Agenda Packet - 1990-09-17 •
. a)' ' ft-_:) .e f...) a,a
. ..
. .
. .
. ..
, .
•
. •
. ..
•
...
...
. .
se ,. .d . ---, \9 c,\0 ,
. .
. .
• . .,
. .
•
1.......'....:.....*'.......,''.:'....;.:.......'''
•
•
C1�
`,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
••
•
•
•
0
•
•
.00
•
•
•
y
i
i
•
•
•
•
•
t +
+. I
•
o
r ;
'� y • t r 5
• w o r. »
AGENDA' '0
CI'I'Ti' OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL,380 'A' AVENUE
s •
Monday, September 17, 1990
•
7:30 P.M.
A I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS , ,
• V. PUBLIC HEARING
•
{' SD 30-90\VAR 16-90(a—b),a request by Drew Davis for a land partition to create two
• lots. Since the site is n platted lot in the Village on the Lake planned development, this
•
request is also a request to modify the approved planned development layout. The
t applicant is also requesting a 25 foot Class II Variance to the 25 foot lot frontage
‘, .. • ,, ' . requirement (DS 18.020(1) for proposed Parcel 2. The site is located at the east terminus
of Twin Points Drive right—of—way (Lot 28, Block 4, Village on the Lake Subdivision),
otherwise described as Tax Lot 2900 of Tax Map 2 1E 9BD Supplemental. £ontinued
' �1990.
$D 36-90/VAR 20-90, a request by Jose and Christel Saraiva for approval to create three
parcels from a 43,614 sq. ft. lot. Each parcel is proposed to be in excess of 5,000 sq. ft. in
0.
size. Also, the applicant is seeking approval of a 25 foot Class II variance to the access
Development Standard which requires that each parcel abut a public street for a
minimum of 25 feet. The applicant proposes one parrO,to have no portion abutting a
street. The site is located at 5207 Rosewood Street (I au Lot 3200 of Tax Map 2 1E 18AB).
VI. GENERAL PLANNING
•
' VII. OTHER BUSINESS —Findings, Conclusions and Order
' SD 29-90—Thomas W. O'Connor
i
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
N 0..try, -. .
.,
r, The Lake Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free *-to come and go as you please, ,
•
1 . ,
b'. • y
1 , •
V , M
•
'• S
1.
r
•
• _l
.. „
•
DRB Members:
•
Robert H.Foster,Chair Robert Galante,Acting Planning Director
Ginger Remy,Vice—Chair Sandra Korbelik,Senior Planner
•
James A.Bloomer Hamid Pishvaie,Dev.Review Planner
Robert D.Greaves Lynn Bailey,Associate Planner
Skip Stanaway Catherine Clark,Associate Planner
- • Harry N.Starr Jane Heisler,Associate Planner
Norman J.Sievert Michael R.Wheeler,Associate Planner '
x, Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney
Barbara Anderson,Secn:tary
•
411 •
. .
.•
l n 6 �
•
•
•
•
t.
•
� J .
:t l
_. MEMORANDUM ".
0
TO: Development Review Board , ,. ,
VIP O Box 369
��i/ uk.Otwigo FROM: Lynn Bailey, Associate Plann
Oregon 97074
i Planning RE. SD 30-90/VAR 16-90/PD 3-85(Mod. 7-90)
507.675.0290
IsomEnginnorinq s07.6760270 DATE: September 7, 1990
Boddmq
503,6%1790 •
•� FA%
r' 4/ ) 597 675.0269 `
I. BACKGROUND AND FINDINGS:
7d,
r i` This item was originally scheduled to be heard by the Board on August
20 1990. The applicant requested a postponement to September 7,
W 1990 to allow additional time to submit supplemental''materials in
response to issues raised in the staff report dated August 10, 1990
(Exhibit 38). b.
On August 28, 1990, 20 days prior to the rescheduled hearing, the
0. •
On
submitted the supplemental narrative found as Exhibit 37 to
this memo. Although the applicant raised some questions in the new
', 0
narrative regarding procedural errors, these issues are not applicable to
04)........_..) the criteria which the Board must review for approval of the partition,
variance and planned development modification requests. The
.017 supplemental narrative is briefly summarized and analyzed below.
L 8,490 P1aMed Dev ent Modification:
The applicant contends that the proposed partition rcomplies with the '
modification criteria because a density maximum of 101 units was
' 3 C approved for the Village on the Lake PD and because the proposed
VI partition results in less total lots than the "maximum" allowed, k
0 C Staffs recommendation on the density issue was discussed in the staff
' report dated August 10, 1990. Density is determined on a lot—by—lot
basis based on the individual site's physical aspects. Lots within the
x Village on the Lake Planned Development were carefully reviewed
v c during the original review process and the size and configuration of the
site was found at that time to be appropriate due to its private driveway
` access, steep slopes, and natural resources, The applicant's argument 9
that lot consolidation has occurred elsewhere in the planned
"°�'° development does not make the subject site more suitable for '
partitining, The proposed plat modification and partition would result '
in a disturbance to the site's natural features. Objection have been
�•• raised by surrounding property owners, including the Lake
Corporation, which indicates that the request may adversely affect
IMAMS
other property and uses.
* ,
SD 3(1-90etc/Supplemental '
p Page lof G a. .�,
' r,
•
•
` 4 n '-. • . • • • , 4' tit '' . • j
•
•
Zoning Code and Development Standards:
0 . '
The applicant contends that most of the Zoning Code requirements
met, that the previous planned development approval allows flexibility
•
in some of the Zoning Code requirements that are not met, such as lot
width. The Zoning Code specifies that deity on a site he subject to
requirements set forth in the Development/ ,.liridards. The applicant
contends that most of the Development Standards are met and requests
a variance for the Access (25 foot lot frontage) requirement that is not
•
met. Based on the findings and analysis of the staff report dated
August 10, 1990 (Exhibit 38), the submitted plans do not adequately
demonstrate compliance with all of the applicable Development
Standards. For example, existing grades are not accurately shown, y
proposed grading is not shown, and parking areas are not indicated on
ti the three alternative footprint plans. n
Comprehensive Plan Policies:
The applicant's narrative addresses the applicable Plan policies. The
applicant contends that all the policies are met through the applicable
Zoning Code and Development Standards and that those requirements
Aare met or can be deferred to the building permit review process. Staff
recommends that the applicant should demonstrate that the proposed
density on the site is suitable for site conditions. Items typically
•
deferred to the building permit process (such as grading, setbacks,
height, guest parking) should not be deferred due to the variance
criteria involved,
0 '
Variance:
The applicant continues to claim that the variance criteria are met
because of the existence of numerous other lots in the vicinity that do
I.
not meet the 25 foot lot frontage requirement. The variance criteria
require the applicant to demonstrate, in part, that development
consistent with the request will not be injurious to the neighborhood or
to the site. Comments received from surrounding property owners,
attached as exhibits to this memorandum to the Board, indicate that
development of an additional lot could be injurious to other properties.
Staff finds that further development of the site may be injurious to the
r.;K. . site's steep slopes and trees,
„ •
Since a grading plan was not submitted, staff cannot determine whether
a variance to the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Standard is
required. In addition, the effect of proposed grading on existing trees f`S�tF •. . cannot be evaluated. The variance criteria also require the applicant to •it
demonstrate that the request is necessary to prevent unnecessary 1
hardship, The applicant contends that a financial hardship would be y
� `'•
incurred but has not submitted any evidence to support that argument, `
such as tax assessments, appraisals or other professional financial
documentation,
•
..
ID : - ,
SD 30-90etc/Supplemental
Page 2of 4
,,
tl9
•
•
•
O .
II. CONCLUSIOj:
. . 0
Based upon analysis of the evidence that has been presented staff
concludes that all applicable criteria have not been et and that
• substantial additional evidence is necessary to address relevant criteria.
Review of all applicable criteria is necessary to determine whether the
variance request and resulting development are injurious or not to the
surrounding properties or to the site itself. .
The applicable criteria for which adequate evidence has not been a
provided are: a
LOC 48.490 Changes in Planned Development Approval
LOC 49.510 Variance Standards
LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval
LOC 57.005-57.135 Solar Access
DS 7.005-7.040 Parking and Loading
DS 12.005-12.040 Drainage
DS 13.005-13.040 Weak Foundation Soils II
DS 16.005•-16.040 Hillside Protection &Erosion Control ,,
DS 18.005-18.040 Access Standard
Since compliance with the standards listed above is used as a measure
to determine compliance with he Comprehensive Plan policies, those
policies are also not met.
•
III. RECOMMENDATION:
'' ° Staff recommends that the applicant's request for
minor partition and planned modificationdevelopment bess IDENIEDI e'
Exhibits
1, Tax Map
2. Vicinity Map •
1Applicant's Narrative '
4. Applicant's Supplemental Narrative dated July 26, 1990
`` . 5. Site Survey and Tree Survey
6. Site Plan of Proposed Partition and Residence Under Construction
7. Slope Analysis
8. Slope Analysis with Alternative A, Proposed Building Footprint
for Parcel 1
9, Slope Analysis with Alternative B, Proposed Building Footprint `
for Parcel 1 '
10. Slope Analysis with Alternative C, Proposed Building Footprint '
•
for Parcel 1
11. Maps of Surrounding Area As Evidence To Support Variance
`. Request
12, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation dated May 11, 1989 and
Geotechnical Consultation dated August 21, 1990
' 13. Findings, Conclusions and Order for Village on the Lake Planned
Development and Related Variances
III
, .
SD 30-90etc/Supplemental
Page 3of 4
14. Staff Report dated March 22, 1985
15. Staff Report dated May 15, 1985
16. Staff Report and Decision dated March 26, 1986 for
SD 03-86-04
17. Minutes of April 1, 1985 Development Review Board Meeting
•
18. Minutes of April 17, 1985 Development Review Board Meeting 19. Minutes of May 6, 1985 Development Review Board Meeting
20. Minutes of Special May 22, 1985 Development Review Board
Meeting
•
® . 21. Minutes of Special May 23, 1985 Development Review Board
Meeting
22. Minutes of September 4, 1985 Development Review Board ,
Meeting
23. Minutes of November 18, 1985 Development Review Board Y
Meeting
24. Letter from Nick Bunick dated July 28, 1990
25. Letter from Mark A. Roberts dated August 6, 1990
26. Letter from Robert Briede' dated August 6, 1990
27. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Gene Arnold dated August 8, 1990 I 28. Memorandum date December 5, 1989 from Mayor and City •
•
Council
•
29. Exhibit ab from DR 3-85(etc)/50% Slope Analysis for Lot 28 r
(prior to lot line adjustment) !
30. Letter from Dr. Richard C. Cabot dated August 9, 1990 •
31. Letter from Applicant dated August 20, 1990 requesting
continuance
32. Letter from Lake Oswego Corporation dated August 20, 1990 0 ' '
33. Letter from Charles H. Johnson dated August 14, 1990
34, Letter from Mark Roberts dated August 20, 1990
'": 35, Memorandum from Timothy V, Ramis dated August 28, 1990
36. Letter to Nick Bunick from Timothy V, Ramis dated August 28,
1990
37. Applicant's Supplemental Narrative submitted August 28, 1990
38, Staff Report dated August 10, 1990
LB/ba
•
,
• SD 30-90etc/Supplemental
Page 4of 4
•
•
M• °�' NORTH
•
•
E 10100 0�� L •
i
,a ( 1000 1�, 10900 Q 10800 •""'s7 y 4
o ,�, 10700 ,A THIS SKETCH IS MADE SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING M _ w w 1, i IN LOCATItIG SAID PREMISES, AND THE COMPANY ASSUMES NO
' ,��`� 1100 �•� t. t I LIABILITY FOR VARIATION, IF ANY, IN DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS -•
.= t (1 it ` ASCERTAINED BY ACTUAL SURVEY.
' THIS PLOT PLAN IS COURTESY OF
\ 20 I OREGON TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY = ,_� i �-
4 • w'•
L.
•
5 17 4 �P` 10500 4700
•
I iisi•e�• �+
�. i �.°,' , v' 'LI2500 ' v w
\� `5 CC b �� �'3` N' •+�' ram tie7•�ti• , �,
3. f0G G 1— 512 40 ' w'.r 4600
;� A`+•�� �, 12200 h 12 300 . w st, u .•
2 n -v. 12600 4500
•t -t,.
•) 4 (2700 Z'
6 co
44
M a ,y4300 e .
12000 o y' �0 '
�,410
V• ~' io3 =� p it, •Ld a -L�a
•
` I I 900 -4. C) Is 7 I . ..".‘
O \ • 4200r`p,J�� ;i 4390'1 3,>\ C
v v 8
1 q
9 •
' �� 4100 114 s
1.
w'`s •
v, �a a 3100 t',, 3200 `,/Le ` _•
3000 wot 12 -°• 9°
04,
\\ ,
3300 s E `'O 1 5 3700
t « 7•93� 0.j o� 0 '� ral 0 3500 x �.
4n" ��rbQ �� 5 o T' f
tM0 � �4Si •' a 1
E a8D o. 2900 •• `v ,/ .2. q,frjtveu
• ; 7...... �:� `3 � 5 ,v �� r SAX?OT ` y
, 2 1
v •u' S� U
a 6 v . . N
. � 6�-f -
E4. XHIBIT
r.
2 8 ;�,+
yam ' .� Bo°ice • t /
MAP Ecoqo7(4c. +
,
- ,••• °
' . .
. ,
' •
' -,. •
• .,
. • •
. .
. ..
',1 n
1. • ' J
•',, .i ,:I
4
S
•. .
1 / ., . ...
... <IT to+,•
a / g 1
i _/77;ri:01 rou ,...41,..,,,,,,ost . ••t...,i 3 _F....• ...,..„, r •r. •Pj' , a
, ,- ty„.„cr—,,f .zrar -”,itc.1 ..: •,- -L,.;rii L I, . . .,,,,..., .„ -i •., - cif..- /3],, t..:•„,„,, -, \
---( ---tts..'7 -.4.7, '1' • 1 --.4,1,,,, '''1.1\-•-.. 1'' ' .7 A-A1'' , e FO
ir0.13 ti,i Mil 1
, . ••• '
g *. % * .. •ON%
r.. '''/,,,,. LS1V I ....' ... • . ..4V4,.....*' `0.44",' 414' ". •'".
r • 14 mu, . • , % I —52 yr, al ' 1 • \
di .
, ziT.:„.. wg ,r L A--.,kli . ‘• N‘,,.. : . .1 . r,,,,i 11E4.. .. i ,. ‘,34 is
•,.:
.. :,, ... • ,..... , ,1,,..t....,..,„. 1 ..--
cc•d-• - kt..A
1 7 ',..• -•-•*-- r ---I -•:•: Alik- -.-!-..:•:4,Z11.1.. ''' .• • '.1116„:1;. w It
,
s.°: ::°••; • r.r• , .••• • •
„r il, T or /lie /I
I 't., ...,,51.a. •,14., ,• si4 e•P- • .1. , AO" r
1 .
-
,,
. _ ; ii 1 rt,„,. .i*4 , • ' i',• • • ';• 1 col .s.:k
• .?'• 1 f 04;1' 44 .........ph • • .1, ' t .• , •!, 1 aw 44 • ' I •••
.r+.4\r,..4.-1-`'''''';'\ ' •••"' it I ,Akry., 8 el
..6. 1,,(
..,„„„.. ,.. • _ ., . .4 .,...,..41.•, . .., - ,
.44,--....t.,. g: . .., ....,..„.......y.. . .. -••• •• • . ..,..., 4. , , 44,..,...„
-- ',dap-:..,.., it..I ,..,---2---9-- l'A''' ,?;'4.t.';3\': '' * , Uil. 1,r -
, .. -7_,...7.1.;: 2...11,.!:._ . ___,..........cLAerx.NA-04444,4AHcool ••••ifi.4_,,_•.A-i`...1:'.,,c1'...N..-: .....: ._.,,..j.thk,,, rtS 4r ... .
•
3,,d eti t
....,..4
\
A,.••;•,',..
•
° . 11.•-'Tie ., , 4g- • I;-ai•••:- .. 44“: ct° ./.....
4 .,--,....,rvi ti % 4, %I ... m, ..• . • 71
' - • 'lir l-lw a ra' a ACC)\:
.
- • . ,-,' 11--F,',•••,•.' . .' •:•. '•h",f'..V.I. i.... 1 .,. e•V '
•Ir .. ....,
- -, -;-- 1 !pc ... , ,..,..,.., ..,.., ,•:,:,:..,.::1..,'f •:,L,,'et:44,. 4., 4.;/%1 ' '
"' •`.444"7: •-'"''''".7.- uoci't .N.,.'...<,....Z:1. .•••is 4 - Q ..
' n.t•'
i • 1 -
--4- • _ 'I• • !0'.'Pr i • 'Itcr 1:'..;:1.,'1!....i.:',..:1,. g"et
,....,0.1
Trritc.u.o•ne •''.' ..0.313.,
01:100 •41,003 1 ..% .i. : •ftevol•r-o 1 I- - . ,:--...1-4,„,. . ..•'•,L,,• '',Y,,'•; - lif...,* .1'
0,10, 'i PAO A 41 w• . , • ATWAY M .Pik ,'el' 6 iiire i',....::.,r,':,, 1 .•••• 1...1 1 "" v
, 11 '' 1441 L 1 / .ooligigilawilimj,..hipohily":jk‘ •i` ri 7''' _ I , '
- • -f '
. •
-11-.4.-;.•• ,...,'0- 1 . • „ .(likgektitriiirnetiVE N , . ,.
67 . 1 g .r ; ' :•*•" •. "• •71- - * ' - Niviii tad - -- '4:2:1.-12 3
III . I
ci i - •, • , • ,,, ...... • . ••••••. ° g:_. Alf•iii Ve ••••plim • S•
.•
3 : :• •'UR/0.4140 .r.L.At L'Ilect. L7r4i1,117, Pnlir411 jilj " . AI . 1- .,.,.,Irrt7 1_04 1 .. , .. • ,:cotoirkt!auk,:. ' m.• ', •D' II i,..S IT- pi( ..• . •1.7..*t r44 el
• . , ,
* 1 ......., °, .. .!..-.;;;•';'.„ ..°....,..°01,0 1 Airitigikj- ' 1 .si,,t/ ' ) ' ' 17,,'-‘•
1 ' ... .• 'tg
, A
to , qui/ r ••,',',..*• so ' Iftiftlif. • r M„s, I -' •
.".,\
JEI''P
--' -i• '. .' • - to • "b'v er iti . 5 .• 1 ,
"----,. ., 44.1rp-., ,, ...4_... . ..g_e•L,..i0.it, ...•*,,.....%„,,,,,.',''' ,itt2„/4.,:. --—•+i1I,..,i,,,„. —,.. e..,..,1..,,,,..4.;...:.....,._.7J:11_c4o1o:. .0l,.-":''..,•.'0nl1.i0 t4•,l,.y0i,e....r.ri 4r 1.,.1„ ,
+0:. 1 . ,rCu)....„ fi .
v '.. 1 .„. ,.. LAKE I'•ir.,1 i'."-‘c.LMt."t'miIg..Lof..,v.:iI_:._t.s.. .:•
1
.
, A
, OSWEGO #•••• •' t.4 t:, ,..owes
"/
s 4
. ......,-.... , . --..N_IN i
,,-
r"-.-----.50 4-1-4..•••41—.4 514 a '; r 4 • . 111117M-. EDW. :r; r, ; Tr 44-er I- .NI.'
• ,•,g, , •ore
,,piOP. .11 1P i..0t.f._.„eri,k.?,.t•.,ay.,,k i.t.:4i,w•
,6...-.L.c..,,A,tC T,,:,•„4_,.,.H'I w.G,.‘
..,...I..,..
. 'VR"Air T•rrm„ff iltl ra.ai..r....th.iies.L,,i0.a4t..s').•.114,:„1 14111 j 17-.5`2,4.."1.4,1 1 I4 I,,°:,e,1 ,,,05 g- i . ; t4 "_— -,c31f7,_..,,•1,,. .,.f.9
.'.1,/,'.,.—
t4
. * . c7,17 •r"T.-o.1'•N 0.,4'ie 4•.-.'''',, /..-..-
..„\.'L.e..•,
p 2 ,,-t,•,,
:.
•
•'
...,1
. •
,..c '14' ' T...' > 5 i....1....i4c. ti•tt. • I
' )0tgal• •
.'71-.1'1UF1
, ,
.,..,....,) ....,,, 7IL
,,,, I...4Z,, (.7 4144-,t1/4,... i.,_ ..J. , tell , •.„1,.3 I
0.4..g4f:. r r.....7E 4 Ii.S a ""°4,4%..• ,... I 4
VICINITY MAP
, .
< k• .4
4 EXHIBIT N i••1 •
, • .
. ..,
•
. .
•
.► APPLICATION FOR MINOR LAND\PARTITION
• ProJei. Description - Stateme
nt ent of Intent'; 41116
The applicant requests approval to partition hlis property, platted as Lot 28 and a portion of Lot 6, Block
it
4, "Village on the Lake" in the City of Lake Oswego. The property exists as a single tax lot, known
as T.L. 2900, Map No. 2 lE 9BD Su
p.X and built on the northeastern portion of the property,�and�its location is plotted on the Si627 square feet in size. A te homel in just been
this application. The existing home complies with all setback requirements. eluded with
The proposed partition will divide the property into two 15,000+ s tf.ysingle family lots. One lot will
contain the new existing home, and the other lot will contain a future ttome, yet to be designed and built.
Because the existing home and the future home will both receive access from Twin Point Drive, which
is private, and one lot will be provided an access easement through the other lot, a Class II Variance from
the Development Code access/frontage standard is required. TheVariance Request is included as a part
of this application. p
Site Conditions: IL
4
"Zoning The site is zoned and designated on the comprehensive
single family use with a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet
The proposed partition is in compliance with the zoning and
Comprehensive Plan designations.
•
' ID
Topography/ The topographic survey, included with this application, '
Vegetation the existing slope of the land and the locationp of the treesllustra ortthe
site.
Utilities All necessary utilities and public facilities are available to serve
tie site. Existing easements are shown on the site plan. No
structures will be located within these easements.
• Access Both lots will obtain access from Twin Point Drive,
which is
private, An existing access easement is located on the site, The
easement will be extended to provide access to the easterly lot.
Lake-Natural Because the site abuts the lake,a 40' natural buffer zone will be
Buffer Area
preserved, as required, from the edge of the lake, The buffer,'
setback line has been platted with the Village on the Lake plat and ii
is shown on the Site Plan included with this application, ,
Solar Although the lots are configured irreg ►larly, the existing home is
Compliance sited in compliance with solar requirements, The future home
will be built so that it is oriented for maximum solar access, Both
parcels meet the intent of the solar ordinance by having N-S depth
of greater than 90',
, . ,
. :
4 EXHIBIT
-1- . p,i ,
. gip..,.. 3_._._._0-Ki‘4
Compliance with Development Ordinances and Standards:
, The application is in compliance with the applicable zoning, Comprehensive •
development standards. Specifically; Plan and•
. Parking (;
Two off-street parking spaces will be provided on each homesite. (Refer to Site Plan).
Min. Lot Area
Proposed parcel areas exceed the minimum standard of 15,000 s.f.
Min. Lot Dimensions
Because the proposed parcels are of irregular configuration, special consideration is necessary
in determining lot dimensions. Each proposed parcel has dimensional width and length whi
•
complies with Code requirements by the provision of min. 80-foot widths, (measured side
to side at the house building line), and depths exceeding 100 feet (measured perpendicular
to width).
Preliminary dimensions and areas of the two proposed parcels are illustrated on the Site Plan,
included with this application package. These will be finalized and calculated at the time the
partition survey is drawn up.
III .
Setbacks
The proposal complies with all required setbacks, including 10-foot side yards, 25-foot rear
yards and 20-fcot front yards. As mentioned above, the 40-foot lake buffer setback is
complied with. '
also
Lot Coverage
The proposed parcels are partitioned so that the existing home will be in compliance with the
max. 30% lot coverage requirement.
Compliance with LCDC Goals and Objectives:
By conformingwith the requirements'
9 ' is set forth in the City's development and zoning ordinances and
the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed minor partition is in compliance with the applicable LCDC
• statewide goals, Because the proposed partition meets the min, zoning requirements for min, 15
s,f, lots and single family residential use, it is compatible with surrounding uses,
The lake is a natural and attractive amenity that provides a "view benefit" as well as recreational and
cultural opportunities for the proposed homesites. The sloping character of the property allows the
construction of an additional home without impacting the views of adjacent ro e
of these factors are consistent with the LCDC statewide goals and guidelines,p P owners. All
Ill • -
-2-
CLASS 11 VARIANCE REQUEST
• 410
' Site Location:
d
Lot 28 and a portion of Lot 6, Block 4, of the "Village on the Lake" plat.
R The property obtains access from S,W. Twin Point Drive, which is a private road,
Statement of.Intent:
The intent of.this request is to obtain approval to vary from the Code's access re; uirement
25 feet of frontage on a public street, The application is in conjunction with the minor of min.
of the propehty which will create two lots (labeled as Parcel I and Parcel II on the Site Plan include deg
with this application package, One lot will- receive access by an easement throughr the o e •
• e
exists on Parcelpreliminary alignment of the easement is shown on the Site Plan. Final alignment will be determined'l .
at the time the survey for the partition is drawn up. A new single family home
No home has yet begin built on Parcel I.
II.
a
Criteria for Approval:
The following are responses to the Criteria for Approval for Class II Variances,
• P
,
a. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship.
Response:
If the variance were not
the ty even granted, only one house could be accommodated
though zoning requirements would allow uptwohomes,
on,
Therefore, without the variance theowner would
to l howit,su�1plus land that, given current economicy conditions, could left with
efficiently utilizedould not
thus creating an economic hardship,
Special circumstances exist which are not commonly found and which create the need for the
variance, Because of its irregular configuration, the property has only 35
Twin Point Dr., a private road, making it impossible to provide each of the two of frontageon
min, 25 feet of public road frontage which the Code requires, Additionally, it is important with the
existing home,
an ingress - egress easement already exists on the roe e t to
note
es
access to
ing home, Partitioning the property will make it necessary property
thisnasement to be extended
to ensure that access to the home will be protected, Therefore, based on these c
this request were not approved, unnecessary hardship would result, onditions, if
b, Development consistent with the request will not be injurious to the neighborhood in i
the property is located or to property established to be affected bythe n which
request,
Response:
Because the proposed use is in compliance with the applicable development ordinances and
the
Comprehensive Plan, and the proposed lot size is consistent with those in the adjacent
neighborhood, the request is compatible with and not injurious to its surroundings,
The minor increase in traffic that would result from one additional home obtaining access from
' •
Twin Point Dr. would not be significant enough to impact the neighborhood or to conflict
the existing use of the private road, with
.
-3-
• T •
c. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the
Response:
III
property.
I,
The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the
Reasonable and efficient use of the property will be achieved by the partitionin in o property.
Access to Twin Point Dr, is necessary for both lots. g twa lots.
y F d. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
II l
Response:
,.� The proposed use for two single family lots with areas greater than 15,000
XV compliance with the Comprehensive Plan designation for theproperty, necessaryeuare feet is in
" '',facilities and services are available to the gproperty. and all
publice
Comprehensive Plan's general development policies, and granting the requestCCess variance
with the
involve a r,han of use or create° any circumstances that would be insco willhnot
Comprehensive Plan. the
•
i,
0
•
•
-4w
•
' a
' .
I,. • Al
0 .
A • , ,
. .
CD.N...CLUsugli
Based on all the information that is submitted with this application, and its compliance with the
,..
applicable development ordinances, the Comprehensive Plan, statewide goals and other important
criteria, approval is requested for the Minor Land Partition and Class II Variance.
. .
_., ..
fi
. .
----,-.,
III
• .„
...
..., ,,
. •
•
I
•
. n
..
•
•
-5-
. .
,
•
•
ADDENDUM
0
DAVIS PROPERTY - MINOR LAND PARTITION AND CLASS II VARIANCE
JIJLY 26, 1990
The following material is submitted in response to a misinterpretation of the Code which resulted in
miscalculation of the site coverage percentages for the application submitted July 6, 1990° Please discard
the previous information you received in the application package pertaining to slope analysis and replace
G► p e
it with the folloing:
,
•
l3
SLOPE ANALYSIS AND COMPLIANCE WITH HILLSIDE PROTECTION
AND EROSION CONTROL STANDARD
(L.O. Development Ordinance - Section 16.000)
The application for the Minor Partition, which will create two parcels (labeled as Parcel I and Parcel II
complies with the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Standard by meeting the criteria that at least
70 percent Qf I__._he sl4p of.50 ere rPa n the sire will remain free of structures and impervious
f_ � nt or iPr n
surfaces (Section 16.020 7. a.); and that no more than 65 percent of the area in slopes of 20 to 50 percent
shall be graded or stripped of vegetation (Section 16.020 2.c.). Each of these two criteria are addressed
below:
0 70 percent of the slopes of 50 percent or r
surfaces: g eater on the site to be free of structures or impervious
Both the existing home, located on Parcel II, and the proposed home(to be located on Parcel I), will meet
the R-15 Zoning Code standard for maximum 30 percent site coverage (including building "footprint"
and potential driveway area). The existing home 'footprint" and the potential area of a driveway and
garage entrance area will be the impervious surfaces and structures on Parcel II, The area of these
which covers 50 percent or greater slopes is calculated to be approximately 2,520 square feet, which
divided by the total area of 50 percent or greater slopes (12,009 square feet) on site makes a calculation
of 21 percent of site coverage, Therefore, approximately 79 percent of the lot will be free of structures
and impervious surfaces in compliance with the code requirement.
Although no home design has yet been established for Parcel I, to estimate the amount of site coverage
we can expect, Mike Barclay, an architect who is familiar with the she and the terrain, has provided us
F with three alternative house footprints which could be placed in various locations on the lot and would °
still meet the Hillside Protection and+Erosion Control Standard by not exceeding coverage of 30 ercent.
For each alternative we calculated the coverage by p
on Parcel I (7,451 s.f.) bythe area of driveway (impervious surface)dividing the total area of 50 percent or greater slopes
' (� P and the building footprint area
located on slopes of 50 percent or greater. Below are the findings, and refer to the attached graphic for
illustration of these findings,
4
4 EXHIBIT '3f9 -/
Alternate A:
•1,030 s.f. coverage on 50 percent or greater slopes
7,451 s.f. (divided by) •
p
14% coverage
86% of the 50 percent or greater slopes free of structures or impervious surfaces
Alternate B:
1,665 s.f. coverage on 50 percent or greater slopes
7,451 s.f. (divided by)
22% coverage
78% of the 50 percent or greater slopes free of structures or impervious surfaces
• Alternate C:
1,180 s.f. coverage on 50 percent or greater slopes
7,451 s.f. (divided by)
16% coverage
84% of the 50 percent or greater slopes free of structures or impervious surfaces
These findings support the application by showing that a home of approximately 2,000 square feet or
greater could be built on the lot while still meeting the Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Standard.
However, it should be noted that actual site coverage will be calculated and evaluated at the time of
building permit approval for the lot. These findings are submitted merely to provide a basis of showing
that the application meets the standard, and not to suggest that an actual building footprint for Parcel I
be established at this stage of development,
•
•
•
•
•
•
A
•
c,
,..„
•
No more than 65 percent of area in slopes of 20 to 50 percent shall be graded or stripped of
vegetation:
To establish the application's compliance with this standard, a slope analysis was completed and slope
areas were calculated for thos between 20 percent and 50 percent. These areas along with slopes of
to 20 percent and slopes of 50 percent and above are illustrated on the slope analysis map included with
this application. Areas within proposed setback lines on these slopes were then calculated and divided
by the total area to establish a maximum percentage of area that might be disturbed on the site. In both
Parcel I and Parcel II the calculation for potentially disturbed area on site was less than 65 percent:
Parcel I
•
20% to 50% slopes within
building envelope and potential
driveway area =
860 square feet
Total Slope Area - 20% to 50% = 3,250 square feet
4
•
Percent of slopes in areas of
potential grading, stripping or
0 disturbance = 26.4 percent
•
Parcel l'
20% to 50% slopes within M
building envelope and potential
driveway area _
1,375 square feet
Total Slope Area - 20% to 50% -
- 2,225 square feet
Percent of slopes in areas of •
potential grading, stripping or
disturbance f
61,8 percent
Again, please refer to the attached slope analysis map which illustrates slopes in three categories: 0
20 percent slopes, 20 to 50 percent slopes and 50 percent+ slopes, to
• A geotechnical report is also included with this application,
the
subgrade are able to support the construction of two psingle family ehomes as proposed,report shows site soils and
r .
fro
.7G
. ..,-., .;;11,1, \'')1110-D) '%
cf.1 az' 'j#
r-, : '1 N m
07 Crx.1
,„ i g qi
Y
10 ( ,,
. . rte" Ca E. L.) \ .
\ii ,
1111
r °, 9
...:1: 1.
.rdi\k '
cn
, au 27 .\,.,, k4,4, ..,
.2 '7.0 c\_.
lei
:it.° -••• '4'. - 5 .\ '.\ ' t \O. *
r.. [aj n
10.
0RgI�1p— �p O 5 :IA�11
0 ,'.1'. ,.
c.
l i
i_ i , m.
Yobr 9�� \
-i c
A.
fi �_. 'ir7_
Hwair
g .
. ... ,
g 4 _yawns .4
$ Xci 4 6
k, h .•
4 h rr V 1
e
.. . c7
w /
T
n0 '4 $ u
k
al i § ' i E u
're � 1 s cc g 1 (3 i r EXHIBIT
w.r,ci 6
qq� }oeyy uollil�ed ii�I"
• I I ' UO'Mw�p w�1 ���1 wl w 1�1.1� •
pue�Iou}Y u}w}}ud). ! 1!t i
�: SOW Y M 10 w1144•Owl 11e 101 g1:1,111
�11II rirld's}neQ NVId 311S .1
. ,.yy •
(� N
` \ z t
\ W •
1 N
\ m l 4i .
es 4 k i �. n
NNNN W •
,,, / Snz !
`. • t \...„.... w
\ • , 1 N et
he
\ I ♦ / 1
z
�. Of ", j
o • ^ .+l rr
aI
N 1 �,
,L,,
\ G I/ • •
1
CC 6
111111,
W ,4. 0
�S •1
'" i
1I i U
0=
I
W
' N W \\
A c by
W
11 t W„
1 y1
.. l N
• / WI
W cc
1
/ W
•
N •
N
4, W
I4 1 IC
0
z
W
h•
C
0
P =
N 5
•
• 1
.
EXHIBIT
=
._ • • I )3014.)
•'
• N • • ,
I ,
(dew UoppJed JAI(4 1
1i
rNop Nf•.yp.p +1 041 uo•lPIIIA �1Ul��'I JOUnw 4JeUiWi�F 1 ..
-,,.., .
►Pgi'E w1 HI u. 0Put pi 101 ;;
. .
Jl�Jadad slnea Nt/'1d 311S i= t .,.
m
• \�� ...,.�t
L17
`: \� it,,, 2 _ , ,1'` J i
. , 1 W 1
it !Ifi 'It A
n
1 �' ` b��,l� 1 1 �' it I
, t •. 1 's_"‘"N :.4
•Iti' •
,+ u G \ . 41.�j�I� Ali' 1 1. 1
F
T. = 1 . • it. •,;:., „,-.4.,. in ( , 1 i . .
k.1i% ,-1.4.‘i.i ;•:;,:f• ))ti1,11,- i •
X ..„,,14.0 . .. ti..,
( %\ .
.*. ' " 1/1./1fr. 1 Il :—.1.... 1 ;1 V ii.:1‘;,:•,s;li'.
7 0,. 1,
iHi" ii,,, 4 11.11 ••:. .,.,;•:.....i c • .,,,,,,,„. .,.... • -•n•4:1.1\44.-Tv
', ?I •4 V.1 )3i,i,t 1:kt::-, :%. .t., , .-. ,,„
II
.741"/ fl a ' ..
. ...,. • :.
....................
'i W\\'' \\: •
a f i j �r��.[�+ �\ \`\ I
P r..,u:.sr.�rj.r•-1•
! I
•
a.
I's,/ :..' 1 •
1 ,+°- h
a Q.. li
in
N W
A ei
• r,t W
i . ' ' w W N
. / l' , totn a w
i / N 0 N e x
III A. 4 i
tn
.J
fD et tn C b
/
z 0 ( I
o tN
o1
I
.', ;•; ii..1
EXHIBIT
1
°/x,4 . ^
•
I 1�
•Nnvqu s sv;rsoIn •nlwp■.1••.h.au•IUngtIA luuy uu1lNJdd
v 11111 •
.� Cg /
11 /)la ad slne� purl �olyy AJeu u II o�d1 I1 ,:� 1ti Ntl' d 3i s (�i
i , .
,
lit •
H
Q `\
2
W \\ \ Q S { i, ..
N •
at 3
a W \ '1 \\\\• LL
.. '. I 'IASI 1\ IS\ .0
1 \ 4r t '. 4\
' t \ • .,, , .\\\\t,' \ '''.. . t (7, 0 ..,/
,B .. W , /�1 E '�L ,O•`\ In
1\ 1'A!.'...:'p11 1. ,W .
la 0
)11 10 ja.
1, i I ! t: r ,. d:::•'llbi9
it, Ce
..�+►-mow. •r•. o 0.. .it' l.. t {' ,.
t.
113
4::, 4 - , •
W no ! / !It v \ t `a O
ut
a• • W r! f .�mA ` �� T.
U
t.7.\ •' 44 /A a :,' -..9e • 7
a .. 4 0 w V
at
v, , 1,� ¢ � 4a CC D '6t
C it.: 7"
k `
/, r.,-- • I.- <
sk 04, ‘ N ILi • i
pl\ 0 ,,i,,
,i_J f l I
c. w
µ� W. 0 0
0 cn
w
H N N N
7iii 04. I
�, a't a,' a A G G w o N
EXHIBIT
I re
It
i.i `wbp'f�frlp eat flft ful w NfIIU
f H.,.•f 1.1 le WaIUN f fin ft let 'Uel.JOU!W I�JCUlWlla,ld) 77,----
, 4
_. A JadoJd sine() 1I 1
NVld-211S '! m
..=
2
..___
, ' ill i
i,
. .. .. 0
,:„...,
a Z I \\\*., .
d• m, , , Er I \\, 0 I .
A"\I
r 1 LL
il
in W r.
NI
fl
'ii4 „: V 11
. , t A r. 1 f%:'V It k%A\% .. .,.....'"::::*' ii LU
Ai t NN.''.t* '\t\V '':. \\ I ;1) 14 al
I) l'w .1.,‘',V ..' ;\\ N.\ ..'..i.itif,. '
..�.,v.a. 4 C '..,, _ 'r7'81— til; 1)) 1i Syr I 91. 0
....rc..l«r'... ..I A In Q �, I�' . `. 1 ��y�41��t 1 � ' ,i
` a r '•I' i ,f ! U(l 1 ' � t 11. :I)
'1.. 11 r,
fr
"f'>s. eerrwi.f�w 0`,1 !1 lt1 7 ,1ll/fl T '., 1 1 t , l. \q v O /
At it AtV 13 1 '1 l ♦: z
Z V R /�! l. 1 '•Far,.\1, 1•` :l� •\` W
It
o
L../ . •' -7".,\ .,.. i 4
f( At' Tom, •, x *
u a
i 1 t v O O
`/i •i C W
. di
.r;` . O in
1 t// :/
e W W 0)
a W
) /i ' / z
o
tn
Ca 0
/ 4i. *I' It
z + ! N
. . • . w
I.
F, N C =o
N C
'
i EXHIBIT ;.
' P. �..
',JI 0 Guew uoIiIiJud Fitt
-_. jl YH•q••....p•.•'1 •.•,SW w•O.nln �UE� JOUf�(If IIJBU�W��OJd� ,. I r 2
•.NUS•.181,.Ya,ll•.••Y.U III I III
I
rCiJadOJd SIABa NV1d !11 k
31.1S i I 1 mlr
•
: • _ . i I! 1 i
I
\ . • ,
ii,,*
� Q w
w
u i
.. \.\\\ a' 2
L.
0 1.
C 11 Mil �1. NI
t t I i\k',c'.1g•1[ 1, um
,\'*Y1-1' ,.\11,\\ 1 .--:,..--''':::'.. \ ! u.,
I ,,,,,,1
a,,,, .
, , .
, ,
..,... ,,;.\.., \\\ .i. : \\ ,i ri
, t,,,,,.‘,\,. 4 ‘ \ ....:1.r.
s...a ♦ 1 ... „, w 't il1 1.1 1 �.11\,,pit
,\.\\ ` ::: );.' l F 1 at
M It. 1 t... 3'11
r v.._.. w W tlt ," '; •rl p1p� + ^1� / 1� ' i' j Q
1..�:. f _, N cc I 1 ` It i t t: n t• 111111 )�, 'C 1 .. LL U;
—........a..�,—,• %' 3 2 �' t 1 i t j t ji
t I"I I a.
.zeur.,,.....-..v, ,z i g 0 % i . - i' 1 •-.:: . kc ‘\k 1 (n
CC
s�.....r..�:.1 • 1fi4Jh1tc'
t i ' 42 VI ` ,':
�.' ,---, 9 ;if!url' f!2 I t t�,{P t t.• ,� 1 <
r c f r1+� + . i, . r W
x.v�.n.x 1 0
1 ,/ t 1 fir 0! ‘ t'. „ • t 't. 'I'
0 0
• it
'1(4 44441•4•4.444..4444....k..I a 1 i ,‘I A, 1 ta;,, I '' .'. -N-'-
,................ .... w
cc
• 63
•
I
.4
- N e .. r I < CC
f�"" '. 1 � i�J '�'�'• o
. Y \A R W a
h , ,`' 4. q 2 O O i. \
•
•
10
l r ' 11 C w 9F �- r
k— •
\ h W
7nt
A 1 �AC f W •
e /I- tn
t w
a.. a
w a, (1) . 1/
• �A rn O n in��, w 41
/
y ' V + t O
r o �e
IU
c N G
41111
_ .. .� t...
' '' EXHIBIT ;:
9
•
4 •
II
•
• •
•
i
MariaNcifaaSi. I/
II
: ct. I-Ij
The following maps show properties in the vicinity of the subject site which do not have 25 feet of
frontage on a public street, and are accessed by private streets or driveways.
This evidence is submitted in support of the variance request for this application, showing that it is a
• reasonable request in comparison to neighboring properties.
' .
. .
111
, .
, .
. ,
.,
/',
.l
. ,
44
111 _
111 EXHIBIT
1 . ,
2 1415 S)L9., f1(1
•
, .
of CO
m •
I p al
\
�.
0 e
ro IDc
l
0
Iv
N 0
A 5 E E MAP 2 tE 'ABCL., AI
o O. •"
C I
0 .0 '— ~~ • OOP
O q 4I\ 1 ,. �•. raw'. •,p•..., o `v 0 l
'0 di it l,i 1 , ! •• r• ter.
, s•rr Q L ' C• �iT`,.
•'Cr ` tI1 OQ , r. k , iJ I
J.r., V . S• . r
.• ...a. ~ ` �aim• ,• • '!0 O. ° I ° t • I
� p . � ,a i : y90 �Jw or � ,,▪ ti1 .
�I•.off •Ir Oa ♦ ^� .-9/ Yd .
n\ 7T •` r ,rt •1 �` • • J (' t.,lehlhWi•t.'Z.�I
5
.4. \ • 0 '.r to r N✓. Y� 1 ^• rr`rl itz
+/MprWv1N;.V
2 C P rL .•
S�� •�r t • Y �I^ • •1 htl.ge.”./set.w
41L} ",e- •
•t {L� S�v- .rv�r'ti ,,•\, a Ili?, ,., ' /•, t j a t •�'"^+►a'e1-rya.•-•
,1. j• "�`• .1•, .,. Go .•..`'. L� �O� �p o' vs it• re...
t.....V.„:" •.. r.
rt • 'r� f 1 IA
O �oY'"\ 4iG7A ° .1� 1 �G' ~0 • sir
1 - m O~^a oil �'.: ,�• ' O. - .rr°c �/� ,.�Q ..� "•". J 144...
`. .la.°uu.r.tr,,.
,y�Y 1 D•W y • �+ ISO\ V �O ... ."s..0 ..ir:��d.i r....�
,▪ v \s1 '/ i 1 `� ,a Cr�. . c
MI
1 ' a .f^l ++ Y r. O• N l• ei I'
t; I• . ° \\ ,,• 11,i I, .t• SRO : O ` ,
n i1 ,\ - y Q1 ,tr•J NN4^17, �f•�
M ad/r� ,_. ` �' rO • ,•t ,a�Q •. r O24171 ,.
r y w� eorl,^L.a \ \ I A�Q,'0 • •„ I�1 t • '
ul` 1 . I0,'gyp : . 1' y7
C F °'r'' l f/�, \ j 1, r IS t. .fir •
:• •.4
• ..K 'j. % '),„Itr y,, `1 . '` �� 4 `1 P p,, I'• *a \ I
tO
,, 1 "' ' m
TI 14..4•P4 4. ; Oo
«0 �� ,err m 0
�. Ce �✓ •
• l
``a ,e). 7700 4* 7400 " µ,,
.4,C , . 7800.. '+ i J` t�ta• f, 6900 j'�•N� �1 TRACT "A" •
,�,. , •i' - t 9 gib' ,, ! ; S• y•,
.► �• �. is : r O • r•0„! ; . .It,� OPEN ;PAGE
rim \ 0\-).V G .. 9200 `e 7 ,9500 i i 67 00 ,r •
R • a 9%6500 ``
v\ P4►9000.:
C 3 r1"c 9100 ` 1 V.ve, 3 ►"v � `0. 32►''e +6690 •�� /' t4
�, g aF ,.� �./ J 7 �;+� ...
