Agenda Packet - 1988-11-07 • + 7
1
AGENDA
` �' CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
. 1„
City Council Chambers, 380 'A' Avenue r ,. •'
Monday, November 7, 1988 , 'r • • ;:,''
7:30 P.M.
6,
•.Y. I. CALL TO ORDER ` 't `,
II. ROLL CALL �,' "' � ;
r `
1
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1
JULY 27, 1988 `i , ,
4,e, 1.
• IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS , •,
, # 1
1 '1,.�11 ,, :III
°11VAR 32-88(a-c), a request by Sam and Elizabeth Slauson for }.,
approval of three variances, as follows: Y*I
+� ` ' ) n. A 19 foot Class 2 Variance to the required 20 foot front
yard setback in an R-10 zone [LOC 98.215(1)]; and �,, „...;,
b. A Class II variance to the Parking and Loading Standard "6, iT:.'e,.• 1
which requires that all required parking shall be off-
'
street [DS 7.020(2)]; and
i s"' `;. c. A Class II variance from the Parking and Loading Standard
which requires that a single-family residential dwelling 1
• 'a�'1 Unit have two (2) off-street parking spaces not including
e the garage [DS 7 020(8) (i)].
The site is located one lot east of 680 Glen Eagles Road ,'' `-.';1 'r`�
� (Tax Lot 5700 of Tax Map 2 lE 8AA). 1-, ,' ytu•_1,-.1 t 14
to
r ,
VAR 42-88, a request by Arthur L. and Marilyn E. Reiling for. 'c, Ar 1hl
+" ` :3t ,{ approval of a 5.8% Class 2 Variance from the maximum lot
i ,. 012 coverage of 35% allowed in an R-7.5 residential zone. The
s+~' I.,.Tr;~c'", site is located at 17308 Cedar Road. (Tax Lot 1200 of Tax Map
rfl.'t, , ) 2 lE 17AB). ,+
(7 i+Nt,'„; e�I
a til4 VI, GEVERAL PLANNING
}1a
e •14 ss 44, VII. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, rConclttwiins R Order nµ , , 0,
,figqsl , t
���1 ,� " 0 Pb 3-87(Mod.8-fl ) - Roy Marvin -,'+, • -
' r
r� .,+�: DR 19-88 - ThPo ore ri« Jones
r'"'''� �� 5 VIII. Ab3UURNt1ENT `" ; .1.11
, 11 ;1t, a �;,1 a tt' r, ,1P.• t• •
s 6r � • yr. ,..((
1 •z yt'. v i;,, , ,9 ,'.It x 4'• ,' 1 ' tI I i I,r` is ,' r.. . h."1" •1' r1- t,.1, h'"1 k, ,'!
l 1iYdl[ Y.+�'+�4t���� ��1�� ���ti ��r� 1�1...9-� y-'., �'��,�,'Y1r ti:� �G I��r•r i»�ti , �'�h ���r'�' t` Ap, �r�1 x � , y "'Y..
jj 1 y
,.a 'Y'l '' t r 1 0 ! - x aa1� • N 7 ip i..+,0, :,'', a..:Spit?.f; 4,1,,'^I'..r•hb, 1> a �,' L
A -:' �n l. yr ✓"y'., 7 d 4+�7••1} ♦..,� t yy r Y i r + ,�t ,I 6 a ;; 1 c,'tir l.` ...PO t•�`./ d 1
` fl p'ie �`'` �; v. Y t; �� v q 1�� ;C r ��;yy� �+ti11 d'' �+;� �`� + �
.�. �� I•j f k ru .,.. � S ai. ��a 1X., ? �> � � �r�:rT'Ti ,f��t;•{. 1`V"'l'I ✓�. 1 + �x'Ift+� v�, ,��'��4all. 6r w e....
�... ` r lei Ai. r j .tom N�', `t S +
I
•
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:
James A. Miller, Chair Karen Scott, Assiut. City Mgr.,
Kenneth Zinsli, Vice-Chair Planning and Development
• I1,.. Robert H. Foster Robert Galante, Senior Planner
Robert D. Greaves Hamid Pishvaie, Dev. Review Planner
E. Daniel Ingrim Renee Dowlin, Associate Planner
Vern Martindale Michael Wheeler, Associate Planner
Edward Swillinger Sandra Korbelik, Senior Planner
Jane Heisler, Associate Planner
Cindy Phillips, Deputy City Atty.
Joyce Faltus, Secretary
•
i t.. .
. 11 M..,
y (Y 1
•1 I'
F a / .
•F
I I
JY
err, ,�;
1 .
"w
1
211, `Y
•
•
/a rY ? 1Y�i,x'•
4-7
a'3
ay, : 1 �' \e ,C b�.. i • Y _ 4 , • " 1 e
XG ` ' ) .
STAFF REPORT
CITY OE LAKE OSWEGO :, .
f.
LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION
APPLICANT: FILE NO. :
Sam and Elizabeth Slauson VAR 32-88(a-c)
PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF:
1 Sam and Elizabeth Slauson Michael R. WI.eeler
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT:
Tax Lot 5700 of October 28, 1988
Tax Map 2 lE 8AA
LOCATION: DATE OF HEARING:
One lot east of 2680 Glen November 8, 1988
Eagles Road
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: , , '
R-10 R-10
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION:
Springbrook Park
APPLICANT'S REQUEST
*` ' The applicant is requesting approval of three variances as
follows:
ti'' a. Approval of a 19 foot Class 2 Variance to the required
20 foot front yard setback in an R-10 residential zone �. '
(LOC 48.215(1) ) t and
. b. Approval of a Class II variance to the Parking and
"' „ k , , ` Loading Standard which requires that all required
r.. parkinri shall be off-street (except as provided in
LOC 44.382(b) ) (DS 7.020(2) 1 , and
•
c. Approval of a Class II Variance from the Parking and
Loading Standard which requires that a single-family
residential dwelling unit have two (2) off-street '
• parking spaces not including the garage •
- , (DS 7.020(8) (i) 1 • " +'
.40 VAR 32-88(a-c) i - o,..
-0, 1 ' ^' 6096 Page 1 of 13 .,,,:'
1 X '1 ' ,, .. ,F.
. .
+. , 1n�!'. w • .s . ' J• . a r a, .f ,.
4 ,'. 4 4 a
:
`:i
4
I. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS s: .
A. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code:
LOC 48.195-48.225 R-10 Zone Description
LOC 48.650 Authorization to Grant
Variances
LOC 48.655 Classification of Variances
LOC 48.690 Action on Class 2 Variance
Application
LOC 48.810 Quasi-Judicial Evidentiary
Hearing Procedures
LOC 48.815 Criteria for Approval
B. City of Lake Oswego Development Code:
,
LOC 49.090(1) Applicability of Development
Standards
LOC 49.130 Classification of Development
LOC 49.145 Major Development
LOC 49.300 Major Development Procedures
,•w LOC 49.500 Variances; Classifications
LOC 49.510 Variance Standards
LOC 49.610 Quasi-Judicial Evidentiary
Hearing Procedures
LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval t•
C. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: k• ` '
2.005 - 2.040 Building Design
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 Standard for Major
Development
14.005 - 14.040 Utility
16.005 - 16.040 Hillside Protection and "r
r ; 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 , ;
D. City of take Oswego Comprehensive Plan Policies ,,;
Impact Management Policies
- General Policy II, Specific Policies 1, 2 and 3
- General Policy III, Specific Policy 1 •',':;
VAR 32-88(a-•c) r i
;, Page 2 of 13 6097 4 ,• ,,4i
•,fit '* •
r 1 *r T',4. r.• •
w r 0 11 t i. e 1 '1 ;b 1 M • M d uM+•
• :•ga/ 5.
Wildlife Habitat Policies
- General Policy I, Specific Policies 1, 3
- General Policy II, Specific Policies 1
Potential-Landslide Area Policies -
- General Policy II .a ( 1..
- General Policy III ,,
- General Policy IV, Specific Policy 2
Potential Erosion Area Policies
- General Policy II
- General Policy III
- General Policy IV, Specific Policy 3
Protection Open Space Policies
- General Policy I
- General Policy II
Public Open Space Policies '
- General Policy III
Pedestrian Pathways Policies
- General Policy II, Specific Policy 1
Transportation Policies
- General Policy II, Specific Policy 1, 2
- General Policy IV, Specific Policy 7
- General Policy VI
- General Policy VII
II. FINDINGS
A. Existing Conditions: t .
1. The site is composed of approximately 15,000
square feet in an irregular configuration.
2. The site is adjacent to Glen Eagles Road and a
stub of right-of-way of Glen Eagles Road. The
stub is surfaced with gravel.
• 3. A pathway leading to the former site of two 0
City-owned water reservoirs begins at the east
�., ,'` , end of the right-of-way stub. A chain-link •y4•','
. . gate protects the pathway from vehicular
access. .
i 4. The site drains steeply (65-70%) to the south .'v
and southwest.
5. The site is moderately wooded, primarily with
i,• ,� oaks, madrone and hawthorne.
w- 1c
' " VAR 32-88(a-c) ,
1 .
Page 3 of 13 6 0 9 8 .
t. '1 , O if
4
.. , 6. The site is located in an area identified as
having a potential for severe limitations for
landslide hazard if soil is present (Page 39, ,'
Comprehensive Plan)
7. The site is located adjacent to a pathway ,'
serving City-owned property adjacent to the 0• "
east. The pathway is identified on a
Conceptual Intracity Pathway System Map (Page
135, Comprehensive Plan) , ;•
8. A 12 inch water line is located in Glen Eagles
�' • Road and along the easterly property line of
the site.
9. An 8 inch sewer line is located in Glen Eagles
Road.
10. There are no storm drainage facilities serving
the site or the vicinity.
'•:..
,
ll. An existing fence serving Tax Lot 5600, N.,' ;
adjacent to the west, is located on Tax Lot
5700, as shown in Exhibit 7.. B. Proposal:
The applicant proposes to construct a dwelling 5
feet from the front property line whose entry deck
is proposed to be one foot from the same line. A
" , .. driveway placed on fill is proposed to be in the :'..' ';Y.,,,'
right-of-way of the stub of Glen Eagles Road. The ,
applicant is seeking variances to the required
front yard and Parking and Loading Standard in
order to accommodate the proposal.
The applicant also proposes to construct a public
access loop to afford access to an adjacent •'r;
pathway. The loop will provide for vehicular y
access to an existing gravel parking area for cars
and at least one bus. ,• .
• a; ,,
Exhibit 9 indicates that the dwelling is proposed •
to be 7'-6° from the nearest corner of Tax Lot
5600, adjacent to the west. The proposed dwelling .' .
would, therefore, be 4.5 feet from the existing 1,"
► fence located on the west edge of the site, as
indicated on Exhibit 7. The area west of the
," . fence appea s to serve Tax Lot 5600 rather than
the applicant's lot.
r «,,,,
VAR 32-88(a-c)
`r Page 4 of 13 6099 ` �.
1 r
« d' r
a
• 1
4M C. Compliance with Criteria for Approval:
As per LOC 48.815 (Zoning Code) and LOC 49.615 "'
(Development Code) , the Development Review Board
must consider the following criteria when
evaluating a Class 2 variance (Zoning Code) , or a
s Class II variance (Development Code) :
f.• ' • 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the
` .i applicant seeking approval. ` •
: The applicant has provided a narrative, ,
;,; geotechnical evaluation, site plan and
elevations, public access design, storm water
, disposal and erosion control report, with
which to evaluate the request.
2. For any development application to be
approved, it shall first be established that
the proposal conforms to:
a. The City's Comprehensive Plan;
The applicable Plan policies are addressed as
follows:
Impact Management Policies
This group of policies requires the
preservation or maintenance of natural site `
features such as trees or soils in accordance
with Natural Resource Policies, and requires
new development to pay an equitable share of
the cost of public facilities.
The applicant is proposing to locate the
dwelling in the northwest corner of the site
to minimize soil and tree (habitat)
, disturbance and to limit construction costs.
�. : Improvements to the stub of right-of-way are
proposed in the form of the access loop in .,,,
addition to the paved driveway access from
Glen Eagles Road to the proposed dwelling. f '
• Public facilities are available to serve the
site, with the exception of a storm drainage
system. The applicant's proposal will have a
positive impact on an existing pathway `•
serving City-owned property adjacent to_the
. east.east. Use of the pathway will be enhanced
through improvement of the access loop, yet
allow development of the applicant's lot.
