Agenda Packet - 1991-02-20 (06) ,� ,x
AGENDA
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD .
• CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL,380 'A' AVENUE ;
Wednesday, February 20, 1991
7:30 P.M.
Revised
I. CALL TO ORDER
a ROLL CALL
m APPROVAL OF MINUTES
I %. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS .
•
V. PUBLIC HEARING •
; SD 1--91\VAR 1-9;1, a request by Tom &Lorraine Johns for approval to create three parcels
from a 29,043 sq. ft. parcel. The proposed parcels are to be 5,183; 5,468; and 18,392 sq. ft. in
•
size. The applicant is also 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. Parcels B and C are not proposed to have any frontage on a public street. The site is located
on the north side of Rosewood Street, between Pilkington Road and Tualatin Street [Tax Lot
3200 (portion) of Tax Map 2 1E 18AB]. Staff coordinator is Michael 8,. Wheeler, Associate,
Planner,
.:
r t SD 8-91\VAR 2-91, a request by Majestic Homes, Inc. for approval Fora 5,632 sq. ft, lot line
' adjustment between two parcels. The adjusted parcels are proposed to be 21,710 and 29,741
. sq. ft. in area. Also, the applicant is seeking approval in 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. Tax Lot 6000 is not proposed to abut a street, but will be served by a 25 ft. wide access
easement over Tax Lot 5900. The site is located at 3155 Douglas Circle (Tax Lots 5900 and
6000 of Tax Map 2 1E 8AC), Staff coordinator is Michael R. Wheeler,Associate Planner.
V:. GENERAL PLANNING
Appointment of Wetlands Subcommittee Member
V71. OTHER BUSINESS—Findings, Conct,ssions and Order
.
•
DR 20-85(Mod. 10-90)-••Terry L. Goldbeck
V . ADJOURNMENT
Thee '.ake Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your interest in these agenda items, Feel free •
" +' *come and go as you please,
II cB Memhert: Staff: •
✓
Robert H.Foster,Chair Robert Galante,Acting Planning Director ,
carp Stanaway,Vice—Chair Hamid Pishvaie,Dcv,Review Planner
Tames A.Bloomer Catherine Clark,Associate Planner
Robert D.Greaves Jane Heisler,Associate Planner •
,, Otriger Remy Michael R.Whaler,Associate Planner
tmy N,Starr Barbara Smolak,Associate Planner '•
• . Norman J,Sievert Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney
Barbara Anderson,Secretary
•
•
,�P• �:.
r .�
r' ti
. .... ... ..
. .
1
f ,r ...
. .. . . .
..
. ...
MEMORANDUM
J50'A'Avenue
TO: Planning Commission Members
PO0oiJ69
Lake Oswego °
Oregon 97034 FROM; Catherine Clark, Associate Planner �' '�
V Planning
50J.6J5'0290
eaeara Engmeennq SUBJECT: Draft Amendment to the Wetlands Standard
• '
50J'6J5.0270
503.635.0390 DATE: February 7, 1991
•
W•
FAX
503.635.0269
1"'e PROPOSAL
•:: .
This is a draft amendment to the Wetlands Standard which is being initiated by
staff at the direction of the City Council. The Planning Commission had asked •
to see draft language for the proposal before it is scheduled for a public hearing. •
01 , The draft proposal is included as Exhibit 1,.: ' 7 .. C)
'
BACKGROUND
b
The impetus for amending the Wetlands Standard came in 1986 when staff
® > identified various code changes needed in conjunction with periodic review, Staff
felt that revisions were needed at the time because the standard was very general W and hard to interpret. It was difficult for developers to mad the standards
reach the same conclusions as staff. Debates have often arisen, for instance,aon
what an "Essential" Wetland is as described in the standard. Council authorized
Y 3 a I
•• „
work on this and other code revisions in January, 1987, However, staff did not
actively begin to revise the Wetlands Standards until early 1990 due to other
project priorities,0 C
•
�:.
The need to revise the Wetlands Standards was reaffirmed by Council in late
W VI November, 1989 in the case of Lake Garden Court VAR 1 -( 9 89). This was a
C variance application to build a single family home on piers in a wetland, The lot
was zoned for residential development, but a nran-made wetland pond occupied
0
about 90% of the area, The Development Review Board found that the existingle
11e standard did not permit a non-wetland dependent use, such as a sin
03home, in a wetland. Section 4.020 (2) (a) states g family i
. ... . . • *Ls'
i
1 Wetlands Memo
"'.) 2/7/91
O.
a
•
• A
a. The proposed development is primarily dependent on being located in, " t
or in close r;roximity to, the essential wetland; ... " ,
The standard allows only wetland-dependent uses in a wetland, regardless of whether mitigation
is provided. The case was appealed to Council and upheld by them. At the same time, the Council observed that the Lake Oswego standard was stricter than State standards, which allow non-wetland dependent uses under certain circumstances when mitigation techniques are applied.
Council directed staff to bring the standard into conformance with State practices.
The Council also noted that the development standard was stricter than the Comprehensive Plan policies on wetlands. For instance, the Natural Resource Policy Element on Wetlands, General
Policy II states:
' "The City will establish development standards which will preserve the natural
function of these wetlands and protect them from deterioration."
The Plan policy does not differentiate between wetland dependent and non-dependent uses. It
also refers only to protecting the functions of wetlands, rather than the functions, values and area. The intent of the Plan policies appears to allow some level of development in wetlands
under limited circumstances, so long as the functions of the wetland are preserved, This would
indicate that mitigation is anticipated, although it is not clearly allowed for in the standards.
Council also directed staff to bring the Wetlands Standards more into conformance with the A0 . ,•
comprehensive plan policies,
PROBLEMS WITH THE EXISTING STANDARD •
A chart which compares the existing Wetlands Standard to State agency
•
proposed amendments is attached to this report g Y practices and the
p (Exhibit 2), Aside from not being consistent with
w State regulations and the City's Comprehensive Plan policies, a number of problems exist in
applying the standard:
• The no-net loss concept now commonly accepted at the State and Federal level
is not part of the standard.
• There are no requirements for buffers
• The standard relies heavily on the Hydrology Map, which is not a comprehensive
inventory of all wetlands in the City.
.' • • The definition of wetlands does not match the State definition,
•
> 2 Wetlands Memo0 ., .
2!7/91
•
• . \
air
a
• "Essential Wetlands" is a term only used in the Lake Oswego standard. It is not
'� well understood by applicants. The Hydrology map does not separate essential
from other wetlands. From the definition, every wetland in the City is essential,
This leaves us open to argument about the "Essential" definition for areas not
shown on the Hydrology Map.
• The standard is inflexible and treats all wetlands the same. It would be more
reasonable to be able to tailor mitigation measures based on wetland functions &
values.
• The standard technically allows only wetland-dependent uses in essential wetlands.
However, it is common practice in other jurisdictions and at the state level to "
allow non-wetland dependent uses when there is mitigation. The standard should
be matched with current practice. •
• Some of the wetland-dependent uses listed, like camping & swimming, are
. .
inappropriate.
-
® The Alternative Sites Analysis does not specify whether this is to be on or off-site,
This has resulted in misunderstandings with some applicants,
y.
•
• The standards seem to allow mitigation for wetland-dependent uses, but there are
no real mitigation standards.
•
4.
® There is no clear direction for coordination with State wetlands agencies. f .
OBJECTIVES FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS In general, the proposed amendments will seek to bring the wetlands standards into conformance
with certain provisions of State law and with state of the art practices. The standards will be
made clearer and more understandable, and will be modified to conform to the City's
Comprehensive Plan Policies. At the same time, the ordinance will be strengthened and
improved by establishing a no net loss policy, by requiring buffer areas, and by strictly limit;ng
circumstances under which mitigation may occur,
Specific objectives of the amendments are,
1, Prohibit development in wetlands with few exceptions.
• 2. Require mitigation, enhancement and monitoring when development is allowed,
3 Wetlands Memo
2/7/91
y
�• a / ' 5.
• .
3. When there is mitigation, require that there shall be no net loss of wetland area, functions '
or values.
4. Establish a buffer zone for additional habitat and wetland protection.
5. Provide development approval and mitigation standards.
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
The proposed amendments are extensive, and represent a complete overhaul of the existing• :w
wetlands standards. For this reason, there needs to be a strong level of involvement by citizens,
related City boards and committees and other interested parties. The Planning Commission will
be asked to give staff direction on how to best provide for public involvement at their February
11th meeting.
•
•
•
•
r '
rti
,A•
•
11
i • •
4 Wetlands Memo
•
2/7/91
•
•
a1 .\
•
D RAFT 2/5/91 C. Clark
:,` WETLANDS STANDARD
4.00S Title
The tide of this standard is "Wetlands".
M.i
4.010 Purpose
The purpose of this standard is to protect wetlands by prohibiting development in
wetlands with few exceptions; to provide buffer areas; and to require mitigation
when development is allowed. When mitigation techniques are applied, there shall
s I be no net loss of wetland area, functions or values.
4.015 Applicability
This standard applies to all development within a wetland or wetland buffer.
4.020 Definitions
I.. Drainage System: The surface and subsurface system for the removal of • '
water from the land, including both natural and man-made elements,
2. Enhancement: An improvement in the existing quality and/or quantity of
the functions, values or surface area of a wetland or wetland buffer.
3. Mitigation: To avoid, rectify, minimize,reduce or compensate for adverse
impacts to a wetland or wetland buffer which are caused by development.
4, Wetland: An area that is inundated or saturated by surface water or
. groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that
' + under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions, commonly known as
•
hydrophytic vegetation. Wetlands generally include 'vamps, marshes,
bogs, and similar areas,
5. Wetland Buffer: An area abutting the perimeter of a wetland which
provides wildlife habitat and helps to insulate the wetland from human w
disturbances, n
F'•
Wetlands Standard ..':.4
Page 1 of9 'i. EXHIBIT 1;.
w {v .r�.?M.h �N��
�, , , .A
ti
0, .
6. Wetland Functions and Values: The beneficial roles wetlands serve, "�
including but not limited to:
a. Native wildlife and plant habitat
b. Protection of rare and endangered species �.
c. Erosion control
d. Flood storage
e. Water quality control
f. Ground water recharge
g. Education and research
h. Cultural and social values
' i. Passive recreation
j' j. Open space and visual enjoyment
v^v,
4.025 General Provisions
1apA�.;
p.
.,,, 1. Development within a wetland or wetland buffer is prohibited except when
1 *•p••• extraordinary circumstances exist where development impacts cannot
. "',,. + reasonably be avoided.
2. When development within a wetland or wetland buffer is allowed, there
shall be no net loss of wetland area, functions or values,
3. Any application to develop a site which contains a wetland shall include,
at minimum, a Wetland Report as described in 40,040, and shall be
reviewed by the appropriate hearing body at a public hearing.
4, All applications to develop a site which contains a wetland shall provide
a wetland buffer area in accordance with Section 40,030 (3).
5. When development within a wetland or wetland buffer is allowed, a
Wetland Report, Mitigation Plan and Monitoring Program shall be
required.
•
• 6. When mitigation is allowed for a Distinctive Natural Area (DNA) wetland,
additional enhancement measures beyond a one to one replacement of the
existing area, functions and values shall be required. .1, •
•
40.030 Standards for Approval . "`
•
5.P
• , 1. General Standards
y
In order to approve a development that will affect a wetland or wetland
AWetlands Standard
Page 2 of 9
•
,,
r' • ; ,, . of ,
t r
JI .
'
. s + +
•
buffer, the hearing body shall find that:
q •
a. The applicant has endeavored to avoid the impact altogether 4
�`. by not taking a certain action; and
b. The applicant has endeavored to minimize impacts by limiting
the degree or magnitude of the proposed action; and
c. The applicant has demonstrated that compensatory measures
will mitigate for impacts caused by development in the wetland
or wetland buffer.
2. Review Criteria
r N ; • in evaluating a development application that may affect a wetland or
wetland buffer, the hearing body shall find that the applicant has
r ,
demonstrated that each of the following criteria has been met:
a. The basic purpose of the P P development cannot be accomplished
by a reduction in the size,scope, configuration or density of the
e development; or by changes in the design of the development a.`.
r in a way that would avoid or result in fewer adverse effects on
••
the wetland.
•
r
ose
° b. Alternative site plans and project locations have been analyzed
within the site, and the alternative chosen is the least
environmentally damaging while still allowing reasonable use
of the property.
c. In cases where the applicant has rejected alternatives to the
development due to constraints such as inadequate zoning or •
parcel size; the applicant has made reasonable attempts to
remove such constraints from the subject site.
° d. There is no net loss in the area, functions or values of the
wetland as a result of development action. ,,
e. The proposed wetland buffer area is adequate in size and meets
the criteria of Sections 40.025 (3) and (4).
•
f. The full extent of potential on-site and off-site development a
impacts to the wetland and its buffer area have been identified.
,,, 0
Wetlands Standard
Page3of9
Y
ctl M.
A9 c..'•
• ',y f
•
g. When the site contains a Distinctive Natural Area (DNA) •
•
wetland, enha►.eerent measures have been included above and
beyond a one-to-one re lacemmt of area, functions and values.
h. On-site mitigation is provided, if possible. If on-site mitigation
:ry is not possible, then off-site mitigation may only be considered
within the same drainage system and watershed. Restoration
of existing, degraded wetlands is preferred over the creation of •
man-made wetlands.
, r P
3. Wetland Buffer Area
A wetland buffer area shall be provided when a development occurs
on a site with a wetland. Where possible,a buffer shall be a minimum
• of 50 feet in width, measured outward from the edge of a wetland.
The Development Review Board may permit a reduced buffer width
without the need for a variance when the following criteria are met:
a. The presence of an existing development physically precludes
the establishment of a 50' buffer; or
•
b. The size of the subject parcel is insufficient to provide a 50'
buffer and develop the parcel in a reasonable manner; and
c. The applicant has demonstrated that the type of land use and
method of construction proposed will not diminish the wetland
area, functions or values; and
d. The buffer reduction requested is the least reduction possible
given the physical characteristics of the site. The buffer shall •
not be reduced to less than 25' in width unless the hearing
body determines that exceptional physical constraints exist.
4. Wetland Buffer Construction Standards
4 ,
a. Wetland buffers shall be protected by fencing and erosion
control measures during construction. Construction shall not
begin until after protective measures are in place and have
been approved by City staff.
b. No fill materials or storage of construction equipment shall
," occur within a wetland buffer. 41)
�.
Wetlands Standard
Page 4 of 9 .
�.. /• r
c. Removal of any trees or vegetation from a wetland buffer is
prohibited except in accordance with a mitigation plan
approved by the hearing body.
5. Wetland Buffer Development Standards
a. Landscaping planted in a wetland buffer shall provide wildlife
food and habitat, and shall consist of plant species generally
found in the type of wetland on the subject site.
b• Development may be allowed immediately adjacent to a
wetland buffer boundarywith the following 6 limitations:
1) Any building other than z single family home which
abuts a buffer shall not have any doors which open onto
the buffer. Doors shall only be permitted if they are for
emergency access only; or if the building is a public
wetland educational facility or park facility.
i �•
2) Parking lot lighting shall not be allowed adjacent to a
wetland buffer unless it is in the form of balustrades
•
with low level illumination and is necessary for safety.
Lighting on buildings shall not be placed on any wall
facing a wetland buffer. All lighting on a site next to a •
,., wetland buffer shall be minimal and shall not shine
directly onto the buffer or the wetland.
c. The hearing body may require that a wetland buffer be fenced
to prevent high levels of human intrusion. The hearing body
may also require that no fences be placed in or adjacent to a •
buffer to allow for freedom of animal migratory movements.
,•
" ` 40.035 Procedures
1. Any development proposed within a wetland or wetland buffer shall be
processed as a Major Development and shall receive a public hearing,
w •
2. Applicants am strongly encouraged to have a wetland boundary delineation
" survey prepared by a qualified consultant at the initial pm-application
• conference.
40.040
Application
Wetlands Standard
Page S of g
.
•
• 1'
•
V �.
WETLAND REPORT
A Wetland Report shall be required for development applications on sites
which contain a wetland or wetland buffer. A Wetland Report shall be
prepared by a qualified consultant and shall contain, at minimum, the
following information: •
1. Wetland Boundary Delineation
a. The locations of all wetland areas on the site shall be
shown on a topographic map that is drawn to scale. Any
' Distinctive Natural Area (DNA) wetlands identified on the
Hydrology Map shall be shown. A' wetland boundary •
determination shall be made by a qualified consultant
through the performance of a field survey applying the
wetland definition. Wetland boundary delineations shall be
performed in accordance with procedures approved by the
Department of State Lands (DSL). The boundary
determination shall include a calculation of the total land
area within the existing wetland. .:
b. If a wetland which will be affected by development is
located partially off-site, the applicant shall accurately
delineate this area prior to submitting a development
application. The applicant shall provide evidence of
permission from any off-site property owners granting right-
of-entry to City employees for inspections. Off-site
easements, if needed, shall be provided in writing with the •
development application.
2. Wetlands Inventory
a. A map of the existing site that is drawn to scale shall be
provided which identifies the existing vegetative and
aquatic features of the wetland and proposed wetland •
buffer.
b. A written narrative shall be provided which includes in-
• depth descriptions of the existing soils, vegetation,
`,•` hydrologic characteristics, and wildlife. Any rare or
endangered species shall be identified,
c, The functions and values of the existing wetland shall be
Wetlands Standard
Page 6 of 9
N \ r
V
•
analyzed in the narrative.
d• When a wetland has been identified as a Distinctive Natural
Area (DNA) on the Hydrology Map, the wetland shall be
described as having high social and cultural values,
3. Impact Analysis
a. An impact analysis shall be provided which includes a site
development plan and a narrative describing the potential
impacts in the absence of mitigation,
b. If the wetland buffer area is proposed to be less than 50' in d
a width, the narrative shall explain why this is necessary and
shall address the criteria of Section 40.030 (3). The
narrative shall include a description of methods of fill
placement or removal and erosion control during
construction.
IL MITIGATION PLAN
In addition to a Wetland Report, a Wetland Mitigation Plan shall be
required when a proposed development could affect a wetland or wetland
buffer area. The Mitigation Plan shall be prepared by a qualified
consultant and shall include, at minimum, the following: ;I
1. A site plan of the proposed development that is based on a
topographic map which shows the wetland boundary and wetland
buffer area as determined by field survey; all existing and proposed
structures, roads, watercourses, and
drainageways; water,
wastewater, and stormwater facilities and utility installations, If a >
•
portion of a wetland extends onto adjacent properties, that area
shall be shown on the map provided.
2. A written narrative which describes the existing wetland, the •
proposed wetland buffer, the development proposal and
development impacts. It shall explain the relationship of site s
features,such as uplands or drainage patterns and how development
activity may affect the wetland.
3, A mitigation plan map which shows, at minimum:
Wetlands Standard
Page 7 of 9
fa
0
9 ,
•
•
4
tpw.
,
i a. Existing and proposed plant materials and locations,
including a schedule listing the common and botanical
" names of plants, sizes at planting and maturi ,
i to be planted, tY� quantities
spacing, and any special planting instructions,
•
b. Erosion controls, including plant materials and soil
stabilization.
„4 c. Structures such as fences, shelters,darns,earth mounds,etc. " '
d. Wetland and wetland buffer boundaries.
e. A schedule for plant installation, any new animals to be ,
added, and any temporary or permanent irrigation facilities, •
,
a f. Cross sections showing various water levels and proposed
improvements.
g. Other information as required. r.
,
t . ,,
`Jr 4. A written narrative which describes the proposed mitigation and •
enhancement measures. The mitigation proposal shall state the
objectives to be accomplished, how they will be accomplished, and
how the requirements of section 40.030 have been met.
In. MONITORING PROGRAM
1. Where mitigation is approved by the Development Review Board,
a Monitoring Program shall be required for a period of 3-5 years.
This program shall be submitted with the development application, •
and shall be prepared by a qualified consultant in conformance
with DSL standards for monitoring programs, A photographic
', record of the affected wetland area before improvements are made •
shall be included as part of the monitoring proposal, • .
2, A three-year maintenance bond in the amount of 1 10% of the value
of mitigation improvements shall be provided to the City to ensure
that proper maintenance will occur, • ;
3. Wetland buffers may be provided in the form of p priv
or an open space tract dedicated to the public, ate open space •
40 .. . ‘
Wetlands Standard •
��' page $ of 9
•
• 4. In the event that maintenance responsibilities or ownership is given
over to a homeowners association or some other party, a legal
agreement between the parties shall be recorded with the
appropriate County and filed with the City.
1• 1'
5. The maintenance bond will be released by the City after three (3)
years upon receiving proof that the mitigation measures have been
successfully implemented according to approved plans.
6. A detailed report by a qualified consultant, with map and color
photographs, shall be submitted by the applicant three (3)
years
after completion of the mitigation measures and again after five (5)
years. The reports shall document the current condition of the
resource: If the mitigation plan has not been implemented as
approved, the property owner or other responsible party shall
submit plans to the Planning Department for rectifying any
deficiencies.
40.045 Agency Coordination '.
1. If a Division of State Lands (DSL) wetland permit IS required, a copy
.',:..
the PSI, permit application shall be submitted with the development
application.
2. The City Manager shall fonvard copies of development applications
involving wetlands to the Division of State Lands (DSL), the Army Cogs of Engineers, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and any other
agency or group requesting notice. Comments from other agencies and n interested parties will be considered as advisory only,
r '
3. The City Manager may request input from DSL or other wetland
•
f regulatory agencies when reviewing wetland delineation boundaries
determined by consultants.
:• ;' 40.050 Miscellaneous Information
Wetland areas shown on the Lake Oswego Hydrology Map are presumed to be
wetlands consistent with the definition herein.
Hydrology Map are presumed to exist in the City Wetlands
Lake Oswego shown and
the
g dare r, "
,...j protected under this standard, The Hydrology Map shows only the general
location of wetlands and should be consulted by persons contemplating activities
in or near wetlands before engaging in any site development, The Hydrology
r` is on file in the Planning Department at City Hall, Map
, , . . The Lake Oswego Distinctive Natural Areas (DNA) Map should also be consulted
' . 410
in conjunction with the Hydrology Map, •
Wetlands Standard
Page 9 of 9 '
•
•
r i
blI j 00t-
��i{y{ttaJ 13�,r't *y
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• ••
•, ,• •
•,
•
•
•
r ,
/ ry
•l
r 1:
•
• y �:
•
•
•
.
•
r
ea sta
a 3'
•�.N quuoArp0119NI1
ON OF LAKE OSWEGO WETLANDS STANDARDS TO STATE; REQUIREMENTS 2/7/n1 ...' ...
�_ COMPARISON c r,. :S'CANI)nRD _�_»_ •
CU{�RENT L.O. STANDARp ^IrROPO ,EU i.. ...,..w-»�»»_M»_„_
STATE REQUIREMENTS* -- "_
OBJECTIVE - »_- »-»--- __»_ __ would require no net loss_---»--_»- no r'0crence to
' COAL of no net loss only would r.equ)tM �iC1' buffer. .
? Vi LOSS not required
• not required would not: differentiate between
PROVIDE BUFFERwetland dependent onlyr
differentiation between wetland dependent and non-dependent •• ,
No would regulate AL►, wetlands USES ALLOWED wetland dependent/non-dependent
acres (50 cu.yds) applies to "Essential"
Smaller ectltods, 1-3 regulation wetlands onlY
APPLICATION NOT subject to fill re9 Would he allowed only ,
Allowed under limited under limited rirrumr,t•annr�
u Allowed under limited Requires circumstances ONLY
WETLAND UFVF.LOPMFN'I circumstances mi only• for wetland-dependent use with strict rri tor.i.a, to he
avoidance, minimization & alternatives similar r,r, ;f�:ttr rritrrfa. ,(.Y
analysis before conaiderin9at:ion
mitigation. Level of mitigation
depends on importance of wetland
(functions & values) . Mitigation
can occur aff»site, would rrsrut.lialt miiirar+Lirrtr tclnft+f:+trlts
none
• would require wetland inventory
requirements MITIGATION STANDARDS extensive req none
• extensive requirements would rr•tuyrr mf.tiGlarion
WETLAND INVENTORY none
MLTIGhTION PLAN extensive requirements would require monitoring, none
extensive requirements would require Strr. I')NA7
MONITORING PROGRAM mitigation not required
. and encourage for other wetland" ` .
not required beyond ill mitig inadequately addressed would reriutr
ENHANCEMENT
State law .»
+ r' AGENCY COORDINATION required h�, _-»--------------- _•-_.»_»..__--.�.-_.,.,»_..