,f„tf 9700 `-. _ .1 +•.0 /• e • i 63
Ct * it ,, TRACT .,C•, ,, ft 9900 61
, 4�0 •o+ t
•.. to 4'1 -•• '•+, OPEN SPACE •r• ?� hp l��►5500: (� r/VC," 'ate, Dl t 0�+ t ► 29 • 25 • •
_ .. Sri , �9 000 . , .• Off' +n. 5300 . 1Y� 5600
l ' f• ! • • / :
. , m < r 10000 ' , ,
C et a„G_" w 0 ., 8900 ; i.• 'a•d,. ''.4. rf 5200 5 100
~� P •/ • '
Q =' ..p� 8800 *` L 10 100• 26 Q ' 7 5000
y ` Yf
C "® 48700 w', ,.. .sr,A "'t•• , ,v,' :/t ems.r10zoo C. 2S.•i 2t, ',!• ,1 _ .r.
2600 ,„ 10900 •10800 ut cc .'.a •
"yt" • �f 11000 • 10700 i°106•�' 4 d.r i 21 ;,
_ G. •�• Y:q 6 It;
,t 4 ,..4 • •; '•wv,,.e. 4900 .«wa.
43 < a 11100 % t '•' . •10'500 , 2 • ;��\) wretir�agr
m4, ". .i. TL ; 1 2<w t r.. •.14.L,��f `�...tiAeir•A•.• •
II200 .• t ww . ^r,, 11 4r.
V. tr 20 �. ; a
4.>• •
! ` ! 1! { t y �y 10400 4800 3„�,,e,
r '►° 11300 v •
\'. 21 e y �!srtC.e e^%
♦, `, ,. s.•,.,
''•` 11 ° 'y 10500• 2� •' j4700 �:7.+.►n •
.► �11400� . 16 t 3• 1 ::
r s t j ,i--
z K v� \\�� 12200A. 12300 2� ,t • 11 i r
�-^ -�•.. 13 a: r. ° �� r 12600 F •
4 500 t , • .
.. 12100 ..• -
+1i (1800 I ' �r• +'� 6 .,4300
•
t. I19 - y y�i „lily,4 400 I .ra.��e•
•r♦
C A. 7II7OO �� -+4 • • • (��w �` 4200•��„ 4 3av•� /tt' •
s. - V` 410C ., • Is •J
• (�} ti• ' 7". 41' • 'h am l �' ..
1. _ 6 3200 �` ' '!�
I x� ..Rr._ •
.rt� 10 ' �` • 3100 ♦N• `I Z. 13 • •.,►s 1
i
0 .y r", 2w ✓ `, .1► 2 3300 " _ ea•t 1� i
r * •
a•1J:•f4..ro----""� _ •I' .,': •� ,�• 3400 �.�' 3500 Mop, _ 1 ,,, n
m/ '�iv.,N POINT`' DRIVE``ty�� j I 0 , '
• •a r
' •. CEE MAP 2> /''."-----'. 7 IE 980" / !►f• ,II ; •t� f �/4i�i ,
4/) i.
•
• ,•' ,I' 1 .!I f' t 2 llp ,
.,yam ::•• , ,u •• • 01
cn
,
`� % SEE 1`••4'61AP "
`�,�� 2 I E 1 •
a m , .
-c 10
III
•
I ./
•
..._....., t , J;;1-"Tsicz5k1c.E-E. ,
AW GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, Inc. t'
• 1470 Horseshoe Curve ti
Lake Oswego, OR 97034 _ ,
�.
(503)635-3146 • ,'-
May 11 , 1989
Lundmark Homes
17032 Crestview Drive
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Attention: Mr Bert Lundmark
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION •
LOT 28 , BLOCK 4, VILLAGE ON THE lAKE
TWIN POINTS ROAD, LAKE OSWEGO.
In response to your request on April 25, 1989, we have
performed a geotechnical evaluation of the site.
The purpose of this evajluation was toassess the stability
of the site and to provide basic recommendations "for residential
construction.
The site is situated on '4a steep slope that leads • directly
to the lake. Access to the upper portion of the lot fs via a •
rough access through a break in a rock wall from the east side of
Twin Points Road. The location of the lot is shown on Fig. 1 . The
topography of the lot is show ton on Fig. 2 .
The major portion of the site descends southerly at an
inclination of 1 1/2 : 1V toward the edge of the lake. Locally the
slope steepens to about 1- 1/4H: 1V along the west side of the lot •
below 'the edge of the fill embankment beyond the rock wall . A
small drainage channel occurs down the west side of the lot . An
old logging road traverses down the' hillside as shown on Fig. 2 .
Vegetation is very dense. The major fir trees (relatively deep
rooted) are basically errect which tends to attest to site
stability. Along the west side of the lot about 4 to 8 ft of
roadway embankment fill occurs. It is evident that several feet
of garbage fills have been dumped at the northwest corner at the '
intersection of Twin Points Road and the upper access road.
• Soil explorations were not feasible due to difficult access
and near surface rock conditions. The overall soil/rock
conditions were disclosedby a detailed examination of various
road cuts near and within the lot boundaries. ,
f
Geologically the site is underlain Miocene Basalt that
extends several hundreds of feet .
EXHIBIT
. V26_.L.
,fib 30- D 00 ' • ,
• 1
2
The best indication of the rock characteristics is provided
by the 15 ft high cuts opposite the lot along west side of T(fin
Points Road. The upper 9 ft consists of rather friable gray
weathered basalt with relatively thick highly weathered seams of
sand and silt materials . This upper layer has a tendency to
unravel and appears to has have sloughed back to an inclination
of about 3/4H: 1V. The lower portion of the rock face is steeper
(about 1H: 5V) and more competent though the rock tends to
fracture quite easily: Continuing uphill, the rock cut (opposite
the access roadway to the subject lot) has an overall inclination
of 3/411: 1V. It is notable that the cut faces of 3/4H: 1V tend to
support a dense cover of ivy which has effectively arrested rock
unraveling.
The 5 to 10 ft high cut along the access roadway to the
subject lot indicate similar rock conditions. Weathering and
•
surface water flow has rendered the parent rock to a pseudo-
' rubble mass with voids over the upper few feet. Basalt rock
exposures were also observed along the uphill face of the old
logging road. In these cuts (which were freshly exposed by a
pick excavation) the residual weathering products consisted of
brown silt over a depth of 2 to 5 ft or so. The lower rock was
of a similar character to that described above.
MI
Along the downhill portion of the logging road leading 410
toward Tract B several outcrops of hard residual basalt boulders
were observed.
Conclusions and Recommendations
It is our opinion that the lot is stable and suitable for
residential support.
Preliminary suggestions for the siting of prospective
residences appear on Fig. 3 . The residences could be founded on
spread footing foundations. The steepness of the slopes makes
access difficult . However, it would ' appear that a large
trackhoe could negotiate the upper access and lower logging
trails.
Although temporary steep cuts (near vertical ) could be made,
4 conventional continuous steeped footings may be difficult to
construct up the steep slope. We suggest that consideration be
given to founding the residential structures on a system of four
(possibly 6) major footings above which a column, cross bracing
and girder system is developed. For planning purposes the
footings should be embedded at a minimum depth of 5 ft below the
., lowest adjacent existing grade. Footings can be designed for an
allowable bearing pressure of 5 ton/ sq ft . Local excavation 411
conditions may necessitate overexcavation of loose rubble and/or
•
•
® 3
the drilling of suitable steel dowels to key footings into hard
boulders.
• The approach driveways and Vphill garage walls should be
structurally supported. A small uphill retaining would seem to
• be practicable. Extensive retaining walls appear to be )
unnecessary. The existing upper access roadway should be sloped
to a an inclination of 3/4H: 1V and planted with ivy for erosion
control.
Removal of vegetation and trees should be minimized. Areas
that are denuded during construction should be planted with
suitable ground cover. Trees that inhibit view access should be
limbed and topped but not removed.
An alternative to spread foundation support would be driven
• piling. Suitable piling would consist of 8 , 10 or 12 HP piling
•
( for design loads of at least 30 tons) with tip protection (Pruyn
or Versa steel points) . Piling could be driven with a small drop
hammer rig (minimum 15 ,000 ft /lb energy) from the uphill access
road. Piling should be driven to refusal in the underlying rock.
• The observed rock conditions indicate that steel piling could
• generally be driven to penetrations of 10 to 15 ft. Production
pile lengths would have to be based on actual driving performance
in the field. Erratic pile penetrations are likely due to
variable weathering of the underlying basalt.
We suggest that we be retained to review and comment upon
the foundation plans developed by your design/structural engineer
and to provide inspection of the foundation installation,
Yours truly,
AW GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, Inc.
.,A#(.7 oit?d. ED PROF
Ginz Anthony J. Wright , P.E. 8866 t.�
ORSGON
Attachments ,/. .;
-4% �1'30, \V �t
Fig. 1 Location Plan NY J,
Fig. 2 Site Topography
Fig. 3 Preliminary Siting Plan
N
Z
.=,E j---)., 14 I, 4 \ AL5J-1-' ---- -) ,
1 2 / \---- '. i \ --;-- )) ) ' '>
d �`�'�-�� 2 2 2 3 `,� ,g 1.
, r
., _ :.
, J — 0
0, d 47,91tr.;. 1 (
i 2,__." z a s I r A R ti
i , \ -
........ I
NI IN) , \
• \ , c - -, e
• At--_...„ 1 ./,
-k. 0 .
• s 250 -1
xzz, s
. 1 i i .
t f5 � N
0414 ' .s ,. • , \ ,4\.. %aft --- - . ---now , .
'.-: -4- '.'-:-.:—.111--N — . ..
,,,'•,,c) - \`.7.225- ‘.. \ P9....-, \-:----- ---:------------ 16°J:-.Lail.°N.---, '' 7.- .. ; . ,,
, U;'''111 ...1 '‘4‘114
• d ` )1 i , t
011 ='S .
lia r±,r2,--j"--) ---- -1, ..\1- / ,
e / LOT 28
ti/..4.--).__,.. ........„--•
0° i‘e,r ,,
. 'o
. .
, ,
. ..- 14,46.\,,, ,,,
I LAKE oSrvc-4o
1 xi 2 5
g e ------ 1 / t1
. ,
, ,
, „, 1 ,, . ..
. , „, ,
. ,
. , . , .
.. , ,
.. Ao 1,
LOcA-rloN Pi
`,
FIC, I
9
1
•
• ,
•
. .
\ Of VI
1.
r j
at. iri
\0 y
�sy 1119,11•
n
, _.,__,/,' \n 1
.
;\,t. /1. :: 0" V Pi '2?. g
NI
). 1 \ k ; \ 8
ik
. Ai 4 ' .z. I ) - :
...
Tl r N ti 01 1,:. 1/1,. ,i s )////J/// j•cl
i
. . ` v V t' , i. II// / % R % .2\
i '"
\ I.. \ •
�I M
%nl \ 1 1
• // i g I
p
/ i !a ir • i
a 1 ' \
e � � .
S&? ) X m
..- / il ,\.:;40111.011111111,
i �
° 2 l \ r
0
% ✓ GRAPHIC SCALE
•
`. S lr / I • • . . . .
�, n, 1• I r /un)
e.
K / w:
at .i r
lIrd '-•;...., I
al
• ,°°k LUNDMARK HOMES
r, LOT 28, BLOCK 4 'VILLAGE ON THE LAKE'
1! UNORTH 1/2 SEC, 9, T,2 S, R.1 E., M,Y•
CCKAMAS COUNTY, OtllCON
I i. • S fTE 'Td POGRAOiler
F14.1
I .
I I a
t''
P'. . I
'
•
*CO I__ te =r`�� flop.—
11
..
Ms11 • ,
1p a ��r\ \It
, 1
,.:
N O
I.
''' / :4 e:',1' - '
e
a.
i : c
� ��. I n, a�
•
, , i \ I,# .• 4,0i #.„ ) 81:;'' '
•
ii . , .1...0 tir,y'y A.
CI
. :'/ A**-0 % /0 I I/ n a r'l' t. ki °° ,
,, , •J ‘I'' .,., /11 1 \
, , -... \ 07 /, a iP 4 41 , .
t;VItK\ \,
fr
® itt/v. 44TS:litsio „\z"? • '• .
i /
, ei, / / ::: I *Nit. ... ....,.. ,\NN
.4............. s. .s.:' CP .::‘,::S N
• / r.. , . ' '''
a ) • sac. , .,,,,:''
. \ ,‹- O. i
• ` V2 \ i
\. + �
4 2 / \ ‘ a
•
\s
• Y
•
4, & I In • .. n
+/'Y,/ GRAPHIC SCALE
�� / / r i a. r
a
• � A a
• i ,,
Oir
ti
A.
I '°0 LUNDMARK HOMES
I d k LOT 22, BLOCK 1 'VILLAGE ON THE LAM.
NORTH 1/2 SEC. O, T,2 S. R.1 L. M M,
I • CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON
r ,1 , PFZELIywjMARY S 1 T/N 4 o�^N •
F/4I3 ,
4
AW GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, Inc.
1470 Horseshoe Curve
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
(503) 6S5-3146 '
e August 21 , 4,989•
Dennis Schantzen, P.E.
P.O.Box 176
A .
Gresham, OR 97030
.
Attention: Mr Dennis Schantzen
CONSULTATION
RE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
LOT 28 , BLOCK 4 , VILLAGE ON THE LAKE
TWIN POINTS ROAD, LAKE OSWEGO
FOR LUNDMARK HOMES
Dear Mr Schantzen, ,
This letter provides cdnfirmation of recommendations and
criteria provided at a meeting between Messrs. Burt Lundmark,
• Dennis Schantzen, Mike Barclay and the writer on August 14 , 1989
at the office of Barclay W./me Designs. We have also reviewed the
v . preliminary foundation plans prepared by Barclay Home Des,)gns.
Site development will consist of a series of bench cuts to
develop the foundation area. Cuts of up to 10 ft are
contemplated.
We confirm the foundation design criteria provided in our
letter of May 11 , 1989 . Footings should be embedded at a minimum
depth of 5 ft below the lowest adjacent existing grade and be
designed for an allowable,_bearing pressure of 10 kips per sq ft .
Local excavations may necessitate overexcavation of loose rubble
and/or drilling of suitable steel dowels to key footings into
hard boulders. We anticipate the need for considerable hand
clean up of footing subgrades to remove residual loose materials.
Level subgrades for constructing forms for the footings could be
achieved by installing either lean concrete or compacted 3/4 in.
minus crushed rock.
Considerable volumes of excavation materials will arise from
the subject development. All such materials should be removed
form the site .
Temporary cuts can be made at lan inclination of 1/2
horizontal to 1 vertical or steeper as indicated by the site
III/ condition:: during excavations. Permanent cut slopes should be
made at inclination of 3/4H: 1V and planted with ivy for erosion
control . '
f ,
Dennis Schantzen, P.E.
P.O.Box 176
Gresham, OR 97030
Page 2
We recommend that basement retaining walls (based on the
assumption of cantilever support) be designed for an equivalent
fluid pressure of 25 lb/cu ft . A 4 ft minimum wide catch area
should be ( provided behind the back of the retaining walls.
Select cruehed rock (3/4 to 1 1/2 in. minus) should be utilized
for backfills which should be compacted to at least 90% of the
density obtainable by Modified AASHTO T-99. It may be feasible
to utilize select on-site materials for wall backfilling. Such
materials should not exceed 3 in. minus size, .
04,
The geotechnical engineer should be retained to evaluate and
approve all foundation excavations.
Yozrs truly,
AW GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, Inc,
Anthony J. Wright, P.E.
cc Barclay Home Designs
Attn: Michael J. Barclay
Lundmark Homes
Attn: Burt Iundmark
Aft
•
y, J'
I. i
•
1
BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
THE• 2
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
REQUEST FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85
APPROVAL OF 101 LOTS EAST OF )OF '
SUMMIT DRIVE. VAR 13785/VAR 17-85-274
) (Village on the Lake)
5 FINDINGS, ICONCLUSION AND ORDER
NATURE OF APPLICATIONSc.
•
6 This application is for approval of a 101 lot residential Planned
7 Development in an R-15 zone. The request also requires a
8 the following four variances: pproval of
1 . To vary the Transit Standard requirin5 a hard
9 surface path` 'to connect a development to
transit facility (Standard No. 6 .020(1 ) (b) ]e-nearest
10 VAR 11-85,
it 2. To vary the Landscaping,p g, Screening and Buffering
12 Standard requiring street trees along streets
abutting a development (Standard No. 9.020 (4 ) 1 •
13 VAR 12-85.
3 . To vary the Subdivision Code requiring a 100 '
14 minimum radius curvature for a residential stre
15 (.LOC 44 .385) - VAR 13-85. et
IMF
4.
To vary the Stream Corridor Standard re
a 50 ' wide buffer zone to ('a 20 ' wide buffere
zone fo�/
17 [ 3.020(2) ] - VAR 17-85.
HEARINGS
18 �,
• The Development Review Board held
19' application at its meetings of April public hearings and considered this
May 22 and May23, 1985 . Following
the April 15, April 17, May 6,
20
testimony at those hearings, the DevelopmenteReviewnBoard of Xv exhibits and
21
0 to APPROVE the request with conditions. voted 5 to
22 FACTS
23 The following is a summary of the facts and testimony r
were found most relevant to this decision. These facts resented
presented
which
24 in more detail in the staff reports dated March
25 the applicant 's 22 and May 15 , 1985 ,proposals, artd/the minutes of the hearings .
26 % s .
g
Page 1
PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85
VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85
• 3202P/SY/mas
4 EXHIBIT
P 13 c
L
•
1 1 . '=
The site of the application is located east of
2 Summit Drive, south of Iron Mountain Boulevard, and
contains 45 .18 acres.
3
2 . The Com rehe!�. ,'
• p ive Plan land use designation" is
4
Residential F' -5. This zoning is R-15 .
,�,IA 0
j3 . The site borde Oswego Lake to the south and east ,
•
•
and contains -wh�in its boundaries, the natural,
c feature identified in the Comprehensive Plan as the
Frog Pond. The applicant proposed a protective
7 buffer area around the bay. Testimony was received
{ from the Audubon Society, the Conservancy
•
• 8 Commission, and the neighborhood that the protective
buffer was inadequate to provide long-term
9
4 . The site also contains a Distinctiveprotection to the bay.
10 ,
Natural Area
located "east of Summit Drive on knoll" (#27, pg.
11 28 Distinctive Natural Area policies
p - Comprehensive
Plan) . The remaining site has a heavy tree coder of
12 Douglas fir and other mature native trees . The
applicant proposed protective 'covenants providing
13 for 70% overall protection of trees in the
Distinctive Natural Area. The Conservancy
14 Commission testified that there should be a 100%
protection on the rear of lots in the DNA, and 70%
15 protection on the front of those lots. 0 , ,
6.
15 5 . The site is further shown to include a viewpoint .
•
Testimony was received from residents on Diamond
' 17 Head and Robinson 's Point regarding
and privacy impacts . `� g potential crime
18 6 . No wetlands or stream corridors are identified
on
this site in the Comprehensive Plan. Wetlands and a
iS stream corridor were identified during the
20 application and hearings process.
d
7 . Access is provided from Summit Drive, a substandard
_r County road . The
present intersection of Summit
:2 Drive and Iron Mountain is poorly designed. A
traffic study submitted by the applicants
recommended short and long term improvements to
correct the existing situation. Clackamas County
submitted recommendations for improvements to Summit
SA
Drive , and to the intersection , Neighborhood
.5 residents testified regarding the inadequacy of --.1
,Summit Drive and the intersection.
o
• ?ace 2 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-850
VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85
3202P/SY/mas
1
1 8 . Utilities are available to the site as follows :
2 Police and fire service are
to this site and the surroundingeSummitvailabt
3110 neighborhood, siT.ee the entire area is within
4 the City' limits; Neither department indicated
any staffing/capacity problems with the density
5 proposed.
Water is provided from a newly installed water
6 main in Iron Mountain Boulevard, via an 8" line
in Summit Drive. A sewer trunk is located in
Twin Point Drive which flows into the main line ',)
8 in the lake . The applicant, proposed that a porti.on of the site be served by sewage pumps
9 to tle trunk line, rather than gravity flow.
Testimony was received from a regiistered
10 engineer stating that gravity floeservice was
the least costly and most failsafe alternative
11 for the community.
12the
• The applicant testified that he ' .
cost of equipment, and installation, andnwould
13 pay continuing power costs.
9 . The applicant proposed variable setbacks to
14 provide better
protection of Lily Bay, the
Distinctive Natural Area, the views from the
15 viewpoint, the stream corridor, and the overall
IMPvegetative cover on the site.
10. The site contains areas of slope over 50%, and
17 areas of slope 12%-50%.
18 11 . The applicant requested a variance to str
tree requirements stating that the site wart
19 heavily treed and that cultivated species would
not be in keeping with the nature of the
20 existing vegetation.
21 12 . The applicant
proposed
Village Drive, ononesideeoflBay°n Viewe side Lane, of
22 and on Viewlake Court from Village Drive to
the
23
viewpoint .
24 13 . The applicant p
Lots 10 11 pro osed a common driveway for
, 12 and 13 of Block 5 to prevent
• 25 cuts on steep slopes and to
trees. preserve mature
A
26
Page ` 3 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85
,VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85
. ID 3202E/SY/mas
4
•
•
14 . Testimony was received
II '
2applicant 's need to apply or questioning the
f an Overall
Development Plan and Schedule (ODDS) . Code
requirements for ODPS were discussed. The
3
applicants entered evidence in the record that
their site did not require an ODPS.
1 15. Lot 2.8 , Block 3 borders;, the main lake, and is
not included in the protective covenants of the
c remainder of the plat .
i6. Parcel B is proposed fdr a marina facility.
7
That application will be reviewed at a later
8 date. No evidence or testimony was taken on
any specific use or intensity of use for
Parcel B.
• • 9 Parcel B is not included in the
protective covenants.
10 •,-"
17. The applicant requested a variance to the width
• 11 of the stream corridor buffer area . Testimony
was received in opposition to the variance.
12 18. The applicant requested a variance to the
_3 requirement of the Transit Standard to •
construct a pathway to the bus stop on Iron
. 14 Mour►twiei, The applicant will build the
along his frontage. Pathway
0 . ,
5 19 . There are areas of old fill on the site
�6 may be improperly compacted for building foundation and street construction.
.7 20 . The R-15 zone, combined with use of the Planned
.8 Development Overlay District, allows density
transfer and clustering of units
.9 other codes and standards are metProvided that
CRITERIA ,• �
The request under; consideration was a quasi-judicial procedure,
.1 conduct of which is regulated by LOC 49 . 610 . Aplicabl the 2 p 1e requirements
of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, LCDC Goals and Cit Ordinances were a Y Codes and
3 pplied . The following criteria were found by the
Development Review Board to be most relevant to this decision :
on .:
5 1 . LCDC Goal Requirements :
6 hone. The City 's Plan is acknowledged.
age 4 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85 III
• VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85
3202P/SY/mas
,
•
i •
r. A
•
•
1 0
2 . Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan designations and
2 policies:
31410 Growth Management Policies
Natural Resources Policie4?
4 Residential Land Use Policies
Open Space Land Use Policies
5 Transportation and Public Facilities Policies
6 3 . Zoning Ordinance provisions:
7 LOC 48 .085( 4 )
LOC 48 .205 - 48 . 215
8 LOC 48 .470 - 48 . 475
,R
9 4 . Other Code provisions:
10 LOC 49 .145
LOC 49 . 300 - 49 . 335
11 LOC 49 . 500 - 49.510
LOC 49 .615
.: 12 Development Standards:
13 ,Floodplans
Stream Corridors Access
14 Wetlands
Streets/Driveways
Site Circulation-private
Hillside Protection
I / Site Circulation-Bikeways/ '
15 Erosion Control Walkways
Park and Open Space Transit
16 Landscaping, Street Street Lights
Trees, Screening, Jtilities 04'
17 Buffering Drainage for Major
Parking and Loading Development
18 FINDINGS OF FACT
' 19 After consideration of the relevant .FACTS and applicable
20
the Development Review Board found that :
Criteria ,
1 . The Comprehensive Plan had been addressed as follows:
21
a . The applicant had preserved the Lily Bay as open
22 space. The
protective buffer area s
the applicant should be expanded bypmovingdLot
23
3, Block 2 to another location; by
24 right-of-way on Bay view Lane; b narrowing the
on the point overlooking the Lane;
y removingy a lot
��' allowing flexible setbacks in thatnarea;band,
..5 '
redesign of the cul de sac into a hammerheasd to
26 allow major movement of the buffet line to the
Page
5 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85
411 VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85
3202P/SX/mas '
.
'
6.- if ,.
west closer to the Audubon buffer line. The
III
Z waters of the bay would be protected by erosion
control as required by City code, by a
3 filtration pond designed into the storm drainage
system, and by protective covenants prohibiting
4 removal of vegetation in the buffer area :
g b. The Distinctive Natural Area as identified is
consistent with the Plan. The protective
6 covenants restricting tree cutting will preserve
present and future viability of the Distinctive
7 Natural Area. A 100% restriction on the rear of U
Lots 3-7, and 9-26 of Block 5 and a 701
8 restriction on the remaining DNA area would best
provide this protection, subject to the
9 provision that a reasonable building envelope
should be allowed on each. The restriction
areas are shown on Exhibit Be and should be
10
shown 'on the final plat.
II
c. A view point is provided, and viewlines are
12 protected. Use of the public street itself �,, _ _
could also provide a viewpoint with no specific
location identified.
13
14 d . Wildlife habitat is
provided a continuous rconnection from nthe DNA
ner c�e through the wetlands open space area along theIII
15 stream corridor to the bay. The bay and its
16 b nks are also protected.
.7 e. R,;re plant species can be protected by a
requirement for a locational study, and '
.8 requirement for protective covenants if
identified.
.9 f. Growth management and residential land use
.0 policies are met . The Planned Development
proposes densities as allowed by the R-15 Plan
1 and zone designation. The applicant has
provided detailed analysis and site plans of
effects of the development on public facilities ,
natural features and hazards, and the
transportation s stems
3 y lustering of lots has
been used to limit impacts on natural features
4
and hazards. Both short and long term public
facilities are available, or can be made
available at developer 's cost or with developer
participation as identified in the ethibits and
6
age 6 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85
410 - .
VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85
3202P/SY/mas
,
II
• 1 _ testimony. Particular attention needs to be
2 directed towards a mechanism to identify
options, costs and participants in the long-term
3 41) realignment of Summit Drive and Iron Mt.
Boulevard.
4
g. Open space and natural resources policies are
5 met by the identification and
DNA. the Lily Bay, the stream corridoroandn f the
6 wetlands, wildlife habitat,
species and protection of therwatered platy
( the Bay and main lake as proposed gheit in
applicant, or as conditioned herein .by the
8 h . Transportation re
met rop
short-.term improvements to Summit yDriveosed and t e
9 intersection at Iron Mt. Blvd. , by h
10 identificationnand provision for long term
improvements as proposed and conditioned herein,
11 and by location adjacent to a transit route.
"2.
12 Zoning and Planned Development requirements are
met. The use is a permitted Use, residential
13 density is consistent with the zone, as conditioned
,, herein; and, flexible setbacks are allowed under the
14 ,/ PD overlay. Height and lot coverage must be
determined at time of building peLmit application.
15 No variation from lot coverage was requested.
Therefore, the R-15 zone requirement applies.
0l6 ®
3 . The dev,z4opment ordinance procedural sections were
7 met . ' Pro-application conferences were held, an
application received, a staff report prepared,
8 notice was sent as required, and hearings were held
` according to LOC 49,610 .
'9 4 . The development standards are met, or can
met as
conditioned herein . The Historic Resources,
i0
Building Design Standards do not apply
1 in the application and staff report. The streamed
corridor standard was met by provision of a
protective buffer 25 ' on each side of the stream,
2 except for an area near Lily Bay Court , where a
3 S}` variance was requested and approved. The staff
reports contain the variance findings in detail .
4 The Wetland Standard is met by inclusi
5 11 wetlands in a protected natural area. The
oa ltow
portion of Lot 27, Block 5 should he included
win the
6
/i
. age 7 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85
VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85
0 3202P/SY/mas
o
p.
1
protective area . The potential wetlands in the
0
2 Village Drive right-of-way did not meet the criteria
for essential° wetlands and were not required to be
3 protected. The staff report of May 15, 1985
contains the analysis for the potential wetlands .
4 ,
Acle,ss - All lots abut a public street for at least
5 25 fie"et.
tl
6 r:vate Streets/Driveways
evidence that driveways
code requirements. y � provided to meet
7 q The,, common 'driveway serving Lots
9-12, Block 5 must be built to 'allow fire access .
8 Hillside Protection/Erosion' Control Lots with
g 1 slope over 50% were analyzed. The Board foundth ,t. density„transfer was feasible since the R-15 zone
al terng fof udennsst y.t he tap lic atno Mo nitor ,
10
11 and return the Planned Development to the Board if an increase in density results . If density transfer
12 is not feasible, then the criteria for development
on slopes over 5„0% must be met . Changes which do
13 not result in a densityincrease will be considered
minor development modifications and shell be t
14 reviewed by staff as part of final pla,r approvals .
c )
' 15 The applicant proposed erosion control measures . •
Conditions are necessary as provided herein,
16 particularly in the stream corridor and bay buffer
area.
17 �:`1`
Park and Open Space is met bY dedication of 20% or
18 • more of the site as open space. Sites so designated
are those identified by the Comprehensive Plan.
19 Street Trees are required on lots having no trees
forward of the front building line. Native species
20 shall be used. The variance to this standard should
21 be denied.
22 Bikeways/Walkways/Transit - The applicant will
provide a property line sidewalk on Summit along the •
u frontage of the site. The walk may meander to avoid
trees or topographical features
It is impractical
24 to provide a path across the existing railroad
overpass since it would require reconstruction of
25 the overpass prior to determination of the best
location for the realignment of the intersection of
'
/ 26
i
?age 8 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85III
VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85
3202P/SY/mas
.
S i h y1
) , I . ,
I Summit and Iron Mt. The °
granted. Detailed findings aare tfoundainetheo uld eAi
staff
2
/ report.
3 0 " ; Utilities - The entir
e width of Summit Drive
abuttingzurrarthis site should be improved to City Standards, pending approval by the County of a
7 petition by the City for transfer of
jurisdict
the portion of Summit abutting this site . Thelon of
.ralil_nment of Iron Mt. to the north at the
intersection, and the other short-term improvements
1 identified by the traffic analysis are also
necessary to facilitate increased traffic options
for the remaining long-term improvements should be
identified soon, and costs apportioned.
1
Telephone,p , ga)",and electricity are available and
.0
have capacity to serve the site.
1 Street lights shall be installed as part of the
Summ t imp.ro'vement and on internal streets to meet
2 City code ai,nd standards.
3 Storm drainage as proposed meets the standard. Care
s�Oulcj b a taken to
provide miniMal disruption of ��
4 protected areas in installing lines. Erosion should l7
be prevented. Pollution control mechanisms should
g
be used to protect water °
5 • corridor, the bay a.nd quality of stream
d 6
Sanitarysewer may be provided by gravity flow to
7 the trunk in Twin Fir, nr,, to a potential line in the
lake adjacent to Diamothl lead, or by pump stations.
City policy discourages permanent pump stations ,
unless there is no feaSi,ble alternative,
determined that Plan policies regarding The fiord
) of water 3 9 Protection `�
quality in the lake and the bay including
vegetation on the bank above the bay, would
preclude
installation of a line in the lake, and that construction in the bay buffer area should be
avoided where possible . Evidence was presented that
the shallow depth of the sewer line near the bay
inlet could cause potential safety hazard to
t swimmers and boats . The applicant should pay all
installation costs. The City should investigate a
mechanism to provide for user subsidy of ongoing
' costs as well . All installation to be to Department
of Environmental Quality requirements .
,ny
•
.ge 9 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85
III ,VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85
3202P/SY/mas if
0
•
1 Sidewalks - Property line sidewalks should be •
provided on one side of Village Drive and
2 other streets. Sidewalks may meander to avoidll
3
and topographical features .
trees
•
4 5 . An ODPS is not required. An ODPS is required when a
single site or contiguous sites under a single
ownership will be developed in phases . This
proj
.5 is Being platted in its entirety at this time. All
contiguous parcels under the applicant 's ownership
are included in this application.
pp Parcel B is ;
7 platted As a tract in manner similar to open space
tracts, !and all access and utilities to this parcel
3 are included in the plat .
REASONS AND, CONCLUS},ONS
t
The proposal can be made to comply with relevant criteria
10 through application of certain conditions.
i1 ORDER.
IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
.2 LAKE OSWEGO that PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR �13-85/VAR 17-
85 be
.3 GRANTED, and that VAR 12<-/85 be DENIED. Conditions neces• sary
4 for, full compliance with City Codes and Standards are:
1 . A- reproducible duplication of the final plat shall410 5 be submitted to the City which. clearly depicts : •
6 a. setbacks for all lots as follows :
7
- rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 ' and
8 shall be drawn on the plat.
9 - side yards may be reduced below the
required 10 ' but to not less than 5 ' as •
0 necessary to allow placement of dwellings
to preserve trees over 8 " in diameter, or
1 to avoid areas of slop e'. The reduction
in the setback shall be the minimum
2 necessary to site a dwelling on the lots,and shall not be presumed to be an
3 automatic 5 ' . Viewlines to the lake and
to Mt . Hood from interior lots shall be
4 considered in placing dwellings;
- front yards may be varied between 10 ' and
20 ' . The reduction in the setback shall be the minimum necessary to site a
dwelling on the lots, and shall not be
1
age 10 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85
III i :
VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85
3202P/SY/may
11
•
presumed to be an automatic 10 '.. Front "
2 C? yard setbacks may be reduced to 5 ' for
lots within the Distinctive Natural Area,
3� for lots fronting the Lily Bay if
necessary to site those dwellings outsl4e== --'-
4 J the protected buffer area.
5 Req"uirements for side` and front yards
shall be printed in narrative form on the
6 plat .
b. sidewalks and all utility easements as
7
' follows':
8 Six foot
public utility and sidewalk r
easements shall be shown along both sides
9
of `all 40 ' right-of-ways on the final
10 plat . Easements and plat notes shall be'
required for all utilities crossin
11 property, The easement may be wide pr
ivate
6 ' if necessary to preserve trees or other
12 natural features.
c. all areas designated as
13 "protection natural
areas" and "'wooded distinctive areas" and a
1 narrative description of the restrictions
pertinent to each ;
15 d. all common open space areas ;
16
e• public viewpoint .
°17
f. No access strips shall be shown along
Summit on Lots 10, 11
18 Blockumm 5 , Lot 1 and Lot 12, 13, 2 and 3 of
ot 2., Block 1 shall
19 show a no access strip along Summit 'and 30 '
along Village Drive measured from the
Summit intersection. Lots 9 and 10, Block
20
s - 5 shall show a no access strip along
21
Village Drive.
22 g. The driveway serving Lots 10, 11 , 12 , 13 of
Block 5 shall be shown . '
be built to a standard which drivewaynclude Will
23 wide all weather OUnf s 20
have a 45 ' turningi`�Ce' A11 curves shall
24 radius to allow access
by fire truck . A turnaround shall be
25 , provided if the driveway is curved, and
exceeds 150 ' in length . The CC & R,!s shall
lf
recognize this easement and provide for its
25 maintenance.
f
'age 11 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85
VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85 ~`
II 3202P/SY/mas
r ,
/I
), n
,
Ott'.
c,
,
I1C
l
2 2. Protection natural area. covenants providing for 100%
restriction against cutting of trees and vegetation 110. 3 shall be applied to the rear of Lots 3 - 7, 9 - 21
and Lot 26 and 27 of Block 5 as shown by the dashed
•
4 0line on the preliminary plat (Exhibit B) . Lot 27 to
be added to this area with the location of the line
7 to be determined in the field by the applicant and
stlff.
3 . Each building
permit on Lots 1 - 9, Block 4, and
7 Lots 9 21, and Lots 3 - 7 of Block „5 shall include
a tree survey of the lot area outside the 100%
3 restricted area, and shall be allowed to cut only
those trees necessary to allow construction of
house, garage and driveway area, to total not more
than 30% of trees on the buildable portion of the $ f;
10 lot outside the 100% restricted area. ifr
impractical for building, the plan shall be
submitted to the aoard for review and possible , ,r
•1 exception.
`2 4 . Erosion control plans shall be submitted to staff '
3 with construction plans showing how erosion will be
controlled, how construction impacts will be
4 minimized, and how reclamation will occur foe
street, utility o1 storm drainage construction in
common open space, protection natural arOs stream
110 ,
Y ' 5 corridor , and wooded distinctive areas . Particular
care shall be taken to prevent erosion and restore
6 the area disturbed by sanitary sewer installation in
7 the protected area along the bay. All design shall
minimize location of lines within protected areas,
minimize disturbance of topography and vegetation , '
8 • and include restoration plans showing native plant
9 materials .
0 5 . The stream channel be enhanced to carry the proposed
runoff without erosion, and
Vgetativeprovide a dense
I filtration system. T
pc� osed I he 'dess.gn and ��
�P plantings for the storm water filtration
2 pond shall be submitted to staff for review. The
- storm drainage system shall include oil separation
3 pollution control devices .
n
4
`a The viewpoint design be submitted to the Development
Review Board for review and approval . Th4 design
•
will include measures to mitigate conflicts with
turning movements at the intersection of Village
5
Drive and View Lake Court .
age 12 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85
110 -
VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85
3202P/S'(/mas
,
1.7
A A
` r
•
1 7. Height and setback restrictions shall be shown
on
2 the final plat as necessary to maintain viewlines
from the public viewpoint.
3 8. A street tree planting
with no native trees ithin the lan be fronted
rd for lots
4 Such plan shall show native species spaced correctl
5 for the species .
rrectlyk . �
6 9 . The buffer along the Lilly Bay is a
following conditions (based on Exhibit
aq);with the
7
a . The right-of-way on Bay View Lane be narrowed to
8 move the applicant 's buffer line westward for 3
Lots 8-13, Block 2 and front
yard setbacks of 5 '
9 are permitted on Bay View Lane as necessary to
allow buildings to remain outside the buffer
10 area. •
b. The cul-de-sac at the end of the Bay View Lane
11
be redesigned as a hammerhead, allowing building
12 sites on Lots 14-17 of Block 2 to be pulled away
i+ from the peninsula . Staff and the applicant to
13 reach an agreement acceptable to both, or the
matter should be brought back to the Development 14 Review Board for resolution.
15 „ C. At the north end of the bay, the buffer line
IIII
should be widened to follow the rear lot lines
l6 of Lots 4, 5 and 6 , Block 2 .
ock 2
to be relocated elsewhere on the tsite BlThe lots
7 line on Lot 1 is moved to the west .
9 10 . An inventory shall be performed by a qualified plant
taxonomist or other qualified
9 the 1985 growing season to determinerofessional whetheauring
Howellia aquatilis or Delphinium leucophaeu'm are
0 found on the site and to recommend measures for
protection for any located outside identified
I protected areas .
2 11 . Streets shall be constructed as follows :
. 3 a . Summit Drive be constructed as oither
1 or 2 as identified on the
option
staff report . All construction be toata least
y h
minimum City Standards and codes . The applicant
a
5 i( is to construct all short term improvemerjts to .,
• Age 13 PD •�3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85
VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85
0 3202P/SY/mas
a ,
1
-
1
Summit/Iron Mt. as identified in the traffic
2 study, and also the widening of Iron Mt . on the
north side opposite Summit Drive asIII3 the traffic study. proposed in
4 b. The intersection of Summit Drive and Iron Mt . "Boulevard shall be improved as requested by the
5 County in Exhibit Y.
6 c. A rec nnaisance study for the' Summit Drive/Iron
6 Mountain Boulevard intersection improvements
7
will be provided by the developer within six
months' of the date of this order . The study
8 shall identify options and provide cost
estimates for the long term realignment of the 9 intersection of Summit Drive and Iron Mountain
Boulevard. The developer shall
p
10 =� proportionate share of the costs of the
improvements as identified by the agency with
11 jurisdiction.
12 d • The procedure for street widening be initiated by the applicants prior to submittal of '
• 13 constructon plans .
14 e. Interior streets shall be constructed as shown
• on Exhibit H. Design shall include 5 ' property
15 line sidewalks on one side of Village Drive and0
other streets . Sidewalks may meander to
15 preserve trees or other natural features.
17 f . A street lighting 9 g plen shall be submitted in
conformance with the street lighting standard.
18 12. All construction drawings shall, be to City c
19 standards and specifications u' less a y odes,
otherwise by this action. pproved
20 13 .
c A protective buffer area restricting removal of
21 1 vegetation shall be established along the Lake
e frontage of Lot 28 , Block 3 . The buffer shall be
" 44
worked oUt between the applicants, staff, Lake
Corporation representatives, Conservancy
Commission ,
23 and Audubon representatives . The buffer areashall
be shown on the final plat and included in the
tl '4 section of the CC & R 's which applies to protection
of lots along the bay. Construction of a stairway
25 to the Lake to be allowed subject to a
Lake Corporation , Plans shall be submia
tttedtol othehe
1 '6 ._...
M1 fr- a
age
14 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12--35 • • ''
VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85
3202P/S'Y/mas 6.
n
1 ,
City for review. Such plans should
2 pr
removal of vegetation, avoid trees overv8"einanimal'
diameter, and provide restoration plans as
3• necessary. The
expanded to a provision of the CC i R's shall be
PP Y to Lot 28, Block 3.
. . 4 14 ,
The applicant will work with staff to transfer
•
5 densities and to modify lot lines as necessary', to
eliminate conflicts of building envelopes with 50%
6 s slopes and natural resources areas so that
will not be affected. Co densities
in increases in overall densityshallhbeoreturnedUld lto
7
the Board for resolution.
(' . ,„
815111A certified arborist be retained to investigate
9 feasibility of selective cutting to allow enhanced
sunlight and view opportunities within Lots 16 -18 ,
" b 10 and 20-22 of Block 3 . The study to be the DRB for review and approval .
Presented to
11
II 16. No tree cutting or removal of vegetation to be
allowed on Parcel B until approval of a development
12
application on Parcel B.
13 17. That a soils and
geological reconnaisance shall be
14 performed on a lot-by-lot basis to:
15 a. recommend basic residenti supportal foundation
0
and soils requirements;
16 b. identify individUal lots that ma
17 of foundation plans and/or site specifice review
investigation studies;
18
c• special inspection of foundation excavations .
19 Soils investigation studies will;, be re
quire
2p foundation footprints ( including deck ) tdCove any
50% or steeper slope,v
covers a
21
18 . The sewer design be revised to utilize two pum
22 stations; one in Block 3 and one in Block 1 . Tp
he
pUmp in Block 1 to be relocated from Lot 1 to the
" 23 access area of Lot 3 . sewa e
installation to be g pumps and pump
24 Electricity and maintenance costsby etoebelborne by t'
Homeowner 's Association, or other mechanism ne
25 developed to assess those benefitted.
26
• )age 15 PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85
• VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85
3202P/SAC/mas
, a
J
n
a
19. All driveways to be designed with turning r.adii as
2 required by'°L0C and with drivewa
es of 20%
grade or less. . Driveways shall b pesatleast 20 ' inIII
3 length from the back of the sidewalk to the
door unless the driveway islocated garageo
frontage, parallel to the
` 5 I CERTIFY THAT THI'S ORDER was
Development Review Board of the City ofe Lake eOswego.d to nd APPROVED by the 6
DATED this 8th day of Jul
7 y� 1985.
'-*'--7
s ti .7. ,,
.-.(.4e,,,, C22.' � dd'_ . .
R chard Hutchins, Chairman
9
10 Development Review Board
11 �--
12 • r /e\
Sa ' o ng,Ser•retary
",3 /
ATTEST ;
4 AYES:
Wright, Martindale, Hutchins, Blackmore, Finch
0
5 NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None ' ..
a • 6 ABSENT: Glasgow, Eslick
8
' ' 9
0
1
3
4
5
5
age ii
16 PD 3=85/VAR 11-
C35/VAR 12-85 .
• VAR I3-85/VAR 17.u5
3202P/SY/mas
i
, r ^
•
STAFF REPORT
March 22 , 1985
•?JL!!cL PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13-85 ' ,
OWNER Nick Bunick & Associates,. Inc. and Ann Parshall Schukart
APPLICANT Nick Bunick and Associates, Inc .
LOCATION East of Summit Drive and south of the Southern Pacific
Railroad right-of-way. ,, ;
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tax Lots 200 & 2904 Tax; Map ' 2S 1E 9
REQUEST
Tt applicant is requesting approval of a 101 lot residential Planned
Development in an R-15 zone. The request also requires approval of
the following three variances:
1 . To vary the Transit Standard requiring a �hard surface path
to connect a devel'opment, to the nearest transit facility
w [ Standard No. 6�.020 ( L) (b);] . P� ,
2 . To vary the Landscaping, Screening and Buffering Standard requiring street trees along streets abutting a
development [ Standard No. 9.020 (4 ) ] .
III3 . To vary the subdivision code requiring a 100 ' min
imum
radius curvature for a residential street (LOC 44 .385) .
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
.
LOC 44 .381 Residential Streets
- ,General
Standards
LOC 44 . 82
Residential Streets - Specific
Standards
LOC 44 .396
Variance
LOC 48 .085 (4 ) Interpretation of District
Boundaries - Water Courses
LOC 48 .205 - 48 .215 R-15 Zone District Description
LOC 48 .470 - 48 .475 Planned Development Overlay
LUC 49 .145 Major Development
LUC 49 .300 - 48 .475 Major Development Procedures
LOC 49 .500 - 49 .510 Variances
LOC 49 .615 Criteria for Approvals
APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Floodplains ��
Access
Stream Corridors
WetlandsSite Circulation - Private
Streets/Driveways
.. . s „ )
.Z
r EXHIBIT '
106 /4/ s
/ ''.41M) ,
} - .