".0 VAR, 32-86(a-c) t
•° ! Page 5 of 13 6100
:.
ti'
in, ,.
a, 4 i
Al. 11 .'.;: '.
Wildlife Habitat Policies !' 1 w '
,ry '',
This group of policies seeks to protect C
upland habitat, natural vegetation and
fragile slopes.
The applicant is proposing to utilize a lot
for development in a manner suggested as
being least disruptive to surrounding
habitat, except for the loss of oak trees in
the location of the proposed dwe]ling. Soil
considerations have been offered by •
geotechnical evaluation (Exhibit 4) in
conformance with these policies.
Potential Landslide Area Policies
Because the site is in an area of identified
landslide hazard (page 39, Comprehensive
Plan) , avoiding the use of fill is
encouraged. The applicant has supplied a
written opinion of a licensed soils engineer •
(Exhibit 4) in compliance with these
policies. The recommendations of this
professional must be followed to assure
continued compliance with these policies. >• )
•
Potential Erosion Area Policies
While this group of policies encourages open
• space uses to avoid erosion of soils with
such potential, the policies also have
designated erodible soils as PROTECTION OPEN
�,, SPACE. The parcel is buildable with regard
a to utilities, soil capability (as per Exhibit
4) , with the exception of the required
� - variances, to be discussed further below.
' • Protection Open Space Policies will be
discussed next.
r Exhibit 15 suggests that no specific measures
' for erosion control appear necessary.
However, with the rainy season approaching,
any soils exposed by construction, especially
the steep slopes of this site, should be
• • seeded and mulched with straw to protect
• x against potential erosion.
Protection Open Space Policies
)' # These policies refer back to the Natural
Resources Policy Element. Applicable ,
r ,t o,
I : VAR 32-88(a-c)
Page 6 ,of 13 ((�� se
•':t.. 610.t w
1 .4. � � si
,
policies have been discussed previously and
are found to be in conformance.
Public Open Space Policies
This group of policies calls for a pathway
system and a Public Open Space Plan to be y.
coordinated with other land uses and h.
implemented through the development
standards. A pathway is shown to travel the
c route of the existing trail, easterly to Iron
Mt. Blvd. below (page 135, Comprehensive ry
Plan) . The pathway is shown to be on City
property for much of its length, but is
accessed from the stub of right-of-way in
front of this site. Improvements are
proposed by the applicant as a part of this
request. Such improvements consist of a
public access loop providing access to an
existing gravel parking area (unmarked) .
Pedestrian Pathway Policies
' This group of policies provides for
•' development standards which require
developers to provide segments of the City's n
pathways. These improvements are anticipated
•
} in the public right-of-way in front of the
site. The policies are further implemented
through the development standard for Site
Circulation - Bikeways and Walkways. The
applicant's proposal addresses this policy
through the public access loop. The pathway
is unimproved at this time and will remain i
s0.
r.
b. The applicable statutory and Code
1 requirements and regulations, including:
i. For variance applications, the
standards found in LOC 48.650.
Zoning Code s
.. The site is in excess of the minimum lot .
size of 10,000 square feet required by the
underlying 8-10 residential zone.
Similarly, the lot meets all dimensional
requirements, and with the exception of i, ` 4.
variances sought due to slope, would
• otherwise be capable of meeting required
yards.
A .'P
Page 7 of 13
�' 6 10 2 :..
• 1
''
• .r'
..
•
Development Code C I 'J
1 The construction of a single-family • ` ,, �',
.3::3l.ling is considered a minor .'
development, but Class 2 (Zoning Code) and / 'f '1"•
Class II (Development Code) variances, as
requested, provide for review as major 'P 'i
development. This request is being �r;;
appropriately processed as such.
Development Standards
The following development standards are ;";'.
applicable to major development:
s r
Building Design (2.005-2.040)
The applicant has included Exhibits 10 and
,'. 11 demonstrating the proposed appearance
of the dwelling designed to be
complementary to neighboring dwellings as •
required by the standard.
' Transit System (6.005-6.040) ,�
The nearest transit facilities are located , , ,.
on Country Club Road, Booties Ferry Road
and Iron Mt. Boulevard. None of these are
adjacent to the site. Based upon the
proposed use, expected use of regional
transit systems may be expected to be ,1�
• marginal, in part due to the proximity of
the nearest bus routes (Tri-Met) at the )'
, •. distant locations mentioned. The standard
' is met by the development, as proposed.
':i Parking and Loading (7.005-7.040)
r +' This is the development standard from
which the applicant is seeking two of the
variances requested. The applicant
proposes to use the garage to meet the
requirement for two off-street parking o.
spaces because a driveway ,could be
substantially in the public right-of-way.
�. The variances are from two sections of the - •'•s
• standard, both referring to required off-
street parking. The variances are
discussed elsewhere in this report.
..
,ii
...)4.1::+ VAR 32-88(a-c) c , ;.; „
Page 8 of 13 '‘",4' '
4. 6103 a •,,,
y e a � • . . y• r . 1
Park and Open Space (8.005-8.040)
1 ,j,
11- . 'W This standard requires that "all major
, .
residential development. shall provide
, ,' open space. . equal to at least 20 ,..
percent of the gross land area of the � ;
development." White the standard is ,,' * ;
generally applicable to all major
development, staff concludes that the
t " ' I proposed dwelling is not considered "major ;
residential development." No other
standards of approval apply to the
request; the standard is therefore met.
Landscaping, Screening and Buffering .'
(9.005-9.040)
1
The proposed single family dwelling is not
included among the range of uses required 4:
to provide plantings, despite the fact
that the standard is applicable to this
Class II variance, which is classified as
major development. Staff concludes that
the standard is met.
Drainage Standard for Major Development
) (11.005-11.040)
This standard requires that site grading
not adversely affect neighboring
properties. No positive storm drainage
system exists to serve the site at y.
'
present. The applicant's soils report
(Exhibit 5) proposes methods for storm
: '4 *:
�
water disposal, typically a requirement
upon application for a building permit.
The applicant has demonstrated compliance
.t with this standard through Exhibit 15. t
However some alteration to the design will
• be required by the Building Division upon
applicat;.on for a building permit (see
Exhibit 16) . ,
, ` Utility Standard (14.005-14.040)
This standard requires that street
improvements, water, sanitary sewer and
cable utilities all be installed by the
developer. Cable utilities are required
to be installed underground. The
Y applicant has described the location of
VAR 32-88(a-c)
' Page 9 of 13 1 O
( '
1
•
,1 5
• some of the utilities. The findings have
noted the remainder. Compliance with this
standard will be required upon application ,
for a building permit. The site can
accommodate required undergroundi_,ng,
Hillside Protection and Erosion Control
' (16.005-16.040)
This standard requires a survey for "major
development permit application" toward
minimizing disturbance of soils during
construction. The applicant must also
show where removal of vegetation is to . .,
occur and provide an erosion control plan
., .
citing protection measures to be taken.
"
• The applicant has provided the materials
in the form of Exhibit 15.
' . Access Standard (18.005-18.040)
The parcel complies with the required 25
feet of frontage on a street. The access
is to a residential street as required and
the applicant has taken the grade of the
site and the stub of right-of-way into ,
account in proposing access location.
Site Circulation Standard - Driveways and ' '
Private Streets (19.005-19.040)
This standard requires that a driveway for
a single family home not exceed 20% grade, ..
nor 5% cross-slope. Elevation drawings
(Exhibits 10 and 11) indicate that the
driveway Will be at the grade of the
existing stub of right-of-way at a grade
in compliance with this standard.
" Site Circulation Standard - Bikeways and
Walkways (20.005-20.040)
This standard requires that walkways tie
to public streets at locations determined
by the City Manager. A pathway exists
east of the right-of-way stub of Glen
Eagles Road that needa formal connection
to Glen Eagles Road.
r. The applicant has addressed the standard
i w ' through design of the public access loop. ' , %.e'
/ i.
VAR 32-88(a-c)
Page 10 of 13 6105
,
:+' a
This design has been received by the Parks
and Recreation Department and found to be
acceptable. The proposal will provide a
formal trail-head, as desired. .
As per LOC 48.650(1) (Zoning Code) and LOC
�'. 4. .510(1) (Development Code) , the Development
Review Board must consider the following
criteria when evaluating a request for a Class
2 variance (Zoning Code) or a Class II
variance (Development Code) : `',
a. The request is necessary to prevent
unnecessary hardship;
The site suffers a hardship by being 10 to 30
feet below the grade of the stub of right-of-
way of Glen Eagles Road. This hardship has
found the site to be the last remaining site
• .` on Glen Eagles Road to develop. Earlier
efforts to vacate the right-of-way, toward
• elimination of the need for a variance, were
. not successful. The applicant is seeking ',4 '
relief from the hardship to reduce the cost of
foundation systems and the inconvenience of a
detached and far-removed vehicle storage.
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;
The applicant has described the consequence of
. ,,` ? building within required setbacks as pushing
the structure further south, and therefore e,
into the view of the existing dwelling to the
west. Such relocation, to be in conformance
with the maximum height allowed, would find
the structure pushed down the slope as well as
in a southerly direction. Also, positioning
the dwelling farther south would require
removal of more trees from the site than is
currently proposed, resulting in a greater
'•' loss of habitat, and the need for more ti'
stabilized fill upon which to locate required
off-street parking. '
concern has been raised with regard to the use '
of the stub of right-of-way for parking to
serve this site, in conflict with the desires
of the Parks and Recreation Commission tow::-d
ta! ," ::, VAR 32-88(a-c) f
Page 11 of 13 b n !
.
p.
use of the existing pathway adjacent. In this ( ''
regard, the applicant has clearly demonstrated
that no injury will result from the proposal.
To achieve this result, he has designed a
public access loop which the applicant ..:�;
proposes to construct.
c. The request is the minimum variance
necessary to make reasonable use of the
property;
Based upon the severity of the slope, the
a
absence of a more suitable portion of the lot
onto which to transfer the density, and the
;. } distances from the top of bank to the actual
- front lot line, the request appears to be the
` minimum necessary. Reasonable use of this
property requires creative solutions and an
apparent public/private cooperation with ,
• regard to the use of the existing right-of-way ;�' •
..
for a stabilized driveway location. Such
solutions need to account for continued use of }'
the right-of-way for public parking and access
to an existing pathway system. The
applicant's proposal satisfied both the needs
of the public and the applicant's development
proposal.
.
d. The request is not in conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan.
G
As evaluated previously, the request is not in
conflict with the Plan.
D. Conclusion
Staff concludes that the applicant has adequately 4. „
• • met his burden of proof in demonstrating that the
1 granting of the three variances is necessary. .` •
III. RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant,
additional exhibits attached, and the conclusion noted * .
above, staff recommends approval of VAR 32-88(a-c) , Ja
` subject to the following conditions: - °.,,
1. The recommendations found in Exhibit 15, except as
modified by Exhibit 16, regarding installation of • +. .;;"''
a positive storm drainage system, shall be
,,I ',, complied with during construction. Such 'f «'
-,1 .
compliance shall- be made a condition of building xw ]'
,'i' `.i... permit approval.
r ,
VAR 32-88(a-c) e,
"' Page 12 of 13 6107 t`'�
iF `dt4i
yf ,' 1 .,,,, ` -. t ,. '� i . r w i 1 IF ti: t • 1
-1 ��'.4• - k 'i. shy`: y Y 1 :,1� i ''t•' -." .0;,•' '') 4�)�i 4•:A4 '.1., f7 Y°�t .1 �
•
.. <. n "' Ka '' ».'�.1ti,. 't1} 2 ,'�.'.yn: ,A . ,4d 1 n. f ,. „ 'V' lr'''',"� •' '`6';'a C'r fi
Pr
a ��+ti v F r ems+ yt•l ; ft�$ 1 v b {
•n T4 `rEby t: + $ 11Ai:,. i.j`'f�'1•,1 •eye 1e ,4
{ •
yI• . O% W YF'�7�"`l'''. ''''' 1, r4ZA k ,�' <r'' S, t • ''
,r}n 4�5 'M.7
• 'a�:^y 2'1 i "'�'( MA Fit,, iil `;7 public access
'M 6r ,3 conformance4;4
• ,, Fw e}, 7 r� ,tad 4 •
f�f •tK,tµ
r,,�K � .F � z = ` • 'o rpcommenda-
ti.r,�. >x .,r a •.-a dir..9 erosion
f 11, mi: v ;°d compliance
d r k., ,X",. I "e,inu permit
" "� 0, ,hi"k'. , ma� 'trees
r, � a ;h�§?�' ' r "r� protect slopes ti
�w, k " to preserve •
�tiA Of ril'� it/ , ,..s = ,_ r,
�� '� 44 r r o soil during
e ;�.t . n� ? cr;aining upon , ,
a`
• t 77,u��� +gtir' ^-.* tr01 etroeion.