..-_»....__» Carps,
S on the Memorandum o£ Agreement between the EPA & Army Basedgenerally
and on DSL regulations
4 0 : ,
S- . •l
'+L• ,r. . „ ._ '.� n, - - .t t} r'+fb'+.:1g1"r1•N,iI
r
•
•
•
i >
r !
,
Y
•
+Y .
v.•
d 1'
y-
1 •
1r.
„r
n
.
L
Or
' •
4 .005 Title.
The title of this standard is "Wetlands. "
4 . 010 Applicability.
This standard is applicable to all de
essential wetlands. development within
4 .015 Definitions.
1 • Wetlands:
ground water s Those areas that are inundated b
u icient to support a prevalence of vegetationface
or
aquatic life which requires saturated or seasonallya tted or
soil conditions for
oluce swamps, for
thoand reproduction. Wetlands saturated
' wec meadows, sivmr r , and similar areas such asesloughs
overflows , mud flats, and natural sloughs , •
' � 2 . Essential Wetlands : ponds.
designate as such on the ydroloent�al wetlands are those
Y+
be such after site analysis and gY Map and those determined to e n 1 application of the criteria set
forthlocationi and extent(1) . oThf elhydrology map shows the approximate
own wetlands within the . i
also indicates whichof these wetlands are designated
"essential , map is available in the Public Worksk aD
at City Hall . �'
c Department
4 .020 Standards for Approval.
•
1 .
Development within essential wetlands shall be
only to the extent that its allowed
functions of wetlands as listed eine54a035 (nd 1) compatible with the
:' includes, but is not limited to: Such development
a . Conservation of soil, vegetation, water, fish ,
and
wildlife;
b. Outdoor recreation including
camping, and swimming;
c. hiking, nature study,
Walkways, � `• >•�
Y , decks, etc. , built on piers; and,
d. Uses associated with adjacent development, includin
yards, play areas .
9 ,
"' r 2. Any development is allowed in essential w
after the permit granting authority concludes thatetlan onlyh
•
following criteria are met; all of the
EXHIBIT
,` 101 3 ,
y•
i ANh
•. + • • -
4t
M
•� Je
a. The proposed development is
being located in, or in close proximity to, lthemar�ly essential dependenton `''
wetland;
b. There are no feasible alternative sites available
outside the essential wetland;
:f c. The applicant has provided sufficient information to
demonstrate the need to locate the
proposed development in the
essential wetland, and the lack of feasible alternative sites;
d. The proposed development would not significantly
damage, reduce or pollute the essential Wetland;
and,
e.
construction Thetae pplicant has demonstrated that _ t•he design and
d° and enhancement of the essential wetland too theemas xirnumor rpracticn
extent. practical
3 . The development shall
quality of essential wetland provide for the survival and
"' areas through careful site design
including density transfer. The design shall incorporate wet
features (ponds, streams, vegetation) . land
4 . 025 Standards for Construction.
1 . Avoid clearing or removal of wetland vegetation;
2 . •Include design features that prevent pollutants such as
oil , grease, paper,pa er debris , sediment, and/or erosion material
from entering the wetland; and
� cx
3 . Design and construct buildings, bridges , walkwaYsy
other structures in such a way that significant filling, and
and/or excavation within wetland areas is not required. Suching,
techniques include construction on piers,
4 .030 Standards for Maintenance.
None,
4 . 035 Procedures.
1 , A wetland qualifies for designation as an essential.
wetland when it
performs any of the following functions:
•
4.
11 .
.r
•
•
a,
a• Natural Groundwater Recharge
P,
Recharge areas where some portion '� "
extends below and connects with the watertable (thewe
of groundwater) ;
b.
Storage
,
ti
Storage areas acting as natural detention basins for
overland runoff and stream flood waters;
c. Turbidity Reduction
Presence of wetland vegetation which reduces runoff
• velocity, allowing suspended
particlesw to settle out or attach to
J • ' plant material, thus cleaning the water;
d. Filtration of Nutrients
Presence of wetland vegetation which absorbs nutrients
suspended in storm water runoff and stores these nutrients in
plant tissues.
In this way wetland plants act as a natural
nutrient filtration system.
e. Natural Biological Functions
Food chain production, habitat, nesting,
rearing, and protective cover sites for aquatic spawning ,d ( .
or has been designated as a q c or land species;
f . "Distinctive Natural Area"
Wetlands which have been designated in the Comprehensive
Plan as Distinctive Natural Areas ,
2. For major developments , essential wetlands boundaries
shall be determined at the time of
'.: the basis of detailed site Inventory and analysis and the recom- =`r'
, • mendation of the City Manager.
For minor developments, essential wetlands boundaries shall
be determined by the City Manager during the review of the
• ,, •.; application.
If there is difficulty in locating the boundaries,
the minor development shall be scheduled for a
conference. pre application
4 .040 Miscellaneous Information.
1 . Responsibility.
The applicant shall be responsible for providing informatio
needed to implement these standards. n
.,
12 ,
•
• \I
•
.1' ,-r 2 . Technical Assistance
To assist in defining wetland areas, the following documents
are available in the Public Works Department at City Hall:
PRELIMINARY GUIDE TO WETLANDS OF THE; WEST COAST
S TATES--"`
Technical Report T-78-4
U.S . Army Corps of Engineers
April 1978 - Final Report
CLASSIFICATION OF WETLANDS AND DEEPWATER HABITATS "
OF THE UNITED STATES
U.S . Fish & Wildlife Service
Superintendent of Documents
Washington, D.C .
•
The City Manager, the applicant or the hearing body may ..
; request assistance from an appropriate agency or consulting
expert, such as: the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers , the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Soil Conservation Service,
the U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service, the Oregon Department of Fish
4111 . . .....
, , and Wildlife, and the Lake Oswego Conservancy Commission.
•
•.✓ '•
,
•
aV , ,
i
e 13 .
•
•
. _. . .'•'. '. a � z�.�..
j '
k
tj11% +a r
•
MEMORANDUM h
•TO: Planning Commission Members
+
aI' 1 390'A'Avenue
P 0-B01 369 :,
Cake Oswego FROM: Catherine Clark, Associate Planner
Oregon 97034
Planning SUBJECT: Additional Exhibits for Wetlands Staff Report for Meetin q of
5o�•a�5 az96
1 Engineering February 11, 1991 '
503.635.0210 r
i g D;ATE: February 8, 1991
503 635 35.0390
FAX
v
501635.0269 ' r
•
Please find attached two additional exhibits for the staff report dated February 7, • o ff
Z 1991:
•
kiet Exhibit 4—Letter from Robert Evenson,dated September 24, 1990
Exhibit 5 Letter from Jack Broome, dated July 16, 1990
. • ,,, : o.... These letters were received after staff work was initiated on wetlands last
0 summer. They have been held until work on the amendments was reactivated.
1
CC:kaa
• +.. •
> c: Robert Foster, Chair,Development Review Board
[CC91.1]�corres>PC memo2-8
W
3 O
V t
C� c
WV
LL f/ )
: . . 03 . .
, . . .
, „
, . , ,
....
i,.o ! c4., .6 + .1' r:Of . k t V ° N` • r
,
V b
F
. A� Robert
v
Evenson
k4, September 24 , 1990
A iitects AlA
Alice L. Schlenker, Mayor
•
City of Lake Oswego
;1'"` 380 'A' Avenue
, P.O. Box 369
Lake Oswego, 97034
u •
RE: Follow-up to City Council meeting' on Nov. 1, 1989
Appeal of Dl2B decision on VAR 19 - 89
' ly
Dear Mayor Schlenker: '"
•
,Kt
•
r4 As part of the City Council decision to deny this
t� " y. appeal without prejudice, the Council directed staff to ,�
change the City of Lake Oswego Wetland Standard.
4 ` -^arc
Pig ''" It has been determined by LUBA and city staff that the
' c ra-Spare Planning
city standard is much more restrictive than state and •
•u,, 6.
federal standards .
, i
As stated in the findings, conclusion and order; l:' ,� '
"The City Council finds , “
that the showing of hardship is 'not a hardship peculiar to the site, but rather a
hardship that arises from the Wetland Standard in that " '.
the standard requires that only wetland dependent uses .I.. '.
may be located in a wetland. The siting of a house in a wetland is violative of the standard, no matter where + .y
the wetland may be located. Relief from such a
' hardship can best be addressed bygeneric
".p of the Wetland Standard, " a possible revision
These directives were made 11 months ago" Since that
time some work was done on rewriting the ordinance,
•
According to a recent discussion I had With staff,
however, this project has been put on hold.
Other parcels of land within the city contain wetlands
J
and they also face the dilemma of dealing with the overly restrictive ordinance. I think the City's
Wetland Standard should be modified now to bring it
into conformity with state and federal standards.
Sin erely,
, ad'4///// 4
W
EXHIBIT
I ___Y____
Robert S. Evenson
Portia tzt w cgni,97209 ;.
p
<,), �� •: ' act Bob Galante - Planning Department
N,
John Hammond City Attorney
• • • • •.
I r / • ,
a:
•, The Wetlands Conservancy v
Post Office Box 1195
m f w
Tualatin, Oregon 97062 U I_ '
' 0
(503) 691 -1394
y:
Memorandum
Subject: Revisions to Wetland Standards, Lake Oswego
v,
Date: July 16, 1990 .
To: r'Adrianne Brockman
Robert Foster •
Bob Galante
Cathy Clark ;' •
After sitting in on your discussions of proposed changes to the Lake Oswego
wetland standards, I offer the following conments from someone who is totally .
,,,; ' involved with wetland protection in Oregon.
1. I support your efforts to limit development in wetlands to the maximum extent
possible while still being more in line with State and Federal standards.
However, the Clean Water Act and Oregon's Removal Fill Statute both have some
pretty big loopholes. Such as:
It is possible in most every instance for a property owner to drain a
wetland and/or remove every bit of standing vegetation. In both cases
the wetland is ruined for a very long time if not forever.
Also, State and Federal practices exempt many small urban wetlands from
any regulation whatsoever. These small wetlands of only 1 to 3 or so
acres may have high wildlife and open space value in an urban or suburban
• : area. They are now virtually unprotected. I would hope that the Lake ,, •
Oswego Ordinance will protect these small but important wetlands, ,•
• . . I see no reason why the Lake Oswego Ordinance cannot be more protective
than State or Federal regulations, •,,.,
2. Monitoring of wetland alterations should he required for a minimum of 3 years. ,�:_
This would be in conformance with Division of State Lands requirements,
3. Buffer zones are imperative for the protection of wetland and other native ,:',�;
plant ecosystems. A 50 foot buffer would be very desirable and not
•
impractical , The Tualatin Wetlands Protection Ordinance requires a 40 foot
buffer. My experience with 25 foot buffers is that they are woefully
inadequate and scarcely better than nothing at all , I hope you can hold with
the 50 foot buffer and that you will be caYeful about what sort of
encroachment is allowed and how far it may extend into the buffer, 1 would
like it better if there were no encroachment permitted.
•
4. The Taking Issue is a paper tiger. Very, very few taking cases ever prevail .
There is ample State and Federal case law on this subject, The U.S, v. '
Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. , case found that there is no taking as a result
of requiring a Section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act. The Lake Side
l' EXHIBIT : •
".A a b ,
le
Page 2 of 2 a�':.
July 16, 1990
u �
Garden property may be the exception that proves the rule and I understand
that there are some other lots of record contained wholly within a riparian
drainage4 corridor. These are unusual cases and are by no means the normal
circumstance.
5. Mitigation--Some areas and states are now requiring more than one-for-one
mitigation. The logic being that since we have had such a short time working
in this process that we are not sure that newly constructed or "enhanced"
wetland will ever achieve the functions and values of the original article.
We have had fair success with the creation and enhancement of emergent .wetlands but little or no experience with the replacement of forested
wetlands. It can take from 20 to 100 years for a forested wetland to develop
so we should not be too ready to write them off in favor of development and
•' replacement. What ap
pears to the human eye as a pretty decent newly created .�
wetland may be totally lacking in food chain values, water quality, ground
water interchange, and such, not readily apparent wetland functions.
6. Water Quality--We all know that the loss of wetlands has been a major
contributor to the corresponding loss of water quality in our stre.ms and
rivers. The Department of Environmental Quality is taking a much more active
role in wetland permit application review these days and Lake Oswego should R..
similarly take a harder line regarding the loss of wetlands and riparian
stream corridors. Water quality along with wildlife habitat should be
sufficient reason to go the extra mile for wetland protection, I know from '
personal experience, that there are many, corny Lake Oswego residents who value
the City's remaining wetlands and open sp '. s very highly and they are willing
to go to bat for them. You do have public Upport.
Best Wishes, .1
r'" Jack Broome
r, ..
,
r
{
I'. ;
i ,
•
•
n
O (�
. :. -
v. I)
1•
/ ' ,
p 1
I
sl \1!, t
'fn'
•
7 4.
()
1 .
o 1
AGENDA
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
DEVELOPMENT
DEVE OP
Lp� 'ANCOAD sCITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL,3$ A REVIEW
Wednesday, February 20, 1991
7:30 P.M.
�« e
I. CALL TO ORDER
U. ROLL CALL
•
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Agenda 13amk
IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
V. PUBLIC HEARING
SD 1-911VAR 1 91, a request by Tom & Lorraine Johns for approval to create three parcels
from a 29,043 sq, ft. parcel. The proposed parcels are to be 5,183; 5,468; and 18,392 sq. ft, i
size. The applicant is also seeking approval of a 25 ft. Class II variance to the Access n
Development Standard which requires that each parcel abut a public street for a minimum
ft. Parcels B and C are not proposed to have any frontage on a public street. Theof 25
on the north side of Rosewood Street, between Pilkington Road and Tualatin site islocated
3200�(portion) of Tax Map 2 lE 18AB]. Staff coordinator is S Street [Tax Lot
�� la �Q� '�h__ eel�ri A SO[`inle
S.D1,—..2nymuczn, a request by Majestic Homes, Inc, for approval for a 5,632 sq. ft. lot line
•
`.• adjustment between two parcels. The adjusted parcels are proposed to be 21,710 and 29,741
sq. ft. in area. Also, the applicant is seeking approval in a 25 ft. Class II variance to the Access
Development Standard which requires that each parcel abut a public street for a minimum of 2
•
ft. Tax Lot 6000 is not proposed to abut a street, but will be served by a 25 ft, wide access5 d
easement over Tax Lot 5900. The site is located at 3155 Douglas Circle (Tax Lots 5900 and
6000 of Tax Map 2 1E 8AC). Staff coordinator is Mkhael R Whrrl cr,Amiate I'Inr
W. GENERAL PLANNING
VII. OTHER BUSINESS —Findings, Conclusions and Order
DR 20-$5(Mod. 10--90)—Terry L. Goldbeck
VTR ADJOURNMENT .'
The Lake Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your interest in these agenda
to come and go as you please. 6 items, Feel free
DRB Members: !
Staff:
Robert H,Foster,Chair Robert Galante,Acing Planning Director
Skip Stnnaway,Vice-Chair Hamid Pishvaie,Dev,Review Planner
James A.Bloomer Catherine Clark,Associate Planner
•
Robert D.Greaves Jane Ieisler Associate Planner
Ginger Remy Michael R.Wheeler,Associate Planner
Harry N.Starr
rman J.Sievert Barbara Smolak,Associate Planner r
a`;•
Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney
Barbara Anderson,Secretary t
i
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF. ,
LAKE OSWEGO
LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION--_ __ . .
APPLICANT: FILE NO,:
•
•
Tom &Lorraine Johns SD 1-91\VAR 1-91
STAFF:
OWNER:
Tom &Lorraine Johns Michael R. Wheeler
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT: .
r
Tax Lot 3200 (portion) of
Tax Map 2 lE 18AB February 8, 1991
LOCATION: DATE OF HEARING;
North side of Rosewood Street, between February 20, 1991
• . / 0 Pilkington Road and Tualatin Street °
NEIGHBOREDQD ASSOCIATION:
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION:
•
° None
R-5
ZONING DESIGNATION:
R-5
I. AP.PLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant is seeking approval to create three parcels from a 29,043 sq, ft, parcel. The
proposedparcels are to be
5,183; 5,468; and 18,392 sq. ft, in size. The applicant is also 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. Parcels B and C are not proposed to
have any frontage on a public street.
II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
A. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance;
LOC 48.120-48.155 R-5 Zone Description tetbacks, lot area, lot
LOC 48,535(4)4 coverage)
Special Street Setbacks \''
LOC 48,520(2) Projections from Buildings •
SD 1-91\VAR 1-91
A
Page 1 of 9
Q T.
B. City of Lake Oswego Development Coi1e:
LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards
• LOC 49.110 Concurrent Review of Permits
LOC 49.140 Minor Development
LOC 49.145 Major Development
LOC 49.220-49.210 Minor Development Procedures
LOC 49.215 Authority of City Manager
LOC 49.300-49.315 Major Development Procedures
P LOC 49.500 Variances; Classifications
LOC 49.510 Variance Standard
•
LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval
LOC 49.620
Conditional Approvals
C. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards:
2.005-2.040 Building Design
5.005-5.040 Street Lights
6.005 -6.040 Transit Standard
7.005-7.040 Parking &Loading Standard •
8.005-8.040 Park&Open Space Standard
9.005-9.040 Landscaping, Screening & Buffering
10.005- 10.040 Fences
11.005- 11.040
1 .005 12.040 Drainage Standard for Major Development •
Drainage Standard for Minor Development
14.005- 14.040 Utility Standard18.005- 18.040 Access Standard
19.005 - 19.040 Site Circulation -Private Streets/Driveways '
D. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plat:
Urban Service Boundary Policies
General Policy III, Specific Policy 4 ,
Impact Management Policies
General Policy II, Specific Policy 3
Wildlife Habitat Policies
General Policy II N
E. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance:
1 1 4
F, City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance; `"'
LOC 55,010-55.130 {
•
t `� III. FINDINGS
•
A, Existing Conditions;
1, The site is 29,043 sq. ft, in area, which is a portion of Tax Lot 3200 (Exhibit 1), '
SD 1--91\VAR 1-91
Page 2 of 9
4,
e
t•
2, The site is on the north side of Rosewood street, between Pilkington Road and
Tualatin Street. ,
3. The site is rectangular and generally flat overall.
" r s
f 4. A public storm drain is available at the north end of the site.
5. There is a fire hydrant at the southwest corner of the roe ''
property.
rty•
6. A 6"waterline is located in Rosewood Street.
;a.‘, ,, •
7. An existing single—family dwelling,deck and carport are located on proposed
Parcel A (Exhibit 4). These structures will remain as part of this project. The deck ''
f.
is less than 30" in height.
8. One dwelling exists on the abutting parcel to the west, which is approximately
41,420 sq. ft.in size, (a les,intensive residential use than that proposed).
B. Backgrounds
The site previously received approval for a three parcel minor partition and approval for a
25 foot Class II variance to the Access Development Standard [SD 36-90/VAR 20-901 '
(Exhibit 7).
�+ � S�Y C. proposal;
The applicant is proposing to create three parcels from a 29,043 sq. ft, lot. The parcels
are proposed to be as follows:
Parcel A 18,392 sq. ft.
Parcel B 5,468 sq. ft. .
Parcel C 5,183 sq. ft.
The applicant is also requesting a 25 ft. Class II variance to the Access Development
' PP
r'} Standard which requires that each parcel abut a street for a minimum of 25 feet. Parcels
t4' ,''t;,;; B and C are proposed to provide no frontage on Rosewood Street (Exhibit 4). Access is
,,' •
proposed to these parcels by a 20 foot private road.
D. Compliance with Criteria for Approval:
AV
As per LOC 49.615, the Development Review Board must consider the following criteria
when evaluating minor or major development.
1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval. ,1
'
The applicant has borne the burden of proof through submittal of documents marked as ,
exhibits, accompanying this report. •
2. For any development application to be approved, it shall first be established •
that the proposal conforms to:
a. The City's Comprehensive Plan •
SD 1-91\VAR 1-91
Page 3 of 9
,;.
•
•e
• Y
Applicable policy groups are; . •
Urban Service Boundary Policies
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.
This specific policy also states that these services are to be available or committed prior
to approval of development. Exhibit 5 (the City Council memorandum of September 18,
1990) demonstrates that the current level of school planning and coordination between
the City and School District satisfy this General Policy. The passage of the 17 million f
dollar school levy would further assure adequate school facilities.
Impact Management Policies
These policies require protection of natural resources from development, comprehensive
review of development proposals, and payment of an equitable share of the costs of
public 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 be protected from removal,
streams be preserved and that density be limited to achieve these results. Compliance
with the applicable Development Standards reviewed below will assure conformance to
these Plan policies. Conditions of approval will be imposed when necessary to assure
compliance.
•
•
Wildlife Habitat Policies
•
•
These policies require protection of upland habitat in the form of preserved open space,
natural vegetation or fragile slopes. The related Development Standards are reviewed in
this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. , t1
• b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations.
Zoning Code Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 48)
.:71
The site is zoned R-5 which requires a minimum lot area of 5,000 sq, ft, per dwelling
j ,* unit; there is no required minimum lot width at the building line and no required
,i,, + ' minimum lot depth. Maximum lot coverage allowed in the zone is 50% [LOC 48,135(1),
48.140(1)]. On lots of less than 1/2 acre, the height of a structure shall not exceed 35 feet E
[LOC 48.150(2)].
The zone requires the following minimum setbacks [LOC 48.150(5)]t When a new
development abuts an existing less intensive residential use, a setback of a depth of at
least the height of the principal building on the lot proposed for development. All other
• setbacks are 10 feet (except where required off—street parking is provided),
The proposal will result in residential development which is more intensive than that
•
neighboring on the west, As such, development of a dwelling or Parcel C will be
• ;,. required to comply with LOC 48.150(5) noted above.
The applicant's proposal complies with the requirements of LOC 48,520(2) regardingp • •
decks and patios. The existing deck shown on Exhibit 5 will be no closer than 3 ft. from "
the proposed north property line.
SD 1-91WAR 1-91
Page4of9
.
ti
' 1"
LOC 48.535(4), Special Street Setbacks, requires a 25 foot setback measured from the
center of the right—of—way of Rosewood Street. The existing right—of—way provides 15
feet from centerline. The setback typically results in required dedication of needed right—
of—way,in this case, 10 feet. This dedication was required by SD 36-90/VAR 20-90
(Exhibit 7). The dedication was recorded on November 6, 1990.
The applicant proposes the parcels to be the following sizes;
Ales 'I
Parcel A 18,392
Parcel B 5,468 •
•
�
Parcel C 5,183
The proposed parcels conform to all applicable zoning requirements.
r „ {
DevelopmentCood Requirements,analysis (LOC Chaptt�
7
The application is appropriately being processed as a minor development. However, the
applicant's Class II variance request is classified as major development. As such, this
proposal is required to be reviewed as a major development. Development Standards
applicable to major development will be reviewed later in this report as required by LOC • /
49.090.
The applicant has requested approval of a 25 foot Class II variance to the Access
Development Standard. Parcels B and C are proposed to have no frontage on a public
z'' street. As per LOC 49.510(1) [Development Code], the Development Review Board
r iP
'r ', must consider the following criteria when evaluating a request for a Class II variance:
a. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship;
a. The applicants indicate that the variance is necessary to create "the most
reasonable and desirable use of the property " , ," Adjacent to the north
property line two new lots have been created with a private road accessing
them. To the east property line a similar situation exists as well as south of the
property across Rosewood Street. A hardship exists in the neighborhood with f,`:
regard to providing frontage on public streets, ,;.,„', 1
1=
b. Development consistent with the request will not be injurious to the
neighboihood in which the property is located or to property established
to be affected by the request;
•
As evidenced by the use of private easements for access in this neighborhood,
no detrimental effect on the neighborhood would be expected by approval of k
• ,
this request. The applicant has noted nearby examples of such easements and
acknowledges their compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. A
similar variance was granted by the Board for SD 38-90/VAR 20-90 (Exhibit a
7).
c. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of •
the property; i
sd'4
SD 1-91\VAR 1-91
f Page 5 of 9
The position of the existing dwelling on the site and its development
capabilities make the requested variance the minimum necessary to make
reasonable use of the property. ;,
d. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. ;.,
The proposal does not conflict with the policies reviewed earlier in this report.
Adequate access to the proposed sites will be provided by a private access
•. easement.
Solar Access Ordin i
y • anc�Bt irements and An l�si�( O�C lttpter 57Z
The construction of a dwelling or accessory structures on the site,or the planting of non— ,,r
solar friendly vegetation, must comply with LOC 57.050—57,090, the Solar Balance
r
Point provisions of the Solar Access Ordinance.
