-CL CL pco-13 mod slow 0 2.5 (P) 20 med sev• sev `' 171 Helvetia silt ( ML CL,MR mod mod slow 3-6 (P) i. 250 Latish silty clay od OH poorly - — slow 0-1 (P) 0»l ary"est slight slight & muckyelav l IIF I it, condedl F. __2 E r ALLUVIUM " 3 Newberg loam ML SM somewhat Y°a > 6' (A) 0-7 slow f sllght slight excessive rapid I *flood r • ---; 1Clouato silt ML,ML-CL SM,GP sell 5oam mod > 61 (A) 7-20 med. *flood sli-mod„ '`` ° Chehalis yaloamty Y,L.CL CCM,5M, well mod > 60 (A) 0-7 slow .flood slight I '(16-15) sli-mod +' -- 7 rcE.easilty :lay ML,CL CL,CH,GM well mod —3 (A) 7-20rapid .flood sll-cod ?- 4 Newberg fine SM SM,OP soeewh t mod i >b' (A) 0-7 slow Ilight slight sandy loam excess�ve rapid *flood I :(10-13) 1 1 Camas gravelly .:cessl- +ery >6' (A) 7-20 [slow- sll-rod sll-mod y Gr,6M ..p,C�l Vely rapid teed I *flood 1 sandy loam ,r. T-. 1 (20.30 rapid E se•w erod a I(Ibod7oev c ( i ?--, 9 .apato silt loam ML MH i nanny ilow 0-1 k) 0-7 J slow * slight al. o:v1 i121-z-:1 d„ * ) 10 uapato siyclay CL MN poorly slow 0-1 (A) 7-20 s - iM- modGeV ( lc med ::; Lee ei,:laration of ..r-a !,•d Il✓ 2 8, Erosion razard is presser - where .fLOOd ZrOne , 9 I l • 25 ,' i Table II: CHARACTERISTICS AND LIMITATIONS Of EARTH MATERIALS A ;• LIMITATIONS AND SUITABILITIES • --- • MAP SEPTIC SHALLOW DW=.d-.LINCS SMALL LOCAL S7Y.BOL, TANK DtCAVA- WITHOUT WITH COMME tCl AL ROADS AND HOADPlld' -- FIELDS TIOy_ BAS L''EhTS BASFY•ENTS BUILD'ICS SMELTSSUITABILITY GHARAC AACTIOKAL TF};ISTIC9 1 {Y' A-1 SEVERE PO8 ALL CLASSIPICATIONSt SHALLOV BEDROCK •cinmlc: $ d B�"" v 1:11 AND SLOPE va Tubes may be a severe: hazard in Poring laves A-3-1 shallow severe: severe: severe: severe: mad-severe: oekfall possible haze • bedrock bedrock bedrock bedrock bedrock paerteke ae Springs seeps common rook adjacent to uplands A-3-2 Podding common in low w 11111111111 w eevs poor es- area,a es-bedrock. oept as elope rook fill Seismic E • Bon 'tee. elo .e B-1-1 severe: mod-se►: mods aed- severe: mods bed- 'alpe,fo. aiaPs owbedrock bedrock rock•sloPe bedrock rock.slope rtre thw soS MEIB-1_2 w e ! slops, . Seisms°: E & V bn,lroak ° 8-1-3 sevs slope• err: elope rev: slope, sevs °lope,bedrock bedrock bedrock bedrock be rock, P1°oMi° °Pe _ aevs slope, mod-sevs mod: slope1^" stren t ., , B 2-1 bedrock bedrock secs q� =a:: ow bedrock bedro-k 1101vk strength. strength _ sevs s ope mom= slope strength Seismic: E & V ', t B-2 2 bedrock sevt bed- see: bud-�. v oc a rt. eh, badrp°°ak rslope rope strength, K, slops 3-2-3 w e sev! say: slope, slope. °evs slope, s,�trength, poors lax --- bedrock bedrock bedrock elope strength. slops � se:s she C-1 low bad_- sows bed- sev: bed- sevs bed- see: • t'ock,aln ° rock, rack. ens • ,-, P slope soak. rock, poet's ex-,p elope slope slops slope rope as Seismic: G & B :tape ronL^flll ,-1-1 - sloPetsPer a Sgtlt meabilit gnn slight mod! low fair! low D-1-2 mod! ', Ilin mods etremgth strength Ponding of water co�no slope slope mod:: mod:ope mlodtslope. fair! low !Sp low areas p-1-3 Salo mod: sod: strength strength Seismic: Yon steep Pelen slope slope w Low Strength soil • `1-1-4 aslop Sev: eevtalope, •oo ! ow— slopeMEM slope low strc aevs slow mod-t,evs ell-Sods strength el: low 11-2-1 Percola- wet,Slopr wet,alope w ,slope mods mods low tion, wet fair: lox strength, strength. P; gh steel eorro- ---�• slope elope,wet wot,clops sivity Dos- ser: w Fonding of water cos_ ti•� Dti2-2wes slope--' mod•-sev: ewes „+ . wet,s]ope elope, sSlo a `od sev! fairs low mon in low areas wet P -, wet lox 'lop! strength Springs common sev! slow sev! strength D_2-3 pert, wet, eeslope. ■ors sec: sev! soot aloeSSlopest V on steep aloe F • poor: low elopes •slope wet wetp siren, slope. low strength, --- wet wet strength Slope sevs Blow mode 3,,3-1 pert, wet slope, mods elopU, asaldo a ©ode mods lowfalrslox i . wet wet wet slope, strength, strength, Seismic. Von Steep wet wet,slope elope elopes sev! slow 4 'eV! Bev! sec: pert, wet -3-2 °lope, slope, slope* sslo a ews slow Slope, fair-poor, wet Met wet wet strength slope,low -3-J w _ ength strr etigth 114, • w • it It • ptenttal Srisalc hraponss t r C a� " • • . . tea {' • ' . , ' ,. 1 ; , ." ,•` 24 ,I'g —mt-e II: CHARACTERISTICS AND LIMITATIONS OF EARTH MATERIAL e �t CHARACTERISTICS HAZARDS UN1F11� SOIL SIIALLOI! • •': CLASSIFICATIONVAT!]{ n '� V EROSION LANDSLIDE 0' ' .�= SOIL NAME DRAINAGE (i�Lfi SLOPE RUNOFF S PERM SUBSOIL PILITY y I HAZARD G y;:w„' STNIT SOPACE SOIL feet) Z ,?. It°1 `el. 1 CL OUTCROPS A-_ Columbia River Basalt Bedrock h°drock Well• 1mengle no 20+ rapid ,light Severe r, Boring Lava Bedrock' - voile .. ,oil ", present ` t-?-: 100 Xernchrepta Bad- bedrock well Sm e Scabland rook mgale nO 0`20 medium alight (alight -�-� (14 1 S - 20+ rapid moderate sli- -. moderate ^..a' EP.w:r.:O'7 BEDROCK ` ?-L-1 162 Saum silt loam NL.CL oearocx well moderate 2 ft. 1/, ! t' — T 30^ 3-12 mod. mod �IS_mod i. ~� 6 rt. '. (p) 12-20 mad mod (18)mod 20+ mod- . severe I(22) '.i rapid severe , t _ baarocY .?o Laurelwood silt ML, ? q0„ well mod locally 3-12 mod mod (16) laau riL-CL (P) 311-mod 12-20 wed mod (18) n I mod -C-� • wed- I(221 !I 120 + rapid severe severe `.�I;..t. ESCARPMENT u n 1 '..; o C �25 Terrace Escarp- I mef1L Sri riL.GN CM. GP. well moderate locally 20+ rapid severe (�5) impermeable severe D °h-+L1.:, SILT - - :PO Laur elwood silt ML. loam NL-.cL CL,CR wall moderate locally 2-7 , slow Slight �'((18) c _ mod 1• �" (P) 7-12 mad mod (18) , ' mod " ' III 12-20 I ned mod (20) od see' °, " 20+ I rapid severe severe �f8 Cascade silt PM XL 1,5-2,3 2..12 slow- mod (21-23) - - - loam poorly slow d mod me (p) ' - - lo0 Einton siltslow c..0 wed I ML XL mod-well 2, O 12-20 aev (25-27) loam (P) severe (27-291 Y y, .. c I 20+ 1. zed- eev rapid severe i 1 4 I Cornelius lilt MLW L 2.5-u,0 2-12 1 slay. Sod (19) loan NL mod�weIl slow (P) !I coed I mod 1. . j 1 le12-20 / eed sew t23leev ` 1 20+ led` (29) for 1 1 ;rapid ser 23 1' i; _ ENGINEERING GEOLOGY IEcG ' HOW TO USE THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGY MAP AND ACCOMPANYING CHART A chart has been prepared "Characteristics and Limitations of Earth Materials `Materials" (Table II) , depicting major characteristics, hazards, limitations and s ' ities of the mapped units of the Engineering Geology Map The eacha- is a synthesis of SCS data, field investigation findings, (topographile c interpre-t ; tation, and original research and ratin schemes. + .. abbreviations is on the page following the chart. Terminology is describedn of the ain the Glossary. in Letters in the map symbol and the chart headings correspond P d to the major geolog- is units described previously, except that Columbia River Basalt and BoringLava are combined for map units A and B. Map symbol C represents a unique stee t! t ,• slope which define: the break between Terrace materials and Recent Alluviup the east central portion of the Study Area. Upland Silt map units are de m in , nated with a 0, Terrace deposits with E and Recent Alluvium with F. si9- Most of the major map units are further divided into sub-units according to simi- 3u` lar characteristics and limitations. istics are grouped together under a letter sand tnumber identscmbolal r(similar character- �.:, y •.1 ; Kinton ,silt loam soils occur in areas designated with the symbolg0_2)ascade and/or y, The last number in the symbolism represents the slope range. r down (second number) was used because the hazards, limitations, andare slope dependent. , itabili , ' ,- p P Each sub-unitthat occurs in areas with surface slopes ': , � greater than 1% and less than 20% is divided into slope ranges that correspon. ''. r with SCS slope ranges. The SCS slope range breaks used are at 2 or 3%, 7 , . 20% and 30%. Some map units necessarily combine more than one slope as 6-1-1, which combines 3-7% and 7-12% into 3-12%. > 12%, 2%. range, such By locating the site under investigation on the Engineering Geology Map reading the description of that Map Unit in the horizontal rows across facing pages 'on the Chart, the reader can become familiar withgeology the engineering of the site in question. 9 logy t For more complete information, LOPRI SUPPLEMENT, available For public and staff .� .; : review at the Lake Oswego City Planning Department and at the Lake Oswego City Library, contains a more complete description of each map unit. These descr p tions contain the hazards for each map unit, and the important limitations to o land use. Where appropriate, resource potentials and values are noted. ". Limitations of this Chart and Ma Planning and development studies utilizing this study and chart should Conservation Service mapping and data in conjunction with it. This studye Soil designed to replace SCS information, but it is designed to "red flag" is not attention to areas and earth characteristics of areas that need further call patios. Like the SCS information, this study and map is not suitable indesti- tailed site planning. Detail planningand development or dec from this i opment studies can gain direct investigation, but it is not a replacement for on-sits exploration mapping. 1 V®0 1600 2400 •• o'. • • 3200 • 4000 • SCALE FEET • Li slide area it r ' }' . . nitN: i-i li`i' ,e "tf 4 3'kVi'd rt'�yy� i us ms.1 ,iEva"!. rAA « .i• 1•' 1`s;J,?,Ir 7t,. r `. m �e� ;slide area and_i S, r{�',Y 4•y.r'I4 g 14, et • }} tJ l i� tir e r �EI.w r aM' A?�rde+Narl•Zb'Z, t- re y 'Cf,wr�C: t_ >r r jf, y.'. 'very unstable soil may. 1 i'0f1My.„-L°,114-;'> %h "" , ra:,y,j At1 .. J S ; :'At f'SF:! y. ^.4' ,u 1 .�,t�1UY/Nr+.r 2 rS� , .1 '�.:Ij +�ai/o'^ ...�`Riiq+L lrJ.4r..w..X'.i•` •n 'r.ti,n, u ,y;1 .'t� •., •. k. 1 rWda `fa.unclation�! o I ' asomrsarta l IL\ a slide hazard • 1, ss\\/.:.. .. N\ \\\\ \ e • • ,,,,N, \ • r y \) 1 .., `� `• Sept 18 1987 �� 4/ �� 0 Parr -..„, \\\, r e. .1` tip --*}•• e ' , 1. iptak ' . I'4 til ii1.%•i.''.,q 1 - -.---- tia,-....kiI... , ilia 4.;';'.• .....',.., Ulk! t." '`.1' .:, i lk, s , l• ,• \ •!;t't .,'''...:.\\,../.. i: 4'... e/1 ''''i . .,,,t.5-,,,v-.-61..., -•*,,,t..• . .,);,1; « .4 ...'...',.'":.' V '%:;1•.«. • ...: '-i .....N ' '• "1 i,',',V ' f--7.%! ---' • ' . .:` 1.ii' izi 'tt. 1 ".',1":14.• A.141 :,. 6.44:'Ir.••?1,,--:** A',...-6-'-"i''7*."',;':,)" I A 4,"01.v. .it.1 .,; -.'1„.;.'f,.., .1,1,6' .. •1 ACii.t.,..6 ....t . '' ':'' '' .„,.' .t"i--..'4•V! t ,,,,,,,, _....tvr,,,,e71 ; t, ,,,„„r,J, : lye .,I,.,,,.,, t , .:.,:f., /..,0141'Iri.-1.14,!.t---..-• 11 '1 fjpa‘i.4.-{‘,;-•4 0-•1 , ,,....;.r.„1,1,',/t,:,.I.,ti.if'.41i. ,1.., Pli',.i.,!/;.•;.e'•'43'.1. •I' T-,•.,ei..q.... ' - - . •... ,••-•....«.,...- .4 , ,,, , ,00 t...E.•?, 1,.,;•SeXt t, . ovi it,d • ov.,, • .1‘,.,gel ,,r.r.1(I.N.• k ...ti.,••..1•4• X.ri. •,,. ';' at' ' .4,J•;1'4•'11:7-••'"1•• 4 P•I•ttri;it."1.V(A3:9Itt.4 4.it.i.t • ‘1401.1(l.' .714:•••' •ai'l•/*/*•`?" (/k pk.•`••••r••'el t Sr.''d 1' .•* "•:.....alf. oi•I';'•41 .:•',It',5).•14;rid4i.'-ic,•;/,;.•''• . .. . .. .2. ./ . . : - , - ,,-rtrt-f7.3.71,,,,t,,,i0.44-r"t.07' ' ,.W"I i 4 ..1 :•••;Zrfttli7 :Zit'";:ifi tnt, •-*ra it -r-I-I-I"-I • rr, ,.. 111%.1.4,0. '1! , , , ,., ,•1„/.... •'.qt..'' • '116 IV, •;41.4-;t,--Ai4 tAgt.,-;;••1, II. 411, 4:wIretr.04:\4 i!-14:17-4;.,••••••,1.:1 ie. ,, 1.:.4.,_,...4 6,6,.,1,, ,, -r1,4‘ '‘''1 t.'''' ' %. ,•!:•'‘ .11,' L..el.a..... 1 " ••Nrtt-'` .1 t,,-.4 ,: -k4 ,'•••, :t•,lq.4 ..,;4' ,i.•',16.70 Mot./..N ri .0.:,-1).t' , ,•(1/ 7,1',ZOLi'Llarty.r14,' t.'.'''q 91A.V.Nljd t". v. .. ...., ,i. „. •..,sil, J.ri.41,,.1-.I L•Jart, ..1 t, „ ii Ft, •II .. . . , . ., . 1 1 „.,,, ,....!. , j,,, 1 • tr., .,.tr.,...,:a.i.. , •.. ,,,,,,,,, rriri '4.0-'1 .i 6 . , , 1 /.1,-,...1.v,a,t,t,•)..elte .. , ..r. 1 ?. *. ,A , v.).1,114::e.t.)*•,, ...uttuttuLtuut p .)) 1,1 ' .; sr t' .e ' ,-.•-.1,4, .0*.• • 1 ... . i 'Iri--.••-•-1,--•,,,6. •' • • 4 4-? ...-..... "- ----TitTnirr--. 's . .91.i ..,•,7Pir,. ,r.,,1/4 • . ; I . .., .',-ers • •'' \% .v ' P" --I. ' C 3 Il...Iu1 E.°. vs.1%-i..-..itr4ob. - .1 ..N.'•11:1•,1!!!'''t e9 i• imilL"noule2P ,.,' ikilqi 'i.. ... ,..(,.,.,t. „.:VI." •;,'‘l'..,6* ,:••, •• '' f..L. I ,,.._...,..1... ..1 -r 1.: I. 1,.41 ‘, ' -.., 1 '13 .,.e.'/7/ crio4- ..11 •,..4•N't4. ‘.1,,,,,. .. ,..47 ..,..;•c . : . . .., c 7 * ,e7 i...... . r% • 1. ..k sflt.:'.4::•Pi•,*;Is•f‘f: I .r ' ?) ' * "". ? ___._L___L___L___, s, I, }-I ..) . ..--1 .,,i-,, . -*A ' . -•• f -4( 6 fir ',I'll - 111 ', • i 6.6 46,1./,'I'l •: 6 64f.taffil'..'1161.5....k4-.• , . - ' -'• --1 1,...-1 o ' •P,v. ''''ta•...1rOw./i g•' i f ''1* 16-8 A i 4.1'*2,:t.,. 2 .•. '''' 'il''4••!:•.A411f1•451.4‘q...V•1 a•r‘ I 1 ..a. ; r , t• i i .---- " -ri N 1 )r,,,,.0,•i'. v•,,,, J,1,,,,ta "1.3.t4ti•O'VP' y ,,,,.1 .j. ko.....,. c ..--..-...,, . ,. , , ....•., .,..,,,,,f qti ' .1 s.:';.,..,-V.,,,. ....'•'!.).'l.'-'4': \ , .... . .,:. 1 - -.."-i- 1 i•'-,--f• 11-; e.,'", „,,.).,-71.1,4*,,,' # ,,,,r...,.1.iy ., ' -it- .4,A1,$ )A.-.'.'.-..''' 1-4-40.1-" 1. itNii.7 , Illii 6 ,...,---,..1 •.'"v,r••.(76 N lei, . ..t..,.... 1,..,, .. .!,-1:. ..,,,..,,,,, ,,. .10„. . ,1,.) ...4;,. F : 4 A k , . ., . .. , •.' ,3 - - . i i„,_,,_.,„_.,. . rtk•iWl• 1,...Li-.........‘;'•.4. 1• • , , , ,..;11.1.1:iil. • ..'."r..-1il --•-•"' 't''' 'ror;I,i P.': 1...‘t r,e,;''iiirII.1.2...1.;'lz./.,v.7 \ . , .. , . 4 iiiii : '1 i 4Viliiitlitiq.",S N4'47 ';",0i7g,...r•i, - 4 3.'1“,14,t,' 'PrA7..5:41,1,1 '' 4t.`.4•4•1‘t,,,•....., 1.,I.f.,, •,,,k,••,,.0-, ,t,,•,k ,-, , ' * - •,, ' . ' ' . - ,, i --t--L, -L .I-A-i - -,L r I-1-c-, "Ati',0.4k.''"4 1144:17..z1,4 tertk. /•T .•R921 :fa' ' ,', W4 Oil ' *. i I t 1 A 1. ",,,,i1,or 4.'AtinA.'1.11,y -1,::„.i'di 4. V atc• , .. e 0,1...• _ • , 7i,,o,,‘.,,i.,.1 t.!1 g kt.tt'''''ii?,..41..*.:1°T iif ..• .\\ . •v . .,p, '4!" *•y 1.•*0 t'a, 1'.•.!P•tvt' -1.1-4 , .. ., ... , 1 .,..„3.......4, \ , ,• y il.. ...1 ,i......ice,,,F,T,i.t•... 4 • wors A, ', 11,, ie. ,,.,,,: 1;154. . a• t Vt ',4n3' 4.`,- •••'1"4,i . i . .. 1 1 0,sT . , 4 , , • % ,„ t •11.7-,,,,‘• 3 , ' I 4%; 6. ,. . , ..-,i'r• :6,. ;i.... .A, • -• .4ikt.`tAk. * 1 40 lAilli'l''0 .* : ` ,* .141' , . :e.koX1.1-A r ft. ' ',1*:.::.;111‘. ‘;‘,}A'••.' 41'4, I ' **•••1 .• .. ,'' .' • ". iii„.14.1 • r I 1--.1 I II 1,...- ' ""...,1 •,.1'1.4'4'4:F51 g 41 i tekii.' i.A.1 rt I ,./ ,,,,, er , • -1 :' /I . .4 )..5.1 , ', .4 tt. .7'. '''IV',.•/ ').'"I:I.:. 1''' •••''t';>•' :'..4 ' ';.tS , ' ' i'll l• **- .6' I j t' 1 , I cr ,.7.4.17.,‘,.•Q ",1444,1, . ,661-1,64„,, 4 $, Vie 1p(f4.,11'*. . t,, ' r.ip/1';`,;./p A /:-/4*, 4{4. L.., .N. 6 ril 1 /. i it, 41 s w . , , / . ,A t•';.11 4 t.•i'li ' ki.'.1:/,. •r ' (1:- 4.'. - `-'"I • 1 1'' ' ' ts 1;terti,'!,t' 'i: W .1).,It i 7t4jslyi:-Itrir . 4-411.'.'4.1 hi. 1 •--- .61. "I'.•41 ,,,, "..g.k..,1 'illi, "'')VI:,‘,44-t.,61 ' L'. •I i',16;. /16.41 44.„tt 7.1:, f , % '.. ' ,. . 4 t, : * ,..24,4 , ,z,4,,.,,,,....t. .... ., , .. .. ..1.0:.,-.,,,,4_,,..r.i. ,..!:,,,g:t7, 4$1,31. , .3, ,,isio , , ;,.,, .,,,; ,),.4 •I:N 1,,,,y.\0: ,, . ,„, i, ,,, k , , • , ** iti / / .‘ i I. • ...• 41,,"r• . . :., • . . , Ali., iliv.kt, 1 vi 1 ir.,,,'W4,4s<leileitilj .1t!'1 'VP '4 .41.'4., * .'•..c9 '• 1 ..4.,4%. , 414 ..:.. N 4. , .., . ,,I....,.. • 4. . • . •... ..•. I I ./ • I ' ' " .•N•;.1 ;104 • 1,•1 ' ". s. '. . .'"- . . , _Y‘ -‘1".t"•:- % • 1r- " ..:It. )6,,,,,, AVY;),A.. .t/(1, V• 1,, ,4:5 . * ,4, • * . #.*•;,, "Kr.rr,..,.'' I I -01 , .. ..- te ro t A I, 1 i , 1 •ii.,' ir.,_:-..,0 Vt.'', i,.10„,1', 4..11,.,.}1•4 • ,• - t --1,../.4 1,..L. :...711f...: j.,!,,,,,,,,, / , ,ii.aj,1 .,te•It , 11..:,E•::, ,,,,, • ,..... •..,, ‘ I la I 1 kit .01"qtrz.v.1-'rea. p' .o-i , :1,..0 ffr.y) ,./..:. 1.„tr• \ . ,....7„,, , , .. . ,1-4.4.47;_x_ji,..... ,...4 . , . ..s.,•A L 1 .; . , . 4.' .4". '- 1 I '.ji-.11 i I 1 1 I I. i I Alt•1:4, (11 LIAR, ..:‘:,:','".'P ' „I., .1 r ir: -it-- • ,'- :' li't ....'41) ' '1 'N.I. ':::C, F2.k..tt'l•,s',.k.....4.4L2*''. ' ' ''', ..1 : * .. , •e : li 11--1 ' : I 1 .1 ff q; * $'",..• ';',i',,,,;: 'T..., ;r. .0 I,. :t . A _J ;''.. , . , 04---11-----11 -4, : 1--1-- . ". • L 'r!, t 1.1. :. '_',) ...i y...1,1 ,'iv. .:-.' i _ ,? : 'ilik,....; • "I" f fe,t•ult•T•To-r Sql 11.1 0;04.'01 ..),.. / v. r 1 ' 1 t I 1 1 I I ..i .v i..,••..,4. :.2.. ,i i /...,„•0/...,,,' I , , 1 % i 1 I.1-- . 114 ' - - Nin ti.irm ' • 1 . N is 1 ' n 4t..,.,',. ••*-1. **. . . \-. . . , . 1 1 ! r 1, . 11 1 I r. . 4)1?.:PLI11:114:i.!Ir..% • 4 ''' Ifit/r1;•°' % •• / % %\ 1,I.V II " , _lc g . \ • . ,*,lattt F.-.It ; I i : I "--).-L--1 I i • ti'...1:. ytd„,Ndi-chs".? iiti. i......., ..ty,f4,1,.i. -\ • , ,,,,,, , , 1 1/ 1 1 ' • - . . I. 1.44'I• ' 1 1 I ;- i "' 6„. -" - ' --'1---• I. 14 6 ••,r.{... ......1.1 1 v 10) • % •,i • .11 • 111111 1 .7,4,11 e,,;' iik.,4111C,11.40Q' fit)r., ' „.. -1,-;,,t,i, .1. I'.. g•-.--1*•;`. r . :i , hit I 1 'i !i . • I ', 1, I. ! 1 - --1-T.1 ..,,,,g),14•44 ;1)2. • tb..,...,'.1, .‘.". . -i-r. N 1,1,..• .1----,.. I - • . . • , ,. ° odk . ,,,---:,..* .1/41 1 1 1, %. 1).• ...••••'. , r' 1 ' 41,0t Prilt P,1'.44 '''''• 1.3 ' , 1 t .1... ' 7. .g ...........,. ,, * . ......1s„ „ „ 1 1 .1 II 11;•••::::"-•• : -,i1-1 I 4 41):I.•?4‘.)VI_it,.4 1 1 1 1 -1 : -11 -I •I. I / i • 1%'‘.% 1 I ' 1 II 1 . . 4 I II , ' ell 1 I •,„••• , 1 1 1 I 1 1 1, . . .. . - • . " . I ' i , I ? I r • _ . • \,.\,,,, ,---,9 „ , .... , ..,,,, , ,,,,,, etr"147.• •1 ' Oil I , 1 1 t titil '. , ... --. .4 4.- ;II -1" -L'• crrjr,e,(4,U4,42.7 . „ ittli. _6 6.* it _ i 1 1 1-.. ____tut. .-1 • ? it 1 ,I . 1 "4 • ' :-*47-x..:. '....:6 _ ,, .1;11--, t ' el. . / --1 f -tyiseLr„...: ...,, .-- -..• ,J * -, • )1 , .• . , s',,,...It.%4ttr , 1 i , 1 - . , , 'N 4..I r-•..- ..; . i ,0- s----.., 0.,..01,412,. .....---, ,„,,,......tt----,,,,,i4.•v ittii•AfilY.74-,....r,,,,V .. . ...:',. - c... -,•, •.-i'• .'•\. ,•• ••- ...-.- z•,..1 1,F1.110,01,, k*.,. ,;1( e.#r"." ,•A'r i 1 I -1 •....7,9 i '11 II ri_, . :*.', . : ::: ' • _ .. . . . . ....... ...,..,..._ •4-*..4, '' • 1• Ca•,.4u,,i . 4 • . k. 1 , • .. . . i ------ 6 66, .1 . f ' , . • . ...,.. ',•••••• ' -........ '. , -.".4•1 '4 .. ,I ..,<-• . 3 II. i I" lini OSN'IGO COON • • •••"."-1 A •6, (0.0""-•"( ' . $ 7 iip,,..,,.-4 . •4 „ „.,„. 1 1 rt" -Tit, , t:, ., I) 1 •• A, 1 1 , : . .. •• • .ill V Y 1•• ./ 1 . • .a q.% ,,, ..rt., , • lit• , A ,41..< , l ,..• i ‘1/1A •i . I- • , ci?..,•/•/,..1, .• ' i • /3"• la , III( 0,,,y1. 1 1 • • ' •4 c1/4......•:tI;i... &L'a At :„, „t 1 :?, 1, '1":•W , , i r -,1 ;•••• /1 4 zu r Or « • r-r-r, ---,:.-- - - -• iii,1„•i O ..' „L.., - ,111 , ; ,.., f.....",,-,..--t- Jr./..,11.,..•,, .. / - , i . • 4' . ,-r7"--•-...Z-".........::_ir ' 1*tg'itli,i)1' •I'' --' \' ). "t ,o''...- , -*LI.4. 4• - • t.. II I I 1 I 1 It II/II ! 1/ • -t • "::Itt.7 •)-''•1.-!•-•.'r : •\.• !„„itir•L•1 1_ LI 1 . ' 1 ' i i` I ' t -I' .-f 21."`:,t;-../ r r) . I n ,: „ -... 6.6-3_'.' . 6,:',61.4P1,.•,t,e(e.Ar,‘,..•i' ..* . • ,' ...,..:',.),, '1 . 4 ' *.::..;,..4,4/1:.• or- --....:1,„, itr----- -1-----,..1_-_ - t. t :,..-/...„0..! 6'-•-'"- ( > 0:4 * ' ... *• ".r. . 4; 1 .., p.I t.. .,. , -.._i-wt.- . ..., i. i 1 r ../..,,___7,/ \, v,.., __,, "I 1 11 .) ..,1 ,i,;,,.L L.? ,AI -r--. i 1 , , t',„/ . • . • • * .. • • -.0" -• , t v. , • A.' 0,., •• i - --ityr-7----...z , L45. 1 t4a,v4t ..‘ • ,- • • ) .4 I • -I' .6'-6 1'',"-1,.......„,„_.L.._--t';'-,-- 6'.• :• 61'2 IV • r\ ••A•11111•1•4 %s ;•'*. r r . ,i, : . ..,-., , , „ „ .,,...:, ,i , a I 4 " , , •' •"a• "a•-•a• •t .44 t' •fr.4.1„t1 " \ r ,; kb...m.0.111. , ,,,,, „id,. ,„1 , r•7 \ „„I• , i'*tke) EXHIIBIT II ' .. . TT < .... ... , . i , , c‘ ...--, ,,,f ,. . , . i. •,, ... - _ . •-- ., - ...,...-_ 4-41 wi,,44tNetP" • ,..,.. ' - 0 • , ; ; , , ,,, ; , , ,... ..-„ , ,.•,,,,, , , , ,in d (2 ..\ ' . • ' . ).• . • . ,,,,..••• 1 , _ •-•-•.--t., ••••,„, . .0 .,. ,• ,e (...* i .‘ , : \ wt..;L,....;t:i4r172;:•••14.,,,er . ' , • ''‘ ' a itj•M•... .rri':•:1 -'s • a • .‘1.^ 1 t i . 1 I I, kV' a •_...•16.J.,,ti 1 k..3 I.L Yr•• ..W.,/ . l; a • .• k " IN ' rr ,...,,'001`.-•,, -..., 4 • • ' , , .... . , h _.__=___ ___., ,,./7.--..----;----,:.-7-__41-.,,i-r.•„I-fr., . , d14.6 _ell k •- -7 ,11. , ", •••••:. . , . • • . .,. J LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of Supenntendent `n EMT REPORT Date 6'190 ELEMENTARY i1 h 1 2 3 4 5 6 Spec Total Oct 'School Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup -a ''trr.Side r r•n'e bills 2.0 52 3 0 75 2.0 43 2 01 51 2 0 40 2.5 56 2 0 47 • 01 101 16 51 3741 u tee.grove 0.0 0 5 0 114 4 0 95 4 0 96 3.5 82 3 5 85 4 0 86 COI 01 24 CI 5561 v , ._t-I d__,.___,, 3.0 63 4 0 87 3 0 66 3.0 69 4.0 92 4 0 83 4 0 92 !Cl 101 26 01 5o21 Total 5.0 115 12,0 276 9 01 204 9 0 216 9.5 214 10 0- 2224- 10.0 225 2 01 201 66 51 1 4941 " Sa:n^Soe ''a' 0.0 122 2.0 431 2.0 48 2.0 49 2.5 56 2,0 35 Tallman 2•tlA 33 „CI 01 18 51 3921 _ 39 2,0 40 2.0 40 22 0_ 46, 2.5 58 2.0 41 32 U 71` D 0l 0 15 51 3351 '' -'atsaoes 2.0 37 2.0 49 2 0 43' 2.01 42 2 0 53 3.0 63 0 0 0 0 01 01 13 01 2871 "°r'3-eve , 2.0 43 2 0 38 2 0 431 2 01 47 1 5 42 1 5' 34 1 - 0 25 .C 01 01 1201 22-�1 a'''�--c:ae 2.0 52 30I 651 20 511 251 58 2.5 61_30 64 I 0I JO 85 C� 01 18Cf 4351 + -eta: 14 01 2931 11 01 2351 10 01 2251 10 51 242 11 01 2701 11 51 237 9 01 2201 w I "":I 4 -221 ="�h.='O'A(r_ 19 01 4081 23 01 51 t l 10 01 4241 15 51 4581 20 51 4841 21 51 46 19 31 4451 2 201 S 5: -2,5i SECONDARY Junior High High School 7 8lTotal Oct.1 9 10 11 12 Total v 1 r .4= 261 237 d981_or•d i11,4� I..JHS . 259 2501. 22C1 2341 e4.. ' 250 251 5011 4 '� 'cta�•_ � 511f d88( 9:�I `g Irakendce 1 230� 218I 2:91 cSCI : I Total f 4891 4681 'S_I 454 7,1 • 1 �, ,y A Growtn Analysis October 19E_ October 1569 .•:• e_Eve Oc,oner ,96i+ s :J.,P . N [ 6 N S N 1 '• -- «� 3001 1 461I 1 473 • dod a 4+ _ v _ 1 4041 4251 I d67{I 1 690 1 • dgd - _ 4401 472 4941 dc' 4oa1 ', _``, l C061 • 05 ' I 95- .521 9491 331 I 7 x.'1' d o ec f l _ S29I I J' - v. ,. l 1 • • p" Y. t y• F Y• .. , y {i t des There are several variable!, which are not taken into consideration through this • calculation: 4111a) 1. Recently approved lots are subdivisions of previously counted existing lots. Therefore, the parent lot(s) should be subtracted from the total of recently approved lots. Otherwise, these parent lots are double counted, 2. Some vacant lots can not be built upon since they are set aside as open space, or are part of a double lot ownership with an existing house straddling both lots. •Y + • 41) , { AI Y 4 • • • • • • • • I • • d • • • • 1• • • „., . ,'.t ,' rye , / ” r '? The school district has createdthe flexibility to accommodate an additional students should actual fall enrollment exceed the forecast. Starring with the �7� /M subsequent school year of 1991/1992, the new elementary school will provide for an increased district capacity of 500 students. 2. Residential Development Activity , The following two tables summarize residential development activity for this last fiscal year. These figures supplement the information distributed to City , Council August 1989, which had stopped at June 30, 1989,A. BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED ; 1989/1990 FISCAL YEAR Single Family 400 Houses y' Multi Family 39 Jnitt Total 439 Dwellings �� BY STi IGLE FAlvfILY LOTS APPROVED 1989/1990 FISCAL YEAR Y • .Number 1 ' R-15 R_10 • 63 117 R-5 5 31 1L1 Total Lots Approved 372 The City continues to experience an active development market, bdth t r :he subdivision of land and issuance of building permits, There were 682 new - � dwelling units in 1988/1989, the precedingyear. t�ew •; 1989/1990 figure, it is evident tht the single family marketWhen compared to the strong" The drop in multifamily can be attributed to a decline inn available be W multifamily land. 3, Conclusions Information presented to Council in August, deliberations indicated the. 1989 duzzttQ the building r Y ..� �e were a total of 885 vacant single family-zoned io�; y • within the city limits. Avery gross update of this vacant lot figure h Y Y ::seal years development activity indicates there �u.� wit". „ate a July lY 1990, This new vacantere roughly Sit vacant lots , ,v;.or figure was achieved by adding 58 +exis ir,a • .scant lots) to 372 recently approved :ots) and subtracting gl building permits). g 400 (s,n`,e rrt.i,. 1 • t A • . MEMORANDUM V TO: Peter C. Harvey, `City Manager • FROM: Sandra Korbelik, Senior Planner. : • 000'A' ven p o eA rue ue SUBJECT: Status Report Regarding Lake Oswego Elementary School •- , LW�eWfgO l f oreq:n 970,E Capacity and City-Wide Residential Development Activity 500.6 020 DATE: August L0_1990 7 5•0290 mm� �gmunnq s9E7•BOs•ar0 CityCouncil has ' requested a periodic briefing regarding the status of the Lake • :0�•aa�eu Oswego School District elementary school capacity. As you know, the City has established a regular system of communicating residential development activity to b'� Y � ::3435•02 FAX the school district to assist in forecasting classroom demand, This report contains ► VI the school district projection for the 1990/1991 elementary school year and a summary of residential development activity for fiscal year 1989/1990. 1. School District Forecasts ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROJECTIONS a. .; 1990/1991 SCHOOL YEAR Capacityfor ': a. School 1 Adjusted F.precast 1990/1991 1990/1991- ., oBryant 529 513 f� Forest Hills 391 ,403 `� Hallinan 437 Lake Grove 552 5003 0 > Palisades 345 Rivergrove 414 34442 Uplands 99 r �' 595 Westridge a) 409 Total Students 3/1 z ,7'72 . —..c n 3,393 . . ... • . , ., . . ., Oc ... . . - : st ,..s.i Lon 1 Capacity varies yearly for each school based on construction of new additions, portable classrooms, kindergarten programs and space commitments for other • agencies or district wide programs. `�- ` The adjusted forecast total and the enrollment projection total otal from October 1, ,� 1989 are the same. The adjusted forecast, however, has a redistribution of ! individual school figures due to subsequent elementary enrollment decisions. 3 The adjusted forecast figure of 500 for Lake Grove is conservative, and may range up to a total of 600 students. The adjusted forecast figure of 299 for Rivergrove is conservative, Student . = demand created by the active new home construction in the Bay Creek • . subdivisions located north of Westlake will be accommodated within the • Rivergrove School. The size of that demand is difficult to forecast. " µ • 4' 1 Yt 1b. ! ; { 4 a� t ti I, t '4 • 1• , \' M1 J+ '4r I. 1' • A' I-F 1 9/4/90 4 • • CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO CITY .ti1A\AGFR'S OFFICE - "` MEMORANDUM • a- l; TO: City Council FROM: Peter C. Harvey, City Manager ,• SUBJECT: Follow—Up on Residential Lot Calculation DATE: August 28, 1990 At the special meeting with the School District, a question came up regarding how the • vacant single—family zoned lots were calculated, Sandra 1orbelik, Senior Planner, has advised me that the figure of roughly 857 vacant lots was calculated by counting the number of subdivisions and minor partition lots aR last fiscal year (1989-90), { ' addin: the sum of Karen Scott's calculation for tote number of existing lots ending • 198: :9, and then subtracting single—family building permits approved last fiscal year. • The calculation of 857 vacant lots included+both large tracts of vacant land and scattered, already subdivided vacant lots within established neighborhoods. The bulk of the 857 are found in scatted in lots, 1 ' There was also a request to determine the geographic areas of the City where these lots • are located, This would require considerable manual work on the part of the Planning staff to accumulate. • It is recommended that this explanation be added to the other material for inclusion in the update of the moratorium report. • Respectfully submitted, 4 II eter C. Harvey - •�"' • City Manager 380 4 AN,E`rL E POST OFFICE Bak 369 a KE EGO OREGOti 9'034 503 635•0:1c ' • • 4 - Lake Oswego Elementary Enrollment August 21, 1990 s Adjusted Current #► of a' Projection Forecast Capacitor Enrollment Portables • 1k ".\'• Bryant 413 513* 529 502 2 Forest Hills 403 403 391 370 n . • Hallinan 330 330 437 311 It. y'..N ` lr Lake Grove 600 500* 552 453 2 • • Palisades 344 344 345 318 1 `+ II River Grove 399 299 414 305it i 1 Uplands 595 595 644 574 4 '? ll 1.1 i ill' -}1it i Westridge 409 409 460 398 TOTAL 3 39^ 2 I '' . ' ,� 3.393 3,i7_ 3,.,41 10 0 . . „ Aa ; SUPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION FOR UPLANDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL • .INFORMATION AND ASSUMPTIONS Uplands Elementary School currently has a population of 559 students and is projected for 595 students on Ootober 1, 1990. With the additional classrooms and expanded core facilities being added through remodeling • phis the continued use of portable classrooms, Uplands Elementary School should have the classroom space to accommodate the growth which is projected for the 1990-91 school year without significantly compromising :. strict standards, CONCLUSIONS e district has established a practice of allowing each school to keep all students within its attendance b t • indaries until the population reaches the point where, compared with other schools in the district, equal 'educational opportunity is being significantly jeopardized. The district can provide the class;;;•i, space and b resources to allow Uplands School to continue providing nn educational program comparable to that of the Ltstrict's other elementary schools. • ;,RECOMMENDATION ' commend to the Board of Directors that the district keep all Uplands Elementary students within the • nt Uplands attendance boundaries at Uplands Elementary School for the 1990-91 school year. This gLon will require that the district continue to provide adequate support services, including administrati'e ♦z. ::stance, SUPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION FOR FOREST HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL • F ORaMATION AND ASSUMPTIONS • • .rat Hills Elementary School currently has a population of 377 students and is projected for 403 students on •i..ober 1, 1990, With the additional classrooms and improved core facilities being added through -:modeling, Forest Hills School should not have to reduce the quality of its educational program to zzzommodate the growth which is projected for the 1990-91 school year. • ,3"'sCLL'SIONS M- district has established a practice of allowing each school to keep all students within its attendance �y,.w-adaries until thepopulation reaches the point where, compared with other schools in the distri,a. equal : s, uonal opportunity is being significantly jeopardized, The district can provide the classroom space and :sources to allow Forest Hills Elementary School to continue providing an educational program . -;arable to that of the district's other elementary schools, • • RECOMMENDATION Y : - commend to the Board of Directors that the distr'ct keep all Forest Hills Elementary students within the Forest Hills attendance boundaries at Forest Hills Elementary School for the 1990-91 school Scar option will require that the district continue to provide adequate support services. " 4 14 4 9 1. • ti.; SUPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMEtiDATION FOR LAKE GROVE ELEME\TAR1' SCHOOL INFORMATION AND ASSUMPTIONS • I.• or ae school district has established the ideal size of an elementary school as being approximately :00 students, :...rake Grove's enrollment is currently over 550 students, without the kindergarten, which, as you know, has been ' t 4 ---located at Bryant Elementary School. The projection for October 1, 1990, for Lake Grove School is 600 students. is agaan excluding the kindergarten. Atter extensive analysis of building permits, housing under construction, the m.mber of elementarystudent,-, per household in new development, and the strength of the current housing market, ' • _ ;.s. my opinion that the actual enrollment on October 1 will exceed our projection and that the L.J ;. Gro School .-population within its current boundaries could exceed 700 students before the end of the 1990-91 school year. ••b ae following reference points are relevant to my recommendation: 1, Lake Grove School has had to shoulder the burden of coping with the impact of significant growth in enrollment for a longer time than has any other elementary school in the district: 2. Lake Grove School has experienced the most dramatic increase in enrollment of any elementary school in the district; 3, • Lake Grove School still has the potential for enormous growth within its attendance boundaries; 4, Lake Grove School will begin renovation and remodeling this summer with the removal of asbestos and the construction of a covered play area, C NCLUSIONS • :. e• conditions affecting the educational program at Lake Grove Elementary School require the school district to :lie strong and effective measures to insure the quality of the educational program at Lake Grove School ' ..-?~zIughout the 1990-91 school year 1. by employing a combination of options to significantly reduce the Lake Grove student population to the optimal size of an elementary school as defined by district standards for the start ,-f the 1990-9 l • school year: • 2. by designing an enrollment strategy to assure that Lake Grove School will not reach a student population that jeopardizes the district's responsibility to provide "essentially the same instructional program to all children in the district," L•k?