�' °"7• '(lily Tr4.1, `:x V - wA ''' _ ,,T+`,s riC!
,�A :�, ..,,o carding
yfr
1, ;11',Iti`" k '
` I* f'`fn',, '4`` t T A. . Wright,
' 1972
t o aq
i?Ver' i 's t'rm 1986
r I { 1f nth%tc {7�d ,al� k i. 79i]
1'01' `'t +fib 1
r „� ace, y . ti�� + ]�, �- 1. Report by
l
M� r ad(it�� 4�A y uo r,, r e.,
1 , 1 av a.'
. •' j if r i.0,4 �G.+.�t y °;�v ',fop .,
• v�, �C3'°I ) e't ��.� 1988
\\ , A.� ^��y,w; 4 'i' '!' Coe Iron
F �9K try „.0.t a r. 'f�rgy d,,i 1(? 3 4 rp/3�
111 ,ram �
�, .., ``fix i �.� gat
�: ar B°�•' `+� VAR 32-88(a-0)
\ �'1'r. ' '- o , l�u+ Page 13 of 13 6�.0 8
r
•hs+d }a.
J 1 tx C
$ i zwiffwv,7,. ,.s. n. - • • .. ,..,,..... ..„... .
•
• ,ti,'' /1801 f' M1� ma a ' 221;
`.. f 2400 i LG'• . '• •C, R,. {
��..�e.iP 1 p 2270 x�r-• —� ,
/61 J
Q ,' 5' elk 1 t zi,• ,re.en•157) •
O 500 •
t4 11i re! a xis' v
�'. '�� 53v n e) �1 �, N e4 q00 157 2560 •
4
r'• •• b' ••Cs. O. 7fef r rt IarEt p o V/ /\� t `F
••t.. •
,l �,� �A O �. 1't? �' ` T �' tro.ar•A,�;it• IY
•
~• r M' • .s 4. J›1cb i. Z 8 R It �:,d•4J tea.••r' r ,L•.
qw>sie. tr 3800 N % o` I5s
rrrlF..gin, ,- n; •N. .a', - . \ 404
�' fvT— ' 2715 t t`ti 5 lSpg�
' /2050I36 * n o. t4 .e10 .
•0i11. /3900 ! , ids 3c L° r�� � • "•it'� �''I.:
• 2725 , ^ ,•yip% 16 diP '' POI' . .(y/ /S
IR.+S y �� �- Pee
/D' 256*r„r•;w'%. 'yL•
7 �a 4 y" 0ioJr o 3 °� iA 3201 IQ *.
•
j1... ;, /h IR 1^ � ^�`yd 0"*,,p.. tAI,'iAr �L N l�yf ¢ /o'��J+► .11t.�'r?,
• ry to 14 fyf .� ��O d ' i 0 /',
o
ItItt ,I
ti Ira,
' ' / , 111 ,
.y Ill 2611 ���
0,91 r d;a "'. SjJ 't
' 135 / c1 ' 1 ' rso' ,5`• 3200 ' 1 :•.
w , h
m.
i1 ,I 2462 aao AG I /3 p0'mn fjn��\ I P'
1 J • GGr• ' +7 . C .� 1• Coey •'rJ 9 .a- '�,• �O1,1` ' l6'
f rt • �, 5400 1°
t 5200 129 5300 2700 44" .s. ��'�'• ro o e ��' o ^a. , .+�➢Ibe
r 2860 2706 t7 �Q'.1, O. n /ol.!!J
�' 5 500 �'
u2690 5// .rr:'' • Niop 444 No" •
Je
F .1 a . 2680 p
i,o o It
IM•,, y rR•
t, I
b ! 4 • rJ 700 „a s!
Z
. i .1 k lipi
•
t Fd/.,12
r '
,, .r.•, I30 1. 1 Iz^�s, t•e.,,,,t .
Ar
K e•F•,e+rrn7,:7,41—e.••,•r,
• ,r ..;11 • 1 tl, .i d t
•
SEE MAP 2 IE GAD 61O9
• r
City of Lake Oswego June 29, 1988 '
Planning Department
ID 380 A Ave
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
RE: Request for Class II Variance for a 8 foot front yard setback
and allow the garage to be counted as the required 2 off street
parking spaces.
Dear Mr. Wheeler,
5 , Enclosed are the following documents pertaining to this request for
variance as stated above:
1. Site plan
2. Elevations of proposed residence
3. Floor plan of Upper level
4. Survey of property
5. Plat map of portion of subdivision with check mark indicating
. owners within 300 feet of property.
8. Letter from soils engineer pertaining to the stability of the
site for the construction of a residence. ,
7. Minutes of Planning Commission meeting July 10, 1972 approving .
s. a 2 foot front yard set back for this lot.
8. List of properties within 300 feet of the subject lot,
r" !I The subject lot is a portion of Lot 132, Forest Hills #2 fronting
on an unused purtlori of right of way off of Glen Eagles Rd., Lake
Oswego. It is at the top of a relativiy steep hillside overlooking
. _ the Hunt Club, /'
The unimproved right of way extends to the eastern line of the
subject _ot and is a part of the subdivision. At the east end of
the ri',;ht If Nay is city owned property and an abandoned railroad
bed used luring the Iron rush. it is the Intention of the City
p:ui:s Llrpt, to use this railroad bed as a part of its proposed
P trail sy'btuui. A good portion of the unitnpt'oved right of way that
'runts the lot Is fairly level with a gentle dowi; slope to the
Oltat, ll.`''vu't', tha southoriy most 20 to 30 feet of the right of
.vni ]raps off rather steeply to the front lint of the lot and is
: eovil,` ..wdo1 as 's the lot, '4'""17 r-. ' . '
6I I !)
4
In siting a house on this lot 3 principal considerations are
important,
I. Siting the house as close to the front line as possible to take
advantage of a small bench that exists on the westerly side and
about 10 feet from the front line. A profile shows the existing •
grades of this portion of the lot and runs through the center or
the house. This Is shown on the east elevation.
2, Locating the driveway access to the garage area at the westerly
most side of the lot. The grades are less severe on this side and
will have less irnpact on any proposed development of the balance of
the right of way.
3, The grade level of the floor below the top floor needs to be
high enough to accomodate plumbing. The sewer lateral that serves
this lot is about 13 feet below the top of the bank,
My first approach to solve the siting problem was an application In
April requesting that the City vacate a portion of this unused
right of way, but due to neighborhood oposition I've decided to
pursue this request for variances, ( a copy of a letter from Mr.
and Mrs, Lynch is attached,)
In addressing the principle considerations required of the DRB the
following points are significant;
t. In siting the house appro imatly 5 feet front the line,to take
alit aegis? ;,f a small bench area,a major portion of it can be built
un a conventional concrete stem all foundation which is more
ilesirihto from anti engineering standpoint, (see engineers letter)
?•,skiing the twits.; beyond the bunch area ,could require a
'aff:rrlit 'uul much mute enpeasive foundation system, plus a much
'argot' bridge to thy gutago,
6111
3, Pushing the house farther out over the slope will be more
visible to the neighbor to the west. With a smaller front yard set
back the house will be more In line with the house to the west as
this house is also approxirnatly 5 feet from the front line.
4 A rrcvious request for a 2ft, front yard set back was approved
July :0, 1972 for this lot, (see Planning Commission Minutes July
10, 1972)
n, it is requested the the garage area be considered as the
:equirjzd 2 off street parking spaces. Constructing 2 spaces at any
ether point un the lot would be very difficult, expensive and
interfere with the.ultimate use of the balance of the right of way.
Since the area Immedlatly in front of the garage to the top of the
slope (about 20 feet) would otherwise be unused, this also might be
+•onsidered to meet this requirement.
Sine a this lot is the onl,,' property that fronts on this unused
right of way this proposal will have no adverse effect on the
nelghtd.4huod, I have talked ,vtth :Jr. Johnson, Director of the
Parks Department and have offered to, cooperate with the City` with
.esl..,o« to its plan far the trail system.
5cun . SiAucoh
•
6112
•
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: Four criteria for the granting of variances j�`►: 1988
The following addresses the four criteria necessary for the
consideration of variance requests.
a) The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship due to
the steepness of the site, It is necessary to place the dwelling
closer to the front line than permitted by the standards In order
• to prevent a very substantial additional expense involved with a
stilt type foundation system. This also permits the use of some
physical features of the site that are more desirable from an
engineering standpoint. The use of the garage for the 2 required
off street parking spaces is also necessary due to the steepness of
the site and the fact that the level portion of the right of way is
much higher than the front line of the site, it would be very '
expensive to construct and conflict with other considerations
•
described in the narrative. See items 1-5.
b) The granting of these variances will in no way adversiy affect
the neighborhood, The narative describes the development in more
detail and any reasonable person will conclude that the granting of
these variences will permit a use of this property that will be
more benificial than would be the ease if the residence Were
constructed in accordance with the standards, see item 3 in
• narrative.
c)T}le request is the minimum Variance that is necessary to make
reasonable Use of the property. see items 1-5 Its narrative,
d) The request is not in conflict with the nomprehensIVe plait which
• allows for variences from the stnrtdar,s In special situations, The
Use of the site complys with a11^i? ng regulations,
YoUrs truly '
Sam V 51 au one~
6113
•
Anthony J. Wright
1470 Horseshoe Curve
AN Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034
•
Geotechnicel Consultant (5 0 3)6 3 5-314 6
1 ;AW GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.
SLAUSON CONSTRUCTION CO. ,INC.
415 N. State Street
Lake Oswego,oregon 97034
April 24, 988
Attention: Mr Sam Slauson
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
PART OF LOT 132(PARCEL 2)
FOREST HILLS PLAT.N0.2
GLEN EAGLES ROAD
LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON
We performed a visual reconnaissance of the subject site on
4/22/88. to construct a split level
We understand that you propose jruc oaf Glen Eagleslev
residence near the toe of the steep slope, Site
Road.
The site overlooks the Hunt Club
beandenLa8e and 70 percent,
• grades are relatively steep varying
Grade elevations over the lot vary from about EL.400 to 300: the
slope continues to about E1.140 toward the Hunt Club.
Vegetation consists of a dense undergrowth of Brambles,
tiles,
grass and other cover with frequent though rather spindly
ak
trees and occasional Hawthorns and Madrones. The trees are
shallow rooted due to limited topsoil cover rg(Eolian consists tooa t
depth of 1 i/2 to 2 ft. The underlying t
f
Columbia River basalt, the upper portion of which is variably i
weathered though often blocky
and hard.
No evidence of rock falls or block slides°f theeLakenoted:
Oswego
were such phenomena indicated on Geologic map
ptof map denotes OsW go
and Gladstone Quadrangles, Oregon".
inferred east to west fault, below the site running through the
Hunt Club, This fault is considered to be inactive.
The various trees over the site are erect which indicates
that the surface silt soils are stable. over the upper
Several feet of fill materials are apparent ,
portion of the slope. These materials result from side access
fills from the upper cuts that were made to develop
road A°smallorswalecarea Was noted+ over locatthe ed e ast °f the site.
,
histicalWestportionofthe -
site, Surface drainage appears to be good.
On the basis of a visual reconnaissance, it is our opinion
that the site is stable and suitable for carefully p
residential construction.
Basalt rock Will be encountered at shallow depth. The
61 14
4
1 m
1
.
. -2-
residence can be founded on conventional spread footings.
properly secured and keyed into basalt rock. Temporary slopes
can be cut near vertical though caution should be exercised if
loose rock fragments are encountered. Although shallow cuts can
most likely be madea with
poseconventional
problems. Itois equipment,
important that
blocky fragmentsd may p
dislodged boulder fragments be removed by controlled methods (the
downhill momentum of released
alsoder anticipated wouldments tha extensive
present a
significant cut exc be necessary to remove loosened
cleanup of cut excavations may
and disturbed rock. Local Gunite treatment and drilled rebars
are sometimes necessary.