Staff Report - PD 3-85/
VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13-85
•
March 21 , 1985
Page 2'
Hillside Protection/Erosion 411h
C'
Site rculation
Control
Park and Open Space Bikeways/Walkways,
Landscaping, Street Trees , Transit
Street Lights
Screening, Buffering
Utilities
Parking and Loading Drainage for Major
Development
o Comprehensive Plan Polices:
Growth Management Policy Element
Natural Resources Policy Element
Residential Lan`u. Use Policy Element
Open Space Land Use Polic
a nt
Transportation Land Use Policyy Element
Elele
ment
APPLICATION COMPLETENESS
The applicant (in accordance with LOC 49 .315 ) has submit
complete application . ted a
,
PREVIOUS ACTION
On June 12 , 1978, the City Planning
g Commission approved the
y plat of Summit Woods (SD 11-78) .
involved a 63-lot single family subdivision This preliminary R-10 lots) on 59 acres located south of. the Southern PacificY plat
right-of-way on both (19 hern lots and it
sides of Summit Drive. ceivedad
several extensions and was not developed. This
permitted to proceed at thisProposal received
P furer Developmentp would not tbe
h
City. At this writing, point without further approval from the
subject to revocationorhfailuremtaacomplyry twith lapsed and is
schedule, the development
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The heavily wooded 45+ acre tract has slo" es
those exceeding SUS , The P which range
Comprehensive Plan and property is designated R-15 from it to
is currently zoned R-15 . by the City
?he site lies east of SummitDrive, is boundedon the
ty the Oswego Lake and Diamond south and east
Pacific Railroadgo rignd-Diama Head and to the north by
consists of: Y• Development surrounding the b°�ehern II
• west, dross
summit Drive, is a 12 acre, R-15 zoned Paxcel I
: ' ,
• south and West, across Twin Point Drive
R-15 zoned parcel is a developd,
4110 . . ,' ..
• east , on the far side of the E`ro
Head community Which conSiata ofgseve�al developed is the Diamond
zoned parcels . R-1U
•
Staff Report - PD 3-85/ o
VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13-85
March 21 , 1985
Oage 3
he Comprehensive Plan identifies areas on the site with
potential for both landslide hazards and weak foundation areas. The
site's geology consists of mostly Columbia River Basalt bedrock---map
unit Xerochrepts - Scabland (source: Lake Oswego Physical Resources
Inventory, March 1976 ) . These areas are characterized by a high
density of outcroppings, very shallow basalt (0 '-2 ' depth) and
numerous erosion depressi3On . Over most of the site, according to
LOPRI, the potential for 'rialards is slight. Ponding of round ter
and. surface water is common in areas with poor surface dra, nage,+ain'
low lands during the rainy season andafter heavy rainfall . `
Steeper sloped areas have a, moderate erosion hazard rating for the
thin surface soils and a variable lanndslide hazard.
included soil "masses occur, the land�jl,ide potential ishg genera
pockets of
severe. Bedrock outcrops on slopes fr'.cm 20-50% have a slightlland
failure rating,, but slopes over 50% ih bedrock appear •
•
moderate potential for rockfall landslide failure. Theo have a
potential for
block glide landslides is dependent on the existence of specific
conditions which need further study.
Development limitations outlined in the Inventory are due primarily
to shallow or surface bedrock. Providing underground utilities and
roads are difficult and expensive. Resource values attributed to
these areas are wildlife habitats and visual amenities . a
age 28 of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the following three
istinctive Natural Areas on or abutting the site:
• The Frog Pond (#19 )
• The Douglas Fit Grove (#27 ) }
(east of Summit Drive on the knoll )
• Oswego Lake (#54 )
(special distinctive area)
Because of the numerous natural features on or abutting site,
(wetlands, Oswego Lake, hillsides, Distinctive Natural Areas, etc . ) , '
the site is also designated as Protection Open Space in the
Comprehensive Plan ' s Open Space Land Use Policy Element . On a e 88
of the Comprehensive Plan, the Frog Point Viewpoint Page '
l
on the Planned City Open Space System. This undefined area isdicated
page ag e 89 as Public Open Space proposed for acquisition .
The site has a
pproximately 1, 100 ' of frontage on Summit Drive'
Summit is a local County road With a 50 foot wide right-of-Way.
t. existing width of pavement is a y• The
deteriorating 2 '-3 ' Wide pproxi,mately 1ti '-17 ' Wide With .
, streets . Twin Point Drivertoe the hsou htn►est of the site, ioulders. it has nb sa sidewalks or
' ! City street Which becomes alocal
Private Drive serving one dwelling . I
n 8 " sanitary sewer line is in Twin Point Which connects with the
Lake interceptor . An 8" Sanitaryline is
r ide of Diamond Head , located on the east
r �' An 8" water line is located in
��`, _ A fire hydrant is located at the intersection of Summitu and tIron
ve .
Mountain Boulevard,
Staff Report - PD 3-85/
VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13-85
March 21 , 1985
,,,,
Page 4 40-
,
A detailed review of existing site conditions (
facilities, surrounding land uses, physical feature ,
public
in Exhibit -0, the applicant 's atures, etc. ) is found 4
PP is narrative.
•
PROPOSAL
The proposal is to allow a 101 lot residential planned deve !�with lot areas ranging from 6 ,300 sq. ft . to 3U,50U sq. ft . T loThent
,e
• request also involves the three variances cited on -page 1 of this
report. Exhibits 0 through S detail the applicant 's
;; "',.�, Exhibit R indicates that the applicant will submit a separateproposal• Note,
't ' application at a later date to review a proposed rec �'
14i/ � . area/marina. P reational 0
ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS AND ANALYSIS
Use of the Planned Development Overlay is allowed in any zone . Its
use is required for a residential development
units or four or more acres. In considering anrapplilationofUfoor
r morelit Planned Development, the height , lot coverage, use and density
requirements of the underlying zone must be applied.
I LOC 48 .205 and LOC 49 .315 (13 ) outline the method for determinin
the 4i,
residential density allowed for any site in an R-15 zone district .
The applicant 's density computation (page 8 of Exhibit
on the followingarQ also shown ,
density transfe page)
a )for the tstream acorridor lly ebuffer described
ct, if it ed
this report . Note, the applicant was Unaware the Stream Corridor
Standard applied to this proposal as initially submitted. d0•4N
LOC 49 .315 (13 ( F) cites that the area of the density transfer (areas
over 25% slope, potential landslide hazard areas, stream buffer
areas , etc. ) may, be added to the net: developable acre for the purpose ,
of density calculation . This can be done only if the applicant
demonstrates through site specific information that the requirements
of the Development Standards will be met for all units proposed to be
built . As detailed in the report 's
(Stream Corridor and Elillsideprotec .�ve],opment Standards Review
applicant has not demonstrated that then requirementstoflthesee
standards can be met .
As proposed, the application does not comply with `the methodolo
determine residential density ( LOG 48 , 205 and LOC 49 . 315 ( 13) , In to
order to justify, the 101 residential density unit total, the
applicantP �.
proposal can comply With theDeVelopment ;the
must demonstrate bysite specific thak
ndards .
S ,
Staff Report - PD 3-85/
VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13785 ��
March 21 , 1985
11
• Page 5
AL)PLICAN/' IS RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATION
Gross Developable Acre:
° 45 .!18
Less acres of water in pond 4 .5
Less right of way dedication 5 . 71
Net Developable Acre:
10 .21
34 .97,
' Maximum Number 1,523,293 : 15,000 = 101.55 Uni is
of Unit s
1 �
» Less Density- Transfer Acre: ,
0
: ' .1-'' '
plooaway Fringe .9 r;,
Over 25-.1 Slope 20 ,8 0
Landslide 0 ,0
Stream Buffer 0, , t ,
Public Open Space 0
C.; 21 . 7
III ...........
Base No. of Units: (34 .97 - 21 .7 ) 15,0)00 = 38 .53 Units
Portion of Density Transfer Allowed:
Floodway Fringe 9
Over 25% Slope 20 .8
Landslide 0 ,
Stream Buffer 0
Public Open Space 0
Total Portion of Density
Transfer Area Allowed: II'
100% 21 »7 Q
Total Developable Area Allowed :
Total Developable Area Allowed = 3
1 ,52 4 . 97
R-15 Zoning — 2y3 - lUl _t�ni is
15 ,000 .
fl w 40 ,
r ''
•
Staff Report - PD 3-85/
VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13-85
March 21 , 1985
411V
Page 6
Under the Planned Development Overlay
, setbacks and lot width/depth
requirements can vary -from the underlying zone requirements. In
addition, lot areas can be smaller than the minimum required .
l.
A comparison of the R-15 site development specifications and the
proposal follows :
R-15 Zone 'roposaJ,
Lot Area Unit ;�-)
/ 15,000 sq. ft .
Lot Width at 80 ' 6,300 - 30 ,500 sq . ;�_�t,;y• ;
Bldg. Line 40 ' and over
Lot Depth 100 ' 80 ' and over
Setbacks:
Front 20 ' 5 ' (10 ' corner lots )
Interior Side 10 ' ' •
side on Local 10 + 5
N
Street c� change
Rear 25 ' 15 '
Lot Coverage I Not greater No change
I than 30%
The applicant is proposing. 5 '
lots ) . The applicant indic� tesranminimumard s2Uba long cks (drivewa 10 ' pn � �
ywould be
provided to meet the Parkin gl and Loading Standard. According to the •
applicant, these reduced frdint yard setbacks would allow greater
felxibility for home siting nd would also minimize tree cutting.
1
Staff has concerns with the proposed setbacks and lot width/depth
specifications. Specifically‘ reduced front yard setbacks coupled 'with narrower lot widths could pose adverse visual and physical
impacts ( i .e. canyon/tunnel effects along streets, difficult lot
access and maneuverability for vehicles, etc . ) . The reduced rear
yard setbacks could pose problems on those lots abutting Distinctive
Natural Areas, steep slopes and openApace areas (see discussion in
Access Standard review) .
}} ,
The applicant may Wish to demons trate/l to the Board the impact of
these proposed site development specifications, on typical
evaluate siting/circulation, r lots to iq
conserving natural features and ! 1
facilitating aesthetic/efficient open space .
proposed g ,;Xk!�
Because man of the ro osed lots have irregular cO
y ifigurations and I r
buffer/preservation areas , it is important that the setback lines for , i, I,
each lot in the planned development be shown on a reproducible;`
duplication of the final plat ,
:n 8.14mmaryi the proposal as submitted, does not comply with R-15
III
zon.,r0 criterja ( LOC 48 , 205 (1 ) (o ) ) related to determining residential
denst) y ,
v i( •
,0
' • • • ♦ ' ,• ' ,•�1��
•
'• Staff Report - PD 3-85/
�', , VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13-8'5
march 21 , 1985
Page 7
, ' '• :',. •APPLaICABLE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE STANDARDS AND ANALYS
IS
The Building Design and Fence Standards do not apply to ' this major
development application. The site does not include any historic
resources or weak foundation soil areas . The Development Standards applicable to this proposal are discussed as part of the applicant 's
v .'
narrative in Exhibit Q and are addressed below:
Floodplain - This standard applies to all development
•
_ within an identified floodplain . An extremely limited
• portion of this property is within the floodway fringe
of Oswego Lake.^f, s 100 year floodplain. The floodway
fringe is the area of the floodplain lying outside the
' floodway.
•
•
`"~ - As proposed, no development is proposed to take place
• within the floodway fringe. The applicant 's open space -•« ,
plan incorporates most of this floodway fringe area;
�, therefore, the proposal complies with this Standard. , .
" ' Stream Corridor - This standard is applicable to any
dlopment within a stream corridor.
A small, but Well defined stream exists in the vicinity
of proposed Lots 2 and 3 of Block 2 . This stream
collects run-off from a lar e portion of the north end '�°
g
of the site including two wetland areas. Some of this
= run-off may surface into the stream area as groundwater
. „ seepage. Runoff collected by the strum empties into `
the west end of the Lily Bay.
The City 's Comprehensive Plan does not identify this •
,• y stream on the site. However, it conforms With the
standard 's definition of stream and- stream corridor
w, (Standard Nos. 3 . 015 (2 ) and 3 .015 (3 ) ) . Moreover , staff
has deemed it a major stream corridor ( Standard No.
• 3 .015 ( 5 ) ) , because it performs as an essen .al element of the drainage system Within the City, it has a
-' '' �_' , beneficial or potentially beneficial effect on water
quality.
Because staff was not cognizant of the classification of
this stream, the applicant did not respond to the stream corridor standard With the proposal as submitted . At
• the Conservancy Commission meeting of March 7 , 1985 , the stream and its status as a stream corridor were
recognized (Exhibit CC) . The applicant Was present at the meeting . The proposal must comply With the Standard .
As initially submitted , the applicant proposes to
••
construct a storm drain line through most of the
stream' s length . A temporary siltation basin is also proposed to be constructed within it , j
1,
.,.� •
Staff Report - PD 3-85/ •
VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13-85
March 21 , 1985
Page 8 : '' '
Staff has the following observations and concerns: '
1 . The stream is both a natural as well as
effective means for the site ' s drainage system
to discharge .
1
2 . The standards for approval' (Standard No. 3 . 020 )
allow this type of development to occur within
a major stream corridor provided it minimizes "
degradation or loss of natural features in the
stream corridor .
•' 3 . The applicant ' s `
pP proposal to construct a storm
drain line east of Lily Bay Court would
eliminate the majority of this stream corridor
and; therefore, would result in degradation or*. loss of natural features in the Stream
Corridor. The proposal does not comply with
the Standard.
t P.
4 . Even with the provision of pollution control
manholes in the upstream storm drain system,
runoff from the system would contain ni.ls , finei.
sediments ar;:d other pollutants .
, .
5 . Establishment of a stream corridor buffer area !II- •
could req
uire lot line adjustments to proposed
lots in the vicinity of the stream.
The proposal can comply wit,, this standard if the •applicant follows the guide...ines in this standard 's '
approval and construction sections (Standard Nos. 3 .020 1
and 3 .025 ) as well as the provisions outlined below: , • `'
1
, u
. 1 . Maintain the stream in its present alignment �..
between Lilly Bay Court and the Lilly Bay.
2 . Enhance the stream channel to carry proposed
site runoff without erosion and provide a dense
vegetative filtration system.
3 . Restore the stream corridor areas disturbed by
• construction With native shrubs and ground
a cover .
4 . Establish a 20 ' wide stream corridor buffer
(centered on the channel ) . This would requirea variance to the 50 ' minimum buffer
reIP • •
quirement , Staff could support such a
' request .
. ,
= .
, , ,.
•
. .
•
, : • .
•
•
' ' • '. . . 1
Staff Report - PD 3-85/
•
VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13-85
March 21 , 1985
4111 Page 9
5 . Determine stream corridor buffer area and apply it to density calculation.
Wetlands - This standard is applicable to all
development within essential wetlands.
During the pre-application . Jo.
process for this proposal, a
citizen indicated the existence of two wetland areas on
the site . The City's Comprehensive Plan does not
, ; identify any wetlands on the site.
•
Staff and the applicant 's representatives visited the
site and determined the two areas to be wetlands as defined by Standard No. 4 .015 (1 ) . Based on the field investigation and initial inventory material supplied by
the applicant, the wetland areas were generally defined
at a second pre-application `
pre-a lication meetingheld on January 24,
1985 . The applicant must submit a detailed map of these
wetlands . The applicant has detailed a response to this
standard in Exhibit Q and illustrated on Exhibits B, E
%.; and F.
.,
Briefly, the applicant is proposing to ; nclude both of
the wetlar?ds in the development 's open space plan
(Exhibit B) . In accordance with the Open Space Standard
[ Standard No. 8 .015 (1 ) J , these areas will remain in
® their natural condition and be preserved through CC &
R's .
Staffs only concern with the
proposal is that it
f • Y , appears that the larger wetland may extend outside
Parcel C 's boundary and intrude onto Lots 7 and 8 of
Block 5 .
The proposal can conforms with this standard
if the applicant re-evaluates Parcel C 's boundaries to
include the entire Wetland area and complies with the
standards for approval and construction (Standard Nos .
4 .020 and 4 ,025
A ., Hillside Protection/Erosion Control ,. ,
applies to all development which includes hillsidesor
areas with erosion potential . The site contains a variety of slopes ranging from gentle slopes to those
,� exceeding 50%. The applicant 's treatment of this
standard is found oh p,19os 4 - 6 of Exhibit
No. 16 .02U outlines sever, specific standards of
Standard
p approval
to be used in evaluating a proposed development 's
hillside protection and erosion control issues ,
Collectively, these standards focus on minimizing the
disturbance of existing site conditions and minimizing
4., cuts and fills.
' • In addition , according to the Comprehensive Plan , the
site is located :.n an area with the potential for
b
i
• �'
`
I
' Staff Report - PD 3-85/
VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13-85
March 21 , 1985
Page 10 Ilk- , •
landslide hazard . Where development is to occur on a
site with this potential hazard, a report prepared by a ,
registered soils engineer or engineering geologist must be sumitted (in accordance with LOC 16 .035 ( 3 ) which
• . ' evaluates existing conditions and potential hazards .
,The applicant submitted geologic studies (Exhibits T, U ''.'l.
and V) which indicate that the site is stable. •
The site (as previously outlined in the Existing
Conditions section) has an underlying
of mostly basalt bedrock with shallow ttoomoderatesist� ng
soils. The tract contains a wide variety of diverse
topographic features including steep hillsides, rock
outcroppings and small ravines and ridges . With these
features, the site is classified as Protection Open
Space by the Comprehensive Plan .
f Staff has the following observations and concerns :
,, I
1 1 . Standard No . 16 .020 (7 ) specifies that land over
, ': I
50 slope shall be developed only where density
•
transfer is not feasible. •
? 2 . Density transfer is feasible on the site .
3 .
Standard No . 16 .020 (2 ) cites that all #
developments shall be designed to minimize the
disturbance of natural to
and soils . po gra h
p Y, vegetation ,•
4 . Based on staff analysis of information provided
by the applicant ( Exhibits 01 F and G) ,
appears that several of the ' proposed lots
listed below could contain building footprints 9..
•
on land with slopes of 50% and over . In
addition, the applicant has not clearly '
demonstrated how the plan P (on several lots )
minimizes disturbance of natural topography,
•
vegetation and soils .
5 . The applicant submitted an erosion control plan •c, `,i
which is generally satisfactory. Public Works ''"'
staff indicates modifications to the plan may
be necessary as detailed construction drawings
are developed .
Lots 5 , 13 , 14 and 17 - Block 2
Lots 1 , 2 , 6-8 , 18 , - Block 3
20, 21 , 23 ;' '
.',i Lot 8
Block 4 "'
Lots 3-6 , 10 , 11 , - Block 5
16-20
' , "'!�,{ w I rµ�• q is , , ,h' ,
•
Siff Report - pp 3-85
V R 11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13-85
,+Sa r c h 21 , 19 8 5
page 11 t
IIIP The exact number of these lots is difficult to
determine because of the scale of the drawings and the feasibility of the setbacks . applicant ' s proposed
In order to comply with this standard, the applicant
must demonstrate that :
S,�
1 . The proposal will not allow development to
F occur within areas of 50% or
greater slope. , 4
2 . The proposal must be able to meet the standards
'. for approval , construction and 1 c
(Standards Nos. 16 .g20 , 16 .025 'and 16 .035 ) .
3 . The general development
Exhibit t pa guidelines outlined in
reconnaisances) arefol l hnical
lowed
Park en ace p p and U S y
- This standard is applicable to all
major development . All major residential
provide open space in an aggregateproposalsqut must ,.:4 •
least 20% of its gross land area, amount equal to at
• provided as open space, oIf land is not r1 ,
assessed value of the equiredtopenfspaceees gareaual tisthe
required .
,
Open space is defined as land retained in its natural
condition to provide scenic/aesthetic appearance
maintain natural processes , to provide pappss , to '
recreational uses or to maintain natural Vegetation. In .
«`'. 6 en addition , the standard further specifies that o
. . . land shall be permanently reserved . p space
outlines a list of priorities The standard
to use in evaluatingfLUC 8 .035 (9 ) J the City is
a proposed open space plan.
The applicant 's open space proposal is detailed in
Exhibits 0 and P and illustrated on Exhibit B. Of the
45 . 18 acres in the
proposed development, 9 ,03 acres of
open space must be allocated to meet the standard's 20%
of gross land area requirement . The applicant has 4:.'
proposed to allocate 11 .31 acres or 25% of the land area to open space. gross
The applicant ' s p
pro osal involves a two-step approach to
.greet the specific requirements of the Park and Open
Space Standard as well as the
comprehensive plan , general directives of the y ;
The applicant 's open space plan includes elements from
II `-his standard 's allocation '�
plan includes : priority list . The proposed
. ''.:'::4
•
' Staff Report - Pp 3-85/
VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13-85
March 21 , 19850_,,, •.•,:,',, , :
`` '
Page 12
• Parcel A - Lilly Bay and the surrounding upland
buffer area (also referred to as the frog
pond) . This natural feature is identified by
the Comprehensive Plan as a Distinctive Natural
Area ( #19 , page 28 ) and also is considered
Protection open space .
• Parcel 13 - A crescent shaped, heavily wooded
area of steep slopes , on the southeast portion
• of the site, immediately adjacent to an
overlooking the Lake. This area is also
'considered protection open space and identified
in the Comprehensive Plan (page 30 ) as a
potential landslide hazard area.
• Parcel, C - A topographically diverse area which
includes a wooded rock knoll and the two
wetlands (described in the Wetlands Standard
review) . The tract is classified Protection
Open Apace by the Comprehensive Plan . ;` 4r,,'-• ',
i` The second portion of the applicant ' s response to open
space issues involves a series of protected areas and
�:;� measures to preserve or create the following:
• Distinctive Natural Area - Douglas Fir grove
( #27 , page 28 Comprehensive Plan) . In this �•
area, according to the applicant , lots were
configured to be 'extremely deep' to accommodate •
development on lot fronts away from significant
• clusters or stands of trees . De�,,,d restrictions
are proposed to restrict (°tatting in the area.
And finally, the applicant has indicated that
822 trees (8" diameter or greater ) are located
within the Distinctive Natural Area. Of these
trees, the applicant has committed to save 575 '
trees or 70% in this area . `.
o Viewpoint (Public Open Space #1, page 88 -
Comprehensive Plan) - The applicant proposes to
create a two-Car turnout for a viewpoint on the
east side of Lot 3 , Block 3 on View Lake Court .
N. The Conservancy Commission reviewed the proposed open
r space plan and treatment of open space issues at its
February 28th, March 7 , and March 21 , 1985 meetings .
The Commission made recommendations on each of these •
areas for Board consideration
Exhibits BB and CC ) . ,,
Significant Commission recommendations are summarized
below: 0 :,. . *.%:..
.1 R
'Y
M M , , f it . , . . �. a
,• • Y' ,
•
. Staff Report Pu 3-85/
VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85/v'AR 13-85
March 21 , 1985
•
age 13 •
a Open Space Plan
• Parcel A - The upland buffer on the ridge
west of the Lilly Bay be expanded up to the
140 ' to 150 ' elevation . This elevation
reference is to include the isthumus •
between the bay and the Lake. Existing
water.flow and quality to the bay are to be
:.: ''maintained.
• Parcel B - The natural character of lots
..:
adjacent to this proposed open space tract , ,
•
is to be preserved. No development on
slopes of 50% or greater should occur. A •
tree thinning impact study should be •
prepared by a certified arborist and
reviewed by staff .
• parcel C The Commission approved this
tract as proposed with the provision that a
20 ' wide stream corridor buffer be
• established to protect the surface water
channel from the wetland in this tract to
the bay , ,',,1
Staff observations and concerns follow:
. I
1 . The site is one of the last remaining open
spaces on the shores of OsWego Lake • o
(Comprehensive Plan - page 89 ) . The area has a
significant value to the community as a natural r, '
area, wildlife habitat and view of the Lake.
2 . The applicant 's Y
pp proposal has addressed the
site 's complex interaction of natural
processes/elements and open space by allocating
11 .3 acres of open space and providing 3 .5
acres with restricted tree cutting provisions .
•
3 . The applicant 's development proposal clearly
details the intended treatment of natural .
processes/elements and open space on page 6 of
Exhibit P:
1,
y 4 • Density and design configuration will
";.� -// permit the existing wildlife to remain with
little disturbance; ;. :-
,:. • Large area of trees and Vegetation are to . • •
remain undisturbed so wildlife will
continue to forage in the area;
4r'
J
,
{
Staff Report - PD 3-85/
VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13-85
March 21 , 1985
Page 140 . ..' .
• Shrubs and '•ground cover in undisturbed
portions of the site will not be altered;
• Setbacks on the Lake will buffer the Lake
area from any encroachment from residential
use as well as maintain a natural
undisturbed shoreline habitat .
4 . As a means to collectively comply with: the
general intent of relevant Plan .
• elements/policies to meet applicable
development standards and to incorporate the
applicant ' s proposal to preserve the site 's
natural process/elements,, staff recommends that '.
restricted tree cutting areas be designated as
Protection Natural areas . These areas should
be labeled and restrictions briefly noted on
the plat .
5 . These Protection Natural Areas would include
restricted tree cutting. The areas would also
?• ' remain in their natural condition to maintain
existing vegetation, to protect natural
'.. '. .., :
processes and to provide aesthetic appearance. E<°
Cutting/removal/or alteration of trees; ; .
understory and/or groundcover would be
prohibited unless reviewed and approved by the
homeowner ' s association and the City.
J%1` The proposal also contains areas that could be '
added to these Protection Natural Areas with
little or no impact on the development . The
addition of these areas would greatly
• . , contribute to the proposal 's intent of
1'' preserving natural processes/elements and open '
space. Some of these areas include:
• 50% slopes to the west of Parcels A & B . 4
• slopes east of Parcel C
• - slopes to the southeast of Lots 12-15 ,
Block 3 ; Lots 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 and 28; Block 3 ;
Lots 15-21— Block 5; Lots 3-b, Block 5 and
the Knoll on Lot 10 , Block 5 .
7 . The Comprehsive Plan offers no specific
guidance for determining the location , , .
functions or development of the Frog Pond411 . ,
Viewpoint p cited on page 88 , •-
,, ,.
. Si. ,
1°
e
1.
1. i t
Staff Report - PD 3-85/
VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13-85 •
March 21 , 1985
(" Page 15
8 . The general boundaries of the viewpoint were
determined by staff. This location was based
on an interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan •
4, and field investigations which Wool' allow the
viewpoint to serve the following functions :
• preserve views ,
• allow public access A.
•
• provide panoramic' views of the Leke and Mt . �` :Hood
9 . As proposed, the vista on Exhibit
has not ..
demonstrated compliance with this functions.
The applicant has-not indicated how the
",,a viewpoint ) ' will preserve views
, 4 " P (vista ill provide panoramic views of the' Lake and Mt .
•
.;1 Hood .
10 . The applicant should address staff concerns
relating to tra ;fic circulation and dimensions. •
11 . Oswego Lake is designated a Distinctive Natural
. . ' Area and Protection Open Space by the
Comprehensive Plan. Concerns with water
quality and erosion have been addressed in the report . No response to ° this proposal has been
received from the Lake C�n,rporatiorr. Lake
• Corporation comments should be considered by
, the Board.
•. ' In summary, the applicant has allocated: more than the
20% open space required by this standard, The
Sproposal t�}{,
has addressed the closely related yet,,,sIgnificant
features and elements •including Distinctive Natural ;u .
Areas, viewpoint and Protection Open Space areas.
However, concerns outlined above and Conservancy h�
Commission recommendations should be addressed by the
�,- ' applicant . Specificall
buffer , demonstrating the Vistadlocation Lilly
will preserve
views, etc .
1
LandsGa �n r.
P g , Screening and 13ufferin
applies to all major developen mt . Two specThis standard ic
provisions of this standard apply to this First, all development abutting streets arertooprovide /
street trees at the proper• spacing for' the species
( Standard No. 9 . 020 (4 ) 1 ,
specifies that lots locatedeonnthesperimeteroof9RU7,57 )
R-10 and R-15 zoned develo m
,. 75% of the minimur+l lot area ofent e developed,must notbadjacentless
R-7 .5, R-10 and/or R-15 zoned ,lots .
•
.iy ' "
.
t
Staff Report - PD 3-U5/
VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13-85
•
March 21 , 1985 • '
Page 16
The applicant
has proposed not to provide street trees .
•
This request requires a variance to the street tree
requirement of this star;dard.
t 's
justification for this variance Trequest he iisncontained
w Pages 7 and 8 of Exhibit Q. on
authorizing a variance are cited innLOC149 50Uons �
a. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary ar s
The applicant has not clearly
that the request is necessaryto justified
unnecessary hardship. Throughprevent
Exhibits D
and E, the applicant has established the
heavily wooded nature of the site.
However, there are no physical
•
circumstances ,or�,�,,;the site which should
preclude the planting of street trees. f�
• Reasonable use similar to like properties
can be made of the proposed development
without the requested variance, And
• finally, the
economic impact on the
developer of this site
uest
were denied) would be nol different f this gthan
• •,t.' • other developers of major l
projects .
r residential
b. Development consistent with the request
wiy not be injurious to the neighborhood
In w ich the property is located .
Perceptions of future residents/users of
the development can only be speculative
concerning the amenities street trees could •
•'
provide . However, street trees could replace existing trees and vegetaion
removed during streets and utilities construction . In addition , an appropriate
species of street tree could providevisual •
amenities to complement the pedomnately
coniferous tree cover on the site,
C. The request is the minimum variance
necessary to make reasonable use of the
properf•y.
..
This request is not the minimum variance
necessary to make reasonable Use of the property.P y. The applicant has requested that
the street trees requirement be completely
eliminated from this pro sal
does not; a p The request
ppear to consider that several of
Staff Report - PD 3-85/
VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13-85
March 21 , 1985
ish_ Pvirage 17
the proposed lots have few or no trees
along the development 's proposed street
system. The applicant could have requested
•
a. variance to this requirement for only
those heavily wooded lots .
d. The request is not in conflict with the
® oaipre ensive Plan . ---
The request does conflict with the Plan . • +
General Policies III and IV of the
Residential Site Design Policies
(Residential Land Use Policy Element )
encourages street trees for new development ;; r
' and aJi residential areas .
li
The applicant,; has not justified this variance request . •
Exhibit B illustrates the
proposal ' s
ts
comply with the 75% minimumlotarea requirement' of
developed, adjacent R-10 and R-15 zoned lots.
Therefore, the buffering requirement of this standard
has been met . •
Because of the extensive wooded character of the site
® and its beneficial influence on erosion control as well
as visual amenities , all measures should be taken to
protect existing trees .
Exhibit GG from the Oregon Rare and Endangered Plant I
y
• Project to City staff outlines the possibility that two
rare plants, Howellia Aquatilis (Howellia) and Delphinium Leucophaeum (White Rock Larkspur) are located
• on the site. Standard No. 9.025 ( 5 ) recognizes the White
Larkspur as a rare and endangered species. The
Conservancy Commission recommended to the Board that a
1 , qualified professional should inventory the site for
rare/endangered plant species prior to construction .
found, the professional should recommend measures for If
preservation.
•
. Exhibit GG also includes a
of the site made during January11985 .minary plant inventory
•
In order to comply with this standard, the applicant
must justify the variance from the street tree variance
'• ,'' ' request (Standard No . ,
9 U20 (4 ) . In addition, an
inventory for rare/endangered planes should be carried
out by a qualified professional prior to any
construction with recommendations for preservation
t ' ) ( Exhibit CC ) .
s
•
Staff Report - PD 3-85/
VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13-85
March 21 , 1985
' , .� Page 18 .71 a, i
Parking and Loading - This standard is applicable to all.
development which generates a parking need. An
off-street parking area for two vehicles
(excluding a
garage ) is required for single family residential
development . All proposed parcels appear to have
adequate area to meet this requirement .
However , staff is concerned about the feasibility of •
applicant 's proposed setbacks (See discussion in zoning
criteria review) and impacts on offsite parking
•
requirements for each lot .
The proposal also involves two proposed parking areas ,
•
within the development ' s public street system. The
first is the parking area projected to serve the future
recreational area at the end of Bay View Lane
(Exhibit I ) . The second area is a proposed two vehicle
turnout to accommodate users of the vi6wpoint along View '
Lake Court .
Staff has the following observations and concerns:
1 . Standard No. 7 .020 (8 ) (g) requires an
independent parking study be provided for a
proposed recreational development . In Exhibits
•
I and R, the applicant indicates 12 parking
spaces are to accommodate the requirements of
• the future recreational facility.
e,
•
2 . The size and configuration of proposed parking
spaces 8 - 10 do not meet the standard ' s
dimension requirements .
3 . The proposal appears ppears to limit parking for the
recreational facility to homeowners of the
development and their guests . Private parking
spaces have not been allowed in a public • • : :
right-of-way.
4 . These parking spaces must be public, Public
'' . Works staff recommends a parking study be
performed to determine the number of required
off-street spaces .
5 . The Fire Marshall is op
posed to parking in Bay
View Lane 's cul-de-sac area because of
potential circulation problems for fire
fighting equipment . The Fire Marshall
• recommends that offstreet parking should be
• . provided for recreational facility users . 111 , .
a
,
V .
Staff Report - PD 3-85/
•
11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13-85
w:arch 21, 1985
.3.ge
19'.
6 . Exhibit J details the viewpoint .
Public Works staff requires a dimensioned
drawing to determine the proposal 's compliance
with the standard. In addition, staff is
concerned with potential conflict;, with
entering/exiting vehicles and ths:_..fiewpoint 's
proximity to- the intersection of Village Drive
and View Lake Court .
The proposal can be made to comply with this
standard if the concerns outlined above are
•
addressed by the applicant to the satisfaction of
Public"'Works staff .
n
Access - This standard is applied to major
development and all partitions . Its purpose is to
evaluate what effect a proposed development may
have on area public right-of-ways and
safe/efficient ingress and egress to property.
The applicant has shown on Exhibit H that two
proposed streets in the development are to have
radius curvatures of less than, the minimum
requirement of 100 ' (LOC 44 .385 ) . These two' • streets and proposed centerline radii are ;Terrace
Park Court (60 ' ) and Forest Park Drive
o
\proposed design requires a variance. The ) ' This
A ,
applicant 's justification is detailed in Exhibits R
and'-'S. The conditions for authorizing a variance
are cited in LOC 44 .396.
a. The request is necessary to prevent Unneces_
/ nar s 1 _
Staff finds that the applicant has justified
the Terrace Park Court request as necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship based on physical
circumstances (slopes encountered) and economic
impact . The applicant , however, has not
clearly justified that the request on Forest•
Park Drive is necessary to prevent Unnecessary _
hardship.
./ b. The request is the minimum variance necessar�
to mae reasoi,able use of the ro erty+
k
The request on Terrace Park Court is the
' minimum necessary based on the previously
described physical conditions cul-de-sac length
0 and smaller number of lots served ,
applicant has not clearl The
for Forest Park Drive . y justified the request
b ,
J
Staff Report - PD 3-85/'
VAR 11785/VAR 12-85/VAR 13-85
March 21, 1985
Page 20
The applicant has justified the request for Terrace
Park Court, but not for Forest Park Drive.
t
Staff has the following observations and comments:
1 . Because of concerns with Summit Drive ' s
intersection with Iron Mountain Boulevard,
Southern Pacific Railroad overpass and 41
Drive improvements, the applicant preparmedat
traffic stucy (Exhibit X) .
•
• 2 . The County's March 21 , 1985 letter (Exhibit y)
does not address recommended street width or
construction specifications for Summit Drive.
• City Public Works staff has therefore
determined that the applicant must meet minimum
Clackamas County standards for St9mmit
improvement .
3 . As an alternative, the City could accept this
segment of Summit for maintenance if the
applicant improves Summit to its full width to
•
the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
Traffic Coordinator .
110 - .
,::::
4 . Conditions of approvale
County concerns as outlinedlini Exhibit
ay.
5. If a rereet is widened more than 2 ' , the
proposal must be reviewed and approved. Any
major road expansion to widen an existing road
to a width greater than 2U ' would have to
comply with City Charter requirements . The
applicant should coordinate this process with
the Department of PUblic Works .
6 . The Department of PUblic Works has recommended
that access to lots with frontage on Summit
Drive be prohibited. In addition , Public Works
•
staff has indicated that because of the
numerous through lots and corner lots, the
ii
applicant should specify access restrictions .
.4 These restrictions should be clearly noted on
the final plat .
Site Circulation - Private Streets & Driveways -
This standard is applicable to all major
development proposals . The applicant ' s response to
the requirement of this standard and relevant
III
sUbdiVision code requirements is contained on page
�'" 9 of Exhibit 9 and illustrated oh Exhibit H .
0
Staff Report - PD 3-85/ "
VAR 11=85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13-85
March 21 , 1985
aik Page 21
IP All proposed streets in the development are to be A ,
public.
A':
The Department of Public Workt has raised the
following concerns with the proposal :
I. The applicant has shown (Exhibit B) driveway
access easements (over other lots) to serve
Lots 10 - 12 and 29 , Block 5 . ,.The applicant
should provide evidence on the proposed
alignments and ( through CC & R's ) that
cross-easements have been established. These
easements should be clearly noted on the final "
plat .
•
2 . Standard No. 19 .025 (Standards for
Construction) cites the maximum gradient for a
driveway over private property cannot exceed
20%. Although difficult' to determine because
of scale, staff has indicated the applicant
should demonstrate that the following lots can
comply with this standard:
Lots 5 - 8 - Block 1
: , • . Lots 4 , 5' & 9 - Block 4
Lots 9, 26, Block 5
27 and 29
Lot 5 - Block 6
3 . From future grading information provided on
Exhibit L, staff has indicated potential
driveway grade concerns for Lots 1 and 2 of
Block 5 .
4 . Potential vision clearance concerns have been
identified on Lot 9 , Block 1 and Lot 31, Block d
5 . These concerns should be investigated with
a staff to comply with L0C 48 .530 (2 ) (b) (1) and
integrated with the lots ' setbacks and noted on
a plat duplicate.
5 . From the information provided , it is not clear I
whether the proposed private accessWay to the
lift station in Parcel A is feasible and can
comply With standard ( i .e. , grades, etc. ) . The
applicant should demonstrate compliance with
Standard No. 19 .025 . Final construction
drawings ' hould, shoW plan/profile , tree
removal, and a turnaround to city
specifications .
s
comply With this standard ,ions , the
With the outlined
proposal can
r
1 '
d
Sta
VAR /VAR
f11R85f eort -12D85/VAR 13-85
March 21 , 1985
Page 22
StreetBikeways and Walkways - This
y Circulation - 41Ikr-'
standard is applicable to all major developments .
• The applicant 's proposal is outlined in Exhibit H .
The applicant has proposed a 5 ' wide sidewalk along
the west side of Summit Drive opposite the site.
5 ' wide curb line sidewalks are proposed on
inter'gal streets as shown on Exhibit H. )) �'
Staff is concerned--- that the internal 40 '
right-of-ways may not be wide enough to accommodate
the required 5 ' wide sidewalks as well as the
required utilities. The applicant should show the
location of all required sidewalks and if necessary
provide public utility easements to accommodate
sidewalks and utilities such as street lights ,
hydrants, etc.
• And finally, the Comprehensive Plan requires all
sidewalks to be property line. Sidewalks may
meander in order to save trees or to avoid cut-fill
slopes .
With these provisions, the proposal can comply with
this Standard.
Transit - Thi, standard is applicable' —`
develo merit . PP icable to all major
Y 'f P \;•A hard surface pedestrian path is
required to connect the proposed development to the
nearest bus stop.
The applicant proposes to construct a sidewalk on
\
•• the west side of Summit Drive opposite the site to
Iron Mountain Boulevard. The proposal does not
include the segment over the Southern Pacific
Railroad right-of-way. Pages 9 and 10 of Exhibit 9
outline the applicant 's response to and
justification for a variance. The conditions for
authorizing a variance are cited in LOC 49 .500 .
a . The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary
hardship.
The applicant ' s narrative establishes that the
request is necessar to
hardship. y prevent an unnecessary
The applicant has committed to
construct approximately 1,000 ' of sidewalk on
property under his ownership, He has also
indicated agreement to construct approximately
2001 of sidewalk offsite. There are physical
circumstances ( the railroad overpass) related0 .
to the situation which would preclude the
developer from completing the sidewalk .
,
Staff Report - pi) 3-85/
VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13-85
March 21, 1985
Page 23
4111 Reasonable use similar to ,like properties could
not be made of the proposed development without
the requested variance. And finally, the
° adverse economic impact on the applicant ( if the request were denied) could be significant . -
0a
b. Development consistent with the request will
not be injurious to the neighborhood.
The request will not be injurious to the
neighborhood because the development will not
worsen an already unsatisfactory situation
( i .e. inadequacy of overpass for pedestrian
traffic) .
c. The request is the minimum vari_ance necessary to make reasonable use o the ro ert
The request is the minimum necessary.
y
.d The request is not in conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan..
• The request variance complies with the Plan 's
implementing ordinances and; therefore, is
consistent with the Plan.
II .
Staff finds that the applicant has ade uat
el the requested variance to the Transit Standard�ustified
Street Lights - This standard is applicable to all
development which includes public and private streets
' • 'lighting and public pp
pathways. ThE�, a licant states that street( in accordance' with Exhibit H) throughout the
development and along Summit will comply With the
standard.
The applicant can comply With this Standard by providing
Public Works staff, prior to finalplat a street lighting l, with a 4
5 .020 . plan in accordance with Standard No.
Utilities -
This standard applies to all development
requiring connection to utilities. Utilities ( i .e. ,
sanitary sewer , Water distribUtion, sidewalks, street
lights, streets, etc. ) , Whether ,on/or offsite, are to
be provided to all development , Utilities are to be
installed underground Unless exempted by the City
Manager . The cost of all utility improvements are to be
paid by the developer .
The applicant 's proposal is contained on Exhibit K.
tl • b
Staff Report - PD 3-85/
VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13-85
March 21 , 1985
411- ' .
Page 24
• Public Works staff has made the following observations
and concerns:
•
1 . Sanitary Sewer - Because of the location and
projected depths of sewer lines, the applicant
41 proposes toprovide basement pumps in homes for
Lots 8-11 and 28 of Block 3 to pump sewage up
to main fioor service lateral which then
gravity flow into Sewers located in Village
Drive.
City policy is to discourage the use of pumping
unless one of the following conditions exists:
a health hazard, pumping is to be temporary, or
if gravity sewers are not feasible.
Public Works staff feels Lot 11, Block 3 could
be served by gavity sewer . However, Lots 8-10
would require basement pumps. Justification
for basement pumping is based on the following:
o Gravity sewer lines serving those lots
would have to be realigned to areas \
closer to the lake with critical
. .
" . slopes. Construction activity would41k- '
have significant adverse impacts, both
environmentally and economically.
o The lots are located in the first '
segment of the system. Grades
projected by the applicant meet minimum
design requirements. Increasing the
depth of the line for these three lots
'--1 is not practical .
C 2 . Staff has doubts about the feasibility of
• developing Lot 28, Block 3 . This concern is
based on the amount of 50%+ slope over the lot
and the fact that a sewer easement would be
required from an adjoining property oWner (to
the southwest ) to- accommodate'-pumping ,
3 . The proposals utility plan (Exhibit K) (i
indicates approximately 50-60% of the
development is to be served by a sewage pump
station located in the northwest corner of
Parcel A. The pump station and lines should be
constructed in accordance With Standard Nos .
14 .020 and 14 . 025 (standards for approval and
0 ,
construction ) . Because of the stations
• proximity to the lilly bay, the applicant
should investigate design solutions to minimize
adverse environmental impacts ( i .e, underground
vault, betting, landscaping, etc. ) ,
({
Staff Report - P1) 3-85/
VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR213-85
March 21, 1985
Page 25 .
4'. The utility plan shows the line from the pump
station paralleling the sloped open space area
immediately to the west of the lilly bay.
Construction activities in this area should
minimize the disturbance of =existing `site
conditions . An erosion control restoration
plan to minimize erosion/siltation during
construction should a•;so be prepared .
rk
5 . Easements and plat notes will be required for
all utility lines crossing private property.
Drainage for Major Development - This standard applies
to all major development . Page 12 of Exhibit Q outlines and Exibit K illustrates the applicant 's response to the
requirements of this Standard .
According to Public Works staff, the applicant 's
•
drainage system generally appears to be conceptually
acceptable. However , 'the applicant 's purpose concerning private •4:t,orm easements are not clear . The proposal details that roof drains will convey runoff to dry
wells. The geology studies do not indicate the impact
of dry wells on lots located in potential landslide •
hazard areas . Dry wells are acceptable provided the
applicant demonstrates compliance with uniform plumbing
code.
CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Exhibit P details the applicant 's review of relevant Plan elements
and policies, Review of these Plan elements are detailed in the
preceding Development Standards .
CONCLUSIONS
1 . The proposal does not comply with the procedure for
determining residential density (LOC 48 .205 and LOC
49 .315 ( 13 ) ) . Specifically, the applicant has not
demonstrated by site specific information that the
requirements of the Development Standards (Hillside
Protection/Erosion Control and Stream Corridors)will be met for a•1.1 units proposed to be built .
2 . The proposal (as initially submitted) does not
comply with the Stream Corridor Standard (Standard
No. 3 . 020 (1 ) .
3 . The proposal does not comply with the Wetlands
' Standard (Standard No, 4 .035 ) .
IP
•
zi
r 1
1
Staff Report - PD 3-85/ =�
VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13-85
;March 21 , 1985
41Ir :
Page 2 6
4. The proposal does not demonstrate compliance with
the Hillside Protection/Erosion Control Standard
(Standard No . 16 .020 (7 ) .
5 . The applicant 's open space plan and response to
related Comprehensive Plan
es requires ,
additional review to incorporate 1Conservancy
•
Commission and staff concerns .
( . 6 . The applicant has not
justified the to the street tree requirement (Standard allo.nce request
9.020 (4 ) ) of the Landscaping, Screening and
Buffering Standard.