, ' ? The applicant has not addressed the requirements of this ordinance, which requires that •,
80% of the proposed parcels meet one of three solar design standards [LOC 57.020].
i
,u;` -',
'e 5 Because the private drive is aligned north to south, the proposal is prevented from •
' ; meeting the design requirements regarding orientation [L,OC 57,020(1)(b)]. However,
solar access for Parcels B and C can be achieved in one of two ways, at the discretion of
the applicant. By prescribing the location of a Solar Building Line, north of which solar
access is protected on Parcels B and C, both parcels would be solar lots; or by imposing ,,
performance requirements on orientation of roof, glazing or long axis, both parcels may
•
achieve the same result in compliance with the ordinance. This option of one of these
alternatives will be required as a condition of this action, if approved, 0 :;
Tree_Cutting Or ins ce Requirements and AnalYs_is (L .C.Slapter 55). '
This ordinance is intended to preserve trees. Only those trees which must be removed in
order to site proposed improvements will be granted tree cutting permits. The applicant
shall position proposed dwellings so as to minimize the number of trees removed in
compliance with LOC 55.080(2). This will be required as a condition of this action, if
approved.
c. The applicable Development Standards
: a,il ing Design (2.005 —2.040)
While this standard is applicable to all major development involving a structure, this
application is major development only because of the inclusion of the Class II variance.
Staff concludes that the single family dwelling and the minor partition proposed or •
existing on the site are minor development, and that this standard is not applicable, `
Sheet •i hts 5.005—5 0401
A street light will be provided for the proposed minor land partition as required earlier in :
conjunction with SD 19-88 and SD 36-90,
. ,
Transit System (6,005 —6,040)
• The nearest transit facilities are located at Pilkington and Jean Roads, Bryant Road and •
• r Boones Ferry Road. There are no hard surfaced paths leading to the site. No transit 0 . ,
• developments are required to serve the site as a result. ,
SD 1--91\VAR 1-91
.. Page6of9
Parking and Iatcl ug (7.005
The standard requires that each single family dwelling provide two off—street parking
spaces in addition to a garage or
p g g carport. Each parcel is of sufficient size to meet the
parking requirement.
Park and Open Space (8.005 -1 40),
This standard requires that all major residential development provide open space or park
land equal to 20 percent of the gross land area of the development. Since the applicant's `s '
request is considered to be major development only because of the Class II variance `• ''':
[LOC 49.140 vs. 49.1451, staff concludes that the standard does not apply to this request.
Landsca''ng. Screening and Buffering(9.005—9.040)
The existing and proposed single family dwellings are not included in the range of uses
requiring plantings. This is a major development due to the Class II variance. Staff ;
concludes that this standard is met.
Fences (10.005— 10.04Q)
Fences are not a part of this proposal. Any fences that may be constructed at a later date
must comply with this standard.
Drainage Standard for Majsr.Development (11.005— 11.040/
Drainage Standard for Minor Develonm (12,005 — 12.040)
These standards require that drainage alterations,including new development, not
adversely affect neighboring properties. No grading is proposed as a part of this
application. Compliance with the standard will be required upon application for a
buik ng permit for each of the proposed parcels. Installation of an engineered storm
drainage system is necessary to serve existing and proposed development. Design and
installation of this facility will be required as a condition of approval of this action, if
approved. .
Y` Utility Standard (14,005-14,040)
This standard requires that infrastructure improvements be installed underground, where , •
•
possible. A public storm drain is available north of the site. A private storm drainage
easement has been dedicated to serve this development (Exhibit 8), Design and
installation of this line will be required as a condition of approval 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. Parcel A
will comply with the standard. A Class II variance has been requested for Parcels 13 and
C, which was reviewed earlier in this report.
• Site Circulation—Private Streets/Driveways (19,005- 19,040)
This standard requires that driveways for single family dwellings not exceed 20% grade
• nor 5% cross slope, The access easement to serve two of the three proposed parcels is
SD 1-91\V'AR 1-91 .
Page 7 of 9
y • ,;-2.
4 1 l .
n'� 1 y y I y J
1 ', P k • I. �'
.
capable of meeting the standard. The grades of the site in the area proposed for
development will enable compliance with this standard which will be assured upon
application for any building permit requested subsequent q q to this action, if approved,
d. Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS
There are no such plans which affect this site.
C. Conclusion:
Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant, staff concludes that the proposal
can be made to comply with all applicable criteria through the imposition of certain
conditions.
' ' III. RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the conclusion noted above, staff recommends approval of SD 1-91/VAR 1-91
subject to the following conditions:
•
1. A final plan (as depicted in Exhibit 4 and modified by conditions 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) 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 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 th
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 Land
Development Services Division, File No, SD 1-91/VAR 1-91.
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 label Parcels A, B and C instead of Parcels 1, 2, and 3, j
4. The applicant shall illustrate the location of a utility easement for storm drainage to serve
Parcels 1, 2, 3,
5. The following note shall appear on the final plan: a •
Parcels A, B and C are Solar Lots. Development of structures and planting of non--
exempt vegetation on Parcels A, B and C 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, B and C.
6. The applicant shall illustrate Solar Building Lines on Parcels B and C as required by
LOC 57.020(2) or the following notes shall appear on the final plan:
• a. Habitable structures built on Parcels B and C will have their long axis
orientated 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
SD 1-91\VAR 1--91
Page8of9
a r
.
a!
• ;�, a ..,�
•
•
b. Habitable structures built on Parcels B and C 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.
7. The following note shall appear on the final plan following notes required by conditions
„rr5 and 6 above:
a. These notes are for reference only and are not a part of the final plan or plat.
8. 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.
•
9. The applicant shall remove only those trees necessary to site a dwelling or accessory
structure on Parcels A,B and C. This removal shall comply with LOC 55.050-55.080
(Tree Cutting Ordinance). The applicant shall provide a tree survey illustrating the
location, type and diameter of all trees in excess of 5 inches on each parcel in application
for each building permit requested subsequent to this approval,
EXHIBITS
1. Tax Map
2. Applicant's Narrative (Portion)
3, Applicant's Narrative (Class II Variance) •
4. Site Plan
5. Council's Memo Regarding Schools, dated September 18, 1990
6. Memo from Peter. C. Harvey, City Manager, dated March 28,, 1990
7. Findings, Conclusions and Order, SD 36-90/VAR 20-90, dated October 1, 1990
8. Plat for SD 36-90
9. Final Plan of SD 36-90/VAR 20-90 (portion), dated October 19, 1990 •
MRW/ S bi
pD90-61
[' O
•
•
•
SD 1-91\VAR 1-91
Page 9of9
o ✓. ��
•
'•\�
•
�.'
1y .
. •
r.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
, r
1,.
1 v •.
a .
• >.A 'l.
"•
d" d,
0
• .,
••
r lv
• t •
4
•
•
Ici.cig... .:, • ..•••., .. ••-:'
./.... , . , ,44?, ....,_ .„,........... , . . . ,i. ,
, .. ,
._.. . .. ,
. .
. , . ,,, .,., „...„--
•
AIN
r ® KGB N 4 \6 • ,1.a0o . • �.
i s r • Z300 y •h 2600 +
f� r • :2•�04', w A pi
`a \ .: ' ' '' .. '
a .� • `.1 1• ) '. r. . . \
•
•
•
.. . \ .
•
0' �, ;::;:< .: i•+
`
f
•
—'' , o /�A. Q . '� `' \' a+ , '.: ;, (. a . .
c
•
' , % , • (2.54 . " . , „ .
, A to!e V"' S9 41 5� ,,rA,��
. ,. . 011r-1. ..... cisob
_ 4 J al�f �. ��� ,0 \ .. •
�ti
',,r . ea tr\ b ' EXHIBIT` ,. A
`A •
0 j • 261� . 5171.91 V p .�; q y
k ,
htl '
A t
•
•
i
M a� ^
•
•
•
p, 6
41 -
•5
b.
ittP
F^
• 14 y.
M , x
'.wt! '
74 ke . ',"
1
l
yr/
•
01
{
y y
MINOR LAND PARTITION APPLICATION
•
hA
1
APPLICANT:
y
TOM & LORRAINE JOHNS
5207 S.W. ROSEWOOD
LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035
620-7379
IZ Y'
y•
PRESENTED TO:
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
EXHIBIT
•
3'as
y s
N
I. Introduction
The following is a formal request to the City for a Minor Land. Partition. Approximatley
of Lake Oswego
will be developed into three home sites. locatedThe�site 020 sisate
at 5207 S.W. Rosewood, Lake Oswego, OR 97035 ,
II. Project Summary
1!.
A. Description of Pr
oject
Tho applicant proposes to develop three single-family
lots ranging in size from 5183 to 18,392 . 27 square feet.
The site is accessed from Rosewood Street. vate
road will be constructed to access the two newly created
lots from this minor land partition. It should be noted
that this property has already been ap
Mi
Land Partition in 1990. The road that will daccess the
''"
two newly created lots on the north side of the will act as the road needed for our proposed Minor oLand y
Partition,
" 7 The Rosewood one-half street improvement along with
an additional 10 foot dedication across the frontage
i. • of the site as required by the city. This has also
been previously addressed in the earlier Minor Land
�' : Partition,
(Partition Plat NO 1990-115) recorded on
November 6 , 1990 .
B. Site Description
The site is rectangular and consists of 29 , 020 square
feet in size and is generally flat overall. It contain
') � `" no wetland. There ares s
h;,
•
trunk size front 14 to 24Oi�chesainPdiameter s ranging in
r. ��
III. Compliance: Lake Oswego General Ordinance
The following are written responses to time applicable sections
• '' of the ordinance related to the Te � - � '�.`
details, calculations, and otherpdatacenclosedpare1alsoorinplan,
response to these standards, and should be reviewed in conjunction
with this required narrative.
SECTION 4 , OO5 Wetland
a : The City of Lake Oswego hydrology map indicates the presence
of wetlands located to the north of the property.
however, two lots between the wetland area and the subjectrpr
As no development is proposed involving wetland area, thereforeerty. .' •.N. . it will not be impacted.
{
,.
a . «
•
�.. .... dA/ 4.... . • - ` ' 17,,, . .i.. . \ ` . . . ..
Section 48 . 115 - Zoning Districts
The proposed property is zoned Residential-High Density R-5
ith a minimum lot size of 5000 square feet. This Minor Land
Partition complies as the smallest lot size will be 5183 square
feet. 'i
Section 14 . 005 - Utility Standard
., Ail utilities will be extended into the property per the City' s .,
requirements as there will be two houses built on the two newly
treated lots.
Section 18 . 005 - Access
. ,; one property will be accessed by a private road to be built
off of Rosewood Street. It will be 20 feet in width as already •
approved by the Fire Department and previous Minor Land Partition
.Partition Plat No 1990-115) recorded on November 6, 1990.
t
Tree Protection
r,
, he preservation of the maximum amount of trees located on the
property will be enforced. This will not only meet with the City' s . ..,
requirements but will ensure the natural beauty of the property
and surrounding neighborhood.
a ..rainage ' •
= e proper provision will be made for all storm drains and
-inor drainage affecting the proposed property.
Parking and Loading
The required space will be 'F*
q p provided for each proposed lot per
' t o City' s requirements for parking and loading. �`
Street Lights
• . .., ?
�. A street light will be provided for the proposed Minor Land
Partition as required earlier in conjunction with SD19-88 and
36-90 . .
Fences M•
` R '
Fences are not a part of the overall plan proposed for this ' '
property Minor Land Partition. Any fences that may be constructed
at a later date will be inconjunction with house construction and `,,;
would meet the City' s building requirements . ;��'�
y
1
a .
k
•
A Y
te,
t h�
NARRATIVE
FOR
VARIANCE REQUEST
•
•
4
•
•
�1-
•
•
•
•
,1
,J 7•'j I•C i
•
I+
1 .
1 *.
1, �1
PRESENTED BY: • �• '
4 .
TOM & LORRAINE JOHNS
5207 S.W. ROSEWOOD STREET r'
LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97035
{ ••
•n
•
1
tl •
1
•
EXHIBIT
5D 1.5
1 Vqte9.41 '�
,•••
1':, •
. .., 1"
,,•x••?.
. ...•
''..) P•1 '...,-, ; ,•.••'•;.
•
$..i",..• ., .
..,..
' ••,',.',n,",• .'•;;.••-•' '
, •.
:'il...i.,?,:••••• .';,..•••'.1. '' ".••
;'..,.•..,.;
.:t .iv411,;.r•*:,'.1,1.,.'••°...•..'!.'
...'..',I.V.,,,12,4'ilr',tfi„.•1...:'
,..-. .•
:::. .,'.'•!.'•••,;';:i.,,,i',i',,,,,,',..
-,..:'•...,...,',
..,• ; :.:',,,:•'',',''. ;'...
. .•,,
.:-:'....'..,,-:.::-- ••,,,.'
',.'.'••''.'..-•,..'!.''•...*••:'-,.,..
, .... .-,'_,•.0,...-:
,',..,,,,,'•',....
. .., ...
. ..... .. .
, ,•.
. .
•.',,• ..:,'''•n...',t•••,';''..1:' .
. ..
.-• ..• ..'
....t..• 7. ;• .,
..''. ,•''. '''
. • . . • •
.., .,•
.:: • : ..•-ii
•
,.. .. •
: .... ...„....: •_,.,
!, , •,,,,
•
.. .
. . ..
..*..g,•;.;....''...,'•,"'- .,
.. , •
' . • •
• .• •
.. I '.
, -., : ,.•..,.,
' .1•4. ,.
•,
• .
..• . 'I,
'' t.,• . , .-' ',.'
.: , . -.• . „•- •
,.. . ,
. ...
•... ••.'..•. .•
. . ,
, .
. .
_ . . .. ... ..
. -. . ,..
• . ,,..
.. . . t..
.. . ,-... .,
.. ,. .
. _
,,,,..,• ,..,• „.,
, .. .
. .
, ..
. . .
.., ... ,
, . .
... ..-..
._ • . ••
. . ,
.. ..,.
. .
. •
, ...
.., : •,
ILL
•. .
. . .,
'. .A.'.''''. .. O.!, '. '',':''::.''' 'T ''', 1.:','..'''.....1 ' . . * •',.,' .'.. ' : ''L,..;....A.. "'''4''''.,C.; ',',''''' ' , ','' :'.: ''.:''':'','.' 't ' ' : ';': . '''. .: b' ' ''''' ' . r ' : '' ''''''' '*' ''-. 'i '' '' '
x , ' The following is a narrative designed to meet the requirements
for a class II Variance Procedure. Enclosed you will also find
a site plan, tax map and property ownership list, all relating
to the property that is proposed for the variance.
Our first and most important goal in this project is not to create , `e
: .' any unnecessary hardship or undesirable impact on the surrounding
community. At the same time, achieve our desire to acquire this
4 , variance so as to minor land partition our property into three
seperate lots. This will creat the most resonable and desirable .:'
use of the property without being in conflict with the
° Comprehensive Plan of the City of Lake Oswego.
I . Variance Request
,
The variance requested from the City of Lake Oswego is to have
their permission to use a 20 foot private road and easement that
will be located in the center of the property for ingress and 4
egress to the two newly created lots. This private road easement
was granted by the City of .Lake Oswego, (SD36-90 , Partition Plat
#1990-115) .
t
A. The road design meets the City' s and Fire Department requirements •
for private roads. As you will see on the enclosed site
drawing, the road is 20 feet in width, with a 5 foot utility
.�' easement, approximately 215 feet in length with a residential
turn around at the end. This would be consistant with the
City of Lake Oswego ' s standards for private roads .
1.
B. In granting this variance, the proposed property would
become consistant with the surrounding neighborhood. Adjacent
to the north property line two new building lots have been
created with the above mentioned private road acr:essing them.
Adjacent to the east property line is a similar situation where
� Y
° two new homes have been built. Across Rosewood Street, which
is the south property line, a minor partition was granted and
currently improvements are being made to create new lots.
The proposed property lends itself well to the proposed variance
with regards to the physical circumstances . The property is
relatively flat and rectangular in shape. There are 10
Douglas Tir Trees that are located towards the rear portion of
the property. This is advantagous as it will be possible for
most of the trees to remain. This enhances the property and
remains consistant with the surrounding neighborhood. No
wetlands are located on the property and any and all drainage
and erosion contrail will be designed and constructed to comply
with the City of Lake Oswego ' s Development Standards . y`
. ' •
,y
II. Variance Advantages
u t ,
A. We, the applicants, Tom & Lorraine Johns, request the city of Lake Oswego to
g grant us this variance request as it would
allow us to achieve our long time goal. First we would now be able to have a building lot in which to build a home for our family of five. As a General Contractor ana Carpenter,Tom has always had the desire to build a home that would meet
�, our needs . Secondly, the current neighborhood and future plans
for improvement would be a desirable atmosphere for living and
raising a family. As current Lake Oswego residents, we are
very conscious and concerned about our community.
In summary, we feel our proposal will have a positive affect on all concerned. The proposed property lends itself well to
4w three lots and no undesirable conditions exist to conflict or
or create hazards to complicate the needed variance. The
natural beauty of the neighborhood would be enhanced with
new homes and landscape as they would meet the development
;~ • standards as outlined by the City of Lake Oswego. '.''
t'
C
''
rt
t
tY Ft I,i
•
•
o
•
•
{ 410 ,. 4
..
4
0
. .
. ..
A , .
.. _
1- •4 r .1.
. r �
•
N
� . 0
10Z•33 '------y 3'513.5 • •t•p'.uneaeq.CYDNNI/ •
•
pT� I r.' Is,
•
SS
•
fi ti
IV 16 ��c�:J
i d
y A0. v M
t.
o
11
JJ I ....• _... _._.N �Y _
'1/411 .1 .� N �771� • F
U I 1•
` .Y,J ...�4• r.trj .�.. . .W � �„�.,..`_ ?
{tl " r'V V I ll/S1�� ��1c
S.
I lolla 7 p•
76 '
sit: .
30647
.____________________4....±;4-',i_''.... „.:!;/t9'---:;'::':':•,4:'40'..,''';::.:,..'':1'...iv,d,- ,., ,
0
0 . •
. •
•
1 r•�
N 4'
Y .�4
4 �R
,»
41i•
•
•
{ I
•
•� 1
a
n
•
4i
il
Y'
ti •
V a
I C
I
I
Y
h , 9/18/90
MEMORANDUM
To: Development Review Board Members
Planning Commission Members "
From: Mayor and City Council
Date: September 18 , 1990
''' Subject: Interpretation of Comprehensive Plan Policies Relating
to School Capacity
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 j;
Council's initial determination of the school capacity issue.
The October 17 , 1989 memorandum contained updated information and
by data received by the City Council at a joint meeting with the :i:l
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
rojfor
the 1990/1991 elementary school year and informationections 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 of certain determinations by the Development Review
Board in its consideration of two applications for residential
was development that there p a lack of elementary suhvcl 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 . 540 . A pattern"� of 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 the 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 .
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 ty state law
to justify the need for a moratorium .
The resulting dilemma is obvious: on the one :;,any; the
Development Review Board denie ., two '
school capacity based 7n City her1s: .I? _ L13 ! - r lack. H
mprehens. ,� Plan 111. .es pattern 4r : .n state law c1assif ems•9 , drt Sri ;m , and 1fwh, t.'r
Council has concluded that facts do not exist t make th .,
EXHIBIT '' .
44
5(24
s ti i= i/u 1�9s�
�e�-tit
y1' e.. ♦� I +
. ° •M w �Yi .i,� .r.. a .. .. . i .. .3-. d
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 t,o the
superior state law while giving effect to the Plan language
, a ' 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 i • .
, 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
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 when
addressing the school capacity issue . The Council expects that
if Comprehensive Plan compliance based on the school capacity
issue is raised during a hearing on a residential development
application, each hearing body will reach the conclusions sat
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 District
and the City.
The council wants to insure that applicants receiving development .
approvals are aware of the current school capacity situati.7±n a• ;
understand that the Council is very concerned about this issue
. and has the authority to enact a moratorium at a later late if
'Jstified by the facts . The c "uncil directs staff to wevelop
appropriate lap uage to be incl..ded in the approval dried; , r ) e
�` reviewed cy the hearin4 bodies , to accomplish this purpose .
Atta nlent '1o. provt.,es the asctu.al findings of top '.M ':ncil al , , • .
jai M_W. regar i to _. e school :opacity issue upon dni :n these
.,,-
interpretations are based .ed. ttach•ia nt No. 1 is a li -i::n, wp
t,;
fact . 1 Information relied upon to support t1osda findin s ,
Attachment 9o. 1 contains the interpretations of the relevant
Plan p,oil :ies .
1
Memo: Development Review Board
and Planning Commission Members
September 18, 1990
Page 3
0
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
.:7• :—.
.
Attach..:tents 1-3
fit,.
`. S.
t' ti
e,.
r•
ATTACHMENT NO. 1 .
• ,. FACTUAL FINDINGS
( 9-18-90) • . r ,`'
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 ti. •
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 ,'.Y•st•r. ict
*- r' that they perceive a problem or intend to limit developm,-; . due
to school capacity problems .
The District has provided the City the following facts : ,; t .
1 . Attendance in the 1988-89 school year at the Lake Grove
Elementary School- exceeded the capacity the District
necessary. , y 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
the current capacity problems on a District wide basis .
By implementing these dlans , the District stated it will
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 June 1 , 1990 , had an e1ement. r •
school enrollment of 3 , 241 students . Based on maximum
capacity and current projections , on October 1 , 1990 the
District by implementing the short term plan will have
unused capacity system wide that will accornnodate 37")
additional elementary students .
• � 5 . The District has a long term plan to provide uapaciNy in
addition to the 379 seats to be made available tnrau jn
the short term plan. These Lang term plans include a '
additional elementary school and remodeling exiStinJ .
facilities .
5 . The maximum capacity of 3 , 172 students , assu;tt•iy a
- ---•,-r ;: continuation of the current rate of gr' wth, .vi 1
accommodate new students inta the 1191- 2 s, :t,,•,l ,,,�,r ,
....s., �, • �
ro
. 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 tto 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 to coordinate
the construction of facilities 'so they will meet a
current demand at completion and not stand
underutilized. empty or be
�1'2
9 . The District projects student populations using a
computer model. The projections are bayed on school
7 :'.. 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 the last six years concerning
development approvals and vacant lots with the actual
growth
school population, the conclusion can be drawn that there is not
,•
a quantifiable and direct relationship between the school
population and those two factors that will assist the Distrt :t in
` making short term student projections .
rejections .
market reception, interestrates , the healthrofatherOreryonh ��
.. economy and Family size of buyers and sellers of existingn
M 1h me;
v
K• also affect the number of new children in the District ' s
population. Based upon the present level of sophisticati,.n f
the City and District planning processes , it is not possible rs
•
predict with any degree of certainty how soon after pproval
` % children from new residential developments will enter th. „c,z - ,1
System.
•
•
.N
. s ." °-'. • . . ` fir.,.. _' { p S ,.
•
• i S
,,, . \, ,
Attachment No. 1
September 18, 1990
Se
gt410
Y
The District voters in May, 1989 approved a new district tax base •
by an approximate 2 :1 margin. The old tax base was $19 ,542 ,310 .
The new tax base is $29, ,000 . The new tax base contains levy
authorisation above that levied by the District in the current •
fiscal year and is .'.ntended to fund growth, staffing and •
maintenance for the new capital facilities to be funded from the
%i 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 td meet the demands generated by.
growth. E'1�'•i ig the middle 1980 ' s , the District middle school concept. A switch to middle schools owould haveposed n a
T ` 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 fundin
r •
measures to accommodate elementary school population growth was .t
delayed. The
growth was anticipated but the community debate
over how to best address the impacts of growth has delayed the
provision of the District 's solutions .
The City Council may, at anytime when justified by
the facts ,
•
enact a moratorium on building permits pursuant to ORS 197 , 520 ,
The District has the responsibility under state Law to educates
the children of the District . The Council views the District
an expert in educational matters . The Council accepts the as
• statement of the District that it will provide an educational
. ' ; experience for its students that meets District standar-: •
Atty/Correspond-7
•
0 ., * • '•
•
A 'I
e
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
FACTUAL INFORMATION CONSIDERED BY CITY COUNCIL '`ii
( 9-18-90) ,
•..i':::,..:.: ,:'-
'; ` 1 . Bill Korach, Lake Oswego School District Elementary
Enrollment - August 8, 1989
2 . Karen Scott, packet containing :
, . ` S - Building permits by year, single-family , graph
- Building permits by year, multi-family, graph
- Total single family lots recorded by year
- Inventory of vacant lots, July 1, 1989
- 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 of
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 ,
July 31, 1989
8 . Proceedings of City Council meeting, August 8 1989
9 . Letter from Susan Brody, Director, Department of Land
Conservation and Development , dated august 8 , 1989
.