+E GROVE RECOMMENDATION -,w': the conditions and the limitations facing the district until the new elementary school and the a,:ditional `' rooms gained through remodeling are completed, I believe the following recommendation for ..,iKc Gros: S•:_lool to be the best possible combination of short-term solutions, 1 therefore recommend to the Board ,>i 2 w t•::ors the following options for Lake Grove School for the 1990-91 school year: 1. Continue the relocation of Lake Grove kindergarten students at Bryant Elementary Se:-,ol for th,: 1990-91 school year, This option alone provides for a projected October 1, 1990, enr,,,lment ,sl' approximately 600 students at Lake Grove School, Relocate the Lake Grove first grade at Bryant Elementary School for the 1990•9 l sch�:.,l year This option will further reduce the projected October 1, 1990, enrollment of Lake Grove &~ool to approximately 500 students, 3. Designate neighborhoods currently under construction in the Lake Grove attendance 4:.,, to attend River Grove Elementary School as those homes are occupied, I am recommending an Brea :ei1erall'. referred to as the Bay Creek Development. which would also be designated bt, the Bra; of D'ree:ors • to attend the new school in 1991.92 This option will allow us to utilize exist:rig ela,•--om pa,,c within the district as well as help to prevent Lake Grove from significantly exce,eding r,' opium' ,ere 'or district elementary. schools, , • s Designate other neighborhoods where large-scale development is scheduled to t-ke N..— for Jistrici• • wide elementary school attendance until the new elementary school boundarie• arc e.• - :gtc•J i,'r :n; 1991-92 school year, This option will ,cllov,' us to utilize existing classroom spas.e \c.. 1 tits district as well ds to help prevent Lake Grove from exceeding the optimal size for district ciente: ..are •„It oo s . o f t ...ommendatiort will continue to require that the district provide adequate support scri Ices io :.al,e tiro%e• :. :-- .tare School, including adminisirauve assistance. r ti t' LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent May 7, 1990 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Bill Korach, Superintendent _'' SUBJECT: Elementary Enrollment Recommendation • One of the primary goals of my superintendency has been to establish an open, forthright, and cooperative :aproach to problem solving between the school district and the Lake Oswego community, an approach which zzas guided our efforts to cope with the problems created by burgeoning elementary enrollment. With every elementary school in the district having now been affected by the growth in Lake Oswego, all the school :immunities have worked in support of the school district's efforts to preserve the standards by which we `aye defined a high-quality educational experience for the children of Lake Oswego, v . , District Standards • Equal opportunity--The district has a responsibility (Board Policy 6110) to provide "essentially the same instructional program to all children of the district." Student-teacher ratio--The district believes that Jmaller classes facilitate increased teacher- studcr,► interaction, require less teacher time spent on behavioral management, allow for more thorough student diagnosis and evaluation, and provide the potential for greater flexibility in teaching strategies, including more individualized instruction to address individual differences in students, • Elementary school size-•The district has established a range of approximately 350-500 students • as the ideal size of an elementary school. The district believes than an elementary school should be a stable, secure environment within which each child can develop and he recognized as a unique individual. As the school population rises significantly over 500 students, additional strains are placed on students, teachers, and parents as they attempt to communicate and to wvk closely and cooperatively in a crowded environment, Neighborhood schools--The district has demonstrated its strong commitment to maintaining neig',iborhood schools, knowing that preserving a sense of identity and identification with a • particular school is a strong community value. However, when the neighborhood school concept conflicts with the concept of equal educational opportunity, the district ultimately. mint ' give priority to providing "essentially the same instructional program. . ,for all children ot comparable grade levels," 7`t: Elementary Enrollment Study Committee, made up of citizens representing the community, has no _reipleted its third year of'a thorough study of short-term and long-teen approaches to the dramatic increases - elementary enrollment, Working in cooperation with the Elementary Enrollment Study Comm►uec, the ` ' s�- rool district has developed participatory decision-making processes, such as holding both community and iuf meetings and conducting community and staff surveys, to gather information and opinions and to help <<.. solutions to our enrollment problems, Additionally, this spring, members of the Lake Grove School • t:immunity opened their homes for a series of five coffees attended by district administrators, school hoard Y • 't -7c.Tbers, and parents to provide an additional forum for discussion of the enrollment options being cnri,iderea ^;{ the district, ' 4-1: culmination of this extensive study coordinated by the Elementary Enrollment Study Committee, including ezr,-stderable opportunities for paructpation by the community and by staff, is represented by the indi‘'dual , • ee mmendations of the members of the enrollment committee and by the following recommendation by the • saw►enntendent, ' 1 S . • • • • . r • • • \ •i ? / • • • • ., • • 4. • • • • • • • • p., wp y .. + , µo Attachment No. 3 September 18 , 1990 • ° �;• Page 7 h , : Specific Policy 4 , on the other hand, directs that schools be available or committed "prior to approval" of development. If ..,� ' that has not occurred, the specific policy states that schools may be provided "concurrently" with development "if part of an adopted annual capital budget at the time of approval of the development. " The specific policy contradicts the language of its general w policy in that it is illogical and inconsistent with how schools . function in this state, to require schools to be constructed or funded prior to the approval of the development which they will serve . The City has experienced the result of a strict application of the language of this specific policy . A defacto moratorium ,>!` resulted in circumstances which did not justify the enactment of a moratorium pursuant to state law. The current level of school planning and coordination between the City and School District satisfythis general 9neral policy. In summary , the three general policies listed above , which are applicable to the school capacity issue in the consideration of a specific development application, when read together, require the City to plan for services sufficient to accommodate growth , coordinate with the School District on capacity issues , san;l evaluate applications and determine impacts . School capacity is a system wide issue and forecasting when new growth will impact. the school system is not precise . A quasi-judicial hearing on ; single land use application is not the appropriate forum within which to make determinations concerning system wide school capacity . There is not reliable data concerning future impact; that will result from a single application or the timing of those impacts . The current level of coordination and planning , with continual monitDring of actual school populati )n changes , •sa : . -f • these policies . If it is determined that school capacity will a.= exceeded, with certainty, the City Council may empl-.,y the ;rate moratorium law to prevent an overtaxing of the school facilities while the district implements programs to correct the pr,olem. • atty/Corresp•-,1.1 • b '' .. .k Attachment No. 3 September 18, 1990 r Page 6 i. Adequate drainage j . Schools Services shall be available or committed prior to approval of development. Such facilities or services may be concurrently with the land development for which they are hey are necessary if part of an adopted capital budget at the time of approval of the development, or if provided by the developer with adequate provisions assuring completion, such as performance bonds. " The Urban Services Boundary Policies direct that the City define the future growth area for which it intends to be the provider of public services . Within the ultimate jrowth�area , General Policy III directs that basic services will be logically extended and that the phasing of service extensions be first to immediate growth areas and secondly to the future arbanizable areas . The City is then to schedule public facilities through a • .` capital improvements program and financing plan . t Specific Policy 4 relates directly to nothing in the language of the general policy. The specific policy almost seems misplaced ,and would be more logically placed in the Plan as a Specific Policy for Impact Management General Policy II, discussed above, which addresses the impacts of development on services . It is notable that the specific policies for that general y require the type of precise fit in timing beween :evelopment not approvals and the provision of services that is cc^taine,i in Specific Policy 4 . - The most relevant language of this general policy to the i; ;ue =,t hand is that the City will "manage and phase" growthwith logical planned" extension "basic" of basic services . ;he school District is logically planning to provide new facilities to ser`,.e .,:) • demands generated by growth . The district , like school distri .ts in general, provides facilities in response to derand-_r.;t , i �1 • anticipation of demand! The Director of the Department of ;�an Conservation and Development urges reco.anition of unis fact an: • • Identifies schools , along with police and find services , as "responsive" facilities , The Director draws a distinction, e.pt. — . .. : ,. : planning purposes , between these responsive facilities a transportation, water, sewage and drainage facili t .es 4niC1 ' •.nee ry Js "must attenc, rather than follow or resp ;nd t ), construction . 1 ,, 3; p' Attachment No. 3 September 18, 1990 Page 5 ¢. .. Specific Policy 3: * • � Prohibit land uses or intensities which tax or exceed the .' '` <` normal capacity of public services except in instances where the developer pays all costs of provi,'ing additional required capacity, subject to City Council approval. " The general policy requires the City to plan and program for the provision of adequate facilities . The City cannot plan or program for the School District. The City does coordinate with ••`'' the District. This policy does not require the City to plan • facilities for the school . Through the enactment of the moratorium statute, the State Legislature has prevented the City from carrying out Specific Policy 3 on a case by case basis iue to a lack of school capacity . The moratorium statute is available to temporarily prohibit, on a system wide basis , lava uses which exceeded the capacity of the schools . 4. Urban Service Boundary General Policy III • 1 The City will manage and phase urban growth within the Urban ` ': Services Boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic services: To establish priorities for the phased extension of services, the City will identify areas within the Urban Services Boundary as follows: } (1 ) Lands suitable for near future development ( IMMEDIATE GROWTH) • ( 2) Lands in long range g growth areas. (FUTURE URBANIZABLE) . The City will schedule public facilities through a capital improvements program and financing plan. Specific Policy 4 : r., New development shall be served by an urban level of services of the following: a. Water b. Sanitary sewer c. Adequate streets, including collectors d . Transportation facilities e. Open space and trails, as per Open Space Element f . City policy protection g. City fire protection h. Parks and recreation facilities , as per Parks and Recreation Element • • • r • . • • • • 1. I ' • T e Attachment No. 3 September 18, 1990 Page 4 r: 2. I'npact Management General Policy II The City will evaluate zoning and development proposals comprehensively for their impacts on the community, the developer to provide appropriate solutions before approval is granted. r ' Specific Policy 6• Encourage the Lake Oswego School District to vide specific _ . information on school capacity to be taken into oconsideration in development review. " :' This policy is the one most directly focused upon school capaciti in the development review process . This policy ref thata detailed review of projects take place and it directstives • City seek capacity information from the District , that the The development review process and the development standards insure • that this review takes place. The City is coordinatingwith School District on school capacity issues and is ea tne the District to provide the City with school capacity information . The July 5, 1989 report from the District, and the October 3 , 1989 , and August 21 , 1990 joint meetings 31 , 1989 ,1 of this coordination and "encouragement" . Because ec use"' f the re examples of factors that impact school population, iBeisunotocur• re variety possible to predict, with a ` populations beyond the yreat degree of accuracy , school ycoming year. It is equally uncertlin and --predictable when a child from a home on a lot in a newly approved development will enter the school.ce a building permit population . However, has been issued for a a� " • , reasonably certain that the structure will beoCcaje i becomesear time frame (3-6 months ) . By r�onit in the populations and outstanding buildingoriny act �?1 school k, • permits , forecast �r ,y-W month time frame can be done w_ `� in � . _ reliability . - � an acceptable lel 4 t•is coordination results in the development of lets which :.`ports the findings required by the state `nrrat;riJm 3stablisn a capacity shortage St3r_ a can 7e enact ad in suEfic , a mor atorium on bu: . inJ permits i _nt time mot.Cents t the district . to minimize the inflow of ��eri Impact Management General Policy V. The City will plan any � , ' , public services and facilitie5 .gram £or the provision of adequate • . 9 Attachment No. 3 September 18, 1990 Page 3 , The specific policies are considered during the analysis of an application or project. If the staff recommendation is that a project complies with ageneral specific policy, but the detail of a p policy is not followed, an explanation should be provided why, notwithstanding that inconsistency with the specific policy, the recommendation is nonetheless consistent with the applicable general policy. This approach has been employed in City decision making consistently for 7 years and has twice been considered by LUBA without a reversal on this point . This methodologyv'` the Plan in a manner which is consistent with the state definitions which govern local land use planning and at the same time does not minimize the level of effort and scrutiny ,ve nt- ent into the original Plan development . Each of the applicable general Plan policies will 'pia discussed below. No general policy specifically requires that adequate school capacity be established prior to the approval of a residential development . Schools are mentioned in a few speci ` td policies and it is from these references that the policies be bme applicable in the review of a development application . 1 . Overall Density General Policy I `• The Comprehensive Plan will maintain the overall, average residential density of the Urban Service Area within the capacity of planned basic public facilities systems, including at least water, sewer, streets, drainage and public safety. Specific Policy 3 + The City will coordinate planning of facilities with the Lake Oswego School District, to assure that school capacities and expansion costs are considered, " This policy requires that the Comprehensive clan density ;be sucn • • that the planned densities do not result in land use; thatwill exceed the capacity of public facilities systems av,3ilshle oor ' planned . This policy regulates Comprehensive Plan snap densities J and is not applicable in the development review stage . The appropriateness of the Plan map 'designation or zone de j , , on a given site is not an issue in a hearinf3 bn a develbpient application. 4111 ' .. NY T• Attachment No. 3 • September 18 , 1990 Page 2 • The City' s Plan, at page v, explains the difference between Objectives , General Policies and Specific Policies in the hollowing way, "The adopted plan contains Objectives , which are short statements of the purpose of the policies , General Policies , which are major methods of achieving objectives , Specific Policies, which are more detailed steps to carry out General Policies, . . . . " There are also strategies for carrying out the Plan found in ' Volume Ii , which is the background information and supporting documentation for the Plan . The language has historically been applied as follows : The general policies of the Plan are the portions which are"regulatory" in nature . They are the "generalized policy statements" which constitute a comprehensive plan as defined by state law. A hearingbody,y, in order to approve an application , must conclude that the applicable general policies of the Comprehensive Plan have been followed . Each land use decision , `''. must identify and explain why the requirements of the .appli,,able ` general policies have been satisfied by the application . Not all general policies are applicable to every decision. in reaching a conclusion concerning compliance with a ge^eral policy , the hearing body will be guided in its dF�cisic�n nar;in3 the specific policies for the particular general policy and the narrative language and strategies for the policy element , In many cases the specific policies for a general policy are extremely detailed, to the point of describing area limitations to the one/hundredth of an acre and specific building sr;':ars footages and many contain multiple detailed subsections , ' i` the specific policies are given the same regulatory We1 :1ht 31 are the general policies then each provision of a specific policy gill need to be complied with to the letter in order for an ' application or project to be approved , There is no provision f,-r _ne granting of variances from the regulatory provisions of the Plan. When an application or project conforms to the general L. policy, but perhaps not to the letter :f a subsection of n.e : e specific policies for the general J:11c'� µgojec;t as a +Jnv e must be denied if the specific the polio :r : a �,,. p ifir� policies , r: construed to oe regulatory in nature, 1.11 regulatory s„snlar .s Must be complied with in order for an application to he ap,,: ..,: , , , ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PLAN POLICY INTERPRETATIONS ( 9-18-90) In the consideration of the school capacity issue within the framework of a quasi-judicial hearing considering specific land use applications , one Specific Policy has been focused upon by those seeking denial of the applications on the basis of a lack of school capacity. That policy is Specific Policy 4 for Urban Service Boundary General Policy III . A few other policies have also been raised. Before stating the Council 's interpretation of those policies, it is necessary to restate the rationale for the . City' s interpretation that the General Policies of the Plan are the regulatory language of the Plan. The City 's Comprehensive Plan was first adopted in 1978 and was developed as a result of legislation at the state level in 1969 and 1973 which required local jurisdictions to adopt a comprehensive plan which was consistent with established statewide land use planning goals . A "comprehensive plan" is defined by state law as : " (Al generalized, coordinated land use map and policy , statement of the governing body of a local ! govPrniaent t tat �•) interrelates all functional and natural systems and activities relating to the use of lands, including, but not limited to, sewer and water systems , transportation systems , educational facilities, recreational facilities , natural • resources and air and water quality management programs . `/ 'Comprehensive ' means all-inclusive, both in terms of the .1 geographic area covered and functional ,and natar. al activities and systems occurring in the area covered by the plan. 'General nature ' means a summary of policies .an,i proposals in broad categories and does not necessarily indicate specific locations of any area , activity or use . a, plan is 'coordinated ' when the needs of all leiels of governments , semi-public and private agencies , and tie v citizens of Oregon have been considered and a';;,mmodate -;,; much as possible . ' Land ' includes water, both surface ?i ; • subsurface, and the air. " • At the state level each statewide planning foal, which are • mandatory statewide planning standards and are general in native , is accompanied by "guidelines" , The guidelines are : y' " 4 M " (Sjuggested approaches designed to aid cities and counties in preparation, adoption and implementation of comprehensiv= plans in compliance with goals and to aid state agencies and special districts in the preparation , adoption and implemenr_ar, in of planr , programs and regulations in compliance with goals . Guidelines snail be advisory and shall net limit state .agencies , 411) '''' ''- • cities , counties and special districts to s single apdroach . " • e Attachment No. 2 September 18 , 1990 Page 4 • • 57 . Larry E . Walker letter, dated August 10 , 1989 58 . Katherine and Donald McMahon letter, dated August 14 , 1989 , 59 . Stephen Swerling letter, dated August 14 , 1989 ° 60 , Karen Griffin, League of Women Voters letter , dated June 20 , 1989 61 . Cheryl M . Petrie letter, dated August 13 , 1989 62 . Letter from Rick Newton, dated august 15 , '1989 63 . Letter from JoAnn Gillen, dated august 14 , 1989 64 . Letter from Patrick F . Stone , dated August 11 , 1989 65 . Map of City and District boundaries 66 . Determination of impact as of July 28 , 1989 , submitted by '` Erin O' Rourke-Meadors 67 . Bill Korach , "Questions and Answers : How is the School i District Coping with Growth . " (Presented to City Council at Joint School Board/City Council Meeting of October 2 , 1989 . ) 68 . Bond issue information, November 1989 , prepared by Lake Oswego School District . :9 . Election results , November 7 , 1939 , Lake Oswego School District 1989 Facilities Improvement Bond . -+). Report from Superintendent , Lake Oswego School Diitrict , 7 , 1990 . Enrollment Report , Lake Oswego Sschool District , -une 1 , 1990 . - Memorandum from Sandra Korbelik regarding school residential .development activit , August 10 , 199n . - , Lake ')swe' o :1e7nentary School e"rollment 21 , 1990 , -4 , 'fleriora nd,,In fry , Peter Harvey a ri; i n,1 rwa i.3a n: . � l : t. �alculatio�s , ,t.luyast 29 , 1990 , ' yt r.l/Clrrespond-' ' y • 4b 1)- Attachment No. 2 September 18, 1990 Page 3 33. Bill Bache letter, dated August 14 , 1989 34 . Debbie Seitz letter (undated) received August 14 , 1989 35. Benjamin Schwartz , M.D. letter, dated August 14 , 1989 36 . Gayle Bache letter, dated August 14 , 1989 37 . Martha Rothstein letter, dated August 14 , 1989 • 38 . Ala F . Rothstein letter, dated August 13 , 1989 39 . Robert S . Dahlman Sr. letter, dated August 13 , 1989 40 . Janice A. Burt letter, dated August 13 , 1989 41 . Jane Culberton letter, dated August 14 , 1989 • 42 . Toni Smith letter, dated August 13 , 1989 , including attached newspaper articles and copy of Bill Korach ' s memorandum dateJ • : ': July 5 , 1989 43 . Deborah B . Feldsee letter, dated August 14 , 1989 • 44 . Steven M. Berne letter, dated August 14 , 1989 p , 45 . Wilma McNulty letter, dated August 14 , 1989 ('` 46 . Leonard G. Stark letter, dated August 14 , 1989 47 . Gay Graham letter, dated August 11 , 1989 48 . 'Marilyn Roberts letter, dated August 10 , 1999 49 . Mary Avery letter, dated August 10 , 1989 ,.. 50 . Bill Tucker letter, dated August 11 , 1989 51 . Kim and Barb Ledbetter letter, dated August 14 , 1999 52 . Richard M. Bullock letter, dated August 11 , 1989 ` F 53 . Charles D. Ruttan letter, dated August 9 , 1989 54 . William Sorenson letter, dated August 11 , 1989 53 . 4arci '4emhauser Letter, dated August 10 , 1989 56 . Charles A. Mans! ield letter, )iAted August 11 , 1'?39 • k J , 3 Attachment No. 2 September 18 , 1990 Page 2 13 . Enrollment graph showing 'actual enrollment from 1962-1967 and projections through 1989-1990 submitted by Warren Oliver 14 . Statistical chart titled "Determination of K-6 Student Factor" submitted by Erin O ' Rourke-Meadors 15 . Letter from B . Ayres dated July 24 , 1989 16 . Letter from Jae Rieg dated August 3, 1989 17 . Letter from Pam Sparks dated August 8 , 1989 18 . Letter signed by Chamber of Commerce past presidents Ton Decker, Paul Graham, and Rob Barrentine and Bob Chizum, , Chamber members , dated July 28 , 1989 19 . Letter from Douglas Oliphant, Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce President, dated July 20 , 1989 20 . Letter from William T. Ryan dated August 8 , 1989. U. 21 . Letter from Leonard G. Stark, dated August 7 , 1989 22 . Letter from Robert and Mary Larsen, dated August 5, 1989 23 . Letter from Mr. and Mrs . Clark , dated August 6 , 1989 24 . Letter from Robert Butler, dated August 4 , 1989 25 . Letter from Lynora Saunders , Chair, Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association, dated August 1 , 1989 Letter from D. R. Norris , dated July 29 , 1989 . Letter from Judith D. Umaki , dated August 1 , 1989 28 . Charles Hales , Staff Vice President for Governmental ;E f a , rs Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland ,dated August 14 , 1989letter te . �a • 3rec�ory D. Meadors letter, dated •Nugust 13 , 1989 , . 2elests Ward letter, dated d august 14 , 1989 • Debby and Doug Kemper^1;a r letter, dated august 14 , 198 _ :arol Webb letter, d.ated i.uc3ust 14 , 1989 ,. , . . . t 11. ' ATTACHMENT NO. 2 FACTUAL INFORMATION CONSIDERED BY CITY C0 CrL ( 9-18-90) ti 1 . • Bill Korach, Lake Oswego School District Elementary y . Enrollment - August 8, 1989 2. Karen Scott, packet containing : - Building permits by year, single-family , graph Building permits by year, multi-family, ti - Total single family lots recorded by graph - Inventory of vacant lots, July 1 , 1989ear - Number of lots recorded from 7/1/83 to 6/30/89 - Number of building permits issued for single-family from 7/1/83 to 6/30/89 - Number building permits issued for multi-family from 7/1/83 to 6/30/89 - School enrollment K-6 from 1983 to 1989 3 . Class size and public " . ' policy: Politics and Panaceas, Office of Educational Research and Improvement , U.S . Department ;f Education • • 4 . Opinion issued by James A. Redden, Attorney General, June 11 , 1979 5 . Memorandum from City Attorney to Mayor and City Council, July 31 , 1989 6 . Report from Lake Oswego School District , July 5 , 1989 with attachments , 7 . Proceedings of joint City Council/School Board meeting,J� 8 . Proceedings of City Council meeting, August ; , 1999 • 9 . Letter from Susan Brody, Director, Department )1 'Land Conservation and Development , dated august 3 , 1989 _' '' ( 10 . 4andouts from Bill Korach, Lake Oswego School Supeerinr.en .. n� a . Teacher-Student ratio and classroom space b. Enrollment projections, service level, and sh7rtt and l ,ng term solutions • • 11 . Lake Oswego School District : The Facts , submittei1 , Bunick by ',lick • • ' 12 . Transcript excerpt from August 7 , 1989 Development Review Beard meeting ( tape including excerpt also submitted ) j • 9 Attachment No. 1 September 18, 1990 Page 3 The District voters in May, 1989 approved by an approximate 2: 1 margin. a new district tax basr,� The new tax base is S29 , 975 ,000 • Thednewxtaxsbasee scontainst n ,le0 thecurrent levy authorization above that levied by the District in the current fiscal year and is intended to fund growth maintenance for the new capital facilities , totbefin fundeddfrom [November, 1989 bond issue. This community has a solid historthoE support for school funding measures . y $17,800,000 facility bond issue The November 7, 1989, passed by a substantial margin. The District has been planning to meet the demands generated growth . During the middle 1980 's , the District by o middle school concept. A switch to middle schools would husin ave a freed space in the elementary schools for additional students . The debate caused turmoil in the District and the concept was dropped. Coupled with the change in Superintendents occurring soon thereafter, the District planning and implementation of f measures to accommodate elementary school population growth delayed . The growth was anticipated but .the community over how to best address the impacts of 1 debate provision of the District 's Solutions . growth has delayed the The City Council may, at anytime when justified by the facts , 1, - enact a moratorium on building permits pursuant to ORS 197 . 520 . 720 . The District has the responsibility under state law to C'1 the children of the District. The Council views the Dist� icrt ' an expert in educational matters t r ; statement of the District that it will provide anac +edur.atepts ��e experience for its students that meets District standar s�n� 1 Atty✓Correspond-7 t.' • y • • :::::::: Attachment No. 1 September 18, 1990 , Page 2 . t 7 . The earliest completion date for the new school authorized by the November, 1989 bond facility election r is Fall, 1991 . The remodeling of existing facilities to be funded by the bond issue will be completed before that date and will provide at least 250 additional seats . The new school will have an ideal capacity of 500 students . 8 . The District as a practice does not construct facilities in anticipation of growth, but attempts t the construction of facilities so they willCmeet ante current demand at completion and not stand empty or be underutilized. 9 . The District projects student populations using a computer model. The projections are based on school attendance areas and the District does not attempt to project at the level of individual subdivisions or houses . Projections are compared with actual student counts , Based on these comparisons, modifications to the computer p program factors are. made if warranted . The District 's projections in the last 2 years have been quite accurate. The physical counting of children in the district on a regular basis , as the data base for projections, does not provide a significant enough improvement in accuracy to justify the additional , , expense it would take to carry out such program By comparing data compiled over thy. development approvalslast six years conc`.ernin- devel and vacant lots with the actual growth in a opopution, the conclusion can be drawn that there is not quantifiableand direct relationship between the �n� population and those two factors that will assist M,; '' r�l` � y� M , making short term student District. . i . market reception, interestprates , the . Other fact--es , uc7 �.- econor��; rates , the health of t ;e Ors.. r and family size of buyers and sellers of e'< tin;nnone; also affect the number of new children in the District ' ; population . eased upon the present level of sophistication the City and District planning g processes , f it is not possible t.S predict ditn any degree of certainty children Lr.:.7 new residential le ;el ,n soon will ent s �;.r7 ;31 res id system. �. p t�s ertGr� e r1 �i:'7 .. 1 i a 4 STAFF REPORT t ' . CITY OF LAKE oswEG0 • PLANNING DIVISION j 6 APPLICANT: FILE NO,: OTAK, Inc. PD 3-91 PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: Douglas, Paul and Terry Casebeer Hamid Pishvaie LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF RUM': Tax Lots 11900& 11901 of May 10, 1991 Tax Map 2 1E 5CA �f LOCATION: D ATE OF FARE, 4115 Carman Drive May 20, 1991 COMP,PLAN DESIGNATION: NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: Holly Orchard R-10 ZONING DES "I R-10 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 6—lot single family residential planned development, II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS ' A. City of Lake Oswcv Comprehensive Plan: S • Growth Management Policy Element Residential Land Use Policy Element Transportation Land Use Policy Element B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance: LOC 48.205-48.225 Residential Low Density LOC 48,470-48.490 (R-10 Zone Description) Planned Development Overlay 1 PD 3-91 Page 1 of 12 • (, . -• q , v f i is 1, ' C. i , o Lake sw go Developmen Or in n • b LOC 49.300-49.335 Major Development Procedures LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval LOC 49.620 Conditional Approvals 4. D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: , 5.005 Street Lights 6.005 Transit System • 7.005 Parking and Loading ' 8.005 Park and Open Space 9.005 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering 11.005 Drainage for Major Development 14.005 Utilities 16.005 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control 18.005 Access 19.005 Site Circulation-Private Streets/Driveways 20.005 Site Circulation-Bikeways and Walkways F E. City of L•al a Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance: • LOC 55.080 Criteria for Issuance of Permits F. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance , LOC 57.015 Applicability • • LOC 57.020 Design Standard III. FINDINGS • " A. Background; :i • 1. The applicant is requesting approval of a 6-lot single-family residential planned development with lots ranging from 8,831 to 10,009 square feet (an average of 9,248 square feet per lot),Exhibit 8. As Exhibits 3 and 9 illustrate, the majority of the public services and facilities, including access to Lots 1-3 and 6, will be • provided through the Pfeifer Farm project located to the south. The final construction plans for Pfeifer Farm are currently being reviewed by the City. �. , 2. Pfeifer Farm (PD 5-89), a 46-lot single family residendal planned development, • was approved by the Development Review Board on October 16, 1989. The Board's decision was appealed to the City Council and subsequently to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). LUBA affirmed the City's decision on October 15, 1990. The final plat has not been recorded yet. ' • On September 1, 1989, the City approved a lot line adjustment request(Exhibit 4), , between the site and Pfeifer Farm in order to facilitate the development of Pfeifer Farm and the current project. The final plan for this project has not been recorded 7• yet. Tax Lots 11900 and 11901 were created without required approval by the City, 3, The site is 1,8 acres in size. As Exhibit 6 illustrates, the existing residence and other • structures will be removed as part of this development. The slopes on the property • PD 3-91 Page 2 of 12 ` r la `: ` range from 3% to 20%, with an average of approximately 9%, Exhibit 7. The existing vegetation mainly consists of a holly orchard and few fruit trees, Exhibit 6. • 4. The surrounding land uses include the following: North: Single family residential r .: South: Future single family residential (Pfeifer Farm,PD 5-89) East: Single family residential West: Single family residential 5. All services including water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer are available or can become available to serve the site. Access to the development will be provided from Glacier Lily and Pfeifer Farm to the south, Exhibits 3 and 8. B. Compliance With Criteria for Approval: As per LOC 49.615, the Development Review Board must consider the following criteria when evaluating a planned development request: 1. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: The applicant's narrative (Exhibit 11)provides detailed discussion of the applicable Plans policies. The following policies of the Comprehensive Plan apply to this application: a. Growth Management Policy Element: — Urban Service Boundary Policies: o General Policies . "III. The City will manage and phase urban growth " within the Urban Service Boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic services." Specific Policy 5 states that new development shall be serviced by an "urban level" of services, including schools, This specific policy also ,� � states that these services are to be available or committed prior to . ,. . approval of development, Exhibit 15 (the City Council memorandum of September 18, 1990)demonstrates that the curreat level of school r planning and coordination between the City and School District satisfy this policy. The passage of the 17 million dollar school levy further assures adequate school facilities, — Impact Management Policies• o Ge..eral Policies: • '. ° "I. The City will protect natural resources and . processes from adverse impacts of development, 4 within reasonable cost limitations." PD 3-91 Page 3 of 12 ' `, t •u tl a • ,! 1 1 i .. As Exhibit 8 illustrates, some of the apple,cherry and walnut trees E will be protected in Tract "B". Parts of the holly orchard, which covers the majority of the site (Exhibit 6), will be removed as part of the utility and housing construction. "II The City wi►9 evaluate zoning and development proposals comprehensively for their impacts on the community, requiring the developer to provide appropriate solutions before approval is granted." The potential impact on the community will be mitigated by imposing appropriate conditions of approval on this development. c. Residential Land Use Policy Element: • ti` — Residential Site Design Policies: o General Policies "L The City will require new residential . developments of four or more units to meet minimum criteria for overall site design." The applicant has adequately addressed this policy in Exhibit 11. To ' assure compliance with minimum criteria for overall site design, all • the applicable development standards (Chapter 49) will be addressed later in this report. d. Transportation Land Use Policy Element: These policies require that streets be improved as planned when demand requires, The policies also require that a developer be Y` required to dedicate additional right—of—way as necessary to provide r for widening. As Exhibits 8, 9 and 11 demonstrate, the applicant will be providing all necessary external and internal road improvements. 2. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Codes , . ` a. Residential Low Density R-10 LOC 48.205—Maximum Density This standard states that the actual density will be calculated at the time of development review, pursuant to LOC Chapter 49, As per LOC 49,315 (14), the density allowed in this development is 7 lots, Since the proposed development contains 6 lots, it complies with this standard, LOC 48.210—Lot Size, Lot Dimension The minimum lot size requirement in the R-10 zone is 10,000 square feet, The applicant, utilizing the flexibility allowed under the . . planned development procedure, is proposing a modification of this PD 3-91 Page d of 12 e , .1 ?-•a .• - 1. , ``.`.. • ra i ,.G standard for four lots,LOC 48.475 (3). As Exhibit 8 illustrates, Lots r 1-3 and 6 will range from 8,752 to 9,109 square feet in size. The lot width at building line and lot depth requirements are 65' and 100',respectively. As with the lot the modification of they lot width requirement for Lots 2 and proposing a minimum of 57',Exhibit 11. LOC 48.215—Setbacks The setbacks can be modified if the development is processed as a planned development, without the necessity of meeting the variancee. criteria,LOC 48.475(3). The applicant is requesting that the side yard setbacks for Lots 2 and 3 be reduced to 5'. The following table ab.lostrates the required and proposed setbacks in the development: ' Required Proposed Front Yard 20' 20' Side Yard 5' minimum (with 5' minimum (with total total combined combined minimum minimum 15') 15',except for Lots • 10'2 and 3 to be 10') Street Side Yard 10' Rear Yard 25' 25' Since staff is recommending consolidation of the proposed open space tracts (see page 7 of this report for additional information), it is unclear at this time whether the above modifications are necessary, ` Note: A recent revision to the R-10 zone standards (Ordinance , 2027) expands the front and side yard setbacks as follows: Old Setbacks New Sete Front 20' 25' Side 5' minimum (with 10' total combined minimum 15') Street Side 10' 10' • Rear 25' 25' The new standards are not applicable to the proposal, since it was received and accepted prior to the effective date of Ordinance 2027 (May 2, 1991), In considering modification to the setback requirements, the Board may wish to consider the newly adopted standards. LOC 48.220—Height Of Structure LOC 48.225—Lot Coverage i ' ` • As required by the Code, the maximum height of the structure and the maximum lot coverage in PD 3-91 will be 35' and 30%, respectively, The applicant has not requested any modifications to PD 3-91 • Page 5 of 12 e the lot coverage standard; therefore, it will be applied on a lot—by—lot basis. b. Planned Development Overlay LOC 48.470—Purpose "' Although the development is not required to be processed as a planned development, the applicant is requesting that the process be applied in order to protect some of the special features present on the .. site and create open space land. LOC 48.475—Procedures :,' Since the development contains only one phase, no Overall Development Plan and Schedule (ODPS)is required. The zone ' requirements to be applied to PD 3-91 are the R-10 standards described in LOC 48.205—48.225. The exceptions, as described in B.2.a. above, are the adjustments to the lot size and lot width requirements, as allowed by LOC 48.475(3). LOC 48.480—Special Requirements The applicant is proposing a common private open space system in •�' the central part of the site, Exhibit 8. No bylaws of the homeowners association outlining ownership, use,maintenance and liability this open space have been submitted at this time. To insure the { continuing preservation and maintenance of this area, the applicant will be required to submit the bylaws for review and approval of the City Attorney, prior to approval of the final plat. These bylaws .'• should provide the City an enforcement authority to assure reasonable maintenance of the open space at the owners' expense. 3. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: r • a, Major Development Procedures LOC 49.300-49.330—Major Development Procedures • The applicant has submitted all the information required by subsections 1-13 of this section. This information can be found in the exhibit section of this report, ' .• 4. C of Lake _ swetgo Development Standards: . The Building Design Standard does not apply to major development involving single family detached houses as proposed. The site does not contain any Historic Resources, Wetlands, Weak Foundation Soils,Floodplain or Stream Corridor, therefore, these standards are •• not applicable. No fences are proposed by the applicant. The applicant's narrative and plans illustrate substantial compliance . • p0 with the applicable standards. This report will only address those standards which require additional discussion or where modifications to the applicant's proposal are recommended, • PD 3-91 Page 6 of 12 • � � y ., ' t � a. Street Lights(5.005-5.040) Exhibit 9 illustrates the existing street lights on Glacier Lily and the proposed lights in Pfeifer Farm project to the south. No additional lights will be required as part of this proposal; therefore, this standard has been met. ; b. Transit (6.005-6040) Based on an analysis of Section 6.020(1)(a), the applicant is providing 5' sidewalks along Glacier Lily and the cul-de-sac, _r, Exhibit 9. The 5' sidewalk on the cul-de-sac will connect to the sidewalk on Carman Drive, to be constructed as part of Pfeifer Farm • project, and this sidewalk will eventually be extended westerly to ! ' Kruse Way, a public transit route. Staff recommends that the proposed sidewalk on the cul-de-sac be extended around the turn- • • around so that safe pedestrian access can be provided to open space tracts "A" and"B". Section 6.020(1)(b) is not applicable since no adjacent multiple- • passenger exchange facility exists at the site. c. Parking and Loading (7.005-7040) This standard requires that each single family dwelling unit provide two off-street parking spaces in addition to a garage or carport. Each ,.. of proposed lots are of sufficient size to accommodate this requirement, Exhibit 8 and 11. Compliance with this standard will be assured upon application for each building permit. d. Park and Open Space (8.005-8.040) All major residential developments shall provide open space in an aggregate amount equal to at least 20% of their gross land area. If land is not provided as open space, then payment of fees equal to the assessed value of the required open space area is required. As Exhibit 8 illustrates, the proposed private open space tracts • measure 15,759 square feet or 20% of the gross site area; therefore, ' this standard is satisfied. Based upon a recommendation from the • Parks and recreation Department, staff recommends that Tracts "A" " • and "B" be consolidated into a single open space tract in order to . , provide a more usable area. The intrusion of Lot 3 into Tract "B" makes the area less usable as an open space,especially if that lot is fenced. This also appears to diminish the security of the surrounding ar lots. e. Landscaping,Screening and Buffering(9.005-9040) Exhibit 9 illustrates the typical location, type and size of the proposed street trees (Red Sunset Maple) on Glacier Lily and the cul-de-sac. ' • ` The proposed trees are identified as solar unfriendly by the 1987 "Solar-Friendly Tree Report", The applicant should be required to • PD 3-91 ' Page 7 of 12 ' , • U;, w submit a revised landscape plan showing acceptable street trees for • the project,prior to approval of the final plat. As Exhibit 8 illustrates, the proposed lot sizes along the north,east and west property lines comply with LODS 9.020 (7)(a). This standard states that "Lots which are located on the perimeter of a development located in an R-0, R-3, R-5, R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zone, and which are adjacent to lots in an R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zone upon which are constructed single-family dwellings, may be not less than 75% of the minimum lot area per unit of the adjacent zone." Lots 1,2 and 4-6, which adjoin lots zoned R-10,range from 8,752 to 10,009 square feet in size; therefore, satisfying this standard. • f. Drainage for Major Development (11.005-11040) Exhibits 9, 10, 11, 13 and 16 illustrate that an adequate storm water system can be made available to serve this project. The proposed cul-de-sac and all lots, with the possible exception of the crawl space drain for Lots 1 and 6, will drain to the storm drain system in • the Pfeifer Farm project. Storm laterals from the Pfeifer project ' should be extended to serve these lots. The final construction plans should also address drainage from upstream areas that may currently drain into the site, especially from the northeast. The proposed drainage system is adequate in concept. The final design of the drainage system may require modifications to meet the City's design requirements and drainage policies. • ' g. Utilities (14.005-14.040) + Exhibits 3, 9, 10, 11 and 16 demonstrate that adequate water, sanitary sewer, streets and storm sewer facilities are available and can be • extended to service the development. Water,: A 12" system is available in Glacier Lily for service to Lots 4 and 5. Service to Lots 1-3 and 6 is dependent upon Pfeifer Farm development to the south, Exhibits 3 and 10. Sanitary Sewer. An 8" sewer system is available at the site to serve ' the development. No extension from off-site is necessary, Streets: Access to Lots 4 and 5 will be provided from Glacier Lily, a fully improved local street. Lots 1-3 and 6 will be accessed through an extension of Pfeifer Drive, as shown on Exhibits 3 and 8, The street must be designed for a 20 year life and the turnaround must meet the City specifications, Sidewalks: As Exhibit 9 illustrates, the Pfeifer Farm sidewalk system will be extended around the cul-de-sac to provide pedestrian access to the proposed open space tracts. If the Board finds it necessary to extend a pedestrian connection to the cul-de-sac from Glacier Lily, then it should be built as part of the public improvements along with the street, within a public easement, • PD 3-91 Page 8 of 12 1 i• A composite utility plan showing proposed sidewalks in relationship to street lights, trees, hydrants and mailboxes will have to be submitted along with final construction plans. • A Based upon the above analysis, staff recommends that the approval !, i this proposal be conditioned so that it can not proceed until all :'' necessary utilities, to be provided by Pfeifer Farm, are completed and accepted by the City. Staff review of the utility plans only verified the capability of utilities i 7 to serve the development. Final determination regarding the exact location and size of public services will be made prior to approval of the final construction plans. It. Hillside Protection and Erosion Control (16.005-16,040) .", The applicant's narrative (Exhibit 11) adequately addresses this standard. In accordance with LODS 16.035, an erosion control plan should be submitted with the final construction plan. This plan must comply with the state mandated erosion control requirements outlined in the "Erosion Control Technical Guidance Handbook" adopted by the City. i. Access (18.005-18.040) asp As Exhibit 8 illustrates, all proposed lots exceed the minimum 25' frontage requirement to a public street. '• j. Site Circulation—Driveway and Private Streets (19.005— 19.040) ; No private streets are proposed in this development. Individual driveways will be reviewed under Section 19.025 at the time the building permits are issued. k. Site Circulation—Bikeways and Walkways (20.005-20.040) • The applicant's submittal (Exhibits 9 and 11) adequately address this standard. For additional staff analysis, please refer to the Transit and • Utility Standards above. 5. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance; ;a A • LOC 55,080—Criteria for Issuance of Permits The applicant has demonstrated compliance with this standard in Exhibits 6, 8, 9 and 11. The proposed grading and utility construction will require removal of trees in order to serve the development with adequate public services and facilities. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan (Exhibit 9) illustrating street trees along Glacier Lily and the internal cul—de—sac, These • • trees will replace some of the trees which will be removed as part of • utility and housing construction. PD 3-91 Page 9 of 12 ' 6. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance: 0 . The Solar Access Ordinance requires that all development in the R— ;: . • 10 zone be designed so that at least 80% of the lots would be solar lots as per LOC 57.020(1)—(3). If,however,due to physical . < constraints and/or tree coverage, this objective can not be achieved, then the applicant can request exemptions or adjustments from the design standard, as prescribed in LOC 57.025 and LOC 57.030, ,•espectively. Exhibits 8, 11 and 12 demonstrate compliance with the requirements of LOC 57.020. Lots 2,3,4 and 5 meet LOC 57.020(1), and Lot 1 meets LOC 57.020(2),Exhibit 12. Since, the recommended adjustment in the open space layout (see page 7 of this report) could impact compliance with this standard, staff recommends that the applicant work with staff to assure full compliance with this standard. This information must be submitted for the review and approval of staff prk r to approval of the final plat. IV. CONCLUSION Based on findings presented in this report, the applicant will meet the applicable criteria for approval by the application of certain conditions. V. RECOMMENDATION, • 40 , Based on the conclusion above, staff recommends approval of PD 3-91, (subject to the requirements of R-10 zone, with the exceptions described in Section B.2.a, above), subject to the following conditions: A. Prior to Final Plat Approval: 1. The final plat for PD 3-91 shall be recorded after the recording of the ,. • final plat for Pfeifer Farm (PD 5-89). 2. Show the following information on the final plat: a) utility easements; b) sidewalks; and, c) setbacks as follows: front yards 20',rear yards 25, side yards 5 minimum (with total combined minimum 15'), and street side yards 10'. 3. Submit a revised site plan showing Tracts "A" and "B" consolidated • into a single open space tract. 4. Submit a final landscape plan showing solar friendly street trees, as per the 1987. Solar Friendly Tree Report. sr 5. Label the open space tract as Private Open Space Tract"A", and . provide the following note on the plat: • ''Private Open Space Tract "A" protected in its natural condition for the purpose of providing a scenic, aesthetic appearance, s protecting natural processes, providing passive recreational uses and maintaining natural vegetation. Trees may be removed , PD 3-91 Page 10 of 12 w only after they have been shown to be hazardous to life or property by a professional arborist, and after a tree cutting permit has been obtained from the City. Improvements in this area, including landscaping, which are in keeping with the above purposes, must be approved by the City of Lake Oswego. No buildings shall be allowed in this area." 6. Submit the bylaws of the Homeowner's Association to the satisfaction of the City Attorney to insure the continuing preservation and maintenance of Tract"A",as modified byconditions -' These bylaws shall provide the City an enforcement authority above. .. 4 . assure reasonable maintenance of Tract "A" at the homeowners' expense. 7. Provide plat and deed restrictions against removal of street trees (if they are planted outside the public right—of—way). 8. Work with staff to identify all solar lots, in accordance with LOC 57.020 (1) and (2), and provide the following note on the final plat: 1 Development of structures or planting of non—exempt vegetation on • lots located south of the solar lots shall comply with the Solar Balance Point provisions of LOC 57.050-57.090. This requirement shall be binding upon the applicant and subsequent purchasers of all solar lots. 9. Illustrate the protected solar building line on Lot 1, as required by LOC 57.020(2). 10. Show utility easements of adequate width on the final plat for those lots where public and/or private utilities are to be installed. Where utilities or landscaping will be constructed on side or rear lot lines, • :: provide a note to future property owners that removal and/or • replacement of fences for public access to utilities shall be at the r homeowner's expense. B. Prior to Final Construction Plans Approval: 1. Construction plans shall illustrate a note stating that the project will not proceed until the utilities, to be provided by the Pfeifer Farm planned development, are completed by the developer and accepted by the City. t i ' • 2. Submit a final grading plan, as per City standards, • 3. Submit a final drainage plan, as per City standards, This plan shall address drainage from upstream properties. a. • 4. Submit a final erosion control plan in accordance with the "Erosion Control Plans Technical Guidance Handbook", ` . . 5, The final construction plans shall show the sidewalk and street trees 1110 along the open space tract to be constructed and planted along with the street improvements, t PD 3-91 �; Page 11 of 12 • ifir isiiiiiirmiiiir ' r , 1 s•a 6. The internal street shall be designed for a 20 year life. C. Eduritiassumituchillding Permits: 1. All construction improvements shall be completed, accepted and as— builts submitted to the City. D. Prior to Rece_ iving_Firanl Building T l' 1. The property owner shall complete installation of street trees as ': required by Condition A.4. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 1. The final plat shall be submitted within one year of the date Df the Order reflecting the Board's decision. 2. Staff review of the preliminary utility plan only verified the location and capacity of utilities to serve the site. 3. If fill is placed on any lot, the extent of the fill shall be shown on as— builts, accompanied by a statement that the fill meets the minimum requirements for bearing soils adopted by the Uniform Building Code, 4. A tree cutting permit shall be obtained prior to removal of any trees that are 5" or greater in diameter. • EXHIBITS. Map • 2. Vicinity Map 3. Composite Casebeer Heights—Pfeifer Farm Site Plan/Utility Casebeer/Pfeifer Lot Line Adjustment Plan Plan • 5. Boundary Survey Map 6. Site Analysis 7, Slope Analysis ''� 8. Preliminary Plat 9. Prelimin Gradin ' • 10, Composite asebeeHeights—Pfetiffe Tree Grading/Storm torm Drainage and Erosion Control Plan g/ 11. Applicant's Narrative • 12, Solar Access Evaluation 13, Storm Water Detention Volume Calculations 14. Minutes/Comments from Casebeer Property Neighborhood Meeting of February 27, 1991 15. City Council Memorandum of September 18, 1991 16, Letter by Robert N. McDougald, dated April 5, 1991 /hp ,,, .,'r J�' d#r a . '' . PD 3-9 1 • Page 12 of 12 •r• ., q• r tJ. 0 0 si \14..ia :.,. ,„, , ettk a ass ril SEE MAP 2 IE 5C O x D O ,.: .!8' �'�, , ;'1 Sao o \ > n .1 i•., Fi. rn (n y $ �/ brim N N, r ' • A X .1.‘1",43 •e.e.!!!.7: ra.,:..t..r- 0 Uf `F., U \ p o . O ry • co iu 1D 4 t iv a Q) ° m p 4 Ni�.Y',l.:P!•.!•+-r'• .. Thy, a • oA� a' O �1 :: l0 qn j 1 '�h� w m W ` e e o ;'c/ W�'?B ERR' Y �'�'; f 11 •✓ •1•0 i• �.1J 4 'L�� .,,CAL ,',Iv "' c� .. 8 ri „ 414. 4:p.,'24 • 4 1. "8 44 C/) ie$ ♦ A v� t° W •� s O N to e w 0 r= X. - -��+:i 'i, ems. p �� • �:. as. ill �, +�' �., F _ O y .!�. III ti 'tj,+ of ® g ,_ ok " •• in CL1 N• n "c r. a tuecat•.�4e...,M•L •r 'r,4 y �. O R1 • ^ • n 0 ro �,•t Z 11 rn Q CO ti4 a"� *Pe e .' �h In ; /+. � • N _e�3'i s r 1' „S o c5 ° "'p (DU" �`� �� \� v• et\ . 1 . I 1 1 ill >+ 1/ r u e'a. .• ' ,'1. ... •t �', 11 " 1 t'r Z~' a „ Ir 1 r 1 • • +, '. ,, 4 iy I ....fir rti 7.4 u. ` "\•/ ♦ x 1" 1 - yyx«xl ,.y�ry .�,., 1. 1,�� • • 'i I'� •I:11 ( i e� x Ir f • I x •,• II r .I „ N° , •• : /-'JM f el , + 1. M t ., .rf^ '1 , .a '• :°to , '• 1 ' Ih�x ,M+x I0x' ��l�' «'«Ii•u l«« ` r". .. \ , • , C ‘.... •!...•>:' •"(V •` .r u— 71 , • 1 1• D ,`I 00..44....... �>f 1 ,`•,�IJ,1.,,•�J�.. ! \�+ •!O 111 11 11'I r I.r 1,r /r�`�.y`./. J.. 1 DL _ _ _ _ —�,•it 'av'«..t 1,«I- ;i.,.� -v.= •� bI7'1 .Ir u:.n« 4-- '"< �••,+♦ 1I' '1,��..M '1. .rI:1'.,�� I,.I..x:• • • ♦ttt••N x11 11 �'•I•_N•«M MI MS Ix ix•I. 7� ,•• I . 11r■ 1J14S 1'x. .xx�.al Iw I' iui/u. y.nt�h1 I i•../ . :+•• ,eU u,'a 1/ 11 f / �' • b4 Y •S,. �. KE ►�Plt : ,J +,o•c«••D W'x• �--✓ fI. .�a•f •�+ 04 ' ,,. '�'�'tln ! % • t ,,/� r/w, _1—4-ti^1 Tom^ . "I L—•e.. • .,d • = r�/r a Woo •y.f •/IN 111 •r,. �11,1,r y 1 r �Y ..'• t�, •x•,xl,/ 4. .N„•\ UN S •'...s. __d Ih ., h I I '/i .Irh r.�r• y / /` ..�..��.•i^«rr . ."�., i - ••Ix1 ♦ : : `• _J• / x . ', .S♦ „1j I np J r �4y•et, 4y lilt /u 1 xlx. 1 ; .••�'h ! la fl /oR .� ,Lu a ��' 1 (/:/ 1 / •Oft ...Ili •, t ♦ • „ ♦r .r,•,•''r D'..., ixWw Uxl,,�,r . � 1 •�I,. �r p�f, Nxll• •�f o f.. ' • 441 Dlettll = Iltt1,• tI 1. l ,� r ... LtY�r ti •`x'G`x I 1 •1 , SIi1i • IhRa U„•S I,I,ta u/w� WD I ,i C' .4 • 1 i 11 1' .1 ' \` i f4r1: \` Z (llt/D I/4:•:" , I , 11. Il f!ll.... I 11 �h 1 CI. 1 1 9 ,•,. •I .. + J/ OIM CI ufN I,r '• 11•C,I+N • •,'` 11 +W1« •„,J/:�„ { I. " • la v. II •I - , ` C.11Y eM Mal ' Q) 1, •• '1 '1 +,/h'0W • • 1111,1I 1111 ,•I: .", '' 1/ 'Ix rl re a I/ +. ,`� ,•/11W'11/.1 1 i.M • 1 f r • ', 4 .III Ij'11111 ,1/1 N PI" A \• Q,f-l.1..'1 11•• DIP • • • + �♦4 fllx Mrllq CI ilrae rNat, i / ,r1` F 000. •4• l Iwr • 1 flu, ) .� 1- F- I •—:a^-.��--�',� 2 11 I..y t/111 fl.,f11,w Ji �w�x•,:/ c (%�. � •,—.. 1 .ui1i lau 1 Hr ur 0. ... '.uli•.• IV 0 0 .. : hi,lt''' ylistp mIp A 144 / i ,jr ' 1 •PJ3-7 V• • , • 0 , ' . .. .... ., . . . . ., • _ • .. .... • - r tit I, ♦ _ �,, I . 1 ,1 ;I, 1 .1\ r n1U 1 `i. p 1. I a. _ / \ 1 + 1bte• I ,. . . 11,;1 I 1 ' I � I 1I ' PRINTED , 1 1 Y� A I 1 411.11 WI '; ' 11 i �b 1 ,D , q ++ Ira ulak, Inc, ."T-+-1"1- 1 . , ' ) , (/ \ ' ! 1 t +1a ,III 1 • 1 1 1(7� 1I , 1', A\�\TT y sI if • ; "��; �;r 1 ,\ �, IP ttFIR nR j • •,.. .•••• .. . , .. , • /, -, ,�,• I/ .,,,,—.. ,,.,,�• ";?.i_-,----,---;-_• .. { �'_ %, , , �" nI I. ::,.,,,. c. k s . I 1 \\ \\ \ / 11. �ti �1 y*. ..I 2U ' i J r 1 At : / / i.: , .•�� i _` a UUU ,� I r I // //'' f' Vr/ , it l 1 ,• I d oo Ys I '' W I T I� �_ i • ' ,1 ♦ ct. 1 ,/ t' • •• 1%1 ,i �J 19Ii j ''21I / / / I i I i ,,. ':'...hit1 � � r i V I. ��% Iu4^N/ I/•'!y `` .' to i u d /51 ` , o • /„I ,J /� , ', ....„1, " �' .a u: _ . 4 ao1MCt 1'- Ii 1 V ' 'JL� � nr. 1 GG 01 / a\ I,, j� i"r r ,Ly fr /%i' / /�� I 1°I... 1/ ' ., 1, J r• 1J J 1 - -1i'i �( �'h,. a'�r 1 il ' _', �/✓ j,' Ati+a..la,e>�..�� --'l� " i 1 16 c'i I `?' 1 / 12 �/• ,� I I :::4:\0 ,,,IC I 1 / it5 v,i; i .. • ',. • • le t'.. -7'' — --'7' --t i— ./1/1 f t. Ftr1y ;l / is i i , es , ,,.)..., -.,,,Z.: vi i çr • / JI' ' 41 B C I , �i. ,/`, I I I •1'• ' I �."VT Iii oTt o r I -.._•' _.pt‘� ., I ' th ' / , / r w.` 1 t11 26 I /2( / "> I 1 fat v Pi"; r /[! 111 I , /��a, ( � a /,I ,% `• T+•.•-•I:»'w tea:: -a.a Y/ra ems.l.k� 1�/ i / �r�� tl/r 11 1 i tit 4, D • k J, 1 / 1/ —'t� -, t„ �F.�[} ..:'._`:Y� '.s.`.:`Y4'.f' t+,•11.11.4 Il��tt [� i gi:C. p 4 aok dC , • i 9 / 131 L,.r.. 2191 1:1 . .♦ • h- h. - •1. • . . . , . .... .. ... ,, , t ..(.C:1: 77:11:DI I , , • 1H• 2W1 /.fR6 4 l t rl.7l+oa �I-1 61 / I I I �ovr�n.n H� q ao�u / . I I• T u / I •l_ . --. e+t*nr+a•+semen LJ ., �� r.T.L.. .too . . 0 , . . . . . _ n sa• 0 0 J i . . y ,,. 111 ..� \ANY ...... \ / l �••r,v . p �1.a / n NrcF,od lu! • • AUG 1b 1989 • 0 . .., m DASEE3EER/PFEIFER LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT n. ' .. _.... Inil.., JJ Hb..wrl 7 `'`-r 1 - • , 9• 't t .u,,. -,—. .•- — ._ _ _. _— -- ,..•.s...v., t • , , ter! ,`�� - Y �' `I Drown _ " - Onto r , • •9so"1 CURVE TABLE REF. SURVEYS 1 4 1 1 CLACItA1lAS OOII111Y 6l1RVEY R[COIGIS , Ch.cked- - nuf� '4. II ( I _��--'`..4' ! CUIIVE DELTA RADIUS ARC CHORD CHORD OCA7tl110 a_ r. 1 s' 't 3I) l ,.fCC No, j Cl ISV 3'45 125.UU. 3/.J7 342) N 62'1115,YC I'S I6157 AC IISIVNS (no 40U11)(1549'I6•)rizs.!1) ((J/.5J) (J4,42) I'S. 21 n7/ 7 17 � 1 flM 10011 / CZ 21'35'ff .07 46 191,16 190 09 5 00'20 56•C I'1 At Of IAI)A)lll '1 (I UI 1 �n YI VA)IIC 11E10 j PSI6517)(21'34'26")(5117.46)(191.00)(190.09) I')AI 111 "Oil NI I1)1 (h1A) �) • ,, 'CJ(t�V J' O © In SA le w/AC DETAIL % �3 o6•6142- 507.46 49.69 40.95 N 09'S6'4TE 1'1�1t Of 'UYI011•S CNE51' (rim J) y7) •"....__ .-.-._Lin us,Nvull) `., / (PS16517)(05'31421(507.40) f4969) (40,95) loll Il Ann,to C4 Ori'59'52 507,46 1.90 1.94 N 7941'I6•C • SCALE 1" = 60' OlOCK 1 h1A1 3 ��'� I (I'U1T I) (O6'S!1'26')(507.16) (61.90) (61.91) C5 JTSJ'l l' /OasS a33.l5 a30.16 N ITD6'ns f. REF, DEEDS FEBR!L1ARY 25, 1991 I (PIA( 2) (3753'111(4n655) (23335)(23016) CIAC►tM1A9 COUNTY DEM RECORDS 19 , al 1100K 4691 /PACC /12 06 11a 7004 50 . } _i' ' .. fD,5/tl 1R I ICC No 79-J4)111 110 09-79 R.aet.ma(s[con tm le ICE tlo, 00,4514 112 OY,-00 PnOrnnmuNAl. MIICN 1 MAI d (utlu)�• ) - - - -�--•� - I lit llo. 00-40014 17 19 IIU IA{VD OU7IVDYOR� ,,,,..---,-,--....a�it7en97 CAIc GLACIER 7l ae eeRl lAl 7�(�lU PO_ a � j rV.s/n!m w/Nc PEE No, 07-32 UI-04-02 _ ._•,stAi,lNn'bu IInIr ICE Nu. 02-•16322 116 14.07 LLI /� N 09'21'1s W 165.42 qq (t IN m,I 2) Itt No. 92-7U076 III 70-00 - ' X .1 • 9 1'IAl 2 too tolll) iJ ('lob) GRENELEFE lit No n1 6nuaa 111 03 97 t..°�rIM°N'"w. V � •��•C1. t`' 15503 •- �. r '- OAr«EL 11.OAUER/ a In sin in (PUT 2) ^ 1 / Y a 11.1 b1 4I l Ile ` 7123 h • t IP SA nw/10C +g uow con tolS " - • -�`�.........s.(11001 w'i'c)pinbj Ieb di 9A''1 PIA) 21 LEGEND' a 40tAP ,,, v IR IRUN 11(10 ( 5 4 IP IRON PIPE <v .°I lb 5/n5 n w/ACC I11 w MIND ". A U Suwyb•INA 11w• • . AIHNUUI iN 10111111 IN SC101.1100 p f0.5/n n w/vl'c stAurin'UA Ilbw' /7,,...../&11)11A1 7) AS NO110 r(E�1"'(I UIS 2 A,qq1!hlAl t) • 511 5/11• IIY 111' Ilibll ItOU W/ .e_' !, _.A(solo) t._ _,,,•_• YI'C 5IAL11'l ll`IIIAK Illtf " �� 27B'I own im us , , , n 22/rw AI t P� ® YI'C Yf.IL(IW I lA lht'tAI 11% 1 i 1 o, r• Atc Awlufulu t'.AI �) C') • �, • ~ "to,... �`' MAI L15 -P AI UI'I'IAl1A11t001• r , L,/ 11) \ • 2 9. MAT a I'lAI or CIIINII111' ( (]• to - • ,�]�,, ., PIAI 3 w PIAI Of`IA410113 CNtsr -•- C) / dd f'Iv 4'M A(t slwi/ro w u tilnlc7 t y`'nT �7 `" ° + I Ot""t. R} SUfI:W Pr t� V) V) . • -.--- Ott lac 1 ``.. e, 0 tv C.) ,_ ,t0,,0 ,',, cp 13111'73 «�' k' I O t�F1V1O i,d' ipN•�4t UgAI ]INYIr - i1�' I ('y 1 11t.‘,o ,)°ft, 1 14 51 I I I �'. , >h tr,�,`t)t •.� 'wp �'', fn 7;M l rt kl w -) ,/ It if .4 IeN YI ANA 11•... 4 In f/ 4ifn4'i)" I,la n� '� IN 5/n IN (Mtn) `•1 t._ L1 gr 4r,r 5W r,UN IAA 51 1. 41te wboat us �T % clam LIt 50 ] ) U !►W •y \ IJnI 1'lAI 2 '1 /u t NEIu 49 • NI Ea+ row 10rJ.,y �,� A ono) �� p et CON PIAI .1+ el .a ..� ®� „� i ® It J 1,1, �) St AS 005 W / 0- 1 • 4-.. ..--m.TI•...•.._--• z(us t,rstuu) (euuR Pule) (11500 P1Al2) (510110 PIAI 7) i .N HAI 1 Nklr 90.41 /son Atm 11003 Ito 99 •- 51010 u-- (n (3 4), c In 5/e elAkt. l! N 66•21')t W I l2r ID C' ttLGl-� �_49) •19 J "s' '*? lnls e a la 1011'(AIIlULN1 1n 111 5/n to w/lit,J (1127.25 P.S. 10,517) 00 (1) 0` tos Intll) c.1' (r A l• ` 4 ) DIM W. 9 I'AINN:IIUNIIMI51 SIA1t1'1II'INA Ilnlf r Ib(ASI knit PIAI 1I,. (111(11) C) . I '' '11111 01t1YN.N IA ton IN 1 Inif ] �� III 5/n n In!