No fills should be placed over the downhill slope. Existing
vegetation should be minimally disturbed to the extent necessary ,
to develop the residence. ion
We suggest that we review the final grading
n
and
to foundation
plans. We requfsst that we be given the opportunity
the footing excavations prior to the placement of concrete.
Yours truly, � � Ff
, AW GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES,Inc. ` ,G�'r4C Gnr'
404.7 I:`//'rr OR2CON
Anthony J. Wright,P.E. 9^'',y°tv3o S9�b
wNY J.\hi
Attachment
Site Plan
6115
Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 10, 1972
Norbert Trudeau - A public hearing was held at the request of Norbert
'rudeau for a front yard setback variance t'rom the required 20 feet to
feet on part of Lot 132, Forest Hills #2 to allow the construction
of a single family dwelling. .
Mr. Mahoney presented a plot plan of the proposed dwelling and told •
the Commission that the public Works Department had surveyed the house
to. the west finding that it was 7 feet from the front property line.
Mr. Ormond Bean spoke as proponent for the request. M1
Mr. Bill Hutchinson, attorney, spoke in opposition to the request
stating that if the variance were granted and Mr. Trudeau were granted
an easement to the street for a driveway, the existing path would be
cut off from public use.
Mrs. Cohen of Glen Eagles Road told the Commission that she lived
directly to the west of the property in question and she wanted to
be sure that if the proposed dwelling was built on the hillside (which
was laced with many abandoned mine shafts) her own home would not be
in danger of sliding down the hill.
Mr. Lloyd Pajunen of 2190 Glen Eagles also spoke in opposition.
It was moved by Travers and seconded by Schenk to approve the variance
based on a topographical hardship, subject to an agreement with the `'
City for access and the preservation of the public path, and that no
/building permit be issued until said agreement is executed. The
motion passed unanimously.
Columbia Neon - A public hearing was held at the request of Columbia
Neon for a variance to allow the construction of two signs 4 feet in
1 ight for the Market Place Restaurant on Monroe Parkway.
Mr. Mahoney gave the staff report and presented the Commission with
an illustration of the proposed signs.
Mr. Virgil Faulkner spcke as proponent for the request stating that
they proposed one plastic sign which would be illuminated from the
inside to face Boones Ferry Road and the other sign facing the resi-
dential area would be carved from wood and would be spot lighted.
It was moved by Travers and seconded by Schwan to approve the signs
as submitted. The Motion passed unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Mindy Klann ,
Planning Commission Secretary ,
(s)
6116
c '
• City of Lake Oswego Oregon
Dept.of Parks,Recreation&Open Space
380 A Avenue '
Lake Oswego,Oregon
{ Attn: Myron Johnson,Director •
Date: June 14, 1988
To All Concerned:
Regarding the request to vacate a portion of the right of way and access
to the city owned land that is off Glen Eagles Road(Forest Hills plat '2).
As property owners for the past 25 years at 2679 Glen Eagles Road, which
is located directly across from this right of way, we hereby wish to have
our objection recorded as being against ANY vacation of ANY portion of
this land. •
1 . In the years past as adjoining rroperty owners(which included then in
• 1972: our-selves,Merle&Donna Lynch;Senator Joyce Cohen&Dr. Stanley
Cohen; and Doug&Mitsi Goodrich)we had to secure legal assistance and at
great personal expense, in order to SAVE this vital link portion of City
land from being vacated.
This access and hillside city property is very VITAL to all or any future •
development of the pedestrian and equestrian trail system AND is of
significant historic and geological value as well.
During the past 25 years we are very aware of this land's usage, even in
its rustic and overgrown state. Bus and carloads of geology groups and
students visit the hillside periodically, as well as numerous joggers,
hikers,horse and riders. In fact people seem to be"discovering" this area
continually and even more so latdy!
PLEASE, PLEASE, do not allow one inch to be vacated now or in the future
•for it is NEVER to be replaced! s
Interested and concerned citizens, •
rr
� ,rt& A-ricYV , € _
Merle C.Lynch b t
Donna A. Lynch ii
2679 S.W. Glen Eagles Road '
Lake Oswego,Oregon r i i w
cc:City Council
i
•
Attachment to letter dated June 14, 1988
7 ' Addressed to:City of Lake Oswego, Parks,Recreation&Open Space and
Copied to: City Council
Attention:Myron Johnson, Director
We the undersigned and adjoining property owners are opposed to the
vacation of any of the City property referred to in the letter written by
Merle and Donna Lynch:
•
1— ((Pt , �.r� .X2.1 1 (44)
S / • •
•
r
•
Y •
I ,
6118
•
..... W N
pre ,Y....'..: , 04..
'c.. iFet `l,•Lt1i
°; z 11 '• '.' ] :??.:... ....fit
J N 3 W ; 41
is • 140r ik
4=0 mia 1
cl
p J OC W i 0. 1; '' 1 R i•Gj N
.Uz. 2 G h
c4 + W 1- � ,� v y �+ J I
r LL. N —�0. 0‹ `c, k FYI+
t ' . -9�� 1 . `it
," ..i
OGU ,Z N 1
N
~ Ii 0,c •
r'\)/ ) i,, ....
I
i �,
k
4
1,1
H1 cAtrvN 6119
J Jt
ti 4 1!.`
0, 41 2 , (A t'....4i
did 4 ! W
w, J .n 4 i ! „v041UW ,
1,1 •
/
Lt 1I ,/•
r el
14 / O
o rf J
w 0`� 1111r .. .
0,1 S
,,, U • •
•
tt (1r �� �11•1 ����
0:2 rl it 11
t.: / r All � ._ S
U. n M
O - t% 4'
Id W 1' /Y 0 i
:-1 ft r N .
t 0rr. to .
/ 1S.
,�: x
/ tr
t iJ ,
1„ i U4
j1 d
I ,tom / W
u 4+
11 •to t1 a 'c, t? 1.1 '0 o 'p 'o ,0
IS ci
ci
. t �1. VI v., ,n 0 M Vt M t• VA <Q
i1 . •.. r • .....� .., .......t
,
. 0 1 \ .
.4
11 ✓
A
.1 k
51 t
• 1%
/ 6120 .
N tD t , •
It ... .. ti b. '," k 4y
.. 1 T 17 r
<J y, yFn
•', !w �. 07 ✓rr " Ptl
f t
N)11
/' et,,, t w>1
<'1h Jp '`' I
f✓ 43 4� r 1 Q p C 1��
F— �. 1y1_.Q j_,ilti'��1
�Q// / • 'SI/ 4 O: C I i e'
Y
r
Ir � 1 l e 'Y'1
-J o
!! I 1•
y C \II J
s.
'� 1 1 y
C.- ' 9 9F '0 j+ cQ 11 O 1d y r
/ tn\ . c s-c) lz,"
b r y y tw itl
' ,"i
'r"a
ri
. 1„ ! • I
•
•
1 : 1 ` 6 12 1 1
J'•
.. - r.
Of `'-p, ' , .;1'f,' c •
+r I , • . r,,,..-tsar t ,;,q I .tW'I''':4r .'"° '
•
Aa.`\ fi•�a , '
p.
/ is
1 (/�wth�- �tHH�h
,Si
'q ;L YI, \ " cc���u ,, 4
8lR i; 'sy Z1K• ,
I.
.
s Y.�,r..F,�^art
•B LL' fit •
1 � + � �4` 't.l r A � yy [ � �".� + ? f
4.
•
✓ J 1f..
Ili
•I a t� a��,y��+ } ; ,
1 f br y� ; 11 1.. �p , i.
itli
tii
st. 'tir ���' to t� r av1 i� n c' °
sou y i
1 ri • i •
�h�iy.
r , c'
•
{ ' s
c
A + 1.
.l 1.1 'i
ry ' i.
r t', y 1'.�) + •
i t,_
I: s ,p4m yF' 6trR f 4
i#4:s ,,,,m,.., 04,..,:,,,,,7,. 4
M1
. 3 ..
,, , ,,, ,
..,,, , ,
,,„..,_ ,.
,,...„
3, ,,
6 1 2.1 t`. { `k
t r
-.N.ti I h r;>` _,! ..pY �`. r.' ,. _ nk• r',. rt... f
• * •
, •
} •
R!
4. :ti
• 4
r., 1 i -'-
S
. .
�;I,,, I . •.1_1[..:.- - -- 2 •
1
o •
.. ,) ! . ,
.. I . \
I• ',; ,�, L- 1, :i.s�' -_� i�.."��""�„-.1-- ,� •
„,?---.. ,,, .
, ili!...11 ,_11, 7- --- .
.....,. .
,,,..
........._.......
.. .., 1
...
, ....,.l
AP.,
-..
V S 6 2,3
9
6' e
. w.
• I:1;i: In . :
. .
, . .
ii .
•
,
„1 , ,
,,.,, , i, i .-
_ _, - ---4-:----t-----r--.."' I I i
!"---- --
\LI' •
••
. . .
-......- ..-- .• . .
. .
,
. •
7.-
j 1
.1 ' . -...r,___-.7-_. •
L .
i
- ... .. _ .....
, . r........._..._______...............__. ................_..i
•
.................. [ I • I
)
• _.1 r , 1 .
'"
....
.I 4 . .arl• ' 1 • .
___,.... . -„....,..,..„,.___, - _ ......._ _
. .t.
...........___._
. . .
I .
• .
, .
011 . • . •
, . .
UPf'ese Level, .IfLP014 ,01,,Ilk, . ,
..
EXHIBIT
: .1• ••
0129 •
. •
. .. ..
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: MIKE WHEELER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
FROM: MYRON JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN
. SPACE DEPARTMENT
DATE: AUGUST 5, 1988
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE SLAUSON RESIDENCE REQUESTS
The requests of Mr. Slauson have been reviewed by the
Parks, Recreation and Open Space Committee. These are the
comments that I received from them after our tour of parks
and open space parcels on July 18, 1988. One of the sites
we observed was the Slauson property.
1. CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY
There are groups from the local area who use the
public right-of-way currently to access the historical
point at the end of the unimproved portion of the
dedicated roadway. They come to this area for the
• educational benefit of seeing where the iron ore was
once mined and run by rail to the lower George Rogers
Park site for smelting. These visits are currently done
• • infrequently, but now that the water reservoirs (tanks)
have been removed there is more interest in getting more
visitations to the site by young and old alike. This
entry way will be an important one for the physically
disabled and young children. The likelyhood of this
happening are much greater due to the reduction of the
water tanks.
2. FUTURE USES AND VOLUME
The current plans for the park site include, but are
not limited to the historical site, a potential trail
system that will come up from the Hunt Club (at the
lower end of the Slauson property) to the entrance of
the Glen Eagles Road location, a View point to the East
of the City and some type of interpretive shelter. This
planned development is going to become part of the
• 1 City's network of parks and could generate a great
amount of Use on a daily basis.
3. IMPACT OF THE DRIVEWAt AND CIRCULATION
The request to shore up the side of the hill in order
to bridge the property to the current right-of-way for
the road (Glen Eagles) may cause some real dilemmas for
the City in the future. When the trail system is done
we may have to cut the current level of the road bed
down and this may cause a liability problem in the event
of a slide. This area is known to be unstable and will
prevent any major changes if the driveway is built on a
6125
II'Yr
COMMENTS ON THE SLAUSON PROPERTY
PAGE 2
terraced system. The need will eventually be to have
space available for 6 - 8 automobiles and a bus loading/
parking zone. If the driveway is approved to this site
we would like to see it go in in such a manner that it
does not preclude any future use of the right-of-way
by the users of this historical site. We would request
that no plantings be established by the home owner that •
would prohibit access of the site or parking on a temp-
orary basis. We question where the off street parking
will be once the home is established. Will his guests
be taking the places that will be needed by the park
user?
It is the recommendatiw.n of the parks, Recreation and Open
Space Committee and myself that careful consideration of this
request be given. This could easily be one of the foremost
locations within the community for historical and recreation-
al use in the future. Although we do not want to prevent the
Slausons from building on their property, we do want to take
into consideration all of the circumstances that surround
their land. We trust the decision will clearly take our
points into consideration.
•
s � ,
612E
•
, • , -
• .
, ./......4 '
, ,./A/./../•-', ' / / .
