The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda Packet - 1993-08-02 1 • • AGENDA CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD v CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,CITY HALL,380 'A' AVENUE Monday, August 2, 1993 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Agenda Book II. ROLL CALL w III. APPROVAL OF MINUTE IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. PUBLIC HEARING u'q PD 4-92/VAR 20-92(a-d , a request byFirst q Security Bank of Oregon for approval of a 14-lot single family residential planned-development and four variances as follows: a. A 2% Class I Variance to the 12% maximum grade allowable for a collector street for a portion of Jefferson Parkway [LOC 44.384], b. A 3% Class I Variance to the 5% maximum cross slope allowable for any driveable area, to enable the construction of a hammerhead turnaround at the end of one of two proposed private streets [LODS 19.025(5)], y c. A 25 foot Class I Variance to the Access Development Standard to enable all fourteen lots to take • ° access from private streets. The Standard requires that each parcel abut a public ,treet for a minimum of 25 feet [LODS 18.020(1)], d. A 2% Class I Variance to the 15% maximum grade allowable for private streets, to enable the , construction of one of two proposed private streets [LODS 19.025(6)], , The site is located directly south of the Portland Community College Sylvania Campus, west of Spinosa Drive, fronting Jefferson Parkway (Block 62, Mt. Park Blocks 58-62 of Multnomah County . .) Tax Map No. 4224). Staff coordinator is Michael R. Wheeler, k•..:ocinte Planner. Continued from July 19, 1993. 4. .. • DR__ -91, a request by Sabre Construction Co, to construct a 7,200 5 , ft. McCormick Engineering facility, Site improvements include paving he addition to the existing g gravel parking lot. The site is located at 6333 Lakeview Blvd (Tax Lot 3200 of Tax Map 2 1E 18CC). Staff coordinator is Robert Galante, Senior Planner. Continued from July 19, 1993. VI. GENERAL PLANNING • 4 4 .. Y• ru, VII. OTHER BUSINESS—Findings,Conclusions and Order VAR 4-93(a—e)—Richard Givens PD 4--92/VAR 20-92(a—d)—First Security Bank of Oregon VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Lake Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go as you please. DRB Membm: f: • • Skip Stanaway,Chair Tom Coffee,Assistant City Manager Norman J.Sievert,Vice-Chair Robert Galante,Senior Planner William F.Horning Ron Bunch,Senior Planner • • Lawrence M,Magura Hatnid Pishvaie,Dev,Review Planner • Julie Morales Catherine Clark,Associate Planner Charles Oldham Jane Heisler,Associate Planner Martha F.Stiven Elizabeth Jacob,Associate Planner Barbara Smolak,Associate Planner Michael R.Wheeler,Associate Planner Cindy Phillips,Assistant City Attorney p: Kristianne M.Cox,Assistant City Attorney Barbara Anderson,Administrative Secretary • • Yvonne DeBartola,Senior,Sr retury • • • • * • Y r • • • I •• ♦• .. . • s . •'h' EKE O'.' • . • • S , ..0114At4<,, .. O' O t REG DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • IviEMORANDUM • TO: Development Review Board FROM: Michael R.Wheeler, Associate Planner SUBJECT: PD 4-92/VAR 20-92(a-d); Additional Exhibits and Proposed Conditions ` 4' DATE: July 23, 1993 • The following exhibits were presented at the July 19, 1993 public hearing, but were not listed in the July 9, 1993 staff report. They are listed here for the record: 18. Letter from R. Ericsson, Mountain Park Homeowner's Association; dated June 29, 1993 19. Memorandumfrom A. Harris/W. Halverson,Department of Public Works; datedJuly 14, 1993 20. Letter from S. Anderson and D.Kraxenberger, Portland Co. tmunity College; dated • July 15, 1993 cussed bythe Board on July 19, 1993, staff has prepared the following recommendation As des and conditions for PD 4-92/VAR 20--92(a-d): EEC.nMMFNDATION: Provided the applicant satisfactorily dem nstrats of the two internal with phosphorus streets removal w with Jefferson requirements and the grades for the intersfollowing ,•'� , • • Parkway, staff recommends approval of PD 4-92\VAR 20-92(a-d� subject to the conditions: A. Prior to Final Plat Approvals ° yw' ri 1. Submit a final plat which clearly depicts, the following information: a, public and private utility easements; and, ob. setbacks as follows: x' Nn ,•, '.!• .\1lstuly • l'.'at lAMU'a 'ILA lhtl • Lake llwtt'tl;;i,l ll't'4011`1" ' hlr� �'ttlnning r1t1'1.,io l (,t1;1),,v4.0,2, t;D7 ,10 • Buildltitt'ta1t111'OM)ii -( tJtt • I ABC I , , „I.; . r, Front Yard 10' [for Lot 11 on the east] ?', • 20' [for all remaining lots (on Lots 8 and 0 ` 9 the 20' setback shall be measured along ,, the south and north ro e P P rty lines, respectively)] Side Yard 5' [for Lots 8 and 9 on both the east and west] 15' [for Lot 6 on the south] 7' [for all remaining lots] Street Side Yard 25' [for Lots 1,7,10 and 14 along Jefferson Parkway] Rear Yard 20' [for Lot 9 on the south] 10' [for all remaining lots] c. .,t coverage as follows: maximum 60% (including required parking) d. height as follows: maximum 28 feet for flat lots; maximum 43 feet for sloped lots. 2. Provide a note on the final plat prohibiting access to Jefferson Parkway •'Y from Lots 1, 7, 10 and 14. 3. Dedicate and label Tract "A", the proposed open space, as "Public Open Space/Park" and provide the following note on the plat; "Public open space/park Tract "A" shall remain in its natural condition for the purpose of providing a scenic,aesthetic appearance, protecting natural processes,providing passive recreational uses, and maintaining natural vegetation. Trees may be removed only after they have been shown to be hazardous to life to property by a qualified professional arborist(i.e., w ': Member of the International Society of Arborculture, or the American , , '; `, Society of Consulting Arborists), and after a tree cutting permit has been obtained from the City. Improvements in these areas, which are in keeping with the above purpose, may only be constructed or installed only upon approval by the City of Lake Oswego. No buildings shall be :`; '„ allowed in these areas." 5. Dedicate and label private streets as Tracts "B" and "C" and declare both as fire lanes. r f , 6. Dedicate two-to-12-foot of additional right-of-way (varies based upon ,' •location) along Jefferson Parkway as illustrated on Exhibit 12b. . « : f' a` �• ;;;� ,� 7. The applicant shall illustrate Protected Solar Building Lines for Lots 11 ` and 13 according to LOC 57.020(2) on a covenant to be recorded with the k plat. . w 0 '..' ".. . �' ,: ' PD PD 4-92/VAR 20-92(a-d) W°` Page 2 of 5 a ri' % , I • 1' t • 8. Provide the following note on the plat: "Lots 1,4, 5, 6,7, 8,9, 10, 11, 12 and 14 are solar lots. Development of structures and planting of non-exempt vegetation on Lots 1,4, 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14 shall comply with the Solar Balance Point provisions of the Solar Access Ordinance (LOC 57.050-57.090). This requirement t shall be binding upon the applicant and subsequent purchasers of Lots 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,9, 10, 11, 12 and 14." 9. Provide the following note on the plat: "Removal of street trees (when they are planted outside the public right- of-way) is prohibited unless approved by the City of Lake Oswego. Trees may be removed only after they have been shown to be hazardous to life to property by a qualified professional arborist (i.e., Member of the ` •• International Society of Arborculture,or the American Society of Consulting Arborists), and after a tree cutting permit has been obtained from the City." 1n, Provide the following note on the plat: "Where utilities, fences or landscaping will be constructed on side or rear lot lines,removal and replacement of fences and landscaping for public t ' access to utilities shall be at the homeowner's expense," 11. The applicant shall design and locate the private street improvements to: i a. Adjust all the lot lines along the stream corridors (Tract "A") to provIxle the required 25' stream corridor buffer zone, as per Section ' 3.020(2) of the Stream Corridor Standard; and b. Minimize tree removal by meandering the improvements within the • existing and proposed right-of-ways, as shown on Exhibit 12g. The applicant shall retain services of a consulting arborist to provide recommendations to satisfy item (b) above. 12, The applicant shall provide a signed nonremonstrance agreement for a ' future traffic signal at the three-way intersection of Jefferson Parkway with Lesser and Fosberg Roads. 13. The applicant shall change the name of Haynes Drive as illustrated in '• Exhibit 8f to Santillanes Court or another name acceptable to the • supervisor of the Lake Oswego Communications Center(LOCOM), Police Services Department. , 14, The applicant shall submit a document expressing the method of management and maintenance of the internal private streets (including ' 4 ,, cost of maintenance of street lighting and biofiltration vault) to the staff for review, . . . 4) • PD PD 4-92/VAR 20-92(a-d) • Page 3 of 5 4 ;II i c sr • is p di • t• bry. B. 0 ,'.. '''.• B. Prior to Final Construction Plans Approval: • 1. Submit a final landscape plan showing type,location and size of street trees (solar friendly) for both internal streets and Jefferson Parkway,for review and approval by staff. e ' 2. Submit a final grading plan for review and approval by the Public Works Director. r'`.i 3. Submit a final drainage plan for review and approval by the Public Works Director. • ,t. 4. Submit a final street lighting plan for the site (including Jefferson Parkway) and accompanying photometric data, for review and approval by the Public Works Director. 5. Submit a final erosion control plan in accordance with "Erosion Control •` Plans Technical Guidance Handbook", for review and approval by the Public Works Director, , d • 6. Incorporate the recommendations of soils report (Exhibit 8w and 9) into the final construction plans. 7. Streets shall be designed to have a 20 year life based on California • Bearing Ratio (CJ3R) soil values. • 8. All public utilities shall be sized to the Public Works Director's satisfaction and designed to extend to the project boundary to the south. i ti • 9. The sanitary sewer lines (both public and private) shall be designed to eliminate all inflow and infiltration potentially existing during the system life. .-) 10. The applicant shall obtain and submit to the City all necessary permits ' from the Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL). 11. The applicant shall provide a landscape restoration plan for all disturbed , areas within the stream corridor,Tract "A", • 12. The applicant shall illustrate the location of meter boxes for the street lights in both internal private streets, C. Prior to Acceptance and Certification of Completed Installation: 1. The applicant shall fully restore the detention facility to a condition ` ` satisfactory to the Public Works Director, • 2, The applicant shall fully conform to the recommendations of soils report ` (Exhibit 8w and 9), 0 ' '''' * PD PD 4-92/VAR 20-92(a-d) Page 4 of 5 / J t t' • c 1/ • • 3. The applicant shall install stop and street name signs at the intersections of the two internal private streets. The streets shall also be signed "private" under the conventional street name sign. 4. The applicant shall install a biofiltration vault and such other drainage • improvements as may have been required by the approval granted regarding Condition Number 1(B)(3). D. Prior to Issuance of any Building Permits: '° •� • 1. All construction improvements shall be completed, accepted and as-built drawings submitted to the City. • E. Prior to Receiving Final Building Inspection Approval for Each Structure: ucture: • li ' / 1. The property owner shall complete installation of street trees as required by Condition B.1. MAW (dl(mIb,CASUiI.Hr004-92/vua20-92141140.93.07a3 • 4 . it ts, c { A P .. • • io I . Y. PD PD 4-92/VAR 20-92(a-d) Page5of5 e.r • • • • u • 14 • " e V • / STAFF REPORT. , 0 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO11 J . „. ... s-----DEPT. OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT---- .. e" APPLICANT: a � FILE NO,: • Kevin Pike, Sabre Construction Co. DR 9-91 PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: Edmund Adams Robert Galante LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATOF REPORT: Tax Lot 3200 of July 23, 1993 • Tax Map 2 1E 1$CC DATE OF HEARING: LOCATION: i' August 2, 1993 6333 Lakeview Blvd. '•. ,., 0 NEIGHBORHOOD " NATION: COMP, PLAN DESIGNATION: p Rosewood Action Group IP a� ZONING DESIGNATION: ` IP I, APPLICANT'S REQUEST ,. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 7,200 sq. ft addition to the existing McCormick Engineering facility. Site improvements include paving the existing gravel parking lot. II: APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Oswego Compr t i,iv ,Plan: �;'', Impact Management Policies General Policy I, II, III Industrial Land Use Policies r General Policy I B. ['itv of Lake O we ` .. EQt[ttt]g �t'i fa, . U • • 1 DR 9-91 Page 1 of 7 • • r • '.1 p .`y, LOC 48.355-48.370 Industrial Park Zone Description (setbacks, lot N area, lot coverage) �� C. City of ak Oc tl i C Co31g: • � f LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards a A LOC 49.130 Classification of Development LOC 49.145 Major Development LOC 49.300-49.315 Major Development Procedures LOC 49.610 Quasi-Judicial Evidentiary Procedures . ,, 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 10.005 - 10.040 Fences 11.005- 11.040 Drainage Standard for Major Development 14.005 - 14.040 Utility Standard 16.005 - 16.040 Erosion Control ' . 18.005- 18.040 Access Standard ,., 19,005- 19.040 Site Circulation-Private Streets/Driveways III. FINDINGS :1- A. Existing Conditions: . 1. The site is 2.415 acres in size and is located on the north side of Lakeview Blvd,, south of Kenny Street. 2. The site is generally flat to gently sloping,draining southerly to Lakeview Blvd. T '• 3. An Basting eight inch sanitary sewer line is located in Lakeview Blvd ' 4. An existing eight inch sanitary sewer line is located in Lakeview Blvd. 77 5. Half street improvements as shown on the site plan have been completed across the site's frontage. The street included sidewalks, lighting and drainage improvements, 6. A manufacturing/warehouse building is located on the adjacent site to the northeast. • • 7. A laurel hedge exists along Lakeview Blvd. to partially screen the office portion of r the existing facility. B. Previous Action: • The site has been the subject of the following City actions: • ." DID 9-91 ;i.., Page 2 of 7 • , SD 11-•90 Minor Partition of Tax Lot 3200 (Exhibit 6) C. Proposal: The applicant is seeking development review approval of a 7,200 sq. ft. addition to the existing McCormick Engineering facility. D. Compliance with Criteria for Approval: As per LOC 49.615, the Development Review Board must consider the following criteria when evaluating minor development. Y ; 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval. , i. 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: L; a. The City's Comprehensive Plan Applicable policy groups are: Impl ct Mf n rag Policies These policies require protection of natural resources from development,comprehensive d , • review of development proposals, and payment of an equitable share of the costs of public facilities. These policies are implemented through several Development Standards, addressed further below. The policies require assurance that distinctive areas will be preserved, soil will be protected from erosion, trees will be protected from removal, streams will be preserved and that density will be limited to achieve these results. Compliance with the applicable Development Standards reviewed below will assure conformance to these Plan policies. Conditions of approval will be imposed when necessary to assure compliance. industrial Land Use Policies t ; r. These policies require that the City require to encourage environmentally compatible q. industrial development. Specific Policies which implement the above General Plan Policies require operations to be conducted within an enclosed building, exterior lighting must be designed not to shine upon adjacent residential zones; and all outdoor storage o� must be screened from public view, These requirements are implemented through the IP (Industrial Park) zone, reviewed next in this report. b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations. Zoning Code Requirements and Analysis The site is zoned IP(Industrial Park) which requires a minimum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1,0 [LOC 48,375]. The zone requires the following minimum setbacks [LOC 48,370(1)]: The zone requires the following minimum setbacks: to ,t DR9-91 Page 3 of 7 tY' � • Front yard: 20 ft. • Rear yard: 10 ft. Street side yard: 20 ft. Side yard: 10 ft. 0 .4 : ' The applicant's proposal meets these required setbacks as shown on Exhibit 3 with the following exceptions:• 1. The first parking space in the southwest corner of the lot should be eliminated to comply with the 20' front yard requirement. r 2. The 5' side yard along the northeast property line should be increased to 10' from the driveway to the end of the parking aisle. The maximum height allowed by the IP zone for structures itt 45' [LOC 48.370(3)]. The • applicant proposes a structure measuring about 16', which complies with the requirements. ;t Specific conditions applicable to the IP zone which are found in the Comprehensive Plan are as follows [LOC 48.370(4)]: 6 General Policy I: Specific Policy 6 requires all manufacturing operations in industrial parks to be conducted within an enclosed building. The applicant proposes manufacturing and warehousing. All manufacturing is proposed • to be within the structure. Specific Policy 9 requires exterior lighting to be designed not to shine beyond \t " property lines adjacent to residential zones. The applicant does not illustrate any additional exterior lighting, An existing light pole is ' proposed to be relocated, but its lighting characteristics are not illustrated. Specific Policy 10 requires all outdoor storage to be screened from public view, ' ;` The applicant proposes no new outdoor storage areas. No trash storage area is shown. • Specific policies applicable for the Lake Grove Industrial Park are as follows: Specific Policy l,d. requires the City to encourage development on small parcels to develop shared access with adjacent access wherever feasible, Based upon this dissimilar uses adjacent to each other, shared access is not feasible. However, access design and street design were considered together for the property and ..,1...:.,.; ,..'.:* • the property to the northeast. Staff has reviewed the applicant's proposal for adequate sight distance and has found it to , . a be in compliance with City standards, DR9-91 7' Page 4 of 7 • • • Development Code Requirements and Analy. This application is appropriately being processed as major development. Other than the applicable Development Standards, there are no other Development Code requirements applicable to this request. Tree Cutting Ordinance Requirements and Analysis b. This ordinance requires that only those trees which must be removed in order to site proposed improvements will be approved for removal. There are no trees on the site that are proposed for removal. The laurel hedge along Lakeview Blvd. is proposed to remain. • c. The applicable Development Standards The standards for stream corridors, wetlands,drainage for minor development, weak foundation soils, flood plain and manufactured homes are not applicable to this request. • The applicant has addressed the applicable standards in the written narrative (Exhibit 2). This report will only address those standards where conflicts exist or where additional information is necessary. Building Design (2,0Q5—2,0401 The proposed structure is a metal building which will match the existing buildings. The • applicants have indicated the proposed appearance of the structure in Exhibit 4, The colors and materials proposed are displayed in Exhibit 9). • This standards requires the design of buildings to complement nearby buildings and other : • • surroundings, The elements of the structure (windows, doors, lights, awnings, etc.) are to be complementary to the building upon which they are located, Mechanical equipment is required to be screened from view. Typically the staff does not recommend that metal buildings can be constructed in conformance with the Building Design Standard. In this case, the larger original structure is also metal and the proposed addition will match what exists: Additional proposed landscaping will improve the site's appearance. Staff recommends that the Building Design Standard is met by the proposal. , Street Lights (5,005—50401 Street lighting exists. Final plans for on—site lighting should be provided for the review and approval of staff. Parking and Loading (7.005 —7,0401 This standard requires one parking space per employee based upon maximum shift at full •• ' f development, No more than 50% of the required spaces may be compact spaces. The applicant proposes 41 spaces to provide for 39 employees at maximum shift, One space must be eliminated to meet the required side yard setback; however, the remaining •• 40 spaces are adequate to meet this standard. • Park and Open Space (8.005 8,0401 This standard requires that the applicant provide 15% of the gross land area of industrial development in open space or park land approved by the City. There are no natural areas • DR 9-91 Page 5 of 7 a • . , ✓ ' , , .. n • { ' `, • ,' • on the site that meet the definition of open space which r,►`,ould be preserved. No Distinctive Natural Areas which affect the site are identified in the Comprehensive Plan. ,l. This standard allows the requirement to be met through the, provision of landscaping 0 " . which meets the requirements of the Landscaping Standard, which is also 15%. The applicant is proposing to landscape 27%of the site,which will comply with the requirement (Exhibit 5). LancLicaping,latening and Buffering(9.005—9.040) This standard requires that industrial development provide 15%of the net buildable area in landscaping and/or open space. The applicant's proposal provides 27% landscaping, which will comply with the requirement. The applicant proposes only partial irrigation. Staff recommends that all new planting areas be irrigated. Drainage Standard for Major Development(11.005— 11.040) • A grass—lined swale is proposed to address the water quality standard(Exhibit 3). • However, a calculation worksheet has not been provided that confirms compliance with ,i the phosphorus removal efficiency required by D.E.Q. A registered Oregon engineer is ` " required to certify that this facility is designed in accordance with criteria expected to achieve the phosphorus removal efficiency required by the D.E.Q. rule, The certification will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. On site detention is proposed as well. The calculation sheets and certification will also be required for the detention. Access Standard (18.005— 18.040) • • ..'. •. *. . . This standard requires that each parcel abut a pL'blic street for at least 25 feet and that the access be design to be safe. The site provides 334 ft. of frontage in compliance with the standard. The standard allows the City to require shared access with a neighboring site if necessary to prevent adverse impacts on traffic flow. A shared access would not be compatible with the adjacent uses. The City Traffic Engineer recommends that the two driveways at the southeast portion of the site be designed as one—way access ways to minimize conflicts. In addition, on—site curbing should be designed to minimize asphalt • • and provide adequate guidance for vehicles. This will cause the new driveway cut to be reduced to 26' and curbing at the existing driveway to be designed to protect the handicapped parking space. • d. Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS • A'k There are no such plans which affect this site. • . E. Conclusion: 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 through the ii • imposition of conditions, ' III, RECOMMENDATION • Staff recommends approval of DR 9-91 subject to the following conditions: 0 DR9-91 Page 6of7 • • • 1. The site plan shall be modified to illustrate a 10' side yard setback along the northeast property line in the area of the proposed parking spaces. " e 2. The site plan shall be modified to provide a 20' front yard setback (free of paving) at the southwest corner of the site. 3. Final site lighting plans shall be submitted to the staff for review and approval. • 4. A final irrigation plan for all new planning areas shall be submitted for the review and approval of staff. • 5. The applicant shall provide plans for City approval and engineering certification of •" compliance with LODS 11.020(4) and LODS 11.025(7)regarding storm water detention and the proposed dry wells. v.. • • 6. The applicant shall provide plans for City approval and engineering certification that the • proposed water quality control facility (grass—lined swale) is designed to achieve the phosphorus removal efficiency required by the Department of Environmental Quality • • rule. 7. The access driveways at the southeast portion of the site shall be redesigned as one—way 4 • driveways and signed as such. Existing curb cuts may remain; however,curbing shall be designed on—site to minimize the amount of paving. The eastern most driveway shall not exceed 26' in width. The final plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of staff. • EXHIBITS 1. Tax ,Map 2. Applicant's Narrative , 3, Site Plan 4. Elevations • ' 5. Landscaping Plan (Not Reduced) 6. Staff Report; SD 11-90, dated July 13, 1990 7, Ordinance 2013 Vacating Kenny Street 8. Survey(Prior to Partitioning) 9. Butler Metal Building Data and Colors ' 10. Neighborhood Notice Requirements ti •• , • DR 9-91 Page7of7 : ` S W 1/4 S 'N 1/4 S EC I S T2S. t (, 1 CLACKAMAS COUNTY ®. • 0 . ‘,/ '91 VEr MAP 2 IE 1 BC8 a- rff1_ - �� .4 • . - -� _ j' � 1;1111 Ta. l 1 i I ! I i1/!�.11 L!I< I ` °a a--gnumwore-a- . ' 5000 5y ,✓ g 57 \'‘.,' /0.0 e,• \r 4ier'• . ' gyp• q� '`: ` i ' I' e- ° • 7 rL� • "°'' in. t 57 kb �� ri Irv' 14 ' Ve,C5:9".,/,7° rpf y44' S° w,\ A r: 1.1400 11500 4. . 0 4 *ft 1 1l.► 10 N a •d 4 ®• V or �, a�`L a 9 , A }4 ql :Holt. ^•'.i•7"a" �.+` '. •mil]` A(P , `�700 p y a• Z , 1200 Jd • ` �/ N W4•� ,�. •Irk !../ 01 '�al ; '. w I �i� j• , •' /! �` .' C. . rid .r 16 i t � . • � c. ..® 4.c • , Hoc 4} .;to 4►- ' �� Q. ►' / .' •'• 0 1• Ile • 17 6 11 ,L 4 �•'• !y I B d f•t•! ..a• i,. ter ., , b� tj G506 _3Ca 1 , i. . • 0 • 5200 •it . 'A k� l 1. * 1• •+.rr � Sr, to 4. .F • (S ► k kv. .. i 6 6 : ? �� A EXHIBIT .roj3OO " ,� 50T ,. 3 .. 1/4 ' .\.' JAM•/�.N• 1 '. � . 1. `� , • 7•‘ 0 i e ' '• 0 ••. JI• . h'� .... .•l11i....•.... • '1 . 4 •l A .A e d 1 ` '1 m• "e • ... • • . a cre Y. • � -; ,,. N, Construction • Com bony PROJECT SUMMARY McCORMACK ENGINEERING EXPANSION 6333 SW LAKEVIEW BLVD DR 9-91 I . GENERAL SUMMARY This project will expand the existing facility at the above referenced location by 7 , 200 Square feet . The expansion will ..::::: : \. 1 ,�V be used to off-load raw materials via a bridge crane, and load finished products within an enclosed building. This approach to loading and unloading was taken to reduce the noise and " � ,. visual impact to the surrounding properties . This building will be set back from Lakeview Blvd. over 200 ' , The project will match the existing building for color and panel type. The building will be a "Butler" metal building with light blue siding, The style of the structure and the i • overall "Industrial" nature of the project will be maintained throughout this building to match the existing building. There are site requirements from SD 11-90 which require the "paving of the existing gravel par!-ing lot" . We have not only provided for paving this area, but have also provided storm water quality swales , drywells on private property for the cities street water, street sidewalks and street catch basins , II . SUPPORTING FACTUAL INFORMATION a. . A. COMPLIANLIE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN This project meets or exceed the Growth Management , Community Resource, and Land Use policies of the City of Lake Oswego. (1) GROWTH MANAGEMENT The project lies within the Urban Services Boundary and Metropolitan Growth Boundary of the Comprehensive Plan. The project meets the objective of "ensuring that the development is compatible with community objectives related to natural .' environment, community character, provision of public services , r facilities and programs, and the enrichment of qualit • • 40 life. '' ('I EXHIBIT i . . , 7236 S,W, Bonita goad o P.O. Box 231026 • Portland, Oregon 97223 • Telephone 503 639.51E 1 i P y _ • y d Y\° Saore Construction .. , Page 2 Comoony. . , . .„ ,. t' The infrastructure for support of this development is in place, *. By conforming with all provisions of the zoning ordinance, this project complies with the within without adverse impact on thewca capacities bli thisc area •� p public facilities ,�'•' and services . As a manufacturing operation, the ll accommodate the need for expanded business projectin this area. growth within this r ; (2) COMMUNITY RESOURCE 2-A NATURAL The Resources Policy Element addresses a number of issues . The yV• policies relating to habitat , natural areas , hillsides , and , . erosion do not apply to this site. Noise, energy, and solid waste considerations are addressed in site and building design , a qThere are neither significant wetland nor water courses on the site. 2-B SOCIAL The Social Resources Policies relate to neighborhood identity, social interaction, and job opportunities , ' enhance employment, but will nohave The project onshi to these policies , other direct relationship 2-C ECONOMIC The Economic Resources policies stress the preservation commercial and development activities with acommensurate inventory of suitably zoned land. The site is zoned "IP", and M . its development will enhance economic activity in the area, . `^ (3) LAND "SE %. 3-B TRANSPORTATION The project is bordered by the designated arterial , Jean Road, ` and lies near the designated arterial Boones Ferry Road, All provisions for access have been complied with. Public transit, through Tri-Met, is available on Jean and Boons Ferry Roads . ,. . e . . • . , 7235 S.W. Bonita Road • P,O. Box 231026 • Portland, Oregon 97223 • Telephone 503 639.5151 r.: core • . . Construction Page 3 r, Conoany 3-C INDUSTRIAL • The Industrial Land Use Policy Element stresses the need to encourage environmentally compatible industrial development located in visually attractive structures in landscaped settings . It also establishes specific policies for the Lake Grove Industrial Park District, including preservation of trees and protection of adjacent residential areas . These policies are met through approval of this addition project . • B. COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Applicable Development Standards have been complied with as follows : 1.000 ZONING All the existing "IP" zone requirements have been met for • setback, building height , parking, landscaping, coverage, and F.A.R. • 2 .005 BUILDING DESIGN The design, of this building will match the existing building for color, exterior treatment, and trim. As an "Industrial" building, we are not providing for any archetecturalizing of ° the standard metal building. • • 3.005 STREAM CORRIDORS - N/A None involved with this project 4.005 WETLANDS N/A • None involved with this project 5 .005 STREET LIGHTS Street lights will be installed under separate permit as approved for under DR 25-90 , 6.005 TRANSIT SYSTEM This project is close to the major route at Jean Road and Pilkington. Employees will be encouraged to utilize the system available. • ` c 7235 S.W. Bonita iRoad • P.O. Box 231026 • Portland, Oregon 97223 • Telephone 503 639-5151 '� . J ti.• f' L v r� Score i . , Construction page 4 . , . Corn oan . -.:: v ..7 .005 PARKING AND LOADING `. All provisions for parking have been met for the existing -y'' plant and the new addition. This compliance included handicapped parking and ADA requirements , Loading and unloading of raw materials and finished produot;s will be 4 ' improved through the addition of this building , ` • 8 .005 PARK AND OPEN SPACE - N/A ', Not applicable on this expansion. • 9.005 LANDSCAPING, SCREENING AND BUFFERING A Landscaping minimums of 15% have been met or exceeded. In those areas where new landscaping is being added, irrigation will be provided to estP•blish the plantings . In those areas where existing or nati'ie plantings ave .', established, no irrigation will be provided, 9.020-5 Street Trees • ' , ' There are existing trees on Lakeview Blvd that WILL NOT be removed or disturbed during construction. The existing medium J impact landscaping includes many trees of numerous varieties and will be maintained. The major comment from the •" . f neighborhood association regarding the removal of the existing hedge was communicated to Staff . We feel the re-alignment of the sidewalk to save the hedge was a wise decibion and improved screening, w : 9.025-10 Screening and buffering The existing landscaping will continue to screen the facility from tho street and the residential zone across Lakeview Blvd, per section 9 , 020- of this application, 10 .005 FENCES The existing 6 ' chain link fence will be modified t5 allow for ,T security in the East and West yard spices , Gates will be installed so as to allow ingress and egress to the yard spaces . Screening slats will be installed in the South sections of fence and in the gates to provide screening of the , yards from Lakeview Blvd, 11.005 DRAINAGE - STORM WATER , 11.020-1 Easemet, s and Accessibility t n system as approved by DR 25-90 will •• The storm water collection at,.; require a condemnation and takingon the � part of the city to , . r provide for the sedimentation manhole and the drywell , • i •. 7235 S.W. Bonita Road • P.O, Box 231026 • Portland, Oregon 97223 • Telephone 503 839•5151 k i r i q r Y /< . ..,.,: core . . , . Construction Page 5 • . . . . .. - : ,. .- Comoony .„. .,.. .,-. ; . . 0 .. . ., .a. • , 11.020 Storm Water Runoff Quality The bio-filter is designed to meet the pollutant removal '. requirements for oils, suspended solids, phosphorous , ' • ; nutrients, sediment, etc. The location of this swale meets r:..' U.S.A. 's requirements for size, capacity arrd location. 11.020-5 Storm Water Detention Storm water detention iswater provide for within the quality ,, swale. 12 .005 N/A 13 , 005 N/A 14.00 UTILITY STANDARD This facility is fully serviced by all utilities with the r' ' exception of storm water systems . There will be certain W improvements to the existing system, but there will be existing drywells on site that will be maintained and continue to be used. 16 .005 EROSION CONTROL This site has less than 2% grade and will not require any erosion control measures . The swale outfalls will be protected from silt migration into the catch basin during construction, iF1 17 .005 FLOOD PLANE N/A 18 .005 ACCESS We have proposed to match the existing driveway locations to allow for reasonable truck movement through the site. The driveways meet all requirements for width and grade, but when • : ' evaluating the distance between the existing driveway and the driveway of adjacent Lakeview Center, there may be a spacing problem, We request that pre-existing conditions prevail and we are allowed to install (3) driveways on this project . We • will again point out that with the amount and type ' � ' of truck traffic involved with this use, (3) driveways are necessary and any fewer would represent a hardship to the applicant , 19.005 SITE CIRCULATION STANDARDS 1' As outlined above, site circulation will be congested with out the approval of the East driveway. • • • 7235 S,W, Bonita Road • P,O, Box 231026 • Portland, Oregon 97223 • Telephone 503 639-5151 i .r r Y + it r • Soore Construction Page 6 a:,f Cornoany 20 .005 SITE CIRCULATION STANDARDS - WALKWAYS Sidewalks at the street, and as required for ingress and egress to the building, are provided per code on this project . III HOMEOWNEnS ASSOCIATION Per the requirements of the Development Review Process , we made formal notice to the required homeowners and the Rosewood Prcion Group C.P.O. per the attached letter dated July 9, 1 1991 . The meeting was held 7-9-91 with 20 members • with NO OEJECTIONd to the planned expansion, • present • IV. DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE • This project has been needed for 2 years ,but has been delayed for some time due to circumstances beyond our. control , The project will be started immediately after the receipt of a 410 building permit and will be under construction for 3 months . • ` • • 41 • r1 . •' W: \WP51\PERMIT.APP • 7235 S.W, Bonita Road • P,O, Box 231026 • Portland, Oregon 97223 • Telephone 503 639.5151 4r, l . .- ..„",'' • ::' • * 0 • . , . . ,. , . . __.... .._._. ,. ..„ , ' LYA>W i° 1 . 1, 1 . . 1 Aii4 ‘4,41., .. ' COMMER Al\ ...-„......„...- ti / „ y. Et- - ' ��,5�/ tw Ei / Alm ` a: . .... •�It PHASE II W • 6 4i IAhEVICW 01�9. CO.ND.N0. 1126 ''y i ljijj 1111 E�yuy1 �. .fL'IRw~Nn1�9W .-x,..ai• • um ' 'El 'IND II Ims . / I. COA.,aETf '., IAmSI NTIAL ONO /// •' , tnMOROINNI( 'I ' :( 1. I VIClPNTY MAP $ /0/ H! qo Z • 1 I• I • IaAa�wu _ 'I "�t� < ps '� IDTALS; I NEW AC14. ?t All LIDN1C;i An[A('M°S. ' • 11 PAYNO I G i •', MISIIND m uwo: IQ 70 EXISTING u• ' EXISTI G .) ' 05 N a n�rl�: A* lit PHASE II BUIiDINC DUI DIGrairt I /4 m ...,pApittO • � I for tuns _ PARKING REQUIREMENTS; ` I ' ', 44y �tdL t, ra cll'rAca 1019."° - ►srAct'i'Iil1 o p ,; ,tpitul� "'' All IIWAttC�'ytAI IDW A D hnOSIDl �'•'--• I" • • O 'A�a°I'AQ1 ""�l'b4L ?":C'�ITT:Him-SA LPAEI/11[t1 WLLtl A uas m + .11. '4. tote SPACES REWIRED: to 6.11lP"Xell11"" •' ► 101A1 SPACES PROVIDED: /) ' �'•• MR. c4/101 MARI OR 0 7 aKMAr • PRELIMINARY 81TE FLAN ^"Iv--�" ^"— ° a, al • { n ' tAt' AMOR.{CCIaaI11��YYPppppn/11 M``''IAM lOt]]00 1'.aI i—'."'a 'e ••, ` • I pAC11AAA cL NIT.°OOR[DD.1 ' +'. EXISTING _ „_,� APra°a..lol,no u .E/ll AOu:f a ' • ' OFFICE �...r I �••� NEW At • 1 TL 3300 1 1%+1s rV. PAVING �'b�° � C ' X +7 I "--1 l A 1 ;;it' LVGWIgaam,11.I. + �. �� _�—ssi -L` " COMM*AlIn t J � J 4. I' . tux` #� -t,,. Pit. 4 rlf i".�'`L . ' LAKCYIf,W DUS m cam t:etr*;' ' r two .11 - r...... �.�:.I.Ii"i_llncia.r� "_"""�."' A.��l .m -.M. + Wvl „ 1 A a�• a ,> > t7 st>tGEI 1sDlA" 1 i •� E Y_ r i_� s.it aislaf.. 1. 1 ' ri• ' IIII�I1 W`�. S,IYi..Cl •L11V L �.' .��T�I[ .__.. ..s... .�.. mn....�.,.�...--...4 b `• y 064- _.. ,-. 11 17I •feu 1 -.W� .'.'1__...r-ly-a---1— I-- ..-.'.-..:.:.:.., W., � '.��K4:_vew E,:_fi/oho ql t T ay --". aewdltWau:AnAt voko jg23)b • • .. _ . • e • • c ' 4 t.; � .t•; rf • • • EXISTING ADDITION • —.F--_._____—_P__.____*_.—%,'1 — , —_,_,....,,,,„t_., a.m. 1 , 1• 'IILi1�I I it ti Y� I . ( Itr th }. �� t { I; ail 11. 'III .i ! I" " • t' t ' ,5.41 + - f• t !' • i f r�1 ' . !: ��•��1 1.1,: 1 I : ' t�,.'1 1" 1 11 .� �, Ii " I• l I. 1111 1 'li Q — V h.m.personnel doer sleet sections!overhead door _ 0 111 ` t' ,. SOUTH ELEVATION WINO EAST ELEVATION ,,,,,A0g11!0_11 ,. EXISTING • ` • a.m,gutter Nadal root p IneU bullerlb a R µ tli 11 IUfilala.MMUlllw lNMuw 4M _ I . a�. Ht + .._ v� II �I ow�gulp I� iffi' • rt n WEST ELEVATION metal Well panels belie:le II gg I �\ NORTH ELEVATION 041.1411. \/ a -- � Ji 'Y., n • ti) d.V . zE • • • MI, IENWD aapaas,II l ;. MIN j q 'MN • • �nil Xre�1 wr • - - 1.. tom• 0 I.0 ' . 1 a + � r ' aN. W a ' d_ 1 . • 1. STAFF REPORT t ., „ . J _l ,, 0 r , y' LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISIQN --__---- . APPLICANT: • FILE NO. : . Edmund Adams . SD 11-9'0 •PROPERTY' OWNER: STAFF: • Edmund Adams . Michael Wheeler LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS DATE: • Tax Lot 3200 of July 13, 1990 Tax Map 2 lE 18CC ' LOCATION: NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: . None ' West side of Lakeview Blvd: , between Kenny ZONING DESIGNATION: Street .and 65th Avenue. I-,P COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: I-P I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST • P The applicant is requesting approval of a minor partition to create two parcels of 105, 195 and 63 , 956 • • square feet. II. APPLICABLE CRITERIA A. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordnance: LOC 48. 340-48 .345 LOC 48. 360-48.375 Industrial Zones Industrial Park, Zone Description (setback, height limit, special requirements) B. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: ,r LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development LOC 49. 140 Standards Minor Development E • LOC 49. 200-49. 210 Minor Development Proced LOC 49. 215XM'1l �Ir 10 r ' 49. 615 Authority of City Manage' Criteria for Approval 0 . ry---- --.... • : ! • ! _ 4 . . • sD 11-9 0 Page 1 of 8 1 . 9 • • , • , C. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: lb . ' . 5.005 - 5 .040 Street Lights 12.005 - 12.040 Drainage Standard for Minor velopment 14 .005 - 14.040 Utility Standard 18 . 005 - 18.040 Access Standard 19.005 - 19.040 Site Circulation Streets/Driveways Private D. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: Impact Management Policies General Policy II, Specific Policy 3 Transportation Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 3 Wildlife Policies General Policy II, Specific Policy 1 q E. City of Lak Oswe o Tree Cuttin Ordinance: LOC 55 . 010 - 55 .130 ' III. ii DINGS A. Existing Conditions: 0 . ' '.• ' 1. The site is composed of 3 .88 acres. • 2. The site has frontage along Lakeview Boulevard and Kenny Street. • 3 . The site contains two, single-story steel warehouse buildings and a single story stucco • building, all of which are a part of the McCormack Manufacturing Company. 4 . Lakeview Boulevard has a right-of-way width of 60 feet. Kenny Street has a right-of- way width of 50 feet. By separate action, the '�. applicant is proposing to vacate that portion of Kenny Street which has fronts 4. 4 site. (Exhibit 3) g- along the • i 5 . An existing 12 inch water line is located in • • Lakeview Boulevard. 6. An existing 8 inch sanitary sewer line is ' located in Lakeview Blvd. . . 4 S `` `,D 11-90 .. Page 2 of 8 • • ;. 7. The smaller of the two proposed parcels uq ' , (Parcel 2) is currently vacant of any �".• structures and contains brush and trees. 8 . There are no existing storm drainage • facilities available to serve tha site. B. Proposal: r • The applicant proposes to create two parcels of 105, 195 and 63 ,956 square feet in size from one lot. By separate action, the applicant also proposes to vacate that portion of Kenny Street • along the subject property. , C. Compliance with Criteria for. Approval: As per LOC 49. 615, staff must consider the • following criteria when evaluating minor • development. . �. ' 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the a a : applicant seeking approval. • The applicant has borne the burden of proof a 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 The applicable Plan p0,icies have been assessed as follows: • Impact Management Policies gyp• +� These policies require protection of natural �' resources from development, comprehensive review of development p and payment of an , ' t,„ orals, P pro equitable share of the costs of public facilities . "' These policies are implemented through several w Development •Standards, addressed further below, ` fir . " The policies require assurance that distinctive f�. areas will be preserved, soil will be protected ' ' ; '',1 from erosion, trees will be protected from removal, streams will be preserved and that • density will be limited to achieve these results. Compliance with the applicable Development p4 410• • ... SD 11-90 • Page 3 of g , I t i 1 I':1' • Standards reviewed below will assure conformance to these Plan policies. � • will be impose when necessarytton of epproval compliance.• assure 0 ,. . - WiLldlife Habitat Policies These policies require protection of upland habitat in the form of preserved open space, natural vegetation or fragile slopes. development standards are reviewed in this relatedr following an analysis of the applicable Plan y• policies. ' Transportation Policies • These policies require that streets be improved as planned when demand requires. The applicant will '•' be required to sign a non-remonstrance agreement for future street improvements on Lakeview Boulevard. However, to ensure that certain improvements are completed at the appropriate time, these improvements are specifically required4. ry to be completed as described below. If there is any increase in the intensity of any existing use or if a new building is constructed on either parcel, then half-street improvements will be required for a 36 foot wide paved street with a 4 property line-sidewwide aplanting strip, 5 foot-wide street lights. In addition, overheadoveme powertlinand es will be required to be placed underground and the existing gravel parking lot must be paved at that time. b. The applicable statutory and Code r requirements and regulations. Zoning Code Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chanter 48) The site is zoned IP where no minimum lot area is required. The zone requires the following minimum setbacks (LOC 48 . 370 (1) J : Front yard • Rear yard 20 eet f Street side 10 feet Side yard yard20 feet 10 feet i SD 11-90 ' Page 4 of 8 t i. V /• • , j U , The applicant proposes the parcels to be the `' following sizes: Area Parcel 1 • : 2.415 acres Parcel 2 1.468 acres 'p The maximum height of the zone at this location is . 40 feet (LOC 48 .370 (3) ] . The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of, the IP zone is 1.0 (LOC 48. 375 (2) 1 . . Development Code Requirements and Analysis' (LOC Chapter 49) • The proposed minor partition is appropriately being processed as minor development. Other than r the applicable Development Standards, there are no other Development Code requirements applicable to this request. Tree Cutting Ordinance Requirements and Anal sis (LOC Chapter 55) This ordinance (LOC 55 .010-55.130) allows only •,. ' • 0 : those trees to be cut that are necessary to site a proposed improvement. A tree surve those trees with a diameter of 5 incheslort more ng shall be required to be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits for the subject property. A tree cutting may be issued onlyupon approval permit is required and permit for a proposed improvement. a building c. The applicable Development Standards Street Lights (5 .005 - 5 .040 ) a.• There are no street lights within the immediate area of the site. Street lights will be required as part of the future improvements along Lakeview Boulevard. Parking and Loading (7. 005 - 7. 040) • This standard requires one parking space per employee based on maximum shift at full development for an industrial use. Parking • requirements for unlisted uses shall be determined by the requirements for the listed use which is most similar, or by a parking study if necessary. SD 11-90 Page 5 of 8 i ` b .,F e.j , •, r • • , . , + . t� ::: • No additional parking is required now as no new • construction or change of existing use is proposed ,, • at this time. f. Drainage Standard for Mi 12.040) nor Development 12.005 -- Thia standard requires that drainage alterations, including new development, not adversely affect i neighboring properties. No grading as proposed as `'" 'w a part of this minor partition. Compliance with this standard will be required. upon application for a building permit for either parcel. ` Utility Standard (14. 005 - 14.040) • �, This standard requires that infrastructure improvements be installed underground, where possible. This will be required upon application for building permits requested subsequent to this action. Access Standard (18 . 005 - 18.040) This standard requires that each parcel abut a public street for at least 25 feet. Parcel 1 has a proposed frontage of about 335 feet. Parcel 2 .has a proposed frontage of about 228 feet. Both comply with the standard. °a ' ' : r t Site Circulation - Private Streets Drivewa s (19 . 005 - 19 . 040) This standard requires that driveways not exceed a maximum grade of 152es nor a 5% cross slope. The site is generally flat. Both parcels will be required to comply upon application of a building permit requested subsequent to this action. 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 complies witt° or can be made to comply with all applicable criteria . SD 11-90 Page 6 of 8 • U, Jrt. III. ACTION TAKEN ` ` The staff approves the proposed minor partition, subject to the following conditions: 1. A final plan (as depicted in Exhibit 3) shall be submitted to City staff for review and signature sr ' 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 ' 7 conditioned to require modification to bring the project into compliance with then current law and compatibility with surrounding development. 2. The final plan shall reference this land use application -- City of Lake Oswego Land Development Services Division, File No. SD 11-90. 3 . The final plan shall be registered with the Clackamas County Surveyor 's office and recorded with Clackamas County Clerk's office. 4. The applicant shall provide the City a signed nonremonstrance agreement for future street improvements anticipated in Lakeview Boulevard and Kenny Street if any portion thereof is not vacated. This agreement shall apply to all parcels as approved. 5 . If there is any increase in the intensity of any existing use or f a new building is constructed on either parcel, then half-street improvements shall be constructed for a 36 foot wide pa••!ed . • street with a 4 foot-wide planting strip, 5 foot- wide property line sidewalk, drainage improvements + ` and street lights. In addition, overhead power '` lines will be required to be placed underground and the existing gravel parking lot shall be paved as a condition of approval of any building permit requested subsequent to this action. 6. If Kenny Street is vacated, then a 25-foot-wide utility easement shall be rese,;ved across that 0 vacated portion for the existing utilities, £ . . SD 11-90 Page 7 of 8 7• The applicant shall follow the appropriate • . ' ; , . vacation procedures by Cityatlawandr0 y ,; regulations. provided • 8. Evidence of the above to be provided to the Public Works and Development Services Department prior to the issuance of buildin subsequent to the date o pfthists a requested • PPro gal. 9. The City shall allow the removal of only those ° trees necessary to site a proposed improvement on Parcels 1 and 2. A tree survey illustrating those trees with a diameter of 5 inches or more shall be required to be submitted prior to the issuance of any• building permits for the subject property.' A :X tree cutting permit is required and may be issued only upon approval of a building permit for a proposed improvement. Prepared by: Y .. Oitt.,4..e.,04_,,d2ciLa24,44_____ • MICHAEL R. WHEELER Associate Planner• Da Approved by: 44LAEngPlanning Director Date Reviewed by: ♦ p ' PHILLI S /� Deputy City Attorney Da a -. EXHIBITS 1. Tax Map 2. Applicant 's Narrative 3 . Site Plan 410 .. . SD 11-9.0 . a Page 8 of 8 y. • x+ • 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2013 . . * " 0 • A SPECIAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO VACATING KENNY AVENUE BETWEEN THE WEST SIDE OF LAKEVIEW BOULEVARD AND THE EAST SIDE OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT .> OF WAY, IN THE PLAT OF ROSEWOOD. •r• The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: ' Section 1. The City of Lake Oswego determines that: a. The City Council initiated the vacation of a portion of Kenny Avenue by adoption of ' Resolution R-90-50. b. Notice required by law was given for the public hearing held November 6, 1990 for considering the proposed vacation. c. A majority of the owners affected, as defined by ORS 271.080,did not object in writing to the proposed vacation. d. All of the owners of property abutting the area proposed to be vacated consent to the •vacation. •• ,tl e. The public interest will not be prejudiced by the proposed vacation, provided that the city `.' • secures a right of way along Lakeview Boulevard on Tract 46, Rosewood, for the ' construction of future street improvements along Lakeview Boulevard. The aforesaid street improvements are generally depicted on the attached Exhibit "A" which is • ' ,: ,.. 0 • incorporated herein by this reference. • d Section 2. The portion of Kenny Avenue to be vacated is described as follows: . = In the southwest 1/4 of Section 18,T 2 S, R1E, W.M., Clackamas County, Oregon, that portion of Kenny Avenue which lies south of Tracts 44, 45, and 46 and north of'Tract 59, all within the plat of Rosewood, said portion of Kenny Avenue being bounded on the west by the east right of way line of the Southern Pacific Railroad Co. right of way adjacent to said Tract 59 and bounded 4 on the east by the northeasterly projection of the northwesterly right of way line of Lakeview Boulevard, County Road No. 1126,which abuts said Tract 59. Section 3. The portion of Kenny Avenue described in Section 2 of this ordinance are hereby . vacated,reserving a public utility easement over, across, and under said vacated portion. Section 5. The City Recorder shall file with the Clackamas County Clerk, Assessor, and Surveyor certified copies of this ordinance. Section 6. This ordinance is conditioned upon the City's receipt of a recordable instrument satisfactory to the City Attorney granting the city the right to construct street improvements . ;.P satisfactory the City Engineer generally depicted on the attached Exhibit "A", over and across a portion of Tract 46, Rosewood. Section 7. This ordinance shall be effective concurrent with the final development approval of 4iiikaillak EXHIBIT,li , II 1 , . 1 414/4614444444411114.4421. 4 • • 6 {. 1 • ' I •�._ / / uyr88J ,. 1 ••'fyfMf�� t i Yt[I,1 't'I'tR tb t • • la • r • 'KENNY. ST. �I co,no.NO,233E 1 _ 3 eti ."-.. .24,.,. '' .r NN Ktl ✓al lafk:UII.'. W 11 fiS CO __,_ u eJ3l:t11N 4 aro77 _ `_ IDD476 O1,•f.\ 71. 3400 0/ If, r / 1 r J am, me LOT 'MOO PARCEL 2 \'I 6. / ,' , , . 1.40/AC, 1 U • P ,' G ,\ , a1/ i .k,i k\\o '‘\, o r zt y " * PARCEL 1 • �� g,/2,�16 AC. 0 .4).Tt4 v J . . i ly ,. • / i cl , . • .., 4 �' y 4�� • Qvyybr .'' iti a NOTES n • 1, ' 4 I. YUNI 1 • I i; �040 k ,• A i. 1111 Sj• \ G� 4{,y M, t M n lam•y AN ` �� L ,j ItAI �i ti. '.� ►.N ��•l J.C'1 +�/�{y�/A� ,• 4{ 1 1, ►AY golfs1 "A j-••' .� A 1h41s . �VJ pti,*Am sa r ‘ 1�1 /0 i i ~kr {t` y r 0 " ;Zl m l/ bs, ' 11 �,t' urKgV�' o :.. . ,.. , �aaa I ► ., .44it'i° i a�� r rr1E p 1 1 d o r� 0td1 3 • ' 9 i � 1 fn• fI,fa 11 w• L[OAL oE;c IP1 I 11•t podium 61 L 3 %, u 11 ill 10110641 �1 Allr' N►llir Ib fill Ii1G1°Iera.e►,M 1 I TL-110o 0 1g1.d1 a t1` thy\ 11 1' $.I a ,pNtl NYU.fSw:::111► nn N /49. ' .Nlst ..tat rl I X 4 1I r' 6 MOIiIY.' Nat "' • i%� / y� O�O oii1i1ilalciiiip e, Cr' Vet x haas 01 ft 3Icwtmtn R,w t e.0 wit ;.' i:li1; *MIT iio Wfol dO:W0': Ilt r L.t►1i11 ►tla pal/ 1 6 • IMP medium to large buildings Y, :1,. of with clear span interiors ; � n yM t(� i `�►ti .• 1` i 1.• j: 1I• ,f T?`rri f�}yj `Z�"r f l Ll '� r 7rY ! 7 ' �p; ; �''r�`►l�L� ,►• •14' } J,r` ,L rr•t r r�„R' • ( t1'f. k AtiG�� rA ,r + E 1•w.Itt .1�rf.ry. a ,,..,• r `_•• + lr a ( '4',,,..s, 4 • Jn .:-t 6. ..6, „y'$ • �J ,.7;�!r f. y' .�Y' `.'. �' .i7• '1 „t' �• 11".3 +..N" .`�. .,� t ly��a4t 11 ° V YJ ..;t1 I+ SA. 1�. 1 h C'Y•',.��+,'�• "4.;Sl„�yp}.'��'tJ2 Sr 4'"��,�/� f�.J 4 ., {=a '?.,•Ati HS: +,t- ...".A�• '3 :,y �Y r v`t ..•,,�,. tA4• .tg,.t.. 1' -..*Yr tiK �,, w".L /4(".41ti j1�"l, 4.fi IC' ,..,M'•; j+ y , +1..d!4Z,A, Iri :,�nY•` r '�..,K ry.�• ;., 1elJ P h... 1 l''+uC♦�'t'Ir t.~y ; %t rk•(r A ,.1 k f , f • *y.t4 4.i,T�' .A Jte iI,_� , . fr y ti,,i Jva:: A, 4 t � ;,';�k {'r "` iV ,yi' ;ilia,. ,4•4,,1 t k"6r'tc `+ X}/ r,• . ,. t.I. * ;r , ;+1' • � .♦ 1,,,,'',V" K 1 �C f'rp rit r;Ss it'ir a+,�2''. �F" _ d-r1 ,,," lt*t i . t + 1' r y +i++y y . k.1riT CFNi 'Vi\I , {�i�Chti 1•'� • C e rt! P . ,R „. r�Sl '�` FM i' �Jxna♦ ,,, r::' I•hit.fn tt� :»- ,r• •Jl�'��r • ' ' r „pV { 1r' ,Y 1I 1 1 f � t .Fr t�t r2 `,i`y'�9.t,�.:e.A. 1 !S ,1 f. rla :�'',;+ �' �1 - �1Y c.K• a 1Y.r�r4 1 '' k'r+ • taw % 7 •Y�44.-, te4F`•' � ' �• �a E t•' ~ ``S 4J'•l3 ccowi N " ••w1S!'rA; • • ,5. 1•0e ••.x4`'s,*6 1 e ' �'�,4•0.`.s* , till Ai ,.,.. ,r, .•' e 'r l,r n44. � j4` ',• .+r N..,,"(ii o, , i • t42'IN •R�"{+�Fu ' ,t. , p°kJM„1 Sir 1 Ta' 1.4"'' y .1.• ,.I -4 1 J.t .r' 1, ` aF, t.t.,,t r1 .,,, "i. f'J 1. 4.1 F !..t r,�t-'1 t 1 i}Yy t!Y A. •1 • .1. bi, 0.�151;;Irk . 4 ir. e". ,1. •Irv, nv4' t, .�IY. �''♦1 .1' .; 4�' jr.lyndw •1` a ,* `'4Y`.+•.Ts,ll4 • ..t74H,f '1/ 1i4 1 F ;::1y� ',�rHN.�itti .G•" •_I 1 a ..=71 y*-4..• Ow 1"✓ '... "4 •�'r, �•I Ai S Fk r�f:ri 'ro�'.7' '�Yr..l • • • `ti"`• , . n 1 I - � ,,_ r. 1 0 ,.4 ,'f r ;` t t,„ iT 'NSA•• ton w1,•., , f, .1 p E -1•I-.ri , a. 1 , _•j' T1.1. ' 3, 1: . j� ". •{• �+ Y' r, 't� I ,,.� f R }- y t , C. ° r t.• t 1 l ?, ''1 'JAl •1 74 • r "` •1 A• k4, , ,5 ..*,Y; • ,� `. .3 i• tf,�4 11 i• ,•IA' !•• 5 } i' p''. $' 1 y t ,. I• II ,�d€,, 1 ' .1 v, tr ,, }I t ,i , ! r . • 1 '..""* t.":.' ..., • '. . '1;,‘. :1'ti':.::'''' 4,,:,-: r i;‘.:11 i'l',.fiili,1;::!''..1 'r'''' ''''''''' ..--$44.:,;Itti,:111::,..v,.'1,int s i ,i,. iu.1 JM c.. M v vl t { M e . < 1 0 d �kR 1 r ;j n4 EXHIBIT pnateti ,"�1' A i.arn td'!., .10, 1• ` •I • • _ i• f- 1. 1- , ♦' C 0 y v ' _ '• A 1 �. ,, Butler LRF 11 than most ordinary types of construe r ;•;\ I. lion The metal building system pro- ` 'J 1 --� '';d' !' is handsome, vides a functional attractive building with minimum maintenance for years to 'c � functional and come -j-� - --� economical STRUCTURAL are designed to integrate with all root , Butler LRF II is a metal building sys- INTEGRITY mounting and provide a level surface for mounting the optional roof accessories • tern particularly suited for manufactur Thts assures proper weather profectic;r, Inn truck terminals warehousing. Butler LRF II structural systems are offices retail stores and other medium designed to conform to the engineering and ra!,rnatnlenanc r to large buildings where wide. low, standards of the American Institute of Cutler,tiers and downspoutsis are, also available will IHP II clear spans are required for interior Steel Construction and the American operations Iron and Steel Institute. Registered I:DIME 1SIONAL Clear span interiors allow for maxi- engineers and computer calculations, ,' , mum use of interior space LRF II pro- coupled with carefully controlled pro- DATA ., '" vides this uninterrupted convenience in duction methods,assure uniformity and ' buildings up to 120-feet wide and with predictable strength and performance. virtually unlimited lengths LRF II systems may be designed and The LRF II design features a nearly flat fabricated to conform to national, state root('-r"in 12"slope),accentuated with or local building code requirements for I, handsome slate black contour gable live load,snow load and wind load.The eootsiope rr 1,, ir trim In addition,you maychoose from a Bayt.emotesr'o :', 1U' stamp of a registered engineer is on all variety of distinctive and functional wall erection drawings I sralloann WIb • IIIs AND SAVE HEIGHTS and roof systems overhangs. fascias, F BUILDING NOMINALSAVE HEIGHT ' and factory applied color finishes to WIDTH —_ 12 14 20 24 ' 1 • meet specific needs and preferences ACCESSORIES IIIIIIIIIII 40 ; '' All ,are pre-designed to Integrate with - , a the basic structural system and harmo- Overhead doors, windows and per- co minoman+ F; f_-i , nize with each other sonnet doors may be installed in either no And because of the unique. pre- endwalls or stdewalls 90 MN _ 1 engineered components and your And overhead, there are the addl.. 120 ' ,x MN Butler Builder's skills and know-how, tional options of skylight systems and Budding length i,diotimilind by muihpi05 Of r WO • , construction time and costs are lower ventilators Butler roof jacks and curbs bmationsol the VI) :,r,, Of By bay lengths • ■v. a.. 1'1T .t,a�ra 'r t y t ; ord tTra tor. :- - r ', ,� fkifrfrtIII1IIIIlb ;; , a �i�ti,+j:� .Y.. µ�� +ram 1 +' 1 4 ".% ..V• .t" .,. v`A. ,'�Iit''' ..1r C'+r', i, e.;.;is•?: •T7� t- 7- h P y'"�-... • i 1,.t i4 i. 1 - t},�. ,.. �. ' • Ili , t,. r ,, . ,n , tr t , . r ,t, t, . . . . sun" ' --7Lkw MANUOACTUNINa t.araPANy BUTLER LRF II SYSTEMe7M : NiM*C.f. M,iYnu•, f c 1986,Sutler Manufacturing Company Form 34924106 Butler Budding producla are cnn§tnnlly lining,mpraved thereinto). the information con printed In U 3 A tamed herein at nublect to Change without notice Before hnnhtrng protect (Bends. con - ract your neatest nutlet MOW fir Buller Manuleclunnr rauti tan In, Went mintmnhnn , �BL/M TLER Butlerib II Wall System .• . / , •rr,L , ://t rill 1 .rr' '+ st ' 'rf ,/�rl/r11) %' .':„. :.4.1 1 , 0 r-----12" 12" 12" '• A PANEL CROSS SECTION " • r ! • 1. �'.7n-- fi•��.t+ ^Yl, ,r. .N .w,s..�r F :� ry >N�.=•+..a •I ` v=4- .N .. ✓ ♦ + A I3 PREPUNCHING ,,. 4. 1 :7,hv'i }t•k/yt •„w .4:4 M l �+ ♦� Yt .. Ca '. y })��r• 1*Yrt -, !°i°,i1L..1,. ,. Z 0fi1Yty,,t- . i ',1 r r,l t r !r d t+�ffJyyr• 1 H ,, :r' 4,t,.1 1 e r r. w c 1 t l,?'i t ,4 l Y F k 3 ,`n• ' ,^,t, tyT"' 7 +r^f,1 j ,R f a.M.e 1 rf„' 5`. �" R;AJ':i7}t i 1,,..m ,,,. t..fts, 9,r'f101, ,,.cl ••.t • ,, d,aaIP' .h' ' .�y •;• "it ti /�t '1t%;.4. , `G'" 1 Y'1 .!j••f:.+ 1, ; Sr '. ' ` tt.VI w+w � A, „t }Y�, icy d ti1'!n�J��je •` •j.v:.� 1 �t y !t. 1,, y t r ''. < 7, r'j �' N ,T�. 0 r.', 1�M` 1 .,.7af ! 1` v.k!.r^''Cliyi�•, %y r}�r6t? r l jy1f ,t!{.. ty hl � �P.h l'�"s> 4��t � r 1 f .^...4; a.t 4. ,, ' t iv 1- It 1a.n gyp`!• ,,';' !�.'.� 9 • ' )� r e s'�xY} t ,,tit »• u. ,) r r' y. ,l tTe F: a':i �, rI..I y)e, �k!�•Y''y , *' '•t.,, , .t ter' z{4,4/1•_1 i!•Nhl. ,'+T' 911? 1 .,( sr�'k4 1 ,• i. r'�;e!l, . N ;y�. .,,� `�' -r r,t 'a• t •tl;'l r'' ;:•r. • l,,t :::.ki`� '•: r',, Ji1 1 vfr'N r a •t 04.iq', -rt 4 'ry,. y,•/ ;• ��y yY P 01tij _ Yhr,^�i k 1;.N fa 4 t. i..w.La Gr ) 'A► M / c1'h: y -1 1 dl , r `, 1 - , , .', �.:►?'1ry1.i,1 ,tiraF: •1,>•,'+..• FIwM1L yli-Sl '1,�latti Y' �iuf" '.i ;S� r 1 y- 5•71. 'Alga �,} y.� l�rr„f«'. �Yllt •,� I� t f+ +�' r�ii a(�r� .f3 il 1� . Va, 41✓7�:.91rt1r �+'Yy�y� !t1r�nl, l S} / r.T,.L fI40 ! M.,�^ 1 ,1 1 y w `'ra,'�T Y-t 1'' _ rr}�•.. eta. «` f • 1j).j••!r1 'M 1 'S. (i ay Ir T M Q{'}�•ih h x( ._ t 1}�f .,.tt�•6i ,ar ...,.,7,.1 ,`• (fir 7, r4 r.1",, TO�J rrllhT'`ri•i^7/1.r Y"/r.,04.-.I,• •..�� '1r'r ` .`��t ,'li "'i• �,'1�• 1W��a y/!'"J�IY Y r 1 4'� ry�ft y .y �L f r �• t� ti � • 1 - 't 1. .^1 .T� ii .. . I I iv, . . . - __. ,.,_....., . . • ,. ,.. ._..., . •• •. . . . ,...,.........., . .., .0•. . ) /, ._ ' I�-..�.. ��....K`i�wb`1'y'i.+.+,+u+t..'•t.q �.ii•..•1,.y t�,; uN�r� :,r,„,,, �7..�" • ,� ' tar !'• / .. ' 7': r 1,r.f ie ' rynof b; �({� t(t✓} 1••I4/u •,tr 1L-„r+f-a,1t F,t y:.11,4 il.r ✓ J f �/ dL ' ...' A . r SNh ��"Z* 4 't f}.ly••xV N�`M�'}.r• ,tl (S li �f��f,ly�it.rjy,.K;1hq+17 it+,J♦t Jt 41.r t^t �� •wYC .11 »Y rw+r.. ash:.•, � NW%.ri-UNSl.hk/. '%�.�..} 1' 'f„t„.1»1�," ,�:t2V k'M .1 .rVS,.. T. t•rnr.,« *' .1, 13• (',. 1). » • y ` .r 1 :i IP ' . . 1 » Y t Sutleribo II Wall System Specifications I. GENERAL 5.4 Panels shall bn sealed at the base with metal closures, 1.1 Exterior walls shall be covered with precision roll-formed OR Butlerib®II panels as furnished by Butler Manufacturing Panels shall be sealed at the base with loam or rubber Company and installed in accordance with the closures. (Optional) 0 .. ..‘: ,..,. .,: manufacturer's instructions. 5.5 Trim material should be as follows: 2. PANEL DESCRIPTION 5.5.1 All exterior trim shall bo of the same finish fl,the tt 2.1 Panels shall be 3'wide with tour major corrugations, 1• exterior color of the Butleribr��ll wall panel except ,' 1/2 " high 12" on center with two minor corrugations the following. �_ between each of the major corrugations the entire a. All gutters, downspouts, eave trim, gable length of the panel. trim, door side fleshings and header flash- 2.2 Panels shall be one piece from base to building eave, ings to be galvanized prepainted stool with . . Butler-Cote' 500 FP finish system, a full 2.3 The upper end of panels shall be fabricated with a •strength, 70% Kynar 500®/Hylar 500O' ' •'` mitered cut to match corrugations of Butlerib®ll roof fluoropolymer coaling. panels and square cut for all other roof panels. b. All gutters,downspouts,eave trim and gable j 2.4 The bottom end of the panels shall be straight cut. trim shall be Stone White or Charcoal.These 2.5 Wall panels shall be factory prepunched at panel ends (lashings and trims are also available in yy ; and shall match prepunched holes in structurals for preprimed galvanized steel for field painting proper alignment. (Optional) c. Door side flashing and door header fleshings 3. PANEL DESIGN shall be available in Charcoal. Panel design shall be in accordance with AISI"Specifications d. Windows shall be of aluminum extrusions for the Design of Light-Gage, Cold-Formed Steel Structural (thermally broken)prepainted to match Char Members,"or CAN/CSA•S 136Cold-Formed Steel Structural coal color. Members," and in accordance with sound engineering 5.5.2 All interior trim shall be painted. methods and practices. 5.5.3 All (lashings, trims, closures and similar items 4. PANEL MATERIAL AND FINISH shall be as detailed on drawings as supplied by 4.1 The panel material as specified shall be one of the the manufacturer of the panel, following: 6. FASTENERS 4,1.1 28,26 or 24 gage steel,coated both sides with a 6.1 Butterib�x'll wall panel-to-structural connections shall layer of GALVALUME®aluminum-zinc alloy(ap- be made with Tont head Scrubolt "t fasteners,Tom' III) , ,,... proximately 55%aluminum,45%zinc)applied by head self-drilling screws or Lock-Rivetri.i fasteners. the continuous hot dip method.Triple-spot mini- Panel-to-panel connections shall be made with Torx'u mum 0.55 ounce per square foot as determined head self-drilling screws, or Lock»Rivets, by the triple-spot test per ASTM Specification A- 792, 6.2 Lock-Rivets (optional) shall ho set by a special Lock- OR Rivet tool. . •.' ` • 4.1.2 28,26, 24 gage galvanized, per ASTM speciti- 6.3 Fastener locations shall be as shown on erection drawing:: cation A 525,and painted with exterior colors of as furnished by Butler Manufacturing Company Butler-Coto, i 500 FP finish system, a full 6.4 All exposed fasteners shall he Dither prepainted to match strengti. 70% Kynar 500®/Hylar 5000t"t fluo- wall color or;:hall be covered with plastic color caps to ropolymer coating. Manufacturer warrants that match wall color. coating shall not blister, peel, crack, chip, or 7. ACCESSORIES , ' experience material rust through for 20 years. 7.1 Accessories (i.e., doors, windows, louvers) shall be as For a period of 20 years chalking shall not standard with Butler Manufacturing Company unless exceed 118 - ASTM and fading shall be 5 1E otherwise noted, and furnished as specified. Color Difference Units or less. 7 2 Standard accessory locations shall be as shown on 5. PANEL APPLICATION erection drawings as furnished by Butler Manufacturing 5.1 Structural system shall be plumb before wall panels are Company. attached. CIAL VALUME' IS a trademark of llll C International lac 5.2 Panels shall be aligned and attached in accordance with Hynar eee is a trademark of Elf usimosAtochetil North America Inc Hyrar 5000'" is a trademark of Ausnnosf USA, Inc • erection drawings furnished by Butler Manufacturing Torx c.is a trademark of the(,amcar Division of Textron Inr, Company. • 5.3 All sidelaps shall be at least one full corrugation. QUALITY COMMITMENT— GUARANTEED •'*' Every material,coated part.and process that is used in your new building is tested to ensure strict compliance with exacting '`' �"i standards Every supplier to Butler is rigorously tested on an on. NOTE: Blue boxes around specifications Indicate'Butler Perk* going basis.Butler is the only manufacturer in the industry with that mane Feature" i kind of commitment to quality .' •• 41) • '� 11/r t r+ll/rrJ • 9UYLEFiR BUTLER'S® II WALL SYSTEM SPECIFICA7lOIVS0. "rr'r"k"r' . • _ hdwn Seen guile Mariulattural Company 4'14i92 UUI'LEf MANUFACtUOINO COMPANY Form No '$263 LIW ri."J.' 0.:ntsd in iho U S A Suitor budding products aro constantly bdumo improved ihdrutaru rho information[nntmned harms,ry subtoct to chance without noi,Co Snloru finalizing prolix'doiaas i oninct your noaront Super Dodder',n eutior Manulnclunng Company for tatost,niohnabon y` , j " + Butler-Cote® 500FP CoatingSystem ,......:.:.•:.;...' ..1 1)tgl,/c'r/f»•„irl,lc•t'll»nrc,pl,hr,»er c•uritt,{c,,p,te»t standard on all Butler roof and wall panels. • fV I '%4 1.':.,. c • ' ,, r .> r aa .," ti. + +ad �- rma ,2 + • �m 1 ° �• +F •I � M , p 1+,+df �; �F� i/ ,,} n 4 f a *x� `a; r 1' :' fr° f q' t ; t I `'a. ;, ' N , , ; • 1 L+T- h+'', .;�4 ^t ap.1,�e a }r 6 rV �r,a ♦RJ. "'�!-., ' a s•ty•a, , ,:.,,„.'%` Y't' t N1•.. +1 h ''• - ^ 4+.an°.� '�+,� : N^ e tt•a *t�5d k¢."`.� Ott w�' t j�t•(h}J t tS N a7 • 4�• '!wy-+ t �t.'v y rPF• ,,.i., , 1 '- •t 1 r ere rid.1 r''7 4d i.17 4S r ', , ' r .:1,1 ` ' ""� + , Ia 7}{,^°}' y,y„BCfit„Y{'Alt• :j', . de, • t }^r ,� ( a.': ,(. 'i' it _ r °Ia!'}}tG� + Z` Y {.may hiil, fs. ? ,t„ ice'?, r.. - r YFC n ate+l h' ,— (y ,11I ® ® ® III ® ® J 1 Illggg!!l .. J III I. . . ® _..t., . a ie � � e � {-,., ri`Nn.-w4sir�5' r'i'i,rr •.r ♦„ is !'' .. ' ate.":' k',,!'i�r.�•,.. �, .�� ' 1 Ilit l;IIIICI l tit, +IIIII I' I{tllltt ( ith ,IIIII I' 1 �I�'w�u .LIII1 IILIIIIILh tint r.till,t _! 6;, drrli !I!IwAP 10.'.1': 1+1- ' 1. ..,1.1ttil!'♦l tlt'Ill it OIL st,littl,illI ' '. ` '111 li,� -� I illl;'II1 tc,l.t,tnl (II lltl' 1 1,111 II u',It 11.i1! inr. HI II '. '. ifJi Ii II'III'''I } i 11I" UIII�I)IIIIIIWI1W11111111111_�� ,+.,ttlll, ,t,tt'1„ lttl .11l Ii:itit 1 Illr,.Illtl lading that t,ll,Illlt It ' r llllllllllllllllll�11111 I I ; ,,,l.lttll Ilttl t Ir:, II u1t .ulll 11111 1,u11. linll1 1Ldl t. ,( hlllt nlrIlulltnl!;drill f„tlir.1 ', IiiltlI 1 tit, .11111 I ttltti. .ItII lint' IIIflwh' --III' .,. ll t ,01 .11111lI,I1Cll. lutltI'+�;uuuut, ' rluln r,.l itli! `II tlr .1.11 1111111111111111U h,r,,,, ,,,,, I 11 i.il ,,,,,, I nunnnuul lh,lll, r,lnn!+ tiI '.,111: Nllh I11!'1/ I,,i ln!irl.Ilh1 �, tt "°� �;,; ' r, ;l I ili,Ilglll 11rtC111 I%.iii_thi, -�ti 1111 Iti„1 .Intl \%,Ills ,nul -i t,iiit 7 , a•�r 1.1111'• III1t „ pt..; IIt,! r Yr 1.. l ! 'I( Ind militinl 1,It1t UI 1 tlllll'•till ,![•Jill, It 't.1,11rt 0,1 h•• 1,... rr .. 0.tr.titnll itittl .111t1 1t,lllt,Ifte: «4) ttr,ll' ,rinl,.tlr tl lll, 1� 14 n,bill'. i "� t+ �r I;llllt'I .Iltill gll.11,lllll'l'% Iht It'tl'lllllilt It I" ',111.1( ,'+�.tt°,�`• A ltliti \kill 11111 lilistul, 11t1 ;,, I flnilll,llltt trt,Is i7, h Ili I, 1 t I11 ill in,tt i t,il In,t , I Il 1 III/1, , 111 Ill!" t, III.11ll+ !h(1111t;il III t11,11 .II)1l.11 11(1ll , r11,11, ap. , ,• .` .-fit f. t'eI fo,»lri»ce Proof' "[•cast s',l),l/Jll's irl .11.1•.4.tt 1,.4 ..I',!-i,1.,1 111 •1r;';•t,1.1.t11 111.1,•! .'It .11111111t1.III !1111..11,. xtt '1133' ►'' N,rt. ',AIhl(,,l 11 11 ,I„' I, li .rill tilt u't III hill !..1 %I. I'w l It: 'It, Iv ii II iltil I Id 1, I„r Ir . . +I II III r1 r.I II !, ,1t „t ',lull,. , ,,,�n! ,ILIII ,l. i I7: r i•if,Illtilt ul Ilnl ',Illt Intl I . .. . .. .. '�� •.ill l'1, ',II. •,'ii" I , 'rr nt lii, ,+! ,Ilt "1IIiiiL,d,h ,!, .,I �,_ILII �I111 I I11{i r� 00� ® ,ittitI I„trt!lwt,,,,l , ,lt .[Pitt'. ,11' 11,111/1tr11•-•,l',..r ' '. 1I0II111 ...in 1111.11,11 I *,t,",tr„ 1.1 '111. h, p,,e ;•11111'• II! 1,,1/1.Ir11 t.r° ,I1i1 tIq 1111111111.1111s ,+I I II.ill 1+ritti"Ir11t.' tl :, .11 '11 , I!w! 11111,t III '11, 11 ' it' ih,hlll `\C.1 II',l h f !: , ,11.1 ,f .. ,, , 41 r: , ,'I1II, 11 1t1, ' ... ' II III- Intl f,I..!„ .Vx 1 ,itII, .11 , . , I1, Ind II •, " , I,PI,Its l+nil,r'1r,,1 - - 1�!'. + I t.r "nii II'- tli," .I r: 1 .;11t11111111 a+ : .I. ,,IIIII•• i , . • ,. • • :r w . 11 BiJ7'1.E�7 r • i • BUTLER-COTE 500FP- COLORS Full-strength 70% Kynar 500J° / Ilylar 5000rt' fl'uor•oj olyme:• coating Colonial White Stone White \t.i•.•. \W'hite r• �yt" ,t • I;i♦, Sh M'YtV40.fe4 Satin c;ray Ire tarty ! .ui%tn! !'t.iy 4°;x t �rx>.. w:�rar.41cwxtArn:4..r -. - °r};j,ty�' • • Saddle Tan Aite! '.n1(1 h V tusk ti Sierra Blue I Jeel+ Illue • Country Ned Coptler color 1 tae.s I keen • • t'Ite,..nut tirr c n ,-h.itr oal r `.. q.. - Refer to the AVAILABILITY CHART on the opposite page to determine if a color or gage is available for the panel specified♦ If the color or material is not shown on the AVAILABILITY CHART on the opposite page, a minimum order quaytitle and additional charges apply. • .'r y s. , of - `, f. .• COLOR AND MATERIAL AVAILABILITY 4 • • ROOF PANELS t . tITLERI(3 'n•„ ie • �' �>li=.14`& C11R-Z i u , Vbit i'6" } u y Stone White Stone White Stone White 24,26.28 gage 24 gage 24 gage IN Country Red Satin Gray Chestnut Brown A 2 tar gage:, i: 24 gage . ., 24 gage 1 '• • • Chestnut Brown Sierra Blue 24 gage 24 gage Sierra Blue 1.11 Copper Color r:: 24 gage 24 gage ____.._- _ sorest Green 24 gage MI .�, Country Red 24 gage WALL PANELS BLITLERI"R !l '.` TI1[Rh1AL •i• tiTYLWALL 'I tiTY WAJ,I, CSJIADOWRlR ,NIONOI'ANL .. F.i.it Fluted, ' Stone White Stone White Stone White Stone White ' ' 24, 26, 28 gage 24 gage 1 26 gage ' 24 gage ,,,,•f Satin Gray i j Satin Gray ,, . • Sattn C sly .; Satin Gray j . hr.:: 26& 28 yage . 24 gage ` ? 26 gage ,ri$ 2'i gage ® Country Cream Country Cream Country Cream. Country(.warn E , • 26 gage .,,,�c.. 24 gage 26 gage 24 gage Chestnut Brown. Chestnut Brown Chestnut Brown i Chestnut Brown 26 gage 21 gage 26 gage 24 gage Dusk Blue — •,. • husk Blue • 26 gage 24 gage •, TW-2. IWT2 Colonial White I 26 gage • Stone White Stone White •` 0.1)(11t Or'IielOP` v, .' Canyon Gray 24 gage 26 gage• ,CRIA1-:COLORS 26 gage ' Satin Gray ,'"- Satin Gray Standard Colors Saddle'ran 24 gage • '! 26 gage 26 gage Country Cream Cliarcual • 26 gage , , Deep Blue ',tone White 16 gage Chestnut Drown --u. ,- .-.,.. ' " Aztec Gold 26 gage Optional Colors 4..,'N.,:.. . , 1 26& 2.i gage ., - Dusk Blue 2G gage ,. e'.he'atnut ilrt>wn • . Ice Gray • 26 gage " • . _ wi..).LileiL" Aztec Gold , Moss White INTERIOR'COL(SItS y canyon i,ruv 26 gage (Nui forti?ulatect for t xtt ritr tit) lc I;rw :. Country fled Light Gray 26 gage ', �, , Hudenh Roof,f 2t:Wall, Stone White i « 5uhn t;r.iv '•;,,;• Situdnwrih.stytyimill Monopanl c.e.r' • - (irlilted)&1i11.2l lard Sea Foam Imperial ' Additional rhargea 4111 Sea White 111(�•2 apply to Optional • • i Prim Colors _ :., o • , 1, • gas �__ qt SPECIFICATIONS: I. SCOPE IV. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS A. This specification for the Butler-Cote 500FP coat- A. The physical characteristics of the exterior coat- • t " ing system covers the preparation,coating, physi- ing shall provide resistance to failure through cal characteristics and manufacturer's warranty on cracking,checking,craning,spotting or loss of the factory applied exterior surface finish, adhesion, B. The physical characteristics of the exterior coat- , II. SUBSTRATE PREPARATION ing shall be measured by the following labora- A, G-90 hot dipped galvanized steel shall be given a tory weather simulating tests to obtain test results controlled complex oxide chemical conversion justifying a manufacturer's 20.year warranty: treatment. 1. Humidity Resistance at I((04',and I00U% N' R,H. in accordance with AS`1'M D-224'. III. COATING 2, Salt Spray Resistance,n ii%Stilt Fog per „ • •• •; A. The material for Butler-Cote 500FP coatings ASTM B-117. • shall be Fluropon®,a full-strength 70% ;, Reverse Impact Resistant c in accordance with Iluoropolymcr(Kynar 500c9/Hylar 5000nc�) ASTM D-2794. finish, 4. Resistance to Accelerated Weathering•in B. After preparation of the steel,the exterior an Adas Model XW-R I kw I t•cle Wr,lther exposed surface shall be precision coated with Ometer in accordance with AST:sl 1).3 if,I primer and Fluropon®color coat to a dry ' film thickness of 0.9 mils minimum. 5. Resistance to Dry float. C. Interior exposed surfaces shall be coated with poly- ti. Abrasion Resistance in atc.ordance with ester color coat. ASTM D-40t,0. D. All coatings to be applied to entire material 7. Chemical/Acid/Pollution Resistance. ' - dimension of steel sheet prior to forming of a. Chemical spot tests in accordance with panels, ASTM D-1308, procedure 5a, for ell . .,. .• Hydrochloric Acid, Sulfuric Acid,and ' Sodium Hydroxide. b. Chemical spot tests In accordance with ASTM D-1308 procedure 51), for tilurl• atic Acid and Tincture of Iodine. F' Flaropon'tr a regurerra tntdematl,tf Thy taf,tvtr Cotporatwn Rynar,fixMu a rerntrred trademart at c♦ Resistance to Sulfur I)Ioxide In atcnr- :I Elf Ahxhem North Amens.Inc Hoar 5000 u,t a dance with DIN 5o()18. rettltereJtrademarkof,tu,tmontISA.Inr ; . • C. Gloss of finish shall be maintained evenly over • • entire surface in accordance with AS I'M I)-523. D. Contact Butler Manufacturing Company for warranty details, • • sr� ,C,. �R , Butler-Cote® .500F1' Coating System , M. .•4.•'- 'i y nutlet MtnuteeunnKCompan 01992 BUTLER MANUMCTUIt1NC COMPANY Porm No.4B28LUW 2.92 Printed to U Si. owlet tutldtng I',,Hlutu,te tanit,ntly 1Kti1q unptatcdt tharrnte,the mfot,nluun umumed Mien,it tuhtett ut thu,K<wuhuut nnqu Refute fin,lumK fouled tletftlt,twtt,ct yaw ne,telt nude tlutlder' ttr Ruder Mtnuf,twttn1 Cutnp,ny fat Inert tnformruan 0 • �Lr A , ` • - fP� ' , , a , ♦ �r . .�,U .. ., . . . a ore Construction 'fly 9 , 1 991 . . ., . , Comoony Mrs . Connie Emmons ' . Rosewood Action Group a 5101 S .W . Dawn Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 ' RE: McCormack Engineering ..- 4 .• C��S , Ci�v. Building Expansion Dear Mrs . Emmons : This letter will act as confirmation of our conversations , notices and meetings regarding the above referenced building expansion . Pursuant to city requirements , we have notified all interested persons and held a Rosewood Action Group C. P.O. meeting to allow for any comments or questions to surface regarding the project . The formal notice sign will remain on site until July 19, 1991 should anyone have any further questions regarding the construction° process . IG Thank you for all your help in organizing and implementing all the + v. necessary steps to satisfy our City of Lake Oswego requirements , This letter will accompany our application . Please sign below q signifying acknowledgement of the above , Sincerely, SABRE CONSTRUCTTON COMPANY • Kevin M. Pike Connie President Connie Emmons • KMP/krw • ' * ::::::.:::::: films 4 l- ? - ?' / 0Zo h.4 d - a EXHIBIT • v-- _.. 7)- (9-1tALC, 411, * u 7235 S.W, Bonita Road • P,O, Box 231026 • Portland, Oregon 97223 • Telephone 503 639,5151 • . • q _("-.).5Qt,t)oo 4. c.._i (-6 vo ls „.'; , itu-Le....-L.:7 1 ' 7 - ?/ ' - .. _ . eft(- ,.. c (.„„er,......, s ( 0 ( s c-,) n Gli (it er.2_11,,,..--, -.,'. • ' d r rbijOA. Q.h. t S40S 1t13 '43Y JQ U4 a z ° i/ 7 F-X d -s ulA;:, ✓. ay ..�o- fez .;tio` l6)` `i .Sw 6d J • M ci G,l SD St,1_ -¢Hvty 4 zo -43 zs-- .J11 E/ nch- TeSar- /736 Y 4:1•00-/Ru N Pr. 6,3e -6/1. z . . le,Z L\gtNIcAN 1(139 2., cz.....2.10R.„ 1p3S3.-lciLc` : ••' ', -t-Vt-LAr 6, 444)-eft),-0-r. ./ 9-5g/a &Le, /244.k.. ‘ 3 ?-- z ,, . : -,..., W Au6 ✓i� 140 79 Sc.,) 24,04G � e ,;.2.J (r8YV :. -'" ; './Lide1l..son. /7 7r ��/� ! , fit + �' �� • (yJ/� 7 /�(//y/��//./. . _ (�/,r�3. --6 Z7 • ,a1(.