/n W ' - �C� 1 ! ) 11;< (lass 51 Alm so 00 , • () N�. n 1i1 ,F,/'� ,.f in Uo n] ]un7e nkr,fnvS 4 OW I 01AI J) (loli An 2Ajm N sb(ASLuNN In µ. JINY ter Ifxt 01t10 C-wl l ttinNANn cubl.•l Il4V (inn) tulip) ) C-•• tS11/i,t 11' : (' ) - �, ('• .nnN/7n, 1f6k F:`.A • One AI•CISS 19,101Nt 11l II CP + III Ill Iln NJ INNM! 116E tun'SIIk1U IN,ANW;) 1A',1ut11) ' • • • Ill 5/n IN ,,,�'' NI 'III N. 7e 2/Uf1 I' r --=Ill II, tl7-If)71 _ 1 m� Olt f 9 Y at t11NL 71-tYJe '• ,/ t. JUflt II, Ife7 "'O• �� (/) • ti• n4 r 2N?7D iI V�GII i p�""Nf u4 •' ;4 1 IWttl.rl 4'""�'K / i(u V 4 i 1>l51 SM beNn Not hell ' '� Into �9ili lii jSu jus-31)6 y, �� m SHEET 2 Z` W k SHEET 1 - 'MATCH LINE I SHEET 2 �1) A G,) N ' SHEET 1 •• )I1' r•• , , Shkkl NO, S at '1.1:,)4S'1)tt1)/h',1111)((1(�U • . • t+ ,,� Plb)kc1 Nn, '- T • Designed ..,..-,.�"Pole Diggn Ws • itYISI0N3 • I a .._ .. _� nn a W.. u _ co f I r / ` II GLACIER LILY T. ..._ ._ 1 _• ��/ kr)1 Weal Solar 011anrallunt J • • i . ,.� VIEW j ` `\ • • • 7. l —"1 'nsugv[h U -HOLLY .1!r /\ , _,�/ .. ORCI AAb •\ 'ter Ill 44 Of USE II 0 ii `-*-----._,_ WI up C�:J _1` !: 7 Ill � 1 yl 21:11- 'P id . r '1 . ��,. MSlr,Ap .» d.... 4otak , m f rraarosra [a ,.�� W_� . lli Y 1rd.d,Y 1.yrrr l....... /4 I :FIFER TARNS iR! o yb ho b� p 40 EXHIBIT 2 .'' . . ]3. CO I WALE.I' Do'.Q, )loR,l timid Ne hpd Ile. 3269 . ., -------0------ y �. i .. y,r .Y SLOPE LEGEND oA,4%a1.Ortt . • 4 ' ( ,\ El] I i ----1 i ' / I / t3A•34%"Lord (ll(I) 1. O_l • � K { 1 .i} ,.- CeLAGIER LILY OT. ...._.� ». - _ 3 Q __=.. .- - '' s / ..',.',.. ,,, . . .I.,. ;...*, ,.! .,..•...•... • ''''''''`i #' . .. ;• •.••.‘.•.'n1:::'.',...;..•.......1,:- „ 2 '. / • •., , J/ : (n • - . . . . , . -... . .,.,.„ ., J46!!!;// I- �b �` O a l , r • 7�, 4., .— _..�..._.._ . -/ / / b\/ • .. . r .� I .._. __... .6...1...16......1.....,r...,., n � t o 3D• go' 1�m' GXI-II JIT 3 , .,. 4 srng•IMIMMIMIWIliffi ii • s1r..111., >t< L),.I\ x ., f��I I DCALOr 60'.o' tiOIItl1 I in P,.Ia1 He. 3Qfb9 o _ 4 ' a: i ti 1F• a- I to 1CKk1�A5 cQTt , / „.�• M.fe�q `—, "*-� u•i `�."' CAs1�DlesR aElnlrro ct«►..`'" Aosr om. ut r }0 , •+tr ProJw1 Rustuarr 6iY131OK1 • SITE r & al.. , u 1 OWNER, Douglas,Paul&Tarry Caeebear 13707 8.6.Malay Inns • • 14111s84814,Orspn /7=1 APPLICANT OW,Inmrparabd ` . 17666 M.W.Baona./err,Road —� 147 al Leta 01wsp,Orq,, 87033 ` Coad• Darla Mint VICINITY MAP 064411\ % ' � 1 LOCATION' 4111 E,N,Glider IA,94se1 gI P'—'— ILUMId Tat Imie 11300&11001,Map 116/CA I / SITE AREAL 1,1 Aerr iL I / IQ ZONE' 410 C 1 / R1nd17Nn usIG on,Mingle Faulty Diraltlns .- k ,.�'� I • PROPOSED URFAIt /Mingls Kelly Leta CO 1a.. Oy J I � LOT Rlzs RANO6i :r.. - dLAC1ER LILY®7, _I 0,6,71 ap,11,b 10,000 q,A. k - - - -—-— 1 _____ `P H srnc� 1I,461 p,n.tao1►1 , .,..• , . 5 f / , , lmAal.1. lops.r N/ •• • 4,1/ / ID' .� la' 1T v/ --�.,.� TRACT 'By •• /// Im,f11 sl. I IC •\/ /\• C., ILI - < ....st at, h mos tr, / `..7 r t /�. \� I 0 " / 0331 et 54 ,___/, s i// w••1 3' N / TRACT 'A' .. III o 1, y to-I 'fit i ��., V1 • / / 6 l a >9 d .qV /‘ 0767 a.f l I i U .9�` Tee/el.xla 1 1•u rf i d' t ;ICKcw✓t.r�r+ 1 ——l'�K�Uta1n;lbi ih '—J '' 1p uir I Oj— ' 1 iti ewr.lr r.rrl..I.I.iti 13\ CD IIInt>rIM6 EXHIBIT 4 ,..� •... ' I 1>cALRt M.6o'•ot lbRiN sai Ns,/ • =3Zb9 relied ..a. 0 I0 4 `y D. • •4:4 ale.ry .. Oat. .r. Ja '' • ALVISINNS • d' - °• _UTILITIES LEGE t, ND 1 F...• . .. ' - - - \ —w•••'� PROP060P eA/JITARY 6E tR o. • i . .'g u t• ( I I rRoroa6P WAttR 1 _ • 1'ROPOaOP etPFlri OEtIt�R /] -.A.--. 0x16TAi6 64fII1ARY DELLVR I / / - - I'xI6T1i4 uIn/OR tl . ( ° Pn'GPC6pP HArINOLN / HkIeTNl4MNaflol,! ', ' Ut . _ _ EXISIIIIOSItl:'Ii1LU111 lI° . _._ �_ PfIUPOS GL dGIER LILY 6T. L F If LLI LIQHT 61' 111 1ZzU PIIUPU5F o 1111 II L1 THFCS E(� Pt.ypmeJ S'51dow�lA- - :V <_ lIN ' • �' r. is ®�:�o • - - -. itE \N. i ioz imnelMALFJ s sE 1- MAPLE CAL (IP) ,l 5 I IL 4 1 � 1, 9/ , �\ 6µ 9111411 tAtjVAlt i t l M rMuwtit / .• / • TRACT 'g' .-T 1 J/ 'p 45 '''..%./. /C,,,., K \ •• `I II'If rta.its r+wye / �Ati. a / _ / , / "i1 W tY in of `�1 A�, C ~--� .AQf'.� 1. / TFz4cr ''A' - r ; U1 p ,..t--,,...., ...4-1, 4 ) ,ill .-"'-1 / / , O) j t11 O . ; GI • ,�' - L "__ �� a. rue..utYttr(MALIN'I I U: / / '0 -`, J i A r htuhiurd S'$Illkwitll ,,,Y. J ' �1 1:: otalc t..,.r .st�a - r' gg, a ..4 03 O' 9D' b0' Io0' tt...+' k.....1....irate.. r"1....1'1161 40 EXWIbIT 5 a i • bcALl*i P.6p'.pi NoFtTN 5N1i l No.• i. ' , sience • ,y , I.Y i ' • ,.i r y } a - ra � 'i., ,q . ~ , . . `r.. a. • a a M e • e c• Y A w. ® ' .. . . ,". . ' . • • . . ., . . i.r: : '•,..,,,V./., . • ..••••" ..,,,i `, .. -:.-'• • •:: ,.•,,• .": ,- - . .•: 4...•:,,i. ,-'.,' ,-.... ' .• ••• ' •'',/'• ' "''. '-' • •••• * ., . . ..,. .. '.. ..., ' — — .—,.--..--.. ..._.... .. • _ ....._ ., ,„ ,..., Fri, i _ ............_.....__. , . . „. . .t 0 U dEr(4.46P Wele4 i1132 PAL .• • . .. . lip A410 11.116641 AAA"•Vot§Awl 1 II I 1 Z V...si hi'did 10W.NO3 NOIS01:13 li . . , . NV1614INFOWN1/15,.1101 .:EiS I 41141 14611Nibite"*41444°1; I/ . .. , I 61J.1 111.1. — . . 44. 4 75 . . . . .. . .1 1424HAWS Stalei todedia b 11111 1' . , . , ,. ., .... ...; 466414414; ASMIIIIIIIIIIIDAIIIMISIOLIZ . , . . , 7 •• 1 aftesautarietkimmar . • ' , ' 1 . ' itaftWiftittisk . . .. • w . ' /ISM WNW . . .1 4' ' . ''''' I....- tg, • ... , .• . N I 1 ". L..... . , . cp. , .. : r--1---. •4 ' , I ••"` .:! ' ,.. • L. .4**4111.■111M ''• :....-,'''' ' '/ • ,.•. • , . , . . - '. , • • '', -'"' • ,...V 4. /' .4 •.._ . .... .., •... -----/.1--,4 ., IL ,, • ,• 1 ____... et app4111111111111°A' ,ir---If . 7 m Ft.' ,. . _ •, , • „ ... .., . .,..114. ___ , ---•_„,. . ,_•:_......_..„„....„._ _____ ___ . . - LigaiiIrp--:--- -----f,,-- 7... --- .12'7"--.. -0.---_,„....,.... ------1----....„ti4 • • . •., . 14. ' 14 ,iiiPl"- -. iiiMil°11121. - -1-' ' ' -1,__,-- ' 'Wl• '- ..) . . . 1 r------''"—le".. .....12=0P•°"-- - -- .4 . , ,--- ......,„ littr. ,...._... , , •. . • -. .• . .,... —my...irs. --.—•••----13 .— — 2 ' - -Sr -----..... . ,..,...,.... ...--.., ...— .• "* . ' . ''''..-allinninilMill11. -.." ..,..,c,,,, ,...lir -- — •••• '''''...' '-',.. ''. .. 17' . „,. 7 ,....-,... itiormitiMill ..... ,-,,.... ----,---- II • , --- i j--",",---r- aillik,"'".'1.-I.MIlliNillAglia.altil t . , ,.,,, , tiolie -----.7 .4"-.- -_.- ; •- ... . . ---- ...., (71.1iN•10.3911 ----!-- , . . ..... ' • •'" ... ,..I • . .- — •••••W i'l g , ,a•to. .. - ., .... .....:ii 1. ...., . , , 'Igi I,' ,...,7----;"111 --.,' - • \ , ,- • . . •I, . , via • -„. , - --,1, • ',,.: ", • ,...1 . . . . . . _..................... . •Th.7"-•• ••••• "*--,—.30; .4--s i' ' ', win . ' ;'‘.,•i.7. ...L ",, \ . , \ s ..,, ,.....-A • . '?..,„... , ' - ., .. kt.\..‘r ,/,......--•<.. - ' '-.r4 -'. .- •-.*•. -*' - *•"" ''''-I. .... L. • ''' '• \I • ................. •-r-.........-- A -....1....... ....., - ..-... \---...."*8,.. ...,:-•7. . • -.....:•....:1-4-•..., "....,_ . 3'`.e...t.' ,',,,,,,"' *;..„4 , , , .. —_- --,,••••„!------„,,,,,..„---.„,,jr......;.,_ .,.. •!. ir -I .... / ..;_, 1 r • .; ,........ ..., •_ .... „ ...,,, =s.., ,,,,, ....r-,* —...... - •,,,, — .,• , 0 . . , , ... ris ''' ), 0 • ' ' i . ••••• ' •° ., ., / -..._..,,,, ..„,.?sA 4/Pk A:\14i.\\ .° I '..... .. , • • -•-•••••-- `-'14---4.4......., .ThL iPir ' • .•v 0.i' •i , / M74 7‘‘ ' .. . , • , ,... ... , . -.._,... ......,..., , -... —Li 1., -,.. ,•, 2• cs„ - s,. -1 b• 4••• jw_ i ..... t". . .. ..., _„,.....• . ""-...,IT, -•. ., , ..._. , - ,., --2,.„---,--------..,...... -,..41.,600 7 P.. .1S,,..7-•'.‘". Iii• .` .41-•1‹c..-.. :-'--'''' .• . . ".. . • ,0.'0 ..... ....."... ' , , .......... 114 *...... '''',..1.. I • ' • ..... 4., 74:. \. ..,:„, ...44.,,..ji,,k„ * me . ., -... l -.."RIMP. A . • e •ifir 4 '*--•,' ..- .1*.',4%).--,, .,-•••-.. .... „it,- . • ,.... 4., ,,•• i ,.-- •f....;•,..., -:_a_•-•., •„...,, •.‘,i t,t ,nt.,„,..["........, ...,,,,. .... .. . ‘4._ ..... EXHIBI ; ••• ' . 4 : •\--4,,, I : ... . • i - . : i 0 • . , ,, . .. .............................. . , • • • I.. . . • , - . t, f, • • . . 't • ' - • • , — -7 — - - . • . • , - At:, . , • : • • _ ,, , • , ,. , . . . , . • • . 4 .., , , 1. _ b SL,, i CASEBEER HEIGHTS Project 5 uraunary OWNER: Douglas, Paul & Terry Casobeer 13707 S.E. Maloy Lane ' }, Milwaukee, Oregon 97222 APPLICANT: , •' OTAK., Incorporated • 17355 S.W. Boones Ferry Road Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 1 • Contact: David Bantz 635-3618 LOCATION: � '.. 4118 S.W. Glacier Lily Street• LEGAL: Tax Lots 11900 & 11901, Map 2 1E 5 CA SITE AREA: 1.8 Acres ZONE: R-10 • ' ' EXISTING USE: One Single Family Dwelling r PROPOSED USES: 6 Single Family Lots LOT SIZE RANGE; 8,831 sq. ft. to 10,009 sq, ft. OPEN SPACE: ..�, : 15,759 sq, ft. (20%) • Mee i , , R 1 . . . . . . W I - ; a 2 1931 ' 4 EXHIBIT • 1 CASEBEER HEIGHTS ® Preliminary Plat Application Table of Contents I. Statement of Intent II. Site Information Exhibit 1 Vicinity Map Exhibit 2 Site Analysis Exhibit 3 Slope Analysis III. Description of Proposed Development Exhibit 4 Preliminary Plat Exhibit 5 Utility/Grading Plan • IV. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policies V. Compliance with Development Standards • VI, Compliance with Zoning Ordinance Standard xi VII. Compliance with Other Applicable Lake Oswego Ordinance Provisions .,Y. vat, Summary Appendix • • 0 A. Notification Map B. Mailing List C. Affidavit of Posting Notice D. Affidavit of Mailing • E. Certified Letter Receipt F. Letter Sent to Owners/Neighborhood Association G. Minutes of Meeting with Neighbors (2/27/91) H. Comments from Neighbor L Letter from Paul & Sandi Zimmerman J. Solar Access Analysis K. Storm Drainage Calculations L. Survey of Subject Property • 4 ,.. t w sh i i rr� I.• STATEMENT OF INTENT 1 1 The following is a request for an approval of the preliminary plat and planned development of Casebeer Heights, a six lot subdivision (Exhibit 4). The proposed subdivision includes lots varying from 8,831 sq. ft. to 10,009 sq. ft, In addition, two open space tracts totaling 15,759 sq. ft. are proposed. No variances are requested, c. k 'r. ix • 1, • • • • • ..1 + • • • • • y h • • • • • • • • • • • I.3•• • • • • • • • 1 • I • II• SITE INFORMATION The subject property is located at 4118 S.W. Glacier Lily Street and contains 1.8 acres. The site currently has a single family dwelling and a holly orchard. The existing • •:'', dwelling will be removed as well as most of the holly trees. The property is zoned R- 10 (10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling). Slopes on the site range from 3% to 20% and average approximately 9%. • a -Cl t •• • • • • • 1 �• ' Ur' • • -4- .... 1 q 4 te It r b • r tr w III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed plat will result in six lots. Two of the proposed lots will front on existing Glacier Lily Street and four will front on a proposed cul-de-Jac which will be an extension of Pfeifer Drive. Pfeifer Drive is part of the approved plat of Pfeifer Farms. The following is a summary of the size, frontage, lot width and lot depth of each lot. Lot Width at Lot # Area (sq. ft) Frontage (ft.) Lot Depth (ft.) Bldg.Line(ft.) 1 8,858 85 113 85 2 9,109 43 124 58 3 8,831 43 124 57 ', 4 10,006 94 106 94 �.,• 5 10,009 96 106 96 • • 6 8,752 76 101 77 In addition to the six lots, two open space tracts are proposed. Tract A includes 5,337 ', sq. ft, and Tract B has 10,422 sq, ft. for a total of 15,759 sq. ft. This equals 20 percent • .. of the site's gross area. ' All utilities are available to the property. Water is available both from Glacier Lily and from a line within a utility easement along the soutl. property line. A sanitary sewer is located within the same easement as well as in an easement within Lot 5, Block 2 Greenlefe to the east. Storm drainage will be provided from the proposed Pfeifer Farms development. The project will be constructed in one phase. • \. ,• • • • • • • f • -. 411 • -5- . arty -mil>' IV„e COMPLIANCE �,•� WITH T COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Applicable general plan policies and specific policies are listed below in bold • followed by findings of compliance. ` , type, DEAN SERVICES POLICY m The City will manage and phase urban growth within the Urban Services Boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic services. The prope rty rty is designated by the City as an "Immediate Growth" area. Urban levels of service are being provided for the following ' + public facilities or services: a• Water -An existing 12" water line exists in Glacier Lily St, and exists along the south property line, a 2 4" line b. Sanitary Sewer - A trunk sanitary sewer line exists withi fi Street and within an easement runningn Glacier Lily through the south edge of the site° east of the subject prorgrty and c. Adequate Streets - Eoth Glacier Lily Street and proposed Pfeifer serve as local streets. Drive d. Transportation Facilities - Sidewalks will be provided, ., • e. Open Space -Approximately 15,759 square feet of open space is ro This equals 20 percent of the gross area of theproperty. proposed. f. City Police Protection - No problems were identifi dstaff ;`. application conference. by of the pre- g. City Fire Protection `' ' requirements, " Hydrants will be provided according to City h, Parks and Recreation Facilities - The site is not a potential park site as identified in the comprehensive plan, 1 (Exhibit 5).i. Adequate Drainage - Drainage facilities are identified on the utility plan j• Schools - The City has determined that its role is to coordinate with school district and monitor impacts. schoolstrict is the s see the provider for school. The school district is currently rvice increasing school { capacity with funds from the bond measure passed in November, 1989, a he proposed for five additional homes is not expected to adversely provision of urban levels of education by the school district, affect ' IMPACT 1VIANAGEMENT POLICY I The City will protect natural tural resources and processes from adverse itn acts of development, within reasonable cost limitations. P The City will: L Assure that each development seeks to features and processes. preserve and maintainnatural ' -6- �: , Each development shall seek to provide, in accordance with the applicable plan elements: a. Open space preservation • b. Preservation of trees and groves n 1 c. Protection of soil from erosion d. Provision of pedestrian and bicycle circulation • 2. Regulate the density and intensity of development in hazardous areas, • including steep slopes, erodible or unstable soils and flood hazard IY areas, with particular care to assure safety and prevention of damages to adjacent areas, 3. Assure the addition or replacement of trees removed during building and development, where it is appropriate to the overall appearance of the development. Developers will be responsible for assuring of required tree plantings through survival g growing season. As mentioned previously, 17,759 square feet of open space is being provided. The open space is situated so as to preserve a majority of the trees on the site. The trees found on the site, with the exception of the holly orchard, consist primarily of fruit trees. None of the trees are of significant size or species. Soil erosion will be controlled during construction by minimizing the amount of grading and by taking appropriate precautions. No stream corridors or drainageways exist on the property. Street trees will be installed as necessary. Those trees proposed for preservation will be protected during construction. IMPACT MANAGEMENT POLICY II . . " The City will: 1. Place principal responsibility on the developer for demonstrating how ,'`j a proposed development complies with comprehensive plan policies and standards cuntsined in regulations or requirements. F 2. Prepare and car ry out regulations requiring development proposals to identify and satisfactorily mitigate adverse impacts, including particularly: a. traffic or safety improvements needed for access, circulation, parking of autos, bicy .1;.s and/or pedestrians; separation of auto and other circulation or to reduce or eliminate traffic impacts on adjacent areas, or to facilitate use of public transportation. b. public safety, especially emergency • c• utility service needs,especiallyg services accessibility. sanitary sewer,water and drainage including all surface runoff, • • d. preservation or maintenance of natural site features such as trees,unusual plants,views or streams,soils in accordance with Natural, ••• , 0 Resources policies. • -7- • f' t e. noise, glare, and visual impacts on adjacent properties. f. public cost impacts, assuring that development: 1) pays for costs ' of facilities required to serve it, or 2) ameliorates the public cost .1. impacts of the development. g. energy efficiency. 3. Review developments for compliance with the Development Standards and other applicable City Codes. Development at maximum density in • any zoning category will be allowed only when facts presented to hearings body show that development at that density can occur within requirements set forth in the Development Standards and other • applicable Code provisions. A ' The proposed project contains six single family parcels. Thin is fewer than that allowed by Section 48,205 of the Zoning Ordinance. Sections IV,V, VI and VII of this narrative will show how the proposed development complier with the applicable , ; review criteria. The proposed development provides adequate access, circulation and parking. The • only street improvement proposed is the cul-de-sac which terminates Pfeifer Drive. The addition of four lots using Pfeifer Drive and two lots onto Glacier Lily will not have a substantial impact on existing or proposed dwellings in the vicinity. 6 • All required public utilities are available to the site or will be extended at the • developer's expense. By dividing the open space into two tracts, we will be maximizing the number of abutting parcels both within the prepared development and adjacent to the development. This will help to mitigate the impact of noise, glar' or other visual impacts associated with residential development. Ths proposed development is designed to maximize its solar potential. Four of the six lots meet the basic solar requirements and a fifth can meet the Protected Solar Building Line Option (Exhibit J). , r IMPACT MANAGEMENT POLICY III The City will: r • 1. Require new buildings and development to pay for an equitable share of identifiable costs of public facilities required for or because of the development, including but not limited to: • a. street and traffic safety improvements, including off-site ' improvements, b. drainage and surface runoff c. water and sanitary sewer system 1. di buffering from adjacent land uses al • '. e. natural resource protection provisions p. -8- , ,• Residential developments will be required space land or recreation facilities or fe in lieu rovide park and open • MI public facilities necessary for the proposed development will be paid for by developer. Open space, equal to 20 percent of the gross land area, wilI beprovided th within the development. i h n IMPACT MANAGEMENT POLICY V The City will: 1 1• Plan and program p grain for the provision of adequate public facilities and services to serve the land uses and development intensities permitted under this comprehensive plan, • 2. Prohibit land uses or intensities whim h tax or capacity of public services except in instances here thall bedthe normal costs of providing additional required capacity, subject t o Cain Council approval. ' Services are available to the subject property at an adequate capacity.p y OVERALL DENSITY POLICY I Y f The City will:1. Assure, using the detailed studies of the water, sewer and street systems, that land uses and densities planned for the Urban. Service Area are coordinate with and do not exceed ';he capacity available • ' • planned for any system. or • • Planning for expansion of water, sewer, or street will take into considerations • a. The cost effectiveness of the expansion, that is, the cost relative the users' benefit. to b. The distribution of the cost relative to distribution of benefits, • that is, whether the cost can be allocated equitably to those r 1 • creating the demand. u P Subdividing the subject propertyassiste + thus maximizing the pubic investment nbay c facilitysystems,ty in ng planned densities, t It will also assist the City in achieving required housing densities as mandated b ► Rthe Metropolitan Housing Rule, 3 ;. 1 =9- p. p. . • t. OVERALL DENSITY POLICY II Y , ti The City will: . 1. 1 Encourage land use patterns that minimize or disperse air pollutants, i.e.: a. Preserve open space areas. b. Guide growth to areas ` c. Minimize traffic congestion.prone air inversion. 2. Develop a transportation plan for major streets that encourage citizens ' to reduce air pollution, for example by mass transit use, bike riding or car pooling. The proposed development minimizes the need for new roads, thus maximizing the utilization of existing roads. The subject property is not located in an area prone to air inversions. The proposed development provides open space and will preserve trees which will help minimize air pollution. f o. • DISTINCTI`JE NATURAL AREA POLICY I • The City will: 1. Develop policies and res to procedures 0 natural vegetation. preserve tree stands and other y, 2. Encourage the use of trees and plants within residential, commercial and industrial areas as part of the management of air and noise quality and to provide natural beauty. • City planning staff has determined that the existing holly orchard is not a distinct area. Other trees on the site consist mainly of apple and cherry, x of a distinct nature. However,the apple trees have some sentimental value to the owners and are thus proposed for preservation within the open space tracts,property t Street trees will be planted within the development. ` ENERGY CONSERVATION POLICY fl The City will: 1. Actively encourage residential site development which reduces the total amounts of street and utility line footage and maximizes usable open • a space. 2. Promote energy efficient site design through the design subdivisj process by such means as permitting zero llo deview and . ine siting, common wall construction, and flexible settiack requirements q J -10- i J. r.l • • • ... a t• �'� 1 � , w' / ' r 1 y • (compatible with safety standards) and consid esoration 1 ar orientation, landscaping opportunities and sensitivity to site's natural features.• Develop ' r procedures for development granting density bonuses or other incentives for p proposals demonstrating excellent examples of energy efficient site planning. `` The proposed development maximizes the solar potential of the site. 83% of the lots meet either the basic protected or solar building line option,y There are very few new streets and utility lines as water and sewer lines already exist '` and the only new street required is the "Lulb" of Pfeifer Drive, 1 ENERGY CONSERVATION POLICY V 1 4 " C The City will.; • I. Developa .. system of bike trails and sidewallks from residential to commercial areas and schools with access to transit stops, 2. Require applicants for subdivisions or PUDs to demonstrate will provide for pedestrit,ns and bike riders, in accordance with they system policies in the Open Space Element. rail 3. Encourage the development of crossties between walking cul.desac and initerblock cuts and reduce distances and encourage ,ng and the use of bikes. 5. Require coordination of transportation system and land de velopment. ' The site is not of adequate size to allow bike trails or sidewalks other adjacent to the street. An earlier concept for the property than those Glacier Lily to Pfeifer Drive, At a meeting attended by the neighbors on linkage February 1991 it was decided that the linkage was not desired as it would unwantedprovide e �27, access to the rear and side yards of lots within the ro'ectr the fact that Orchard Way provides a connection between Glacier Lilyrn, along wieh T Orchard Drive only 200 feet east of the subject rop e Y am provasef the previously proposed pedestrian linkage, property,r '� resulting in the removal of • ` r. w `• '11. j w‘. y • • ., � f i � .dY`Ur C• r wr y 11 �• 1 V ` f r � s , • • SOCIAL RESOURCES POLICY I The City will: 1. Ercourage preservation of views of the lake, rivers, and distant mountains through development review procedures, through the location of public facilities and open space, and through safe turnout spots along scenic street rights-of-way; , 2. Incorporate landscaped medians and street trees in street and parking lot design where feasible, to develop scenic parkways also long major .:'' streets. 3. Encourage design of public and private facilities and structures which enhance community beauty, including: ci. Aesthetic signs which do not intrude on space of adjacent ;, w;. activities b. Design criteria which encourage a"village atmosphere"in business districts, and buildings to scale with neighborhood and adjacent 5.. uses. c. Underground placement of utilities, and proper siting of transformers, meters, sign posts, etc , d. Minimum scale streets, which allow for protection of adjacent 1 trees and woodlands f Views of the hills of southern Lake Oswego and beyond are available from the site. The natural topography will allow the views from most proposed lots to be preserved, ;n Street trees will be installed along both streets. All utilities will be placed interground. ti SOCIAL RESOURCES POLICY II °, The City will Y !,. Update inventories of historic resources it has identified as 1A, 1B, and 2C under State Land Use Goad 5 as better information becomes • available. 2. Compile and continue to expand and refine a record of the community's social and historic heritage. The Lake Oswego Public Library has 4., prepared In Their Own Words,Reminisces of Early Oswego Oregon,and maintains a file of records and photographs describing the community's history. el ` ', ; 3. Promote the preservation of (OAR 660.16-000) inventoried historic ////.�� - ' resources by: '' •.� LN le' A -12- • I. • N 4 n t ,• 1 ,fn • a. adoption of an Historic Resource Development Standard applicable to Federal and State registered resources, and local IC historic resources, b. review of the local lB historic resources and determination of their status as IA or IC resources. ! t A c• appointment of a Historic Preservation subcommittee of t Conservancy Commission to advise the City Council on: he i• final status of local lB resources. lB resources which are part of a development proposal shall be evaluated prior to the development hearing to determine status of the resource, and u• possible sites for public acquisition, and . review of other available inventories to determine status of newly identified potentially significant sites. ,,,, d• amendment to the Park and Open Space Standard to include local ttl .i" 1C identified or Federal or State registered historic sites and/or structures to be included in 8.035(4)lands selected for reservation a` as open space or parks. ' e• Public acquisition of significant " sites, :°ch as the ore trail in the Iron Mountain Caxiyon. The Open P pace Element outlines criteria, land areas and procedures for acquisition of public open space. • Neither the subject property nor the existing dwelling has been designated as historic, r SOCIAL RESOURCES POLICY V k will: , , The City v r. I. Provide for and encourage the formatica of organizations. These organizations, when duly recognizedneighborhood - arhoor criteria outlined in the citizen Involvement, may: :i..• k . , under • a• determine neighborhood boundaries ti b. make recommendations for policies and actions affectingtheir ` .+ neighborhood ' c• engage in comprehensive I p arming for their geographic area and , its relationship to community-wide plan ng .t• 11�/ryy•��! �/'�� -13r N 6AA tl 4 r1 . 1 I z4 11ttJT�( 1f� � ° • '1 " procedures Both the Citizen Involvement Programg and Role of Government Element • andre of Neighborhood Organizations. ' 2. Plan for preservation and development of neighborhood features w ' focus identity and encourage social gatherings and interaction 4�: the neighborhood. Such features includes whi hin ch ~ a. neighborhood parks b. pathways and benches • c. historic sites • d. distinctive trees or views t , a.} Open Space, Residential, Natural Resources and Parks Elements include detailed policies. A meeting was scheduled by the applicant to discuss the proposed project • property owners and renters within 300 feet of the site. Notice was gven as required t •by LOC 48.801 and 49.610. At the meeting recommendations were made, u and voted on. The result was the proposed preliminary were mentioned that would impact the development of te subject rop rty, features it was mentioned bythepropertyrsubject property, However, • apple tree within Tact B Te ree has some theyiificcance to the a bench near ans • IIY it was a favorite of their mother. the Casebeer family as ,.,:.r. A .A ECONOMIC RESOURCES POLICY IV 0 , , a ` The City will • I• Establish policies and s ,.r tandards to protect residentially developed • neighborhoods from heavy traffic and incompatible land uses. The proposed six lot single family development will be compatible with existing land +k�"p'*` .`• uses. Traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, will not be greatly ` project, increased by this RESIDENTIAL DENSITY POLICY I The Cit y will: 1. Assure site conditions, including: c a• Physical site conditions, including: i. slope, density w general, the steeper the slope, the lower the ,. .; tr+ ., ty which will be permitted. u. such hazards as flood-prone areas,erodible soils,landslide hazards or highgroundwater. Densities should be lower in areas of potential hazard, and buildings should be ' .,� prohibited in areas of confirmed hazards, -14 f, • ' 1 •I' iii. preservation of natural features, especially streams, tree groves or individually fine tree specimens, or distinctive areas as identified in the Open Space elements. iv. minimizing disturbance of groundcover and soils. b. The capacity of adjacent streets. Developments of density level R-3, R- 0, R-5should have Pommy access to a collector or arterial street. In no case should a medium to high density development generate vehicle trips which exceed the capacity of adjacent .e streets or intersections. :' a c. The capacity of public facilities and services, especially sewer, streets, and drainageedeveloper sP �Y water, " responsible for the costs of public facilities elm er will be • reasonably attributable to and required by the developmend t. d. The site's potential to handle adequately the proposed density,including: r i• its size and shape 'n ' ii. ability to provide public safety services internal circulation and parking iv. screening and privacy r • v. drainage e. Proximity to public transportation. Medium to high density development should preferably be located within walking distance r " (1/4 mile) of bus lines. 2. Utilize performance standards, where practical, to establish densities in accordance withspecific oli •'. policy above. . 3. Prepare and adopt a Land Use Map with residential densities designated on the Land Use Map. Mapdesignations ° will represent the maximum permissible density of any site. The actual density permitted will be determined by site conditions and a site plan which demonstrates how density is compatible with the site, surrounding uses and other plan policies. Actual permitted density may be lower than the indicated maximum on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Generally, the higher the density . proposed for a clevelognient, the greater the responsibility to demonstrate the site's and design's adequacy to provide for the proposed density. r 4. The City will assure that the final density of any site can be established at such time as project review can reliably determine that the density is in fact suitably related to site conditions, surrounding land uses and public facility capacity, including Development Review. Plan policies 'ri allowing density reduction,including the Growth Management policies, are implemented through the zoning and development codes and the . ., ; , 40 development standards. Residential Density policies will allow ;. ;• -15- , . , maximum plan densities when it is established that the Plan density can be achieved within the clear and objective standards found in the implement' 'codes and standards. The subject property is well suited for the proposed density. The density is allowed by the Zoning Ordinance under the Planned Development criteria. No physical limitations exist on the site which would make the proposed density unsuitable, • All necessary public facilities and services are available at acceptable levels. The cost of providing services to the individual lots will be paid entirely by the developer, The proposed development is actually at a level below the maximum allowed. However,the plan appear proposed ppear to be the maximum density which can be achieved J " within the clear and objective standards found in the implementing codes. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY POLICY II The City will: 1. Permit PTJD or clustered development in residentially developed neighborhoods where the average density of the development does not exceed the designated residential density. ° The density of the proposed development is comparable to the density of the existing ,'. neighborhood, RESIDENTIAL DENSITY POLICY V The City may provide for density bonuses for developments which provide C A ' amenities in addition to those required by ordinances. Standards for bonuses will be established in specific development ordinances, a Density bonuses shall not be provided to developments in residentially developed neighborhoods where the effect would be to allow density higher than the underlying zone except under specific standards and criteria for granting bonuses which are adopted by the City Council and implement specific Plan policies and community goals. ;` No density bonuses are being requested for the proposed development. d RESIDENTIAL SITE DESIGN POLICY I The City will: 1. Assure that proposals for residential development of four or more units are evaluated comprehensively, to assure that the site design and building placement considers and provides for all significant site e,1 • -16- � i • Y . • ♦ . 1' . . _ _�.bl .� `•'p. ill\. ^ . _ �. - � - • • Air .;, conditions and factors relate d to surrounding properties,land uses and t public facilities. Review is not required for the design of single family dwellings, only of the site plan and relationship of structures to terrain or natural features. 2• Strongly encourage clustered development and planned unit development, especially on sites with steep slopes and features. All major residential developmentsspecial natural ' P will be designed as planned unit developments. T'l-e City incentives to assist such development• will provide appropriate ''' 3, Establish site design criteria for residential development of four or • more units. 4. Require all applications for residential development of four or more units to provide a site analysis which identifies: a. streams,ponds,springs,marshy areas,specimen trees,tree rock outcroppings and special features such as views. groves, be slopes c. soils characteristics d. potentially severe hazardous areas as indicated in the Physical Resources inventory, especially flood lain high ej'odibie soils and landslides. floodplain, g ground water, e. routes or channels or surface water runoff, including adjacent `'" " y areas f. street access to site, and connections to adjacent streets and • pedestrian, bicycle or equestrian ways , g. access to utilities h. noise sources in vicinity i. sun and wind exposure j. existing buildings or historic features k. The City will make available to the developer such data as may be on file e p staining to the above criteria. • 5. Require preliminary consideration of a sketch plan for all. residential development of four or more units which factors, clearly showing their relationship to sit conditions following es r d in Policy 4 above: a. organization of land uses and buildings on terrain , b. layout of streets,parkin •, P g,pedestrian,bicycle and equestrian paths including utility easement, relationship to adjacent areas c. street and parking gradients d. areas of likely grading, clearing, cuts and fills e• approximate calculation of impermeable surfaces and increase in storm water runoff .f• proposed methods of handling runoff drainage g relationship of buildings aid structures to potentially hazardous areas and to open space to be maintained h. net buildable area/density -17- ` , 1 1. li i• general design of visual and/or noise buffers j. areas to be planted or landscaped in other than existing vegetation • . k. views, sun and wind orientations 1. soil protection measures ' 6. Require that final site plans for all residential developments of four or more units should, in addition to the above, provide for a building envelope which takes into account: a. energy conservation measures in site layout and building placement • b. separation of vehicle circulation from pedestrian and bicycle circulation „ ,< c. privacy considerations d. service by garbage collection, deliveries a e. emergency access by police and fire vehicles •it f. landscaping such as street tree plantings • g. screening and appearance of parking areas The proposed development will provides lots which will allow conventional construction techniques to be utilized. No unique topographic or other physical constraints exits. The majority of trees will be preserved within the open space tracts. CC&Rs will be established to ensure continuity with the surrounding neighborhoods, 4 r A site analysis (Exhibit 2)has been submitted which addresses the concerns of specific a policy #4. a RESIDENTIAL SITE DESIGN POLICY IV 1. r The City will provide incentives for property owners of land along Boones Ferry and Kruse Way, which is not designated for commercial • • use,to cluster residential structures away from the arterial and provide ' ► trees and other vegetation or structures which will make the site compatible with residential living. Such incentives could include: a. increase over existing allowed denvity to compensate for the expense invilved in landscaping, combining sites or providing access to frontage road b. appropriate variances 44 q c. waiver of setback provisions if compatible with adjacent land uses d. provision of existing codes and procedures to administer these "` • purposes ir e. amendment of existing codes and procedures to administer these , J purposes • : ' r. q. _ig. ..1 A � f • 2. For new development, the City will: • 'r �' a• require residential streets in new developments to he designed to provide for pedestrian and bicyclist safety;landscaping,especially street trees, and for controlling the speed of automobile traffic. ,r Priority • will be given in street design to amenities which improve ,1 residential livability over vehicle speed and convenience, and to reduce noise impact on new residential uses along collector and arterial streets. 3. For all residential areas, the City will: • a. encourage street trees and street landscaping h� undertaketraffic management with the objective of slowing • vehicular traffic on local residential streets, and, where feasible, reducing traffic volumes on local streets • c. encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation in residential areas. Street trees and sidewalks will be installed where required. The only new street resulting from this project is the cul-de-sac. Speed control will not be a concern on the cul-de-sac. As mentioned previously, a pedestrian path from Glacier Lily to Pfeifer Drive was originally proposed. However, the majority on o ��p�r�,,�.e .owners attending a meeting on February 27th wished to delete the cons;ection.A er reviewing the concerns of the neighbors, it was also the decision of the applicant and developers that the pedestrian connection was not in the best interest of the proposed development. 5 • • is i.r t 00 J 'l i• Y, :: V. COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS`', J ,: Section 1.020 Historic Resource Preservation: Findings: Not applicable. 'Is' " Section 2.020 Building Design: Findings: Not applicable Section 3.020 Stream Corridors: Findings: Not applicable. Section 4.020 Wetlands: Findings: There are no wetlands on this site. Section 5.020 Street Lights: Standards for Approval 1. Residential Streets ., a. Equipment Standards i. The type of luminaire to be used shall be approved by the City Manager. ii. The luminaire shall have a protective finish. iii. The lamp post may be wood, anodized aluminum of other materials as approved • by the City Manager. b. Lighting Standards i. The maintained level of illumination on all Y public and private streets shall be between 0.15 average footcandles and 0.40 average footcandles (measure on the street). ii. The uniformity of illumination ratio shall be between 4:0 and 10:1. iii. Cut-off light distribution luminaires will be utilized. Findings: The specific fixtures will meet all the above standards as a part ` of the construction documents, 2. Arterial and Collector Streets y Street lighting standards for arterial, and collectors . . �' shall be determined by the City Manager, who may require an independent engineering study to determine the appropriate lighting system. 1 Findings: Not applicable. All streets are residential streets. -20- . . 3. Public Pathways and Accessways ` } Low level lighting of less than. 0.3 average foot • - ` candles; and with a maximum uniformity of : . illuminating ratio not to exceed 20:1, shall be .; required unless the applicant can show that no night use of such facilities is planned. • 4 Findings: Not applicable. No night uses are planned, 4. Parking Lots Findings: Not applicable. No parking lots within development. Section 6.020 Transit System: Standards for Approval • 1. All major developments are required to provide facilities to serve multiple-passenger transit. a. The extent of the facilities required for a • "° particular site shall be determined based upon an analysis of: 4 0.; i. Existing :and projected adjacent transit facilities. ii. Proximity off bus routes. iii. Proposed development. iv. Expected patronage. i b. Hard surfaced pedestrian paths shall be provided to connect the development with: i. The nearest adjacent multiple-passenger 4.0 , _ • exchange facilities, or id. To adjacent paths which lead to nearest loading/unloading facilities. c. Transit facilities may be installed on site in public right-of-way, at the discretion of the City Manager. ; Findings: Sidewalks will be provided within the proposed project which will connect with existing sidewalks leading to the nearest bus M; stop. s Section 7.020 Parking and Loading: Standards for Approval `d 1. The dimensions and layout of parking spaces and the number of parking spaces specified for each type of • use are the minimum standards. Up to 50% of the total parking requirement may be provided in compact car spaces. 2. All required parking shall be off-street. .34 -21- «, •,1 _ • ti a ' e♦ e , 1 t• • . Parking may be located in a re in LOC 44.382 and LOC 52.480$uired yard, except where tr 3. Desi0 . . . gn. shall shall notinterfere r f `ethat the parking of any vehicle of any other vehicle.with the parking or maneuvering .1 Findings: Off-street parking spaces will be a minimumof 4 spaces per home site. Section 8.020 Park and Open Space: Standards for Approval a • 1. All major residential development and office campus development shall P a provide open space of park land approved by the City in an rggre sited to at least 20 percent of theoss g amount equal area of the development. Commercial and ind vial develop- ment shall provide open sp.n;:e nr by the City in an park land approved aggregate amount e 15 percent of the gross land area of the development.qual to at • Findings: Plans and calculations show that just over 20% of the site will be dedicated open space. Section 8.020 Landscaping, Screening g and Buffering:g Standards for Approval °1• Commercial and industrial development, other than in the Office Campus Zone, shall of net buildable area in landscapingde 15 percent and/or open space, including courtyards, planters espaliers, etc. Office ► raised beds, ' per developments shall provide 20 percent. Findings: Not applicable. 2. Multi-family and mobile home , park development must provide 20 percent of net buildable area in landscaping in addition to the park requirements. and open space Findings: Not applicable. 3. Public and semi-public use must meet 1 or 2 depending on use. above, Findings: Not applicable, 4. All development abutting streets shall provide street iio . .• . . , trees at the proper spacing for the species, ll .# slit- ` - • Findings: Street trees will be installed as required. 5. Parking lot plantings shall be designed to allow surveillance of the lot from the street at several points. • Findings: Not applicable. W 6: Screening and buffering shall be required to: a. Mitigate noise, lighting or other impacts from adjacent • transportation routes or dissimilar uses. b. Screen public or private utility and storage areas; and parking lots. c. As a separation between dissimilar uses. Findings: Not applicable. 7. The following standards apply to PD and cluster developments. a. Lots which are located on the perimeter of a • development located in R-0, R-3, R-5, R-7.5, R-10 . or R-15 zone, and which are adjacent to lots in an R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zone upon which are constructed single-family dwellings, may be not less than 75% of the minimum lot area per unit of the adjacent zone.• •' Findings: The plans show that this standard is met, b. Housing types located on the perimeter lots described in a.shall be single-family,zero lot line M r or duplex dwellings, except three attached dwelling units may be placed on three lots which abut at a common point with the middle lot being a corner lot. Findings: The lots are for single-family homes, .. ' c. In a PD or cluster development located in R-0, R-3 or R-5 zone which abuts a R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zone and which does not contain separate lots for the dwelling units,the building setbacks shall meet the requirements of the zone in which the development is located. Findings: Not applicable (site is R•10), • 8. Group care homes which include paved outdoor recreationalspace shall provide screening for adjacent properties. -23- . • yy t r,: :� rP Findings: Not applicable. Section 10.020 Fences: Standards for Approval 1. The maximum height of a fence or hedgo used as a fence within a residential front yard or side yard forward of the front building line shall not exceed 48 inches with the exception that fences at intersections shall comply with LOC 50.350. ns 2. Fences shall be a maximum of six feet in height in residential zones. Fence he4^;hts in other districts shall be determined by the ,vvelopment Review ' Board during review of proposals, or by the City Mager for minor development proposals. ' Findings: MI proposed fences will comply with the above standards. ' Section 11.020 Drainage Standard for Major Development: Standards for Approval 1. All drainage management measures,whether located on private or public property, shall be accessible at all times for City inspection. When these measures have been accepted by the City for maintenance, , , °} access easements shall be provided at sued a width to allow access my maintenance and inspection equipment. Findings: The preliminary plans show that all drainage facilities are either within or adjacent to public right-of--way or have easements • provided for access and maintenance. • • ` 2. Storm Water Runoff Quality. All drainage systems shall include engineering design features to minimize pollutants such as oil, suspended solids, objectionable material in storm water runoff. other ' Findings: The drainage system shown on the preliminary utilityplan ' • includes oil/water separators (Exhibit 5), 3. Drainage Pattern Alteration. Development shall be L conducted in such a manner that alterations of drainage patterns (streams, ditches, swales, and surface rur,lff) do not adversely affect other properties. Findings: Not applicable. •,6^•- -24- 1 • .►, • ♦ !, • A 1 Ad t f, • • • a, 1J.4 4 , 4.' 4. Storm Water Detention. Sufficient storm water ' �'' detention shall be provided to maintain runoff rates at their natural undeveloped levels for all anticipated :i and durations of r ainfall necessaryntensjlties detention to accomplish this requandirementprovide. Findings: Detention will be provided within the faciity Farms. The Drainage calculations are foud as proposed in Pfeifer • 5. Required Storm Water Management Measures. The applicant shall provide sufficient storm water management measures to meet the above storm water runoff requirements. The applicant shall provide desig n of these measures taking into account existing drainage patterns, soil properties (such as erodability and permeability) and site topography. Findings:g As mentioned in the responses above, the design of the drainage system takes into account existing drainn e properties and site topography o a h drainage, g patterns, soil ,: i Section 12.020 Drainage Standard for Minor Development Findings:g Not applicable to this project, i • SectioL. 13.020 Weak Foundation Soils: Findings: Not applicable, `r Section 14.020 Utility Standards: Standards for Approval . 1. Utilities Required. The following utilities, whether on or off site, shall be provided to all development in the City of Lake Oswego, in accordance with City Standards, Plans, and Specifications. a. Sanitary sewer scythes b. Water distribution systems c. Sidewalks and any special pedestrian ways and • bicycle paths d. Street name signs e. Traffic control signs and devices f. Street lights, which shall be served from an underground source of power tJ' and service facilities, as , g. Underground utility h. Streets • i. Provision for underground television cable a The City Manager may require utility design be prepared by a registered engineer, . -25- • - r - -• . I'; ' i • Findings: The preliminary plans show the preliminary design of the sanitary sewer, water distribution, sidewalks, bicycle paths, and ' streets. The other items, street name signs, traffic control signs and devices, street lights, underground utility and service facilities and provide for underground television cable will be r . • provided for in the construction plans and specifications. 2. Easements or right-of way for utilities and associated Y� and related facilities shall be provided by the property owner. Easements for anticipated future utilities or extensions may be required by the City ., Manager. v`... Findings: As indicated on the prelimina ry ry utility plan, all public utilities will be located within the public right-of-way or within easements of adequate width to allow access and maintenance. 3. Sanitary Sewers shall be installed to serve the development and to connect the development to 7 existing mains. Findings: The preliminary utility plan shows that sanitary sewer cab be . • provided to the development through a connection to the existing sanitary sewer main located within easements to the east or along the south property line. M .> Design shall take into account the capacity P t3'and grade to allow for desirable future extension beyond the ° development, and where required by the City Manager, extended to the upstream property line to allow for such future extension. , Findings: Not applicable. 5. All sanitary sewers and appurtenant structures shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the ,v City of Lake Oswego Standards plans and Specific- ations, and shall include, but not be limited to, such items as: • • i. Pipe size and materials ii. Manholes ii. Clea.nouts iv, $ackfill requirements • v. Service laterals Findings: The preliminary utility plan shows the intent of the layout of the system. The construction plans will be prepared :n • conformance with City of Lake Oswego Standard Plans and Specifications, • -26- . '' ., , i • 6. All development shall be served by service lines,main \r water lines and fire hydrants which are connected to City mains or the water mains of water districts . which provide service within the City. • e es Findings: The preliminary utility plan shows provision of water service to the entire development with connection to existing City water mains within Glacier Lily Street or the easement that exists along the south property line. 7. Design of water system improvements shall take into account provision for extension beyond the } development to adequately grid or loop the City system. :U„ Findings: Not applicable. 8. One water service line shall be provided to each lot in a development, or if the development does not • • include lots, to each building in the development. . The system shall be designed to supply fire flow requirements of LOC Chapter 45. " Findings: The preliminary utility plan shows that each lot will be provided ,' with water service. The construction plans will be designed to provide adequate fire flow per LOC Chapter 45 Utility Standard, Section 16.020 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control: Standards for Approval 1. All developments shall be designed to minimize the disturbance of natural topography, vegetation, and soils. Findings: The preliminary ry grading plan shows that the natural design of the project minimizes the disturbance of natural topography, vegetation, and soils. The proposed density of development is • lower than what is allowed per the zoning, This reduction in the number of houses to be constructed will reduce the disturbance of natural topography, vegetation, and soils, • 2. Designs shall minimize cuts and fills. .. Findings: As mentioned above, the reduced density and the design of the roadway to match the topography as close as possible results in the cuts and fills on the site also being reduced, 3. Cuts and fills shall conform to the minimum require- ments of LOC Chapter 45. -27- . ti U Findings: The construction plans will be prepared (and reviewed by City staff) to conform to LOC Chapter 45. 0 . .1 4. Not applicable. 5. Cuts and Fills. On land with slopes in excess of 12 percent, cuts and fills shall be regulated in accordance with LOC Chapter 45 as follows: d t N V..V a. Toes of cuts and fills shall, be set back from. boundaries of separate ownerships at least three feet, plus one-fifth of the vertical heights of the cut or fill. Where a variance is required from that requirement, slope easementm shall be provided. b. Cuts shall not remove the toe of slope where a severe potential landslide or erosion hazard exists (as defined in this standard). c. Any structural fill shall be designed registered engineer,in accordance with standard engineering practice; the engineer tify , that the fill has been constructed designed ceS and in accordance with the provisions of LOC Chapter 45. d. Retaining walls shall constructed in accordance with Section 2308(b) of the Oregon State • Structural Specialty Code. • Findings: a. Not applicable. f- b. Not applicable. c. All a engineering fills will be placed in accordance with , s practices. On-site observation and certification will be provided for any structural fills, ; 4 ` d. Not applicable. 6. Roads shall be the minimum width necessary to provide safe vehicle access,minimize cut and fill,and provide positive drainage control, all in accordance with LOC Chapter 44. ` 0 . . -28- • • 17` r 11 ' r i1 e,' 1 I S �.'�- i • •" n . ! -- ..!'. a • Findings: The road has been designed in close coordination with the City • of Lake Oswego staff persons. As shown on the preliminary plans, they have been designed to minimum width to provide • safe vehicle access, minimize cut and fill, and provide positive • drainage control. 7. Not applicable. Section 17.020 Flood Plain: Findings: Not applicable to this project. 18.020 Access: Standards for Approval • 1. Every lot shall abut a street for a width of at least 25 feet. 2. Access design shall be based on the following five criteria: a. Topography b. Traffic volume to be generated by the development. c. Classification of the public street from which the access is taken(residential, collector or arterial). d. Traffic volume presently carried by such street. •• e. Projected traffic volumes. • 3. Direct permanent access from a development to an • arterial street is prohibited where an alternate access is either available or is expected to be available. A temporary access may be allowed. 4. Direct access from a development or a structure to a • residential street is required unless such is not available. 5. The City may require shared access with a neighboring site or an extension of residential streets '' across adjacent properties to provide access to the development if necessary to prevent adverse impacts • on traffic flow. .a 6. If no satisfactory access from a public street to a development is available, the City shall require postponement of the development until such time as , a satisfactory access becomes available. • Findings: Review of the plans and narrative indicate that all of the above conditions are satisfied, -29. •1/ See the attached site plans and engineering plans. 19.020 Site Circulation Standards - Driveways and Private • �, Streets: Standards for Approval - Major Development `' • Only 1. Private street standards. Findings: There are no private streets proposed. , 2. a. Only one driveway per lot is permitted unless the lot frontage is greater than 75 feet. For those lots, a circular driveway may be approved by the City Manager upon finding that the additional intersection will not cause a traffic hazard. b. Driveways on corner lots shall be a minimum distance of 30 feet along the property line measured from the property corner adjacent to the street intersection or as approved by the City Manager. i Findings: The standards above will be met as individual homes are built. See Utility and Site Flans. Driveway location is dictated by safety standards and topographical realities, All City standards can and will be met. There will not be any private streets within this development, 20.020 Site Circulation Standards-Bikeways and Walkways: Standards for Approval 1. Bikeways shall be public. • 2. Walkways may be either private or public, depending on their location. 3. Bikeways and public walkways shall be located either in a public easement or over land dedicated to the public. The design of bikeways shall conform to City standards. • 4. Walkways and bikeways shall tie to public streets : a at locations determined by the City Manager. -30- Findings: Review of the plans documents that the above standards will be satisfied. See Engineering and Site Plans. • Sidewalks within the plat will meet or exceed City standards and the locations are shown on the site plans and site street sections. • V i4 • ' y t f • • • • :r • -31- .• ,y . - . VI. COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING ORDINANCE RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM AND LOW DENSITY • . r 48.205 Maximum Density, Density Bonus 1.(a) The maximum density for each site in the R-7.5,R-10, and R-15 zones, ex pressed in nu**tber of dwelling units per net developable acre is computed by dividing .t net developable acreage by the minimum lot area per unit and rounding clown to the nearest whole number. (b) The actual density allowed on a site will be determined at - / the time of development review, pursuant to LOC Chapter 49. Maximum density will be allowed to the extent that facts presented to the hearings body show that development at that density can occur within requirements set forth in the Development Standards. 2. The maximum density in the R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 zones may be increased if specifically allowed by the terms of this chapter or LOC: Chapter 49. The maximum density bonus will be determined by the specific h?` applicable Code provision. However, the total number of allowable units shall not exceed by more than 25% the number of units allowed in the zone, or allowed by the special use housing provisions. Findings: The maximum allowable density was computed by taking the grass acreage (78,764 sq. ft.) and subtracting the area proposed t 4 for road right-of-way (7,440 sq. ft,) for a net of 71,324 sq. ft. By1) . ' ... dividing the net developable area by the minimum lot area per • unit (10,000 sq. ft.) the maximum allowable density of seven units is obtained. ' No density bonus is being requested as part of this application. • 48.210 Lot Size: Lot Dimensions; Density Transfer . 1• Except as otherwise provided in this section, the minimum lot area for each dwelling unit and minimum lot dimensions for each zone are as follows: Lot Width at Zone Lot Area Per Unit Building Line Lot Depth R-7.5 7500 sq. ft. 50' 100' R-10 00 10, 0 sq. ft. 65' 100' , R-15 15,000 sq. ft. 80' 100' 2. Lot sizes and dimensions may be reduced for projects reviewed as planned developments pursuant to LOC 48.470 to 48.485. However, the overall density allowed on the site may not be exceeded except as allowed by LOC 48.205(2). " -32- R S ' O R . 1, Finding s: MI proposed lots meet the lot depth reco;:;cement of 100 feet. Four of the proposed lots are smaller thaw„ 10,000 square feet with the smallest being 8,752 square feet. In addition, lots 2 and 3 are narrower than 65 feet wide at the building line. Lot 2 is 58 feet wide at the building line and Lot 3 is 57 feet wide. Both the lot area and lot width reductions are permitted on projects reviewed as planned developments. The requested reductions do not allow the project to exceed the overall allowed density. 48.215 Setbacks ..'• ' • 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, or LOC t f 48.535, the following setacks are required in each zone as listed: Yard Adjacent to a Street Other Zone Side Yards Rear Yards Front Side R-7.5 20' 20' on arterial 5' 25' R-10 20' and collector 5' minimum width 25' streets, 10' on total combined local streets minimum 15' R-15 20' 10' 25' • 2. Zone lot line units must comply with all required setbacks' except for the area of the common wall or walls. Setbacks for a planned development will be determined at the time of review pursuant to LOC 48.470 to 48.485. The maximum 'setback that can be required by the Board is 35'. Findings: The only modification to the above setbacks is a reduction for y , the sideyards of Lots 2 and 3, The requested reduction would •allow a 5-foot setback on both sides of the two lots, ' 48.220 Height of Structures No structure shall exceed 35' in height. Findings; All structures will meet the height restrictions imposed by this section, ' 48.225 Lot Coverage .:' - 1. Lot coverage shall not exceed the following maximums: Zone % Coverage • R-7.5 35% for interior lot, 40% for corner lot R-10 30% • R"15 30% I -33- .4 ,., . . , • t, Findings: The lot coverage restrictions of the R-10 district will be complied with. fI PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY 48-470 Purpose, Applicability ,, 1. The purpose of the Planned Development Overlay is to provide greater flexibility in development of land, encourage variety in the development pattern of the community, encourage mixed uses in a total area which could not otherwise be efficiently and aesthetically developed as an ante P grated whole, encourage developers to use a creative approach in land development,conserve natural land features, facilitate a desirable aesthetic and efficient use of open space, create public and private common open spaces, and flexibility and variety in . the location of improvements on lots with diversity of the use of land. 2. Use of the Planned Development Overlay (PD) is allowed in any zone. Use of the District Overlay is required in any zone for a residential development proposal of 20 or more units or four or more acres that is classified as a major development pursuant to the terms of LOC Chapter 49. • i' Findings: Utilization of the Planned Development Overlay for Casebeer Heights will allow efficient utilization and will facilitate desirable aesthetic and efficient use of open space. 