, •• . .. ....-"' .
1 . • .4
.•
1 ("16) _ ;,,,,,,,_,..."' 7/4///
1--
-•••••...„,,.... •
N.
' ?•;14 ,
• •i•••" '41.bk•7P•••th A
... ....'' ..j"................. ."". • '041.r' at
........._... , . ..,
I . .'''''''..:' . , • 4,,
I, • - - i , „t,.....-1 \ \ ........ ...., r. ,...........,.,,...,... I,
,. \ V.,..\•-\-\ --'..-,- •• - 1 ti. vp.... %
. •
. -' \, \ \ \• r .1.1 1------"‘ •
.--------•-: \\....-.:<'''‘111 2-..._...1%i 1 1 I I Illi11.1.11`.3\ \ 4 4-/H.. ' .
s ---...s.........
-......--- -- *- V ,,.....PON:7 f.ce 2.4 t•••:17--...„,
Cb 58.1•5''''''
•
' ...',•-• .,0,...Lt 56 43............111
":".......
,,,k, •----
1111111r •-••••."...":.--"-:-..... .
'..I{I,Sss'"'"••••.................s
..
V.3117EAC'e. .
. f 5 368 / .. .'-' -. .\
V1 .••• • )
•-•...„41
/......1 f
I i.. .r... , ,
,,••
r / i .
4• I 1
.,
•
/ i
...........................1 :
ill*
, ,,-----
4 1-------------- SITE PLAN 1..ed
,..-----' .
., .
,
.. .
. ..-1.-
...-- ,
. ri.,..
. r • •
4. ‘.1:•
6127
. .
• •
I .
•
Anthony J.Wright
Oeotechnical Consultant
1470 Horseshoe Curve
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
(503)635-3146
October 12, 1988
SLAUSON''CONSTRUCTION CO. ,INC.
415 N. State Street „pY;�
Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034 ^ fi• ,l
Attention: Mr.Sam Slauson
STORM WATER DISPOSAL AND EROSION CONTROL
PART OF LOT 132 (PARCEL 2) .
FOREST HILLS PLAT. NO. 2 ,OCT 1;� 'i •,
GLEN EAGLES ROAD
LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON
r
We have investigated means of storm water disposal on the
subject lot. Conventional means of storm water disposal to the
adjoining street and right of way are not available. Deep
soakage trenches are not considered practicable or desireable on
the relatively steep slope of 1 1/2 horizontal to 1 vertical.
We propose a system entailing temporary onsite retention and 0)
controlled percolation into the relatively permeable topsoil
zone.
A site appraisal of the surface topsoil conditions'in the
slope below the proposed residence, was made on October 10, 1988.
The surface was quite bare at the present time except for
numerous trees. Lower down, the slope supports brambles. The
tree covered slope extends several hundreds pf feet to the Hunt
Club. Signs of minor gullying and surface erosion were apparent
in the upper portion of the slope.
A small test pit, accomplished with a pick, revealed that
the topsoil consists of fairly loose gray silt with roots and
small voids to a depth of 18 in. Stiff gray-brown silt occurs
below the topsoil followed by basalt rock at a depth of 2 to 2
1/2 ft. •
The loose organic topsoil zone is considered to be quite
porous. A simple pour-in water test indicated that the
underlying incitu silt was only moderately permeable.
We recommend that storm water from the rain drains b,►
discharged to a surface retention-diffuser pipe system embedded
in the topsoil zone of the slope, A plan showing an approximate
location and details of the system are shown on attachments. A
downhill solid 6 in. diam. PVC pipe should connect the rain drain
./
612 s.t "
j
•
•
•
•
• _2_ 6
outlets to the two 6 in. perforated diffuser PVC Pipes, 110 ft in .
length. The latter two pipes should be hand perforated
(manufactured perforated pipe contains too many perforations) and
laid in a slot that is cut into the slope. The diffuser pipes
should be laid on a level ground contour to maximize temporary
water retention and to assure uniform dispersion of storm water
over the entire length of the perforated pipe alignment. The
diffuser pipes should be surrounded and backfilled to the
original ground slope with washed 3/4 in'. or 1 in. minus crushed
rock.
It may be practicable to excavate the slot in the slope with
a small backhoe winched from the top of the slope. However, much
of the slot excavation will have to be accomplished by hand tools
•
such as a flat bladed pick and garden hoe. The topsoil materials
removed from the excavation can be broadcast downslope. It will
be difficult to excavate a slot along a uniform contour due to
occasional erosion gullies that will intersect the alignment of
the diffuser pipes. Over local gully areas, the bottom of the
slot can be built up with crushed rock fill, the toe of which
should be keyed into the natural slope. A single line of 1/8 in. 1
diameter hole perforations should be drilled along the invert of
each 6 in. diameter corrugated PVC pipe on 15 ft centers. The
. holes in the second pipe should be staggered by 7 1/2 ft with
respect to the first pipe. The ends of both pipes should be
blocked with suitable sealed caps.
The above storm water disposal system is based on a 10 year
design storm of 2.61 in. over 5 minutes and a plan roof area of
about 1800 sq ft. The design assumes that stored water in the
diffuser pipes will escape both during and after the storm at a
controlled rate. This system is considered to be essentially
compatible with those conditions occurring before residential
construction wherein rain water is absorbed by and discharged
through the topsoil zone.
Excavated materials from the footing excavations should be
disposed offsite. All footings should extend to the underlying
bedrock, Footings embedments of 1 1/2 to 2 ft along the downhill
edge are anticipated, The footing excavations can be stepped on
the uphill side to minimize excavation into basalt rock.
Specific measures for erosion control during construction do
not appear necessary. However loose materials from the various
excavations should be removed as rapidly as possible from the
site. The small amount of soil erosion that may occur during
construction ib not likely to be significant or adversely affect
downhill property, %
612?
e i
Y
o
rill) 1 R°P() j
W
O
h
, Pi \ 0 -
O
l•-. \
/ i ‘.i''< a
M O
l'
ti
n
• e. •fry.vii „\,
LEVEL coNrsu
y \ /
l
w
' J
Di
s.
I. \<:.,,,,r
Q
0\
ti? i
y \ it
t V
, \
S¢.ALE llI DI. !°
Pi-A n1 6•
13
•
, n .
I I
W
...
g
. .
yVj }
-1��2 — ExisTuMa st.oPr= '
I�
P•
(\
/// 6+ A TOPSort.
( , IA ve ` sALKrti.� .- 6,04 PVC coed. Pr Pa
n
H
o.v,4 • e 3 iNiN. c•vEo
, N. `* "•, 0 . o`� 3/4"M?Nus wAgNCP
2' I. A r Crasser f?oe c
I — .�_1 , 4 I4' �I.4.. �`�.-1•p:Y 4 -
Le✓CL TO ±in ,i
ta l ` ��9 hilLES ON ISICCNTERII
I
r'>.
G _ i
'w141 �� 1
i
C
v
9
DIFFUSEFe - RETENTION
Qi P6 OCT/Pk IL 613 l
0
'I
I111
19^ ,
MEMO TO: MIKE WHEELER
FROM: JIM BYERLEY, Bldg. Plans Examiner
SUBJECT: PROPOSED STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM FOR VAR. 32-88 (A&B)
DATE: OCTOBER 19, 1988
A preliminary review of the proposed drainage system revealed one
problem. The 1/8" diameter holes designed to allow the storm
water to drain into the subsoil will plug very easily. There
should be a two-chamber sediment separator placed in the line to
remove particles large enough to plug the drain holes.
There will be a complete review of the proposed system prior to
the issuance of the building permit.
✓ !
•
111111111111111
6132
July 26, 1888
WC28133
Mr. Michael Wheeler
The City of Lake Oswego
380 "A" Avenue
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
Dear Mr. Wheeler:
Subject: Proposed hearing on August 15, 1988, Case File VAR 32-88.
My wife and I will be unable to attend the hearing. We are the owners
of the property next to the subject case, and we would like to express
our disapproval on Item B & C of the 3 requests.
It is our understanding that the proposed parking these variances would
create would be on public land, blocking the right-of-Way that is now
owned by Lake Oswego. This is totally unacceptable to us. The
applicants should have no more right to park vehicles (or whatever
they want) on this land than anyone else in the area.
Very)truly yours
.?s l: •
1 i
Robert & Sylvia McNeely
2650 Glen Eagles Road
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 6
RAM:kf
6133
•
: Y .
August LC, 19Cb '
•
•
Development Review Board
City of 'Lake Oswego
380 A Avenue ,
O,wec o, Oregon U7034
RE: CASE FILE NO: VAR 34-38 (A-C)
We are ii: co.:pLete ac,ree.•:ent with t!erle and Donna Lyncn
Letters dated August 14, 198b and June 14, 198b regardiny
objections to granting requested variances. Enclosed are
copies of their letters listing objections.
As property owners of 2412 S. W. Glen Eagles Rd. (formerly
2190 S. W. Glen Eagles Rd.) we are not in favor of varying
the codes regarding the applicants request for the three
variances as noted in case file VAR 32-88. We are not in
favor' of varying the code and do not want to start a
• precedence of having an decrease of on-street parking in
this case. We also bellwve in following strict code re-
quirements as to off-sets, set-backs and view consideration
of adjacent properties and existing bu4lding sites. _
Respectfully,
C ,.r
Lloyd., A. Pa junen, P;E.
! /•L' .I / -
• Mildred F.FPajune:: •
2412 8. W. Glen Eagles Rd,
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
AUG i 8 iS33
6 13 4
•
, `rs
Q1 t,,
I
1 {�a,,,
C
. : 4
N '
August 19, 1988
Development Review Board ,' -,'"•'' ,:f�
City of Lake Oswego S•
380 'A' Street
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 AUG 2 2 ,-' ;
Re: Case File No. : VAR 32-88 (a-c) � •
Gentlemen: .;,y, �'
• This is to advise you that as a property owner in the area of ;. ;;
the above indicated Case File No. , I am opposed to all three ,,1,,'; •`r '
of the proposed variances. 1,,
'..µ Z,' i 1
Due to previous commitments I regret I am unable to attend
the hearing in person to express my views. Please enter this yt
• letter in the record as my statement opposing the proposed ' ,,
variances.
1
Respectfully, '':gin' ;�
;
Aa-,d
Don Patterson .r'
�` 1
2675 Glen Eagles Road • .'a.
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
"''u Y.
•
•
1., r.
,
e ,3t., ''' . 14,
r
o l ��t •n
Ei l 3 u ,M,,: ,•i
•' i
t1 r,r ....PI t'
' a41 4 1 ',-U v b i•-,,tj t f lr2,,.. 7
•, y ,,"3 1,.� • s 1 t r F.t•i� sLi a q I 1 r�� - .n,�ly
'�Y4 h G l ,
,,.. s
l t1� `� ' ,, 1 } ' 7' : ,,- ix ati4 H -q�`' t �7'I1 5i' ,
x •
,t ,i•rj,'#t- yryr.sp.se;,...---
-,,,„ r �dl 1t� t ! ?•�✓,.'�,
1 tr q ,, r 7 �r -:,,,e, h,l yi i1„. 1'+i=L 4'z``.p7++"S- r,+�5��l� \ � r
• �� {� �tr ? t�•� mi>,„'.;T:.;.`'i/ a','j6r'vl 7? t;x .'''. ,r
II w. ,Y.11 F '1 f ,, 1J,J ? l� +' ,`� ;sd .�✓ �„f ` •
r •5 l�
'�' f 1) tly.6x4'1 T Jtat i y,�e ••GJr�' ,G 1h 1�' .AJ '� -ry "' �7 r
A " 1 f y r �j 1 j, d £y w' 1 plr{r
, 1}�C1 <,.rl { },� I� rf.. _I
el, •J• • ,'.14;o , rxl 1 ;+ .,:,� �_�'`e_"'as 1
r �a.�} a rl� .i any s".;_,� y�z- K,'4',k1.ii. 0, ...,..-,....,* 1 44.1/ fl .,,, ...--6 ., .
.�
G
f �,4• r, \5 4 (a
J' I 1
�r�rY.M T�u 1.t 1 `^Ay o 4'4.1.: .�J 4i)i I } { �. 4''"yui'.''..