- egle;.eg-A, / sai-c,4' -. C.co-,.hac ,-1ev l n t Pri f)r) i. RA c _•SculDi _Canes .7,-)/fikv. Ce,- -1.,,t) „./127 .6,,,i,„66 __ , . .A,A. /44* 0,07 /3 38 - C76g „ 12Y.1 ea7,/k (jade; 6715`v Sev - ,4f9/6-(/ e.im., , !D Zy -ter v . 1 Y P j/e1 1 4 6.5. N-.W .. ,t6vL VIAy ¢ 39 3,37 ef • ye.k..„ �,.. /1;.2 oZ6 ...-_._. . 97e>>3,�"/ l u _, ` !7• N • • • • tl i' ` Ur A'l • .14 • • Aa •- - - f .« i Agenda Book • AGENDA CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,CITY HALL,380 'A' AVENUE Monday,July 19, 1993 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER • H. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 5, 1993 ` May 3, 1993 May17, 1993 June 7, 1993 • June 21, 1993 IV. PE'ITITONS AND COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC HEARING ► PD 4-92, a request by First Security Bank of Oregon for approval of a 14-lot single family residential planned development and four variances as follows: a. A 2% Class I Variance to the 12% maximum grade allowable for a collector street for a portion of Jefferson Parkway [LOC 44.384]. b. A 3% Class I Variance to the 5% maximum cross slope allowable for any driveable area, to enable the construction of a hammerhead turnaround at the end of one of two proposed private streets [LODS 19.025(5)]. . c. A 25 foot Class I Variance to the Access Development Standard to enable all fourteen lots to take access from private streets. The Standard requires that each parcel abut a public street for a minimum of 25 feet [LODS 18,020(1)]. d, A 2% Class I Variance to the 15% maximum grade allowable for private streets, to enable the construction of one of two proposed private streets [LODS 19,025(6)], The site is located directly south of'the Portland Community College Sylvania Campus, west of Spinosa Drive, fronting Jefferson Parkway (Block 62, Mt. Park Blocks 58-62 of Multnomah County Tax Map No. 4224), Staff coordinator is Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner. • VAR 4-93a-e), a request by Richard Givens for five Class I variances in order to add a second story $ to the existing dwelling as follows; a) A 5-foot variance to the 10-foot side yard setback along the west property line; . 1 b) A 3.5-foot variance to the 10-foot side yard setback along the east property line; c) A 6.5-foot variance to the 25-foot minimum Oswego Lake Special Setback; d) An 11.5-foot variance to the 30-foot rear yard setback; and e) A variance from LOC 48.700(2) which allows the enlargement of a nonconforming structure on when such enlargement does not increase the nonconformity of the structure. The property is located at 983 Lake Front Road, otherwise described as Tax Lot 1700 of Tax Map 2 ' 1E 10DB. Staff coordinator is Elizabeth Jacob,Associate Planner. • DR 9-91, a . w �.�_ request b' .ty'. -: , . +_ction Co. to add an 80' x 90' metal building expansion to the existing structure. .{ , R� al.,;- eview Blvd(Tax Lot 3200 of Tax Map 2 lE 18CC). Staff coordinator is Ito► ,►, C;.!1.. L 3r • VI. GENERAL PLANNING 1 , VII. OTHER BUSINESS-Findings, Conclusions and Order ' VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Lake Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go as you please. DRB Members: Staff. ° y„ • • Skip Stanaway,Chair Tom Coffee,Assistant City Manager Norman J.Sievert,Vice Chair Robert Galante,Senior Planner William F.Homing Ron Bunch,Senior Planner Lawrence M.Magura Hamid Pishvaie,Dev.Review Planner Julie Morales Catherine Clark,Associate Planner •I, C Charles Oldham Jane Heisler,Associate Planner Martha F.Stiven Elizabeth Jacob,Associate Planner Barbara Smolak,Associate Planner Michael R.Wheeler,Associate Planner Steve Chung,Assistant Planner Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney { Barbara Anderson,Administrative Secretary Yvonne DeBartola,Senior Secretary . ,. s.' P • 4, •1, 0 • . . I.1 « 0 1 t t p DRAFT V Y` CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO , DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES April 5, 1993 ' I. CALL TO ORDER ,,'.1...t:,....‘,. Y '',.'.: 1 • The Development Review Board meeting of April 5, 1993 was called to order by Chairman Stanaway at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Stanaway welcomed the new • Board members • . IL ROLL CALL Board members present included Mr. Horning, Ms. Stiven, Mr. Magura, Mr. Stanaway, Mr. Sievert and Ms. Morales. Also present were Robert Galante, Senior Planner; Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Planner; Elizabeth j Jacob, Associate Planner, Cindy Phillips, Deputy City Attorney; Xavier Falconi, Transportation Engineer, and Barbara Anderson, Administrative Secretary. III. APPROW„L OF MINUTES :. ,,.,.v... , • • None IV. _ PUBLIC HEARING SD 19-92/VAR 15-92(a-b), a request by OTAK, Inc. (David Bantz;) for approval of a major partition involving a Distinctive Natural Area (No, 37: Douglas-fir Grove SE of Hallinan and Laurel Streets) to create two parcels from a 42,512 square foot parcel. The parcels are both proposed to be 21,256 square feet in area. Also, the applicant is requesting approval of a 25 foot Class I variance to the Access Development Standard which requires that each parcel abut a public street for a minimum of 25 feet. Parcel 2 is proposed to have no public street frontage. but will take access from Wells Street, which is a private street. Alm, the applicant is requesting approval of a Class I variance to LOC 44.390 whii::h limits a cul-de-sac or dead end street to no more than 1,000 feet in length, The modified Future Streets Plan as recommended is . '.i• proposed to be up to 1,800 feet in length in order to terminate access to Highway 43 from Wells Street in the future, The applicant's proposal includes a Future Streets Plan affecting Chapin Way and Wells Street, as required by LOC 49.120. [Note: The applicant has upgraded pgraded this application from minor to major partition because it involves the creation of a street through widening of an existing public easement.] The site is located between Gans Road and Wells Street (private) west of Highway 43 g y (Tax Lot 1000 of Tax Map 2 lE DRB 04-05-93 Minutes Page l of 10 ' M • { A ,y o, 10DD). Staff coordinator is Michael R. Wheeler,,As ,_is a Planner '+ Continued from March 15, 1993. Chairman Stanaway discussed the hearings procedures and time-lines for v y A . testimony. Chairman Stanaway questioned the new Board members regarding whether or not they were qualified to review the proposal. All new Board members indicated that they had reviewed the record. Mr. Galante mentioned the difficult process of reviewing a Future Streets Plan. He discussed the previous hearings regarding the case. Mr. Galante reviewed the four different alternative street plans that had been proposed: 1) staff was concerned about the proposal and recommended modifications to the proposal; 2) was not favorable because of a number of reasons by the staff and the • ;p neighborhood; and 3) the alternative plan by the opponents was not favorable to staff because it did not provide a turnaround, and 4) the alternative by staff that constructs the streets to City standards. . ^ Mr. Galante explained that alternative number four would require the applicant to do several expensive improvements. He indicated that staff was in support of Exhibit 54 as the approved future streets plan. Mr. Galante discussed the various applications and the need for them. He �' :': indicated that staff finds that all applicable criteria have been addressed. He. n 0 .'•' t ". concluded with the final staff recommendation to modify and approve Exhibit 54 with conditions. \\ The Board asked about input from the Police and Fire departments. Mr. Galante indicated that both departments recommended Exhibit 54 because it provided an adequate turnaround for emergency vehicles. • The Board asked whether or not the applicant would be required to construct , • the future streets plan (FSP), Mr. Galante explained that a FSP was required only to demonstrate that future access could occur. He noted that the applicant was not responsible for construction of the plan instead it was only conceptual to demonstrate compliance. Mr. Galante mentioned that most FSP's were not built as originally designed because a development pattern that occurs may • differ from what was anticipated. The Board questioned whether or not Exhibit 54 met the minimum access requirements, Mr. Galante explained that the applicant would be required to construct the street section that provides access to their property. The Board asked if that street section needed to be constructed to full City standards. Mr. Galante indicated that a minimum of 20` of paving would be required in order to ensure storm drainage, adequate lighting at the turnaround and water and • • sewer utilities. DRB 04-05.93 Minutes Page 2 of 10 The Board noted that until the future streets plan was constructed access would remain as is. They were concerned that the public would be drawn onto the private drive in order to make the connection to Chapin. Mr. Galante explained that the required right-of-way was not provided at this time to make the connection. Anglifaint David Bantz, OTAK, Inc., 17355 SW Boones Ferry Road. Lake Oswego, 97035, stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation of c; Exhibit 54. He was concerned about Condition 8, suggesting clarification about whether it should read "dedicate" or "designate". Mr. Bantz confirmed that it was not the applicant's intent to dedicate the right-. of-way necessary to make the connection to Chapin. He explained that Exhibit 54 provides linkage for the small neighborhood but does not create a thoroughfare. He noted that the linkage also provides pedestrian access and certainty that Chapin would not be extended in the future. Mr. Bantz mentioned that amount of traffic generated by the proposal would be within the VMT allowed for Chapin Way. ` Mr. Bantz discussed Exhibit 56, noting that there were many negative aspects. • He added that Exhibit 56 would require the dwelling to have a sprinkler ;. . b installed, require cooperation of the four adjacent owners for utility easements and require a variance to the length of cul-de-sac and dead end streets, • ti. Regarding Exhibit 61, Mr. Bantz noted that the State was opposed to this • • proposal. He pointed out that this proposal would also require the installation of a 20' paved section to City standards which would be a financial hardship for the applicant. Mr. Galante commented that it was not the City's intent to make the . e. connection to Chapin. He indicated that improvements were necessary to • provide access to the proposed minor partition. Mr. Galante explained that Condition 8 did not call for the dedication of right-of-way, instead it called for dedication of a conservation and storm drainage easement. • Opponents • William Cox, 0244 SW California, Portland, 97219 representing the Lasleys, indicated that he was concerned about the variance and the future streets plan. Mr, Cox stated that the FSP would impact the Lasleys' property. He discussed Exhibit 56, stating that currently Wells Street had legal access from Hwy, 43, and has had for 50 years, Mr. Cox mentioned that if Chapin was extended it .-• would cause the loss of $50,000 of landscaping that the Lasleys currently • enjoy. He suggested that the most logical alternative would be Exhibit 56, He • DRB 04-05.93 Minutes u . Page 3 of 10 • • h argued that the City Transportation Engineer and ODOT were incorrect and • • that legal access to Hwy. 43 currently exists. . J Ed Sullivan, 111 SW Fifth. #320, Portland, 97204 stated that the variance request was not justified and would create a "taking". He supported the statement by Mr. Cox regarding legal access to Hwy. 43. Mr. Sullivan further agreed that Alternative No. 4 (Exhibit 56) was the best choice for the FSP. He argued that the applicant's masons for not supporting Alternative No. 4 were simply because of the cost of the improvements and stated that the applicant seeks to defer those costs until another time. '; The Board asked Mr. Sullivan if he would agree to Alternative No. 3. Mr. Sullivan replied yes. Larry Sokol, 16825 S. Chapin Wav, Lake Oswego, 97035 indicated that he was a former Planning Commission member and had been involved in the . discussions regarding extension of Chapin since 1975. He stated that prior to the public hearing the applicant, owner, and neighborhood had resolved the • issue of the FSP until the City talked the applicant out of supporting Exhibit • z' ,• 55. Mr. Sokol mentioned that there was a turnaround at the end of Morning Sky as requested by the Fire Department. He requested the Board to consider ' 0 approving Exhibit 55 or Exhibit 56. • r The Board questioned Mr. Sokol about pedestrian access. Mr. Sokol indicated that currently the children walk and play in the street. Mr. Cox added that the Lasleys would be willing to provide pedestrian access. Neither in Favor Nor Opposed Jim Hinzdale, 1250 Wells Street, Lake Oswego. 97034 stated that he was in support of Exhibit 54, because he was concerned about being land-locked. Mr. Hinzdale mentioned that he had met with Mrs. Harriman who indicated that her • attorney advised her not to attempt to legalize the access to Hwy, 43. Mr. ' ' Hinzdale commented that he would be forced to apply for his own access to Hwy 43. He indicated that Exhibit 54 was the environmental choice, '` I- Point of Order • Mr. Cox and Mr. Sullivan requested rebuttal to Mr. Hinzdale's testimony, Ms, Phillips informed them that rebuttal was allowed to the applicant only. Rebuttal Mr. Bantz pointed out that OTAK was the applicant and had always been, He explained that Mrs, Skoweran was the property owner and Mrs, McNally was ' the daughter, DRB 04.05-93 Minutes , Page 4of10 . • , , • • Mr. Bantz commented on the Lasleys' willingness to grant a pedestrian access. He indicated that there was also a need for an easement for storm and water lines. • The Board asked if the water line was adequate for a hydrant. Mr. Bane • stated that it would not be adequate and that a water line would need to be extended. Mr. Bantz discussed the meeting with the neighbors and explained that option was Exhibit 55. He indicated that after meeting with the neighbors he drew the proposed alternative and then reviewed it with the City. Mr, Bantz mentioned that the City explained all of the improvements that would be necessary to implement Exhibit 55 and it was determined by the owners that this alternative would create a financial hardship. • • The Board commented that Alternative No. 4 would leave the applicant at the mercy of the adjacent property owners. Mr. Bantz noted that each alternative FSP had its own problems. He indicated that it was his desire to do which ever alternative that caused the least impact to the neighbors and the owner, The Board questioned Mr. Bantz about the number of additional vehicle trips generated by the proposal. Mr. Bantz indicated that there would be about 25% more traffic which was well within the street designation. . • x„ The Board questioned Mr. Bantz about the distinctive natural area. Mr, Bantz toy,, acknowledged that it was a steep ravine which had not been delineated on any ? of the City maps. Mr. Galante referred the Board to Exhibit 66 which addresses the variance • criteria. He indicated that the variance was the minimum variance necessary and would not be injurious to the neighborhood. He suggested that with • conditions, the variance criteria would be satisfied and the request could be approved. • The Board asked staff to explain the purpose of a future streets plan. Mr. ,, ' Galante explained that the intent was to maximize services and develop at • ' � urban levels within the urban growth boundary. Mr. Galante mentioned that Exhibit 55 was not supported by staff because it lacked an emergency vehicle turnaround, He pointed out that Exhibit 55 also • did not provide access to the properties to the east. The Board questioned staff about the Morning Sky Estates Future Srreets Plan, Mr. Galante explained that Exhibit 52 was a summary of land use activity that has occurred, He noted that in 1978 when the Morning Sky Estates FSP was ' - considered it was done without the benefit of the ESP criteria, Mr. Galante DRB 04-05-93 Minutes ' Page 5 of 10 .. 1 • " • acknowledged that any Future Streets Plan was subject to change and • modification as development proceeded. The Board asked if it was conc:.ivable e . .• that every partition on Wells Street would require consideration of a FSP. Mr. Galante responded yes. The Board discussed whether or not to continue the hearing in order to allow • the Board an opportunity to consider the additional evidence in the record. The Board agreed to continue the hearing until April 19, 1993. Mr. Magura moved to close the hearing to public tyfitimunv and continue to April 19, 1993 for Board deliberation. Ms. Morales seconded the motion and it passed with Homing, Stiven, Magura, Stanaway, Sievert and Morales all �'�. voting yes. • I 1. PD 1-93/VAR 2-fl, a request by Kruse Way Plaza One (Roger Edwards) for approval of a 16 lot single family residential planned development, a Class I variance to LODS 18.020(1) to allow access from a private street for Lots 10- 12, and a future street plan to serve properties located north of the subject site. The site is located east of Pilkington Road, on the north and south sides of Rosewood Street (Tax Lots 3300 & 3400 of Tax Map 2 1 E 18AB and Tax Lot 100 of Tax Map 2 1E 18AC). Staff coordi nat'n is Haruki Pishvaie, Development Review Planner • Mark Duane, Alpha Engineers 9600 SW Oak, Portland, 97223 suggested that the Board consider postponing consideration of PD 1-93/VAR 2-93 due to the lateness of the evening. u Mr. Sievert moved to continue PD 1.93/VAR 2-93 until April 19, 1993. ` Ms. Stiven seconded the motion and it passed with Homing, Stiven, Magura, Stanaway, Sievert and Morales all voting yes. DR 15.89(Mod. 7-92), a request by FWL Architects for approval to develop the south parking lot of the Lake Baptist Church. The site is located at the northwest corner of the Carman Drive and Kruse Way intersections (Tax Lots 5500 and 5590 of Tax Map 2 1E 6DD)" Staff coordinator is Michael R. • Wheeler, Associate Planner. • Chairman Stanaway discussed the hearings procedures and time-lines for testimony, He asked the Board members if there were any ex parte contact or conflicts of interest. • 411) Ms. Morales stated that 5 or 6 years ago she was employed gby FWL Architects DRB 04-05-93 Minutes Page 6of10 • 4_ F and had worked on the project. Ms. Phillips asked her if there was a bias or • conflict for the current proposal. Ms. Morales replied that there was none. Chairman Stanaway noted for the record that Mr. Sievert had been excused and then asked for the staff presentation. Mr. Pishvaie mentioned that the large scale drawings were available. He , discussed the history of the project and commented that last year the applicant had gone before the Planning Commission with a conditional use application to • allow a school use at the site and request an additional parking lot. Mr. Pishvaie noted that the Commission approved the request with the condition that additional landscaping be provided to buffer the high school from additional traffic. He discussed Exhibit 7, the detailed planting plan, noting • that staff was recommending that the two landscape plans be reconciled. Mr. Pishvaie concluded with a recommendation for approval with conditions. The Board questioned staff about the large oak on the landscape plan. Mr.Pishvaie stated that it was the existing oak on Carman and Kruse Way. He referred the Board to Exhibit 17 which bette illustrates the oak tree. Applicant David Fisher, FWL Architects, 5331 SW Macadam Avenue, Portland, 97201 gave a brief overview of the development of the church facilities. He • indicated that since occupying the church there has been a need for additional parking. He stated that the need for additional parking was not the result of school use, instead it was the result of increased church membership. Mr. Fisher indicated that the request for additional parking coincided with the • request for the conditional use permit in order to save time. He discussed the criteria for approval and how the proposal met that criteria. Mr. Fisher mentioned that the landscaping for the wetland had been installed. He stated that the proposal provided more than the minimum required amount of open space and landscape area. Mr. Fisher noted that landscaping was not complete • on the southern portion of the site because of the anticipated parking lot. He explained that there was an additional landscape plan because they changed landscape architects and were unable to modify the original landscape plan. He s suggested that nothing further needed to be done to the landscaping plan (Exhibit 24) and requested approval of the proposal, The Board asked how Exhibit 7 addresses the concerns of the Planning ' _ Commission. Mr. Fisher indicated that the proposed parking area was on the southern portion of the site and would be buffered by the street plantings, He , added that additional plantings had been added because of the wetland mitigation. The Board noted that it was the Planning Commission's desire to have more • • . extensive plantings along Carman Drive, Mr, Fisher explained that at the time • • DRB 04-05.93 Minutes • Page 7 of 10 . • I "ti of the Planning Commission consideration the plantings along Carman Drive had not been installed and the building was not completed. He added that he did not believe that today the Planning Commission would be concerned about the screening and buffering. Ms. Phillips agreed that the site was not completely developed when the Planning Commission considered the conditional use application. Mr. Galante indicated that he had inspected the site when a conditional occupancy permit was requested and had noted concern about the mass of the building. Mr. • Galante suggested that it was understandable that the Board was concerned • about additional screening and buffering. The Board questioned the applicant about the landscape berm, Mr. Fisher explained that the original berm was 4' and had been modified because of storm drainage runoff. He indicated that the current landscape plan illustrates a 2' berm that is planted with fotinia. • A The Board noted that there was an abrupt transition from the western edge of the parking area. Mr. Fisher indicated that it would not be natural to stop the = ' ' wetland mitigation and install a laurel hedge. The Board argued that it wasn't natural to stop wetland mitigation and install a parking lot either. The Board indicated that they were concerned about screening the cars. ' f The Board questioned the applicant about the proximity of the sign in relation0 ',... 'I, to the closeness of the large oak tree on Carman Drive. Mr. Fisher stated that the sign was 15' from the tree. He suggested that the plantings along the wetland would provide significant screening in the future. Deliberation The Board found that it was necessary to better screen the proposed and • existing parking from view. They agreed that the installation of plantings along Carman Drive, along the edge of the wetland, and along the westerly •• property line would ensure adequate screening and buffering, The Board indicated that they preferred scattered plantings rather than hedges (except along the western property line) and enlargement of planter islands within the area of the proposed southern parking area, The Board noted that the scattered plantings should not encroach into the approved and completed wetland mitigation area, The Board found that it was appropriate to reduce the height of a berm proposed along the westerly property line and to install plant materials resulting • in a faster growing hedge than proposed. ,, 9 Ms. Stiven moved for approval of DR 15.89 (Mod 7-92). Mr. Horning 0 DRB 04-05-93 Minutes Page 8 of 10 '_ seconded the motion and it passed with Horning, Stiven, Magura, Stanaway and Morales all voting yes t , .S® 56-89(Mod. 7-92)/ AP 93-01, a request by Thomas H. Nelson for modification of an earlier approval which enabled the creation of two parcels from an 86,058 square foot lot. The parcels are 20,078 and 65,980 square feet in size. The applicant is seeking the elimination of two conditions of approval as they affect Tax Lot 3400 (Parcel 1). The conditions require a nonremonstrance agreement for future improvements to both Chandler Road and Iron Mountain Blvd. (Condition Number 3), and payment of a pathway deposit (Condition Number 11). The applicant has requested a hearing regarding the matter as provided by LOC 49.225 and LOC 49.630, and ORS 227.175(10). The site is located at 1210 Chandler Road (Tax Lot 3400 of Tax Map 2 lB 3CC). Staff coordinator is Michael R. Wheel r, AS ociate Planner. Mr. Jacob presented a letter which was submitted after the stuff report was published. She briefly discussed the history of the previous approval. She indicated that it had been mono than two years since the original approval and `4 recordation of the partition plat. Ms. Jacob discussed the applicant's request, explaining that it had been reviewed administratively and denied. She referred • ...: ' . :;•• • the Board to pages 4-11 of the staff report, which were the basis for staff's recommended denial. The Board questioned staff about the timing for collecting the necessary monies for construction of the pathway. Ms. Phillips indicated that the • ordinance calls for the City to collect the monies upon development of abutting �. property. rt, The Board asked staff about the plans and scheduling of pathway construction, Ms. Phillips indicated that the City had a Pathways Master Plan and that actual scheduling of construction depended on the political process, The Board noted that the owners had paid the incorrect deposit and actually underpaid the City by $430.00, ' Applicant Thomas Nelson; 1505 Cherry Lane. Lake Oswego. 97034 discussed the history of the case and how it related to other cases that he was involved in, He indicated that it was his objective to appeal this application through the • various levels of local review, so that he can address the constitutionality of the City's requirements for a nonremonstrance agreement and a pathway deposit, k DRB 04-05-93 Minutes ` Page 9 of 10 ,Y Deliberation • The Board found that the applicant offered no evidence into pp the record in demonstration that the proposal complies with all relevant criteria, nor that the conditions should be eliminated. • The Board acknowledged that it had no authority to make policy with regard to the constitutionality of the Pathways Ordinance. Ms. Stiven moved for denial of SD 5S•-_89(Mod, 7-92)/AP 93.01. Ms. Morales seconded the motion and it passed with Horning, Stiven, Magura, Stanaway and Morales all voting yes. I V. GENERAL PLANNING None. • • 1�r; • VI. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order None. VI]L ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Development Review Board, Chairman Stanaway adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m, • • Respectfully Submitted, Barbara Anderson Administrative Secretary .psi804o343� • • • • • • • • • •t'c i, ,.a f DRB 04-05-93 Minutes Page 10of10 • • • • , 1. o; 1 1. -iLyt� i + ♦ . . . DtAFT r .. . ti. 0 .1 . ,.. : ,. ., . : I , i,‘ • CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES Monday, May 3, 1993 ' I. CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Board meeting of May 3, 1993 was called to order by Chairman Stanaway at 7:15 p.m. IL ROLL CALL Board members present included Mr. Horning, Ms. Stiven, Mr. Stanaway and Ms. Morales. Mr. Magura arrived at 8a00 p.m. Mr. Oldham and Mr. Sievert were excused. Also present were Robert Galante, Senior Planner, Michael Wheeler, Associate Planner, Cindy Phillips, Deputy City Attorney; and Barbara Anderson, Administrdve Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ,', None. IV, PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS Larry Sokol. 16815 S hatpin. Lake Oswego, 97034 stated that the neighborhood was concerned and disagreed with the staff decision to withdrawal the application regarding SD 19.92/VAR 18.92 a-b)a Mr, Sokol noted that the ro osr;p p d future streets plan was a joint effort between the applicant, the City and the neighborhood. He discussed the history of the case file and suggested that the City had its own agenda with the future streets plan (FSP) and was not acting for the benefit of the neighborhood or the applicant. pp . Mra Sokol stated that it was the City who was carrying the application further and drove the applicant off, He indicated that nobody had notified him that the application had been withdrawn, Mr. Sokol suggested that the City staff wanted the application to disappear because the Board had tentatively decided against the staff recommendation, g Mr, Sokol noted that the issue had not a ; • gone away; therefore, a decision still needed to be made by the Board, He suggested that the Board follow the proper legal criteria and provide an opportunity to resolve ` this issue once and for all. William Cox, 0244 SW California, Portland, 97219 stated that he was in attendance • I, `; • on behalf of the Lasleys'. He mentioned that Mr. Sokol had pretty well discussed the concerns of the neighborhood. Mr. Cox stated that he was in disagreement with the City's decision to withdrawal the proposal and dispose of the future streets plan (FSP). Mr. Cox suggested that for a matter of record the Cityshould chose who the applicant for the FSP would be. He further suggested that the City become the applicant and if not the neighborhood would be willing to do so. Mr. Cox indicated that the Board could still layout the order and find that the applicant had withdrawn the minor partition and variance request; however, the issue of the FSP would be resolved. He 4. noted that Mrs. Harriman and the Lasleys had offered dedication of property and easements to satisfy the needs to facilitate the FSP, • Chairman Stanaway explained that the City's legal counsel had recommended that the Board not discuss the proposal. Ms. Phillips indicated that the FSP requires a development application, uhe noted that the offers for right-of-way dedication and easements were verbal and not written. She reminded the Board that it would be City Council who would accept the dedications. • d.; The Board questioned whether or not it was possible to approve the application without recording the FSP and still have a valid proposal. Ms. Phillips noted that one of the conditions of approval would be that the final plat was recorded then the FSP • shou ld ud be record. V. PUBLIC HEARING SD 12-881VAR 19-88\PD 5-88(Mod. 4-92)1SD P. Waterman requesting extension on the approval of a 3-lot major partition, lot line . adjustment and planned development. , p A variance to the Park and Open Space Standard was denied earlier. The approval includes a future streets plan. Also the applicant is requesting approval of the following modifications to the prior approval: a. A new, additional lot line adjustment of approximately 1,065 square feet between the two existing parcels, resulting in a reduction of the overall size of { the major partition/planned development and an enlargement of a landmark site, br A revision to the approved parcel configuration resulting in parcels greater than 15,000 sq. ft. each. c. A revision to the area proposed for open space, increasing it from 11.6% (as originally considered) to the minimum 20% required. 40) d. A revision to the approved right-of-way dedication from 40 ft. to 26 ft. e. A revision to the required right-of-way dedication through creation of a private • ry DRB Minutes 5/3/93 0 . Page 2of10 • • • tract reserved for public access or reservation of a private one-foot strip at the north property line. • f. An alternative provision of public water service to the site from the City of Lake Oswego instead of the Glenmorrie Water Cooperative. g. Employment of the protected Solar Building Line Option [LOC 57.020(2)] to enable compliance with the Solar Access Ordinance. • The site is located at 1515 S. Cherry Lane & vacant site, otherwise described as being west of Hwy. 43 between Glenmorrie Lane and Cherry Lane (Tax Lot 7000 of Tax • Map 2 lE 10DD and Tax Lot 2300 of Tax Map 2 lE 14BB). Staff coordinator is Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner, Continued from April 19, 1993 for Board deliberation. Chairman Stanaway noted that Mr. Magura was now in attendance, Chairman Stanaway indicated that he had not participated in the original hearing and needed to recuse himself. He the stated that Ms. Stiven would chair the continued hearing. Ms. Stiven noted that the hearing was continued for deliberations. She then asked Mr. ` Wheeler to summarize the previous hearing. Mr. Wheeler explained that staff had recommended an approval of extension of time and approval of some of the modifications. He mentioned the modifications that were made to the proposed conditions of approval. He noted that there was testimony from the applicant and Mr. Southwell representing the neighbor to the north and by Mr. Jankowski. The Board questioned staff about how they determine and limit the number of extensions. Mr, Wheeler noted that the reason for suggesting a limitation of that type -p. M .. was because of the length of time already experienced, • u' The Board asked about Condition 12 regarding the recommended reserve strip. Mr. Wheeler explained that staff had recommended that the top of the improved street be moved to the top of the vertical curve, near the notation of the 30' width; north of that line and bounded by both right-of-ways. • The Board was in agreement with the staff recommendation for denial of modifications 5-7 (reduction in right-of-way and public reserve strip). Mr, Wheeler indicated that Condition 12 noted a modification to the 30' public right-of-way, rinti: • The Board discussed testimony from Mr, Southwell, noting that staff's explanation as . to why the City needs that reserve strip was compelling and should be follower% They found that the reserve strip should be in the City's name. DRB Minutes 5/3/93 Page 3 of 10 • • • • o y. rY Y. f • • The Board discussed testimony by Mr. Waterman regarding the right to chose which ' • '' ., , , agency would provide water. They agreed that it was appropriate to allow the applicant the choice, contingent upon staff review. The Board found that it was reasonable to shorten the length of time required for the applicant to prepare the final plan; however, it was not appropriate to preempt the applicant's ability to request subsequent extensions. Mr. Horning moved for denial of the modifications to 5 and 6 of SD 12-88/VAR "`' 19-88/PD 5-88(Mod. 4-92), Mr. Magus seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Homing, Ms. Stiven, Mr. Magura and Ms. Morales voting yes. Mr. Stanaway abstained. Mr. Horning moved for approval of an extension on time not to exceed six 14 months from the date of the Board's Order of SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88(Mod, 4-92). Mr. Magura seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Homing, Ms. Stiven, Mr. Magura and Ms. Morales voting yes. Mr. Stanaway abstained. Mr. Horning moved for approval of the proposed new lot line adjustment of,5D 1U-92/HR 2-93. Mr. Magura seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Horning, Ms. Stiven, Mr. Magura and Ms. Morales voting yes. Mr. Stanaway abstained. Mr. Horning moved for approval of the modifications 1 through 4, and 7 of SD 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88(Mod. 4-92). Mr. Magura seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Horning, Ms. Stiven, Mr. Magura and Ms. Morales voting yes. Mr. Stanaway abstained. P® 7-92, a request by De Haas & Associates for approval of a 4-lot single family residential planned development. The site is located at 17555 Upper Cherry Lane (Tax Lot 2900 of Tax Map 2 lE 15AB). Staff coordinator is Barbara Smolakt Associate Planner. Chairman Stanaway discussed the hearings procedures and time-lines for testimony. , "y` , He then asked the Board members if there were any ex parte contacts, Hearing none, he asked for the staff presentation. Mr, Galante indicated that he would be making the staff presentation, He discussed y' t the proposal stating that the lot sizes would vary as was allowed by the Planned Development provisions. He commented on the site characteristics and the reasons for varying the lot sizes to this degree. Mr. Galante discussed the proposed storm drainage improvements that would help with an existing erosion condition occurring DRB Minutes 5/3/93 Page 4 of 10 " • ' s • li•. ✓': ! a t_. on the site and adjacent sites. He concluded, stating that staff recommends approval of the application with conditions. The Board asked about Exhibit 14, which claimed that the neighborhood notice requirement was not followed. Mr. Galante noted that there was an affidavit of mailing to the neighborhood and the site was posted. In fact, he pointed out that evidence that the neighborhood meeting had occurred because of the minutes. Applicant ' "Y • Marlin De Haas, 1425 Cherry Crest Drive, Lake Oswego, 97034 stated that he was representing M . Self. Mr. De Haas indicated that Mr. Self had started working to develop this p .In.rty in 1980. He stated that the ro p perty was annexed and then in 1987 sanitary r C:.v* s were extended to the property. He mentioned that after weighing all of the site conditions it was determined that 4 lots were the maximum number of • lots that could be developed. Mr. De Haas indicated that the applicant was in agreement with the staff recommendation for approval and the recommended conditions of approval. Mr. De Haas stated that he didn't understand Ms. Vander _; Ploeg's concerns because all of the conditions of the neighborhood ordinance had been met. He pointed out that she even attended this meeting. He mentioned that the ''; original neighborhood meeting was held in December 1992. Mr. De Haas indicated ' that he had been willing to meet with the neighborhood, however, the neighborhood never set an alternative date for the meeting, a.d ra . Opponents Jane Vander Ploeg, representing Hailinan Neighborhood, 1140 Upper Devon, Lake Oswego, 97034 stated that the neighborhood felt that they had not been fully informed of the issues. She agreed that there was a certified letter notifying her that : them was a meeting at the Self s home. She mentioned concern about the limitations t ' of the 300' notification and neighborhood coordination. Ms. Vander Ploeg suggested a need for an agreement that there will be a dialog before the proposal goes any further. She indicated that there were 750 residents in the neighborhood and they were not fully informed about the proposal. She mentioned that the neighbors along Meadows were concerned about flooding issues and storm water runoff. The Board noted that the minutes of the neighborhood meeting indicated that there was not sufficient time to notify and call a neighborhood meeting. Ms. Vander Ploeg explained that there were two general meetings a year. She mentioned the need for a four week lead time to call a special meeting together, Ms. Vander Ploeg indicated • that there were drawings in the record that she had requested from Mr. De Haas and he had not released them. • DRB Minutes 5/3/93 Page 5 of 10 t r r V . Sarah Harlin, 1131 Larch Street, Lake Qswei o, 97014,stated the t she was not within 300 feet and was not notified. She was concerned about drainage issues. Ms. Harlin noted that the neighborhood was unable to have a meeting to discuss these issues because of their budget. • Richard Donnely, 1098 Cherry Circle, Lake Oswego, 97034 complained about being unable to talk to the staff coordinator. He discussed his professional background r as a civil engineer. Mr. Donnely was concerned about consistency, safety, impact on environmental resources and wildlife, stability of the hillside and drainage runoff. He indicated that the proposal was not consistent with the character of the neighborhood because of the setback exceptions and height restrictions. Mr. Donnely was concerned about the "private" road and requested that it be designated as "public" instead. He • stated that the proposal was not consistent with the existing CC&R's for the Skylands t:' neighborhood. Mr. Donnely was concerned about the safety of pedestrians and cars because of the volume of existing traffic in the area and the inadequate sight distance. v, Herb Sharp, 1080 Upper Devon Lane, Lake Oswego, 97034 was concerned about the slope of the property as it affects Upper Devon and the City's large retaining wall. He mentioned concern regarding Lots 2 and 3 and the front yard setbacks, suggesting that the area should be set as a no cut zone and not allow the existing vegetation to be , removed. Mr. Sharp was also concerned about tree removal and the affect on the hillside. The Board asked about the retaining wall location. Mr. Sharp explained that the wall would start at approximately Lot 3500 (Exhibit 1) and extend to Lot 3800. He ,� mentioned that Mr. De Haas was a City employee when the wall was installed. N. Neither Steve Schenk 1060 Upper Devon Lane, Lake Oswe o 97034 indicated ndtcated that the ` westerly property line of the development would bisect his property if the line was dissected. He stated that the retaining wall starts at the edge of his property. Mr. Schenk agreed that 4 lots were appropriate; however, he was concerned about some of the variances, screening, drainage and looking at the underside of these homes on , :. stilts. The Board questioned whether he was concerned about the stability of the hillside because of road construction or the stability of development of the individual lots. Mr. Shank indicated that any development on that property was an issue of stability; ...,, not just development of the individual lots. • �> a • DRB Minutes 5/3/93 • . '', Page 6 of 10 1 .1 Rebuttal . . Ir. ' 410 Marlin De Haas discussed the retaining wall on Upper Devon Lane indicating that no construction of utilities on Upper Devon Lane was necessary. In fact, he mentioned that the whole development was back away from Upper Devon Lane. Mr. De Haas noted that there was no access to Upper Devon Lane and he was protecting the area as • ` '' v, much as possible. He stated that the retaining wall was merely what was required when a street was constructed on a slope. He pointed out that development of the proposal would not disturb the retaining wall. The Board questioned Mr. De Haas about soils stability. Mr. De Haas referred the Board to the updated geotechnical report from the 1980 Squire's report which �'.' addressed soils stability. The Board asked about screening. Mr. De Haas indicated that the homes were placed away from Upper Devon Lane. He agreed that the houses would be higher than Upper Devon Lane, stating that they would have to comply with the Tree Cutting Ordinance which would ensure that some screening was left in place. Mr. De Haas pointed out that the future dwellings would be comparable to Mr. Schenk's property. The Board questioned Mr. De Hans about the need to vary the setbacks, Mr. De Haas explained that setbacks were varied because he wanted there to be increased frontage. He reminded the Board that development under the "planned development" provisions allowed for setbacks to vary. The Board noted that there were other issues raised and asked Mr. De Haas to provide some rebuttal. Regarding sight distance, Mr. De Haas indicated that the proposal was reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and found to comply with the standards. Regarding wildlife and environmental issues, Mr. De Haas commented that these issues were always issues in Lake Oswego. He pointed out that the proposal was only , `' for 4 lots and not the maximum density allowed. Mr. De Haas indicated that the entire drainage area would not be impacted, in fact, the proposal was being confined to a small tract in order to provide sufficient area for drainage. The Board asked Mr. De Haas to discuss the issue of postponement in order to work • with the neighborhood, Mr. De Haas indicated that it would not be fair to postpone the hearing because the applicant had no control over setting up a neighborhood meeting. He reminded the Board that it had been 5 1/2 months since the initial meeting with the neighbors. The Board questioned Mr. De Hans about downstream flooding, storm release and system impacts, Mr. De Haas indicated that the roof and street drainage would not DRB Minutes 5/3/93 Page 7 of 10 • i. r 1J'• • •, . . • r runoff into the stream corridor, instead they would be collected into a pipe. Ms. Phillips noted that the neighborhood meeting requirements had been met according to the ordinance. She suggested to the Board that they request a waiver of the 120 rule if they were considering postponing the hearing to provide the neighborhood an additional opportunity to meet and discuss the proposal. Point of Order r Richard Donnely stated that Skylands neighborhood had not been notified of the :,. original meeting with the neighbors. yt ' A Mr. Galante pointed out that Skylands Neighborhood was not a recognized association. He explained that the City could not require a developer (or anyone) to follow the guidelines of CC & R's, stating that enforcement of the CC&R's would be a civil • matter for the courts to enforce. The Board questioned staff about setbacks. Mr. Galante explained that under the �,' "planned development" provisions setbacks could vary without the need for a formal "variance" request. The Board noted that the varied setbacks must be established at the time the proposed planned development was requested. • The Board asked staff to discuss the issue of the neighborhood association. Mr. Galante explained that as a practical matter adjacent neighborhood associations and0 .. forming neighborhood associations were contacted prior to a public hearing. The Board asked whether the site was within the boundaries of the Skylands neighborhood association or the Hallinan neighborhood association. Mr. Galante indicated that staff had determined that the site was located within the Hallinan neighborhood boundary•' therefore the minimum requirements of the Code were met. Deliberation The Board agreed that the issues affecting the development were drainage, access, sight distance, setbacks, environmental impact, stability and wildlife impact. • Regarding drainage, the Board found that the staff report adequately addressed the drainage issues. gHowever, they agreed that clearing of vegetation could have an impact upon the retaining wall. The Board discussed drainage impact related to site development and noted that the geotechnical reports addressed that issue, Mr, Galante pointed out that the soils reports described some special measures for Lot 5. The Board found that there should be an added condition to ensure demonstration of all site improvement (including the private street and utility construction) could be done to the specifications of the soils report, • DRB Minutes 5/3/93 Page 8of10 • • V, r ' • The Board found that the applicant,addressed the site distance and access issues adequately by meeting the requirements of the City standards. • The Board agreed that this was the appropriate time to determine the varied setbacks. However, they were concerned about the grade of Lot 4. They noted that each lot should be considered on its own merits to determine whether or not the setbacks '' should vary. The Board pointed out that the applicant didn't discuss the need for a zero foot front ", yard setback. They agreed that varying setbacks were necessary to allow the maximum distance separation from the stream corridor. The Board found that allowing less than the minimum setbacks could create a potential situation for larger houses on small lots; therefore they agreed to only allow the garages to be placed below the minimum setbacks. Mr. De Haas indicated that there was a hardship because of the drainage easement. He stated that it was necessary to vary the setbacks because he didn't want to restrict " .. ,:, the future owners. He suggested having a zero setback for the garages and a 5' setback for the dwellings. ` • e The Board found that it was necessary to maintain a 10' minimum setback to ensure the neighborhood character, They y agreed to an exception of 5' setback to the garage and a 10' setback to the dwelling for Lot 4; and a 10' minimum rear yard setback to •Lot 3. • • • VI. GENERAL PLANNING None VII, OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order Mr. Wheeler discussed SD 19-92/VAR 18-92(a-b), explaining that the applicant and owner had submitted letters requesting withdrawal of the applications, He mentioned • • that the withdrawal was based upon the anticipated increased cost of necessary improvements, Mr. Wheeler mentioned the future streets plan and the neighborhood's desire to pursue • that aspect of the application. Mr. Galante explained that unfortunately according to • Code there was no real opportunity for the neighbors to respond to the future street plan because it has not been properly noticed and all interested persons were not in attendance to add to the record. awe 6 4. DRB Minutes 5/3/93 Page 9 of 10 • • • • 1a a r 1 • The Board asked whether or not it would be appropriate to take testimony at a future date on ail. future streets plan only. Ms. Phillips reiterated that in order for a future 40 . streets plan tc be considered it needed to accompany a development application. i. The Board asked whether oT not the City Attorney had reviewed the withdrawal • request and the status of that request. Ms. Phillips noted that the final decision had not yet been made; therefore, the application could Iegally be withdrawn anytime prior to the findings being signed. She reiterated that if the Board was considering reopening the request then notification should be sent to all interested persons. • VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Development Review Board, , ~: Chairman Stanaway adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. • • Respectfully submitted, Barbara Anderson Administrative Secretary • • • 1Y' • • • • • • DRB Minutes 5/3/93 Page 10 of 10 • • r M \ DRAFT .. 1 :•11 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO y DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES .7k . n May 17,1993 4 I. CALL TO ORDER �, , The May 17,1993 meeting of the Development Review Board was called to . r order at 7:15 p.m. II. ROLL CALL `' Members present included Mr. Magura,Mr.Horning,Mr. Stanaway,Ms. . Morales and Mr. Oldham. Mr. Sievert and Ms. Stiven were excused. Staff 1. members present included Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Planner; Cindy Phillips, Deputy City Attorney;Kristi Cox,Assistant Deputy City Attorney;Xavier Falcon,Tz'ansportation Services Engineer; and Kathy Avery, Administrative Secretary. III. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS Ja ' ' None. IV. PUBLIC HEARING • DR 16-92,a request by Blockbuster Video to reopen the public hearing to c' take additional evidence on acc .ss and site circulation only. The site is located on the south side of Lower Boones Ferry Road across from the intersection of Quarry Road (Tax Lot 4300 of Tax Map 2 1E 8CB). • Mr. Pishvaie explained that a letter from John David Grisbaum,President of . , Blockbuster Video,had been received and distributed to the Board, Mr. Grisbaum had requested that the proposal be held in abeyance until further notice. Mr. Pishvaie requested that the Board make a motion to postpone the f hearing until the applicant notifies the City that they are ready to make a presentation to the Board, Mr. Magura inquired whether it wouldn't be in Blockbuster Video's best interest to reapply with a new application because there were four new Board members since the application was originally heard. / Chairman Stanaway suggested that staff discuss the possibility of a new • • application with Blockbuster Video personnel. At the present time, however, a he felt it was in Blockbuster Video's best interest to continue the hearing as requested. 0 5/17/93 DRB Minutes ' Page lof5 • • • / Mr. Oldham moved to continue DR 16-92. Mr. Magura seconded the motion and it carried with Mr. Horning, Mr. Magura,Mr. Stanaway,Ms. Morales,and Mr. Oldham voting yes. DR 1-93,a re q ucst i _;may,,u ,allmark Inns & Resorts,Inc. for approval to construct a 9,726 sq. ft. office building. The site is located on the west side of Lana Drive, adjacent to Mercantile Village (Tax Lots 8200, 9400, 9500 and 9600 of Tax Map 2 1E 8BC). Chairman Stanaway explained the quasi-judicial hearing procedure. He t' inquired whether any Board members had any ex parte contacts or any conflicts of interest and there were none. He then requested a report from staff. ,. Mr. Pishvaie distributed a revised Exhibit 3. He explained that the applicant had received approval for an over 14,000 square foot office building on the ,, site in October, 1992. Since that time, the applicant had revised their plans. ' Mr. Pishvaie Axplained that the new request had several major differences , and was a much better design. The original request had a drive-through feature and two accesses onto Lana Drive. The present request proposes ' ' landscaping in excess of 35% over the site. 0 The items that were of concern to staff were the proposed signs for the project and the storm water detention and storm water quality facilities. Staff had 1 identified two options in the staff report to improve storm drainage and water quality designs. Through discusFions with Public Works staff and the consultant, a third option was identified Ind was acceptable to staff. ! Staff recommended approval of the request with fifteen conditions. Mr. Pishvaie modified condition 7 to include showing the relocation of the existing gas line from under the proposed building footprint. Aglicant 'o L,. Bill ,Af Ired. Chef xect,ttye DifirstahilmadonnunillicorlaR t explained that they had already received approval for a larger building, but they had decided to down scale the building because of other commitments, The office building would probably have a single user,but may have one other tenant, 4'•: He explained that whatever signage they decided to use, they would have to g . ' � , go back to the Board for their approval, He discussed traffic management r R issues and explained that in their present office building,Hallmark Inns and 0 A -':' ., • 5/17/93 DRB Minutes Page , ' it + 1 • • Resorts has a traffic management program with flexible working hours, " carpool incentives, and a bus pass program. In order to accommodate a water detention and biofiltration system, they had decided to eliminate five parking spaces. The drainage swale would accommodate the natural drainage from the site and would be located in one corner of the site and would meet the City's standards. Mr. Allred thanked Mr. Pishvaie for all his assistance with the design of the office building. Mr. Allred felt that the building as proposed would be a very nice addition to the community, • r•` 1 .: } Mr. Oldham inquired whether there would be enough parking spaces after the elimination of five parking spaces for the drainage Swale, Mr. Allred `sponded that they originally had twelve parking spaces more than the City .• .aqulrements so they would still have seven extra spaces. , Mr. Magura inquired how many employees would be occupying the building and Mr. Allred responded that there would be around 16 employees, Mr. Allred went on to explain that Hallmark Inns and Resorts was a hotel development and operations company. Their present office building was built in 1978 and located in Portland. They also had a silk screening business in which they produced merchandise to sell in their gift shops. He said that the building would be underutilized but there was expansion potential and the company may hire more personnel in the future. •; .A Mr. Allred referenced the color board and described the proposed exterior facade of the building. Mr. Horning pointed out that the plans showed a roll up door. Mr. Allred explained that it would be used for shipping and receiving to facilitate deliveries, Mr, Horning inquired about the width of Collins Way. Mr, ' ,', y Allred explained that the street was one way west-bound only. They anticipated that most cars would use Mercantile Drive for access. r Ms. Morales inquired about the mechanical units located on the roof top. Mr. �t ' Allred explained that they would be screened and wouldn't be visible. t. u Proponents • Bruce Goldson, Vice-President,Waluga Neighborhood Association,4260 Country Woods Court, Lake Oswego 97035 stated that the developer had met uAr '' * _ with the Waluga Neighborhood Association and general agreement had been reached between the developer and the neighborhood, They were in favor of the downsizing of the new proposal, i . , He was concerned with the location of the waste enclosure referenced under ; 5/17/93 DRB Minutes Page 3 of 5 Condition 9. He felt it should be located somewhere other than the westerly side of the property since it bordered the residential district. Mr.Stanaway inquired if there was anyone who wished to testify in ,: opposition of the request and there was no one. He then closed the public ' hearing for Board deliberation. p i a.ion Mr. Oldham inquired about an alternative to the location of the waste leavladeandMY:Pishvamesmixrdeddratst•ihvoulclwakwithiliey'a Eby • Mr. Oldham moved to approve DR 1-93 with the conditions listed in the , " r 1 staff report and a change to Condition A-7,which would read"Show , relocation of the existing sanitary,water,sewer and gas lines from under •, • the proposed building footprint prior to issuance of building permits". . Ms. Morales seconded the motion and it carried with Mr. Horning,Mr, Magura,Mr• Stanaway,Ms. Morales, and Mr.Oldham voting yes. V. GENERAL PLANNING None. .,1, . -,. 0 :. ',. : .. VI, APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Board was not able to approve the January 4,1993,January 20,1993, February 17,1993,March 1,1993,or April 5,1993 minutes because of a lack , of a quorum on each set. Mr. Pishvaie explained the importance of getting the minutes approved and suggested holding a special meeting at the end of the week. It was agreed ".'' that staff would look into the possibility of holding a special meeting on - Thursday morning,May 20,at 8:00 a.m. VII, OTHER BUSINESS-Findings, Condusions and Order ` Mr. Horning moved for approval of$D 12-88/VAR 19-88/PD 5-88(MQd. 4- • 92)/SD 13-92/HR 2-93,Findings.Conclusions,and Order. Mr. Magura seconded the motion and the first vote carried with Mr. Horning,Mr, Magura and Ms. Morales voting yes. Mr. Stanaway and Mr. Oldham abstained. The Findings,Conthisions and Order for J'D 7-92 were not available for the Board's review. Mr. Stanaway explained that the Mayor would like to meet with the Board to 0 • 5/17/93 DRB Minutes Page 4 of 5 • - . r - •r a �, c • •t discuss some development issues that affect both Metro and Lake Oswego J' such as the Stafford Road area. He inquired about the possibility of a dinner meeting before or during an upcoming meeting. Since the Board's regularly scheduled June 7th meeting had been canceled,it was agreed that staff should arrange a meeting for that date. • ` •':_ Mr. Magura inquired about the status of the Westlake commercial development. Mr. Pishvaie explained that it was presently under appeal by the neighbors to City Council. <.• VIII. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kathy Avery Administrative Secretary • /kaa a\wlnwortllpw\avety\51743.mfn •:; '. r u e•'� I a. R ' 5/17/93 DRB Minutes .. ) Page 5 of 5 4 ,' �. • DRAFT 'W '., if CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES ,u • v June 7, 1993 • Ui I. CALL TO ORDER • The Development Review Board meeting of June 7, 1993 was called to order by Chairman Stanaway at 7:00 p.m. r II. ROLL CALL Board members present included Mr. Horning, Mr. Magura, Mr. .b .., Stanaway, Mr. Sievert, Ms. Morales and Mr. Oldham, Ms. Stiven was excused. Also present were Robert Galante, Senior Planner; and Barbara ' Anderson, Administrative Secretary. HI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1 •J� .. Due to the lack of a quorum the approval of minutes were rescheduled -.,, for the next regularly scheduled meeting, y. ' - 'I' , •N0 , 'A4:; IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS J 't • Mr. Galante discussed DR 16-92 (Blockbuster) case file, explaining that after the tentative oral decision by the Board was made and before the • fi:ndings were signed it was discovered that there was a potential circulation problem between Blockbuster, McDonalds and the car wash. He mentioned a letter from the applicant stating that the car wash , . needed to modify their access by making application with the City and ,,, that the potential circulation problem had been resolved, A.• • Mr. Galante indicated that it was necessary to bring the matter back 4" i before the Board to make a final decision. He pointed out that there • ` - would be a quorum problem becausea1 hearing.a bers of the Board The Board members ad �a changed since the timeme of the initial agreed to review the written record and listen to the audio tapes from •. the November 2, 1992 public hearing in order to be eligible to , participate n the hearing. s =. • Mr. Sievert moved to reopen DR 16-92 for consideration of the circulation pattern and final decision on luly 7, 1993. Mr. Magura f seconded the motion and it passed with Mr, Horning, Mr, Magura, Mr. . Stanaway, Mr, Sievert, Ms. Morales and Mr. Oldham all votingyes. ' , � DRB 06/07/93 Minutes • • ,; Page 1 of 2 V. PUBLIC HEARING R J None. VI. GENERAL PLANNING • None. • VII. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order Mr. Horning moved for approval of SD 12-88 VA1 I.9-8811'D 5- MQd. 4-92)/SD 13-92/HR 2-93 Findings. Conclusionl and Order (Second Vote). Ms. Morales seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Horning, Mr. Magura and Ms. Morales all voting yes, Mr. Stanaway, Mr. Sievert and 1 Mr. Oldham abstained. ti Ms. Morales moved for approval of PD 7-92 Findings, Conclusions and Order (First Vote). Mr. Horning seconded the motion and it• ' carried with Mr. Horning, Mr. Stanaway and Ms. Morales all voting yes. Mr. Magura, Mr. Sievert and Mr. Oldham abstained. ',s Mr. Sievert moved for approval of DR 1-93 Findi ig��onclusions and • W Order. Mr. Magura seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Horning, Mr. Magura, Mr. Stanaway, Mr. Sievert, Ms. Morales and Mr. Oldham all voting yes. VIII. ADJOURNMENT • ►r There being no further business to come before the Development • Review Board, Chairman Stanaway adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. • Respectfully Submitted, • Barbara Anderson Administrative Secretary WPM\DR9106.07.93 MIN • Y,• I • DRB 06/07/93 Minutes y• Page 2 of 2 • ' ' , , •• ,i, ' :,..,.. ', .. 6.'•' ,t';. ' '', ..‘• • ' :' • . • ' ' ..,• , ' , '6 •• . , :,• '" . ••••-'' ' / ••• '• '• •••: • ' ' ., "- ' ' .` • ' • `'• ,,,, ,:,,,,. ' • .,. .. • . • DRAFT ., , U7 . . CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES June 21, 1993 • I. CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Board meeting of June 7, 1993 was called to order by Chairman Stanaway at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board members present included Mr. Horning, Ms, Stiven, Mr. Magura, Mr. Stanaway, Mr. Sievert, and Ms. Morales. Mr. Oldham was excused. Also present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Planner; and Barbara Anderson, Administrative Secretary. :r III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Stiven moved for approval of the Ianuary 4, 1993 Minutes (First ,• Vote). Mr. Sievert seconded the motion and it carried with Ms. Stiven, Mr. Stanaway and Mr. Sievert all voting yes. Mr. Horning, Mr. Magura • and Ms. Morales abstained. Ms. Stiven moved for approval of the Ianuary 20, 1993 Minutes (First Vote). Mr. Sievert seconded the motion and it carried with Ms. Stiven, t Mr. Stanaway and Mr. Sievert all voting yes. Mr. Horning, Mr. Magura and Ms. Morales abstained, Ms. Stiven moved for approval of the February 17, 1993 Minutes (First Vote). Mr. Sievert seconded the motion and it carried with Ms. Stiven, Mr. Stanaway and Mr. Sievert all voting yes. Mr. Horning, Mr. Magura t and Ms. Morales abstained. . Ms. Stiven moved for approval of the March 1, 1993 Minutes (First Vote). Mr. Sievert seconded the motion and it carried with Ms. Stiven, Mr. Stanaway and Mn Sievert all voting yes. Mr. Horning, Mr. Magura and Ms. Morales abstained. • IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS None. 0 V. PUBLIC HEARING • DRB 06/21/93 Minutes Page 1 of 2 • i.; None. VI. GENERAL PLANNING None. VII. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order Ms. Stiven moved for approval of PD 7-92 Findin g@,Swclusions and Order (Second Vote). Ms. Morales seconded the motion and it passed • with Mr. Horning, Ms. Stiven, Mr. Stanaway and Ms. Morales all voting yes. Mr. Magura and Mr. Sievert abstained. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Development r .1 Review Board, Chairman Stanaway adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, •:i y '•; Barbara Anderson 40 :4 ; Administrative Secretary W1'1\Drill\06.21.93.MIN • • • • DRB 06/21/93 Minutes Page 2 of 2 ' ,.T_ STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO . . . , . DEPT. OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 1ti APPLICANT: FILE NO,: Tom Gloude, First Security Bank of Oregon PD 4-92\VAR 20-92(a-d) 'n PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: ;t. First Security Bank of O:.gon Michael R. Wheeler LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT: Block 62, Mountain Park Blocks 58-62 of July 9; 1993 "' Multnomah County Tax Map#4224 ' DATE OF HEARING: LOCATION: • ' • July 19, 1993 r 0North of Jefferson Parkway; west of Kingsgate ZONING DESIGNATION: • •COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: R-0 R-0 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION; Mt. Park I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST • The applicant is requesting approval of a 14—lot single fa•^"y Planned Development. Also, the applicant is seeking approval of four variances, as follows: ' a. A 2% Class I Variance to the 10% maximum grade allowable for a collector street for a portion of Jefferson Parkway [LAC 44,384]; and 1 b. A 3% Class I Variance to the 5% maximum cros slope allowable for any driveable area, to enable the construction of a hammerhead turnaround at the end of one of two proposed private ' streets [LODS 19.025(5)]; and c, A 25 foot Class I Variance to the Access Development Standard for 10 lots, The Standard requires that each parcel abut a public street fora minimum of 25 feet [LODS 18.020(1)]; and PD 4--92\VAR 20-92(a-d) Page l of 16 r .' - - d 1✓ d. A 2% Class I Variance to the 15% maximum grade allowable for private streets, to enable the construction of one of two proposed private streets [LODS 19.025(6)]. 0 . .. IL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. ily of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: Urban Services Boundary Policies General Policy III, Specific Policy 4 Impact Management Policies • General Policy I, Specific Policies 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 General Policy II, Specific Policies 1, 2, 3 `) General Policy III, Specific Policy 1 • Wildlife Habitat Policies • General Policy 1, Specific Policies 1, 2 �. General Policy II, Specific Policies 1, 2 ''.. Distinctive Natural Area Policies r General Policy I, Specific Policy 2 I .... Weak Foundation Soils Policies • General Policies II, IV • Wetland Policies General Policy I, Specific Policies 1, 2, 3 General Policy II, Specific Policies 1, 341) , ., •. Stream Corridor Policies General Policy I, Specific Policy 2 General Policy II, Specific Policies 1, 2, 3, 4 . General Policy III, Specific Policy 2 • Residential Density Design Policies General Policy I, Specific Policies 1, 3, 4 • Residential Site Design Policies General Policy I, Specific Policies 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 • • • General Policy II, Specific Policy 2 ' ' General Policy III, Specific Policy 1 General Policy IV, Specific Policies 2, 3 Protection Open Space Policies General Policies I, II • • Energy Conservation Policies General Policy II, Specific Policy 5 Transportation Policies , . General Policy I, Specific Policies 2, 3, 4 General Policy II, Specific Policy 1 General Policy III, Specific Policy 1 PD 4-92\VAR 20-92(a-d) Page 2 of 16 • + , ,, . ! V t y, General Policy IV, Specific Policies 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 B. City of Lake Oswego Subdivision Ordinance: LOC 44.371 -44.760 C. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code: LOC 48.120-48.155 R-0 Zone Description LOC 48.470-48.490 Planned Development Overlay LOC 48.530 Vision Clearance ; >.' D. City of Lake Oswego Development Code:, LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval .•. ,• . LOC 49.620 Conditional Approvals • . E. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards; 3.005-3.040 Stream Corridors , « 4.005-4.040 Wetlands 5,005-5.040 Street Lights 6,005-6.040 Transit System 7.005-7.040 Parking and Loading 8.005-8.040 Park and Open Space . • 9.005-9.040 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering® a- 11.005-11.040 ' Drainage for Major Development 13.005-13.040 Weak Foundation Soils V 14.005-14.040 Utilities 15.000-15.045 Erosion Control 16.005-16.040 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control 18.005-18.040 Access 19,005-19.040 Site Circulation -Private Streets/Driveways ' 20,005-20.040 Site Circulation -Bikeways and Walkways F. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance: LOC 55.010-55.135 G. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance: LOC 57.005-57,135 H, Other Ordinances: Ordinance No, 1466, Amending Ordinance No, 1418 • III, FINDING, A. Background,, . 0 PD 4-92WAlt 20-92(a-d) • Page 3 of 16 • ni i `fir ,P V i 1. On April 18, 1972, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1466 which amended • Ordinance No. 1418, adopting final development plans for Phase V-B of Mt. Park PUD. 0 , , • • 2. On June 27, 1988, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to the Mt. Park PUD • + Master Plan to allow development of single family housing on the subject site [PUD 1- • 67(Mod. 5-88)]. 3. On October 3, 1988 the Development Review Board approved a 14-lot single-family residential planned development and four variances for the site [PD 8-88/VAR 27-88(a- d)]. Construction of site improvements was initiated, but never finished The original developer lost possession of the property and did not request an extension of time as N enabled by the Board's Order. 4. The current application was submitted on August 26, 1992. By submitting the Existing Condition Survey • (Exhibit 12) and Report on Construction Statue{ (Exhibit 13), the application was determined to be complete on May 21, 1993. This report will evaluate the proposal based upon the date it was originally submitted, in August, 1992. B. Existing Conditions: 1♦ The site is in the Mt. Park PUD Phase V-B (Exhibit 8y). It is 5♦47 acres in size. 2, The Mt. Park common area Tract V surrounds the site immediately to the north, east and west(Exhibit 8c), The surrounding land uses beyond Tract V include: PCC Sylvania ' Campus to the north; a single family residential development to the south and east; and low density residential to the west (in the City of Portland).3. To-the south, the site abuts the partially improved right-of-way of Jefferson Parkway planned for extension, This project will provide a half street improvement (21.5 feet of ' pavement) extending Jefferson Parkway to the west. The proposed extension will provide the planned connection of Jefferson Parkway with Lesser and Rogers Roads. J , ` 4, The site was formerly covered with Douglas Fir, Alder, Maple and Oak trees The Site generally slopes in a southerly direction, with (Exhibit 8. ,,. grades ranging from ]0% to 20%. A portion of the property (east side) has grades ranging from•20%n to over 50% and slopes in a we*terly direction. This variation in slope is due to two existing well-defined stream corridors, running parallel to one another, that bisect the site, as shown on Exhibit 8d, •• Both these streams originate from the P.C.C. storm drain outlets to the north, The easterly �, ?' stream is more pronounced and contains a section where braiding (multiple-channels) occurs, Trees have been removed for construction of street improvements, 5. The site is an area designated as having a potential for severe limitations because of landslide hazard and weak foundation soils, There is also high potential for erosion on the site. 6♦ All services including water, sanit 1 ary sewer and storm sewer are and/or can be made available to serve the site. Access to the development will be provided from two proposed • ,• 28' private smtets off of Jefferson Parkway (Exhibit 8f). . 7♦ The Existing Conditions Survey (Exhibit 12) illustrates the unfinished components of the : • is previously approved project -thich were installed by the former owner, The Report on • Construction Status (Exhibit 13) further describes the installed components, and methods of completing the installation, . 4 0 • ... , ,•. . ► PD 4-92\VAR 20-92(a-d) • Page 4 of 16 ♦ . 1 . • T .4 04 8. The private streets proposed have each been known by two different names, as follows: ,-. . .•'.'. . ' 0 West: Hanes Drive or Santilanes Court. East: Vivian Drive or Rita Jean Court. , C. .pos1: The applicant is seekinP approval of the following requests: 1. The applicant is PP proposing to develop a ill-lot planned development with lots ranging from 10,200 to 15,700 square feet in size (Exhibit 8f). The applicant also is requesting approval of four variances as follows: a. A 2% Class I Variance to the 10% maximum grade allowable for a collector street for ,•.: a portion of Jefferson Parkway [LOC 44.384]; and b. A 3% Class I Variance to the 5% maximum cross slope allowable for any driveable area, to enable the construction of a hammerhead turnaround at the end of one of two proposed private streets [LODS 19.025(5)]; and c. A 25 foot class I Variance to the Access Development Standard to enable all fourteen lots to take access from private streets. The Standard requires that each parcel abut a public street for a minimum of 25 feet [RODS 18.020(1)J; and d. A 2% Class I Variance to the 15% maximum grade allowable for vate streets enable the construction of one of two proposed private stmets [LOIbS ti 19,025(6)J to D. Compliance With Criteria for Approval: As per LOC 49.615, the Development Review Board must consider the following criteria when evaluating a major development: 1. The burden of proof, in all cases, is upon the applicant seeking approval The applicant has submitted the information required by LOC 49.315 (1)-(14), These documents are listed as exhibits which accompany this report. 2. `For any application to be approved,it shall first be established that the proposal conforms to : • y_ a. The City's Comprehensive Plan,and, Applicable polic y p y groups are listed on page 2 of this report, The applicant's narratives (Exhibits 3 and 4) provides a thorough analysis of these policies, - Urban Services Boundary Polices 9 These policies require the City to manage and phase urban growth within the Urban Service • Boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic services, Policy III, states that new development shall be serviced by ansurba�n l Policyl" f servic Generallk includingschools, . This specific policy also states that these services are to be available or committed prior to approval of development, A City Council memorandum dated October 17, 1989 demonstrated that the current level of school planning and coordination between . .. and School District satisfies this General Policy, The passage of the 17 million dollar schoolty PD 4-92\VAR 20-92(a-d) M Page 5 of 16 n. w ... }t , IP r` c levy on November 7, 1989 and subsequent construction of a new school and additional school facilities further assure an adequate level of service. 0 , ., .e a — Impact Management Policies These policies require protection of natural resourcesfrom development,comprehensive y review of development proposals, and payment of an equitable share of the costs of public facilities. The Impact Management Policies are implemented through several Development Standards.