•
7 . The' proposal has not justified the vati;ance request
to the 100 ' radius curvature (LOC 44 .385 )
requirement of the Subdivision Code on Forest Park
Drive. •
8 . The applicant has not demonstrated that several
proposed lots can comply with Site
Circulation-Private Streets and Driveway Standard
(Standard No. 19 .025 (H) ) .
9 . The applicant ha justified the variance request to
the Transit Stanmdard (Standard No. 6 : 020 ) . 4110
RECOMMENDATION
•
Staff recommends that the Development Review Board continue the
hearing for this planned development .
. . EXHIBITS
A Vicinity Map
B Preliminary Plat and Open Space Map
C Master Plan
D Aerial Photo
E Site Analysis
F Site Circulation
G Slope Map Charts and Notes
H Street Layout Plan
I Preliminary Recreational Area Plan
and Parkin
J g Layout (Not Reproducible)
Preliminary Landscape Details and Site Cross Section
K Utility Plan (Not Reproducible)
L Grading and Erosion Control o
M Tree Cutting Plan Plan (Not Reproducible )
N Tree and Topographic Surve /
NI Tree and Topographic Survey (Composite Index)
` y - Sheet 14 (Not
N2 Tree and Topographic SurveyReproduced )
- Sheet 15 (Not Reproduced)
•
a .
1.
Staff Report - PD 3-85/
VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13'-85
. March 21 , 1985
Are 27
Tree and Topographic Survey - Sheet 16 (Not Reproduced) '
4 Tree and Topographic Survey - Sheet 17 (Not Reproduced )
. N5 Tree and Topographic Survey - Sheet 18 (Not Reproduced)
0 Applicant 's Narrative - Hist0`.ry, Site Design, Zoning,
etc.
P Applicant ' s Narrative - Comprehensive Plan Compliance
Report
Q Applicant 's Narrative - Development Standards Compliance
Report
T
R OTAK, Inc. Letter to Staff - February 22 , 1985
S OTAK, Inc. Letter to Staff - March 1, 1985
T Preliminary Site Stability Comments -- Kelly/Strazer
Associates - January 10 , 1985
U Geophysical Investigation -- John McDonald Engineering -
February 7, 1985
V Additional Geotechr6.cal Reconnaisances - John McDonald
Engineering - February 22, 1985
W Clackamas County (D. Everson) Letter to Staff
- February 12 , 1985
X Transportation Analysis -- Associated Transportation
Engineering and Planning, Inc. -- March 1985
Y Clackamas County (D. Everson) Letter to staff March 21,
1985
Z City Traffic Corridor Memo - March 21, 1985
• Bunick and Associates, Inc. Letter to Staff
February 25 , 1985
BB Conservancy Commission Minutes -- February 28 , 1985
CC Conservancy Commission Minutes -- March 7, 1985
DD Kevin Keay Letter to Conservancy Commission -- March 7,
1985
EE BUnick & Associates, Inc. Letter to Staff -- March 15 ,
1985
FF BUnick & Associates , Inc. Letter to Staff -- March 18 ,
1985
" GG Oregon Rare and Endangered Plant Project Letter to Staff
-- January 23 , 1985
HH Audubon Society of Portland Letter to Staff
-- February 27, 1985
• II Audubon Society of Portland Letter to Staff
--February 27 , 1985
JJ Bunick and Associates, Inc. Letter to Audubon Society of
Portland -- March 12 , 1985
KK SD 11-78 -- Summit Woods (Not Reproducible )
LL Declaration of Restrictions
MM Homeowners Association
NN Articles of Incorporation
00 Village on the Lake Tree Survey and Inventory - 48 Page
(Not Reproduced )
' 110196P/ST/mas
•
STAFF REPORT
May 15 , 1985
•LE NO. PD 3-85/VAR 11-85 (Transit )/VAR 12-85 (Landscaping)
VAR 13-85 (Radius Curvature )/VAR 17-85 (Stream Corridor )
OWNER Nick Bunick & Associates , Inc. and Ann Parshall Schukart,
a
APPLICANT Nick Bunick and Associates , Inc .
LOCATION East of Summit Drive and south of the Southern Pacific
Railroad right-of-way.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tax Lots 200 & 290 , Tax Map 2S lE 9
REQUEST
fi
The applicant is requesting approval of a 101 lot residential Planned
Development in an R-15 zone. ,}'he request also requires approval of
the following four variances :
1 . To vary the Transit Standard requiring a hard surface path
to connect a development to the nearest transit facility
[ Standard No. 6 .020 (1 ) (b ) ] .
2. .To vary the Landscaping, Screening and Buffering Standard
requiring street trees along streets abutting a
• development (Standard No. 9 . 020( 4 ) J .
3 . To vary the Subdivision Code requiring a 100 ' minimum
radius curvature for a residential street (LOC 44 .385 ) .
4 . To vary the Stream Corridor Standard requirement for a 50 '
wide buffer zone to a 20 ' wide buffer zone [ LOC 49 .015 [ 4 ) ] . •
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
LOC 44 . 381 Residential Streets - General
Standards
LOC 44 .382
Residential Streets - Specific
Standards
LOC 44 .396 Variance
LOC 48 .085 [ 4 ) Interpretation of District
Boundaries - Water Courses
LOC 48 . 205 - 48 . 215 R-15 Zone District Description
•
LOC 48 .470 - 48 . 475 Planned Development Overlay
LOC 49 .145 Major Development
LOC 49 . 300 - 48 . 475 Major Development Procedures
LOC 49 . 500 - 49 .510 Variances
LOC 49 . 615 Criteria! for Approvals
XI� IBiT w
Ir!is
a A
• • y
r
Supplemental Staff Report
May 15, 1985
Page 2 ,, III
V APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
o
: ' \;,'' Floodplains
Access
Stream Corridors Site Circulation - Private
' Wetlands Streets/Driveways
Hillside Protection/Erosion Site Circulation -
Control Bikeways/walkways
• Park and Open Space Transit
Landscaping, Screening, Street Lights
Buffering Utilities
Parking and Loading Drainage for Major
Development
Comprehensive Plan Polices :
Growth Management Policy Element
Natural Resources Policy Element ,
Residential Land Use Policy Element
Open Space Land Use Policy Element
Transportation Land Use Policy Element
BACKGROUND
On April 1 , 1985, the Development Review Board opened the public 410
hearing on Village on the Lake and heard the staff's summary of the March 22, 1985 report as well as the applicant 's presentation . The
Board continued the hearing to April 15, 1985 and subsequently
continued the hearing to April 17 , 1985 in order to allow the hearing
to take place in the larger hearing room at Waluga Junior High . That
' room was not available for April 15 . On April 17 , 1985 , the
applicant concluded his presentation. Public testimony ( both for and
against the proposal ) was received, and the applicants
al
statement was made. The Board then closed theppublic hearing forfurther testimony and continued it to May 6 , 1985 for deliberation .
On May 6th, the Board began deliberations and continued action to a
special meeting on flay 22nd. Testimony will be received on
information submitted since the April 17th hearing. The May 22nd
:.,eeting has been advertized , and notice mailed.
The purpose of this supplemental report is to :
1 . clarify those issues which have been resolved since
the initial staff report was prepared
2 . review and resolve issues which were raised during
public testimony
3 . outline a revised series of conclusions based on
410 ,
this testimony and material
N
• 4Y
Tif.
. .,
_, 1
'• Supplemental Staff Report
May 15 , 1985
Page 3
ill 4. recommend approval of the proposal with a list of
suggested conditions of approval .
This supplemental review is in the same format as the March 21, 1985
. staff report.
ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS AND ANALYSIS
On April 30th , the 'applicant submitted additional information
regarding concerns identified in the March 21st supplemental report
and at the public hearing.
The residential density calculation has been updated to include the
area of the stream corridor and a variance justification has been
applied for (Exhibit XXX ) .
The applicant has submitted information regarding 50% slopes in
relation to potential building, locations for Lot 5 (Block 2 ) ;
Lots 1 , 18 and 28 (Block 3 ) ; and Lots 4, 5 , 18 and 19 (Block 5 )( Exhibit ab) .
Final residential density cannot be determined until the Stream '
Corridor, Hillside Protection and Driveway Standards are met .
taff also continues to have concerns about theac "
s
t width/depth dimensions . The applicant 's agent (Mr . Horning) shasd
with staff several times and indicated that they could work with
ariable setback and did not` intend to have all or even most front
setbacks at 5 ' .
Staff agrees that some flexibility in setbacks and lot width/depth
dimensions is necessary due to the tree cover , and diverse topography
of the site . However , this flexibility needs to be balanced against
a resulting visual perception that lot coverage all
to be
\. ex-'.ess of 30% . The Planned Development Overlay allows sthe 30%ln lot
f erage to be averaged over the site, but some care needs to be
taken to prevent an appearance of a wall or corridor of buildings
which shut out lake and mountain views along Village Drive and
Bayview Lane from residents within the development located on other
lots west of Village Drive .
APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS
Floodplain - The proposal complies with the standard as
documented in the March 21 , 1985 staff report .
Stream Corridor The applicant has submitted a variance
request for a partial Variance to 20 ' for a portion of '
the stream buffer . The staff report of March 21st stated that the Stream Corridor "Standard could be met if
certain criteria were met . Those were:
III1 . Maintain the stream in its present
resent alignment
between Lilly Bay Court and the LillySay'
ay
,
•
I5
` Supplemental Staff Report
May 15, 1985 • ,
Page 4
„2 . Enhance the stream channel to carry proposed
site runoff without erosion and provide a dense
•
vegetative filtration system. „
3 . Restore the stream corridor areas disturbed by
construction with native shrubs and ground
cover .
4 . Establish a 20 ' wide stream corridor buffer
(centered on the channel ) . This would require
a variance to the 50 ' minimum buffer
requirement. Staff could support such a
request . �l
40
5 . Determine stream corridor buffer area, and
apply it to density calculations .
The applicant has agreed to work on revised plans
showing a modified lotting pattern to better accommodate
a the stream in its present alignment between Lilly ,gay Court and Lilly Bay. The design presently
220 linear feet of the channel` within Lots pl
aces
' Block 2 , and the remainder within designated open
space. Lots 2 and 3 of Block 2 are includedoin the
"Protection Natural Areas" section of Article X of the1111
CC & R's. Within protection natural areas no tree cutting or vegetation removal will be allowed (Exhibit
XXX) . •
The new design requires a variance to the 50 ' stream
corridor buffer area for 220 linear feet of the 620
linear feet of the' channel . The remaining 400 feet of
stream will maintain the 5p ' buffer .
The applicant ' s justification is found in Exhibit XXX.
Staff can support this variance since it is the minimum
variance required, the new design enhances the corridor 11
by providing greater protection to the stream corridor
than the 20 ' originally discussed, and so should ndt be
injurious to the neighborhood, it implements stream
corridor policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and it is
necessary to prevent hardship based on the facts that
tiM this area was not identified as a stream corridor Until
the applicants Were Well into their design work , and had
made economic and design decisions to address other site
concerns . Upon finding that a stream corridor `exists
the applicants have redone their design to provide a 50 '
�4 buffer for the majority of the buffer , have provided
(' - protection along the entire buffer in their CC & R 's and
have asked for a minimum variance to 20 ' for a portion411
of the channel .
Supplemental ;Staff Report
4� May, 5, 1985
age 5
Staff supports the requested variance, with the
recommendation that the alignment be modified slightly
to more nearly follow the existing channel .
The applicants have also provided a permanent detention
pond filtration syste';n to b? planted with vegetation
•
chosen for their ability ,to rilter pollutants from
run-off prior to its entrance to Lilly Bay. This
pond
will also control the ratio of flow of drainage by
providing detention , and vo should provide erosion
control as well . A condition should still be attached
to any approval requiring that construction within
stream corridor areas be designed to minimize
disturbance of existing vegetation and topography and
that areas disturbed by hydroaxing and/or construction
be restored with native shrubs and ground cover .
Wetlands - The March 21st staff report,,,`and testimony at =
the April 17th hearing indicated that some wetland areas were located inside lot boundaries, and that a clearer
. definition of the wetland boundaries was necessary so that wetlands would be within developable lots .
The applicants have submitted maps showing wetland
boundaries within Parcel C and have redrawn lots so that
• there is no lot area within any wetland in Parcel C
(Exhibits YYY and af) . The wetland boundaries are those agreed upon by staff, the Conservancy Commission, and
the applicant as the area which meets the definitions of
the Wetlands Standard . Lots abutting the wetland also
have 25 ' rear yards as required by the R-15 zone .
Testimony was submitted at the April 17th hearing that
there were additional wetlands on the site as identified
in Exhibit RRR. These wetlands are not shown on the
Hydrology map in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and have
not previously been identified by staff, the applicants
•
or the Audubon Society. Staff has field checked all
sites contained in Exhibit RRR. The two sites located
within the proposed right-of-way of Village Drive are
not wetlands as defined by the Wetlands Standard .sites contained standing water at the time of fieldxhese ,
investigation but were quite small ( 5 - 10 feet ) in
diameter and do not support a prevalence of wetland
vegetation or a—g ea.kex life as required by 4 .015 (1 ) .
•+ .i'.LLl cll.
The remaining sites identified in Exhibit RRR are all
included , or can be included in open space or protected
//)
areas . These designations Will prevent construction or 411/
removal of vegetation within these areas .
ll
v
Supplemental Staff Report
May 15, 1985 I;
.. . Page 6II
Hillside Protection/Ero .ion ,Control - The erosion �:,>s control plan submitted 's saftisfactory subject to minor alterations on a lot byF•lot ,'basis at the time of
�, building permit application.' No new erosion information was submitted except for that within the stream corridor
buffer area.
The applicants have ,
sketchesh for Lot 5, provided' detailed concepta.l site
(Block 2 ) ; Lots 1 , 18 an,. 28 (Block •
3 ) and Lots 4 , 5, 18 and 19, (Block 5 ) to show the
relation of buildings to area over 50% slope.
Staff has reviewed those sketches and determined that
the intrusion into 50% slope areas on Lot 5, (Block 2 ) ;
•
Lot 18, (Block 3 ) ; and Lots 5, 18 and 19 (Block 5 )
appears to be small . According to both geological
reports, soils are stable. Staff believes that these
sites can be built upon with little or no intrusion into
50% slope areas . For any construction on 50% slope _
areas, the conditions of 16 .020 (7 ) shall e met .' ots 1
and 28, B oc an. Lot , : ock 5 ) show a majority of the building pad on slopes of 50% or greater . ( The
Hillside Protection Standard Section 16 .020 (7 ) states
that building cannot occur on slopes over 50% if densityIII
transfer is feasible. Staff maintains that density
transfer is feasible due to the allowance for cluster
development in the R-15 zone (LOC 48 .195 ( 9 ) ] . Cluster
dos not necessarily mean attached housing. it also
allows considerable variation in lot sizes and patterns
to accommodate zoned densities on a given site while
minimizing or eliminating impacts on natural hazards or
natural features . Staff has worked with the applicants •
to identify alternate lotting patterns which can resolve problems on Lot 1 , Block 3 and Lot 4 , Block 5 . Lot 28 , <<
Block 3 may also be able to be redesigned to eliminate slope problems .
However , if the Board agrees with the applicant and
feels that density transfer is not feasible, and that buildings may be allowed on slopes of over 50% , then the
criteria of Section 16 .020 ( 7 ) and 16 .025 of the Hillside• Standard must be met, in order for these lots to be
approved. These criteria are shown in E hibit aj .
Staff recommends that the applicant work with staff to
modify lotting patterns to remove conflicts with 50%
slope and that if these conflicts cannot be resolved, •
the applicant return to the Development Review Board for
evaluation of building sites over 50% against the410
criteria of 16 . 020 ( 7 ) .
\\
iJ
II
supplemental Staff Report
may 15, 1985
Uc-�ge 7 ,ji
0 Park and Open Space
Distinctive Natural Area - The Plan identifies the grove
of Douglas Fir on the knoll east of Summit as a
Distinctive Natural Area. The applicant has identified
the Distinctive Natural Area boundary. That boundary is
acceptable to the Conservancy Commission . Testimony was submitted at the April 17th hearing that the Distinctive Natural, Areas should be expanded to include the area of
Lots 15 - 27 of Block 3 (Exhibit RRR) . However, the
applicants , staff and the Conservancy Commission have ;' '
made many site visits and have agreed that the site
identified in the Plan as the "knoll east of Summit" is
the area as identified by the applicant, and to which
Section X of the CC & R's applies . A review of the topo
map will also show that the area identified by the
• applicant is the extent of one knoll, and that the area
addressed in testimony on April 17th is a separate land
feature from the first knoll and at considerably lower
elevation.
Within much of the Distinctive Natural Areal the
applicant is proposing a "protection natural area"
classification and has submitted draft covenant language
ID which prohibits any cutting of trees, or removal of
vegetation or fallen trees within the area (Exhibit XXX,
2 pp. ) .
This requirement is consistent with Conservancy
Commission testimony (Exhibit BB, CC) .
The a pplicant also submitted draft covenant language for
"wooded distinctive areas" providing protection for the
building area of each lot within the Distinctive Natural
Area (Exhibit XXX) . These covenants provide that no
more than 70% of the total trees on the lot may be cut,
including the 100% restriction on those lots with double
restrictions . Staff recommends that Lots 9 , Block 5 be,
added to the "protection natural area" category subject`
to the 100% rear yard restriction, consistent With Conservancy Commission recom�`iendation . Staff also
recommends that Lot 27, Block 5 be added to the
protection area , and that t`'i ,e protection area located
between Lots 25 and 26 , Block ' 5 be deleted.
The total
protected area proposed by the applicant is
then 70% of each lot . The Conservancy Commission had
proposed that 100% of the rear of the lots; and 70% of
the buildable portions of the lots be restricted from
building or tree cutting.
J , .
Supplemental Staff Report
May 15, 1985
Page 8411
The Conservancy Commission has , on past developments,
recommended a 70% overall prohibition on tree cutting
and vegetation removal in DNA' s . This DNA is similar to
DNA 's in other developments such as Kruse Way Plaza
(apartments at Quarry/calewood) , and Oswego Oaks
Townhouses at Laurel and McVey.
•
The Douglas Fir on this site do support an ecosystem, as
did those tree groves on the sites listed above . Those
sites were probably more severely impacted by the 70%
overall restriction than this site, since there were few
adjacent natural areas to allow some dispersion of
wildlife. Also, th41 possibility for regeneration of
replacement trees is, more severely restricted on these
'1, other sites than on the Village site due to the
intensity of development on those other sites.
Staff finds that while 70% restriction may not be the
"best" interpretation of protection in a DNA, its use on more severely impacted sites over a period of time, has
made the 70% restriction a defacto standard which cannot
easily be exceeded without justification. Staff can
find little justification for a greater restriction on
this site based on the facts that a majority of the
II ' .
ecosystem will be retained due to the 100% restriction
against cutting on the rear of the lots, that there are surrounding open space natural areas of similar species
to allow some: dispersion of wildlife, that the intensity
of use is much less here than on "the multi-family sites
Where the 70% criteria has been previously used, and
that 70% remaining stand has been judged sufficient on
past approvals to prevent "blowdown" .
Therefore, staff can support a 70% overall restriction
j on cutting as per the submitted covenants, subject to a
condition that each building permit in the Distinctive
Natural Area locate all trees on the portion of the lots
outside the 10Q% restt' ' cte ar a as per the tree surveyo
N
( Exhibits N, NI , N2 , Ni, N4 , 'P ) �and that only '
y the minimum number of trees be cut: to allow siting of a
house, garage, and driveway.
Protection of Lilly Bay - Concerns were expressed by the
Audubon Society and others at the April 17th hearing
regarding the necessity of maintaining an adequate
buffer between the Bay and development along the ridge
to the west to prevent erosion, drainage of fertilizer
and
andetater chemicals into the Bay and disturbance of bank
Supplemental Staff Report
May 15, 1985 c' •
Page 9
IDThe Audubon Society testa
site with the applicants anddhadalocatedhadbufferd the
boundary line.
•
The applicants indicated that they agreed with the
Audubon Society on the buffer boundary. The Conservancy
Commission testified that the buffer boundary should
meander between elevation 140 ' - 150 ' as determined by r'
onsite visits . r
The applicants agreed, at the April 24th meeting with 1'
staff, to loca( 'e that buffer boundary on a map. Staff
advised them ta,'also show that any questionable lots in
size or configuration resulting from the location of
this line, be shown to have a building envelope meeting
the development standards and zoning criteria as
modif0d by the Planned Development application. The
applicant also stated at the April 24th meeting, that
some reliance for protection of the Bay could be placed
on vertical, as well as horizontal separation from the
bay. A map has been submitted showing the revised '
buffer lines and the relation of possible building pads
to that line (Exhibit YYY) . Members of the Audubon
Society staff, and the applicants have located the
III revised line in the field. There is still disagreement
' as to the location of the line on Lots 14 , 15 , 16 and
Lots 11, 12 and 13 of Block 2. As noted earlier , staff
has been working with the applicants on alternate
lotting patterns which should resolve conflicts cad. Lots
3 , 11 , 12 and 13 , and may allow relocation of one of the
Lots (14 , 15 or 16 ) thus providing larger building pads
within the two remaining lots , and, allowing the buffer
to be moved higher on the bank .
The applicants have' also asked that the Board consider ,
the vertical separation resulting from the steep slopes
/' into the bay as providing a buffer which may compensate
for a wider horizontal buffer. The Audubon Society
representatives did consider vertical as well as
horizontal separation .
Viewpoint - Two concerns were raised at the hearing, and
in staff reports regarding the viewpoint.
The major concern is that Viewlines can be shown from the viewpoint area to
Lake and Mt. provide "a panoramic view of the
Hood" as required bythe
comprehensive
Plan. The applicant has submitted viewline setbacks and
diagrams showing viewlines in relation to building
elevations (Exhibit ZZz ) . Information also illustrates
II extent of views.
R
7 1
•
Supplemental Staff Report sac
May 15, 1985
Page 10 00 '
Protection of Other Natural Areas - The covenants
addressed earlier in this report apply not only to lots
r within the DNA, but also to Lots 1 - 3 , and 8 - 17 of
Block 2, located along Lilly Bay.
The lots along the Bay have a 100% restriction on "�
removal of trees and vegetation within the buffer area,as identified on Exhibit aa.
Parcel B, the marina site abutting the main lake should
be subject to a restriction prohibiting all tree cutting
• or removal of vegetation until the marina application is
approved.
• Lot 28, nook 3 which has steep slopes bordering the ^'y
Lake, should also be subject to the same buffer area -
requirements as those lots along the bay, and should be
included in the provisions of the CC & R's .
Landscaping, Screening and Buffering - The Board', at the
May 6th hearing, granted a
partial variance to the
street tree standards, allowing the applicant to plant
trees only on those lots whee no native trees occurred
in the front yard setback . Native species are410 ,
recommended at spacing consistent with those species.
The perimeter lot requirement continues to be met since
there are no modifications in perimeter lots .
\s,
Parking and Loading
- Concerns were identified in the
March 21st report concerning:
- parking for the marina;
- conflicts with the vehicle movement at the
viewpoint turnout in relation to its
proximity to the intersection with Village
Drive;
- dimensions of the parking area on some
individual lots which , due to site
constraints , require the house to be
located toward the front of the lot , r
ti
A marina parking diagram has been submitted, showing 12
parking spaces in the cul-de-sac area . Staff recommends
that the Board defer action on the marina parking Until
the application for the marina area is received , so that
that facility can be reviewed in its entirety. The
applicant needs to be aware that a marina approval
require modification to the plat in the areas abutting III
Parcel B.
• `
•
Supplemental Staff Report
may 15, 1985
Page 11
IIIViewpoint Parking - The a
,,
pplicants have submitted I(
view line information on the viewpoint, but have not
submitted any further information on the detailed
dimensions or on traffic movement. The Board also needs
/' to address Conservancy Commission testimony suggesting that the turnout area be lengthened within the
right-of-way to accommodate one or two more vehicles:'
Design of the viewpoint turnout area will involve a
balancing between viewlines , conflict with intersection
movement, and slope of View Lake Court at any given
point.
Staff recommends that the details of the design be
worked out between staff and the applicants, with the
direction that the turnout area be lengthened by one or
two spaces if possible, and that any conflicts will be
P; returned to the Board for resolution.
Parkin on individual lots - City codes require that two
parking spaces plus the garage be provided on each site. The parking area must measure 20 ' in length from
back of sidewalk to the garage door . Sidewalks are
property line walks .
AccessIP
__ - The staff report of March 21st recommended approval of the applicants ' request for a variance on
Terrace Park Court, but recommended denial of the variance on Forest Park Drive. The applicant >>has
submitted no further information on the variance
justification. The issue is er Preservation of trees and lessrdisturbancegof slc'pevs .
areas . The right-of-way will allow for a 100 ' radius
curve but the northerly edge of the pavement would be at
the edge of the right-of-way, thus forcing Utilities
into an easement outsite the right-of-way and thus
impacting more trees . There is a dense grove of fir at
the west end of Forest Park Court, which should be
o- avoided in the design of the street . Staff thinks that
adequate justification can be written for a minimum
variance based on preservation of natural features but
must still take care to see that traffic may move safely
on the street . The low traffic volume and slow traffic
speed should allow for some minimum flexibility in the
curve radii .
Streets - As noted in earlier reports, Summit Drive and
Iron Mountain Boulevards are County roads : county
standards require that a traffic study be done.
A traffic study was prepared Which identified short and
• long term improvements for the intersection of those
roads .
•
Supplemental Staff Report
May 15, 1985
Page 12 111
The County has reviewed that study and recommended that
the applicant be required to provide all short-term
improvements identified in the study, and also the long
" range improvement #2a under c. - no stacking area on the 1 ;
Summit approach (ATEP report) which reads as follows:
a. Widen Iron Mountain Road to the north
approximately 12 feet, and realign the
intersection to the north .
The applicant has agreed to all short term
improvements, and Iron Mt. widening as recommended
by the County.
The County has also suggested a possible mechanism
41� for completing long term improvements 'and have
suggested a 70% buildout of Village on the Lake as
an appropriate measureable timeline for
construction of long term improvements . The--city
can support the 70% criteria subject to
acceleration of that timeline if funds are
available sooner, if the intersection sustains a
high accident rate, particularly of injury
accidents, or if a traffic study for other
• development along Summit Drive identify that need
sooner .
n 4
The City further agrees that a mechanism should be
established to provide for owner/developer
participation in intersection improvements , in a
manner similar to that used to install traffic
r lights on KrUse Way. Such a mechanism might
include LTD 's , advance deposits , system development µ
. . charges or other mechanisms . The mechanism should
be developed soon so that the developer/owners will
know the extent of assessments .
Summit Drive - The applicant has proposed the following
improvements to Summit Drive which has an existing 50 '
right-of-way.
- 9 ' - 10 ' of AC paving to the east of the
existing street surface;
- creation of a 5s asphalt sidewalk on the
west side of and within the existing street
surface by Using traffic separation buttons ;
- street lights as per City standards ;
- gas line Under the new paved street section;
.
ti
e
Supplemental Staff Report
May 15, 1985
Page 13
- power line in the right-of-way to the ea
side of the new st
pavement section,;
t - dedication and right-of-way improvement to
improve sight distance at corner opposite ,, I
intersection of Twin Point Drive,
The City can support either of two options for
improvements:
1 . 24 ' AC street with 6 ' gravel shoulders and a 5 '
concrete sidewalk on the west side of Summit;
2 . 24 ' AC street, curb, gutter, and 5 ' curbline
sidewalk on the west side in the narrow part Of
Summit, otherwise it may meander .
Either option includes full width reconstruction of
Summit, street lights to City standards, and dedication
and right-of-way improvements to Summit to improve sight distance at the corner opposite the intersection of Twin
Point Drive. Unless the Board strongly favors one
option over the other , staff would recommend that the
applicant work with staff to provide an acceptable
design within these options .
III
If the street is widened more than 2 ' , the City's street
widening procedure must be completed by the applicants . n
it '
Also, the street layout plan (Exhibit ae ) needs tobe
changed to show nonaccess strips along Summit Drive,
• along Village Drive on Lots 10 and 11 , Block 5 , and 30 '
feet along Village Drive on Lot 1 , Block 1 . ,
' The applicant has proposed a common driveway to serve
Lots 10 , 11, 12 and 13 of Block 5 . The Uniform Fire
Code ( Section 10 . 207 (A) ) requires that driveway to be a
20 foot wide all weather access
road . All turns will be
required to meet the 45 foot turning radius requirements .\
for fire department access . Also, a turn around will be P;
required if the access road is curved and more than 150
feet in length .
,
One additional comment that should be added for the '- A
future homeowners . Insurance companies will send out a
fire protection engineer to look at all
property valued a
over 8250 ,000 . If fire equipment cannot access the
property, insurance coverage may be denied or surcharged extremely severely. l
p `
. .
u f .0
\ram �,
1
Supplemental Staff Report
-gay 15, 1985
Page 14410 .
\\':\,, Site Circ�4,�_?.ation - Private Streets & Driveways The
applicant has submitted detailed sketches of driveway
grades for Lots 5 and 8 (Block 1 ) ; Lot 9 (Block 4 ) ; Lot
9, 32 and 33 ( Block 5 ) . The° driveway grades, as
s submitted, meet the standard. Prospective builders
should be placed on notice that driveway grades must be
met. Engineering staff has also determined that
driveway turning radii are not adequate for some lots as _
submitted. Builders should be placed on notice
regarding turning radii requirements .
" The applicant has submitted a detailed drawing for the
pump station access road (Exhibit ah ) . Engineering has
reviewed the drawing and determined that access grades
and radii can be met . However, the lot lines for Lot 1
(Block 2 ) should be adjusted so that all of the public
ownership land is outside the lot boundary.
Site Circulation - Bikeways & Walkways - This standard
is applicable to all major developments. 'The
applicant 's proposal is outlined in Exhibit H
The applicant has lroposed a 5 ' wide sidewalk along the °
west side of Summit Drive opposite the site . 5 ' wide II
curb line sidewalks are proposed on internal streets as
shown on Exhibit H.
Staff is concerned that the internal 40 ' right-of-ways
may not be wide enough to accommodate the required 5 '
wide sidewalks as well as the required utilities . The
applicant should show the location of all required
sidewalks and if necessary provide public utility
easements to accommodate sidewalks and utilities such as •
street lights , hydrants , etc.
And finally, the Comprehensive Plan requires all
sidewalks to be property line except that sidewalks may
meander in order to save trees or to avoid cut-fill ' /
_/;'
slopes .
i'
With these provisions, the s
Standard. proposal can comply with this
h Transit -(f-IV:aff continues to recommend approval of the
variance to the Transit Standard .
r,
Street Lights - The applicant has submitted a street
lighting plan which shows use of standard City fixtures
and approximate spacing, subject to approval �` 0 ��
construction drawings by the City, of actual
,
Supplemental staff Report
May 15, 1985
Page''15
• The applicant has shown st
reet lights along Summit Drive
in an alternating pattern, planning to install the
interspaced units on the west side of Summit at the time
of that development.
The applicant has two options: �-
1. The applicant may install lighting generally as I-
shown subject to approval
pproval of construction plans
provided that power is extended as part of
these improvements to the west side of Summit
to serve future fixtures; or ,
2. The applicant can install all fixtures on the
east side of Summit at the proper spacing as
part of this development.
'I1
The applicant has also expressed some concerns about
glare, and intensity of lighting on View Lake Court in
relation to its proximity to the water 's surface, and
for visual impact on properties south across the lake .
Engineering staff has replied that standard fixtures can
be installed to prevent glare and intensity impacts .
•0 Utilities � '
Sanitary Sewer - Staff continues to support basement
pumping for Lots 8 - 10, Block 3 based on the reasons
•
given on page 24 of ort .
Staff cannot recommend approval —'�
c----
of Lot 28, Block 3 at
___ ]
this time since slope justification has not been
submitted as per .020 (7 }. Eaff a sl o continues to
have concerns about use of an easement to support
service by sewer
pumping. Staff agrees that sewer service can
be gravity flow from the main floor of a dwelling on'
this lot, as stated by the applicant in Exhibit ai .
The utility plan shows the line from the pump station
paralleling the sloped open space area immediately to
the west of the Lilly Bay. Construction activities in
this area should minimize the disturbance of existing
site conditions . An erosion control and restoration
plan to minimize erosion/siltation during and after
construction should also be prepared .
Easements and plat notes will be required for all t'
utility lines crossing private property,
Drainage - The applicants have submitted information
II that disposal of storm drainage through dry Wells may ,fit
not be feasible due to soils composition, and have
r'
.
i
Supplemental Staff Report
May 15 , 1965 c\r;,
` Page 15 Ir • .
` requested that roof drains be discharged to curblines ,
or to streams . Staff has no problems with discharge to
cirblines , provided that proper pollution control , t
devices are installed. Drainage into streams should be
constructed to provide minimum disturbance to protected
areas .
ih,7 ' CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Plan designates the Frog Pond as a protected area . The applicant
has proposed several measures which, taken together provide
protection for the function, quality and maintenance of the frog pond.
The Plan also designates a Distinctive Natural Area on the site. The
applicant has proposed restrictions on removal of vegetation and/or
tree cutting for all lots within the Distinctive Natural Area.
The Plan provides that the Lake will be protected from siltation .
% . The applicant has or will provide erosion control and restoration
plans to address this concern as required by the Erosion Control
Standard. Restrictions are also recommended for steep slopes front
' the Lake. ' c,
The Plan designates the site as a viewpoint. The applicant has
proved a public viewpoint, and has provided additional information 1111
showing the relation of viewlines to dwelling locations , and also
extent of overall views . Views of the Lake, and of Mt . Hod are
maintained.
OTHER CONCERNS
Several other concerns were raised at the April 17th hearing.
Boundary Of site along the Lake - A survey was submitted
showing that property along the Lake shore was in two
tax lots rather than one ( Exhibit ad ) . The applicant
was asked which was his boundary line. The applicants
have submitted a survey, and a minor partition
application addressing that issue . The problem has been
,',1 resolved.
a
Overall Development Plan and Schedule - Several comments
were made regarding the requirement for an ODPS. LOC
49 .150 requires that projects to be developed in phases
receive approval of an ODDS prior to issuance of
,,j development permits for any phase .
An ODPS is not required for Village on the Lake since
the site is not being developed in phases . The entire III
site is the subject of a detailed preliminary plat
application .
1
i'
Supplemental Staff Report
May 15, 1985
illiage 17
An ODPS would be required if the applicant were applying
for a plat on only a portion of the site at this time,
so that streets and utilities could be properly laid out
to serve that immediate phases, as well as future phases .
Westlake is being developed under an ODPS and
illustrates very well the use of the ODPS process .
Rare Plants - Testimony indicated that there may be two
rare species of plant, as identified,\ b"y, the Plan,
located on the site, and recommended! that the site be
monitored at the appropriate times o`,r the year to
determine if those species do exist, nd that
appropriate protection be provided if'';;th y are found„
Staff recommends that the Board require such an
inventory. If species are found in already protected
areas, no further action need be taken . If not in
protected areas , staff should have the discretion to
return the issue to the Board if necessary, for
resolution to better impleme=nt Plan policies .
Concerns were also raised about the applicant 's plans to .a
divert water now flowing to the existing wetland west of
Summit to the east into the bay. The Plan does identify
® the wetland west of Summit. Wetlands are included as
Protection Open Space. Until there is an application on
thesite west of Summit, the wetland should be
maintained as it exists . If modifications are planned
as part of Village on the Lake, an application should be
filed, meeting the requirements of the Wetland
Standard. At this time, staff recommends that water
•
flow to the wetland West of Summit be maintained as it
has existed, and that hydroaxing, and/or clearing be
prohibited unless plans are submitted and approved under
the Wetlands Standard .
Selective Cutting Area - The applicant has requested
that selective cutting be allowed in the area shown in
Bxhibit XX. Staff recommends approval of this request
subject to a requirement that a certified arborist
prepare an impact study and plan for selective thinning
which Will allow sunlight and views; but will also
maintain the stand of trees .
CONCLUSIONS
1 . Comprehensive Plan policies can be met with proper
conditions .
2. The provisions of the Planned Development Overlay
• District have been met pending Board action on
requested setbacks .
P
U
Supplemental Staff Report
• '
may 15, 1985
page 18
_r
3 . The requirements of the R-15zone have been met
subject to the modifications allowed by the Planned
Development Overlay.
4 . The proposal can comply with residential density
standard if evidence is presented to show that the
development meets the Hillside Protection Standard.
•
5 . The proposal complies with the Stream Corridor
Standard. The variance justification for a partial
variance to the 50 ' buffer width is acceptable. The
exact alignment of the stream corridor needs to be
determined in the field.
6 . The proposal has identified wetland boundaries ,
provided protection for those wetlands and so
complies with the standard.
7 . The applicant has not demonstrated compliance with
the Hillside Protection Standard. However , '
modifications to lotting patterns can provide lots
which meet the standard. �/
8 . The Open Space Standard has been met. Measures /
been included to providee have 4
and
the Distinctive NturaArea, and oviews tofthe Lake
and Mt . Hood.
•
9 . The Landscaping, Screening and Buffering Standard
has been met by granting a partial variance to the
standard exempting heavily wooded lots from the
street tree requirement. Evidence in the record '
supports this variance . ci
10. The applicant has not justified the variance to
cUrve radii on Forest Park Drive but a minimum,,
variance based on preservation of trees can bell
written. I;
11 . Lots appear to meet driveway standards . Care nUst
be taken by builders to insure that variances are
not necessary.
12. The variance to the Transit Standard has been
justified .
13 . The applicant has provided a permanent storm
retention pond planted with vegetative species which
will filter chemical pollutants prior to entrance of
storm Waters into the bay. Pollution control
manholes will also be installed .
'' 4','
Supplemental Staff Report E3
May 15, 1985 u„
Page, 19 ,\
b • 14. Provision of sewer by pumping for Lots 8 - 11 of
Block 3 is
prefer ble to constructing additional •
sewer line in Osw`egd , Lake due to the impacts on
" water
quality in the Lake, from, construction
activity and potent;��al seepage from the line. There �`
would also be signif%cant impacts on established ���
uses on the Lake, especially in the Diamond Head
area, due to the location of the line in close
proximity to existing docks , boathouses, etc.
• RECOMMENDATIONS
Staffommends ap
proval of PA 3-85 contingent on satisfactory
resolution of conformance with the Hillside Protection
Standard, and subject to the conditions listed below:
1. A 'reproducible duplication of the final plat shall
be submitted to the City which clearly depicts:
a. setbacks for all lots;
b) sidewalks and all Utility easements;
I
c) all areas designated as "protection natural
410
areas" and "wooded distinctive areas" and a
brief narrative description of the
restrictions pertinent to each;
d) all common open space areas;
e) public viewpoint.
2. Protection natural area covenants should be applied
to the rear of Lots 3 7, 9 - 21 and Lot 26 and 27
of Block 5 as shown by the dashed line on the
preliminary plat (Exhibit B) . The Protection
Natural Area between Lots 25 and 26 , Block 5, may be
deleted. Lot 27 be added to this area with the
location of the line to be determined in the field by the applicant and staff.
3 . Erosion control plans shall be submitted with
construction plans showing how erosion will be
controlled, how construction impacts will be
minimized, and how reclamation will occur for J
street, utility or storm drainage construction in
common open space, protection natural areas , and wooded distractive areas, particular care shall be
taken to prevent erosion andLrestore the area
disturbed by sanitary sewer`'installation in the
• protected area along the bay.
1
Sipplemental Staff Report
May 15, 1985111
Page 20
4 . Each building permit on Lots 1 - 9, Block 4 , and
Lots 9 - 21 , and Lots 3 - 7 of Block 5 shall include
a tree survey of the lot area outside the 100%
restricted area , and shall be allowed to cut only
those trees necessary to allow construction of
house, garage and driveway area, to total not more
than 70% o�,,� trees on the entire lot.
5 . The design and proposed plantings for the storm
water filtration pond shall be submitted to staff
for review. The storm drainage system shall include
oil separation pollution control devices . Storm
drainage-;•3,nto stream corridors shall be designed to
be constructed and maintained with the minimal
disturbance to protected areas .
6 . The viewpoint design, be submitted to the City for
review and approval. The viewpoint will contain
space for 2 - 4 cars and will be clearly signed as a
public viewpoint. The design will include measures
to mitigate conflicts with turning movements at the
intersection of Village Drive and View Lake Court.
7 . Height and setback restrictions shall be shown on
111.
the plat as necessary to maintain viewlines from the
public viewpoint.
• 8 . A street tree planting plan be submitted for lots
with no native trees within the front yard setback .
�s Such plan shall show native species spaced correctly
for the species .
9 . Summit Drive be constructed as per one of the two
options on page 12 of the May 14th staff report .
All construction be to City Standards and codes .
The ,-pplicant is to construct all short term
improvements to Summit/Iron Mt. as identified in the
traffic study, and also the widening of Iron Mt. on , '
the north side opposite summit Drive as proposed in
the traffic study.
10 . The procedure for street widening be initiated by
the applicants prior to submittal of construction
plans , if it is found to be necessary.
11 . The final plat shall show no access strips along
Summit on Lots 10 , 11, 12 , 13 , 2 and 3 of Block 5 .
Lot 1, Block 1 shall show a no access strip along
Summit and 30 ' along Village drive measured from the
Summit intersection. Lots 9 and 10 , Block 5 shall
show a no access strip along Village Drive .
Supplemental Staff Report
#; may 15, 1985
age 21
. 12. Lot lines for Lot 1 (Block 2 ) shall be adjusted so
that the access road to the pump station is
completely outside the boundaries of the lot . Final
construction plans must show plan and profile, trees
to be cut, and the detail of the turn around .
Design shall be to City standards. c.
13 . Five foot
property line sidewalks are required on
interior streets as shown in Exhibit K.
Construction plans should show all sidewalks, and if
necessary, provide for public utility easements .
Six foot
public utilityand sidewalk easements shall
- be shown along both sides of all 40 ' right-of-ways
on the final plat. Easements and plat notes shall
be required for all Utilities crossing private
property.
14 . A street lighting plan shall be submitted in
conformance with the street lighting standard.
15. Tha driveway serving Lots 10, 11 , 12 and 13 of Block
5 shall be shown on the final plat and built to
standard which include a 20 ' wide all weather
IIsurface. All curves shall have a 45 ' turning radius
to allow access by fire truck . A turnaround shell
be provided if the driveway is curved, and exceeds
150 ' in length. The CC & R's shall recognize this
easement, and provide for its maintenance.
• 16. An inventory shall be performed by a qualified
professional during the 1985 growing season to
determine whether Trillium Chloropetaluin or
Delphinurm Leucophoeum are found on the site and to
recommend measures for protection for any located A
outside identified protected areas .
17. All driveways be designed with tUrn.isg radii as
required by LOC and with driveway slopes be a
maximum of 20% and meet the City's standard driveway
gradient construction detail . Driveways shall be at
least 20 ' in length from back of sidewalk to the
garage door .
18 . All storm drainage facilities be designed to City
standards and include pollUtion control devices as
necessary. All design shall minimize location of °'
lines within protected areas , minimize disturbance ,y
of topography and vegetation , and include
• restoration plans showing native plant materials .
1
e
T '
4.
Supplemental Staff Report
May 15, 1985 ' Ci
III
Page 22
19 . A protective buffer area restricting removal of
vegetation shall be established along the Lake
frontage of Lot 28 , Block 3 . The buffer shall be
worked<<;out between the applicants , staff, Lake
Corporation representatives and Audubon
representatives . The buffer area shall be shown on
the final plat and included in the section of the CC
& R's which applies to protection of lots along the
bay. Construction of a stairway to the Lake to tie
allowed subject to approval of the Lake ,
Corporation. Plans shall be ` 'ubmitted to the City
for review. Such plans should provide minimal
removal of vegetation, avoid trees over 8" in
diameter, and provide restoration plans as necessary.
20 . The provision of the CC & R's" shall be expanded to
apply to Lot 28 , Block 3 . This lot is presently not
included in the provisions of the CC & R's .
21 . The applicant will work with staff to modify lot
lines as necessary to eliminate or minimize
conflicts with 50% slopes, so that densities will
not be affected. Conflicts which would result in
III
changes in overall density shall be returned to the
�� Board for resolution.
22. Variable setbacks shall be allowed on all lots as
follows:
a. rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 ' ;
b. side yards may be reduced below the
required 10 ' but to not less than 5 ' as
necessary to allow placement of dwellings
to preserve trees over 8" in diameter , or
• to avoid areas of slope . The reduction in
the setback shall be the minimum necessary
to site a dwelling on the lots, and shall
not be presumed to be an automatic 5 ' .
Viewlines to the Lake and to Pit. Hood from
interior shall be considered in placing
dwellings ;
c. front yards may be varied between 10 ' and
20 ' , except that front yard setbacks may be
reduced to 5 ' for lots within the
Distinctive Natural Area or lots fronting
Lilly Bay if necessary to site those
dwellings outside the protpelted buffet
III
area . An alternative soluvLon would be to
reduce the width of Bay View Lane, or to
r, move its alignment a few feet to the West .
Supplemental Staff Report
May 15, 1985
sage 23
23 . A certified arborist prepare a plan for selective
cutting to allow enhanced sunlight and view
opportunities within Lots 16 - 18, and 20 - 22 of
Block 3.
24 . No tree cutting or removal of vegetation to be
allowed until approval of a development application
on that parcel .
Exhibits submitted after April 17th meeting, prior to May 6th
Development Review Board meeting.