48.475 Procedures • A_ ' 2. A request for a PD overlay for a project that will contain r only one phase may be considered by the Development Review Board. No ODPS shall be required but the requirements of subsection (1) of this section for the adoption of zone requirements shall be complied with. 3. In considering an application for a PD overlay the hearing body shall apply the height, FAR,lot coverage,use, and density requirements of the underlying zone and, if applicable, the setback requirements of LOC 48.150(5). The FAR and lot coverage requirements may be applied with reference to the project as a whole and not on a lot by lot basis. The remaining requirements of the • underlying zone may be varied without the necessity of meeting the , requirements of LOC 48.650 - 48.690 (variances). • • • Findings: The proposed development will contain only one phase. As mentioned previously, the setback and lot width at the building lot requirements for Lot 2 and 3 are being requested to be varied, 410 .,, .34- • ., • - - _ - d 1 k 48.480 Special Requirements 1. If common private open space or common buildings are included in the plan, a homeowners'association or similar organization must be established to provide for maintenance of the facilities or open space. The by-laws of such organization shall be included in the application. • Findings: A homeowners' association will be established to provide for the • maintenance of the proposed open space tracts, 49.301 Required Contact with Recognized Neighborhood Association and Surrounding Property Owners For all major development activities and minor partitions: - 1. The applicant shall, prior to submittal of an application to the City, . contact the neighborhood association within which the proposed development lies via certified, return receipt mail to the chairperson or other designated contact person. The receipt shall be included in the application submittal. • Findings: A certified letter was mailed to Alan Berger of the Holly Orchard Neighborhood Association on February 7, 1991. The receipt is enclosed as Exhibit E. 2. The letter shall briefly describe the proposed development and its location, and invite the association to request a meeting to discuss the • proposal in more detail. The meeting should occur within four weeks of the date when the letter is mailed. Findings: A copy of the letter mailed to the Holly Orchard Neighborhood Association, all property owners of record, and renters within • 300 feet of the subject property, is enclosed as Exhibit F, The meeting was scheduled for February 27, 1991, 3. In addition to contact with the recognized or forming association, the applicant shall send a non-certified letter to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed site. This letter shall describe the • ' • proposed development and its location and invite individuals to request a , meeting to discuss the proposal in more detail. The meeting should occur within four weeks of the date when the letter is mailed. The applicant shall submit an affidavit of mailing within the mailing label list of all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed site, with the application. , Findings: Notice of the meeting scheduled to discuss the proposed project was mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed site, An affidavit of mailing and mailing label list are enclosed as Exhibits D and B. • -35- 4. . e•f n 4. The applicant shall provide and post notice at the site at a location which is viewable from a public right-of-way. The notice shall be posted on the same date when the letter to the neighborhood association is mailed. The notice shall state that the site may be subject to a development (subdivision, variance, conditional use, etc.) and the telephone number ,. where the applicant may be reached for additional information about the proposal. the applicant shall complete an affidavit of posting for the notices, which shall be submitted with the application. , Finding: W4 A notice was posted on the subject property on February 7, 1991. The information included on the notice was identical to that included on the notice mailed to the surroundingproperty P P tY 4-7 owners and neighborhood association. An affidavit of posting is A. enclosed as Exhibit C. b. The applicant shall provide written verification of the responses of the • neighborhood association and/or property owners within 300 feet. Evidence shall be in the form of minutes from any meetings held, written comments from property owners or association members and a record of verbal . , - •i comments received. Findings: Minutes of the meeting of February 27, 1991 are attached as Exhibit G. In addition, comments made by phone are enclosed as Exhibit H. One written response from Paul and Sandi Zimmerman is enclosed as Exhibit I. 410 ' 4 • • • .°I • ' . .• • T 1 , -36- • l '{ I , , « 1 VII. CONFORMANCE wIT]Q®THElEtAl']PLICAlgLE LAB OSV1TEGO ORDINANCE ��• ' PROVISIONS CHAPTER 57 - SOLAR ACCESS An analysis of the solar characteristics of the proposed lots within Casebeer Heights is found as Exhibit H. The analysis reveals that requirements and a fifth lot meets the solar building line opt on QHaviet n basic five of the proposed six lots qualify as "solar lots" excess the 80% requirements of the code, r p 1 .. ' . 0 • Yffi. SUMMARY The proposed Casebeer Heights Planned Development provides an appropriate utilization of the subject j ;^perty, All applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies, Development Standards and Zoning Ordinance Standards are being met. The applicant and property owners respectfully request approval of this proposal by the Design Review Board. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 411 • -38- 0 0 . SOLAR ADS l"EVALUA'l'!ON _ __ BASIC RI:(Z1111t1 11iN I'LOTS Sot.Ait 111.1Xi I.INI!LOPS »- - EXEMPT LOPS __ ___ ti--- - �lal ting N/S Dimension Chic-minion Existing Strut Block N Lot N In Peet In l)egroes 1)I0anoe OrlentatIon 20% Exemption I)cnoity/Coal Amenities Slunk Pattern Notes I "il0 < I ,_ . 3 121 Z1 4 15G. < I ' 156 < 1 - --a> ; MN 'a'r" TOTAL N of Lots b G LOI'S Heeling Iloilo Requirement.• .�. re! N Solar Lots i 5 LOTS Meeting Solar(holding Lino.. I y '. W X 76 Solar Lot d 83 .t.. LOTS Requiring1'orforutauoo Standouts►1 O _ tt ✓ _ LOTS tieing 20% Exemption.. d 1.01'S Exempted for Cause., • . . • . ra 1' .y r S;: { v, I • • • Yb . , T ♦ � •`rd '•f { i . ♦ T' $ 1 b , Y + • • y, h • 0• • STORMWATER • VOLUME • CALCULATJONS , • , ., . , • ,,. ,,..._.,„ . „..---- . , „„--- .,, ......... -„,„..„ . ,....,...„ ,,,..,.....-/,-..----.....,, .. ...... e,e ,... ,,,....„ ..„.,..„...,..—.._,...., . . .. . . II ,,.... • • • • • • • • • • • • I. • • • a` +n a EXHIBIT I PI) • • .h ', • 1' \I U • PI, u r • • • • • • • • y J fI 1 a • A "" r ' , ' 1 , 1� RUNOFF RATE WORKSHEET Project Name: /` • y City File Number: Computed By: �/„� �� Date: _!�-_ I. REQUIRED RELEASE RATE (1 r Storm) ' 1 • 0-Yea Total Site Area„ 2• Existing•�.. 9 Land Use. tot---=-C act stin 3. General Site Slope " •��^ ��' . . . . = ' 4• Runoff _ Factor . • . • . . ' • (use enclosed table) 5• Longest Travel Route of e :1st n'� Runoff, 6• Drop of Runoff alon • . . . . . . . . . • • ./--- feet g Travel Route. , , , , , . • . . . . . . ?6 7. Condition (overland flow. feet 7t channel, 8• Time of Concentratio , T pipe, etc. ) .r--- �;'-� (Use nomograph) . . , . . .., • ,.' (5 minute minimum ) 9.4.--,:. , 4110 Rainfall Intensity, • 1 • • • Y . . • 1 • , C . . . . . c min• (use precipitation table)or �' Year, Storm V Peak �• / • Y 10. Runoff Rate, Q_CIA • • ` I=-----46 in hr (line 1 x line 4 x line g) _ II. ^ Developed Site Runoff Factor • • • ' • • •Q� `�. � + ----_., c f s� Impermeable Area. • 11. . . . ` • • `Ai __76. ac. 12. Permeable Areal Runoff Factor for Pe ` Permeable Areas p - ac. 13. (use enclosed table) . 14. Composite Runoff Factor p�"•- (line 11) X (line 12) (0.9 / line 1) + X (line 13 / line 1 15. Site Area (line 1) X comp `- -- ` '''' III. Detention Ccomp (line 14) , , , Y , • r=� ntion Volume Required . , r 16. From Detention Volume Work Sheet. , . . . . . . . .Vol•- `'� • `1` =,`_�"cuft t • , li DETENTION VOLUME tcOR:<ShEET Project Name: C ;:reT.L.,/// � ` • City File Number: . .A. . . ' . .B. . � . .C. . . . . I . .D. . • .E. . . . E . .F. . . . G STORM 50-yr AREA X INFLOW RELEASE STORAGE UET. VOL. y,' TIME inten C comp. B X C l4.ne 10 D E F X A X 60 .,mins . in/hr line 15 cfs cfs cfs cu. ft. t • 5.00 3.43 7� 8,'C/.� 6.00 3 .14 I 7.00 2.91 1 1 12/, 63 �� '7L/ 26 • 8 .00 2.72 1 '��--, 7G' // 7 "4- 7 /ter 9.00 2.5F 1 / %, 'C? l /,A 7 g/ 10.00 2.42 ��, , �� © ^- r' ��', - � 11.00 2.30 � g, c.... 3�?� ,c- 4r. / f e 2 / 12,00 2.2 I ./,-••..:.) Q, c / e /o ,r `. • r 13.00 2.11 j ,�j , ' 14 .00 2.02 15.00 1 .94 16.00 1.86 17.00 1 .79 18 .00 1 .73 19.00 1.67 20.00 1 . 61 21 .00 1 . 56 , • 22.00 1 ,52 23.00 1 .48 I " • 24.00 1.44 • 25.00 1 .40 P1, 30.00 1 . 24 35.00 1. 13 40.00 1 .04 _2- + ill, ' '''' is • • „ z: • ,• ' .. .'•'..`-'')("•-), .0**.:•11.•°".•`..f-.:1 ..0* :)%e*:1 r...t.tr74".e's1=7,7;4.1.A 1...,/e///e.,f/4/dif C... ��/I IrftrG":'7 %lli,-„ Ir: r a•. N•rrr-14•I v,/" /fo'r0 pa „% 4/ /D /6 •/M.4 /p ?2 6 2 2,:Ir.,. ;; 2 ‘ c) ,%/ql) v.I P2Fy^r/ j a i y e ..1 • I • ;ti . • a I ; Ci••V.r.rwthnQ r• . - ak 6evei a e-t Srncta PROJECT .. • 6sra P xreMq ' JOB M O unCa4gl ,• / ` •r _ p 0 p a q : 'E 4 t 5 p r b Su<venrq /�� p .v c -...4 CK/ BY DATE �l '/ PAGE OF u. I r t r , 1 v /J1 • ", I' 4 1, • • ORIFICE DIAMETER WORKSHEET • Project Name: L,�.:Sev ��^1'" f r ,'' City rile Number:_ v',f� i da Computed By: ,�'' �Fr. i� ^/9_ I� Date. ? I • 1 • \. PROVIDE SKETCH BELOW OF OUTLET STRUCTURE +••,� `• �r^ ,/�/� p�/ rF ;'','.� /r• `•'�•�� .%/"" 1•` • r/' • • • r - r b Orifice Formula: Q , CA (2gh) •5 Given: C = 0.61 g - 32. 2 Design Q = 6/12 c.f.s. h = '7 Z feet of head � '�dr�� r�:r-` Solve for A: A - Q /( C (2gh) .5) A = ,• �' `'� /( 0. 61 (2 x 32. 2 x ✓i /3 ) .5, (head) A = ' ••'�- ' .sq. ft. (orifice area) Solve for D: A = pi (R) 2 ( / 3.14) • 5 = ft' (area) D = 2 x R x 12 = inches -3- i 1 `�' /%/.5�. {rr ,+%'.red"r...r. (,7 ,, s ) = , g z,a rr ` Le--,,74� ,,1 .:-Z a74 4.-- r�47-1 rI/rG , 4 ,00E • • OREGON STATE HIGHWAY DIVISION `• HYDRAULICS MANUAL Jrd:t• RUNOFF FACTORS FOR STORMSEWERS rage: 8-39 • rt'.rr01't•fl: i�� eller live Owe TABLE 8.5 RUNOFF FACTORS FOR STORM SEWERS • Flat Rolling Hilly 2?6 • 10% Over 10% Pavement & Roofs ., 0.90 a Earth Shoulders p �0 0.90 0.50 Drives & Walks 0.S0 0,75 0.80 0.85 Gravel Pavement 0.50 City Business Areas 0.50 0.S5 0S5 0.60 Apartment Dwelling Areas 0.50 0.60 0.7 0. 0 p `I5 0.,50 p • Suburban, Normal Residential 5 ;5 Dense Residential Sections 0,60 . •,' Lawns, Sandy Soil 0,65 0.70 Lawns,.Heavy Soil 0.10 0.150.20 ' Grass Shoulders 0.17 0'22 0.35 Side Slopes, Earth 0.25 0'25 0 �5 ' • "f 0.60 0,60 �''; Side Slopes, Turf • 0.60 0.30 0.30 0.30 Median Areas, Turf 0,25 Cultivated Land, Clay and Loam 0. 0.60 • OSO 0.55 0.60 Cultivated Land, Sand & Gravel 0.25 r Industrial Areas, Light - p`'0 0.35 • �0 Industrial Areas, Heavy 0,60 0.80 Parks & Cemctarles 0.90 u 0.10 Playgrounds 0.25 Woodland and Forests 0.20 0.30 Meadows & 0,10 0,15 p �p 'Pasture Land 0,25 0,30 0.35 . Unimproved Areas • 0,10 0.20 0.30 • • • . F , A • I I 1 ♦ dY' ♦ • • LS�O� • AT N 45° 29' W 122° 42' 30" ( FANNO CREEK STUDY AREA ) /NTENS/TY OF PREC/P/TAT/ON FOR /0 YEAR STORM • (Intensity in/hr) Q '1 2 •3 4 .5 6 7 .8 .9 5 12.60 2.58 2. . 2.50 2.48 55 253 2.45 12.43 2.40 2.38, • 6 I 2.36 2.35 2.33 2, . 0 2.28 2 I32 23 26 12,25 I 2.23 222 7 1220 2.19 12 (7 2.16 12.14 2.13 12111 2.10 2,08I 2,07 8 I 2.06 2.041 2. . ,01 2.00 • 03 I 202 2 11.99I 1.98 1.97 1.95 9 1.94 1.93 1,92 1.91 1,90 1.89 1,88 1.8'7 1,86 1,85 10 1.84 11.83 1,82 1.81 1.80 1.80 1,79 1.78 1.77 1,76 • 11 1,75 1.74 1.73 1.72 1,71 1.70 1.70 1.69 1.68 1.6 I8 12 111.671 1.67 11.66 11.64 1.6L65 4 1.63 1.62H62I 1.61 13 1.60 1.60 (.59 1.58 (.57 1156 (,56' 1.55 1,54 1.54 14 I 1,53 1,53 1.52 1,51 1.51 1,50 1,50 1.49 1.48 1.4 °•. 1,47 8, ' 15 1.47 1,46 11,46 1.45 1,44 1,44 1,43 1,42 1.42 • 16 1.41 1,40 1.40 •1.39 1,38 1.38 1.37 1.37 1,37 1,36 • 17 1,36 1,36 1.35 L35 1,34 1,34 '1.33 1.33 (.32 1,32 , • 18 1.31 1.31 1.30 1,30 (129 I (.29 1.29 1,28 1.28 127 ., • 19 1.27 1.27 1.26 1126 1,25 125 125 1,24 1.24 1,23 20 II 1,23 11.23 I 1.22 11122 1122 1121 I i !1.21 1,2 11. 120I120III6ILH5I Min. 22 23 24 25 ,�` I• I • 6 27 28 29 1,15 1,12 1.09 1;06 1.04 1 1.01 99 .97 �... Min. 30 35 4 , 40 45 50 60 90 120 .95 .86 ,79 174 169 162 149 .42 SY:1" ✓.4 �.rs ref.: N0AA At!os No. 2 i , . • • I-b ". • • H (FT ) • - 500 400• Tc (MIN.) MPLE .•_— 300 — 200 Height -z100 Ft. — I- - 200 Length=3,000 Ft. - 150 _- 150 Time of concentration=14Min• _ 'o too L (FT.) -.60 • u > ......... \ lo,aoo = 60 o = cm 50 \+ \ E �- z = 40 a, z 40 �` �.. 5,000 o - '� 30 30 o. W Note a `� 3,000 _ 1- 20 Use nomograph Tc for natural M — 2,000 \ w - 20 2 basins with well defined chonnels u - ''� 15 1,500 for overland flow on bore ''''''--..,...zz 1- l0 ear th,ond for mowed grass road- .- 1,000 J``lo o side chonnels - u_ 8 For overland flow, grassed sur- w o • u_ faces, multiply T by2. J — '•u -_ o c ��- 6 +. ' 5 For oVerland flow, concrete or = 500 �, \.5. 4 asphalt surfaces, multiply Tc _� ---•_ '- LI by 0.4, x 300 � 4 !. G.] 3 For concrete channels, multiply Tc by 0,2. — 200 2 _ 3 150 -- 2 -- 100 - 1 Based on study by P.Z. Kirpich, Civil c'ncineering, Vo1.10, No.6, June 1940, p. 362 . Fig, I-4 -- Time of concentration of small draL'zage basins, .4 - -7 A1,2 (�jra S SG'rycce.) _ E , /�. • p .A r r •••a a s ,.d..ir,—•.w.�'}hY�.f-W• •• r•n.4rr•r.•-tee • • ' • • �+ . .• • •I• .•s., a..I I.•. '.4 wlrr•••• •• • • • ... _ `'ri . .._ ,.—,. - ,. _,-mac_..- -. . - .-.,•»•.:f:l..c,..L::-:.e:•rT.:�.•1.). ....�.3_.W�Lr:.•.•�:Ml ,r t • •d _ _ .�.. .. r- �.r_r . .� ., ,.�.'.y_ ww..rny;eL'M.•i�'..afl3..•,_ ,ra...•..i....�. 0 `"K'-° - 11.AP' iz• . /ai/ Si,. .4P.koi0f"►ME4JoS t a • a' t I Vt 1 I.a 4 AW. PI rt. ZeJL. . Aegattr tki rim .st.g.e.vige. rr it i ... 9 7s �rr��.rrrr�r • `AV - S.C5P• • lG 3125O Q' 111. �p r Ali• �,� m • • Wl.►!l i "V4'-0 7 ae•Z-K. . •• • t . . . • I --'key°($ c.a.R.R.I.44,6 elo+.-i"Ct,a.v.) • 14,1 6A6.t 14/.krrdi,4 7 • • 1 _ I zi .t d•L•.a�,?�,•Cn IV- _ fi • • +4 ts.6.4z6 a12daG f 141r21t•a l knuer d am7---- �r �. o�..r r.�s •.aY.� rr,e�••r rem �.• r0'f.{(Lf �/ 2 2 / DETENTION POND INLET. STRUCTURE • 0 PROJECT NAME: • FILE NUMBER: DATE: 3—/9— 9/ = i0Q - 24.5/Rv 'Where: 7-',;:p=Required phosphorous remomal effeciency in percent. :z=Average site runoff coefficient. 6, VS"G © a l3 C,- , o?6 cr- =. '= (0.7 X Al) + (0.3 X A2) + (0,7 X A3) + (0.05 X A4) + (0.00 X AS ) Fraction Acres of Site i • 0 A = total site area Al = street area to drains A2 = street area to males 0 • A3 = parking area ''==�a'G roof& ��.— c. J A4 = pervious vegetated areas /_? !_ 9 AS = area retained on-site 0 ,,,---. Rv = i 2 2,frr ✓ Rp -. J a • . ' . il .-...YrARM M t'"r PFEIFER FARMS LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON SINGLE FAMILY TRAC ` • fora Heritage Development Co. NOVEMBER 9, 1989 OWNER/DEVELOPER By;RGH OTAK, INCORPORATED • ON-SITE STORM.WATER DETENTION PROCEDURE . „ U • 1• MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE a. Total Area of Site b. General Slope of Site, in 0/013:20 c. Runoff Factor, C, for Undeveloped Site d. Longest Travel Route of Runoff: 0,30 ' 1. Length, in feet • • 2. Elevation Drop, in feet 1000.00 • } 3. Condition (overland flow, channel, pipe, etc.) 90.00 e. Time of Concentration, Tc (from sheet 2) 1.00 f. Rainfall Intensity, in inches, for 40 Year Storm 2.13 g. Release Rate, 2.13 Q = in CIA, C.F.S. 8,43 .'j 2. DEVELOPED SITE RUNOFF FACTOR h. Impermeable Area, in acres 0 . i I. Permeable Area, in acres 4,4 j. Runoff Factor for permeable areas 8,8 k. Composite Runoff Factor 0,30 I. Site Area 0,60 6,60 • • • • 'liig7A I I . I .. • .,/ • y.; PFEIFER FARMS SINGLE FAMILY TRACT LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON for:Heritage Development Co. NOVEMBER 9, 1989 OWNER/DEVELOPER By:FIGH • OTAK, INCORPORATED ON-SITE STORM WATER DETENTION.PROCEDU1: . DETENTION VOLUME DETERMINATION DURATION TIME INTENSITY FOR _ INFLOW RATES STORED'FMATES DETENTION F • Start at To.' 50 YEAR STORM` VOLUME: •` .: lin Minuets in (in,'hr) in C.F.S. Stored Max. Volume m C.F.S. r. . in C.F.. 5 3.43 21.26 3.14 12.82 3847.30 � 6 19.46 11.03 2.91 18.04 3969.69 • 8. - 2.72 9.60 4032,58 -_...._ 16.86 8.42 9 2.56- _'_._._.. -15.87 043.40 10 - ` ._... .• ...7.43 ..— ....-.. .. 3 «` 2.42 15,00 �401.�,�_,3�2_, 11 2.3042 6.56 3- 3B 12 14.26 5.82 2.20 13.64 3841.60 � , . 132 2.1125.20 3744,58 4`` } 14 13.08 4.64;�. ;•�,• 2.02 12.52 3621.52 15 1,94 4,09 3431,53 16 12.02 3,59 • .• 1.86 11.53 3230.74 3.09 17 1.79 11,09 2969.74 , 18 1.73 10. 2.66 2712,81 r 19 1,77 72 2.29 2470.76 10.35 20 1.61 09.3598 1.92 2184.08 21 1.61 1.54 1852.78 , 22 9,67 1,23 ',r� •; 1,52 9.42 1554,94 23 1.48 0.99 1301,73 77 24 9.17 0.74 1,44 8.93 0,49 1706,06 25 1.40 8.68 706.06 26 1.37 0.24 363,60 Y' 8.48 0.04 27 1,34 8,28 69.92 • 28 1.30 8,08 -0.15 -249.92 29 1,27 7,88 -0.35 -592,38 30 1.24 7.69 -0.55 -958,64 1,22 -0,75 -1348,70 31 7,55 0,89 32 1, 0 7.41 1647.28 -1,02 -1962,22 32 1.17 7.28 •`;+,; 34 1,15 7,14 -1,16 -2293,53 36 35 1,13 7.03 -1.41 -2641,20 1,12 6.92 -2953,16 `•' " 37 1.10 6.81 -1,52 -3278,52 -1,63 -3617,26 38 1.08 396.69 -1,74 ` ,4r 40 1.06. 6.58 -3969,39 104 -1.85 -4334,91 ' r. 6,47 -1.96 4713.81 • P • `Y • t`. e .•i I 1F w J .y, i . ,.Co, ...„. IIYDROLi ' OMPUTATIONS PROJECTI-"IA-.i ..-'1.. I-'.I I. l .CJHEFT �a OF ;y , G • LOCATION r`y t t .t 11,-4% n-, - (:•,„,- "';,,. k-, (•.'1 BY r...i//- DATE.._1L•` 2 C 1'[ ' .RECURRANCE XNT[.RVAL I ,) ,a,-; CROSS REFERENCE CHECKED 13Y DRAINAGE AREA II DRAINAGE AREA — 'v V L PT. TO PT. RUN-OFF COEF 'CENTS 'E Ac Lc I Q SIZE (fps) (I L`. ) MIN. A C 1:, I..I .. 1 f _..s 1.1 —..L, AC �.� r),�.,' i.�•" Ir+r A i.,'7 _— _ * i . AC C 0..4; /'?•__ _ tS, r7 �.,c ,. r, r.,.,.•.... • i`.', — C A (1.2 • C ,•-� ° r - •-•., AC: ,;1,y.' ,,,)i •ti t,V t:.L3 t.••i 1)"lt' 11,` rru.- A • ,..:,.% AC x>.'7 o. -; y, r' IA c.. �. I 0.t ,,.1( /' I r-. ,. �1 C AC _' :,,, 'N►,.t' C • AC A —AC ►z.°` ,' /441, • ` /, �, _.L =, t!• y:.cL' 'i, 1 r,;.7",ti '" r A ,-). ; `. . AC t7-4- v 7 A C AC A . . , C — AC A - C • wy AC h YDROLOGY COMPU'i'11'1'IOI`1S •Z '...,,' .: .' , OtaK &eV.* I2�ac7etral�d �� t U : .. ,...— .''. EC ;,f:,•� (, ',." . t•1 1 v.: ., By 1"°. , i-4 DATE� PROZD iCL [) T3Y LOCATION Ye CROSS REFERENCE �t"i�,?1� _ r___ RLC'.URRANCE INTERVAL -- �— __ _---- --__—----- V L NIIN DRAINAGE 11RIJ11. E Ac to I 5I�Ta ( 1�) DRAINAGE G . .AREA. . —___ RUN—OTT CORr1:ICrN__ '1L'S_ r, ,._____________ /) .�`'•li •"' I1„`•• � �..� ate-, �ram. "� '-"—= f lottl.,,l ; . .. :P. ' - ,,, -------__ - NI ...,..1,_t____.1.-7 1..... :2:------' 1 -:-..-.-*"---":‘; I.C.. .• 1'' i* - _ �_ ) (). 1 • ---- 'ro • • (.i r y .'_� .1-"2"'IVIIN 1117- • 17a ) _,may- , a•..4 • 1..----1:'")L--"--:-/.': ...17.-Lii"'!'L../'‘L.' f).-141‘121-::•d',.. 377: —12j-k.2----.. ' 41..E __ ___ p S • .. y ....l . - :,. . h\ •,y t. iCr.,GC .: 5 am —,j •r• 4,^5 • 3, 13 " S•41 B • . Z( C:-..-..,) f7,^.],1(=./3) .(St fa--) 1 (Sz.7.1e5./3) �a.G ) �. - - = . • ✓�C .,x, /5-N c„7'. PiYi z.� /;.r� rzl s • ',4t:!: '..{ Qso �:. - /7.3 c_`S ` i^�rN dCr-�7rart ,� r r t. t ; 'JS 1' 7`: y . �f-t_t SJ IS oT Somas 111 1 • Q= /7,3 G L/-! - A5 - is.4, c='s• < 17.3 -=s • a • arthaeclurc Com EnQIneenng indsadaAt ndclut PROJECT Land p JnnMq '' JOB N 0. Urbin Deign •� e., A q C.4 s a ::`, PIA Teo SurveYMq B Y=G�`` G K. B Y t ,f s a DATES:24,�� PAGE 9F h! • • • • • d. • • • ti • t • t U • F m • 1 p t1 a 6 • • • -- � _ .. . _. P... - ' �/';' r vt' �Y'• ` is y i - CASEBEER PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING Minutes for February 27, 1991 Meeting ,W. 7:30 p.m. Location: OTAK, Inc. In Attendance: See attached r Purpose of the Meeting a OTAK, Inc, is representing the owner of the property located west of 4118 Glacier Lily Street. OTA K, Inc. is considering proposing a 6 lot planned development at this location. Prior to applying to the City of Lake Oswego for the necessary permits, this meeting was set up per the requirements of LOC Chapter . (48.801/49.610), to discuss the proposal in detail with the members of the neighborhood association and surrounding property owners and residents. ■ Owners/,Developers: Douglas, Paul & Terry Casebeer 13707 S.W. Maloy Lane Milwaukie, OR 97222 ill Planner/Engineer: OTAK, Inc. 17355 S.W. Boones Ferry Road Lake Oswego, OR 97035 635-3618 Contact Person: David Bantz Property Description •"1'' ■ 2 1E 5 CA TAX LOTS 11900 & 11901 a 1.80 Acres ■ R-10, Zoning Discussion a Some history, the location and the description of the proposed plan and why was given by David Bantz, The property used to be a holly tree orchard owned by the Casebeer family, located west of 4118 Glacier Lily Street, The total area of the property is 1,8 acres. It is i a planned development because some of the lots are less than 10,000 square feet. The actual density net developable areallowed on the site is 7 lots, Seven less the cul de sac and right of wayts and figured by taking the g y nd divide by 10,000 feet, it is also required to have 20% open space, Due to the 20% required open s•ace y 111 3269\minutes.0o1 EXH I 1 h' \4 PDT" 61 \ • t J.I' i ,.r. I>: I•.1} k7 • • • 1. • • KY T. i ' • • , . • • • I I • • • r a • Casebeer Property Neighborhood Meeting 2 '" February 27, 1991 , . we came up with 6 lots. The lots closest to Glacier Lily (Lots 4 and 5) are 10,000, . 0 '`', feet because they will most likely be associated with the lots in Glacier Lily. The lots close to Pfeifer Farms (Lots 1,2, 3 and 6) are going to associate more with the s - Pfeifer Farm lots due to the access from Pfeifer Drive, however, they are a little bigger than the average lot size in Pfeifer Farms. There will be somewhat of a separation between Lots 5 and 6 and Lots 4, 3, 2, and 1 because of Tract B, (the open space and the access walk way from Glacier Lily). Tract B was designed to have a pedestrian access path between Glacier Lily to the open space to Pfeifer Farms Drive for the people who live within the proposed project. During the preapplication meeting with the city, the city suggested that the pedestrian route be more of a direct route from Glacier Lily to Pfeifer Drive. Also the configuration was designed the way it is because there in an apple tree or group of apple trees with some significance to the Casebeer family and they wanted to preserve those trees within Tract B, the open area, The six owners ' ' who purchase the lots will maintain the area, (Tract B). The city will not take over any area for public open space unless it is at least 2 acres or more. That is what was told to OTAK during the Pfeifer Farms Proposal. The size of Tracts A and B are less than 2 acres. The space will be passive open space, as opposed to active open space, no tennis courts or basketball courts will be in the space, the city has shown no intention of owning or maintaining open space that is not at • ' least 2 acres in size. The people who buy a lot, would be responsible for maintaining the area. Most likely a neighborhood association with fees would be • formed and they would decide what the use of the tracts would be, for instance, a community garden, a bench near the apple trees, it could remain as natural open space, a The owners Terry and Paul Casebeer were introduced and the discussion • ' continued, It had been discussed in the past with David Bantz and the owners that the lots/yards adjacent to the tracts of open space, may have a restriction on fencing so there would be is a feeling of extension from the yards, that were adjacent to the open space and that the property owners would be responsible for • the open space. r x There was a discussion about the CCR's from the Grenelefe neighborhood, The proposed neighborhood would most likely have a similar set of CCR's that would set some criteria for the quality of homes built. They would be similar - types of grouping-types of sizing-square footage for a single story house-square footage for a two story house. The criteria for the Casebeer neighborhood has not been ' discussed at this time. • There was a discussion about the existing structure on the property and whether or not it would be designated as a historic monument or landmark, The owners • of the property said that it would not qualify as a historic landmark, that is was not old enough, it was built in 1946-47. ' o . 3269\minutes,001 • ti a e r , 4r ti, j Y•` u n x 4, i Casebeer Property Neighborhood Meeting February 27, 1991 3 • ec There was a discussion about changing the plans. If someone wanted 4 and 5, would it be possible to change the plans to not include theto buy Lots a . connected through to Glacier Boulevard. no walkway that , ��.' the left side of Lot 5 was discussed, however The etintent of the the walkway to share the space. the walkway was to ° Terry Casebeer asked for input from the audience, as to how they down the middle, whether it bothers them, whether they'd rter look at the strip side. David Bentz mentioned that the city would rather see the two see itt tracts, put •� • together under one larger tract and then the neighborhood could have ep options to putting a swimming pool, tennis court, basketball hoop, or so the . That was not however the intention of the tracts. The intention of thist si o try to maximize the number of lots that abut the open space. �' to ° A neighbor asked if it was possible that the open space would be all paved, like a Playground, it would all still be open space, but it would be paved, and if there were any regulations city wide that would prohibit that from happening. T is not really any regulation that would prohibit this from occurring, open spacehare is not developed with residential usage. P voted a paved la g It would be up to the homeowners, if they P playground, or a parking lot, they could do that. The homeowners could set it up in the CCR's, so the open would be, Passive park area. If they wanted to change, there would have to be example, from the homeowners. It would be established in the CCR's. a a consent ° Genc Emre -Project Manager,David Bentz- - Project Assistant, from OTAK, Inc, were introduced. Use Planner, and Janet Ramey �• ntroduced. m Intentions of the meeting were stated, To turn this hear otherwise tonight. This would be the proposal plan into the Cityhat would submitted,t they would be turned in the next week or so, and would be heard within apomat it 60 days. approximately • , ■ It was discussed why the particular green spots were selected development, Reasons - to maximize the number of lots, trees in the within the to maximize the number of solar lots, the City of Lake Oswegq es go re uir s 80�0 of the en space, lots need to be solar lots. Lots 4 and 5 are solar lots ecause N dimension is more than 90 feet and their orientation the their eet is within 30 degrees of Eas is within 30 • East/West. Lots 2 end 3 are also solar lots. If the open space was • switched around, they would lose one of the solar lots. s configurations were tried. A number of ® There was a discussion about a single g person,purchasing Tract B, for their individual benefit and possibly fencingit in, If 1 , space for the group of homes, and the City wouldt occurred,s ly would ndlault be open This option would also have to be discussed with the Casebeer family, with it. 0 , , . ,. . • . , .. 3269\minutes.00l ..._.... . ,, .. Y • • Casebeer Property Neighborhood Meeting February 27, 1991 4 n. si There was a discussion about which neighborhood association the new development would join. The neighborhood association development are next to the new 4,1 aggressively promoting new developments to join the existing �,, ,• association. There are five neighborhoods in the association already at this time, , .. ; and they intend to absorb the new development. It was mentioned that the deed restrictions that apply to the other lots, would not automatically apply to the new lots. The new lots would have their own CCR's. It was clarified that they could ' be part o°the neighborhood association with independent CCR's, •4 • ' • ® There was a discussion about the boundaries of the Casebeer Property to the Pfeifer Farms Property, in reference , • The time table on construction that is anticipated is that lots 1,2,3 and 6 are dependent upon Pfeifer Farms being developed to get its access from Pfeifer Farms t " Drive. The intent is to start the Pfeifer Farms development by the end of Mayor early June. ■ There was a discussion about the status of Pfeifer Farms. The construction plans , have been submitted, they have not been approved to date. Di There was a discussion about telephone poles and whether or not they would go undergound in the new development. Genc Ere addressed this issue. It is N ;' usually a City of Lake Oswego requirement for any type of development to go underground with all overhead utilities, that includes power, telephone and cable, o so most likely those improvements would be going underground, unless there is a certain use that the pole has in serving one house. " . • Y ■ There was a discussion about which side of an existing fence the utility easement r was going to go on, or is it going to go right straight down the middle of the fence and will you have to take out the fence, and who would replace removed, If the utility pole is not serving anything immediately inthat ia ea itit r.f.11 be next to the ROW in the street, so they would be laying a new line in the �. streets coming off of Carmen and each lot would be serviced off the blic ROW , Y `'°'or to the street, because the connection is needed between the cul de sac and the upper road, then there will be a conduit system snaking through there along side • + ° the property lines, and that would be something to be worked out with PGE for tt the location. They would avoid ripping out fences,because removing and replacing • fences would be an expense and a cost, Typically in Lake Oswego there is a 5 foot • utility easement along all property lines on both sides, it would seem logical that the utility companies would take the path of least resistance, Lots 4 and 5 could be served from Glacier Lily Street, and then bury everything else in the bulb of , - the cul de sac, so using the tract would not be necessary, n , •. i : . in There was a question about whether or not the entire development perimeter would be fenced or unfenced, It had never been considered before so there was no immediate answer, 6 3269\minutes,001 • • , • yr Casebeer Property February p rn' Neighborhood Meeting , y 99 9 5 27 ® There was a discussion about preserving the holly trees and where they were located. They would not be required to move l'hirtrees: ® There was a discussion about combining some of the lots so • ,, you could create an oversized lot. • There was some discussion/questions concerning the costThe ; Casebeers have not determined the price of the pricedThey will of the lots. . ,' perform a market study to see. The lots will be1°ts at this time, "y at market value. a There was a discussion about how one of the potential " a house. owners would build his The discussion about fencing the area was brought up again, • individual property o and decided that the P P ty owners would fence there own lo..a. • 1 ..`• • There was a discussion about the role of the Casebeers were contractors and developers.ers, At this point, they do not plan on being1contrace the they would not build the houses, ,tbut They will bring in the utilities, and pave the street where the cul de sac ii ® There was a discussion about moving Tract A and Tract B. 15,800 or so feet of There must be at least - ,1 m ; green space, and they must maximize the number of solar lots. It might be that if it is changed enough that we didn't meet the requirements the houses would be subject to the solar requirements inste lts, then would have to orientate your house in the manor to meet the of ui tLe lots, so you • requirements, • There was a discussion about one potential owner u ;'x building a larger home, would he be out scaling himself two lots and • neighborhood, in turn that may affect his value. He is considering if from the rest of the ,r,� square foot, the average house in the area is 3500 square fe building a 5000 � • it The Casebeers want to make the lots '- to the benefit to the most number of people ea layout mostf greenway area and all rn layout does that. They have put numberof lots, This, greenways next to as many lots so everybody ' ' the benefit and then those adjacent neighborhoods in Grenelefe an gets that abut up to the greenways have some benefit also. Tabaridge ' r ■ Some of the neighbors commented on how theyappreciate p ` , `• _ It is nice for the neighbors, to be next to the the Cesebeer's plan, the green space moved. They do not want to bersurr een space) e they do not want to see 4 not want to lose their privacy, ' by houses and they do There was a discussion about the plans and which plans they would be submit , , • to the City for approval, The fence issue is not part of the review bythei R`s at a late++� datt„ The CCR's are not subject, it \\\' ' ,� s\mtnutes,00i , to , would be Addressed in the CC + •`' 4 e• t .. 1 l 1 1 °. ,il ., d I e: Casebeer Property Neighborhood Meeting 6 February 27, 1991 %' review by the city. The fence issue would be decided by the future owners. Individual lot owners would make the decision. 