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 full compliance. The site contains several significant natural features. These include heavy tree coverage, as shown on Exhibit 8c, and two parallel streams traversing the site in a southerly direction, • 41 Exhibit 8f. The two streams, along with a large number of trees, will be preserved in their • i ',• natural states through dedication to the City a public open space, shown us Tract "A" on 1 It Exhibit 8f and in Exhibit 8m (page 4). Some development is proposed within the stream corridor areas. This development includes ;an unavoidable road crossing, needed to provide access to Lots 8 and 9, minor underground utility installations, and the construction of a storm water detention pond along Jefferson Parkway. All these developments are allowed by Section 3.020(4) of the Stream Corridor Standard. • The.Development Ordinance and Standards document of the City implements this general policy of the Plan. Compliance with the Development Standards is described in this report. • :;,, u — Wildlife Habitat Policies , , These policies require protection of upland habitat, natural vegetation or fragile slopes in the. form of preserved open space. The project design will preserve the most significant of wildlife habitat on the site through an open space system which is proposed to be dedicated to the city 'as Open Space Tract "A", This tract contains two stream corridors along with a large number of trees, as shown on Exhibit 8f. In addition, all the lots are oversized in order to maximize tree preservation on these lots. The habitat values are further protected by limiting tree removal on individual lots to those that are necessary for housing or utility construction, The related development standards ate reviewed in this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies. — Distinctive Natural Area Policies These policies require the City to preserve tree stands and those features listed as distinctive, These policies are implemented through LOC Chapter 55, the Tree Cutting Ordinance. The provisions of this ordinance are reviewed in this report following en analysis of the applicable Plan policies, ' — Potential Landslide Area Policies Thesepolicies . require that land use activity in landslide hazard areas be in accord with the degree of the hazard area, City resources compiled from U,S, Soil Conservation District • mapping indicates that a portion of the site is in a potential landslide hazard area, A soils PD 4.92\VAR 20-92(a-d) d Page 6 of 16 Nkr 0 t ' ,; / report is required to address thiscondition and has been submitted bythe applicant pp (Exhibit ,� 8w). The report indicates that no landslide potential exists on the site, The report will be reviewed in an analysis of the Erosion Control and Hillside Protection Development Standards, later in this report. - Potential Erosion Area Policies a ' These policies require designation of areas of severe potential for erosion as Protection Open Space, and require erosion control and drainage measures during site planning and - construction. Development is subject to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Development Standard adopted to implement these Plan policies. This standard will be , reviewed later in this report. _ Weak Foundation Soil Policies These policies are intended to protect development from damage caused by weak foundation r soils. A portion of the site is identified as having a potential for moderate to severe limitations • due to weak foundation soils. The applicant has submitted a soils report [Exhibit 8w] which r ', y • concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed residential development, - 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) which will be reviewed later in • this repo rt, r - Wetland Policies i N { r These policies are intended to preserve wetlands in order to safeguard the groundwater recharge system, maintain water quality and provide wildlife habitat. Due to the lack of completion of the project approved in 1988, the detention facility located at the southern edge of the site has begun to fill with sediment and wetland plant materials are beginning to emerge. The project site is still under the authority of an Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL)permit (No. RF 5144) for completion of this facia; , p '''ty. DSL has indicated that this completion may be performed by the current owner under the authority of the original permit(Exhibit 16), - Stream Corridors ' T1. se policies are intended to preserve natural resources and maintain water quality, The site contains two stream corridors which bisect the site, The related development standards are reviewed in this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies, a . " - Residential Density Policies ' Tiii se policies require the City to assure that development is suitably related to site conditions, V and that final density shall be determined accordingly, These policies are implemented through a number of related development standards, reviewed later in this report. • 41e. • PD 4-92\VAR 20-92(a-d) • Page 7 of 16 r Ry r 5 i ; r Y ) - Residential Site Design Policies ; •t• U �n These policies require careful consideration of site design and building placement to protect 0 :I.....-''..., surrounding properties, land uses and public facilities. The applicant has adequately addressed these policies in his narrative (Exhibit 4). To assure t ` compliance with minimum criteria for overall site design, all the applicable development standards (Chapter 49) will be addressed later in this report. • 11 - Protection Open Space Policies a These policies further protect the natural resources identified in the Natural Resources Policy P' . i Element. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the following resources, among others, as " '`~ Protection Open Space: •N ,v •0 - Stream Corridors - Weak Foundation Soils . - Floodplains - Slopes with Potential for Erosion Hazard - Wetlands - Slopes with Potential for Landslide Hazard - Hillsides , For staff analysis of these issues, please refer to the Plan Policies discussed above, and the Stream Corridors, Wetlands, Park and Open Space, Erosion Control, Hillside and Weak +° Foundation Soils Standards later in this report. - Transportation Policies These policies require that streets be improved as planned when demand requires. The ., Ai,• policies also redi:ire that a developer be required to dedicate additional right-of--way as e ,.;, . „.: . necessary to provide for widening. As Exhibit 8f illustrates, the applicant will be providing all ` the necessary street improvements as determined to be necessarybythe traffic report, (Exhibit 5)and by the Public Works Director for this development. This issue will be addressed in more detail later in this report. . ,00. • b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations including: 1, City:of Lake Oswego Subdivision Ordinance: LOC 44.384 -Grades n This section limits the maximum grade of a collector street to 10%. Tho,applicant proposes to exceed this limit by 2% for the easterly 26.7 feet of Jefferson Parkway, which requires a variance from the requirement. The applicant has .. discussed its merits i the narrative (Exhibit 3), requested this variance [VAR 20-92(a)1 and �, Due to the unfinished construction resulting from the previous approval [PD 8-88NAR 27- • 88(a-d)1, the grades involved in this variance request have already been established, and �' • confirmed by the Existing Condition Survey (Exhibit 12). Staff supports this variance because it is the minimum variance necessary in order to complete the necessary improvements on Jefferson Parkway, as defined by the prior approval and the ` adjacent residential project to the south, r • 0 , ,,,; • PD 4-92\VAR 20-92(a-d) " " Page 8 of 16 • .r " r. .:.dry ,•A r. A. `l• ;! Y r k T �� 2. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Cam:• f " : a. Residential Low Density R-10 LOC 48.205,-Maximum Density LOC 48.21.0•-Lot Sire,Lot Dimensions u The applicant provides an analysis of density in his narrative (Exhibit 4). Staff supports the b applicant's proposal, because it will helppreserve a large �tiJ, g portion of the site in open space. The open space area is preserved by transferring some of the density from the stream corridors and clustering the development on other portions of the site. LOC 48.215-Setbacks The setbacks can be modified if the development is processed as a planned development, but must meet certain criteria before approval is granted [LOC 48,476(2)] As Exhibit 3 illustrates, the applicant is proposing several modifications to the standard setbacks, as follows: Requite Proposed Front Yard 20' 10' [for Lot 11 on the east] ' 20' [for all remaining lots (on Lots 8 and 9 the 20' setback shall be measured along the south and north (• property lines,respectively)] .a; Side Yard 10' 5' [for Lots 8 and 9 on both the east and west] 15' [for Lot 6 on the south) w ;*' ' 7' [for all remaining lots] , ' Street Side Yard 10' 25' [for Lots 1,7,10 and 14 along Jefferson Parkway] • Rear Yard 20' 20' [for Lot 9 on the south] 10' [for all remaining lots) Staff supports these modifications, because they will provide greater home siting flexibility due to the stream corridor, However, the applicant must identify a tree protection plan for each lot to assure appropriate siting of proposed homes, this is discussed later in this report. • LOC 48.225-Lot Coverage LOC 48.220-Height of Structures As required by the Code [LOC 48.155(2); 48.140], i Oat tru io43 feet for ) structures (newe ,. construction) and the maximum lot coverage in PD 4-92/VAR 2a-92(a-d will be 28 feet for the maximum height it of struc sloped lots, and 60% (including required parking area), respectively, The applicant is proposing to comply on a lot-by lot basis. b, Planned Development Overlay ry r. LOC 48.470-Purpose ' 4 LOC 48,470(2) requires that if a project contains an area of 4 acres or greater, or consists of 20 units or more, it shall be processed as a planned development, p The project is being reviewed . as a planned development, since it consists of 14 lots on 5.74 acres, PD 4-92\VAR 20-92(a-d) w •• . .' Page 9 of 16 ..: . ' +'` f CC. LOC 48.475-Procedures }, f Since the development contains only one phase, no Overall Development Plan and Schedule (ODPS) is required. The zone requirements to be applied to PD 4-92/VAR 20-92 (a-d) are the R-0 standards described in LOC 48.120-48.155, with the exceptions explained in Section III (D)(2)(b)(2)(a)of this report. c. Supplementary Provisions •••; { LOC 48.530-Vision Clearance , . • k pr Exhibit 8f illustrates the vision clt,arance triangle areas for all corner lots and the intersection of Jefferson Parkway with Santilanes Court and Rita Jean Court. 4. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: LOC 49.300-49.330-Major Development Procedures ue. The applicant has submitted substantial information required by subsections (1)-(14) of this section. The information provided can be found in the exhibit section of this report. 5. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance: LOC 55.080 Criteria for Issuance of Permit The applicant has submitted Exhibits 8c and 12g illustrating trees as they existed in 1988, :.. Exhibit 12g of the Existing Condition Survey does not identify which trees remain following . '' the rough grading and partial utilities installation. This must be revised and incorporated into the record to avoid having each subsequent tree cutting permit to return to the Development Review Board for review [LOC 55,0711. This will be noted among the conclusions regarding this application. _ 6. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance: LOC 57.020 Design Standard /, • The applicant suggests that ten lots meet the Basic Requirement LOC 57,020(1)], and two lots meet the Protected Solar Building Line (PSBL)Option [LOC 57.020(2)J, However, Lots 7, 8 :. ';r' ' and 9 have no frontage within 30 degrees of east-west as required. These lots may comply • through use of the PSBL Option, which has a number of dimensional requirements. This demonstration will be required before action may be taken for this application. `•.,' `' c. The applicable Development Standards; Stream Corridors-(3.005-3.040) a • '� The site contains two streams running parallel to one another in a southerly direction. The centerlines of these stream channels have been located on the site analysis map Exhibit 8d. It •.... . appears that the 25 foot stream corridor boundary lines shown on Exhibit 8d are measured ,: from the centerline of the streams, and not from the top of the stream channel banks, as ' required by Section 3,020(2), Both stream corridors will be preserved in their natural states through their dedication to the City as Public Open Space Tract "A", Some development is '• proposed within Tract "A", These include an unavoidable road-crossing, necessary to provide 0 . access to Lots 8 and 9; stream erosion control measures (check dams); storm drain lines; and, a .,. PD 4-92\VAR 20-92(a-d) " Page 10 of 16 .' . • jj• (r J t r • t ! ' ' u storm water detention facility (Exhibits 8g, 8h and 8!). All these developments are allowed ‘., r • < under Section 3.020(4) and comply with the criteria listed under Section 3.020(3). These developments require a peroitt from the Division of Mate Lands, which has been issued 'q (Exhibit 16). h. !. The streams through this site show pronounced signs of erosion. The applicant's soils investigation also notes downcutting of the stream channels, and recommends construction of check dams as a corrective measure. To address the concerns mentioned.above, staff recommends that the applicant provide the following: — Adjust the stream corridor boundaries so that the 25 foot boundary is measured from the top of the stream channel banks.i `' — Identify areas of cream channels experiencing erosion. — Stabilize areas where stream channel erosion is occurring, — Provide a landscape restoration plan for all disturbed areas within the stream corridor, Tract "A" g • Wetlands—(4.005—4.040) There are areas on the site associated with the stream corridors where the topography flattens and wet soil conditions exist. Some wetland plans (hydrophytes) were observed in these areas.The applicant conducted a vegetation inventory (Exhibit 8d) to determine if a wetland did exist on the site. tr:,.,a As a result of this study, and additional field visits by staff, the conclusion is that no wetland is ' present on the site. This conclusion is based on the fact that although there is wetland vegetation on the site, it is nut dominant or prevalent, Therefore, it does not meet the wetland b definition in LODS 4,015(1). However, it is important to note that this will be preserved within the stream corridors in Tract "A", . • 1 Street Lights—(5.005—5.040) The applicant has submitted a streetlighting plan in compliance with this standard, Exhibit 8g. The lighting on Jefferson Parkway should match the existing street lighting along this road. • The final location of street lights will be determined at the time of review of fir'tl construction plans. Street lights have already been installed on the south side of Jefferson Parkway. The applicant , i e., proposes to install 19—foot—tall fiberglass poles with shoebox fixtures at 130 foot intervals :�,._r along both private streets (Exhibit 3, page 6). The applicant will be required to stitimit a final. , . ' street lighting plan and photometric data for review and approval of the Public Works • - Director. . Transit—(6.005—6.040) The nearest transit facility is on Kruse Way, between l-5 and Boones Ferry Road. s PD 4-92\VAR 20-92(a-d) Page 11 of 16 • 9 Y • Based on an analysis of Section 6.020(1)(a), the applicant is providing sidewalks on one side of all internal streets (Exhibit 8m). Additionally, a 5 foot sidewalk will be provided on , , Jefferson Parkway. Therefore, this standard has been met. • A • t. S:ction 6.020(1)(b) is not applicable since no adjacent multiple—passenger exchange facility :• exists at the site. Parking and Loading—(7.005—7.0401 • This standard requires that each single family dwelling unit provide two off—street parking , spaces in addition to a garage or carport. Each of proposed lots are of sufficient size to accommodate two off—street parking spaces. Compliance with this standard will be assured upon application for each building permit. Park and Open Space—(8.005—8.040) 5..• All major residential development shall provide open space in an aggregate amount equal to at least 20% of their gross land area. The park and open space requirements have been satisfied, since the proposed development is ` providing 23.4% in open space. The two stream corridors in this development will be preserved in an open space tract, which is to be dedicated to the City as public land (Exhibit 8f). Landscaping,Screening and Buffering—(9.005—9.040) A street tree plan, as required by Section 9.020(4), has not been submitted for this development. Staff recommends that a landscape plan illustrating the size, type and location 4, . . of the street trees on both internal streets and Jefferson Parkway be_submitted and approved, • prior to approval of the final plat. Fences— (10.005— 10.040) A ' • No fences are proposed by the applicant. Drainage for Major Development—(11.005— 11.040) Exhibit 8g illustrates the proposed storm water system for this project. • The fine 1 construction plans should incorporate the requirements of the City's "Surface Water Quality Facilities Technical Guidance Handbook" to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The partially constructed detention facility has filled with silt and vegetation since initial grading was performed in 1989. This facility must be restored to its designed condition to accommodate required storm flows. This will be required as a condition of this action, if approved. 4-. 1 • • Weak Foundation Soils—(13.005— 13.040) The central areas of the property are identified as having potential for moderate to severe limitations due to weak foundation soils, However, the soils investigation (Exhibit 8w) concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed development. The development activities • PD 4-92\VAR 20-92(a—d) Page 12 of 16 • • • e i " I t • should occur in conformance with the recommendations of the soils report. This will be r required as a condition of this action, if approved ' u Utilities-(14.005- 14.040) The applicant's narrative (Exhibit 3) and the preliminary utility plan (Exhibit 8g) indicate that adequate water and sanitary sewer facilities are available and can be extended to serve the development. Water: Exhibit 8g also shows the applicant's proposed water layout for the project. Early in the process, staff asked the applicant to submit information showing minimum water pressure , to the highest house and adequate fire protection. The data in Exhibit 8o (page 3) provides fire flow information for a location at Kingsgate and Jefferson. This information was submitted to br ' the applicant by the City Fire Marshal. No information has been provided as to whether there is adequate pressures at the highest house. Prior to approval of the construction plans, the applicant should be required to provide that Sanitary Sewer The sanitary sewer service at the site is incomplete, The nearest completed sewer is located near Kingsgate, as shown on the utility plan (Exhibit lig), The applicant is proposing to serve the site with gravity-flow sewer in Jefferson Parkway which will be required to be extended to the development to the south. Streets: The applicant is proposing to serve the 14 lots from two private streets which wo"sld be extended from Jefferson Parkway. Jefferson Parkway is to be extended from its present , location west to Lesser-Fosberg Roads, as shown on Exhibits 8g and 81h, It is projected that this "T" intersection will eventually have a traffic signal; therefore, the applicant will be required to provide a nonremonstrance agreement for a future traffic signal, when warranted 1" per the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. • Jefferson Parkway will eventually be a 36 foot wide street with vertical curb and gutter, street lights,drainage improvements, etc. The improvements to be provided by the applicant include ;. a 3 foot wide gravel shoulder, • 20foot wide of asphalt, vertical curb and gutter on the north side, a foot wide minimum planting strip and a 5 foot wide sidewalk: For a detailed discussion regarding the internal streets (private), please see comments under ` Site Circulation -Driveways and Private Streets Standard, later in this report. , The Police Services Department has noted that stop signs and street name signs will be required at the intersections of the two private streets and Jefferson Parkway, Additionally, these private streets must be dedicated fire lanes in which no on-street parking may occur. These measures will be required as conditions of this action, if appro,, • The Public Works Department notes that a temporary easement must be conveyed to the City along Jefferson Parkway. Cable Utilities: The Public Works Department notes that existing overhead'able utilities ` , along Jefferson Parkway must be relocated underground. ' • Street Name Sighs: It is not clear from the applicant's narratives (Exhibits 3, 4 and 17) nor , from the graphics (Exhibits 8 and 12) what street names are proposed for the two private streets. If proposed to be used, the name Haynes Court conflicts with Haines Street nearby to • the northeast. All other names are acceptable. This name will be required to be changed as a . condition of this action, if approved. PD 4-92\VAR 20--92(a-d) Page 13 of 16 , r R 6 `� �,. T ' Erosion Control-(15.000- 15.045) Hillside Protection -(16.000- 16.035) The northwest and eastern portions of the site are identified as having a potential for severe fp , ,. . . . limitations. In addition, two streams traverse the site, as shown on Exhibit 8d. The soils investigation submitted by the applicant (Exhibit 8w)does not indicate any soil stability problem, but does recommend the construction of gabiens (check dams) in the stream corridors to minimize erosion of the channel banks. The applicant's narrative does not discuss any erosion control measures except for what is shown on the detention pond restoration plan, Exhibit 8j. A final erosion protection plan and specifications should be a part of the final construction plansprior to approval, esp ecially since the property has slopes up to 50%. Access-(18.005- 18.040) ` Since access to all lots will be taken from two proposed private streets, all lots, except Lots 1, 10 and 14 will have the required frontage (25') along a public street, 'Ilicrefore, a variance to LODS 18.020(1) has been requested by the applicant(Exhibit 18). Based on the analysis presented regarding LODS 19.005 -Site Circulation-Driveways and Private Streets in this " report, staff supports the applicant's request. 1 Site Circulation - Driveways and Private Streets- (19.005- 19.040) The applicant is proposing two private streets in this development, Exhibit 8f, The Police Services Department recommends these private streets be dedicated as fire lanes • and be so noted on the plat. In addition, public easements would be required for public ,' utilities and construction plans should show where the meter box will be located for the private ti street lighting. Finally, all street drainage should be caught prior to getting to Jefferson Parkway and the majority of runoff taken to the detention site. cr . . • The applicant has also requested variances to the following sections of this standard: A LODS 19,020(5), which limits the cross-slope of any drivable area to a maximum of 5%; and • LODS 19.025(6), which establishes a 15% gradient for private streets, Exhibit 4 provides the applicant's justification for his request. After careful analysis of the above exhibits and Exhibits 8e and 8w(soils investigation), staff supports the applicant's request because these steep grades will require less severe road cuts, and driveway grades. '40. , The Intersection Details (Exhibit 12d) illustrates that the grades of the two private streets at Jefferson Parkway are between 9 and 10% for fewer than 25 feet as required by 19.025(7). • The standard requires a maximum grade of 5% for at least 25 feet. The applicant has not ' ' requested a variance to this requirement, Revisions to grading necessary to comply would perhaps increase the grades of the two private streets, or make driveway approaches more steep than initially proposed, The applicant will b required to demonstrate compliance with this requirement or apply for a variance before action on the planned development application can be given, Site Circulation - Bikeways and Wilkways- (20.005-20.040) ' Exhibit 8g illustrates a 4 foot wide sidewalk on interior streets, and a 5 foot wide sidewalk on Jefferson Parkway. PD 4-92\VAR 20-92(a-d) , , Page 14 of 16 •; J • • • IV. CONCLUSION ` Based upon findings presented in this report, the applicant's proposal does not meet all applicable criteria. Such compliance cannot be remedied through the imposition of conditions, because an additional variance to LODS 19.025(7) is required, along with a revised tree removal plan showing existing conditions (updating Exhibit 12g), tree removal plans and statistics for each lot, and an alternate method of compliance with the Solar Ac.`F•ss Ordinance Design Standard(LOC 57.020) for Lots 7, 8 and 9. These requirements must be satisfied before approval can be granted. t�. V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Development Review Board postpone making a decision regarding PD 4-92\VAR 20-92(a-d) to enable the applicant to submit the materials described in the conclusions noted above. The,required additional variance requires an application and analysis but no additional fee, and;t revised public notice must be provided. The date of the subsequent hearing will be set upon receipt of p p required materials in completed form and with regard to this notification requirement. EXHIBITS 1, Tax Map 2. Vicinity Map 3. Applicant's narrative (original submittal), dated August 26, 1992 4. Applicant's narrative (revised),dated October 26, 1992 5. Transportation Analysis by ATEP,dated November 9, 1992 6. Letter to A. Harris, dated October 19, 1992 • 7. Findings, Conclusions and Order PD 8-88/VAR 27-88(a-d), dated October 3, 1988 08. Staff Report and exhibits, PD 8-88/VAR 27-88(a-d), dated September 9, 1988 a. Tax Map b. Vicinity Map f• I C. Topography and Tree Survey d. Site Inventory and Analysis (2 sheets) e, Slope Analysis f Preliminary Plat g. Preliminary Utility Plan ' • h, Preliminary Grading/Tree Removal Plan i, Typical Cross-Sections for Driveways on Vivian Drive j, Preliminary Restoration Plan for Detention Pond. • k. Street Improvement Plan for Jefferson Parkway* . ' /, Improvement Profiles for Jefferson Parkway Extension* m, Applicant's Narrative ' n, Applicant's Supplemental Narrative (June 3, 1988) r o, Applicant's Supplemental Narrative (June 17, 1988) • e' p. Letter from Gregory Kurahashi (August 5, 1988) q, Applicant's Narrative for Variance to LOC 44.384 r, Applicant's Narrative for Variance to DS 18.020(1) • • ' s, Applicant's Narrative for Variance to DS 19.020(5) t, Applicant's Narrative for Variance to DS 19.020(6) u, Homeowner's Association By-Laws for Haynes Drive v, Homeowner's Association By-Laws for Vivian Drive w. Soils Investigation z, Drainage Calculations tge Mr. Park Phase Divisions 410 , . i, Letter from G,E. Zakovics *Too 1 .urge to Reproduce • PD 4-9"'�VAR 20-92(a-d) Page 15 of 16 e • • ' 9. Letter from J. McDonald Engineering, dated November 2, 1992 10. Letter from G. Kurahashia,P.E.,OTAK, Inc.; dated November 17, 1992 11. Minutes of neighborhood meeting, August 19, 1992 12. Existing Conditions Survey, by W.B. Wells & Assoc.,dated May 28, 1993 a. Title Sheet b. Street and Storm Drain Plan • c. Street Profiles °.. d. Intersection Details e. Storm Drain Profile - f, Grading Plan g. Tree Cutting and Clearing Plan h. Sanitary Sewer Plan • „ i. Sanitary Sewer Profiles ';.•o • j. Sanitary Sewer Plan/Profiles k. Composite Utility Plan a . 1. Standard Construction Details m, Standard Construction Details ` '+ �, n. Private Driveway Profiles • 11o. Curb Replacement Details 13. Report on Construction Status of Mountain View Estates, by Walter Haright(formerly of W.B Wells & Assoc.),dated May 28, 1993 14. Memo from R. Chevrette, dated June 18, 1993 15. Letter to J. Shaich, O.D.S.L. from D. Muchmore, Westech Engineering, Inc,; dated June 25, 1992 16. Letter to D. Muchmore from J. Shaich,dated August 25, 1992 h 17. Applicant'.. 'narrative (revised); VAR 20-92(d), dated June 29, 1993 t . } 4 R Cy . 11. o 9 • pY. .di h • • . s. i , • .+ . PD 4-92\VAR 20-92(a-cl) . i S : : ' Page 16 of 16 '. , • . + ' . - �• 1 1 1' `. . - • . .wk may.. ;i ,, •. . •.P.. . / ....„. :, . . ':....' :::,.'''••,,, ',„ %MI . . 0 , y.f..' e. • • 0 • .11" K / Y •ly. C/* ''-‘4, .., / • L r ♦ _.. .• a.....a.m--j,.,•,.,$•e •r•. , 1 !_:" 1'' :".. r Lg.' .4411;•.' .'''''.'.''..''''„•.*.•.:.....:..';'*'. / 1 ti Al I., -/ � • // "per 1, il • , r V 1 r� 1� 1 �i n a 't • 1+ i i. '' . • • _____,----------)‘... „.....„.".!----- 4.-- al.,,,• , . ' t � � f 1 4 ,, r•i 1 s ,1,/+ • /�• .i .�, O.ram. ♦�. / y ,. �: 11\ Ile' ♦ S 1 ,/gK. t . - I t r„ ; �, 0, ,,1yJr+to I° „ • , / . + • ♦.1 ; 1 d y.4 ,,, •, �•.1/ . I ,y♦. 1 • ; ,Ili .. 4 ^`l •1 , ••' • 11/1.•1• //�1' ( t� . M f� CC.li S/� • 1,.iM C, y y A • Y,r / + �J�\TT •',is,• 1, . ' V .. ' . 1 Siiiik ', .. 'II . I t) 2 +M y�1 11 I.tD 1111" 1 1 1• .' , �r �j 1 'K •I • 1, 1' , 4• .t , • p p r . ,,r ol di ful 19♦ '1 ♦ 1, yHl1. CI Av✓ \1 l►1 E �vt 1, p + A. r.• 1 ♦♦ „il °-T, • i N•i,..... •�( ,' I•w,:t..1,1. rru `'4 C ^ N B ! 1 +2- . toy re - ,� • f vewt ♦e•w ,•'� RV 1Q�A 1 •t1af I .r i , ; ' ',, • +Ii '. ;1 ' , • • I . - f • ._. r • IN ita 1°tjyp to.a._ ... w.lyx i 1 r°1 1.11/ li• .(pciliii Y4,°a a . ; . aii oek ,«. , 27, , iA.ADHIA taws IIt. —7 uiiir +to $ t�-'�}} .1 . „ ++OY, -T floor 1..o 's u Fir I,IDMk7 I Illdli • •i.,lc tT �, 5a ai ''"�1 gN , , I� - � ;_ ;" . ..,. • •:^, • ' Ite i'}p a 'i3oU 111 Bi( ( '• IiINC'4t / - r- Al .i+— Y ., :. 11li ,�•1+�� Ttm7f •y�p j1ij, •+ ~ 1. • I fir }i • lur f, , nn I,1ro► 4 nmg, -IYi 2fna,a , 1.." I oisior C, ,..1 C.., ..1,,? 111111i - Er., ^/ / .. STROM �� I I\''1+a P 4—r_ `tl. .. eIIt' iIVilma Il ,/ .LI 7 .0 .4. . • S tt i / u,► I E TR71 .. „1,• • ,+ ��---�-- �~ ettsettr -� �.. M como►kADo -t, —ip rl„IJ I • ._ i �— I ` = ( • —I, ._rg gin r i: —I i(_' .I1 • ,,,,, 1 1/W1 J L_ � r— I'I111' I YACUNA r • ' 1 I _.141 0I f ..... 1 ., L... .!-1 t19. 1I. " o X *,QiY ' I�._.. X ilel t i11�/ A� } ►„c�. 1 I I ,tat 11J 1 1 Lr, t �,11 l `I YleTA f, I R , 1 �1� G Itlso,I 1h Z " g_= .� l" .�L ' A a iao I��' 11M1 rl I 1 >� , � 11e02—+ I + IIete _ t t• �i ' .�,�,�`_� ► 11eM � \ \.--`em IS\.......................-s' a \,,,,) - \ V.Ih.. ) -1 ..s..4— Syr . t �o..m. ,.,.� ► A. 11 \ op • "• 1►1,1 ' l_._.. .ems ...�.r.J s\ - 5; +a 1i I ( `ice �� i �� -�k y�_ ti' -P ) ,/ y 4 1.- . >.i He • Y p1+L /I V 1>�1„utl Y i Y l i ...._.} yk, Il �` N.Y 1. `?7, .'A • 11 1 lt:sn,0 1141011141 I �,n i t,k, ;k �t �,* . �jf_ POlITuto COMMUNITY COLLEDA ' y�4 k I lii.0 . C.... y , lf►e 1e� lell� �' . .. `. Th LI �yZaeeb d...1. _ " SITE M1•,/YLVAMA 1 s.. ••p a 't _ 1 I i►e,1 .,"N .. .,,ram / ° �� y 44 _ 4,, '}r 0 ' 17 • ewlree „avt Y I tl s rd �a ..,.�J�k it hi r ' J 1 I flow ' • .1�I 1. � Ill i _i . i 1 , i Irnap , WKe i, "0-1'Z. i ♦ w r r p.y d, • M- v: ' FIRST SECURITY BANK OF OREGON Mr. Tom Goulde • DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MT. VIEW ESTATES • PRESENTED TO: THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO • • city to Plannin7l,CiSN,`i c merl Dept. t ♦ • [AUG a 26 902 ° ' EXHIBIT • Prepared By: • J•O, 1633.000.0 August 1992 .y • • NVESTECH ENGINEERING, INC. 3421 25th Street SE. Salem, OR 97302 (503) 585.2474 o p L !• . Mountain View Estates Development Application I. INTRODUCTION The following is a formal request for Development Review Approval for the completion of a 14 lot single-family detached residential planned development. The site is approximately •5.476 acres in size and is located directly south of the Portland Community College (PCC) F Sylvania Campus to the west of Spinosa Drive in Mt. Park. The property is described as Block 62, "Mt. Park, Blocks 58-62." as , II. PROJECT SUMMARY A. De..__$crintiQn of Proiect The applicant proposes to complete the development of 14 single-family lots ranging size from 10,200 - 15,700 square feet. This development was partially completed by previous developer (City of Lake Oswego File No. PD 8-88E, Mt. View Estates a Development). At the present time, the curbs, streets raveled system,s Planned sanitary sewer system and water systems are in place, but work needsA to be done them up to City of Lake Oswego Standards. A detention basin was also con to bring of the storm drainage system, although the outlet structures and landscas in c weree p partially completed. p gonly P 0 • The existing private drives, terminating in hammerhead turnarounds, extend into to access the proposed lots. The private road alignments the site �' designed around two stream corridors which bisect thesite, running northtto soutions h. n • road crossing consisting of a narrow private driveway exists to access two lots which One z• located on the strip of land between the two streams. are All vehicular access and circulation is internalized on-site, No rove m pt so onto Jefferson Parkway. A half street improvement will be completed individual driveways will n 1 ar}cvt ay across the entire frontage of the property from Kingsgate to Fosberg • Road. , r• B. Site Description The site is rectangular in configuration and fronts on the Jefferson Parkwayright-of-way " the south, It generally slopes from north to south, providing excellent viepotential, to majority of the slopes range from 10% to 20%. A portion of the site adjacent o tThe eastern boundary slopes to 20% to 30% from the northeast to the southwes . The site lis s heavily wooded with a mixture of Douglas Fir, Alder, Oak and Maple trees. The site is • Pabe I r U• + ' Y Mountain View Estates Development Application v'. A,- .i• divided approximately in half by two parallel stream corridors which run from north to south. A detention basin exists on tli.. southern terminus of these two streams. Two partially completed streets exist on the site along the alignments shown in Exhibit F, along with the associated storm drain, sanitary sewer and water system, 4 ' ' III. PROJECT SCHEDULE (Tentative) Planning Commission Approval Development Review Board Approval October 19, 1992 ` Construction Document Review November 1, 1992 r Begin Construction • December 1, 1992 • IV. COMPLIANCE TO APPLICABLE REGULATIONS * A. City of Lake Oswego Development Ordinance The following are written responses to the applicable sections of the Development Ordinance related to the project. The preliminary plans, details, calculations and other data enclosed in the attached exhibits are also in response to these standards and should be reviewed in conjunction with this required narrative. The project is a "major" development and should comply with the procedures outlined in Section 49.300 of the Ordinance. Section 1.005 - Historical Resource Preservation 4, A This section was repealed by Res, R-90-07 (3/13/90). Section 2.005 - Building Design Single-family detached homes are not subject to development review standards. The • construction of these homes will be monitored by the building permit process and ,..w, Community Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R) will control the quality of exterior appearance, The houses will be sited within the described building setbacks on the plat to • Zz complement and preserve substantial existing landforms, trees and other natural vegetation, ' . 410 • Page 2 h ,'V '•'r Mountain View Estates Development Application 0 :... .. .., Section 3.005 - Stream Corridors Two stream corridors exist on the site. These consist of two intermittent streams running parallel to each other in a southerly direction. The project has been carefully designed to minimize impact on the corridors and incorporate them to provide drainage, storm water detention capability, natural buffering between building lots, privacy and a pleasant natural environment. 3.020 Standards for Approval 1. Development within the "major" stream corridors will be limited to the completion of the one existing driveway crossing (16 feet wide paved), minor underground utility installation and the completion of the storm water detention pond to restrict the rate of runoff into the downstream storm water collection system. 2. The entire stream corridor area will be dedicated to the City as a public open space tract. As recommended by City staff, the minimum width of this tract will be 25 feet from each channel bank. In addition to this buffer, a 10 foot building setback is proposed on all lots abutting the open space. The closest a house or related structure could be to the drainage channel is 35 feet. The exact configuration of the stream corridor open space tract area has been discussed on site and reviewed in plan format with the City staff. 3. The one stream roadway crossing proposed is imperative. The two building lots • accessed in the center of the site are very desireable and needed to make the overall project financially viable. Not allowing the crossing would eliminate 21,040 square feet (net developable) from the site. This development area is needed to offset off-site construction costs associated with extending a half street improvement on Jefferson Parkway. The design of this crossing will minimize disturbance to the stream corridor. A narrower pavement width, shoulder and 2:1 fill slopes which will be revegetated with' riparian native plant material and will reduce construction impact and return the corridor to its natural state quickly. No density transfers are • requested as a tradeoff for providing the open space.tracts, 4, The "unavoidable" road crossing, utility line installations and drainage management improvements are allowed by the Development Ordinance. No realignment of the existing stream course is proposed and no active recreation facilities or trails are proposed in the corridor, Page 3 ICI f, _ ` r .r. ! '' '1 u , ' 1 Mountain View Estates I Development Application 3.025 Standards for Construction -0: 1. Erosion Conti - Refer to 16.005 for a detailed description of erosion control '' measures that will be utilized for all potentially disturbed areas within the project. 2, Landscaping - All disturbed areas within the stream corridor will be hydroseeded and revegetated with indigenous riparian plant material. The existing vegetation is primarily palustrine scrub shrub,palustrine broadleaf deciduous shrubs and palustrine forested materials. Proposed revegetation will also minimize erosion and maintain • ground water quality Within all stream corridor areas on site, 3. A natural revegetation method will be applied to all disturbed stream corridor and • open space arras rather than a maintained landscape approach with compatible \ ��' trees, shrubs and groundcovers. • I Note: Site analysis and inventory map is included in the attached exhibits which describes existing vegetation found in the stream corridor. Also included is a revegetation plan covering all disturbed areas. y • 3.030 Standards for Maintenance • Refer to Section 8.005 Park and open Space for control of stream corridor and open space areas. The revegetation will ultimately return open spaces to their "maintenance free" ?' natural state. 3.035 Procedures u ' The stream corridor was determined on site with City staff and its configuration was later "• verified on site survey plans. The proposed open space tracts have been carefully delineated in cooperation with the City. i 0 3,040 Miscellaneous Information 1. 1. The stream corridor was initially identified by referring to the City of Lake Oswego Hydrology Map during preliminary design and development feasibility analysis. '; 2, A detailed tree location and topographic survey has been prepared and included in this report which provides detailed information necessary to locate stream corridors and other natural features exactly for the development review process, 1 Page 4 1 i ° Mountain View Estates r • :,, ; Development Application0 .. . -,. Section 4,005 - Wetlands 4.015 Definitions The City of Lake Oswego hydrology map does not indicate the presence of a wetland on the subject property. The storm water detention basin constructed by the previous ` ' developer exists adjacent to the south property line at the base of the.stream corridors. Basically, storm drainage runoff accumulates in this area prior to discharging into the existing storm drainage system along Jefferson Parkway. Continued moisture in this area �� has generated riparian vegetation. This saturated soil condition and associated vegetation qualifies this area within the detention basin as a wetland. 4,020 Standards for Approval . 1. No development is proposed within the wetland area. This area has been carefully ' surveyed, inventoried on site, and is delineated on the site analysis and inventory map included in the attached exhibits. <• • . A-D Proposed Uses - No recreation facilities or walkways are proposed in the F wetland areas. It is rather intended that this area remain passive, supportive of wildlife habitat and function only as a "visual" open space providing a greenbelt buffer for surrounding residences. ' 2. One driveway crossing is proposed across one of the stream corridors upstream away from the wetlands. 3. The proposed development has been carefully desired around the wetland to avoid impact. The wetland has been incorporated into the site development plan as a greenbelt buffer that will provide both wildlife habitat and visual screening between proposed residences. f 4, There is currently a storm water detention pond within the wetland area to slow • down storm water runoff and minimize impact to the downstream channel, Holding �' water in this area will generate more riparian vegetation and increase the wetlands benefit for wildlife habitat, 4.025 Standards for Construction 1. There will be no clearing and removal of riparian vegetation associated with this w project. Barricades will be installed around the wetland area following pond area al : • • Page 5 q. • j Mountain View Est; es • Development Application • M1 4 revegetation to prevent outlaw clearing or dumping of debris during louse construction. 2. Existing pollution control manholes and trapped catch basins will be utilized to prevent pollutants from paved surfaces from flowing into the wetland. Proposed hydroseeding and revegetation of disturbed areas will prevent erosion adjacent to the .: wetland, minimize sediment and improve water quality on site and downstream. 3. No buildings, bridges, walkways or other above grade development oriented • structures are proposed in the wetland area. • 4.035 Procedures • 1, 2 - The wetland area has been reviewed on site with Cisy staff and is delineated on the site analysis and inventory map included in the attached exhibits. • • 4.040 Miscellaneous Information • ° • 1. A revegetation plan demonstrating proposed methods of repairing areas that will be impacted during construction is included in the attached exhibits. 2. Technical Assistance - The revegetation plan for the detention pond area has been •• submitted to the Oregon State Division or State Lands (DSL), for review and has been approved. • Section 5,005 - Street Lights 5.020 Standards for Approval 1. Lighting y The proposed street lighting will consist of 19 foot tall fiberglass poles • with ITT shoe box fixtures and 100 watt lights with a protection finish. •• r+K The spacing within the development will be at approximately 130 foot intervals in order to maintain between 0.15 average footcandles and 0.40 average footcandles. r, The illumination ratio will be between 4,0 and 10.1. Cut-off light distribution luminaries will be utilized. A 4 2, Arterial and Collector Streets - This development contains residential streets, The arterials and collector lighting standards do not apply, T •. M4 Page 6 li } 1 Mountain View Estates °•, ,• Dev*lopment Application • 3. Public Pathways and Accessways - Public sidewalks along Jefferson parkway will be illuminated by the existing street lights on Jefferson Parkway. Sidewalks along the f • private streets within the development will be illuminated by the proposed street lights outlined above. 4• . Parking Lots - There are no parking lots in this development, therefore, this • condition does not apply. '; Section 6.005 - Transit System 6.020 Standards for Approval • 1. "All major developments are required to provide facilities to serve multiple passenger. transit" 44. a. The nearest transit facility is T'ri-Met Route 78 Beaverton-Lake Oswego, • which travels Kruse Way between 1-5 and Boones Ferry Road. The on-site sidewalks proposed for this develpment will connect to the existing sidewalks • on Fosberg Road. A walkway system has been developed between the subject . property and the transit stops on Kruse Way for Route 78. 2. "Hard surfaced pedestrian paths shall be provided to connect the development with: .,' (i) the nearest adjacent multiple passenger exchange facilities, or (ii) to adjacent • paths which lead fo the nearest loading/unloading facilities." a. The proposed development plans indicate a sidewalk on one side of both on- site private roads, which will connect to the sidewalk proposed on Jefferson Parkway. Constructing on-site sidewalks which connect off-site to another walk is a step towards a complete pedestrian pathway system in the area -•: which will connect transit riders with Route 78 on Kruse Way. This provision of`walkways meets the intent of the transit standard as implemented in the City of Lake Oswego. Section 7.005 - Parking and Loading Stations Two on-site parking spaces (excluding the garage) can be accommodated on each lot, thus • meetin• g this standard. . • i Section 8.005 - Park and Open Space N. k 8.020 Standards for Approval • • Page 7 a• r • Mountain View Estates Development Application • 1. "All major residential development and office campus development shall provide open space or parkland approved by the City in an aggregate amount equal to at least 20 percent (26%) of the gross land area of the development." `• * a. The proposed development provides 23.4% open space or 1.23 acres of the 5.47 acre total site area. Therefore, the project is in compliance with this standard. • 8.035 Procedures • 1. The park/open space is clearly indicated on the attached development plans. 1 • 2. The open spade area will be defined as Tract "A" and dedicated to the City for public control. • 3. Criteria for Selection of Land for Reservation as.Open Space: The proposed open space on this site complies with the Comprehensive Plans definition of protection • open space. It also meets other criteria such as: distinctive natural areas, woodlands, tree groves and scenic views and vistas. Reserving the land in the proposed configuration shown on the development plans is in conformance with park policies because it establishes an open space network within the project that encompasses land and features that meet the "Open Space Reservation" criteria. • 4, The final open space configuration and preservation restrictions will be subject to review by City staff. • 5. Park and open space requirements will be met by providing open space in excess of 20% of the total site area. • 6. The open space will be dedicated prior to issuance of the development permit. 8.040 Miscellaneous Information 1. No "request for density transfer" is requested as part of this application. 2. Active play areas, given the sensitive nature of open space within the project, would not be an appropriate form of recreation. Section 9,Q05 . Landscaping. Screening and Buffering Page 8 • • • • Mountain View Estates 4', Development Application n • Because the development proposed only single family residences, a landscaping plan is not required for the lot areas. 9.020 Standards for Approval Standards 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are not applicable as the project consists of single family home sites and is surrounded by single family development. 4. Street Trees - Street trees will be installed along all public right-of-way frontages within the site. The type of tree, size and spacing will conform to City Standards. • A landscape plan illustrating the size, type and location of the street trees on both internal streets and Jefferson Parkway will be submitted prior to submission of the final plat. 9.025 Standards for Construction All standards for installation and construction shall conform to the City's requirements. 9.030 Standards for Maintenance All standards for maintenance shall conform to the City's requirements. Section 10«005 - Fences , 10.020 Standards for Approval 1. Fences constructed in this development will comply with LOC 50.350, 2. No fences will be constructed at the project over 6 feet in height. The choice of installing fences will be left to the individual lot owners. No fences will be allowed beyond the property line adjacent to open space and stream corridor areas. 'i 1 • ; • '" '' Section 11.005 - Drainage Standard for Major Development t. 11.020 Standards for Approval 1 1. Access - Easements will be provided on the final plat for all drainage facilities. These easements are shovin on the preliminary plat, utility plan and other • development plans. All easements are sized to allow access for maintenance and inspection. Page 9 4, . ir, a o,.' ,, . Mountain View Estates u•" ' Development Application h • f p. 2. Water Runoff Quality - The drainage system will be constructed with temporary sediment control measures as outlined in Section 16.005 Erosion Control. The permanent drainage system will consist of one storm water detention basin at the low point on site constructed hi accordance with the City's "Standard Construction Specifications and Drawings." The vegetation within the stream corridor and detention basin will provide biofiltration and meet the intent of City requirements. 3. Drainage Pattern Alteration - The drainage plan is illustrated on the grading plan and utility plan. The construction of this system will not have an adverse affect on other properties. The surface drainage'.will be internalized within the site and conducted to an existing storm water detention basin located adjacent to Jefferson Parkway. 7.• 4. Storm Water Detention - Refer to the grading plan and utility plan. Storm drainage calculations have also been included in Exhibit 24. A detention pond exists at the base of the stream corridors adjacent to the southern property line. This will control '., the•downstream runoff rate and preserve the channel condition.. This facility will be located in a dedicated tract with public access for inspection and maintenance. • 5. Required Storm Water Management Measures -The proposed drainage system will meet the above noted storm water runoff requirements. Refer to the grading and utility plans and storm drainage calculations. /r Section 12.005 - Minor Developments This section does not apply to this'project. . Section 13.005 and 13.Q20 - Foundation Soils The site is designated as having weak foundation soils on the generalized map in the Lake ' Oswego Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to LOC 13.035 (1-7) Mr. John McDonald, soils • • engineer performed an analysis of the site soil conditions. Included in Exhibit 23 is Mr. • , McDonald's geotechnical investigation report of the subject property. . 1 . Page 10 1 , 1 u M h . � '"ail• � _ , 4 o q '.. . � , •\. cry Mountain View Estates Development Application Section 14.405 - Utility • Standard . 14.020 Standards for Approval w 1. Utilities Required ' ' a. Sanitary Sewers: Refer to the attached utility plan in the Uxhibit F for.sewer plans. b. Water Distribution Systems: Refer to the attached utility plan in the Exhibit • F for water plans. c. Sidewalks: A 4 foot wide curbline sidewalk will be provided on one side of • each proposed private drive on site. • \.; • d. Street Name Signs: Signs will be located at both private drive intersectio is with the proposed extension of Jefferson Parkway. e. Stop Signs: •Signs will be located at both private drive intersections. f. Street Lighting: Lighting will be served by underground wiring installed parallel to the proposed streets. • g, Underground Utility Lines: Underground utility lines will be installed as required. h. Streets: Refer to the prelimin ary ary plat and grading plan for road layout and design.• i. Underground Cable: Television cable will be installed to serve each lot. 2. Easements - Required easements will be furnished to City Standards, 3, Sanitary Sewer - Service will be provided to each lot in the development, The ' proposed system on site will be connected to a collector line installed along Jefferson Parkway, s, 4. Sewer Design - The sewer design will provide for future connections and capacities from adjacent undeveloped parcels. • `® 10 Page 11 • • h • Mountain View Estates Development Application • 5. Sewers - Sewers were designed and constructed by a previous developer. Refer to "' the utility plan and detail sheet. The applicant proposes to bring these up to City standards and specifications. • • 6. Water System - The water system is shown on the attached utility plan. This water system is in place and has been approved by the City of Lake Oswego. A 10-inch water main extends across the entire southern frontage, and a 6-inch and 4-inch • water line have been installed on site to serve hydrants and building lots. , 7. One water service lime will be furnished to each proposed building lot. The system was designed to supply fire flow requirements in compliance with LOC Chapter 45. • • 14.025 Standards for Construction• All utility installation work will be completed to City Standards. Utility easements to City Standards will be provided over all on-site public facilities.• • ' Section 15.005 - Residential Density Repealed, does not apply. Section 16.005 - Hillside Protection and Erosion Control 16.020 Standards for Approval 1. Density has been decreased and the project has been carefully designed to minimize the disturbance of natural topography, vegetation and soils. 2. The proposed roads were partially completed by a previous developer. No cuts or fills will be required to complete the proposed public and private road improve- • ments. Cut and fill will be required for the driveways to Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 14. 3. Cuts and fills will conform to the minimum requirements of LOC Chapter 45. 4. According to the preliminary soils investigation, no danger of landslides exists on the • site. Refer to the soils report included in the Exhibit 23. • 5. Cuts and fills on land with an excess of 12% slope will conform to LOC Chapter 45. • 6. Roads - Refer to the attached development plans for typical road cross sections and drainage control measures. • • Page 12 • • r tr l • it Mountain View Estates Development Application A 7. No Iand in excess of 50% slope exists on the subject property. Note: Refer to the revegetation plan for Erosion Control Measures. A detailed Erosion Control Plan will be prepared and submitted to the City for review prior to final construction plan approval. t Section 17.005 - Floodplains There are no floodplains on this site. Therefore, this section does not apply. r ,.• Section 18.005 - Access . 18.020 Standards for Approval c4 `_ � + 1. Twelve (12) lots within the development have a minimumona . �" proposed private street. Two lots will front on a common access driivef which crosses 4 the stream corridor. . r ' 2. Access design shall be based on the following five (5) criteria: a. Topography: The existing terrain allows safe access to the site and all `'" , proposed building lots: b. Traffic Volume: The development will generate approximately 430 vehicle trips per day. c. Access: The development will take access from Jefferson Parkway, which is classified as a collector street on the Comprehensive Plan. • d. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for Jefferson parkway is approximately 2665 vehicle trips per day (City of Lake Oswego Traffic Engineering), uw e. The City traffic engineering section indicated that they have no projected ADT data for Jefferson Parkway in this area. ' • . • • 3. This site does not access an arterial, therefore, this standard does not apply. r. 4. Access driveways for Lots 1, 7, 10 and 14 will be restricted and located no closer than 30 feet to the intersection of Jefferson Parkway to prevent traffic conflicts: Lots 8 and 9 will have a common access drive, , 0 ': , . Page 13 A Mountain View Estates Development Application 5. No access stubs to adjacent properties are logical or required by the City. Section 19.005 - Site Circulation Standards - Driveways and Private Streets r•; 19.020 Standards for Approval 1. Two partially completed private streets currently exist at this development. They consist of 28 feet wide streets with cast-in-place concrete curbs and standard hammer head turnarounds and the ends for fire protection vehicles. Typical plans, profiles and cross section drawings are included'in the Exhibit F. 2. Driveways - a. Only one driveway per lot is proposed for this development. b. All corner lot driveways will be restricted to a minimum distance of 30 feet '` from intersection corners within the development. Section'20.005 - Site Circulation Standards - Bikeways and Walkways 20.020 Standards for Approval '' 1. No bikeways are proposed with this development. ' ' 2. Walkways in this development will be private. 3. Walkways will be located within the public right-of-way on Jefferson Parkway and on one side of the on-site private roads. 4. On-sue walkways will connect to the public walk along Jefferson Parkway. • + • `• 20.025 Standards for Construction All walkways w:1l be constructed.to City Standards. Refer to the attached Development Plans for locations of walks, •w • . . . * 0 . . Page 14 • 4 . • " Mountain View Estates Development Application `' B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code (Chap, 48) and Ordinance No. 2053 (Chap, 48 Revisions) 1. Residential High Density R-0 LOC 48.130 - Maximum Density LOC 48-135 - Lot Size, Density Transfer • ' ' There is no minimum lot/unit area requirement for the R-0 zone, The density is i regulated through lot coverage restrictions. The proposed 14 oversized lc's represent an R-15 density in the R-0 zone. The lots are oversized in order to maximize tree preservation in the development. LOC 48-150 (Revised) - Setbacks, Buffers The required setback in the R-0 zone is 10 feet for side yard and 20 feet for front .. and back, LOC 48.150(1a). This standard can be modified if the development is w • '• • processed as a planned development, without the necessity of meeting the requirements of variance provisions LOC 48.650-48.690, as per LOC 49.475(3). The following chart illustrates required and proposed setbacks: Required Proposed Front Yard 20' 10' (for Lot 11 on the east) • .,, 20' 20' (for all remaining lots) .. J Side Yard 10' 5' (for Lots 8 & 9 on both the east and west) 15' .(for Lot 6 on the south) r "" 7' (for all remaining lots) • Street Side Yard 10' 25' (for Lots 1, 7, 10 and 14 along Jefferson • ' Parkway) Rear Yard 20' 20' (for Lot 9 on the south) 10' (for all remaining lots) It is felt that the proposed setbacks allow the project to comply with the purpose statement of the Planned Development Overlay District, This is achieved by protecting the most significant existing features on the site, including the two stream it , corridors and a large number of trees. 4` k., d Page e 15 • 11 4 I . • • t Mountain View Estates ! Development Application 4 The reduced setbacks on some of the lots is more than compensated by the over sized lots and reduced density of this development. • LOC 48.140 - Lot Coverage LOC 48.155 - Height of Structures The maximum lot coverage will by 60% as outlined in this section. The 60% lot coverage will include the two required off-street parking spaces. The maximum height of structures in this development will be 28 feet and 43 feet for flat and sloped lots, respectively. , 2. Planned Development Overlay ',;{ LOC 48.470 - Purpose • The development is being processed as a planned development so that the existing natural features on the site, including two major stream corridors along with a large number of trees, can be preserved. These areas will be dedicated to the City as Public Open Space Tract "A." ♦ 1 LOC 48.475 - Procedures • Since the development contains only one phase, no Overall Development Plan and • Schedule (ODPS) is required. The zone requirements requested are the R-0 • standards described in LOC 48.130 - 48.155. The only exceptions, as described a ; above, are modifications to the 10 foot setback requirement, as allowed by LOC •.': 48.475(3). • 3. Supplementary Provisions ; LOC 48.530 - Vision Clearance Exhibit 6 illustrates an adequate vision clearance triangle area for all corner lots, C. City of Lake Oswego Subdivision Ordinance " LOC 44.384(b) - Grades This standard establishes maximum grades for different street classifications. The prescribed grade for a collector street, such as Jefferson parkway, is 10%. p. Page 16 • d II a1- n " 4 U' ( ' • ° 1 Mountain View Estates Development Application ',., ....,- ',' • . 0 .,',',,1 The applicant is proposing a 12% grade for the easterly 260 feet of the Jefferson extension, as shown on Exhibit F. Exhibit B provides justification for this variance Parkway ' request. LOC 441.391 - Street Names The proposed street names in this development are SW Haynes Court Exhibit 6. and SW Vivian Court, D. ` SLi f Laake- —_ wegn comnrehomive Plan 1 1• growth Management Policv Element , `' The proposed development meets the intent of the Growth Man . Element of the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan as underoutlinednthe the "Overall Objectives," page 8. 2• Natural Resource Aolicv l leiaent • • The proposed development meets the intent of the Natural Resource0 ,.. . • of the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan as outlined under thel "Summacy ry of Major Issues" and "Summary of Major Conclusions," pages 27-28 . -�� 3• Re .idential Land Use Policv Element The proposed development meets the intent of the Residential Element of the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan as outlinedLand use Policy "Summary of Major Issues" and "Summary of Major Conclusions," pages 72-73 under73 the , E. lar po Access n*�inance �rr,.,�� 571.,,r LOC 57.015 - Applicability The proposed single family lots (zoned R-0) of the proposed d requirements of this section, development nt fall under the LOC 57.020 Design Standards • At least 80% of the lots are required to meet the requirements of this Section. _' N Page 17 . , Mountain View Estates Development Application • J. 1, Basic 1 2eguirement : .4 lot complies with this section if it complies to the following: a. A north-south dimension of 90 feet or more, and b. Has a front lot line that is oriented within 30° of a true east-west axis. Lots 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 14 comply with the requirements of this option. • 2, Protected polar Buildina_Line Oa ti n: In the alternative, a lot complies with this • section if a protected solar building lii is used to protect solar access as follows: •• ' solar building line for the lot to the north is designated on the a. A protected • plat or documents recorded with the plat; and • ; Theprotected solar building line for the lot to the north is oriented within b. = , 30° of a true east-west airs; and .,, There is at least 70 feet between the protected solar building line on the lot c, ' to the north and the middle of the north-south dimension of the lot to the , . 0 outh measured along a line perpendicular to the protected solar building s a line; and d, There is at least 45 feet between the protected solar building line and the northern edge of the buildable area of the lot, or habitable structures are situated so that at least 80% of their south facing wall will not be shaded by structures or non-exempt vegetation. Lots 11 and 13 are situated so as to comply with the requirements of this option. out of the 14 lots (86%) will comply wrath the requirements of the Solar ., . A total 00.2 Acces s s Ordinance. The protected solar building lines for lots 11 and 13 will be recorded on the final plat as required by this ordinance. F. Rea est arianc • i approval for four variances as follows: + The applicant is requesting r fi A variance to LOC 44,384, which limits the grade on collector streets to a 1• Applicant is proposing a 12% grade for the easterly •- maximum of 10%. The • 260 feet of Jefferson Parkway extension, Exhibit B. Page 18 -':' :: 1: 1 , • ; • L 1 r Mountain View Estates Development Application ( . .'' 2. A variance to the Access Standard, Section 18.020(1), which requires that , y every lot abut a street (public) for a width of at least 25 feet. All 14 lots are proposed to take access from two private roads, Exhibit C. .LI' 3. A variance to the Site Circulation - Driveways and Private Streets Standard, Section 19.025(5), which limits the cross slope of any driveable area to a , maximum of 5%. The applicant is proposing an 8% grade for the two "hammerhead" turnarounds on the proposed private streets, Exhibit D. ' �'-2 4. . A variance to the Site Circulation - Driveways and Private Streets Standard, • Section 19.025(6), which establishes a 15% grade for private streets. The " applicant is proposing grades of 17% for the two private roads • , Exhibit E. ` G. Exhibits The following exhibits were included with the previous developer's application to satisfy the requirements of the development permit and are included here because many of the elements apply to the current applicant's request for approval to complete this development. Exhibits From Previous Developer's Application 1. Tax Map 2. Vicinity Map 3. Topography and Tree Survey • 4. Site inventory and Analysis (2 sheets) , �' 5. Slope Analysis t 6. Preliminary Plat .Y j r 7. Preliminary Utility Plan ` 8. Preliminary Grading/Tree Removal Plan N 9. Typical Cross Sections for Driveways on Vivian Drive 10. Preliminary Restoration Plan for Detention Pond • 11. Deleted 12, Deleted 13. Applicant's Narrative " 14. Applicant's Supplemental Narrative (June 3, 1988) 15. Applicant's Supplemental Narrative (June 17, 1988) 16, Letter from Gregory Kurahashi (August 5, 1988) • 17, Applicant's Narrative for Variance to LOC 44.384 18, Applicant's Narrative for Variance to DS 18.020(1) 19, Applicant's Narrative for Variance to DS 19.020(5) j0 ., . • Page 19 1 1 � Mountain View Estates Development Application 20. Applicant's Narrative for Variance to DS 19.020(6) 21. Homeowner's Association By-Laws for Haynes Drive 22. Homeowner's Association By-Laws for Vivian Drive 23. Soils Investigation 24. Drainage Calculations ` 25. Mt. Park Phase Divisions 26. City Staff Report for original development application. u In addition to the exhibits listed above, the following information is included with this • development application: • Exhibits , . A. Applicant's Narrative • B. Applicant's Narrative for Variance to LOC 44.384 C. Applicant's Narrative for Variance to DS 18.020(1) D. Applicant's Narrative for Variance to DS 19.025(5) E. Applicant's Narrative for Variance to DS 19.025(6) F. Construction plans previously approved by the City of Lake Oswego* G. Preliminary subdivision guarantee H. Neighborhood notice documentation 1. Public notice 2. Affidavit of posting notice 3. Copy of neighborhood association notification letter and certified return ' reciepts. 4. Copy of letter sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet i` 5. Affidavit of mailing 6. Minutes for Neighborhood meeting *Too Large to Reproduce • • Page 20 • •4 r • _ - if .d: . ` i, - r ,. Y •• r Mountain View Estates Variance Request s. VARIANCE REQUEST The following is a variance request to LOC 44.384, which states that maximum grade normally allowable for a collector street is 10%. The applicant is proposing a gradient of 12% for a portion of Jefferson Parkway which is classified as a collector street on the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. • RESPONSES TO DECISION CRITERIA A. Unnecessary Hardship Increasing the road gradient for Jefferson Parkway to 12% is necessary given the specific site conditions. A 3/4 street improvement has already been completed for this portion of Jefferson Parkway as part of the development of the subdivision located to the south of Mt. View Estates. The remaining 1/4 street improvement on the north side of Jefferson Parkway was substantially completed by a previous developer under a developmentpermit , • $$) P granted by the City of Lake Oswego (PD $- ..,' Requiring a 10% grade for this portion of Jefferson Parkway would result in the following hardships; 1. The existing roadway as well as the existing underground public utilities would have to be rebuilt at a substantially increased cost to the developer. 2, The 12% grade is needed to provide feasible access to Lots 10-14. Altering the point of access would require that the existing substantially completed private street be removed and relocated. The results listed above constitute an unnecessary hardship for the applicant. B. Not Injurious to Neighborhood As noted above, 3/4 street improvement for this portion of Jefferson Parkway already exists between Fosberg Road and SW Kingsgate, Granting this variance would allow the applicant to complete the improvements of Jefferson Parkway and improve the traffic circulation in the district. This request would thereby benefit the neighborhood. . 40 . Pagel i. EXHIBIT l r M o R , . 4 ` 4\ a� • , .. Mountain View Estates Variance Request w• C. Minimum Variance Necessary The applicant is only requesting approval to complete the improvements of the existing road that was constructed under a previously approved development permit. This minimal request will allow the applicant to make reasonable use of the • development site. D. Not in Conflict With the Comprehensive Plan Connecting Jefferson Parkway to Fosberg Road is one of the objectives shown in-the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. This connection has already been accomplished by a previous developer. Granting this variance would allow the applicant to complete the development of this portion of Jefferson Parkway. Therefore, this request is supportive of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. • • • 4• • h• • • • • .. Page 2 • .•1 - .• i _ d , . • _ ♦ _ _ •` r.. , V , ' i. Mountain View Estates Variance Request VARIANCE REQUEST The following is a variance request to Development Standard 18.020(1) of the Lake Oswego Development Ordinance, which requires that every lot abut a street (public) for a width of �. } at least 25 feet. All fourteen lots of the proposed development will take access from two private roads as shown on Exhibit F. RESPONSES TO DECISION CRITERIA • •• A. Unnecessary Hardship • The proposed lots will be accessed by two private drives which connect to Jefferson • Parkway. These tvvo private streets were designed to accommodate emergency vehicles, to control vehicle circulation on-site and to provide adequate access to the • building sites. The objective of using private streets is to provide for these critical • • factors and to minimize site disturbance. Building private versus public roads will allow the applicant to use turnarounds which minimize grading requirements and disturbance to the steep portions of the site. 1 r , ' Imposing public street standards on this site would result in the following hardships: • • 1. The existing roadways as well as the existing underground public utilities would have to be removed at a substantially increased cost to the developer. II ''` . 2. Additional rock removal would be required which would vastly increase the cost to the developer. ,; * 3. Disturbance of the sensitive site would be increased by cut and fill activity if the existing roads are replaced. a' . These three results constitute an unnecessary hardship for the applicant. • R. Not Injutiious to Neighborhood ' ' The proposed private drives will allow the applicant to preserve larger lots for future • homes, Preserving the site as proposed will enhance the visual and environmental qualities of the surrounding neighborhood. Building private roads will allow the applicant to preserve the natural qualities and sensitivities of the property and allow • • • the applicant to provide high quality naturalized settings for prospective home owners, . • . Page 1 • EX IgiT 1. . l 7 • • • Mountain View Estates ' -. Variance Request C. Minimum Variance Necessary The applicant is only requesting approval to complete the existing private streets • which were constructed under a previously approved development permit (PD 8- 88). This minimal request will allow the applicant to make reasonable use of the . development site. D. Not in Conflict With the Comprehensive Plan Constructing the proposed private streets as shown on the attached exhibits,- implements the intent of the Comprehensive Plan by providing access to developable • ` •• • land. The project also makes critical infrastructure improvements necessary for the orderly development of the district. . • • 1 • W ' ' . - •.uy 1 • . • , a 1 • 1 . 4110 .tie,' Page 3 • .tr Mountain View Estates • Variance Request • . . ,.. ,, . 4,.. ... y, . ,, . • .. ... J • VARIANCE REQUEST The following is a variance request to Development Standard 19.025(5) of the Lake Oswego Development Ordinance which states "Cross slope of any driveable area shall be a maximum of 5%." The applicant is requesting permission to complete the construction of one hammerhead turnaround with an 8% cross slope at the end of one of the proposed private streets on the site (SW Vivian Court). RESPONSES TO DECISION CRITERIA ,r- A. Univ.cessary. Hardship 'rp? 0 ' Increasing the cross slope gradient of the hammerhead turnaround to 8%, as outlined ' tk above, is necessary given the specific site conditions. The hammerhead turnai ounds associated with the private roads were substantially completed by a previous developer under a development permit granted by the City of Lake Oswego (PD 8- 88). . gip . at5% grade would Requiring that the hammerhead turnaround be constructed Rp result in the following hardships: `'1 1: The existing turnaround as well as the existing underground public utilities would have to be removed at a substantially increased cost to the developer. y 2: Constructing a turnaround at 5% gradient would create an extremely difficult access condition for Lots 12 and 13. Large cut and fill banks would require 4 ' extensive retaining wall construction to access the proposed building lots, This ` would negatively impact the marketability of these lots, 3, Disturbance of the sensitive site would be increased by cut and fill activity if the existing turnaround is replaced. . ., These three results constitute an unnecessary hardship for the applicant. B. Not Injurious to Neighborhood . •. The 8% cross slope will reduce grading requirements resulting in increased tree and vegetation preservation. It will meet the requirements for emergency vehicle access _ and' and circulation. It will accommodate standard automobiles, No safety hazards would , 0 . Page 1 ' : . , . EXH BIT • ,ice•. • Mountain View Estates Variance Request } , 'u be created by this variance request and the xxisting environment would be preserved to a greater degree. Therefore, the request is not injurious to the neighborhood. • C. Minimum Variance Necessary The applicant is only requesting approval to complete the existing turnaround which was constructed under a previously approved development permit (PD 8-88). The \'`; 8% slope will accommodate safe access, reduce impact to the site and improve the value of these lots. This minimal request will allow the applicant to make ., ': reasonable use of the development site. • • D. Not in Conflict With the Comprehensive Plan By minimizing impact to the site and providing safe and efficient access, the proposed variance request is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, • • f( q . .: • • J, 1 G' v Page 2 ,. r.• • .• - - - . 9 ► ip • Mountain View Estates ♦ Variance Request0 , . ,'' ' 1` , •t• VARIANCE REQUEST The following is a variance request to Development Standard 19.025(6) of the Lake Oswego Development Ordinance, which states that private streets shall not exceed a 15% gradient. The applicant is proposing approval for a gradient of 17% for one of the two private drives ';:: on site, SW Haynes Court. RESPONSES TO DECISION CRITERIA A. Unnecessary Hardship • Increasing the road gradient to 17% as outlined above is necessary given the specific , site conditions. This private road was substantially completed by a previous developer under a development permit granted by the City of Lake Oswego (PD 8- " 88). Requiring a 15% grade for this private road would result in the following hardships: ', _ r b 1. The existing roadway, as well as the existing underground public utilities, 1 would have to be removed at a substantially increased cost to the developer, , • 2. Additional rock removal would be required,which would again vastly increase the cost to the developer. 3. Disturbance to the sensitive site will be increased by cut and fill activity if the existing roads is replaced. .x:. 4. The driveway grades accessing the individual building lots will be too steep for safe negotiation. These four results constitute an unnecessary hardship for the applicant. • B. Not Injurious to Neighbor ,od This request will enable the applicant to minimize construction disturbance to ti,e site, retain more existing trees and provide improved access to the proposed building sites. This will benefit the district economically and environmentally. . Page 1 EXF��IT 0 :, t . • ♦ 1 Mountain View Estates . . ... .• . 0 Variance Request C. Minimum Variance Necessary The applicant is only requesting approval to complete the existing road which was s^ constructed under a previously approved development permit (PD 8-88). This minimal request will allow the applicant to make reasonable use of the development site. D. Not in Conflict With the Comprehensive Plan y I J a ? By minimizing disturbance to a sensitive site, this request is supportive of the natural resource policies of the Comprehensive Plan. ; r e.' • d 5 S .�' Page 2 ✓ • IDIt' P1ae la 'ls 1• )I i j ✓ Mountain View Estates Development Application Narrative Supplement e :OCT 2 6 1997 IV. COMPLIANCE TO APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. pity of Lake Oswego Development Ordinance The following are supplemental written responses to the applicable sections of the Development Ordinance related to the project. The preliminary plans, details, calculations and other data enclosed with the original application package and with this supplemental narrative are also in response to these standards and should be reviewed in conjunction with this narrative. , Section 11.005 - Drainage Standard for Major Development , 11.020 Standards for Approval • I. Access - Easements will be provided on the final plat for all drainage facilities, ti l These easements are shown on the preliminary plat, utility plan and other development plans. All easements are sized to allow access for inspection and maintenance. 1 .Ai • Y A gravel parking area will be provided adjacent to the detention basin to allow for access for inspection and maintenance. 2, Drainage Pattern Alteration - The drainage plan is illustrated on the grading plan and utility plan. The overall drainage pattern of the proposed site will not be significantly altered Surface drainage is currently collected on-site and conveyed to the existing storm sewer line along Jefferson'Parkway, The existing detention , basin located adjacent to Jefferson Parkway was designed to maintain the runoff • rates at the natural undeveloped levels to prevent adverse impact on downstream properties. . i 3, Storm Water Detention - The existing storm water detention pond is shown on the grading plan and utility plan. Storm drainage calculations used for the design of this system have been included in Exhibit 24. The detention pond exists at the base of i the stream corridors adjacent to the southern property line, This was designed to ". .•t control the downstream runoff rate at the natural undeveloped levels to prevent adverse impact on downstream properties,. This facility will be located in a dedicated tract with public access for inspection and maintenance, . Conversations with the Environmental Services Division of the City of Lake Oswego have resulted in the proposal of several modifications to the existing detention basin to address safety concerns, It is proposed that the front (southern) and side (eastern and western) slopes of the detention facility will be dressed back to a 4H:IV slope, This will allow for easier exit from the pond in the case of accidental entry into the I ,� • EXHIBIT 4 Gsf„,) .. . . , . . . .