XXX Letter dated April 30, 1985 from Western Planning Associates transmitting supplemental materials
YYY Map - Bayside Protection Area Proposal ( 2 pages)
ZZZ Viewpoint Analysis ( 2 pages )
as Map of Protection Natural Areas and Wooded Distinctive Areas
d asper CC & R's•
`,
50% slope analysis - individual lots - 2 pages
ac Driveway analysis - individual lots
ad Boundary survey, including underwater lots
ae Street layout plan - revised
of Detail of wetland boundaries
4111 Detail of water purification pond
Detail of pump station access road
ai Letter from Mr . Burnick regarding seiner service on Lot 28 ,
Block 3 II
aj Hillside Protection�Standard
ak Letter from Kunt f/Josselson and letter withdrawing Kuntg'signature from letter
.al Petitions submitted supporting Audubon letter
am Letter in support of application
10186P/SY/mas
•
A
,
CITY OF LAKE OSWE
GO
-PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF AEPORT '
0
APPLICANT Nick Bunick & Assoc. , Inc. FILE NO. SD 03-86-04
OWNER Nick Bunick & Assoc. , Inc. DATE: March 26, 1986
LOCATION Lots 9 & 10 & Lots 6 & 28 90TH DAY May 25, 1986
of Block 4 of Village on
;j the Lake Plat of View Lake
Court
itv
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
• Lots 9 and 10 and Lots 6 and 28 rf Block 4 Village on the Lake
REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval to adjust the common property
line between Lots 9 and 10 of Block 4 ten feet to the north as
described in Exhibit 2 . This will result in the size of Lot 9
increasing approximately 1212 sq. ft. from 8,444 sq. ft. to 9656
sq. ft. Lot 10 will decrease in si om 11 998 s . ft. f-a LO 6
rsq. ft. p icant is a so requesting approval to adjust the
south common property line between Lots 6_ and 28 of Block 4 so that �"
ap roximately 3754 sq. ft. from Lot 6 will be added 4111 .___� to Lot 28 . This
ft . toe31 627nthefsise � Lot 28 increasing in size from Z7,873 sq.
r sq. ft. ,, as described in Exhibit 3. Lot 6 will decrease
in size from 19 ,391 s' ft. to 15,637 sq. ft .
CRITERIA
LOC 48 .195 - 48 . 225 R-15 Zone Requirements
'LOC 49 .140 Minor Development
LOC 49 . 200 - 49 . 225 Minor Development Procedures
LOC 49 . 615 Criteria for Approval
Applicable Development Standards:
Street Lights
Parking
Drainage for Minor Development
Utilities
Access
R
AUTHORITY 2;0 REVIEW AND NOTICE
A lot 1 ne adjustment can be approved administratively in accordance
with LOC 49 . 215 . Notice for a lot line adjustment is not required by
code (LOC 49 . 205 ) .
• •
.4
EXHIBIT
f o
STAFF REPORT/SD 03-86-04
March 27 , 1986
Alive 2 ,
I STORY 5
The subject properties are part of the Village on the Lake Planned
• Development which, was approved by the Development Review Board on
May 23 , 1985 .
EXISTINGCONDI'1'IONS �'
The four lots are vacant and are adjacent to open space area and the
Lake. The back portions of Lots 6, 9 , 10 and 28 slope steeply toward
the Lake.
PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting q g approval to adjust the common property
lines; between Lots 9 and 10 and 6 and 28 as illustrated in Exhibit 1 .
ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS AND ANALYSIS
The site is zoned R-15; however, the site is
' Planned Development approved in May1985. parts of an overall
This request does not
involve any change in density. No new lots are being created as a
result of this request.
1 of the zoning requirements including lot coverage and setbacks
n be met as a result of this request.
APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT ORDIANCE STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS
The following standards are not applicable as th apply only to
major development: Building Design, Transit, Parks and Open Space,
Landscaping, Screening and Buffering and Drainage for Major
Development. The site does not include any Historic Resources or
Flood plains .P The Stream Corridor Site Circulation Private
Streets/Driveways, and Site Circulation - Bikeway/Walkway Standards
were addressed Gt the time PD 3-85 was approved.
Street Lights - Adequate street lights have been
approved as part of PD 3-85 .
• Parking and Loading - This standard is applicable to all r0
0 development Which generates a parking need. All of the
parcels are vacant . When building permits are
requested, the applicants Will address this standard at
that time . parkin
Adequate g
q area for two onsite parking
spaces ( excluding the garages) for each lot is available.
Hillside Protection/Erosion Control - This standard 1
applies to all development which includes hillsides or
4111 areas With erosion potential . According to the
Comprehensive Plan, the site is located in an area with
' STAFF REPORT/SD 03-86-04
March 27, 1986 �i '
411,age 3
h
the potential for landslide hazard. Where development
is to occur on a site with a potential landslide hazard,
a report prepared by a registered soils engineer or
engineering geologist must be submitted ( in accordance
with LOC 16 . 035 ( 3 ) ) which evaluates soils conditions and
potential hazards . I Since is proposal is fora a lot
line adjustmei�d no new construction is proposed, no,
study is necessary at this time.
Drainage for Minorr-iDevelopment - Application for this
standard is to insure tha'» any alteration of drainage
patterns due to developmento not adversely affect
other properties. The proposed lot line adjustment will
not affect this standard. When building permits are
requested, the applicants will address this standard at
that time. Major storm drainage facilities for PD 3-85
have been constructed '4nd are in place as part of the
original planned development approval .
Utilities - This standard applies to all development
requiring connection to utilities . The line adjustment will not affe ; � 'n utilities4or ed lot
. �; Y
• easements for utilities . Adequ` e utilities including
® sewer, water and stormwater facilities are provided to
the sites.
Access - This standard is applied to major development
and all partitions. The proposed lot line adjustment
does not affect this standard as lots will continue to
abut public streets with at least 25' of frontage.
CC."ricFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Zbe request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan as it will
not impact any of the Plan 's policies and objectives.
• ACr" UN TAKEN
;,'.��� Staff approves the lot line adjustments With the following conditions:
a. A lot line survey of the lot line adjustments shallci
be recorded with the Clackamas County Surveyor ' s
Office as per the legal descriptions submitted
(Exhibits 2 and 3 ) .
b . Legal descriptions (metes and bounds ) be specified ! ,
on legal instruments for title transfer and be
recorded with the Clackamas County Clerk 's Office .
' The instruments for all parcels shallreference the
1111 land use application City of Lake Oswego Planning
Department File No . SD 03-86-04 ,
D
STAFF REPORT/SD 03-86-04
JJ a '�
, rch 27, 1986
•ae 4
c. Evidence of compliance with the above mentioned
condition be provided to the City Planning
Department .
EXHIBITS
1 . Tax Map and Site Plan
2. Legal , Description of I/b' Line Adjustment
for Lots 9 and 10, Bl4ick 4
3. Legal Description ofti t Line Adjustment
for Lots 6 and 28, Black 4
0
1�
•
Ir
� � 9
37 41P/LM/mas
1
1f •
•
•
I.
A ill
,,C f p.z- '
• i� 0 if
• it ' i"DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES ' .�� L
APRIL ]•
O"'he Development Review Board meeting of April 1, 1985 was cal 1985
rder by Chairman R 'chard Hutchins at 7• 30led �o
present were Chairman >Hutchins,� p.m. Board members
AnthonyreWright ; 'Curtis Finch, Vern Martindale and
Y9Richard Esl'ick and John Glas'gowl,were excused. Staff
aresenj were City Planners, Bob Galante' end Stan Tidman; City
°..:; ) Attoriaey, Jim Coleman; Deputy City Attorney, Sandra Duffy, and
Secret�c►ry; Kristi Hitchcock .
. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of March 18, 1985 were
considered for approval . Mz ,Wr .ght moved for approval of the minutes as' amendeda
• seconded by Vern Martindale and passed with Mr . Wright, Mr�atton Was
Martindale and Chairman. Hutchins voting in favor. Mr . Finch
abstained.
" PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS -- None
PUBLIC HE IN ARGS J
DR 5-85 --. A request b Mery Bachofner , Actin for the Arneson
BBu% n Co—m"an ,-Tor a rova o an ad ition rking of to
increase the tote parking by spaces a
jacBuilding located at 4530 Galewood Street (Tax eMap nt t2 lEo e8 Arneson
Lot
15200 ) .
Galante presented the staff report, which recommended. a rov ," of
l � with parking lot expansion conditions. Condition 4 recommended
' elis .ina,t,ion of the four northern most parking spaces in order to
preserve some very large trees to
Lake Oswego. Mr . Galante answered questions
the wooded character of
questions for members of the Board . �,
Proconents
, _el ,tout,_David Evans and Associates , representing the applicant ,'
spoke . He sc at par ing in Mercantile Village is a
r
als,n.'a problem around the Arneson Buildin pdbfem, and
additional parking because the lot is full , and epeople a need
currentlyare
oarkLrig in aisles . There has been a concern regarding emergency°
vehicles and need for additional
restaurant hours at the Sea Galleyatol the ng teast. Hderin �t i
9 p_ak
sone discrepancy in the square footage of the buildinggiandhere is
dPter'�inatfon of parkingneeds . °
"� He said they have 6 ,361 sq ft , on
c � casement level , 12 ,255 sq. ft. on the first floor , and 13 , 554 s�.� ,
ft , on the second floor for a 32 ,150 sq . q1 , total . Using the
Parking Standard, this would equal 107 parting spaces. There are p
• , currently 87 parking spaces existing.
Te are additional 17 spaces, for a total of, 104l�spaces , requ,estin.q an
n __
Mr , Stout said that there 1.s a large tree near th�- which is
0 'is 1 from the edge of the curb , There i the main en trene
as also an elevation
_ to the base of t",1e tz'uhk, and he thought they could
�w Festigate to find out the
1iteiA P {ssibil,ity of moving the sidewalk a .1
so that thet'e; wou.ld_he less danger of damage to the tree ,
said they have no 1: EXHIBIT
pl' ns for fut ure expansion of the building. L9; 5
4, 1�
'i M
1 , ro
•
Development Review Board Minutes _2-
April 1 , 1985 III
Mr . Stout discussed conditionA recommended by staff. His major
objection was to Condition 4, which eliminated the four northern most
parking spaces . They are asking for the minimum amount of additional
spaces necessary for the business to function efficiently and
safely. They do not plan to enlarge the building itself.
Mr . Stout submitted an ,.overlay of tree�:lsurvey ands ��
(Exhibit I ) . Also, he exhibited photographs ( Exhibk it J) to`ping aces
illustrate the °existing situation. There will be additional
landscaping and creening to further buffer Kruse Wa
answered questions for the. Board members. y' Mr . Stout
U
Keith "Pete" White, representing Mery Bachoffner , discussed thei%need
for additional parking. Approval ,
of the parking will,, allow growth of
the company and will reduce the impact on adjacent restaurant lunch
trade parking. Parking is very bad from 9: 00 a .m. to 3 :.0'0 p.m. They
agree with the recommendation of the Buttke Study for flex time . The
majority of their employees come from southeast Portland. They
investigated the bus system, and because of the length of time in
transit (as much as three hours) only one bus . rider remains, He
asked for consideration of this project and for the problems with
e
Mercantile Village, of which parking is a major problem.
No one spoke in opposition, and Chairman Hutchins closed the public111 , , .
hearing for Board deliberation. Chairman Hutchins asked-, st:Aff if
location of parking could be in the southwest corner of •.the existing
�, parking lot . Mr . Galante said that the southwest corner has parking
spaces which go directly up to fir trees . An additional lot could be
created by constructing an extra curb cut off of Galewood.
• in response to a question from Chairman Hutchins about the difference
• In calculation of square footage, Mr . Galante said he would have to
4 verify that the basement space was approved
there was only a discrepacny of fourrvefor, occupancy. He said
trees • parking spaces to save
a
Following discussion including the northern most spaces and possibly
onof
only-twowofhthosecbeingie.liminated, Mr. Finch moved for a
y
Conditions recommended bystaff , an HUtchins
seconded the motion , and, it failed With a two to One Vote , Mt . Pinch
and Chairman Hutchins voted in favor , Mr . Wright - against, and Mr .
1 `:artindale abstained (at least three votes in favor were necessary) ,
Discussion continued, with Mr . Martindale stating that his op
:o the motion was the fact that there is a need for additionalosition
parking, and perhaps the applicants could propose an alternate plan
which would provide that parking.
Finch moved d to table DR 5-85 to the next meeting, Aprilsk 15 , 410 . ,
, 985 • The (notion was seconded by Mr . ` Mar!�,irtdale and passed
nimously.
•
) .
/1__
,
•
Development Review Board Minutes
-3- Aril 1 , 1985
,.- • The request included three variances: w
( I 'Trans, Stan.ar• ; Street Trees requirement of the
Landscaping, Screening and Buffering Standard;
( 3) Subdivisionresdni Code
requirement of a 100 ' minimum radius curvature on a residential
street . The site lies east of Summit Drive, south of the Southern
Pacific Railroad right-of-way, and northeast of Twin Point Drive (Tax
Map 2 lE 9, Tax Lots 200 and 290 ) .
M . Tidman presentee the staff report . Mr. Tidman distributed
additional exhibits:
Exhroi.t pp Marlin DeHaas letter dated April 1 , 1985
Exhwmi.t QQ Approved Conservancy Commission Minutes of March
' 1985 7,
staff recommended continuance of the hearing in order for the
applicant to address the conclusions listed on pages 25 and 26.
p
Specifically, these include:
m I . Proposal does not comply with procedure for determin ' n'
residential density determining
2 . Proposal does not comply with Stream Corridor Standard. . •
0 Proposal does not comply with Wetlands Standard.
4 . Proposal does not comply with Hillside Protection/Erosion
control standard.
5 . . e applicant 's open space plan and related comprehensive
policies responses require additional review to incorporatela'n
Conservancy Commission and staff concerns .
' b • The applicant has not
street tree requirementuof1thedLandscaping the Cescreenin request to the
E<. fering standard. screening and
ft , . The applicant has not justified the variance request i?o the 100 '
radius curvature requirement of the subdivision on Forest Park
Drive.
3 , ::,-aa
pplicant has r t demonstrated compliance on several
proposed lots with the site Circulation - Driveway standard.
1• ' VaL/zad Cthman
, PresidEnt , OTAK, Inc. representing the applicant
spoke . He gave th ation for
e order of present
Sala t re A �—_ � the application . '
- are nine concerns raised by the City and several others
raised y the Conservancy Commission .
411) �
•
s,
h
I
•
•
Development Review Board Minutes -4-
. April 1 , 1985 S
Nick Bunick , applicant, spoke. He said they have no conflict with
95% of the issues raised in the staff report. He gave the history of
the property and this project . Mr . Bunick said they had sent a
letter to Diamond Head residents sharing his concern with the sewer
issue and other plans for the project . He also sent a letter to' all
the families west ,nf Summit Drive. Over 50 families have registered
their names for future purchase of lots in the proposed development .
yr . Bunick said, that over 1/3 of the • land will be left as open
space . He said the „public will have access to this open space .
Bill Horning, Partner , Western Planning, 233 SW Front Avenuef spoke .
He discussed the design program. One main road is planned with a 50 '
right-of-way. The other roads are cul de sacs, with an effort to
create as few driveways as possible off the main road. The other two
roads have 40 ' right-of-ways . Care was taken to minimize the amount
of cuts to the incline and to create a simple design. Creating views
was considered. The ultimate basis of conflict is the open space.
There is a common open space system on Parcels A, B and C and a
second area which is a tree cutting restricted area that is placed on
Individual lots but .outside the building area. These combined areas
are 33% of the site . Combined with open space left on the lots and t
right-of-way, another 37% of open space will be generated, for a
total of 70% . Mr . Horning referred to a rendering of the site as it
would look after completion (Exhibit RR) . III
.rawzad Othman discussed utilities and traffic circulation issues .h e water system will be connected to the existin
he sanitary sewer system could be a glint on Summit .
t 'is to be en
gravity. They would like);,'to eliminatersome moffthe lines alongtthely
Lilly Bay to avoid that a'r
for the �,•a and install a, pump station , The reason '
pump station is to avoid the lake and Diamond Head. The
neighborhood association may cover the cost of power for a number of
:jears if the City• would like. The Conservancy Commission had concerns with lines along the Lilly Bay, and the pump station could
solve those concerns .
thman said they agree With the traffic report, except the
(a' 177.provement of Summit Drive to County standards . There is a conflict
between County and City standards , They
1::pro'�ement . He suggested propose a 28 ' wide
that the city accept this street standard '
and then negotiate With the County ',regarding 1 g g jurisdiction over the
, / Mr . Othman discussed issues raised by staff Which need resolution .
He said with regard to the Wetlands Standard, that they ate committed
to ore'serve the Wetlands . If adjustments are needed to Lots 7 and 8 ,
Block 5 that Will be done .
110 .
1 Othman said the variance for the street tree requirement Was
requested because there are majestic trees existing and the planting
• of street trees as a conflict with thos-4 existing trees , If the
Soar ' requires street trees , they -w111 plant the trees ,
Development Review Board Minutes
-5- April 1 , .1985
mr4 Othman said that the design necessitated the variance to the 100 '
cul de sac radius . The design was planned to maximize tree
preservation . However, they will redesign if necessary.
He said they can meet all the requirements for : driveway
Othman sai`j that most of concerns of the Conservancyo giss,io . an .
• be compliec)� with, but there are three key issues whichwouldibe can
discussed by Bill Horning. be
• Bill Horning said the density' had been established and modified site
specifically to the building attributes of the
features . Additional tray fer would cause a different and natural •
;development (cluster , multi-family, mode of
, l.'ots are affected by the 50% Slopes . He
He saidh verya fewn of the
gave the Board an
• interpretation of lots on 50% slopes and the development with zero
percent impact (Exhibit SS) . These lots were chosen at random and
represent netiher the most difficult nor easiest to develop. He .
submitted Exhibit TT (50% slopes ) to show compliance with the Lake
Oswego Standards ( Section 16 .020 ) .
Mr . Horning said that emergency access will all be
public streets . All lots have frontage onstreets .reet frome
the development is planned so that no land
slippagei illHe said.
They have used a soils report. The applicant i will a .cfinal
• soiis
report at the time of issuance of buildingpermits
for a final
slopes over 50% . permits any He disagreed with the labelling of the' stream
corridor in area of Lots 2 and 3, Block 2 . He showed slides Exhibit
TT) showing that the "stream corridor" was only wet during heavy
rains, and that it carried no water during the largest portion of the
year . They maintained this is a drainage ditch. He discussed the
rationale for a variance to the stream corridor buffer requirement.
He discussed the Conservancy Commission 's recommendations and
findings. They disagreed with the douglas fir
grove
Distinctive Natural Area . The Comprehensive Plansaysothe groveof
the
on the knoll east of Summit . They recognise it is larger . They
is
mapped the area and remapped the area, and designated the area . He
said that staff concurred that this was the boundary. He said
' indicated that a precedent had been established in distinctive staff
natural areas Were 70% of trees Were to be saved . They have used
this standard in adopting the land plan for that area, Which 0ould
allow no tree cutting on the back half of the lots.
that the Conservancy Commission 's recommendations wOu,td equal
%said
saving of trees in both the tree cutting restrict�a
• that area . .d �irc�+ and outside `
Mr . Horning next discussed development of Bay side lots . He said
, Le, that the Conseranc �
nhaesshy bosndvr y Commission s 150 ' elevation was beyond the ' I Yt He said that several of the streets planned were
located where old roads and 1°
these for the Board . He `'aC cur,". .had been made. He located ��� 'raid their Site I(Exhibit E) ,,��1,'
clearly indicates that Iron Mountan Boulevard ycreatesganmamphitheater
for noise onto this site, He said that this
y� Diamond Head overlooking this site make it a ' plus the railroad, and
k ontO the Lilly Bayappropriate to allow views
.' r
zrom this development .
1 ,
0
•
e
Development Review Board Minutes -6- April i , 1985
a -
.r ,,' . Last, Mr . Horning discussed the Tree Thinning (Exhibit XX) . He also
discussed the marina, and requested that there, be no parking allowed
if this facility is developed in the future. Parking is available on "
adjacent planned residential streets and since this will not be a
public facility, no parking need to be provided.
Mr . Bunick summarized. He discussed the Lake Oswego Corporation and
parking for the planned marina . He discussed variable setbacks ,
asking the opportunity to vary setbacks in front yards from 20 ' to 5 °
in order to save as many trees as possible. .He said they would
revise requested 15 ' rear yard setbacks to 25 ' . He said this had
been allowed in previous development approvals. Mr . Bunick answered
questions .
Following the presentation, due to the late hour , Mr . Martindale ,..
moved to continue PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13-85 to the ne\$t
meeting, April 15 , 1985. The motion contained the understanding that
the opponents would be allowed equal time, and that the applicant
. could make a short statement at the beginning of the hearing. The
motion was seconded by Mr . Finch and passed unanimously.
GENERAL PLANNING -- None.
OTHER BUSINESS -- Findings, Conclusions and Order r , .
The following findings were approved for signature:
PD 2-84 Modification, Lakeview Realty
The findings will need a second vote as Mr . Finch was not present at
the hearings and abstained from the vote. "
ADJOURNMENT
. The business of the meeting being concluded, Chairman Hutchins
adjourned the meeting at 10 : 55 p.m.
Respectful submitted,
. / 'S d /L0 I
<r sti Hitchcock
. . , Secretary
•
_ . III44
1.
DOc . No . 3058P
•
A 1 :�A M.rit.,ril.III / Ell ,
DEVELOP
MENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
APRIL- 17 1985
4Ikhe Development Rev
iew Board meeting of April 17, 1985 was called
to order by Chairman Richard Hutchins at 7: 00
• in attendance were Chairman Hutchins p.m.iBoardVe members
Martindale, and Curtis Finch. a Anthony Wright , Vern
Martindale,
Staff Richard Eslick and John. Glasgow were
present were City Planner Stan Tidman, City
Attorney Jim Coleman, and Secretary, Kristi Hitchcock .
Mr . Bob Blackmore was introduced to the Board. He is the new
member appointed by City Council.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
-------------
AA second vote was taken approving ,. ?;
Mr . Finch, Mr . the minutes of March 18 985 .
Wright and Mr . Blackmore abstained"
The Board voted to approve the minutes of April 1, 198
Blackmore abstained. This was the second vote. 5 • Mr.
B fit.k;, ' ,4 ' OTHERBUSINESS Findings, Conclusions and, Order
The Board voted unanimously to approve signing of
PA 2-84 Modification . Mr . the findings for
was the second vote verifying
andi Mr . -0acote. abstained. This
1 � the first 3-0 vote.
TITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
- None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13-85 - A continuation of
b Nick Bunick and Associates, Inc.anne eve o ment in an R_ or a 0 of rest entaare ues't
and 290 . zone Tax Map 2 E
r Tax Lots 200 •
,'
chairman Hutchins explained the
said the applicant would be allowedced fiVeeminutesfor1tohsummarizeHe
testimony of the April 1 hearing, and then the others wishing to
testify would be heards
followed by rebuttal .
•
Proponents
Nick Bunick Nick Bunick & Associates
of 20 , Inc.
points he wished to make in response togthe staff Board copies( labelled Exhi
a bit YY) . He summarized some of those oints ,
em hasizing the following: p
1 .
Hillside protection Standard---Slopes over 50% .
Said that the standard allows building on slopes oVer
if there' is no place to transfer density. He Mr . Bunick
lots Within this site are buildable althoughsaid some
50%
•
ovet 50% . slopes are
ii EXHIBIT 1
1
• DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
;APRIL 17, 1--
985
g
2. Stream corridors . He •
should be in the streamcorridorhareastaff that a 20 ' buffer
3 . Trees in the Distinctive Natural Area.
requested that the Board approveMr . Bunick
the plans as submitted.
Mr . Bunick asked the Board to grant approval
conditionsBoard
application
felt were necessary to the project. the
Sall Knaus, Director of the Lake Oswe o Co►'
t e Boar ° Directors sai t ey were in su oration representing
or
application . She said the Board had met andpsupp° the
designation of open space at the lake shore andreser ttti
Lilly Bay. She read a letter (Exhibit ZZ) from theLakeOswego the
Corporation.
Steve Hix, resident of Lake Oswe o, said he plans to bu
Ilhe propose eve opment. He s5 this planned communitya lot in
should be
better than any other on the lake .
Frederick Constant, 107 Burnham Road, said that he felt there
prob ems with evelopment in Lake Oswe o. were
in the proposedit He said planned to live
development and that was well planned, 0 ,
particularly in relation to the natural features of the site.
Mike Grae er
2 Brittain Court, Mt. Pak , said he had reviewed
pre iminary plans an wa ke t e site oa the
He said the proposed development. ��
project approach showed consideration for the many
natural features and resources on the site . He plans to purchase a
home in the development .
Scott Madsen , 3 Del Prado , commercial real estate broker
representing Centerpoint, said sensitivity was shown in the design
of the lots, placement of lots, open areas, and
for this development . He said he would like to pocecoa oftrees
the development . purchase a hoo me in
► 1 Claude Bonfilio, Ridden s rin s, West Linn , said he current
in a evelopment w is has •open areas, preserved trees, and feelsves
1 ' this development will be an area
Lake Oswego will be able to take in Which the entire community of
the development , pride . He plans to buy a lot in
Bill Sorenson , 2222 Crest Drive
Lake Oswe o, said he had spent
hours walking the site an
place his name on the list for
consideration of future purchase ,
been done to He said everything possible had
preserve the beauty and resources of the site.
Elliot Mev-;r asr:�• wociate real estate broker , said he was familiar III
with Mr . _ ,cas8 ofher
wilh be one of the projects . He fee s when tom leted ,
best projects in the northwest, p this
ande he p1�,,�s to
application, recommended that the Board approve the
purchase � lot , He
1 .
-2-
q
• 1� c
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 17 1985
4110 _opponents
_ Howard Gamble ---�
2098 Summit Drive, was concerned about traffic
mpacts to summit Drive. He sa d there is no wa
and a gravel truck or fire truck tos whout ay for a incident.school saids
he had gone to the Traffic Control Board towitreco nh He
something be done at the bridge in order to allow construction
recommend that
equipment to access the site from Iron Mt. rather than from t
road west of the site, he
•
Kevin Kea Rid ewood Road showed slides of the
site
Ex i It AAA . He sal t e developer had not identifi e a stream
corridor, and showed slides of its location. thatt
letter of January 19, 1985 be read into the record
a
(Exhibit BBB) ,
Mr . Tidman read the letter.
Michael____„___ Houck 1953 NW Irvin c sal Portland, re resentin the Audobon
most recent visit a been VisiteontAe to on severa occasions.which he discussed the issues of the buffer zoneT e
lth. He read a letter in
the 140 or 150 ' elevation) which
the pond, the ream corridor, roected the (not necessarilyih
plants. pond, the isthmus to
He said his mainwetlands, Oswego Lake, and rare
rants. without disturbinghimapointhe rwas that homes could be put on the ,
•
Area. He said there shoudtbe nou trails tallowedlinitheibe• zone. He said that pets should be kept out of the buffer Natural
that no disturbance should take ff buffer
corridor Houck said that more a than a 10 ' buffer w area, and
Mr . With regard to the stream
needed for protection. He noted the destructiongets be
construction of the drainage ditch. ofto betion and
considered as a whole, He asked that site be
not as separate parts .
Pam Blake 675 IronBoulevard ,Mt . Boultersecti o ou
n -T- ---r-- was concerned about the
In •
improvement wouldbeineeded to
er n�Ir°n Mt . Boulevard.
asked who would handle the additional trafficShe ld
designated a landslide for the improvement. She said the site is She t
hazard.inspectors necessary to monitor the conditions of the
She asked the cost for the bui�:ding
said Lake OsWego will lose wildlife and the
of this development . project. She
frog pond as a result
Alice Schlenker , 257 Iron Mt . Boulevard, said the
a ready F'stab shed communit cost the the
would be too high . She said yther support services for development
ud ide of the lake to be dheepropert
property is the last
northnot side
parcelp on the
Drive , Iron Mt . Boulevard, p ' and that craffia impacts to
She said cost of fire
and the lake were chool., etc .
should be considered , protection, police services, schools, etc.
county road and that improvementsrevenueMs. cfornroadsid that it Drive is a
' � elr.minata by the federal is being
development e reduced bygovernment. She su
• leel m cost of u impacts that the
9ry because of the impacts north of the
support services .
' � A -3-
•
h i
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 17, 1985
0
George Ronnina, 2003 SW Ridgewood Lane , said the proposed '
Nveiopment is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, page 28,
which is a list of Distinctive Natural areas. He `-submitted
photographs ( Exhibit DDD) showing the frog pond, and two othet H '
treatments of developments with ponds involved. He said this
development will have homes too close to the pond which will cause
people to wander in the area and chemicals from weed control , pest
control, etc« to drain into th'. pond. He said a storm drainage line would be necessary to pr.ev�nt man 's chemical residue from
w getting into the lake. He asked that the setbacks from the lake
r and pond be significant enough to allow protection.
Lynn McDwitt , 1550 Diamond Head, said her main concern was the
planned boat marina . She-gar.-boat traffic on the lake was already
congested, and that the safety for swimmers was a concern.
Chairman Hutchins declared a five minute recess. The hearing resumed with further testimony opposition. public
.
Karin Halvorson, Chairman of the Conservanc Commission, read the
Commission 's recommendations . Shediscussed dit-dall-a-rietter from Mr .
Bunick to potential applicants. She said the Commission would have
preferred fewer homesites. She asked that the trees and understory
which were hydroaxed be replaced. Ms. Halvorson answered 0
for Board members. Exhibits Ms . questions
Halvorson submitted were: 1 ) 3
page \etter of April 19, 1985, Exhibit EEE; 2) Map referencing the
DisL .r_wtive Natural Area, Frog Pond and Douglas Fir Grove, Exhibit
FFF; 3 ) overlay, Exhibit GGG.
:r° W.C. McGray, 1970 Indian Trail , said that a
should to a water consideration. He said that there
has been a continual drop in water over thethat the addition of this many homesrcouldecause further rp, ssu
drops . He asked what the effects of this development woul e dbeuon
the water pressure in the area.
' Alice Hessler , 15330 Diamond Head, was 6oncerned about the ,
viewpoint . She said a viewpoint would allow the view ,
of Diamond Head, and that this could possibly be Usedlc forull robbery
setup. She was also concerned about who would be responsible for
the clean up of the viewpoint area.
• Mr . Tidman entered further exhibits into the record:
Exhibit HHH Letter from Brian Ratty in favor
Exhibit III Letter from Dick Coury in favor
Exhibit JJJ Letter from David/Jerrelyn Henderson in favor
EXh ,bit KKK Letter from Marlin DeHaas, P.E. , regarding
Exhibit LLL gravity flow sewer versus pQmps IIIrvey submitted by Marlin DeHaas regarding '
Su
actual boundary of property along the lake
Exhibit MMM Letter from Ronald Goode in su Exhibit NNN pport .
Letter from John Harlow opposing the density
of development.
-4-
.
•
0, F.
O
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 17 1985
410 ^ Exhibit 000 Letter from Bettina Chew in op
Exhibit PPP Letter in o opposition.
• the site opposition from several neighbor, of
Exhitit QQQ � ,
Exhibit QRRRQQ Letter from Kevin Keay regarding ODPS
Exhibit SSS Leiter from Kevin Keay regarding wetlands
Letter from Kevin Keay regarding traffic
impacts
Exhibit TTT Drainage
Exhibit UUU Summit Woods Plat Exhibit VVV Revised SUmmit Wood Plat
•
Exhibit WWW Photographs
Rebuttal
Nick Bunick , saidc'that hydroaxing on the site had been necessary
ec7tecmining contours and a 0
overgrown. He said the CompCehensivesurvplanfdid enot tidentit wrsofor
corridors,, or wetlands on the property, identify stream
clearing. Mr . Bunick said that thisY' this was discovered by the
that 1'01 lots would equal 20,000 square property is zoned R-15, and
lii were willing to''add another 25 ' buffer within the He said lotsoey
to additionally buffer theear of the
on the ridge. Regarding the cost the community,
Lilly Yr but would like to build homes
that the development would bring income to the comunityBinlpe said
fees and taxes .
permit
,'fir . Bunick said that they will leaVe one-third of 1
the 'land as open
space or Distinctive Natural Areas ` 'Commission 's recommendation that the 145He dtoc150edele�aion Conservancybe
as the line for the buffer of the lilt ba ion t used
buffer to an exact line would be almost impossible as
tying r the does not follow exact elevations . the ridgeline
C.
Mr . Bunick said that if it is determined that the
(Lots 7 and 8 ) exists , they will buffer that corridoreandcdeeddor
restrictions will be placed on thedeed 16 . 020 allows building on slopes overo50%tif density property. He said that Standard
transferred . He said seven of the lots are identifiedabyOt be
having building sites on slopes of over 50% .
will provide soils reports to show that a house can ' ilt on th
, ; bu staff as
lot in conformance with standards . For these lots , they
e
chairman Hutchins closed the
public hearing
Due to the lateness of the hour and need for an adequate bloc
f
time for deliberations , the Board cone ' for Board deliberation .
date to allow time for consideration of the a k i
Continued deliberations to another
moiled that the application.
edpublic hearing for PD 3-85 be continued to' the 'ne*tch
meeting, May 6 , 1985 With the understanding that the, public portion
of the hearing is closed . Mr . Martindale seconded the
it passed unanimously. n
motion ; and
,, -5-
`il
•
. > j ,
.
.1 .
. .
. . .
. :,. . ....
0 "
. ..,
,-,
-1'
.
. .
P
,
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES APRIA_LLL.12111410
ADJOURNMENT
,
10M/1101=4•1•1.4...1141•44/i4.44444ommb
0
.
•
Chairman Hutchins adjourned the meeting at-, 11: 00 P.M.
,. .
- RespeCtZully submittee,
rg
,
'...,._.;
. '
0Kristi Hitchcock
Secretary
0185z
, 0
. ,
0 0
. „
• " .,
. ,
0 .....
..
.. ,
,.
fl
4.
•
' .
'11
4 )
' 1
A,
'1
r ..
1 .
: / 1
•0
I -6, . '.'.. :.
.)
•4 . i . I.r
t
IP
. ..., ,
. .
t .
, 4 " „,--• '
- " 0 • •
a •
.5,..,
. ,
:/..vil ,
s .
f l iiifff+++ a L . ;
DEVELOP VIEW BOARD MINUTES
• MAY 6 1985
. . .
, •
The Development Review Board meeting of May 6, 1985 was called to order ..
by Chairman Richard Hutchins at 7:30 p.m. Board members
Chairman Hutchins, Vern Martindale, Curtis Finch, John Glasgow, Bob
Blackinore, and Anthony Wright. Staff present were Planning D';;,rector,
Sandra Young; City Planner, Bob Galante;
Duffy; and, Secretary, Assistant City Attorney, Sandra
• � Kristi Hitchcock.:, ,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of April 15, 1985 were considered for approval, Mr. Finch
k moved for approval of the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded
by Ur. Wright, and passed with Chairman Hutchins,
r.Wright voting in favor. Mr. Blackmore, Mr. Glasow Pinch, and
, and Mr.
abstained. A second vote will be necessary to verify this 3-0-3tvote.
Approval of the minutes of April 17, 1985 was delayed until later in
' the meeting.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
•
• Chairman Hutchins said he had received a letter from City Council thanking
' the Board for their contributions as volunteers working for the City.
. t „
, . 4110 PUBLIC HEARINGS
DR 17-81 e
/VAR 14-85 - A continuation of a re
_ quest by William Wright for
• approval of modifications Lo the a'
a a request for a pproved landscape and site plans, and
pproval of a variance to the dimensions re wired for
,, ' parking and maneuvering for the Chemlawn building located at 5655 Willow Lane •
(Tax Map 2 lE 18BD, Tax Lot 1300) . The
of approval requiring a landscape irrigation iplan becant Jeliminateo asked hat a condition
eliminated.
Mr. Galante listed the issues which were to be resolved, He said he had
talked with the applicant and he agreed that a revised landscape plan
•
:r • would be submitted. The plan has not been received as of this date.
• •$ . He said the applicant had informed him they had talked with the owner of
the adjacent industrial property about circulating the trucks from the
• east side of the adjacent property, rather than the we! 'side of the site.
''� .Mr. Galante said he had talked with DEQ about the tests they made on the
site, and that although there are no major noise violations, the DEQ
representative said if more than two trucks were idling for more than
,« six minutes along the west
property line, there would be a noise violation.
Mr. Galante said that additional evidence in the form of a letter or narrative
was needed from the applicant addressing the variance criteria. Staff
recommended that the Board table the hearing with the specific requirement
that necessary submissions be provided to staff at least one week prior to
the scheduled Development Review Board hearing.
chairhlan Hutchins asked the applicant co describe what action had bee %4
so far in addressing the necessary standards. .t
EXHIBIT
CO
II 1 /�
q,20-YGCec.>
;01'' , it
•
•
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES May 6, 1985
Joe Miller, Facilities Manager for Chemlawn, said he had asked the property
owner, Bill Wright, id let him assume responsibility for solving the development
problems. He said he had asked DEQ to do testing and they had done so. He
submitted a narrative addressing the variance request. He said there was a
misunderstanding between them and staff as to exactly what was needed to bring F,
the development into compliance. He said that if the east side of the site
were used for truck parking, DEQ had indicated the noise law would be violated.
Following discussion, Mr. Wright moved to continue DR 17-81/VAR 14,85 to
the next meeting, May 20, 1985. Mr. Finch seconded the motion and it
passed
with Mr. Wright, Mr. Finch, Mr. Glasgow, Mr. Martindale, and Chairman autchins •
`
• e voting in favor. Mr. Blackmore abstained.
Mr. Wright amended the motion to continue the public hearing to June 3 to allow
the applicant more time to submit necessary information. Mr. Finch seconded
the motion, and it passed with Mr. Wright, Mr, Finch, Mr. Glasgow, Mr.
Martindale, and Chairman Hutchins voting in favor. Mr. Blackmore abstained. , 1 ••
Staff was directed to meet w.lth the applicant so that he would know exactly
what is needed for compliance. Mr. Glasgow said that staff could give Mr.
. .
Miller an outline of what was needed.
:.
..
• , a ..`2-. -8 Ai .%.' A ca,ltinuation of a request ....!5' .
,; -�. '-y Nick Bunick and Assc^late , Inc. for aUnrova of a 101 lot residential
planned development in an RT15 zone, The request includes variances to the
Transit Standard, Street Trees requirement of the Landscaping Screening and
Buffering Standard, the Subdivision Code requirement for residential street
radius curvature, and the Stream Corridor Standard. The site lies east of
• Summit Drive, south of the Southern ! ...wific Railroad right-of-way, and
northeast of Twin Point Drive (Tax M; p 2 lE 9, Tax Lots 200, 290) .
04
chairman Hutchins said that a staff report was not avialable as new evidence A.
had been submitted which staff had not yet had time to fully review. He lwx
e . suggested that the Board limit their discussion to those items which were
. r ,� unchanged from the wo prior hearings. The Board agreed. Chairman Hutchins
. asked if there Was any ex parte contact. Mr. Blackmore said that he had ,
contact with Mr. Harry Elliott, who plans to purchase a lot in the development, , , y' '
but that they had only discussed the setbacks and no significant issues. He
said he planned to participata in the discussion of the application. Mr.
Blackmore stated he had reviewed the tapes and documents of the two prior )7
hearings on the advice of the city Attorney.
yr. Glasgow said he had reviewed the material of the two o-. - had not reviewed thetapes.
hearings, but
hearing tapes. He said he would only participate in any f
' ,; decisions of which he was fully informed: •
The Board considered the variance to the Transit Standard (+> R 11-85) . It
1111 . .
was determined that the applicant planned to put in a sidewalk along Summit
rom Twin Points Road to the bridge, but that because of planned future street
iimprovements, no further extension of that sidewalk wouldbe possible at this Y
.
.
time.
•
5 -2-
r n
dd .
!._ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW_
' OA
RD
May 6r 198,5
o. —
The Board discussed the possibility of Mr. Bunick
° participating
extension of the sidewalk to the bus stop. Mr. Glasgow moved ntoi an pprove
e
o. " , VAR 11-85 of PD 3-85. Mr. Finch seconded the motion. Discussion of the
motion centered on requiring future participation in completion of the a
sidewalk to the bus stop. Mr. Finch moved to amend the motion, with the L
condition that the variance was granted subject to a condition being4
on the PD approval when street improvementse placed
hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Glasgowagdandt passedsh atu the next
unanimously, � r
• The street tree variance to the Landscaping, Screening and Buffering Standard
was considered next. The applicant's request was that street trees not be
reuiqred.
Chairman Hutchins read the variance criteria. He said he felt this application
did not meet two of the four criteria necessary a for variance. Mr. Wrightrighsaid that the trees
present in the development should be allowed as street
trees, and that the addition of trees not natural to the area would not be
• •
amenable to the sitat on
e. Mr. Glasgow agreed with Mr. Wright, but added th
those lots where there were no trees along the street, trees should beplanted.
Mr. Finch agreed with both.
He thought that trees should be added to those
•
lots without native street trees, but that lots with trees should not be
required to have street trees, Mr. Martindale sadi the difference is street
trees rather than lot trees.
54 /
' ' III Chairman Hutchins again went through' the variance
order to approve th,+ variance, all four criteria must tbei met.ReHea said hthatat n
r hardship had not been proven, and that this is not the minimum variance for
reasonable use of the property. Further discussion ensued.
n Mr. Glasgow moved to deny VAR 12-85 with the condition that existing trees
on the site plan e allowed to meet the requirements of the Landsca in
Screening and Buffering Standard as street trees, and that further Landscaping,
street trees necessarybe � '
• r Hutchins seconded the motion►�vand dito was edefeated cwith Chairmantion of Hutchins a
•b. Mr, Glasgow voting and
yes, Mr. Finch, Mr. Wright, and :lr. Blackmore voting no,
and Mr. Martindale abstaining.
-1 •
% ;t' Following further discussion, Mr. Glasgow moved for reconsideration of the
J ''� motion With the condition that the existing trees on the site may be used
to meet the requirements
q ements of the buffering and street trees requirement, and on
4� where street trees are necessaryto only
the variance 6e;�-A the satisfaction of staff, Mr. 9lackmore
g ;seeded. Ms, Young clarified the City's inte
of variance requirements, Mr, Bunick was asked if the motion was acceptableretation •
He indicated it was. Mr. Martindale asked that the motion be amended to say
that natural site trees be planted to the satisfaction of staff. Mr. Glasgow
•• amended his motion, and it passed unanimously.
Mr. Finch moved for continuance of the public hearing on PD 3-85/VAR 13-85/
4111 ':AR 12-85/VAR 17-85 to May 22, ',985 at 7;30
p.m. in City Council Chambers,
and that the hearing could continue to Thursday, May 23 as well if necessary,
Any new information will be clearly defined and any testimony Will be limited
to that new information, Mr. Wright seconded the motion and it
passed unanimously.
-3-
•
II-
, '
' b + '� �t s'
d
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES May 6, 1985
• DR 6-85 - A request by Anthony Dramov for approval of ap
proximately. square
feet of retail development which will be constructed in two phases at 17777 'i.
Pilkington Road (Tax Map 2 lE 18BD, Tax Lot 36QOI .
Mr. Galante presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the
application with 25 conditions.
q
Byron Kibbey, architect representing Anthony Dramov, spoke, He described the
design and landscaping planned for the building, He said that the landscape
• architect John Lee, said that street trees would conflict with the existing
trees. He said that screening of parking would be better accomplished by smaller,bushier plantings. He said that they would like to keep the two parking spaces in the northeastern corner of the parking lot. They would be willing to sign those two spaces for employee parking only; or, if they have to give up those
two spaces, they would like to make up for it by adding 2-3 spaces in another ir---t.
area of the site. Mr. Kibbey answered questions for Board members relating `'
to parking spaces and landscaping.
No one else spoke and Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing for Board
deliberation. Following discussion, Mr, Martindale moved for approval of
., , DR 6-85 with the following conditions:
. .
1. That the applicant submit a final development schedule for Phase Ii
%.
to the staff prior to the issuance of building permits for that phase. III .
2. That the sidewalk along Pilkington Road be separated from the roadway
with a planting strip for street trees.
,
3. That the applicant successfully petition the City to quit claim all
but 8' of the easement retained across their
portion of Lakeview Boulevards property along the vacated
4. That the four parking spaces along the north property line be eliminated.
5. That site and street lighting be 4 g g provided to the satisfaction of the
Engineering Department. i
6. That two parking spaces adjacent ad acent to the driveway on Pilkington Road be
restricted to employee parking only.
7. That stop signs be provided at the three driveways to the site.
8. That an easement be provided to allow the property to the north access
ti
across the northernmost driveway on the applicant's property.
` , 9. That landscaped separation be provided between the northernmost parking
• spaces and the applicant's property line.
10. That phase lines for landscaping and 41/p' g parking be illustrated to the
staffts satisfaction on both the site and landscape plans.
11. That parking stall dimensions be reduced by the overhang allownace to
mastimize landscaping and/or walkway area,
•
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES May 6, 1985
12. That a "compact only" sign be provided at the aisle of angled
4110
•
the time of construction of Phase II, spaces at
13. That the location and design of trash storage be provided to the
satisfaction of staff.
14. That final drainage plans for roof drains, the parking lot and the •
street, including any necessary utility easements, be provided prior to the issuance of building permits.
. P 15. That street trees be
provided to the satisfaction of staff.
•
16. That the plant material schedule include numbers to be planted and a.•
spacing (for ground cover) .
4
17. That an arborist (registered with the American Society of Consulting
Arborists) be retained to review the plans p'?oposed, report on the feasibility of saving trees illustrated to remain, recommend measures for
tree cuttingandduring �
protection constructid , to supervise work as
necessary, and to recommend tree care such as feeding, pruning, etc. ,
to minimize the impact of development on affected trees to the staff's
satisfaction.
•
18. That all utilities, including utility poles, and the development's".\., 'r connection to them be illustrated on the site plan.
4/10
19. That easements beprovided for „ ''
public access over walkway and bikeway ' `...r portions on private property, I.20. That a walkway connection be provided from Phase I to
along Pilkington Road. the sidewalk
c ''• 21. That the .;applicant comply with the requirements of Clackamas County . ' 1
regarding' ,street improvements and access as outlined in their letter
of February 20, 1985 (Exhibit N) . +
22. That the conditions of the ordinance vacating Lakeview Boulevard be
complied with, a
.,' 23. That the applicant sign a,nonremonstrance agreement for future
4, improvements to both Pilkington and Jean Roads.