10 . Handouts from Bill Korach , Lake Oswego School Superintendent
a . Teacher-Student ratio and classroom space ,
b. Enrollment projections, service level , and sh )rtt and long
term solutions
il . Lake Oswego School Distr t : The E.acts , submitted 'Ti `li .:;
Bunick
12 . Transcript excerpt from Au'. ust
1989 Devkl JLsMent 0 . , ;
Beard meetin•j ' tape i;,clard:,n, excer.)t allo suo~�itte,,
•
" Attachment No.
2
September 18,
1990
Page 2
13• Enrollment graph showing actual enrollment
from
projections through 1989-1990 submitted by Warren96and
Oliverer
14. Statistical chart titled "Determination of K-6
Factor" submitted by Ef in O ' Rourke-Meadors Student
'
` 15. Letter from B . Ayres dated July 24 , 1989
16. Letter from Jae Rieg dated August 3, 1989
o 17. Letter from Pam Sparks dated August 8 , 1989
• 18 . Letter signed by Chamber of Commerce
•
past
Decker, Paul Graham, and Rob Barrentine andrB presidents Tom
Chamber members, dated July 28 , 1989 Chzzum,
19 . Letter from Douglas Oliphant, Lake C Oswego
President, dated July 20, 1989 9 haMber' of Commerce
20 . Letter from William T. Ryan dated August 8
. k 21 . , 1989.
Letter from Leonard G. Stark, dated August 7 , 19894111 , ,,
22 . Letter from Robert and Mary Larsen, dated Au
.. ' 23 . Lett,jr from M guS
t 5, 1989
r. and Mrs . Clark , dated August 6, 1989
t `
F . .j
24 . Letter from Robert Butler, dated August 4 , 1989
25• Utter from
Neighborhood LyAssociationer
r dated August 1 , 1989 "
26 . Letter from D.R. Norris , dated July 29 ,
1989
4 27 . Letter from Judith D. Umaki , dated August 1
28 . 1989
Charles Hales, Staff Vice President
Home Builders Association of Metropolitanr Portland,
•;
dated August 14 , 1989 aEairs '
C�rti•�n�j, lW:ter ,
29 . Gregory D. ,Mead7rs letter,
•
dated August 13 , 1989 y
30 .
Celeste Ward letter, dated August 14 , ' 989
31 . Debby and Doug ,Zemper letter, dated August 14 , 19. 1 s
32 . Carol Webb letter
, ited Aug3ust 14 , 1989 8411/ .12. . ' .. .I.
1 r 'a .... .. C .. ,�• '.11 I ,,j.-' .r +► . .4. ♦ .I'» ..
.n
•
Attachment No. 2
September 18, 1990
Page 3
33. Bill Bache letter, dated August 14, 1989
Yr .'P
34. Debbie Seitz letter (undated) received August 14, 1989
35. Benjamin Schwartz, M.D. letter, dated August 14, 1989
r
36 . Gayle Bache letter, dated August 14, 1989
37 . Martha Rothstein letter, dated August 14, 1989
38. Ala F. Rothstein letter, dated August 13 , 1589
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 and copy of Bill Korach 's memorandum dated
e
Y
43 . Deborah B . Feldsee
letter, dated August 14 , 1989
44 . Steven M. Berne letter, dated August 14 , 1989
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 , 1989
r.
49 . Mary Avery letter, dated August 10 , 1989
• <50 . Bill
Tucker letter, dated August 11 , 1989
51 . Kim and Barb Ledbetter letter, dated yugust_ 14 , 1959
52 . Richard M . Bullockletter,left r, dated August 11 , 1999 ,tl
53 . Charles D . Ruttan letter, dated August 9 , 1989
54 . William Sorenson letter, dated august 11 , 1939
5i . `•tarci Nemhauser letter, dated August 10 , 1389
=5 . Charles A . Man55ield letter, ,.ire
r ,
•
•
•
•
Attachmet�nt No. 2 :'•
,
September 18, 19904*
Page 4
•
57. Larry E. Walker letter, dated August 10, 1989
58 . Katherine and Donald McMahon letter, dated August
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 3
62• Letter from Rick Newton, dated August 15, '1989
63 . Letter from JoAnn Gillen, dated August 14 ,
1989
64 . Lettel: from Patrick F . Stone, dated August 11
a � , 1989
65 . Map of City and District boundaries
66 . Determination of impact as of July Erin O'Rourke-Meadors 28 , 1989, submitted by
Bill Korach, ''': -'4''''.'
"Questions and Answers : How is the School
District Coping with Growth . "
Joint School Board/Cit [Presented to City Council at
y Council Meeting of October 2 , 1989 + ,.•,
68 . Bond issue information, November 1989 ,
Oswego School District. Prepared by Lake '
69 . Election results , November 7 , 1989 , Lake
district 1989 Facilities Improvement Bond . School
''U. Report from
Superintendent ,
i me nde
nt , Lake Oswego School 7istrirt , lay7, 1990 .
1 + Enrollment Report , Lake Oswego Sschool Distric
1990 ,
t , pane 1 , V
Memorandum ercm Sandra Korhelik regarding school ,:I•'. c it I .i
residential develm)menr_ activity, August 10 , 1990
'3 ` 2ake�5s0ego Elementary School enrollment st,�tisti,�y , AU '� ,.,.
1
1 + Memorandum frpm Peter
} . 99Y regarding re5ide, t , ji , itcalculaticns , August 2q, In ,
At ty/Correspond-7
.1
•
f
ATTACHMENT Na. 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 r.
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 Q.'
developed as a result of legislation at the state level in 19159
and 1973 which required local
• comprehensive plan which was consistent1with ons testablishedo adopt
' statewide land use planning goals .
": A "comprehensive plan" is defined by state law as :4 3,.
" (A] generalized, coordinated land use map and policy
statement of the governing body of a local government that
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 to =
geographic area covered and functional` ,and natural of the
activities and systems occurring in the area covered by the
plan. 'General nature ' means a summary of policies and
'proposals in broad categories and does not necessarily
indicate specific locations of any area , activity or Jso,
plan is 'coordinated ' when the needs of all levels governments , semi-public and private agencios • and tie
citizens of Oregon have been considered and . ccommo' , tad R
much as possible . ' Land ' includes water, bath 5,,rfa';e ,�.�„ �subsurface, and the air. "
•
At the state level each statewide planning goal, which are
mandatory statewide planning
is accompanied b Y �� , standards and are general in 7_ ta.a ,
guidelines The guidelines ire:
"' CS l ugges ted approaches .designed to a td cities
in preparation , adoption and Implementation And `; - rp�: .
plans in compliance with goals
°�f �:. ,n��r,a�y,,ry .,:., �
th goals and to aid state agencies i3
special districts in the preparation , adoption and i•-:p loo, ,it 1»
of plans, Programs and regula"_. n , in compliance a, rI ' ,1a1 ,
Guidelines shall be Adviscry .. i shall
cities , counties and special districts t , stn��l! �: ,G � ? �' 1 , " i `
4 �.
• y
,'
iy ' '
Attachment No. 3 .
September 18, 1990
Page 2
The City's Plan, at
Y page v, explains the difference between
Objectives, General Policies and Specific Policies in the
following 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 hearing body, in order to approve an application,
''' must conclude that the applicable
pp general policies of the
Comprehensive Plan have been followed . Each land use decision
must identify and explain why the requirements of the ,applicahle
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 general
policy, the hearing body will he guided in its decision making by
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 square
footages and many contain multiple detailed subsections ,
+ If the specific policies are given the same regulatory . eight a,
are the general policies then each prevision of a spec:i `ic pra; i.1.,
will need to be complied with to the letter in order for an
application or projt.,ct to be approved . There is no provision f';r
- the granting of variances from the regulatory provisions of ' •.
Plan. When an application or project conforms to the general
. policy, but perhaps not to the letter of a subsection of :yne r
the specific policies for the general policy , the lappli':ii •A .
project as a wnole ^lust be denied if the specific policies ar•
construed to be regulatory in nature, All regulatory starti/ar'.+i
must be complied with in order for an applicat_i n t he ap)r-.. ; ,
•
ti
.
•
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
4 - project complies with a general policy, but the detail of a :�•,
specific 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. '• .ti(,:'P'.
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 methodology implements
the Plan in a manner which is consistent with the state law
definitions which govern local land use planning and at the same
time does not minimize the level of effort and scrutiny that .gent
into the original Plan development .
Each of the applicable general Plan policies will be discussed i
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 specific
policies and it is from these references that the policies become •
applicable in the review of a development. applications
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 :
1N
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 Plan density be sucn
that the planned densities do not result in land uses that will
exceed the capacity of public facilities systems available ar
• planned . This policy regulates Comprehensive) Plan lap densir iss
and is not applicable in the development review stage . The
appropriateness of the Plan map designattan or zone desi:jnatt
on a given site is not an issue in a hearing an a develipmeht
application .
410 ,
. ,
• . ,
, .
'-k.1, rii
• r
VIr
`,N Attachment No. 3
September 18, 1990 •
Page 4
2. Impact Management General Policy II
The City will evaluate zoning and development proposals 7._ 7 •.
comprehensively for their impacts on the community, ;*=N
the developer to provide appropriate requiring ,
solutions before tX
approval is granted. �„
Specific Policy 6:
Encourage the Lake Oswego School District to provide specific d ' `
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 directs that the City seek capacity information from the District. The
development review process and the development standards insure
that this review takes place. The City is coordinating with the
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 accurac
populations beyond the coming year. 'It is e ual y uncertain
unpredictable when a child from a home on a lot in a newly and
approved development will enter the school population . However,
once a building permit has been issued for a dwelling, it be reasonably certain that the structure will be occupi in t7� omCg
� hear time frame (3-6 months ) . By monitoring actual school
,61. populations and outstanding building permits , forecasting .�var a
' p.• • 3-6 month time frame can be done with an acceptable degree of
• reliability .
If this coordination results in the development .of data 9hi',: i `
supports the findings required by the state moratorium statlte t•; •
establish a capacity shortage , a moratoriun on building pe,:mi ;;
a ..
can be enacted in sufficient tine to minimize the inflow ,DE ,iew .
students to the district .
•
3 . Impact Management General Policy V. /
The City will plan and program for the provision of adequate •
public services and facilities .
..iT•
. t: 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 providing additional required
capacity, subject to City Council approval. "
• A ' r 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 due
to a lack of school capacity. The moratorium statute is
available to temporarily prohibit, on a system wide basis , land
uses which exceeded the capacity of the schools ,
4. Urban Service Boundary General Policy III •
The City will manage and phase urban
growth
Services Boundary, with a logical planned extension tof 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)
II
(2) Lands in long range growth areas . (FUTURE URBANIZABLE) .
The City will schedule public facilities through a
capital improvements program and financing plan .
Specific Policy 4 :
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, }is per Open Space Element
E . City policy protection
g . City fire protection
h. Parks and recreation facilities , as per Parks and
•
Recreation Element
•
Attachment No. 3 •
_ . .
: • .. September 18, 1990 ::„,:..cy, : .-
Page 6 . :..
..P7
•
i. Adequate drainage
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 he 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 he first to
' immediate
growth areas and secondly to the future urbanizahle
t areas . The City is then to schedule public facilities through a
capital' improvements program and financing plan .
Specific Policy 4 relates directly to nothing in the language of4110 ~--:
r `
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 .
The most relevant language of this general policy to the issue at •;
hand is that the City will "manage and phase" growth with a
" logical planned" extension of "basic" services , The Scnool
District is logically planning to provide new facilities tose_ve .
•
demands generated by growth . The district, like school districts
in general, provides facilities in response to demand- not in « '
anticipation of demand. The Director of the Department of r,an„
Conservation and Development urges recognition of this fact and
identifies schools , alongwith police and firs? r,
5e, �i:e5 , as
"responsive" facilities , The Director draws a distinction, for
planning purposes , between these responsive facilities an•a
transportation, water, sewage and drainage facilities 4hic.1 in
her words "must attend, rather than follow or respond t
construction . " ,
el . * '., •
'".
•
1
•
•
Attachment No: 3
September 18, 1990
�'. Page 7
1 Specific Policy 4 , on the other hand, directs that schools be
available or committed "prior to approval" of development . If
r '•� that has not occurred, the specific policy states that schools
j`, 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
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 defect() moratorium
resulted in -;ircumstances 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'
t 4., 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
a system wide issue and forecasting when new growth will impact
the school system is not precise . quasi-judicial hearing o7 1 Y'• r
• 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 imparts
that will result from a single application or the timing of those
impacts . The current level of coordination and planning, with
- continual monitoring of actual school populati' n changes , s :E.
these policies . If it is determined that school capacity will .,e
exceeded, with certainty, the City Council may employ the state
moratorium law to prevent an overtaxing of the school facilities
while the district implements programs to c'7ree't the problem,
•
Atty/Correspond-7
r.
.
r
A:
aj.
LAKE OSVWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT .
• Office of the Superintendent
, ; May 7, 1990
A
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 cooperativei.
+ nproach to problem solving between the school district and the Lake Oswego community, an approach wh,th
'has 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
:Ai, communities have worked in support of the school district's efforts to preserve the standards by which we
±mve defined a high-quality educational experience for the children of Lake Oswego,
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-L $her ratio--The district believes that smaller classes facilitate increased teacher-
studera► interaction, require less teacher time spent on behavioral management, allow for more
thorouith student diagnosis and evaluation, andprovide the
' potential for greater flexibility in
teaching strategies, including more individualized instruction to address individual differences
in students. 0 . •
`• Elementary school size--The district has established a range of approximately 350-500 students r '"
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 work closely and cooperatively in a crowded environment.
Neighborhood schools--The district has demonstrated its strong. commitment to maintaining
neighborhood 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 mu.st
/ give priority to providing "essentially the same instructional program. . .t'or all children of
comparable grade levels,"
Elementary Enrollment Study Committee, made up of citizens representing the community, has no
a pleted its third year of a thorough study of short-term and long.tcrm approaches to the dramatic mcreusc,
:iemcntary enrollment, Working in cooperation with the Elementary Enrollment Study Committee, the
.sz..►ob1 district has developed participatory decision-making processes, such as holding heath ammunit> „i1d
R.:.fr meetings and conducting community and staff surveys, to gather information and opinions and to h:ip
szatpe solutions to our enrollment problems, Additionally, this spring, members of 'ate LAC Gro' c SLntrtit
•
czr-.;nunity opened their homes for a series of five coffees attended by district administrators, school hc,,ird
4'bcrs, and parents to provide an additional forum for discussion of the enrollment options being ,;on,idere;;
to the district.
— de opportunities culmination of this extensive study coordinated by the Elementary. Enrollment Study Commiii+.ee. ;n�.uoine '-
for participation by the community and by talf, is represented .ay the inclis ulu;311 mendatians of the members of the enrollment committee and by the fallowing recommendation by the=:zenntendent,
• '
•
SUPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION FOR LAKE GROVE ELEMENTARY' SCHOOL
INFORMATION AND ASSUMPTIONS
The school district has established the ideal size of an element
ary Lake Grove's enrollment is currently over 550 students, without the kindergartenl as , which,approximately
as a ouyknow,500 students.he
relocated at Bryant Elementary School. The projection for October 1, 1990, for Lake Grove School been
again excluding the kindergarten. After extensive analysis of buildingScon t is b(n,students.
.number of elementary students per household in new development, and thestrength o housinghe under
rconstruction.
ent ru , the
it is my opinion that the actual enrollment on October 1 will exceed our projection and that the Lake Grove•
hdusing market.
population within its current boundaries could exceed 700 students before the end of
t School
the 1990-91 school year.
The 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• Y
enrollment for a longer time than has any other elementary growth in
2. Lake Grove School has experienced the most dramatic increase ininnrollment of any elementary
in the district;
;• ,� . . 3. school
Lake Grove School still has the potential for enormous ,4. Lake Grove School will begin renovation and remodeling othis summer twith attthe of boundaries:
and the construction of a covered play area. removal o(' asbestos
CONCLUSIONS
sae conditions affecting the educational program at Lake Grove Elementary School require
eke strong and effective measures to insure the quality of the educational program at Lake r school �i,trict to
.throughout the 1990-91 school year Grove School
1. by employing a combination of options to significantly reduce the Lake Grove
the optimal size of an elementary school as defined by district standards for thes population 19YU- to
school year; start of the I9yO.�11
2. by designing an enrollment strategy to assure that Lake Grove School will not reach
population that jeopardizes the district's responsibility to provide "essentialla instructional
student
y the same
program to all children in the district." rtstrurlitmal
d
•
'LAKE GROVE R.ECOM,MENDATION
C:'ven the conditions and the limitations facing the district until the new elementary
r.tr=srooms gained through remodeling are completed, I believe the following recommendation ndationd.orr aKe Ornal
ttaol to be the best for L,il;� Grtt�, •
possible combination of short-term solutions, I therefore recommend to the Board of
:°r-.-tors the following options for Lake Grove School for the 1990-91 school year:
I. Continue the relocation of Lake Grove kindergarten students at Bryant
1990-91 school year. This option alone provides for a projected October I, 199, enrollmentS for the
• approximately 600 students at Lake Grove School.
2. U. of
Relocate the Lake Grove first grade at Bryant option will further reduce the projected October 1, 1990,`enr enrol School lment ofr he lU�
3Gro school l to This
approximately 500 students,
Lake Grove School to
3, Designate neighborhoods currently under construction in the Lake Grove attendance areaattend
River Grove Elementary School as those homes are occupied. I am recommc ,
referred to as the Bay Creek Development, which would also be designated by the Board o
to attend the new school in 1991.92, This option will allow us to utilize �`ttcrall}
' within the district as well as help to prevent Lake Grove fromsignificantly
., d ill Directors
existingec ing ' �m optimal
for district elementary schools, 'tcnttrcantlr .ecerding the ,,ptint;tl }lie
a. Designate other nrtkhborhoods where large-scale development is scheduled
0, wide elementary school attendance until the new elementary school boon ,
da to take stab tar , io �t.
. /
1991.92 school year. Thus option will allow us to utilize existing classroom ..pace arc %%oh nit�,, t1 r ;rt�
•
well as to help prevent Lake Grove from exceeding the optimal size for tdistrict
im star tlta .,,t-
�t a
onunendaLion will continue to require that the district provide adequate support ,elementary
^"•'tart' School, including administrauve assistance, yl:,i„I.E.�._�, 4 �crvicz� to Lake ,
II
fir,t�,
w
q'§ ! ` P .
•
•
.. •
r •" F
SUPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION FOR UPLANDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
•
.ANFORMATION AND ASSUMPTIONS •
Uplands 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
plus 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 •
v.i.
diistrict standards.
CONCLUSIONS
The district has established a practice of allowing each school to keep all students within its attendance
boundaries 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 classroom space and
the resources to allow Uplands School to continue providing an educational program comparable to that of the
dstrict's other elementary schools.
RECOMMENDATION
recommend to the Board of Directors that the district keep all Uplands Elementary students within the i
c.arrent Uplands attendance boundaries at Uplands Elementary School for the 1990.91 school year, This
ceaaon will require that the district continue to provide adequate support services, including administrative
assistance. ,.
•
SUPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION FOR FOREST HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
INFORMATION AND ASSUMPTIONS
Fo est Hills Elementary School currently has a population of 377 students and is projected for 403 students on•
Cctober 1, 1990. With the additional classrooms and improved core facilities being added through
rt• odcling, Forest Hills School should not have to reduce the quality of its educational program to
accommodate the growth which is projected for the 1990-91 school year,
CONCLUSIONS
The district has established a practice of allowing each school to keep all students within its attendance
t ,,c'.:ndarics until the population reaches the point where, compared with other schools in the distract. equal
u icational opportunity is being significantly jeopardized. The district can provide the classroom space and
c~.e resources to allow Forest Hills Elementary School to continue providing an educational program
.:. y:parable to that of the district's other elementary schools,
RECOMMENDATION
a;ommend to the Board of Directors that the district keep all Forest Hills Elementary students within the
• tint Forest Hills attendance boundaries at Forest Hills Elementary School for the 1990-91 school year.
. , 77t..1 option will require that the district continue to provide adequate support services. •
•
•
.o �
•
V I 1-F , . , k
.. .
. , ,
., i .• 9/4/90 . .
. r .
P, .
.. . .
,. ..
. . .
, ..
, .. . .
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
r, 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 re ard•
in how the
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 countinghe
number of subdivisions and minor partition lots v last fiscal year (1989-90),
addin: the sum of Karen Scott's calculation for tots number of existinglts ending
198: :9, and then subtracting single—family building permits approve last fiscal ear,
The calculation of 857 vacant lots included both large tracts of vacant land and y
' scattered, already subdivided vacant lots within established neighborhoods, The bulk
=' of the 857 are found in scatted in lots,
There was also a request to determine the geographic areas of the t where these lots
are located. This would. require considerable manual work on the part of the Planning
staff to accumulate.
Y ,
It is recommended that this explanation be added to the other material for inclusion in
the update of the moratorium report,
`% Respectfully submitted,
•
eter C. Harvey
,,,„eo°_. •'":",,V;7.e.:v'.2.. -•Z'' - ,
City Manager
C
. ••�a 380 a a�EvLE POST OFFICE BOX369 .AKE05W'ECO ORECON97034 1S031635•01115
to
r 1.
' tr
Lake Oswego
e
Elementary Enrollment
• : *, . .•
August 21, 1990
I
Projection Forecast ._ . .
Adjusted
Current # of •
Capacity Enrollment Portables `
Bryant
529 502 2
Forest
Hills 403
403 391 370
330 330
437
Lake Grove
600 500* 11111
453 ;
Palisades 344 344
MI 328
River Grove
299 299 ,,
305
Uplands
595 595 ;
574
Westridge •'�
409 409 460
398
f
TOTAL _________j . .
'
3,393 3,393 3
,772.. 3�,?:11 10
A'•
•r
r
, MEMORANDUM
r, . : ''',
,r „ /
3 TO: meter C. Harvey, City Manager ,
FROM: Sandra Korbelilt, Senior Planner
1 7e0 A Avenue f,{
P 0 eor,e9 SUB•TECT: Status Report Regarding Lake Oswego Elementary School �7 .
late Oswego Capacity and City—Wide Residential Development Activity
t )1 0,.ggn 910U
Y "s0a•us 02g0 DATE: August 10. 1990
. Engimuinq
sq�•e1s•o:tq Cityy Council has requested a periodic briefing regarding the status of the Lake s�lamqOswego School District elementary school capacity. As you know, the City has •
sos•ess•a�9q established a regular gular system of communicating residential development activity to
f � saa•eas•gteq the school
district to assist in forecasting classroom demand. This report contains
•
I the school district projection for the 1990/1991 elementary school year and a
a summary of residential development activity for fiscal year 1989/1990.
1. School District Forecasts
n
w
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
.. 1990/1991 SCHOOL YEAR R
�ch�i Capacity
Adjusted Fgrecast
1990/1991-
, 0 Bryant 529 513 Forest Hills 391 403
Hallinan 4.37
". ' Lake Grove330 .
Palisades 552 5003
Rivergrove414
345 3444
Uplands 644 299
a Westridge _, 409 09
.��
Total Students 3,772
3,393
VI Z
W
1 Capacity varies yearly for each school based on construction of new additions.portable classrooms, kinder amen ro am on s.
•t '� agencies or district wide programsp sand space commitments for other
' 2
I �` 0The adjusted forecast total and the enrollment projection total from October 1,
1989 are the same. The adjusted forecast, however, has a redistribution of
individual school figures due to subsequent elementary enrollment decisions,
ectsions,
3 The adjusted forecast figure of 500 for Lake Grove is conservative, and may
t• .
range up to a total of 600 students,
4 The adjusted forecast figure of 299 for Rivergrove is conservative
, Studer" '
demand created by the active new home construction in the Bay Creek
R
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 an additiona
students should actual fall enrollment exceed the forecast. Stardn with thel379 •
` '
subsequent school year of 1991/1992, the new element g
an increr""d district capacity of 500 students. �'Y school will provide for
,ntial Development Activity
the following two tables summarize residential development activity for this
last fiscal year. These figures
Council August 1989, wic hadpsttoppedt the at June 30, aon distributed to 1989. City
A. BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED
t 1989/1990 FISCAL YEAR
Single Family •y 400 Houses •
Multi Family 39 lnits ..