♦ • •�;ill • . ., .. ..,. . :, .. Mountain View Estates 0 .,..:::.:**.::. Development Application Narrative Supplement pond. The rear (northern) slope will remain at the present slope, but will be planted with trees and vegetation as shown on the landscaping plan. This will restrict access to the rear slope of the detention basin. The pond water depth at the rear of the pond will normally be negligible, and during major storm events is not anticipated x , to exceed 3 feet. 4. Required Storm Water Management Measures - The proposed drainage system was y. f•• designed to meet the storm water runoff and detention requirements of the City of Lake Oswego. Refer to the grading and utility plans and storm drainage calculations .. included with the development application. The effectiveness of the system in controlling storm water quality is discussed below. •r,,, 5. Water Runoff Quality - The drainage system will be constructed with temporary sediment control measures as outlined in Section 16.005 Erosion Control. • The permanent drainage system consists of a storm water collection system and a '.,i storm water detention basin. This collection system and detention basin are currently in place, having been constructed under the previous development permit. This collection and detention system has a number of features which will enhance the ability of the system to reduce the pollutant load in the storm water discharged into the downstream collection system. Included in the existing and proposed 0 +4'• „. . . . , .. . : . improvements are the following: • a. Vegetated Detention Basin: The existing drainage system includes a vegetated U detention basin which will function as a water quality control structure. Much t„ • of the landscaping previously installed around the pond must be restored and "' completed as follows: • #• (1) Emergent vegetation in the detention basin as shown on the landscaping plan. (2) Trees, shrubs and ground cover must be planted as shown on the landscaping plan. _ ' (3) The DSL permit issued for the original work completed for this • development requires that the landsci;;iing be maintained for two years • 'ti ,• to assure the creation of a successful habitat, To accomplish this, the .t h: '¢ • developer is proposing to install an irrigation System which will ensure survival of the vegetation during dry seasons. It is anticipated that these measures will reduce the nutrient load to the downstream system by about 50 percent (Surface plater Quality Facilities, Brown & Caldwell, 1991). i w 2 • s M Mountain View Estates Development Application Narrative Supplement • b• Stream Channel Stabilization: In addition to revegetating the detention basin area, the stream channels upstream from the detention basin will be stabilized �. ° and revegetated as required by the City of Lake Oswego. The Environmental Services Division of the City has indicated that the gabion check dams shown in the construction plans are no longer the preferred stream stabilization method. They indicated that they will issue direction on the manner in which the City would like to see this stream stabilization and revegetation accomplished. Stabilization and revegetation of these stream channels will • have the effect of reducing the sediment and nutrient load to the detention basin. It is anticipated that these measures will reduce the nutrient load to the detention basin by about 30 percent (Surface Water Quality Facilities, Brown & Caldwell, 1991). • c. Pollution Control Manholes: The existing system constructed under the previous development permit included pollution control manholes in the storm sewers which discharge directly to the existing storm sewer along Jefferson Parkway, This includes the lower portion of both Haynes Court and Vivian „` - Court. The primary purpose of these pollution control manholes is to remove sediment from urban runoff prior to discharging flow into the downstream a rep stormwater system, although they also have the effect of reducing the nutrient load, It is recommended that each pollution control manhole serve an area no larger than 3 acres (Surface Water Quality Facilities, Brown & Caldwell, r} 1991). The pollution control manholes on Haynes Court and Vivian Court serve an impervious area of 0,23 acre and 0.15 acre respectively. These pollution control manholes will require cleaning twice a year to prevent resuspension of settled sediment and pollutants, The proposed maintenance • s plan is outlined below, . With regular cleaning, anticipated levels of pollutant removal are expected to be about 30 percent removal of suspended solids, and 25 percent removal of trace metals and phosphorous (Surface Water Quality Facilities, Brown & .;' Caldwell, 1991), 6. Maintenance Plan Requirements - The maintenance of the storm drainage system and the detention basin will be the responsibility of the neighborhood association representing the residents of this development. It is recommended that the • maintenance be accomplished as follows: . a, Pollution Control Manholes: (1) Inspection: All pollution control/sedimentation manholes shall be inspected on a minimum of three month intervals to monitor sediment levels and any floating debris in the manholes, These scheduled 3 :1 + it i .r a Mountain View Estates ......• ••,, 410Development Application Narrative Supplement h inspections are to beperformed in March, June, September, and . . _.. ,...,. . ...:s, P p , December of each year. Additional inspections are to be performed `' as required, especially after unusually large storm events. (2) Cleaning: All sedimentation manholes shall be cleaned of all sediment "' and debris at least twice a year. These cleaning are to be performed ,.'' in March and September of each year. In addition to these scheduled cleanings, sedimentation manholes shall be cleaned if any inspection reveals that more than 12 inches of sediment has accumulated in the °' t.. bottom of the manhole. • ` l:. Vegetated Detention Basin: •,' , (1) Inspection: The vegetated detention basin shall be inspected on the same schedule as outlined above for the sedimentation manholes. In 4. addition to monitoring sediment debris levels, the condition of the irrigation system shall be checked to assure that it is operational and that the vegetation in and around the detention basin is surviving. (2) Cleaning: Any sediment or debris which has accumulated around the outlet structure of the detention basin shall be cleaned out on the same schedule as outlined above for the sedimentation manholes. In • addition to these scheduled cleanings, the detention basin shall be cleaned if any inspection reveals debris around the outlet structure or sediment exceeding 6 inches of depth. (3) Maintenance: 'Routine maintenance of the irrigation system shall be • performed as recommended by the manufacturer of the irrigation �; equipment. . • • . • ' c. Stabilized Stream Channels: (1) Inspection and maintenance: The stabilized stream channels shall be inspected on the same schedule as outlined above for the sedimentation manholes, The condition of the stream stabilization measures shall be . ascertained maintenance performed as required to prevent erosion of • the stream channelsreas exhibiting erosion shall be reseeded and. A ' provided with additional erosion protection as required. • ,„ . • Y P ± • . W 4 , , r 4 \ 1 . v • Mountain View Estates • Development Application Narrative Supplement D. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan • 1. Growth Management Policy Element a. Urban Service Boundary Policies (1) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy III(4). It is within the IMMEDIATE GROWTH AREAS as identified by the ' City of Lake Oswego. As such, it is with the area in which can be served by an urban level of service of the following: (a) Water k ` • (b) Sanitary sewer (c) Adequate streets, including collectors (d) Transportation facilities (e) Open space and trails (f) City police protection • (g) City fire protection (h) Parks and recreation facilities (i) Adequate drainage (j) Schools b. Impact Management Policies (1) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy 1(1 and 3)., This development was designed with a reduced density so as to more adequately provide the following: . (a) Open space preservation (b) Preservation of trees and groves (c) . Protection of soil from erosion (d) Preservation of sta'eam corridors (e) Provision of pedestrian and bicycle circulation, • 2 The proposed development meets the intent of Specific PolicyI 4 ( ) P P p p., � ( ). • Per the recommendations of this subsection, a geotechnical investigation was performed by John McDonald Engineering which concluded that the area was suitable for the development of single family dwelling, and is not a hazardous area as outlined in this Policy. (3) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy 1(5 and 6), As outlined above, the proposed development was designed with low density lots and open spaces to preserve open space and natural . features, The low density lot design of this development was intended 5 ; Mountain View Estates Development Application Narrative Supplement " .. to minimize the number of trees required to be removed. As shown . " on the enclosed construction plans, street trees are to be planted to enhance the overall appearance of the development. (4) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy II(1). Per the requirements of this section, the purpose of this narrative and enclosed attachments is to demonstrate that the proposed development complies with comprehensive plan policies, as well as other applicable standards and ordinances. (5) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy 11(2). Included in this development application are provisions to identify and satisfactorily mitigate adverse impacts in the following categories: (a) Traffic and safety improvements needed for access, circulation, parking of autos, pedestrians and separation of auto and other circulation. See also narrative for Sections (>, 7, 18, 19, and 20 of the Development Ordinance. The development was also designed as a reduced density development to reduce traffic '• impacts on adjacent areas. See also narrative for Section 6 of ' :,,,;' :, the Development Ordinance, which outlined how the propnsed development is designed to facilitate the use of public :, transportation. 40 . .., .••• •,. ..... . . (b) Public safety, especially emergency services accessibility were • , considered during the design of the proposed development. See also narrative for Section 19 of the Development Ordinance, (e) Utility service needs, especially sanitary sewer, water and • .; drainage, including all surface runoff was considered in the • design of this development. These improvements are shown on •,° the enclosed construction plans. (d) As outlined above, the development was designed to preserve, to the extent practical, the natural site features such as trees, • views, streams, and soils, (e) As shown on the construction plans, there is a 20 foot wide •• undisturbed buffer zone (Tract V Open Space) under the control of Mt. Park Homeowners Association which will reduce the noise, glare, and visual impacts on adjacent properties, (f) "public costs impacts, assuring that the development 1) pays for • . costs of facilities required to serve it or, 2) ameliorates the ' • ' 6Y ' •. e • I. Mountain View Estates • Development Application Narrative Supplement rl• i. public cost impacts of the development." It is anticipated at this time that this goal can be achieved given the scope of work required under the previous development permit. (6) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy II(3). The purpose of this narrative is to demonstrate "compliance with the Development Standards and other applicable City Codes," (7) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy III(1). �' ' This development will "pay for an equitable share of identifiable costs of public facilities required for or because of the development, including the following: (a) Street and traffic safety improvements. rl i C ;nclude the new access streets and the half street improvement of the existing Jefferson Parkway to the south of the proposed development. • , (b) Drainage and surface runoff. Most of these improvements are currently in place, at;d need only to be completed when approval is obtained from the City. (c) Water and sanitary sewer system. Most of these improvements are also in place. The water system was previously pronounced acceptable by the City, and the sewer system has some minor , ' work left to be completed when approval is obtained from the City. (d) Buffering from adjacent lands. See also narrative for subsection (D)(1)(b)(7)(e) of this narrative, 2. Community Resource Policy Element . . a. Wildlife Habitat Policies • • • • (1) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy ft(1), This states that the City will protect upland habitat. The proposed •• development was designed to maintain to the extent practical a balance between man, animal and plant life, which will help maintain desirable wildlife populations. b. Distinctive Natural Areas Policies (1) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy 1(2). The development was designed at a lower than required density, as 40 7 • Mountain View Estates u Development Application Narrative Supplement well as with open space buffer zones around the development and between the two private streets on site to encourage the use of trees and plants within the residential area as part of the management of air • '� and noise quality and to provide natural beauty. c. Potential Landslide Area Policies ' (1) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy II(E,2,3,4 and 5) and Specific Policy IV(1 and 2). As outlined previously, a . geotechnical investigation was performed by John McDonald Engineering which concluded that the area was suitable for the development of single family dwelling, and is not, a hazardous area d. Potential Erosion Area Policies ',• (1) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy II(1 an' 2). The proposed development has been designed with reduced density oversized lots and open space to reduce the amount of trees and • vegetation which will be disturbed and thus reduce the potential for • erosion. *,`:k w (2) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy IV(1, • 3 and 4). See also narrative for Section 16 of the Development , Ordinance, . C. Energy Conservation Policies (1) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy II(5). `,':• • Through the application of the Solar Access Ordinance, it was demonstrated that the proposed development utilizes an energy ' efficient site design by consideration of solar orientation and sensitivity ' to the site's natural features. (2) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy V(2 and 3). See also narrative for Section 20 of the Development Ordinance, f, Wetlands Policies (1) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy I(1 and 2). The stream corridor Open Space shown on the plans is designed to preserve areas which are essential for stream expansion during times of heavy runoff, This area and the vegetated detention pond are designed as part of land use compatible with wetland preservation. , ' • 5 , b 'i Mountain View Estates Development Application Narrative Supplement (2) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy II(3). ' . As previously outlined, this development was designed to accomplish :a the following: (a) Incorporate natural wetland features such as streams in the site design. °..: (b) Reduce clearing of natural vegetation. (c) Preserve the natural retention storage capacity of the land to the extent practical through the use of Open Space,buffer zones, .. : and oversized lots which reduce potential for tree and vegetation removal. (d) A storm Water collection system designed to prevent the discharge of water pollutants into the ground. (3) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy II(4). ' , • The storm drainage system incorporates a wetland surface retention .• pond to mitigate downstream impacts of increased runoff. (4) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy II(5). There was no density transfers requested for this subdivision since it was designed with oversized lots to reduce the impact on wetlands as intended by this policy. • g, Stream Corridor Policies CO The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy 1(2), • As outlined in the geotechnical investigation report prepared by John -. McDonald Engineering, gabion check dams will he installed in the • stream channels in the Open Spaces to reduce the erosion potential • and to make the streams more scenic. (2) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy 11(1. and 2). The present stream channels on site will not be diverted from their • -, present locations. Per the requirements of this policy, a buffer strip of vegetation will be maintained adjacent to all stream banks on site, See also narrative for Section 3 of the Development Ordinance, (3) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy 11(3 & • • 4), The proposed development was designed to prevent damaging increases in storm water runoff which would threaten downstream corridors, as well as maintaining water quality in streams to reduce water quality degradation in downstream receiving waters, The existing wetland detention pond was designed to accomplish this. See also narrative for Section 11 of the Development Ordinance. iw • • d • .... Mountain View Estates Development Application Narrative Supplement �,- 3. Residential Land Use Policy Element a. Residential Density Policies (1) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy I(1), Ao Per the requirements of this pc licy, the density of the proposed development is suitable based on the following criteria: • (a) Physical site conditions. The proposed 14 oversized lots represent an R-10 to R-15 lot size in an R-0 zone. The oversized lots are designed to minimize the disturbance to the slopes and to maximize tree preservation, y,. y outlined, the site was designed to preserve the existing stream corridors and to maintain the buffer zone both between the hvo private streets on site and between the development and r • surrounding residential neighborhoods, (b) The capacity of the adjacent streets, Per the requirements of this policy, each of the private streets in this development will have primary access to Jefferson Parkway, which is classified as a collector street by the City of Lake Oswego, (c) The capacity of the public facilities and services, especially • water, sewer, s.reets and drainage systems, The enclosed • construction plai's show the manner in which this development will'be served by the required public services, Y (d) Suitability for the proposed density. The oversize lots allow the allow for efficient use of the shape of the site, and alleviate potential problems with internal circulation and parking, as will '' as public safety access, Preserving the strewn corridors and buffer strips and the completion of the drainage basin are designed to address the issues relating to screening, privacy and drainage, (e) Proximity to public transportation. See also narrative for • Section 6 of the Development Ordinance, (2) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy 1(4), It is felt that the density proposed for this development is suitable related to site conditions, •;urrounding land uses and public facility . • capacity. 101e :: . . "i • 4 ry • it f c11 tn Mountain View Estates Development Application Narrative Supplement b. Residential Site Design Policies • (1) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy I(1). The site do„ign and building placement as implemented through proposed setbacks take into account site conditions, terrain and natural features. See also narrative for LOC 48-150. I, •d (2) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy I(2). • Per the intent of the requirements of this section, this development is `' being proposed as a planned development; See also narrative for LOC 48.470 and LOC 48,475. (3) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy 1(4). The development application narrative and attachments address the site analysis requirements of this policy, r' (4) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy I(5). 4 Due, to the nature of this development (i.e. plans previouslyapproved • and many of the improvements partially or substantially cconstructed),cted), many of the requirements of this section are no longer applicable since the work has already been done. However, the enclosed development plans and this narrative address and show the development's relationship to the following factors; (a) Organization of land uses and buildings on terrain. See also narrative for Chapter 48 and Chapter 48 revision (Zoning Code). t . (b) Layout of streets, parking, pedestrian, bicycle paths and utility easements. See also narrative for Section 18, 19 and 20 of the Development Ordinance, (c) Street and parking gradients. See also narrative for LOC • '' 44.384(b) and the request for variances, • ((.1) Areas of likely grading, clearing, cuts and fills. These are shown '' on the construction plans. The major portion of this work has .w, {•, • already been completed under a previously issued development permit, '< (e) Storm water calculations, Included as Exhibit 4 of the development application, (f) Proposed methods of handling runoff drainage. Show on the construction plans included with the development application, • " '. (g) Relationship of buildings and structures to hazardous and open r • areas, Discussed in enclosed geotechnical report by John '° 1 ' 1 1 4" i;'. + r Mountain View Estates , Development Application Narrative Supplement McDonald Engineering and narrative for Sections 2, 3, 4 and 9 of the Development Ordinance. (h) Net buildable area/density. See also narrative for Zoning Code. °"' (i) General design of visual and/or noise buffers. See construction r plans'and narrative for LOC 48-150. 4 . (j) Areas to be planted or landscaped. See construction plans. J . (k) Views, sun and wind orientation. See also narrative for Solar Access Ordinance, j (1) Soil protection measures. See also narrative for Section 16 of the Development Ordinance. jr ,•�1 (5) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy I(6). ' The final site plans which were previously approve) by the City and according to which the existing improvements were constructed take into account the following: • (a) Energy conservation measures in site layout and building ^'' u placement. See also narrative for Solar Access Ordinance. (b) Separation of vehicular circulation from pedestrian and bicycle circulation. See also narrative for Sections 19 and 20 of Development Ordinance. ! y (c) Privacy considerations. See also narrative for LOC 48-150, (d) Service by garbage collection, and deliveries, r ' Emergency(e) g Y access by police and fire vehicles, See also narrative ' • . for Section 19 of Development Ordinance, , , (f) ' Landscaping such as street tree plantings. r,, (g) Screening and appearance of parking areas. , (6) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy III(4 r •This development was based on a high quality design as intended by r ` this policy, (7) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy IV(2), _ Per the requirements of this policy, the streets in this development . were designed to provide for pedestrian and bicyclist safety, landscaping • , and street trees, and controlling the speed of the automobile traffic. ` '' As recommended, priority was given in the street design to amenities i • which improve residential livability over vehicular speed and • convenience, The buffer zones and street trees will also reduce noise ^r ; ';�, impact of traffic on Jefferson Parkway, .„1 (8) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy IV(3), a M• • Per the recommendations of this section, street trees and landscaping " . h ." were included in the design, as well as provisions for pedestrian and t l2 h.' v• All • Mountain View Estates ',4:* .',. '4,-, ' • e Development Application Narrative Supplement circulation on the site. (9) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy V(1). Per the recommendations of this section, this development has some i ` innovative design features, including the lot layouts to preserve the ' stream corridors and buffer areas, to preserve trees and natural ;' w ; features, and to allow for solar access to the lots, As outlined in this I fi section, the design requests flexibility from the City regarding building setbacks and yard sizes. 4. Open Space Land Use Policy Element , ' .,`', a. Protection Open Space Policies (1) The proposed development meets the intent of C.leneral Policy I and II. In accordance with the recommendations of this policy, the areas " within the proposed development which have been designated as PROTECTION OPEN SPACE include the stream corridors and the wetland created by the construction of the vegetated detention basin, See also narrative for Community Resource Policy Element. b. Pedestrian Pathway Policies (1) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy I and II. See also narrative for Section 20 of the Development Ordinance and for the Impact Management Policies, Growth Management Policy Element of the Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Land Use Policy Element. ,, V a. Transportation Policies • (1) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy 1(1). _ This policy states that"The City will,., develop a Transportation System which will serve the City's approved land use plan, This System will.., • be designed to serve the traffic projected from planned densities and land uses, and provide adequate vehicular capacity while minimizing the scale of necessary street improvements." It further states that this , 4 • system will"include procedures for approving increases in planned land use intensity only when a detailed traffic analysis shows that existing streets and intersections will accommodate the projected traffic ' increases or when improvements necessary to accommodate those increases can be constructed without exceeding the capacity of any element of the City's coordinated transportation system," and will also •• 13 •• • 7 1 ,a r t • • if• Mountain View Estates " Development Application Narrative Supplement 0 ..'„'''',:l'. "include procedures to amend the Major Streets Plan and require right-of-way designation, if changes in land use intensity indicate that K •the increase in expected traffic volumes will necessitate such street improvements." Since this development does not increase the land use intensity, but ' rather decreases it from the R-0 designation used by the City for designing the above referenced Transportation System to a R-10 lot ;' size density. This will result in a net decrease in the traffic volume generated when compared to the "planned densities and land uses." ,`. Traffic Study: Per the requirements of the City of Lake Oswego Department of Planning and Development, a traffic study'is currently ` being conducted which will include the following; • (a) Discussion of site-generated traffic, background traffic, and ! A intersection impacts at site approaches to Jefferson Parkway, ;� (b) Study Jefferson Parkway at Fosberg and Lessor Roads for t' " ''! service level and future signal conditions. (c) Verify that intersection and access sight distances meet City standards. . •0 • ... , (d) , A project site plan which illustrates access locations. (2) The proposed development meets the intent of Slecific Policy 1(2). •; Per the requirements of this policy, the proposed development includes provisions for the dedication of adequate rights-of-way to provide adequate space for planned uses in accordance to the City's ' , Transportation Plan, These rights-of-way have been cleared and coi•structed under the previous development approval, m (3) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy 1(3). Although this policy states that "The City will improve streets as planned when demand requires, in a manner which allows for the most • ':• effective and efficient expenditure of public funds", the proposed development includes provisions for providing the needed half street improvements on Jefferson Parkway across the front of the • • • development and extending across the intersections of Jefferson Parkway with Lessor and Kosberg Roads, i w 4 + .4 (4) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy 11(1)• The public right of way to be dedicated to the City along Jefferson • 11 14 pl` d '' . • • • • Mountain View Estates Development Application Narrative Supplement 4 Parkway will be available for use as needed by the City. Current plans ` include provisions for vehicle travel lanes, storm drain system, utilities, u" street trees, pedestrian paths, on-street parking, and open space • planting. Street lights already exist on the south side of the existing " Jefferson Parkway improvements. (5) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy II 2 . r ( )Per the recommendations of this policy, the highest priority was given to movement of traffic, including vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. (6) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy III(1). The quarter street improvement proposed fcr Jefferson Parkway is in conformance to the City's Major Streets Network and Transportation System Plan for the development and improvement of collector streets, under which category Jefferson Parkway is included, Access to public ' streets other than Jefferson Park-way is not available due to the site configuration, with Portland Community College directly to the north of the site, In addition to this, there is no access available to public • • streets located to the east and west of the proposed development. (7) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy IV(l. and • 4), This development proposes residential streets which consist of two :' cul-de-sacs which will provide for minimum disruption of neighborhoodg living and adequate safe circulation from the development to Jeffersn Parkway. The residential traffic volumes projected for the private streets are far below the 1200 vehicles per weekday, as outlined in the v narrative for Section 18 of the Development Ordinance, (8) The proposed development meets the intent of Specific Policy IV(5, . . 6 and 7). The proposed private streets are designed to adequately y Y ; � serve the development and will have no impact on existing residential . . streets in the vicinity. Input from the Mt. Park Homeowners ` 1 Association was used during the design process to assure that the .q communities concerns were met, • 1 " 1' • 15 , V .1 } imi 'lJ Planring8Cn,' i'' ir � I`, --,........_1 LI) • , F 4 . S 0 C1ATED . . .... 1 '4s • / ... .. i ••% 47^ � E. ,•,.. .• ... . .... ... 1 .,. .. ., .: ,:%' ' ..' ANSPOR TA TI0 N .„13, a is , Kt. l ._. GINEERING & -,•.....:i . ...' • . . . . '::.i':0"=". t ir. A NNINC. . . ; ., .. . "sat t •' a, W .. . , . , . 0 ,.... .. :. ll ....., :.. :,.... . • . . ..„. . ., . .. • ,, , : .„., . ... . . .. ..,...., i 41 T. TRANSPORTATION ANAL YSIS r FOR MT. VIEW ESTATES TE,S .t :•' .F LAKE CAS �� EGA OREGON e '...1 E X HAB 1,T • )r e v ii • • • • TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS h .. MT. VIEW ESTATES LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON • ♦; PREPARED FOR WESTECH ENGINEERING, INC. SALEM, OREGON izvitt C0- pR0r r • I OREC>N • • PREPARED BY ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING, (ATEP) 4040 DOUGLAS WAY LAKE OSWEGO, OR. 97035 • 92-535 November 4, 1992 •1 • , y r• U -.• , v,I.' • • .. I TABLE OF CONTENTS .\ • J EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS 1 , • INTRODUCTION 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC CONTROL • 2 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 2 CURRENT LEVELS OF SERVICE 4 4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 'Q, TRIP GENERATION 11 '.• 12 TRIP DISTRIBUTION & ASSIGNMENT 13 LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR 1993 WITH MT. VIEW ESTATES -- 1 q SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS 20 CONCLUSIONS 23 • r• RECOMMENDATIONS 23 • , -I- r • 0 • 4 • TABLES 1. Level of Service Definitions (Signalized Intersections) • 2. Criteria for Signalized Intersections 3. Level of Service Definitions (Unsignalized Intersections) 8 9 4. Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections 10 5. Levels of Service for 1993 without Mt. View Estates 11 6. Trip Generation for Buildout of Mt. View Estates 13 7. Levels of Service for 1993 with Mt. View Estates 14 8. Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis 22 FIGURES 1. Site Plan & Vicinity Map 3 2. Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ' 3. Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 4. Trip Assignment Percentages 5. Site Generated AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 16 -7) 6. Site Generated PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 7. Total AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 17 18 8 Total PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 19 9. Peak Hour Warrant • 21 • • T _• ' ••_ 1' . 1,• f , -Il- • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • This report covers the construction of a 14 lot single family development located on the north side of Jefferson Parkway between Fosberg Road and Kingsgate Rd in the City of Lake Oswego. The existing intersections in the study currently operate at level of service B or better during the pm peak hours. The development p ent as proposed is to consist of 14 single family homed with two access roads connecting to the Jefferson Parkway. The development is separated by open space that will be dedicated to the Mt. Park Homeowner's Association. The most westerly parcel consists of nine single family homes and the easterly parcel consists of five single family homes. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication, "Trip Generation" 5th edition ' indicates that the development will generate 141 trips per day with 14 trips during the pm peak hour (9 in and 5 out.) ' .. , ' ,.. 40$ Based on the assumptions, methods and the analyses presented this report, the proposed development can be developed with minimal impacts to any of the surrounding road system. . ' REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS • • • ell Wififille • • • The traffic generated by the development will not have a substantial impact on the existing , .:... .. . intersections within the study area and the maio site driveways to the development. In order to ' • mitigate this impact the following improvements need to be made, 1. The main site driveway located at the Jefferson Parkwa should si gns, Y s be controlled by stop 2, Standard traffic control devices, including pavement markings and signing need to be installed, MT. VIEW ESTATES IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 1 • . • I • • • w This report describes the results of a INTRODUCTION' transportation analysis for the construction of a 1./, lot single family subdivision located on the nor , side of Jefferson Parkway between Fosberg and Kingsgate Street in Lake Oswego, Oregon.(See Figure 1, page 3) • The traffic impact analysis outlined in this report identifies the impact of the development on the surrounding street network and is based on thwo different periods of time: • First, the current conditions within the study area; • • Second, 1993 conditions with the development; • • • • DUSTING CONDITIONS • The study area consists of the area of bounded by Jefferson Parkway/Lesser Road on the nort • • Kingsgate on the east, Fosberg Road on the west and Melrose Street on the south. The area currently developed except several sections of the Bay Creek subdivision on Fosberg Road. • All of the roads in the study area are currently two lane streets with two way traffic. Jefferson • Parkway is approximately 36 feet wide with sidewalks and planter areas on both sides. 01. • • • Fosberg Road in this area is 36 feet wide with sidewalks and planter areas. Fosberg Road is • designated by the City of Lake Oswego Master Pathway Plans as a pedestrian and bicycle route, TRAFFIC CONTROL • Currently the side street intersections along Fosberg and Jefferson Parkway are controlled by stop signs. As proposed, the development will take access from Jefferson Parkway at two driveways • • . located approximately 120 feet and 500 feet east of Fosberg Road. MT. VIEW ESTATES IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 2 • t ik r pp ,t Y !. NORTH 9 , F� cep` tit • • I ' • • ' /,v(1 m awl`` y iva • cp z. , 1\11EI,I<0 E 51'KEE 1 • rr . VI11\1 5 A � PACE 3 rloug Mf, J . ,.„,. , 0 1 SITE PLAN & VIC*1'Y MAP 0 . ill i9.\ �� 1 p • 1. • TRAFFIC VOLUMES Directional traffic counts were conducted by Associated Transportation Engineering & Planning (ATEP) on October 27, 1992. The am peak hour generally occurs between 7:30 and 8:30 am and the pm peak hour occurred between 5:00 and 6:00 pm and are shown in Figures 2 and 3. CURRENT LEVELS OF SERVICE • Level of Service (LOS) is a concept that was developed to measure how the driver perceives the conditions surrounding them as they travel through an intersection or roadway segment. This degree of perception includes such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount •• n . • stopped delay, and impedances caused by other vehicles. As originally defined by the 1965 Highway Capacity Manual six grades are used to denote the various LOS; these grades are shown in Table 1. Using this definition, it is generally agreed that for signalized intersections LOS "D" is } the minimum acceptable for an urban, a and for unsignalized intersections LOS "E" is the minimum acceptable level of service for urban areas. •• 'a a kt° Unsignalized intersections require a somewhat different approach to determine the capacity of the intersection. The 1985 Highway Capacity J4anual offers the concept of"Reserve Ca aci ry as t guideline for measuring the capacity. p „ Reserve Capacity is defined as " that portion of available hourly capacity that is not used". It ♦ • should be noted that the concept of Reserve Capacity only applies to the individual movements of traffic on an approach to an intersection, either in an individual lane or a shared lane, not to the overall operation of the intersection. This determination is made after all approaches are analyzed r• and the LOS determined is usually that approach that typifies the "Worst Case" condition or worst Level of Service. A description of the levels of service relating to the Reserve Capacity Concept is shown in Tables 3 & 4. LOS analyses presented in this report were performed in accordance with L the procedures described above, • MT. VIEW ESTATES IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 4 • .a weerg • ,e' ("......."... NORTH 40 ^is sr-.G0 • �' o g • �© • • . • S11' . . . kw�� z' E . . S w �.- • j . • — C") \s,..,1 \ 30 —14 7 . . . • . , ., . , „,. \__ g r 2 ti ro • MI,K05E 5 rREE 1' go r' ' r 260 . t L- h , am , • Fi ... M'r. VIEW E51"ArES PAGE 5 EXI51"IN6 fl M 1G VOLUMES ' 1..,- , . .. ; AM PEAK NOIJR • 0. • 1/. " e�emk i.. ' I 4 •i NORTH 135—4, .-- 56 64 —w e rr'56 . 5, if �< . 1 f . . . '<i ,.. ,, 136—I. e-- • n: Q 60—�. r 66! r �G ) y 1 r u— t ' Ml.I05E 51'i'EE T i : . % F Ci, j F ‘,.-' 30 . ' .. .,. ., - to--__, i. . . , ad. \\.................1,_,.4' r L r! J Mf. VIEW .S'i'A.rE PAS 6 •p 3 Exi -iNC) flAf IC VOLUMES 0 t., IV PEAK Table 1 - Level Of Service Definitions (Signalized Intersections) ®�av r Level of Service Traffic Flow Characteristics %" A Very low delay, less than 5.0 seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green • phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. •.:••• "' i {' I• 1 B Average delay in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally ' ' occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, Causing higher levels of average delay. ' . C Average delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher \ 1 .•� delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although may still pass through ' the intersection without stopping.in . ; :: D Average delay in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 seconds per vehicle At LOS D, the ii influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result , from some combination of unfavorable progression, longer cycle lengths, or high v/c rations. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Frequent signal cycle failures and associated congestion. E Average delay in the range of 40.1 to 60 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. , vi s '� F Forced flow, with average delay in excess of 60.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unac:eptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flows rates exceed the capacity of the intersection, It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with may individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. 1 - ----- Note: A signal cycle failure is considered to occur when one or more vehicles are , 4 forced to wait through more than one green signal indication for a particular approach. • Source: Transportation Research Board. "Highway Capacity Manual", Special Report 209 li ;, e [ (1985). MT. VIEW ESTATES IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 7 • I r • • • 4 1 W d:e Table 2 - Criteria For Signalized Intersections ,F. 91 Stopped LOS delay per vehicle (seconds) A .00 5.00 C 5.1 - 15.0 15.1- 25.0 � . • 25.1- 40.0 40.1. 60.0 • >60.0 Source: Transportation Research Board. "Highway Capacity Manual", 5 ecial Report 209 (1985), p • Y • •i 1• • i • • • MT. VIEW ESTATES IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 8 . b•.`.I. Table 3 - Level Of Service Definitions (Unsignalized Intersections) v au Level of -� service ' Traffic Flow Characteristics A Average delay per vehicle between 0 and 10 seconds • Free-flowing with no congestion. Very few vehicles waiting in a queue. 4. B Average delay per vehicle between 10 and 20 seconds. Slight delay to ' ; vehicles little or no vehicles in queue. C Average delay per vehicle 20 to 30 seconds. Occasional delay and congestions, more than one vehicle in queue, `1 ` • g D Average delayvehicle 30 tc per40 seconds, Frequent delay and ,'? congestion,more than one vehicle per queue. E • Average delay per vehicle in excess of 40 to 60 seconds. This condition exists when the demand is near or equal to the capacity of the intersection r or movement. Unstable flow which includes almost continuous vehicles in the queue. . F Forced flow, with average delay per vehicle in excess of 60 seconds. . i, Queue is extensive Source: Transportation Research Board. "Highway Capacity Manual", Special Report 209 0 (1985). Y . i .. .1.•. • r ♦' r: SI • '. t ; 1 P , . MT. VIEW ESTATES IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 9 • I. { '• •• M ♦, ". ' ,* • - . ♦ � l ins I �.. • r t rr. I ' ... ` M,} `" ♦j 1 r ' J .♦ 19. { r. .... , • Table 4 Criteria For Unsignalized Intersections Reserve Expected delay to b Capacity LOS minor stree t tffir� r� >400 A y ' Little or no delay 300-399 B Shorr traffic delays 200-299 C �; Average traffic delays 100-199 D > Long tragic delays d ' 0- 99 E Very long delays M . * F * ♦. A y. * When demand volume on any approach or movement exceeds the capacity of the lane, ,� extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion ` on usually iiiii affection other traffic movements in the intersection. This conditi improvement to the intersection, NI warrants a • Source: Transportation Research Board, "Highway Capacity Manual", Special Report (1985). p p rt 209 y: r' 6. il - ti.. • l '- try"• - ; .:1 a 0 . :, MT. VIEW ESTATES IMPACT ANALYSIS PACE 10 y "I b , i' lM ' ' • X 4' I ' v' Table 5, indicates the levels of service for the surrounding intersections under this scenario. Table 5 - Level of Service for the existing condition A.M. PEAK HOUR ' Intersection UNSIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED LOS Reserve Capacity Jefferson Parkway A 513 '. Lesser Road/Fosberg Road " ' N�• ` 6,' Jefferson Parkway/ A 584 King g: ' s gate Street P.M, PEAK HOUR Jefferson Parkway/ A 547 Lesser Road/Fosberg Road • Jefferson Parkway/Kingsgate A 521 Y t Now PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The development as proposed is to consist of 14 single family homes with two access roads v connectingto the Jefferson Parkway. y The development is separated by open spat-, that will be '• dedicated to the Mt. Park Homeowner's Association. The most westerly parcel consists single family homes and the easterly parcel consists of five single familY homes. h of nine ' ,, As proposed, the development consists of a 14 lot single family subdivision, expected to start n 1992 and be open for operation by the spring of 1993, p in TRIP GENERATION i Estimating the number of vehicle trip ends that will be generated by the proposed development im is of prime importance to City of Lake Oswego. ,. , , . ,41) MT. VIEW ESTATES IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 11 ., y, .. f' \� 9 \I ''•l }', j/r • �'. Ifs 1 . '4 Two basic procedures are available to traffic engineers for estimating vehicle trips generated by a proposed but not-yet-existing develo the number of driveway : pment , 0 1. Apply averages observed through field studies conducted at other throughout the United States. A number of sources are available similar facilities locator! Trip Generation A'tanual (5th Editioro) 1991, which ispublished for this information including {�� by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE); and summary trip generation reports prepared by Transportation,the Arizona Department of Transportation,and otherthe California Department of '" S All of these sources provide excellent guidance in estimatingthe trip public transportation agencies, '- land uses, but obviously do not take into account the effects generation rates for various ' 1 of local conditions and unique + • characteristics of the proposed land use. q 2. Observe through field studies the actual trip generation chars existing developments within the local area. cterlstics of other similar and } Procedure one above was used in the development of this report. 6 bclow,represent the expected number of vehicle tripp t• The figures shown in Table . development on a daily p.m. peak hour basis based on ends t qo be generated by the proposed the• mathematical regression equations found in Section 320 of the Trip Generation Manual (5th Edition), 0 • . S ' 1. r • r• + Id F. ' 11 1 • • O • l ' MT. VIEW ESTATES IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 12 • .a 1' • • , Ate."• 1 J y). , c i .1. r . Table 6 - Trip Generation For Proposed Development } (14 lot single family subdivision) (Land Use Code 210, Trip Generation Manual, 1991) Generated Trips Trip Type Daily PM Peak Hour ll Volumes Total In Out � Total 141 14 9. 5 • I TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips generated by this development was determined by reviewing the distribution pattern of the existing traffic patterns within the area. The trip assignment percentages are shown in Figure 4. RI This trip distribution was used to develop the site generated traffic for the specific driveway and ' street distributions as shown on Figures 5 & 6. The site generated trips from Figures 5 and 6 were then added to the 1993 peak hour traffic volumes shown in Figures 2 and 3 to arrive at the total traffic volumes for the Mt. View Estates are shown in Figures 7 and 8. The peak hour levels of service were calculated using the volumes shown in Figures 7 and 8 are shown in Table 7. . • • • d ` ' MT. VIEW ESTATES IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 13 • • • • Table 7 - Level of Service with Mt. View Estates A.M. PEAK HOUR Intersection UNSIGNALIZED UNSIGNAL!7�D ti LOS Reserve Capacity Jefferson Parkway A 491 Lesser Road/Fosberg Road Jefferson Parkway/Kingsgate A 584 .' ;� Jefferson Parkway/West Site Drive A 643 } Jefferson Parkway/East Site Drive A 647 P.M. PEAK HOUR • Jefferson Parkway/ A 538 Lesser Road/Fosberg Road Jefferson Parkway/Kingsgate A 521 go . t Jefferson Parkway/West Site Drive A 588 Jefferson Parkway/East Site Drive A 596 A comparison of Table 5 and Table 7 indicates that overall the development will not have a significant impact on the intersections within the study area. • • 34 MT. VIEW ESTATES IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 14 • , • • 7 • • NORTH • • IF ss ' y 4,3 S11' . �� • za .r. .m.. . . .. , .. •.... . • `L • • . ... .•,. t ., . . 5 Innimilamd.... .. . , . MEL,K0 EE-1 50 «. leO % i . . .. hsa .50 / • • . ri ' VIEW '1".A.I' PA66 15 si f PLA1 & VIC.INftY Mg .. ..„„. 141) ., . ....„ . . „ . , . I e • n F - - 1 _.I ,' t i } N t t 7/".'....' '....*s. 0 , . NORTH , 6 \\...... N,.:___._:__=:___r___...r- ° ,y ,'':.: : •.'; ,' . . . 1 .r. . , -(<((/ ''''Q% 0 7:, -\ ....„----"----) . cs t ` .. : ',., .. el ,,. / , ..... .....)-1 «_ �� .. . m z. • MEI,KOSE 5•IKEE T w rioLge MI'. VIEW E5•1'Af S PAoE 16 5 511' 17E1\EKAI'E0 1KAFPIG VOLUMES AM PEAK iUK 0 ,, APf'I' .. 1 , , yy.. : . . . :.: .- i ,. .. , .. 0 • ►�yy(y j I ' r M. NORTH • 61 --.. r 8/ 40 -,. 0- r 66 ) t / \„,..........c,S / � -> ' TN .r� 111 --• 4- 1 48 Q r� 80 --o e-- 61 4.. ._ 1 ,a,1 30 �+, r .Z5 • 110-0 +-1,46 2 VI cc, Z O . ._ • MEI,KOSE 5 TKEE 1. : . > Z3 2*-••'.." 0 L Mesmisweismawmor r WWWWWINY NIKE Mf. VIEW ESi'Ai'ES PAGE 11 101'A�,1"RAt VOI,U i A.,I PEAK I Af i uY .a s � A V 1 • NORTH ' ..;:...!....,. .,„........ '-' .: .: ::::,.. .. .s. • 5 --• 4- 1 r ar—q • -Jr_ iy O LO----"") M. 0 '., l `tl'' M1,1<05E STREET P QI- r \\\ ,. • . \\ss\ss............t ....,.....9 Fic M . MEIN ESA 'E� PACE lb 7 511`E OENESAfEO 'KAFEIC VOLUMES0 ,., , PEAK . . A�'EP flOtA i if. 11 f . NORTH .. -.,...2',..:,.:-;:.:::,,:,'... 0140 --* e- 57 . Oq —� r 60 . %' • • 3 I f E . .7 k((</Xe'''''c' \i% . , , . .. , . ...• ,. ... .. ;. _ ... . ... ___, , ...., . , . ... . . ............\\ . , . .. ,.. .... POD--► e--115 O 134 —*. 4— Co lqq�—+f e---113 -� .615 —'42 '79 z O . • ._ .:. .: MI,ROSE 51"RE1' ,. ., ., .. :r v V.. j t t" , .. , ,,----„ e' 9 • r , - r164',5 M . VIEW E :'"/ r S�'A�'ES PAGE 1 I 8 1'O1'AL 1'WEIG VOLUMES ' :.A :2 Inummumem ' ., • . � PM PEAK BOOR.11111MMIIIIM....11=1.1•110011•11110•11.........111111•1.11 A . . • • • n :. " . TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS 0 . • 1 }.v1 Yµ signal As part of this analysis, the intersection of Fgnal erg warrants.o Parkway/Lesser Road was investigated for trafficdat the intersection of Jeffcr�on • ‘ The eleven approved traffic signal warrants as described by the Manual Devices (MUTCD) Page 4C-3, were used to evaluate the intersection forn Uniform Traffic Control '.`� analysis should be considered as preliminary only since the volumes signal warrants. This the assumption that the pm peak hour volumes are 0percent of used are extrapolated using for the street, he average daily traffic volumes • Any intersection that meets this analysis warrants should be considered for a full intersection a. warrant analysis conducted after the development is constructed. "' Table 8 is a summary of the traffic signal warrants re wired for analysis. 9 using the p,m, peak hour as a basis • 1 . • • f 1 • • +V h 1 d J. p tl 0 *.-' ` MT, VIEW ESTATES IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 20 • ...6,, ,.....,..'..,fi....,::.:.T.....'',' .,,:,,:.'';,..::1'..:::•';'''.::.:':::::::'.:',..-:...''''' ' ''''..:.''':: '': :'''''.''' ':''''''''-'...::":'....'':::. ' ..' '."1'''':''''''''''''':.:* ''''''.::'.' '''''''''':: ':..:': :.:''':''':" �. is ::..'::...':', ( ,..4 : • ...,-, . 6 r Table 8 - PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT CALCULATIONS I ADT VOLUMES REQUIRED TO MEET WARRANTS FOR SIGNALIZATION wa:ArMajor Street-Jefferson Parkways ` ,(, , j< " \\?�. ��;` •l �`� i;: Minor Street- Fosberg Road City of Location - lake Oswego OR ."`'`• ` .:§ �.... �.\\ ti\ }; 4 ^,,,;,,;�,w r s �2< 2^E�li,'j*.� �iF3 l�q�TS:x.g. Number of Lanes for Moving Traffic ADT On Major Street Approaching Both ADT On Minor Street Approaching from • On Each Intersection Approach Directions • I,., one Direction �,' Major Street I Minor Street 100% 70% 100% 70% WARRANT 1 Warrants Wan-ants Warrants Warrants 8,850 6,200 2650 1,850 1 1 , 2 or more 1 10,600 7,400 2,650 1,850 2 or more 2 or more 10,600 7,400 3,550 • 2,500 •1 2 or more 8,850 6,200 3,550 2,500 �* „S 13,300 9,300 1,350 950 •.' 2 or more 1 15,900 11,100 1,350 950 2 or more 2 or more 15,900 11,100 1,750 1,250 1 2 or more 9,300 9,300 } 750 1,250 WARRANT USED is �` . �\` #` \\ } 1 i f# #FF iJt 2 dam>' . �..:.n,..\. \ \ tit 1 f } }flV'q ;•,: XXX 100 Percent of Standard Warrants Used ,. a 70 Percent of Standard Warrant used due to 85th percentile speed In excess of 40 MPH or isolated community with a population of less than 10,000. Traffic Data Used for Calculations: Pm Peak hour traffic counts taken 10/27/92 • r a No, of Lanes Approach Volume IPercent p Approach Volume of Warrant • : ••.. a uiied Measured Met Req M .4 WARRANT 1, Minimum Vehicular Volume f �Y ": f.,olp G`�t i C}t�i .e\t.«W 05 yu*RN> :y Major • Street 1 8,,550 3,410 Vr39% y: Minor Street 1 2,550 1,050 39% WARRANT 2, Interruption of Continuous • • Y • Traffic: • fi• • > Major Street 2 13,300 3,410 26% ' ' N Minor Street 1 1,350 1,050 78% Notes ADT based on pm peak hour being 10.0 percent of daily volume. The intersection does not meet the PM peak hour warrant as shown in Figure 11, MT. VIEW ESTATES IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 21 . • ,: I,gy +- • t - t ♦••"' '. t I.' Noppitj y�,,�,l Wrrmli I �yh•�'ht : U ,i a., • O. 2 OR MORE LANES Et 2 OR MORE LANES " wQ l_cr �O 4�0 1 2 OR MORE LANES Et 1 LANE . oi I I I I i �- LANE Et 1 LANE � < 330 w ii, • p200 y lois...___.... oiiso___,__ liiii II L._ L , . . .. 0 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 OAi MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH °NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE, • ribUK M 1`. VIEW E51"AfE5 Cl • PEAK I1OIL VOI-UM WA KAN1' SAGE S ti. Are 4111/ 0 .. (It° . • . 1 r • • • i r 3A . .1',. ' • CONCLUSIONS i u Based on field review and the above analysis the following conclusions can be made: • The proposed development can be built without significantly impact the surrounding , street system. • N Y • The existing road system will be able to handle the development traffic without ' additional travel or turn lanes. Based on the results of the traffic access analysis RECOMMENDATIONS described in this report, it is concluded that the .. .: property as proposed can be constructed with minimal impact to the surrounding street system. .. To ensure the safe and efficient movement of traffic and pedestrians within the area, the following traffic operational improvements are recommended.• • 1. The main site drivewaylocated at the 'A' Jefferson Parkway should be controlled by stop signs. • 2. Standard traffic control devices, including pavement markings and signing need to be installed. _. • ,. r MT, VIEW ESTATES IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 23 \ . ' YF ` •3 Y 1• V a • � 4 • r f e5 40 NIX 42r/4. /Rl/i IF t , . • ...... ,. . . . , . : f j 1# A .... , • , . GINEERING �♦( SF OR /®� T� .., . .. , „ .. ) . .. .. . . . . .. .,,,,,;.,:......1, .,........ ob. . �/'CAI . .. .: : .'...•.,•:.J. 7 , .,• .. . . .... . . . ... . , .. ...... . -. ,,,,.. ..,s. , • ,•......, . • . . .. . .... . _ .,,,o..„ ....,„.- ffil' r//„....A . ANNING (ATE/ ' A t • 1. APPENDIX .. . . . . . .. . . . . •... . .. .. . .. . .. o E , • • w . fl • / r 1 ��yy0 rWI/ NI% ii • .i' c ° A t 4!I s//!I 1 III 11 ,. rli . ' • S 0 C I A T • MI A \ SPORTATIO \7,.. , ,....,... . '1''..?,:',/;1 &1 1a..A..0,01.4 • GINEEINC I : ail ANNI \ G ..... .... . A ( ATEP 1- •4.Y A. PE.NDIX A H r. a i. �. ` CURRENT LEVELS a♦ Y,' r„ OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS ,,, : -:.::, . .n, '.' . i '% .,1 im ' Ak ,. I / a •- U 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* I IDENTIFYING INFORMATION a • AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED , MAJOR STREET 30 . PEAK HOUR FACTOR 9 AREA POPULATION 35000 + NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET JEFFERSON PARKWAY NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET FOSBERG NAME OF THE ANALYST DW r �- DATE OF THE ANALYSIS ( mm/dd/yy ) 11/03/92 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION: EXISTING INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST "' CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN , TRAFFIC VOLUMES • EB WB NB SB • , LEFT y-`0 60 110 --- THR''U 60 85 0 -- fit; { . . f RIGHT AO 0 50 4 • h: NUMBER OF LANES F t _a< E8 We NB SE LAND 1 1 1 -°- r w 'r! r.: '.: 0 ' ' ' ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page- 2 ' 1 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS ( ft ) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS • • EASTBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N + . WESTBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N r SOUTHBOUND --- --- - VEHICLE COMPOSITION t SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION its AND RV 'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES • • EASTBOUND 0 0 0 " WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND --- __- CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST . FINAL • ( Table 10-2 ) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS • NB 5 .50 5 .50 0 .00 S .50 MAJOR LEFTS » WB 5.00 5 .00 0 .00 5.00 MINOR LEFTS .., NB 6 .50 6 .50 0 .00 6 .50 4D:. ! . Ti_ Y a 1 � � i d `1,.rp « M• , CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 v r POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v( pcph) c ( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c = C - v LOS P M SH R SH MINOR STREET NB LEFT 134 678 648 > 648 > 513 > A RIGHT 61 996 996 ) 727 Fe9c., > 531 934 )A A MAJOR STREET WB LEFT 73 998 998 998 925 A • P . (•1 w tr ._...,..*,,.:',...,.l' .. . d J I) . • N f. 0 ' . ' 1985 HCM: UNSIGNAL.IZED INTERSECTIONS IDENTIFYING INFORMATION i1 AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED , MAJOR STREET . . . . . , , , , , , 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR A 1 M1.• ARA. POPULATION ' , , . F35000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET '` JEFFERSON PARKWAY NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET FOSBERG NAME OF THE ANALYST . DW �, DATE OF THE ANALYSIS ( mm/d'd/yy ) ' 11/03/92 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION: EXISTING '. 1 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST ,. CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN } { TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB r r _ `We _NB_ _SB_I b. LEFT 0 56 37 THRU 135 56 0 -- RIGHT 84 0 64 NUMB ER OF LANES, EB WB NB SB LANES .,, 1 1 1 __ • • - - - ,: . ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 ,' • PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS ( ft ) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND --- --- - • VEHICLE COMPOSITION % SU TRUCKS ' % COMBINATION 16,1 AND RV 'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 0 • - WESTBOUND 0 0 0 { NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 • SOUTHBOUND --- --- --- , CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST . FINAL ! ( Table 10-2 ) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS ' NB 5 .50 5 .50 0 .00 5 .50 MAJOR LEFTS ` W8 5 .00 5 .00 0 .00 5 .00 • EMINOR LEFTS NB 5 .50 6 .50 0 .00 6 .50 .. r , . ... . lilo 6., . . .., , . . A. ., / 4 t ir. y• • CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE PEAgr.-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RATE( CAPACITY CAPACITY RESERVE CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v PcPh ) c ( PcPh ) c ( PcPh ) c ( PcPh ) c = c P M SH SH v I:OS • MINOR STREET r!. NB LEFT 45 619 592 > 92 > •` , RIGHT 78 > 753 > 630 >A 894 894 > 11-194 > MAJOR STREET 815 ) A v WB LEFT • 68 944 944 , ` 944 875 A ti • I 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ,. , ********************************************************************* ' IDENTIFYING INFORMATION T . 1 .' AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED , MAJOR STREET 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 9 AREA POPULATION 35000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET JEFFERSON PARKWAY NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET KINGSGATE ROAD NAME OF THE ANALYST , , DW " -- DATE OF THE ANALYSIS ( mm/dd/yy ) 11/03/92 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED AM PEAK HOUR F OTHER INFORMATION: EXISTING INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL • INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION I. ''. ', MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST r . CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: ,STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB d' T LEFT ---0 --60 85 I • THRU 80 25 0 -- . :: ;. RIGHT 30 0 25 -- x • NUMBER OF LANES EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 1 �; . r A d / ;rt 0 'i:„'., ',„:''. • Pr ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Pare-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURE RADIUS ( ft ) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS 'r/ .1 ;; EASTBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N n . • .' WESTBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND --- --- — 1 r VEHICLE COMPOSITION i : t , 4.• % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV 'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES boa EASTBOUND 0 0 0 • 0 r WESTBOUND 0 0 0 r NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 �� SOUTHBOUND --- --- ——— CRITICAL GAPS , TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST . FINAL ( Table 10-2 ) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS NB 5 .50 5 .50 0.00 5 .50 MAJOR LEFTS WB 5 .00 5 .00 0 °00 5 .00 MINOR LEFTS NB 6 .50 6 .50 0 .00 6 .50 0 ., • J ' • I. e CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 r POTEN- ACTUAL , f f FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE ` a RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY L' MOVEMENT v( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c (pcph ) c = c - v LOS ` f p M SH R SH • i STREET ,: MINOR NB LEFT 104 720 688 ' > 688 > 584 > A . RIGHT 31 ) 73'I > 605 >A I 989 989 > 989 > 959 > A MAJOR STREET f.� WE LEFT 73 997 997 997 923 t ., 0 1.: �p �'. 1. t 1 jx • IV ' ' 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 *; ******************************************** :****************:�::v�v.:v** •`'; IDENTIFYING INFORMATION t '4 r .,. . AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED , MAJOR STREET 30 '{' " •' PEAK HOUR FACTOR , , 9 : AREA POPULATION 35000 C; ' " NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET JEFFERSON PARKWAY NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET KINGSGATE ROAD NAME OF THE ANALYST DW ''' ' 1 " - DATE OF THE ANALYSIS ( mm/dd/yy ) 11/03/92 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAK HOUR e ,, OTHER INFORMATION: EXISTING 0 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL , ,' INTERSECTION TYPE : --INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ,, : EB WE NB SB " ' � LEFT 0 90 23 -- S THRU 132 66 0 E RIGHT 68 0 41 -- f. r k NUMBER OF LANES 411 .,, , . . . . . EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 1 -- I ,t 4 y ;t ad ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PaOe-2 t PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS ( ft ) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N . WESTBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0 ,00 90 20 N r t SOUTHBOUND --- _-- — t; VEHICLE COMPOSITION 'rt'. SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV °S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 0 :t 0 " WESTBOUND 0 0 t 0 4' NORTHBOUND 0 0 SOUTHBOUND --- __— ——— • y r 1' CRITICAL GAPS {. TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST . FINAL. ( Table 10-2 ) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP . MINOR RIGHTS NB 5 .50 5 .50 0 ,00 5 ,50 MAJOR LEFTS r • �'. WB 5 .00 5 .00 0 .00 5 .00 MINOR LEFTS NB 6 .50 6 .50 0 .00 6 .50 0 r 9 i R 4 0 , p• CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Pau -3 .ate}. �... POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY " MOVEMENT v( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c p M SH R SH MINOR STREET , , NB LEFT 2R 592 549 > r149 > 521 > A > 735 > 657 >q RIGHT 50 906 906 > 906 ) $56 > A d1 MAJOR STREET WB LEFT 110 964 964 964 854 q 0 ' ..• ' ',, ••t ti�i . •• N. , • q • L. • 1Sr, @P , • • • Y .. - .. 4 V i i Al� SOCIA TED - •... . „ .�° f {fit :• 1011,A N OR TA «L. .L O � .. . .. • : .• ..-." .. a ,� „,./ �, .6 • P .......:.,„, . . . , . ., N.:::.:.:;:,;.....:::4.. I. �r . • • AF ;2;yk F - I,�1, NNIN (ATEP) - WYI • .. .' v . ;. 0 , .... .,. . • t.• r r- ►.1 APPENDIX B • A i • f •PROPOSED • f: LAND USE DATA J . r. . • . . 1 .. . ... . . . . . . . . • • . IF . 6.. . • . " Y . . i ,, . • , r TRIP GENERATION BY EQUATIONS LISTED IN 4TH EDITION PROJECT: MT VIEW ESTATESA.'Y;. DATE : 03-Nov-92 ur LAND USE # 210 TYPE OF LAND USE SINGLE FAMILY • TIME PERIOD: WEEKDAY VALUE OF X = 14 VALUE OF A = 10 .062 VALUE OF B = 0 • PASSBY % - 0 .00% u ' %IN 50 .00% 5 ,- % OUT 50 .00% • EQUATION 2 ( T ) = A ( X ) ,• ( T ) = 140 .868 PASS BY NEW TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS 141 0 141 VEHICLE IN = 70 0 70 VEHICLES OUT = 70 0 70 it' • , 4 • • t ' U ` • J •• '1.. '.. 1 • • 1 NI • r • m ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION TRIP GENERATION PROGRAM 4/ PROJECT : MT VIEW ESTATES DATE: Os-Nov-92 0 . • : LAND USE # 210 ;`, TYPE OF LAND USE SINGLE FAMILY TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK VALUE OF X = 14 VALUE OF A = 0 .754 N. ;, • , VALUE OF B = 0 ' PASSBY % = 0 .00% %IN 27 .00% • % OUT 73 .00% EQUATION 2 ( T ) = A ( X ) t, ( T ) = 10 .556 PASS BY NEW TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS 11 0 11 VEHICLE IN = 3 0 3 1 VEHICLES OUT = 8 0 8 ,V • • 0 B u. wed wd .4F • • ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION TRIP GENERATION PROGRAM PROJECT : MT VIEW ESTATES DATE: 03—Nov-92 • LAND USE # 210 TYPE OF LAND USE SINGLE FAMILY `s TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK VALUE OF X = 14 d ... r 'T VALUE OF A = 1 .005 VALUE OF B = 0 • PASSBY % = 0 .00% %IN 63 .00% % OUT 37 .00% a EQUATION 2 ( T ) = A ( X ) ( T ) = 14 .07 PASS BY NEW TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS 14 0 14 IJ VEHICLE IN = 9 0 9 VEHICLES OUT =• 5 0 5 r Y, p. y • • • • • 4 • 1 {0 • 410 14 p' • P . 9 i l e �r I •Y b S 0 C IAT ...,,n,. ..:....... l'• Ea , ill No _... , . .. .... ,:.• . . �4 ANSP0RTATI0 \ . / :. .. • , ,,•• .•... .. , L........40.. v . .C.-:,!a,� i .. ., .. . . .. A N NI NG (ATER ) . v . . . , • . . . 0 •:. : - APPENDIX C ,. a ' . . 4 ..I FUTURE LEVELS _ - , ... • OF : : . .... . ; _ SERVICE CALCULATIONS , , . • . . . . . . . :, • . , . , v., , . . , . :,... e • .1. J ® i h ' 1 • ' ; u 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Rage-1 � ****************: ************************* :****** :***********Wk:v***** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED , MAJOR STREET 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 9 AREA POPULATION 35000 • NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET JEFFERSON PARKWAY NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET FOSBERG NAME OF THE ANALYST DW DATE OF THE ANALYSIS ( mm/dd/yy ) 11/03/92 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED AM PEAK HOUR OTHER INFORMATION: TOTAL TRAFFIC • INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN �� TRAFFIC VOLUMES • ES WB NB SB • � LEFT __..o 87 110 • , �, THRU 61 66 0 RIGHT 40 0 51 -- r • NUMBER OF LANES • EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 1i;:/> I • •_ r • y`1 L ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS . GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS ) ACCELERATIONFRRIT LANE FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND VEHICLE COMPOSITION If % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV 'S VEHICLES MOTORCYCLES r111 EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 • 0 SOUTHBOUND -__ W-- CRITICAL GAPS tlr i„ TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DZ5T . FINAL ( Table 10-2 ) VALUE ADJUSTMENT • CRITICAL GAP •�•' MINOR RIGHTS NB 5 .50 5 .5C �, 0 .00 5 .50 • MAJOR LEFTS v WB S .00 5 .00 0 ,00 5 .00 MINOR LEFTS ' O. NB 6 .50 & S �• 0 .00 6.50 • • D • • • e 4 v Y. CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Pr7gc 3 POTEN- ACTUAL LOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE • RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c = c - v LOS P M SH R SH • MINOR STREET NB LEFT 134 669 625 > 625 > 491 > A • Jy,709 512 >A RIGHT 62 996 996 �l16 > 933 > A MAJOR STREET } WB LEFT 106 998 998 998 892 A • • • • • • it ... , 0 • . 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS **************************************: ****************************** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED , MAJOR STREET 30 ` ,' PEAK HOUR FACTOR .9 AREA POPULATION , . 35000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET JEFFERSON PARKWAY y NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET FOSBERG ' NAME OF THE ANALYST ' DW �.. DATE OF THE ANALYSIS ( mm/cad/yy) 11/03/92 a , ' TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAK HOUR ',' OTHER INFORMATION: TOTAL TRAFFIC INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE : T—INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB m ' WB NB SB • ' • e�. LEFT 0 57 37 __� y- THRU 140 60 0 _— t. RIGHT 84 0 68 -- NUMBER OF LANES - : ' • 440 ___-___-_----_________ 1. ... ..th E8W— WB NB SB • LANES 1 1 1 -- x\ 1 R'- L r P ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 L. PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS ( ft ) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS 41 EASTBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N . NORTHBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND --- --- _ VEHICLE COMPOSITION 1 ' % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV 'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES •, ��• " EASTBOUND --- _ •; 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0. 0 0 SOUTHBOUND --- --- --- CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST . FINAL ; ' ( Table 10-2 ) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS NB 5 .50 5 .50 0 .00 5 .50 4. +.,. MAJOR LEFTS '' " WB 5 .00 5 .00 0 .00 5 .00 MINOR LEFTS NB 6 .50 6 . 50 0 .00 6 .50 • • It CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL , r•.'u FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c = c - v LOS '! .j p M SH R SH 1 Sr. • r MINOR STREET wA• ' . NB LEFT 45 611 584 > 584 > 538 > A > 750 > 622 >A RIGHT 83 888 888 > 888 > 805 > A MAJOR STREET r La We LEFT 70 939 939 989 869 A 4 L �F • 'V • i 4r •d 1 d "� • yilill • '6' 1 F� • M .b i a , 1� ti r • ♦ 4, n • sx� .. .2 tl. j� ` ._ lip .J. .. "✓,. a '.\ . h-5 n 'Ur i5 J 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 dl ; ************************************* ************************* k O.*** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED , MAJOR STREET 30 i r PEAK HOUR FACTOR 9 : AREA POPULATION .. . , 35000 a` NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET , . JEFFERSON PARKWAY NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET WESTERLY SITE DRIVE NAME OF THE ANALYST DW DATE OF THE ANALYSIS ( mm/dd/yy ) 11/03/92 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED AM PEAK " • .•"�` OTHER INFORMATION: TOTAL TRAFFIC r 'r • ',` ''{; ' INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL• INTERSECTION TYPE: T—INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: S10P SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES H� EB WB NB SB IL LEFT 1 0 — 0 1, THRU 111 148 -- 0 • RIGHT 0 1 -- 5 L NUMBER OF LANES EB WB NB SC LANES 1 1 -- 1 " i. •, y f ^ h ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS ( ft ) ACCELERATION LANE •; GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND --- ___ SOUTHBOU..::3 0 .00 90 20 N• VEHICLE COMPOSITION �• •li . % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV 'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND ___ _-_ _ SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST . FINAL ( Table 10-2 ) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP ' MINOR RIGHTS SB 5 .50 5 .50 0 .00 5 .50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5 .00 5 .00 0.00 5 .00 MINOR LEFTS rt SB 6 .50 6 .50 0 .00 6 , 50 •j' r .,t ' + r ` •. '� ,... 1. �... ...1.. `' ..'� .:..� .1 .. - M1 • CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET SB LEFT 0 644 643 ) 643 ) 643 ) A , ` ) 927 > 921 >A RIGHT 6 927 927 > 927 ) 921 ) A MAJOR STREET -y EB LEFT 1 990 990 990 989 A { • .Y• • * i 1 a }, • • • • a r .. s • 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* .. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION Y `' . " AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED . MAJOR STREET 30 ' PEAK HOUR FACTOR y , , ,9 . AREA POPULATION 35000 r. NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET JEFFERSON PARKWAY NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET WESTERLY SITE DRIVE NAME OF THE ANALYST DW DATE OF THE ANALYSIS ( mm/dd/yy ) 11/03/92 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAK ,• OTHER INFORMATION: TOTAL TRAFFIC INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES f1 EB WB NB SB --_- ---* _--* ---- LEFT 6 0 -- 0 THRU 202 11S -- 0 , 11 RIGHT 0 0 -- 3 ' L NUMBER OF LANES w »_4EB WB..� NB SB • LANES 1 1 -- 1 R / ✓ . ADJUSTMENT FACTORSVP PERCENT -""`""- RIGHT TURN `-`-~_~ • ', - GRADE CURB RADIUS ( ft ) ACCELERATION LANE ,•, _ ANGLE GH FOR RI T TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS t , EASTBOUND 0 .00 -- ___- __- _-__-__- .».. __ 90 _____ ____ 20 N WESTBOUND 0 .00 90 NORTHBOUND ----_ 20 N --- SOUTHBOUND 0 .00 - 90 20 N '': ''., VEHICLE COMPOSITION • AND TRUCKS % OMBINATION -`--_-_ EASTBOUND ^----��__�_ VEHICLES-___ "� %-MOTORCYCLES 0 - ' • 0 . ... . WESTBOUND 0 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND - SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS • TABULAR VALUES -_`_`_ ------------ , , ADJUSTED SIGHT ( Table 10-2 ) VALUE AD USTMENT , FINAL . MINOR RIGHTS -__-- -_- -- CRITICAL CAP SB 5 .50 -_�-_.._ -----_-_ - ' 5 .50 0 .00 MAJOR LEFTS 5 .50 ES 5 .00 5 .00 0.0 MINOR LEFTS 0 5 .00 SB 6 .50 r 1 6 ,50 0 .00 • 6 . 50 • • `Cl. • U„, v 1 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-.j • • POTEN- ACTUAL " FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c (pcph ) c = c - v LOS P M SH R SH MINOR STREET SB LEFT 0 591 588 > 588 > 588 ) A 966 > 962 >A RIGHT 4 966 966 > 966 > 962 > A z MAJOR STREET . - EB LEFT 7 996 996 996 989 AA: ,,...4.1 • • P Ai • 3• 8 M, • • b..• r • III , . 3 r. 4 I; •u ,,i, . 1 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS . PGc�t�rl***********plc************* ******************:h:**ak************:k** ** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED , MAJOR STREET 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR AREA POPULATION � . 35000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET JEFFERSON PARKW6Y NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET EASTERLY SITE DRIVE NAME OF THE ANALYST DW DATE OF THE ANALYSIS ( mm/dd/yy ) 11/03/92 • r p TIME PERIOD ANALYZED AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION: TOTAL TRAFFIC • . . .. INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE : T—INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION. EAST/WEST • CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES c . EB WB NB SB i, LEFT 1 0 -- 0 THRU 110 146 -- 0 RIGHT 0 0 -- 3 C • i. NUMBER OF LANES 1101- . , . 4. - !e, EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 1 u 1• , I(- : ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 • PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS ( ft ) ACCELERATION LANE ' r • ,; GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS i. . •• EASTBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N ,: :;4 - 'i NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- — SOUTHBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N • VEHICLE COMPOSITION °'' % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION • AND RV 'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ^ , ` EASTBOUND 0 0 0 y ' `4110 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND ——— --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 � . CRITICAL GAPS y TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST . FINAL 4 (F , ( Table 10-2 ) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP �., } MINOR RIGHTS '' SB 5 .50 5 .50 0 .00 5 .50 • MAJOR LEFTS • EB 5 .00 5 .00 0 .00 5 .00 • MINOR LEFTS SB 6 . 50 6 .50 0 .00 6 . 40 • t • to. .. • CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Park-3 • • ` POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c ( Pc1ih ) c = c - v LOS P M SH R SH •MINOR STREET • • " ¢ ' SB LEFT 0 647 647 > 147 > 647 > A 930 > 926 >A RIGHT 4 930 930 ) 930 ) 926 > A MA3OR STREET EB LEFT 1 991 991 991 989 A " • b+ •, .A I\ 2 1 r, • • • # • rl t •` r a '4 V " j vt a a .IF I • F , '_ N_ *1::1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Pare-1 **H3c******* lt!*G*N*c%**c*Dw*! E:t4:: c*�c :t1S***** *****3,* *** ***4,)1,*30i,.*:k: :k�: 4, s• IDENTIFYING INFORMATION , 1 ' AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED , MAJOR STREET , . 30 FI •. , j PEAK HOUR FACTOR 9 AREA POPULATION 35000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET JEFFERSON PARKWAY rc NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET T Et STERLY SITE DRIVE i\' NAME OF THE ANALYST OW j ri DATE OF THE ANALYSIS ( mm/dd/yy ) 11/03/92 " w TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION: TOTAL TRAFFIC 4 6 ` INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL u' INTERSECTION TYPE: T—INTERSECTION , MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES . 1.. _ {' • EB WB NB SB • • Y • �, LEFT 3 0 -- 0 THRU 199 113 0 RIGHT 0 0 2 • NUMBER Or LANES, 0 ..---_—... ..... , , �.i E8 WE NEI SLR F•. LANES 1 1 _� 1 I Y 1 •, i�. u ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS ( ft ) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N s • WESTBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND -•-- _ a i. SOUTHBOUND 0 .00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV 'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 , .,;' • NORTHBOUND --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 ,, CRITICAL GAPS • TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST . FINAL r. ( Table 10-2 ) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS „ _ SB • 5 .50 5 ,50 0 .00 �1 .550 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5 .00 5 .00 0 .00 5 .00 ' ' MINOR LEFTS ..: SEA 6 .50 6 . 50 0 .00 6 . ',0 0 .,. . .. .. . Y A ' • n . • u • CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c ( pcph ) c = c - v LOS t M SH R SH MINOR STREET : Y • 4 SB LEFT 0 598 596 > 596 > 596 > A r > 968 > 966 >A RIGHT 2 968 968 > 968 > 966 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 4 996 996 996 993 A f ? ,c .d • t ter:. ' , l4. p • • • OY • — • j9 ail:• • • e . 