24. That four "no parking" signs be provided by the applicant.
0
25, That the walkway along Pilkington Road be constructed along with
:" ' '
Phase I, and that the bikepath be constructed along with Phase It, within
wo years of the date of the final order, or when Jean Road is
...instructed, whichever comes first,
• The motion was seconded by Mr. Finch and
passed unanimously, ,,'
r, fi i
_5_
.
'„ V
•
• ,. • • A J 4 . •5 i.
. 0 a•
e b t
•
• DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Ma 6, 1985
• r
DR 7-85 - A request by Gary Reddick, acting assent for Eugene Bryan, for
approval of a facade remodel for an. office building located ay 696 McVey Avenue
(Tax Map 2 lE 10DB, Tax Lot 1001 . -
•
Mr. Galante presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the
project.
Gary Reddick spoke in behalf of the application, He described the materials
to be used, and submitted photographs (Exhibit H1 and samples of the materials
4 (Exhibit 1) , He answered questions for Board members,
No one else spoke and Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing. Mr. Finch
�, moved for approval of DR 7-85. Mr. Glasgow seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Minutes
The Board considered approval of the minutes of April 17, 1985. it was
� • moved, seconded, and passed unanimously to approve the minutes with
amendments to be made by the secretary per Chairman Hutchins comments.
•
Findings, Conclusions and Order
•. ., . ,
• ,
The Board continued consideration of findings to the May 20, 1985 meeting
to allow more time for their review.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct, Chairman Hutchins adjourned the
' meeting at 11:05 p.m.
'' ' :Respectfully Submitted,
isti Hitchcock
• Secretary
i;
.a K
r
2 . f
• In
t w ` -6-
• APPROVED AS AMENDED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7/1/85
% - 0 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
•—_ _____ MAY 22, 1985
Special Meeti •
.,A�
ng - PD 3-85 , Village on
the Lake
The Development Review Board meeting of May 22, 1985 was called to
order by Chairman Richard Hutchins at 7 : 30
ird members
present were chairman Hutchins, Curtis Finch,mVern oMartindale,
Anthony Wright, and Bob Blackmore . Staff Director, Sandra Young, Assistant City Attorneyr,t were SandraPlanning
Duffy,fy and
Secretary, Kristi Hitchcock .
•
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PD 3-85/VAR 11-85/VAR 12-85/VAR 13-85/VAR 17-85 - Villa a on the
La e, Nick Bunick & Associates, Inc. continuation .
Ms. Young presented the staff report . She said the resolution of
the density calculations was still pending the Board 's decision on
the 50% slope areas and the stream corridor variance. There are
staff concerns with proposed setbacks and lot width dimensions . , .,'.
Ms . Young said the a ' ' •
•
plan which was applicant had submitted revised stream corridor
posted on the wall for the hearing and in the Board 's
packets . Staff feels the variance as requested
a
supportable . Staff has checked and evaluatedthebareas ofy the p wetlands licant s
1 , ', 410 which were identified by the opponents at the April 17 hearing.
• , has been determined that the two areas in the right-of-way are not
wetlands by the Wetland Standards ,
the area which is alreadyThe others are in or adjacent to
extending h protected and can be protected by
protection slightly into Lot 27.
L•' Ms . Young said that the Board must decide whether there are densit
y
transfer options and if slopes of 50% or more can' he built u .
� . • so, then the Board must determine if the application has met the If
M .; four criteria in the Hillside Protection Standard dealing with
slopes over 50% , or condition an ap
50% slopes may only be built on iftl that e t With over
hosecriteriaaremeti
With regard to the Distinctive Natural Area and testimony on April i
17th , that the area should be extended to the second knoll p
east , Ms . to the
Young said that staff had checked the Comprehensive Plan ,
and cannot see an intent in the Plan for extension to a second •
knoll . The Plan clearly states " a knoll east of Summit Drive" .
She said the Conservancy Commission had also walked the site several
times and agreed with the boundary of the Distinctive Natural Area
as seen in the applicant 's testimony...
,
Within the Distinctive Natural Area , the tree cutting
ea recommendations of staff were that 100% on the rear of lots and
• ' 0
. EXHIBIT
,r ,
'
•
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES •
. . ' � Ma 22 1985 � '
70% overall be preserved. Protection of the Lily Bay---the " ```
applicant has submitted a map indicating the line of the buffer
along the bay. Ms , Young said there is ap
me
disagreement between the applicant and the Audubon Society arently still asto
where the line should be drawn and noticed that representatives
of the Audubon Society were present to address this .
Ms . Young discussed the viewpoint and its
y, r . recommends that staff be allowed to work outrkin detailsewithSthef
applicant. She also said that the CC&R's have been submitted
and they allow for protection of areas where vegetation is
restricted and that applies to the DNA and the area along the
• Lily Bay. Staff recommended Parcel B be subject to a "no
cutting" restriction until such time as the marina application
( ; is before the Board, and further that Lot 28, Block 3 be
included in the Covenants with regard to cutting on the steep
s; ,Dpe along the lake on that lot .
Staff recommended that no art of this hearing. The marina will be ahseparate aPe marina beP ion licationdiscusse in
.
Staff recommended that the variances for corner radius on
Terrace Park Court may be either approved
410 .
.. , . , the concern for savingtrees . Anyapproval or not depending on
as the minimum variance necessary.
may be conditioned
Y•
'.. Ms . Young summarized letters received from Clackamas Count -
regarding improvements to Summit Drive.
Summit be improved to City standards . She tsaid rthat mif fdthe
that
• approval is to City standards , the County will have to
petitioned for jurisdiction for that portion of Summit Drive
from Twin Points to the bridge . Ms .
Young her ,
requirements by staff for road improvements , lots access,
and .
the fire requirements for the common drivewa Lots 11 , 12, and 13 . Y planned for
Ms , Young discussed driveway grades .
She flow versus pumping for sewers . Engineeringsstaffo rhased gravity
recommended pumping versus gravity flow for those areas
adjoining the lake, since this option would require no
construction Within the lake and would cause the least
disturbance to the buffer area along the ba y. Shedrainage and pollution control devices conformancedwithsthe
Comprehensive Plan, and concerns with the boundary along the
lake . She said a minor partition application has been submitted
for that land along the lake which answers those concerns . It
has no effect on this application .
Ms . Young said that there is no need for an Overall Plan and
411 ' .
. ,
Development Schedule (ODPS) for this application because
site is being this
; .; . planned as a whole site. It is not planned to be
completed in phases , She answered questions for Board members ,
7
-2-
r u
•
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES May 22, 1985
0 Proponents.
Nick Bunick spoke in behalf of the application. He said he
concurred with the staff report , except for some of the
conditions.
Nawzad Othman , OTAK, Inc. , discussed Condition 9 of the staff
report . He said that their traffic study was based or,, what
•
exists today and projected to the year 2000 level (Se ,Vice
Level C) . They predict no traffic impacts except for the � '
, :1 bridge . The development should cause no further traffic •
problems . He said Summit Drive will be improved, and all short •
term improvements will be made. He said that the cost of long term improvements to the intersection of Summit Drive and Iron • ` '•
Mountain Boulevard should be shared. They would agree to
participate in the funding of improvements .
,
Bill Horning, Western Planning Associates, discussed Condition 2
of the staff report . He said there is no other location on the• ite to locate these two lots (Lots 3 and 1 He paid there is
no abi i to a s er ensit citin his 50% slope
Z3
iak �tlibi presente a the April if 1985 hearing ( Exhibit TT) and
1.-t:" �� . Horning also discussed the buffer around the Lily
,t: Mr Ba ,
id they had very carefully drawn the buffer line and if�itHis
° `. oved any further they will lose homesites . He cited instances
of other development in this vicinity.
Nick Bunick said they would like 5 ' setbacks on View Lake Court
• so that homes can be built off slopes and the street . He said
those lots will be accessed from Village Drive .
Opposition
Kevin Keay said that LOC 18 .040 ( 1 ) mandated that improvements to
streets be carried by the developer . He said that Mr . Bunick
' should pay for improvements to the westerly portion of Summit
Drive as well as those to the intersection of Iron Mountain and
Summit Drive,
Mr . Keay submitted two exhibits: •
�' , • % Exhibit an Signatures on a
Exhibit ao petition •
Alternate proposal which would allow for °'
density transfer without losing number
of units ,
Bettina Chew asked questions regarding the marina and why it Was
a
4' not part of this application :
111/. Young said that the applicant is o
oe located on Parcel B which will oe heardsunderin hatseparate theina
application.
-8-
• ` .
•
•
,��I May 22 , 1985
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, MINUTES
` ' 0Ms . Chew said . he was concerned that the application comply with
the Comprehensive Plan . She asked that an approval be
conditioned to include a deed restriction so that in the future
houses must be in specific locations . She expressed concern
that needs of the community and traffic impacts be discussed
before an approval was made. She said there is a
in
the City code which requires that impacts to the community nmust
be addressed. I:
.
Alice Hessler , 15530 Diamond Head Road , was concerned that the
viewpoint would cause invasion of the
privacy
residents . She said that land for the viewpoint should dbe •
ead
traded to the Audubon society for additional buffer around the
frog pond. She said she had looked at other similar viewpoint
such as Council Crest and Crown Point, and that there was s
additional traffic noise from the cars .
\, of the possibility of fire hazard caused byevisito,astto theesl•ion
viewpoint . to
•
Lynn Herring, Audubon Society, gave lot by lot recomitendations
in response to the map submitted by the applicant. She said
that adjacent uplands must be protected on both sides of Summit ._
and Oswego Lake . Ms . Herring said that Lot 3 is of critical •
concern, and the Audubon Society would
built upon at all . She said that rare plants shouldrefer that tbeot be
identified and protected. ID '
George Ronning submitted signatures of 14
had read
• the Audubon Society report and concurred Wip whole
ththeirfindings .
• He said that one problem with the City code was that it does not
"' •,; require total planning of sites before a planned development
• approval . He said that Summit Heights is an island and the only
\, ; way to get there is to cross one of
th Mountain Bridge or the Summit Drive bridge. bridges,
.
said' these
are the only two routes for emergency services , and that the 11
bridges should be reinforced now, rather than waiting for
' ti • traffic problems to occur first .
^ ' Rick Mishaga , Conservanc2 Commissions discussed tree the Distinctive Natural Areas , In res once to a tioncutt from in
•f Chairman Hutchins, e p question '
recommended that 70 eofathettreesConbersaved onmthesfrontion t f •
and 100% in the back . •
of lots
Chairman Hutchins closed the public
h
recess . The meeting resumed at 9 : 00forlrebuttal byvtheinute
applicant .
Chairman Hutchins read Kevin Keay ' s materials
response to the staff report and othersubmitted bmaterials for
the record. . :'
1 . Stream corridor
2 • Stream corridor variance
3. Proposed hillside protection and erosion control .
i
° a , •r { •,►b;,rti r• � ' \Y y�.�. 5 '. �I�l uu ...1V. .41.1
Y {F� 4. 4.. ��,.}} . ,�. r y,
w�'
•
•
pf
•
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES May 22 , 1985
Rebuttal
Nick Bunick first responded to Mr . Keay' s testimony. He said
that it has been the consistent practice of the City of Lake
Oswego to require half street improvements , with the exception
in this particular case that the applicant agreed to do full
street improvements and other short term offsite improvements as
identified by the traffic study and recommended by the County.
He suggested that if, in the future, the location of the bridge
4. ` is changed, that a portion of the Systems Development Charges
for this development be applied towards realignment of that
intersection .
Mr . Bunick said that he had no plans to develop the other two parcels of property. He has not yet closed on their purchase at
this time. He said that the setbacks locate where the house
will be built so deed restrictions are not necessary.
Mr . Bunick discussed the buffer area. He said that he has
• revised his plan, giving more area to the buffer area, stream •
corridors, and wetlands , and that further enlargement of the
• buffer area would be asking too much . He said his boundaries ••f
for the buffer area and the Audubon Society's boundaries ,
differed only from five to ten feet in elevation. He said that
the house on Lot 3 has the same distance buffer as the rest of• the lots .
In response to a question from Mr . Martindale, Mr . Othman said
that they have proposed an alternate sewer pump station location
which would completely avoid the Lily Bay. The location would eliminate lines in the buffer by the bay and move the pump
station further up and away from the bay.
" •' Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing for Board
deliberation . Mr . Keay asked to submit further evidence .
Chairman Hutchins disallowed the submittal as the
was closed. public hearing
VAR 13-85 , Corner Radii on Forest Park Drive and Forest Park
Court
4.1 , The Board discussed the variance and reviewed materials in the file regarding the variance . Ms . Young
support the variance because ifnotgran sedd, tte it l tat uldff could
d
necessary to cut trees to allow for thestreetplustheP,' easement . Mr . Blackmore noted that Exhibit R in the March 22
staff report gave support to the request , Following further
discussion, Mr . Finch moved to grant VAR 13-85 to the radius '
shown on the plans . Mr . Blackmore seconded the motion .
l:
,, . •
., ,,. ,
_ , . ..
-5-
.
x_.
i r'
•
S.
'. .. x •
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
. � III
Mai 22 , 1985
•,
.. Discussion centered on adding the word "minimum" to the motion . . .
•
Mr . Wright moved to amend the motion to read:
That the grade radii for Forest Park Drive and Forest Park
Court be the minimum variance necessary to keep the utility
easement within the right-of-way and yet preserve the natural features , i .e. trees .
The motion to amend was seconded by Mr . Martindale and passed
with Mr . Wright, Mr . Martindale, Mr . and Chairman Hutchins
voting yes; Mr . Finch voting no; and, Mr . Blackmore abstaining.
The Board then voted on Mr . Finch 's motion as amended and it
passed unanimously.
VAR 17-85, stream corridor
The Board discussed the stream corridor and the criteria
necessary to meet the variance requirements . Following agreement that the variance requirements could be met with
conditions added, Mr . Blackmore moved for approval of VAR 17-85
with the following conditions :
•' . 1 . That the stream channel be enhanced to carry the
III _ ,
• proposed site runoff without erosion and provide a dense
vegetative filtration system.
2 . Restoration of the stream corridor areas disturbed by
• the construction with native shrubs and ground cover .
3 . That an erosion control plan be submitted prior to• construction to ensure �• rotection of the stream corridor
(Added at Mr . Finch 's request . .
• Mr . Wright seconded the motion. Mr . Finch moved to amend the '
motion to include the word "protection" during construction .
Mr . Blackmore said that was the intent of the original motion .
The motion passed unanimously .
•
The Board discussed the wetland boundaries , the Distinctive
Natural areas, the buffer to the Lily Bay, density transfer ,
allowed building all50% slopes or not , setbacks , and tree •
b
cutting.
. Mr .
Wright asked Ms . Bettina what criteria the Audubon Society
used to arrive at the specific buffer boundary lines . Ms .
Herring said they had walked the ridge area and determined the
buffer by using vertical and horizontal topographical features ,
density of vegetation , and proximity to the Lily Bay. III
"
Mr .
Bunick said there were other intrusions besides the
homesites such as the railroad tracks , existing homes , houseoSed
boats, etc .
-6-
4
.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
Ma 22 1985
•
Following further discussion, the B /
�� conditions of approval with the following erecommendations scussion ofor
he
the staff report of May 15, 1985:
1. as written
t 2. Delete Natural Area sentence
3 . as written ;i'' �
�1 n5r
4. 30% of front of lots, with the understanding that
results in-�an impractical building envelope, it canfbet
returned for review and exception if necessary.
5. as written
6 . Mrh Wright moved to a
elimination of the secondv sentence.e number 6 with. the
the motion . The motion failed, with Mr, Finch seconded
inch and
Wright. voting in favor, Mr . Blackmore and FChairman Mr.
Hutchins opposed, and Mr . Martindale abstaining.
Mr . Martindale moved to a
second sentence with the decisionrve utoeber 8 submitted lto the
, •
I/ Board for approval. Mr . Finch seconded the motion.
Finch, Mr . Martindale, and Mr . Wright voted in favor oft
proposal; Mr . Blackmore and Chairman Hutchins abstained, he
7.-8 - as written.
9 . minimum of City standards
.
10 . as written
11 . Include Lot 2 toaethe'r with Lot 1.
Due to the late hour, the Board decided the he ��
g
f continued. Mr . Finch moved to continue the hearingtooThursda
May 23 at 7: 30 p.m. . Mr . Blackmore seconded the motion, and it
passed unanimously.
Mr . Finch said he would be unable to attend the majority
meeting due to a prior commitment, but might be able toc of
omethe
late in the evening,
•
ID
. .
-7- ,
W
1 1
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
May 22 , 1985 • ,
0
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Hutchins adjourned the meeting at 12:45 a .m.
0
Respectfully Submitted,
Kristi Hitchcock /
Secretary
• 0202z
• t
/;
S
5
r '
-8-
n
APPROVED AS AMENDED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7/1/85
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
May 23, 1985
IP
Special Meeting - PD 3-85, Village on the Lake
.
The meeting was called tr,.,,order by Chairman Richard Hutchins at 7: 30
p.m. Board members prein 4 were Chairman Hutchins, Vern Martindale,
Robert Blackmore, and An;;.rony Wright . Curtis Finch arrived later in
the meeting. Mr . Glasgow and Mr . Eslick were excused.
This' meeting was a special meeting for continuation of Board
,deliberations of PD 3-85, Village on the Lake.
Condition 12 from staff report of May 15, 1985 . DBelowsare the
an on
Board 's modifications to the conditions:
12 . Agreed with condition, changed the word "to" to "and" in the
first sentence.
13 . Sidewalks
- Modified the condition to allow the sidewalk to
meander to save significant trees or other natural features and
to require sidewalks on at least one side of Terrace Park Court
and View Lake Court.
14-15 . Agreed with staff recommendations with no modification y
s.
16„, Change "Trillim Chloropetalum" to "Howellia aquatelis" .
•7-20. Agreed with staff recommendations with no modifications .
•,- George Ronning asked where on the staff recommendations is there a
• decision and relation to the buffer of the pond. He asked if the
buffer would be covered by the Board .
Chairman Hutchins said the buffer was not in the conditions
specifically, but that the Board would cover the pond buffer later
in deliberations .
The Board returned to consideration of conditions for a rova 1 . Mr .
Wright said that Conditions 21 and 22 should be considered together
Pp
rather than separately as they are related. The Board recommended c:.
the following:
21 . Agreed with staff recommendation
22. Add the word "lots" between "interior " and "shall" in the last
sentence of part b, and add the sentence be "
reduction. . . in b, to 'c ' also. ginning the o
Mr . Wright said that the current deliberations are contingent on the
Board 's approval of the boundary as delineated on Exhibit YYY.
11,
4
'' EXHIBIT
lefff.v.„
r
v
o
DEVELOPMENT EW BOARD MINUTES
May 23, 1985 II
, ___________,
. .
.
,,._,, ,
ci
. ,
Mr . Blackmore said that the Audubon Society had said 'they' were
willing to agree with variable setbacks to better buffer the Lilly
Bay, and that allowing the reduction of the width of Bay, View Lane
as suggested by staff would go along with that reasoning.
Chairman Hutchins said that perhaps this portion of the discussion
should be put aside for the moment .
0 .
Mr. Bunick said that he had asked that the Board, whatever decision
was made, consider View Lane Court in that decision since the same
-factors would apply as to Bay View 'Lane,.
•
Chairman Hutchins said that the Board was addressing the entire
site. Mr . BUnick said he understood that, but that only specific
streets had been in the conditions .
23 . Discussion centered on the need' for an arborist. Ms . Young said
that the condition was taken from ' the Conservancy Commission 's
recommendations . She read the section from their recommendation.
Ms . Halvorson of the Conservancy Commission, further clarified
their recommendation. She also added that development of 4,7
Parcel B may, in part , determine tree cutting on these lots ,
• The Board modified the condition to indicate that the arborist II
would investigate the feasibility of . . , ; and, that the study be
presented to the Development Review Board for review and
approval .
•
24. Chang€d to read " . . .on Parcel B. "
The Board then considered other conditions to add to the list .
25 . Mr . Wright ' s recommendation about a soils report as follows :
A soils and geological reconnaisance shall be performed on a lot
by lot basis to:
a . recommend basic residential foundation support and soils
requirements ,
b . identify individual lots that may require review of
foundaton plans and/or site specific investigation
studies ,
c . special inspection of foundation excavations ,
Soils investigation studies will be required for any foundation
footprints ( including deck ) that covers a 50% or steep slope .
Mr . Finch arrived and
joined in the remainder of the deliberations .
110 ,
•
26 . Cost of pumps , pumpinstallation and maintenance paid for by the
developer/owners , and maintained by the Homeowner ':G association
or other site related mechanism,
-2-
�l .,.
DEVELOPMENT REVIE BOARD MINUTES
May 23, 1985
III
27. A reconnaisance study shall be prepared by the applicant showing
options and cost estimates for the realignment of the Iron
Mountain/Summit intersection .
The study is to be completea.
within six months of the approval of this project .
Ms . Young said there is still further discussion of the wording,
for both conditions 27 and 28 to be determined by the City
Attorney's office.
28 . Costs---The developer to be assessed his
the costs of the improvements identified ino#27t through ionate ssuch hare of
mechanism as systems development charges , advance deposit, LID,
etc. (This is for long term improvements. )
Mr . Blackmore asked for specific language describing "fair
share' .
29 . That the stream channel be enhanced to carry the proposed site
rungff without erosion and provide a dense vegetative filtration
system.
30 . Restoration of the stream corridor areas disturbed by the
construction with native shrubs and ground cover .
01 . Than an erosion control plan be submitted prior to construction
to ensure protection of the stream corridor .
The Board reconsidered its condition number 13 , sidewalks . The
applicant was asked what t
ed. Mr . Othman
;aid they were planned to bee mountable curbs of curbs were pper nCity standard. A
consensus was reached that Terrace Park Court and View Lake Court
are significant enough that they should also be served by sidewalk
on at least one side . They said that the cross section Which shows
the curb line sidewalk is not correct and that the street be to
City standards .
Board discussion then turned to compliance with Comprehensive Plan
policies and the boundary of the buffer for the Lilly Bay.
Consensus of the Board was that City Council should take up the
issue ofim roving the conditions . of the roads maintained by l-he
County within t e cit Wilts .
bring those roads up to standards,e County s ou a requeste to
Mr . Blackmore moved for approval of PD 3-85 with the following
conditions as enumerated:
1 .
A reproducible duplication of the final plat shall
• be submitted to the City Which clearly depicts :
-3-
•
•
0
%
•
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
May 23, 1985 III
a. setbacks for all lots ,
b) sidewalks and all utility easements
c) all areas designated as "protection natural
areas" and "wooded distinctive areas" and a
•
brief narrative description of the •
restrictions pertinent to each;
• d ) all common open space areas ;
•
e) public viewpoint .
2 . Protection natural areaccavenants should be applied
to the rear of Lots 3 - 7, 9-21 , and Lot 26 of
Block 5 as shown by the dashed line on the
preliminary plat (Exhibit B) . Lot 27 be added to
this area with the location of the line to be
determined in the field by the applicant and staff.
• 3 . Erosion control plans shall be submitted with
'' construction plans showing how erosion will be
controlled, how construction impacts will be
minimized, and how reclamation will occur for street
utility or storm drainage construction in commonli
open space, protection natural areas, and wooded
distinctive areas . Particular care shall be taken
to prevent erosion and restore the area disturbed by
sanitary sewer installation in the protected area
along the bay.
4 . Each building permit on Lots 1
Lots 9 - 22 and Lots 3 - 7 of Block 5l shall ock �include
a tree survey of the lot area outside the 100%
• restricted area , and shall be allowed to cut only
those trees necessary to allow construction of
house, garage and driveway area to total not more
than 30% of trees on the remainder of the lot . If this results in an impractical building envelope for 1
• that lot , the plan may be returned the the Board for
review for possible exception of a specific lot .
• 5 . The design and proposed plantings for the storm
water filtration
for review. The t7nd shall be su►�mitted to staff
storm drainage system shall include
oil separation pollution control devices . Storm
drainage into stream corridors shall be designed to
be constructed and maintained with the minimal
disturbance to protected areas .
II
-4-
, J
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES May 23, 1935
0 6. The viewpoint design be submitted to the Board for
review And approval. The design will include
measures to mitigate conflicts with turning
• ;,� movements at the intersection of Village Drive and
> , View Lake Court .
l 7 . Height and setback restrictions shall
theplat be shown on
as. neceosary to maintain viewlines from the
public viewpoint .
N,
8 . A street tzee planting plan be submitted for lots
+,ith no native trees within the front yard setback .
Stich plan shall show native species spaced correctly
for the species .
9 . Summit Drive be constructed to minimum City
tl Standards as per the options on page 12 of the May
14th staff report . The applicant is to construct
all short term improvement: to Summit/Iron Mountain
as identified in the traffic study, and also the
widening of Iron Mountain on the north side opposite
Summit Drive as proposed in the traffic study.
10. The procedure for street widening be initiated by
the applicants prior to submittal of construction
plans, if it is found to be necessary.
11 . The final plat shall show no access strips along
Summit on Lots 10 , 11, 12, 13, 2 and 3 of Block 5 .
Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 shall show a no access strip along Summit and 30 ' along Village drive measured from the Summit intersection. Lots 9 and 10 ,
Block 5 shall show a no access strip along Village
Drive .
12 . Five foot property line sidewalks are required on
interior streets as shown in Exhibit H.
shall also be included on at least one side ofTerrace Park Court and View Lake Court. The
sidewalks may meander to save significant trees or
other natural features.
Construction plans should show all sidewalks, and if
R necessary, provide for 6 ' public Utility easements .
These easements shall be shown on the final plat . •
• Easements and plat notes shall be required for all
Utilities crossing private property. Street cross
sections shall be to city standards ,
13 . A street lighting g g plan shall be submitted in
0 conformance with the street lighting standard.
-5-
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES Ma923 , 1985 •
14 . The driveway serving Lots 10 , 11, 12 and 13 of
Block 5 shall be shown on the final plat and built
to standard which include a 20 ' wide all weather
surface. All curves shall have a 45 ' turning radius
to allow access by fire truck . A turnaround shall
be provided if the driveway is curved, and exceeds
150 in length. The CC&R's shall recognize this
easement and provide for its maintenance .
15 . An inventory shall be performed by a qualified
professional during the 1985 growing season to
determine whether Howellia aquatalis or Delphinium
Leucophoeum are found on the site, and to recommend
measures for protection for any located outside
identified protected areas .
'1
16 . All driveways beldesigned with turning radii as
required by LOC. Driveway slopes shall be a maximum
of 20% and meet the City 's standard drivway gradient
construction detail. Driveways shall be, at least
20 ' in length from back of sidewalk to the garage
door unless the driveway is located parallel to the
• frontage .
17 . All storm drainage facilities be designed to City •
standards and include pollution control devices as
necessary. All design shall minimize location of
lines within protected areas, minimize disturbance
of topography and vegetation, and include
restoration plans showing native plant materials .
18 . A protective bufferarea restricting removal of
vegetation shall be established along the Lake
frontage of Lot 28 , Block 3 . The buffer shall be
worked out between the applicants , staff,
Conservancy Commission, Lake Corporation
representatives and Audubon representatives . The
buffer area shall be shown on the final plat and
included in the section of the CC&R's which applies
to protection of lots along the bay. Construction
of a stairway to the Lake to 'be allowed subject to
approval of the Lake Corporation, Plans shall be
submitted to the City for review. Such plans should
provide minimal removal of vegetation , avoid trees
over 8" in diameter , and provide restoration plans ,
as necessary.
19 .° The provision of the CC&R 's shall be expanded to
apply to Lot 28 , Block 3 . This lot is presently not •
included in the provisions of the CC&R 's .
-5-
n
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
May 23, 1985
410 20. Density transfer is feasible. It is to be used
first for the protection of natural areas, and if
possible it will be used to minimize conflicts with
the 50% slopes .
u ' The applicant will work with staff to modify lot
lines as necessary to eliminate or minimize .
conflicts with 50% slopes so that densities will not
be affected. Conflicts which would result in
changes in overall density shall be returned to the
Board for resolution.
21 . Variable setbacks shall be allowed on all lots as
follows:
a . rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 ' ;
b. side
yards may be reduced below 10 ' but to not
less than 5 ' as necessary to allow placement of
dwellings, to preserve trees over 8" in
diameter , or to avoid areas of slope. The
reduction in the setback shall be the minimum
necessary to site a dwelling on the lots, and
shall not be presumed to be an automatic 5 ' .
Viewlines to the Lake and to Mt . Hood from
• interior lots shall be considered in placement
of dwellings;
c. front yards may be varied between 10 ' and 20 ' to
preserve trees over 8" in diameter or to avoid
areas of slope. The reduction in setback shall
be the minimum necessary to site a dwelling on
the lots and shall not be presumed to be an
automatic 10 ' . Front yard setbacks may be +
reduced to 5 ' for lots within the Distinctive
Natural Area or for, lots fronting the Lilly Bay
if necessary to allow those dwellings to be
placed outside the protected buffer area .
22. A certified arborist investigate the feasibility of
selective cutting to allow enhanced sunlight and
view opportunities within Lots 16-18 and 20-22 of
Block 3 . The report be brought back to the
Development Review Board for review.
23 . No tree cutting or removal of vegetation to be
allowed on Parcel B until approval of a development
application on that parcel .
III -7-
•
It
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
May 23, 1985
, 6
24 . That a soils and geological0
performed on a lot-by-lot shall be
a . recommend basic residential foundation support and soils requirements;
b. identify individual lots that may require review of foundation plans and/or site specific
investigation studies;
v
c. special inspection of foundation excavations.
Soils investigation studies will be required for any
foundation footprints (including deck ) that covers a
50% or steeper slope.
25. That sewir' ge pumps and pump installation
be
by the developer/Homeowner 's Association. provided
Electricity and maintenance costs to be borne by the
Homeowner 's Association or other system to assess
those benefitted.
26 . That a rcconnaisance study for the Summit Drive/Iron
Mountain Boulevard intersection improvements will be
provided by the developer within six months of the • i
date of this order. The study shall identify options and provide cost estimates .
27. That the developer be assessed his proportionate
share of the costs of the improvements identified in
#26 through such mechanism as system development
charges , advance deposit, LID, etc.
28 . That the stream channel be enhanced to carry the
proposed runoff without erosion, and provide a dense
vegetative filtration system.
29 . That restoration of the stream corridor areas
disturbed by construction With native shrubs and
ground cover be completed by the applicant .
30 . That an erosion control plan be submitted prior to
construction to insure protection of the stream
corridor .
The stream corridor buffer zone of from• 10 ' to 25 ' '
on each edge of the bank is adequate to prevent
erosion , provide adequate drainage control , and
preserve riparian vegetation .
IIII
-8-
•
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES May 23 , 1985
•
0 31. The buffer along the Lilly Bay is approved with the
following conditions (based on Exhibit aq) :
o a . The right-of-way on Bay View Lane be narrowed to
move the applicant 's buffer line westward for
Lots 8-13, Block 2 and front yard setbacks of 5 '
are -permitted on Bay View Lane as necessary to
alalow buildings to remain outside the buffer
area.
b. The cul de sac at the end of Bayview Lane be
redesigned as a hammerhead, allowing building
sites on lots 14-17 of Block 2 to be pulled away
•
• from the peninsula. Staff and the applicant to
• reach an agreement acceptable to both, or the
matter should be brought back to the Development
Review Board for resolution.
Revise the sewer system to utilize two pump
stations; one in Block 3 , and one in Block 1 ,
relocated from Lot 1 to access area of Lot 3.
c. At the north end of the bay, the buffer line
should be widened to follow the rear lot lines
of Lots 4 , 5, and 60 Block 2. Lot 3, Block 2 is
0 to be relocated elsewhere on the site. Lot line
on Lot 1 moved to the west .
The motion was seconded by Mr . Finch and passed Unanimously. '>
0.- OTHER BUSINESS
Chairman HUtchins said that the City Council was sending out
questionnaires to Boards and Commissions . He asked that;- the
Board members return theirs to the city as soon as possible so
that the evaluation could be completed .
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct , Chairman Hutchins fit.
adjourned the meeting at 11 : 58 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
/'�. i
s.
_r
0 `' kristi Hitchcock ,
Secretary 0
0204z
0 -9-
,
1 .
A I rN-11c,
. I
• DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES ,,
,� September 4 1985
4.
ii
The Development Review Board meeting of September 4, 1985 was called
to order by Chairman Richard Hutchins at 7: 30 p.m. Board members i
attendance were Chairman Hutchins, Richard Eslick, ,Anthony Wright, n
John Glasgow, Vern Martindale, and Curtis Finch.was excused. St,�,Lfre Robert Blackmore
and Renee Dowlin CityrPlanners; Sandra Lori MDuffy,1tAssistant Galante,y
Attorney; and Secretary, Kris Hitchcock .• y
r,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of August 19 , 1985 were considered for approval. ,
Eslick moved for approval of the minutes with amendments. The
motion' was seconded by Mr . Martindale and
° Mr. Wright abstained. passed. Mr. Glasgow and '�A second vote wa,s held on the minutes of
August 5. Mr. Glasgow moved for approval . The was and passed unanimously. Mr. Eslick and Mr. Finchotion abstained�econded
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None
OLD BUSINESS
PD 3-85 - Village on the Lake -Review of Conditions No.
Tillage on the Lake/Nick Bunick and Associates, Inc. , 6 and 15 for
(Tax Map 2 lE 9 , Tax Lots 200 and 290 ) .
i; Chairman Hutchins asked if there was an ex claimed ex parte contact. y parte contact. No one
It was moved and seconded to discuss the subject of Mr . Hutchins
discussions with staff on Village on 'the Lake which were not
relevant to this consideration of conditions Under "Other
Business" . The motion passed.
Ms . Mastrantonio reported on the applicantls submittals for
conditions. She said that staff recommended a the two
three conditions . pproval subject to
The Board discussed the alternative viewpoint designs submitted by
the applicant. Mr. Finch and Mr. Wright felt that a viewpoint was
not in the best interest of the homeowners , the applicant, or the
public because it could allow staging for burglaries, litter, etc .
Mr . Wright said that the Comprehensive Plan language had been
.6
i,
.1"-
I1r5'
AEXHIBIT
o� `�
.
if
" . o
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW bUARD MINUTES'
September 4, 1985
qA,. misinterpreted, and that this viewpoint was not necessary +definition on page 89. under the
IIII
Mr. Glasgow asked. Mr, Bunick whether he would prefer a
the viewpoint, or would rather havepark bench at
would prefer a park bench. parking. Mr. Bunickksaid he
0
Ms . Mastrantonio said that the City Engineer, Paul Haines had
` ) / requested that the if pavement width is less 'than 2 ^
signs be posted . 8 ► no parking
Following further discussion, Mr . Finch moved that Alternative 'A'
be selectedas the viewpoint design, and that no park bench be
provided,'and that no sign be provided. Mr. Wright seconded the
motion.;! Discussion followed in which the Board's consensus was that
Alternative 'A' did not provide for a viewpoint.
Mr. Finchfor a vote. The motion failed, with Mr. Finch and Mr. Wrightavoti r
ng
in favor, and Mr . Glasgow, Mr. Martindale, Mr . Eslick and Chairman "
Hutchins opposed.
Mr . Martindale moved to accept Alternative 'B' as modified in
Exhibit E. Mr. Glasgow seconded the motion. The motion failed with
Mr. Martindale, Chairman Hutchins, Glasgow and Mr. V.and, Mr.Wright, Mr. Eslick and Mr. Finch o povoting in favor;
posed.
Further discussion ensued. Mr . Glasgow moved to accept Alternative
'B ' in light of the viewpoint being required, and it 's being the '4 .
best alternative. Mr. Martindale seconded the motion. l
discussion, the motion failed with Mr. r. F Following
in favor, Mr . Eslick abstaining, and Chairman Hutchins, Mr.h voting
Martindale and Mr . Glasgow. votingo
opposed.
. Mr . Eslick said Lhe abstained because he had not been involved in the
original decision and did not have all the information that went
into the original decision. A discussion of Mr . Eslick 's
eligibility to vote followed. It was decided that Mr. Eslick could
vote because Ole location for the viewpoint is a decision will only be based on which design for thev viewpoint en, and his
better.
11' . &
approval of the staff report accepting Plan B ` '
Mr. Glasgow moved for
as modified by staff in Exhibit E, excluding the bench and signage.
Mr. Martindale seconded the motion, and it
g 9passed with ting Eslick ,
Chairman Hutchins Mr. Glasgow, and Mr. Martindale voting in favor .
Mr . Finch and Mr . Wright voted in opposition.
* The Board next discussed the tree cutting survey. M-r. Horning
testified about the tree cutting . He said that of 45 trees found to
be dead or dying, they plan to remove 15 trees. He
removal Will have to be made in the field after the 45said trees actual have
been trimmed . 1111
•
-2-
,
V
^
O Fl 1
,,,
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
September 4, 1985
• Mr. Finch moved that the tree survey report of Miller Tree Service
•
be accepted by the Board. Mr. Glasgow seconded the motion. Mr.
' Wright moved to modify his motion as follows:
I .
That the tree removal methods including numbers of trees ,,to be removed and/or pruned as recommended in the, tree survey report
of Miller Tree Service be accepted by the Board.
Mr. Glasgow seconded the amendment to the motion, and the amendment
passed with Mr. Glasgow, Chairman Hutchins, Mr. Martindale, and Mr.
Wright' voting in favor. Mr . Eslick and Mr. Finch voted in
opposition.
The Board voted on the original motion by Mr . Finch as amended
by Mr. Wright. The motion passed with Mr. Finch, Mr. Eslick, Mr .
Martindale., Mr. Glasgow and Mr . Wright voting in favor . Chairman
,x ,ice• Hutchins voted in opposition.
think the motion asamended wouldg give adequatemotipn because it didn ' t
C airman Hutchins said he voted against the
habitat. protection to the
Mr. Wright moved that the proposed other business be deferred to the
next meeting. There was no second for the motion.
PUBLIC HEARINGS +
. 0Ms . Mastrantonio introduced Renee Dowlin, Assistant Planner to the
Board.
SD 34-79 (Modification) - 1) A request by the City of Lake Oswego to
modify a condition of approval requiring shared driveway access
•
between Lots 1 and 2, and between Lots 3 and 4 . The City proposed
to remove the shared access requirement for Lots 1 and 2. 2) A
request by C. Ben' Johnson for removal of a condition of approval
that cross-easements for recreational access to the canal and
flo• odplain area be dedicated for all lots in the subdivision (Tax
p 2 lE 17, Tax Lots 10702, 10703, 10704, 10705, and 10706 ) .
Ms . Dowlin presented the staff report.
g P She said that due to further
input by the. applicant, the staff recommendation has been changed.
Original conditions of approval may be found in Exhibit E. The
following is the staff recommendation :
Staff recommended the modification of the shared driveway access
condition (condition #1) to allow individual driveway access for /
Lots 1 and 2. Such modification should only be allowed if the
•
following conditions are met :
a. Vegetation on the northwest corner of Lot 3 is removed.
b. Rock formation on the bank at the intersection of Cobb
y'
Way and Lake Haven be shaved to the satisfaction of the
• Engineering Department .
c" Lot 1 can raise the ,
approach approximately
elevation of the driveway
pproximately 1 . 5 ' .
The second request by Mr . C. Ben Johnson Was for removal of the '
cross7easements for access to the canal. Ms. Dowlin said that staff „
-3-
t
'•
•
•
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
,.,�,;;�� . September 4, 1985
rdcommends approval of this request as the need for the crossIll
easements has been negated by the modified lot lines .
Proponents
h
C. Ben Johnson, 18418 Sand Piper Way, Lake Oswego, spoke. HeJ
explained the history of the site. He said that the cross easements
wire recorded in error. This action will change that error.
1
Opponents
Bill Dahms, Lake Haven Drive, was concerned that the
plat shows a
40 ' street for Lake Haven Drive. The street is.,- urrently 16 ' wide
in front of his house.
He asked that if a 2° street widening had orginally been approved.
Ms. Dowlin said that Condition #3 of the original approval did �'
require a 2 ' street widening.
I
A. P. Peay, 17231 SW Lake Haven Drive, spoke. He asked who would
pay for the rock removal. Ms. Dowlin said it is in the right-of-way
and that work was proposed by the City. g
, ,,,,.;
Betty Jo Keller, 17320 SW Lake Haven Drive, said her lot is below
the area where the rock will be removed for street widening. She
said that she has drainage problems, and is concerned that this willIII
add to those problems. Ms. Dowlin said that there is a curb on Cobb
Way which should keep drainage as it is today.
No one else spoke and Chairman Hutchins closed the public hearing
for Board deliberation.
Following discussion, Mr . Eslick moved for approval
Modification with the conditions of staff:
of SD 34-79
1 . The shared driveway access for Lots 1 and 2 be removed if:
a. Vegetation on the northwest corner of Lot 3 is removed.
b. Rock formation on the bank at the intersection of Cobb ((Way and Lake Haven be shaved to the satisfaction of the
Engineering Department .
c. Lot 1 can raise the ground elevation of the drivewa
approach approximately 1 .5 ' .. y
2. The removal of cross-easements for recreational access to
the canal and floodplain area for all lots be removed.
Cross-easements for pedestrian access only be granted b
Lot 3 to Lots 4 and 5 and by Lot 4 to Lot 5 . y
Mr. Eslick noted Exhibit I as marked by staff. The motion was
seconded by Mr . Finch and passed unanimously.
r
ID
-4- '
.
(\\
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
September 4 1985
DR 10-84 (Modification) - A re uest b Thomas Gre oire for a royal
of a 3 330 s uare foot manufacturin and o ice buil in on ap13,, 102
' " 0 square foot site portion of Tax Lot 3500 of Tax Additionally, a variance was requested to the Access Standard
creatt =a lot without street frontage.
Mr . Galante presented the staff report. He submitted additional
exhibits:
Exhibit Q Letter from Leonard Stark
Exhibit R Letter from Thomas Gregoire providing additional
information
Staff recommended approval of the modifications.
Thomas Gre oire 17311 SW Cedar Road, spoke in behalf of the
application. He discussed the need for the modifications. He
maintained that an arborist will not be necessary (Condition 10 ) and
requested that this condition be eliminated. Mreif the parking spaces are allowed, the tree will .
havegtorbesremd
ovedt
• because it is in the middle of the parking lot. Re. had an arborist
evaluate the tree in the past, and that arborist suggested
tree had about a 50-50 chance of surviving for two years.
that the
.
Mr. Galante said that Condition 10 could be eliminated and "
Condition 7 modified as follows:
III7. That the existing fir tree be illustrated in plans,to preserve the tree be and that
provided to
satisfaction if possible. the staff s
• No one else spoke and Chairman Hutchins closed the
p
for Board deliberations. The Board's consensus wasthatcthbaring
modifications could be approved. , They discussed the fir tree and
possible conditions.
Mr . Eslick moved for approval of DR 10-84 (Modification ) and the
access variance with the following recommendations:
1 . That reciprocal access agreements be
the access needs of the three provided to provide for
the driveway at Pilkington Roadarcels which take access from
2. That the landscape
whatn e p plan illustrate the use of street trees
it parking lot area that are compatible With the
proposed on the ad .Scent property (DR 6-83 ) .
13 . That walkways be increased to ' 5 ' in width and that the
Walkways connect the bu i .ding to the sidewalk planned along
Pilkington Road.
4 . .
' 410Engineeriandethatbe lit illunclude atodrhw satisfaction of the City
" Road . dry well stubbed to Pilkington
-5 a
r
•
•
II
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
4
•
t� Se tember
___L_19 8 5
5. That a �nonremonstrance agreement for future
improvements on Pilkington Road street 0
„ 44,' be provided.
6 . That an irrigation plan be provided prior to
building permits . the issuance of
7. That the existing fir tree be illustrated i
s,
necessary modifications be made to the n plans, and that
to preserve the tree if feasible. parking space layout
8. That the applicant demonstrate the need foif
ing
spaces and demonstrater 18
spaces s that the 50% limitation fork compact
i not exceeded on the properties represented by the
unifiedac site no plan.
9. That the
(not 4" ) • parking lot paving section include 6" of rock
10. That an arboris, be
18" fir tree and makeerecommendations concerning
tained to review the condition of the
preservation or removal for staff action.
T'he motion was seconded by Mr. Wright and
DR 19-85 passed unanimously,
A re uest b SRG Partnershi
the Oswe o Lake county club for P.C. actin as a ants for
addition to the dinin facilities of the club lo'S00 s uare
• site north o Fairway Rea Tax Ma Gated 0) foot
p 2 lE 4. Tax Lot 160) • a 2.46 acre
Mr. Galante Mr. Galante the application.
the staff report. Staff recommended a
pplication.
approval
op,rallnents
Steve Poland, SRG Partnershi
the design and need for the remodellingl1dHe
Board members , presentation describing
answered,-=questions for
Alan Arsenault,
the remodelling woulda add l amorena rroomwfor Lake
the club. Countrisi Club,
w
He described some of the designthe existing membership of
building and how the remodelling would remedy othose ofblems the existing
No one else spoke and Chairman Hutchins closed the problems.
for Board deliberations.
approval of DR 19-85 with thelfollowingcconditio Mr. Eslick
hearing
Eslick moved for
1 That the applicantconditions :
' , complete
8-10 ' Wide bikepath to the satisfaction of both the
plans and construction of the
County
and City Engineer .
• .
-6-
•
, •
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES September 4 , 1985
4111 ti.
2. Tnat a pathway connection from the Country Club to the
bikepath be completed.
3. That restoration of landscaping around the construction site
be completed to the satisfaction of staff.
GENERAL PLANNING
The Board asked Mr. Galante to schedule a joint meeting with the
Conservancy Commission.
OTHER BUSINESS
The Board gave staff direction on their intentions regarding the
approval of PD 3-85 with particular attention to the buffering of
the Lilly Pond including:
- Moving the pump station further to the west.
- Moving the east property line of Lot 3
further west.
- Redesign the hammerhead and move it further
west, away from the isthmus.