4�� „7 Ati�}r l��� 4f.4 }}}} '{ d�yyux,., it `Git r;s. zi
l , • ir511 ,,, r f•t%.v+ }t
�1 rimy •,� y �+ lY ?t1/a'r" rr,,
i
,`
v
k qq
N
l I ,%e { "' �� ` x, It I o ?IV " ,m ,
b� iAyrP + lTk
, •_• fj .
r
: '' 4 JU fer �,I y ,i+ ` it, 4 :aj
a ,r p
11
', ' V it rt.0.' ,� u lr am a a�r
•oiztrt
1 PA 1
{ 11 P � ., { y * 1,Ji.J'`` t a L• It. t
4 iti, 1;� „ . „,..it y o
Ith 1n
,t r
i} f} +'• 1:7 C1 -Ir.'
M
1 1•r \(l�- a ip. ' .' it 'Of aC �' 's 3�` y' } N W tfrJ #t
411.
it
r 'a 0. a 'r
, t lr'' �4. r ; 4 1.. a v1 ,
ilt
(� -`4b /r Y;1 ,1 vit
d r/jj�R�+vux zz rl F'•'
a' �qtt i'4' S� ! I �4: a w
' n4 a'",•�l` � (it+� RYrI "'. S: f"1
1 '•t r 't • .jy :rqs 4 t' 1 ..R 4 ♦�.' ,
�. 4'`, , .;�. r a4 it 613 6
A r t • .4, h, V. e `..�
7
r
i'1 ,�,.lt,�n r ,t','> rl'J 4 1:.�' 1 r ° r
,1 • L
•
1
I '
} , ! STAFF REPORT
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO •
LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION - -
•
APPLICANT: FILE NO. :
Arthur L. and Marilyn E. VAR 42-88
Reiling
PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF:
Arthur L. and Marilyn E. Renee Dowlin
Reiling
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT:
Tax Lot 1200 of October 28, 1988
Tax Map 2 lE 17AB
LOCATION: DATE OF HEARING:
17308 Cedar Road November 7, 1988
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: •
R-7.5 R-7.5
4
APPLICANT'S REQUEST •
' The applicant is requesting approval of a 5.8% variance to the
maximum 35% lot coverage in an R-7.5 zone. The applicant
proposes to construct decks and stairways in both the rear
yard area and along the side between the two additions.
I. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
A. City of Lake Oswego Zonino Code:
LOC 48.225 Lot Coverage Requirements for
R-7.5 zone
LOC 48.650-48.690 Variances and Procedures
LOC 48.810 Quasi-Judicial Evidentiary
I Hearing Procedures
LOC 48,815 Criteria for Approval
VAR 42-88
Page 1 of 8
613i
B. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan:
Distinctive Natural Area Policies e°!)
Objective
01 II FINDINGS
A. Background:
1. The site is composed of 10,725 square feet.
2. On September 20, 1988, a building permit was
issued for a remodel of the existing residence.
Prior to issuance of the permit, staff notified
the applicant that his plans exceeded the
• maximum 35% lot coverage by 5.8%. The applicant
chose to remove all the decks and slightly
modify the garage in order to meet the 35% lot
coverage requirement.
3. Prior to issuance of building permit, the
applicant made the decision to apply for a
variance to allow the decks. During discussions
• with the applicant, staff described the variance
criteria and told the applicant the criteria had
to be met in order for the hearing body to
• approve the request.
4. The remodel under construction has a footprint •
of 3,793 square feet and has a total square
footage of 5,204 square feet with the garage,
4,371 square feet without the garage.
5. The existing residence had a footprint of 1,775
square feet.
6. A 100 year old Douglas Fir tree is located ^
between the applicantis property and the
neighbor to the south.
B. Compliance with Criteria for Approval:
As per LOC 48,815, the Development Review Board must
consider the following criteria when evaluating a
Class 2 variance: •
1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the
applicant seeking approval.
The applicant has provided Exhibits 2-5 ih
• support of the request.
VAR 42-88
Page 2 of 8 1
2. For any development application to be approved, •
it shall first be established that the proposal
conforms to:
a. The City's Comprehensive Plan;
Distinctive Natural Area Policies
Objective: "To preserve the wooded natural
character of Lake Oswego, and the individual •
distinctive features prized by residents."
The site does not have any trees that are
identified in the Comprehensive Plan as being
distinctive natural areas. However, staff
believes the objective of the distinctive
a natural area policies provides guidance in �A,
reviewing development proposals that may impact
a significant tree or feature.
A 100 year old Douglas Fir tree is located
between the applicant's property and the
neighbor to the south (the Mackles). Although
the exact location in relationship to the
property line is Unclear, the Hackles hired a
consulting arborist to examine the tree and
determine if the tree was or would be damaged by
the applicant's construction. The cgnsultant's,
Mr. Bill Owen, findings are included in this
report as Exhibit 9.
Mr: Owen has inspected the tree and determined
the tree has not sustained any significant
damage. Using specific criteria, he was able to
place a depreciated value as an ornamental
amenity specimen on Ehe Mackles property of
$16,758 on the tree and has noted it should be
preserved. Mr. Owen was unable to address what
impact the decks would have to the tree as
details on the footings Were not included in the
application.
If the Board approves the variance request,
staff recommends the applicant be required to
hire an arborist who is a member of the American
Society of Consulting Arborists to supervise the
construction in such a way so as to provide maximum protection of the tree.
b. The applicable statutory and Code
requirements and regulations; including:
VAR 42-88
r. � Page 3 of 8 6 1 39
•
i. For variance applications, the standards
found in LOC 48.650.
•
As per LOC 48.650(1), the Development Review
Board must consider the following criteria when
evaluating a request for a Class 2 variance:
a. The request is necessary to prevent
unnecessary hardship;
LOC 48.650(2) (a) notes relevant factors to be
considered in determining whether a hardship
exists. These factors are listed below and are
not intended to be an exclusive list of
considerations, but are to be used as a
guideline in the Development Review Board's
deliberation:
1. . Physical circumstances related to the piece
of property involved.
2. Whether a reasonable use, similar to like
properties, can be made of tha property
without the variance:
3. Whether the hardship was created by the
person requesting the variance.
4. The economic impact upon the person
requesting the variance, if the request is
denied.
o The applicant states the slope of the lot
has resulted in the decks being over 30" in
height artd included in the lot coverage
calculation.
• While this may indeed be true, staff has
calculated the lot has approximately a 7%
slope and is considered to have a gentle
slope.
o The applicant has noted the decks are ,
necessary for their outside living area and
that such decks are in keeping with other
existing hotes in the area.
Analysis
Staff agrees with the applicant that decks are
important to an outside living area and that
other homes within the area also have decks.
VAR 42-88 ,
Page 4 of 8 61 LI U
However, staff believes the hardship was created
• by the applicant when, prior to any
construction, he did not alter his house plans
to include decks and comply with the lot
coverage.
o The applicant stated the 35% lot coverage
could have been maintained if the existing
house would have been demolished. However,
the additional cost of removal and starting
over was estimated at $75,000.00 and was not
economically practical and would create a
financial hardship.
o The applicant has removed approximately 60%
of the existing residence. A review of the
approved building plans does not substantiate
the applicant's cost estimate. However,
staff does concede a complete demolition
would cost more. The applicant has not
clearly demonstrated at what point the
• demolition would become a financial hardship.
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;
•and, .
LOC 48.650(2) (b) notes relevant factors to be
considered in determining whether development
consistent with the request is injurious. These
factors are listed below but, again, are not
intended to be an exclusive list of
considerations, but are to be Used as a
guideline in the Development Review Board's
deliberations.
1. An analysis of the physical impacts such
development will have, such as visual,
noise, traffic and increased potential for
drainage, erosion and landslide hazards.
2. The perceptions of residents and owners of
property in the neighborhood concerning the
incremental impacts occurring as a result of
• the proposed variance,
o The applicant has stated the proposal is in
keeping with other homes in this area and
will be a definite enhancement to the
neighborhood.
VAR 42-88
Page 5 of 8 614 t
n )1 ,
o The applicant has also revised his original
• deck plans to address what he believes are
the neighbor's concerns. (Refer to Exhibit
3 for site plan and Exhibit 2A for
narrative.)
o The applicant has stated that they have
access to and are adjacent to 825 square
feet of property owned by the Lake
Corporation. Using this additional land for
calculations, the resulting lot coverage
totals 38%.
Analysis
Staff has been contacted by several residents
within the neighborhood and letters have been
submitted addressing their concerns. These
letters are included in this report (Exhibits 6,
7 and 8) and identify their perceptions about
the incremental impacts occurring as a result of
the proposed variance. Additionally, Exhibit 7,
from the abutting neighbor, the Mackles,
addresses the applicant's revised deck plans.
Staff agrees that the additional Lake
• Corporation property may lessen the visual
impact of the lot coverage. However, the
calculation of lot coverage cannot include
property not owned, by the applicant. In
addition, the size of the property is 10,725
square feet, which is approximately 3,000 square
feet over the minimum lot size required by the
zone. By virtue of the size of the applicant's
property, an additional 1,129 square feet of lot
coverage is permitted above what would be
allowed with a 7,500 square foot lot.
Example:
10,725 sq. ft. x .35 = 3,754 sq. ft. footprint
7,500 sq. ft. x .35 = 2,625 sq. ft. footprint
Staff believes the lot coverage allowed by the
zone provides sufficient area in which to
construct both a residence and related decks,
c. The request is the minimum variance
necessary to make reasonable Use of the
property;
VAR 42-88
Page 6 of 8
w V
o The applicant has stated that a substantial
i 1 investment has already been made and, in
order to protect that investment, a home the
size of the one proposed is appropriate.
The applicant intends to build a 3-bedroom,
3-bath home with a den.
o The applicant has noted the decks are
necessary for outside living area and are
consistent with other existing homes in the
area.
Analysis
The zoning ordinance does not provide specific
relevant factors that can be used as guidelines
for this criteria. However, staff offers the
following points for Board consideration:
o As noted previously in this report, the 35%
lot coverage would allow a 3,753 square foot
• footprint. Further, the zone allows a
maximum height of 35' and the applicant has
chosen a two-story remodel, thereby
providing additional square footage in the
structure.
o Again, as stated earlier in•this report,
staff agrees that decks are an important
accessory to a residence. o issu
ance st of aa
ff
finds the applicant, prior
building permit for the remodel, had the
opportunity to include decks and meet the
lot coverage requirement. Additionally,
letters from surrounding residents address
the size Of the residence in relationship to
other residences in the neighborhood, and
provide some discussion concerning the
reasonable use of the property (Exhibits 6,
j 7 and 8) .
d. The request is not in conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan.
See previous discussion of Plan policies.
D. Conclusion
Based on the analysis found in this report, staff
• has determined the applicant has not met the
variance criteria. Specifically, the applicant has
VAR 42-88
Page 7 of 8
6142
not demonstrated the request is necessary to prevent
unnecessary hardship. The applicant knew about the r")
lot coverage requirement before he was issued a
building permit for the remodel, but chose not to
significantly alter the plans to include the decks
and comply with the lot coverage requirement.
•
Additionally, the applicant has not adequately
demonstrated that development consistent with the
request will not be injurious to property located or
to property established to be affected by the
request. In fact, neighbors submitted Exhibits 6, 7
and 8 identifying their concerns about the
incremental impacts occurring as a result of the
proposed variance.
In terms of the request being the minimum variance
necessary to make reasonable use Of the property,
the applicant has made some modification of the deck
plans and has stated the deck area is important to
outside living. Although staff recognizes the
• desire for the deck area, the applicant, prior to
• construction of the remodel, had the opportunity to
alter the plans to include the decks and meet the
lot coverage requirement. •
III. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of VAR 42-88 as requested.
Exhibits
1. Tax Map
2. Applicant's Narrative (September 21, 1988)
2A. Applicantis Narrative (October 14, 1988)
3. Site Plan
4. Elevation
5. Floor Plan
6. October 24, 1988 Letter from Lynn and Tom Black
7. October 25, 1988 Letter from Lawrence Mackles and Alexis
Aquino-Mackles
8. October 25, 1988 Letter from Thomas Pine
9. October 28, 1988 Letter from bill Owen
10, October 25, 1988 Letter from Cynthia Marie Doak
VAR 42-88 •
Page 8 of 8 61 3
'ti
'
rr ( rirl..04,1' . .t3.•:''..T1,„,•••• •
. * 'I t,
y d
.. ••-•, '.1,'"
co \
r;<‘
i an 79 .; ,.. �.' ti^ L s
�
,Jp
�r ram/ ��
•
w Mn ,xr. „� "' `yi•fib g „ «��` �i� b -tn.. 1
4 th Yd • ,/r
a y 4 ��of 1 + . (0 0 sA' of Moo �d' " �p>-•a ;
a , e , 3 ' '
„
m, i . 0 ,I=' i 10. /� '.; .�t4' •
• /• q.h. •; �" ti� U•bq 00 pit..