•
Total 439 Dwellings
•
s:,
B.
SNGLE FAMILY LOTS APPROVED
1989/1990 FISCAL YEAR
Zane Numh
•
R-15 ��
63
R-10
117
R-7.5
R—S31
Total Lots •Approved °
372
The City continues to experience an active development market
subdivision of land and Issuance of building permits. Theta market, through the
•
dwelling units in 1988/1989, the preceding fiscal year. When compared 82 new
1989/1990 figuz�, it is evident that the single family market contine be the •
strop
g The drop in multifamily can be attributed to a decline in available
tea;,
multifamily land.
3. Conclusions
Information presented to Council in Aug
deliberations indicated there were a total of 38989 cant sinduring lglefamily- , �,
within the city limits. A ve mor,.cn,;,,,
family-zoned tots
fiscal years development acavityoindica ens there e of lare rous g hl t figure with the last
vacant 1990. This new vacant lot figure was achieved y son vacant lots as ; t'
lots) to 372 recently approved lots) and subtracting
400 (single dding 835 ltamtiy
building permits).
4. 7' .r
p
•
4
There are several variables which axe 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.
•lr
•
i
j
J, •'t
•\ *v.
Y? `1
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
F ,
tQ +
•
LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT
Office of Superintendent - y
�'.+ROLLMENT REPORT0 , . ,
Date 61 r90
ELEMENTARY
K
School 1 2 3 4
r SideSec Pup Sec Pup Set Pup Sec Pup Sec Pup Sec 5 Pu 6 Spec Total
+ • I; �re� 0.0 Hills 2.0 Ilia3 Q� 2.0 43 2.0 2.0p 5oc Pup Sec Pup Sec I Pup
0 5.0 d0® 56 2.0 47 1 0 10 16 5 3741�'t rx 5 Grove4.0 95 4.0 96 am 824o 4.0 92 00 0 2601 5621
40�8 3.0 66 3.0 69 4.0 92 4,0 '
•
5,0 115 12,0 WI 9.0 204 9.0 216 9.5 214 10,0 4.0 92 1.0 10 26 0 521
Total
,0 20 66 5 1 49d
Sacri Side -----__
':.-Ifnan 6.0� 2.0 40 2.0 me 2.0 46® 56 2.0 2,o�rD 0.0 0 18 5 392 e' - . '
atsacies
• Grove 2.0�a 2.0 49 2.0 43 2.0 42 p 2 0 3 0 71 0.0 0 15 5r
2,0 43 2.0 39 2.0 43 2,0�®�� 11.5 633.0 00 0 0.0 01 120 272- •
1
es~ dae 2.0 3 0 65 2.0 ®�®� 3 0 1 0 25 0.0 Cl t 2 0 2 i21
° Total 14.0 299 11,0 2351 10.0® I 242 11 0 3 0 85 0 0 0 18 0 436
=•stiJ TOTAL 10,5 2701 11.5
-__ _ 19.0 408 23.0 511 19.0 429 ® 9 0 220 0 01 I 77 QI 1 '2l
19.5 d58 20.5 484 21.5 461 19 0 445 2A 20! 143 5 3 2151
Junior High SECONDARY
7 8 Total Oct.! High School
9 10 11 12 Total • ;
261® �250® 501 7HS 259 250 2301 204
1
4-
M Total ® �akendoe 230 ilinnang 2501 !1L"I f-,
Total 489 468 459 4541 5 !ii,11
1
October 198 Growth Analysts
~
e4,e've1 N1.311.111 October 1969 Oc;oner 1989 ( u!ren
1 308 1461 MIS 1181111111 S
S• - °2 404 4251 14Q= 1690
'OTALS 10061 10571 I 95; 992 9497
33
56E 11 1 ,_ 9�3
5 5281 (- .-___ 6 030
•
r ,,4
•
z t
+
'? Jti 4 , t
1 .. .........,„
. .
.. ,
t .
„ .
. .
.
,. 0.
. • .
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
N ,4
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MQRANDi 1M
g. EXHIBIT'
'P TO: Planning Staff and
City Attorney's Office
b. FROM. Peter C. Harvey, City Manager
SUBJECT: Interpretation of Minor Change to Variation
Requirement (LOC 49.500(1)(B)]
of 25' Street Frontage
DATE:
March 28, 1990
•
•
A request has been received for an interpretation of the language "minor
change" in LOC 49.500(1) as it pertains to the 25' street frontage requirement.
That section further states that the City Manager shall determine whether
request is a Class I or Class II variance,
The City Code (LOC 49.025) provides for the City Manager to interpret all •
may
terms, provisions, and requirements. These interpretationsbe appealed in
accordance with LOC 49.630, Pp
For purposes of LOC 49.500(1)(B), an interpretation of the language,e, "minor '
change" needs to combine the wording of the introductory portion of 49,500(1)
with the wording on the 25' street frontage requirement. This combination
would result in a phrase as follows: • •
A Class I variance is a minor change to vary the
street frontage requirement.
The next question is, how much of a variation is "minor," thereby, meeting the
requirements for a Class I variance; and how much of a variation would exceed
•
the "minor" change, thereby, becoming a Class II variance?
It would seem logical that a lot should have sufficient frontage on a street to
provide at least one vehicle travel lane and for emergency acess, On vehicle
travel lane is 10 feet, Some additional distance on each side is needed, The
width needed for the operation of fire department emergency equipment is
13.5'.
4. It is therefore my determination that a variation from 25' to 13.5' of the street
•
i.
frontage standard would be considered "minor change" and a Class I variance;
and a variation to less than 13,5 would be a Class Ii variance,
. <cmo>planning=st.variance
380"A"AVENUE/POST OFF ICE OOX 359/LAKE OSWCGo,OREGON 97034/(503)535.0215
1ai
YI
•
4.
•
•
•
•
•1.
as
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
,•_-,
. .
1 BEFORE THE DEVELLOPMENT REVIEW BOARD ,,.-
OF THE
2 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
3
.
4
5 A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO
CREATE THREE PARCELS FROMa VAR 20-9a 815
6 A 43,614 SQ, FT.LOT. ALSO, (Jose and nd Christel Saraiva) ,
A 25 FOOT CLASS II VARIANCE } FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER
TO THE ACCESS DEVELOPIVIENT )
8 STANDARD ) ;. •,
) SD
9
10 NATURE OF Aa ,TC
11 The applicant is seeking approval to create three parcels from a 41,471 s . ft. l
12 • parcel is proposed to be in excess of 5,000 sq. ft. in size. Also, the applicantof Each
i s seeking
13 approval of a 25 foot Class II variance to the access Development Standard which
14 requires that each parcel abut a public street for a minimum of 25 feet, The applicant s�.
15 proposes two parcels to have no portion abutting a street. The site is located at 5207 j 16 Rosewood Street (Tax Lot 3200 of Tax Map2 1E \
17 18AB). e
18 I 1 ARESCtS.
19 The Development Review Board held a public hearing and considered this application at
� 1
20 its meeting of September 17, 1990.
PP
21
22 R RIA AND STANDARDS V q
23 A. i f Lake Oeweo Comprehensive Plan:
24
25 Urban Service Boundary Policies
. General Policy III
26 •
27 Policy I,
•
Impact Management Policies
General P yII, III, V
28
•
Wildlife Habitat Policies
General Policy I, II
10
„, Distinctive Natural Area Policies `
General Policy I
,I AI
Energy Conservation Policies ' '
3 3
General Policy II
j,4
Protection Open Space Policies
General PolicyI, II
• :PAGE
41
1 SD 36-90/VAR 20-90-815 a EXHIBIT
/ $La9t,) ' r
sP/ '4/ PA-l'1
a
y +. r r U •
Transportation Policies
General Policy IV -
0 . - .
r 1 2
B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance:
1 LOC 48.120-48.155 R-5 Zone Descripton (setbacks, lot area, lot
coverage) .
LOC 48.525 Determination of Front Yard for Flag Lots
and Lots Accessing by Easement •
•
LOC 5.30 Vision Clearance
LOC 48.535(4) Special Street Setbacks u:
{` C. City of Lake Oswego Development Q ck:
1.0 LOC 49.025 Interpretation, Regulations & Procedures
LOC 49.090 Applicability c,f Development Standards
EA
_1 LOC 49.110 Concurrent Review of Permits
LOC 49.140 Minor Development
�3 LOC 49.145 Major Development '
LOC 49.215 Authority of City Manager
LOC 49.220-49.210 Minor Development Procedures ',',• ►.
• _ LOC 49.300-49.315 Major Development Procedures
LOC 49.500 Variances; Classifications
6 LOC 49.510 Variance Standard :,>'
LOC 49.610 Quasi-Judicial Evidentiary Hearing
Procedures
LOC 49.615 .Criteria for Approval
- D, City of Lake Oswego Development Standards,:
'%- �"
2.005 -2.040 Building Design
-- 5.005 -5.040 Street Lights
6.005 -6.040 Transit System
7.005 -7.040 Parking &Loading Standard
=� 8,005 -8.040 Park and Open Space •
i 9.005-9.040 Landscaping, Screening & Buffering " '
11.005 - 11.040 Drainage Standard for'Major Development •
12.005 - 12.040 Drainage Standard for Minor
y 2- Development
14.005 - 14.040 Utility Standard ,•
18.005 -- 18.040 Access Standard
19,005 - 19,040 Site Circulation -Private • '
- Streets/Driveways ��h�
•
• E. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance:
n
=- LOC 57,005 -57,135
.= .. _ F. City of LAD Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance:
`- •
. y LOC 55.010-55.130 •
. 40 t ,
• _.._..�
2 SD 36-90/VAR 20--90-815
J1 .
i'
•
• 0 r lti q
II' '
�ei Aij
Fk
1•
CONCLUSION • • N 1'
} The Development Review Board concludes that SD 36-90\VAR 20-90 can be made to
2
3
comply with all applicable criteria by the application of certain conditions.
4
4," FMTDINGS ANDREASONS
The Development Review Board incorporates the September 7, 1990 staff report on SD
"6-90\VAR 20-90 as support for its decision, supplemented by the following:
1. The Board determined that, based upon the width and alignment of the proposed
access easement, vehicle parking beyond everyday uses would create an adverse
a impact upon surrounding properties. The Board found that this concern could be
resolved through the imposition of conditions of approval requiring one off-street •
..I 10 parking space each for Parcels 2 and 3 in addition to those required by the Parking
, 71 and•Loading Development Standard and that the paved easement be marked with ,,
"fire lane-no parking" at intervals along its length.
12
2. The Board determined that the three feet proposed between the easterly edge of the
-3 proposed access easement and the eaves of the existing dwelling was not adequate
14 to provide for the height of delivery trucks. The Board found that this concern
could be resolved through the imposition of a condition of approval requiring a
5 minimum of three feet between the edge of the easement and the eaves of the
16 existing dwelling. •
_7
.a ORDER
9 IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD of the City of Lake N.
Z3 Oswego that:
2:1 A. SD 36-90\VAR 20-90 is approved subject to compliance with the conditions of
....2 approval set forth in Subsection B of this Order.
23 B. The conditions for SD 36-90WAR 20-90 are as follows:
• 24 1. A final plan (as depicted in Exhibit 5 and modified by conditions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 .
• ,.a; and 9) shall be submitted to City staff for review and signature of approval
=-5 within one year of the date of this decision. Upon written application, prior to
25 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 whioch may have occurred in the surrounding area. The '
w 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 land use application—City of Lake Oswego
,.
. _ Land Development Services Division,File No. SD 36-90/VAR 20-90,
2. The final plan shall be registered with the Clackamas County Surveyor's office
and recorded with Clackamas County Clerk's office, ' •
' ' E •
• 3 SD 36-90NAR 20-90-815
•
i
C
� 3. The following note-shall appear on the final plan:
2 Parcels 1, 2 and 3 are Solar Lots. Development of structures and
planting of non-exempt vegetation on Parcels 1, 2 and 3 shall
3 comply with the Solar Balance Point Provisions of the Solar Access
4 Ordinance (LOC 57.050-57.090). This requirement shall be
binding upon the application•and subsequent purchasers of Parcels
5 1, 2 and 3.
6 4. The following notes shall appear on the final plan:
7 Parcels 2 and 3 shall comply with one of the following:
•
8 a. Habitable structures built on the lot will have their long axis oriented within 30 degrees of a true east—west axis
g
and at least 80% of their ground floor south wall protected 1 0 from shade by structures and non—exempt trees; or
11 b. Habitable structures built on the lot will have at least 32%
12 of their glazing and 500 square feet of their roof area •
which faces within 30 degrees of south and is protected
13 from shade by structures and non—exempt trees.
' 14 5. The final plan shall indicate the location and width of all untilityeasements S
necessary to serve Parcels 1, 2 ,' ,
and 3.
6 6. The applicant shall design the access easement to provide an outside turning
radius of 40 feet(minimum) and inside radius of 25 feet (minimum
17
7. The applicant shall dedicate 10 feet along the frontage )18 future nght—of—way purposes. ge of Rosewood sewood Street for
9 8. The applicant shall provide the City a signed nonremonstrance a
"Q future street improvements anticipated in Rosewood Street, This aee agreement
,
shall apply to all parcels as approved b're
,.. 21
9. The applicant shall dedicate the proposed access easement to the Cit as a f
22 lane. This shall be shown on the final plan. Y ire
23 10. Evidence of the above to be provided to the Public Works and Development
24 Services Department prior to the issuance of buildin
`,, subsequent to the date of this approval, g permits requirecp
25 11. The applicant shall install all utilities necessary to serve Paitels
condition of building permit approval requested subsequent to this a ion. This s
includes positive storm drainage (drywells or alternates),
12. The City shall allow the removal of only those trees necessary to site a
dwelling or accessory structure on Parcels 1, 2 and 3, This removal shall
,N 40 comply with LOC 55,050-55,080 (Tree Cutting Ordinance).
lc 13, The applicant shall install a pole—mounted street light on Rosewood
31 across from the site unless one has been previously installed in conjunction S `q
with SD 19-88.
14. The applicant shall locate the easterly edge of the easement a minimum of three
33. feet from the eaves of the existing house,14
15. The applicant shall work with staff to place either one additional parking space
on both Parcels 2 and 3 or a combined two space parking area within an l
�^ easement. If an easement is used, it shall be shown on the final plan and •:-:sue included prior to the issuance of building> permits resubsequent ';
date of this approval.
quested to the
' 4 SD 36-90/VAR 20-90-815
, H,
.tjy
•
W0 di A
I 16. The applicant shall mark the access easement as a fire lane, noting that no
` ••
parking shall occur within the fire lane,
2
I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the
•
r� Development Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego.
:Sy
6 DATED this 1st day of October , 1990.
J /
r
z.0 Robert H.Foster, Chiirman
Development Review Board
:2 I ,:
13 y.4 � ' , '6C l� I ! 1 -
-Y Secretary
•,`
r.5 A•1-1'EST:
ORAL DECISION—September 17. 1990
r AYES: Sievert, Stanaway,'Greaves,Foster, Remy, Starr and Bloomer
_0 NOES: None :•,'
Aft A__ ABSTAIN: None
' --• ABSENT: None
r1
WRITTEN FINDINGS --October 1, 1990
24
`= AYES: Stanaway, Greaves, Foster, Remy and Starr.
26
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
1.5` ABSENT: b
Sievert and Bloomer w
Y
1 r
—�
I. {A ",..
{ 5'p�la,1_
ti , Y, AA --,,,z„
�r °'' 5 SD 36--90/VA1 20-90-815
1
•
r1, l . ..✓ ••., I ••1 .... 4• ,. 1 r ' ■ . t ,
• `...0
.. ..
.1»
.. . ,.,
„ „.. . ... . .,
. • • •..• . . ..•
.. . .
,..,, , • ,,. , . . . ..
; , ..,.
,.,.:„., ... .. ...,,,
. .• . .
......... .„:,
..„ ',. .
.....
. • .. ... . .. .. ,
..., ...,..•..., „,, ,
.. . ..
. :
r
, ... :
„... . .. , .,
.... , ...
. .
. .. .,.....,. .
. ,, . . , . ..
...
■ L r
•
• ..
f
•
•i:
0 '• , 4** :
fi1v, ' x" •
5 A I
P' .1}�i�'trt1;: K I
�h
� y ., 1
„ f e,t n y y ,
4 ,
• SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE PARTITION PLAT
'I, HAROLD P. SALO, BEING FIRST DULY SWORN, HEREBY DEPOSE AND SAY THAT I HAVE CR- 1.1:,' ' '';
RECnY SURVEYED AND MARKED PATH PROPER MONUMENTS THE LAND REPRESENTED ON THIS BEING LOT 74, "BR
t " ATTACHED MINOR PARTITION MAP, THE BOUNDARIES BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
11
•
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 2 IN THE NE 1/4 SE(
SOUTH,COUNTYRANGE 1 REGON,EAST BEIN�LLT+E OF LOT ETTE MERIDIAN, CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, CLACKAMAS . .
•
74,4,BRYANT ACRES', BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DE- CITY OF LAKE OS 111
a ` SCRIDED AS FOLLOWS: CLACKAMAS COUNT)
BEGINNING AT A 3/4' IRON PIPE AT THE NORTHLAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 74; THENCE SOUTH I •
18'00'03' EAST ALONG THE EASTERLY UNE OF SAID LOT 74 A DISTANCE OF 305.33 FEET
TO THE THENCE SOUTHE72ro1AST C00NWESTER FALONG SAID LSAID CENTERLINEOT 74 IN THE N 2.tl16 FEET TO THEsSOUTH ES STREET;EWOOD OCTOBER 12, 1990
,' CORNER OF SAID LOT 74; THENCE LEANNG SAID CENTERLINE, NORTH I8'OI'08' WEST ALONG
THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 74 A DISTANCE OF 305.27 FEET TO A 3/4' IRON PIPE AT
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 74; THENCE NORTH 71'59'29' EAST ALONG THE
NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 74 A DISTANCE OF 142,96 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
CONTAINING 43,628 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS,
NOTES:
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS I. PARCELS 1, 2, AND 3 ARE SOLAR •
pLANiino or NON-EXEMPT VFnEtA• d,
.1+ ^� '�/,F 1• WITH THL SOLAR BALANCE POINT
J� DAY OF � u^ 199q. �I�Tv( /� (LOG SZ050-S7,090), THIS kEbal�
(J ATION AND SUBSEQUENT PURCHA,E
! _—S _.........• .... �•�
2. PARCELS 2 AND 3 SHALL COMPLY r
I , 0/� A. HABITABLE STRUCTURES I•
0.4.1 * dC_, ORIENTED WITHIN 30 DEG,
I I LEAST 80T, OF THEIR Gk,
a
( SHADE in ST11tICTIII4Et •1 •�5;
f/-/.e--ti \ Ica
. 8, HABITABLE STRUCTURE:
THEIR GLAZING AND 50C
I WITHIN 30 DEGREES CF :'
STRUCTURES AND NON-I...
'
47- P O 3 THE ABOVE NOTED ITEMS ARE FCC.
A1A) PLAT, THOSE ITEMS ARE CONDinr• c '
E 11A7'e5 ` (FLUSH) CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ONLY
N 9 OD
to' F. 'Is Lt ITNEAp516 4, THERE ARE NO Y,NOWN GEODETIC -
/0 LN T"5 .'• `'00%:.t..7 I'ARI TICN.
(UP 0.3') T 06 ul
a d\ N
r $. \ PARCEL 3 •A ww LEGEND
PARCEL 2 `" 7,264 S.F. og
7,358 S.F. ' \ 5' PRIVATE UTILITY u:N N U
EASEMENT FROM ,, ,
o dll \ PARCEL 3 FOR N� $� /
5' PRIVATE UTILITY PARCELS Idt 2. ; po
N-I. EASEMENT FROM �• '_.l 0 ••• u,o, . LP.
PARCEL 2 FOR 3y,Gd, T'A II' ,' h,
� �'PARCELS 1 At 3, -7,50'
a , 7,50' S5'O�. ; O OOw ?,SU i r
\ y 9orot;o3' P5
x O\'g1 L 25 57' S/8'LR• W//YCLLOW PL
�.1' .'' 7,50'''��0,OD.'� l,• FIRE LANE CAP MAIINFO 'nURTON FNOR'
U d m EASEMENT O 12'NG tut, I)I') ? •
,o,�• d. 69.58 57' 6 46.
o ro, R •.. 15,00' o \}• \ol 7'
1 r.: 4 L . 23,58' c• �.� 1
h' N ry�A PARCEL 1 Y y,',',,
p/(a 25,435 S.F. Qr '6%;
-1' .•-1\\� 25,0' PRIVATE ACCESS
i \m &UTILITY EASEMENT
rl 5,0' PUBLIC a�5 ', FROM PARCEL I TO
4 UTILITY \\b. \d PARCEL 2 & 3, MOO
` o, EASEMENT oW W, DEDICATED EASEM ENT TO ,
\rI THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 5/8 I R. Ni CE,LOW PL, CAP n � \\I' FOR FlRE LANE /MARKED 'BUktrNI EIIaR' �,,,.•-"
a�J, (7P q 1•. r CA'I.
r, \\ , 4• G.11'L
J \ / 11
i10,0' RIGHT or ,•✓ A q,
o •m
' ' \\UI. to., HAY DEDICATION ". - Ap
- 1A T I,428 S.CS 3/4,10 F •;1f1 °AR
` pM 00' 1A1.81----'°�¢•1(1�, I.�. - „.r 7e F 'MA• I
R '10 /'" r '+
U W AO1 bn 1 I"
t A9.17e�T�•010 1A1 \� 19A.SA (19A 2' ' l
' SCALE 1"� 40' LU.On' �{N AtWa t\A� 1no' ,11T1 t�t
S 11.OT�C IG
....
ic„` • `L,I r�1r°h
y .'.<' I/2`I,R. W/ALUM. ,-
•,4 CAP STAMPED BE)
4 EXHIBIT ,,tic- 3 'MARLS (FLUSH)
C,/� Il Ll 1 ,,,.»� O°'� iNGIDE 3/4'I.P SURVEYED B'T. AIJt-f PA CIS k A -
® WS 204f n)
10.00' M.fi P. "Or" 5 W rwrfr r,
AT.F ,' .NI nt, L1.1
Ulf 6?(j...% 4T .
b 1 -41 1,4rl
•
•
` Y Y r it i„ /: 1 '
Y ! t
v-,
r'. •
•
•
' al.
' y
pef A
V..
is
. l
•
.Y
e.`
>
.r n r
•
STAFF REPORT
i � • CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
. ..
-LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION- :k
�.s APPLICANT: FILE NO,: .
• ~•
Majestic Homes, Inc.
SD 2-91\VAR 2-91
PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: '
Carolyn Plath (TL 6000)
Gladys Shaver(TL 5900) Michael R. Wheeler
'' LEGAL,D .SC'RIPTION: DATE OF REPORT:
' February 8, 1991
1
Tax Lot 5900 and 6000 of
Tax Map 2 1E 8AC
DAM OF HEARINQ:
LOCATION: February 20, 1991
South side of Douglas Circle between Twin Fir NEIGHBORHOOD AS QCIATION: `
Road and Lanewood
Lake Grove
COMP, PLAN DESIGNATION:
ZONING DESIGNATION!rJON:
R-10 '
I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant is seeking approval for a 5,632 sq. ft, lot line adjustment between two parcels. ,.
The adjusted parcels are proposed to be 21,710 and 29,741 sq. ft. in area, .q Also, the applicant is seeking approval in 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, Tax Lot 6000 is not }
proposed to abut a street, but will be served by a 25 ft. wide access easement over Tax Lot •
5900.
II, APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensiveplan:
Impact Management Policies
General Policy II, Specific Policy 3
•
Wildlife Habitat Policies
General Policy II
•
SD 2--91\VAR 2-91
Page1of10.
Yyy
• y f
•
4 s;
r
B. City of Lake Ocweg� ning Or in n t:
LOC 48.195-48.225 R-10 Zone Description (setbacks,lot area, lot
coverage)
C. City of Lake Ocw ;o development Code:
LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards
LOC 49.110 Concurrent Review of Permits
LOC 49.130 Classification of Development
•, LOC 49.140 Minor Development
LOC 49.,220-49.210 Minor Development Procedures
LOC 49.215 Authority of City Manager
LOC 49.300-49.315 Major Development Procedures
LOC 49.500 Variances, Classifications ,,
LOC 49.510 Variance Standards w';.
. , LOC 49.610 Quasi-judicial Evidentiary Hearing
LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval
LOC 49.620 Conditional Approvals
D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards:
2.005 -2.040 Building Design
5.005 -5.040 Street Lights
6.005 -6.040 Transit System
7.005 -7.040 Parking &Loading Standard
8.005 -8.040 Park and Open Space
9.005 -9.040 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering .
11.005 - 11.040 Drainage Standard for Major Development
12.005- 12.040 Drainage Standard for Minor Development
.. • 14.005 - 14,040 Utility Standard
18.005 - 18,040 Access Standard
c 19.005 - 19.040 Site Circulation -Private Streets/Driveways +' •
E. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance: ^
LOC 55.010-55.130
III. FINDINGS , •
A. Existing Conditions;
1, The site contains approximately 51,451 sq, ft. • ,
yA.
►, 2. The site is located south of Douglas Circle and east of Lanewood Street.
•
3. The site has 132 ft, of frontage ort Douglas Circle,
,` 4, A single family residence is located on Tax Lot 5900, Tax Lot 6000 is vacant.
•
• •
SD 2-91\VAR 2-91
Page 2 of 10
2
5. An 8 inch sanitary sewer line is located in Douglas Circle, at ''
approximately 10 feet in depth.
6. An 8 inch water line is located in Douglas Circle.
7. Douglas Circle is a 16 ft. wide paved improvement with gravel
shoulders in a 30 foot-wide right-of-way. ,
8. A street light is located on a utility pole east of the site on the north
side of Douglas Circle.
.
9. The site is level to gently sloping.
10. There are a number of large fir trees located on Tax Lot 6000 and
south of the existing residences on Tax Lot 5900.
B. Background:
Tax Lots 6000 and 6100 (not a part of this application) were the subjects "'
of two minor partition applications that were to have created a total of five
parcels from two platted lots. The requests (SD 37-81, SD 38-81) were
approved in 1981, Lat were never acted upon. •
Tax Lot 6000 was subsequently divided into two parcels (Tax Lots 6000,
• s ;' 6001) without the benefit of City approval.
The applicant received approval on June 15, 1990 for a lot line adjustment
and minor partition to create three parcels from two existing lots (SD 4-
90). At that time Tax Lot 6000 did not have access from a public street,
The lot line adjustment and minor partition provided Tax Lot 6000 with an
approved access and allowed it to meet all other Code requirements. In
t. ..• this regard, the approval made Tax Lot 6000 a conforming parcel.
While the approval of SD 4-90 remains in effect, the owner of Tax Lot
5900, Mrs. Shaver, has some reluctance to convey title to the 25 foot-wide
strip to Tax Lot 6000. Mrs. Shaver does not want to preclude future ';
•
development capabilities (i.e., partitioning) on her parcel and feels that
conveying title, even if an access easement is reserved for that purpose,
would do so. In order to remedy the matter, Mrs, Shaver has agreed to '
!'• convey an easement for access and utilities if approval of a variance to the `
Access Development Standard can be secured. This application considers ;° '
that alternative.
„;,. •
r C. proposal;
The applicant is requesting approval of a lot line adjustment between two
of the parcels approved in SD 4-90. The adjustment involves 5,632 sq, ft,
being conveyed from Parcel 1 to Parcel 3 (Exhibit 3), Tax Lot 5900
•
would be 29,741 after the proposed adjustment; Tax Lot 6000 would be
21,710 sq, ft. The applicant is also requesting approval of a 25 foot Class .'
` II variance to the Access Development Standard, Parcel 1 (Tax Lot 6000) ` '.1 "
is proposed to have no frontage on a public street but will be served by an m
access easement of 25 feet in width,
SD 2-91\VAR 2-91 • ,
Page 3 of 10 . '
+, l
D. Compliance with Criteria for Approval:
As per LOC 49.615, the Development Review Board must consider the
following criteria when evaluating minor development (lot line .
adjustment):
1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking
approval. .,.
The applicant has borne the burden of proof through submittal of at,
documents marked as exhibits, accompanying this report.
2. For any development application to be approved,it shall first be
established that the proposal conforms to:
r ♦ rF
' a. The City's Comprehensive Plan , ,
Applicable policy groups are:
Impact Management Policies . i, `>t
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 trees will be protected from
removal. Compliance with the applicable Development Standards
reviewed below will assure conformance to these Plan policies,
Conditions of approval will be imposed when necessary to assure
compliance.
Wildlife Habitat Policies
These policies require protection of upland habitat in the form of
i, r preserved open space, natural vegetation or fragile slopes. The related . .•
development standards and Tree Cutting ordinance are reviewed in this
report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies.
b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and
regulations.
�:. Zoning Code Requirements and An lysis (LOC Chapter 48)
The site is zoned R-10 Residential which requires a minimum lot area of
10,000 sq. ft, [LOC 48.210(1)], Each parcel must have a minimum lot
•
width at the building line of 65 ft. and a minimum lot depth of 100 ft,
[LOC 48.210(1)], Maximum lot coverage is 30% [LOC 48,225(1)],
The applicant proposes the adjusted parcels to be the following sizes: I.
Tax Lot Lot Area Lot Depth(ftj Lot Widthlft 1
5900 24,063 225 106,90
6000 22,295 180 90
SD 2-91\VAR 2-91
Page 4 of 10
.
•
•
•
_
awl
The existing dwelling on Tax Lot 5900 covers approximately 750 sq. ft. or ,
3.1% of the adjusted parcel. The vacant parcel will be required to meet
the lot coverage requirements upon application for a building permit `9 '
subsequent to this action, if approved.
The minimum setbacks required in the underlying R-10 zone are as
follows [LOC 48.215(1)]:
Front 20 ft.
�� Rear 25 ft. k
Y
Sides 5 ft, minimum (15 ft. total)
The maximum height allowed in the R-10 zone is 35 ft. {LOC 48.220),
Both of the adjusted parcels can comply with these requirements.
D,.. lopm .n ode Requirements and Analys pler c
The proposed lot line adjustment is classified as minor development. The '
proposed 25 ft. Class II variance is classified as major development. LOC • I.
49.110 provides for the concurrent review of development permits. As
such, the respective components of this application are being appropriately
considered as minor and major development. Other than the Development
Standards which are applicable to the minor and major developments '. ."respectively, there are no other requirements unique to this request. 41
As per LOC 49.510, the Development Review Board must consider the
} following criteria when evaluating a request for a Class II variance:
r
a. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship;
The applicant was granted approval of a lot line adjustment and
minor partition on June 15, 1990 (SD 4-90, Exhibit 4), The final
plan was prepared and recorded with Clackamas County, and is
known as Partition Plat No. 1990-70 (Exhibit 5). A hardship appears to exist due to a misunderstanding between the applicant and the
owner of Tax Lot 5900, Mrs. Shaver about the scope of'that
application.
a Mrs. Shaver conveyed a mutual easement over the area of access in '
•
question on October 17, 1989 (Exhibit 7), Mrs. Shaver consented to
participate in a lot line adjustment and minor partition on December
12, 1989. It is now understood that Mrs, Shaver only intended to
convey the easement for access purposes, and not to convey title to
the 25 foot—wide access to the owner of Parcel 1.
It is Mrs. Shaver's reluctance (upon the advice of her legal counsel)
which has led to a hardship for which relief is sought by this Class II
variance. While Parcels 1, 2 and 3 of Partition No, 1990-70 has been
approved and recorded, Parcel 1 remains unbuildable because it lacks
possession of 25 feet of frontage on a public stree1 ,et as required by the
.�, + . •
Access Development Standard [CODS (8.020(1)] Without approval
of the variance, Parcel I will not comply with the
SD 2-91\VAR 2-91
Page 5 of 10
(., .. , 4., " . .4 , ,
® ..„ _ , : . . . . . . " i� �� i
7ri c
•
l7d F 6
ii i •
tY
t
.1W
�,; approval of SD 4-90 and will be ineligible for approval of a
development permit until compliance is achieved.
' ,t b. Development consistent with the request will not be
` `' ^ ‘ injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is
located or to property established to be affected by the
request;
Jis n:
The easement for access has already been conveyed over the area in
question (Exhibit 7). The approval of SD 4--90 anticipated
construction of a driveway over the 25 foot—wide strip that is the
�;,` subject of this request. The issue is whether or not Parcel 1 must own
the strip or simply have an access easement over it. Development of
'•1 the strip for driveway access under either condition is not anticipated
• i to cause injury to the neighborhood. This is evidenced by the
° ' absence of appeal regarding SD 4-90 and subsequent
with conditions of approval of that action. q t compliance
c. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make
reasonable use of the property;
Because the arguments in favor of the variance involve Mrs, Shaver's
reluctance to convey title, and not any physical feature on the site;
the requested 25 foot variance is the minimum necessary to resolve
the misunderstanding and to enable Parcel 1 (Tax Lot 6000) to be
come a buildable site.
d. The request is not in conflict with the Cor, wehensive Plan.
,,
There are no Plan policies specifically applicable „i this request for a
Class II variance.
c. The applicable Development Standards y
• Solar Access Ordinance Requirements and Analysis f OC rjatlpter 571
While not applicable to lot line adjustment, compliance with the Solar
Access Ordinance was required for Parcel 1 in SD 4-90 (Exhibit 4) and
will be affected by this request.
In that approval,Parcel 1 was noted as being a solar lot because it me the
Basic Requirement [LOC 57.020(1)1 of orientation and north—south depth,
The proposed lot line adjustment will result in Parcel 1 no longer
complying with the orientation requirement.
r
Despite the absence of actual street frontage, if the lot line adjustment is
w
approved, the parcel is well suited for solar access,
Solar access can be achieved in one of two ways, at the discretion of the
applicant, By prescribing the location of a Solar Building Line, north of
which solar access is protected on Parcel 1, it would continue to be a solar
lot. Alternately, by imposing performance requirements on orientation of
•' roof, glazing or long axis, the parcel may achieve the same result in
compliance with the ordinance, One of these alternatives will be required "
as a condition of this action, if approved,
SD 2-91\VAR 2-91
Page 6 of 10
• b:
I e Cutting Sltdinance Requirements and Analysis `
In order to implement the Wildlife Habitat Policies and the impact
t Management Policies, the provisions of the Tree Cutting Ordinance must
`•' ' • be carried out in the development of the site. As such, the removal of only i
those trees necessary for construction of improvements may be allowed.
• A tree survey is necessary to meet the requirements of the Tree Cutting
Ordinance. Such a survey was required as a condition of approval of SD
4-90 and will be reiterated by this action,if approved. The applicant shall
position a proposed structure so as to minimize the number of trees
removed in compliance with LOC 55.080(2). A tree cutting permit will be
required for removal of any tree from the site.
Building Design (2.005 —2.040)
While this standard is applicable to all major development involving a
is structure, this application is major development only because of the "•
inclusion of the Class II variance. Staff concludes that the single—family ,
dwellings proposed or existing on the site are minor development, as is the ,
proposed lot line adjustment, and that this standard is not applicable.
Street Lights (5.005—5.0401
•
This standard is applicable to all development which includes public and
private streets, public pathways and accessways, or parking lots. The
t • nearest street light is located across from and east of the site on the north
side of Douglas Circle. This light is adequate for the development rb •
proposed.
Transit System (6.005 —6,040),
• The nearest transit facilities are located on Iron Mountain Blvd, to the
south. There are no hard surfaced paths leading to the site on Twin Fir
Road or Douglas Circle, No transit developments are required to serve
this site as a result.
Parking and Loading (7,005--7,040),
. • a • f.:,
ii
This standard requires two off—street parking spaces per dwelling unit(in
addition to the garage or carport). There is adequate parking for Tax Lot
5900 which utilizes the existing driveway for off—street parking, A . '�
•e; ; driveway will be constructed over the proposed easement for Tax Lot
6000 when it is developed. Compliance with the standard will be required
upon application for a building permit requested subsequent to this action, ffy
if approved. 1
10 . 40 Park and Open Space (8,005 g,04.0 ` .
• This standard requires that all major residential development provide open
.i �, space or park land equal to 20 percent of the gross land area of the `
'• development. Since the applicant's request is considered to be major
' development only because of the Class II variance [LOC 49.140 vs. •
r 49.145], and because the lot line adjustment, existing and future single
SD 2-91\VAR 2-91 • a
,, ti Page 7 of 10
♦
♦ -.4 l' 'ter • •.. + ` -----t" 4 �•4 r . ' '
a:
it A
,
...1•,,, •
•,•J
' C •
i
family dwellings are minor development [LOC 49.140J, staff concludes y,
that the Standard does not apply to this request.
Landspapine Scrm n r utti BufferinP(9 005 q O4a1
The existing and proposed single family dwellings am not included among
ti the range of uses required to provide plantings,despite the fact that the
standard is applicable to this Class II variance, which is classified as major development. Staff concludes that the standard is met.
Drainageltandardismmajor ev to L(11 005— 11 Waal
Drainageltandard for Miner Development(12,005— 12.04Q) °
These standards require that development not adversely affect neighboring
properties. The proposed lot line adjustment will not affect drainage.
Subsequent construction of a dwelling on Tax Lot 6000 will re9uire
compliance with the standard upon approval of a building permit
requested subsequent to this action, if approved,
•
Utility Standard (14.005— 14.04Q�
This standard requires that infrastructure improvements be installed underground where possible. Assurance of connection will be required ,
` y• .' upon application for a building ,
if approved, permit requested subsequent to this action,
n
At.'cess Standard(18.005— 18.040)
This standard requires that each parcel abut a public street for a minimum
of 25 ft. Tax Lot 5900 is proposed to exceed this requirement, The
applicant has requested approval of a 25 foot Class II variance to this
standard for Tax Lot 6000.
This standard is not applicable to lot line adjustments, but was applicable and complied with in SD 4-90. The proposal affects compliance with the
standard and is the reason the Class II variance has been requested.
Analysis of the proposal with regard to the standard is therefore N
appropriate.
The meths of this variance have been reviewed earlier in this report under: an analysis of Developmr'nt Code requirements.
• u' Site Circulation: vat tr etsL r v v ay_,_(19 05 19 n40)
This standard requires that driveways for single—family dwellings not
exceed a grade of 20%, nor a cross—slope of 5%, a i Because the site is
generally flat, compliance with this standard can be achieved by the
proposal. This will be assured upon application for any building permit
requested subsequent to this action, if approved. •
" . i
• 4
+ • SD 2-91\'VAR 2-91
r
Page 8 of 10
4
,.
•
x z. C. Conclusion;
Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant, staff concludes that
the proposal can be made to comply with all applicable criteria through
the imposition of cumin conditions.
III. RECOMMENDATION -t
d Based upon the conclusions noted above, staff recommends approval of the lot
line adjustment and Class II variance, subject to the following conditions:
1. A final plan (as depicted in Exhibit 3 and modified to illustrate Conditions
3, 5 and 7) shall be submitted to City staff for review and signature of
approval within one year of the date of this decision. Upon written
. 4 application, prior to expiration of the one year period, the City Manager
shall, in writing, grant a one year extension. Additional extensions may
' 4''' 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 Land Development Services Division, File No. SD 2-91/VAR 2-
91.
2. The final plan shall be registered with the Clackamas County Surveyor's
office and recorded with Clackamas County Clerks's office,
3, Legal descriptions (metes and bounds) to be specified on legal instruments
for title transfer for recording with Clackamas County Clerk's Office,
shall be provided to City staff for review. Actual recording shall not be a
M • condition of approval of this decision. However, when recorded the 0
instruments for both parcels shall reference this land use application-City
of Lake Oswego Land Development Services Division, File No. SD 2-
e 91NAR 2-91.
4. Parcel 1 (Tax Lot 6000), as adjusted, shall be noted as being a solar parcel
on the final plan. The following note shall also appear on the final plan:
Development of structures and planting of non-exempt vegetation on
Parcel 1 shall comply with the Solar Balance Point Provisions of the Solar
Access Ordinance (LOC 57.050-57, ),090 The note shall bind the
applicant and subsequent purchasers to comply with the future shade
protection standards of this section.
41 5, The applicant shall illustrate Solar Building Lines on Parcel 1 as required
p by LOC 57.020(2) or the following notes shall appear on the final plan: 0
p
a, Habitable structures built on Parcel 1 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,
•
SD 2w91\VAR 2-91 ,
, .f.
Page 9 of 10 .
1 , r ' �', 1 ,. a •. •' ,. 1 - ,
• ,i
•
b. Habitable structures built on Parcel 1 will have at least 32% of their „
' a'
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.
6. The following note shall appear on the final plan following notes required
by conditions 4 and 5 above:
a. These notes are for reference only and are not a part of the final plan
or plat.
7. Evidence of the above to be provided to the Public Works and
Development Services Department prior to the issuance of buildings gyp.
permits requested subsequent to the date of this approval.
8. The applicant shall provide a tree survey illustrating the location, type and
k.•, : diameter of all trees in excess of 5 inches on each parcel in application for
each building permit requested subsequent to this approval. The applicant
shall be allowed to remove only those trees necessary to site a dwelling or
accessory structure on Tax Lots 5900 and 6001. This removal shall
comply with LOC 55.050—55.080(Tree Cutting Ordinance),
Development on each parcel shall avoid as many trees as possible.
EXHIBITS 0 .t,•i • : ,
1. Tax Mlp
2. Applicant's Narrative
3. Sire Plan
4. Staff Report and Decision, SD 4-90; dated June 15, ..
e' 5. Approved Partition Plat (prior to recordation), SD 4-90, dated August 1,
1990 ,
6. Authorization of Lot Line Adjustment by Shaver, dated December 12; 1989
ti..^. 7. Mutual Easement, dated October 17, 1989
' 8. Authorization of Intent to Convey 25 foot—wide Easement by Shaver, dated
U January4
, 199I.
9. Tree Survey
MRW/b
tSU9n-61
.
1,
.
SD 2-91\'VAR 2-91
Page 10 of 10 r;
s -'9• ail JJUU
d a.VV
:^avroa,114 .7► I.�t .tsr •1b`5 • la ed.l°' is 229 5101 15501gtry /.
•
vJ 6 ni .3'�e t d
• W I701 .•;rr itV sry® M� QR - .. / r to() �(#*0 9D' \ sic 40 .. ;i;
' _ N 3320 ? "a`R"�. a �+ \2A ,c6, ' 'a \0 °1 }r
k Y a .I'��': ,`F. ZA2 Al ® '� aer�s <°v ztsJa
N 0 r e'y3 1700 �°. 2A\ d jp6Ar' l54 ILZ 4 4220,e3 Rd
Q i ,4 „ 4 3129 �' 1 1� •„.t4 r36• ''�� y .3100 s o
g Z" o'ti ti 00 ti'L° 227 5500 b 15535
vW '+ V.. a 11 'r�� h04
L tl i c 3700 • N -- 300•
aD AlIr w .,s J .� PP�yyO 313�a,�b° a`3000
N W k5 0 ; 1800 2.�a 0., 2,f 0 t. h h 15 511
3133 - u n
sBn ♦ta/ .$.90°40c e� $0Q'
/�' /R a LO eOry� p' I • ?Mai J°'1 .. \..;.
` J
' 'h .. 3600 W Y 9„� W ���05 a ,s01.'r'' 2901 12 800 ,.;.
o 3139 b; \J N 1 500 15121 o
0 0
ao 2
0 k b o 9.bd'0 v A00
•
i L„� RQe
.sue` ol'tr Zxodo 239 22Z,,�vrrnJ 7J' �� oo4sb' 2 � . :r 2900
o r es 2000 /sc an ` 0 2 26 2'J J + 'a 15901
r `, y;1900 3140 a 0 t�
3423 1 a
3415 e v b
'0 c ti • 2600 '`r° 00"°
` 0
'b ` 2 3!i iet•J;o 43 y 3 4 3110 1Si55 .
ih238 ,��/l,a+' � 2I00 N At
• 1 ; di-' P.rr„yA.:;:---"~ 4 ¢4•f00' O ti 1 1
•_" /ems dl,g1 tJ8 d■Q9°sJ' V r` ti
n ��_'�1 Its 1J� SI° to 3110 e ` ` 1
` /1. NEW0o[� C. .Z ,, ,, !/
I S c�:� �a'i'4;l ,, �. 226 �,y, •r? ,' . 223 .a°• ><nZ •
/ 6 200 Ida.'• 225 �224 224
�.4a' `[ ,. Ia.4' S no
IC
3411 6100 23. < . 7 Q AS __._ RC .yeas
3151 ('a�" ( �
s /31 7a' 2 331 's, 90'2 32 5 600 •2.
2 35 :Is
5900' 5 8 0 0 5700 15111
a `I �h�y 6001 I';3105 3111 3103 0 •
i" apt Al' (MY� 3155 I \
r, �Y ';�•.1 .4 p,, 51•>2 4` PARCEL ''i' lc, PARCE 3 `
N/ �,'
b Yi 0.35Ac. '; T 0.65A y
o PARTITIO •.' PL ° 0 . o
e e I . N
N
:od�- tN
I ti
i55001I p
� 5 15161 tt \RCELEXHIBITI ' ,
1 ;\ > t ,
. t,.: ,/Pals/ ,l$ 0.50Ac. V'
/ C EN SEC '
/ o:ra ati' v,W /GIC. k.s L1 B 9 ` ♦\.i♦t tt eat 2.-q(� Ara.Z. i ,
rd `- ... 104,.To. •�{ i , • .. .. r:'� 4N I''e' 4 6
ed 5I se ro'erHsrM
, f'' �4 5
"N Jca r., b",,•0 ,4'a ek,.s'd;tr• 'o rls eJ •• . V
`
b p!
•
.•
.•
•
•
•
•
•
G t�
i t
4•i
,)
6
•
" l
`r.
41 December 20, 1990
Majestic Homes, Inc.
P. O. Box 265
Clackamas, OR 97015
The applicant, Majestic Homes, Inc. is seeking aproval to
minor partition a parcel of land located south of Douglas
Circle and east of Lanewood Street in the City of Lake
u ;» I Oswego, Oregon. To change the said property from one parcel
to two parcels as per Exhibit A. Both parcels will exceed
the 10, 000 square foot minumum for a R-10 zoned property.
\ 1? • •
Access to Tax Lot 6000 will be attained by a 25' easement on
the west side of Tax Lot 5900 as per the attached agreement
signed by Gladys Shaver. This easement will require a Class
II Variance which the applicant is applying for at the same
time as this request.
Respectfully submitted, rg
,
Majestic Homes, Inc.
•
•
•
•
•
tl
,
r .
a EXHIBIT
(,2 pis)
•
L!i • 2 11\Viia.2d q
P41ge - 1 .
d
yp
fi
, 4
.Nd
�I'd
December
20, 1990
Majestic Homes, Inc.
a f
PO Box 265 ,. '.
Clackamas, OR 97015 •
The applicant,
Majestic Homes, Inc. is requesting
of access to Tax Lot 6000 locatedDouglas
a ircienoe
and east of Lanewood St. south of Douglas Circle �'
w
Some background information is critical to this
variance. The applicantproposed has recently recieved approval for
a lot line adjustment to gain access to Tax Lot 5900
,1 : ,, file tt SD 4-90» Gladys Slaver, (owneras per^
' agreed to give access to IL 6000 by
bof fax Lod 5900) who
means of
adjustment, did not have a lot-line
approval and �., grad understanding Of this
would prefer granting an easement to the
applicant for access. The reason for this is she is
uncertain of her future development chooses to retain title to her plans of TL 5900 and
25' of IL 5900 for access to TLp6000ras,» Shaven rill convoy °
r'
application dated .JA,✓ee,o: ..� /4e7/ per minor partition a
� This request is a .,�.
necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship
and will not be injurious to the adjacent neighborhood. ,
request is the minimum Variance necessaryfor re Thee
of IL 6000 as a future building site, request is
use
` � conflict with the City of Lake Oswegos comprehensives not in
° a Plan.
The site is located in a heavily wooded area with ver
gentle slopes y
The variance for access will not disturb any
existing structures or vegetation on or adjacent to it.
This variance allows for the only feasible access to
and would bestow a hardship on the a TL 6000
approved, pplicant if not
° r The approval of this variance would not have any substa
impact oh traffic, noise, or visual in the surrounding area.
a.
;• page - 1
y
J i 'ff
t.
/ Y
.Y I
Nth r�: w{. -- •
-
doh
> 4.DS•5 /'r L . ,3�1.1.P. 1'LP. DO TJG •
r' 0.08'1M TG.QI . „ LP.