1r `` WESTE 'H ENGINEERING, INC. . CONSULTING ENGINEERS & PLANNERS October 19, 1992 OCT 2 1 i Mr. Andy Harris City of Lake Oswego Environmental Services Division P.O. Box 369 P1: Lake Oswego, OR 97034 /. . ., RE: Mt. View Estates JO 1633.000.0 Dear Mr, Harris: Per our telephone conversation of this afternoon, we are proposing several minor modifications to the existing detention basin to address safety concerns which have been raised by the City. t."d It is proposed that the front (southern) and side (eastern and western) slopes of the detention facility will be dressed back to a 4H:1V slope. This will allow for easier exit from the pond in the case of accidental entry into the pond. The rear (northern) slope will .. remain at the present slope, but will be planted with trees and vegetation as shown on the landscaping plan enclosed with the development application. This will restrict access to the rear slope of the detention basin. The pond water depth at the rear of the pond will t ' normally be negligible, and during major storm events is not anticipated to exceed 3 feet, You indicated that these modifications would address the safety concerns which had been raised by your office, I have enclosed the grading plan for the existing detention basin and a sketch of these proposed modifications. If you have any other comments concerning this matter, please give me a call at 585.2474, Sincerely, WESTECH ENGINEERING, INC. • c&� - ' t ` Denny Mpcfitnore drm w EXHIBIT Encl. I o ) , , cc; Mr. Joel SclttliCll, DSL Environmental Planning and Permits Section 13:4-12/007.101 r Corporate Office 3421 25th St SE..Salem,()toot)97502 1191 b 15031 58's 2474 ' 0 13500 SW 72rtd Ave. Puttlnttd,Oregon 97223.8032 + (503)584 922h Fax t503)585.5086 • ra i • !. \ \, i:: • S. /. .'...''''''''' / 1; \\,.,,,,N / ,( , . 45U .�°I A �1 ( �It....„4., 1 ' ESA I I 1 I • "i) \, �^�� 6 ` I A 4(3- 'k 11 1 ilk A46r`, , • 1 1 \ . ,rr �� I `�� /I t 1 t \ ,,,Ir.‘ \ ‘ck'‘\\\,...,............ A A A ',Is,• 1 1 ...-/K— ' • 4141 0• ,.. \ i • / ,.."\ ''t ate` `� �-1. . :.:r • ^. p� • + rj p -.--.„ p p p v y' p X� �Tr�G ' DETENTION BASIN SCALE: 1 =10" N. ,O raw e - . ` a • , 0 0 0 . . . _ r• / r r 1 f' II\,.... \ • 4`j6 1 ----NN.s.,...._..... \\.,. , ii \\,......,.... • _______.__________,,,....... / . ‘ , • \\%, {.\ ' 1 r` J I\ r '",\.4 'fhp of Bei z el I1 it?9 1 ..t:' s o0 S-, cr 1,P0p056-0 DE77N bia sr,1 Mo d rfir r()77-0 et1 s / ,}4 '�• • ',a. 1 BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 OF THE • CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO • 3 4 5 A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A) PD 8-88\VAR 27-88 (a-d)-604 6 14-LOT PLA '.IJD DEVELOPMENT ) (Cobra Development) AND FOUR VARIANCES ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER r 7 8 9 NATURE OF APPLICATION 10 The applicant is requesting approval of a 14-lot, Planned ,' 11 Development and four variances as follows: 1? a. A variance to the Subdivision Ordinance [LOC 44 . 3841 ; 13 b. A variance to the Access Standard [DS 18. 020 ( 111 ; .. 14 c. A variance to the Site Circulation - Driveways and Private : . . 15 Streets Standard [DS 19. 020 (5) 1 ; and ,, 16 d. A variance to the Site Circulation - Driveways and Private �• 1 '' ;' ,. ' 17 Streets Standard [DS 19 .020 (6) 1 . y ,: 18 The site is located west of Kingsgate and north of Jefferson 19 Parkway (Block 62 of Multnomah County Tax Map 44224 ) . 20 21 HEARINGS ' , ' . 22 The Development Review Board held a public hearing and considered 23 this application at its meeting of September 19, 1988 . " • 24 25 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 26 A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: • 27 Growth Management Policy Element 28 - Natural Resource Policy Element 'Q Residential Land Use Policy Element 39 30 B. City of Lake Oswego Subdivision Ordinance: 31 LOC 44 . 384 Street Grades LOC 44 . 391 Street Names 32 LOC 44 . 396 Variances 33 34 .4 EXHIBIT . . • • . i 7 <`• PAGE 1 PD 8-88/VAR 27-88 (a-d) '► ' ! loq. • • 1 C. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code: , , 2 LOC 48 . 120-48 . 155 Residential High/Low. Density 3 (R-0 Zone Description) LOC 48 . 470-48 . 490 Planned Development Overlay 4 LOC 48 . 530 Vision Clearance 5 D. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: 6 • LOC 49 . 300-49 . 335 Major Development Procedures LOC 49 . 500-59.510 Variances 8 LOC 49. 615 Criteria for Approval LOC 49. 620 Conditional Approvals 9 y 10 E. City of Lake Oswego Development. Standards: 3 . 005 - 3 . 040 Stream Corridors 12 5 . 004 5 . 040 Street Lights 6 . 005 - 6. 040 Transit System °:'. ' ' :" 13 7. 005 - 7. 040 Parking & Loading 14 8 . 005 - 8 . 040 Park and Open Space 9 .005 - 9 . 040 Landscaping, Screening and 15 Buffering , 16 11. 005 - 11. 040 Drainage for Major Development 12. 005 - 12. 040 Drainage for Minor Development 17 13 . 005 - 13 . 040 Weak Foundation Soils .' • 14. 005 - 14. 040 Utilities 18 16. 005 - 16. 040 Hillside Protection and Erosion 19 Control 20 18. 005 - 18 . 040 Access 19. 005 - 19. 040 Site Circulation - Private 21 Streets/Driveways 20 . 005 - 20. 040 Site Circulation - Bikeways • 22 and Walkways 23 ».: F. Other Ordinances: . 24 25 Ordinance 1466 Order Amending Ordinance 1418 26 • • 27 CONCLUSION 28 The Development Review Board concludes that PD 8-88\VAR 27-88 39 (a-d) can be made to comply with all applicable criteria by the 30 application of certain conditions . r. 31 32 FINDINGS AND REASONS • ' 33 The Development Review Board incot orates the September 9 , 1988 34 staff report on PD 8-88\VAR 27-88 (a-d) as support for its • - 0 PAGE 2 PD 8-88/VAR 27-88 (a-d) , 1 decision, supplemented by the following: 2 1. The Board found that a 5 ' building setback from the property line, as proposed by the applicant, lends adequate protection 4 for the stream corridor buffer zone areas on Lots 5-12.• 5 Therefore, A. 2. was modified to require a 5 ' setback rather • 6 than 10 ' , as recommended by staff. 2. The Board found that proposed private streets were an 8 appropriate circulation system for this project. This 9 determination was based upon the 'applicant' s testimony 10 regarding grading and tree preservation. Based on this r finding, the Board took the following actions : • 112 - The Board deleted condition A. 6 . ` yi 12 - The Board approved VAR 27-88 (b-d) . These variances dealt '4 13 14 with the 25 ' frontage requirement nn public streets, and 1 • with the cross-slope and road gradient on private streets . • 15 s.: ' ' - The Board modified condition B. 9. requiring Only public 16 road improvements, namely Jefferson Parkway extension, to 17 occur within dedicated public right-of-way. 18 - The Board deleted condition B. 7. and replaced it with the 19 following language: a 0 Declare the private streets as fire lanes on the final • 21 plat, and post the roadways as such. Provide adequate 22 public easements for public utilities. 23 3 . The Board discussed the possibility of modifying the gradient 24 and turnaround on the proposed private streets in order to 25 minimize their impact on grading. Therefore, condition 8. 10 . 26 was added to read as follows: 27 The applicant shall work with the City to review 28 appropriate construction techniques for the proposed 39 grade, to the satisfaction of staff . • 30. 31 ORDER 32 IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD of the City of Lake 33 Oswego that: 34 PAGE 3 PD 8-88/VAR 27-88 (a-d ) I 1 1. PD 8-88\VAR 27-88 (a-d) is approved subject to compliance ., 2 with the conditions of approval set forth in Subsection 2 (. 3 of this Order . ' 4 2. The conditions for PD 8-88\VAR 27-88 (a-d) are as follows : ^ t .. 5 A. Prior to Final Plat Approval: 4d. 1. Submit a reproducible duplicaton of the final plat :... ° 6 which clearly depicts: a) utility easements; b) • 7 sidewalks; and c) setbacks as follows: 8 Front Yard 20' (except for Lot 11, to 9 be 10' ) Side Yard 5' (for Lot 5 on the east; lfl for Lots 8 & 9 on both �. 11 the east and west; and for Lot 12 on the west) 12 15' (for Lot 6 on the south) 13 7' (for all remaining lots) '� Street Side 14 Yard 25' (for Lots 1, 7 , 10 and 15 along Jefferson Parkway) _` Rear Yard 5' (for Lots 6 and 7 on the 16 east; and Lots 10 & 11 17 on the west) 20' (for Lot 9 on the south) 18 10' (for all remaining lots) 19 2. Note on the final plat that: 20 21 - A 35 ' street side yard shall be established on Lot 14 along Jefferson Parkway. 22 23 - A 5 ' building setback shall be established on i Lots 5-12, along those lot lines which abut the 24 25' stream corridor buffer zones (Tract "A" ) . 25 3 . Submit a landscape plan showing the type, size and 26 location of street trees for all internal streets p _ 27 and Jefferson Parkway. 28 4 . Dedicate appropriate additional right-of-way along 39 Jefferson Parkway . 30 5 . Provide plat and deed restrictions against removal ' .via • of street trees ( if they are planted outside the 31 public right-of-way) . 32 6. Street names shall be changed to either Haynes and 33 Vivian court or Way, 34 0 . . - , PAGE 4 PO 8-88/VAR 27-88 (a-d) • .. ,` t j ' % 7 . Show utility easements of adequate width on the • !` 2 final plat for those lots where public and/or private utilities are to be installed, Or where �. 3 public access is required . Where utilities will be 4 constructed on side or rear lot lines , provide a note to future property owners that removal and/or 5 replacement of fences for pubic access to utilities • 4. 6 shall be at the homeowners ' expense. • 7 8 . Adjust all the lot lines along the stream corridors 8 (Tract "A" ) to provide the required 25 ' stream corridor buffer zone, as per Section 3 . 020 (2) of 9 the Stream Corridor Standard. 10 9. Access shall be restricted from Lots 1, 7, 10 and 11 14 to Jefferson Parkway, and noted on the final 12 plat. 13 10. Sign a nonremonstrance agreement for a future 14 traffic signal at the Lesser-Fosberg Roads and Jefferson Parkway intersection. 4, ;, 15 16 B. Prior to Final Consi.L•uction Plans Approval: .. `' 17 1. Submit a final grading plan which will minimize ,* tree cutting and removal of existing vegetation for 18 the proposed detention facility along Jefferson , co (19 Parkway (as per. City standards) . 20 2. Submit a final drainage plan showing the following 21 information: ,r N, • 22 - A drainage study which provides the 10-year 23 storm runoff rate calculations for the Lesser . and Fosberg Roads intersection, for both 24 existing and future conditions after this ,:., . 25 project is developed. • tr-' 26 - An on-site detention facility and drainage ` 27 system which can maintain or reduce existing runoff rates from the site, as well as Jefferson • ' ; ` 28 Parkway improvements . 39 - Adequate access to the detention facility and 30 outlet structure for maintenance purposes. 31 - Design features which will minimize pollutants • ' F. 32 from storm water runoffs. 33 , • • 34 : ' • , ® ��.. PAGE 5 PD 8-88/VAR 27-88 (a-d) . y , I� ., . 1, . • 1 1 a .1 1 3 . Provide a revised landscape restoration plan 2 showing the following information: 3 - Treatment of all disturbed areas within the 4 stream corridors, in compliance with the Stream Corridor Standard. 5 6 - vegetation suitable for maintaining high water 7 quality. 8 - Greater variety of trees, shrubs, and ground cover vegetation. 9 10 - Vegetation which will help restore wildlife . :'' habitat value to the site. 11 12 4 . Submit a final erosion control plan (as per City standards) showing the following information: 13 Erosion control/stabilization measures for those ' - � 4i 14 areas where stream channel erosion is occurring ` 15 including, but not limited to, 16 channel reconstruction, rip-rap placement, and planting of riparian vegetation. These measures 17 shall be shown on the construction plans. 18 Areas of stream channel erosion shall be 19 - identified in the field to the satisfaction of • staff. 20 21 S. Provide positive roof acid foundation drains for all 22 lots. 23 6. Obtain and submit the appropriate permit from the Division of State Lands regarding the proposed 24 improvements within the stream corridor areas. 25 7 . Declare the private streets as fire lanes on the ",. 26 final plat, and post the roadways as such. Provide 27 adequate public easements for public utilities . 28 . 8 . Submit a final street lighting plan with lights on 39 Jefferson Parkway matching the existing lighting . 30 9 . The fins. construction plans shall show all public 31 road improvements to be within dedicated public right-of-way. 32 0 33 34 • PAGE 6 PD 8-88/VAR 27-88 (a-d) 0 ' . • �� • , ° .. a .` • Y '. • y •! 1 10 . The applicant shall work with the City to review 'A 2 ' appropriate construction techniques for .the 3 proposed grade, to the satisfaction of staff. ° w 4 C. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits: 5 1. All construction improvements shall be completed, y,:, •' 6 accepted and as-builts submitted to the City.• 7 D. Prior to Receiving Final Building Inspection Approval: 8 1. The property owner shall complete installation of 9 street trees as required by' Condition 4. 3 . 10 11 12 • 13 •�k• 14 .�. 15 16 17 18 19 • 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 • • 28 • 39 • 30 • 31 32 33 34 e' • k, WAGE 7 PD 8-88/VAR 27-88 (a-d) • it /. - � � �. , �, + , . •A %.,V, 1 , -ar Y; b tJ z. 1 ••i 2 , I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the 0 ,, . , , 3 Development Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego. 4 • ', 3rd 5 DATED this day of October 1988 . 76' . , • ..• . • James A. Miller, Chairman 9 Development Review Board 10 11 `1_ i t' 1` 12 Secretary. 13 14 ATTEST: 15 16 ORAL DECISION - September 19, 1988 17 AYES: Greaves, Miller, Zinsli, Foster 18 NOES: Swillinger 19 ABSTAIN: None ;)q `. i 20 ABSENT: Martindale, Ingrim •- 21 , 22 WRITTEN FINDINGS - October 3 , 1988 23 ;''-' r, , • . AYES: Miller, Zinsli, Swillinger, Foster, Greaves 24 NOES: None 25 ABSTAIN: Martindale, Ingrim 26 ABSENT: None 27 4, 28 39 30 31 • 32 • r 33 34 , •O 1 PAGE 8 PD 8-88/VAR 27-88 (a-d) .6 ' t i ..+.: a .•. - . !� ', ,. • t 11. [.. { a ✓ y • 1 ;4 • ✓ i I. ✓ • . . tSTAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGo .. • . . , . : „ , , . " w DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ` DIVISION • ';^'' APPLICANT: ' ` ;`. FILE NOS: " , ( OTAK, Inc. PD 8-88\VAR 27-88 (a-d) r PROPER_t OWNER, STAFF: r Cobra Development Hamid Pishvaie • • ,,,• LEG DESCRI ALPTION: DATE OF REPORT: Block 62 of Multnomah County Tax MapSeptember 9, 1988 #4224 LOCATION. DATE OF HEARING: Jefferson of Pkwy. , September 19, 1988 west of Kingsgate COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION.- -- : ZONING DESIGNATION: R-0 ' . ( R-0 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSO^IATION•;' . Mt. Park tf. I• APPLTCA i' APPLICANT'S S RE UEST �-�r • • The applicant is requesting a ;„` Planned Development and approval of a 1�-lot , follows: pproval of four variances as ` .r a *` a • A variance to the Subdivision Ord ' • .4,, '� _ 44 . 384 ] , finance (LOC b, A variance to the Access Standard (DS 18 . 020 (1) 1 ; c, A variance to the Site Circulation -Private Street's Standard (DS 19. 020 (5) ) ; and and d• A variance to the Site circulation - Driveways and , , ' ••• • , • 1/4. . , , , . . .... „Jo:. \ . . r< EXHIBITPD 8`-88/VAIN 27-88 Page 1 of 24 • V4,j' /'' " ir, w s }.I � I r r _� •�l. . . 4 II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: .' „'. ;., Growth Management Policy Element , Natural Resource Policy Element Residential Land Use Policy Element B. City of Lake Oswego Subdivision Ordinance: r; LOC 44 . 384 Street Grades ° LOC 44 . 391 Street Names LOC 44 . 396 Variances ° C. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code: ; % LOC 48 . 120-48. 155 Residential High/raw Density (R-0 Zone Description) • LOC 48.470-48. 490 Planned Development Overlay LOC 48.530 Vision Clearance D. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: LOC 49 . 300-49 . 335 Major Development Procedures7 :" . LOC 49 .500-59 . 510 Variances LOC 49 . 615 Criteria for Approval LOC 49 . 620 Conditional Approvals E. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: , ` • • 3 .005 - 3 . 040 Stream Corridors 5.004 - 5 .040 Street Lights -, 6. 005 - 6 . 040 Transit System 7.005 - 7 . 040 Parking & Loading 8 .005 - 8 . 040 Park and Open Space 9 .005 - 9 . 040 Landscaping , Screening and Buffering 11.005 - 11. 040 Drainage for Major Development n . 12.005 - 12.040 Drainage for Minor Development 13 .005 - 13 . 040 Weak Foundation Soils 14 .005 - 14 .040 Utilities 16. 005 - 16 . 040 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control 18. 005 - 18 . 040 Access 19 . 005 - 19 . 040 Site Circulation - Private Streets/Driveways 20 . 005 - 20 . 040 Site Circulation - Bikeways and Walkways • F. Other Ordinances: Ordinance 1466 Order Amending Ordinance 1418 • ,--: ti PD 8-88/VAR 27-88 • Page 2 of 24 • r 1 - 11, • III . FINDINGS . A. Background: 1. The applicant is proposing to develop a 14 lot planned development with lots ranging from 10, 200 to 15, 700 square feet in size, `•� ) a • Exhibit 6. The applicant also is requesting approval of four variances as follows: n a. A variance to LOC 44 . 384 , which limits the grade on collector streets to a maximum of 10%. The applicant is proposing a 12% grade for the easterly 260 feel; of 4y ; �,r� Jefferson 'arkway extension, Exhibit 17: '. ,, y; b. A variance to the Access Stand ;�•,a �1 d, Section , /fib , 18. 020(1)', which requires that every lot „,.4 abut a street (public) for a width of at least 25 feet. All 14 lots are proposed to take access from two private roads, Exhibit 18 . c. A variance to the Site Circulation - rl Driveways and Private Streets Standard, Section 19. 020 (5) , which limits Lhe cross- e. " slope of any driveable area to a maximum Y 1" of 5%. The applicant is proposing an 8% grade for the two "hammerhead" turnarounds on the proposed private streets, Exhibit ' •a 19. d. A variance to the Site Circulation - Driveways and Private Streets Standard� • Section 19 . 020 (6) , which establishr-., a 15% grade for private streets. The applicant is proposing grades of 17% for the two private roads. 2. On June 27, 1988 , the Planning Commission . approved an amendment to the Mt. Park PUD Master Plan to allow development of single .r family housing on the subject site [ PUD1 - 67 (Mod . 5-88 ) J . 3 . On April 18 , 1972 , the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1466 which amended Ordinance No. • 1418 , adopting final development plans for Phase V-B of Mt. Park PUD. Ordinance No. 1418 reenacted Ordinance No. 1411 , which adopted amendments to the Zoning Map by reestablishing PUO ::one with an underlying SR-10 zone on �� the entire Mt . Park project site. IA1` Pb 8-88/VAR 27-88 Page 3 of 24 •• , r . , ' + 4 . The site is in the Mt. Park PUD Phase V-B, bh Exhibit 25. It is 5 . 47 acres in size. ' 5 . The Mt Park common area tract V surrounds the site i,aaediately to the north, east and west, Exhibit 3 . The surrounding land uses beyond Tract V include: PCC Sylvania Campus to the �i;: north; a single family dwelling on a large underdeveloped residential parcel to the south; and low density residential to the east and west (in the City of Portland) . 6. To the south, the site abuts the unimproved ;;. right-of-way planned for extension. This project will provide a half street Improvement (21.-i feet of pavement) extending Jefferson ' ` Parkway to the west. The proposed extension will provide the planned connection of Jefferson Parkway with Lesser and Rogers • Roads. " 7. The site is heavily treed with Douglas Fir, ,; Alder, Maple and Oak trees, Exhibit 3 . The site generally slopes in a southerly direction, with grades ranging from 10% to r 20%. A portion of the property (east side) has grades ranging from 20% to over 50% and slopes in a westerly direction, Exhibit 5. ;''' This variation in slope is due to two existing well-defined stream corridors, running parallel to one another, that bisect the site, ': " ' as shown on Exhibit 4 . Both these streams originate from the P.C.C. storm drain outlets to the north. The easterly stream is more pronounced and contains a section where braiding (multi-channels) occurs. J: The site is an area designated as having a potential for severe limitations because of z landslide hazard and weak foundation soils. There is also high 9 potential for erosion on the site. n 8 . All services including water , sanitary sewer and storm sewer are and/or can be made available to serve the site. Access to the development will be provided from two proposed 28 ' private streets off of Jefferson Parkway, Exhibit 6 . M • • 41) . - • PD 8-88/VAR 27-88 0 Page 4 of 24 t C• yV s ` B. Compliance With Criteria for Approval: ' ,' ,.. .„,s' 0 . • As per LOC 49. 615 , the Development Review Board . must consider the following criteria when evaluating a planned development request: 1 . City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: y The following policies of the Comprehensive Plan apply to this application: a. Growth Management Policy Element : - Impact Management Policies o General Policies: "I. The City will protect natural. resources and processes from adverse impacts of development, within r.•eaFlonable cost limitations. " • • The site contains several significant natural features . These include heavy tree coverage, as shown on Exhibit 3 , and two parallel streams traversing the site ., ' 0 in a southerly direction, Exhibit 4 . The • two streams, along with a large number of trees, will be preserved in their natural i ` states through dedication to the City a , • public open space, shown as Tract "A" on Exhibit 6 and in Exhibit 13 (page 4 ) . The Development Ordinance and Standards • ,document of the City implements this general policy of the Plan. Compliance with the Development Standards is described in this report. Some development is proposed within the stream corridor areas. This developmentincludes an unavoidable road crossing, ', ' needed to provide access to Lots 8 and 9 , minor underground utility installations, and the construction of a storm water detention pond along Jefferson Parkway. All these developments are allowed by • Section 3 . 020 ( 4 ) of the Stream Corridor ` Standard. • 0 . PD 8-88/VAR 27-88 " Page 5 of 24 a: 171 j "II. The City will evaluate zoning and development proposals comprehensively for JF `. their impacts on the community, requiring . the developer to provide appropriate solutions before approval is granted. " The potential impact on the community will be mitigated by imposing appropriate conditions of approval on this a:. development. y b. Natural Resources Policy Element: - Wildlife Habitat Policies: o General Policies "II. Development in the planning area ' will be encouraged to 9 preserve wildlife ' habitat. " The project design will preserve the most significant of wildlife habitat on the site through an open space system which is proposed to be dedicated to the City as Open Space Tract "A" . This tract contains two stream corridors • ,. along with a large number of trees, as • 1' shown on Exhibit 6 .• In addition, all the lots are oversized in order to z.."F maximize tree preservation on these lots. M - Potential Landslide Area Policies: ' o General Policies: "II. The City will encourage open space uses of identified high risk areas. " , -- Weak Foundation Soil Policies: ,.� o General Policies , "IT. The City will encourage open space • uses of identified high risk oas. " • • The Weak Foundation Soils Standard of the Development Ordinance implements this Plan policy, '. The site is identified as having potential for severe limitations due to • landslide hazard (at the northwest and eastern portions) , and moderate to 4 PD 8-88/VAR 27-88 Pule 6 of 24 L' r .. tY -. . '. III , i/ +/ ' severe limitations due to weak foundation soils (at central areas) . ''' However, . a soils investigation (Exhibit 23 ) concludes that the site is stable and suitable for the proposed single family residential development. c. Residential Land rise Policy Element: - Residential Site Design Policies: • ff o General Policies • • 1 "I. The City will require new residential developments of Eour or more units to meet minimum criter.i to for • • overall site design. " To assure compliance with minimum criteria for overall site design, all , . • .the applicable development standards (Chapter 49) will be addressed later in this report. 5 f 2. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code: ' ...,.. ,,, . II • a. Residential High Density R-0 . LOC 48.130 - Maximum Density LOC 48.135 - Lot Size, Density Transfer • There is no minimum lot/unit area requirement , �.:.: for the R-0 zone. The density is regulated through FAR and lot coverage restrictions. The proposed 14 oversized lots represent an R- '' 15 density in the R-0 zone. The lots are 4 '. % s oversized in order to maximize tree preservation in the development. a LOC 48.150 - Setbacks, Buffers • • " The required setback in the R-0 zone is 10 feet, LOC 48 . 150 ( 1) . This standard can be modified if the development is processed as a planned development, without the necessity of . meeting the requirements of variance . �• provisior��s LOC 48 . 650-48 . 690, as per LOC 49 . 475 (3 ) , The following chart illustrates required and p.oposed setbacks: I. ' 4110 Pbge-78ofA2427-88 � ` , , s .1 , Required Proposed , Front Yard 10' .20' (except for Lot 11, to be 10 ' ) Side 10' 5' (for. Lot 5 on the east; for Lots 8 & 9 on both the east and 'r west; and, for iLot 12 on the west 15' (for Lot 6 on the south) 7' ( fur all . • remaining C)ts) , Street Side • Yard 10' 25' (.far Lots 1, 7, 10 and 14 along Jefferson Parkway) Rear Yard 10' 5' ( for Lots 6 , and 7 on the �U• east; and d Lots 10 & 110 • . 2. on the west) 20' (for Lot 9 on the south) .` 10' (for all remaining lots) Staff supports the applicant' s proposal • because the project complies with the purpose statement of the Planned Development Overlay • District. This is achieved by protecting the most significant existing features on the site, including the two stream corridors and a ,. large number of trees. Staff proposes the following modifications in the proposed setbacks: Staff recommends that the setbacks along Tract "A" be increased from 5 to 10 feet in • • order to assure the preservation and •t' i integrity of the stream corridors within the tract; and 4/0 . . PD 8-88/VAt 27-88 Page 8 oE 24 • . Ij • - The street side yard on Lot 14 be increased from 25 to 35 feet in order to assure the integrity of the slope easement necessary 1. for Jefferson Parkway Extension. •• LOC 48.140 - Lot Coverage LOC 48.155 - Height of Structures As per the above sections, the maximum height • of structures and the maximum lot coverage in PD 8-88 will be 35 ' and 60%, respectively. It ` y should 'be noted that the 60% lot coverage will include the two required off-street parking spaces.. The applicant has not required any • modification to these standards; therefore, : . the lot coverage will be applied on a lot-by- lot basis. . b. Planned Development Overlay LOC 48.470 - Purpose . The development is being processed as a planned development so that the existing natural features on the site, including two major stream corridors alor^. with a large number of trees can be preved. These areas will be dedicated to the City as Public Open Space Tract "A" . . LOC 48.475 - Procedures Since the development contains only one phase, no Overall Development Plar, and Schedule 'f (ODPS) 'is required, The zone requirements to be applied to PD 8-88 are the R-0 standards described in LOC 48, 130 - 48 . 155. The only exceptions, as descl. bed in B. 2.a . above, are , ';'' modifications to the 10 ' setback requirement, as allowed by LOC 48 , 475 (3 ) . , c. Supplementary Provisions LOC 48.530 - Vision Clearance , ' ,l• Exhibit 6 illustrates an adequate vision �� ,I clearance triangle area for all corner lots. s ' ., ,' ,i 14 , PD 8-88/VAR 27-88 w Page 9 of 24 ` • • .. t .. •r 1 fit, . 3 . City of Lake Oswego Subdivision Ordinancr�� ' 1 LOC 44.384 (b) - Grades a ` 1• ., This standard establishes maximum grades for :;::;, different street classifications. The , - '' prescribed grade for a collector street, such as Jefferson Parkway, is 10%. • The applicant is proposing a 12% grade for the easterly 260 feet of the Jefferson Parkway extension, as shown on Exhibit 8 , Exhibit 17 provides an adequate justification for this variance request. Staff aupports the applicant' s proposal, which will faNilitate r the extension of Jefferson Parkway to the " 0— * , west, thus providing the planned connection with the Fosberg-Lesser Road interne Lion. It 'I'.'', also will help maintain and protect access to the existing house and trees along the south • side of Jefferson Parkway, Exhibit 8 . LOC 44.391 - Street Names The proposed street names in this development are Haynes Drive and Vivian Drive, Exhibit 6. Staff recommends that the word "Drive" be changed to "Way" or "Court, " as it generally, refers to a through street and not a dead end street. 4 . City of Lake Oswego Development Ordinance: a. Major Development Procedures LOC 49.300-49.330 - Major Development Procedures ' ':I' The applicant has submitted all the , information required by subsections 1-12 of this section. This information can be found • in the exhibit sectior of this report , 5 . City of Lake Oswego Development Standards : The Building Design Standard does not apply La , major developments involving single family r ' •+ detached houses as proposed . The site does 1, not contain any Historic Resources or Flood .�,' . Plain; therefore, these standards are not applicable. No fences are proposed by the applicant. PD 8-88/VAR 27-88 . „ •. Page 10 of 24 'i• 6 The applicant ' s narrativa and plans illustrate substantial compliance with the applicable .standards. This report will only address those standards which require additional discussion or where modifications to the applicant ' s proposal are recommended . • Section 3.005 - Stream Corridors The site contains two streams running parallel to one another in a southerly direction. The centerline of these stream channels have been located on the site analysis map, Exhibit 4 . Tt appears that the 25 ' stream corridor .',. boundary lines shown on Exhibit 4 are measured from the centerline of the streams, and not from the top of the stream Mhannel banks, as required by Section 3 . 020 ( 2) . Both stream corridors will be preserved in their natural states through their dedication to the 'City as Public Open Space Tract "A" . Some developments are proposed within T'raoL "A" . I ~` These include an unavoidable road-crossing, necessary to provide access to Lots 8 and 9; stream erosion control measures (check dams) ; storm drain lines; and, a storm water detention facility, Exhibits 7, 8 and 13 . All these developments are allowed under Section 3. 020(4) and comply with the criteria listed under Section 3 . 020 ( 3 ) . These developments would require a permit from the Division of State Lands. The streams through this site show pronounced signs of erosion. The applicant' s soils• 11t» investigation also notes downcutting of the stream channels, and recommends construction of check dams as a corrective measure. To address the concerns mentioned above, staff * recommends that the applicant provide the • following: • - Adjust the stream corridor boundaries so that the 25 foot boundary is measured from the top of the stream channel banks . - Provide a minimum 10 foot building setback „ along all lot lines abutting Tract "A" . - Identify areas of stream channels experiencing erosion . PI) 8-88/VAR 27-88 Page 11 of 24 ? b'« - Stabilize areas where stream channel erosion is occurring . Provide a landscape restoration plan for all disturbed areas within the stream corridor, Tract "A" . u u k• A.' •' Section 4.005 - Wetlands There are areas on the site associated with �" the stream corridors where the topography flattens and wet soil conditions exist. Some wetland plans (hydrophytes) were oknnerved in these areas. The applicant conducted a ' vegetation inventory (Exhibit 4 ) to determine . , if a wetland did exist on the site. As a result of this study, and additional field visits by staff, the conclusion is that . no wetland is present on the site. This conclusion is based on the fact that although there is wetland vegetation on the site, it is not dominant or prevalent. Therefore, it does , .' not meet the wetland definition in ;action ' 4 . 015 (1) . However , it is important to note that this will be preserved within the stream corridors in Tract "A" . Section 5.005 - Street Lights The applicant has submitted a street lighting plan in compliance with this standard, Exhibit 7. The lighting on Jefferson Parkway should ' ; match the existing street lighting along this road. The final location of street lights will be determined at the time of review of '. final construction plans. .. g' ' Section 6.005 - Transit The nearest transit facility is on Kruse Way, H ' ' r between 1-5 and Boones Ferry Road . ti Based on an analysis of Section 6 . 02U ( 1 ) (a ) , ' th • e applicant is providing sidewalks or. one r side of all internal streets, Exhibit 13 . r" Additionally, a 5 foot sidewalk will be ; provided on Jefferson Parkway. Therefore, this standard has been met. Section 6 . 020 ( l ) (b) is not applicable since no adjacent multiple-passenger exchange facility exists at the sites. 0 ::, .. . PU 8-88/VAR 27-88 - Pane 12 of 24 ' ,(. 4. 1 Section 7.005 - Parking and Loading Two on-site parking spaces (excluding the garage) can be accommodated on each lot, thus , meeting this standard . Section 8.005 - Park and Open Space All major residential developments shall provide open space in an aggregate amount equal to at least 20% of their gross land area. If land is not provided as open space, then payment of fees equal to the assessed value of the required open space area is required. 1 . The park and open space requirement: have been satisfied, since the proposed development is providing 23 . 4% in open space. The two stream ,' corridors in this development will bra preserved in an open space tract, which is to . ; ',' be dedicated to the City as public land, ;. Exhibit 6 . Section 9.005 - Landscaping, Screening and Buffering ?' A street tree plan, as required by Section r, 9. 020 (4) , has not been submitted for this • 'dl development, Staff recommends that a landscape plan illustrating the size, type and location of the street trees on both internal streets and Jefferson Parkway be submitted and approved, prior to approval of the final plat . Section 11.005 Drainage for Major Development ` Exhibits 7, 8 , 13 and 24 il:.ustrate the proposed storm water system for this project. Staff 's analysis of the proposed drainage • system is as follows : , r - Detention: Storm water runoff will be increased ty this d velopment with the construction of roaus and houses, and with the extension o•f Jefferson Parkway to Lesser Road . The present downstream drainage system, from this site down to the -: Westwood area , consists of storm drain . 0 lines which may be undersized, ditches and • PD 8-88/VAR 27-88 - • Page 13 of 24 r a. - ' ' '.... . . .), ' - ..* 4,0 . z j uz stream sections with severe erosion problems. As a result, the detention facility for this site needs to be designed • so that runoff rates downstream are not increased or , if possible, reduced . The site contains an area where such a facility may be built. The applicant does not address the increased runoff to the ,:, `, downstream drainage system. A drainage F plan and detention facility which would maintain or reduce runoff rates from the site is needed. This can be achieved by draining as much of Jefferson Parkway and 4 ' the private streets into the detention pond as needed to maintain the existinn runoff rates. The grading for the proposed detention faciility can be modified to reduce the tree-cutting, particularly in the southwest corner of the open space. And the restoration plan for this area (Mxhibit 10) does not cover the bottom of the detention facility. The plan should be modified to include a much greater variety of trees, shrubs, ground cover and aquatic vegetation. - Access: The design of the detention • facility does not provide adequate access �? to the detention basin and the outlet structure for maintenance purposes. - Water Quality: The application does not address what design features are being used to minimize pollutants in the storm water runoff. , To address the concerns mentioned above, staff ' recommends that the applicant provide the ' ' • • following: - Submit a drainage study which provides the ya' 10-Year Storm Runoff calculations for the corner of Lesser Road and Fosberg Road for existing conditions and for conditions after this project is developed . • - Provide a drainage plan showing the drainage system, including the detention facility, designed to maintain or reduce the increased runoff from the site as well as Jeff rson Parkway extension , 4111 PD 8 8B V / AR 27-88 Page ]4 of 24 r ff � {ir .Il . - Provide an adequate access easement to the detention basin and outlet structure for .maintenance purposes. - Incorporate design features into the drainage system which will minimize F ' pollutants in the storm water runoff. - Modify the detention facility to minimize tree-cutting and removal of existing vegetation from the Open Space Tract "A" . - Provide a modified landscape restoration plan which provides for : ' ' o long term erosion control; o vegetation suitable for main Wi ning high water quality; o greater variety of trees, shrubs , ground cover vegetation; and, o aquatic vegetation to restore wildlife habitat value of the site. Section 13.005 - Weak Foundation Soils The central areas of the property are identified as having potential for moderate to severe limitations due to weak foundation n ' soils. However , the soils investigation (Exhibit 23) concludes that the site is = suitable for the proposed development. The development activities should occur in conformance with the recommendations of the soils report. Section 14.005 - Utilities The preliminary utility plans and the applicant ' s narrative (Exhibits 7 and 13 ) indicate that adequate water , sanitary sewer and storm sewer facilities are available and can be extended to service the development. There is no existing sanitary sewer service at the site. The nearest sewer is located near ` ''' " Kingsgate, as shown on the utility plan, : -' A . Exhibit 7 . The applicant is proposing to serve the site with a pump station located at ' the bottom of Haynes Drive, Exhibit 7 . A dry line will also be constructed in Jefferson • Parkway which will be required to be extended to the south edge of the pavement of Jefferson f :' ' + PD 8-88/VAR 27-88 -• Page 15 of 24 M'. • • • and Lesser-Fosberg Roads intersection for future connection. The pump station is only a ' wa temporary measure in. order to develop the site • ::..,:;: ,,....H . , . prior to gravity service becoming available. ..., , ., ..„.. ••• . r . , Exhibit 7 also shows the applicant' s proposed water layout for the project. Early in the process, staff asked the applicant to submit y:•• information showing minimum water pressure to • the highest house and adequate fire ' . protection. The data in Exhibit 15 (page 3) provides fire flow information for a location ,, ' at Kingsgate and Jefferson. This information was submitted to the applicant by ',he City Fire Marshal. No information has bin provided as to whether there is• adequate pressures at the highest house. Prior to approval of the construction plans, the applicant should be required to provide that information. •,' The applicant is proposing to serve the 14 lots from two private streets which would be „''` extended from Jefferson Parkway. Jef ferson ' Parkway is to be extended from its present location west to Lesser-Fosberg Roads, as shown on Exhibits 7 and 8 . It is projected that this "T" intersection will eventually have a traffic signal; therefore, the 0 . . . applicant will be required to provide a • • nonremonstrance agreement for a future traffic signal, when warranted per the Manual of w.; Uniform Traffic Control Devices. . Jefferson Parkway will eventually be a 36 ' street with vertical curb and gutter , street r ; lights, drainage improvements, etc. The improvements to be provided by the applicant include a 3 ' gravel shoulder, 20 ' of asphalt, vertical curb and gutter on the north side, a 3 ' minimum planting strip and a 5 ' sidewalk . Exhibit 8 shows that from 4 to 11 feet of additional right-of-way will need to be acquired along the south edge of the existing 25 ' of right-of-way. The applicant informed staff that this right-of-way is being , purchased, but no proof has been provided . Also, Exhibits 6 and 8 show that the improvements necessary for the realignurrnt, of Jefferson Parkway by Kingsgate will need additional right-of-way or easement. from Mt . • Pt) 8-88/JAR 27-88 Page 16 of 24 , r :H. r i -j, rr,. Park, since that area is part of Common Area V. All physical street improvements are required to be in a dedicated right-of-way, not in an easement. r,- • ['or a detailed discussion regarding the f: internal streets (private) , please see comments under Site Circulation - Driveways and Private Streets Standard, later, :in this report. ,e Section 16.005 - Hillside Protection and Erosion Control The northwest and eastern portions of the site are identified as havirig a potential for . severe limitations. In addition, two streams traverse the site, as shown on Exhibit 4 . The r 4 =: soils investigation submitted by the applicant (Exhibit 23) does not indicate any soil stability problem, nor recommend any spec4fic construction requirements except for one, the • construction of gabiens (check dams) ;n the stream corridors to minimize erosion of the channel banks. The applicant ' s narrative does not discuss any erosion control measures except for what is shown on the detention pond restoration plan, Exhibit 10. A more extensive and detailed erosion protection plan and specifications should be a part of the final construction plans prior to approval, especially since the property has slopes up to 50%. .n. t Section 18.005 - Access Since access to all lots will be taken from two proposed private streets, all lots, except Lots 1, 4 , 10 and 14 "ill have the required frontage (25 ' ) along a public street. Therefore, a variance to Section 18 . 020 (1) has been requested by the applicant, Exhibit 18 . Based on the analysis y presented in Section 19 . 005 - Site Circulation - Driveways and • Private Streets of this report, staff does not '•: support the applicant ' s request. Section 19.005 - Site Circulation - Driveways and Private Streets The applicant is proposing two private streets in this development , Exhibit 6 . The 4 PLC 8-88/VAR 27-88 Page 17 of 24 • n J ; 4 engineering staff has reviewed the application and has determined that the development would 'u .:ter be served if the two internal streets were public streets. Staff continues to recommend that streets (private or public) be :k designed to public street standards . In most cases, the staff recommends that streets be public because the cost of maintaining the streets, including cleaning and snow and ice removal, usually is a burden on property owners which eventually results in a request for public takeover . Streets designed to public standards would resolve the following issues: - The proposed hammerhead turnarounds will be more destructive to the site than a . modified cul-de-sac, as proposed by staff. These hammerheads are approximately 75 to 85 feet wide for the easterly and westerly streets, respectively, whereas, a modified cul-de- Y P � ac will only be 60 feet wide from face of curb to face of curb. This will mean less grading in areen where slopes are steepest, especially for the easterly street. r - The minimum centerline radius for residential streets (public) is 100 ' . This standard is based on safety reasons and should not be varied. The applicant is proposing a 55 ' centerline radius for the �; westerly street (Haynes Drive) , as shown on Exhibit 6 . Staff believes that the 100 . .. foot radius requirement can be met if the ~ road is made shorter in length. - A 150 foot sight distance triangle should be provided on all internal curves, especially on Lot 6 . Again, this standard can be satisfied by shortening Haynes Drive. - Haynes Drive has a vertical curve and a horizontal curve on it which would not meet the sight and breaking distance requirements. - The street right-of-way width is inadequate (28 ' ) to meet the public right-of-way requirement of 40 ' . r._ VD 8-88/VAR 27-88 0 • Page 18 of 24 `1. 0 .i . . , • 1, ,{ If the internal streets are approved as 1 . private streets, staff recommends they be J ,. dedicated as fire lanes and be so noted on the plat. In addition, public easements would be required for public utilities and construction plans should show where the meter box will be located for the private street lighting. Finally, all street drainage should be caught prior to getting to Jefferson Parkway and the majority of runoff taken to the detention site. The applicant has also requested variances to the following sections of this standard: ;. Section 19 . 020 (5) , which limits the cross- slope of any driveable area to a maximum of 5%; and Section 19 . 020 (6) , which establishes a + 15% gradient for private streets. It is important to note that these standards apply to public streets as well . Exhibits 19 and 20 provide the applicant' s justification for his request. After careful - ,,, analysis of the above exhibits and Exhibits b and 23 (soils investigation) , staff can support the applicant' s request only for the easterly street. As shown on Exhibit 5 , the easterly street is in an area of 20 to 30 percent slope; therefore, compliance with the requirements of this standard could result in extensive cut and fill, which could make driveway approaches to the future lots very difficult. The applicant, in Exhibit 20, states that the n' cost of grading will skyrocket because rock bed exists on the site. Staff does not support the applicant ' s request for the westerly street, based upon evidence in the record. The proposed grading plan (Exhibit 8 ) and street profile for Haynes Drive, Exhibit 20, already shows that up to 2 feet of rock bed would be removed for the proposed street • layout . Staff believes that since both labor and equipment will be present at the site, the costs associated with bringing this road into compliance with the Code requirements will not 4 ! ;iaif be too excessive. • ' .. , SI . 1 PD 8-88/VAR 27-88 Page 19 of 24 • r . ;i , Section 20.005 - Site Circulation - Bikeways and Walkways r, Exhibit 6 illustrates a 4 ' sidewalk on interior streets, and a 5 ' sidewalk on Jefferson Parkway. Staff recommends that sidewalks along the internal streets be widened from 4 to 5 feet, as required by • Section 20. 005 (2) . IV. CONCLUSION • V , Based on findings presented in this report, the applicant can meet the applicable criteria for , '_ approval with the application of certain conditions. V. RECOMMENDATION • Staff recommends approval of PD 8-88/VAR 27-88 (a ,c,d) [•(c) and (d) are •recommended for approval only with respect to Vivian Drive] , subjt:c;t to all the requirements of the R-0 zone, with the exceptions described in section B. 2.a . Staff recommends denial of VAR 27-88 (b) [DS 18. 020 (1) ] . The planned development should be subject to the following conditions: a , A. Prior to Final Plat Approval: 1. Submit a reproducible duplicaton of the final plat which clearly depicts: a) utility easements; b) sidewalks; and, c) setbacks as follows: ' Front Yard 20' (except for Lot 11, to be 10 ' ) Side Yard 5' (for Lot 5 on the east; for Lots 8 & 9 on both the east and west; and for Lot 12 on the west) 1 15 ' ( for Lot 6 on the south) 7 ' ( for all remaining lots) Street Side • Yard 25 ' ( for Lots 1, 7, 10 and w along Jefferson Parkway) Rear Yard 5 ' (for Lots 6 and 7 on the onstheawesjLots 10 & 11 4 , 14 20' ( for Lot 9 on the south) 10 ' (for all remaining lots) . . 41, . , . ° PD 8-88/VAR 27-88 Page 20 of 24 1 . ' 2 . Note on the final plat that: , ! - A, 35 ' street side yard shall be established on Lot 14 along Jefferson Parkway. r , . . `. - A 10 ' building setback shall be established , ' on Lots 5-12, along those lot lines which abut the 25 ' stream corridor buffer zones (Tract "A" ) . 3 . Submit a landscape plan showing the type, size and location of street trees for an internal streets and Jefferson Parkway. '• ,` 4 . Dedicate appropriate additional right-of-way along Jefferson Parkway. 5 . Provide plat and deed restriction: nyainst removal of street trees ( if they are planted outside the public right-of-way) . 6. Provide adequate' additional right-of-way on internal streets . 7. Street names shall be changed to either Haynes and Vivian Court or Way. ' 8. Show utility easements of adequate width on the final plat for those lots where public and/or private utilities are to be installed, • • or where public access is required. Where utilities will be constructed on side or rear lot lines, provide a note to future property ' ' ,: owners that removal and/or replacement of fences for pubic access to utilities shall be 1 • at the homeowners ' expense. 9 . Adjust all the lot lines along the stream corridors (Tract "A" ) to provide the required 25 ' stream corridor buffer zone, as per Section 3 . 020 (2) of the Stream Corridor Standard. 10 . Access shall be restricted from Lots 1 , 7 , 10 and 14 to Jefferson Parkway , and noted on the '`' 6 final plat. 11. Sign a nonreiionstrance agreement for a future traffic signal at the Lesser-Fosberg Roads and Jefferson Parkway intersection. ` PD 8-89/VAR 27-88 Page 21 of 24 , ` r r" Y .. t, i. r S. G , B. Prior to Final Construction Plans Approval: 1. Submit a final grading plan which will minimize tree cutting and removal of existing vegetation for the proposed detention facility along Jefferson Parkway (as per City standards) . 2. Submit a final drainage plan showing the following information: ", - - A drainage study which provides the 10-year storm runoff rate calculations for the Lesser and Fosberg Roads intersection, for both existing and future conditions after this project is developed. - An on-site detention facility and drainage system' which can maintain or reduce existing runoff rates from the site, as well as Jefferson Parkway improvements. a - Adequate access to the detention facility and outlet structure for maintenance t G purposes. Ny r*tl .17 - Design features which will minimize -. pollutants from storm water runoffs. p ' 0 '•- .:.:1.:,;,. 3 . Provide a revised landscape restoration plan showing the following information: - Treatment of all disturbed areas within the stream corridors, in compliance with the • Stream Corridor Standard. - Vegetation suitable for maintaining high water quality. - Greater variety of trees, shrubs, and ground cover vegetation. - Vegetation which will help restore wildlife habitat value to the site, 4 . Submit a final erosion control plan (as per City standards) showing the following • information: • - erosion control/stabilization measures for those areas where stream channel erosion is occurring including, but not limited to, . .- -: . . , . oil .: . .. ....:, . . • . ... :.. PD 8-88/VAR 27-88 Pogo 22 of 24 channel reconstruction, rip-rap placement, and planting of riparian vegetation. These measures shall be shown on the construction �; plans. - Arr3s of stream channel erosion shall be identified in the field to the satisfaction of staff. ••. 5 . Provide positive roof and foundation drains for all lots. 1- 6 . Obtain and submit the appropriate permit from , the Division of State Lands regarding the proposed improvements within the stream corridor areas. 7. The internal streets shall be designed to public street standards, with 100 ' centerline radius and 150 ' sight distance radius on all internal curves. 8 . Submit a final street lighting 9 g plan with lights on Jefferson Parkway matching the existing lighting. 9. The final construction plans shall show all road improvements to be within dedicated • '. • public right-of-way. C. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits: 1 . All construction improvements shall bea completed, accepted and as-builts submitted to ti the City.;h • D. Prior to Receiving Final Building Inspection r-' Approval: • • 1 . The property owner shall complete installation of street trees as required by Condition A. 3 . ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 1 . The final plat shall be submitted within one year of the date of the Order reflecting the Board ' s 'a . decision. 2 . Staff review of the preliminary utility plan only verified the location and capacity of utilities to i serve the site. PD 8-88/VAR 27-88 • Page 23 of 24 , f' • i �{ 3 . If fill is placed on any lot, the extent of the fill shall be shown on as-builts, accompanied by a statement that the fill meets 'the minimum requirements for bearing soils adopted by the Uniform Building Code. • 4 . A tree cutting permit shall be obtained prior to 1; removal of any trees that are 5" or greater in diameter . � ' Exhibits ' • 1. Tax Map . 2. Vicinity Map Y. ' • ' 3 . Topography and Tree Survey 4 . Site Inventory and Analysis ( 2 sheets) , '' 5. Slope Analysis 6. Preliminary Plat 7. Preliminary Utility Plan 8. Preliminary Grading/Tree Removal Plan '• 9. Typical Cross-Sections for Driveways on Vivian Drive ;t 10. Preliminary Restoration Plan for Detention Pond 11. Street Improvement Plan for Jefferson Parkway* -• 12. Improvement Profiles for Jefferson Parkway Extension* 13 . Applicant' s Narrative 14 . Applicant' s Supplemental Narrative (June 3 , 1988 ) 15. Applicant ' s Supplemental Narrative (June 17, 1988) 16. Letter from Gregory Kurahashi (August 5, 1988) .17. Applicant' s Narrative for Variance .to LOC 44 . 384 18 • . Applicant ' s Narrative for Variance to DS 18 . 020 ( 1) 19 . Applicant' s Narrative for Variance to DS 19 . 020 (5) 20. Applicant' s Narrative for Variance to DS 19 . 020 ( 6 ) 21 , Homeowner ' s Association By-Laws for Haynes Drive 22. Homeowner ' s Association By-Laws for Vivian Drive 23 . Soils Investigation 24 . Drainage Calculations • 25. Mt , Park Phase Divisions •'A 26 . Letter from G. E. Zakovics •` • *;, } * Too large to reproduce �;o. .. . PD 8-88/VAR 27-88 • . Page 24 of 24 t 7 a ° 0 * / '..., �7 k \, / iv kid 44 4, ...‘,. i . sr r � 0o r. r •`,11 5 0 ,•. n +7 11La r� fir N,sN4,N, t • 1n \` { 1J .wY � � 1'I ''r a • 44n• 1 \ ., r ' \ • N • M INI• i, .l Iw . /p s.• . T,_"••—.1 ',7/ / -, ^. ••11/44, ., \::\\\‘ • , \ " .•w,u.f , n t' it�l /{ f .r 0/ ,, l '1. \\` `� h I. 1 td •, • \ ' i ;� � \ ' \ i �1►11/ . ' 1,1 �l/,` ` „I 1. jib , I117 � � 4bS.. 1It � .' , Al.*. • `1 I /. \ un, i I r/ / f. ` ,I.el', „u,t11 + r' � ,.. tit P no.1 , si r'•f•1/ I t^'r •Y W. 1 vawt[tN•W C ACKIIYAs CQ NrY " ..e7er� f c , I v 's CD rlNCAD4meal,N.J. C n ? '7 , UIIU G7 t, _ G m Ullc.` S • hJ �g —h I 11 �.Q (�'� �' o ` v I W CAD 1 ,�. W 0) �0 r„ • . ftc,),,-,, I , �-.,z) di tvi. '44 . `--�1 ' ' N1 Iw �� 0v%1. ..4 • .. .. , _. al ar • 1. lg r 1/ ' ,...--/ -) 1,\......\ .1\S'\\n. t , ., '") • \C.'- \•••••• •••---.\‘ ' .*: .s. . .›... , • "- ' I rile.• \ /� • , 1 1 1+ ? •_L ..: \,,,r. • I '✓ '/,". ov '�mil• I , i I t ! t 1 •a • % °z ` ' v1 .' 'WRIT �,`•-...T„t,,,� i s .-{ POHTLANO coru,luHrrr couECE ,�..• _'_": _:',': N. tt , 1 ..-1 711/ ' ,..i r r-...,•,, rye•' ,...1•• ,tli1,N�.� ._.i.. ,» 1 i,R.Sy1.VAHiq . ♦ti ,, :...•_. 414 I'now 14. • •• ` / to A 1 '14 ti« ' ♦•1. / • _ 1 1t I i ,/ '1• I• '',♦ ♦ '+ � / • 0, .I0 . � I I - \ Off 101 'try.. • .j o• lo» ., " 1, -• i -‘."-:1' . . '• 3.. u.0+ ,1u 1 ♦p*, ,� .,•- �f( —«I"„'.1 III / I A: , ,.g, ,.. (f001 .1 • U, • tool. VIIWPTOH OY1,«" I ObyN • , o 1 1 • g II S fir'• LOCA_ ON •� �,•es.. I •`,/` «•. I r 1 I I"1 I t r. I �l ' 1: I...1' 1.1p , t j • V '•y�, 1.1 •1 I 10101100/A,IIA ♦ 0010 MOO .♦1�S1 v 4•Nl,'„111 MAls.• 1: ,...r. I/e, ' 110 w 111 I V f 0 — 0 11i •11031 ♦ 1./ 1 x 131,... ••- 1 • 0.00 —. L./11/ 4(.44, 1 • 1j , Main'. "` . 111i1 Isar, 'r r,.'Y• liiti I—I •V4 •.I'.`L#1;%!.ra rill..•J..L.L) ` • • a0«1 , , +' :' 11100 ',/ / ... r. r • • a 1 " _ I r ` •- Ul// 11.1 " 1011 Mrs \♦,` \ ,• «.. . . • 11121 •,, • 0, ♦ • a '• "{ � A WO I= , .. r.Mil' 11f fi I • 11101 + 1 1 , ' laM • 1 • .•,,. .-y . �....�+.:� .. .• .rile ...v+; t- .: ,rile.. ... y « . A� EXHIBIT • a6 i ,,,.„ .,c is ‘,..0 ....._ ._........ ... _ . . . ..... I .. . , r'•.+} ;f •. .. +may, ,;.• �r 0 F, .� `�' 1 vic INIT'g,4' MAP _�•. ; '�• '' t I1, SCALE 1" — 500'y x .. 1y�,.7 .l f/ aJ I w+.u+ 11 r ,,;�', �'-'o;o y,,� Mail 1411 .1, @;%) - 11 0 0 0 . . I /,111 1.1. I I •yY.f111 ♦. , R u «MI 1::::.•:11;06111171:::'''''1;‘". '• ,.. ' 1 "I 11 '-»r Y.- Ju Y l „14.7"'v. s rn .. ' 1 nr::"(::.'':1.'":"':‘,:':::11.:::,'.:LI.::::„,,i:.:11.."1. • L IIIx `/ I �� IN 1K ISM-. �, 1�1�.E„1 «-.1« f`b li1l7 f- t -.__ -- Ay,I` x .ry N r.N„ M ;�.,».s'•� 11. I, n «I I .,Ilt } Mw fYn .IxNI i" .It1 x 11 nl Yji I K » « } � t! Yw 1. In ; ,f1 " ItN IJ+ I ,+{iI PItllw 7,xu Rx1"r1/I» W1t IIY (it 'HI ,« " F '„i1F Y...,. Y11x11+ br J, 1JYr.Y1Yf�IrJ1 : „:•.,,.,(I ! I�..�.,»-"�K /, IW , x1In11.n, x 1xINI IIIrV/ 9 I1 �1 i I alh 1 ..."',"1,,:'''.'": Y II r• Ir r 1 I C 1 - , In/r l F YI 11• M+ '� I/f ,n 1 11, I _ / I.h 1 1 �-111 n Y/. In« 1," ",� Ir1 1 1, 1"1 '' Iw I j1, w 4) i Y,1 1 (ULK FYI '[t]�1 S 4 I 1 IH.. » I N ., I •l • I 4 »..'ll '1�.iI, Kxy. 4J.t.Y•.s` MJ tllw 1} 1\ ` ....1. , III 1"1 .,111 x bfl 1 M }11 IYI 1\Ir IN !1/x .. ' I,1 » 11r I I F"I1A� ff MOUNTAIN PARK BLK5 8�) ((ry'1 ' J 1 I L I14 `� .Iw' 1 * IIIu Ih i.,�/lr , IV� 11 I 111, R . -. , JU-'1.)L' • '^1M 11lw I Jw �a hl ``'• N 111 0. .I.h K INM I ' , H >: 1 A 1 1;I ' /1 ri'.♦-iIN;''JY.'fl".YI Ills N 111 1 F 1' IF Kx \ fWil I M'• I i .,11 _, F luh ,,,..�•�wF 'Ti. II 1'• iy MII 11 I » I 11F }. +.=1W II aa•! F IF }1111 IW } 11 1 Ifn I TlT Y111 S.. 1.111 I 1, J" " I .10i 111 1 IJ 1!w 1}, 1 !tl I ;" �Y.}. .lu IW.♦ IJ. I�N1 ` 1. .x Y1I. ";}.III" i 1 •8) I I I I--,11, - lu �,"., 1--z.,y IfN-..'�11: Ir 1• t Ilrr'"IIw 11.1, JIY }.1 Ilr \\iµ j W II I i I - -1Jt y��KB,S.Y tlIACr i, 4 r �..l-fit I, hx 1h 110 It♦ IIrN� 1 1 1 ; I J( Sel Y 1 1 1 E ' "I J• E 1 11 SW LC55EIt kC)At) I~,1, -Ix 1'w\ / /I/ i !' tl t IEECEhSC)NPAkKWAY ,,r,s rn,r a e\ ,4 ...._ ( it k5C)N �'NµKNtIt' Wb lY h IErrE , ,�>' w A 1111.1:1fl \ i1 9 X . A 1.::„ f 'MULTNOMAwl ACRES NO, I r5.1i 9 nacho. le O 4 a ' 1111(gait plt'NIr IIpNI IC i,J �j 1 Ilpt1 II.YWYt11N rin.,/1{I {Y/1 n 7 ,§ _ YIII ARIA r 111tl110 PI 11 Iti t�l l 'MOUNTAIN n►M.a•e X 11Y1/p/1\Ir/1WxbI TAIN PARK NO �y O' 1 1 r Z IrlM.0 ie i ar""a**a.4111 Y/Y I •` " Illr ltllll J J 1.44 _ 'v by ASS � ly ... - ., 1•; a r, . • 1 • Ir!!00 0 • 0 .. +: J I ,e • • , r •G, - 422.1b PORTLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE *. 1 IY _.. - .... r np ...- .... tiro �-Common rap t: ., I . t 7 . / ,, .04 I— ,y ' J MCA le I• i'+T 18) I . ' i) ‘'/....&):. O... ' =1' ''':.?'1 ' ..1., % (•5,'.-1-I,: ?(' .S%. i c V , / (,,,.,1 , , , 1.' } .. a__. 1 ''fit' Inoen ' 1.t.. �� f �l4� ` ` �) �.� \ 1 4J L MOOS family Owdllnpa�1, Lj Y'') (''}, (.� � �� 1 1 �' ; \ ` ``.�� 1 81np1�P�mhy oiling* •o3 M �+ ? :� ' '�.,,� ."'�' dal � \ � • � ::: •� r I''I 1 4 r t e •.� Teel ((,' 1' -a \ '17 \ kL _.Icn / / *-aa, 1 ` _ ) y j! ��' ' / I «r} �1 AIL Pork Oro.n vr,y 1�E a C `�l ~� �/ iti '•�( y? !'J Es+ 1 " !Common prnp�riyl W °" ..YYY///,..,,,( h 1 c ;_ t I •r `Tl t' l'y`'¢L;,;. 'r (.,J. ., .A t t ,) t 4 _ Patwool 3 :E 4 Tap of ow* �. a. _. ats00 W el° Loaear Road —, -,..�_- __ Douglas Strnot .. % -.- _1 l-t.X. `. ‘_h . _ ...... �olt F E■wllnp Coniferous Pees _...J - (...)- Editing n•elduwy TINY I VIEW VIEW �/� I a;y, rc ' I \ �Ir�Ie Family Dwellings p 2 Ne 0. <J� g i .--='•Opan FlYld EalTilnp gTTidanea p•' - •• VEGETATION Irl'E5 Fuha*AWIII^Family I •'•• WV Ialnurl awliia.lamb =: iat North :ot�',�g Trio to.0woad ndi Ye buyeYnd 'A n 1tte Anni ale .'• ' frllllu•nurru tarn Indlen hoary He the li rho try ulld M n.-. ....berry Do,yl as 11r :. •iloyTnTY,N.J. YI teat Maple wn.e . i .ag.o• `,� aoin Y.ow yi A a ;r .4 t;,,i'; f Q,— _ y - `• t t 1♦.rf J STREAM VICINITY VEGETATION GROUPS G/W— ; °, A B C D E F G H 11I•„n • Il•W.' • N:iwn =»... M•,iT t. T.:.'17.T...S:,T:•'a :" •.1.1 I ''''.7 _.--._� In . , 1 kll NI•r .1•I ' 1 T • i1�•.lry .IwWr ' W1...•1..1 M r1/.. Eli: 1•Illr ..+1. 1 1 I••I u.rl. 11Iso•hr el.., 1•wl •M • ....In •I•WIr Salim u•I... lull.r./l...r Wl ..I.i N11W.. w•ry .•Iw. / W\.� Nllti i1w, -_ Wlm...Iwl h:Tn1 ."1 1.•u'=i u rU..•1 I.•Iwurl_ • ...IM WI CyV`/I/iA,�Avyy Ilw 1w 1.11. t...ww1, 4 l.. , u•Iw, u1, «I,li•t le •i' • M1.•Ilr II.N • UUy._-.___._ 1L.•iiT:.T i T. _ �,.. IC.1111`./1•H I!.. N 1 arll.•I,r 0II'1.•III '�-' • '.rr.n•:!.I II + ..N 1.N14 1/11 11 r•1• an/ •I,I.r/•.00 •I• ^rllw Ilr .OINOTII MOST DOUINANT mass iw N.11 11 I �.MI I)"l1�4.• ..W 17 1 -- _ .>�z...:�.._ _.._ I•11•..e_.,.__ - _ • ,r ,,yy . ,,. t- -TMCt Y if. w�4 cb - tf y I`'!I 1.� N. �,M I, PP' I. •. I/ 1 1 .- y i I 1�,'Pip ( " a '!`�T 0 l'''''a'1_. ' - 1'1.1,I`,kc:,1"y'. 1 ,11. :I•I ; i' 4i i 164.-'".A:i' 41% Fl?'k �! , l 1 1• ;1J i iVl a' I re 41' " \ ' •�11 1 IRA 54 } ' I CT . r R 't," 'ail( �� l/^�l \v P MOUNTAIN PARR ULKS• 58 62' • y ti y �`y/}•.•�1�'y p, , p a I (:Y ' ",„ .. 1M,(0 ., � ,i,l � r s r1,( *W,f1 t�' 11 f„,,,G hw '�i r��7 I II.ACI Y I�' l.�v�1 .I*✓'��a.�n�� t { tip J�{iC�1,4f!6 1 f r� r ,Q ' f ,,,-,,,, W 1, 'l11.I ISSIR_NIIAD .'f 1 !it !1.. `' pP,RKli Y Y ICffi'R1t1N I IIkN�S\l' '" ` l7N. .vIII1d0 N CtltlN11 • II ICkS �•''. T+,�' el•0.1YI LOOM. •.. _ I �It' I �.:» .ITAMM tlOgl'AC!AglA "++ / ) tote te , I •MI11 INC)MAI I aft RLti NO. �. Iil f r 1�T. II :3 . . , II .{{ \ . §I! 1,11,,tl1r UrN.1bw 11 tr • 01Ot.II .Nt.w.l N I.N. ♦III I•II I,IIIII I1.1It_I.•1 'MOUNTAIN PARR NO. 'I5' � A.. .a ..1 1 tll I,1..1111.1 , 1 � 1 I .011 II.,».O.INt• ,N 014..4.1 vxL-i.F: +1i..;7 II,4011•t 1 0.1 NON NIA.•1,1 1111.116.r rrrrr.rrr ` 2a . 2090 • vpf 0 0 0 , .. df'i j • " PORTLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE S Y 1 / ..,...... . __,_ � "\\�Q k --�. ems.��/,i J J i , .n \ i tn / / ,, ID�NlIllllilll ,,�. ' :!`° � ' I Q ``II c 1 I—i II IId11IIIIIINI�IIf ��l�ii :� �;M • , e10 4 0 .. . . . .. .-._._� .s..--_-........ _z,- -...., - -. _ z.g. max-\_ .,,,.. __. - w�o0 11.1 a Lasser Road Douglas Slreal �. t ` c I'z 1 tt ;j i' , ,` '. FEEE Slo a Annl ele �a �� Nr D p a Z "' 0 �41 a 1.10♦ ' 0'"�i �� 10-7tl♦ " \ .- • sAIM 20,o, i .Noah w y �vJI+uC.lul�� k 1 l JO•tlo♦ wur . .. .r ItNCAD ..e, 'V r . VI • w ` • Il ..• 40 L t.�:w1,4^ r� • II i • L/tr MQ�• t r l `cam n�'""'_"r• • OAfdP.l.'r' �_ I I) '\�i « f .l r•,.. ,~ ohtlle { 4 l l 'Ft?"' .t' 111 , `,1 I 4.1 DO11 nal :4`+ 10401,1.11 S•ir� 1 S,W,JEFFERSON PARKWAY i 1/Dr l�� I, INTERIOR STREETS I 4• ^ w s n (.. t 1 'YNUCt v .V \\S. • i ) _ fi , ± a y i 1 1 _, \ , 1.1�,. ,/ r ,� 1+ a «1. ..yr X �i.... of t Ce v (` ` / �• Milk 1.1 , ^C . . .,1 D .1 i t ;1o\ « %tm 411,• ; iTu ) I. I s • I f b.;a , 4 3i .,:,• .,, / `• •.. . •1, 11p �,i,,t t ' 'MOUNTAIN PARK 131.KS. 5I)'-ft,.1' I 1 nao.r T i]( 4 rl t ,` ft TR\ACt ly .,i.. 1\1 i 1 1 • v. rl...vw L. .1.1U 1. J If '` v •OPTN u'AGI. M rp.i twu. •.w r-� _,�,. `...i� , k. ..r 4r JMd.r t_ 1 ', lI/ (• Ie1C1 v r, • jyy •. � •. , ' r. �ADt ED.•1.1 ti11LLr". t stKlillr . r 141t 04 i ;FM .v ` ` wr. ✓v— ems, y Ilff 5t)N 1}lkWi\Y 4 tiyv. z r-Av+� ' 1\1:h'' r+m..1,.truuvtr --_ s..- µUN .•...,, yJ .. r .ii...u...4.+....s .._. wr.4— -':•-•-w.ii' -iI'± SLICaAr"1-'1 .E ''.--*= _L,_.„L. +�� t m tvl 1 ~ . 13.'1 I (...4. , IMCf b { • 'Ml4 TNOMAI II 7. I 1. 11111111111 p.I , ,..11 liii1Cosilitoo C11{'YIIU41.141/11 1111 II II I M 1'1 . ` NNW-Snow,N,1. Ii1,lU loll tl 11i ICI. 'ht(.) 1 PARK NO, I 11«i Dr IIIt1i1B41 l N'CAIN �Itir w.,, /[11tiAC.�ry I Doll rut 4r01/Y1 111N4io4 D11/YIr I •+� 1 mo::iCIC 114C4 Y11101111 �41�\ • - r.Q _ tilt.11/11 r}1..._•{ru. �,� ,,`�r W Joao ~ • t tit •ry • ` 1111 411111 . . . . .. .. • • . . ,/ : 4 .. . . . . . , • • s • .. • , , .. . . .. ., .. .. . . • tlxw"_--s u !� •"'^;.ply • fa . H1/111•11 " 1.,...1111 • 1 e ..` 1 .- nuCi 1 ,7-(:,,,,',, —,--...—.i"/--.•.;.-.,f:./..44../'''' r/—I:"T.,-1,I- • 1 1�' r. 1 I S' p ,') 'e f 1 ,. r ,. -: •1 / `, Il) u 4 al A 0 [ N\ ;:..\ Si r. / ) I = . h1C)UNTAIN PARK I1I K', ,1 �� .1 • \ ,u. .,,r • ,, 1 • , \ c•,'( ) ., 1 , 'y'l"-----..'71' ! — Ifiv'—"--. ' *.11 / 0 . I r r . .. • 1 I n - OI•tN SPACE .� 1A. •�'' .`. f.I ,�� . • 1 ti� . � 1 ,� 1•nN 1n�,.., 1 °r . 1 . )...l'' --/ I `/.. J 1�� w • �F Alt �. .. • +f c •�. - -.. �'�. .,.+^'�ru•� N■w N !Nh/e• 1 �1e/IeMr�� i 1111C1 u `1I\ 1 .+� ' i1N C.I r l-.II` 4N,< I) 1 ...n... 'L yll 1\1lILfN()M\I I ACRCS N. w '1 ` 1 56 all ' �e ..I j � ' hn.Rnu M.I. 11n1hU ... L= C7 5- 1 nm��+.e i1o.111141 `; 1di 1idki n1t.Jhu4 �.w ubt111 uouuUw iu. Y•1/ d it 1�1 Jr♦ ) NO. [• ,..i1Y 1,, i "MOUNTAIN PARK 1 ♦ m '• 1111111111n11 1144 1t. Cr. -I dll[dtNlyim0 'a'3E:r.2.fir.• , ♦ . u """11..1 .•.ur.w —T "t.w••u...a•r1. wl i u.1 06.11.11104i ® AD� �` °� ...-r •a0 i.uU 11.1 pW1611111.1.in4 ri.1•q 1 _ ••w YM11T �� 01.0th 10,1 0.1.C4 Wk.1 WI {�' .1 I/11.11111 i40 1. I ` b 1••1,• . '� ~ Ii.11111n.1i I• MM.MM,M W#W.1.yM SfAN[IAaU SANITARY SE14[R IRtNCII 1""�' �WWWy 1r w..-.•.wl M• � wmi GRAVITY ti s'atssuat tr+ts A.,-.2090 . . . 1q, m 1Y 4. .o Y t r . t• er1. 41, ..a Kk.�^�, • Nllro 1 0 00111,1•11 •IM1.1111 • More. b •uR Rob tv11M Olb 0 CoftnORD nlLrl+.1,4.1.14 ._.. — ,...... c,a Qr,w�h rrN�r.nN• Y r/ 1+ 1 )1r 1 • - : - I .. -1 r� / I _...:a I•M'M16 DOf•'•00 Y t w / I 1 ` 1 I I -H1.V••^/ IM•+IIw11 U / ; 1. / S r�, tl /�� 11��w,1 1? a 1MNtI+'h��••vt�Y �y11" • 1 I' I 4_./ cam,•, , / r�, JII"�µ w •� • I j "�" \ I �� .,,..,v .1 I 1 .` pr tAI WWG •./ j R.yr V 1 r 1 W-.. T 01rr 14 J.0 /- 7 o' An �.ftn01 A•RI•w' ' ' ; •r i j C+c+l�r•�Nb t7[enll.. AnG't �%`1t ,..- b, I 9 1 5 f • 1 11 I .i'. u I + I ^RIR111.0 w«1. ) ,!1 .. I1 1•�RN.•.y�1 IIV1� I I ' .. ly.•y1w1 I� - sueI f M.. .••1 .w u..... - .. . I w � V� 1I _• re,111‘1111,,,,....11 lit •, '. -......t ww+'• f� I w.y...•11.•••+•a w nnaln•. w , t 1 0 rr I 1f� 1 C- + I r ...n•• R,..•1•rr •.•a M.•.a.+. Q 1 .......10•I J J f ei'A q 1{ b � N 1 '' ! me 1. (, ��f1 pP1 t y • yA+W _ :.Y'SL.. 1: r� , • �. .• r• •...•••••rR'•• '�'^_ .R•. , III',• V•• • h.! c‹y 2_7■I • • f ♦ • ..•••1.•a1 0•e4T.i• RriM M"• 1 r«.U•w1•.aNntr. • w•N y o•C• ' ♦ r f h 4NM I 4..w.... • v • 1nUut 6r Nw.y 11 7 t f w W 3 • r-� , ♦ -`w.r •S 1 !t1 !jp •%M,M•IT 141Ln+•R� { ♦� ('t �,1�` t <>J 0 \ • §dt i ({{(:G •�fl tl I Vt �1��'`I I I,�.1�1..7 1`{�✓• 4• t1MR1•i. �•4Y MMNn.t N.Ni , :• 1 • �ii • • .. 'h 1 . 1 ` i " '�....w•nun #�� 1 I..+w It1+�11•w1 1 ` ` • • Y. - ! I ' , 1n#K tJn•Y•1 Ur trig!. R41Otik—E • • • • LD•l•yMlIE1 II,1. 1111 g1" 1.1l/11l'4 O. (prp`Id to U1# ILO ..'1 h1Ul1N7AIN I'�Ih NC)• 15 •Q IIOC1 1/,wUn•II0.r/h• 1111 11 11 ' ram. 1:.,. • 1 m •' 4011111 1111111011 -11,1 4C• --1 ••—y r• • .111101 h 0.1 nU'•1 _ 4 ' . . • t • 1 In1111.1•16.1.1 d111.1J111.1.111 I 1 I ouli Nuldinlw•s Ia+nu•t 10 al 61R••Iw 11J1.11111 ' ill 2090,, Pt/ICAO. �C t 1 1 , s . .. ' ' 0411 •',,*•i-i 0 0 .. • .. - w i • - C. • n d I0 •., . • r , ' �•; v, ' 0 11110 � "'^\per_ 1.11 i . , , , . . _...,_ „,.„.._....:„.. r.„........,...,_,......._„............,.;_ • . .....____,,,,. it r y.� .. . .. . ., i •ice ' .►► SECTION'A' ""r ..M. " ~ LOT 42 .1111►cap hq.►, (Y►nT.►Na..t.t ' t r.,.r.m 1 r ,i n< 1 elb `^s�: �"" LOT 1] .•-•" LOT 11 SECTION'9' ►e.14 r� l yam•' IY�• ►nT►NMt•1 • • M• Mf�r.. MI , \ ___ II • 7J - 8 MNC4D.� � L,. _1 w i�p t ;I !Y "�� jam. /tm care • 11 1m Lot ill M 2 .? ;, . • a rETIWD SECTION'C' , A�= sum r•r.o i—"'tint Haut ' :e. 00 ' \ CO r'iL LNL! H • a • II ..a,a • • • ' e ► M • • ,i' I • c ,I. �` i 1 ,.._ { ,,.. i f . /I ./ i , \ \\ \ \ ..\L.,„...„ \ I ua q \ \ .... ifrom.wev Mt d 1 ., .' 4..)/ ,.//".e. \\ ‘ ,.:, . .....r . • . 11 \ 1 A uv.MM \ \ J '�ect. p „i, \it ...( 2 a' � ' ,j ' , ..-,4;,, r \ .,.J `1w , 4. V uemr.�. •1 . ' � . J , ., -1k-otef wo\‘e....-1.-1%;t W • \LI. 140- • • i I • ' • . 5 1 i i , . .0 • I t.. ' 4 1111"1"111F' .1' •., Cd.) \\..„r4.L n..., 8 a L4�.t4 ;. Nd,..1rMn1. . , `. .1n.n uwe h Py if PMIY•.a• ...0......i. : • . I , ' - 1 >< it" ':.` �`: n,. ¶IE! • al ,, 2090 ,; r • Of, • , 1 J �� a • .. �. I. , • • • _ Y • EXHIBIT TOO LARGE TO REPRODUCE • of fj -t EXHIBIT 1174.1 a2.°BIT • , • • z7.ee, . • •. . , • A. • - �♦ _•.. , . ••fin . • • _ ..�•. y. �. ��+ •. • • ' • • • • EXHIBIT TOO LARGE TO REPRODUCE • t • • , • • • '. • •,• ' : EXHIBIT Af..W-92- T R;$ ,02.27-zsb • •• • • { 11 Vd1 ' : p.!;^ 10 C; 3 DEVELOPME NT REVIEW APPLICATI®N (i: rtl MOUNTAIN . VIEW ESTATES SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PLANNED 'DEVELOPMENT MT. PARK, LAKE OSWEGO COBRA DEVELOPMENT INC.r .( t :r.... i`i• c• a• MAY 20, 1988 . planners • ••• ."• Op• ' - landscape architects , ;00.0), '' -ems ,+ Incorporated a • r bass SW Downhpy Rd„Lk on yam.ISNI 6aSJdi1 e�j O . , 101 L DM Strict Vmcothtt WA 96660,12061695-0757• iJ 110s6 ruin Street•11S.Be krac WA*Kok rzo6145434 d EXHIBIT`I } yryh ; • 4..1 a!L'Zv,.q 11,T� t , vti 4,:,! . .. ...'.r.. I-..6 r liiitt. '1/o... ✓. a �i + • { d 5 Y • • A • A 1 ! J _4 o . • MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES 4 Development Application Applicant: • Mr. Richard Johnson COBRA DEVELOPMENT. a :A rj 1, a May 20, 1988 6F a a 7JJ r +{ • Presented to: CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 "A" Avenue . ' g ;ti Lake Oswego, OR 97034 • (503) 636-3601 N Presented by: , ' • OTAK, INCORPORATED m 17355 SW Boones Ferry Road Lake Oswego, OR 97035 (503) 635-3618 /• 40 A . • • •s y`. ,o• p P N MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES May 20, 1988 y: µ,' Development Application I INTRODUCTION The following is a formal request for Development Review •• Approval for a 14-lot single-family detached residential '•planned development. The site is approximately 5.476 acres in size and is located directly south of the P.C.C. Sylvania campus to the west of Spinosa Drive in Mt. Park. The property is described as Block 62, "Mt. Park, Blocks 58-62. " ;" r II PROJECT SUMMARY A. Description of Project The applicant proposes to develop 14 single-family lots ranging in size from 10,200 : 15,700 square feet. The site will be accessed at two points on Jefferson Parkway. Two private drives, terminating in hammer- head turnarounds, will extend into the site to access the proposed lots. The private road alignments and o lot configurations have been carefully designed around • two stream corridors which bisect the site running ' north to south. One road crossing (a narrow private driveway) is proposed to access 2 lots which are loca- ted on an ' island' of land between the two streams. • -:. All vehicular access and circulation is internalized r ''• on site. No individual driveways will be allowed onto Jefferson Parkway, which will be improved across the frontage of the entire length of the southern site '" r boundary. The half street improvement required on Jefferson Parkway will start from the intersection at Kingsgate (which is to the Southeast of the site) and extend • west across the southern site boundary connecting to - .. the Lesser Road/Fosberg Road intersection (which is to the southwest, of the site) . "` " • B. Site Description Y ' The site is rectangular in configuration, and fronts ' on the Jefferson Parkway right-of-way to the south. 0,. ,, excellent 1 view potential, The 'ma j on or tof the slopesI' generally slopes , providing range from 10 to 20%. A portion of the site adjacent a N, to the eastern boundary slopes at 20 to 30% from the northeast to the southwest. The site is heavily , „ r. • j 4 - 2 - .i • MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES May 20, 1988 Development Application wooded with a mixture of Douglas Fir, Alder, Oak and Maple trees. The site is divided approximately in half by two parallel stream corridors which run from north to south. A wet area existing on the southern border at the base of the stream corridor area. III PROJECT SCHEDULE (Tentative) Planning Commission Approval Jun 27, 1988 • Development Review Board Approval July 6, 1988 Construction Document Review August 1, 1988 Begin Construction September 1, 1988 IV COMPLIANCE: Lake Oswego Development Ordinance General The following are written responses to the applicable sect- • �w. ions of the Development Ordinance related to the project. • The preliminary plans, details, calculations, and other data enclosed in the appendix are also in response to these standards, and should be reviewed in conjunction with this required narrative. The project is a 'major' development and should comply with r ' the procedures outlined in Section 49.300 of the Ordinance. �.f` Section 1.005 - Historical Resource Preservation There are no historic existing structures or historic ,` natural features on the site. Section 2.005 - Building Design Single-family detached homes are not subject to development review standards. The construction of these homes will be .'. monitored by the building permit process and C.C. & R.s will " control the quality of exterior appearance. The houses • will be sited within the described building setbacks on the plat to complement and preserve substantial existing landforms, trees, and other natural vegetation. • .:+ .. 1. 1 r'I•is `. •d . u MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES May 20, 1988 ` Development Application Section 3.005 - Stream Corridors Two stream corridors exist on the site. The project has been carefully designed to minimize impact on the corridors •" and incorporate them to , � provide drainage, storm water det- - ention capability, natural buffering between building lots, privacy and a pleasant natural environment. 3.020 Standards for Approval , er 1. Jfevelopment within the 'major' stream corridors will be limited to one driveway crossing (16' wide paved) , minor underground utility installation and the con- struction of storm water detention pond to restrict the rate of runoff into the downstream channel. 2. The entire stream corridor area will be dedicated to the City as a public open space tract. The minimum width of this tract is 25' from the channel centerline • +, or 50' total. In addition to this buffer, a 10 ' building setback is proposed on all lots abutting the open space. N • • t The closest a house or related structure could be to the drainage channel is 35 ' . The exact configuration , ' ' of the stream corridor open space tract area has been discussed on site and reviewed in plan format with City staff. • 3. The one stream roadwaycrossing0.• ,, proposed is imper- ative. The two building lots accessed in the center . ,'.` of the site are very desireable needed to make the • overall project financially viable. Not allowing the crossing would eliminate 21,040 square feet (net developable) from the site. This development area is needed to offset extensive off-site construction costs associated with extending a half-street improvement on Jefferson Parkway. The design of this crossing • will minimize disturbance to the stream corridor. A narrower pavement width, shoulder and 2:1 fill, slopes which will be revegetated with riparian native plant y„ 'e` material will reduce construction impact and return the corridor to its natural state quickly. No density transfers are requested as a tradeoff for providing the open space tracts. t : :' . - 4 - JF. • :.o • y;, • 2. MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES May 20, 1988 "' 0 ,. . ' Development Application • . 4. The 'unavoidable' road crossing, utility line instal- lations, and drainage management improvements are o allowed by the Development Ordinance, no realignment of the existing stream course is proposed, and no active recreation facilities or trails are proposed p' in the corridor. 3.025 Standards for Construction 1. Erosion Control - Refer to 16.005 for a detailed • description of erosion control measures that will be , utilized for all potentially disturbed areas within the project. 2. Landscaping - All disturbed areas within the stream corridor will be hydroseeded and revegetated with indigenous riparian plant material. The existing ;. vegetation is primarily palustrine scrub shrub, palustrine broadleaf deciduous shrubs and palustrine forested materials. Proposed revegetation will also a. minimize erosion and maintain ground water quality within all stream corridor areas on site '' .. .:. ...... , : .'. . 410 . • .,.2. A natural revegetation method will be applied to all } disturbed stream corridor and open space areas rather than a maintained landscape approach with compatible trees, shrubs and groundcovers. Note: Site analysis and inventory map is included in the appendix, which describes existing vegetation found in the stream corridor. Also included is a revegetation plan covering all disturbed areas. 3.030 Standards for Maintenance • Refer to Section 8. 005 Park and Open Space for control of stream corridor and open space areas. The revegetation will ultimately return open spaces to their "maintenance free" natural state. 3.035 Procedures • The stream corridor Was determined on site with City staff and its configuration was later Verified on site survey plans. The proposed open space tracts have been carefully delineated in cooperation with the City. . 40 . , • - 5 - �: • . • MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES May 20, 1988 • 'y` Development Application 3.040 Miscellaneous Information 1. The stream corridor was initially identified by refer- y ring to the Cityo f Lak e Oswego ,,,.. Hydrology preliminary design and development feasibility during lysis. 2. A detailed tree location and topographic .purvey has been prepared and included in this report which pro- • vides detailed information necessary to locate stream K ' corridors and other natural features exactly for the development review process. Section 4.005 - Wetlands , 4.015 Definitions The City of Lake Oswego hydrology map does not indicate the presence of a wetland on the subject adjacent to the south Property, It exists at the base of the stream corridors. Basically, storm drainage runoff accum-property line ,1 , ulates in this area prior to discharging into an existing ditch parallel with the southern property line. Continued moisture in this area has generated riparian vegetation. r This saturated soil condition and associated vegetation qualifies this area within the stream corridor as a wet- land. • 4.020 Standards for Approval • 1. No development is proposed within the wetland area. This area has been carefully surveyed, inventoried on 9 site, and is delineated on the site analysis and 10 inventory map enclosed in the Appendix. , • A-D - Proposed Uses: No recreation facilities or walkways are proposed in the wetland areas. It is ". rather intended that this area remain passive, supportive of wildlife habitat and function only as a 'visual ' open space providing a greenbelt buffer for t surrounding residences. 2 . ' One drivewa crossing stream corridors Upstream away from the wetlands. the i `. 0 • . - 6 - z I 1✓ / , MOUNTAIN VIER ESTATES 410 - ' Development Application May 20, 1988 3 . The proposed development has been carefully designed • around the wetland to avoid impact. been incorporated into the site development wetland has a greenbelt buffer that will b pland as habitat and visual screening between both wildlife 44 dences. Proposed resi- A storm water detention pond will be created within the wetland area to slow down increased storm water runoff and minimize impact to the downstream Holding water in this area will generate more riparian vegetation and increase the wetlands benefit for wild- life habitat. 