-a 00 0 t
'� _ '�
8 ' ,�,Q V Lys ' 't/ /4 14,• ci
0 .. k:
Q Z
�5 it 6, rL •
•
.�'' Mqh A i`:,. `' ,,.b goo l , �'
0 oo= �`�x,�a 140 `.'°L. da •
if bw-k �•,,� . ^�� h.�' . '4r °' v> ° F'.. • .
6' 4 / ,- h�� .,,_� * • AID �. / 517 . . _ ..,
ti'' 11 ccrti ���° a '�'� t g ,$ `'• �N ,y�6,o0 Air , ,_ #.
px 0, �wr Y� �0 Yir i/ �y •s
1,,
•
September 21, 1988
'SEP 2 2 `S,S3
•
City of Lake Oswego
Development Review Board
City Hall
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
SUBJECT: Request for Class II Variance for Remodel/Construction
at 17308 Cedar Road
•
Dear Development Review Board Members:
In August, 1986, we purchased subject property. Our express desire
was, and is, to remodel and add to this existing residence as our
permanent home.
This house was constructed approximately 45 years ago, Since then, it
has had major additions and remodeling several times. The existing
structure is of poor design, due to the various additions, and needs
•
repair for rot, reconstruction of foundation, and improvement of
weatherization as it is in need of double glazed windows and proper
insulation.
The Class II Variance is being applied for in excess of the 35% lot
coverage restriction. The following are the points we feel pertinent
to this request:
1. Setback limitations are not a problem; our proposed
structure, with deck, complies with all existing setback
regulations.
2. The major structure, less deck, has been adjusted to comply
with the 35% lot coverage limitation. We consider the deck
necessary for our outside living area, and feel it is in
keeping with other existing homes in the area.
3. As this home is a major remodel and addition, we are
limited by the existing structure. The 35% lot coverage
limitation could be maintained if we demolished the existing
house and started completely new. The additional cost of
this is estimated at $75,000.00 which is not economically
practical for us, and would definitely create a financial
hardship.
1111 6145
a -
•
•
Page Two
City of Lake Oswego September 21, 1988 �
Development Review Board P 0
4. We have already made a substantial investment in this
45-year old house and property. In order to protect and
enhance that investment, we feel a home of this size is
appropriate. We plan to build a 3-bedroom, 3-bath home
with den.
5. The Variance being applied for is for an outside deck and
stairway only. Because of the slope of the lot, the existing
and proposed house is split level. The deck, therefore, is
over the 30" above ground limitation and becomes part of the
house for lot coverage calculation. The proposed deck is
593 square feet, and exceeds the 35% coverage factor by 5.8%
(40.8% total).
6. We feel that this proposal is in keeping with other homes
in this area and that the finished product will be attractive,
appropriate, and a very definite enhancement to our property
and the neighborhood.
7. it appears that other structures in the area may have been
granted similar Variances. This indicates a need for some
• flexibility in order to make remodeling and other construction
practical, particularly in view of the limited lot sizes and
slopes in this area.
8. This request involves a single family dwelling and is not in
conflict with the comprehensive plan.
• We fully realize that land use planning is very important for the
future of our community. We respectfully request that this
application for modification of the lot coverage restriction be
granted.
Thank you.
Si el ,
L-
.L. el Ingo Jr. /
411.
Mar ly E. Reiling/
Remodel Project Address: 17308 Cedar Road
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Current Mailing Address: 17802 S.W. Hillside Way
Lake Oswego, OR, 97034
6146
1 •
.
October 14, 1988
4. City of Lake Oswego It,
Development Review Board Ig-
.City Hall
Lake Oswego, OR 97034 ,
.
SUBJECT: Additional information pertaining to our letter of
September 21, 1988
RE: VARIANCE 42-88
) Dear Development Review Board Members:
We offer the following as additional pertinent information to our ,
case.
1. Our yard on the lake front includes approximately
825 square feet of lawn that is Lake Corp. property. We
understand this cannot technically be used in calculation
of total available space for coverage, however, it is
part of our lot/landscaping from an aesthetic appearance
standpoint. If this may be considered, our lot coverage •
factor, including deck and stairway, is 38%, or a 3% "
variance. '
r
2. Our neighbor on the South, the Mackles, have voiced concern
over our construction of the deck corner nearest them.
We have, therefore, revised our deck plan by taking the
stairway down from the South end of the deck rather than
across the front as originally planned. This design de-
emphasizes that deck corner, affectively placing that
corner 3} feet further from the property line than was
shown in the plan originally submitted to the Development
Review Board. Attached are three views of the revised
deck/stairway portion of our plans.
1
6.147 111111111111111
I -
,
•
' 1 Q
' F lire`�i41
n k,
: ' of\•ON 7(
N�,
!/am ,u, ;��1
Page Two Y ` �
9 ,� ,I ,as
,�' '1 ,1'
City of Lake Oswego �, ;,�.�?t;14
Development Review Board October 14, 1988 , (.tx,J,,,
rR la !
�k yr IF�Ftit
d 4
3. The Mackles have expressed concern over our setback � xa
� ' ter,,:
(5 feet) from our joint property line. Because of this, a1?,; ' '•'
and alignment of the existing foundation'structure, we ,y,'W�
• have adjusted the house set back on that side. The actual rrt
setback along that side is now 5 feet at the driveway, and , i�4�,
widens 'to 6 feet 8 inches at the front house corner '' a
• (Southeast). We feel this compromise and the stairway
revision adequately addresses the situation and should i°71��,f�;
KLf, satisfy the Mackles' concerns. `
w #tir
We appreciate the consideration and understanding of the Board in r�-1.4.i
reviewing his request. ;�,�ao. 4;r.•'
. ,,,,,,.....„
•
7 .1/4..., ,,„. ,
Si ' / !r•
e
t e ely, npc�,+
,.,,,,,.
__ .... . , „ /
A.L. Rot-ring, Jri •
, Ys
i
41
Marilyn E. Roiling ' ' ;
Current (temporary) 17841 Hillside Way ,yf^
Mailing Address: Lake Oswego, OR 97034 =`4'-;`;;' -;
•
•
�s
•
M k,
,'4' 71
, raa*y'
I.t
G18 1.„4. -
w`
•
v ' 1--� r r�4,p 'Q ��do Ir ..* R 1 •� •
A u , `' ,, 1.. ut,• ,.
1 � •4,_.,• , .exy t3 afl{Yy. r +,•}dJy1 , • }f t'..
ti
1 rf M1�"1
/' —
,//7 r ! f
/' r / / r "i' :T. '~ 1�•. i
, /••IV. .fir -% rt . ✓J ✓ .r• II.
• .
,• ii a .` {! , 9
..,
///////' '6,111-43Wier•i4.: 1,,, , ,,, •
` / , '
r"
•
•
' •11 r. I;. , ,' ,
i •t 5 QQe /` // • /
/,' w I c fi.. ..�It �Czywt7SV �
if
j • '
NC/Y67�'
v��,�� oh,vg- 61 9
't •
•
•
•
•
f'
T.
•
r.
` ' r•
i ,
,
I-sass xa _: XD, Y
I
II ,
•
' •I ••
fr.".. .....r.......7.14../ .SILT ! A '. .t
'I I Imo, awR/w 0
ly,.. 1, �3 A. .
_ram 7
i •
I —
• ' s'!: 1 L, FT •?.rv. , .(iiiitiii: , ---.11. •
lb ' iI i I 1
• i NI Ix!
. • ? I I I
! +ram. ,.. . . 1 1 1 1 I V'1_ , 1! I ; I , . ,.J •I
♦�� �I ' I I I TII'�' t, I S I 1 •
'/
1 ,I il! 'Y ; Il ' i I
. „j 1,, i 1 q' l ' l ; 1 •jA I' I i
,j I i i ! il � ,; I l
`1
Z I11 ' I ' !: i � ' I •
•
11
•
h ; 11 .111: •11 '. 1, '0
i IJ. cc ''' •. r1 ! S ' t I 9 . ,
•
C�1
1 ' I ' '1 ' II ' A ' III ' h�0t I I '
v
• I i 4 ;f' : 111 .
+ I i , hW' 6XHI1fT
,1 I ► q°p ,.�., '...t i I,• , tt• ' .."11 ' ' 1
Y.
it
I
�RuI��.0 I IfI 'rill
MalI� n 'I . = ,9 � 1.,
I it
`.
„(,) ,,,,, ,,L1
. .
-- , 1 .. i.l . - -,„
„..,, 1(14. If
ll
I : / .,
``
N
F
3. ■ .h„ac�amw,c.�.aloryl ...
, ii nun nakiliti-M11,1. k
F•
ilT11012
3ll►e� A
l
1 y
i t
I 1
— 1 I '
Fri*,o
' I -- • .
n .E n fyl
L �.� r+KS rr��r���r4r1 4\\ , Ci i
till i `(1,4 Z] .)
II. ilt
to 11311 �)w --- r a ml �. --- , 1 } sl
, '01,1
Ill il %II 11 2.,_.R
..1,1)1.11; i 14//,:n„. implliy 1_, .4''''' ::..7----(1..-;::-;-..,1;1'
. .1. p! _jik,...,
-
cN
\ 1 i"ii,i.i
-.,.7R!!,,,. 17V4 twgl':w+w w.,r. i1L'•' M9.
EXHI T 1 r1d_,
j fl. G151
�a, i s k M\
ti , ,, ^.,
•
• ti"—'\ October 24, 1988
Development Review Board
City of Lake Oswego
380 A Street
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
RE: Var 42-88, Proposed 5.8% variance to the maximum 35% lot coverage in an R-7.5 zone
Dear Development Review Board Members,
In regards to the variance request at 17308 Cedar Road seeking approval of a
5.8% increase above the 35% maximum lot coverage zoning code, it is our feeling,
shared by others in the neighborhood that the proposed variance is uneccessery
and should be denied for a number of very relevant factors described below.
1) No hardship exists due to the physical circumstances related to the property
involved. The existing residence was a four bedroom, two bath home with decks.
The existing residence has a lot coverage factor of 10.02%. The major remodel,
not including variance request will increase the footprint to 35.36%. This
rh significant increase in the structure's footprint and the fact that a large
"m' portion of the existing residence was demolished to accomplish the remodel
indicated that no physical constraints of the property justify a variance.
2) Reasonable use of the property allows comfortably for a four bedroom, 3 bath
residence with decks and without a variance. In fact, the property now allows
for a 3793 sq ft structure footprint and a 4600+ sqft residence. Reasonable
use of the property dictates applying for a major variance to the lot coverage
code in advance of construction to allow for alternatives.
3) The need for this variance was created solely by the applicants. Any hardships
due to its denial were also created solely by the applicants.
The applicants state that they purchased the property over two years ago with
the express intention of doing a major remodel. There has been -mole time
during those 2+ years to come up with a design that could accombdate a four
bedroom, 3 bath residence with decks that would be within the 35% lot coverage
code. 1are was also ample time to apply for a variance in advance of
construction. They have been advised by the City Planning Dept. that there
was no guarantee that their variance would be approved for 40.8% lot coverage,
and yet they have taken the risk to procede with the construction of a remodel
that is at the maximum lot coverage without any decks.
6I52
1 n '
' ... ...ten ....�,
page 2 1
10/24/88
Development Review Board
City of Lake Oswego 1Var. 42-88
4) The proposed variance is not at all in keeping with any other home in the
area. It would in fact be injurious to the overall neighborhood due to its
visual impact and other subtle effects on the quality of the neighborhood.
Most, if not all, residences in the area are nowhere near the maximum 35%
lot coverage allowed. This is an area of many trees and residences that are
in scale with their surroundings. The existing scale of homes in our neighborhood
produces a feeling of privacy and balance that deserves to be maintained. The
neighborhood has already suffered the loss of many trees at the site in'question
to accomodate the major remodel. The size of this major remodel without the
variance will make it an imposing structure in the neighborhood. Any variance
to allow it to cover more than the 35% allowed by code would be a daily offense
to the eyesight and sensibilities for people in the neighborhood and visitors
to the area.