'• 4 N,, t S 89.36 42 E 132,40" S 0019'34" W 0.2
00
i F r 1' �t•.�J�`t% 'j;iG. ` / Cx. 0.00'Ti 16.05 25.0 ' • 1y S 89'36'42" E `
( 0.05'w 0 \ . 107.37'
/ . h f
//'• �` ��q / 4::
0
1= vl LA/kJ '✓P L- S y 'I :.tV', _ Ce2# 16 I , . ,R/ OEDICAndN k
2 h FT11' � 'No1 88-2996$ F� I L EMI 7
L lZ.1r D9,0L��� ,C;. : z.v a► --_, sTin
•
a h"' / ^'a -, BK. 438, GA.+.JLL
' �- (O :rl�" ry��,pU �� —a- � I5"C/'/f"�11`- ! PG. 462 bfz.7\r.tAP,./ e
"p' y•• I i c Sna T g=.:i s 'CP
e ALE a.''--40' ,X� , tN(-1 re.� tte 6 1 a �N 4� a a
236 e)•Mid 14
VED FOR �rL 1�001 235 ab N N I EA�yr,n;)./-t-
:�oc1< M. •• Pk R6: ! Z. P PARCEL 3
. n
Y RECORDS. a
RDS. I . •
I I w E3 gip, F°r: z I 24h107 SQ. FT.
csi
kri
flu
44
FEE No. 89-9337 a6• .,� w o 234 233
aot
• oaf. 1;3M :', : ,. :.
0TS �z+`' '�. 'aah, -Ti.. SHOD
n
3t ..� PARCEL 1 .� pi
a a
4. FT, x � I
0 FOR ..
F uo d-
.D � N hi)
c4, cV N
f '�]�L h�0 0 ,9 0
199.0o M. ItP. I 3/41.P.
11•p. '" iJ 8910'C0' W 125.00' 106.69' k / N 0019' 4" E C.
VD (BASIS OF BEARINGS) ''` 89'40'00" 11l
1"LP. Y:�f.69'
2CLE. (132,00')
4ULIEN TS
.1S CIRCLE. CURVE
Cl RADIUS LENGTHCHORD 1
,
415.00' �.� EXHIBIT 0. 18995. C2 125,00' 50.03' 49.63 S 77'08'57 .
55.00' 54.53' 5 77'00'25
2•1I\Va2
•
2 4%
•
d r
in '
•
•
•
•
•
r 1•
.i'
NI
T�••
•
•
{
1
!s
•
S ,1 1
STAFF REPORT r •
•
CITY OF LAKE OSWEG . ••••
------- LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION
•
•
APPLICANT: FILE NO. :
Majestic Homes, Inc. SD 4-90
PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF:
Shaver, Plath, Kapela Michael R. Wheeler t=
. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE:
Tax Lot 5900, 6001, 6000 June 15, 1990
of Tax Map 2 lE 8AC
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION:
' LOCATION: •
Lake Grove
South of Douglas Circle
and east of Lanewood ZONING DESIGNATION:
Street
R-10
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION:
R-10
• I . APPLICANT' S REQUEST •
The applicant is seeking approval of a lot; line
•
adjustment and minor partition to create three parcels
from two existing lots. The adjustment involves 5, 625
J . sq. ft. being, conveyed from Tax Lot 5900 to Tax Lots •
6000 and 6001. The partition involves the creation of
two parcels, each 15,543 and 22, 295 sq. ft. in size.
" II . APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
A. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance:
LOC 48 . 195-48 . 225 R-7 . 5 Zone Description (set-
' ' backs , lot area, lot
coverage) EXHIBIT
LOC 48 . 535 (41 Special Street Setbacks
L14 ;)41•
Sb 4-90
Page 1 of 11
S ,
•
•
. • . ,
. , , „.....
, r ;, 0, , . ,
. ,
. , .,. ,
. . .
. .
. ,
B. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: '
p ' LOC 49 . 090 Applicability of Development
Standards
LOC 49 . 140 Minor Development � , ,
LOC 49 . 220-49 . 210 Minor Development Procedures
LOC 49 . 215 Authority of City Manager
LOC 49 . 615 Criteria for Approval . •~+
C. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: .:. .
5 . 005 - 5 . 040 Street Lights
7. 005 - 7. 040 Parking & Loading Standard
12 . 005 - 12. 040 Drainage Standard for Minor
Development ` ' ,
14 . 005 - 14. 040 Utility Standard
18 . 005 -' 18 . 040 Access Standard g
j
' , " ' 19 . 005 - 19 . 040 Site Circulation - Private
Streets/Driveways
D. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan:
Urban Services Boundary Policies
General Policy III
Impact Management Policies rv ,
' General Policy II , Specific Policy 3 .
Wildlife Habitat Policies
General Policy II
• Energy Conservation Policies
' General Policy II
Transportation Policies
• General Policy I °
E,, City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance: � .
LOC 57 . 005 - 57 . 135 4111 '
F. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance:
01
LOC 55 , 010 - 55 , 130 1.
III. FINDINGS
A. .Existing Conditions: . ,'
; 4 1. The site contains approximately one and one-
half (1 1/2) acres .
,r
�1 .
SD 4-90 . •
Page 2 of 11
�} r. Y � , 1 '�i d • .fir - h
, , ^ , , N
a a
n
2. The site' is located south of Douglas Circle
and east of Lanewood Street.
+,' a 3 . The site has frontage on Douglas Circle.
4,
4 . Single family residences are located on Tax
.„ Lot 5900 and Tax Lot 6001. Tax Lot 6000 is '
vacant.
' C' 5 . An 8 inch sanitary sewer line is located in
Douglas Circle, at approximately 10 feet in
y
depth.
ti
6. An 8 inch water line ix is located in Douglas ,
Circle.
r P
7. Douglas Circle is a 16 ft. wide paved
rp .'` improvement with gravel s.toulders in a 30 ft.- ''
wide right-of-way.a
C ' r 8 . A street light is located on a utii,ity pole
° a across and east of the site on the north side
S k
of Douglas Circle.
9 . The site is level to
gently sloping.
10 . There are a number of large fir trees located
r ' "` mostly cn the southern portion of the site,
, ,. behind the existing residences.
„` 1 ' 11. Tax Lot 5950 is subject to an outstanding lien
;,, ; imposed upon construction of sanitary sewer in
. , Douglas Way (L. I.D. 196) .
( •
B. Background:
Tax Lots 6000 and 61,00 (not a part of this d'
�, ', ', ;• �. application) were the subjects of two minor
. r , partition applications that were to have created a
total of five parcels from two platted lots . The
p'1 requests (SD 37-81, SD 38-81) were approved in f , �
m..
1981, but were never acted upon.
,„ . �. Tax Lot 6000 was subsequently divided into two , ':
parcels (Tax Lots 6000, 6001) without the benefit 't '
of City approval. q
-t •
The applicant is requesting approval of a lot line
adjustment and minor partition to create three
•
' ` ` parcels from two existing lots. Currently, Tax
li .'• � `, Lot 6000 does not have access from a public
• street. The lot line adjustment and minor
�� partition will provide Tax Lot 6000 with adequate
iY ., access and allow to meet all other code
.' requirements . In this regard, it will modify and
legalize Tarr Lot 6000 ,
SD 4-90
Page 3 of 11
0 , ,
C. Proposal .M
The applicant is requesting ques , ". :
tins approval of a lot line ' ,
adjustment and minor partition to create three
parcels from two existing lots. The adjustment
• - .," involves 5 , 625 sq. ft. being conveyed from Tax Lot `'
5900 to Tax Lots 6000 and 6001. Tax Lot 5900
would be 24 , 063 after the proposed adjustment. 6*
,. ;. The partition involves the creation of two
parcels, one 15 ,543 sq. ft. (Tax Lot 6001) and the
p ' �: other 22, 295 sq. ft. (Tax Lot 6000) in size.
PAI
D. Compliance with Criteria for Approval:
.-
As per LOC 49 . 615, staff must consider the "
following criteria when evaluating minor
development (partition and lot line adjustment) ;
4 •
1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the
applicant seeking approval. v '` '
The applicant has borne the burden of proof , ,/
`' through submittal of documents marked as exhibits,
accompanying this report. }
q;
; 2. For any development application to be
� ,; ' ' approved, it shall ±irst be established that
the proposal conforms to: `
a. The City's Comprehensive Plan
`" . d.� Applicable policy groups are:
t Impact Management Policies
These policies require q protection of natural
' ,, ; resources from development, comprehensive review
of development proposals, and payment of an
Fy
e , qw ec,uitable share of the costs of public facilit:ia .
These policies are mplemented through several
Development Standards, addressed further below. r;. '
The policies require assurance that trees will be
. protected from removal. Compliance with the "' ' •
applicable Development Standards reviewed below
will assure con:, manse to these Plan policies .
Conditions of approval will be imposed when
necessary to assure compliance,
Urban Service Boundary Policies
4p6
These policies require the City to manage and
phase urban growth within the Urban Service
411/ °Boundary, with a logical planned extension of
.
.
/ SD 4-90
•Tl Page 4 of 11
h �
•
P
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. This specific policy also
states that these services are to be available or
committed prior to approval of development. •
Exhibit 4 (the City Council memorandum of October
17, 1989) c;_ aonstrates 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 would further assure adequate school
facilities.
Wildlife Habitat Policies
These policies require protection of upland
habitat in the form of preserved open space,
natural vegetation or fragile slopes . The related
development standards and Tree Cutting ordinance
are reviewed in this report following an analysis
! of the applicable Plan policies.
Energy Conservation Policies
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) ,
compliance with which will be reviewed later in
this report.
Transportation Policies
• These policies require that the City require
dedication of right-of way necessary to implement
the Transportation Plan. This is implemented
/ through LOC 48 . 535 (4) Special Street Setbacks,
• ./.. which will be reviewed below. Compliance will be
achieved through a condition of approval of this
action,
b. The applicable statutory and Code
requirements and regulations.
Zoning Code Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter
48)
The site is toned R-10 Residential which requires " ';
• a minimum lot area of 10 , 000 sq. ft. [LOC
48 . 210 ( 1) ] . Each parcel must have a minimum Jot
Sty 4-90
Page 5 of 11
width at the building line -of 65 ft. and a minimum
lot depth of 100 ft. [LOC 48. 210 (1) ] . Maximum lot
coverage is 30% [LOC 48 . 225 (1) ] .
The applicant proposes the parcels (following
right-of-way dedication) to be the following �4
sizes:
,
Tax Lot Lot Area Lot Depth(ft, ) Lot Width(ft. )
5900 24, 063 225
6000 22, 295 180 106 . 90
90
6001 .15,543 148 71
V of
'{ The applicant also proposes to dedicate
Tax Lots 5900 and 6001 along their frontageftotthe City for future right-of-wa
y improvements.
ti The existing dwelling on Tax Lot 6001 covers
approximately 1268 sq. ft. or 5. 6% of the lot.
The existing dwelling on Tax Lot 5900 covers
• approximately 750 sq. ft. or 3 . 1% of the lot. The" vacant parcel can meet the lot coverage
requirements upon application for a building r a ,permit.
,
LOC 48.535 (4) , Special Street Setbacks, requires a setback of 25 ft. from the centerline of Douglas
a
Circle, in addition to the setbacks of the
underlying zone. Ten feet of right-of-way will be
,.. ,
required to be dedicated for future street
improvements to comply with the special setback.
There are no curbs and sidewalks along Douglas
Circle. The existing right-of-way is 30 feet; a total of 50 feet is needed for future improvements
along Douglas Circle,
H Solar Access Ordinance Requirements and Analysis(LOC Chapter 57)
This ordinance requires that 80% of the parcel$created through a minor partition meet one of three design standards LOC 57.
6000 and 6001 have north-southD Tax Lots
dimensions of more then 90 ft. and front lot lines which are within
30 of a true east-west axis . moth of these h_se tax
lots meet the design standard [LOC 57. 020 (1) ) and are considered solar parcels . The fact that the lots meet the design standard must be noted on the
final plan map and will be required as a condition
of this action.
Structures and non-exempt vegetation on these
solar parcels must comply with LOC 57. 050
57. 090, the Solar Balance Point provision of the
SD 4--90
Page 6 of 11
r Solar Access Ordinance. A note to this effect
must appear on the final plan map as per LOC
57. 035 . Tax Lot 5900 is exempt from compliance
with the design standard because it does not apply
to lot line adjustments (LOC Chapter 55) . .
Tree Cutting Ordinance Requirements and Analysis
In order to implement the Wildlife Habitat
Policies and the Impact Management Policies, the
provisions of the Tree Cutting Ordinance must be
carried out in the development of the site. As
such, the removal of only those trees necessary
for construction of improvements may be allowed.
A tree survey is necessary to meet the
�.` requirements of the Tree Cutting Ordinance. Such '`
a survey will be required as a condition of
approval of this action. The applicant shall
position a proposed structure so as to minimize
the number of trees removed in compliance with LOC
55 . 080 (2) . A tree cutting permit will be required
for removal of any tree from the site.
e. The applicable Development Standards ,,` •
Street Lights (5 . 005 - 5 . 040)
This standard is applicable to all development
which includes public and private streets, public
pathways and accessways, or parking lots . The
nearest street light is located across from and
east of the site on the north side of Douglas
Circle. This light is adequate for the
development proposed.
Parking and Loading (7. 005 7. 040) ,.
This standard requires two off-street parking
spaces per dwelling unit (in addition to the
garage or carport) . There is adequate parking for
Tax Lots 6001 and 5900 which utilizes the existing , '`
w • driveways for off-street
I' parking. A driveway will
be constructed for Tax Lot 6000 when it is
"• '` developed. Compliance with the standard will be
required upon application for a building permit
requested subsequent to this action,
II • ',•�F
Drainage Standard for Minor Development (12_. 005 -
12. 040)
• fl
This standard requires that development not
adversely affect neighboring properties . The .:
proposed partition and lot line adjustment will
�:; SD 4-90 ;
Page 7 of 11
A.:
ff
1)
not affect drainage. Subsequent construction of a
dwelling on Tax Lot 6000 will require compliance :'
with the standard upon approval of a building
permit.
v.
Utility Standard (14 . 005 - 14 . 040)
This standard requires that infrastructure
improvements be installed underground wheren .
possible. Assurance of connection will be
required upon application for a building permit•
requested subsequent to this action.
r(
There is an outstanding sanitary sewer lien on Tax
Lot 5900; a segregation of assessments is required
or the liens shall be paid in full. The applicant
should see the Finance Department for details.
Access Standard (18 . 005 - 18 . 040)
This standard requires that each parcel abut a
•public street for a minimum of 25 ft. Tax Lots 1
6001 and 5900 are proposed to exceed this a
` requirement. Tax Lot 6000 is proposed to meet
this requirement upon completion of the lot line
adjustment by abutting Douglas Circle for the
minimum 25 feet.
410 . .
site Circulation -•
Private Streets/Driveways ew a
Ys119 + 005 - 19 . 040)
W .. •y This standard requires that driveways for single--
family dwellings not exceed a
grade of 20 nor a
cross-slope of 5%. Based upon the gentle grade of the site, all three parcels can easily comply with A
the standard,
Two options are available regarding the driveways for Tax Lots 6000 and 5900. One is that the
driveway on Tax Lot 5900 could be realigned to the
east so that it is entirely on the adjusted Tax Lot 5900 with a physical separation of at least 10
feet from the proposed driveway to adjusted Tax
" Lot 6000 . This will prevent a long drivewaycut in the curbs whenever they ' re constructed. The
other option is to construct one access point on
Tax Lot 6000 for both Tax Lots 6000 and 5900.
Appropriate access easements between the property
;/. owners would be necessary if this option is taken.Both options comply with sight distance and
criteria for the location and construction ofrade
driveway.y The choice may be left up to the
applicant.
.
"�
SO 4-90
' r'µ' Page 8 of 11 w
`' C. Conclusion:
1
Based upon the materials submitted by the
• applicant, staff concludes that the proposal
complies with or can be made to comply with all
applicable criteria
III . ACTION TAKEN
Y•
The staff approves the proposed minor partition and
lot line adjustment, subject to the following
• conditions:
1. A final plan (as depicted in Exhibit 3 and
modified to illustrate Conditions 3 , 5 and 7)
•
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
.' i 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
ce j.,
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 Land
Development Services Division, file No. SD 4-90 . ',
4 R
2. The final plan shall be registered with the
•`;p Clackamas County Surveyor ' s office and recorded . ,,,
-:.:. with Clackamas County Clerks ' s office.
3 . The applicant shall dedicate 10 feet along the
frontage of Douglas Circle to the City for future
right-of-way purposes.
4 . The applicant shall provide the City a signed ...
nonremonstrance agreement for future street
improvements anticipated in Douglas Circle. This
agreement shall apply to all parcels as approved .
5 . Parcel 1 (Tax Lot 6000) , and Parcel 2 (Tax Lot
.. 6001) shall be noted as being solar parcels on the
final plan. The following note shall also appear
Ste ., 90
Page 9 of 11
•
' ti "yea- • .:
�' r.
on the final plan: Development of structures and
planting of non-exempt vegetation on Parcels 1 and0 ..'
2 shall comply with the Solar Balance Point
Provision of the Solar Access Ordinance (LOC
57. 050 - 57. 090) . The note shall bind the , .
applicant and subsequent purchasers to comply with
the future shade protection standards of this }
section.
6 . The applicant shall secure segregation of
assessments or provide payment in full for the
outstanding lien on Tax Lots 5900.
7. The driveway on Tax Lot 5900 shall be realigned to
the east so that it is entirely on the new lot
with a physical separation of at least 10 feet
from the proposed driveway to Tax Lot 6000 . Or,
the applicant shall construct one access point on
Tax Lot 6000 for both Tax Lots 6000 and 5900. -
Appropriate access easements between the property
owners are required and must be shown on the final
'• plan.
8 . 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,
9 . The applicant shall provide a tree survey
illustrating the location, type and diameter of
all trees in excess of 5 inches on each parcel in
application for each building permit requested
subsequent to this approval. The City shall allow, the removal of only those trees necessary to site
a dwelling or accessory structure on Tax Lot 6001 . •
, • w: This removal shall comply with LOC 55 . 050 - 55 . 080
•, : (Tree Cutting Ordinance) . Development on each
parcel shall avoid as many trees as possible,
Y y a
•
SD 4-90
Page 10 of 11
b •
b.• +
•
t
a4
Prepared by:
Y
•
CAILegrA4L.C. i2. 9/ja/e0.4.--- !5 O(.,..a... ,clgb •
MICHAEL R. WHEELER Date •
' Associate Planner
Approved by:
,,4t----. 'e./ .
, 6/
} 'ROBERT GALANTE On 'o
Acting Planning Director
Approved by:
z
27,,. -/; :.4-:-g),7-44;5
.5/20_____ . .
CINDY PHILLIPS D to
',.<.` Deputy City Attorney
EXHIBITS
« 1 . Tax Map
2. Applicant' s Narrative
3 . Site Plan <,
•; „;., 4 . Council ' s Memorandum regarding schools , dated ,:;
October 17, 1989
MW: kaa/ba
} CSD901
t,
SD 4-90
Page 11 of 11
, ,‘ n.• •.; .!! ,•::`• . •
.r:
• •
•
, ..• •
•
. v
• - '
•
‘.•
•••
• . •
.•
n .
, •
. .
•
. • ,
•
•
, 4
•
t , •
••
. • ,
•
. .
4 ;
4 • .
`c,r , a � 0r (`� 1 es
: 3'535 s V ° t. 'I
` 1501 800 -- ��v4 J f u t,
9 3525 ay 3119 � " 7 t .�
•
' ! a 1O SB.Y f!.7 Ju].5'd Us "� V1 -/ 3\
V," 4.. !/ .. U. N o V C l4 v
ti
, . '\ �
-t; •-3's•_ v \600 \
r, $a76 29 d, Yh 3
3 13090
0
\ 8' 2. 1IZS i, �T ,-„ e �D° e �o e0a < e.se r of ''
AY' l.a ri 4. 01' r 01701 .\ 400
a/�J .J' •, - 4 o y�-- 3520 /).
' ,, a. .} t � 4 ,>51+ IJp D
t.,o a, 2At 'N`` a.ce '''.5 rc, arbQ;
1700 �� d 24\ W ineaJ !1 Z rd220,rT
3129 1ui• >!�N ►;rs r' •
310
fI' Si0 0
y to 6q � W 227 '_5\o\eO A 15535 •kei•
. 3700a' Al` h •
=� py W 3000r i a
^ 155613
_ nJBVo{>'C. 3130:,1�y> IN�,. _ b 3600 .. \ f 1�7 >e it
t o ki 3136 � � ` I \Ie f ry' � 6s:' 2901
•
t.ia .7 y )„, 2.b 0 15627
a 2
a a . •/ c.: .,,a•,aaa 2 3 9 22,�a,�3 ;,rYs• :awnA 1.
�� ,-ac T area 226� 2 00 2 1 h 'r
y a,C 2000 2 200 1
LIB .'3140 k
., n I Z
y r) h .. .. . 96ry
W ���• �o a � • r,, 2600
. : 38 �� ,r b 2 38 2 10'J a �`_ M ,, 319 0
Yi.
• ,`"=D.NEWOOD G.R. 2151 S�'. 3160 •
0,97
a�'e 1J°? '\ / ta"v 0. )r
2 26 7
- 4k 0 �� �Rp0. .\,, ,� i; �, '\ rotq• 225 .224% 9224.1223
�'�! as ;-
�,. 6 100 23. . ~ h • •1 �' CIR
y �, 3151 5900 i +. 2 33 .r, v`: 232
"' ., '''•»2 316 5 8 00 57017 5
3117 I Its
6001 3183
3 • xi 4 315' .,
{ t.. 111 q i le_
r 6000 4 ti. ,
1 •
M1 EXIIII3IT !
•
r 1- MX A . va y
Ohl 1:y:ti` 1' �i.. - - L �I.1 W
. ..i i.„ Cs',t+fr.1 .,, .A. . `.a»• .>k3>,..91 \�tr•'z,1.. �aa. _Q �s...
t e x . , 1 6 \4 )
Ca .a, 1'1 re', I 1.. .,. . «
•
1 71
t i
1
June 22, 1989
Majestic Homes, Inc.
P. O. Box 265
Clackamas, OR 97015
The applicant, Majestic Homes, Inc, is seeking aproval to
minor partition a parcel of land located at; 3155 :;w D,7u o
�M
Circle in the City of Lake Oswego, Oregon. To change the
said property from one parcel to two parcel!) as per Exhibit
A. Both parcels will exceed the 10, 000 sgHmre foot minuum '
rn
for a R-10 zoned property. „' _
The applicant is also submitting appli,catior°t for a lot-line
adjustment to the most eastern portion of said property.
The existing eastern property line is to moves due east 25'
and south for aproximately 187' and back to the west 25' as
per attached Exhibit A. This lot-line adjustment will serve 0. ,
as an access to the newly created lot, tax lot 6000.
Tax Lot 5900 is granting this Lot Line
attached authorization agreement by Gladysup,trn5�ev as o�'r
3165 Douglas Circle. This adjustment will change the
total square footac e from 33, 000 to 28, 300 which exceeds
the minumum requirement for a R-10 zoned parcel.
Respectfully submitted,
Majestic Humes, Inc.
4
•
t_
a
4: i
Sb4 " o~
•
\ '.,if
•0
AIL
0 .
ix G LA.- Cl P- i- '
.. . .. .,...,........:.
LC t. `
.. —
...... .------------------.....„''--------t----
-. Loy' (,o� 7 t 10' 'De1),c..m-t
L..: \A L'\A/ VI A1,L 1,1•.S \• ♦ ' V 1.444Ce b 0
C/ rr`` ` /
lil
----lr � Ec I�-tw Cti
ry RctInu�4e tzstoct4u6 S900
1S, 543 ,+2\ 1
�^ M .,oL3- 1s)
n�• �c,OO '$ 1
IViiip
itN I i,;
(oO , , , N .
t7t'� 1.4
et •
.