4.025 Standards for Construction 1. Clearing and removal of riparian vegetation will g occur associated with pond excavation. This clearing will be minimal and carefully controlled during con- struction. Barricades will be installed around the wetland area following pond area revegetation to vent outlaw clearing or dumping of debris duringhouse construction. 2. Pollution control manholes • will be utilized to and trapped catch basins . prevent pollutants from surfaces from flowing into the wetland, posed hydroseeding and revegetation of disturbed areas prevent erosion adjacent to the wetland, minimize sediment and improve water quality on site and d 3. No buildings, bridges, walkways, or other above bade are development oriented structures g t ;;. wetland area. proposed in the r. 4.035 Procedures 1, 2 - The wetland area has been reviewed on site with Cit staff and is delineated on the site analysis and inventory nve map enclosed in the Appendix. ntory . • 7 0 u a, . • MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES May 20, 1988 Development ,Application 4.040 Miscellaneous Information 1. A revegetation plan demonstrating proposed methods of repairing areas that will be impacted during construction is included in the Appendix. 2. Technical Assistance: The revegetation plan and engineering drawings related to thee proposed stream " crossing and storm water management improvements will be submitted tr, Mr. Renneth Bierley of the Oregon • State Lands Division Agency far reYriew, comment and ' approval prior to issuance of City of Lake Oswego Construction Permits. Section 5.005 - Street Lights • 5.020 Standards for Approval • 1. Lighting A. The proposed street lighting will consist of 19 ' : .. . • tall fiberglass poles with ITT shoe box fixtures and 100-watt lights with a protection finish. • B. The spacing within the development will be at approximately 200 foot intervals in order to maintain between 0.15 average footcandies and 0.40 average footcandles. The illumination ratio will be between 4.0 and 10.1. Cut-off light • distribution luminaries will be utilized. `' 2. Arterial and Collector Streets: This development contains residential streets. The arterials and. collector lighting standards do not apply. PP Y� 3 . Public Pathways and Accessways: Public sidewalks " within the proposed rights of way will be illuminated by the street lights. 4 . Parking Lots: There •are no parking lots in this development, therefore this condition does not apply. iti ' 8 - ,a . • 1 • • d t psi • MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES May 20, 1988 Development Application Section 6.005 - Transit System 6.020 Standards for Approval ` 1. "All major developments are required to provide fac- ilities to serve multiple-passenger transit. " A. The nearest transit facility is Tri-Met Route 78 Beaverton-Lake Oswego, which travels Kruse Way between 1-5 and Boones Ferry Road. The main obstacle in connedting to Route 78 with a pedest- rian path is that the land between the subject property and the nearest sidewalk on Fosberg Road , is largely undeveloped. As these parcels develop and appropriate right-of-ways are both dedicated and constructed, an excellent walkway system can be developed between the subject property and transit stops on Kruse Way for Route 78 . B. "Hard-surfaced pedestrian paths shall be provided to connect the development with: (i) the nearest , adjacent multiple-passenger exchange facilities or (ii) to adjacent paths which lead to the near- 0I • est loading/unloading facilities. " • The proposed development plans indicate a side- walk on one side of both on-site private roads, � ' • which will connect to the sidewalk proposed on Jefferson Parkway. Constructing on-site side- walks which connect off-site to another walk is a step towards a complete pedestrian pathway sys- tem in the area which will ultimately connect transit riders with Route 78 on Kruse Way. This ' provision of walkways meets the intent of the transit standard as implemented in the City of - Lake Oswego. - Section 7.005 - Parking and Loading Stations This development does not generate a parking and loading need. Therefore, this standard does not apply. , N,' Y i • a 00 MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES..eMay 20, 1988 Development Application y Section 8.005 - Park and Open Space 8.020 Standards for Approval 1. All major residential development and office campus development shall provide open space or parkland approved by the City in an aggregate amount equal to at least 20 percent of the gross land area of the developments. • The propbsed development provides 23.4% open space or • 1.28 acres of the 5.47 acre total site area. There- fore, the project is in compliance with this standard. 8.035 Procedures 1° The park/open space is clearly indicated on the attached development plans. 2. The open space area will be defined as 4 tract and • dedicated to the City for public control. ,. 3. This tract will be reviewed by D.R.B. prior to accep- tance and conveyance to the City. : ,� 4. Criteria for selection of land for reservation as open space. The proposed open space on this site complies with the ComprelPnsive Plan's definition of protection open space. It also meets other criteria such as: distinctive natural areas, woodlands, tree groves and scenic views and vistas. Reserving the land in the • .� proposed configuration shown on the development plans is in conformance with park policies because it estab- • : • lishes an open space network within the project that • encompasses land and features that meet the 'open space reservation' criteria. •'' 5. The final open space configuration and preservation restrictions will be subject to review by City staff. 6. Park and open space requirements will be met by pro- viding open space in excess of 20% of the total site ' • . area. ,dr' 7 . The open space will be dedicated prior to issuance of the development permit. 0 • • - 10 - r • MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES May 20, 1988 Development Application - � r 8.040 Miscellaneous Information . 4,11 1. Ho request for density transfer is requested as part "' .: , `..: of this application. ° 2. Active play areas, given the sensitive nature of open space within the project, would not be an appropriate form of recreation. Section 9.005 Landscaping, Screening, and Bu.gferinq Because the development proposed only single-family ' residences, a landscaping plan is not required for the lot areas. 9.020 Standards for Approval Standards 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, are not applicable as the pro- • " . ject consists of single-family home sites, and is surrounded by single-family development. • } 4. Street "trees: Street trees will be installed along all public right-of-way frontages within the site. 0 . -,- . The type of tree, size, and spacing will conform to City standards. 9.025 Standards for Construction t , .; All standards for installation and construction shall conform to the City's requirements. ' ; 9.030 Standards for Mai` tenance All standards for maintenance shall conform to the City's `s , requirements. ; Section 10.005 - Fences 10.020 Standards for Approval ...•. . y 1 +'. 1. Fences constructed in this development will comply with LOC 50, 350. ( . ` vio a,,• r 1 I — 11 — . o •• • , . ' ..` ` .,f - .,i ' tip, • -•'^ -i, , . i ._.�. V MOUNTAIN DYEW ESTATES May 20, 1988° y: Development Application e 2. No fences will be constructed at the project over 6 ' in height. The choice of installing fences will be left to the individual lot owners. No fences will be allowed beyond the setback line adjacent to open space and stream corridor areas. f, t� , ; ,,.4 Section 11.005 - Drainage Standard for Maior Development • 11.030 Standards for Approval 1. Access: Easements will be provided on the final plat ° for all drainage facilities. These easements are shown on the preliminary plat, utility plan and other development plans. All easements are sized to allow access for maintenance and inspection. 2. Water Runoff Quality: The drainage system will be constructed with temporary sediment control measures as outlined in Section 16.005 Erosion Control. The permanent drainage system will consist of one storm water detention facility at the low point on site constructed in accordance with the City's "standard construction specifications and drawings. " 3. Drainage Pattern Alteration: The drainage plan is illustrated on the grading plan and utility plan. The ,'‘ construction of this system will not have an adverse affect on other properties. The surface drainage will be internalized within the site and conducted to a storm water detention facility proposed on the low portion of the. site. 4. Storm Water Detention: Refer to the grading plan and utility plan. Storm drainage calculations have also been included in the Appendix of this report. A det- ention pond facility is proposed at the base of the stream corridors adjacent to the southern property line. This will control the downstream runoff rate rl � ' and preserve the channel condition. This facility will be located in a dedicated tract with public 1': ".ro access for inspection and maintenance. • .r . '`: 5.. Requited Storm Water Management Measures: The pro- posed drainage system will beet the above noted storm water runoff requirements. Refer to the grading and ,• ' ` "k..a utility plans and storm drainage calculations. • f '' -- 12 ` . . • ,Y . JS' 1. 1 M{ •�ar t '+ I A i J h.c_ •j 1 N f 4' f MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES May 20, 1988 • '. ,. Development Application ,,, ; _•• Section 12.005 - Minor Developments This section does not apply to this project. y` Section 13.005 & 13.020 - Foundation Soils The site is designated as having weak foundation soils on the generalized map in the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to L.O.C. 13.035 (1-7) the applicant hat; retained Mr. John McDonald, soils engineer, to analyze tho site soil conditions. • Enclosed in the Appendix is Mr. McDonald's • geotechnical investigation report of the subject property. , • Section 14.005 - Utility Standard 14.020 Standards for Approval 1. Utilities Required A. Sanitary Sewers • . B. Water Distribution Systems Refer to the attached utility plan in the Appendix for both water and sewer plans. ' y C. Sidewalks: 4 ' wide curbline sidewalks will be provided on one side of each proposed private drive on site. D. Street Name Signs: Signs will'be located at both • private drive intersections with the proposed extension of Jefferson Parkway. `' ' E. Stop Signs: Signs will be located at both pri- . . - vate drive intersections. F. Street Lighting: Will be served by underground wiring installed parallel to the proposed streets. G. Underground Utility Lines: Will be installed as . i • required. H. Streets: Refer to the preliminary plat and grading plan for road layout and design. 13 - it MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES May 20, 1988 °i Development Application ai I. Underground Cable: Television cable will be installed to serve each lot. 2. Easements: Required easements will be furnished to City standards. u1 3. Sanitary Sewer: Service will be provided to each lot in the development. The proposed system „7n site will d. , be connected to a collector line installed in the pro- posed Jefferson Parkway street. Sewer will be pumped up to a gravity' line across from the southeast corner of the site. ' 4 . Sewer Design: The sewer design will provide for future connections and, capacities from adjacent h,Ny undeveloped parcels. 5. Sewers:' Sewers will be designed and constructed to • City standards and specifications, including pipe sizes and materials, manholes, cleanouts, trenching and backfill requirements and individual lot service ' laterals. Refer to the utility plan and detail sheet. • , , 6. Water System: The proposed water system is shown on the attached utility plan. A 10" water main will be extended across the entire southern frontage as part of the Jefferson Parkway Road Improvement. 6" and 4" water lines will be installed on site to serve hyd- ,, rants and building lots. 7. The design of the water system considers the service ' of future adjacent development parcels and is sized accordingly. 8. O:'e water service line will be furnished to each pro- posed building lot.. The system will be designed to supply fire flow requirements in compliance with LOC Chapter 45. y a 14.025 Standards for Construction All utility installation work will be completed to City standards. Utility easements to City standards will be w• provided over all on site public facilities. -- 14 - • `'F .�. . . P 0 • V V• • • . MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES May 20, 1988 Development Application Section 15.005 - Residential Density Repealed, does not apply. Section 16.005 - Hillside Protection and Erosion. control 16.020 Standards for Approval 1. P 1. Density has been decreased and the project has been carefully designed to minimize the disturbance of natural topography, vegetation and soils. 2. The proposed road design follows the existing terrain as closely as possible to minimize cut and fill requirements. 3 . Cuts and fills will conform to the minimum require- ,1 • ments of LOC Chapter 45. 4. According to the preliminary soils investigation, no danger of landslides exists an the site. Refer to the soils report included in the Appendix. • 5. Cuts and fills on land with an excess of 12% slope will conform to LOC Chapter 45. a 6. Roads: Refer to the attached development plans for ' typical proposed road cross-sections and drainage .' control measures. 1 7. No land in excess of 50% slope existing on the subject property. Note: Refer to the revegetation plan for Erosion Control Measures. A detailed Erosion Control Plan will be prepared a and submitted to the City for review prior to final construction plan approval. Section 17 .005 - Ploodplains There are no floodplains on this site; therefore, this section does not apply. • • " • • - 15 - .:. {,Y • MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES May 20, 1988 Development Application Section 18.005 - Access 18.020 Standards for Approval 1. Twelve lots within the development have a minimum of 25 ' frontage on a proposed private street. Two lots • will front on a common access drive which crosses the ; stream corridor. 2. Access design shall be based on the following 5 cri- 'L teria: • A. Topography: The existing terrain allows safe • access to the site and all proposed building lots. B. Traffic Volume: The development will generate ,•• • approximately 430 vehicle trips per day. C. Access: The development will take access from Jefferson Parkway, which is classified as a collector street on the Comprehensive Plan. p • D. No A.D.T. data is available for Jefferson • Parkway. • E. No projected A.D.T. data is available for , Jefferson Parkway. 3 . This site does not access an arterial, therefore, this standard does not apply. 4 . Access driveways for Lots 1, 7, 10, and 14 , will be restricted and located no closer than 30 ' to the • .r intersections with Jefferson Parkway to prevent traf- fix conflicts. Lots 8 and 9 will have a common access drive. 5. No access stubs to adjacent properties are logical or• required by the City. • 6. Jefferson Parkway will be improved and connected to ` r • Fosberg Road. The improvements will conform to a { prior design completed and approved by the City (9- • ' 25-80) . • - 16 - • \ yr , ,p �.• • -4 MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES May 20, 1988 Development Application • Section 19.005 - Site Circulation 19.020 Standards for Approval 1. Two private streets are proposed in this development; (items A-J) the private streets will be constructed °`• to public road standards. They will be 28 ' wide with cast-in-place concrete curbs and standard hammer head r . turnarounds and the ends fire protection vehicles. Typical yp plans, , profiles, and cross section drawings are included in the appendix. 2. Driveways: A. Only one driveway per lot is proposed for this development. B. All corner lot driveways will be restricted to a minimum distance of 30' from intersection corners within the development, Section 20.005 - Site Circulation, Bikeways awl Walkways 20.005 Standards for Approval 1. No bikeways are proposed with this development. 2. Walkways in this development will be private. 3 . Walkways will be located within the public right-of- way on Jefferson Parkway and on one side of the on- site private roads. 4. On-site walkways will connect to the public walk along Jefferson Parkway. 2020 Standards for Approval All walkways will be constructed to City standards. Refer to the attached Development Plans for locations of walks. • • END OP SECTION - 17 - I‘• A ' r Inc R Arehdecis P C '^ - Archdetluru•Cwq Engineering•Devebpmenl Services•LJNSenpe Architecture•Lam Pommng•Urban Design•Surveying Y — June 3 1988 - 'JUN, 3 1938 :._ . . Hamid Pishvaie • Development Review Planner City of Lake Oswego • 380 "A" Avenue P.O. Box 369 f { Lake Oswego 97034 v. Dear Hamid: b' :' '''<:.\\ The following are responses to your letter which we received May § ' 31 (P.M. ) regarding P.D. 8-88. ® 1. Loc 48,150 - Setback's: The site is zoned R-O. On the following perimeter lots, which abut P.C.C. , Sylvania Campus • and existing open space tracts to the east and west we request a 10 ' perimeter setback (Lots 1-5, Lots 8, 12, 13 and 14) . 2 . Storm Calculations are attached. The pond area grading has been modified to minimize tree removal. 3 . The wetland has been delineated approximately on the site ; analysis and inventory document. yA 4 . Stream banks are delineated on the site analysis drawing. d , ,. Proposed lot lines will be set 25 feet minimum back from the top of- these banks. 5. Street names are included on the preliminary plat. 6. Jefferson Parkway - The required improvements are reflected by the road section on the preliminary plat drawing. We resist providing the sidewalk 3 . 5 feet back from the proposed .. curb because it will cause more grading and tree removal along the southern property line. EXHIBIT � �� . . • , . 4 . q2 J T .,.\J .• u, •1.3 • liji^' • Lake Cowego t�lhce 11355 S W Bowes Ferry Mead'lake OL.vLgo Leedun'Jth y,•eld,i, 75 ito s q.' ""tr`...de...'R. ncG Varver Mee 101 Etn1 6th Slrtft l•Vancouver,WaShuiglop rielA J •1001 r,'35 ti;157 - 1 u i3" V 412 P. r" Kirkland Olircb 25 Central Way 005•Kirkland Washington 9t Oii •ieefil g;2 J•IM)• a L • 1 1i , • Hamid Pishvaie June 3 , 1988 • Page 2 7. Jefferson Parkway - Required easements to south. The applicant cannot provide the requested easements because he does not own the property. The proposed half street cross section provides adequate access to the site and makes the connection to Lesser Road. The slope easements should not exceed the proposed lot building setbacks or abutting properties. c• .. 8. Lesser Road Intersection Prior design options (approved by • the City) for the extension of Jefferson Parkway to Lesser Road prove that it can be accomplished. The final design of 1 this improvement is a construction document issue and should not impact the D.R.B. decision. We will improve this intersection to City requirements. 9. Loc 44 .394 (b) - The existing gradient of Jefferson Parkway to the east is 14%. We would like to build a portion of the extension at 14% and transition down to a 10% gradient. This will allow us to match into the existing road improvement, minimize slope easement requirements and improve the access , , 1 .• to the existing single family residence and future development 0 . '. ' parcel to the south. 10. We request private streets on site to minimize grading • requirements. We have submitted a variance to the building • lot frontage standards. The roads will be built to pubic street standards with Hammerhead turnarounds and the mailboxes will be grouped along the Jefferson Parkway extension. 11. Street Lighting has been modified and will meet City standards. 12. Vision clearance setback lines are shown on the drawings. 13 . Driveway grading plans are shown for Lots 12, 13 , and 14 . The other lots (10 and 11) present no access problems. 14 . Water Calcs. - We are waiting for information from John McCally of the Fire District regarding this. He stated that he would provide the required data Monday (P.M. ) June 6. . 15. The sanitary sewer lines has been shifted out of the pond • area. 16. Pump Station - A 25 x 35 ft. easement is shown on the plans. • 17 . Utility lines will ben sized exactly on the construction 10 . . documents to meet city standards. r fVL. 11. At/ • Hamid Pishvaie June 3 , 1988 Paste 3 18. Topo to South - The Jefferson Parkway prior design (approved) • worked. It is a given that the road can be built. During construction document preparation we will provide the contour data required to the south for design of the roadway to City standards. 19. Access to the southern existing single family residence was provided for in the prior approved plans for Jefferson Parkway. We will provide adequate access with our final design documents. • ' ✓' 20. All existing data for the Jefferson Parkway right-of-way will be provided as part of the construction documents. A hydrant will be installed on the south side of the road to service the future development a' swell as a portion of the subject property which will have an additional two hydrants. 21. The final design of the Jefferson Parkway half street improvement is a construction document issue. We will design and construct the road to City standards. • • , a . Note: We propose 4 ' curbline sidewalks on one side of the two proposed on-site private drives which is in compliance with City private street standards. y'. Please call with any questions or concerns. Sins e1y, Don Hanson, A.S.L.A. • • • • M• • • • • • • • • Inc ArchdeCls P C Architecture•Civil Eng'ne 'ng•Development Seances•landscape Arcntecture•Land Planning•Urban Design•Surveying .. '' . e , r.11r7, 10 '1;:33 /r, , June 17, 1988 •.._. ` • • Mr. Hamid Pishvaie CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES - Responses to Letter of 6-10--88 Project #2090 % Dear Hamid: The following are responses to your letter dated June 10, 1988 ; a . ' regarding P.D. 8-88 Mountain View Estates. 1. Wetlands Inventory " A thorough wetland inventory has been prepared and is enclosed • in plan format. The conclusion of this inventory is that • there are no legitimate wetlands on the site. The inventory • divides the drainageways into eight sub areas. The following • are brief summaries of those areas (A-H) . Area A: This is a damp surface area with scattered Water Parsley growing low to the ground. The Water Parsley is covered- by heavy Himalaya Blackberry thickets and Wild Rose 111• , in the open sunlight areas. No emergent vegetation. Area B: This area is dominated by primarily upland vegetation species. The stream has a clean 'U' shape trough through the area with no emergent vegetation. ' Area C: This area is primarily upland vegetation. The scream has a 'U' shape trough which is 4-6' wide and 2-4 ' deep. The ' : creek surface is scoured clean exposing round river rock 61'-- 2' in diameter. No emergent vegetation. . , •-; EXHIBIT - 8er 1 .•, 1/Ai2.20-12 : (j/AT{�'' Irk Ya,�.tl .`.M t 1.•� 0 J) ' . • Lake Oswego Moo 1/355 S W [looms Perry fond•Lnkd Oswego.Oregon 91035•(503)035 3616 V Vancouver 011ice 101 East 61h 5lreel•Vancouver.Washington NM •12001695 0351' « 02 ar$6 �A 17-'S' Kirkland OHIce 25 Central Way 0305•Kirkland.Washington 96033 •12061022.444E r. • n , ,�' w Mr. Ramid Pishvaie { ., .� •` CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO June 17, 1988 -------------- Area D: The stream section becomes deeper cut (4-6 ' ) from r� bank edge. The stream surface is scoured clean and is too steep for emergent vegetation to become established, Area E: The stream section is a 'U' shaped trough 2-4 ' deep which does not support any emergent vegetation. The east slope of Area E is covered with a mass of Lon and the west bank is primarily Sword Fern. g Leaf Mahonia lope . • Area F: This area has the same characteristics as Area E. There are differences and onl in plant material dominance. n \ Area G: The stream in this area is a clean 'U ' shape trough with no emergent vegetation. g Area H: The stream is exposed to sunlight in this area and consequently the vegetation is dominated by Blackberry, Rose, Scrub Cherry, x'Y, Wild ' Maple. Hazelnut Ash, and Scattercad Big Leaf 2. Proposed 'detention Facilit 0 . 1 A conceptual revegetation and restoration which illustrates the plan is attached proposed detention facility located in Tract 'A' Open Space, 3• Check Dams Check dams as recommended by the soils analysis located in each stream corridor. The exact locations are shown on the site grading plan. ar 4. Varianc_e Re est I' A variance to Section 19. 025 (6) of the L.O.C. is attached, 0w requesting that 17% gradients be permitted on the private drives. proposed 5. Driveway Profiles Locations for gradingof , � proposed driveways for Lots 10-14 is shown on the site grading • plan. Sections which illustrate how these driveways Will be built are also attached. i { Mr. Eamid Pishvaie June 17, 1988 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO • 4' } 6. Water Calculations Mr. John McCully of the City of Lake Oswego Fire District provided the following water pressure Information based on _ e. test at Jefferson and Kingsgate hydrant: 67 P.S.I. - 1778 G.P.M. (Static Pressure) 55 P.S.I. - (Residual Pressure) 20 P.S.I. - 3690 G.P.M. The pressure 'available adjacent to the site does meet Cit '� requirements. y 7. Jefferson Parkway Extension (Items from 5-06-88 Letter) • • 6. A 21.5 ' pavement width for Jefferson Parkway is shown on • the cross section and also on the grading plan. The pro- osed curb and P gutter will align with the existing north curb line on Jefferson Parkway. The sidewalk along the southern property line has been shifted back to provide a 3 . 5 ' planting strip behind the vertical curb and ,• " gutter. ::' ' 7. A 2 ' right-of-way dedication is shown on the preliminary plat and Jefferson Parkway cross section. An 8.5 ' ease- ment is also shown on this cross section. Slope ease- ments will be provided oi;, the north and south sides of the half street as required. The exact dimensions of these easements will be determined with construction drawings. 8. The grading plan has been extended to shown the Lesser and Fosberg Road intersection. Grading or slope ease- mehts are also shown. 9. A variance is enclosed requesting a 141 gradient on Jefferson Parkway. 18. Contours have been extended south of the half street , improvement to demonstrate area requirements for cuts and fills. 19 . The access drive to the existing single family residences will remain intact. Minor grade changes are shown on the � . gratding plan. e - 3 - • 4`y'l P. h • A Mr. Hamid Pi„shvaie CITY OP LAKE OStWEGO June 17, 198ti 20. The existing site improvements (gravel) are shown on the plans. The waterline is shown "diagrammatically" outside the right-of-way, but will be installed within the right- of-way to City standards. Water line sizes have been added to the utiliL, plans. • . ,4 4, .• 21. Jefferson Parkway. will conform to current City code, with , the exception of enclosed. gradient for which a variance is 11. Easements • Site distance easements have been added to the preliminary plat. • 12. Private Roads The private roads on site will comply with the '' Standards. yate Street •. 13. Sanitary Sewer Service n Sanitary sewer service will be provided to each lot, as shown on the utility plan. • • if you have any questions ox comments, please feel free to call. e• Sincerely, • OTAK, INCORPO ED • Donald E. Hanson, A.S.L.A. Landscape Architect & Planner •DH:sw/2090 ENC R. 1, ,, .. 0 . - . . . r 4 - •0 ''e 1 ,: r V, . ' n r • 11, Inr Archdeos P C Eit ArChilecture•L;•v,t En ,ecr •Development Services•Landscape Architecture•Land Plann•rie•t uban Desigr•S✓orru,q 1 .1 ' 4a .r August 5, 1988 Mr. Hamid Pishvaie Development Review Planner CITY 07 LAKE OBWEGO ` P.O. Box 369 ' Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Dear Mr. Pishvaie: • ,. } At the time of submittal, we were not able to complete the obtaining of roadway easements from Mountain Park Homeowners i Association or a dedication from Mrs. Paepier. Both of these are in process. Mrs. Paepier and her lawyer have agreed to the dedication and temporary easements necessary for the construction of road iL.provements. It is anticipated that we could have a 17' signed agreement as soon as Monday, August 8, 1988. The roadway easement from Mountain Park has been delivered to Bob Erickson. Bob Erickson has indicated that the Board members who ' � have seen the easements have no problem with it. The Board will meet on August 15th to consider the easement. Final approval would be on. August 22nd. We have requested a letter of agreement from the Homeowners Associatioh, Bob Erickson, as soon as the Board approves the easement. We understand that we will have to withdraw the application if the dedication from Margaret Paepier and the roadway easement are not approved by the time the staff report needs to be sent out It is our intent to have the signed agreement from Mountain Park on August 2a , 1988 . Sincerely, If , OTAK, IUCORPORATED .. 1..e. /ems U Gregory T. Kurahashi, P.E. Principal j EXHIBIT . GTK:tb (61p . Fbi_ pft. o Lake Otwetgo°dice I?J55;i W dkxkles 1 nay Hond•Lake Osvre9u ilu•q•,rt 4r035•r5t9r Ii e. OW; r Vancouver°lice 101 i rea Kin Slim•Vancouver W;Ighingi rn dtilda .r;aril 645 ri lei, /rDa645a/ivili2,276.116 •. Kirkland QIbtb n Lenlml.ray W td5 r Kukmnd WdshdtgIo WWI •,•'rkuN,';1•1.th �•. . • c r ' r 1 ` 1 MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES June 17, 1988 , { Variance Request f 1 VARIANCE REQUEST P.D. 8-88 ,' 110 • iY•,Z. The following is a variance request E6- L.O.C. 44 . 384, which �` lY states that the maximum grade normally allowable for a collector street is 10%. The applicant is proposing a gradient of 12% for - a portion of the Jefferson Parkway extension, which is classi- ` r`' < ,.. fied as a collector street on the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. Responses to Decision Criteria • A. Unnecessary Hardship Increasing the road' gradient to 12% is necessary, given specific site conditions. The existing resident driveway to the south of the site and the end of pavement at Jefferson Parkway and Kingsgate present two givens for the , road extension. The 12% grade is needed to go down hill fast enough from the east to provide.. adequate access to the single family home. It is also needed to provide feasible access to Lots 10-14. Altering the point of access would necessitate massive rock removal. Denying access to the , "• existing single family home and impacting access to 5 proposed lots constitutes a hardship. ` i B. Not Incurious to Neighborhood This request will enable the applicant to provide access 1' for an adjacent resident and situate the road lower, • reducing sound penetration and privacy problems for future ' single family homes to the south. Most importantly, it • • . will allow the connection of Jefferson Parkway to Fosberg Road which will improve traffic circulation in the district. The request will benefit the neighborhood. b ' N .' C. Minimum Variance Necessary The applicant is only requesting a 12% gradient for >« approximately 260 lineal feet of the proposed road ;k extension. The remaining 380 lineal feet will be • constructed at 10% slope or less and the roadway will be A safe for motorist and emergency vehicles. • o EXHIBIT ,.. ,: 6 0.6 - 20 , 4 .„ , 1.,_ rr - 1x� • . • MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES June 17, 1988 ,Variance Request _ 410 • { D. Not In Conflict With Comprehensive Plan g " Connecting Jefferson Parkway to Fosberg is one of the �µ objectives shown in the transportation element of the ++, Comprehensive Plan. This variance is necessary to achieve that Therefore, this req uest objective. is supportive of the Comprehensive Plan. 1-4 DHcsw/2090 I , • • • • • • • 1 p.- ' t :M y1 i . - 3 - • • • ' r b • p l �. f• �•- W f VARIANCE REPORT ,;, Mountain View Estates OD 8-83) The following is a formal request for a variance to Stdndar:► 18.020, which states that "Every lot shall abut a street for a • ,.' width of at least '3-5 feet. " The following are responses to the four criteria for evaluating 1 , variance requests. • A. Hardship ro The proposed lots will be accessed by two private proposed prop drives which connect to Jefferson Parkway. Construction these private drives will accommodate emergency vehicles, contr )l vehicular circulation and provide adequate access. The objective of using public streets in-, to provide these critical • factors and minimize site disturbance. The site is sensitive , and has rock relatively close to the surface. Building private vs. public roads will allow the applicant to adjust ' the turn arounds to minimize grading requirements and disturbance to steep portions of the site. Imposing the public street standards on this bite would impact the natural qualities and sensitivities of the property, prevent the "r • applicant from providing a high quality naturalized setting for prospective home owners and therefore create hardship. '• t B. Not Injurious to Neighborhood • The proposed ro p p private drive allows the apiplicant to preserve larger lots for futu.te homes. Preserving the site will :j; • enhance the visual and environmental qualities of the district. Providing larger lots with high value homes will 4. enhance the area economically. This project also Creates a much needed storm water detention facility which will benefit '• the district downstream from the site. C. Minimum Variance Necessary The size of the proposed lots indicates that the applicant is SM not overbuilding the site. The private drive is being constructed to public street requirements. The applicant only • • requests a variance for the hammerhead turnarounds in place of cul-de-sacs. Constructing the roads with hammerheads Will " provide safe convenient access, minimize impact and allows 'reasonable ' use of the property. . h.. D. Conflict with Comprehensive Plan ' y • , �` ' Constructing the proposed private road to city standards implements the intent of the Comprehensive Plan b . ' • ago access to developable land. The project also ma .� EXHIBIT infrastructure improvements necessary for • Sir- . . development of the district. 11.� � , , ,,m,,. B;T" F` 1444 w • YIn Y1/f.a f/ , J. ,.; VARIANCE REQUEST . r.• . 10 . Mountain View Estates • The following is a variance request to Standard 19.025`(•5•) •of the !. Lake Oswego Development Ordinance which states "Cross-slope of any drivable area shall be a maximum 5 percent. " The applicant is . • requesting permission to construct two "Hammerhead" turnarounds with 8 percent slopes at the end of each proposed private access drive on site. 4 The following are responses to the four decision criteria for evaluating variance requests relevant to this project, ti • • A. ',Unnecessary Hardship" • Constructing the turnarounds at 5 percent Will create extremely difficult access conditions for Lots 5, 6 and 12. Large cut and fill banks will r9.quire extensive retaining wall construction to accesst the proposed houses. This will impact the marketability of these lots, resulting in hardship for the 1 applicant. ,r B. "Not Injurious to the Neighborhood" The 8 percent cross slope will reduce grading requirements, �e ` resultingin increased tree and vegetation g preservation. It will meet the requirements for emergency vehicle access and circulation and also accommodate standard autos. No safety hazards will, be created by this request and the environment (existing) will be preserved to a greater degree. Therefore • the request is not injurious to the neighborhood. y1' , C. "Minimum Variance Necessary" The applicant is only requesting a 3 percent variation in cross-slope gradient on the turnarounds. This amounts to a 2.10-foot_ difference across the 70-foot hammerhead. The 8 percent slope will accommodate safe access, reduce impact to • ' im prove site and the Value of three lots. This minimum • request is necessary to develop the project wisely. D. "Conflict with Comprehensive Plan" .' . By minimizing impact to the site and providing safe, efficient access the proposed variance request is in compliance with the ' comprehensive plan. DH. tm\ 1 EXHIBIT ... % ' [AUG 12 'LC , •p`, 1 /k�rtr4 A *r 0. ` ! i j I( i 1 I ' ; ' •I i x t. N , . • • i• I ' I , • F I, I I I 1 ! I A 1 1 ! 1 11 � I 11 , IIII , , I I I I . I I I 'r.. '1: 3 P -A. ', I I 1 I , , I 7 4 n I I ' ' I 1 1 I 1 • h I ^ S 1 ! I I I , i j i I i I ; i • ' ' C I 1.� , ' f i ' il ' I t 1 1 I 1 1iiIII " ' . ' ' ' f1.0CT,I ''=-16' I ° ; Iii I Y i ; i I ' III " i , ! . , + . ! ' ‘/�,�,�.. �, � :; , H ; fl : i ; I1 � .I I • , , III ' ' 1 " 'I III 1 ' 1 I , I I , I I 1 i I j I. ! ► ! 1 �-- __/` ., „, Car ; I I • I I 1: IIai� t / f ! I / I / : L 11H ' II/ 1 / / iH I1 , . i , 1 , t�l %16�' I I I I I I I. ' 1 ' w/d�„/•�r ` j I t 1 4. , J1 ! • I1I Vr,r� , I I I I ( , I f l.�1� � { 11IIIt1IlI 1 '• I I I111111I ( ill II ( I ! I I I III I I ,... ..- ram' 1 1 � ` I I � ` 7p../ IJ I' 1 I l I 1 11 1 I , 1 i , I• i I I i 1 1 1 i 1 I I • I ! , 01 /g/AI 1. 0 ( ; 1�1 I 11I i I 1��1:1 � I ( r I). 1 � 1 III' 1 , 111 . ; 11 ' ; ► I 111 i : , 1 ! , ; .. • I; Iiiii 'ILI . 11,- PeoPasz? IL , I ; ' tI ' 11I1 IllI ` IIi / 11 ! ' 1 1 ' I• 1 ��° �:n;rn�r� � � � 1 � I 11 I I o 1,51 IIiI i rld , / III ' I j � I I r / , 1 ' ' 1 1 1 r Q1 1 ' I ' I I I I' ✓ , , • 1 : ; I I 1 z 1i . 1 i I , , , i ► I , i11I � ri I ' I ' • ' I i 0 11 i III . 0 1 , .�, I Ii � 1 ' 1 I „, 1 I [ 1�'�2� I I ! e►/ 1 I 1 1 1 I ' 1 Y` 1. ; 1 I. ' I 1 i 1 I I I ' I, I • i 1 1 I ( "O a ::10.1(0‘ I e o I . 1 II.' I0 H� 0 J I , I• ! ' rot oa • la -10{�, d7 � , "._ i 1• 1 ' ! ; i j • A. �� 1 71.I rL/,�i.111G� �1:�'I�� • E I •I i I I �� • 41111:I ! II ' ' I . a rr�r� , I •l^nP r♦ , •1 0 0 0 . - !V II' I 11` ) 1 , 1 , 1 , ; I 111i11 ' 1 It, itllii I ' I I"I`l J.I 1'! ' 1 I I , • ' , • i { I ! 1 I I ! 1 1 11 V4 f ! I , I , { 11 • I I ' '(�I. I I ! ?I:Itrc I"•, 4 ' • . I ' I I I I i 1 I 1 I I I t .to 1 1111 I'1 ; : r � I ` e rosvosini I ; i•I I i I'.' . ' • 1 \Jw1:T 1"+IU' ' I ! • ' ' ' ' ' • , ' i 1 ! 1 ' , •• I 1111 it • 11 . 11l ' . ' ' ' I 1 I ' ' ' 1 I 1 • 1 ' { 1 ' ' 1 111'I ' I ' I • 1 �.. 1 , 1 � 11 , 1 , I III ' lit Y 111 , 1 „ •1 • It ill , I i11.S1 ' , 1 1 , 1 ' , : 1111I I1 ' , II ; I 1 I•• : i111'I ! 1 1.1, 1 , lip 11 ' I1I I 1i 0 , • I I ` 1 I . 1 , I .• , '' I , II 11 , t1 ; i r ; 111 iHlh • ' 1 I •`II10 , I I 1 ' ' ; htH I , i 1 1 1 I i . 1 'i. • 1 L' 11 � • I : lit •Il'1 : • 1 C+ � / ," ' i I1 ! I h1 'II II • A II � IIIi lea ! i ! II II"'� , III ' , I / III 1 111Iii ,. 1 1 1 , i ' 1 AI Ii { 1 II III ) n i. • II •Ili , I I : , ,•,• 1 ` , 11 v : • '- ilGD ' I I j i I I 1 ` I , ' • i I ; I 11 • I I I I 1 I ' / I ' I 1 I II I l 1 , I1 , I tl I { ' ILInkiL ,,- 1 I ' } I11 ' I IIi Ii • • x I I I I i I ' I ! 1 1 ! i / '2'I"',,';r;n 0, r,b ; 1 1 I ' 11 I l I ' IF. G{t % 1 1111 I1I • 1 ' , 11 • • Ii ' ! I �!'d'M1� i1 ; l I • I 11 i ,. 1 Grp 11 ) III , 1 � ,�� IIII ' 1 11 II , ; �. I I 11 ` 1 i .�'( ill 1 ! . ! I • + • I I Ii ' IA , ' 1 I III ; I I • 1 i ! 1 1 ; ' ' I ' 1 I i i ' ilp i i I I 1 I I 1 I I ' I 1 ' I I , I 1.1 1 1 1 • : III ti, I.I I I tl' , . 1 1• I I I I ( I , ! 1 1 II , II f I • 0 .I C I , I I I , I • , . , 1 I I ' >, _, 41D • ili • , I /„!;0 • 1 ' I i ; I i iI µ '" ,' I ; I I • 1 1 i1 I II1I { II I r, ills , 1 ! II '� I � ' , ; ! II r. III I 11 , 1r i I i i 1 ; / ; 1 l i1 II /;, ; iii 1 I I I,,.. .� ti ,�, I I 1 I .�i•II'%,, I' - 1 1 I I . I I 1 ., Sr a W z,01 .1I ✓ 1 , I I1 I I ' II l • L 1 ' 1 I•, I i11 G �:Ut rcta 3-10100 .'4.0Jt co (7OI.:t u add .V16(. d,a+od ;00100 1,10l ob 10'G'100 xV0•1c•� GbI fIU . • 1 ,y11r' I MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES June 16, 1988 • ;, 0 Variance Request , t VARIANCE REQUEST P.D. 8-88 The following is a variance request to L.O.C. 19. 025 (6) , wiich • states that private streets shall not exceed a 15% gradient. The applicant is proposing gradients of 17% for the two private roads that will be constructed on side in the Mountain View Estates project. RESPONSES TO DECISION CRITERIA s`rhr" A. ' UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP Increasing the road gradients to 17% is necessary given the specific site conditions. The soils investigation prepared by John McDonald (May 5 ' 88) indicates that native rock (solid) is close to the surface on site. The proposed roads and utilities have been carefully designed to avoid encountering this rock. If a 15% gradient is required on this A private access drive three, things will happen: Massive rock• removal will be required and the con- 't;', struction cost will skyrocket, disturbance to the sensitive site will be increased by cut and fill activity, and the driveway grades accessing the , individual building lots will be too steep for residents and visitors to negotiate. These three results constitute a hardship. B. NOT INJURIOUS TO NEIGHBORHOOD • • This request will enable the applicant to minimize a . - construction disturbance to the site, retain more . existing trees, and provide improved access to the proposed building sites. This will benefit the district economically and environmentally. 4 41) d EXHI IT ,,. ,r1 2 r is 1iftm 1 TS"j 4. ... .. . ,•.. .. ... a8 4 'War . " ' „, • • MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES June 16, 1988 ,R Variance Request • C. MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY • The applicant is only requesting a 2% increase in 'I slope for the access roads. This is only a 2 ft. in 100 ft. difference in slope. The motorist and r 11 pedestrian will not detect the increase and it will I' not impact emergency vehicle access or circulation. This minimal request will allow the applicant to make :. reasonable use of the development site. D. NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN . • By minimizing disturbance to a sensitive site, this request is supportive of the natural resource policies of the Comprehensive Plan. • DH:ae:/2090 . , . . • • I. w 'I w I ; 111 tl ,� a. ♦ p t. / ♦ r t Y •a,+ az I. bleL' • +a .. 0 . 0 i. ya • , + n i AY y id E 5 RRii i . 1jaAa \It: ,-. /': y w 'd -t 71 C) d- X . ....... _. _. .._... _. .. 4 t� - r ..-+- u t/`,. r my ,�� t� rj .. ;. -D c... /77-vv" . • .... , 0 co / r M / a o . q.Y-e70 • I t r / L \• ,,1 4 • nr, �� ?1�1:Y 1"n 40' i n Ott H1 l'sl0'„. ....''. rn:• : 't,2 0 • ,• • b i I a r• ,.-iii ,...z.,,,„. - .-.. ' '''." .' ill !ii 4 o oR ',.1, ! i 1 : '":-:--A ' i r • • r// w i ./ IjI 1.' II �° I-4 •Sao ,i• ibrNrF L- I cwa • .. sn �' : s� * H ' I , i ' ! � a d�" , a n • I "1 ' ( 1Ij ; t • 1 ' , I i 1 1 l 1 , I 1 , , �) t I 1 1'1 1 I j .. ;V �° I 1 1 I '� I. 1 . �o • , i q?a 2s' � I ' 1 Y i+ i • Ng jill 1I'' ZAP() OfiC�7 (rd1bG� IOC�Od /4O oO I J�DO ,2Z040b �Go &O �.LirDb }��!dd • B CLI (4�JIG ) o • .. ,.. , • . 0 • ' • . . • ; . . .. . . . .. .. . .. . . . . .. • ,, , . . . , . • . . •.. , . . ,, . . . . . ,I 4 le,-'IF • 1�1 rA +� (PRELIMINARY) ,4r,. L • ,., ty OWNER'S ASSOCIATION FOR THE OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF A U G i 2 lc ti j • • HAYNES DRIVE IN MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES PLAT v, WHEREAS, it is the desire of owners of lots 1, 2, 3, 4 , 5, 6, 7, :.: '.. 8 and 9 in Mountain View Estates, a plat record in Multnomah County, Oregon, to create an Owner's Association to maintain a • private street, sidewalks and lighting identified as Haynes Drive. t WHEREAS, said lot owners, hereinafter referred to as "OWNERS", are 4 desirous of providing for the proper maintenance of this private ` street, sidewalks and lighting in Haynes Drive, hereinafter called onSTREET" and to delegate authority for maintenance and improvements to an elected Owner's Association Chairman and establish rules and '. regulations for the use of the street and sidewalks. Now, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed: 1.. • 1. This agreement is binding upon the OWNERS of Lots 1, 2, 3 ; 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Mountain View Estates or any portion thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns. • • , 2 . The parties agree that the OWNERS, their children and guests , have full rights to use this "STREET", provided no damages or• nuisances occur. 3 . The CONSIDERATION for this use right is the promise of the OWNERS to equally share in the cost of STREET improvements and maintenance. 4 . The OWNERS shall meet at least once a year to review the conditions of the STREET and vote on any maintenance and • improvement needs and costs. , .,a 5. The OWNERS shall be entitled to ONE VOTE PER LOT in all decisions regarding improvements and maintenance of the STREET or changes to this agreement. 6. At the meeting held each year, the OWNERS shall elect a CHAIRMAN to represent the OWNERS in all matters regarding maintenance of the STREET in the coming year. , • 7 . The quantity and quality of any STREET IMPROVEMENTS and MI NTENANCE shall be determined by MAJORITY 'COTE of the owners. • ,TA, 8 . The COST OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS and MAINTENANCE shall be • apportioned equally among the owners on a per lot basis. 9. The CHAIRMAN shall be empowered to borr• - - - e • necessary to complete STREET IMPROVEMENTS and MAX i EXHIBIT . a reasonable rate of interest for money borrowed. �/�\lJ+, t,.. Y V Y` IIB t'N . .. �,j' Iti'xZ i I �v'+ � k Cif... •. . y� C 1 4. • ' < •1 7 '•I C I 7 J lJL1. 1 e.' YA.k. • • 1.1:. 10. Within 20 days after expenditure of STREET maintenance money, the CHAIRMAN shell send written notice to each affected owner seating forth their share of the bill. The amount billed shall be ' due and payable within 30 days thereafter, and if not so paid, the CHAIRMAN may sue for the assessment and in such suit be entitled to costs and reasonable attorney fees. 11. The OWNERS shall share equally in the liability of the STREET. Each OWNER shall obtain homeowner's liability insurance for the STREET at a level determined by majority vote of OWNERS, unless the i OWNERS decide to carry separate insurance for the association. ,� . ;' 12. All OWNERS shall keep the STREET free and clear for auto access and use. ' 13 . This agreement shall run for 20 year after recordation and automatically extended for 10 year increments provided that this agreement may be modified by a recorded document signed by at least ' h 50% .of the lot owners based upon the one vote per lot basis. " ,;?� 14. Enforcement shall be by proceedings at law or in equity against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate this Street Ownership and Maintenance Agreement either to restrain violation or to recover damages. w• ` 4` ' 15. Invalidation of any provisions of this Street Ownership and Maintenance Agreement by judgment or court order shall in no way 4110 d affect any of the other provisions of this agreement, which shall remain in full force and effect. 16. No changes in this agreement can occur without approval of the developer of Mountain View Estates, or it's assigns, until said d •. developer no longer owns any lots in said subdivision. J. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, she OWNERS of all lots in Mountain View Estates have signed this agreement on the date and year set forth below. ) STATE OF OREGON v ) ss , 1988 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) Personally appeared the above and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act and deed. •� .. After recording return to: 0 , r P r / I' . U M •l .i • , (PRELIMINARY) �,1" 1 cl t - OWNER'S ASSOCIATION FOR THE OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF rAuG 2 1C3 , • VIVIAN DRIVE IN MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES PLAT • WHEREAS, it is the desire of owners of lots 10, 11, 12 13 and 14 n. in Mountain View Estates, a plat record in Multnomah County, Oregon, to create an Owner's Association to maintain a private street, sidewalks and lighting identified as Vivian Drive. . WHEREAS, said lot owners, hereinafter referred to as "OWNERS", are ' r , desirous of providing for the proper maintenance of this private street, : idewalks•and lighting in Vivian Drive, hereinafter called "STREET" and to delegate authority for maintenance and improvements to an elected Owner's Association Chairman and establish rules and ' ' " regulations for the use of the street and sidewalks. Now, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed: • 1. This agreement is binding upon the OWNERS of lots 10, 11, 12 ! 13 and 14 of Mountain View Estates or any portion thereof, their //J` heirs, successors and assigns. 2. The parties agree that the OWNERS, their children and guests • have full rights to use this "STREET", provided no damages or ' `a. nuisances occur. 3 . The CONSIDERATION for this use right is the promise of the OWNERS to equally share in the cost of STREET improvements and Y p ` : •' • "-' ' maintenance. rx , ` 1 4, The OWNERS shall meet at least once a year to review the conditions of the STREET and vote on •any maintenance and improvement needs and costs. , • • • 5. The OWNERS shall be entitled to ONE VOTE PER LOT in all r :`" decisions regarding improvements and maintenance of the STREET or y changes to this agreement. ;; 6. At the meeting held each year, the OWNERS shall elect a CHAIRMAN to represent the OWNERS in all matters regarding ' maintenance of the STREET in the coming year. 7 . The quantity and quality of any STREET IMPROVEMENTS and MAINTENANCE shall be determined by MAJORITY VOTE of the owners. ri 8 . The COST OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS and MAINTENANCE shall be apportioned equally among the owners on a per lot basis. : �1 9. The CHAIRMAN shall be empowered to borr• LuI1 4 9 . is necessary to complete STREET IMPROVEMENTS and MA/ d EXHIBIT •'� a reasonable rate of interest for money borrowed. 1 � ,r ,. .,. ktiip,;, . , + . {3„� A .,7 1. . ''f p1 ., •�. , •r l , .. U. - 4 �' ..•`4�.� N' Y •.� r. ' y Y •h. � J � ` •�M ` -9 its " A r lu .' 10. Within 20 days after expenditure of STREET maintenance money, the CHAIRMAN shall send written notice to each affected owner ":. setting forth their share of the bill. The amount billed shall be due and payable within 30 days thereafter, and if not so paid, the CHAIRMAN may sue for the assessment and in such suit be entitled q :yr to costs and reasonable attorney fees. 11. The OWNERS shall share equally in the liability of the STREET. Each OWNER shall obttin homeowner's liability insurance for the STREET at a level det armined by majority vote of OWNERS, unless the OWNERS decide to carry separate insurance for the association..` 12 . All OWNERS shall keep the STREET free and clear for auto access and use. • 13 . This agreement shall run for 20 year after recordation and ' automatically extended for 10 year increments provided that this Y ' agreement may be modified by a recorded document signed by at least 50% of the lot owners based upon the ope vote per lot basis. 14 . Enforcement shall be by proceedings at law or in equity against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate this Street Ownership and Maintenance Agreement either to restrain violation or to recover damages. r , gip ` , • 15. Invalidation of any provisions of this Street Ownership and . Maintenance Agreement by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any of the other provisions of this agreement, which shall remain in full force and effect. 16. No changes in this agreement can occur without ap proval g of the developer of Mountain View Estates, or it's assigns, until said developer nq longer owns any lots in said subdivision. p L/ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the OWNERS of all lots in Mountain View Estates y' .. have signed this agreement on the date and year set forth below. p. STATE OF OREGON ) ss r 19$8 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) rY` d V. '•• + y + Personally appeared the above and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act and deed. After recording return to: ,Y I i ,~ t JOHN McDONALD ENGINEERING u SOILS-CIVIL-GEOTECHNICAL • Ground-Penetrating RADAR 10116 S.E.STANLEY AVENUE ' 'a. .. PORTLAND,OREGON 97222 (503)774-0077 May 5, 1988 <. OTAK, Inc. � ? ': 17355 SW Boones Ferry Road " Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 SOILS INVESTIGA"TON OF MULTNOMAH ACRES NO. 2 !� Multnomah Acres No. 2 is located on the north side of 4 , . the undeveloped portion of Jefferson Parkway between the ,': y extended line of Fosberg Road and the extended line of Kingsgate. It contains about five and a half acres of land. Single family home usage is proposed. ` Slopes on the site range from 12 percent to 25 I percent. It is heavily treed and contains old growth ..),•: firs. Two creeks run through the site and are joined in a straight channel along the north side of undeveloped Jefferson Parkway. The creeks are cutting down through the soil but the banks are vertical. Though rocks Are in the K.° channels the soil is still underneath. In the outlet ' 1' ' channel at Jefferson and Fosberg and Lesser the water has cut down to the underlying rock. The exposed vertical �,o;; ',. banks are five to ten feet high and they show silt soil with isolated rocks above the bedrock. • Five boreholes ',ere made with continuous soil R,; ` sampling . The samples were given hand classification tests to decide whether they were of silty or clayey nature. Their colors were compared with the standard Munsell soil .` color plates for clues to the soil moisture regime and mode of origin. The borehole locations are shown on the attached Exploration Sketch. 1 S . ;':' Borehole #1 was made in the southeast part of the site. t ' ° 0 to 1 ' Dark brown organic silt 1 to 4 ' Brown silt 4 to 6 ' Brown silt with yellowish brown mottles 6 to 9 ' Hard and dry clayey silt, yellowish red " :. color, with bits of soft rock 1 9 ' Stopped by harder rock. 4111) i EXHIBIT c ,•.,* �� .ire {.r �"irT, • 2 Borehole #2 was made near the northeast corner. 0 to 1 ' Dark brown organic silt • 1 to 31/2' Brown silt 31/2 to 5 ' Silt, motled grayish brown and yellowish brown 5 to 7 ' Brown silt with soft stones 7 to 81 ' Trend to stiff clayey silt, yellowish red color 81 ' Stopped by harder rock. • Borehole #3 was between the two creeks and just west of tree #1023. 0 to 11 ' Dark brown organic silt 11 to 51 ' Brown silt 51/2 to 6 ' Silt, mottled grayish brown and yellowish brown 6 to 71 ' Yellowish red clayey silt with soft atones s. • 71 ' Stopped by harder rock. Borehole #4 was in the southwest corner near tree # 1686. , • 0 to 1 ' Dark brown organic silt *{ 1 to 2 ' Grayish brown silt 2 to 3 ' Yellowish red clayey silt 3 to 4 ' Brown silt 4 to 41 ' Silt, mottled brown, pale brown, andyellowish brown colors ' • 41 ' Stopped on rock. Borehole #5 was in the northwest part of tie site near • tree # 1371. 0 to = ' Dark brown organic silt i to 5 ' Brown silt with faint mottles at about 3 ' depth 5 ' Stopped on rock. The underlying rock is of volcanic origin. The soil with reddish tint is derived from the volcanic rock while the soil with the yellowish colors is a windblown silt. • Borehole #4 had some reddish soil over the top of yellowish k us. or brownish soil and this possibly was because of an old mudflow, even though it was not seen elsewhere on the site. In any event it was a long time ago because there are trees at least a couple of hundred years old that are growing on top of this soil . In my opinion the site is suitable for single family r , home development. The ground surface slopes are too flat 04 to be subject to instability and most of the rock is down 410 below the house foundation range. : ' 1F �, .• • ••N 3 �, s The zone of mottled soil colors is often the base of a • 't seasonal perched water table in the soil. Excavation for a crawl. space can expose the edge of the water table and result in a wet crawl space unless a. high quality r. y r • foundation drain that incorporates drain rock wrapped in filter fabric is extended high enough to contact the water flowing out of the bank so it can be carried away. The downcutting creeks are in very narrow channels. If these are not to be put into continuous pipes it is 'u • recommended that gabion check dams with gabion-protected splash basins be constructed at intervals to halt the• downcutting and make the creeks more scenic. • Very truly youro , • PROF a neat 4 l / /<•- fic . / oaYGon OyvGC 1. 6 ‘966 Q'O /V k Mc00C� • • .' r. • • w • • S q' i r ti}. iU , r or---..."' �. (� .�---µ Scale: 1"=100, Kingsgate u • Borehole #2 fi . •• . • :7-1 1.c ,• Borehole #1 Undeveloped. Jeff eraon • Parkway Borehole #3 • 4110 „ . . • . . .., , . . I Borehole #5 Borehole #4 • FS • _ — Fosberg Lesser EXPLORAT IONSKETCH MULTNOMAH ACRES No. 2 May 5, 1988 John McDonald Engineering . : 4111 . . : .I ,.Y , . . . .. 16 0 .., . , 10' ,,t . -" • ;=( _5) (o2o) (k •' .-''' : aZZ' 1 .'.66 CFS . -.. - io • . ‘,A,, .,. cZ ILA) ; . . ... Cot,n404,4 :-63t crits,,,,,- — C. ,t L *e - e 12 ,o Co e. ,'Ic , , . Il i pry tttk2 ,(1?-Le, ante-a- • ' _pV mt.,c44.1.3 4 sdw v.. �.e �..fax k cu 632.5�x ' 25.E p 7 1�,c . .43 560 0 - 7 Q .c pvt. ,ci.w6 d sda.ic%va e S-�v'e -s 720' x Q-9 r• 4S5G0 0. 50A� 1- s 4 (P ,gyros ( 4 x 2000. �3 56a ` r 0.G 4 Ac "Dr� u e u� s . q x �c�c� _ . �D ac dSs6o O T`o c.°`Q' ay. 1 g 1 A c n t. ?e,v-44.k..e..ck.t L. aArea.„ . . .. . . .,.....,, To 1a..e. aver• PC 1-E e . '. 4 8 4c.. -Q-s-S d,v' i u 2,t.0 5 -- O. 3 0 P-?. 4 . 1.5 ' 5+rt 14 .fie oh +.'O O • `r o tc,2 'env' `(' 2r� , L1. 02 Ac .'4 E X H I B I T Aseh4ttlute M U d� 1 lV V (1,.._V ��7T."1• 1 � �� •h£.I E gmeehr+q abevev�dmenl servtecs PROr)ECTJ IL..84 11'.s? P.41t. Loosest*Attmeclwe • 0' ; pCHbltECbigA pEb w.eyaq BY _ CK. BYLand NI111411 DATA P i] $e'b p,� K. T ff t. -.. • /. ,. .. .,. �. a '� " • •. ' �• jki0 LAA(A_dot.A.,14..A.... ...V.i..e..,w_., . - ../!, __L._ . .,.—. -._,_ .........- ._ . gia:,,,,,A.,.... ...2 .. ........ .....04‘200421.4zosau.6611041a . . ..... ... . . .. . „ Ca-', e eA. •• QAu e . G 33 :7 x aye . 37C.1-1 _ , µ. "fir .'a S�r�� C .. �.. '1' ti e --exs:In . PcW e,0„ • 632.5 2.5 . . 43 5 60 O'4 Ac.. &ILI C.5 ,1 CO t 0,4:R,4AL, • &-vt.A.s-ki.-V e... rAr c‘AAA., [01: 0. 2.0 . 1 . , • ..., r Or) ✓VV . D rd p D is-E. • q-co C'.4uvraA. Tiw�.e. i.1., M 1 vi.u{P.t., • 5 ' 1 S' • c�V ev �•,..,,,6 I 480 40 420' b 44-,'.,..Q- 1 C,l,lp., a_ 2 C 440 • l 0 ' 3`7 5 r 20 r, d.e D t . tb ._ 4 so TO .Q, L st.,I - ►G, 1 N , , 1 0 . .1241,4:n-C-cd2E, I tkit e,v1(1,-', " - 1 hvn. mch�frlurc • i CM!I eng.nrerwrq (� �y, UevrkW+enr sew er P R O J O T G } Jt. landscape Arch,IeCruwr J 0 8 N O Land Irrannnq Urban Dc,yn r " C 0 APO P A t EC Sm 8 Y vereg CK. BY__.. DATE..2Qgr PAGE OP c` A n r H i t t e t g p C A,.. e r i, %' - �' - . A , • ' e ,, / r. • 1A .. a v 7. , i. . p • • 1. • • jMf ; • i • • 1 0 •- r • < ..-..t....:_.. _.....'. w.f._„•.-..♦•a---�-.. .ram-•_.-.,.. .r...— Y. . r i . •...• ..4:.. r -.,•......r_ I••;.: • • •.••.,• --74wtr. •n.r(•••_• _•^ fir- •., • _ vt_. n.,, '.. • w r • • ( 1 t n////��`��,�l0 ( ... • -_ ' _ ), t__�w-)i. +• .`._. !i r.U-r`T---Y«».r.rf C. J Y 4 2 «..-<_. I. Gk.12,e,tAlsk,/4„,,e CtArp_ct, . 1.44..e,S.,. *:.C.-&-tt,t,roce-1 C--t...) e ff) --• .. 5e50 x o. q I — 2 42 : ..• •y. • • . —. • • • • • i .'" 0 . • • {y' •, • • o • • y • • 1 • • • • • • , a. . � 1. .1 .• .. ' • •a • .. .. a...- ♦ »fir;......... .. ..;,•.....•. • . ., • : ::,• •••M•w Y-, w1.1••. • • + P ' < ` •♦ • 1�+ • r••• - .u •.• • .• r,••i •• ♦. 4. • • Y i • , ••• +-.r • •.• . •. 1., .. r . A • • • A'th.t.t,.oe OWM0%3�..D'rAtti vI E. Ta-rE w C^gnee++q . • • ba�cbml pm 5e•..ees PROJECT JOB NO. ' lAroseaoe Mcf aK4Ve • I.And p4rw9 • U•Wn bet,,, n ieNttECbtSA pe�b ""� BY CK. BY DATE PAGE __.__.. . OF • `` ., r mil ,,« ' f .• A • / A +. 1 a 1 *� t ` / f DETENTION VOLUME WO1 ;BEET Project Name: Mc U V tee e.s. City File Number: • `. .A . . , 1 . .8. . . . C D E . • F G • 0 STORM 50-yr AREA X INFLOW RELEASE STORAGE DET. VOL. �. TIME inten C comp . B X C line 10 D - E F X A X 60 mins . in/hr line 15 _ cfs cfs cfs cu . ft. 5.00 3.43 2 .42. 2.S-0 1 . 6G G. 64 ` 7.( o S. 4- 2. ► ' 8 6 .00 3.14 7.00 2.91 7.O • . 8 .00 2.72 6• 53 • . 9 .00 2. 56 6•2D. 4- . 5f 4-4-1 . • �,�` 10. 00 2.42 • S. �lo `T'20� 2 5 I S. 11 . 00 2.30 - _ `.�..� ,' 12.00 2.20 13 .00 2.11 '' 14 .00 2.02 , 4 .et[. 3.2 3, 2 I Z . k ' y N 15.00 1 .94 .�. • 16.00 1.86 4,33, 2 ,6-7. 272� 17 ,00 1 .79 `_ 18•.00 1 .73 \ 4-1 � Z 2728• "° ' . 19 .00 , 1 .67 'f} -.04- 2 -B5 21 15 20. 00 1 .61 _ . • 21 .00 1 , 56 - --- . r' ,s 22 .00 1 .52 23.00 1 .48 24. 00 1 . 44 25.00 1 .40 ' f 30 .00 1 . 24 • 35 .00 1 . 13 . . :,� r40 ,00 1 ,04 -2.. . t •. . ..) • • 1 . 0 , „..--- ....:-.--.....„ it—.--.---.-..^"matt Aft... ..•Amo....ft.....AAAro• _ 1 ^ _•3�w t� � -- +'r"�2:.' ; • ' ®gib Vis 1 o n s-;, ,r 1 ... •.J . . l�y_J ET .__I i C�(—1 J • �=, f, —� — I i • _ . `� ,lifi _ 4. ' irC _v 1 • li . , •t, \ .,,,/7i� .`M ' ..... ` 1 "i ��jj i, r. ,0....y Zr:.am '�'V`(!\a sc ,` . `� r;�� L�• :1 7"„fir 1 .......................... '•7y rac,31_ r v ��1/ '� `n. 1 g 1_L� •.a \ ��• 1.3d'W ! \ag ;34:�, ' cr,ilk J �, • n • ... , . ,, .. 1 ~ 3 , L . .. • . .. , .... ..... ,..., ..,. . . „ , ,..,, , ..,• , •-tul.,?rt ,---,r---"4 1, I R1,i tis I' �� 5 maxi �' \ tall ,�, r' ""? 1 vim. i „\ J 1. .,y /, 1 '1 .,,,,,N....___.\ j ) I 444 — - - •' 4':iko ' )1, 1 , ...._ 1 m • ID' QD 4) , I/ I", , _ . .l ,.. •• ..L i /16 il 1 / • ,1 I t ' r L: fi 1 1( y,.y l it • 0 N . 4 , ,{,� . 1 ' `i .. -iY/ W_k, r. -lb 4, 14W10- •t. 711;k f�i .-ram' `.: ,r c. ( a I...._ . 4Y.1iMF . .Adtl s:. . 4... �i-6-',e,4 Lc:1.4 4 . USl D S e ..j, EXHIB T T/o bevaic.t,Oic224- I 42.1,0 From c-Zt,I. . "q.C.4140V 1 7''� — ,�. - �.v e.. 28 Gr ,^' �-sale.. ' a " A IC•r v�r W Q�Cf , ®2 "�+®c�� '0 Lie. 0 , ® r' q : t Subject PD $ . 'fie/v , 'v-4 . '•(`t--`i n! p (.Moro, 1 o I" 1" / ` Gtin�(MC1-44-- Date "' �1 7.,' . , Por ...r.A.6.1 -1-' Cpc.D1olic.) 42,4- t.,{0(...,r- se) .s..21:, 19 L I^t�-� � ! -.. 1 {..® �Ov�., a ____ ro '© r 1 Gi L, zL GW�c.1 ittei4c) I �c�d,,i I boost 2e, - .Id 'Coll r ' o .=e:td6.,) , 4-1,4c2.) Tori ckwatinfed4c44- I's cps- V A del �I� .47; t� I y iN <�.Y�1 GR�►1 G4�h � U i�1G.s'" ��( �• ®f t j�� at►'� t_r`K.GV 0,.., (..011►-t - pco. - , n64- Job ro 1 't441124222discs)r) (1). 44:2 !�4 vt�,s ate- wake, -4-12a ikvetA dt 4- -Crol H4 (/). `74-� e4-c ,. ov1..4.1 I ©v , w i-f�of -4- � Jc1, c_ Ill r�r�i a�-� I 4-c"Q.1l Q ,/itt CL ©v% .1 G�v1 ) 'W ka,t) i frvI-'r e4,.c. Q_A `o ^1 K 10617� , 1. Ida h i-I- W l" (4 0 t:9 r V h c". rr�, �.c` oa i 3 1 P gc.t." 5., ..7144b -� .4 6, I t ' ' '�� l.>;' �� a ,� a /t r �} / U45r-'4'L. -� r-� n Crw� �C�. V (LI vl ,,t7'. ' C..--) ', Tr.k.CQ eJ.a...c:ce.4....\ 4.41,53 Efismairic64 (SP, --- .,, ,_.„-1-....- Wilson.Rones ` M+F� fir)-'96J IN.PUtCUUNUSA t 1 11 a' EXHIBIT J SZ. 1 1. 0 • • a • ' _ JOHN McDONALD ENGINEERING ��t��` l• �' SOILS •CIVIL • GEOTECHNICAL Ground-Penetrating RADAR 10116 S E STANLEY AVENUE ti !. �• u PORTLAND,OREGON 97222.4351 p�. ' — A V (503) 774.0077 CI@OV l$ '1992 November 2, 1992 Attn: Steve Ward Westech Engineering, Inc. 3421 25th Street SE ,n " Salemt, Oregon 97302-1191 MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES SOIL REPORT YOUR JOB 1633 .000 . 0 t; � " , After reviewing my soil investigation report of May 5, 1988 for Multnomah Acres No . 2, which now is called Mountain View ; Estates, I have no objection to your use of this report in any manner you choose. • • , .. . . . . Very truly yours, �,/t e 4,' py /� 565% Yl • t ��' `;, f."/ , Il;";fir:' ORE6ot4 ✓Dy CA s. 9 �96� Q } EXHIBIT p Ci .. ., .. • .. - • . • . • • MO � Y• P. .0 .J U ;' � r INCORPOFIATV n, ARCHITECTS, P C November 17, 1992 ; ,, NOV 1 9 1992 Architecture Planning P Urban,Design .Dovulo?ment Serv)coa i Steve Ward "I�ScaPe Architectunr i'r Westech Engineering Civil Enginoerin6 3421 - 25th, S.E. Transportation . Salem, OR 97302 Environmental Services "Water Resources • Surveying• Re: Mt. View Er' ates ,a Dear Steve: • . '\ As per our telephone conversation, we will allow you to use the plans we rtrnrt;ti.ed r ;r .. for the Mt. View subdivision. The plans were transferred to W.B. Wells and • ,. :,r Associates for construction management, inspection, and survey. We assume that g numerous field changes have been made, but of course we cannot confirm this .• 1,, '. Modifications to the road grades were made. These grade changes require ap<,cial ; ,'f �`' o- • approval for steepness by the City engineer or by the Design Review Board These plans were only correct for the date of their original approval. We must •.:..• • - `?; i caution you that you must check all constructed conditions for their conformance r to your own design standards if the plans have been modified. If you have any questions or I can be of any further assistance, please call mi • Sincerely, •'!' t ` t 1' / 1 /ri v ' •lr.4• . • •Gregory T. Kurahashi, P.E. Vice President .1 , • cc: Mike Wheeler/City or Lake Oswego G,I'Klmw ; •••'• r, i;-. ' , 7 . ..�.XH � B.I T 1/155 SW tloone oaJ ��+''�1 A.. Ft14,4 pa4p 12-` .^ls ts)sys.5a1a •f rt 151231835-5 25 3 1 bad Kirkland Wry.KY} • • Kukland.Wakhur,an 4a111t ' ' . 3: : I . "r. WESTECH ENGINEERING, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS & PLANNERS '.f EXHIBIT ' iPo , • #4.02-. • :. MEETING MINUTES ,. MT. PARK HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING RE: Mt, View Estates Proposed Development J.O. 1633.000.0 • ` The meeting was held at 7:00 P.M. August 19, 1992 at Mt. Park Recreation Center, #2 • Mt. Jefferson Terrace, Lake Oswego, Oregon, 97035. .,° The purpose of this meeting was to fulfill the ie-a lication neighborhood P' PP notice requirements of LOC Chapters 48.801 and 49.301 which require that a meeting be held with property owners, residents and the local neighborhood association following the pre- ° , application meeting but before submitting the development application, The meeting was opened at 7:05 P.M. in the conference room of the Mt. Park Recreation Center. Steve Ward of Westech Engineering gave a short presentation which explained the *— background and scope of the proposed project. Mr. Ward explained that the project was originally approved by the City of Lake Oswego in 1988. However, prior to the completion of the project, the property reverted to the ownership of the bank financing the development, during which time the approvals for the project lapsed. For this reason we are re-applying for approval to complete the project. He explained that the purpose of the meeting was to inform the neighborhood association and local residents of the scope of the " i '. project and gather their comments. Following the presentation, the floor was opened to questions or comments from those attending. Listed below are the questions/comments brought up, followed by a summary of Westech Engineering's responses: •„, QUESTION. Who will be responsible for the maintenance of the common areas in this development? 4, RESPONSE: The open area along the two stream corners on the site, labeled Tract A Open Space, will be maintained by the Mt. View Estates / " Homeowners Association which will be formed and comprise the :` residents of the 14 lots within this development. The 20 foot buffer 0.• .4 strip surrounding the development, labeled Tract V Open Space, will remain under the control of the Mt. Park Homeowners Association, The Mt. Park Homeowners Association will be responsible for the maintenance of this open space area. It was also explained that the intent is to leave these open spaces in their natural state, which will minimize the maintenance required by the respective Homeowners Associations as well as maintaining a buffer area around the purposed • development. "o porale Met 3421 25th Si S E„5elen,.Onion 97302 1191 • 15071 585 2474 13500 SW 72nd Ave, Portland,Oregon 97223 8032 • 15031 641.9226 ' Fax 15031 585.398E ., k - ,• / , A . .. , gyp,, a .fi , �� QUESTION. A question ryas posed by Mr. Alan Fuegey, resident of50 Spinosa, Mr, • Fuegey indicated during the construction of the intersection at Kingsgate and Jefferson Parkway, two oak trees were removed on the north side of Jefferson Parkway in the tract adjacent to the Tract V Open Space. He indicated that these trees had originally provided L ~4 natural screening between his house and Jefferson Parkway, He also indicated that there had been a verbal commitment by OTAK to replace these trees below Spinosa in this area. RESPONSE: We showed Mr. Fuegey a copy of the landscape restoration plan for the project. Included in this landscape restoration plan is a provision • ,+ to replace the trees removed from the embankment north of Jefferson Parkway at the intersection of SW Kingsgate. Landscape in this area includes 20 Red Osier Dogwood, 12 Douglas Hawthorne, 14 Wild Rose as well as ground cover. We indicated to Mr, Fuegey that we would send him a copy of the portion of the landscape plan which covers the area of concern to him. The installation of the trees in this area should address his concerns about visual screening from the street .. .. :" 4,0 below'his house. • QUESTION, A question was asked by Mr. and Mrs.Tom Yerxa regarding the plans }' for the PGE electrical wires across the front of the development and : Y ' continuing up Lessor Road. They also asked about the plans for a 1 retaining wall in front of 12736 SW 55th Place fronting on Lessor • Road. } RESPONSE: We explained that the requirements of the City are that the electrical wires be underground across the front of this development, We have received from PGE plans for the mainlines and services in this area. PGE has also indicated that the work involved at this development is being coordinated with a larger project in this area. However, we are not aware of the full extent of the details of this larger not aware of whether or not PGE plans to put the ovrhead electrical '• wires along Lessor Road underground or not. Howcvcr, this appears to be beyond the scope of the work involved in this project, Regarding the question about the retaining wall below their property, Sheet 4 of the construction plans show an intersection detail for the ,.. intersection of SW Fosburg Road and SW Lessor Road, These plans call for a concrete retaining wall extending from the edge of the proposed development and extending up SW Lessor Road approximately 120 feet. A copy of this detail will be sent to Mr, and ' Mrs. Yerxa. QUESTION. The question was asked whether consideration had been given during , ,'he planning of this project concerning the possibility of displacement of wildlife from the area within the development boundaries, • filo ... - I • 8 • u • 4 A � . r♦ k RESPONSE: We explained that this project had been reviewed and approved by the Division of State Lands, which is the State agency concerned with this o1 issue. We agso explained that the purpose for preserving the stream ' corridor open space as well as the buffer space around the —' development in its natural state was partially in response to this concern. We also explained that this project does riot involve the development of a undisturbed parce of land but the completion of an existing project. >: QUESTION. Are you aware of any future plans for development above the Mt. View Estates proposed subdivision. RESPONSE: The area above the proposed development is under the ownership and ry.: control of Portland Community College. We are not aware of any plans that the community college may have for developing this area. /' However, this is outside of the scope of this proposed p ro'ect. QUESTION. After looking at the landscape plan, one resident expressed concern about and asked for the rational behind the planting of street trees along the 2 private drives. RESPONSE: We indicated that the street trees are in response to the requirements of the City of Lake Oswego Development Code. QUESTION. Questions was asked concerning the scope of the landscaping around Y the detention basin. . RESPONSE: We indicated that the landscaping in this area will consist primarily of completing the plantings as shown on the landscape plan. . •` Conversations with the Division of State Lands indicate that they are satisfied with the construction of the detention basin and that the planting is the only major item left to be completed from their prospective, •. There were no additional questions or comments at this time. We therefore closed the meeting and invited any one who had a specific question to which they would like a written response to come up and write down their question along with their name and address. ' Written responses will go to Mr. Fuegey and Mr. and Mrs. Yerxa. Their addresses are as follows: Alan Fuegey No, 50 Spinosa Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Phone: 636-1044 (work) 636-5334 (home) . • Mr. and Mrs. Tom Yerxa • = 12736 SW 55th Place >' Portland, OR 97219 Phone: 244-5491 Also, Ms. Katherine L. O'Brien requested that her name be added to the notification list for the public hearing involving the development application. Her address is as follows: Katherine L. O'Brien PacWest PacWest Center• N, 1211 SW 5th Ave. • Portland, OR 97204-3793 ,r. ti Respectfully submitted, • WESTECH ENGINEERING, INC. an Denny Muchmore D M:11a • ' cc: Mr. Tom Gloude, First Security Bank of Orgegon Mr. Bob Ericsson, Executive Manager, Mt. Parks Home Owners Association "' • • T ' 1 r . 0 0 .. _ I,.._ II{1t • -II; . .y. 4..11. 1.41 wl I'. ,. .... ... .. ., _ . •. . ,. . MOUNTAIN VIEW A ,. . . . • . .., . . .., . , PLANNED DEVELOPMENT //rw..hi,.. Onnv 6",e,/es r474.0.+4el...1 awe,4c1-mwore`-Cour,e•'n,..--fna. •Od °i• P/anel Fr.1,ewe."4. O 1A /m 1JUN 2 '9 :.993 w 1l I) /, N no ) (r) A D I�' V Li�LU1�'NIL'N1, 1'l7'Y OP LAKE' OSIVSCO II N�IGili 7'OP OP S. BOLT ON PIRE HYDIRANT 10720 S.W. AI.l,l:N IiL h I1 AT CORNER OP SPINOSA AN)) ►- l '• UL'AVL'Ia'ON 011.,VUN, 97005 JEPP'ERSON PA El KW AY. . . _', ELEVATION 54.1.74 EXHIBIT .1 , utllllurtlul111♦ "'l'♦ �-�/"•1=j •1•,1D,-•9 al,lr Ypt;rn' ; .{ 1 C,LNLRAL NOTES• Jr....r.t , , ��i ; W B.WELLS= w I+a,1j., I•bRrLAND Q 11f. . .. / r I . ' .« •N«.N "4 . It A' 41✓,lt,/rrf✓S"-°� '< P..J `.I 1.d 'IP,y""t'1 F •,�•y, 1.•..»b •r•, 1.1tl 1.•14 hll., 11 I;Ir �':�: «♦ 1 , AS , r o 1 r� �/ 1•; 'V J,r, I' 11 11.1,...1ar.;'tt,l'» .,...i.i ,.•1., • 'n t e0 „ ' 1 I ' ..:,';',...1..!".. 11•• r.11...1 Y"1' » 1 '1 .1111.i11$1111.01 II 1y(, 11 . 1 w y FW U»1r II»♦•.,»«N 11.1 ,.,.:O 1 ♦111;,1p,,.♦11♦1«l11 1�`!!L'L"1' INIJL'x {k,... ,{"'^ `Mt1 `�.•' �,M1I. �/(Ille -•"\. »/ 11 111 1 1 1 r. 1 1«.1N•/.1«:•'. ` O 1 Y. .1 . 1 .w UJ 1- w t�.1" , 1 1`s1'Y1' 1 u •1'« . .N 4.1+,1N11•IN,1 ;11 :.4...�r1.4..".:::latr:F.:1.V.:hil.wl UP; .P.nil.,. 1•..•TT +.�7'�' R1 )1 �I,' 1»1 1 ti� 'i.iiiilti r'::«.w.. .. 1,•w . n ►«.« . 1 .-j L1a m 2 .)r,•- +i• ! r•IR,I� /;�;��, „ , ...w.,.:.::4..t.,1'nirvi........,.�ai 1 TITLE SIIL ET 1{e L'1 '�,y 1J: /" 1 1«+ »• u t. ,U.n u»u w• 11. a«11............1»1111 11..... %O ,��i �, «:�•,1' ;4 ,j�t,,tl'� 1::1.« 1.' ; ';11'•1 .;w .... ..1 rl♦N♦.w V. STREET A: ST01tA1 O/AIN PLAN •-4w t Jg I. 'FLIP •� �1.111•�ti�� ..11r 1':w1'::'::. 1.11`r:'�1i r.y♦Ili»a:iY..lii. c -.1 1 u< . 3 ± I :9' /1, »...u�». .^�,:� s. STRE'E'T P'RO P'I LE'S <'� o - \1 ,Jr !H=.•- 11 ♦(r; 1 o.1U 1w«11w1 J , . ,.;II�Ni.1 Z{J 0'•o 1I. Il• { • �/ `LA I1 i�'� i,1i.i'1i11::wvi• r1n�11.Nil.11 1 M 11 .""1 "..61311 ,N ...IN :I 14 1:1: 1 1 1 •` ,. I,J'i EltS'ECTlO/J UE"I'All1s o • fiOP',tGQ .." w...-:4N"':: •:';' 11»"..N,.».....:.-....Y.::r1::" 1, J'1'ORAI DRAIN PIMOI'ILE'S (J/ my"•' , 1 N .i., 6}.�',j�rr.• ,� , ....14.4, 1.4♦ �.1 1I.1 li.$ 141» 1 M 1 IIN 1IIM. r1 ' �'t 'r GLACM M. S. "1 t, ♦' :...". C. CRAM NG PLAN L a 0 .1 « Urm ••:r• +t ,i�, �t1 « :`t1:1',11«'.'.;i 1 1 1. w .'`,11::: 7 l'I/E'E' CU'l l'ING do CI,P.'A111NG PLAN rrrr ,• k ''":' ^0'" • 1,:, !"`• 11.11,.,1.'" 1 t 1 N 11..1 . 11 SANITARY SEW Ell At WAI'EIt PLAN ••, J ,•-3'Lypp4S1ru1-A• b I /. ,.N.1 N,L l a ».."1,',' 1 ♦::�1a 1 ,.h « 11 SANl9'A11 Y P/ROPII.E.S 1. ., t I ,t " » 1 : .y 1.N;,oi.i.e• 1 ♦ 1 .'1r 1»NI♦N NI r$. '""""•» ♦I,or� iea"•`"G j-y r,. • ,,, uw.r♦ 1 I,•n,w. 1r I "�t11N IMIIIII NII» Y- t '!l "MINI+ " `JA, 5t\NII'Akl' SEWER PLAN/l'NUI ILE • :.. \44,1 4A•. 1.1� ,11: J/ , 1-":: 1.11«.H 11,. ,1 ...1N•111N NI 1♦1 ♦ .. 1.4 JI , /r,' / ,N.,, ,, 1 .1..,1»111.• it,,.1 1»., , a.•N«»; ''..*w';:. 4 »II».•,11 »1.1.1«•t1 .14 10 COAIPOSITE' UTILITY PLAN - ----- '- t1 1••••+IN »111..MI» 01.1.11 ••1 '' , NN1N 11NN i1 • 4........N1» 1111, 1'Hi 11N i».11..1. II. STANDARD CONSTRUCTION DETAILS VICINITY MAP 11 N tt.lri•0. ,•,4,b yN.N•4 Y1♦» t,.i'1`i1,a:w'=1.11'."""4"INIM, 12. STANDARD CONSTRUCTION DETAILS' 1 0l 12 12A, PRIVATE DRIVEWAY ',RCJflLE5 ,114,1, • 119 1♦.1�b - a nY r ' ‘,..) c� C ' • }0'^,�M / y U/14 n 1 . 1 �/Cxii l "1�'E-I:fi 1 ' ' !I•n S�y 63- /� 11 el I. N 1 I ` 11��b a.:rL. 'LDd. I. • STORM DRAIN DATA _/ (� AIy N P' �uL Ie a`w1N♦ i% ndl}- u�-L.T ". 1 .+•R ....PL., n I.L 1 11 r/Il.r,t:Dull I.UI.W111 1•1 • / 111/1/ I I _ II i / , - .1 .T IT It. ..tirM If•tl 11 Ilt .y..T1 rr/'U/u.pRJN ' '•fM,�. I •/ll I ,( ,i1N..4:1�I.I�..v♦ li•(»„�^+nel• \\1 I t11Ir„�y'oJ l� .0 ..-? ' DU M1W0� I/ 1 _101 •.1'.1 .:...�ii •"r. • 1 ...u w •war ./�u u•uw.a•trAf./•arrr/ \�� 1'/ _ �;l_ _�9 d' . �1 I+ �11k tu. ".^YI .1•rl•...a..as..,tiywc I.a I I Nr«I.q/I �, ` 1.....r( 1 `1�- f"� I7. 1•"- VC) Cl�/Dl / 1 1 ♦.•.r II 1�.. �r ��1 ( / .,,.� A„ �6tt1b1fuD rt •� q• jli.....ovr+rr../ rr �• 1'4r'O Ultitt RCA / C! ii..:i:1.1�1.1...• pi p x u u•II I..... .r•ocln/ (.3.0 L'A c entlOur'N/GrD 44"j CT l d'1Vt'•O Guam tau / t•sig,DC(1bdQ YPI f!r•.0 UN.'v!�! A u....♦.1.lu..«q t'./u•.0 W'1A!�f 1� •.•:....vva.t: ••lri'4UWIDf R.Ct 11•...«..R MM •i t....r 1un11 CAM �• ATIN'•0(/IM1•IEOFifit ••^*I•••u•� C . a n.I. +-...w rlsau PAT S.W.RRA MN CT. S.W.SANTLIANE . ...........(N:v It+. S.W.IEPFCRSON PARKWAY t. y u ) �,I Tw an Inro Ntl MIS T 1"1 1 11.....t. *It n I I 1 w,1.rw.r sw L.,ra c.l.n r �^ /1/�//J//^ ^ TRACT'V' If...) 1, 26 • L 4 11 ♦ IA I�1N ro tiler SO 11 + � 1 1, Irr..fwM LII♦1..1:.IroI.rI 4 I.. +TB 1�•d �f�/�L If• 11..LM a w.o/it4 1 t.. II r„n+{iiw„ t11.1./. t• //..II soul:r,� 1 IT IT IT..+-....I1A• •„•I I hi/„*.„. /L I.,„.•Ww.tr/ •M Jr �� . 1•) •^^•.t3 W NU' ,� 11 •..Ir.IIr }.1\.... . 1r]I.lr fit. tAf.. �•...�.Ia7n •i+•1••ii'Q .. ,1 w M.♦Y w. nzt U 11•11.+...I\-111•/1..1✓11•(r e........If I'/•wrl/ •11.K M4.1 fr,.1 ge^url.yl F.y _ ..r• 1.•'ti'i••. • M'AYrlbr trlwl M 11 A4 l.J �1"+1 MY•�•••1 �•11 T'I...r..•.V a ♦ 1'•1,„11 .-ti:i1 iN.i�'11,1.N"11.1 wwl1n. I 3 ,,,:..•'--� wedS a ,) 1/ .r h.si H.......I. l.6 I/N'l/ / Vl �� • �� M1 PARK ®lK'S. LL' ♦,i u 11•usxp r�.r y i.au li�ti^i..�.w. I.t / .. .•.. / I. 'S6.61' 4 i•. • _ .1 . It.,I1.Urt111e WTI 11w 41:I 1 ..."M JI". ...•e • f..4.1 / E�•. .. A • 11-M. It IT, 1 -ram ii+...:.evr.+.,rl. .• ilia+«:i.�iwII„«.n/w+,ol µ 1 It+wAri ... Cw�II,L:t' C�+� •1,1' I. H.y. 11 /G >^ft n♦•I..AI• 11...H.11 11� II/ 6 1 �1 M. 1 •1 L I. 11 ,C...I....tYt. It=1v1 M, ' 1 111«..��Ir........44~� elt•I,Iw rew11G•��11.4t,Yr1 1 k -� 1 ' 14.4 MI on.lt I•rt.••.. 11.14.4...... t 1 r,, � lss.er��rs •, • • 'w ..//rrsrrlrl/ ,�� ;�fnn 'Siu•-r U''•/ N •' b I/ «..•w / l ••• i..f..•• lu y' /�/1A/M IfOr/r /r/e/�I��ry��7.•t�IOAf•I114 u 11•ti• rwln, T 1� ,L•1//1e/an n.rr�-Ca rilrar/rx W u...». r.r n••✓..u.' 111h.Iru/a•r NI nw 1 Wu h .�E` �.• S "" :'14N.ll. Mt(' rut 1 uriut 1•1 n/u tlulutl -'1r-.,.1 i.i / AO //1'�I f /11A/'/Irt./` 41 07i/4 Are. y t 1 •11 Itlu I.11111 t.eult 3'rL .N/1.r./o/MIr1Irtr /JLT7 WT 1 ywrr I 1 •1 *• IN./ - .1++.... ( .I W1N1 P/T I/•r1 '•Mrl f•. ten..' .A. r,I t.. \ I•"+• • . n u 11•w F..v. /ifN,II•tr f. 11• / `/( .