1110 - That staff use the map with lines drawn by
the Board (Exhibit aq) in reviewing the
above changes.
Findings, Conclusions and Order
The following findings were approved for signature:
- SD 6-85/VAR 34-85 (Don and Beverly Ross)
- PD 7-85/VAR 24-85/VAR 25-85/VAR 26-85/VAR
26-85/VAR 28-85 - NEEDS SECOND VOTE
- VAR 30-85 (Schatz )
- PD 8-85 (Joe Holiman and Company)
- PD 9-85
- DR 10-85 Modification (City of Lake
Oswego) - NEEDS SECOND VOTE
The findings for DR 17-85/SD 38-85/VAR 39-85 were not
approved. The Board scheduled a meeting for Monday,
September 9, 1985 at 8 : 30 a.m. to consider those
findings .
• 1
)
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
Member 4, 1985
1111
40
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business adjourned the meeting at to conduct, Chairman HUtchins
12:53 a.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kris Hitchcock
Secretary
306z
411
-8_
0
J»;
0
APP
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
EGO
LOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
November 18, 1985
The Development Review Board meeting was calle,d\ to order by Chairman
Richard Hutchins at 7: 30 p.m. Board members in attendance were
Chairman Hutchins, Richard Eslick, Anthony Wright, Robert Blackmor �,
Vern Martindale, and Curtis Finch, John Glasgow was excused . Staff
present were Planning Director Topaz Faulkner, Development Review
Planners Lori Mastrantonio and Robert Galante, Assistant City
Attorney Sandy Duffy and Marian Stulken.
Approval of Minutes
Since there were several sets of minutes .
,� Mr Finch moved to consider
the minutes after the
public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Martindale and carried Unanimously.
Public Hearings
N, VAR 46-85, a request by Glen Chilcote, AlA, acting as agent for Ray
Al
`,,, Ritcher, or approval of a variance , to reduce the front and to 3 ' to
,k allow the construction of a 3 car garage within the required 25 '
yard . The property is located at 17349 Kelok Road (Tax Lot 8200 of
Tax Map 2 lE 17BD) .
M . Galante reviewed the staff report and presented photos of the
ject property. Staff recommends denial of this request. He read
etition/letter in favor of the project signed by all the owners dated November 9, 1985 (Exhibit G) for the Board 's property
information. He also distributed to the Board Exhibits D and E which
were full size plans of the project. Mr. Galante said that although
the neighbors are in favor of the request, the si:aff still feels that
the variance request is excessive. The staff does feel that the
proposed remodel will greatly improve the appearance of the residence. Mr. Galante informed the Board that the Police Department
commented that the garage will obstruct the view of the front door
entry from the street and could create a burglary problem.
Questions and discussion followed between the Board and staff
regarding the applicant providing two car offstreet parking spaces in
addition to the garage.
Proponents
Ray Hitcher, 17349 S. W. Kelok Road, Lake Oswego . He and his wife
Cheryl are the owners of the residence requesting the variance. He
distributed a statement (Exhibit H) which he read into the record .
w.� . He also distributed drawings and photos of surrounding residences and
their distances from the street centerline to the Board for their
information. Mr . Ritcher also stated that there is a he
which obstructs the front door and that it has been therentl for thirtye
Ors .
EXHIBIT
ic41-6‘130 x'n ' `,
Ik
,
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
`�Navember 18, 1985 0
Questions and discussion followed between the Board and Mr . Ritcher
regarding setbacks and landscaping of his residence and surrounding
residences.
Glen Chilcote=, 15964 S. W. „
Boones Ferry Rd . , Lake Oswe o
for the applicant came forward to explain the request and architect
support to this request, from an architectural point give
Discussion followed between the Board and Mr. Chilcote regarding the
overall effect of the request, location of the boat slot and
alternatives to having a three car garage.
The following persons were in agreement that the improvements to thish
property would be in the best interests of the neinghborhood and were
in favor of the requests
1 . Duane Lafferty, 17350 S. W. Kelok , Lake Oswego
2. Jack Stevens, 17407 S. W. Kelok Road, Lake Oswego u
3 . Chuck Hilliker, 17340 S. W. Cardinal Dr . , Lake Oswego
since there was no further testimony, Chairman Hutchins closed the
,public portion of the hearing for Board, deliberation.
_. Galante informed the Board on the optionsthey lave in making •
• their decision on this request . '
'"`'!:e Board felt that this request for a three car
garas
end was not the minimum variance necessary. This requestawouldeSsive
., alleviate some other problems with the house but the Board felt that
these improvements could be done even if it was a two car
garage.
' e concensus of the Board was that they favored a two car garage
• vith a 13 foot setback . Discussion
i waking their decision. followed as to the alternatives
Cai= making the approvalMr . Galante said that the Board could
a on er of this variance request with the requirement
garage not to exceed a setback of 10 feet be
established based on some reasonable basis for their decision.
0 n
4
There being no further discussion, Mr . Blackmore moved for approval
of VAR 46-85 conditioned upon the setback being a minimum of0feet •
at the south corner of the �
right and carried Unanimously
age� The motion was seconded by Mr . �.
General Plannj - None
Aperoval of Minutes
S tember 4 ► 1985 Second Vote
�� moved
Mr. Finchfor approval � e ,
mi,n,:tes. The motion ssecondedhbyrevised
Mr sMartindaleeandrr •
,fir . Blackmote abstaining . carried with
-2-
a .
•
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
• November 18 1985
laver 7, 1985 -
Revised
• The Board stated that on page 3, Condition 9 the word ,"property"
should be changed to "applicant" . •
Mr . Blackmore moved for approval of the revised October 7, 1985
minutes as' amended in Condition No. 9 on
pae 3. The motion
seconded by Mr. Finch and carried with Mr. Eslick abstaining. was
October 21 , 1985
Page 1 - substitute "Board" member for "Commissiioners" where needed,
also "sight distance" for "site distance" throughout the minutes. •
4 in
Page 2 - add "along the west side of" before " "next to the last sentence. Page 3 regarding where thedmoney goese
t for the Park and Open Space fees, the Board would like statement
added that the Board has no jurisdiction over this matter.
Discussion followed between the Board and Assistant City Attorney,
Sandy Duffy regarding the format of the minutes regarding testimony
of the opponents. Staff stated this format was done ,to save time.
The Board feels that each person who spoke and what their concerns
were should be listed in case a request was a
stated that she would discuss the Board's feele
ingswithMtheDcity
Attorney Jim Coleman.
e 6 - fourth paragraph, 10threplaceg
sentenceIkhway" . "it" with "the
Mr. Finch moved for approval of the minutes of October 21
amended. Mr. Eslick seconded the motion. 1985 as
see a revised copyThe Board would like to
of these minutes before final approval . The vote
was as follows: three. opposed; two for a
Since the motion' failed, Mr . Finch then movedval thatnthenminutesibe
revised and returned to the Board for a motion was seconded by Mr . Martindale andrcarried withoval at atarvotee' The
to one with one abstention. Mr. ,slick voted in o of four
Blackmore abstained from voting. pposition and Mr .
November Q, 1985
Page 7 - add to. the end of second •
agreement with Mr. Finch; at the end of was in
"and, that the asphalt shall be removed and the roadbedgscarifie � t�
down to natural ground. " d
0
, 1 Page 8 - substitute "Finch" for "Glasgow" in the motion.
•
•
Page 9 -
g add the following to Condition No. 16:
detention pond and vacated street butTstr includes the
'
ire along Stafford Road . " not the 20 ' strip of open
-3- l
. •
,
r -$
n
,, (.)
4
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
November 18 , 1985 0 ,
,. a
Page 10 - add the following to Condition No.
applicant shall remove the., asphalt and scarify 0the "roadbed In tdown toion, e
natural ground . "
Mr . Finch moved for approval of the minutes of November 4, 1985 as
modified. The motion was seconded by Mr . Blackmore and carried
unanimously.
OTHER BUSINES9
Findings, Conclusions and Order
PD 11-85
Mr. EslicK moved for approval of the Findings for PD 11-85 as
written. The motion was seconded by Mr . Finch. Mr. Wright expressed
concerns regarding the wording and content under Item 5 ( Findings and
Reasons ), and Item 2 .q. (Conditions of Approva) . A brief discussion
followed and Mr. Eslick moved to reconsider the Findings for PD
11-85. The motion was seconded by Mr. Finch and carried five to one
with Mr . Blackmore in opposition. The Board expressed their concerns
that these two items ( 5. and 2.q. ) show that there is a definite
traffic problem and that the Board felt very strongly about this
problem. At this point, the Board suggested different wording and •
after discussion of these, Mr . Finch made the followin su
" for wording of No. 5 : g ggestion
"Because of the Board 's concerns for the safety of the
newly created intersection, the applicant should_ be
directed to cooperate with the Traffic Control/Board and/or 'City staff to determine thefBcard
controls for speed enforcement along properua traffic
enhance safety at this intersection, atathe minimum, to
traffic control signage shall be required. "
Mr. Eslick suggested adding to Item 2.q. the wording:' "the City
Staff and/or Traffic Control Board" .
0 Since there was no further discussion, Mr . Eslick moved for approval
it
. of the Findings for PD 11-85 with Item 5 and 2 .q as amended . The
motion was seconded by Mr . Finch and carried unanimously.
PD 12-85
Page 2 - add to No. 6 under Findings and Reasons and to Item t Under
• Conditions : "that the applicant shall remove the asphalt and scarify
theeroadbed down to natural
detention pond and Vac�, ground" ; Item q. add: "This includes the
.,:ed street, but not the 20 ' strip of open
ill
space along Stafford Road . "
-4-
•
h • ,
i
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
November 18 , 1985 •
•
41/k . Es1.ck moved for approval of the Findings fir PD 12-85 ��
evisions of with• Item No. 6 under Findings and Reasons and Items h L'he •
' t ' e under the Order as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. ' `�nd
Slackmore" and carried unanimously.
VAR 42-85
Mr. Finch moved for approval of the Findings for VAR 42-85 as
written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martindale and carried
unanimously.
Other Business yy
PD 3-85
' Ms . Mastrantonio stated that Chairman Hutchins reviewed the final
plat for Village on the Lake but was not in agreement with the staff
regarding (Condition 9. b. ) , the buffer line in the area of the Bay
View Lane hammerhead and Lots 11 - 1.3 of Block 3. She d
Exhibit AQ which illustrates the Audubon Society's recommended bufferline. She stated that after suggesting changes to the developer ,
revisions were made and this was the final product. The main
question was whether the buffer line should follow the line
designated by the Audubon Society as a buffer, line. The consensus of
the Board was that it should not.
•
_ ,
j--All
oarnment „__,
f
There being no further business, Mr. Finch moved for adjournment .
The motion was seconded by Mr . Martindale. The meeting was adjourned
at 9 : 39 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
bLe. iL-----
.764-- -e---±"--,.4.._ - t.'-.- ,\
Marian Stulken .,�
Recording Secretary ,
A?,
3538P/mas
II
T.
=5-
,
.
1
9
NICK _ JNICK CUSTOM HOMES, INC.
5285 SW Meadows Rd,
Suite 377
Lake Oswego,OR 97035
0 °July 28 , 1990 (503)839•1878
. . Ms . Lynn Bailey
• Planning Department ' t
City of Lake Oswego - o
P.O. Box 369
. 1 Lake Oswego, OR 97034
1
Mr. Drew Davis
1 Jefferson Parkway
Lake''s0Swego, OR 97034
Dear Ms , Bailey & Mr. Davis :
It has been brought to my attention that the question has arisen '
as to whether or not Lot 28, Block 4 in Village on the Lake was
designed by me to be a large lot in order to accomodate a
° transfer of density in the Village on the Lake. Please allow me
to address that point .
1 . My Village on the Lake ' property was 45 . 18 acres and was -,
zoned for 15 ,000 square foot lots. In actuality, we could have
had 114 single family Lots .
' II2 . The Development Review Board had suggested that if I wanted
to have the density of 114 Lots , I could proceed in putting in
cluster housing. I chose not to do so for I was more interested
in the land plan. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO TRANSFER OF DENSITY.
Instead, the land plan had 15 lots less than we actually were
entitled to.
I 3 . In addition to the above, since the plat was recorded,
have redesigned some of the lots so that in many cases I have
taken 3 lots and divided them instead into 2 lots . For example,
in Block 3 , Lots 1 , 2 and 3 have instead been replatted into 2
lots ; 5 , 6 and 7 have been replatted into 2 lots; 8 , 9 and 10
have been replatted into 2 lots , In Block 7 , Lots 1 , 2 and 3
have been replatted into 2 lots , There are a number of other
• places where I have done this also,
The net result of the above is that there are substantially
less lots than could have been placed within the subdivision ,
Again, THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO TRANSFER OF DENSITY,
4 . In reevaluating the subdivision now, if I had to do the land
plan over I would have made Lot 28 , Block 5 into 2 Lots rather
than 1 , In other words , I sincerely believe that Lot 28 , Block 4
can easily accomodate another homesite and that I should have
o • actually rn. ,e it into 2 homesites rather than 1 at the tim „f�-t .
w ; platted the property ,
4 EXHIBIT
•
..557T:Trift
a
Ms.T Lynn Bailey •
•
Mr. Drew Davis
July 28, 1990
Page -2-
I hope that I have answered your question regarding this issue
If you have any additional questions, please feel free to call
me. I will be appearing at the
testifying in support of the Public hearing and will be
2 homesites . partitioning of Lot 28 , Block 4 into;
Respectfully yours,
a
Nick Bunj.c
President
NB;bla
rr
S .
r i
11
0
il
0 '
August 6, 1990,
Lynn Bailey -AUG --
1990
Staff Coordinator '6'
City of Lake Oswego
380 A Avenue -
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Dear Lynn:
I would like to submit my comments regarding case file
No. : SD 30--90/VAR 16-90/PD 3-85
partition request of tax lot 2900, �`1890od 7Twin regarding
s i r a minor
Oswego, OR 97034 . Drive, Lake
I am currently the owner of an adjoining
1870 Twin Points Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97034�rt+�� tax lot 2700,
My comments are intended to allow you to investigate the areas of
my concern regarding this application. I am not certain that m
information is' true or accurate and I am requestingthat k
at and check my information given the resources available toyouk
I oppose the granting of a minor partition for this appliceition
(identified above) for the following reasons:
1 ) It is my belief that the application, as submitted
does no
meet the minimum lot dimension requirements for two reasons:
A) The minimum lot width on the existing structure is
reduced below 80 ' at the building line to accommodate
the newly proposed lot line and,
B) All of the proposed structures for the newly created lot
are located in such a way that their minimum lot width
falls well below 80 ' at the building line.
b
Correcting the above errors would require a new
s
proposed lot line to be drawn.
BecaUse the haproposed lot line would be different from the e currethe
nt
proposal, new calcula�i„ions may be required for parking,
minimum lot area, minimum lot dimensions, setbacks
coverage. Building height requirements ould be affected as
110 well, which i don't currently find in the proposed
applications. p
4 EXHIBIT
•
F'l
e
0 .
•
Page Two
August 6, 1990:._
'k' • 2) It would appear .tha� two of the three
plans are placed ovr an existing stormpdrain easemen home footprint
could not determine ��)hether the I
drain peasement was house structure, which cI 'm rsuretwould behe storm
unacceptable to the city, or off-street arkinw
how off-street parking would be treated in this instance.don't
3) It has not been identified whether sewer capacities
capable of supporting an additional homesite on Twin Points
Drive.
4) I have identified that the Lake Oswego Corporatidh has not
been informed of this proposal as a
roert ownerLake) within 300 feet. It has been my understanding thatCthee
lake corporation may not
restrictions place on he grant an lot additional
lake right due to
originally granted. s lake right was fib
I. identified now to determinet which parcel shis true, to is should ed
lake rights, if not both. It was once suggested
be granted
ggested to me that as
an enforcement issue both homes could lose their lake rights
a,
if partitioned into two lots.
5) I believe that the variance requested in this application
the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable
notuse of
the property. The current application submitted does not
appear to meet the development requirements of the City of
Lake Oswego, as I understand them.
Should the changes be made that I believe are necessary,
like to be informed and allowed to subm t further comments on•
application, his
If I should conclude that the concerns I have raised are not valid
in this instance, and that I do not uncover any additional concerns
, as I investigate this matter more carefully, then I would have no eu
1'w
objection to the partitioning and development of this property.
y
• e
1
4
o
Page Three
0 August 6, 1990,
Iwishtoreservet %�
that allows partitionl throughht othe 3grantiect ngaof additionalnd ly decisionn
that I determine are injurious to my variances
property.
Should you wish to discuss my concerns with me personally,
contact me at 697-3321 (home) or please
convenience. 639-5593 (work) , at your
Sincerely, � .
Mark A. Roberts
PO Box 504
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
MAB/ntl
II 0 _<,:„.,,.
, „:„..,
, „,
( ) \\,
A:CITYL008. 06
c
y
1
,:
ID , „
, .
, y
..
9
1
+aa •
•
DESCO
INDUSTRIAL GROUP, INC.
iooc 10157 S.W. Barbur Blvd.
Portland, Oregon 97219 U.S.A. August 6, 1990
(503)245-2273
&Q 490,
City of Lake Oswego -
Development Review Board Subject: Case File No.
380 A Avenue S.D. 30-90 Var 16-90
Lake Oswego, OR 97034 F.D. 3-85 (Mod. 7-90)
Attention: Staff Coordinator - Lynn Bailey
Dear Ms. Bailey
I have received your notice of
application for a minor public hearing and the Davis
ate two lots, a
II variance to the 25 footrlot ifrontage on to erequirement, andx5 a Class
modification of the Village On The Lake planned development to
allow an additional lot.
We are also in receipt of the OTAK report, maps and drawings
supporting the application.
/be report states that the sloping character of the Davis property
• allows the construction of an additional home without impacting
the views of adjacent property owners. The application also
includes a Geotechnical Serbices Inc. report that suggests
possible use 'of piling.
It should be noted that all drawings submitted as part of the
application are incomplete and very unclear. For example, the
drawings do not have a signature and check-off or date to show who
prepared these, including revision and issue data. Worst of all
the drawings all have the same number ( 3056) . Any changes that
may be requested or added cannot be documented.
The application has three different home alternatives; which one
are we dealing with? Also, what will be the maximum elevation of :>>
the roof for the proposed house?
The report also states that the development of an additional home
, , . will not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the
located. Although I did not receive a tree plan, i findriterty is :
unlikely that solar can be provided to any
p
will require that all trees now beautifying theoareahWill has
avetto
be cut down.
I wish also to
point out that the OTAK report claims Barclay Home
Designs to be the architect. Barclay Home Designs is not an
• architect, but a designer.
w• EXHIBIT
U
•
We have spent, with the help of architects and designers, over two
years planning a home directly behind the Davis property and have
built extensive rock and concrete walls to preserve
be, privacy
(records and photos can
and its costs) . provided to attest.�to the construction
At this moment there still remains An empty lot adjacent to our
property with height restrictions and set-back rules.
The purchase of our lot and the planning of our home (which is not
a spec. home) , where we intend to live forever, was totally based
on the criteria set out by the city of Lake Oswego and strict
rules and restrictions of the developer.
We are strongly
g Y to subdividing the Davis property and the
building of another home as we believe it will impact our view,l
comfort and beauty of tr;4a particular location.
In summary, i believe in rules and regulations and can understand
that sometimes these are changed to accomodate a particular
situation - this does not apply to Davis
bought as a single dwelling lot and priced accordingly.
becausercdradit was
>
AAgain, I strongly ge Davis g Y suggest that the entire petition to subdivide
tproperty be turned down.
Gepectfu
R)A t
obert de'
Resident
1600 View Lake Court
Lot 4 of Block 4
111
RB rgr
ccS,R,B
•
:ivJU N AUG q �q
411/
1838 Oak Knoll Ct.
Lake Oswego, OR
Aug. 8, 1990
• Lake Oswego Planning Dept.
Lake Oswego City Hall
Attn: Lynn Bailey
Re: SD 30-90 VAR 16-90 PD-1-85 (MODF-90)
Property located on Twin Points near Summit
While our property fronts on Oak, Knoll Court, the rear end
of our lot is on Twin Points and we are very much opposed
to any further development in this area--too much has al-
ready been allowed. The homes currently being built are
not in proportion to the lots (Village On The Lake) and
are far too close together.
Further, we received no notification that any variance was
requested.
Also, for the record, we could not attend the hearing last
Monday ,night and are verymuch
the Iron Mountain area. opposed to any building in
• This is a truly beautiful spot and
should be preserved by the city for the benefit of all the
citizens . It is constantly used as a hiking area and should
. be purchased for parkland. Putting another subdivision near
Summit on Iron Mountain Blvd. would further denude the area
of trees and create traffic probl;ms for the residents of
the area.
We appreciate yo r consideration in this matter.
Yours tru ,
Mr. and Mrs . Gene Arno
• Ill
EXHIBIT
a1 •
yvele.';
_ a
Update to the October 17, 198
Mq orandum (which updated the
August 19, 1989 memorandum).
/.dopted by Council December. 5
MEMORANDUM 1989.
, 4110 To; Development Review Board Members
(Planning Commission Members
From: Mayor and City Council
Date: December 5, 1989
Subject: Interpretation of Comprehensive Plan Policies Relating
to School Capacity
•
This memorandum is an update to the City Council 's prior •
' memoranda of August 19, 1989, and October 17, 1989. r
August 19 memorandum contained the City Council 's initial
,
determination of the school capacity issue. The October 17,
1989, memorandum contained updated information and data received
by the City Council at a joint meeting with the Lake Oswego
School District Bo, •rd held on bLtober 2 1989. g
contains updated information and data relatingtohvotermarprovm
m of a $17,800,000 Lake Oswego School District facilities Pr° al
improvement bond issue on November 7, 1989.
+fi"s a resu.l)t of recent determinations by the Development Review
Board in its consideration of two applications for residential
development that there is a lack of elementary school capacity,
III the City Council has conducted an inquiry into the necessity for
the enactment of a moratorium on residential development, in
accordance with the provisions of ORS 197.505-197.540. A
pattern
of denials of residential development applications is defined by
state law as a moratadrium. The Council has been made aware
the exclusion from .t,'iat definition of actions "in accordance
of
with" an acknowledged Comprehensive Plan, and, on the advice of
the City Attorney, concluded that the exclusion is not applicable
to the current situation. State law does not permit the ado
of a moratorium without the City first making the findings Pt�°n
required by the statute.
The conclusion of 6 of the 7 Council members at the end of that
inquiry was that the facts currently existing do not provide the for the Council to make the findings required by state law
to justify the need for a moratorium.
The resulting dilemma is obvious: on the one hand the
bevelopment Review Board denie' two a school capacity based on City' Comprehensivetions Plan for
of
pattern which state law classifies as a moratorium) , and yet
Council has concluded that facts do not exist to make the
t the
required findings under state law that are a precondition to the
enactment of a moratorium.
IPIt is the purpose oc this memorandum to provide to both of r ,b
City land use hearing bodies the Council 's interpretation- .4
Comprehensive Plan policies regarding school capacity , to 4 EX
i
necessary to have consistency in decision making from app (1. MIBIT
to application, and between the hearing bodies and the Co
.`/
•
. l
Memo: Development Review Board
110
and Planning Commission Members
December 5, 1989
Page 2
These interpretations reconcile the apparent inconsistencies 7
between state and local law in a way that gives deference to the
superior state law while giving effect to the Plan language
through an interpretation process that has historical precedent.
These interpretations are based upon factual determinations set
forth in Attachment No. 1 .
The interpretations provided in this memorandum will maintain a
• consistency between state and local law.
The policies, with regard to school capacity, will he satisfied Plan
unless the Council in the future declares
moratorium. Because
facts will change over time, so may the conclusions concerning
Comprehensive Plan compliance and the current lack of the factual )i
preconditions for the enactment of a *moratorium. Staff will ?S
update the factualw,�P ortions of this memorandum on a regular
basis, in coordinaf' on with the school district, and keep the
Council and District aware of the changing circumstances .
Future Pa.anning staff reports will rely on this memorandum when
48dressing the school capacity issue. The Council expects that
if Comprehensive Plan compliance based on the school capacity
issue is raised during a hearing on a residential develop e
application, each hearing body will reach the conclusions setID
forth in this memorandum. This issue is not static and will be
with us for the foreseeable future.
The
improve the current data exchange effortsCouncil betweenis theoDistrictto
and the City.
The Council wants to insure that applicants r �
dev
approvals are aware of the current school cai�acityeiving situationpanntd
understand that the Council is very concerned about this issue
and has the authority to enact a moratorium at a later date if
justified by the facts . The Council directs staff to develop
appropriate language to be included in the a ppreviewed by the hearing bodies , to accomplish thislpuor
rpose . to be
Attachment Na. 1 provides •
the factual findings of the Council
with regard to the school capacity issue upon which these
interpretations are based. Attachment No. 2 is a listing of the
factual information relied upon to sup
Attachment No. 3 contains the enter retai:ionsose of thed
ings p relevant .0
r Plan policies . ;'
The City Council sincerely expresses its gratitude to the members
of the Development Review Board who have been faced with the
difficult job of dealing with this issue in the first instance ,
III
and who have done so with professionalism and obvious great
concern for the community as a whole .
Atty/Correspond_7
i
Attachments 1-3
4.
�`• •
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
• FACTUAL FINDINGS
( 12-5-89)
The City and the School District have coordinated cone
impact of deveiopment on the ability of the" District to
legal obligations to educate the children of the Dis ern. the
significant meet its
portion of the School District lies outside thecity
limits and the City has no control over the impacts
occurring outside its boundaries. of growth
communication from other jurisdictions served aby received no
the Distri
that they perceive a problem or intend to limit developmentcdue
to school .capacity problems .
The District has provided the City the following facts :
1 . Attendance;linflthe 1988-89 school
year
Elementary School ex` eeded the capacity t the t District
determined necessary tom,,provide an urban levelof
service aWthat school. The, Lake Grove Elementary
School population has been reduced for the 1989-90
school year. Enrollment on June 1, 1989 was 651
students. Enrollment as of October 2, 1989 is 530
students .
2. The District has short termuplans in place that
the current capacity problems on a District wide basis .
address.
• By implementing these plans , the District, stated
continue to provide an educational experience to its
students that meets District standards.
3. Through use of the short term plan, the District can
accommodate a maximum capacity of 3,726 elementary
students .
4. The District as of October 2,
school enrollment of 3, 157 students. haBased an elemenimu
capacity and current projections, on October o1,m19i9 t
District by implementing the short term plan will haveunused capacity system wide the,: will accommodate 578
additional elementary students .
5 . The District has a long term plan to
rovide addition to the 578 seats to be made availableathrouy in
the short term plan. These long term plans include an
additional elementar)%school and remodeling existing
facilities .
6 . The maximum capacity of 3, 726 students
continuation of the current rate of assumingh a
; 1 accommodate new students into the 1991-92hs will
chool
' year:
N
c
n
Attachment No. 1
II/ •
,,
December 5, 1989
/Page 2
.
7. The earliest completion date for the new school
authorized by the November, 1989 bond facility election
is Fall, 1991 .
The remodeling of existing facilities ,
to be funded by the bond issue will be completed before
that date and will provide at least 250 additional
seats. The new school will have an ideal capacity of
500 students.
0 i
9. The District as a practice does not construct facilities
in anticipation of,f/growth, but attempts to coordinate
the construction 0 facilities so they will meet a
• current demand at �ompletion and not stand empty or be
underutilized.
il
• 9. The District projecto student populations using a
computer model. The projections are based on school
attendance areas and the District does not attempt to
• project at the level of individual subdivisions or
s . houses. Projections are compared with actual student
counts. Based on these comparisons, modifications to
, . the computer program factors are made if warranted. The District 's projections in the last 2 years have been
quite accurate. The physical counting of children in
the district on a regular basis, as the data base for
projections, does not provide a sigl;r',ficant enough 4
improvement in accuracy to justify the additional
expense it would take to carry out such program. •
By comparing data compiled over the last six years concerning
development approvals and vacant lots with the actual growth in
school population, the conclusion can be drawn that there is not
a quantifiable and direct relationship between the school
population and those 2 factors that will assist the District in
making short term student projections. Other factors such as
market reception, interest rates, the health of the Oregon economy and family size of buyers and sellers of existing homes
also affect the number of new children in the District 's
population. Based upon the present level of sophistication of
the City and District planning processes , it is not possible to
predict with any degree of cert, inty how soon after approval children from new residential developments will enter the school "
system.
111
•
•
e .
.
Attachment No. 1
December 54 1989
Page 3 Lf
, 41,
The District voters in May, 1989 approved a new district tax base
•
by an approximate-' 2 : 1 margin. The old tax base was $19 ,542 ,310 .
The new tax base is $$29, 9_,75,000. The new tax base contains levy
•
authorization above that levied by the District in the current
f , 10 fiscal year,. and is intended to fund growth and staffing and
maintenance for the new capital facilities to be funded from the
1 November, 1989 bond issue. This community has a solid history of
support for school funding measures . The November 7, 1989
ti, , facility bond issue passed by a substantial margin.
The District has been planning to meet the demands generated by
growth. During the middle 1980 's , the District proposed using a "
middle school concept. A switch to middle schools would have
freed space in the;•elementary schools ' forladditional students.
The debate caused turmoil in the District''and the concept was
' dropped.
Coupled with the change in Superintendents occurring soon
/thereafter, the "District planning a'nci, implementation of funding
measures to accommodate elementary school population growth was
A delayed. The growth was anticipated but the community debate
' over how to best address the impacts of
• provision of the District's solutions , growth has delayed the
The City Council may, at anytime when u�'
enact a moratorium on buildingjustified by the facts ,
permits purOant to ORS 1974520.
The District has the responsibility under state law to educate
the children of the aist'rict. The Council views the District as
an expert in educational matters. The Council accepts the
statement of the District that it will provide an educational
experience for its students that meets District standards.
,
i
( ,
+.' At ty/Correspond-7 °"
0 f; t , -,,
, C'
_ .
JI
it
Il
e
ti r .
f
,
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
FACTUAL INFORMATION CONSIDERED BY CITY COUNCIL
«' ' 0 ----------- tl2-OS-89) ,
•
•
I. Bill Korach, Lake Oswego School District
Enrollment - August 8, 1989 Elementary
2. Karen Scott
packet containing:
Building permits b
Building permits y year, single-familyf graph
by year, multi-famil
- `Total single family lots recorded by yearraph
Inventory of vacant lots, July 1, 1989
- Number of lots recorded from 7/1/83 to 6/30/89
7/1/83 to 6/30/8gg permits issued for single-family from
- Number building permits issued• for multifamily from
7/1/83 to 6/30/89
- School enrol*ment K-6 from 1983 to 1989
�. 3. Class size and public policy:
• of Educational Research and Improvemen`t, aU.S.nd part,Department
Office
EduZatian of
" 'r 4 . Opinion issued by James A. Redden June 11, 1979 Attorney General,
N
5. Memorandum from City Attorne
r July 31, 1989 Y to Mayor and City Council,
6. Report from Lake Oswego School District, July 5 ,1 1989,
with attachments
7. Proceedings of joint .City Council/School Board
July 31 , 1989meeting,
8 . Proceedings of Cif •'.
y Council meeting, August 8, 1989
9. Letter from Susan Brody,
Conservation and Development, dated Department of Land
August 8 , 1989
1G`. HandauE`s from Bill Kovach, Lake Oswego School Superintendent
a': Teac
}per-Student ratio and classroom space
i
b.•
Enrollment projections,°
term solutions service level, and short and long
11 • Lake Oswego School District; The Facts , submitte
i Bunick
d by Nick
" ck� :2 . Transcript n �•
Transcri t excerpt rpt from August 1 'g , 1989 Development Review
Board meeting (tape including excerpt also submitted )
r.T
Attachment No. 2
December 5, 1989
Page 2
• 13 . Enrollment graph sheJigng actual enrollment from 1962-1967 and '
projections through 1989-1990 submitted by Warren Oliver
14 ., Statistical chart titled "Determination of K-6 Student \'
Factor" submitted by Erin O'Rourke-Meadors
15. Letter from B. Ayres dated July 24, 1989 a Vic'
16. Letter from Jae Rieg dated August 3, 1989
•
•
17. Letter from Pam Sparks dated August 8, 1989
18. , Letter signed by Chamber of Commerce past presidents Tom
Decker, Paul Graham, and Rob Barrentine and Bob Chizum,
Chamber members,.,,,,,dated July 28, 1989
19. Letter from Douglas Oliphant, Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce
President, dated July 20, 1989
24.- Letter from William T. Ryan dated August 8, 1989
21 . Letter from Leonard G. Stark, dated August 7, 1989
22. Letter from Robert and Mary Larsen, dated August 5 , 1989
23 . Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Clark, dated August 6, 1989
24 . Letter from Robert Butler, dated August 4 , 1989
25. Letter from Lynora, Saunders, Chair, Forest Highlands
Neighborhood Association, dated August 1 , 1989 ,
26 . Letter from D.R. Norris, dated July 29, 1989
27. Letter from Judith D. Umaki, dated August 1 , 1989
28 . Charles Hales , Staff Vice President for Governmental Affairs ,
Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, letter
dated August 14 , 1989
29 . Gregory D. Meadors letter, dated August 13 , 1989
30 . Celeste Ward letter, dated August 14 , 1989
31 . De`bby and Doug Kemper letter. , dated August 14 , 1989
• \
32 . Carol Webb letter, dated August 14 1989 III
4 , U
2
, ,
0
kt
Attachment No. 2
r December 5, 1989
II Page 3
33 . Bill Bache letter, dated August 14 , 1989
34 . Debbie Seitz letter (undated) received August 14, 1989
35. Benjamin Schwartz, M.D. letter, dated August 14, 1989
36 . Gayle Bache letter, dated August 14, 1989
3. Martha Rothstein letter, dated August 14 , 19'89
38 . Ala F. Rothstein letter, dated August 13, 1989
39. ° Robert S . Dahlman Sr. letter, dated August 13 , 1999.
40. Janice A. Burt letter, dated August 13, 1989
41 . Jane Culberton letter, dated August 14, 1989
42. Toni Smith letter, dated August 13, 1989, including attached
+k" newspaper articles and copy of Bill Korach 's memorandum dated
July 5, 1989
• 43 . Deborah B. Feldsee letter," dated August 14, 1989
44. Steven M. Berne letter, dated August 14, 1989
45. Wilma McNulty letter, dated August 14, 1989
46. Le'onard G. Stark letter, dated August 14, 1989
.
47. Gay Graham letter, dated August 11 , 1989
48 . Marilyn Roberts letter, dated August 10, 1989
•
49. Mary Avery letter, dated August 10, 1's989
50. Bill Tucker letter, dated August 11 , 1989
" ` 51 . Kim and Barb Ledbetter letter, dated August 14 , 1989
52 . Richard M . Bullock letters? Sated August 11 , 1989
53 . Charles D. Ruttan letter, dated August 9 , 1989
54• Wllli,am Sorens on letter, dated August ll , 1989
• 55. Mat"ci IVemhauser letter, dated August 10 , 1989
56 . Charles A . Mansfield letter, dated August 10, 1989 •
r '
�`
tl
•
'It
l
r
_ .
Attachment No. 2
December 5, 1989 . 411
Page 4
57 . Larry E. Walker letter, dated August 10, 1989
n
58. Katherine and Donald McMahon letter, dated August 14, 1989„
1
/59 . Stephen Swerling letter, dated August 14, 1989
60. Karen Griffin, League of Women Voters
dated June 20, 1989 letter,
61. Cheryl M. Petrie letter, dated August 13 , 1989
62. Letter from Rick Newton, dated August 15, 1989
1111 . 63. Letter from JoAnn Gillen, dated August 14, 1989
64 . Letter from Pat'ick F. Stone, dated August 11 , 1989
65. Map of City and District boundaries
66;)'' Determination of impact as of July 28, 1989, submitted by
Erin O'Rourke-Meadors
III
67. Bill Korach, "Questions and Answers : How is the School
District Coping with Growth. " (Presented to City Council at
Joint School Board/City Council Meeting of October 2, 1989. )
68. Bond issue information, November 1989, prepared by Lake Oswego School District. •
69. Election results, -November 7, 1989, Lake Oswego School
District 1989 Facilities Improvement Bond.
Atty/Correspond-7
411
. •
•
�A 11 ,' ,
..
IA
,
ATTACHMENT NO. 3 n
PLAN POLICY INTERPRETATIONS
1111
;7
( 12-05-89) . ,
In the consideration of the school capacity issue within the •
framework of a quasi-judicial hearings considering specific land
use applications, one Specific Policy has been focused upon by
those seeking denial of the applications on the basis of a lack
of school capacity. That policy is Specific Policy 4 for Urban
Service Boundary General Policy III . A few other policies have
also been raised. Before stating the Council 's interpretation of
those policies, it is necessary to restate the rational for the
City's interpretation that the General Policies of the Plan are
the regulatory language of the Plan,
• The City's Comprehensive Plan was first adopted in 1978 and was
developed as a result of legislation at the state level in 1969
and 1973 which required local jurisdiction to adopt a
comprehensive plan,which was consistent with established
v, statewide land use planning goals .
A "comprehensive plan" is defined by state law as :
" [A] generalized, coordinated land use map and policy v
statement of the governing body of a local government that
interrelates all functional and natural systems and
411/ activities relating to the use of lands, including, , but not
limited to, sewer and water systems , transportation systems,
educational facilities, recreational facilities, and natural
resources and air and water quality Management programs.
'Comprehensive ' means all-inclusive, both in terms of the
• geographic area covered and functional and natural
activities and systems occurring in the area covered by the
plan. 'General nature' means a summary of policies and proposals in broad categories and does not necessarily
indicate specific locations of any area, activity or use. A
plan is 'coordinated ' when the needs of all levels of
governments , semipublic and private agencies and the
citizens of Oregon have been considered and accommodated as
much as possible. 'Land ' includes water, both surface and
subsurface, and the air. "
At the state •
level each statewide planning
mandatory statewide planning goal, which are
, p "�
is accompaniedtrt by11 standards and are general in nature ,
gu ictd:l ines .y The guidelines are:
" (SJuggested approaches designed to aid cities and counties
in preparation, adoption and implementation of comprehen�stive
plans in compliance with goals and to aid state agencies and
. special districts in the
of plans , orograms and regulations
adoption and implementation
• in compliance with goals .
Guidelinesi shall be advisory and shall
cities, counties and special districts tot alimi singtletatp agencies ,
t
pproach . " •
11
tac �,;,a
✓'"
Attachment No. 3
41)
December 5, 1989 , ,
ti Page 2
The City 's Plan, at
Objectives, General Policiese v, eanddSpecificins the dPoliciese th een
following way, in the
a'
"The adopted plan contains Objectives which are short
statements of the purpose o.eu,)the policies, General Policies ,
which are major methods of achieving objectives, Specific
Policies, which are more detailed steps to carry out General
Policies, . . . . "
There are also strategiesf
• Volume II, which is tebackground yinformation out the plan foundin
documentation for the plan. The language has historicalltl
applied as follows : Y been
The general ` y •
"` "regulatory" pdlicies of the plan are theportions 9 y" in nature. They are the "generalized which are
statements" which constitute a comprehensive plan as definedby
state law. A hearing body, in order to approvey
lc es application,
dust conclude that the applicable general policies of the
comprehensive plan have been followed. Each land use decision
must identify and explain why the requirements of the applicable
general policies have been satisfied by the application.
general policies are applicable to every decision. Not all,
.,
In reaching d conclusion concerning compliance with a generalpolicy the hearing body will be guided in its decision by •
the specific policies for thearmaking
narrative language and strategiestfor 1the gpolicy eneral element. the
•
many cases the specific policies for a general In
extremely detailed, to the point of describing area limitationsto the one/hundredth,. of an acre and specific building square
footages and many contain multiple detailed subsections .
If the specific policies are given the �'
same regulatory weight as
are the general policies then each
isiwill need to be complied with to the rov letterninn orderof areforlacnpalicy
application or project to be approved.
the granting of variances from the regulatorye is' no provision t for
Plan. When an application or project conforms ptov the ogenerthe
policy, but perhaps not to thejletter of a subsection of one ofthe specific policies for the general
project as a whole must be denied if the lspecificy , ic polie cies
are or
construed to be regulatory in, nature. orlisias - '
must be complied with in order for an application toti. •
. ,
approved ,
0
- .. .
, .
. .
, ,
,,
v i
, 4 �.t<d . . .
0 �-
A2.. A d
u, ,-
• 1
Attachment No. 3
December 5, 1989
• 1 Page 3
,, The specific policies are considered duringthe analysis of an
application or project.
p J If the staff recommendation is that a
project complies with a general policy, but, the detail of a "r
specific policy is not followed, an explanation should be
r. ' provided wh
Y. notwithstanding that inconsistency with the
specific policy, the recommendation is nonetheless consistent
with the applicable general policy.
This approach has been employed in City decision making
consistently for 7 years and has twice been considered by LUBA
without a reversal on this point. This methodolog
im
the Plan in a manner which is consistent with the statellawnts
definitions which govern local land use planning and at the same
time , does not minimize the level effort and scrutiny that went
°
into the original flan development.
r• Each of the applicable General Plan Policies will be discussed\, ri
below. No General Policy specifically requires that adequate
school capacity be established prior to the a tesidential development. Schools are mentionedrinaa few l of specificpolicies and it is from these references that the applicable in the review of a development applicationicies become
1. Overall DensityGeneral eral Policy I
G The Comprehensive Plan will maintain the overall, average •
residential density of the Urban Service Area within the
capacity of planned basil:: public facilities systems, °
including at least water, sewer, streets, drainage ani public
9 safety.
Specific Policy 3•
The City will coordinate planning of facilities with the Lake
•
Oswego School District, to assure that school capacities and
expansion costs are considered. "
This policy requires that the Comprehensive Plan density be such
that the planned densities do not result in land uses that will
•
CAexceed the capacity of public .gacilities systems available or
planned. This policy reulatp'3• Comprehensive Plan map densities
''b and is not applicable in the development review stage; The
appropriateness of the plan map designation or zone designation
on a given site is not an issue in a hearing on a development
application.
ID
. .
(_,
r .
,i
ii
Attachment No. 3
ID
December 5, 1989
Page 4
. Impact Impact Management General Policy II
The City will evaluate zoning and development proposals
comprehensively for their impacts on the community,
the developer to provide appropriate solutions before
approval is granted.
'
ecific Policy 6-
Encourage the Lake Oswego School District to provide specific
information on school capacity to be taken io consideration
in ,development review. " nb P cxfic
This policy is the one most directly •focused upon school
in the development- eview r thata
`d detailed review of rojectsrtakesplaceThians doitcdi requires a
City seek capacity information from the District. The
development review that the
�` process and the development standards insure
that this review takes place. The City is coordinatingwith
4t hool District on school capacity issues and is encouraging
' District to the '
Thei provide the City with school capacity information.
July 5, 1989 report from the District and the July 31, 1989411
and the October 3, 1989 joint meetings are examples of this
coordination and encouragement" . Because of the variety
factors that impact school population, it is not currentlof
possible to predict with a great degree of accuracy schooly
populations beyond the coming year. It is equally uncertain and
unpredictable when a child from a home on a lot in a
approved development will enter the school newly
once a building permit has been issued for dwelling,aon• it°become A.
reasonably certain that the structure will be occupied in the
near time frame (3-6 months becomes
Populations and outstanding 'bui'ldi�°nitoring actual school
6 month time frame can be one with an p
g permits , forecasting over 3-, ,
reliability. acceptabledegree of
If this coordination results in the development of
data which
supports the findings required by the state moratorium statute
establish a capacity shortage, a moratorium on building
• can be enacted in sufficient time to minimize the inflow to
students to the district . Permits
:� of new
3 . Impact Management General Policy V.
The City will plan and program for the provision
public services and facilities. sion of adequate 40 ,
1
1 II
it
Attachment No. 3 1�
December 5, 1989 0
III Page 5
Specific Poli_ ccy 3•
Prohibit land uses or intensities which tax or, exceed the
normal capacity of public services except in instances where
the developer pays all costs of
�,` th capacity, providing additional required `
p y, subject to City Council approval. '
The General Policy requires that City to plan and
provision of adequate facilities. program for the
' � program for the School District. Thxs City cannot plan or
the District . This policy does nothe City requiredoes the city to
patlanith
facilities for the school. Through the enactment of the �.
moratorium statute, the State Legislature has prevented the City
from carrying out Specific Policy 3 'on a case by case basis due
to a lack of schoo • capacity.
p y• The moratorium statute is
available to temporarily prohibit on a system wide basis land
Uses which exceeded the capacity of the schools.
.4. Urban Service Boundary General Policy III
The City will manage and phase urban growth within the Urban
III Services Boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic
services:
To establish priorities for the '
s
the City will identify areas within the eUrban1on Servof
i es vices ,
Bourrdary as follows: zees
(1) Lands suitable for near future development
GROWTH) (IMMEDIATE
.0 (2) Lands in long range growth areas.
The City will schedule (FUTURE URBANI2ABLE) .
capital improvements public fae�,lities through a '
program and financing plan.
S ecific Policy 4:
New development shall be seved by an urban level of serv ' JI
of the following:
aces
a. Water
b. Sanitary sewer '�
c. Adequate streets, including collectors
d. Transportation facilities
e. Open space and trails
f. City polic • as per Open Share Element
y protection
• •
g. City fire protection
h. Parks and recreation facilities, as per Parks and
Recreation Element
a ,
•
p
Attachment No. 3
111
December 5, 1989
Page 6
i. Adequate drainage
a >,I�, „ j , Schools • !1
Services shall be available or committed prior to approval
development. Such facilities or services may beprovided
of
concurrently with the land development for which they
are
necessary if part of an adopted capital budget at the time of
approval of the development, or if
with adequate provided by the developer q provisions assuring completion, such as ,
performance bonds.