5) It should also be noted that contrary to statements made in the variance
application, point 7 of the request, after checking with the City of Lake
Oswego, no other such structures have been granted similar variances anywhere
near this neighborhood.
In summary, the 35% lot coverage zoning code is more than generous for this site.
There is no hardship in only being allowed a 4600+ sqft residence with a 3793 sq ft
fort thent.goodlt is most and well beingtoft to maintain the all affected and to maintrall ain theintegrity of the of neighborhood
zoning codes.
Sincerely yours,
Lynne &Tom Black
17339 Blue Heron Road
Lake Oswego, Oregon
6153
•
Aro—`• 17292 Cedar Road
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
(503) 292-9101
October 25, 1988
p
Development Review Board
City of Lake Oswego
380 A Street
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 • •
Dear Development Review Board Members:
. Subject: Var 42-88, proposed 5.8% variance to the maximum 35% lot coverage in an
R-7.5 zone.
• This letter is in regard to the variance request at 17308 Cedar Road. As a neigh- ,
bor directly south of the property line, we ask you to deny the variance request. ,
Below we have listed some of the reasons for denial of the 5.8% increase above the
35% maximum lot coverage zoning code.
7
A. The Proposed Variance is 'not in Keeping with the Neighborhood
1. The trees, space and sense of privacy all give our neighborhood its
special character. Most homes are nowhere near the 35% lot coverage.
Also, most homes in the area have considerably less than the 4,600 sq,
ft. structure being built by the Reilings. For example, our home has
approximately 1,700 sq. ft. The building of a structure which dwarfs the
surrounding homes has a negative visual effect on all who see it and ruins
the beauty and balance of the neighborhood.
2. Allowing this variance could set a precedent which would encourage more
. people
ofas nteh35
l surpass
the
%h ,
lot
otcoverage. This would drastically change the
eo
3. The Reilings state in their letter of application that variances of this `
type may have been issued in this neighborhood. However, after checking
with the Planning Department, it was ascertained that no variance of this
type had been issued in this area.
B. The Proposed Variance Does not Create a Hardship
. 1. The Reilings purchased their home approximately two years ago. They have
had an adequate amount of time to plan a structure which would fit their
requirements and be within the 35% lot coverage.
6.154 ElI/
4
•
•
T n
•
•
Development Review Board
Page 2
October 25, 1988
2. If any hardship exists, it has been created by the Reilings who are
requesting the variance as they proceed with their remodeling, instead of
securing the variance before beginning construction.
C. The Proposed Variance Does not Address the Concerns of the Neighbors
In their letter to the Board of October 14, 1988, the Reilings referred to us,
Dr. and Mrs. Lawrence Mackles, in points 2 and 3.
1. In point 2, the Reilings state they have taken into consideration our
distress at the impact their deck and consequent structure will have on
us. In fact, the Reilings have proceeded with their building without any
regard to our concerns or feelings. To state an example, we have had to
hire a Consulting Arborist, Bill L. Owen, and an attorney, John Marandas,
to confer with us on saving the beautiful 100-year old Douglas Fir which
is located on both our properties. We felt compelled to take this
environmental action as Mr. Reiling wanted to cut the tree down and showed
no regard for our wishes in this matter.
2. In point 3, regarding the setback and revised position of the deck, '
neither of these minimize the loss of our privacy as implied in their
fetter. ' In fact, due to the design of the structure and removal of trees
• from their'property, we are losing all of the privacy in our yards, both
• front and back, as well as the privacy on the entire south side of our
home. We are terribly upset that the beauty and privacy of the home we
purchased two months ago has been greatly diminished by the Reiling's
remodel and will be further compromised if the variance is granted.
In conclusion, we feel the 35% lot coverage zoning code allows for the building of
homes appropriate to our neighborhood. We can see no hardship in building a 4,600
square foot residence within the 35% lot coverage limit on this site. We feel it
is imperative to keep the charm, balance and integrity of the neighborhood. The
existing maximum lot coverage zoning code was established to maintain the
standards for the benefit of all Lake Oswegans.
Sincerely,
Lawrence0_4
F. Mackles, M.D. /'./�
e � C�tic3—/GAG/-_
Alexis F. Aquino-Mackles
udk
Wes'
6155
•
•
October 25, 1988
OCT 6 ,. ,
Development Review Board
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
City Hall
Lake Oswego,OR 97034
RE: Comments on Request for Class II Variance for Remodel/Construction at 17308
Cedar Road, VAR 42-88
Dear Board Members:
As a practicing architect for 10 years, I am very much aware of the importance of zoning
regulations in preserving the scale,character,and general quality of a neighborhood.
Height regulations, set-back requirements, and lot coverage standards are important
factors in protecting adjacent neighbor's privacy, views, natural light,and landscape,
while still allowing tremendous latitude in the design of individual residences. I am also
aware of the importance of allowing variances to property owners based upon special
considerations which could not have been anticipated by the zoning ordinance. On behalf
of my clients, I have applied for and been granted a number of variances which responded
to the intent, if not the letter, of the code.
My concern about this particular application is that it violates both the intent and the
letter of the zoning code. I have reviewed the applicant's letters of September 21 and
October.14 and believe that their arguments in favor of their request are not valid based
upon the criteria outlined in the Lake Oswego City Ordinance. Specifically:
- The applicant's argument that the elevated decks should not be considered as
part of the lot coverage calculation is contrary to the Zoning Ordinance.
Elevated decks have virtually the same impact on privacy, natural light, views,
landscape, and perceived building mass as enclosed structure.
- Lake Corporation property cannot and should not be used in calculating lot
coverage. This is comparable to a property owner using an adjacent city park in
their calculation of lot coverage. Lake Corporation land is neither owned nor
controlled by the applicant. •
- The applicant claims that similar variances have been granted In our
neighborhood. I have walked through the neighborhood looking for evidence of
this and have found none.
- The applicant's argument that the request is necessary to prevent unnecessary
hardship is,perhaps, the most curious. With a lot area of 10,750 s.f., the
owners is allowed approximately 3,753 s.f. of building footprint. Subtracting
1,000 s.f. for garage and decks, the applicant cah still build over 2,700 s.f.
floor on multiple levels. The proposed house is in excess of 4,300 s.f. Even
assuming one level, a 3,750 s.f. house does hot constitute a hardship,even by
Lake Oswego standards. Most people in this neighborhood are"surviving" in
houses of 1500 to 2000 5.f.
615E
•
Page 2
Development Review Board October 25, 1988
As a neighbor and resident of Blue Heron Bay, I am concerned about the precedent which
would be established by granting this variance and the direct and indirect impacts on the
neighborhood in which I live. Enforcement of the city's zoning regulations Is the most
Important factor In preserving the scale,character, and quality of our neighborhood.
Variances,when granted, must be based upon far more convincing reasons than are
evident In this application. I respectfully request that this application be denied.
With best regards.
Thomas G. Pen
17255 S.W.Blue Heron Rd.
Lake Oswego,Oregon 97035
A
•
•
j
615/
WILLIAM L.OWEN and ASSOCIATES
Tree and Landscape Consulting Services A. . .
1331 S,W.BROADWAY,PORTLAND,OREGON 97201,5031222-7007 caw:�.pii'UM
October 27, 1988
Ms. Renee Dowlin .
Associate Planner
City of Lake Oswego 05`)
380 "A" Avenue 0 Z '
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 �,v‘
Dear Ms. Dowlin:
At the request of Mrs. Alexis Mackles, on October 14, 1988 I inspect-
ed a large Fir tree on her property at 17292 Cedar Road, Lake Oswego,
Oregon. The purpose of the inspection was to attempt to ascertain
the tree's general condition, value and what possible impact construc-
tion on the neighboring property might have upon the tree. As a re-
sult of that inspection I can make the following preliminary report.
The tree is a basically sound and stable, old specimen of very
substantial ornamental amenity value to the property. At the
time of my inspection, I saw no significant damage on the neigh- .
bor's side of the property to the root system, though some dis-
' turbance .had occurred. I also recognized, however, that the 2
tree could be placed in substantial jeopardy from root damage,
possible destabilization, and long term harmful affects if the
wrong construction practices were used at its root base on the
neighbor's side.
Also at the request of Mrs. Mackles, I have appraised the tree and
can give it a depreciated value as an ornamental amenity specimen on
the property of $16,758.35. The criteria and data in substantiation
of this value can be supplied upon request.
, As to the future construction proposed by the neighbor, I have only
seen preliminary plans, which do not define specifically the actual
impact this construction could have on the root system. I can there-
, fore not make a definitive statement regarding any possible trauma to .
the tree from such construction. However, I certainly urge extreme
caution in any construction which may occur on. Moreover, in order
to insure that the damage and trauma to the root system of the tree
is minimized to the lowest possible level, I Would have to be present
during any construction activity in its root zone to be sure certain
safety practices were observed. .
o•` � ,, INSPECTION.DIAGNOSIS AND EVALUATION OE TREES,SHRUBS AND RELATED PLANT!
,., CONSULTATION WITH RESPECT TO PLANTING.TRANSPLANTING.PRESERVATION.MAI
' .:t1d4 i. ;:' ARBOREAL PLANNING,COMI'REHENSIVELOSS OR DAMAGE REPORTS,DULY SANCTIONED APPRAISALS
1 --' POR LEGAL OR CONTRACTUAL PURPOSES.LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE TESTIMONY IN COURT CASES.
. 158
n
Ms. Renee Dowlin
October 27, 1988 ,'—'
Page Two 11
I believe the tree is of truly significant value to both properties
and would urge strongly that great care be taken to give it every
possible protection to avoid damage. I have so informed Mrs. Mackles
and am awaiting instructions relative thereto. If my appearance at
the hearing regarding this matter is necessary, I presume Mrs.
Mackles will advise me.
Let me know if you need further information relative to this report.
Thank you very yours,,--
Very truly' o�j
Willi vwen tF�l�U
American Society of Consulting Arborists #114
•
WLO:jmc
cc: Mrs. Alexis F. Aquino Mackles
I
•
6159
yY
4
EXHIBIT
e y i l to A/taue Zoct4 1 10
17784,1 S. (W. Cautnat !J_l2tue
2aIL CCongo, CD2e9on 97034 ,
Oe 1vs,
. ds.,. .„r,_,. „2„„....., ate-art-d. ,
ORE ; Iftu cartce. y6)-8S'
,p am- t wi.t.hric9 at Ll "-d. tz -
“L: t u-.c t.o,t.. bfx.Paito Liako.c� c 17308" eo,cLaA)
mxn. -tRa. 'ht`rat-d-oi t.3 oi U du y .
J ✓4-0 2 ern. ?a:IL- i 0k /5u ttcu i-t A
t. cit. a uL�¢�, an. -G-a.4.i-i.
CUTI. rt lifeaci t CA du C.Q. Li " c• O
-�ti d _. t. t,, .J'U, 41,c,r cA, ,1_c.A,k tb
rr�
.E' and CAA- ovt�. L.'ta'8A`n.1 t�`L 'cLL &L ,
bkLd- wn LL4 •.ee- -.14g t - ng Ll"__t
�,t �a.t.a`�.UL,e- La C�-Ql�u
ram- O Gf f � - Lt
CL�I'I,CCh.N, c(_L.t.p. 7t, G `i 1 �ULCL
t, cutao.ac & CJta4.ht ° &A -
I `� 6100
•
k I
R
I
eyngta s 4aue 1Zoa4
17754 g, CW. ea'"tLnaL Z2toe
1'a/e Oswego, Ougon 97034
Re'. U a.rt,c2 -VI' Ln�kc a Cl `-Q�,G17111 C 0.
Lr LL`c1�
.giutl...7u:Ve-L.Pure.ct 2ts- -t1 C CA. cry
LnC�'Lc d.c11 G� eL `Q Lard Glut
Ell;, c.o,ta,b�L�G - -i1L
t,a.L�.. (z Ctx t a ti
C
fit-
a
and iv �`'L- , cAcill L�
, % LAO Itt-le1-91-Crtt-CL k•eb.1-- 6°1 1)-6
l/—/�D�(ll(/..,�ll t,tDV 'V.�a+1 1 , ,/�fV(J�.(per G 1 G.l
J (/