•..."1 "y r 1 r.... wwrtlt+Io•1.nI...,.0 •.I.T i.11 s_I 7 '"*,---"•. „ s•1i."1"so44;;", ~x J ii1•,••s TRACT�V1 p" 1 =.T..I..r I�t t•�'. pt.Ir rT1+ww nn.rtAr�tN - S /.in 11\� '"•t;r fir. i III 'r• II•lU t.4.4111...4 I.Vo iii.-'. Cof ,. n ",.tiN Tl M.rli.l.ur , E/1 11-•.-.♦a•••••w 1l....0 II Ifrm rt•/'t. Z� wn•.•.ILw./l L•�..:5� `V. .fttt,ll +, `OPEN SPACE +, • ,.«._..pR••n.r.•..... 11:1.•„by/ M w I.., v / ' • I.µ.+f••(r. l M�My a 1�1.�iW;A'i11IT1.1" • ..Ir+° /•=, •I/1 11 la 11 tl.+..1 c•l / latkiei V t o 14 ./t..•1•.1 r,1rl a /.atf/JI/ 1 l• 1., t•t f•♦ �` 1/. I` t • A.♦..In: -♦M"r..r • �h 1 .t.'C.•••! T'A' 9HIH h. .•r.••..�vv.M.N • • ,,- .4b'.',it ` ,I{(.J�I.4=1 �I OPEN -......- I�.,�ell u.it ,' r.y 1•r.♦w....urAtw! t11•'�rr 1 r./� W ....1f.a.` • 'I ,F?•.I tIw IM� IAlrwo;,,.wrnCL. �t. I,ow lw.• ��{i r1/110.I..r.tAey / 7i.•aQW 1rA1.t. •I 1 N • •.' • 1 " `. _ !! ems° �I� "�`"__ _ - " ar - i• ' Imps Q1►'.'t _..t:4_x��a,r4 e. '.v '1�C".�tiii�. T+ a� ,,,,ter lE d.�.�� ,�w SAY,IISSER AWE) {"-F - t-"• !!� �" _''-•+ ram'--a ae ■a --•... MS • , L- 1/) _�... ..>. F 1..it _ --�,. •t.'r t 1 __ « .--•,.nm .✓t � • --1.......? '•PICi�c},�r•YY.1".--" s•^`'`..•"' w `. ^ �a ttQ._�� .� 1SW.CFf ERSdt�PARKWAY •.•e.l (7 1 1 ` 1 1 �( r_ wr r11� o 0' I r.1111 M 11}.,.ry•r-11 .�1 i i .........Az..�.,w�..'1.•..t r''(;t• 11 , 1 .� ••�• t • bw {p o�i \ I d,.I...w......-f. at Tt.l..1.� I. 1�1 1"t.:Nl :.hl,lr ' 11 1 i..t r.....`....•.1 .I • ••: wi 1 a " I ,O")... lj Ld. t i�i1.1 4 w..u•rw" • A 1 •1 F' 7 Q•Z r i1 1� �. 1...............1 18IA y STRCETCURV[b11A w«"�� r:'iycrt.A.. 111y� 116'"C ��' 0 " �, �.../..w•• ,, .sr ilt 0. ,', pi ` w•B.WELLS C h°11 ,,,1,1 G,O Q< ,R • • r .•.+.u. LMr. v I C wl:el• '.11.'wl' �l/1 � 1 AS/OCIeIDI one +./Y 11. ;L Die <34 , r. • • ..♦.r'.w.w t lit a ......e. lul"lu It..lrt t ��•ti '/' "'� y• I.4 1 ♦, W M "1 1 1111,1 wll•. URIC •. 4 t i (!�r i I .`...�... ., �. .........•n 14♦ t ...n/i i CtiWua .+t.t. 11• ..• ♦ IM St•:•i1 1' •"•a`�M.+.••w F. rl Mt 1 b i is.•!=.'- `r,t J Ilr 1 , f" • r: � � ;'" :,�;; t.....h�a..�l...�,n, ,.; .. h .11' 1 Inr..�wI•..II AM In•Wle1 1'.",�ht ..'.. 1•� -•+.+.:L.4.r. ) .1b 4/.! �,l Hl Oh*Mw 4M rd Wn n//in"nevi/ • V I III l 1 .. ¢ �� i, row: r, .tom" L rr•..aw rw.r. `� '� r .T's r, -'c).111 w- ...-4 r.✓ T.kV .1...1. �r YCA"` L,. l 1.l • J ..rw•• Y l n. -+-L (TI i_ c: 'I .•..' ' D��f. ^"'d........ Is 4. . • C .1'.t�• �.r~,a -�•ry �. a.1.Gi -�.. •IZ 01 1s D..r-.•..•Wrl TI. 1 MieHiltW►alh Omit nu;ttinl gnr.1 •vi^ '"_ -�trttiA •„,h. ill II C. • • 1 N / • ( + / • • 1 1 • p t . '• 1 1 - .. - ✓oil „'. 9 0 * • . 1 r1r i t • / r e. —.. 0 1E al c 1. •".,n1 YI I% }` / ti . .. /el.''‘. . .,. i/ \ .I. le 1 1 1 i; IT t / .yi Y. \� \ A i� �` EXliIB'IT •w ,/ • %) \`. ...,•....,. +t //, SGULP•a0'IgaIL r' 1 a t ,' 0...4.6.1.••••o 4.0 PC)4');:rt /( '1 :; ti 1 fit / ! a.r 1f d R ,t /r' 0 t.�.. / .......e.,.•••... n •• S S , i t /,/: u.TOP O1 CUP.ILJVATION.C01Tlnu{MADE-Cif ` Y / 4 1 + Rt.TOP OP CUPS IL VATVI•CINTLMli OM M.La ` +p / .w by r 41 S.W.RITA JAN CT. C' v • Sr / •' i E�.rr4�Co«J.f a► Lir.±n.�, Pe t +�1 y / for OP wins u/wto/•elmenua onAoa•IIo .,. I' /.. %lo+rorle,. Vuw 6rdf/olo••iI •-• 1 r Clel a/f.farruenrll Con�.!r kr r.r . W f Ph,.jq',',��.',��,Ler.,�o,rlf4 . . CC 1 , / I I 1 .p//V/M ii.'rn II", ♦�.O ! I"` + 1 It 3,1V,SANTLIAMS CT, 'I I a j // .,A y '':.. .. a� S '1 %1 i ... it y1y • / / y 3 A.A. / // MI i r`r i ^ / ..... I 11 • 1 1, It �� J / j // f JQ3 GI 1! 1 i7 as 7 /".' p5 oar. Y A 11 Y. . u. I Mr f..z.r... // S" / i .wl.'T:.'ti l'"°I• "M. = vi + 1 / %j • E i I ill �,� �r �� 1 W,a µ ELLS 11 .., 1 �, �1. . �a2 �: . ti iI aIutII1/i Ina 1 ru . • � unN I 7� . IIII•.:11..Ur r.•lll IIU ,.. ••••«• trx.aCUMILIVArton•Canta7INYn1Ol.u1. I I .1 yl' + .MYI r. 1�•11r +' 3 of 12 S S.W.FF►ERSON Fl�WY. I .»", .. i.1e .. .•„ �._ I . I;.l I © . 1 •tit a 4... ICJI1I 1••14 t r ' \'' Ir, \\� 1,rr~ E X H I'B I T,. 4. 1.11.• . w `. - ,.'..,r• tea. •4r 1. J.r N • :tt:t '' ti cm 74 S.W.SVNTaUNCS CT, S.W.RITA/LAN CT, O I+ V w t '0,,,,vy Crrw�llur e)e Pl CC ,., TvoU C44 e4gt-~nr'`ta,.r..nef dr axis,AfNoy,rAfr /`J15 • III ! 1 ,� IJ 1 (I I 1 1 1 ,) f,i J I ;Ilw !f/ vh5 II I�' w ;I i 5 i i ij 4 1. , . ,.to 1.�1' t1 i Wo • 1 ;i , 1; .,,t1,",;4, > I. a I 1 a14 u...r q44, 61♦�auu::i • .rl Z O .,. 1 _..._.._.-._,a,,. 1 /F . +tr a1 .,1fd •.t 4n ur .,Ln-..,•. . �J•1 l pm I JJJ/ 11. u1,.r. I•J J+.L b w111111W 71., I J. 1 .'... ^ __ ` .AsMo•� Y {Mwr•'J I .'1,u.....<.wry .11,.1 :11 0• f • _ p .•"_"t—^�•1•'..e .. "-. �� 1 Iq o ♦tIHwU,F y1e r•o« 7d �XO wUlyWYI yr.M I wO V14 llS;,lH RU. �, v 16. •i/ ..t 1-• 1..•p� s.l.l•IAN 1 w „1 • 1 IA* .. a♦. , 1 { •'il1a .. 11 1•y.•W, :♦,Ills:.•-.a;:l..,. f 3 11 '� ii ► iW,SVNTILUN(S Cr. iVV,NfTA LAN 1,1, C r'rn + , • r,• f 1 11 a, +. — - , N 1 / •`N41. .111, 1GC I ; P n•'j 1 "' i l,.., .1 t .4,.41 �.�� W.B WELL5e • .•:.I I�w�l 1J1 , 7YGTION Iv h ,t� _ I •1 l .... I. a.44 1.1 N /• •, ` 0 . e 0 A u_-- 1:: 27i • 1.:7'rill t• ••� • GI•H 1 Ml.ni! _ _ / hQ�� 11 t % M• ' ,I�.w•t �N.\.Y.v 1-.r 4WM / �. a../1 **or A. I r .1• r/ 11 tt•f /mow.4406!1 nre I '.. EXHIBIT. � m. 464 *rwM IUI/ /4M1 /~Il..f.J•4ir ^�.�'il•��1•11�.\I •• • �♦ Ian.. .I• - t`IAM •_ 'M.•••6.rV.y..TI: LJ' H y...♦Wf ♦ H ! ! T M,+M+.AY I/ ••y..'.r•.AU .4 :111MI. r� " 111.6" (4 •�)t I.i..•..I l4.0.00 i�•.��/ ' ...1. .1w, :rCc... 3,M.°•-N.641 s•11.N'M. STORM `NE VI .." ♦'�^�W�� i Il)i ilSi „-• W IIIV 1( 11;• 4 `••4•,y,•,i.a:....Aw.0` 5'IORA1 LwE VI ( c 1 r" t.o ..v' 'ga»I. :� ••m 4 I' ��' eiwW • IS (. w p. Y\wel �.\.F :fir .�•'... 1�1 W ...,•^.....v/PR f , A11r `Iw .16. 4.at ,NI I /Jo ...1 I. $TC1RA1wlxN1E V . - ..• t�• 'i' 1.. wM I // cr. I rn....i a r...w'u ., r' O .•V1M.... O.b.w...•,�,.1 r� � /, )r / •Y fie. " ..• I\:a .y'. 11 MI :A•.••••..1 MI.•MM. •.w..w./ I Ir1 •, ,.G/f/I� 4[.rM�1Y'T .X+nt K' , „ l•, ...,I 1 .• i.M.w�4 N..i•I .yr WI K.A P /ICMM/d/N �♦wt 4�idr�dl pGirsarJt 1 i'. ... „lg..-.....r.'..wl 1� d .5 I.Iw.11..�1n a.ql r+r MI• 11-, .W.1 �" :..... /a Lbvu�goin.nwwrr-Ce rr�.vrr<,u.. I i:::., ..r I..."••• +i"� vl'r vt rr ♦• !�/4�1 .\w1 f� tt;Are v �I(, • R.I.I�1•'......a. --•hU[11 C,/f✓.1, IT\1 W) Mot M.1 1,.11 l•11 1+11 CC t I • f' z I '"� .•4 6 ti PRIVATE D114 CULVERT /•`_�/ S1ORM LINE I C-4' i cc T i vE�T .P« I1 ..-.i.. ..r f. G ��^ • »w,• 1 � ti w•j 2�/v .w.l..•.wr....uAi WAS.a II w ..1! I�'.'•I.� 1 ,1 I/ r..n 1.\. �A!•"'r W�.iI•.M. .\, WI4.....t1•11'wlwM•1..•N 1r16 i..i.n..fit... I I .-- �. Ir r i\ ^..r VMN."i.T �•.«�~� i1I 1..It 1 STORM LNE IX ' Y w ./1 v0 o.w ff101ti1.TV 417 Mull I .. a. ^y)lr.a1,•�j.��.��'i.... y.;1 ....1 .11. (n 1 ' • tm 11.6 J •/ ' :4i51 p 1LL : ltn+ Q O `' 1 •`' / y '^.r 'AA..w 1...h twin 6y;X '�t �� i �i:►'1./+Iia1 e 1�.•\•i::".1.�il,et ,l ..r wNw) De �'rK III ;Ito fw AU u w�w.�I .• 0, ......-0•1#• i..I•' MO O( COCK 1 '• . 1«. f In I! •10 0� ,� . '• 1 II f, M 1 11,1Pi\•+.N UM11 .1 O~W ...1 •1 1. ,L...w.,1_Ia.w• �^ ..N NC Lrl .• .+•Y•� •., .w a O•AW • y, toe,ww 1..... •yf wrrlw • . Ill f , :..,..�..,i -�+•:p W E3 WELLS ,.. • •{ ..,/.Yi >� l Ilial1111, ItlC 7y 1 '.q. 1 Ii loll le*a ...... {IN\.•,y1.1111/.p.111.111 • !4 OM ' y06411.1 V.I.».1.111114.61 11111N SECTbN A-A o 1 2 ° ! a 1 2 5 of 12 *At • . jORM STORM LINE IV STORM LINE IN 1�»•,I X TATAILSK)R SHEET 2 ;'.";: 5 LINE Y • ...oft. .. IMMf71 IMM/1 *NI.•1. 1111 .. • , t. .+_,.. • b t • V , ` .r`• _J 11. N�^�>,.e._ .r ' ...,,t.rl..wn • h 1/ SCALE:r-IU' f�' 1, 1. Sw 'a lr:.1/1v `��.}y�/. 1¢n'•�' • w „ / 'lr rrw.rw `\ ea iovi I tJ'Lw i .661.1.61 ... _e«•J . A, a �nr.11 cr•e... � t 1 ' '�.r N r . 1 J . TRACT'V' t ♦ ) J 4 v.r+ :2/ RIP-RAP CHECK DAM ..--- ....----- „. 0,-,,- ,, i --, • ,• L ., I▪ w..nw w+W.wr l.0 q r �, 1 I�. :s.w� b • W 16 daft 1• !:E :E - ±: : '111 �111.I.../I/ 1'• rwr.••«tiNF~•'•'•.-,\ 9� \ 6�J ) II NT. Ilx I••.u•w. fl Mlfn 1� - , It... �IjY}� o 1 ro.Hurl IfAilllff Y.IV llrfFll IYI IMitW ! •1 r ••.. 61 ' 1 ,�a 7{♦• P l l(J 40 14 1 It 1111.b.e1.1 C.1.6.14 1.11111 1.1.061lb 11 J 1 1 1rL .� /r•• • ' J u ti ♦ 1� 94N�1 Py{ i nJ1110 OYp 1u11.YRH 11 111111 1Y111 FH.f.l•1 $ -] 1 ' ' V?viol V 1.11.1w•.iH 61.11.164.f1flfl 11111 In•..III 6 1��' •' �' 41 Jf e11f1•Tl lrlt 101L H MAO MI 11118 1616/1 I.WYI1 , 1 ' '- \ "'. • ...•" 1 - .r y 1� SVAL1 A •� J 1 /S 1 ITFHYY.4 ILL •11• I TN� ( �.Y I \i*\ i . 1 1 r.•W.,.•f...11,nt.ri'111h INIIF.1.1.bw 1 �� 1�1� LLB' rrN IN Yr•.w IN M•N 1111 IN Il rf.FI...LIIY •--..•--- rM '- I" �)' d 1 ' '-' 'l l Ol.f.+11+'•lMgnYWOM IN IrN1.FIN rtlO ,.. /. ,.•. f 1 N • 1 L Ili.a,1Y a Inl tnh 1 t Ant •I -IIYIu it w ' �J t 1 10 14 L ()I1LH SIfACI C!•J 1,i•t 1101 of Irllt I1111•'r. 1 ' " ( . 1•,.11d 1 • Y I.IrT 6I L 11 L L 10 t Fl 111.111 w 1 1 11 F. I 1.1 d u - , ••. r®' r•f:.r.ur1H c.rl.•I. 11e•��Iu 1 u 1.it 17. �•" Yu1Iw f Ll l�lJ 1e1t1111tl 111 IY 111111 1YF.MW 1.116....4 F11w ' A�1S ,1 w .. ~ �.._• 1 •�•.- _•It� f .. .1.1. .4)II.l Y.l °•1• of " , (� .1, �� ' twn _ �rV�// • '1. 1.r••'r111/Hn11 w•IYY1..4.M or,. _1.n•/iu r•: •1 II I" i•'•• •. 1w'hi.L.w 14n hit ��' ' >•-• W �..r L til x . . _E- 1 31�.ItFftRSON VftWY, -' \ WV w 11 rt 16 NO, 1111411111111k. 664 • t l 11t11 11t11 1.6 rl 1tYY.L 1111 IYiI 11 \ i 1 �\ . + /1 ` ^,^L•/• ` 1 $ p•m ZQ d , .y 1 11016114 111•HH Ilse N H PIY 11.u.1 Y I I •1 .++ t 1y, �J 1� O W•+ 111/t11 II MI in 1 Gl-'rlrw7 1•pwsrl Its N r /x�l� �� J 1 (�1 r 1 h r/I pi u1 W11Yt1 Qfll.I11U1.1 f11.1/YlL II 1 ---` \ W �tlrf ,I.i/Oli�frdT� 1• ...' rew11ft 4 la.ef Wi l.Y 11 1111. at HI reb 'I d--- 1 Q O 1H11M••II n11H 11HWIN fl ultte In.o..e 1 N. L.�r•'O/q''l�.M.s/�•`f Plr�nxttla. f�' f � y 3.'� } 1 r.r ittgettth1i,1_1.i'1S1'tit4t I 't I �I r•' _ ~ fcMTr /7-4,ctsnu/CS, OTifit/me /r'1• 'I p .•z 1 1 ri.a r. `_ I "i = 1 jt\.I ;_ \. Cos •Lee rr..Al.• /`4.11 �f p o W .Yirl 1 11.,Ii 11.•M•'t'•1'Ii1.M •- J m {wti.n-..•0.wrr" .._I �•^ 1 w 1�.In.�. .1 16 S•'":1 u1F.q w !1 O I i _=.a-i ' `. r''' *4;64\' t e uyr c,oxitr..vn MRk Afwn 5 0 �'m 1 - • i•LM'NN tt.M '.~IIr .11."a1.w1 i 1 i \ \ ' M•f !Art611111,11 OW �;' Fhi1'rS111 7 . W „ti 1 I ,.. Iw1r.a- ahtAti;•'"6ICnnnu[11r�dm 1.0 ` ''`' I.C1'Mft ygllt/kluf WI 1 • «r.IN r1 N I 1 1 Ih 1 I wr.Tlr.111 1 I r.wgy 4 J, �y ' "' 1 h1'N rr.11 "tilt!1 lit r • \ rt~ 'i� k. 11.., 1 F..ii u:1u S` �ili •ri .. •.``.... ! 1ytlJ �,' 111111% �I 1.• .-u.. �'. I. d.•: p ::IIS..1:..hla... ..i.1rr•.1 p iru w If�(�d.�{ - +�_.-,..-w1 4 1 • k• • r .Nn r 11.Ilur �1 r" Y •.Y ,,. ♦ ,1.1•E.y{ f k , u•11.1.1 r111..1 NIi1111 1•.w.11 1.1;.Iu .3( .►:.;:.7 l NA r.a v�r.+Jl w. .n • u�i;i.1'Ire M•1 M 1 fi ' •'u'1•.Itr .r�{F .•.�_ • f IP '�' �... i hll . •N111111 111 I.ul uuw.11 •••...••'' ' 1.* •1 • .' �J11i'•.'N�I:ilt.i�i:'L'�r.r1. 6 0 12 .. «mow ,,. ..... glA IG r b6TEHT10H OA4LI.rn _.4111. ,. J ti , , 4110 e) .1 0 - " .^ - . ,' ,.• 0 • 1 • + . .. , , ::: -610, a'' ' .tit_ N.. t © 6 : '.: ''. .uw r•a -t 6s.--1t'lar-.--r w.. I� t.- H. " '.' *1r 04 r II, 11', 1—•-•—�e• lrtlm. .tt,, '---- r •��1{—y 41 It~Fbl '� D. 11, IMII/r +•�� IV 11,Ir 41.,-"" If 1... 1" 16.,M'V '.. S 1 /f04-19 IK• i1 ti III" ;{"KN 11 wl ✓ IY./ '~ Hlff.,." ..I W (,:. J M.14 Id II wlwo..W.,W.w1VM" 'K' hr 1✓ 1V I✓ �r. AYi Ifw / Y1." y tM • /ryll Vr WI•M �•. 1/ 11r Ir �1•.u• ar 1 11 ''M WV /x7 1n Ir �yI koi•\ 111 Iy I" II It I"w i fr Ir 1111...<,IN.✓ jJ} ' WII 41wW1.wl I /IMF~ Ir.x',/ -h / 11• '� ~ qg 1" 10 Ig11U N Not N1v... 11 owI 1. 1 r . 3 v,,,'yr /5 �el /.y,T. • ''�I/' t `�Yt. 1" /•y '1. Ir7 - =41' .. _._,.m=y IM +1 yiri /�,rk Is. `� b " llsj�.11.I' t< II"1;0.1 r`, < .AO si+ w y ,t 1 )11.1 Ir. ///fit '.� ..,< 1 ' I .Q.iJ Ih ..a s. ', It• 1. +A "I41N" th ,�f+ I.IM" II I ' ' I I 1 13 t / 1p w . I .IS �. It. /law r " s+t.I's.,/./ ~ / la /I ENrr wy L< �rwr a.� ILI eul1. 4s II. iA .111 ti �.,,. I u. 1 11< r ,+ .i�"I 1' u.. /7'v✓..lirh /-:w 6afr�+a 4�1r� I. 1. 1.. ii. K�j. n 111 : is�/„- NI "it"Is�� "" 1 �i 0, I\.lA. `�P / '~ �rrial /7 A nsi II.. 'f T //" t 1al luri 1Dr}/ ,i J•I1,t1• war .,iid .. / _... / IK ' 111' I Ifw. ..., L. 1 �s 1> 7 ..`1 1 ✓ • ,I.i M s+ tr srsr �^ I y I, l0•l.r K•1 �10'/'I� MI ,1.11 Nr 1 1• Idi ' INIIN. ccI �� N•• ult uwTW/ AYtua �. 1. w < `+ II' 1, - 1✓ l.." f 0 0 I "I= • r. -N 1 1) I /I I IJM „ 1 , t11MN /,+ l/1 '', , ' s7: • • �fr��I ; i 1/)� 1�jA �or•IMI y u ^ 1 ��// ./ f1� dy� ' / c I].// LI/1 /• ///� tsf �l �r LII� I �iiijilinfliirit I' �/0 ,/ r„ '� ._ ...—ter..^'y ...r"" __— S 1V,LESSER RDA_ — •_�• c r M a^� l A W \,... M11 I YI lwid o Jul .,°I Ni W.B.WELLS sz� , 1 1 1 1 1'sl Iv A 111 ntluIH. InR 11 iMN�411141i...... 1111N i .. 7 0/ 17. ---riri i wlpM cl. a t wrww•,,,, �...J R . I, 1 �...•. • :L+,+ 1 vL.r��.IC 1 rl+r�1+ 4•••l --• "' 14TL c•r_>t.Oroa-tru uor COn{tn,CT I.atANYAIWtlt1411.ITAhbt • ,�... ', .'i • ;7'17 I•»'••«.«.... A I•rw FntasuAt fid".r-tnt IYwLRN7"4M t •Y,uau rm►t_uacn rltAta 1 uvt�(y..Yr.t,w�in COr..tCTPn r wwl.I:i it :.��ii:w.4.4•... • u' .•..•.•. •.•.•.• EXHIBIT © gib-. i.,.,, .',' • —1 . \\J ur>,....•.1'..I t::'L°:°• cr21(40,42.,/ t .' 'was Y:'J::. Y Xi.ALi—:r-,_o.t. 0---1 , _ `-.. W B.WELLS a MC EI1 t'° :i%w+�•�. �1I / .{1 Ptlljlt IPC w'r:•`4.i� \ 1.....110 - m IY•.lir�..' w dia te 4. II .• MY,PARK ULK'S. 50-4I' '• : ,' _.;,"' r.........,:"..1r.....yet:\ II 11 I3 et1 ... \1\ J .t'1...1" i ( 1..: r.rt4 t inn/./ion cc W ...� ti 'r•• «• /Ycwnro Ynv E'idst'is bnsou� W r.... ; ' flip AAii �. J /,kati+wnf Cwi/-vor<rar t/1 e, 1, 1Y �.IM•1 Y• wo _ �' R:'� GLrrt/ i.w.rLw /7U9A�i k TRACT / 1�::.':. y �k w.�: OPEN seici + 3,; 10 /' t .:14 d e i ( w.l a/ 1, n... 4. • � r/ TRACT.VI I�£, d..dt Ii.I I I .4.r ..�Il`"",1 +r+:w'«.r.1 s ...- �. ♦ - -. .+=...a..>_� 1_.,.r.,. - :.:s '.1c.f3 ,r,r... ' r}wu . 1 9' I�LJ y..t , • m 5W lfSSfR Nptp —•—•. A rw anrina. a PI ^:.,.....,. ....�.Y., , .i,. .......• --_•_,may,.•r.. .77t7-.. ------"----1"'•� v.... ",Ct." 1•..PI and •''''' ,..�..� --. g - 1 ' •may ' .....' I,Y sw4fFEKS0NVAIU(NAY ._ !"` ;«. L \\\ aQz � � SANITARY SOWER DATA W L;�«�„+r;.. �R k FSlt��' °1 y. 1 I �rt(c`� p s • rw,-�.., qsr o"- a In«+..t w••, , A•0r ' W a h 4 •- N 1 II.N.y wrY'N I r...•..a I f/J.II•M I i .14J.. Q II....1.1 •1>y 11......Al 1.. • yl I�t '..i \•�y,v♦.:• 1 n• ___.e in A•.•. ,i m fW» o .i ill Mr•i II Yw,.. r. c7 F..� II.4.r A al HlM 11.•4. •h•I► I.+ •;.'�" i.) ..,w 1u.H Il+.lr l•111..... 4• ...........• r.....+....w••.M n.,r.ir •G.a U ri m , I II.I•.I.am or,a In.4. • j '� I.w...1. 1 w..;. ;.I•.'/M Al II W Os" .Jry....n /..al.w....'µti. il.w�..n rV,i•.w.0 • Il.r.r ..w.1• .� N1rIiLI A� add Y•" -:{ 11•.A..�O.." Yd.... ....et, 1'• AANhAR}i1WU tninai 11CTI0n A+A il«.....en/r! II..+w..Iu h•••laJ JA 4-•...i.,...„ !IJ "H a YII WY.I MA.tlM+1 11.••.1,.,,... ��II .♦.:i w ! " •. hy!µ.,�a In 44 IN/A ill-...a.r!H w,,,, ��,jjY��/// 1•,W 1=0,r w ow,• 4.”.$.SI:.1.1 • �•l MM 1.�,A Op.. I.....li wM fn.'r.M••.. II N a .' {.� •� h� ` II..4r MI wIrIA2....'dr 4•.4...A..•I ai PI a N n1 . Ilr Il"."ril�r' d ' • i r-...=.x err, 8 01 i2 r..!!..rlu � err*,tr.., ntliir•t IlAAi HTAet 1lWU i,.Y.I Ri ri s tti Uctrrl At ildt I/n . r i...,....Ai ll 0 , r' F: , w a i f •� •. r 1i`, I 413ar - A • w y M . Y L .V. v y. 1l 0 • • • . .., . . . 4 1w� -.-em_., _��.�.— ---�"� i �.�"` 6�y 1\111[IW EI,.LS ..._�.....�.�®.,.e-..sue........ VI � 1"i i .♦ AY1A w.wr 1 �� / 0 / ' '1,/ -a EXHIBIT '.. ..,. ., . +� \ ..r:.�.,- ✓ d'I AAG ....,Y..w•r».0 r 1- IYa/ 1i'/A.r.� '� / 1' �q �r ' I1•4I I\1 Y1 M.'r•e� ` iJ 1\a4 y,•rv{ { 1 y{1 A10 ✓/Ir A t4 \ ��41.�pp � 1 1ti ! 1 a Ell I 1q' -1.i rpY �� J •) / �r �'0� I I�+ / E4 A.Y W •� J�,+"w oiA f Y3I /`�r ,° U d I;1 S j� { , '�"' tit • i Al �I qr r,1:1.;,' :4,Via 1 1 pIt 1 o�.646 CD 4' is�11i tc j° +C 1'� froTL GONTMCTon tNLLI NOf CC N[Tn CT { % 1)� � ! lSjil au C� 1'►YC rr41IUr'[u4 n nu[(•ttaT Cf. 1i -Till lilt �I I . #�lr w Q 1NA, r tlM[ll CON4°,gN(l AMo.sui / ► it Yr LLB ,••.{' �!'. yit 1, 1 i4� 1+1 +� A11 KR IAT CT[IK hN[[I TMYIIMMu1, / 1r.'�.i . ,;.11' IttIII�I b Y, } 1144 INT.OA/ A4•I i.•+.r'^�� / ^II µI Cy• Y1 it IT:i 11 AN N ..I tl I� i 'C� 1Ad1 Ilv I t, 7- - .� . 1111. 1 IIN All I ' 1( c' , 'A, .fI't E.s,te,Pr�Y.+ N SANITARY LINE ! iiit Havel 0,,, • so..r r4.„ illi. " g P ail T /7L .. ' d/ ,11 - •,'. 4I '., ea 1 r 'e> ,� + rr ( \ ;1FIl SANITARY LINE'8' y r•An tK,u1t : 1 Ili il- T 4'VINi• - tr � ✓ • / 140 yy,••44.4M/.• ,ti re.* y. �; 1�t ,�..�+.�yyM1„!'1►11{LtP.l Y14\ 4 •( r-».»/uw.4w,1 i MI •I.r•I.( ` 4 r ,.�y1 w'•Y1 IMr»a »IN Yw ( r« :/` W I. f PV , 1 r % II' i*. ` eM m u aw i 1 .a(.n rw•.�w� F- �♦ Y f Yam' ✓� 'r W Y,/1 1W1 err A w • � 0 1 ..{ II e».1..1•rw / \ 11 .y+.•.fYW•W 11 Y Y\(..r. r 0 .•• ,�" .f•'/° ` 6�r+� y✓✓✓ �iy, ,Y� y IbY �.�("w,».b(,.rr w(n.(.r ! I O.7 y'' P .\t ,,r I. 'I IftlI '~��,. '.' ' %;Yr ':,'�,..'� d..• jy,yyrwl l r.1y YlJ LC Y ' { 16 / 4 wAM�'/ 1C r4l 7 p� ., A d .,i / r Y�`li11 e� ~ r.:..�'° . 'rh�. O/ OM. .. " • � . i IlSltti A4t 6b G 1�1 ( �', vo( ; '1 r .. '' Ali ,.4 ,fI[�(/ ! �^ -'� j�� ( ,i •,;,IY 6 I. Au s 11 e.y P.• ' '; •Yt•1 'r'Y 1 '�r�(. H! .''J1 e w �I:. 1 I•N"wr > ( ww.wllM e•+"'•T A4er Ml Id N r,o ' 4 ^•h l� 1•.1 { /-JP M 1'r �� Wf ll.l"♦(MN 1••1 hwM P.IW WA•. pp � ♦ � •� �sI PI f I 1 1 i 1�n5 1rIi »/ i 6, ) ,. I;1l 1, f+ p ` [ • K 1 /,� 1�It', rH 1 11 `11 Y I 1 " t'1 I1`s Ilk p� kb), t. e/1 t 1+ �1° r' t a• •/I tf�� ! , ,ItSs 1j1Y..ii 9, . e.11 1 Y� IIP'r� F �� I�` 1I,�II( il'� a `:.r �;� . • '. A'. + !1 P1{[}I red ;.III 1' !19 G11 P r 111: 16/11 'Ii i1 t + vI`3Y 9 of 12 1• - ' •, 1 .1, f }} SS tt.�• " :ai `1 SANITARY LINE'C' 1St�r[3 i -` •I�t �. Ir, ,1 I ��h • s uIIS i6V f, , •(., ,. Ibib' 1 .1 t. s. '1 .'R y' �•III SANITARY LINE'E' 1 1 SANffARY LINE b """' . �, .n1111 C SANITARY LINE'F' t 1IiIr.� 4 ♦ , Y Po • 1-' 0 r•! /• y . _ I♦ i r �- 1 �.y 4,F •ry 0 '.'S r_ . •I • , T • „ • • • • t .: -; ,,. t-ry a 1 • SCALE 1'•40' r 111 OA ." I 1 1� i I jl l Y: I IiXHIBIT • f S ' I W.F050 ° 'M LRGRD. s f `1 I 1: . M.e-w G �, ,y. -ew ♦..,/ 1 fya roTI COVITAACTOr SHALL MO,[Pitt/VC/SANiA11V SEWN T • IUMP AAA...,L 1'PVC IIILSIua{ N Lwf( iNt tVLNT I f } f'` ' THE ItWN 1p1rcCTVr LL AVAL1/Ll MAAAT CALLA I host 1 IxvturrAcrf w j1 • .. G. 64 •f'1 , 1 a�..a.�n ....._♦.-.. At Ay,• P,u»I.♦. 141 /'.0. ''m SCAM 1'•4q•MOBIL, t 1 T•4'VERT, x .. / q .iL n� / 0•4•04I1a llfVl GN411.11f .IS JI "� a/,y:�n.hti-G*rsL4vehw rrlw,s% ,fit jr *mum*/* driyr/ /mcr ••Y/V.yYf 1 YA.&nt 11 A.A. `.-" ....1., f i 11 y--�'' it 11 'I w • ... tl .(%.11 A" A %- Y.0 .......•"' � -' .'.�,..+f _ 1111.?J Y L1"' ./ Z A ..ul- 70 9z3 . . ,' ...--"'i t.t.,..„.„. --lY I s�Y 1 ..y .... / 41r, 3 r. . ' yL 6 1,' , hl,..,, I t1t1:;;. 1.,�7:1.(11 �W �t �/, 1, - !p!!!^ tY YYt i•A 1 , 'N+1 flF : z dw 11 , , Lri� i �n ' /1�rY 4 O � n d !M -�Yt ,i1� A, f I , 1 MOIL C01It ACit?1 t11ALL NOT COrltf IAN ll/t-A,IIA.bolt TO If Wnti rl LI/ Cib7lf $4 0 sot AVALLNI MI/Af CNALA Suit 1 bIVIL01tutrt tilic ;! ) 1911��Fi 9A of 12 Lf«f.f 0 t , rv.s t=tt 0 fir hIttil%I • 4 4- • A W `u r. i 0 • 0 • F :,. ... NSA • a Lk �III3IY r= t rI 136,43'--►--61Nn I�k Ia. ,'n�' r • Fb4-11. Acz2r)At. ,y C3 , . ., . TRACT'V' , .. — ---- - 1-- - ii -Y—'—/ s`s 4 I s' ` t t I 'r1 87 6tncNa I Y 'i'. r. -..ram 4 1 i. J >yo",„.... ..............:).... S '�J MT,PARK uucs.'sA-��' 1.��^" I1I J e� i� 11w� t. i. t r•• I.. , 1, /I/ i1Ni1 0 11 _ow, N.. f �I f .r a g a' L I `v 0N.4x O a. �• N Ow.tool 1 - - - a • � � ... , I . t 311I 10 14 , OENSACE .1.1....; VP TRACT A i / -� t/1 7I/M.+Y OPEN /fitw.wX UlrM4 - '• w • 0 y > • - arm•.`tea 1 � !� �„� ,H..,� {u�hx_,,,,. �...F_.. •T r— �..... _®k .• /s' ,_ -`............. ........ .. ,. r. S.SV.-lE55lR "" —-. .�,.....e_l., -m. t .. f rZ. nr ... _ _ _ Vry .limn- 1 . _..'y.•'`,--v .• •. " 6 "_ >--��. a 5,1Y1 RFFER50N PKWY. ' ' ., (\1y w • c • 411 Wu.,... C/i5 / "' w, tD 11 Ni.I.MIh w WI wan..I re..i Y.1/min::/l.:Wm owl 111 •' Q A.'""• """rn. ..nif I r..M..:r r11Y1p./.Il b'xl. \ "\ ' 6 0 .b • u i . W..... ..I I.1.IMrr..:l •ow 0....M 1•Q ri+n.I nrr,.ria...'unr.,.l r.v,.o.� G' nb •m�(� ...I........w...UM ar.o..n We. �...1ir. <•% yf 1 r•• a.i Ib n V - 1 Lw 8^'S t . t �yy t ' ' i /4ra.>✓41, dr,yA*;/Ik x u . g l W,e.IWELLSc 10 Of iz 1 sill\..I•Illi lll...i..... -,1•. . • 1. -. .. Ir:f 1.1u,r11 N1111x1111/f4 �•M... • *. . Y a ,.r • • - t: r LL . y •----ter..I '- ,f L' ll C • bNI f 1 it-" �s •............' Fr, ,.� IiwIM a.l IJ U,b •J` t ..1•... 1«• 1 ,I rU'.1 �' :r_ •� » lL.....«.. >.� �I` �•—_-� Ir 1 . .1L11_ ' 1131 "; s 4...,,1 1 ,+ 1.4. - t .l .• .•.,•„If•�+•� r'A`14ti4 wi _ T.a +J ,a"'. .{ I ..t.,y. ItJ�_ �, I:.{i . I1 1,�'�._,_._ _ti r I• u ■i rA� .r.'', t t �r i I1. .. t 1 r..... .f�1G._lY'i"' Cd!�71."« I I.F��'«�:•. �' iiii .. .. « w+/ '.' J, Ir,�.. \t�'� r • f},�, yl«rftaz---1-�.t,,,�„•+:.rH.� ti ', F.J«ttL„{ 'Nwr.rua �yYll •-I 1.�.YL..iEF,t,:t "_r^' a Laa ' 1 'r� „y:'"t}. 1�. .7_.'_'I..- b'r ,,`Y.«7 ' , a 1 I..r1.Inlll •�(i�iiaid,41.lw.», 1�' - �.w 1.`. .I <.- -�1 .,y,.. • Y 7� I•. i w� �i:r 1•.�.,.Y-. • .....r.;SST.:: I/ ,^ 4 hi:='av7 w; �. r I .. •Nti r „tlr' �� Y "., 7 Illigra o ;1 w. f1L • 1 _ r • „•rf r • t� • 1 I r ` +. • J �;'f ; IjIJ 7lim 1* `1 ..w ' ...... . •. Iwwac.il«ulw t.1 ... ae .Id' tit{"1:!'Itr.4':.",...«.I.r«1...., „i' r...i '•!i • o(na•Y' j ,,,,a,,,'„ LBI�Yllr wt..1.1« 1n';•«••r� �.�y7.1:'.77.T':7Ln«.«r 1 I,r lIW. •ti(/ 3 . --�.�, 1 ...,.., M"IiU ulc"fur tli! ('�y'1 »•� :S .1•tiNN.. t11�9tIN ., .1'11,t«N-� 1. 0'II ,w..r« Orl.l,l'Ol 1«lft / 11 .�«. ... .rL �� • 1'1`�` lJ•.:- .o:._..r.,._� -,..� oiiiii�i.IL/u /1'11 1 Itil i:11Z ow, "C.t OYlep �J ( enu 1�• LLI 111 I 1 I I t ,.Y4« 1\ pt I «7« �.. .r, , ?vi `t •• : .f.+l I I ImS "-". '� I•J t": at��.«N N„ijilt «:, O--- III�I IwYlw.ro�lNYLwf► f1 II /r. ",1,1.• "..Y«N. - ->_,•.,.,,._ .f «.«1..-^•N «, -'�"7i, 1.,. I • '.r•0 I� Ell,..`; ,4.,If ,-..,. inn• , I ....___-�..-�.� I �:...-.w'l.i. , 1.H III e 'lu'yL .w� 1 �I �re.. ,J ail �, .« ,lit.,,,.. '1.�`'w, .•• Mtrrr awl' .NN . 1 p �•':":"»�tr ... .IteL..,.eln I' I li".'.7r.�I. "u Ltyt•,rr•1:1'Ir.elr:.� .,1 twit `tid'i{"r ,1rir., , r.. ( ,..L«,u J�1 L' I iL1t1{t..�! INu�wliTi+rt'll � fir(«I'" ««. tY tr s �� 1,-. _ v.rwwr I .a:"t- + tid« kS 11 ~ U r ' ".M,� Kr`+i^..'J•''i. . T t:;(yl '. Jw'J llw"'/Y•r11w IwN«11'Ir11NN.,Iw,NN ,';pi 01:7 ww 1�,:I t 1 , CST ..�ti. .±,=.r•..«..I.«,. • .r y��---� � „i w. ,«,= r �` 1:•4:tIL,{:r:.:P itt'. ,4«t t" r Imo.') \, J __ t/1 • vu • 1.111,411. i 1 1 C:I !a r� ItY .«. «..,N4 "� ;Jima r C 1uaoLYo uJ 1 p! fr• ' ar u .1 -N.•, +Yw f lore r114.. L� C' U1.o, W rl r," wNl 6;�t:.l'n.T.Tlw N 1 ,ammo n JY,1 '' I '} ` yl �� - •'".�.Klt' t':11 wr. 14'.«r uW 17:1. ' ,.1 z, �� ff 55-5.w;i « ■ihh,��,t.l .r------,«.«.�i»�7 } W) i 7YLt.l i ,. Tl �`"nrilde..'7' 'rJ-•.,. ..."'. �.�4..... II.,�.,` ,...Vl �ti it ..dw14.1' vc tom.".'ur� 1 �, r,,7a. , I •yrdRPA'VA:'All 4+.0 >W a Y - .fl : - t4j'lil • " _, h, IMiMI - S CI. 4. 1 Ii '� '."1 r 1 jl: i _ ��..Irrl Iw.... /� I I IiL -' ::. '�/ � ,7,y p m�1• "N « I4 R..t«:.`- •••••. +'t Y r.l�11p ,� _ 1 •:frf11.1,: -:ww '1 ,1 l� Q >"w 1. la '� 11LaL 11 �l I.ilrr ''�'�YI-/ ' ' 1L.a Ir•-r .:: 11\ 1... . JI. 'f,•7,tiJ'.'I.i.i ". J1L7. rl nrnLlt7}A. r,ji-1 -1:. z 'I . OI : .-wY.4....«.N '-,,,,'1'IJ~y'•:Y j , "wNJl+1: � �ln• J 1.r r LL1n7r.{,l.S l.IIJI llll.t.1 1 < mt111 .J YI .1.1 .%. 1 k N4. IItiY1_{gl lO NLI: rY ."��. (� + I`_.�,.,w r�/•`:'1• ` "" II� 4'ik'' .«I1I 1 r t 1 C�. s. t aC� M.u w 1:7itti9l ' 1IN _ l l'J'i i^� I,Illyw+rr.N,4"IIIM 1 sN !• l M,«4 b lrrl�« J i'1 lutlrl. ' 'r•JiJ1 Uutre. h l �1! "t1 t:i7 �• 11:1 Ah'11:IL r/l'uN � may( 1 + .I tS{41:111' 1 ., r,..• r ¢ e. @� � cJ ,� „ U /111 all 1c1..N uul " . 'r.N M.1 J +r'w um. y =�.��..„ \1 I ; `� S1 t rC1' \ Y�NI N11 1 • .... N IYw f emit aluU `' �• A111 a1'•1"�1 ",,a 31.J,,��1 IflSt6 ^p, ,•� ._, 1(1.,..) 'I I/rq,h YI YIA41/rLt .'«' �\ �.� .�t:.LLL. ,.•`±� L., ,1',}.``) `L1J L: .� r..... . (rt.) NN... wLiuiawlll(N tl.rrll)lr -AL . 11 7 • r>�.r '� -�.. ._.�. f 1-, .....N. ,oral of 1., tlti it �,'.....r. NN ti11 gAllf la ll."f al UA •«` n( -- +•' Ing + 0, ® N1 • • N flf«OJb IaltM till, C.t ,. 1 . U . A r.1 wY �! . c ; it' «,..... •1 _ I1. 1 ([C M ..r.• 1 : .. . Yt'tl' Ir I 1 tki 1 •.. w .v 1 _`.i'11w•%' 1 1!• )TI�•� I T, 1 �i..... `i4*****''y .� 1 Il.f/ i ��,1• l,�y �1�.rs•:;• j �, . .... 1 'y1v±-. . - '`trY , t.^x .:rlC_«\ ;•' 1 J+` ,.."a:� ✓ II'. .'tAV �.:y 1'14 Y.t, ��•I 1;,I,y... ... -f�:i d':Wi'.''U'L1 1^-•i:i{.7i P t.:.1tl �• , n.� `J, ' 1 ',•� I J1w�t" I^ ♦• �'7 •1,_:�1 I�t Le:- ;, • ..1 ». I.Al-1., •.4L± i 1 .1 1 1- 4T �I w It.••.1 `gel'JAL... I JI..'f.`l+. ' _. ,...- 1 /7 I (•: ..'.t.. , 11 - 17 .;'ITiTTt I:.1' 1• 1 EXHIBIT ,:. ' :4�V�f 1 y I ......,. .. .x., , ..«•+.r .. 1 { 11 'I I,i N�:'• r 1 i r" •II• 1, • r.•, . ^_. ' ` / i t 1 1 .,• xx r + x lit ' !4 .. ... Vie. • •Y• 1 J •' . I \ 1 1.f Yi•1.re` I'*I.I • " n1 . flrt�,l.n41 '• �S4*- 1 .1{1101 1111 001 i11..{I It;��'� ' f T , .•J 1 4, .. .. y. ... , ' • •',l•.1,.. •1 it•' /�la • ' t ' .; »1•+., .1{f Ix rN1, '11• , 1 Y t!!t '7.1� " I „ ' \:j-'J • - . xf•lt.r.,11 .:. 1.,1 .i.:.«•11y , i 11i«i1` 4�1W ' 1"4 b 4 1 1 ' i. SvI�-�A �.. �A[wv y i CC u..0 `-' » • 1 . 1 I1.. 1/ IMAM IA4(t w1IN ,• •• • . 1 , •( 1 I�L,♦ • 1 IL t..t.i t, .i , ..»a w.l IMMY4. a M... _`I,. �I'/ w••1 �_r,-,yam, a r111 11•wr•t1.1 1 Q 1 ..11'•.».1 • I I.NS _. _.«'« Id1/A.YI !CAM "' �,� .K1i 1'111111W 1({'14I tn•IrAl abcr Uua '�7� ._.w.•• bl ,IC,40I _ __ -. ._.. -.. .. .. •• . . . . • 1 �"A1r .....,1_ss_ I�j -�1.. - `1'r1 I I rl i... ;� \h+t «rw •A,r4"."«µ;.1::'' :. .I ,{•..1•.Ir.+ Tc .11. ('-��I�. r.�'.:1��•. a TI 4 I'I' G' • NOTE:C 4TIACTON S AIL Ntli CONIRUCT SAN1AIIc SCWIINANP STA ' ' 1 t. ,• „ ,•• y IN ML LveN AI nit%AVIAN COwfCT1ON q AVA MX rtn bAV CALLA i !' 1`�1'"�I _ J I LL:' ,y 'I ' Z' INAASA 10 LOMULNT I •'" 1I (,"6V 1 »r.�t!}'I { O Y:'Ji I A ! ,,+.t �`I { li Y, + _+, (f I "l ' 11.11. .01.11•� . I 1•I-•,«I.:, I ..•I G j Ye + - }y U ! 1 /� 4 Il il. Y.,-." i1 • 1 • � .. FI5�,�i 11 1".. V.�II`,I:.. �iV' , xl .��111 .1 kJ fr, o r r 1 7 14' uu r: I�.'.....T 1.IJ�u. WUI•sA ( ltullt f1 • t, r ,�4 � i(dl l`1 L?1' y ;it ri}t Y t�'K ' w» -10 --- .11 r•" h wWY.y i•' Y...u{ �.•1 �Y la " • �•t�1Ay\1 Al IRS• 1111AIY1A6 .11•IIIICAl 11C10M 1 • I ! •• x I • .1y .1111 NIf I••I .IP• .- ,..... • i �� ..., - 1I /4 tl i"iM » W 6.WELLS cr,p., �r.,�� a l' W imn. s'r �rAT�wlvfea�4iTsr1 • 1 11w n ww I 14 I .�' - ..1 w 1•w",SA"..'4,.i� '-.,j.. r '� • •. t o L's o e l a l e s• I n A LXs✓a/qc>.-.•K.rf"Cons a el w'r .��"'•_ "'✓ y- 1 J •• `E Y«. .--:•'' - t•,1••c•l P/dno T 'gwetpod ar/Vi{;der 1- .. ..r• ...�.., -4 d/b Ih N.•1 lu ON W1 r(ibrt/mL1Y two I' ur cu.� »t »..•,w• J_. t N:• OuCrit IL U•:1.0.1tW4 - . am __. .! Ig1c. - .--11..»V4 I L...._ - �4_-"•;- }:. '''i W_. _ r-'...7 _.6. ..�..� 7 0 . { r ` !. ' ; I 1 •' r•w. • ' 1r.•.w• ,.....4 Y • r r A 4 /'• ./ /W Q�.T•• _ '. I '! I w r.. h� 4 r y: m ' 1 r I , M� II 1 11 ,•, ,.. i L ' ' h•t" j1}',..11 »` t. It i •!/ �r j/•N�1 ;/'_ , . O OIz,{8 ".11 I 1«dl; 'II T »«« }� I'4„(d +I �.« -4 _'t} : -.. '`, e .L•xk.. rL,Nr kl-.1''..•'.. I Lu " t Y may:« I '" i i•r:r lc 1tr�� • 0}O 11 r1 t !.•i I+ .v II .- ri 1,1 �. ! - »__,„ .'tom...tom:. A �o . 4./ i. 44 1 t. t t G ~ r .«.. .r.l..- ._a 1. �,.1 r,«.-.1 f r_. 1\ w oc ...! l:T r - ./i.r'L«F« ,1 `It•'.....» F I, 1 t Y:I...r°. ' m 41= C•.L.«1'-"' ""'" II Iw..»x.. O 7 m N u v °irr I 11 ".h..•' N .ele,•�f ' t �:.i �' ,t'!11'1 ," I« Imrt11 1• r 41 I..I.f r /w,• ~J I�QI•S' ki . ' li I tt �. �{ A L. rI zll. U..m I 1 r' r ..•.... I. y_' r: •1{.�.w S:hl..+ il. t r•e. }[ '•1 I. '». 1 r vir. r Ai)..» 1 1r... ��.. 1 .W 4 1ri :''� ., i`'n 4 1`, , 11L'A!.11 E • 1 ' '1 I I' 1 1 Y ' •e .». ' IL '1. . N I w w«. '" .' .r•en n1.L' r1 ' •u1,., I........wr...N..1a» U.N. " » •.., • ,v • W wu.... 1N.N• �+ 1 xI'4.» .. ; 1�1� 1,....�..-. _ �>' ..w lnl..i•wu... "1. " I ... ♦ ... i. [e:X..), S 4 .. •n{U..• 91 liL -lla.afl11 ' .• 1'ACI(ApE 6EWEq pUA1p SiATIq�Y � + V +Y s y,....:1 .'i t..t.» t J 44. i r r • - ` 1( pNl WM,NI volt will NONATIO:OA I wIN(1 �... ._ H....-. .w- ._'•L a•'. 1 ` .Aa.2 , «» •.•a 1.••"H 6' \ •• •..•11A1111.•b1/4 .." ",t•, /- "Y`r. WI O t HN. r•i Y .1 1 hb d1 i1NY�U.- 1"r. I -a.-"i«" 1:.i`SL ,..w... I"' • . ,Jrt ,,�" 1(�� r..r« I I•w1 11.1.. �'�j„tl• I(�l '•"rlx..l ••N.1./1Ih1 IM ��! ^. L1151'iJc I a r 4 , '' • 1 • • ; Y game L,y. n I - C. [.d 0 lam •A r-10'1CRjt " r-4'Kar. al EXHIBIT • • au LO•r I '.1'.. 1 `WI B WELLS _ '' +11001+1.1, Info' IIII.0.1.1.11 I.i.0a it. y./l `._ t 0:1101ti P/ii.'lii,;:14i Nw/V/7 .4 ao cc /4w.,.•0,.n /inv 6r4r/ae 4uirrari D. /3rve/ry4.r..n..r/•'G>na4Tm/.0.0 >•-. I ■.. P/rn• 7aµ rn./�. d7�/{ /•n: ,ate, Q//a/,orbm/nre r.it.f l W • fa 4, A1( a.J 1. �f O • y L . ll n AA+ A r•1., LOT it. a • T‘ uw�ua ti I. V) � -._..._.N ...M J O • f• W 1 il r P 1 • _ I.i t MyAM. av •t- ® • yI� 4. pz I$ �WOI.......a :.r 1 AN-� ,yirl ,,, jw ask Lot 1 uc Lot `. 3 p r.< 1 V a.+ ,• 14 2,-a U52a f. I` ati. 1 4 .. yy I 12Aof12 y .:.. ro ve P , 11111 . w /„ v . *' :••..77. 4 , - . • 4 •••. 0 0 • - . • - -- •.,, ma. . i A ., • , r 5.14 01... 1 ,,, .••=0"" . • ',•••••••....04,.......) r -4 . : / 4..........(.1.,....).--.,.. , I ai EXHIBIT •. , , 1 ,-r:4e4tim'"1- \ : ' ,...I,liit.s.ri.. bh. :/•-fi 141,V1,4— % i,.•. , • „,..--fi.'.14.?:,`"-"''• , . r. •*,':',.,.--.1-•••-••••---ss i•-•r, ir1142.-19-4.11.""1 , fr1:4"...---•-•••,:' ", / :.4i.wic '---rvi',14,z1 -% , „48,4....ti.- 4-12-A66,01.21) " , R.I1 • / ,.-4014ti:V- fV11,A1-•——..., .--1 de it.111'-- , . •te.ts...v...,----,,, .. 1 . '111 fi-1..,%;,........,,, ', 1 ',,,•42+:13 14.64.1,a1 MO,.4.4,J 4011....•D.A.,..•OM V 7,',N.-7420,L"."......,,,... LI ,./......../,A,•a.4.66,41., N.. *I•••••1...tli WA...0•1•0•0 0 . .. -......1.M... , . t I I ,* APP.j • I ,....IPI A lewloit 11111.t.14 . .. . . . \ W.B.WELLS IteiriA14 i. ,, •- , , •,,, ;. - V, III er in::II i jr, '• . i II ‘P. , . .0.1 0.1111.10.rou Oil.114 . a . ....C.P 'SM4111.4-204e.', ex !_q_4.,',tilt. 4P-Aci .0., j " . • ...:.:22L.„ • - V IieNF'Sert, A•Pil•IP 6°li,,i013 u17-gA,PIL1,1 vi5v..1-4fri5.-,-,N11:rAPTP-.66.174‘11-' • . • , • v.,. to. 1 ..... -7 •._ _ .,.- .--. - _._.-..-...=.1.--..-..--- -- 1 „,...., F. 1-FLari' e•4 . '' 1 ' • l' -41611ILL I•*' -.- - - - I 4 JP C•Frr- 1 . . - ____ ._ __ . . f , . iI ' 1 I I ' - - i , -- r 1-i - - itti. ,,,,,, •••. -_ Pan r‘ 1 - - ---- '-'•-'.-71---=7.-7- -----='-.-- - - it ===, :Ali,.= fr" , . = . •' P•t • i/ - - --------- -7- - ==•-7---.: '" ''' 7' - 1.c.1 • ' .,_.._,..;-,—_- ,..————..,..- — . ,. :4" _MI MINIS • 1 f - - '- !II?41""...1-----,.... .... - ...- IIIII . - 7---- ;Z.: -- .."- ,.=--..Z.:TZI..=..-.-- ..--"7:-=-71r---'77..Y.-.H.-7-',_-...•-*-.77:7, 77\ ,,,,. • .4 ' — ,, . _ _,...., ._ , ._ _ lit I i _ 1 _, . -. ,. ,..74, ,..,...•-....,.-.---__,,,,:-..- , ----_-.......__-_-_,---___ __,_--..,_---. „...-___-..-.. ,..,.:,_.,..42._4 ,.7..::L.,-._ IL t Mil. Mille - -- .,, -, • , -.• 11, 1 - .--.. 7:'. . ' ''''. 12::::::-'1 L--°:--Fit is .40—--------————r.---i.-....— -,-.7.-..—-,,-.:-1:: ... -• 1,-. 0 --—- _ _._,-,- _=__-- __-E.-,..:-.--.---.:- .7"=--..----,-------=-. -.---=.- — —7--•=.---------,-7..-- ------ ---- ——---------—— — 1 I -—- • I Et - --- —. 7- 7- --). t'S-1.-E-: - -.== =-=== _.=-_-_- ---.-.7-.'---1.'•-rt--7.. —--''''.._ -7---!'`-. _-,-. ----- -.-14---—— ---' - - . . . i 3II 'f'EillielIll w.t..L1:101dEtN ': Pr-7 1___=.-.....„,---=.,=. ,..-----_,-„,= 1 1 al•-;74_.':-.=:-7--;"7.,--1- -7 77. -. .::-- 10 -11111111 --- "7-==7.-7---=-------•=7:::-.. --:"'1--':'.--...---=M''i-'2I-.2_,---..-----. 7*i-1 h...' .=".. ''_* !_:::-_ ..fi -7---r----1.----.-'''''r*-7-7 —— a— .- i • . .:..—... - al —--t— _- ---___ =,__ .4_ _,...-• _ • -------• - --"=---------, „____---___..,--- ,_ _ _-:-.-__:::-7__.-.1 :- :::g7:2'.::.....-----c.-:isrt,s,-7,.E.14.1--4=-1-7-3 • . • ......, p_ _ . '.'.." .... . && ... = M -=_.‘.a.- ‘ ,._ r,..: :tri r...-..-.-7-.--===--..-M--a:1-7-. -'-L:.-,-Z==----7_,.%3.,-..=:17--7....;''F-.-7-7-,,..-,„11- , -. - -- . iii . . r_isig sir ,t. :-../7-7.4--i.--.17- M-,-"Tiz:_`-,..1. 5,-iti•- --:-7„ --I:--7=-7: ir4F .7-4.i..--.l'r---77-7:iL:---,----:_-:7:-7-2'74.7,:-:7_-7 a 7.-------;....---..-7- -7*---,-;.,7-.E.-...','- ?-.___ ______ ___ _ _ ,,,. • . -----—— —- it:---77,-7' : r...• .,..-,- — ----Tv ivr,?.. ---- 1_il§M-,-,-. .---.-.:-..-..,--.. —t.1 '7'77-- __;.,..,_-::,= ....T:.,'ri.1:f.z•.--'7'..'..:,. ..'7=:-..=7 9__ =z.-....-:=-..:-a:7.-=.7.s,-..-.,.:it..;7-7-=----=_-._.-..7.7 __ -_,-77=-7- - - -p.m •o..., .." 0.40 oun I 1.00.:::::14.M.144 Isom. • ' •. _._ . r' I •. i•0`4--"0 cti_.._..1 1 s_ .. • #• • • * , „ 4 • , ' . . . . # .. . .• • . .• . . • .1 • . • ' • ' a ze 3 � st • • • • • A Report on Construction Status of Mountain View Estates A Subdivision Located in Lake Oswego, Oregon • h • February, 1993 • 1 ? MAY 28 1993 14 EXNIBIr • Is Q4'lzP) PD -9 2r)%1t. re • • • INTRODUCTION This report gives a deiled analysis of the construction status of Mountain View Estates, a proposed residential subdivision • located in Lake Oswego, Oregon (W.B. Wells Project #89-118) . The information presented herein is based on existing field inspection reports dating from 1989-1990, television reports dating from that time, correspondences between affected parties, construction plans, addendum plans & sketches, and a summary field inspection taken during February 1993. A set of blueline construction plans showing the existing condition status of streets, utilities, and overall site conditions is included with this report. The construction status of the following items shall be discussed in the order presented: 1 y * Site Grading, Erosion Control , & Landscaping * Streets, Curb & Gutters, and Sldewalks e ` * Storm Sewers * Sanitary Sewers ii * Water Lines • ". * Drainage and Detention Features In addition to the anal sis y g�i��en each of the above e1•ements, a brief summary shall be included, and recommended actions offered. The reader should keep in mind that the recommendations are not • • meant as any form of mandate, but are instead intended as suggested courses of action. The full extent of corrections shall be imposed by the appropriate jurisdictions. • • • • • • • • • • , . V , •,1,, Site Grading, Erosion Control, & Landscaping Slope Conditions , The site is located on a south-facing slope that varies in steepness . It is bisected by two streams, the confluence of which is at the detention pond located on the south side of the project . The site is bounded on the south by Jefferson Parkway, which is presently completed on its south side. Two private streets extend northward into the project, each terminating in a "hammerhead" "• dead end. Construction of all three streets, along with the detention pond, has necessitated the placement of fill material and required significant slope cuttI.ng . Construction of the detention pond required excavation , berm construction, and significant landscaping for soil stabilization purposes . Concrete and boulder retaining walls werr, designed along portions of `' Jefferson Parkway. The overall condition of the cut and fill portions of the streets f•R is fairly good on the private streets, but poor in places along e , Jefferson Parkway. The side slopes on the private streets have been relatively stabilized by the encroachment of wild grasses, .tty h• ' weeds, and blackberry shrubs. Some minor rilling and gullying can be observed along the east side of Rita Jean, alonr4 the east side of Santillanes near Sanitary Manhole #4, and along the outer curve of Santillanes where it turns eastward at the top of the slope. �+ ', ' The only visible hazard is a large fir tree located at the southwest corner of the_=Rita Jean hammerhead. The root system of this tree may have possibly been compromised by the construction of the street . The slopes located along Jefferson Parkway are in poor condition in several places. The rip-rap retaining wall located along the north side of the street near Kingsgate shows visible signs of erosion. One or two boulders have become dislodged and have fallen to the base of the 'wall ( in the future sidewalk location) . The earth material presently holding the rip-rap to the bank is being slowly eroded by effects of the weather . There is no vegetation in the boulder matrix to offer any stabilization. The north slope of Jefferson Parkway in the vicinity of the Sanitary Manhole at Station 0+81 of Line "F" is seriously denuded . The F„ steepness of the slope has discouraged even the encroachment vegetation from establishing hold . The manhole itself is exposed down to the cone section. Below the manhole is a small retaining wall built of rip-rap which may discourage further erosion in that . location. The slopes along the north side of Jefferson Parkway between Santillanes and Rita Jean appear stable . West of Rita Jean, however , the steep slopes are again in poor condition. The concrete retaining wall located at the intersection with Fosberg Road was never built. Heavy vegetation here has limited the effects of erosion. r r'+ UJ • IF. Landscape Conditions The berm and side slopes of the detention pond are fairly stable . The berm area of the pond was originally hydro-seeded with a grass mixture that grew successfully, and is still quite visible . Small trees planted during that same period are no longer present, except for two small firs. One of the firs appears dead, the other may be dying. There are no other signs of landscaping visible. Erosion Control All forms of erosion control measures undertaken during the construction period are either gone or are no longer effective . Some residual silt fencing can be found at the upper end of the detention pond. The detention pond, in its present form, has captured silt successfully. The level of silt in the pond has nearly reached the overflow elevation of the outfall structure, however , and will eventually reach capacity. More on the "4 . ; Detention Pond is discussed later in this report . h F SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS Side slopes in several areas are in either fair or poor condition. Retaining walls are either failing or have not been constructed. Areas showing the greate.s.t_.stability. _are.__the natural woods and the area around the detention pond. The following recommendations are suggested: * Remove and replace the rip-rap retaining wall located along the north side of Jefferson Parkway at Kingsgate; * Construct the concrete retaining wall along the north side of +" • Jefferson Parkway at Fosberg; * Re-grade and stabilize the cut slopes on Jefferson Parkway and at selected points along Rita Jean and Santillanes; • * Evaluate the status of the large fir tree located at the southwest end of the Rita Jean hammerhead, and remove if necessary; * Prior to resuming construction, develop a revised grading and Erosion Control plan conforming to the Technical Guidance Handbooks or Construction Standards of the appropriate local and regional jurisdictions. ' cx • • • 1 F ,1 Streets , Curb & Gutters, and Sidewalks Jefferson Parkway The original construction plans called for Jefferson Parkway to be constructed for half its width plus 3 .5 feet. When construction ceased on the project, however , this work had not yet been done . During the interim, a new subdivision has been completed to the south and, as a condition of development, the south side of Jefferson Parkway has been improved to local standards . This leaves only the north half of Jefferson Parkway, less 3 . 5 feet , to be built . The base below sub-grade was tested during December-January of 1989-90 . Over-excavation was performed in several locations due to poor soil conditions . Proof-rolling was performed during ' ' ' January, and is verifiably sound from Kingsgate to Posberg . The sub-grade rock for Jefferson Parkway was placed during the original construction period, and remains today. It has been contaminated over time, however , by dirt, mud, and vegetation encroachment . Near Kingsgate, piles of dirt and debris have made conditions even worse. The entire sub-grade here appears .' L, , worthless. West of Kingsgate, however, and extending to Fosberg, t , it may be possible to salvage portions of the Jefferson Parkway sub-grade, particualrly the 1-1/2"-0 underlying the leveling course of gravel. The pavement taper at the west end of the project was never built . 1 1 � . ' Santillanes/Rita Jean The bases of both streets are good. In fact, solid rock constitutes the base in several places. The sub-grade, however , } has been seriously contaminated, especially on Santillanes . The upper end of Santillanes has been uses as a local dumping site for 1r some time. Much of the street and curb is buried beneath debris :. ., and trash. The effects of traffic and weathering on the two . private streets has been such that it is unlikely that the ►..,� sub-grade is salvageable. Curb & Gutter/Sidewalks/Driveways r'. All curb and gutter work has been performed in the subdivision . There are a dozen or so minor cracks that are probably correctable with an approved sealant or grout. The two ends of the Rita Jean ' hammerhead, however, have sections of damaged curb that must be entirely replaced. One or two curb cracks near the upper end of Santillanes should be evaluated to determine whether replacement. • is necessary. A significant portion of the Santillanes curb was buried beneath trash and debris, making analysis impossible. ,;.'°,. / Repair to a small section of westside curb on Santillanes near the 0 lower end was poorly done. The curb on Jefferson Parkway is sound . However , the curb section in the curve radius at Kingsgate V. ; • • was built slightly higher than designed. Top-of-curb and centerline elevations should be taken to determine if a street drainage problem may exist at this intersection. • No sidewalks were constructed during the construction period . Driveway approaches dere built at the entrances to the private streets . The Rita Jean approach was replaced due to faulty construction. Both are sound in appearance, and probably quite durable, as they were poured with 5000 psi concrete. SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS The underlying base of all streets in the subdivi.ni,on is verifiably solid. The sub-grade rock in portions uE Jefferson Parkway may be salvageable . However , the sub-grado rock on the private streets appears ppears to have been extensively contaminated. Trash and debris litter the streets in several locoLions . All the curbwork for Mountain View Estates was completed during the initial construction period. With a couple of notable • exceptions, the condition of the curb & gutters is sound , The Jefferson Parkway curb near Kingsgate was installed slightly higher than designed, and may adversely affect street drainage ... '` when the street is completed. The following recommendations are suggested: * Remove and replace all sub-grade rock on Rita Jean and • Santillanes; +' * Evaluate sub-grade rock on Jefferson Parkway to determine if any is salvageable in-situ; • * Construct asphalt taper at Fosberg Road; * Remove & replace damaged curb in Rita Jeao hammerhead; �.� * Remove debris on Santillanes and inspect curb & gutter near T� upper end; * Evaluate curb grades at Kingsgate to determine if street I alterations (e.g . feathering or overlaying) are required . S * Build sidewalks for entire project . ,s • • e . v' >c' Storm Sewers Nearly all of the public storm system has been installed on the project . However , there has been little if no testing of the ,. ' lines, and the workmanship of many of the structures is poor . Several lines were re-laid during the initial construction period .i due to faulty installation by the original contractor . The only storm pipes that have not been installed are several of the 3-inch PVC drain lines that will serve the individual lots , based on field inspection and review of existing written documentation. No evidence of construction could be found for the 3t lines that drain Lots 5, 8, 9 , 10 , 13 , and 14 . Concrete bell & spigot i e was used for the pipe public storm lines . • Instead of neoprene gaskets, filter fabric was placed over the individual joints. There is no documentation that indicates the relative pipe strengths (C-14 Class II or Class III , and C-76 ) . There is no record of television reports on any of the storm system. Alignment and grade was inspected during initial pN construction, and can be considered reliable . Bedding, backfill , and compaction all conforms to Lake Oswego construction standards for the public storm system. The outfalls of several pipes have been damaged. Several lines have silted up. The outfall of storm line III could not be found due to siltation. Manholes present the greatest problem. All except MH 7 on Line III have been installed. The base of MH 7 has been installed, and one barrel sect-ion placed. Daily inspection reports indicate that Pollution Control Manhole 2 may be slightly out of plumb. There • was nothing found in the reports to indicate that this had been *, corrected. None of the steps have been properly secured in any of ;. :�. the storm manholes. They should be properly grouted. The barrels, adjusting rings, and castings of several of the manholes have also not been properly grouted. Damage has occured to some of the manholes, and many contain debris. The catch basins are, for the most part, in relatively good condition. Several are partially or completely covered with debris , however , rendering them ineffective during normal storm '' ' events , Many contain trash and debris . The two lower catch ., basins on Rita Jean have sustained damage to the concrete collars which hold the grates in place. One grate is missing entirely , • , ' The invert elevations of some of the structures have been recorded. Some inverts have not been recorded, though they were installed . Invert elevations that were recorded are noted in red " ' on the accompanying set of construction plans , SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS 410 With the exception of some of the 3-inch PVC lines, all of the 44 storm sewers for Mountain View Estates appear to have been installed , The condition of the lines and the manholes varies • • u from fairly good to extemely poor . The following recommendations 1 y': are suggested: * Install the remaining 3-inch PVC lines to the lots noted above; • 11 •:' * Perform television inspections on all storm sewers installed as part of this project; * Inspect all manholes thoroughly. Repair and, if necessary, • • replace manholes as required; * Complete construction of Storm Manhole 7 on Line III ; * Inspect Pollution Control Manhole 2 for proper verticality; * Clean silt from all lines ; * Replace damaged pipe at outfalls ; * Repair damaged collars on catch basins; • * Remove debris from catch basins ; ,u * Perform as-built survey on inverts and rims of all storm structures that have not been red-lined on the accompanying set of construction plans. • • • 40 i ti Ir-1 ri t r.� -• .. • � , Sanitary Sewers The sanitary sewer system for Mour',tain View Estates was installed in its entirety during initial construction. According to existing documentation, all mains and service laterals were installed, along with manholes and cleanouts . Several design changes were made during construction that resulted in revised • manhole locations and revised pipe grades and depths . The 4-inch / "' force main and pump station initially designed by OTAK was unnecessary, as gravity service was extended to the project from the south. Both were eliminated from the project. Television inspections were performed on four segments of the on-site sanitary sewer system: 1 . 9 Line A: MH 1-MH 2 Line A: MH 2-MH 3 Line E: MH 3-MH 6 •, Line E: MH 6-MR 7 The off-site sanitary sewer line located in Fosberg Road was installed under a separate contract . There is documentation of successful air testing and mandreling of this ] ine, but no television reports were found. Based on the tests that were performed, however, it is felt that this off-site sewer be accepted by the local jurisdiction. Air tests and mandreling of the on-site system was not performed. �'` i• . ,A plug located in the upstream •p pipe in the manhole at Fosberg and Jefferson has caused water to back up to the next manhole and probably beyond. This plug has apparently been in place for over 2 1/2 years. The amount of water presently detained in the sanitary sewer pipe would seem to indicate that some inflow and infiltration has occured. The origin of the I & I is unknown . Manholes are generally in poor condition. Steps have not been grouted. Barrel sections, adjusting rings, and castings have not • been properly grouted in several manholes. Manhole 3 has been damaged extensively, and may require replacement . Oregon Drop MH 2, located on Line F, was not installed in the proper location. The drop-structure was apparently eliminated as a result . It should be inspected to determine if a drop structure should be •• installed. Line F is the only currently active line within the , • project , and was constructed of ductile iron due to its shallowness in Jefferson Parkway . Service laterals are shown to have been installed to all lots on the original field set of construction plans . The 2x4 posts that mark their location at the property line are missing for several •' lots ( 1 , 4 , and 7 ) . Manhole 5 is buried under sub-grade material in Santillanes . • Debris and trash can be found in nearly every manhole . Manhole 6 on Rita Jean is filled with dirt to near the top of the cone • ,, t k •r V. • section. Manhole 7 is filled with debris to the extent that the "out" portal is buried. Manhole 4 on Santillanes has a storm u sewer lid. The lid for Manhole 3 is broken. Invert elevations that were recorded at the time of construction • are shown in red on the accompanying set of construction plans . SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS Although the entire sanitary sewer system has apparently been installed, there are many problems that need to be resolved before it is accepted by the local jurisdiction. The following recommendations are suggested: • t I * Clean and flush all lines ; • Vim': . • . .. * Perform television inspection of all lines; * Perform air and mandrel tests on all lines, including service laterals (possible I & I problem exists) ; * Repair and, if necessary, replace manholes as required; * Verify location, length, and depth of service laterals for all lots; • * Inspect Oregon Drop Manhole 2 on Line F to determine if drop structure is required;* Perform as-built survey to determine invert and rim elevations for all lines not marked in red on the accompanying set of - construction plans; ^' Replace wrong lids , adust rims of manholes; , * Adjust cleanouts as required. ' • • +r. • • • A e Water Mains The public domestic water system has been installed for the entire project . All lines have been tested and accepted by the City . The air relief valve in Santillanes may not have been installed, however . The amount of trash and debris in Santillanes made inspection of the valve location impossible. •'. ,.. a, The copper service lines for the individual lots are all exposed at the property lines . Several of the angle stops show evidence A' 9 of slight leaking . The copper lines, where exposed, are discolored and show visible signs of weathering. Nearly all of the meter boxes originally installed are either broken or missing entirely. Valve boxes in the private streets require adjusting, but none appear broken. SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS The public water mains in Mountain View Estates appear to be in • good condition. However , the service lines may require some attention. The following recommendations are sugge",ed: * Blowoff water mains in the private streets; A . * Blowoff all service lines; * Repair and replace copper service lines and angle stops as required; * Replace all meter boxes; • * Adjust valve boxes as required; * Fielo check to determine if air relief valve on Santillanes has been installed. If it has not , check with Lake Oswego to determine if valve is necessary. • • d4 ,• :'apt , • , ` • 4 k . e r • Drainage and Detention Features Y Two branches of Ball Creek traverse the project . They form a confluence in the detention basin located at the southern end, 1 adjacent to Jefferson Parkway. Both streams are very nearly perennial, as they drain a significant amount of impervious surface fxom the nearby Community College to the north. The streams were originally scheduled to have rip-rap in several locations . Rip-rap were also check dams at storm outfalls along the streams. Thepcheck edams lwere eneverd constructed. The rip-rap outfall pads for the storm system were : ' • installed during construction, but they have been largely washed , ..' ' away or covered by debris and sediment . Both streams show evidence of progressive bank erosion in several daces. • The detention pond was originally designed to capture and release surface water runoff for the 10-year undeveloped storm. It was also designed to detain up to a 50-year developed storm. A concrete outfall structure that could regulate the release rate was installed, and an emergency overflow channel was also built . A berm was constructed around the southerly perimeter of the pond , and a planting schedule was developed for the top ando the side slopes . The side slopes themselves were desigl nedtosbef ` 4 :1. ti ry tq The pond has silted up nearly to the level of the overflow w 4 elevation in the concrete outfall structure. Portions ^f the pon lilli' • . bottom are solid. mud., while emergent wetland vegetation has begun to take hold in other areas . The two streams are slowly re-establishing a sinuous meandering pattern within the pond bottom. Left alone, it is likely that the entire pond will soon • silt up to the level of he concrete overflow elevation and assume full wetland characteristics . • There are possible • �;• political implications associated with the pond ,�• • n as it currently exists. if wetland conditions have advanced far• enough, the status of the pond as determined by DSL may change , Such a change in status may preclude its restoration detention feature. as a 4 -. SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS • Alterations to the streams as originally designed have largely not taken place. Bank erosion has begun in several locations, The detention pond has evolved into an emergent wetland with little or no detention capability due to siltation. The following recommendations are suggested: ,ti, A Evaluate bank erosion along the two stream corridors , • Stabilize as required; Construct rip-rap check dams as per on . stream corridors ; %original design along the 0 : . 4- 1 , w •. ' the stream k rapads at storm outfalls along * Re°air rip-rap �' •� corridors; r° riate, rest°re the 0detention pond. If a from pond material of • • . . * Evaluate ptbtusbyexcavating excess ability bottom,toandaremoving vegetation if necessary; ' °' designed release tfall structure to allow for desig * Repair detention O1� ability as per DSL requirements; 1 • , . rates and capability to berm area as required. * Restore plantings 1 S .. �b r 4 ,,'v l 4 i III, • 0 It ,. ' .q . z r" , Conclusions Much of the original construction of Mountain View Estates was completed before development activity was halted. The amount of ; .; .. • work necessary to complete the project consists largely of repair `' and testing of utilities and streets. • Some features need to be as-built by a survey crew. They are listed as follows: * invert elevations of manholes, catch basins and cleanouts not red-lined in the accompanying set of construction drawings; * Manhole, catch basin, and cleanout stationing not red-lined in a "' the accompanying set of construction plans; * Sanitary sewer lateral stationingat tees and property lines;• * Top-of-curb elevations, especially on Jefferson Parkway at Kingsgate; * Pond bottom elevations . It should be noted that property corners were not observed during the course of the field inspection. Some may have been damaged or removed during initial construction, though this was never seen or documented at that time. Nevertheless, after two years of inactivity at this site it might be prudent to verify property corner locations as part of any proposed survey of existing conditions. •Respectful y ubm` tted, = 1ter • • •r • " »e • ,.i� A pF LikKE QS • . { ..i.,.... n ,,.. . .. ... .. v, !` ,. l7pGc0N ,, .1:....,. . . , -...-„.....„ . I . . DEPARTMENT Or PUBLIC WORKS 11 - ;' MEMORANDUM ,y ai EXHIBIT 14c213714A 1 � 1 TO: Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner c1 . _ �"'i � FROM: Russ Chevrette, Engineering Technician {; 1 RE: Completeness for Mt. View Estates Re-Application (PD 4-92) I DATE: June 18, 1993 The new narrative, the as-built construction drawings, and the report on the construction status have been reviewed as they pertain to the Development Standards normally reviewed by the Engineering Division. These materials have been submitted in response to our earlier request for an updated inventory of the physical t improvements constructed by the previous developer, so that we could evaluate and impose conditions of approval, as necessary, to bring the project into compliance with s applicable standards. The application materials comprise a complete package but information contained therein causes us to raise the following questions: With regards to the drainage/detention area, the proposed changes g p p h s to the side slopes, re-vegetation, and cleaning of accumulated silt would be acceptable if findings are made that the subject area has not become an emergent wetland, If it is found that there is now a wetland, a new standard comes into play and tl•e hearing should be continued to give the applicant-an opportunity to revise the ' plans. Lot layout and dimensions in the area of Ole pond could be affected, as . well as re-design for additional water quality measures. The as-built survey indicates that the approaches to the private streets off 1-' Jefferson Boulevard were not constructed as previously approved, Development d.. . Standard 19,025 requires the intersections of private streets to be a minimum grade of 5% for a minimum distance of 25 feet, On sheet 4 of 12, the first nine feet of Santillanes Court has been found to be 9.3% along its west edge and Rita Jean Court 10,3% along the first nine feet of its east edge, The streets then - transition into 17% and 16.2% grades respectively. This application does not request a variance to this Development Standard, There is no guarantee that a positive recommendation would be made to keep things as they are if a variance PD 4.92 Memorandum . itti Page 1of2 A 1MO"A" Aveliwe • Post OOfrice tilt\ wN; • Like Owego,On on t);(11•1 ' (NM N it M1«7"�1 • [AN 17111)ft'14120 ' : • ° ) 'w r l !'. y 8 it',, , , rc was requested. [Note: This is a standard for construction, not a standard for r approval.] Sheet 7 of 12 is a tree cutting and clearing plan stamped as survey". The legend, p an "existing condition Y • e end, however, still contains language such as "trees to be cut" and "trees to be field determined". Because much of the construction grading has already taken place, this sheet is not indicative of site conditions and it should be revised accordingly. All of the physical inadequacies revealed in the status report are helpful in determining what still needs to be repaired or constructed, but are only relevant re,approval construction drawings. As a condition of approval, the Engineering Division would like the assurance that all items noted , .• in the status report be addressed together with any other inadequacies or discrepancies found in the field during construction, prior to acceptance , of the public improvements and issuance of anybuilding "as-built .. construction survey" sheets submitted with thi applicatin are not Finally, theconstrued the construction drawings that will be submitted for construction approval.o The as will be treated as a new project and new drawings under the currets engineer's The project and logo will be required. i stamp ItC/kaa C:\winword\pw\rues\PDd-9Zmem u . 401 iir, • .i • .o • • 41/ ' 'IF ' • it ' PO 4.92 Memoranduhi . Page 2 of 2 • k 1 . , + `•s t� .•••• . • vV q e: d • u7• WEST1 W ENGINEERING, INC. ! . CONSULTING ENGINEERS& PLANNERS June 25, 1992 'Vx :• Mr Joel h'aich Divisio. of State Lands 775 . a ill tier St, NE Salk. OR 97310^ RE1* 'Mt. View Estates I.O. , - . ' ( .0 Dear Mr. Shaich: • ��? ;: This letter summarizes our June 25, 1992 telephone discussion concerning Mt. View Estates a subdivision located in Lake Oswego, Oregon. As indicated in our telephone conversation, the original developer obtained a permit from the Division of State Lands (Permit No, 5144) for the removal of up to 120 cubic yards of material and the placement of up to 100 cubic yards of material in Section 31, T1S, R1E (Ball Creek) for the construction of a road crossing and detention basin. The construction portion of this permit was completed prior to the developer stopping work on the subdivision. The ownership of the property subsequently reverted to the First Security Bank of Oregon, The bank would like to finish ' . development of this subdivision during this construction season. In our conversation, you indicated that completion of the mitigation conditions listed in the permit would not require a renewal of the Division of State minds permit. As you requested, I am enclosing a copy of the landscape plan for the subdivision which includes an enit;rged detail of the detention basin planting plan. If you have any comments concerning the plantings in or around the detention basin or regarding any of the mitigation T conditions for this subdivision, please contact me at 585-2474. • 4+ EXHI 1r.. I ,, . 0 15 ( ..• C,:urtwtMW Witt: 3421 :Sth St s.5 Sawn, t.tc9on 97301 1191 a 15031 555 2474 . 13500 SW. 72nd A`.c Ponlr,4d Orupb,i 4?t23'30:2 + t50'31 04 97'1b rt, 1503f 555.J'e • • + • a L t r tl i •� •µ P; June 25, 1992 Mr. Shaich Page two We are currently in the process of obta ring authorization from the City of Lake Oswego to complete this subdivision. I will keep you informed as we proceed th,ough this authorization process. If you have any questions or comments this subdivision or the mitigation measures involved, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ' 'WESTECH ENGINEERfNC, INC. Denny Muchmore Project Engineer Encl. cc: Tom Gloude t r ,'first Security Bank of Oregon •. ' • • • • • r.' Y •. i P OY `��, a i • . �•. ' *on ,H . August 25 , 1992 •Y . DIVISION OF �, • 4 Denny Muchmore STATE LANDS WesTech Engineering , 3421 25th St . SE STATE (,AND BOARD . Salem, OR 97302-1191 BARBARA ROBERTS Gnvempr Re: Mt . View Estates - State Permit No. RF 5194 PHIL KE15UIV( Secretary o(State ANT1lONY MEEkII: State Treasurer Dear Mr . Muchmore: I recently discussed the project with Andy Harris of the City of T';. Lake Oswego . As we`ve discussed, completion of the state permit ' requirements will not require a renewal of the state permit . Technically, the original permit holder is in violation for failure to comply w th the permit requirements . We will consider the matter resolved if the current property owner completes the requirements . Andy mentioned that there is some stream restoration work that needs to be done to meet city requirements . If that work involves more than 50 cubic yards of removal or alteration then you will need a new state permit, or it may be possible to renew the existing one, I 4 with modifications . c Regarding the detention pond slopes , Andy mentioned that the reasons for the 4 : 1 slopes included maintenance concerns and child safety ' 4 . concerns . In reviewing our permit file I see that safely concerns were also raised during the permit review process. We therefure will not drop the 4 : 1 slope requirement tot the pond. Regarding the planting plan, it loo)`s adequate . I forgot to discuss with And- the two wetland emergent plants on the plan, Soft Rush and y.,.. Spike Ru.h . Recent studies by the Division and EPA have shown that most freshwater emergent wetland plantings in Oregon have failed miserably. Generally, natural revegetation is responsible for nearly ali of the recolonization of mitigation sites . We will not require you to plant those species for this project . You should • check with the city to see if they concur . • Please call if you have any questions . Sincerely , ••'ii EXHIBIT \a/194(--1 . e' 4(k.....((\--&4"4•... .. :2 1 G "V kZQoR2 Joel Shaich ,1« Environmental Planning and Permits Section oi.$ � ! JAS/dsh 775 Summer street NE ', - " ' l Salem, Oh 0731'0.1:337 70e u4 (603) v 8.3so$ FAX (503; 378.4a4.1 cc: Andy Barris , City of Lake Oswego ♦ ... 1,�. d • .. u. Mountain View Estates ... t Variance Request • JUN 2 9 19y3 I °" VARIANCE REQUEST (Revised) The following is a variance request to Development Standard 19.025(6) of the Lake Oswego Development Ordinance, which states that private streets shall not exceed a 15% gradient. The applicant is proposing approval for a gradient of 17.3% for one of the two private drives on site, SW Haynes Court, ''x'. RESPONSES TO DECISION CRITERIA A. Unnecessary Hardship Increasing the road gradient to 17.3C'c as outlined above is necessary given the specific site conditions. This private road was substantially completed by a previous . developer under a development permit granted by the City of Lake Oswego (PD 8- 88). Requiring a 15% grade for this private road would result in the following hardships; 1. The existing roadway, as well as the existing underground public utilities, . . would have to be removed at a s.+bstantially increased cost to the developer. 2. Additional rock removal would be required, which would again vastly increase ;. the cost to the developer. 3, Disturbance to the sensitive site will be increased by cut and fill activity if the ;, existing roads is replaced. 4, The driveway grades accessing the individual building lots will be steeper, making them less safe for negotiation. These four results constitute an unnecessary hardship for the applicant. • B. Not Injurious to Neighborhood • • �' a,, This request will enable the applicant to minimize construction disturbance to the , 0 site, retain more existing trees and provide improved access to the proposed building , sites, This will benefit the district economically and environmentally, '' • 40 Pagel i EXHIBIT .. ... _ . L.. . ..F...., ... • . . • , ..... n .n / g • ' 'I•' 1 ' 1 - , d f 1 wry•.'• • 7, ' V . Mountain View Estates • 1"•:". • Variance Request i c. 9 “' C. Minimum Variance Necessary The applicant is only requesting approval to complete the existing road which was constructed under a previously minimal request will allow the apple ant to akeproved lrea development permit ( hePD evel This site. or the development • D. Not in Conflict With the Comprehensive Plan By minimizing disturbance to a sensitive site, this request is supportive of the natural • resource policies of the Comprehensive Plan. ' s 40 . .. P `. . • •• . •1 0 ., ., : ,- 1., u 1{ , Y .4 I 1 t• I (II li . . 1 1 + ' . .. 1 I Pitg1 0 0 +'. u Mountain Park, rn Hoe Owners Association e ® #2 Mt. Jefferson Terrace Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 phone 635-3561 • r,. June 29 , 1993 J U'l 3-®~ 1993 e, Development Review Board City of Lake Oswego 0 P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego , Oregon 97034 RE: PD 4-92/VAR 20-92 (a-d) MP Block 62 Dear Board Members : !• The Mountain Park Home Owners Association continues to support completion of this 14 lot single-family development on Jefferson Parkway. We understand that the new owner of the property is simply trying to complete the project that was approved in 1988 . We believe that the basic lot configuration is well ouited to the jsite, The open space with stream corridors will make the site , particularly attractive. The variances , approved in 1988 , needed to make the project work should be re-affirmed. . " , �, This development has been stuck in limbo much too long. We would like to see the project completed without further delay, Sincerely, ,,,<577,---L- --r-4,-- ."---> Robert Ericsson Executive Manager • :� °l EXHILH 1L....... ' . 143,4_,- eiga.p., . , . . . . . • , . . 0 , . ' w , .. , . . w STAF.' REPORT ` CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ,1. • PLANNING DIVISION at;' APPLICANT: FILE NO,:� Rick Givens VAR 4-93(a-e) PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF: • J' Skip and Lynda O'Neill Elizabeth Jacob LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE QF REPORT: Tax Lot 1700 of July 9, 1993 Tax Map 2 1E 10DB • DATE OF HEARINQ: LOCATION: July 19, 1993 983 Lake Front koad NEIGHBORHOOD ASQCIATION: COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: McVey/South Shore Neighborhood Assn. v R-7.5 ZONING DESIGNATION: '' R-7.5 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of the following five variances in order to construct a two • r story dwelling: a. A 5-foot variance to the 10-foot side yard setback along the west property line; b. A 3.5-foot variance to the 10-foot side yard setback along the west property line; • c. A 6.5-foot variance to the 25-foot minimum Oswego Lake Special Setback; d. An 11.5-foot variance to the 30-foot rear yard setback; e. A variance from LOC 48.700(2)(b) which allows the enlargement of a nonconforming structure only when such enlargement does not increase the nonconformity of the ..' structure. II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS i 1. • A, City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Policies: Impact Management Policies p1 1 VAR 4-93 Page 1 of 10 I f U • • . General Policy II, Specific Policies 2, 3 Distinctive Natural Areas Policies Special Distinctive Area No. 54,Oswego Lake Energy Conservation Policies General Policies II and IV e , r Floodplain Policies B. tvof .akQcg, LOC 48.195-48.225 R-7.5 Zone Description LOC 48.535(3) Oswego Lake Special Setback u •' LOC 48.535(4) Special Street Setbacks LOC 48.650 Authorization to Grant Variances LOC 48.655 Classification of Variances LOC 48.700 Non-Conforming Use, Structure Defined { LOC 48.800 Applicability C. City ak, Oswego Development &k: ' of LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards LOC 49.140 Minor Development LOC 49.200-49.220 Minor Development Procedures D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: • 7.005-7.040 Parking&Loading Standard 0 ; '• 12.005 - 12.040 Drainage Standard for Minor Development 17.005 - 17.030 Flood Plain 19.005 - 19.040 Site Circulation Standard-Driveways , , 1 E. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance LOC 57.050-57,090 f III. FINDINGS • A. Existi g.Conditions: a • 1. The subject property is approximately 7,670 square feet in area. The average width and depth of the lot are approximately 60 feet and 127 feet, respectively, 2. The lot is situated on the north side of Lake Front Road and is bordered by Oswego Lake on the rear(north) property line. �.`. 3, A single-story 2,038 square foot house and two-car garage are located on the site. • 4. The site plan illustrates that the property is relatively flat over the southerly three- fourths of the lot, then drops about 25 feet to the lake. 5. The area surrounding the property is zoned R-7.5, The area is composed of single- family homes on lots ranging from 5,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet in area, Be Proposal:• . . 0:j,. ,,,,:: .,i The variance request is to approve five variances in order to construct a two-story 41, ' - . single-family dwelling. The site plan (Exhibit 2) illustrates the areas of the requested VAR 4-93 Page 2 of 10 1 . . i - Y x • 1 • t ' variances, The existing one—story house will be demolished to the foundation and a new two—story house and 2—cur garage is proposed to be constructed on or within the existing foundation walls (Exhibit 3). C. ompliance with Grit for Appproval_: 5 As per LOC 48.815, the following criteria must be considered when evaluating a Class I variance: 1• The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval. The applicant has provided sufficient materials with which to evaluate the request, • as evidenced by the attached exhibits. 2• For any development application to be approved,it shall first be established that the proposal conforms to: a. The City's Comprehensive Plan; 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. The policies require assurance that distinctive areas will be preserved, soil will be protected from erosion, trees will be protected from '•• , removal, streams will be preserved and density will be limited to achieve these results. The policies require that new development and redevelopment be compatible with communir;character, enrich the quality of life, and protect ' . aesthetic character. These policies are implemented through zone site limitations, • and development standards which are addressed below. Compliance with the applicable site limitations and development standards will assure conformance to these Plan policies. Conditions of approval will be imposed when necessary to assure compliance, Distinctive Natural Area No, 54, Oswego Lake Policies ti These policies require the protection of the scenic and natural resource that is Oswego Lake. These policies are implemented in part through the tree ordinance, the special setback for Oswego Lake,and development standards. An analysis of the variance requested to the Oswego Lake setback and applicable development standards is made later in this report. Energy Conservation Policies These policies encourage energy conservation through site planning which considers ` • solar orientation, the site's natural features, flexible setback requirements, and Y construction practices that promote energy conservation. Compliance with energy efficient building construction will be insured during the building permit application review. Solar orientation will be discussed under the Solar Balance Point Orr'inance on page 5 of,his report. Floodplain Policies 1. These policies require that flood plain areas be designated as Protection Open ' Space, These policies are implemented through the development standards which will be reviewed later in this report. 3` VAR 4-93 • Page 3 of 10 , r' , b • - N ,r • - is - , t+ t b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations, including: 1,, Zoning Code Requirements and Analysis: ei ..,,••••. The site is zoned R-7.5 which requires a minimum lot area of 7,500 square foot per dwelling unit[LOC 48,210]. The required minimum lot width at the building line is 65 feet and the required minimum lot depth is 100 feet [LOC 48.210(1)]. j,°Yy` The determination of minimum setbacks from property lines, lot coverage and • maximum height is based upon whether the proposed construction is defined as • "new construction" or is an alteration that does not qualify as new construction. `• '` '°'¢' ti LOC 48.015(44.2)defines "new construction"as: +•e. 141 "(a) Construction of a new structure, or (b) Alteration of an existing structure which increases the building footprint by more than 25 percent or height by more than ten percent. The proposed addition meets the definition of"new construction" since a second level is being added, increasing the height by more than 10 percent. The following site limitations are applicable: Setbacks Ref i_r_etd Existing Proposed . '' Front yard 25' 25' 25' Rear yard 30' 15' Side 25'; with balcony 18,5' yard10' 5' & 6.5' 5' & 6.5' Oswego Lake 25' 2.5' 18.5' to balcony 0 . Maximum lot coverage 2 % 39.46% 36% +deck Maximum height 28' flat lot, 1 story 26.5' 43' sloped lot 1. The existing house does not meet the current 10—foot side yard setbacks, rear yard setback, Oswego Lake special setback or maximum lot coverage requirements. LOC 48.700(2)(b) permits the reconstruction of a nonconforming residential structure in a manner which does not increase the nonconformity, Therefore, the setbacks to the original foundation are applicable for new construction which dues =, o not increase the nonconformity, By adding a second story at the nonconforming • foundation setback, the nonconformity is being increased, hence the necessity for variance approval. . , The lot exceed the minimum lot area but does not meet the 65 foot width at building line requirement. LOC 48,535(4) designates a 25—foot special street setback on Lake Front Road. The ' 4"��.; applicant has not demonstrated compliance with this requirement, eyelopment Cgd Rr uirementt root AnalY� The subject variance review application is appropriately being processed as a Class I variance, Other than the applicable Development Standards, there are no Development Code requirements applicable to this request, 0 '. . • VAR 4-93 Page 4 of 10 J J. F i • • • 1, z J ' r Tree Cutting Ordinance This ordinance prescribes a tree cutting permit to cut all trees greater than 5 inches z'. in diameter at 4.5 feet above mean ground level at the base of the tree, Photographs of the subject property show at least one tree in the front yard. However, the site plan does not show any trees. As proposed, no trees are needed to be cut because of ' the construction of the new house. Solar Balance Point Ordinance ";, (Exhibit 4,pages 5 and 7)explains that adding a second F .. The applicant's narrative story to the house will not have any appreciable impact upon solar access to adjacent ,dwellings because of the north—south orientation of the lot and no houses are located north of the lot. The Solar Balance Point Ordinance requirements will be met. . " c. The applicable Development Standards The following development standards are applicable for the subject proposal. Parking and Loading(7.005—7,040), This standard requires that each single—family dwelling provide two off—street parking spaces in addition to those found in a garage or carport [LOC 48.015). The '>, , site plan illustrates that sufficient area is provided in front of the garage to comply ` with this standard. Drainage Standard for Mm9r Dev •lonmerrt (1 005 12 (1dt11 tln � The standard requires that no development adversely affect neighboring properties. Drainage for the proposed construction will be reviewed and approved during the building permit application process to ensure compliance with this standard. Flood Plain (17,005— 17.03Q) The purpose of this standard is to regulate development within flood plains. The ' N Flood Insurance Rate Map indicates that the flood plain elevation for Oswego Lake is 101 feet above sea level. The site plan illustrates that the building envelope is u• approximately 124-126 feet above sea level. The house is not proposed to be built within the flood plain, Compliance with this standard is met. Site Circ ihtion Standards Drivewwc (j9 QQ 12nen • This standard requires that driveways for single family dwellings not exceed 20 +, percent grade or 5 percent cross slope, and prescribes driveway construction standards. The site plan illustrates compliance with this standard, d. Any applicable future PG street plans or ODPS There are no such plans which affect this site. • Variance Criteria and Anal sis • In early 1992, setbacks, lot coverage, and height limitations of the zone code were modified to respond to the overlarge in—fill homes which were being built on small g k • VAR 4-93 Page 5 of 10 1 ' Qer ' v '• • : .., • . 1+^ e ♦ lots and the effect these structures had on adjacent properties. The intent of the code• k modifications was to create greater amounts of open space between and around structures to insure that neighborhood character was maintained, 0 . 4.r l Staff finds that the subject request for multiple variances is in conflict with the intent F F of the policies which created the recent setback restrictions. The number variances requested, the recent adoption of new, more restrictive codes and the concern of adjacent property owners (see Exhibit 5) has led staff to place this request before the Board for review. This application addresses policy issues which could also affect the review of future applications. As per LOC 48.650(1), the followinG criteria must be considered when evaluating request for a Class I variance: a r' � a a. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship; The applicant's narrative explains that the 7,670 square foot size of the lot, v ,. with an average width of 60 feet restricts the construction of a dwelling which is comparable in size and amenities to similar properties existing 2,038 square foot home is located five feet the hwee st and east side e lot lines and 25 feet of the front and rear property lines, The building footprint exceeds the maximum lot coverage by approximate) 15 option to enlarging the house is to build up, y percent. The only The narrative explains that there are numerous construction and design flaws, such as extensive dry rot, nonexistent or insufficient insulation, single—paned glass, noncompliance with plumbing and electrical codes, all of which make remodelling impractical. Furthermore, the foundation and structural design the existing house cannot support a second storyy. Thus, the property owner propose to demolish the existing house and rebuild a two—story house within the existing building footprint. The applicant comments that the hardship in this case i'• that construction of a home comparable to the established land use pattern for similar properties is constrained by the size and physical configuration of the lot. The lot is 7,670 p'� square feet in area and has an average 60—foot width. ' ' Response: The lot is 7,670 square feet in area which exceeds the minimum lot size in the R-7.5 zone. However, the lot width at the building line is less than the required 65 feet. Other properties along Lake Front Road are , > similarly sized--some larger in area, others significantly smaller in area and nonconforming in size, The lot is rectangular in shape and relatively , flat over most of the lot. The slope drops off about 25 feet at the lake edge. There are no trees on the site which will be impacted by the building footprint. There is little about the property which limits flexibility in architectural design. Prior to June, 1992, side yard setbacks in the R-7.5 on one side with a combined side yard total of 15 eetn e were 5 feet minimum The applicant cant has •submitted photographs (Exhibit 6), site plans (Exhibit 7) and written documentation (Exhibit 4) illustrating the setback nonconformity rf many dwellings along the lake, These houses may not meet one or both bwde yard requirements, front, rear or Oswego Lake setbacks or a combination of setb • requirements, The applicant comments that reasonable use similar to like VAR 4-93 Page 6 of 10 P,' properties cannot be made of the subject property without the variances • requested. Response: Alterations of several homes cited by the applicant, Exhibits 4 and 7, were made in the 70's and 80's,prior to the setback changes in 1992. It ' • was the intent of the code changes to reduce or prevent the kind of alterations and new construction that had created the narrow yards between houses. The existing house is approximately 2,000 square feet in area. This is smaller than many houses on the lake; however, many •other houses on the south side of Lake Front Road and in the .', neighborhood are smaller than the existing house. The proposed house will be approximately 4,000 square feet in area, again smaller than some • houses on the lake, but larger than many other houses in the immediate neighborhood. The narrative states that unless the requested variances are granted, the applicants will not be able to make a similar use of their property as has been permitted on other like properties; however, the property owners have not provided evidence that a house could not be designed which would give comparable square footage and meet the current setbacks. • The narrative comments that the property owners had no role in creating the hardship relating to the typical use made of properties around the lake and their inability to make a similar use of their property if they are required to meet all the setbacks. Response: The property owners are responsible for creating a design which does not • comply with zone limitations. If the existing house is to be demolished, new foundations constructed, and there are no phsyical constraints, the hardship is created by the persons requesting the variance. The applicant has submitted considerable evidence that the property owners would be negatively impacted if the variance requests are denied. The County Assessor's records demonstrate that the subject property has an appraised value of$333,730,of which $57,810 is prorated to the house, about 17 percent of the total value of the property. One nearby lot was shown to have an appraised value of$426,860. Another nearby lot has an appraised value of$421,950, but sold in 1990 for$650,000. The applicant has also submitted a copy of a flyer(Exhibit 8) and a letter from • Louise Knauss Baldwin, a realtor who attempted to market the property for two years (Exhibit 9). According to the realtor, prospective buyers desired a larger home and one without the physical flaws that the subject house has, ' 3 : The applicant also documented costs which have been incurred in,preparing tea. • and modifying the architectural plans and the expense of redesigning the plans if the variances are not approved. The narrative comments that the original plans were prepared two years ago prior to the current setback limitations. Response: The applicant has submitted substantial evidence that the existing house ' •• ` is not up to building code standards and is not valued very highly as a • marketable commodity in its present condition. The property owners have spent a considerable amount of money to prepare design and • • " +�: working drawings for the construction of a new house, However, it . 4110 .. . . , . VAR 4-93I. Page 7 of 10 L should b at e noted that the proposed design would also have u' least,rear yard and Oswego Lake variances under the previous setback limitations. Staff finds that the difficulty or hardship in this situation is principally a self—imposed design problem, more than any other kind of problem and therefore does not meet Criteria No. 1. b. Developmentconsistent 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; The applicant's narrative states that the requested variances will have minimal ` impact upon the surrounding area. There will be no increase in traffic, the new f • • construction will maintain the existing setbacks and, thus, there will be no less • separation between homes than presently exists. Further, the new construction will not increase impervious areas appreciably and, therefore, will have no impact upon drainage, erosion or landslide hazards, The narrative comments that although the proposal is to add a second story to the house, the added height will not impact solar access and views from adjacent properties. No homes are located north of the property. The orientation and location of homes on both sides are such that the proposed second story will not impact the adjoining• J g properties, Response: Three neighborhood g property owners submitted written comments about the proposal (Exhibit 5). One owner commented that she did not object ` • to the proposal providing the rear yard encroachments did not affect he view of the lake. The site plan indicates that her view of the lake will n ' be negatively impacted because, accept for the upper level balcony, the rear of the new house lies within the existing house footprint, One citizen opposed approval of the variances because the majority of the homes on Lake From Road are modest in scale and, with few exceptions, have evolved in harmony with their neighbors over the years. The proposed residence would be out of scale with adjacent homy.,, not only in area, but also in height. F Another citizen objected to granting the v,utiances because the visual impact of such a large two—story house, so close to adjacent houses + • would create a very crowded, dense look. A solid two—story exterior Y • 1 :• wall on each side, one five feet from one property line and the other 6.5 feet from the other property line would dwarf the adjacent properties. This citizen also expressed concern about the property boundaries and requested that a survey be required to establish the boundaries and hence the 25—foot front yard setback from the street. • Photographs (Exhibit 6) and a site visit shows that many of the houses on the lake side of Lake Front Road are close to the road, but most of these - ,�' houses are one—story in height at the street level, Two—story houses at street level are usually set back from the street, Consequently, the "feel" on the street is one of modest, compatible scale. Staff supports the citizen concerns that the bulk of a two—story house, set 25—feet from till. ' street, five feet and 6.5 feet from side property lines is not in keeping with the scale and harmony of the neighborhood, .. VAR 4-93 `� Page 8 of 10 . . • .. ... Yoh;. '"r/ • Y . • V. ',. '......, .. .., 0 Staff recommends that a design be created which would respect the .:?:,, current setbacks or minimize the magnitude of the setback variances, the effect of which would provide the relief necessary to protect the '.` ambiance of the neighborhood. c. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the property; Exhibit 2 illustrates that the proposed house has a smaller building footprint than the existing one—story house. The narrative comments that the typical use �` r '4 of newer homes on lake front properties is for residences 4,000 square feet or larger in area. Unless the requested reductions are approved, the property owners will be unable to make a similar use of their property as has been permitted on like properties. A letter from the architect (Exhibit 10)comments that it is unlikely that a home of comparable square footage could be designed without variances for this lot. What is reasonable use of the property? The property currently is used for single family residential use, as are the other properties in the neighborhood. s. , One citizen commented that the house has been occupied as a residence for .;' years, either by the property owner or as a rental unit, Staff suggests that a house could be designed with no or fewer variances than , proposed which would make reasonable use (some residential use)of the property, reduce the scale of the structure, and minimize negative visual '' n impacts on the neighborhood. For example: a. Adhere to one side yard setback where the negative impact of a variance would be most significant. b. Eliminate the balcony from the second floor which would eliminate the Oswego Lake special setback, . c. Reduce the length of the house to comply with the rear yard setback: The request is not the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the property. d. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. . Comprehensive Plan policies require development that is compatible with • community character, enriches quality of life and minimizes adverse effects of growth on aesthetic character. Staff recommends that the applicant's proposal has not demonstrated compliance with these policies. Staff recommends that a reduction of the number and/or magnitude of the variances requested could comply with Comprehensive Plan policies, all code provisions and development standards which are applicable to a single family residence. 410 VAR 4-93 Page 9 of 10 a ,7 n },R 1 �� D. Conclusion » Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant and findings of this report, staff concludes that, as submitted, the proposal does not comply with all applicable criteria and should be denied. HI RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that VAR 4-93 be denied as submitted. • • 1. Tax Map 2. Site Plan 3. Elevations 4. Applicant's Narrative 5, Neighborhood Comments 6. Photographs 7. Site Plans of Neighboring Properties • 8. "For Sale' Advertisement 9. Letter from Louise Knauss Baldwin,received June 4, 1993 • • 10. Latter from John Finklea, Architect, dated May 28, 1993 • • • • • • • • • • • • VAR 4-93 l• Page 10 of 10 N,W,I/� S,E.I/4 S E T 2 S. R. I E. W, M. . wasp . . : :•r D. L.C. rq��.1 9nt pu • • : �• y. CLACKAMAS COUNTY ALBERT DUR•HI 9 , �I". loo` F, A. COLLAR( - w. 0 1. NO I( •..'NCz,n't 1ncw N 1/ • °°,`er At 4•4'13 1r SEE MAP 2 IE IOAC qfN/01 /E NO 1by t 1 1,.!.,, • 9 f f LAKE OSWEGO �> too 696 •�'�''''' .0:.." ,k t . , . ��y „4A 00 c g SINE d.•..� n.,,, .t , I� ��4,.00 4:I\ ° 2 \s j° . 1G°° 961 .f. 4o/ 01:;.. yOlo°-• A°°pc h ►'NN =;" rL , 1, i19 • • 121 w1 ° ISj off, a. . n 951 ` l 70' ` `t w 0.2 - ` h0 p,-, e..., 1' 4 \$�) SITE ts ` ,ti r a:'4' \ 0° \ If � 1 ter,6�`, d 9'' is •% /117.-.. '>' 2.0:31 u " r 00 r}! 1 +, r� , n' �� . t ry��' i (.7 ."\\ \, ^�, a��i J�yy \2 b5 i ! 7Q �1H "�i1.i,; r�V►, �r�`QC� yti 1 `\ t a„e �0 ,+� •,,w,\9,14\ } ° \; 1 0.194c h o 600 t 5 0, ,w, ti, �� .. \I 40 i 1i rh4 (� 0 i• �'" 1 bf• A � i +?6 „�C A O Q to 4/� Yf ,�� -�M 4) J \\s e 6 e 6�('° 2 goo a • M \°° ° �µ . , 106 , f �' p 39©p `y f 1! y A Ni 12, 0. �`� J • •5 A , '' \_�.:-",•�'1� °°\ Lr ...,-' c 91t ° •TO ° 1 '„sd 1, .< t l di• I° . ,A°Se'r.)()I i i/9,5.90 1 i'l:* 00 Rt. i° r, , 4 .'1 yJ LL •b® 17^- f �f� ,:\i, ''•i A _.. Ot I 't it, 'r1 � `'`,� y ° �4. ' V '° \ �J1 'y `� YS:\*. AV4 '1 EXHIBIT .. ,von \ b \ ry., ° lift - `tf t"'1S,A •t '�,,,* /,//;;n : it,,, a • 1� ' A ft2 V`�' 1'b A ',p \O Ab i' -_k> "/�,tq t A��Pc• 5 '`?f Aa h73S IN fy 74,,0�, ,t. ', t ' ,', t,' 'f 9 e+ - ,, ,f . N 02 ALERT A • 4_93 PLC 3GOO V ,'A G� A 1��,5 ,b'► ff, N LINE OF C A COLLARD t)LC NW '— .try r 4 n\. 4 I 1 f-„ in du \ 1.,. +, 1 Jw ' r A IT fn H t+ q 1U 1 e Jtl 1 Ir' tw �A,. �w B / . ' .. e . . 5.: : , ,. CO -.,AA -- - O _. �tlbt� .... . . GE .. . . ... .._ btdP .. ‘,..,.....t., ...... 1111 1, \....\..--..-..,,..,.,....4-l0.st_....0..., ' r i111�iU� :,. r r \ \_ 1 t i►1�\� ` •IID T.L. IroDD / rr r rr {/L�. / �/ /r �� I±d .. tit/, -r l �'y�� PROPOSED 12Q?.t? 1 ♦ NOf'IE \ �Z� \ EX151114 la 7t`1E \u , V1.0 \ \ ‘`;',. Y{Y • \` / ` M M A_ Y• % • L____ . . •••• • \ •_, , . . ,,,, . ., -, \ , - \\ .. . ,..- \ .. . ,s.., At \ 0 .. j. . 'd �. f' \ .... T.L. 18D0 \ / \.,--\ ‘ ,,00:1 in r SCALE: I. 30' V>37\ ' r ..,I. '` ��93APR 3 • • a. A S-foot variance to the 10-foot tide yard setback along the west property line; e ' • b. A 3.5-foot variance to the 10-foot side yard setback along the West property line; ! c. A 6.5-foot variance to the 2,1-foot minimum Oswego Lake Special Setback; SITL I d. An l 1,5-foot variance to the 30-foot rear yard setback; t� M• e. A variance from LOC 48.700(2)(b)Which allows the enlargement of a nonconforming d EXHIBIT structure only when such enlargement does not increase the nonconformity of the structure, , Z LINIDA 4 SKI= O ` VAR 4r-_ 9 VARIANCE 4FFL IC4TI'' T.L. 1`100, IE - IOC'S' i a 1 i . • , ' . • ,,• • • . , •. ' =)... • . . il • . .... , , . . „,,z`N-,--,-----1 1-------...\N N. . . II( —IV ml . , .,, . . c e LP••• ‘,., J. . A , ! • • •••••44 CFA,* . / " . • • N.. • , a . .0' • . t,---.--,.- __________.... ..........'•- • /'''':.:' '. NN. • . • • . . .. . ,....,..„___„..„.,. _... ....._....,..„..,._ _......___ . . . , ., . , . ..„ ,. ...4 . . ------------ T.,:...• ........ ,. ... A- _......... ....=.i_._............................_ ....._....................., _ , 141 i . .. ,..,.• ',. '• ''•; r, 4,,...t...1 7 FI C._•Vat 10,0 • t• • . 0 ,,-. • • .. .. , .. . . . . , . . • ., , , • • . ••. • r°-1 ./'/ '' 1 • N. • 4 • • t / N• II O.. • y t , • • ' .'. .= s . . , 'N • •. . . . • • F * .Li . . Er . , . . ,.. , , ... _ i , • ,r . ,, ,„ , L , ._.., _ ..... ,.,,,, : ., . ,,_, . { I _ L-.4'.1- 1 rf- Ill't'lip 1 l Ilil' , -,..-. ',. )1 A , . 1:: `.-....:_i•V ,..1, i , ; • 0 i • ., tAl• jg - ------.' I ---" 4 .. .0 t V 0 • . -• . . II N i pl p p 4-1 •Ii-, .11 4 :Ii / , t 4. .1- 4-- I 1 LILIIII r. . ,. I, t...... It , ; r; . 4 1 4 -- l' .........' Ill •4 4.1 4 0 It t ,,_1 ir st I'" II 0".....t...±4 -— ii EXHIBIT y, it ....." . * * • , • • .. , 1 ..i. " ' A. . 1' LL µ' 111, 1lo , • • ... ' ',, tui.....--411,--. L .. 1 .,......_____,_.....,_., , gi-ii.._. 1 _ _ .. ..‘ ..,,., 1(r. , . , . , 0. • . ... . . , . 1 . . .... . • . • . • I _,... .. ._.. ..._ . ._. . . . ._..... .......... . ._ _ _ . . . �' vie...I -01 6v,..rll'F4 .,,l y /.._ ~ i r. . I. 11\ -II ll 1 r l s.c �, '40 44, 1 % fir"_"t, //' ae _ _ Chitl1��I�h��I�1 Jul i )1/ ._ . IL �.. ..: 4, I ) ''�.v� 1 I I �Ir _INS r r✓ . . _• g .,...‘y • , _,. _\1 g • rA� 0. . ., IL { h •a_� ...: I ' 0 p.+•.r n r t•,.+t a-,ra _ . -. ._ . "' 1 P •• . CLASS I VARIANCE APPLICATION Skip & Lynda O'Neill ' • • . Request: ;P'` This application requests approval of variances to the minimum side and rear yard setback requirements of the R-7.5 zoning district. The property included in this application is locat- ed at 983 Lake Front Road in Lake Oswego. The subject property is described as Tax Lot 1700 of Assessor's Map No. 2S-1E-10DB. The parcel is situated on the north side of Lake •• Front Road and has frontage along its rear property line on Oswego Lake. The site is approximately 7,670 square feet in area. The average width and depth of the lot are approx- ' imately 60 feet and 127 feet, respectively. • �1 The applicants live in an existing single-story residence on this property which is sited within five feet of both side yards and 25 feet of the rear yard. They plan to demolish the existing home and construct a new two-story residence on the property. The new home will be constructed within the footprint of the existing dwelling. The subject property is a lake front lot which has high value as a custom home site, Over b the past 10 to 15 years many of the older homes around Oswego Lake have been extensively 4 HS ' ;• remodeled or reconstructed as large custom homes ranging in size from 3,000 to 8,000 or more square feet in area (see attached photographs and building plan data for similar s ' properties). The existing home on the subject property contains only 2,038 square feet and is not in keeping with the land use trend established in r':;cent years for such lake front properties. The applicants propose to construct a new home on the property which will be • ., approximately 4,000 square feet in area and which will be two-stories in height. However, ' ° " because the dimensional standards of the R-7.5 zone have been changed since this neigh- borhood was developed, reconstruction within this existing building footprint will require approval of the following Class I variances: r 1. A five foot variance to the 10 foot side yard setback requirement along the west " boundary of the property, .; 2. A 3,5 foot variance to the 10 foot side yard setback requirement alon3 the east proper- ty line. 3, An 6,5 foot variance to the 25 foot minimum Oswego Lake Special Setback.V *� 4, A variance from the provisions of LOC 48.700(2)(b), which allows the enlargement of l i r,' a nonconforming structure only when such enlargement does not increase the noncom fortuity of the structure, - ° 5, An 11,5 foot variance to the 30 foot rear yard setback of the R,.7,5 zone, 1 E X H 1 B I . 1vAR - �, Y ,T e • e Discussions with staff initially indicated that a variance to the 30 foot front yard standard of the R-7,5 district would be required in order to site the proposed home within 25 feet of { r w Lake Front Road. However, the homes on both adjoining properties (Tax Lots 1600 and 1800) have setbacks of less than 25 feet (17 feet and 4 feet, respectively). The General Exceptions provisions of the Zoning Ordinance (LOC 48.535(5)) will permit the new dwell- ing on Tax Lot 1700 to have a front yard as little as the average of these two setbacks — or 10.5 feet. Therefore, we believe that the proposal to site the new home within 25 feet of the "`` „y street does not require a variance to the 30 foot front yard setback standard, ✓'. Variance Criteria: R LOC Chapter 48.650 states that a variance may be granted if it is established that the crite- :.r ria Iisted below are satisfied: a. The request is necessa 'to prevent zuuzecessaty hardship; Response: LOC 48.650(2)a lists the following considerations to be used in determin- y ing whether a hardship exists: r ,, (1) Physical circumstances related to thepiece of property bwvolved. #sr ' Comment: The subject property is restricted in size and physical configuration, `" u w being only 7,670 square feet in area and averaging only 60 feet in width, such that '1b. ,. `. construction of a home comparable to the established land use pattern for simi- lar properties is constrained on this site. .ti: F Because of the limitations imposed by the revised setbacks of the R-7.5 district r and the structural design of the existing home, the existing residence cannot be enlarged without approval of setback variances. The building footprint of the existing home is located within 5 feet of side lot lines and 25 feet of front and rear property lines so there is no opportunity for horizontal expansion. Planning staff has advised the applicant that non-conforming use provisions of the Zoning ` Ordinance would permit building a second story above the existing home if the • structure was designed so hat the second story walls would be stepped in to '" ° "" t• r o. conform to the new setback requirements. However, the applicants' architects }";' have determined that the foundation and structural design of the existing home `` cannot support a second story,pP Thus, the only option available to expand the r home in a manner consistent with the use of other similar lake front properties is ' • to demolish the home and rebuild as a two-story residence. ; ' 'h •, r r ri • r.. ` 2 'i. hi l 4 /t (2) Whether a reasonable use similar to like properties can be made of the property ` j tr• without the variance, Comment: Nearly every home in the immediate vicinity of the subject property 7 °' is located within five feet of the side yards and 25 feet of the front and rear yards ' u a of their individual lots. Many of the homes have setbacks less than These set- ' backs were applicable at the time this area developed. The adjoining homes on Tax Lots 1600 and 1800 are sited within five feet of their side lot lines, and less • : than 25 feet of their front and rear lot lines. These homes, however, are single A story structures and are smaller than the home proposed to be constructed by , the applicants. However, there are many homes in the area Sited on like proper- ,�, ties which are similar in size and height to the use the applicants are proposing. J O r '` Tax Lot 1500 (969 Lake Front Road) is developed with a residence which, according to Clackamas County Assessor's records, was built in 1932 and was extensively remodeled in 1986. The house is a two story structure which has a living area of 3,067 square feet. The house on Tax Lot 1500, while somewhat ^` smaller than the home proposed by the applicants, is still nearly 50 percent `'. larger than the applicants' existing home. The property is nearly identical to the subject property in terms of lot size, shape and orientation to Oswego Lake. The • house, according to the building permit site plan, is located within 41 inches of k; , the side lot line at the original building's foundation and 6 feet at the foundation o '. of the remodeled two-story addition. The rear yard setback scales at 20 feet. The residence at 1115 Lake Front Road was extensively remodeled in 1979. The building permit data does not provide information on the number of square feet \ this home contains, but it is a large home with two stories over a daylight base- ,}.. : ment. The home scales as approximately 56 feet wide and 75 feet deep. The property is similar to the subject property in that it is zoned R-7,5, is about 7,500 to 8,000 square feet in area and backs up to Oswego Lake. The lot is somewhat I wider than the , ubject roe `. property rty (70 vs. 60 feet). Side yard setbacks on this x.` property scale at about 7 to 8 feet, The front yard setback scales at approximate- ` ly 21 feet, and the rear yard setback is dimensioned as 10 feet, The home at 1455 Lake Front Road is also situated on a property which is very p similar to the subject property: R-7.5 zoning, similar size and similar width, and 4 it also backs up to Oswego Lake. The residence on this lot is a three level home which contains a total of 3,434 square feet of living space on the first and second stories, and 2,270 square feet of living space in the daylight basement. The total square footage is 2.8 times that of the applicant's existing home and is more than 1,000 square feet larger than the home they propose to build on their property. The home has an attached three car garage where the applicants are only pro- "" , posing a two car garage, This home has five foot side yard setbacks, 20 foot front yard setbacks, and a 25 foot minimum rear yard setback, 3 ' 1 • I s. •y, 4 I. ,d 0. ( . • :',• The residence at 1505 Lake Front Road is also a three story structure. It con- 0 : ' , '° " ` °' tains 4,300 square feet of living area, or more than double the applicants' existing home. The applicants' proposed home is approximately the same square foot- v n age as this residence. This home is situated on a property like the subject property in that it is zoned R-7.S and backs onto Oswego Lake. The home has five foot side yard setbacks and a 10 foot front yard setback. The rear yard setback is approximately 25 feet. ,. : ; 1" The homes discussed above are typical of recent construction around Oswego • Lake. The applicants are providing photographs of other homes in other neigh- '' borhoods around the lake. Many of these homes, particularly several homes on North Shore, are even larger than those discussed above, All of these newer homes have larger, more spacious rooms and significantly more living area than does the applicants'existing home. It is clear fro,at thephotographs and the data ' 4 provided above, that the applicants are proposing to make a similar use of their property as has been permitted on like properties around the lake. It is also clear that these similar uses have been permitted to be constructed closer to their property lines than present setback provisions would permit. Unless the requested variances are granted, the applicants will not be able to make a similar : :- use of their property as has been permitted on these other like properties. . (3) Whether the hardship was created by the person requesting the varance. io 4 , . Comment: The hardship relates to the typical use made of properties around / the lake and the applicants inability to make a similar use of the subject property is the required setbacks are strictly enforced. The applicants have had no role in creating this hardship. • (4) The economic impact upon the person requesting the variance if the request is .A, denied. • Comment: County Assessor's records demonstrate that those homes which have been permitted to undergo extensive remodels have significantly higher ap- praised values than the subject property. Tax Lot 1900 which was remodeled in 1987 has an appraised value 018426,860. Tax Lot 1500 has an appraised value of ' �;! $421,950 but sold in 1990 for $650,000, The subject property has an appraised •�� r value of $333,730, or approximately $90,000 dollars less than those homes which have been recently remodeled, If this variance request is denied, the applicants will not be able to realize the fair economic value of this lake front property. W tti G . , ,, . . t . . ... , . , do „,, .....t 4 r N i • k�!, 0 . �l 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; Response: LOC 48.650(2)b lists the following considerations to be used in determin- '' ing whether development consistent with the variance request would be injurious: (1) An analysis of the physical impacts such development will have, such as visual, ` ' noise, traffic and the increased potential for drainage, erosion and landslide hax- ards. M :r, The requested variance will have minimal impact upon the surrounding area. The variance will permit the construction of a second story on the existing home. • : ` There will be no increase in traffic associated with this proposal because the use �•• will remain single-family residential. The new construction will maintain the existing setbacks and, thus, there will be no less separation between homes than presently exists. The new construction, because it will be built over the existing home, will not increase impervious areas appreciably and, therefore, will have no x..., impact upon drainage, erosion or landslide hazards. ,,. , '• '' The remodeling will result in the home on the subject property being taller than the existing single-story residence. This raises concerns regarding impacts on solar access and views from adjacent properties. The subject property is situated with its long dimension on a north-south axis. No homes are located to the south • of the subject property. The homes on both sides of the subject property have t no windows on their side lot lines abutting the subject property. Given these ,, conditions, the increased height of the structure will not have any impact upon solar access for adjacent properties. Similarly, there will be no impact upon 4 • views from adjoining properties associated with the approval of these variances. The homes on Tax Lots 1600 and 1800 have unobstructed views of Oswego Lake. As shown on the site plan, the orientation of these homes is angled slightly away from the subject property so that the proposed construction will have no potential to impact views from these residences, The home across the street on Tax Lot 2700 has no view of the lake at this time, and therefore, cannot be h impacted by the proposed dwelling, (2) The perceptions of residents and owners of property in the neighborhood concerning the incremental impacts occurring as a result of the proposed variance, Comment: Prior to the submittal of this application the applicants held a neigh- Y+'.1 : .:•. borhood meeting in their home to discuss the proposed variance. None of the ; • neighbors attending had objections to the request. 1 5 , w. a p r r , «t +1 _r y _ r L 4tl jr2, r 'i'�• � I • • c. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the properly; 0 '. `, Response: The side and rear yard setbacks for the existing home are already estab- lished at five and twenty-five feet, respectively. The proposed new construction would be situated within the footprint of the existing home. As cation, the typical use of newer homes on lake front properties like the subject ubsed earlier ethns apple- ty is for residences 4,000 square feet or larger in area. J ct proper- are approved, the applicants will be unableto make a similar requested reductionsa use of their property as has been permitted on like properties, d The request is not in conflict with the comprehensive Plan. a .y } There are no specific policies in the Comprehensive Plan which relate to side yard setbacks. Therefore, the granting of this variance application will not be in conflict with the Plan. rz. 0 ''' .::;' ;r• •ix. • A •.4, U.• - ' #'j e ' ' • 14 r ' • 'S ' 6 • r + • { 1 • e. O'NEILL VARIANCE APPLICATION b MAY 12 1993 • VAR 4-93 , . COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES I. OSWEGO LAKE POLICIES , Oswego Lake is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as Protection Open Space. Because the subject property fronts on the lake and because a variance is being re- quested to the special Oswego Lake setback standards, this variance application must be weighed against the provisions of General Policy III, which has the general policy goal of protecting Oswego Lake from damage. Specific Policy 2 requires that the city prevent damaging increases in storm water • runoff. The proposed reconstruction of this home will have no impact upon peak runoff because the building footprint, and hence the impervious area on the property, is somewhat smaller than is the existing building footprint. Specific Policy 4 requires that appropriate building setbacks from shorelines with Potential for LandsliC..t Hazard be established. The proposed new home will be con- x 41 ° structed within the building footprint of the existing home and, thus, will not be any • closer to the lake and any potential hazards than presently exists. Further, soils on this property are very shallow, with rock outcroppings present in the re; r yard area, a• '' Therefore, there is little potential of landslide hazard on this property, IL DISTINCTIVE NATURAL AREA POLICIES The Plan identifies Oswego Lake as a Distinctive Natural Area. General Policy I requires the protection of native tree stands in Distinctive Natural Areas, The pro- posed reconstruction of the home on the subject property would not impact any trees because the house will be sited within the footprint of the existing home on the proper- ; ty III, ENERGY CONSERVATION POLICIES • General Policy II encourages energy conservation through the land use review process, ' Specific Policy 5 implements the General Policy by requiring consideration of solar ° • orientation and other energy conserving measures in subdivisions and site design x' review applications, The proposed reconstruction would increase the height of the • home on the property by adding a second story to the building, However, because the lot is oriented north-south and because Oswego Lake is located immediately to the r / 'Y Y .•a., r is north of this property, the increased height of the home will not have any appreciable impact upon solar access to adjacent dwellings. IV. FLOOD PLAIN POLICIES • •z General Policy II requires that flood plain areas be designated as Protection Open Space. The Flood Insurance Rate Map for the subject area indicates that the flood . plain elevation for Oswego Lake is 101 feet above sea level. Topographic information provided on the site plan demonstrates that the building envelope is at an approximate elevation of 126 feet above sea level. Thus, the proposed home location is not within the 100 year flood plain and is not subject to these Plan policies. •n' R • • J,• rr: f r .,f • • • IA �•' t ..),.. i... • PLANNING a RESOURCES, ` .4 INC. • LAND•USE.&.SITE Pl..4NNl. SERVICES • 1Y r , Y,F . , ,r M June 4, 1993 Ms. Liz Jacob City of Lake Oswego Dept. of Planning and Development 380"A"Avenue J U N 4 1993 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: File No. VAR 4-93 Dear Ms.Jacob: The purpose of this letter is to provide supplemental information on the above-referenced case file relative to the economic hardship which would be experienced by Skip and Lynda O'Neill if their variance application is not approved. • As you know, the applicants received approval of a building permit prior to the adoption in 1992 of the new setback standards for the R-7.5 district. Those plans, which are modified only slightly for this variance applicaton, cost the applicants more than $19,000, as docu- " mented by the attached letter from their architect, Mr. John Finklea. Unless the requested variance is approved, these plans will have to be discarded and all of the fees for architec- tural services will have been wasted. This event would result in a considerable economic ° hardship for my clients. Mr. Finklea further indicates that the cost of redesigning a new floorplan to fit the revised setbacks would range from $18,000 to $26,000, and that it is unlikely that a home of similar square footage could be constructed on this property, there- by resulting in an even greater economic hardship. ° An even more significant economic hardship, however, relates to the existing inconsistency between the value of the lot on which the applicants home is located and the value of the home, itself. A copy of the Clackamas County Assessor's tax assessment statement for the subject property is enclosed with this letter. As you will note, the land has a real market ' : value of$339,220. This value, which is extremely high for a 7,600 square foot lot in Lake • Oswego, reflects accurately the price of property fronting on Oswego Lake. The existing home, however, is assigned a real market value of only $57,810, or less than 15 percent of the total value of$397,030, This extreme disparity between land value and the value of the home has resulted in the applicants being unable to market this property for a reasonable value. A copy of a letter from Ms. Louise Knauss Baldwin of Cronin & Caplan Realty Group, Inc,, who attempted to market this property for two years (April 16, 1990 to April 19, 1992) is also enclosed. In her • letter, Ms. Baldwin states, "Without fail, all the prospective buyers who admired the home, said that the home was too small in relationshipto the value of the land, Buyers also prefer a traditional style of architecture (rather than contemporary) when purchasing property in the upper price range", Thus, unless the applicants are permitted to construct a home substantially similar to the proposed plan, in terms of both size and style, they will not be 4. able to realize an economic return on this property consistent with its value as a lake front . 4110 lot, The magnitude of the resulting economic hardship could well run into hundreds of thousands of dollars, M Z 6564 S,E. Lake Road Mllwaukle, Oregon 97222 • (503) 652-2478 FAX (503) 653-9095 Y. W V• A third economic hardship relates to the lessened value of the existing home due to design and construction flaws. These flaws, which are of sufficient magnitude that ' `' the existing home and construction of a new one is the only practical means demolition addressing f • the situation, are as follows: of 1. The existing home has no wall insulation and has only R-12 roof insulation. All glass in the home is single-pane, and the glass makes up 30 to 35 percent of the wall area, �, Thus, the cost of heating the home is excessive. 2. The home has extensive dry rot. 3. When the home was constructed in 1959, galvanized plumbing wns installed through h the concrete slab. Subsequent electrolysis of these pipes required their replace .g The plumbing was replaced with the installation of new pipes on thes mehe interior walls. outside of the 4. The electrical system is a 2-wire system and has no ground. 5. The comrete slab for the home is only 3-4 inches thick and the foundation has been determined by two architects to be unable to support a second story remodel. Given all of these flaws, the prospect of selling the property for a reasonable return without 0 . - . : doing the proposed remodel is made even more improbable. u For all of the above reasons, the approval of the requested variances is necessary considerable economic hardship upon the applicants. As you how, nearly all of the homes in this area are sited with setbacks which do not meet the revised code requirements and • which are comparable to those requested by the applicants. Further, the existing one-story ' tia construction is out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. An inventory of homes on Lake Front Road indicates that 38 of the 48 homes on this street are two, or sto- • ries in height. The approval of this variance would allow the applicants to avoid an unneces- sary hardship and would make the home more compatible with the character of the area. Sincerely yours, Richard Givens cc: Lynda & Skip O'Neill • f i ' V. Y May 19, 1993 • q I agree to the variance for Skip and Linda O'Neill per Site Plan dated April 23 , 1993 . (See attached) . The Site Plan indicates to me that the proposed new home will not extend toward the Lake any further than the existing house which will be removed. I would object to any further encroachment into the Oswego Lake Special Setback than what currently exists. ‘4475' .54,-(1-, (1 ' ) l .4 iz J cob, Associate P •nn.r Da . * .' Planning Dept. City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 w • ti. 410 ` - EXH S T 6 - Sys. 1.4't 4 9 3 • 1 ' 4 ,. . . , ... . .. , . , . ,. ani ARTHUR 1. W I L S O N, A R C H I T E C T e . . . . . . , 976 LAKE FRONT ROAD, LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 TELEPHONE: • 636.2172 • • M 2 0 ;;^; , , May 18, 1993 , Ms. Elizabeth Jacob Associate Planner City of Lake Oswego P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Re: File No. VAR 4-93, 983 Lake Front Road . Dear Ms. Jacob: << As Owners and Residents within 300 ' of the above subject property, Mrs. Wilson and T wish to go on record as objecting • '"to approval of the proposed variances. The majority of homes on Lake Front Road are modest in scale and, with few exceptions, have evolved in harmony with their neighbors over the years. The proposed residence, if allowed to be constructed as planned, would be out of scale with adjacent homes, not only in area, but in height as well. N Most people, without construction experience, find it difficult to visualize the finished product from a set of construction contract documents. This is why we felt it necessary to explain our concerns and objections to the proposed variances . 4 Yours very truly, :551:; . s Arthur L. Wilson ,_ ..-t••14 4.t i •i* # ...'<-1-...I 1:jr 4.24.es 1/ 1 Susan Gilson 1110 - - , . ., , , . . ; ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT .2... . IA OW2 .iannly ihli:arn IJrf well 'T 1r,IT Childs Road " - - Lafr i Oswego, IJF" 97635 4. ,MAY, 2,a x,!►.4 ' r 5I;'i I_,'�.'I;r-,:i.474 i I,,'i7t th •Jilir.11n a:;:,nr:1nte Planner I_I r.0 i i r Lake I_Iswegc + i 'F iJBJ`I_r Fill, No VAF, -93 cooncerning 'a83 Lakefront Road I ,tirr°I 'Mr ]t•trin rn Corririent on the rive class 1 Variance'$ that Prchard Givens appIINr1 tnr' iZn behalf of Skip and Lynda IJ'i'JeiII ir:i tear down and t++.t1Id a new home at 953 Lakefront Road. • That property is directly across the street from a home I own at 951:r Lakefront Rood. y • •Iyucpr'tunately, I aril only being given ten days to respond to this application, + ° per the nntrl;p or pending action Mailed from the City of Lake Oswego and • rim iJ+i Hay I i vox:, Informed by Liz Jacob that the OINeills had held pi neighborhood ,'netting earlier" this year to discuss their proposed home. However, e 'en though rl I am one of the property owners most affected by these variance rog1.1o' ts since my home is opposite theirs, I was not invited to the meeting. ,According to ssigned moil receipt', that are in the file, the daughter of my renter received eived the notice of a meeting, and the information was not. passed pin Sri rr'Ia f311t hilt It was not t'rly cantor'=, reeporr.:,ibllty to tell me 01 the meeting. Hy Current address is on record at the Clackamas CoountIJ i:, .es_,I_Ir"'s office, and a notice should have been sent to me • • Betor-e i comment on the Variance Requests, I strongly request that. a y' y Boundary Survey be required According to Liz Jacobs, the applicants: did not :I.JtIt'tit t one. I request a Survey, because it does not appear that the present gat—ale is 5 feet back from the front. property line I suppose, yearsago ` '!ot'larl f r1N existing nouse was built., that. strict adherence +'', .. proGlNrf.y lino': ,� rr'ere not enforced. To su000rt this. there is a surveu stick In Helen Iiri g's • - 4.0 =a�ir°Id tienI. door' ti: show' that the O'Neill''s property line actually e: ';"nd: into ' • , i 3 f v a .. 1i ,\ Page IwI_I • .*:.• ...:: n. PE, VAR' 4-la 3 _• Or.ig+a': flower bed, Lakefront R11ad is a narrow, and somewhat •„ inding ' +-+J'J+J with no sidewalks and front setbacks are really crucial. i'•loo , to focus on the Givens-O'Neill Variance Applications, let's be clear A•t1yt tti►:; really lu is. The Variance r;Appli . ations are really a request to build •a new house, not _.implu to add a second story to an axic;t.ltirl d+r'r'eliina, as. 'JN:+_r-'beed in the Notice of Pendinla Action. object to three of the fivee requested Variances: 1. A 5 fool variance of the ..!!:le yard 'setback on the west property line; A 3 5foot :, ia. yard setback onthe - variance of the a east property line; . The 1 a 1.linrnr-rr1 _.t t et ty 1 e; �� 1 enlarging or in+a 'structure increases the nonconformity r'lue to these two *'�11,1Q';tf+ly �;��ar"lyrll-:e:; f ` "he house Y,,'1iuld be proportionally too wide for the lot. I !„cIl to this already danseju built _treat. The �'i ' ?1 nrle a crowded / , sLI�aI 'Imp�aCi, cif a structure 1'_ 1f the criteria used in determining whether developmet'It per a request :• Injurious to the neighborhood, or to established .� ' property y According t o ,rltl,rn,atIon from the Planning Department, the house would be 41 ' wide, ,e,a+, in a side setback of 5 feet on one side, and 6,5 feet on the other. r This. house would dwarf the adjacent neighbors' homes, WiHi a solid two dory e,Oterlorwall on each side,five feet from one property line, and 6 5 '"S.r_t. worn+:et'rl tlr? other her And, the roof peaks In the center front at 34 feet high, according to Lip Jacobs. However, if the standard side set r • .back._ of 10 feet were enforced, there • • ::uld be a buffer space between the t s ructures. The standard setbacks p 'flh1ll� �91:-,r1 q1�;�! abetter proportion to the :structure itself :.lt► I� on the lot • • I. 'Ina back to Item i i ) lnde" J. o f pnint 5 ..,f the Basic Procedure outline of .-, 1 Variance Procedure, it states, Linder "a" that •a variance maq be lr arlted "to prevent unnecessary hardship " There would be no unnere4Aarj. ., "„1N ,a_ ,� r'o_t.Jltoifavingtoladhereto e, house "ode. 1, use r Jf almost .4►.I feet -"lath +:I.11.l1d1ogellybebuilt. . • rf' i• IIt ttI :,rtrr'Ie number. it state that 'the requestis = I r'I:1_N': t r`I e minimum in:r_ saru to r�`lahe reasonable use 1"i the . • Il I .f ornrler"tla. . MCIt,iI,II.I�•11� J!. ,, ri the case, because there i°_ a lovely house on the praper"ty now 0 • • 4 • •1111111111111111111 Page Three „a RE. VAR 4-9 r . The ',,',?y l i es i i'v'e j there for years. Then the O'Nei l l's rented it Hilt to a I.arri:1 ,'Dr a, while, until they moved into It a few years ago. Therefore, there is re!.-ionar•lie. use being made of the property tloW'I And the present. ho►.I':::e i': Ito-active, because the existing side variances are balanced by the fact that in, nir'r1N is me storm, with a flat roof. , .r, :.i.itiimoru, I reiauest that a Boundary Surveu be required, to it tablish the J property line. I also object to the variances in the aidr! lot setbacks, Li innec.essory. Adherence to the setbacks 'v'r'ould not cause ilnneces arq ^ r, `'..r -_sl;'n and would promote a building more harmonious to thee, site and the .91,pol:'rh000d. i cirri iiii: ing thi? tlrrle acid effiirt to i:or'nrrient on these: van arir'1,i r.wgi.1est5,, 6�:ause i do not believe that waiving the side lot setbacks i'!:i , two ;tore .t.r tic Lure is good for the street. I am pleased that the O'Neill': are planning y..; to build a new home opposite mine. That is great forte neighborhoodd pp gh arid :r proper-tU values. I regret that we did not have the opportunity to discus '.h; : prior to the Notice of Fending Action from the city, but then I rYr'8'_, not inior-med before this, - t Sincerely, ' (... ---7,..--I-1,-(-- Oke4,-...A.7.----- . . . . , . .. Jonri►e (Ni:arn) Orkney • rr Mr Tom Coffee Pi,inninii, Director- •r I . JY ` ` il ! I-, 1 t.. • ( f . i • • • • . I_A ! 0SWeG • I . fr y Ear K3tOL«7MM• I Ir -.,.�..�..,.1 ....i..........st•,..94 v1iW.i. r.. I t atscxr iW,' 1� 4Mr r f. sswtMMs+ , ie... a t t , .V.. t r• t..,, , i I ...pot lbw..uM R +I �...�` r ,J _T .•Y.f 1 .I t 1 •f .,�. ,.,_.. ' 4.S 5.',,.;I ,.I•.�-�Blal.p(4p,IW►YM 7? �, �. .I��+ µLe y no I ., ,S '^7t1'1t1 1 `eo ® •' `•, $ •*tit \\1.71 I t y�'i• ii � -- � I .' tr_l „„,.. . .• • , .. . A r • ,,. • • J '' '' 1Z •:M'aj ti1'r •'.' Mn►Ti N�1.1 • r•t' t.: �• .,,, ' t>rlrr4 r 1 rtvowr.. lM..4',:l' V JrhPRYWu,r 4,e r , • ay T. '•'c_•,t',;, r„, •t.. I� r1 "r• • . • ate. `,I ---_ 411' I , . . 7 LY io:.., . -,, wa.r zr�.ioect t"rs f ••kilrl :::*A IJ ' L • "-51T�" PL +,N "r ItJ o LM q I 1 wer 41 Lavin, _.._ BA Y 1 f , . • .,a•.A.- v t V y i. t{i . .• • ,....,',' , •// , ! 7,.' JT..........; ! t 'e • ,,„.. : r•' . .7,. ..:111 '1 •/.. . • M t `.1• ` .. - •., i',�l �i'� 1 ,c �, ua • �'• :I1 Fes• i l! . .` .I,J.-. ,mac , � 0 .‘•. I Iry ♦ � ., 1 .. �\.,,.. w4{°i to ` y v M _"'~�•~—�•. ., _^...`�_. _�I am, 1—,' �'t 15 KorrtAftil. L • (C:: :•\\1 '`I(te, ... . a, ' ` �..► Set •� � .1 J.. yy•, I A- 1O,r I 1 • 0. �ay. s. I . : 1.ate1y +, k , . A 1 (.7i A il 1 . — . r� � s s �I f ` :' r � ` I `'�` " .ele / ' 1 " l i i I r Ith ., ............_..... ---."---"'",,,,... .. ..............‘"71.......7.1.--1....,_,TLZ-7.'"::::,;4,!.. .4:6,,,,,,&‘ I) ,./. ,1/44. \ / \ 1 / / ri • , . . II •!;:i _.-.7---- -----2--------46-- -_-_---i---- ---_---7-4-..._1--,: 1 " ' / '--- --. tir— ,e,.. ita. ...7%,_:_:_..&.• / f nit,.,\‘\ , \ A\ ,\x; ,. y , Q FVOF PIALI 1 ., , , , . 44.4441111112 ws,---::41--- ',.....'" •" 'I ---1 ..N. *N..:\,....v.....,,,N's .44'. , . / r . / "• ' : / I It;/ lira\A‘k\• "S kik,,..4,:‘\ / i / i ./ et:07 , ''''' '''.. / ,./ .,1411 \i'.. / I . —, ...-1,-'711 ‘k k\s's ''Nvs,\•,i„,'%•4.t.M,,,.4' , / / . / A . i . . . ..41,... k•\*\., ,... - $ . ..: • ro,.... , .,.41..*‘%\\ ''.. k . _ I ....4.1".' /....- / . %,,.,1: :'sv ' i / /.../ / 4- er I j' � r«nt4«t �r r(±L o I/s' + .I5-O' PI�� • •aAriM MO, n , ,A • 11V6T1a4 6a141/4 0.440411.0 ail .t , . . '• . i 1 I 116 ist° tai 0 PF rela4 A 417. • o t ` i .d, . . •t •• • '+ + •+ •1+` .ice`• .^�; aS.. 6. _ -1 '•. •..,._ .. . . . .. • . • . . • „ . • ., ' . ' . ' '.,,•., ,, ‘• .,:. • •,..!•-•••....; ''',.••• •'•.''',,•..; --'."...-:.,..:".' ''.•:•..'7. ''..'...s-'•'..•.4 •••.:'..'s.,'-: 1.`:*,-....:• ,' '''••:••'•,•. ' ••..• ..' : • •••••-•'. ...... • . ... ''• n.f.'••' .....,• '• '•.. ;.,...; ......•••:...•:.•..,,,..:•••:-.:-••.' .. .': .:: •,:... :ss . ., ... a .•,:f.."'..• '',.:1..9,4:01..t.4'....:.i.. ..1:•.:.•• •.I.,••••.,.,•• . ., A . • .., . n. ..•...,'•I . •n. I 'It . .. , . . .. ..• ;•••,Z.,... ,,•„. : I:. 1, ......'.1'1. 1,...• ' .y.'j'" •'.',' ." ' ' ''' .' % ' ' II ' . .':..,.. ,.:. ,. ...,...... .7e,S.,...,•....„. te. .•7 .,, • .,...• . • ., „ . . • , .. . . ...'1: 4 ;,.. .14.. 9 .9•4;•.r4:. .:,./••!,7. 4.1 e•9'. . ..• y .•t• tt• . 1. .9, . i•,..,:.1,4,....,.',...:',,.....2,..;.s..••:,.l...499..,.4 •* ..,,•••••••• ' ..:.• •.".,..;.,?............, ri.. ...•.....: .....t:.,..,, • _1611 . . . . . . , F."-e.:'•.r • ;•'...'1 ••••• '."' ',. '•'. ".r .• :,'••' •''''' . .4,' -„, ent.• ....i 'I '''•'' -•'''''$ 7. i•...lz'"1";...141:'..t;;;'.'''' '-'..• : '..:'•4....°..i 1.1%.i.•'.;.1. ,•(.,•.•.''' ''''!":1J% ..'•'.' , ,• .. . , .., f. 02 t•i'l "" • ...i'. .?.`7.t* :g •••••'••• " 1. • ' •' '• "• ''• • ' - .•' . • . , 4 .' ••, '.:. .•• . ,:.?.;411.',1.: '".:•,'.44ii .tli ....-k,:"'' : ,„• ''.4.. •. : - .. . ;• (1 . 0, ;:-.C...::•••41 ,.'1.••: 4';'.;,. .1 ';,'.: .(;':.'4:'t... '.'''44:••••?' ';••:,.1 ," .e.;:::• ‘....::4•ii.::' . i .. ... A....„1.: .••,;..31•'-,::....,•; .'; 44.1 4..%?..Le.,..t. 47 ..1,,....eri• ,• )t.A :1'A • ilbtk 4_4,' -• ,..t.A.*4.. •r.• • • I 4 .,. „ • OP?;.",'i• .. ‘• 1.4!:',•vt::r4 ;'.f;':.•*''*"..• ;. ..''''l.1.'*tj'•t(!1211. •'" .1". ..:If .4 1•"1'' ).•'rm.Zei. .,..' It 1.•.:-•:;,•, ,_'„,', _'• • ,' . -• ..• „• :•'•"'•;.:': ,. ..7*,.. , .1..'„ ... .. . . . ' ..,,j• •:: i•Z,•1,••• .1.4,;,•:•••..;" .••.1.....i •,,i :*•*1%* • ••.„ • 7.T ,: .• .• ,,..• . . Iv .... , 1 • i4:::-.4.1.:: i $•'14t..i.4r41"::*1;?4..:.Z.tti'J.:::,.14-.) .' .':•1/4••'‘.'.^s•;:i .1':• ' ' : ••t• ', . ..t . ' • .s '',...,•-•.1.'",-.• 'z.,s....11'..k'I ;!-;',e.:.-..'-1;.•••1,I.'''‘."....'.:'N,...f•t';'J'1,;*:.!•...';'',• '•, •'. , :.• , :•••• . ..... - . • 71 , lie.',1:to It! ,.•'!'.';),• .",,1' ,4 : a,'......„t.,,',..,•,.,,.i.,I:1..,.•,',9•-••,•6F'.4:•-,Z,.1•:. ••e'•,',':..,'.'i r.*•,'.•,•r1r.•.t•.4•t'•••f:tA••,i•.i.•tL.,.t'4 Ar.l7k..,...i...G•14," 14,2f.z1r 1•.10..4..4X.e,.•.i.,)e t•,,•.:.k,t.'s K.I'.4„.i'•.5..;..1 4,1• 1, 1.•▪ 91 0+4,•.4/Fro,.,•4k la.me' 4 74• '. .c •4 ,,..'''• •.',I.'•,1•4.1 ...., .... ,. •.• • •. , .. ,. 9.•• 4.ttt.g. ..9.9• ,4, i • ,.. .9„..A.,.....•1%, t .1. ,t. 0,9 A. . , ..te‘r,.•j . I , • . 1,, • ...• • .. '. ' ,.. • 1 :.: :•1.'04...;..:1V 9.'4, 1‘44.0••••••:••;•144.::.1 •.:r' ,i'•, 1.•' ',• ::„.,v, .,.. :• ,*,.; , ,..., , .. , • . .. . , ;,'..r) ,;7 hi- . ... • • •-• ,e-•,..vi! .-,-.1-.:,.--re.r-r',' . '*, . •' .174 .67.'• ; '.'•:...1:,ji•••• •• :•A t.....1;•4•r•A......'” . .• '..e. ..** '. :";:i'' '' **.t.,,•'`''y'l ' . V4 'fbl. ,.....• . -*: ..--•.! #,•••..........1,•*•,' ;`,./."...^..• '''•'." ..':•••••••••.',./' .l'....• 41,J.'•11Tt: •if,..- , .' ' '', • .. . •• - ••••. '4h!„*. I 1 • .•'"••'.•• 1, ••• "..!.,•'• 1.4 ,*;•••:1•4-...;•••••:,:- A ••14.1...::::".4:41;• 1'1...:i..,., •.`• .- • •• .• • .•s• • %....-. •..,. . ••.••• i•:;/-..1• • 1- 1 4 •• •••,;•• •,.....;4...• *P.. 1 •. * 436;.;.- 2ck''` ii,,,•••a-74 ....'"* ' ' (1 ,,,•,4t.., $,A :.,,....'.. i 'i',. :.•,;„•,-,..;,.. •.',.. ''.',•'.. ''. . 'i' • ,...1.1;•1...)4 .. ,...7•. •••••;lc-%4! 1, • ...• , . 1 ,...,•••.-4,;.-•.:•••.••• • :wont, ,7.'• .„.. ••• .„ ,..:•'' • ...., ,...ii• '''..5:.••1''..'ri'ti ''..-;!.1 -;.. ',..`;.••!‘ft'rzc•.,.,..e:1,...;• . .•,t• 'L, ,._.-_,..... i:41..e;......., ,p.,• •. • ; t.;;Ir..' .••,=•,-.... .",,t,;" ,...;.. ........,...-. t.... .1.1%. , !is • nt,'. •' '., Y..^1 1 *4: TV FtZ.74.,..7 :,.. I.....:•••;44:44;4•:' r•4'...9'4 4 .....•... ':r•'II:•)I.,*•.•:••'•'-'•'Seek': '''.:14'' •' .• ° . .., 11•41f49.1".".tt9P.;‘.7! 4.4i.t''•:*i‘.•:?•!i''•'(.:• .•, ';':45.: *•'..,:. .•• ,,r•fr:.•,...'s.'....'.,`•-•:. :-:-•itc.• 1 :0, 1: .„ •.. : •','•', 'T..4"'"-•.-.1.•'?:•;:'.4.P...)'"Z•:' 4:.::; •I':lit:'' F'....4-.'. - ".vI.; :.-1 ..•.. , . „,. • , --c1,..-1-- . , ,.. ., . ,,-.-.- •:..., "...: 'ttv;,47:1..',"*J. V, h,..'.1A: Alb Ctli'll)br."4„,!'0::I •' $ i: • ,... , ..-• . . .,. 4'• • ••••l•••14.%'''•"'..•' 11 9.4•4*•.!: :'•:,•:.'•••4.4,t;.•;•!‘j`. •••• I. ••, - - •,.....1'••?•4 q...• -g•- e:,,r, .„, . , J, 1. A,e , "t ,..,p4 ,....v.,„).Ti sl..... , ., .t . ' •IT":, '' •'''':.‘„,.'!. ...4.: .".$.1 ...,.1,e.,.i.• ..1.' i.'••' ' ..f.',.r• 44\q`:‘`.• ..•-•As::fr.'" ! .. "• :i' .''•.4'.P.,.1.•4t.• 11'.=.ZA. ..:^ '''.'•71-4.41 •,' .''''''.:.*•',. :i' , •• • ,‘K VI'"..•....• . •;!:ti.,i..: ' *• • . ,. Jon...,.,.1:.$o ....,,,, r.,,,, ,. . ... •:::',* ."-`'' ' ' • n 'o,$ Pp.%t,,:.1: ''''A'o. e.rp,',64.„ •..,•." .,,,...:o o„,•••... ... o,A.,,',-,,4/..1. .1.t.". •, 77.' ' r•.t)'.1'kil.:9 41):" ' . '''.:1%"••••'.....?.4:4'i' ... 1;'. -71:1% L :••tvl•••••••1•11+ '..,..; •*-e; ••.• •,.I _ . A. , I r l•:.4.4,')i.1•;',",t:?tt'•:' 11,:.• ''!**,:..f.b4;i:.; ,,1 t . I. a:. 1114 e".!:.a,•4,1,.',I;,!,•,14", (t••••4j. ';'''',::, •:"Ii'..".4 1;4" l' ' '''....04.,' "...e.-V Jk.f' a; '•'•.'7 • ' ' .:4•••0•iir:.••t.r; li".14:k ,1•:'..:::......"11'.1.41.•!,•:)•:;, ?,if 4.. v. . ..,:a;f7";10:'.', / 1 ..72'' . '... ':'" ' . .. .' • .. ...I 9 41' •s••••.•',..,k, ... „; , ,' •• ....,•'.',I ' ' ..i.." '• `4 **1...... ' ' ' •• '1 /...4,,•0•:.i.••.) -.1•• •• .•-o•t.• 1.,..'•:', et • .' ' . • - .1 . ..." . if., ••••• %. /1.• ', .. , '• ••.1 . ••• 11 • ',..- _jigg • i .,,,,..,,,.... ,4.;,.....i. .I,...., , .4, .,„ I .1... • .. ,- 4.....,40 ' '• ,.. :•.1.: ;•:'•'.1,71t•,),„--..,•;..?,,• , , •:r.,..;•, ,,,,,,•,•-,....,•t, :•-. •., .. • • • '•!..•;-... .1..'.I *i'• ,..,"...114/,;;4/...f•-•?;',`;:• 7.1 '•*•• ,,1 ;,%•,.11.5.V...••••! .t.'" * 0 ::*".:411 1 Ice-,. ' -'• ,- .• : ',•I, • . . ,•''4 4 e .; , •:••••`••t • •*3' ..;••t!:..-!,4•.• ' ,,,•.. ....,1/4...i,,; • i•• .• .':•'IV Ct• 4. . i i'',1•.:pis..,",1..../.....,!!•,r -;::•0.•• e.441$4•4•41..i.:•ti•,',.4,,..% e. ". 0..7..••,...••, 01.•....1,i , i'le..111•1:Tiel.'''1;11.1% • ?.!•''i':t At-,'•V.,•.74,...1t;••, •,";•, . . '' •.•''''',1„ It,. •••••iplit,12 • . •••01.-.Js.qt..4..'"i•g••.••.••" ,•••;./. ,..1,e ".:,,:•.'.,•.,, •••0•••. it cq14'ipt-s..r•i:.:'•IP-.. .•','"' . "..°.!., , ,A.,,,,(4•tt'A t ,,,tit.';;1•1:i ,.4,, ,,Z,,•_.,.ti, ...• i • •;1•4 ., 5).4,‘.‘...t..:••:•• 4.-"'• 1 J..1 '''• . t,)••••$.;$i...:.•,:,,,..,,,.•,•4 •;f:.- it:i...;'rt;TR•iirr-.• .,}1,...4,N.ir...ft.... f..4 4 , ,,,, . c.0 .,.,.:., 4.•'4 “ ', •• oo ''i•n*.ro•' ".1.0...“. '•''o'oi 1* • •'''''‘.:*.i‘o o:.1:4!°:''''. r•• 'l'' i:*•• !I •'' • ..-4 *,., ,,,,'VAOlirttl.rtA4.411aol$441*.'11,$.w.•'At?..-4'.14X,'1.4$4."7..e'',*;1..1',rif.1 .. ?ft11'41,?A`,10;.4'44,11.0'0•-:4... 1.0 4' "11.4(,i7,.1,1'..t Wert, ''$P..;:•.•'''''t'• ' 1 '. :1 , s " ‘.1.4'.••••••• ••-0:•‘:gr.'•:'•!•,1.••,,,,' s r,i .% . . . . , . 'It •, t,,•,, ,..i,,,„•=1..../1 ,4 ' tt.•,.. : ., . 94..4' ',g • 4. „ 0 , •471441.4.f4s..9!,‘,....;:irl,1.•: , '.••,re....,....1".$,.1,i T 4..4 •• . , p. •, , '-' :..:. :•‘1,',;',4•1::•.,"j :9,.;• •••:,: ',.',...;,43,,, 1..1: , ,,... A.,;„.,:..! v, •.. ze...1,,-,.....,..,..,1-- . i ••„!., : ,./,,,t„;...,..• ., .. ,4„...-,,,<,.., . .., ., ., 1,0;qr:1,,,t,„?...i; .:, p..•.y.,A,e.4.. ..V.), t•'.t..'....6 046.' .. , ... . . . .. ."0...1 ;)9 I,4 I, 4.. rdtt„,"1 4'....s.:'111-•'•,:','•'• • •. „ 1...i% "•,,t, ',•• ',,•: •A'' '4 .. `,,' ; i.'''*. t.i•.1!'Ili'a tt .14'14.,... ?".1,4'4 . ; . 4 Ns.' 4',....4 4...' *. ••• '' .; * • •le• )t•i-';'•;•'1)'644,'"‘• 4.•• ' n..'• •••'% •d'• .,:; ••'•••••••'''1:t-.• '•• •.1.!..$„•1,,, o t ' ';,''. " '. ''• . • I ' s'4,$*%•?*"..1;oo i‘b!..."10...,'."$?. *, oi?:'i't '..415.44$1,,,,,,,,1 . ., J ttn••. .,w,, .... . .., , ) . ' ,..91`..9"•••)•,:r1.4....••..• i '.., . 4 I • • ' 9 A•1. . ' •'.1:44 0"1... to.,.:: •••."... •*. .. - • . ,•••; ; • ' ".• ' ..% '4.. . 4 ..-.? ,': - ',' '.. ... •4,...A.I•.0 .e 14'r.: I '9 .• •• ,; '.. . • .. .4. : • . ,.. .1.411 el 0,es , 6, ,• .4,i....., .,,, ,,,•.,,f:, . ' . ''"'1.' ' "• ,..• . ,.,,',.1:1'."*.',..”,' ,•., .•17....1,...,,,.Z'.'••-.t'•:'•V•"...1' '..''':-:°P. •." '4" .•:*A" -4.''.• ' ". •' . . '' ' ,t''''''• "..or 4. •'•••••••a4,V" I• Aea.', ..•ar •''.., 4* :. ' ••• • ' ''f 4 I. 4'. ' 4 : 9 • 9.„ 9.VII.e1.,i?.:*:•T'Itit. .1131'....•.:;:•*/4.'.•:.''''19r..41.4. :;:••.:.,,,.. , ..I .1. ..4', ' ••,,i., ,.,:,.'s , .,'IL. , ,• •, ... ,..... •.3 ..1,,•;.•.1,•0,,•,;.!...1,:„; 4 t..... ., ,..i.r.•. ,,i • . ;, „: :, • • • I * ..." 1 ' ' 14: 1Iii ,'• * Fs;;;,, „4,1.441,••44..'"i....1 " •;1'Z,,• :......Z.'•;, , ..L. „ • .v . •%‘ , . . . „• , • . ,t •;,1•••Ati.,r•to: ; ,:,•••,,t• •••,.:,.7,. . , ••• .2•../41",..7.,....... •, • •• , . .' . „ • . ' • . „,.,„I k,..,-, ••4.9e,I.., ...:(el...., ;....• ... ' •••- - •••• • • .' -% ....! . • . . .. . . •• I ,, . 1 .•„‘41,...,.: .54,%JOY,.nt.,,.........„......,.....4.• • '444,, 4.0. .S.9, ...•' 9 • V ' ',..i ,. I: . , ti •• ,..t'.....•••• . ty a''(•%.4 I; .,„••• 4 11..„ ,,t *4 ' I ./ 'tit.K.:jet t.4.4:474_,•••,...-7-C ••: ', . . '90 - ••• • ••:'4..... ... •• .9 ' . . ••1 9 ..) r•9I '.. ..• t* n. . .., . . .•: .'1'.i.•9 e•„1‘...,••".,:a•6/.4.:7;..14. ./.P 41. ,,:'a. ; • ,. "'I."''4..."':,'A tr.,e,, • ....' • ' ' • 4. • .. . ,;.,'•...-. •'. l'..!•:elt.o.1,*. .r,'..7,..0.1.:,t;"••„'.• ;.,••,..-,,'„0.1 „,•:',•`1":,,',4 ' .4 1 •'hi,.•I'.4.j.' .• '''---1 ...aft "' ,.,. ‘ , ,i . •At :,.:,.‘,....: .,........:,....., r.,:4,,,.044,4...... 1,.,.‘,li to.,t ..VI 2 .1:..,, .1 t,%. ,i,„ 1.104.0,40,1,,,,- . I ••• K.. - „. •: .•'' ,t. ; ..'1;;‘,1e.;.•,..,•, 1•••,....iiii ..1 - ,•,;. •, '.4 i'''.. It!..4: A. .9 A .leiriget,.. • ,' 4 4A...91,149 C.'''.• *. fi,..14.*filikl t'nW9'114 1.),...P:r49t. 1.. . . •e . ' ;01 • . . .. ,5141.1.1.1.1d,..:,ii.... '.....Pe,•;.'•"4• 42.46:4•07,74141.41' ‘;411" .,.f.4..'r•', ••• :',."t4'..,,;.'''''‘'. .,. "'"'• •• 'I.* " ...,'. • ". • . .. . -1..,..t.i.7-.1.';r‘ .;:•.:..44,...S4441‘40404,uciekt,_ :•••••,- ,.. . , • ',.. .'.. ''' 4 . .•41,1•eti.',::4, e•,4-:7.4 -,..I.,`.0 ,".••••.,-%';','It•:.;.-.. :.--- ,-,-••• •• N C 49.'.. 4.I'• 4 . • ,.. ., , . .r • j„9•10.1,•,• 1.4...4 le.o..1.f....tit.14..'•iC.:.,•:.).4..i.joilli ts!A•Vt1.1 lik:.•.• .f.' • .,'.4 I.!: ., o. f.; •. • '• t•-•..o.,. tJ• .,,«,..t.A,,..:• ,..t.oo'••..- .-,.'•.,,.5'1,1_fI ' 4::',•'O„.94.,:,1t',;'1,;I.:I.,'..94•Ir.,'1•.•.1i".,A.•"';1.`.:°.•••.t!.„s.6.A/..IJ..0,.,..',.*e.:.0.,.I.,,..!":„i:..,-.T.?...'.4..'.r4.4„,r,.4,„'‘‘•4".',.:2‘.•'.*:•i‘„T.,.,.e$0*;,,10 S,,••A..,.',4,..4•..•V,,,,,.4;;'t•,„,4,:a4$...*•,4„j,:*.1,11*c.4./,.„.1..14,7...4-:41,.,'.:42.t1.1.4:7„,.l,e.,,..i•I."..1%k.1•,j...,,•.•4 .47 „:.•.,•.A4.1:•‘,.,,A'14,.k i',°':,'k?,'i,.';,o. 1.,1•.1,*I1..se4r,4,1.4 kO,0i:z0.,,lP4"/;t,„.0i•, .,..*„:-.!:,,•..',A:j:,•.•,".•.‘I,'.I 4•..'.•1..'.I"..•..A-:'t t'..o,..,'..t,.,,.4•.0'I4.I„b".;.',N 1,,,,..9,i'9...:s','r.".••,• .4''. „•,•.1•;•o: 9 to•O...I...• 0• 4. .,..t 4 ' " ...: A ; , *A ; :.. 41:114f " :J A : , 1 4 I 1 .. eZ . ' r,. . , , ° :' •,•,...,. .n• A . • f 1,„,.. ; a ,, •: •, " e t, ' "• t •t▪ • 4 .t• *:' ,' t`•'• ' ' • • ,, iy•4, •:.......a.,i,i'.4 7.,..1• 0/1".14••„'::•-•.,•: : .• .. , •'• ., ' . •:.••• i„; • :-.' '..- .,I r••i - , • . . ,),.•...•.7,....,t,t. ....:• . ... ,..0,,. . •,,•,..•, •I• .• ; - ... r • . • , „1„ .• I. , I •- .•. •.4; . .1., 0;..,Ne 0„‘,44,•,:it••••,...„,..4t,.. ,t,•,..•• , .• , •, „ , ...$11.,$.4 • #. -' ...o. .• '99 i•.;.,, if ".r• ••.4 i•..,',c 0.: •,-;•,•i"'.. •" ••. • I.I'' ' •• ' •a , . . • ` ' • ",.' .. ..•. 1 .tdt i,l ....":t.."• 10 1N%,.'•:•,$:';.,...406..0..4$•"o.4o.:'o.o.11'..'1,..,V..•..•. .•'' ,.. •.. II• : ., ' '' • I .4!1. V ...' 9 A NIA . . 4 it. .si.,•,r,i, , it t•„...1 4,.., . ,.. .. ,.. • ,..•.. • 4 . . .• • • i '' . 1 , • . •1,,,,„ . 1.. .. : # • - . • • ••• ' . . ' * • . . . - -- i.---.1.,..0, , - • .. . _ . h A,idt:1---- • .. . .. .. --• 946 .- LcQL0 .......... . . . . . . • . . , 0 . _ . . . ., . • : . t. . . . . . .. . . . . • STREET- . • , F 1 G� i\... I �� ,1 � 1 e Ilk 01 • ..t‘,......) , ., , . , . ., 3,. , I I--\...., J ( . .l VC I�`I •. ` . \/ I 1 ' \ 4. a0 ,, 2. . g93 ... ., 1 1 .:'....,......,......,..' / 0 1 .--1 (....4110k.o....„ ;.,....Lit.. 11,..i..... 1..... erro4 . .,0!0,14„1'.4. '1,,f,-)) • . levralp 1,7 ,.......„ . . . . (A)CL,1 :32.04 . -, r y. 1 ' - or. ..., 117 w i;r i I ....::,.....',........ .....,'.',•'.:. �• Y . .,. . • ., I 0 . QQQ �ry�C1�y � . NCI . " 4 ...i •.... . -,, '''' 2.h"."—reri"."-"."."*"*"`-'11 ilk.- :•• '' .-•- ': 1 3 V,' , .; II., 0 i C)6) 1 Lakf2...., or---vb---.14...4-1 . . . ,. . , . .. .. ,.... . . . . . , . . W r . . , ..,.-., , ....,... • ..... ��,�� 4TQ A • ` v b 1.146 '',,,.*,ri,"...• MAR 199 \ • +o . . `••V ....L. . • i - 1-`' 54--11-12...L/41—* • ,, P • 0 4. • 9t.pck, La..32.,2. PpnyILS(..... ç Elold........ 0 i ' LAs cidDzA :.,, , • • • �. / 1 • l " • • • ,u. fr/ MAR 2 2 1993 is 1:2 1 fil/ ,,. T • • „may • ~' , •�` `+� J '� • r .. '� ,. II 11 1 Il t,M I '' " ! IiI%JIIiIIU t i IIIU;II MIGj�,1 ' •( Idllti, , 0,016UXenthry• -- ••.,,ift;',c,,ti„iiiiit,= v.,' ,, , • ..,•13%;,-,"r),‘L, i'l',?tilKsiti. 441111[ linimq 'Si t,,,,,ti a 1':I I,I �I ill I>�l�l! I !I! i !°t !I ty► :,� p II I� kifiIllf,i'll) thil III 11}�IYi' ��P��n�,Vrtki%'F-LeM ' '{.:ei . 7.'4,,. 1 —z--r" i t 'It 1,�i l'" „ , , r 1 ., �i Y;�1+ r II, +.. \ -I, ,}I`� *�/�` • y YnJ"i..It//'1' •1 '"+ - �� `�+i� �� '. 41 'i. 41 i; iM M, y111� qe��` 'lit,- , r ,•, • rr.- ` -:r r . f� t :1 dry,.. • , IDt�a,41,11�1I1r1g11Uilf.,,,i. , -or,.17"}wTq'rZ , '. i w • ,w. -- lr f {1i 1 ,ile, ''''',r i 1 II,'1 il• tj�,3,7 rT(1uif,(�;"6-- -+÷�• ... •.y'i r:',. r � i.,dZ .+-u • • • £fig QO LT ROAD,LQ LAKE OSW E 'a, O EGON Stir/totting ng private cou ad end with Eras initiated wror lit iron new pro/as/trial kmdstaping f C nx emporaly fitvoYous. one &lied ranee" . 'e,v atroa' nic view7!�Ce ►t,�S� fs`ive I a, 2 ir'ee d rpom 1/2s, 2 iiat{rsr' appr'ox 2000 square jut per county recor6 Zntire Rome artd propaxpisite re#WtWe1 by owner/rho- tche and 5atfiroorns a 'rtpda d' • tent oriented 44 on f e o, ,, new stWrways fieat41,v down to nezu • extend faivlorrs new Boat Iious'e lit wars of protected inooraje ott weSt rirkattd°stucco O sufed'firepr"a o f%ce i t on featured in 1 zi 1 ,r , • aig n fiz i 'eaa room. concept+• ' forced'rift gag, + Taws - $9,332.41 for 1990-1991 C 'efI--14q2- /49 //22,,sr- • • ' . .aa2ttan grade ScIino4' Wafiga 9unior'ax School-arrd:Lo r e ,74 Spoor Ca trLordse ; Elul s Oatit vftt• - . ssoaiate rak.lr 636-9692 EXHIBIT . Cronin l 0 • 9 x. ;r V4 1- . 4 .1 J 3l , • .fir • r., h p aiv/viets ,4,4i /9/t12) h'/ 1 70 716-'1- . 7 S P' � 7 "� . :s • V�'�'r / I /l i /_►` I /�(Iy/.�II14 1//�/y�"(� J ///yyyyyy• r.1 4 64)4) YYASIS 447114e4/ Aii;,,eien n.„ . .. P44 ta..- 0,A i4-.64-eil; aei A , ezWiefeeez ; , : -- y 1-24 � �� ' 5// .. me., si7-e. bus , ,-rtes kviiiz,&/, s' 6Q414-4/) hthLedti Pe,4(40-1-Mt.5.-04)(5, bitFeetp„ra.dy . ., cronfritts9capian 1 EXHIBIT • Arcs E• v:� ¢-s3 I v• ' P117.1° 211 'al!. F' R I 3. M : O $ PRuF' ES I L1M1F11.. op- Fr r Es a. JC)i i �IN W.z= INK I.... EA •N..��+..wM.MY.•..I+n.Y.w..DWI.....�•O.\N./ML.M«...1\�..p.1 .YIY..w..1MM.bW...�.1 �.....wY. ' J y y� �.w.«1..�.w......v«. �•. �.+w\a.r\.w w•«.' .il» .i«w�w��.rw...rr�".`1r.....++rrn+w....r.` t .../�.�M....V.�.MM�wr... ...r.\..��.«yiM\MIMw..M.v.�1 $Y V.•�.111..IY1N\Mtw.MMl.�w....IwA.18.\.NMI«..\J�w.HM+.I ,� 32.23 S,w. NRONT POIV144:4JND OR V7201 503.2110t 17 FAX 503.222.92114 • RE: O'Neill Rosidetice,. :,ako Oswego May2$. 19I3 JUN fl1X' n This is to verify that Skip and Lynda Q'N'cill have paid la excess of$19,000 for plans and specifications to cotastuct,rt,l 4ltle; to be located at 938 Lake Front Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon, These,were poiidutte,d110,dcr• the zoning requirements that Were In effect prior to the changes of 1992. An addidc.walF$800.00 to.$1,000,00 was paid to revise the plans for the variance stibnuttttL It Is estimated '..that a set Hof plans! for a comparable dwelling meeting the current zoning requirements wt,tid requtlt.e'a;com lote.;redesrgn and a.new set construction documents. The ...', •0 i estimate for'Horse services . s,$18,000.00 to $ 26,000.00. u xt is unlikely that a, ho le of 01)11)par:luie square footage could be designed without variances fur this lot. Please feel free to call 'if there tu'e any questions, Sincerely, , , ,, C ' Ai.-- ' 4,--r.,—;" '' k • , i • U m VV. Finklea A rchlte lint ng/jf . 40 4930105.01 EXHIBIT • ' $ / a • IV l' *:.r...:. +:: • • t 'a t`y� ,'• "+ t kt j 1 • ail (11.0 ... ? R t ly.Sy.Y rr II y,F • U y ki , "".,...;;;I:� 1 t �� 1 , • • ;tr,' -!iA,...Sr , ..4'''4.. .J t kt 1 f{ 3.., 144 '1,1.41. b4 1 ate'+hl •5• 1 t'gy'L\Q'•4' 40'-•" ...... �•, " • ` r y1„i Y:',. 'plKy,l,. 1 .. •"' •-!�. M f -(..• .r••4..1✓• ,. 7.'4 a' *.• n•wi.w /r, //,, ;(�h, :, -.ex...4K.7 .wF'�!'C eyw. \r �„( `« ,,,T' "tii4.4-r•- , r r/; \.•:ii• if, i 44:3 ,Lv Y , .71hge".. f� �r NJ „w, J 'w its r 14�7'' •!` • +.• >^�i. s.. ,1wip ; 1 4. 71h• * r.w.rw,••(,t h.m ill,,r�:d.All.�waJ:. ..;+ 1 itryr44.14.�.,,�� y'�' w '�ryr\a.a w .,{ +tt' � , ( 4 t*hti K. �.•," i• w \ J +T4�,ul. •t �I t'.T•,..$ e ;i •1n, •; a.•. •.4 IL - 1,if''�47i + t e• ''' 9,�3 ,.�•� -4 .../C"e /—iuot f L ' ./ r,+l„'! kl .y.7• r -ler• �.. ` ! • R2y *1 s(r 1 • • • • ti • • LA • • y YC • 1 'e••• !„ (lKay....+-.�M'Y,ay 1 *IZ"« y i"'F{ , W 'I.+ • ' `-.,'A,' ' ",j11 , lI."!. 1,} •1 `[i' 1. �fj—.i, .,• 1,"4. 4 ',A. . 4, c'1,(i`rv� ' ' ",." •, Cw LE, i�i y, ` • '" . "+r„ . , " • , .; �'' d ,Ati e+ Iµ — V« '' ' C. ,i�,� ,4. r, ".n.�'Qy'{.N'. Mom,, ` KaG, "y ` act" • ; +, � :c'± ' � 9lc ,,,• ,t`i r .d.: •1:„1. .;•'��,:'H•;4.' 'r 1".("� F iw.ir. e- , K "1 , °. ,,. ••t"- . •. !X IA Y' Stir -''1'�. L' b1 i - 0 •1- \'y,• l K ` i 4 ` '1 " ..'t r_ _' : + 1 ft'll' J-5 I(;�,'4a� • . ,... 1y.... ' '1 .• 1 F ,I'r•t 1.t MN�,• .i .J 1, l-4' .; ' +KiP 4'.• '.,4•1•ti"'P. ,7 ' E X`I I B I T / F s/ y 43 i0 • • . . • • . , . •.. . •• :. . ,-.. ,.-1 •. ;.„..' ::;•••,,,7 .,'" •,.,, • , ,' ,;,, .. .•,, ,:'--,,,,,i, ,•,...',. ••,:•:••. •'''' ' ',.,;; ;,....., . ....'. '. ... ::',,, ‘,. ,',••••• .-,•••-.' .1 • .t. ....y.; • • . •,'.,...• •'•••• ..•...i...'.. ‘... ......1.,.•,- •.. •• .. • .• • • . . : •' .• : ';,'. .... \ . • ,• ,- • •S - ., •••'7.,: .; 4 ..i' r'•::. •' 'Llr: 0•:i . . . • . S.•.:44..., .• :. ,..• 4': • ..1. ,.' • .04,‘ . . ,• .4'A. 17".. •.' .. '. , ••• # •,!4e";i L,'?.. ,:.,41,2, 0 • . .,, •.' :k •.' •......4..* ::. :.:114". ...... •. i' * .• .,.. •••:„.."is .-,,,•-t vilit. 11, 4,..,,„0,,..y:Iv ' '!:•' 1/4.::,.• ,''".''. . I'.s',,•tri.i . v .,. '....•,'# . . .•.. . . ,. . ' •• ''' '',:: . • .*:, ''.,,`•,‘,•! 'a •' -,.-,::::' ':'-'-‘,4••• i .,, .. • , ., •• .. •,•,;......,,. •• ... ..,..,,-.:•., ,..4 .: ...•.•_., ...,-;... ,g, ,.................... a ,I,:, . . , . . . •.• . ,•...,.., _. . .1 • . . .4 • , .:.'•..., •. ,ii.is.if, LI. .; ..''..t' • ','... , . : ... ,,1'/.....-......... .. I It ......•••• . . , .. ' .. ' •; •. , • •,* • • ., ' 'n n . •:- 1 .'' •• ,••*' ' '•*'•''' . AS,'...1 1 1 i ,• ' ''.••.•-.‘,.'.''. •:.' :,:',, .....2.', ';7•' *, . -. ..• 4. '1 •',, ' I.;\.•• ;,'-* / . •k ' • •, • • • INNIga 1. :*. ' `. •• -..'•. II 6 • ' '' .:. . ' .,,o.,.. ....":*"...::: •',._ ,. ‘ •4 ', . ,•'. : _ ..„': MONS ,...,,'4,44;•1),,,f. ' 4.,.. 't• „• . ,•• t ' ' ' "*."'•• 4,:.'• ' '.-.: •*.'';'.::•,'::i gir..... ',,. . ',' ** -. :'. • , ........_., e /. • .. . i.,-,., ,,;,'•1:1r1.....-',.??\,,`I,: .1, ''''.: •','•:! .'•',. ,..'• .•••••• „, •.. . .,.••,..*.. •'1. : • ••-• ;.. .!-;*;;,.... ..-,...;.• ..,-..••• , 1,1 .. '• *: ' ' ' ''' 4t..;::' '':'' ....,117:‘'/7.1.7i."....'....•:; • ,l; •••._ ;.'. :'''. ..:, ;.'•-•':,',...:,; 1 i .,•• ',:•,•'l'' '•''''''' . si . . • ...., I...,• • . - ..., ••. • , .. .: .•••.• • •. ••;',•...•• *. • '. '",..• :-. . . 'fr '. •• 1. ' : •.1:1 •. •, ..-,: •.•". ...:-.••• 1,11 '..',••,.', ..... ',.••••'.,, .'... • , ...,..'...',;.'.'',,. .':••.:,';' .,;,.',... ,•.14,-,..,,,i ..4.','•;,',,,.,..q.,,,),. •,',._.,...',.:,-*.;-,.:. ,,,•-•„„::•‘. '.•.. ,.. . '•-...•_ .• •.,.. . . ., . .. ..., ,-• . ,,,..„ . ... • ,„::, .,.; :••:, .:. ,.•.,. ' .•.'•,•,. . .- - . ,,, •• i • ,... -.• • • A ,,.•:-. ••,t. 9 4/ Leike... Ir".1.L5 vtl" • , • 0 • • • .. - .1.-• ...... ...ly;-,,,,,-,,,,,...:• , 4, , 4•••, ,. ,A ..,•••••••••,..-.„,,•.... ...- •••,', • • • •••.,, .. ;,.•••••,•• . ',.-,•• •,,.. ;A,i.;,.!• •,, .. 47 ,,, .;• ek....t. ..,,••,.."t'..•7s.e.,,_A hdi • 's' 'ir .. '';..e'''',.., •'.'.... • . Y4 • ' ., 'j.,. ,..':',:.,,....-N.‘:,,0 , ',I.'•,Y• ''' "..... %." '-'•". f,.. •*4 ' 11 41 '• ',i'itli! '1.1.11 '04.641‘.,,,t•1:7::Pi.j.vi.j.,. ,•'1.,,:',..",..,,..,, ,L...,:.,,:-.,',..,-,„'•• ,.',44'. .10•;,,,. .t,'•e',- :. ,,.:' ,',1.'s# 't:... , -•..t,•'• 7-#41.0%,Asi'V tIptr . .4•4'. .'.,'I, 'V,' # ''• io•.'"•',' # )4..ir•'. , '4''#10...‘ ''!.• ,'..I.,..4,N‘ .. • t '-;',•:,4.0 *,-::4.11,;f1..iji 1- , •,,- 1, i4 ., •i,, .. . t, 4 ..,‘„,,...,.--; . ,...,.c...,„),,.:4,.„.c...,,••.:.'i•.':': ',,..::' , •4/., . . :.•,,.../. .) .,.,.;,..,:!,,v..„.;,,;:: ,,,.,?;•,t,o,: ; ....„, ,;,„ .4.4#'111,',1111114Liil:i.).'11.'1V IP!,..yre/lit7-111*„ .4', ,..I.:,lit .• '„,‘ ,'. ..'.•." 4 ;' . • •,../..s.i.`,'' .° 1•-, *t`,i.. .'*. ' L ;','. 'i. % 1' 1-'7.i';',,,i, 410, 1..,, A.,A' 4 -1;`,4..r kr:41".•;141r0. 0.;--7 . :•,-.,.. .., ,:• ,- „ . . .. ; ....., . .', ' . •,.1-:.' ,:',,.;:-.. ".: ' .' .4.7..„•,„ • - .i ..:• ,„,,., • , ,,,.' .. .,.. ;,...••, ..,,,,,„..-.1.;!..-.•,. .L„ ,.'-',, . ... • . ,-'•.. : ,.. :4, . - . C` ' '.. ..'.',', ''' 1 ii...,14 7. ...;. :',) :4 •„ 7'',.+D.)4 • ,'"''..rd..;'' , .. 7 .. '.. , ;'7.'‘.,; ,. •.,, , ; , . „.., ......,,,:.•". .., '.!-`..'',.".' illilg ' '"4':Ad"'''' '' ': .Ow• 4111:;:,,. 'r ; ."',''. • ' :4;.,./) : , ,t,.%, ." f • .."-... . .•,„'1'.) rfr.: . " - Lb4li .• • • -• .,-.; . •••• ' . ,• it,'1,.....,i'..:,,. .'.., ' • ' '*'..., ' . ' ,',44,,t'' • i . i • '. . . ''. , ,I .. %, • ' - . 4)!"111."‘,` ; W .• "OPilii.ilf.. .... .„,.4, ' ••1 , ..f ,,,4, ,,,....,„. .4,,,,,,,, ,,, ....... / . ,;.,,,,.,..4 ,• i:..r....' i' ,. r . ': ,,.,-,•,..- ,, • • ` ' '• .1; •'',,.':"t• ' e. ., ''. Avg/ ''..::.' :..". 'mi''"' •. '. ••• n''' 7711'. .'..1 : . '''.$ i ., '''.. '',.,i,,,!,...-.,,, • •r' ,• ' 1 ' ' ' . 1,., , ,*, ',..,1“4.,/, et',,V. • • . ,.... ', ,,., •,„ ;.. ' ,_., "' '•,-...a, '. ,/.. .4 •:, ...' i , :,‘.. ',i/ • . . " * •*.e.". . • irt44,44.0:tr.' . i; .,,,..S .4'•.: 1 ''''. ..'''''...n,''...',:...,, i., :: ,.• . . ., P.,,t.. rtt; , , , i • t • , , , t. : .0 r4;;;; .. 'or . tt f'%, ..4',.''... In:•;.' ''''' . .' n' :'' '''' .. ' ..' L Ir 1k r't.* ' '14:.:.:1r•.•" . at,.' *1.'4 .A,.,,riif.:t4,1,‘...,..'s ''''''':,:•;;;;"`fill: . ': : ,t'PL-'..' Z IL:- 4.F.:6+.'' '' • ,..F1•11?i I:4 4..4..„;.:,,'!'r,..„....-,4.44,40„, . -„ •' ,. ' .. ' - •A , ... f ,••''."'', 41141•1 r• ‘... . • 4'.1' . • *. 4% ' r, •:.1':Ail.r. ' .- • ' ,' • '' ' * . ' - 7_ - •' '-'...i:/. . '' • ` .•,..4 . ., . ...I,It .t ',Attr,;.i. v.'' ' .•‘, ...41'. ,tivr^,,. „k1,1, . ,•;i1. ...„ 7,,.iip ,,.‘• '''''' I. ',.,,,;.- ..' • ....`''. ;: . `.::•,.."...'•';.*.. f *". .•.. .; ' •. .,,, 1•v: . , "ti.,,:kr. .:!,.; ••..-rdie•L• • ) .,7rlit -tter / ' 4.. . ..,i•..,4i ; Ike, ',., • . •. ' '' '••• '...b' ' ' '. '' .;„.(4,',';',..' '••'...',:., ;*.; ' '1. ,,. .T. . i .12-1,..;:fia. 4„,,,,,,,,.:;t",',. ,',...'.'.: ..r.. ..' ' 4.,' ',n • o ,. 1 ' ,.P./•'..1 1'r•lat.)\jr.•'.in 4.‘le„ ' 4i ,I, 'I„,i'5$14,4,..;' .-,‘;''. 7•*. '''•'•'' I • `'.•.' , 'i ,... ,11, •$,'..ticir•A' "4 "tt ft AlVarly: ,,.#1. ...,*';1 •v4E..,...''. ..... *. r'.4., 1:.77„..' t..1,:.• ..,'. • l„ . I :4:' # •,.. ,.. • .•: .',.•1 ',..p7.,•;,.;.•,1.1:`,/iVig.li:Vtli• ..kil . • ‘.4t.'•%.• ,.... .' , „ . Ili. . . ,,••... ..„'•k; .,%. , .5 r,‘ -,.r-' * 1.1•1- :', '1'4.5 ' :fp',.• • 4•;•411A44!' WI 41 4;7,.•.7.'...•. ,..7.'!. 4 '.,,'7 ,„,.,.,':;,4;:,..;,;.,':i ' ' •'' • •.7. . f''1'.1,t,.1410',J... .i i f., .i,i,Vil".'4.7,..n tZ.V' ."41-r ' ' ''`744 r . •i ' . ' .''' "n''' . -' - ,, ':',.. • .,1, .41 ,, ' # '''' ' '1 .''': r"••••,.‘„..%%1...714`. iis..0'.47.4"r •"1. ' ';'•'f'`.4 rO• ,••'.,,Itq 1 4. 4'.itly,...4*.nY!* •:".**,- f' • • t.1* : *". ' *1:11 ...',.• .. , NI. ,,,, ,..,...t,k cy..1/4 "l'itiledi .:1. 4..1:'i'j".., 'ii ',•0`.''r., •--I ,.• -,..t.'. .',...,.....Pt- ....' ,:f•.,, v. .•..;.. ,.. . '''''.•••''..•• .1‘.. ..''.4.!. 4.:..V?.',...604ttoklikiiiR .4i,ti g:t.4'. 110+i't16441 ' 4'r'•`'...,".- ' :. ''•'..,' '. - , '.'' , ,:,,''.4....:, ' /ro 7 ._.... _ ,,:x s,3 ' ,' / ke 41... vi. . . ii-i-.,,-11. / ' 1. ,. •. 4 . .. . . , .• ., . . . . - - . ir iff. , : ,,.•.,..:iir:... .: ,..,....% ,...,...,.,,,. .,..,. ,..,...„: ., .,..: .. . ... .., ... I . . .. ._ . . . v • y ..„ . ),,, Q.:: (0A-,,.,,,,,•$,;fifth_tok ..,.., , .\:,, i .:. r If c 1 , f ;� , om; •, tt. • t r c' t ,yam. • + ` r t • ti 7 .4y y ••.' �t IV'�b , -,, 6 "D - ...,. t. ti W ~.. \ .0'" •t- 1 ¢ •I .r,Nt i Irr 'a meµ i1.11t4,t� i ,l � ~*: , w ini.•g, I r r( . ."1 ,,' �1 `i...."'' �'`?cy � P.+� a+ , r•N P4.I:* t ti� „t\' ,�' • t .� I f T• + �� a A.� �;, S7X t+fT 1 ..,t l , 1 r ;*tit Si , '' :Ir., � a!t 'r nor t r a 1 (' .,,'.'i f` 94, , 't. 9 F3 sib c �� l�45er f +i .; r yt�` � tiI� i+fl �t i1 .h flak 1 u F ,, s+•,•• i T1 k . Odd % ttt .. r+ f y�j. j1 { S. ..t, of . + 4„ I•V':' J • •t ., ,�m tl+`" q,,[fat 'faf lt,' \r ,'a. 4,., 1 .-•>' Ta ti' r a.� + ..11:'i ,,i- A' ., ✓...• ,,t rsb,: ;t �•47,;- 't gLt ✓1 Y�lie "�'r• .; ,; .� s ' 't l .. •p •. .I 'y�"',151tiJ''` 1- t. Y A��}^.0 eY]{63c 5 . a V c `1 tlM 1 ti t 4�'., ' •i yJ I' • -J 1 ` �I�o • , ` ' a •a r ♦ u�.• �� '. ',IM�1` M ,,T�^`•r" '�%�CS.,'"r .►A yl •p �°°""'r�. • • ., ,' , . •/,,%♦f��i ' . 14 e• *fit • t~ i + 7 �, • sue, a, ♦„ dl .,• `,f.^• Y • t % • t a6 i Qr P_ '� ✓ .�✓ t-- a •r T ! I1 y A .ff .f . :.0 1y:At, 1�. wa4•..•t. "' S• +t+� 1 ly• �Y , ,_„r ; + •y , l ?�f k : t,' t,r. � IerMr+ . , I$ '.'., e , e.. c,% 1 ! tl ram. i ;fit - ... • Ir si r ` • c. t, 'r• , y S 1 � - Y` r! ,- r v a#71-'''.'Y,r� !L�.,fiC tr 1 r,y < I 1 i' ' 4. 1. M ti y 1., !M 1 , : �,.. I . ....giird4..,;'..4.....1 'PA./.\,, 1:t: , .1' ,', ... :.;:' 0 •,,,',' /,:, r a 1 er r. Si.,, �L. t. •f1cr�,_, • } a.'' .��-'..� �"A3'F''^L"�s ".. sZV"�C�S'.,L• �'i, J. '� If; ':• r;'. rr�4'•/ " , . .,a ......: . 7 .6. ; .•: .,„ _ _ • . ,..•,....:. 1 • ,r ' �'.. I N YM. s .. .. . ".:c , .. .. .. .... .. . . vil :4ii,,... ' ,. '4, •,. .,,'• . ,," ' ' 1 .�' ! � 777 . • Y AI G wlt rl� - ,•H .�I ,1 r '�, Ih Lt, r•^i r t `ter , ,• l '•r tip.j.• •" — • r •I I r r I- - r_^N I I y .Agi''•k� • • ", .r'l�. ��'?d ti s. F .._:� • • • .. Nu T}. .. ,n.t . ,y�j�, rI;. r + ra, 4 ( 1 L,.•.c kle 'rout- _ ♦ , 0 ,.,,•• ; • ti, �� ,f• ' % ..r.1 ! i • „ it�f .. ` . •. v 1 . 34 . t,, r 1' w' t 1 r•#j .f d•, , - ` , ,,, .(r� .IMS: � ,^ ,. . ..., 1 . : l; a: . . ty !'/ 7t1 ' , ,}i r `•�A 4JP'N y41 rti: +• '• . 4^`/�' 4 : r � Y.", a 'r,��i.'rL r "i' ' - r•iyyw ' 1 1 ,1.1 e�.7x,' t '� y Y 1 • }'r .„. . • •v • '• 1, I , 1 ,11 _ • tf rat. Nr ,r • t .•. ♦.:;'. y �r`3' 5 5.".,—•,.i-w 11 1_. (r_I,d1. '�1.•,y,�,�.'.�4•.�� fy`irjrr"L •mil";-.'+ ` 'y L �, +Mn� . r 'v >y� ••-.a.,, ,1 1I ..,,, • ,, fit li�A r.L (1.}}i4"4.<Y ..3`Jt r -'r,1 r"• . ', z • ..cr .»t —� :�. ., r10 r 1 a 4r IC• ..,t'' .t !r^t 1...41�r 4Wr4'ii'i� `•+r•: -i r'ti..� iY. ( tfly' `v rN+.'t . t -.ti� �y tiir r!!., • .; • • L"Y ,1., Y y r a�, l(,'�, ,1 ,. 'x•' d�• ".�r{444 �i/ y 4� x •4' 4 � rN.•,.M r Mr _ , .` i. f. .4.M ,t7-v. C ♦ j wl. • tS •G • '• :s ..,.,�, c ..... , t -`�- r, 1't•{ 1. r..t , 1 '.� i«t$. tiiK .1'.. +, l/•`'"r-ice. 1 , Iw 11 .! 1 f�, riyu b ,. '.''' n /d; `�'. • ;4 t • �' t{ICI ! �� •luY4 Irtr "r F 1t r!' • • �•+� YI", :IIt . irr y Try. i y4'_• w/y.A,. , .. la' r Ili" •r t • �1� i My 1n .r+-.t. 1 1 40 , , �• vu 5':jr r+`"l' 1�17}•j�' y.IF1 ...rl . . f j"In.'‘. +� R t R{ • •Y .. t t: r t 121 `f L .ke.. r et t-- • • •1 • • + `. ' 6%AKE czs. . ,, . „ ..:..:, .. ipt. . . , d... .. ,er cz , , ... .. , . . . ....t.. . • „ ..., ,,' .. ,. . . ... ........n............. , . • . 41 j'• DON . . . -• DEPARTMENT OF PLANNINGI AND DEVELOPMENT o DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Meeting Schedule JANUARY through JUNE, 1992 4 ~Application Due Dates d " Meeting Data (Fridays, typically) Firsts'lt),slahtrd.Mondays } (typically) • November 22, 1991 January 6 December 6, 1991 January 20 ; December 20, 1991 February 3 . . • January 3 February 19 (Wednesday) January 17 March 2 January 31 March 16 y, February 21 April 6 _.. March 6 April 20 March 20 May 4 ` April 3 . . .•, ,May 18 01 April 17 June 1 May 1 June 15 SEE OTHER SIDE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE K h S ' . ' .. • • 3 ,., . .k, 380"A"Avenue • Post Office Box 369 • Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034 Planning Division:(503)635-0290 • Building Division:(503)635-0390 • FAX(503)635.0269 • r . ♦ c • VAKE d. .r7:,,i,.... t,,,,,.% ,.... , ... . . . ,.. .. 4 . .. ... , ,.. ,,..... . ‘,......., ./ . . , , 0 '.I OREGO w DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPME,'•VT y . PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Schedule JANUARY through JUNE, 1992 Application Du_ a Dated Meeting Dates (Fridays, typically) J?lt►t ne Amendments ° , o Other Applications Second&Fourth Mondays (Typically) .ti November 15, 1991 December 2, 1991 January 13 • ` December 2 1991 December 13, 1991 January 27 December 13, 1991 . December 27, 1991 February 10te : * '-* December 27, 1991 January 10 February 24 • January 10 January 24 March 9 January 24 February7 March 23 l' • February 14 February 28 April 13 ` February 28 'uY March 13 April 27 ah a '. March 13 March 27 May 11 h ;: •: March 27 April 10 May 27 (Wednesday) April 10 April 24 . . ,. , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 0 , ,June 8 .9 r ,t i April 24 May 8 June 22 d ''; • 6 •' ' i SEE OTHER SIDE FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SCHEDULE 0 . ' '- 380"A"Avenue • Post Office 0ox 369 • Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034 Planning Division:(503)635.0290• building Division:(503)635-0390 • FAX(503)635-0269 ya c + Fyn;.. _ • +++.,. _ , ' / 1 ` 1�.•