1 + a There was a discussion about the trail part of Tract B that is between Lots 4 and • 5. It was mentioned by a neighbor that the City wants the tract for the path system to promote pedestrian traffic. To provide access to the open space Tract B. It would be difficult to police who used the trail. If the plan is approved showing access the trail must stay as a condition. The neighbors next to the 10'4 proposed development like the tract to access the green area and the Pfeifer Development. It was stated that if there was no path, the kids in the neighborhood would make their own paths by cutting through yards and jumping over fences. The neighbors like the tract because it provides a safe desi area for the kids. , grated ' •N The Casebeers have concerns. The homeowners individual privacy wad liability. • • The homeowners group must manage, control and maintain, it should not be for a traffic pattern. The Casebeers are going to be very focused on the r;!ghts of the individual homesites. If the path was eliminated, Lot 4 would have no access. The landscape could be placed so it is not an easy access. The owners do not want to pave the pathway. The neighbors do not want to see the pathway turned h2to a dumping ground. • The existing pathways in the Grenelefe neighborhood are skinny, not real wide. The vacant lots are being used as dumping grounds. a There was a comment about a possible diesel spill from the farming days, it,is very unlikely due to the fact that it was ;productive land that was growing holly trees, s There was a discussion about how i; was going to go through the City of Lake Oswego. If the neighbors like the basic layout of the greenways as it is, it is ' ' possible that they may need to show their public support.pport. The City of Lake • • Oswego would prefer to see the green space in one lot, their idea being, one lot presents one nice big solid park area for the purpose of the people there and it is more functional. The owners idea was to provide more of an amenity For more of • the people within the subdivision, , •I, as There was a discussion about whether or not the City of Lake Oswego would approve the two smaller greenways as opposed to the one larger greenway. Hamid was aware of the two greenways in anticipation of some calls/questions about the project from the public. Hamid did not have any big concerns at the time as long as there was some justification for the two (Tract A and B) greenway layout, , ', ‘. 0 , a, 3269\tn1nutes,001 p•. r.t V V Casebeer Property Neighborhood Meeting February 27, 1991 Justification for the two greenways: maximize solar lots,more passive open space. One lot would provide more options for active open space, tot lots, tennis court, etc. They did not want to provide active open space. They wanted extensions of the private areas semi-private, e would always help, p private areas. Public support from the neighbors N There was a discussion about when the plans would be submitted, Mid March was • '• ` t.\ . the estimate. r. % i There was a discussion about which plans were going to be submitted to the City. We're they going to change the plans, not show the changes to the neighbors and K '' then just submit them. Or were they going to submit the plans they were \ • •discussing. The owners will not function that way. The owners will not do that, they want to communicate with neighbors, get the support of the neighbors and • ti; get the concerns out on the table at this time so they can react to them. So the • A neighbors don't show up at the meeting and oppose the project. is There was a discussion about the community purchasing the whole lot and having one big park. The neighborhood association would like to purchase the area however they do not have the money to do it. It is a mute point, because the neighbors do not want to do it, and the cul de sac must go in. There was a discussion about it being a public park, and the City of Lake Oswego , •, buying the property however, it does not qualify for anything LI ,, City wants. There was a discussion about the Casebeers not jeopardizing the ;-l.„tionship between the neighborhood homes and his proprietary interest on his land. He understands that they have a neighborhood that they are very pleased and for that reason he does not want there to be a misunderstanding and so any�plan that they submit,would not be submitted without having the neighbors being well aware of where it is going to be and what it is going to be like, They do not want to have any more problems in the neighborhood. • There was a discussion about the holly trees near Pfeifer Drive. Would they stay?The owners could restrict the removal of certain hollytrees,, The building envelope with set backs, front, side and back yard, and if the ones that are in the .i,'t front and the back, could be saved, every effort will be made, but if they are in the building envelope, and someone is trying to put in a wider house, you would be• encroaching into the tree area, The side setback law is minimum 5 feet, and 15 feet total for both side yards. If a builder buys the lot to build a spec house, they may not be to concerned about the holly trees. During the pre-application meeting, the City was not concerned about the holly trees. They were concerned about a survey of the non holly trees, t is •. , . . , • ",....._ . • 3269\minutes.001 _ C , Casebeer Property Neighborhood Meeting February 27, 1991 8 ' s ® There was a discussion about moving the pathway from Tract B, to the West side , of the property line on Lot 5, That way the holly trees would be saved, but it 1 would be difficult to walk through. 21 There was a discussion about the safety of the neighborhood, and where the , neighborhood would be in 10 years, There was a show of hands in favor of removing the pathway between Lots 4 and 5 so that it was eliminated and so there would be no access from Glacier Lily Street to Tract B - 5 hands were raised, There was a discussion about routes such as walking around the block. alternate • There was a discussion about moving the pathway between Lots 4 and 5, it was underneath Lot 4, and separated Lots 2 and 3 from Lot 4, s o that and 4 a sense of privacy, It would not really be a walkway. giving Lots 2, 3 • Ng There was a discussion about the width of the pathway, Most pathways in the neighborhood are not 12 feet wide. They are narrower, theyotherre ' smaller footpaths. The surface of the paths were supposed to be maybe 4-5 feet _•� '` of gravel, the rest would be bark, and a contributor to a problem. green. Twelve feet of path could be seen as a There was another show of hands not if favor or removing the pathway between Lots 4 and 5, keeping the plans as is - 2 hands were raised. The mtkjority of the people in the room wanted to remove the path completely. • There was a discussion about how the configuration came about, They (the owners) wanted to spread yo pathway between Lots 4 and 5 would serve to separate every °the lot in ts best way,windowss ' ‘' would not be coming out side to side to each (bee droom of eet. , However, based on the discussion other points cameout for the other feet. Several minds are better than one. way. • There was another discussion about the width of the path and the path system the existing neighborhood and how the City is promoting the footpaths, Y in The city • is big on making sure the foot paths are maintained. Some of the existing are five feet of bark, and are not straight, With a 12 foot path it can meander,s ~ with bark trails and landscape. ' ' • \ , a There was a discussion about when the next Home Owners Association mee ting i would be. The Board of Directors for the Association meet once a month and the \ 1 Ai Membe ard Membs m once am quart , Wed , March 27,ation at 7:30 inrs the nde veningBoa was theer next eet Board eeting.er ItOn was suggested that the submittal be made with the existing plan adding a paragraph to the � application stating that based on the overall request of the neighborhood associations we will eliminate the pathway and incorporate that into the space • ,t:'• 3269\minutes,001 , ,• u • Q IA. Casebeer Property Neighborhood Meeting February 27, 1991 9 , • �d into rTact A and B, or we will leave it as is. Based on the associations ll meetings, they could get a flier out or some kind of vote, and then�1'ist a majority on whether they want it or not. The city meetingand the staff'repdrt not be prepared until about 6 weeks after they accept te application, 1 therel will be a hearing. • The neighbors will be notified about the hearing. There will be onlyone drawing submitted to the Citymaybe wing and two drawingssubmitted to the neighborhood association. o 'r .,, • II The neighborhood association president will be responsible for contactingthe neighborhood members. OTAK will contact him and explain to him what is ' decided, he will organize how he wants to proceed with it, •'; • The yellow flyers were mailed out by the association. ® It was noted by a neighbor that they reallyappreciated and UTAK, in considering then ghboroode thet has imposed theowners M, .' restrictions on developers, Trending certified letters to the neighborhood associations,posting the property. OTAK would normally hold a meetin like this, but it would generally be when the neighbor association meets, owevassociation only meets quarterly,they were not able to wait until that er e, e the meeting was held at OTAK, time,t e thenncce Copies of the rooster were made and passed out, and business cards were made available. ■ The meeting was adjourned. r k . ,. r • 40 . . " .. 3269\minutes.001 ____________. .. •. ...1 it .. .. r, F•. ° i !K r p • CASEBEER ESTATES • PROPERTY OWNER/RESIDENT COMMENTS Gini Miller, 4129 Wolfbe done". She and her husband are interested s i called on n possiblaryy p c1 as. gMrs. it Miller thought 5t the plan was "well J possibly purchasing either Lot 4 or 5. Mrs. Larry Stockett, 4088 Orchard Way, called on February 11, 1991. Mrs•'Stockett is interested in � preserving some of the holly trees that border her property. •space tract as a sport court. She prefers the open She would be against the use of either open pe space be used for passive activities, 1 Mr. Patrick Mulqueney, 4273 Sundew Court, supportive" of the proposed development. called on February 25, 1991, Mr, Mulqueney was "very reasonably sized and a Mr. Doug Gonyea, renter at 4182 Glacier Lily, purchase Tract B. The house he is renting, and wants to purchase issdi 1991, Mr. Gonyea wanted to woulwould like to add on to the house. When Mr. Gonyea :•. d o purchase,he asked that we redesign the layout informed directly west open TractpaB and hef Y was that Tract B was space and not to his property, 3 as to provide a purchasable parcel adjacent Mrs.Wilma McNulty,4100 Colt's Foot Lane, called March 8, 1991, Mrs.McNulty d r desire to have the proposal provide a ty commented about her informed o thate the majorty oprovide pedestrian linkage from Glacier Lily to Prefer Drive, She was people attending the meeting of February 27, 1991 did not want the pedestrian connection, Mrs. McNulty asked for a list of those attending a copy of the audio tape of the meeting• the February 27 meeting and • ' • 1.. • • • • • • • 64 • • t l i, :• , 0 a EXHIBIT H • , I e •Ik •¢, ` •1ti'. d 1 N � N Y• , 1 M J • • • • . • , • • • • • 1 r. • M1 r w 4. ry 11 February 1991 Mr. David L. Bank • otak Inc, • 17344 SW Boones Ferry Rd. Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Dear Mr. Bantz; We received your letter regarding your. � west of 4118 Glacier Lily Street. We plans for the property 4166 Glacier Lily, are the properly owners of ° Over the past years, we have been In communication Caspear (Chris Caspear's father) re ardin with Mr, i • told him when the roe g his property, We property rty is up for sale, we are interested In ' ° purchasing the property next to our home which would be lot #5 on your layout, ., . , . , 0 record. • would like you to keep this In your files as a matter of We will be attending the meeting on February • and are Interested to discussing this further, 27th Thank you for your kind attention to this correspondence, Sincerely, 11, Paul & Sandi Zimmerman 4166 Glacier Lily a: . • Lake Oswego, OR 97035 ;It • • • '• y.. , . ii y. Cl 1 d x .a' ' w: v • B � t .y!. !� i ti .. 0 ''. .. , . t 1iY vt-ci '• k"... • 9/18/90 ? MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Board Members Planning Commission Members EXHIBIT From: Mayor and City Council 1"a3 `i1 Date: September 18 , 1990 Subject: Interpretation of Comprehensive Plan Policies Relating to School Capacity h• This memorandum is an update to the City Council 's prior • memoranda of August 19, 1989, October 17, 1989, and December 5, 1989. The initial August 19 memorandum contained the City "• Council 's initial determination of the school capacity issue. The October 17 , 1989 memorandum contained updated information and data received by the City Council at a joint meeting with the Lake Oswego School District Board held on October 2, 1989. The ,• + December 5, 1989 memorandum contained updated information and data relating to voter approval of a $17,800,000 Lake Oswego School District facilities improvement bond issue on November 7, 1989 . This memorandum contains school district projections for the 1990/1991 elementary school year and information concerning residential development activity for fiscal year 1989/90 . It :-' . '' ' contains information received by the City ,Council at a. joint ° meeting with the Lake Oswego School District Board held on August ` ,• 21 , 1990 . As a result o.f certain determinations by the Development Review Board in its consideration of two applications for residential ® • . ar., development that there was a lack of elementary school capacity, the City Council conducted an inquiry into the necessity for the Fi enactment of a moratorium on residential development , in 'a accordance with the provisions of ORS 197 .505-197 . 540 . A pattern 's :f denials of residential development applications is defined by state law as a moratorium. The Council has been made aware of �. the exclusion from that definition of actions "in accordance with" an acknowledged Comprehensive Plan; and, on the advice of tne City Attorney ; concluded that the exclusion is not applicable to the current situation, State law does not permit the adoption of a moratorium without the City first making the findings required by the statute . r The conclusion of 6 of the 7 Council members at the end of that °• Inquiry was that the facts currently existing do not provide the basis for the Council to make the findings required by state law to justify the need for a moratorium. The resulting dilemma is obvious: on the one hand the Cevelopment Review Board denied two applications for lack of school capacity bared on City Comprehensive Plan policies (a pattern which state law classifies as a moratorium ) , and yet the Council has concluded that facts do not exist to make the ' ' • I• . 'y. • Memo: Development Review Board and Planning Commission Members September 18 , 1990 Page 2 required findings under state law that are a precondition to the enactment of a moratorium. It is the purpose of this memorandum to provide to both of the City land use hearing bodies the Council 's interpretations Comprehensive Plan policies regarding school capacity . It is the necessary to have consistency in decision making from application p l�. to application, and between the hearing bodies and the Council . ' • These interpretations reconcile the apparent inconsistencies between state and local law in a way that gives deference to the • superior state law while giving effect to the Plan language through an interpretation process that has historical precedent . These interpretations are based upon factual determinations sat forth in Attachment No. 1 . The interpretations provided in this memorandum will maintain a consistency between state and local law. The Comprehensive Plan policies , with regard to school capacity, will be satisfied unless the Council in the future declares a moratorium. Because r , facts will change over time , so may the conclusions concerning Comprehensive Plan compliance and the current lack of 'the factual preconditions for the enactment of a moratorium. Staff will : 7' : r, update the factual portions of this memorandum on a regular basis , in coordination with the school district, and keep the Council and District aware of the changing circumstances . C Future Planning staff reports will rely on this memorandum when addressing the school capacity issue . , .•�' - The Council expects toes. if Comprehensive Plan compliance based on the school capacity V: issue is raised during a hearing on a residential development application, each hearing body will reach the conclusions seat forth in this memorandum. This issue is not static and will be with us for the foreseeable future . The Council is committed to improve the current data exchange efforts between the Distriet and the Cite . The Council wants to insure that applicants receiving development • approvals are aware of the current school capacity situation all understand tnat the Council is very concerned about t'tis issue v . • and has the authority to enact a moratorium at a later .late if ' '^ :ustifiNd b,. the facts . The Council r ,j . directs staff to ye '150 appropriate language to be included in the approvalper ` ` reviewed by the hearing bodies , to accomplisthispurpc.le . to be Attachment No. 1 provides the factual findings of the , ounci1 with regard to the school capaityissue upon which these interpretations are based . Attachment No. 2 is s 1istIng oof t'y,:`actual ' formation relied upon to support those findings , attachment No. 3 contains the interpretations of the relevant Plan policies . H •: .Ny • Memo: Development Review Board • ;' • • and Planning Commission Members September 18 , 1990 Page 3 The City Council sincerely expresses its gratitude to the members of the Development Review Board who have been faced with the • difficult job of dealing with this issue in the first instance, and who have done so with professionalism and obvious great concern for the community as a whole. Atty/Correspond-7 Attachments 1-3 1 4 • ' 4.i 1. , e i ' 'a i 4 • 1 i iw 1 + ,+, t • I ' • • • � 4 t. • ri w • , r • • 4/ ' • • • 9• J) ,1 f I . t1 ` , • '�� 1 i �r I N .%'1 • t n a `i is .. ` +J 1 - 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FACTUAL FINDINGS( 9-18 1 i School District City and the '"90) ; strict have coordinated concerning the impact of development on the ability of the District to legal obligations to educate the children of the significant meet its portion of the School District lies outside theCity limits and the City :::::: ::::::::: ® t occurring outside its boundaries .contr over the impacts of growth ,� . communication from other The City has received no hat theyjurisdictions served by the District perceive a problem or intend to limit development due to school capacity problems . The District has provided the City the following facts : 1 . Attendance in the 1988-89 school year at the Lake Grove Elementary School exceeded the capacit determined necessary to Y the District service at that school . Provide an urban level of The Lake School population was significantly rrreducedve mforath 1989-90 school year. Enrollment on June 1 for the students . Enrollment as of October 2 , 1989 was9530 55 ; students . Enrollment as of June 1 , 1990 30 students„ The adjusted forcast for the 1990-913 year is 500 students . school 2 • The District has short term plans in place the current capacity problems on a w that addre5;; y .'`: By implementing these plans , the District stated itsis . • continue to provide an educational experiencedill 4 students that meets District standards . to its 3 . Through use of the short term plan,accommodate a maximum P , the District can capacity of 3 , 772 elementaryacudmos , 4 . i D The strict as of June' she D enrollment of 3 1 , 1990 , had an elementary ` ``l ' l students . SaseBased ,', m1990 capacity and current projections , on October , "ne District by implementing the short term plan will nav unused capacity system wide that will accommodate 3",) ." additional elementary students . 'Y 5 . The District has a long term plan to provide addition to the 379 seats to be made available t .-, ` rapacity n the short term plan. These additional elemntary school andremodeling plansig xistiPc�Jh ; ''.' 1,) -'''' facilities . mod -1,.na a+ti;r, ind 6 . The mum c al �` maxi, capacity of 3 , 772 Students , continuation of the current rate ,�f growtassu �in ,� , dill accommodate new students into the 1491-92hschool year. o '{ Attachment No. 1 September 18, 1990 ;., Page 2 7 • The earliest completion date for the new school • authorized by the November, 1989 bond facility election is Fall, 1991 . The remodeling of existing facilities t _, be funded by the bond issue will be completed before that date and will provide at least 250 additional r = w seats. The new school will have an ideal capacity of 500 students . 8 . The District as a Practice does not construct facilities in anticipation of growth, but attempts to coordinate the construction of facilities so they wr current demand at completion and not tandlemptt a • F underutilized. empty or be 9 • The District projects student computer model. The populations using a I' attendance areas and the�Dist�ictadoesanot attemptht project at the level of individual subdivisio1, to 4 ' houses . Proj com �+-ections are } ' _ ', counts . � �'--ed with actual s .uder;t • Based on these comparisons, modifications to i; the computer program factors are. made if warranted . District 's projections in the last 2 p The quite accurate . The physical counting ofschiljrenave ein the district on a regular basis , as the data base projections , does nota for improvement in accuracyrto1justifysigthe �aad � enougho expense it would take to carry out such program. ' By comparing data compiled over thexy 1 devel�prnent approvals and vacant lots last with the concerning • school nin^ actual ere isf. .; population, the conclusion can be drawn that there a ;quantifiable and direct r r - is nit relationship between the 4., population and those twoschool in fact. making termc-� that will assist, the District student roecti��ns . Dls - rnarket reception, interest rates , Other factors , such 3,the health economy and family size of hut�e.,s and sellers f Oregon also affect the number of l jct my homes ` • population. Based upon the present �cn� ldren in the District ' s the City and District planning level of sophistication of • ' planning processes , it predict with any is not possible degree 'af certainty how soon afterpry r_. c-�ildren from new residential approval system: =''Plop:�entS will enter .n 5C'1 n . . • w i t . r• , . , ,. - • • rya • • • • • Attachment No. 1 September 18, 1990 Page 3 The District voters in May, 1989 approved a new district tax base ..iy an approximate 2:1 margin. The old tax base was $19 , 542 ,310 . The new tax base is S29 , 975 ,000 . The new tax base contains levy authorization above that levied by the District in the current • fiscal year and is intended to fund growth, staffing and maintenance for the new capital facilities to be funded from the November, 1989 bond issue. This community has a solid history of support for school funding measures . The November 7, 1989, $17,800,000 facility bond issue passed by a substantial margin. The District has been planning to meet the demand: gelerated by growth. During the middle 1980 ' s , the District proposed using a middle school concept. A switch to middle schoolo would have ; • freed space in the elementary schools for additional students . The debate caused turmoil in the District and the concept was dropped. Coupled with the change in Superintendents occurring soon thereafter, the District planning and implementation of funding ,measures to accommodate elementary school population growth was delayed. The growth was anticipated but .the community debate over how to best address the impacts of growth has delayed the 't r provision of the District 's solutions . The City Council may, at anytime when justified by the facts , enact a moratorium on buildingpermits pursuant to ORS 197 . 520 . The District has the responsibility under state law to educate ' .` the children of the District . The Council views the District as an expert in educational matters . The Council ac^e is the statement of the District that it will provide an educational• experience for its students that meets District standards . • y a • $ � e T`. t ty ✓Correspond-7 • • p. • • ' I j ,• • .4 t • • .+C r k h� r v •R•• r\t r t + k • • • • •A. , :tl • ' • #j { • • 1' 1 �1 • ATTACHMENT NO. FACTUAL INFORMATION CONSIDEREDaBY CITY COUNCIL ; ( 9-•18-90 V 't. i ' 1 . Bill Korach, Lake Oswego School District Elementary Enrollment - August 8, 1989 2. Karen Scott, packet containing: tl, - Building permits b - Building permits by year, single-family, graph Y year, multi-family, graph - Total single family lots recorded by - Inventory of vacant lots, y year - Number of lots recorded from l7/1/83989 to 6/30/89 , a'' - Number of building permits issued for single-family 7/1/83 to 6/30/89 • y from '. ')+,- '. - Number buildin 7/1/83 to 6/30%ggermits issued for multi-family from ' - School enrollment K-6 from 1983 to 1989 ,, 3 . Class size and public policy: Politics and of Educational Research and Improvement , U.S .?.'• Panaceas , Office Education �.{ Department of . Opinion issued by James A. Redden, Attorney June 11 , 1979 General, 5 . Memorandum from City Attorney to Mayor and City � r July 31 , 1989 Council, 6 . Report from Lake Oswego School District, July 5, 1989, with attachments.r -, . Proceedings of joint City Council/School Board July 31 , 1989 meetin , '' S . Proceedings of City Council meeting, o '• • ,� Augusr_ �� , 1939 ? Land. Letter from Susan Brody, Director, Department DE + Conservation and Development, dated august 8 , 1989 :3 • 189 =.andouts from Bill Korach, Lake Oswego School Su e a . Teacher-Student ratio and classroom space ' b. Enrollment projections, •'t ,r� : , servicehi . term solutions level, and sh• rr, a!�,.� lny -1 • :Yoke Oswego School District: The F Bunick acts , submitted by '1i :k ,. :I • Transcript excerpt from August 7 , 1989 Development Revle Board meeting t _� 4 ,• • 3 ( tape including excerpt also submitted ) + Y , 9r . , ,r1 .. f'. Attachment No. 2 • September 18, 1990 Page 2 13 . Enrollment graph showing actual enrollment from 1962-1967 and ` , ,: projections through 1989-1990 submitted by Warren Oliver i 14 . Statistical chart titled "Determination of K-6 Student Factor" submitted by Erin O' Rourke-Meadors 15. Letter from B . Ayres dated July 24 , 1989 16 . Letter from Jae Rieg dated August 3, 1989 t'Y• 17 . Letter from Pam Sparks dated August 8 , 1989 ` 18 . Letter signed by Chamber of Commerce past prep idents Tom Decker, Paul Graham, and Rob Barrentine and Bob Chizum, r, .(i"'. ' Chamber members, dated July 28 , 1989 19 . Letter from Douglas Oliphant, Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce President, dated July 20 , 1989 :0. Letter from William T. Ryan dated August 8 , 1989. y. ' :.1 . Letter from Leonard G. Stark , dated August 7 , 1989 ix. C2 . Letter from Robert and Mary Larsen, dated August 5 , 1989 4,+ " "'I 23 . Letter from Mi;. and Mrs . Clark, dated August 6 , 1939 :4 . Letter from Robert Butler, dated august 4 , 1989 ' "' _1 . Letter from Lynora Saunders , Chair, Forest Highlands ) 4. Neighborhood Association, dated august 1 , 1989 * . Letter from D.R. Norris , dated July 29 , 1989 :- . Letter from Judith D. timaki , dated August 1 , 1989 2 . Charles dales, Staff Vice President for Governmental Affairs , Home Builders association of Metropolitan Portland , Letter , dated August 14 , 1989 • Gregory D. Meadors letter. , dated august 13 , 1989 , 1M1'1 EC iI I : . Celeste Ward letter, dltad august 14 , 133'' T., : . . 'Debby and Doug Kemper letter, sated august 14 , 1989 : : , Carol .Webb letter, dated August 14 , 1989 b ,' y • , ' p , 4 a * 'i ' i •,.. 4• is f . J • W • , f, ' 1. m 1i Attachment No. 2 September 18, 1990 ,.,, , , , ., . Page 3 , . 33. Bill Bache letter, dated 14 , 1989 ,r , August 34 . Debbie Seitz letter (undated) received August 14, 1989 ::' ' 1 35. Benjamin Schwartz , M.D. letter, dated August 14, 1989 36• Gayle Bache letter, dated August 14 , 1989 37 . Martha Rothstein letter, dated August 14, 1989 38. Ala F . Rothstein letter, dated August 13 , 1989 39 . Robert S . Dahlman Sr. letter, dated August 13, 1989 4 y' 40 . Janice A. Burt letter, dated August 13 , 1989 r +ry 41 . Jane Culberton letter, dated August 14 , 1989 k, 42 . Toni Smith letter, dated August 13 , 1989, including attached newspaper articles and copyKorach 's 5, 1989 of Bill Korach s memorandum data; 43 . Deborah B. Feldsee letter, dated August 14 , 1989 0 44 . Steven M. Berne letter, dated August 14 , 1989 '' -` 45 . Wilma McNulty le ,'� Y ._tter, dated August 14 , 1989 I Z+ 46 . Leonard G. Stark letter, dated August 14 , 1989 47. Gay Graham letter, dated August 11 , 1989 48 . Marilyn Roberts letter, dated August 10 , 1989 49 . Nary Avery letter, dated August 10 , 1989 < , 50 . Bill Tucker letter, 9 tt r, dated August 11 1 8g ,�. . 51 . Kim and Barb Ledbetter letter, dated August 14 , 19?9 " 52 . Richard M. Bullock letter, dated August 11 , 1919 53 . Charles D. Ruttan letter, dated August 9 , 1999 54 . William Sorenson letter, dated August 11 , 1989 53 . Marc'. `Jemhauser, letter, dated August 10 , 1989 55 • Charles A . ',tansField letter, 1lted August 10 , 1389 • , � « . w tY •..Y. a c . Attachment No. 2 September 18, 1990 Page 4 57 . Larry E . Walker letter, dated August 10, 1989 58 . Katherine and Donald McMahon letter, dated August 14 , 1989 59 . Stephen Swe , ?, .ng letter, dated August 14 , 1989 60 . Karen Griffin, League of Women Voters letter, dated June 20 , 1989 61 . Cheryl M. Petrie letter, dated August 13 , 1989 62 . Letter from Rick Newton, dated August 15, '1989 • J 63 . Letter from JoAnn Gillen, dated August 14 , 1989 64 . Letter from Patrick F . Stone, dated August 11, 1989 65 . Map of City and District boundaries 66 . Determination of impact as of July 28 , 1989 , submitted by " + Erin O' Rourke-Meadors 67 . Bill Korach , "Questions and Answers : How is the School District Coping with Growth . " CPresented to City Council at Joint School Board/City Council Meeting of October 2 , 1989 . ) •a. 68 . Bond issue information, November 1989 , prepare; by Lake Oswego School District. { 69 . Election results , November 7 , 1989 , Lake Oswej-, School District 1989 Facilities Improvement Bond . • - 0. Report from Superintendent , Lake Oswego School Ois_rirt , 't ' 7 , 1990 . Enrollment Report , Lake Oswego Ssuhool District, 7,in? 1 , { q 1990 , ' Y . -2 Memorandum from Sandra Karbelik regarding school ';a aK� residential development activity, " " P August 13 , 1�� . Lake Oswego Elementary School enrollment h -= 2r states ? ics , �, .r • !. , 1990 . • - -4 . Memorandum f:7'r Peter C . Harvey l r -�ar >.ny resx .,,,r : 11 1. 717 , calculations , \u. ust 29 , 1990 , ttl./Correspond-7 to ' �. t r '.-h � :1 y •i 1 Vl \ ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PLAN POLICY INTERPRETATIONS .-, 7:-.. In the consideration of the school capacity issue within the framework of a quasi-judicial hearing considering specific land use applications , one Specific Policy has been focused upon on by ` '_ those seeking denial of the applications on the basis of lack of school capacity. That policy is Specific Policy 4 for Urban Service Boundary General Policy III . A few other olic ' ., also been raised. Before stating the Council 's interpretationeof those policies, it is necessary to restate the rationale for City's interpretation that the General Policies of theare Plan are the regulatory languaile of the Plan. The City's Com was prehensive Plan was first adopted in 1978 ad developed as a result of legislation at the state level in1969 and 1973 which required local jurisdictions to adopt a r comprehensive plan which was consistent with established statewide land use planning goals . A comprehensive plan" is defined by state law as : " [A] generalized, coordinated land use statement of theg map and policy interrelates all functional andnatural of a systems government that activities relating to the use of lands, includin , • ' limited to, sewer and water systems , transportation Systems educational facilities, recreational facilities, natural resources and air and water quality management programs . y `Comprehensive ' means all--inclusive, both in terms of the geographic area covered and functional aid natural activities and systems occurring in the area covered by the .i plan. 'General nature ' means a summary of necessarily policies andproposals in broad categories and does not necessarily indicate specific locations of any area , act ivity plan is coordinated ' when the needs ofall levels or use. :, 'governments , semi-public and private agencies? and tie citizens of Oregon have been considered and accommodate ; z� much as possible. ' Land ' _ , subsurface, and the air. " includes water, both 5 1 `_ :�3 ; I , � At the state level each statewide plannin 1 . �. mandatory statewide planning standardsg goal' which an is accompanied by 11d are general in nature ,"•guidelines o The guidelines are : • ` i1 [S] uggested approaches designed to aid cities and countie.1 in preparation, adoption and implementation of comprehensive plans in compliance with goals and to aid .5tat1? agencies ,37l special districts in the preparation, adoption and implem� ntatiq, , of plans, programs •and regulations in compliance with oils . • Guidelines shall be advisory and shall not limit state e en • e4 cities, counties and special districts to 5 g . L , Lngle ��ia��rlach . l, . . 