1(/ (.)r LAMr. &64-14.1 i M ovr'
„v. 7-Z, Z�1.5 +be- 2
•
MAY �1
M'' L��}��.� 1 u� .1�I,I iI lt�Rf+' „ 111 1.1
1 (i11' :(till YI ::i pl; i • d'
4l
•
�A u ti
P
•��` AI IOU&HU 1 Cf t'1
;a1•
•
PACtfi'1'1110N PLAT No, SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
y 1 v�_ 1.IlUaD P.SALO,BONO flAST DULY 11100N ICMBY,D*POl1 AND SAY TIAT I IIAK CODICCILY SIMKND
UCIIIG LOTS 234 AND 23R3, "LAKE VIEW Yii.a+/w N0, 4" AHD MARKED YAMI rna'101 ua11111EN1b:nIl LANDS 11111[InNID OH nit ATTACHED Math rAnal MAP,
TIE Ba1NDA01CS OLIN0 DL:,CR)0E0 As IOILOWL •
ui ull NE 1/4 SECTION 0, T,23., R„lE W.M. A TBACI Off LMO 1i THE NORIICAST ONC-oUM110 a s4ON141 1 211AIs11P 2 sd11N,RMOE I EASI,IK
•
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, CLACKA)MAS COUNTY, OREGON Tile WIL MERE 1/tPoaM/alY Of LAIC[O.sWloo,CIACKAMAI Ca11111.r-f.Da1,BEAM LOTS 221 Afro 231,
M r 'LAKE NEW NLLAS HO./,AND DONO OCsIDO,5 H Ba4f H.,/7}++ "Apt U2 ND 9EA N1.'1 s0-21U1 AND
t 6/-1057,MACKADAS COUNTY DEED NECORDS,WSW oat PA1I1LMATILY'ESOWIE0 AS fatowS
l• �UNE �.'�, 0Ea11N010 AT A I'N011 POt Al 114E Sa1111KST IUINIIN M'III1 NNN,'IA4C NEW 4i1 AS No.4'i IIINCE •1.,
I9�0 N 2611'50'1(PLAT N 20's2'00'E u01ro nit MULl1N'I I1104 IR SAw l01 23S A OISIMII CO 26011
tiEt l0 111E IOUTIEALY Malt of WAY INE Or DWNUA1 F1n11f1 Klett(sWnit.ws RLY ALONG Ott S/n1111- ..
ERIYlaa1T Of WAY IRIS Oi DOI1aAS CDdl dl dIRH Ill 11111,111P
11 ltfl IIA411 A RA11US Or 11500 IICl
60.03fl A A l•Mob
P Or 2/9503'(Of 114 GEMS 1 1101 Sl'E A.12 IECI)AI ARC a51ANCt Or
III(ll(.A11(111 0005 1EC1 TO A I'Dal IMP[MO POINT M IN141011 111III/r l'INI7N+IR110 Mail)SAw la1TiN1U.Y NIa4i Or
/1NW1 All.01aMr III 114%rAEMNIN 0141 nt10111 I RArltl.CMOU11 L PtAwk • WAY UM.s 61'3142'2(PLAT 1 111.40.00'C)14141 DIANA it(Ill tIN 1114014011dI Of 111E CAS1 ANC Or 1
IINI IA 11111 LIANR MI 111E{)MAIMS Of nR IAN1)MIYIL0tNRtl ON nl AINIOQD ,,L LOt 234 WAY IN[la'IE loUTIDALY DOU4U1 dRCIY,1!OOYI'21'1.410 U1J no f4Al1 111C1 d'fAro loli]I A dSIMCE llLT RIICH!
MIN /111 M1111 rM1*40 ARTY Tx1 III Il W 111E ACClR1rM1Uw IAl11NM11'f Clllil1 a 1 SOOT TO nIE 6alnlus7 cORNIn or SAW lO7 221: n«l4rr II Rrlp'0O'W AIa+R Illf SOIIRI INN IN 101"
• If All IINI IIIN CAl1,ID nR UW r0 M )15'S! 1D A!w ID 1141 NIO PMCYIs ) /� F' 221 Arw 2m A a0104100 Or 7w.11 1[u l0 Tic p.Ari fd NIINIB'lu0 4
23320
I .- .,i 110 al IAA AN01*40 M1 11111 0 111(ll gYICAtt 10 nl PL1'M1C A9 P110I1C �� lJI ..'
." .� 1 ;. p1(A1'WAY tASo I11.. ON{AD MAh fH,(,I"
w1 r17(AIINN All AINe1Mn111 LULL{MI Ill n1f rRIMRIY. IC
IINq INI Alp WAiiR N"All4 AS'MNi1N11 ,r 5110Sa1wItl ANb SWONAN�10 /A
' / ',b�Q"/f/�/) ,,,..1,V I^ .DAY (������ 11111
- , " 4r�(�e[,fi�rt ' • tlUa4C MC nIS ar-.3f.t, ) -
4 CARt\IN l,�l Alll/./,(�.C�rJ Mn V }:
, 'ryiAMNI�CI"K�hrl�lbl>u.. r > ' '
1 114,11011 C_,./� a/P.0
f unlsbisr ItinaitAs pMw/TiC 91
I 1' 1����JQI7. I
"' ' ACKI11(YALUt.L1.1LIII /
NOIESA 1
St1It IS aal0al ) SS I, pANttls 1 AND 2 ME SCAM PARCELS AND DENROPMCNI Of SlAUCRMl1 AND _ 1
:r CdRllr If aAUIWAf 1 .1 ../I��11�A����/ MANTON/N'NON^OIL$0 KCC0Aild1 ON PMal.1 MO 2 swill UMhY krill
I ■I.Ow Nl ITN*IIoPLE Al itltt PRIUNIS.IOU nos.42'MAY Or R011)+A61 , 1NE SOLAR BALANCE PANT Pn0N510N Or TIE SoLM ACCESS 010NANCr(160
NCONA61 s7 WO 37A10),
1110.n11[111 MI A N01ARY htl*0IC 11 ANO ENS 91AIE AND C0p01Y,Pt Y \\N.
MPI1R111 naNR1 0 NA1•t1A,CMOLIII L PLAn AND OLAD11 MAHN,M O roll 7, iN1M ARE NO KNOW 010011w CONTROL MaAnILNis MT111 aC-N/U W C M •V
DULY 5111111 Tilt 1AT n111 RCY Ant nC E�NIICAI PU/a1N NAMID N TLC roll» IOU PRE NOit 7y.j 223
-2.. ,,' ..„:.
blWO 11SInNM1111 AND NIAI nC1Y CAtCUttO SAD IN►INInRNI rRt1LY ANO
Kt UNIA1111 1
1
�rr•y.� al DOUGLAS rl.h. CIRCLE k 1
1 1 P. I'll S 001 4'tl'W 0 i! 4 1
AtimmVAl5 00S'1 (•SDOs I 1'.V` -a s 1r7i'rT•. ile4fl. >
•
O.Os'W aSS ryr • S M'04'I2'I 1 (S eS IMI/!l) f
..., AIM'RONn n1s. DAY a' GIO ' I. 011Ui1 Wle 11M 16,6r Ibl..11' . / ( , .
� ' ,. ,'� - 000W _
ar - 10.a1'ADarldMl
LAALRWA%COUNUY SURN1a1 N/W q4D fl I +
� ) LEGCNh
AM'NON11 OM ly .DAYa ., 11 '-"�" ono. 1 rEE 11a 80.29960 41 6 (l X 30'MOH b017 tO) W/YttL0W
�} r._ , • nK dab,ha �,12 /.
,` CAI'GAlInEO'PAfl14 A.*SSW, PIS 77A1"
nr �r1UrR..1. id ()IT),it, PArtCtL z -
dtr a tint Dswlrp PLANN110 1111� 4' b d/tl'IItlN7 rick fallNb W/CAh SUIII'lf) i ,,
• 15,120 50, FT. 1AK• •'
• AIW)UtICN1 tOUhp AS half.b t
slAu a 11110a1 23L 235 PARC(I. 3. II` IN0II FII'C
•
callrr I1 a1cKAu1s
' •• I DO N10101 CI0101 NlAl nl A1TAa46 PAllnOal PLAT wit Rttt'II0 fan .'.•' ZA,107 513, i'T,
I N Ntntt ilaa
FIU/'b a!AIR.. DAY pf �....11►0 AI .0'Clt1CN M.
/IR,NICIn004 AS ripnRal hlAl 11/ CtALNAu1N CWNIV RI:Ca1tlL V` t1Y, W 1 OAIA
NCCUNG 1
' m Rr Whulr _ ll
_ __ .-' •+ +o Db.A •
" 234 233 P hLAi
.� „ I�B.04. 8 h5 )'NIVAIC GURV1:Y or HCCUIIU
r + ILC N0 tl9 t1931
• •1 •
• NAIt1l5t1Y1 a Ell...1 EXHIBIT
Tilt 11.0 11S N n1t tUnN.Y •
WAN t0 O t2,,ntt VIxNOON 43. ACC PARCEL 1
111//q 215.'LANE NEW NtIAS NO Il O(S.1M10 11 NOON It1,PACT 21,T I b LJQ. 1 1. II "I C"'
. 1p 11ro It(NO'i 14 I1/11 Uw 11 4N21 pACx AMA{COUNIT MlO nitlllb0. , •' .,
' Olt 1•INa1 hM11 Al tilt tW Alio St CMNAR Or tut Lis Mnt skin Ito
AaAn1N PIN KAI kiln tint)ram GAL!Of/CHINO{AS N 1140'00•V 1..3 1
. ON:''A CONttIR or tot 221 WAS LOCArtb er t7rcIM1w net nit AND l'iJ IML4•rl le1nRSfCMIO Wnl A/1K UtLID110 HIMtN nl eW plHf rOtRD .fr d t/1'I h.•
W nl[ASt UICpl01!71 1 ( 1 N�71'fl•'',-c b11' 'sr At1
Tilt NIb11 Of WAS 11d 1/DUUoLA2 00E41 1As tOCAIttl 11 Haar),„.t. N R1./Dw W R1vo'o0 W `7�e1, "
10 fa10 1 11a1 001 1. 05 PI CO11 a tot 111 AND PCt Ihp (DAWl tt 1EAR11ON) `I'lp l l al) SURVEYED NY. ANU•f PAlll5 �! A55pCIAII' 4
144 M1ttµY Ma VI ANON W AlI T1t SA Cd1NIR K LOT AIIIf'1 IS to N bNIVC
721. Mt ANSI 44 Or(of AI WOO 11 1 141 01 11aaN6 nl Arm Ilf'GUIIl b1f11/
•otcfr40$fil
s AS stwMl p[N PIAI AND PS 111/1 IlM AIwNMtNI AID t� +���-1�-- p— `` };" 1
., -- - 1:. ti 1. i + 1�fi1 � �i�j j j lAK ,a1Il nR swnRPLr RdTT aWN1D UTutNtt N NlthNbr 'IANC NEW NIIAN Kn 1',FN N. Init
A 1 r +.
(.
•
•
• •
DECEMBER 12, 1989
70 WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I HEREBY GIVE MIKE NEDELISKY, MAJESTIC HOMES INC.
PERMISSION TO MAKE APPLICATION WITH THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO FOR LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT AND MINOR PARTITION REQUIRED ON TAX LOT 6000 LAKEVIEW VILLAS,
LOCATED BEHIND 3155 DOUGLAS CIRC .F SW, LAKE OSWEGO
D'AiNkM:• k-/ /
•
•E
•
•
•
'•i
. r
•
•
•
2-11\Ve,a-2.11
•
i .
•
•
JAN 19 1��9
a
s
1 •
•
0 . ,
l+ •
v
•
' I
' P(DTDBL IRASDIZd8f1
g PARTIES: •
{
it
�r i GLADYS SHAVER '
S' 3165 S.W. Douglas Circle ` •
T L Lake Oswego, Oregon 97835 )
• r 3 CAROLYN L. @LATH
l
• I. 68 Oswego Summit �'
! Lake Oswego, Oregon 97835 .
RECITALS
A. The parties own parcels of adjoining real property
located in Clackamas County, Oregon.
•
B. The parties desire to enter into a written and
o recorded mutual easement agreement whereby each party, their
lessees, customers, invitees, grantees, heirs and assigns may use
$ 3 shared roadway for the purpose of ingress and egress to each of
the parties' property. -
' 1 s AGREEMENT '
i •
a IN .CONSIDERATION OF the mutual agreements of the
,,,• parties as set forth hereinbelow, the parties do hereby agree as
follows: ,
•
1. ' Property ownership: GLADYS SHAVER is the Omer of •
a certain parcel of property located in Cladkama■ County, Oregon, •
more particularly described as follows: ,i'
Lot 234, LAKE VIEW VILLAS, Plat 4 ° +
' CAROLYN E. PLATN is the owner of a certain parcel of real
property located in Clackamas County, Oregon, more particularly
described as follows: , i •
Lot 235, LAKE VIEW VILLAS, Plat 4, excepting
therefrom that portion of said lot beginning
at the Northeast corner of said Lot 235, , .i
•- ,� thence South along the East boundary line
Dr C,riihte.7) I,� thereof distance of 165.37 feed thence
` Nmtetly tor,1-, North 670 47' 64" West a distance of 142.1e
r� r���a 1.---:1, ^ �; feet to the West boundary line of said Lot ' •
° 235 boundaryt li
nnce e thereof ae dlistance ofy along h 1411.14
1
Page 1 - MUTUAL EASEMENT
1
•
•
- _ NOV 2 0 1g8 89 469i
'+ EXHIBIT ;'r
( (41:-)06.5 ,
•
•'i ..
•
•
•
r a
: s • �1 1;
' :
. i 7 4- .•-. •" • .
tt l • ,,
i
.
.
•la r '
feet to the Northwesterly cornet of said Lot ,
! 235; thence Latterly along the Southerly
right of way line of Douglas Circle to the
point if beginning.
-„, ;, , •, i .
i 2. Grant of Easement; Description; Establishment of 1
I Rioht of Wax: The parties hereby grant and convey to each other
{ the mutual, reciprocal rights of way on, over, across and along
that certain real property located in Clackamas County, Oregon.
more particularly described as follows: 1
1
• Commencing at the Northwest corner of Lot ;
234, LAKE VIEW VILLAS, Plat 4, thence South !
along the We __ ••undary line thereof a !
/Fs 2 distance q fret toY' eytT
cornar"tii ab"Td- , thence East-25-feet•-along-"
the-•Smrth boundary line of said lot; thence
1 North to a point intersecting with the .
Northerly boundary of said lot; thence West ;
along the North boundary line of said lot to
i
i. the point of beginning.
i •
Said easement shall form an easement appurtenant to the property
owned by CAROLYN Z. PLATH as indicated above, as well as the
Southerly portion of the lot owned by Grantor, GL,ADYS SHAVER, in
•
the event Grantor partitions said property and develops the ! t '
Southerly portion of said lot for residential purposes. the
parties mutually and reciprocally grant one another the use of •
said easement for the Use and benefit of the dominant tenements •` •rr
, for the purpose of ingress and egress to said parcels. s. �.
t
3. Purpose of Easement/Rich; of Way: Such easement :
and right of way may be used ;or vehicular and pedestrian ingress
and egress purposes by,the parties to this agreement, as Well as
•i their grantees, heirstid assigns. Use of the right of way Shall
be on a regular, continuous, non-exclusive, non-priority basis,
1 benefitting the parties, their successors, assigns, lessens, •
1 mortgagees, invitees, guests, customers, agents and employees.
However, neither parties' rights hereunder shall lapse in the
event of that parties' failure to use the easement and right of
IV
• ,t y way on a continuous basis.
'Al 4. Maintenance and Repairs The cost of periodic
maintenance and necessary repairs to the easement described ,
I hereinabove shall `be borne equally by the parties. Such
maintenance and repairs shall be performed on a prompt, diligent
. and regular basis in accordance with generally accepted attest
and road maintenance standards existing under the laws of the
,.�� C';Ililelaty Ilf. State of Oregon end County of Clackamas, including but not
' Ll` a+d;N::i.6 Co,`lxiw£ctiA j , limited to prompt patching or ;filing of damage to the pavement
.. r r- ,. /'/�
.• ••
Page 2 - MUTUAL EASEMENT Ci"ti 1
NOV• .
,,. . . .
. . , 2 0 1g.g�, ,
•
•
7 r.
•
t ♦ ..
.'�'•, • ' , ' • • • •�
•
• . ,
, •
. .
and resurfacing as needed. Required maintenance shall include
the removal of snow, ice and debris as soon as practical after•
their occurrence. I r
S. Taxes end Insurances Each party shall pay when
due all real property taxes, assessments or other charges against
the land to which each party holds fee title and which is part of ( '
the mutual easement and right of way. There shall be no right of I
contribution from the other party for such items.
' •y6. Additional Easements: Upon the request of either i
party, the other party shal grant to the requesting party or his
•
designee such reasonable and additional permanent appurtenant f
easements Under or along the road easement granted hereinabove as (
may be necessary for installing, repairing or maintaining water,
gas, sewer, storm drainage, electrical or telephone lines and ' ( d
facilities, as well as the right to access for servicing all or a
portion of the property benefited by this agreement. In no
,`. •" event, however, shall such additional easement extend beyond the r '
boundary of the easement for ingress and egress granted
hereinabove. The cost of all such fnntellatlon. repair and }
maintenance for such utility easements shall be borne by the
party requesting the grant of such easement, at his designee,
unless the Grantor of such easement shall also use the easement
for similar nurposes. No installation, repair or maintenance of
any such utility line or facility shall curtail or unreasonably
impede the use of the easement for vehicular and pedestrian
ingress and egress. 9;ti
I
' 7. Breach of Obligations: In the event either party
shall fail to perform his or her obligations under this ' •
agreement, the other party shall be entitled to require such j
performance by a legal♦iaction for injunctive relief. Such remedy i
may he in addition to any other remedies afforded under Oregon i
law. 0
i
0. Attorney Fees: In the event of any litigation 1
arising under this agreement, the prevailing party shall recover
from the losing party the prevailing party' s reasonable
attorney's fees at trial or on appeal as say be adjudged
reasonable by the trial or appellate court. I
9. Representation: THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW
USE or THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION of
APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR
ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE
!--r�; G�"eitleA
PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY
T' '' ntky�. `'''`1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES.
i__,__• ,
Page S - MUTUAL EASEMENT 3
FO'r 20 1989 • 4" .
•
•
•
` 1 .
r. ,'.
,
•
•
•
dl
-
•
tt .
•
•
•
j •
•
•
GLADYS SHAVER hereby represents that she is antborised !�
to grant this easement and that theta are no, lien, or
encumbrances or other interests agaihat her property such es
would prevent bar from transferring thfe easep.ot, '
•
•
Alie.,..V2a/LIVA,,)
GLADYS SHAV i
•
r";�,t 11Up� •\ CAROLYN 1 PLAT f
1 i/ 1\..".•
•ISTATE �f Vircom )
i ! �1•;7 1 11 r A 1 ) ea. i'
,+CbI i1ty ref)' .AS )
))I ,1 p•.',1(/ L.%r M a
1 .}� The foregoing instrument, signed by GLADYS SNAVER.was
11 agknoMiRdgqed before me this 17th day of pis
GIr�QYS S�iAVFit ^ , 1909, by
�•
' 4t.PUBLIC OR trOREGONl��rd •I My Commission Expires: 90
.
STATE OF OREGON )
County of 12 g":/7(15 )
The foregoing instrument, signed by CA •OCYti Z. I1 \P,j1TN1°vfas acknowledged before me this e-fI1 da of 1
1 t' tf{.f�-, 1909, by �.1_ T ' t
f Z (�/��,tr� //1
NOTARY PUBLIC POR OREGON �- ••,♦
My Commission Expires:07.AI -'K ✓�
AFTER RECORDING, RETURN TOt
1
Martin W. Reeves '
Attorney at Law I
910 Oregon Nt:tlonai EU,llding iii 3610S.W. /thAVeoesic +G
Portland, Oregon 97215 : a u
; r"---% c''."-..."--7--"---..1 c4 Uh 111 t•-c.. j(.
tlikt•:lst.Dmit1 ✓ r Page 4 - MUTUAL EASEMENT -` 5R ,.1. ♦:''' • ' CID
•
iej o I CO f `t • 1 Fir
•
4 1.. 1.98 1, !1
„s • I
•• 1�.I1L IK,•,1Ry
. . . . .. .•r oil. . •
•
1,
•
0 .. ,. .
•
JANUARY k 199.1
I GLADYS SHAVER AGREE AND INTEND TO CONVEY A 25' EASEMENT FOR
ACCESS TO TAX LOT 6000 MINOR PARTITION
/
Y SEA •
FM
r f '
iM
1' 6•
o.
•;
e
•
r .
EXHIBIT
. .
Ls
,
, .
. . .
0 2.ti\V4tr2.2-R1
•
•
•
•
1 i • •
. .
• 0 •
'
., .
,,„. . ; . . .. .
. . .
,; : ...
. .
. .
_ •„.. ,, ,. .
. • _ a \
I i
Cif �•'� •� '� A S 5
/ t�`o.Os1l.P. 1 1!� 1� .1...1E1rJ 11.P.
0,45'S f 6.a1' 1 P S 89'38'42' E lq' S 0019'34' W p 21
. / • 1 1 . S 85•36.42` £ ! • / `
1 y n11 .e. S QO' `t ` . \•� 107.37' I.
1 (:
e'f
yojw _ • 1a 00'.A01�•f0NAL
/� L ir' aQ 1 �l�t1 �' ,�, I \ R/w t)tU1CA11GN u
�OA? Or __1---0'..�-C .1990 Lk.,M•_ V,G.1_I ', t.•L�S ^ �l tV-. ..• i ��z ` �'r x " c yf l�I-I n'�t lid
0/ ✓ yl �:.•�Ch: . �~• M i •
��(�t" J..' BK. +!•38 Pc,+. 462 1-,F. •.e.v
IcCl Co _ • t t 1
^ (1.O 1IJaY� c40 Ill
jG��� 1 p .s1"1itt Cca�v[ 'Ol'1 N n Ivj(b�' ��j�
W r?�9 H Q Nv
2 6/. • (IAA • N N +c� Oft
}i CO I Q
n 235
PARCEL 3(„., HAT Ti ATTACI4E4 P,RnnON PLAT W.kS 'xC VE4 FOR r L VJ�1_ F�ems± S d1
`�t Cr ,1§94 AT�,.._�CLOCK N. 4. a 24�107 SQ. F T. o ;
• T.110N PLOT No. CU4C1CaMAS COUNTI!RECOP:S �a,1 S7 F~( t z ` '
•w- Q�� S6}. . 01. I ti ;
,
0 •
hhp
31
°xIx
ti 1 -�� . _ 234 n ��`
_� ` lO � l�» •
• �1W C 233 (�
a� M 01 4 tgi
4C o r �o 'rL �?C)O '0 •
PA+�CEC 1 h 21' � o o• �r _ 1��
{, v. viP . !f'r N I Ti
evi,re) 0 0:0
ail
0K11I1M `b• ivV O14
16°0 0 /1 •
194.00`U. & P. 25.00' I / N 00'19'34* E C f l
G h -" �? /*LP.*',/
" N 89'•10'40- W .r•�----�'N 8940'00- W 1�1613.69'
V(A 11°d : 'a (BASIS of 9EARWCS) 1'IP. (132a04')
•
')1•b0 a( EXHIBIT
Sa 2-4 1 VA(1.•1.-11
F
b ' .
•
ti. w
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• ..
•
•1 •
�'tl
•
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING SCHEDULE :'
JANUARY THROUGH JUNE, 1990
P
Application Due Dates Meeting Dates ,L.t;'
(Fridays, typically) •
A`&
, Plan & Zone Amendments Other Applications Second & Fourth Mondays
(Typically)
ti
November 13, 1989 (Mon. ) .November 27, 1989 (Mon. ) January 8 r``.
November 27, 1989 (Mon. ) .December 8, 1989 January 22
December 8, 1989. . . . . . . . .December 29, 1989 February 12
:December 29, 1989 January 12 . .February 26
January 12 January 26 March 12
January 26 ► February 9 March 26
.February 9 February 23. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .April 9
February 23 March 9 April 23 '`'
March 16 March 30 . . . . . . . May 14
March 30. . . April 13 May 30 (Wednesday)
"April 6. . . . April 27 June 11
April 27. May 11 June 25
• .
1
., SEE OTHER SIDE FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SCHEDULE
, ill, . ,
• 'MO"A"AVENUE/POST OFFICE BOX 3r )i LAKE OSWEGO OREGON 91()34/ISM)(S.c) 1
Gn
�� ' II
( ,. . .
0 : .,.
4-..11 ....-' , .
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
MEETING SCHEDULE
JANUARY THROUGH JUNE, 19.90
Application Due Dates Meeting Dates • .
,fi (Fridays, typically) First & Third Mondays
,:1,`., (Typically) .
ANovember 17, 1989
. . ...... .. . . January 3 (Wednesday)
' ' December 1, 1989 January 15
December 22, 1989 February 5 '^
, ,.
January 5 February21 (Wednesday)
January 19 March 5
February 2. . . . . March 19
a.. February 16 . April 2
March 2
April 16
March 23 May 7
April 6 May 21
April 20 June 41 .
May 4 June 18 '�
•
•
4111 '_._
•
SEE OTHER SIDE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDUL`C
• 300"A"AVENUE/POST ma t30X W)/LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 9103,1/15031 635•021 S
;`