44 I i Attachment No. 3 September 18, Page 2 1990 r, The City's Plan, at page v, explains the difference Objectives, General Policies and Specific Policiesin the between following way, ' "The adopted statements of theplan entains Objectives of which are sort which are major methods of achieving�objectives ,cies, C7 Policies , Policies, which are more detailed steps to carryUtGeSpecific Policies, , . . out General There are also strategies for carrying Volume II, which is the background inormation out the ands foundpp in documentation for the Plan. The language has rc be applied as follows : historically been The general r "reguTheoge in naolicies of the Plan are the portions which aCe statements" which constituteyaacomprehensivre the ealiand state law. Policy A hearing body, in order to approve as defined by must conclude that the applicable general policies an ofo theation , Comprehensive Plan have been followed , ha e the must identify and explain why the requirements of use decision general policies have been satisfied by general policies are applicable to every applicable the application. Not all el , . ` •� decision. In reaching a conclusion concerning compliance withN :. policy, the hearing body will he a general the specific guided in its decision 7a:;in7 h;; ' _ policies for the particular narrative language and strategies for the policy y and tita many cases the specific fc Y element . In extremely detailed, to thelpoint orrdescribing policy are to the one hundredth of an acre and specificnbuildinglimil3tio^s footages and many contain multiple detailed subsections .s :a=+� If the specific policies are given are the general policies then eachprovisionrofuaaspecific po �, will need to be complied with to tne letter in o spuu . . .1, p��li �; application or project to be approved . rd�r for an the granting p There is no provision t,,d of variances from the Plan, When an application or project regulatory is to the ga, e - provisions of policy, but perhaps not .: to the letter of asubsection ) -1-, the specific policies for the general tha �v `�na project as a mole must be denied i_ the lspecj c a'�olit�t *' construed to oe regulatory p polil�: •ys ar.:in nature. All regulatory Its ~use be co1p1; ed with in I rde r n.1ar r bor an application . ` to he Gw1�,Ir ",e11 . 1 ,r ♦ { 1 Attachment No. 3 September 18, 1990 Page 3 The specific u;: {p P policies are considered during the analysis of an application or project. If the staff recommendation is that a project complies with a general policy, e f' specific policy is not flloweli, anexplanation should be detail of a provided why, notwithstanding that inconsistency with the specific policy, the recommendation is nonetheless consistent with the applicable general policy. This ap proach has been employed in City decision making consistently for 7 years and has twice been considered by LUBA without a reversal on this point . This methodology the Plan in a manner which is consistent with thestatellawnts ;. ' definitions which govern local land use planning and at the same time does not minimize the level of effort and scrutiny that sent into the original Plan development . Each of the applicable general Plan policies will be discusser below. No general1 ''-'' '.:. ::: policy specifically requires that adequate ". school capacity be established prior to the approval of a residential development. Schools are mentioned in a few specific policies and it is from these references that the policies become applicable in the review of a development application, r 1 . Overall Density General Policy I The Comprehensive Plan will maintain the overall, average residential density of the Urban Service Area within the'-,i capacity of planned basic public facilities systems, a including at least water, sewer, streets, drainage and public safety. Specific Policy 3 : The City will coordinate planning of facilities with the Lake . : Oswego School District, to assure that school expansion costs are considered. " capacities and " This policy requires that the Comprehensive plan Density oe sucn that the planned densities do not result in land use,'; that will exceed the capacity of public facilities systems > > `,� planned , This policyre- Y ay.� : �ab_e or regulates Comprehensive Plan nap densities and is not applicable in the development review stage . The appropriateness of the Plan map designation or zone des t ,�nat i ,n 'f on a given site is' not an issue in a hearing :an a Jevelr)pment application . A; ,1 ' e 0 ' r F Attachment No. 3 ' September 18, 1990 ` + Page 4 2. Impact Management General Policy II The City will evaluate zoning and development proposals comprehensively for their impacts on the community, requiring the developer to provide appropriate solutions before b approval is granted. Specific Policy 6: Encourage the Lake Oswego School District to provide specific ,`• p . . information on school capacity to be taken into consideration in development review. " This policy is the one most directly focused upon school capacity in the development review process . This policy requires that a detailed review of projects take place and it dirr- ets that the City seek capacity information from the District . The n development review process and the development standards insure that this review takes place. The City is coordinating with the , r School District on school capacity issues and is encouraging the District to provide the City with school capacity information . The July 5 , 1989 report from the District and the July, 31 , 1989 , October 3 , 1989 , and August 21 , 1990 joint meetings are examples ' '.• of this coordination and "encouragement" . Because of the variety of factors that impact school population, it is not currently possible to predict , with a great degree of accuracy , school ., • , ' populations beyond the coming year. It is equally uncertain ani unpredictable when a child from a home on a lot in a newly approved development will enter the school population . However, ;' '',.. once a building permit has been issued for a dwelling, it becomes reasonably certain that the structure will be occupied in ti near time frame (3-6 months ) . By monitoring actual school populations and outstanding building permits , forecasting ::.?. r a 3-6 month time frame can be done with an acceptable :e;ree ;f -. reliabilit;; . :f this coordination results in the development of �1atA ahi�l� supports the findings required by the state moratorium ;totate I" establish a capacity shortage , a moratorium on building permits can be enacted in sufficient time to minimize the iifloa 5f ��ew ' students t , the district. :4 3 . Impact Management General Policy V. The City will plan and program for the provision of adequate public services and facilities . ` ?, ' G , . ! 1 ti , Attachment O. 3 September 18, 1990 Page 5 4 •. u Y apcific Policy 3• �• Prohibit land uses or intensities which tax or exceed normal capacity of public services except in instances the er the developer h F adety, F pays all costs of providing additional required subject to City Council approval. " The general policy requires the City to ` u provision of adequate facilities . The City a`nn program for the School program for the District. The Cityj annot plan to the District. This policy does not required the oes coordinate plan with facilities for the school. City to moratorium statute, Through the enactment of the from out Specific StateLegislature has preventedce the City to a lack of school capacity.Policy on a caseim by case basis sue , '': available to temporarilyThe moratorium statute is ' , uses which exceeded the capacity on a system wide basis , lana of the schools . • 4. Urban Service Boundary General Policy III The City will manage and g phase urban Services Boundary, with a logical planned extensionh within of Urban services. of basic Y ri1 / To establish priorities for the phased extension of the City will identify areas within the Urban Servicesrvices, Boundary as follows: • (1 ) Lands suitable for near future development ` y GROWTH) P nt ( IMMEDIATE (2) Lands in long range �, The City will rangesched growth areas . (FUTURE URBANIZABLE) . capital improvements e public facilities through a program and financing plan. r ` Specific P«lic New devc, bapment shall be served by of the following: an urban level of services • a. Water ►, .` ' b. Sanitary sewer c• Adequate streets, including collectors d. Transportation facilities { e. Open space and t„-ails as per Open Space e f. City policy protection lenient g. City fire protection h. Parks and recreation facilities, as per Parks andRecreation Element 1. Y . . r ! Attachment No. 3 September 18 , 1990 Page 6 4110 _ „ . ... .. . :•• V' . . , .. .„.. ... , i. Adequate drainag :...„, e j . Schools Services shall be available or committed prior to approval of development. Such facilities or services may be provided concurrently with the land development for which they are necessary if part of an adopted capital budget at the time of approval of the development, or if provided by the developer with adequate provisions assuring completion, such as performance bonds. " The Urban Services Boundary Policies 'direct that the City define the future growth area for which it intends to be the major provider of public services . Within the ultimate growth area , General Policy III directs that basic services will be logically extended and that the phasing of service extensions be first to immediate growth areas and secondly to the future urbanizable areas . The City is then to schedule public facilities through a •. 'u., capital improvements program and financing plan . Specific Policy 4 relates directly to nothing in the language of the general policy . The specific policy almost seems misplace , •�' , and would be more logically placed in the Plan as a Specific , ;-• . Policy for Impact Management General Policy II, discussed above , • which addresses the impacts of development on services . It is notable that the specific policies for that general policy do not. require the type of precise fit in timing between development approvals and the provision of services that is contained in '. • • Specific Policy 4 . V • .• _ The most relevant language of this general policy to the issue it ' hand is that the City will "manage and phase" growth with • " logical planned" extension of "basic" services . The Scnool District is logically planning to provide new facilities to serve demands generated by growth . The district , like school distric.s , in general, provides facilities in response to demand- -not in • anticipation of demand. The Director of the Department of ;,and Conservation and Development urges recognition of this fa : an:; • ; . • identifies schools , along with police and fire services , as "responsive" facilities . The Director draws a distin:.ion, for , ' • planning purposes , between tnese responsive facilities ani ' transp: rtation, water, sewage and drainage facilities •�;'-�ia , . ner words "must attend , rather than follow or respond ), ., construction . " ram, A G A Y k ) .G • t , 1J . •1 ` I . Attachment No. 3 September 18, 1990 Page 7 • Specific Policy 4, on the other hand, directs that schools be available or committed "prior to approval" of development. If that has not occurred, the specific policy states that schools maybe provided "concurrently" with development "if part of an adopted annual capital budget at the time of a development. " pproval of the The specific policy contradicts the language of its general policy in that it is illogical and inconsistent with how schools function in this state, to require schools to be constructed orfunded prior to the approval of the development which they will serve. The City has experienced the result of a strict application of the language of this specific policy . resulted in circumstances whic did not�justifyo moratorium 4 a moratorium pursuant to state law. the enactment of ; ' planning and coordination between the TCity��and nSchool t lDistrict of ol satisfy this general policy. In summary, the three general policies listed above , which are applicable to the school capacity issue in the consideration of .a specific development application, when read together, require the City to plan for services sufficient to accommodate growth , coordinate with the School District on capacity issues , and evaluate applications and determine impacts . School capacity is ; n a system wide issue and forecasting when new a the school system is not precise . growth will impact single land use application is not theca appropriate hearinr, .an which to make determinations concerning systemeriwid forum within wide school capacity . There is not reliable data concerning that will result from a single application or theftimtiin, Lofath � , impacts . The current level of coordination and planning, of those continual monitoring of actual school populatin changes , sa,. isa .t these policies . If it is determined that school capacity will ae Y' exceeded, with certainty, the City Council mai em l)y G.° moratorium law ton '� p the state while the district�implements oprogramsgtofcorrecththe pr,Olem,00l )�y ;tty/Corespond-7 ' . Gt• + �, • ' 4, I • t , • A• y • ..r • 1 ' • • • A A 1 • • • y1x .1 • :1 ' W 1 LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent May 7, 1990 TO: Board of Dir ectors FROM: Bill Korach, Superintendent • ;� 4 `SUBJECT: Elementary Enrollment Recommendation ': One. of the rims P ry goals of my superintendency has been to establish an open, forthright, and cooperative approach to problem solving between the school district and the Lake Oswego community, p has guided our efforts to cope with the problems created by burgeoning elements enro an approach which :elementary school in the district having now been affected by the growth in L elementary lrmall With every communities have worked in supportdistrictLake Oswego, all the school • nave defined ahigh-quality educational experience for the chis ldren n to Preserve the standards by which we rldren of Lake Osweg°, • District Standards Equal q opportunity--The district has a responsibility (Board Policy 6110) to provide "essentially the same instructional program to all children of the district." Student-teacher ratio--The district believes that smaller classes facilitate increased studer,i interaction, require less teacher time spent on behavioral management, alloowt for more thoroui h student diagnosis and evaluation, and provide the potential for greater more teaching strategies, including more individualized instruction to address individualcxiffcrc in in students. differences • Elementary school size--The district has established a range of approximately350-500 , as the ideal size of an elemente students should be a stable, secure environment whichceat bhlrches than an elementary school as a unique individual. As the school population rises significantly odevelop students, he recognized additional strains are placed on students, teachers, and parents as they er Y attemptto communicate and to worn closely and cooperatively in a crowded environment. Neighborhood schools--The district has demonstrated its strong , commitment to maintaining • neighborhood schools, knowing that presen'ing a sense of identity and identification w;th a particular school is a strong community value. However, when the neighborhood concept conflicts with the concept of equal educational opponunity, the district ult matey mug give priority to providing "essentially the same instructional program, , ,for all children r comparable grade levels." ,t w , Elementary Enrollment Study Committee, made up of citizens representing the co •.0 feted its third year of a thorough study of short-term and long. community. ha, incr j".::�cntary enrollment. Working in cooperation with the Elementary Enrollment Study Co • long-term approaches to the dramatic increases 5.. m'+ district has developed participatory decision-makings Committee. the w 5t_."greetings and conducting community and staff surveys,Po gather informas ation holding. both ons and toy and S:•.r.. solutions to our enrollment problems, Additionally, this spnng, members on and optniorrs and to help eerLL=eunity opened their homes for a series of five coffees attended by district administrators, g of the. Lake Grog School Terreers, and parents to provide an additional forum for discussion of the enrollment options being , , , �cnoc�l board tey district, �cmtitd�r�u • The ceemination of this extensive study coordinated by the Elementary Enrollment Study Comrntttee• including or'. terable opportunities for participation by the community and by staff, is represented by the indis:dual reccendations of the member,; of the enrollment committee and by the following rem • sum -.endent, o ih� recommendation lys the • • .. f •, b • 1 ,i, • ?;' SUPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION FOR LAKE GROVE ELEMIENTAR\' SCHOOL INFORMATION AND ASSUMPTIONS 0 . — school district has established the ideal size of an elementary school as beingapproximately 500 students, Lake Grove's enrollment is currently over 550 students, without the kindergarten, which, as you know, has been ,reele.:.ated at Bryant Elementary School. The projection for October 1, 1990, for Lake Grove School is 600 students. ar.= excluding the kindergarten. After extensive analysis of building permits, housing under construction, the eber of elementary students per household in new development, and the strength of the current housing market, ee es my opinion that the actual enrollment on October 1 will exceed our projection and that the Lake Grove School .`' =em lation within its current boundaries could exceed 700 students before the end of the 1990-91 school year, "-"`.-,e following reference t g points are relevant to my recommendation: 1. Lake Grove School has had to shoulder the burden of coping with the impact of significant growth in r a: enrollment for a longer time than has any other elementary school in the district; 2, Lake Grove School has experienced the most dramatic increase in enrollment of any elementary school in the district; 3. • Lake Grove School still has the potential for enormous growth within its attendance boundaries: 4. Lake Grove School will begin renovation and remodeling this summer with the removal of aNhe:;tos and the construction of a covered play area. r CONCLUSIONS '. :.-t eeonditions aff Icting the educational program at Lake Grove Elementary School require the school district to Sze strong and effective measures to insure the quality of the educational program at Lake Grove School ..-::g.`lout the 1990-91 school year + ,Y 1, by employing a combination of options to significantly reduce the Lake Grove student population to d .� the optimal size of an elementary school as defined by district standards for the start of the 1990-,)I school year; • . by designing an enrollment strategy to assure that Lake Grove School will not reach a student population that jeopardizes the district's responsibility to provide "essentially the same instructional program to all children in the district." LAKE GROVE RECOM,\IENDATION G,•,:-7, the conditions and the limitations facing the district until the new elementary school and the additional c:a ,r`oms gained through remodeling are completed, I believe the following recommendation for Lake Grog e Sc:.c, i ;o be the best possible combination of short-term solutions, I therefore recommend to the Board ot ' Dw z-:ors the following options for Lake Grove School for the 1990-91 school year: 1. Continue the relocation of Lake Grove kindergarten students at Bryant Elementary School for the 1990-91 school year, This option alone provides for a projected October 1, 1990, enrollment of approximately 600 students at Lake Grove School. 2. Relocate the Lake Grove first grade at Bryant Elementary School for the 1990-91 school N.ear. This option will further reduce the projected October 1, 1990, enrollment of Lake Grove Sehool to approximately 500 students, ' 3. Designate neighborhoods currently under construction in the Lake Grove attendance arcu to attend • River Grove Elementary School as those homes are occupied, I am an1' . , •p recommending aria ��n�rally referred to as the Bay Creek Development, which would also be designated by the Board of Directors rn a to attend the new school in 1991-92, This option will allow us to utilize existing classroom tipat.e within the district as well as help to prevent Lake Grove from significantly exceeding the optimal siee rot' district elementary schools. 4 Designate other neighborhoods where large-scale development is scheduled to take plat,, for Jistri,.►• wide elementary school attendance until the new elementary school boundaries are e.'Iahlislted for the 1991.92 school year. This option will allow us to utilize existing classroom space tcutlnl the distric,i as well as to help prevent Lake Grove from exceeding the optimal size for district eh:mentar 'Jhouls.This :z:commee illation will continue to require that the district provide adequate support services to Lake Urure , Elementary School, including administrative assistance. i' ,, $, J . . , • . r a , wt fir," y w SUPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION FOR UPLANDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL •ti- t • a'' NNFORMATION AND ASSUMPTIONS iplands Elementary School currently has a population of 559 students and is projected for 595 students on October. 1, 1990. With the additional classrooms and expanded core facilities being added through remodeling• the continued use of portable classrooms, Uplands Elementary tary School should have the classroom space to .;=:enmmiodate the growth which is projected for the 1990.91 school year without significantly compromising :dstrict standards, CONCLUSIONS The district has established a practice of allowing each school to keep all students within its attendance aoundaries until the population reaches the point where, compared with other schools in the district, equal wducational opportunity is being significantly jeopardized. The district can provide the classroom space and In:, resources to allow Uplands School to continue providing an educational program comparable to that of the ~ :suict's other elementary schools. RECOMMENDATION y -recommend to the Board of Directors that the district keep all Uplands Elementary students within the ...ar ent Uplands attendance boundaries at Uplands Elementary School for the 1990.91 school year. This Gaon will require that the district continue to provide adequate support services, including ad,nlnistrativc .t ss1stance. SUPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION FOR FOREST HILLS ELEMENTARY ' SCHOOL - i • • IN ORM&TION AND ASSUMPTIONS st Hills Elementary School currently has a population of 377 students and is projected for 403 students on y ,. amber 1, 1990. With the additional classrooms and improved core facilities being added through h : NI.c1ing, Forest Hills School should not have to reduce the quality of its educational program to 1c Dmmodate the growth which is projected for the 1990-91 school year, C3\CLCJSIONS district has established a practice of allowing each school to keep all students within its attendance c'.:ndarics until the population reaches the point where, compared with other schools in the district, equal �..rational opportunity is being significantly jeopardized, The district can provide the classroom space and e. -esources to allow Forest Hills Elementary School to continue providing an educational program r` ,:arable to that of the district's other elementary schools, RECOMMENDATION C —_;commend to the Board of Directors that the district keep all Forest Hills Elementary students within the :--::.t Forest Hills attendance boundaries at Forest Hills Elementary School for the 1990-91 school year. --._= option will require that the district continue to provide adequate support services. • • j ,. .• • la` • • t 1` I .. r .r. . • • C! i_1 • • • 9 VIkF .: ,,., (41 . 9/4/90 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO . , • CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE -, MEMORANDUM w .�' TO: City Council FROM: Peter C. Harvey, City Manager SUBJECT: Follow—Up on Residential Lot Calculation DATE: August 28, 1990 At the special meeting with the School District, a question came up regardin how the u / vacant single—family zoned lots were calculated. Sandra Korbelik, Senior Planner, has � advised me that the figure of roughly 857 vacant lots was calculated by countingthe number of subdivisions and minor partition lots v last fiscal year (1989-90), adding the sum of Karen Scott's calculation for tota�alnuumber of existing lots ending u 1988--89, and then subtracting single—family building fiscal a The calculation of 857 vacant lots includedyboth large ttracts of vac nt landlas year. scattered, already subdivided vacant lots within established neighborhoods, The bulk of the 857 are found in scatted in lots. 4 _ There was also a request to determine the geographic areas of the City where these lots are located. This would require considerable manual work on the part of the Planning staff to accumulate. • It is recommended that this explanation be added to the other material for inclusion in the update of the moratorium report. Respectfully submitted, `"Y'eterC. /mod` Harvey City Manager 4. 1 • 380 ' •%,.E'vL E POST OFFICE 1301369 LAKE OW,EGO.OP,ECO'r 9'034 503 635.0 i 5 • a ` 1' 1/ .\, 1 1 p Lake Oswego , Elementary Enrollment ' 4• August 21, 1990 Ir �. Adjusted Current # of Projection Forecast Capacity. Enrollment Portables Bryant 413 513* 529 502 2 Forest Hills 403 403 391 370 Hallinan 330 330 437 311 s„,, 600 500 Lake Grove 552 453� 2 • . y Palisades 344 344 345 328 a ... • River Grove 299 299 414 305 Uplands 595 595 644 574 4 • Westridge 409 II 409 460 39$ , TOTAL 3,393 3.393 3,772 3,241 10 ' / /• `� MEMORANDUM ; t TO: , Peter C.Harvey, City Manager FROM: Sandra Korbelik, Senior Plana r • 78 0P•0 B Are38 ns SUBJECT: Status Report Regarding Lake Oswego Elementary School lift Otwo00 Capacity and City—Wide Residential Development Activity Oregon 9703i L) 303.6.3s oiso DATE: August 10. 1990 Engmurmq ,' s00•°0s•Oi70 CityCouncil has requested a periodic briefing regarding the status of the Lake Buuair q Oswego School District elementary school City `f :00.0u.0390 capacity. AS you know, the has established a regular system of communicating residential development activity to s FAX the school district to assist in forecasting classroom demand. This report contains FAX VI the school district projection for the 1990/1991 elementary summaryof residential developmenta school year and a activity for fiscal year 1989/1990. .." 1. School District Forecasts ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRO JECTIONS 1990/1991 SCHOOL YEAR Capacity for Adjusted F recast '0.. Ic1 ' 1990/1991,1 1990/1991 0 Bryant 529 513 . ; .,tt Forest Hills 391 403 l Hallinan 330 Lake Grove 552 500� Palisades 3Rivergrove 414 299`t a n Uplands 644 595 �� Westridge 460 409 `.s/ 1 Total Students 3,772 3,393 C 1 Capacity varies yearly for each school based on construction of new additions, _.J portable classrooms, kindergarten programs and space commitments for other agencies or district wide programs. Li., Li 2 The adjusted forecast total and the enrollment projection total from Oct ober J 1, 0 Nag'` 1989 are the same, The adjusted forecast, however, has a redistribution of individual school figures due to subsequent elementary enrollment decisions. 3 The adjusted forecast figure of 500 for Lake Grove is conservative, and may range up to a total of 600 students, . * 4 The adjusted forecast figure of 299 for Rivergrove is conservative, Student demand created by the active new home construction in the Bay Creek subdivisions located north of Westlake will be accommodated within the Rivergrove School, The size of that demand is difficult to forecast, • • , • • The school district has created the flexibility to accommodate , students should actual fall enrollment exceed the forecast. Starting additional 379 subsequent school year of 1991/1992, the new element S With the 0 . . an increased district capacity of 500 students. elementary school will provide for 2. Residential Development Activity • The following two tables summarize residential development activity last fiscal year. These figures trvity for this Council August 1989, which had supplement June 30, 1 the 9p`dtsrnbuced to City A. BUILDING PERMIT'S ISSUED 1989/1990 FISCAL YEAR • Single Family Multi Family 400 Houses ' • '+' tlila • Total ' 439 Dwellings •::i. B. SINGLE FAMILY LOTS APPROVED . 1989/1990 FISCAL YEAR Z� • Number of nsai R-15 63 ;� R-10 117 R 7.5 r ., 31 R-5 •„ , la Total Lots Approved 372 • The City continues to experience an arrive development market, bdth subdivision of land and issuance of building permits. There were through the 682 new dwelling units in 1988/1989, the preceding fiscal 1989/1990 figure, it is evidentyear. When compared to the that the single family markerstrong, The drop in multifamily can, be attributed to a declinecontinues noa ail to be multifamily land. able . 3. Conclusions Information presented to Council in August, deliberations indicated there were a total of835$a during cant thebuilding le family zoned lot,momoratoriumwithin the city limits, A very gross update of this vacant lot figure with the last , :fiscal years development activity indicates there areroughlys ' July 1, 1990, This new vacant lot figure was achieved by addingovacant lots as ;;:' vacant lots) to 372 recently approved lots) and subtracting 400 ( ingl (existing building permits), •(single family • • a • • • • a • • `h' There are several variables which are not taken into consideration through this calculation: 1. Recently approved'lots are subdivisions of previously counted existing lots. Therefore, the parent lot(s) should be subtracted from the total of recently approved lots. Otherwise, these parent lots are double counted. • 2, Some vacant lots can not be built upon since they are set aside as open space, or are part of a double lot ownership with an existing house straddling both lots. • • • • • K. • • • A • • r • A • r e . • u ` 1. t + t `' • I r r LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT ` " .. Ottice of Supenntendent ; EsigRaLLMENT REPORT Date 6 190 • • ELEMENTARY K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Spec Total Oct School Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup Stye Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup -or t ,rt Sxie I ! 1 -arm Milts 2.0 52 3.0 75 2,0 43 2 0 51 2.0 40 2.5 56 2 0 47 1 0 10 15 51 3741 ,.mue Grove 0.0 0_ 5 0 114 4.0 95 4.0 96 3.5 82 3.5, 85 4 0 86 0 0 01 24 t 5581 ,rata,cs 3.0 63 4 0 87 3.0 66 3.0 69 4,0 92 4.0 83 4 0 92 1.0 101 25 01 5621 Total 5.0 115 12.0 276, 9.0 204 9.0 216' 9.5 214 10.0 2244110.0 225 2 0 20 6;5J 1 45,41 • '3'7 T4r•5Oe 1Y 0 a'c u 6.0 122 2.0 43 2.0 48' 2.0 49 2.5 56 2,0 35 2.0 39 0 0 01 18 51 3921 aIlcwrr 2.0 39 2.0 40 2.0 40 2.0 46 2.5 58 2.0 41 3,0 71 0 0 0 15 51 3351 z'ai- s 2.00 37 20 49 2.0 43 2,0 42 20 53 3,0 63 00 0 00 0 1301 2871 • °i-14e'3r;we 2.0 43 2.0_ 38 2.0 43 2 0 47 1.5 42 1.5 34 0 25 0 0 01 12 6, 2721 Aorsrt the 2.0 52 3 0 65 2.0 51 2.5 58 2.5 61 3 01 64 3.0 85 0 0 01 18 1 4361 • Total 14 01 2931 11.0 2351 10.0 225` 10.5 2421 11 0 2701 11.51 2371 9 01 2201 0 01 I 7-; ' 7;.2t 14:-O T AL 1 19 0 4081 23 01 5111 19.0 429 19 5 458 20 51 484 21 5 4F1-7181 4451 22 01 201 14;1 s SECONDARY Junior Htah High School 7 8I Total Oct,1 9 10 11 12 Tot& Cr: ! or• 1 I I - w:5 261 2371 498 4 1.:,HS 259 250. 2301 2041 etal_c,z. 250 1 251 501 4 l Total 51 t 1 251 501 8 akendoe 230 218 2291 2501 . - 1 Total 489 468 4591 4541 • Growth Analysts ' • October 195- October 1988 3. _eve, N 1 5 NOctober 1989 vJIrF• e S N g N =er- "I'= 13081 1 461 1 473 1 494 1 467 1 690 1 494 • - -- 4041 4251 44 w I ,e 0 172 494, 4C" EC_ e `2 • 061 ' 0571 i. 95-1 9521 9491 9 .' 'ALS I1 33 1 5.5E1i 5 8281 1 5 C3D e 1.. •.. or. ' 0 . , '•w.. . , J • x r • ` �� • s- • . ' ' elo f , • • O , 1. 'I April 5, 1991 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Raintree Development Company, Inc. , the developer of Pfeifer Farm subdivision, will accept the storm drainage from the Casebeer property to the north. We recognize a part of accepting this drainage is the requirement to handle water quality and detention in the Pfeifer Farm detention pond. Sincerely, / --:-;/4•.), /44'. - c 7-, Robert N. McDoug d President • RNM:cw i. 4 • 1.1 EXHIBIT 16 Raintree Development Company 16650 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road Tigard, OR 97224 gp'; ' ' Df c . Real Estate Development and Investment • • 1 1 A • • • ,,. • • • • yti. i 0 .':,.. •.'' '' '. • • • • v• t • • • • • t v • n "a. • • • • • L•,S '1 • HI , • • 0 d , 't