The Urban Services Boundary Policies direct that the City define
r the future_ growth area for which it intends to he the major
provider of public services. Within the ultimate 0
General Policy III 1directs that basic services will be
• extended and that the phasing of service extensions be first
immediate growth areas and secondly to the future, urbanizable
areas . The City is then to schedule public facilities through a
iI. capital improvements program and financing plan.
Specific Policy 4 relates directly to nothing in the language of
the (;General Policy. The Specific Policy almost seems misplaced, 410
and would be more logically placed in the Plan as a Specific
Policy for Impact Management General Policy ii, discussed above,
which addresses the impacts of development on. services . It is
notable that the specific policies for that General Policy do not
require the type of precise fit in timing between development
approvals and the provision of services that is contained in
Specific Policy 4.
J
The most relevant language of this General Policy to the issue at
hand is that the City will "manage and phase"logical planned" extension of '"basic" services. The
withc a
District is logically planningto The` Sch��l �� '
demandsc generated by provide new facilities to serve
in general, growth . The District, like school districts
provides facilities in response to deman --not in
anticipation of demand. The Director of the Department , of Land a
Conservation and Development urges recognit,.:..�n of this fact and
identifies schools , along
"responsive" facilities . with
heDirector police adraws ra distinctions fo ~
planningpurposes ,pun oses between thee, responsive facilities and
r
her
nwordsatmust attend , sewage
rather'and
drainage facili �l.e`a which inconstruction , "
than follow or respond to,
111
. • .
, .
0
•
Attachment No. 3
1y December 5, 1989
® Page 7
F
' Specific Policy 4 , on the other hand , directs " that schools be
available or committed "prior , to ap
nt. If
that has not occurred, the Specific Policy states rovl" of ethat eschools
may be provided "concurrently" with development "if part "of an
•
adopted annual capital budget at the time ' of approvallof the
development . "
;! The Specific Policy contradicts the language of its General
Policy in that it is illogical, and inconsistent with how schools
a function in this state, to require schools to be constructed or.,
funded prior to the approval of the development which they wi'l, ,
serve.
The City has experienced the result df a strict application of
the language of thys Specific Policy.y A defacto moratorium - ,.
resulted in circumstances which did not justify the enactment of
a moratorium pursuant to state law.
The current level of school
c planning and coordination between the City and School District �� '
satisfy this General Policy.
In summary, the thi°eejl General Policies
listed
applicable to the school capacity issuein the abonsiderationeof a
specific developtctentapplication, when read together, require the
. .
City to plan for serioices sufficient to accommodate growth ,
coordinate With the >chool District on capacity issues, and
evaluate applications and determine impacts.
a system wide issue a`r..d ,forecasting when new Schoolthcapacityl ma is
the school system is dot precise. p, growth will impact
single land use application is not theuapproudicial hearing on a : .
41
which to' make Bete rmihations concerning systemiwide ate fschool
lthin II
capacity. There is no reliable data concerning future impacts
• that will result from i single application or the timing of thoSe T
impacts. The with
current ,! vel of coordination and plannin �
continual monitoring o actual school population changessatisf
these policies . If it is determined that school capacity will be
exceeded, with certainty, the City Council may employ the state
moratorium law to prevent are o±rertaxing of the school facilities
while the District implements
programs to correct the problem.
At ty/Correspondi
-=7
•
. I v
}1
• f
L , It
4
� ' , .
. ti`• , r
r e. ewT p
•
• •r
� am 0E4 J- 1 4•
tI
, •
I`
IN ,.
•.310 ,tc. x S i1 P Y pX Fn
4 , / 1 ?C. 111 11a9 g ia
j1 1;; von /T?
M
pit coti
t e
�v ; • '
ri 1 nh
� JBI
•
•
llitiL.
0 a,,, . ISIK. CA i
I' fpl4
� o
Co) 6
c N I 8 �a a 0 a
M r m ,p 1f
1� !
�a. 1 :� ;• .ID 1
:I •
ois,- , ,,,/ ,/,,,;,,,,,,,,,,,..,
ii /
/ "../...; 1 A i'''' :1111; '
li, 1 !;" ''.' ''' ' ' -‘)/ I' . :
I
o
•
CPPPttt W< ',11, l,v ., tJ- '', ,' '..„6. a t• '�r
i.t
I ON) -.) " " '" i i ' k! ""
0
1 l z
65 •
f1i1sr
•
IV 1VE: Tt.lty 4EXHIBIT
,, 50% SLOPE ANALYSIS y RM.,N N I N U
r,.....kW.Well. ibe.y U:A k,e'.I • ' ,
r
••
r
0
August 9, 1990
Ms. Lynn Bailey —` ry
Associate Planner 'AU n= � -A' 0- fc^°
City of Lake Oswego
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
• o I am the owner of lot 3 on Twin Points Roads; Lake Oswego OR, Pursuant to the
request for comments on the partition application by Drew Davis (case file number SD 30-901 VAR 16-901 PD 3-85 mod 7-90) I must object on several grounds. r
Need for a roadway access variance
Need to modify the Village on the Lake subdivision plan
•. 1 . Associated density transfer issues
Parking congestion
Fire access
Safety
•
•
Lack of economic hardship
ROADWAY VARIANCE The partition will require a variance to meet applicable
codes, This will cause a fire access problem for both lots. •
"
• VARIANCE TO VILLAGE ON THE LAKE SUBDIV
ISION My understanding of
the Village on the lake subdivision is that the individual lots were sized with the
•rs., average lot to remain ave the 15000 square foot zoning minimum, Consequently
'' there are lots significantly smaller than the 15C 0 foot minimum and lots, such as the • ',' ' '
• • one in question that are above the minimum. Further complicating things, the lot in
question was not originally above the 30000 foot size,required to be split in two, The .,.
extra property was obtained from one of the other Village on the Lake properties which
,• was also above the 15000 foot minimum. This further underscores the point that the '
subject property was not intended for paroti in when the Village on the Lake plan was
approved.
PARKING CONGESTION Due 0 the shortage of level ground for parking cars there
will be the tendency for guests to park along the access roadway. This will fu
rther
impede fire access. It is my understanding, although through a third party, that the
applicants wife often runs large parties in connection with her business and that these
parties often draw in excess of a dozen vehicles, In conjunction with the additional
• vehicles to be expected when the property is divided, I envision continual problems .4
with traffic through the access es sements across the property,
FIRE ACCESS Since the east most lot will not abut a road but will be accessible only
. ' , through the driveway and private roadways serving neighboring lots careful attention
must be paid to the width of these access paths and the potential problems created by o- the other uses of these access routes. The parking problems described above relate i y
• stronglyto issues of fire access. If fire occurs when a p arty is in progress the difficulty
'" o rucks reachingthe propertywhich does not abut a roadway will be significant- c
worse.
y
411110
SAFETY It is unlikely- that a practical house, commensurate with the quality of those
on the other lots, could be constructed on the rather odd shape lot which would result
1 EXHIBIT
V • ter.)34-Q0( .
Q'
from the partition, The house would be sandwiched in between the shore Iine
common access roadway and the side setback requirements. The yard for recreation
would be extremely small, causing significant spill-over of the residents recreational
• , activities into the neighboring ` • .• •
S blots or the common use roadway, This would cause
safety problems from the presence of children on the common roadway area
. ': : create the significant potential for trespass problems with neighbors. y and would
LACK OF ECONOMIC HARDS)(�Ip The,petitioner has not shown economic
hardship if the request for variance and ppartition is denied, The existing use of the F
is commensurate with the intentions �of the'Village on the Lake plan when a rovedland
there is no loss of usability for the intended purposes if the partition r uest denied,
EASEMENT LAND AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL
•
that a proposal is LOT I understand
p po pending to exclude the land subject to access or roadway easement
• from the total used in calculating the available land for partitioning.policy yet, but the development review board should consider the greasons whthis c�ty
policy has been proposed and what it implies for the density considerations of this site.
A substantial percentage of the lot under consideration is private roadway for access to
• . i
r
the Twin Points subdivision which includes my property.
Sincerely,
• �_- .
„.",7,2„.,,,
Dr. Richar . Cabot0 ' ' s.
• • ,
,
•
•
•
1
1
•
•
•
• ..
•
•
•
4
o . .
•
..• •
.,;
•
A 411101
U
n,
August 20, 1990 p,UG 2 l0 ,
Lynn Bailey, Planner
City of Lake Oswego HAND DELIVERED
330 "A" Avenue
P. O. Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
RGPG: Davis Partition
SD 30-90/VAR 16-19/PD 3-85 (MOD 7-90)
Dear Lynn:
; '• •' We are requesting a continuance of our hearing scheduled for this
evening to September 17, 1990. A number of issues not considered
0 • or discussed during our
issues in the staff report pre
ted August 10,cation 1990.conference are We would
time to consider these issues carefully and respond in a thoroug •
•
h h q
We also hereby waive the 120 day review time regulation.
Sincerely,
1 . o
•
.
•
1 •
•
:' Lae 700 McVey Avenue
-J P.O. Box 203
Oswego
a Lake Oswego. Oregon 970
V
(503)636-1422
CORPORATION August zo 1990 s'
Ma. Lynn Bailey
Planning Department
City of Lake Oswego
P. O. Box 369
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
• Development Review Board
City of Lake Oswego
380 "A" Avenue
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
Mr. Drew Davis �, �•
Applicant
1 Jefferson Parkway
- Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035
Re: Case File No: SD30-90\ •
VAR 16-90\PD 3-85 (MOD 7-90)
•
Dear addressed parties:
We support surrounding neighbors , lakefront owners , and City
Staff in objecting to the applicant ' s requested Minor
Partition and to any modification of the Village on the Lake
'
planned development to allow this additional lot ,
f
The City provided us notice of this o August 4 .
ti
1990. Since that time we reviewed the applicationposed nfile, they
staff report and our historical records , inspected the site,
and brought this matter to the attention of our board of directors .
The Village on the Lake is a quality asset within our
community, It ' s inception involved extended and complex
planning, negotiations , and agreements, Lake Oswego
Corporation participated in establishing the Protected
Natural Buffer along our shoreline and allowing Lake access
privileges with waterfront improvements acceptable to the developer, the City, and ourselves , To assure compliance
with the agreements then signed, the Lake Oswego Corporation
ob`ained control over a one foot uplands strip of property p r' ,
along the shoreline with the exception of Lot 28, Block 4,
The status of Lot 28, Block 4 Was specifically addressed as T,+ �
' an exception by all
parties in a consistent manner, The Developer signed a series of documents which allowed this "single building lot to be an exception , Lake Oswego
Corporation in its AGREEMENT (Article 7) dated March 20,985, accepted this site as one single family residentia + ;, `
and allowed an exception based upon it continuing to hav EXHIBIT H ,
p p E '� + � � I �' ,. ,
Page 1 of 5 ks.,2A__1
r>I
., yr• - - e , A .. .- ..
. N 1
status as one buildable lot . Then the City in its July 8,
1985, approval ORDER (Article 13) likewise agreed it was to
be a single lot . These two documents were followed by the
• VILLAGE ON THE LAKE MARINA EASEMENT DECLARATION OF COVENANTS
AND RESTRICTIONS (Article VIII) dated August 8, 1986, which
spelled out the manner of access to the lake of every lot in
, � the subdivision and the specific exception that was allowed
to this single lot .
On March 26, 1986, subsequent to the Order of the City, but
prior to finalizing agreements with us , the developer applied
for and was granted an Administrative lot line adjustment •
increasing the size of this lot from 27, 873 square feet to °'
31 , 627 square feet. Perhaps inadvertently, the developer
neglected to tell us of this enlargement .
Every plat provided by the developer reflected the prior
smaller size, which we knew was ineligible for partition. We r1'
never contemplated this already difficult terrain had the
possibility of being divided into two lots and the exceptions
we and the City granted were based upon this understanding.
Our agreements, and the plot plans upon which we based those
11110, ,. agreements , may not be changed without our consent . "
L ;nVW&'": Even the City' s approval without our knowledge recognized the ^'
risk of more than one lot at this site, stating under the
Zoning Code Requirements and Analysis , "The site is zoned
R-15; however, the site is part of an overall Planned
Development approved in May 1985 , This request does not
'
' ' involve any change in density. No new lots are being created
as a result of this request , " Had a partition been requested
• at the time of the lot line adjustment , it would have been
denied.
+ `',. • • Thus , both we and the City granted exceptions based upon this
property containing no more than one single family residence .
If the status of this lot is to change, then exceptions based .,
upon its prior status will no longer exist . Specifically,
the exception allowing access to the lake through the
Protected Natural Buffer will no longer apply, This denial •
appears consistent with the Applicant ' s Statement of Intent ,
page 1 , where Applicant states , "Because the site abuts they
lake, a 40" natural buffer zone will be preserved, as
required, from the edge of the lake" . , , . Instead, access to
the lake will then be available through the Village on the
Lake Easement or through the entrance at the Lake Oswego
Corporation headquarters ram This use P• privilege is common
to other owners of property within Village on the Lake,
10
. .
Should the City grant this Minor Partition , we ask that two
•
of the conditions be that no acceoa through the Protected
Natural Area or waterfront improvements be developed and that
x, ; ,t Page 2 of 5 F.
r
is
. '
. .
°
.,,, the Lake Oswego Corporation's one foot upland shoreline strip •
along Parrel "B" to the East be continued Westerly along the
' entire lake frontage of the resultant lots . The resulting
two lots would then have a status consistent with the other
100 lots in the Village on the Lake.
Ire addition to eliminating the exceptions that we and the ,'
City previously granted based upon this remaining one
buildable lot , there are several other areas of concern we
wish to express:
1. The Lake Oswego Corporation has observed a number of
partitions in this area. The narrow and steep private
road which originally accommodated a single residence
" now serves at least four sites . We question at what
' point the city will require additional road improvements
from a fire, life, and safety aspect . The slopes in
-
this area are so great and the vehicle maneuvering room . N .
i(, so tight that we fear a future encroachment when
widening the road and providing parking and turnaround
facilities becomes necessary. Before construction of a
third home, we understand the City normally requires a ®
20 foot width all weather road (accessible after
• allowing for street parking) and find no evidence of
comments by the Fire Marshal regarding the maximum '
number of houses which will be allowed without meeting
this criteria. As this partition is proposed, the
benefiting land owners have no land available for such
purposes . We will resist any attempt to fill in
portions of the lake or portions of the Protected `
' Natural Buffer to meet access standards for the purpose
of allowing this partition.
2. Steep slopes along our shores are delicate, This
specific area is designated as having landslide
• potential . We are not comforted by the applicant ' s ,�
•
Geotechnical report which states , "Soil explorations •
were not feasible due to difficult access . . , , " , Nor are
We comfortable with Applicant ' s arithmetic in trying to
» ._ show that construction coverage will not exceed 30e of :`'
the slopes that exceed 50%. Those calculations are to
vague as to be impossible to understand as presented,
y
The ultimate impervious surfaces must include the access 4 °
road and driveways and any future paths and decks which ' e
are not yet detailed. In fact , the maps which have been •
provided to the Design Review Board do not include decks
which already jut out from the residence footprint
towards the Protected Natural Buffer, We are in accord •
•
that no stairways through the Protected Natural Buffer '.,
t • or docks will be allowed, Accurate calculations need to
be made of present and contemplated coverages above the
Page 3 of 5
s •',
�'. ..� �' of
�'. ,
Y ,
. .
v
IP
. ,
aql,,•
•r. .
Buffer line.
3. Applicant ' s plea of economic hardship is absurd.
Originally, as " •
quoted from the Public Works section of; ,. the Staff Report, "Staff has doubts about the 4...
feasibility of developing Lot 28, Block 4. This , concern
is based on the amount of 50,4+ slope. . . " However, upon
the urgings of the developer, this lot was evaluated
during the City development process as being the
appropriate size for one single family residence dispite ��
its terrain. All a.,+._,
parties then agreed this would be one single family lot and determined that would be a
reasonable use of the property. To claim economic
hardship after several 4years of known usage and
appreciating values is without merit .
' . ' 4. During the City approval process , Lake Oswego
Corporation was and continues to be concerned about the number of lots having lake access and the manner of✓'1 access . We recall the City Development Review Board
placed conditions on density applicable to this ,
development. We do not want those density limits 4 '
increased for this
partition request . R
5. Erosion and resultant siltation is a continuing problem4111
ri
for the lake under the best of conditions. In this444
case, the proposed new building � �a'
• pad could of several undefined settings . But commonbtooallny one
alternatives are extremely steep slopes and soils with a
potential for landslide hazards .
w 4
6. We object to Mr. Davis ' current dwelling under
construction intending to have its roof and foundation drains routed through the Protected Natural Buffer and
directly entering into the Lake. We were not aware of this previously and will work with the Building
Department to alter this unacceptable solution to •
drainage. Within Federal Water Quality Standards and
•
specifically under the Surface Water Management
being developed under federalpolicies a,,
guidelines
it is a stated for the City,
goryl o maximize on-site water retention ,
Surface water contaminates entering the lake must be
minimized, Additional construction upon any new lot
would be required to meet new drainage guidelines , If
applicant argues it will be difficult to comply on his existing construction , it will surely be more difficult
or even impossible on the proposed site.
• 7. The applicant attached his consultant ' s comment that ,
"Considerable volumes of excavation materials will arise
from the subject ct development . All such materials should ,
be x".. ved from the site, " Our inspection of the current
. n
,
Page 4 of 5
- •; ..
r .
1
Ore'• '
. 0 . .
. .
, , „
construction underway was not reassuring. The steep
. •
slope below the project contains debris from existing
3IN, „ construction. Underlying the debris , and extending into
the Protected Natural Buffer Area, is fill excavated
from the foundation and the access driveway. '`' Althvugh
we may be mistaken, there is no evidence th0a1 any 6 .• ''•,
volumes were removed from this site. The elevation maps
,;•
:y4 submitted to not reflect the even steeper inclines
created by the excavated materials sluffing down the
hillside. We fear the same disrespect upon any
additional lot.
In connection with this seventh concern, we note in the
July 8, 1985 , Order of this Development Review Board, it
is stated in Article 13 , "A protective buffer area
restricting removal of vegetation shall be established
along the Lake frontage of Lot 28, Block 3. . . . "
opinion is that no vegetation has been removed, it has
" „' ' just been covered up by excavation volumes of dirt ,
rock, and felled trees . When vegitation will grow back
is debatable and we intend to therefor request that the
�' city require restoration of the Protected Natural Buffer0 -
issuing an occupancy permit for the residence.
before i g
} We request the applicant ' s requests be denied. If approved
over the objections of ourselves , surrounding neighbors , and
the City Staff, then we request the conditions we have ..
outlined be incorporated into such approval .
r
• Sincerely,
! 1 k ' I .
Charles Bburbeau
,;� President
1
x .
,v,, ' 410 . •
„ , .
• .
,4
, . . ,
t
) , Page 5 of 5
- 0
•
-k ?. Aws, 1 -4 ..1?-, .
• t' ' ® re-"-7 /V/P,o
. . 744 e . ,
: . . .
. __,T., 574.... cct„,tiz
:,...s
. - „ . . . t...f
r eL..ze ��
... --.-„,,.
.3v �4
. . .-- 4f4 e2s 62,4e ??Airz
470
• •
'` , ! Pe S' I) 3 0 - .c.)\ VA k a_
e. ,9 p/
Y • aeole.4..aa‘ / .0
rQw- lid
a-4 die-0--k,eArz.',4e ,‘ 13.6.„4: .5 . //,.../z,,,,, .
• 0 e"-kt de ': c 4 Sct, z- � 5
ad--01-71 T � s 4-1-7 77-0-t.) —a- Pls .--c-fri-1 " :', 11'- .2.r. e-e.4- _,e 4,
,
/. '- '- 1/ � .
7:.-i-d IT 4.149-e 12..e(L.1,..% (...u.e.,./f2-4_,...)44,..,„44 61L-v-Jc:/ (,..tf-e-Y414 . i
. , ,
1 r • , -'2-l-$2r' .
o -�*-i.>Z.t". Au i^paJL--,1-d 0-/J • �15-n 2e
‘1 6k 62A_,A.4.1_,-et_p:4, ct.+6;44e_op,J2_4/-- .
:, _ -- 4"-- --4--p- a)z-e a-4-€4,...et_i4 .2 r_el-t_ov„..-6.1.4 1.A4.0\ 3 e 7 et,1 0 s'i/74 7:;
-4;74 3/ 6 27 7,, 4
. cci e4.,' r,,,..., ,...,..,,, "fet, 6_,...., ,,,,,,,..,4
''. .. 0 r:,) c-A.42.tiz(v.„.. ,
'L1
a (, '_f + 5
EXHIBIT
tr4
Y-• --re-4 1 14
1 4. /' ,S►�, ► t tic
• 33
• 4 • • 1 t • tl Y • A
•
' - - - ,•I r _ . „ tom, `
V .,,,' , --z..c(-c,1 7,e; eg--t-c_a y w 1(1.-c:Cai--R- ez /t-,N-te r
. . ,t
• ,: H
ki‘te...4:de,y). . -e;1
< ...../27.4....tiL az./ a --1--e_",-
,,,gt.i,p,vL. .
s
. ,
. .
. ,.. ,
2 e ez:Z04 .A..12,414....47 Lea-44 4 4 6 1:••otg 7/A.0_,4 •7; •
2I e'C 5 ' r •. ,
, ele . • ,
, ,. ,. ., 5Y-1;z4:44. r -41-44 C.5•e‹ .-",e-d czle-4-4;14. 7L- 9-- _-/2-a_vt.(i-e • .
--c--:Pfr ---2.6da..it_a_e' ae,<„„),T, , a4 .-i4e-e --<-21 ---•-e-0,-Zi-e
eyet-e-:-,i-4, ( ...?e.,--147 •,-,..9ez c. ..1- %-krii €I( ‘-<,04.4.4)-A •c-4-4-e.). .,.
•
•-- tdAgsl-c( See. 4-c.41- 6P-- �crt ,
e6t--v1 Le, &I KCA.,..1" e-.,1 774..,-e....:k1 e,..,..p. K .D.....,....,zy , ...
,,. .
, •,.• . .
, . 4.,-....„.d, -7.,..„- .....,...e.e...,, erl de 724...1-0 ...-4--e , 7 .5 4.4.74 ,.. .
67..ii. .......2 O.,., d-efrrat4...7_, ' •
.�
Tj2 o--&-e' .1.--a-t-ie,t-4 --e_<.)-$.-ct-41 1-e
, � n --. -
4.}-4-1-1 .--e-ti-e et-7-44t.ir_e_, a-wt. /2-4-,-0.2.7,4 ) 4.4..)-e. kkteA,-- .
11.4 %.\4•• (.4)'"6"'Ctil 44 4*. ../ er-e\ -6--re X g•-; 6-p.-e, t-f..)-(7
•
ot.-e.,6,2f-/ .._, d., O:2,-„Li.„4..,:z. 0 .„-ii,.„€,,(
, . , -
•0 ' ) '
d
•
r
‘g6T---L 4.4..
• .
. . , •
C6.4,4e, 4-0-ert-d.„,e4e
. . • , ``aim
d�. 621•e_cle-e..ift ( .
•
d.e.
Ot
. #
.e:
,•
•
, •
•
ti
3
•
t
•
, .
•
F
/i.
0 . . '
. .
August 20, 1990
nti
v v
Lynn Bailey
Staff Coordinator ),,
City of Lake Oswego
380 "A" Avenue
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Dear Lynn:
I would like to submit additional comments regarding case file
No. : SD 30-901AR 16-90/PD 3-85 (MOD 7-90
) . This r
partition request of Tax Lot 2900, 1890 Twin Points sDrivel oLake
Oswego, OR 97034.
I continue to oppose the granti;;ig of this minor partition request
uest
for the following reasons which are in addition to my letter
you dated August 6, 1990, regarding the same subject.
A (1) It is the responsibility of the applicant to reasonably
demonstrate that their request is not injurious to
neighboring properties. This request is injurious to F °
i\ neighboring properties for the following reasons:
• The neighboring 9 g property owners had input during the
original planned development process which involved issues
relating to density transfer. It was determined that a lot
capable of supporting only one home be allowed for that area
of the development. The developer was instructed to
transfer density and minimize development on slopes of 50%
or greater. Subsequently adding additional land to bring
the lot to 30,000 square feet, so that it could meet city
standards which would allow separation into two lots is
clearly not the intent of the density transfer language or
the intent of the neighboring property owners which
originally monitored the approval
of the development. The
neighboring properties would be injured by the fact that an
• increase in density is occurring on property that was
specifically protected by careful planning during the
planned development process.
current city zoning requirementsdisgaaclevernbutal land to meet
unacceptable method of side-stepping the original intent of
the planned development which made density transfer issues a
central focus in the approval granted by the city and the
,,
neighboring community.
e , A . ,
.4 EXii1B1 ,;
' Lynn Bailey
August 20, 1990
Page Two
(2), I would request that the density transfer portion of the
hillside protection and erosion control standard be ,elearly
identified as a class II variance request for this
application. Allowing development on the proposed Site `\\
' _ would clearly require a variance since density transfer on
this property has already been accomplished, leaving areas
under 50% slope insufficient to support another home,
• (3) It is my belief that a change to''-°the original planned
development should include all properties existing within,
and within 300 feet of, the planned development. The
applicant wishes to modify.
(4) Although staff has indicated that building height,
requirements shall be handled through the building review
process, I would ask that height requirements be identified
-_-- in this instance due to the concern of surrounding citizens.
Since home footprint plans have already been established,
I'm sure that the height of these buildings could easily bra.,
identified as well.
(5) I would like to offer a rebuttal to the letter submitted b
Mr. Nick Bunick on behalf of Mr. Davis which is identified
• as exhibit #24.
In his letter Mr. Bunick states "If I had to do the land
\, plan over 'I would have made lot 28, block 4 into two lute ,
atherthan one" .g I bet ` ��
.eve that the Village On The Lake
development is ar uably one of the finest developments in
the state and Mr. Bunick is to be commended for his vision
' • in developing this site.
g I would not, however, want anyone
reading this letter to be left with , the misapprehension that
developers, and not the city, control what will be built,
and where, after a careful consideration of all the facts.
This letter might also lead its reader to assume that the
developer was not specifically instructed to transfer
densities and modifyproperty
perty lines to eliminate conflicts
of building envelopes having 50% slopes - but of course,
he was. i submit that making two lots from lot 28 was not
an option available to the developer at the time.
Sincerely,
Mc . /2 '
' ' T Mark Roberts
Alik MR f ntl
IIIIF A:cit1 y o08.20
0
O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
lb
SALLOW&WRIGHT BUILDING
' 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street
Portland,Oregon 97209
,} ! PHONEWHOM: (S03) 222-4402
L Via'°f PAX: (503) 243-2944
n
DATE: August 28, 1990
TO: File
• FROM: Timothy V. Ramis
RE: Lake Oswego Corporation Claim of Development Restriction
on Lot 28
J
" On August 20, 1990, the Lake Oswego Corporation represented to
y City's Development Review Board that Nick Bunick entered into an
agreement ,rstricting the development of Lot 28 of The Village on
the Lake to one residence. They further claimed that pursuant to
the agreement covenants for the project similarly restricted
development on Lot 28.
I have reviewed all documents provided by the Corporation in
support of their claim. In addition, both the Corporation and
their attorney have been asked to provide any other evidence which
• they possess supporting their claim. They have been unable to
provide us with any other information.
The Covenants
The relevant recorded covenant appears in Article 8 of the
ON THE LAKE VILLAGE
MARINA EASEMENT DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND
RESTRICTIONS. This is a recorded document bearing the signatures
of Mr. Bunick and Donald Burdick, president president of the Corporation.
The covenant
provides as follows:
"Access to Oswego Lake from the Village on the Lake shall
only be through the waterfront improvements described in •
these covenants. No ladders, stairways, trails, or other
structures of any kind will be allowed to be constructedll
from the Village on the Lake to the water or land below
the cliffs with the exception of Lot 28, Block 4. "
1
This is the only relevant development restriction in either the
subdivision covenants or the Lake Marina easement.
It is clearly . .
written to exempt Lot 28 from restriction. The other lots are
prohibited from having docks. Lot 28 is exempt from that
restriction: The covenants contained no language restrictin the411
number of homes which may eloped on the lot
� be dev g
.
.1 EXHIBIT
•
0 .✓
O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN
Memo re: Lake Corporation Claim of Development Restriction on Lot
Ill 28
August 28, 1990,
Page 2
Draft Agreement
The Lake Corporation apparently bases its claim on a document
entitled "Exhibit C, Restrictive Covenants, redlined copy
12/31/85. "
The document is obviously a draft proposal for an agreement
regarding covenants between Mr. Bunick and the Lake Corporation.
It is clearly a draft and is heavily marked-up with proposed
language insertions.
At page 4 of the document, in paragraph 6, the draft shows a
proposal to include the phrase "for one residence constructed on
that lot. " It is this language which the Corporation apparently
interprets to mean that only one residence is proposed. I do not
read the language to have that meaning. It appears to me to
irestrict each residence constructed on the property to only one
boat slip. Regardless of ,its intended meaning, however, the
language is clearly a proposal and is contained in a document which (,
was never finalized nor signed.
1
Neither the Corporation or its- attorney has yet provided a signed
copy of this document.
The fact that the covenants do not contain the restrictive language
referred to in the draft agreement demonstrates conclusively that
no such agreement existed.
We will revisit these matters if the Corporation or its attorney
are able to
provide us with any other information or written
documentation.
tVT' ,fl$ ((0
„ I
t.
O'DONNELL, RAMIE CREW CORRIGAN . ~
,
• i�.4^.RAINIS, CREW b CORRIGAN ATInRNEYs CL
AT LALAWOfAR ESE COI�AIGAN• �W& WRIGHT BUILDING ACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE ip
STFTfit]�t F.CREW
1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N.Grant, Suite 202
ST'E'!!E.GRILLO Pordattd,Oman 97209 Canby,Om son 97013
RED P.. uu..GS (503) 266.1149
`A'€I1.IAd.4 A. MONAHAN TELEPHONE: (503) 222 4402
MARK P.CYDONNELL FAX: (503) 243.2944
OESTNIS M.PATERSON In KENNETH M. ELLIOTT
TIN
V. RAMIS PLEASE REPLY TD U
POR7ND OFFICE GARY M.GEORGEFF•
SHEBA C.RIDGWAY° RgBCRT J. McGAUGHEY•
1MtIIA.M J.STALNAKER �� speck!sound
August 28, 1990
•AL.A#mied ro Pr.ctk•
' In SUM d Wrlirron
Mr. Nick Bunick
5285 SW Meadows Rd. , Suite 377 AUG 3 0
Lake O�go, OR 97035
Dear.. Nick:
y
Enclosed please find an analysis which i have prepared regarding
the claim by the Lake Oswego Corporation that you entered a binding
agreement restricting the development of Lot 28 to one residence.
In the documentary record I find no basis for their claim.
It appears that in December of 1985, the Corporation prepared a
0
heavily marked-up draft covenant agreement which was unsigned. One
possible interpretation of the language is that it restricts
development on Lot 28. Neither the Corporation nor their attorney
has bee)ai able to provide me with any evidence that the document was
ever signed, recorded or that it even went beyond the in-house
draft',-stage. There is no evidence that the
ev= �'�uransmitted to you. proposed language was
troect
clr;arty contain different h language ed whichadoes or notherestrict
development on Lot 28 .
If you are aware of any other facts or agreements, please let me
know.
Very truly yours,
Timothy V. Ramis
TVR/lf
Enclosure i
cc: Mr. Drew Davis
...Lake Oswego Planning Department
411
4
4 EXHIBIT
IA
4, y6. rfc,)
•
V v,., L.•
•
.AtP� 2 S �9
5; 0OPm
SUPPLEMENTAL NARRATIVE
Case File No. SD 30-90 \VAR 16-90 1 PD 3-85(MOD 7-90)
Davis Property
Lake Oswego, Oregon
Contents:
Review of Request
• Requested Item NI - Modification of Planned Development
Requested Item #2 - Minor Partition
Requested Item N3 - Class U Variance to Access Standard
Exhibit A- Lot Consolidation Graphic
Exhibit B - Letter from Staff Re: Complete App. Status
40
• •
, , ,
Submitted: August 28, 1990
rr
, 40
r EXHIBIT
J,'' /
'I
110 r.
c;,
,
August 28, 1990 �-
Development Review Board
r, City of Lake Oswego
380 "A" Avenue
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035
,I)I. C/O Planning Department
City of Lake Oswego
380 "A" Avenue
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
RE: CASE FILE NO: SD30-90 1 VAR 16-90 \PD 3-85(MOD 7-90)
DAVIS PROPERTY MINOR LAND PARTITION1111
We would like to thank the Board for rescheduling the hearing on this application to September 17th,
1990. After review of the staff report, we found that new issues were raised which were not discussed
at the pre-application conference, or any other time during our contacts with City staff while preparing
the application and after its submittal. The intent of this written response is to thoroughly address these
new issues and concerns raised by staff, and to expand on the information already submitted in the
previous application materials. The response also addresses concerns which have been raised by adjacent
property owners and the Lake Oswego Corporation,
4,
By submitting this written response to the City on August 28, 1990, twenty days prior to the rescheduled
hearing date, we are complying with the deadline for entering additional information into the record for
review. More importantly, this period before the hearing will provide you with more time for review
of the application and for confirmation of its compliance with the applicable provisions of the City of
Lake Oswego Development and Zoning Ordinances and Comprehensive Plan, Very thorough and careful
consideration of the specific issues which relate to these provisions is necessary in rendering
decision. The following information, clearly addresses these issues and supports the applicat oyr
n s
compliance, providing you with a sound basis for a decision of approval,
ilk
•
re
e •
REVIEW OF RFnrrE .11
•
0 In order to clearly establish the criteria for approval that the application must canfor
,t m to, it is
to review the three items being requested, and how these relate to the applicable pro is ons of ant
Development and Zoning Ordinances as well as the Comprehensive Plan policies. the
Requ ed item I - Modification to Planned Devel ment:
Because the proposed partitioning of Lot 28 in "Village on the Lake" will amend
by showing two lots where there is now one, the applicant must obtain approval the approved plat layout a,
•
planned development.. As will be clearly defined and illustrated, no increase to the
for modification of the
of "Village on the Lake" will result from the approvalsapproved density
approval to modify the plat/layout of"Village on the Lake ,o not to increase theapplication. Therefore, we request "
to change any approved use of the development. approved density and not
The following are responses to the Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance, Section 4
modifications to planned developments. The section states that approval of modifications
by the City Manager if the application meets the appropriate trite ' 8 490, which regulates
application does meet these criteria, and thersrr ;ae can be done
criteria. As will be discussed, the subject
normally be reviewed and approved by the City Manager,lae nd review aed nd approval modification eDevelopment
would
Review Board would not be necessary. er, P y the Development
conjunction with the Class II access variance, all requests,bec including use the application
the modification being
" � development will be heard before the Board. The following criteria which s processed in
anon to the planned
of this request:
should be considered in review
(Please note: Throughout this narrative, sections from the applicable Development and
l and the Comprehensive Plan are shown in bold type. Responses follow in r Zoning Codes
egular type,)
LOC 48.490 Authority to Approve Changes in Planned Development Approval.
' The City Manager ma approve minor changes in any planned development approval
provided that such cha g
•
1. Does not increase the intensity of any use, or the density of residential use;
'
Built Density is Less than Approved Density:
The "Village on the Lake' was approved for an overall density of 101 single-family units.
actuality, because of several lot consolidations, the built-out density of the development isonly
93 units, The proposed minor partition will make the final built-out density of the development
p only
94 units - 7 less than what the development was approved at, (See attached Exhibitelowhich
illustrates the lot consolidations and the actual platted density of the development,)
A, which
Density Transfer:
In their review of the original application approval for "Village on the Lake"
misinterpreted that density transfer occured by taking allowed density fro > Staffi has
placing it in other areas within the development, Nick Bunick, the original the and
and members of: the original project team do not concur with this interpretation,property developer .
interpretation of the app'r`oval is as follows: The approved planned development is allowed Their
101
2 ,.,
•
units as a "cap" density. The 101 units can be placed anywhere within the designated 10
developable portion of the site(now platted as residential lots-including the subject site, Lot 28).'
This developable portion of the site contains over 20 acres of slopes that are 25 percent and
above, and the flexibility of the planned development allows development to occur on these
slopes, and to fluctuate in lot sizes and dimensions, as long as each specific lot complies with the
applicable standards for lot coverage, hillside protection and erosion control, etc. In other words,
considering available services and overall development criteria, "Village on the Lake" is allowed
to be built to a total density of 101 units,and each proposed lot is reviewed to confirm compliance
with the applicable development standards.
This interpretation is consistent wi'.h tt findings and wording of the Conditions of Approval for
Village on the Lake", and LOC-sections 48.205 1.(b), 48.210 2., and 49.315 (13) F,
• which are addressed within the text of the following pages. It is important to note that in the
original staff report for "Village on the Lake", staff suggested that de it transfer would b feasible and clustering of lots and homes on the site could be implemented to meet the allowed •
density. Nick Bunick, the original applicant, chose not to develop he prow in this manner
becau a he f It tha lu rin tin ul '-famil wnh m . zer - lie ve mall I t.
etc.) would not be appropriate uses considering the other uses adjacent to the development and
the market demand for middle to larger-sized single family lots in this area, Therefore, d n ity
transfer was not implemented to this extent.
Lot Line Adjustment:
Besides the issues of the planned development being built-out below the overall approved density
and the misinterpretation of density transfer, there is another important factor in this application
• ,
which the staff report does not expand upon. Since "Village on the Lake" was originally platted
and the subject parcel was approved as Lot 28, a lot line adjustment was recorded which
increased the lot size by 3,754 square feet. This increase is an important consideration because
•
the total lot size is now 31,627 square feet which enables the property to be divided into two lots
which are over 15,000 square feet in size. The 15,000 square feet is not a minimum requirement
in "Village on the Lake" because it is a planned development, and many lots have been developed
which are smaller than 15,000 square feet. However having larger lot sizes is a benefit to the
proposed partition because it facilitates compliance with the applicable standards for maximum
lot coverage and development on slopes.
' To summarize, the suggestion in the staff report that Lot 28 was originally planned for only one •
house is not a valid consideration, since the original lot size has now been increased by 3,754
square feet.
Availability of Urban Services:
Because the "Village on the Lake" will have 7 less homes than was originally approved and
deemed appropriate for the available level of public services (including utilities, schools,
emergency services and supportable traffic volumes), there is no increase in the overall intensity
of any use or the overall density of the development,
10, final paragraph, and page 7 of 10, under the response to"C")ast states that all nelly, the staff cessary saort ryautilities
are available to serve the proposed new lot, and that it is reasonable to allow a shared access to
the property from Twin Points Drive, which Is a private street.
Ill
3
2. Meets all requirements of the development standards and
0 other legal requirements;
RESPONSE:
The application complies with all the applicable development standards and other
requirements for development, as well as all the conditions which were imposed byo legal
approval of "Village on the Lake", and therefore, conforms with this subsection of the
The application's compliance with these provisions the original
b
submitted to the City, and is further expanded upon in th sunarrativeby the application material
The application requires a Class II variance to the Code requirement for access,
that single family lots must have 25 feet of frontage onto a public street, ,
. is required because the site is accessed only bya which mandates
actually has 210 feet of frontage onto Twin Points Drive - The Class II variance
Y private street, Twin Points Drive,
requirement of 25 feet. However, because the street is private, and the lots obtainThe site
whichnd more than exceeds the code
an ingress-egress easement, a variance is required. access
the variance is a reasonable request, and would be necessary for anyrevflater inm this nhci through access onto a private street. The fact that the applicant must obtain a variance and
er circumstances does not p'cevent the application from conforming development which has
48.490, ming with this subsection of L.O.C.e
3. Does not significantly affect other propert or uses;or loss of any natural feature Y ses, will not cause any deterioration
r public facility; process or open space; nor significantly affect any
• RESPONSE:
The application will not significantly affect other property or uses within the
partition will make the overall built-out density of "Village on the Lake" development. an what was originally approved. The applicants, wo 94 units - 7 less than
on proposed Parcel II, and who will b responsible for the sale residentsare also the fParcel the appreciatei home
neighbors concerns about the new home causing I, their
character of the property. The applicants will egul regulate the building height mpacts to views and the beautiful
character of the new home through deed restrictions placed on its buyers.
$ and architecttCral
The existing 40-foot wide protected natural buffer adjacent to the lake will be maintained
proposed parcels. The restrictions on this area include minimal removalaintained on both
preservation of trees over 8" in diameter, (See staff report-Exhibit 13 of' Page 14, Condition
l3)and
The applicants have complied with these restrictions in the construction of their new home, No buffer.
trees have been removed within the protected natural area ,
In response to the Lake Oswego Corporation's concerns about boat docks being
the existing new home on Parcel II and the proposed new home on Parcel
proposes that a condition of approval be placed on the development allowed for both
a boata dond, I, the applicantbe
p ent that only Parcel II will
Proposing a boat dock for only one lot is consistent with the original
approval for the development and the original agreement with the Lake Oswego
applleabielmaiamof the-agreement;ExhibitµBrand`Co g Corporation.
� >Ehh•ib�•O;•are-atEached-- —
, _±_ c1 he c4 ..S.F,p,-',,° Marina Easement
110
1
4 •
.a
• •
As specified in this original agreement, the applicant is allowed access
''') resource buffer area to the lake, and is exempted from the restrictions placed o rough the natural III planned development. (Please refer to Exhibit 13,page 14, Condition 13 in n other lots pwohin
the staff report,)
The applicant will comply with all restrictions for improvements within
the
adjacent to the lake and will carefully delineate and construct a pathway natural through this area that
buffer area
-\‘'
does not impact existing trees and maintains the beauty of the natural a viom e a
nt,
•
•
4. Does not affect any condition specifically placed on the development
hearing body or City Council. by action of a
RESPONSE:
Specific conditions were placed on the approval of the "Village
development. The application is in compliance with these conditions. planned
g on the Lake"
partition will not cause the development to exceed its total allowed density,/the tstaffr the epo subject s•
to a condition from the original approval which relates to
(Exhibit 13, Page 15, Condition 14 . port refers
any proposed changes in density
The Condition reads:
"The applicant will work with staff to transfer densities and to modify lot lines
as necessary
to eliminate conflicts of building envelopes with 50% slopes and natural resources areas so eases in overall
that•densities will not be affected. Conflicts which would result in shall be returned to the Board for resolution."
Again, the original developer did not need to impleme •
,-,
abnck
nt III
specific areas elsewhere on site, p nt density transfer from the subject site
development on slopes and will preserve the naturae l resource bufferJ to
osed partition meets the standards for
nn increase the overall density of the development. 101 lots as the to, The partition l will approved for "Village on the Lake" including the consideration of areas in floo
fringe and
slopes over 25 percent on the site, total overall density •
if the subject partition is approved.e siThe development will reach a "built-out'' density of 94 lots
The original approval for "Village on the Lake" specifically
states that development up to 101 lots is allowed on the site if compliance is sh
applicable development ordinances and zoning regulations, own to all
The proposed partition, which shows proposed building envelopes for the two ar
with code standards for hillside protection and erosion control (refer to staff report,
The proposed lot sizes exceed the 15,000parcels, complies
square feet required by Exhibit 4n though smaller lot sr.es than 15,000 square feet have been allowed in "Village \
thcR-15basezone - even part of the flexibility of the planned development. p on the Lake" as
4 100-foot minimum requirement of the R-15 base zone, and thel80 f oot thmin minimum
exceed the allowed within the 'VillageLake" .
allows rawith are ere Vi l geoon the th e planned
la o ed development,
mum requirement
cel
because the minimum dimension for lot width allowed within The proposed parcel
P anCe with required lot width
c iaa r.efe t`rExhibit-n,,,tLexcerpt from the original staff report of°v the
ge on is 40 feet.
let c.t i:cle A i h E- re Y,� "Village on the Lake").
It
•
/?
t
` ," !
Il
a
Request #2 - Minor Partition Creating Two Lots
, 40 LOC 48.000 - Zoning Code:
The following are responses to applicable sections of the Zoning Code which relate to the proposed minor
parition application:
' 48.195 - 48.225 Provisions for R-15 Zones
RESPONSE:
Permitted Uses: The proposed use, for a new lot which will contain one single family detached
dwelling is allowed outright in the R-15 zone.
4t ��
Conditional Uses: None proposed,
Maximum Density: No increase in the overall approved density for the planned development '
proposed. The proposed partition meets the applicable r s of the
t is
development standards and is therefore, specifically in compliance nwith the
following subsection: (;
48.2051. (b) ,
The actual density allowed on a site will be determined at the time of development review,
pursuant to LOC Chapter 49. Maximum density will be allowed to the extent that facts
presented to the hearings body show that development at that density can occur within
requirements set forth in the Development Standards.
• Lot Size: The proposed lot sizes are greater than 15,000 square feet, which is normally the,
minimum lot size allowed in the R-15 zone. However, the "Village on the Lake"
planned development was approved with flexibility to vary lot sizes and many
lots exist which are below 15,000 square feet.
Lot Dimensions: The proposed lot depths exceed the 100-foot minimum requirement of the R15
base zone, however, lot depths in "Village on the Lake" can be minimum-80
feet. The minimum lot width at the front building line in "Village on the'Lake"
is 40 feet. The proposed lot widths at the building exceed this requirement by
having approximately 65-70 feet of lot width at the proposed building lines.
Density Transfer: As discussed under the response
to•,, , Planned Develoment, the overall cap ongdensity for the uested Item pplanneddion development
wa calculated to be 101 units, It is our interpretation; based on review of the
original approval conditions and development plans, that the 101 units are
allowed anywhere within the 34,97 acres of developable land on the site as long
as the proposed development meets the applicable Code standards and
requirements, including lot size/coverage and hillside protection and erosion
control and preservation of natural resource buffer zones.
The proposed partition is located within the 34,97 acres of designated
developable land area, The density of the development will be 94 units if the
proposed partition is approved - 7 less than the overall approved density of 101
. Ill
,r
1
lots. As supported by the application materials and this supplemental narrative, III
the proposed partition complies with all applicable development standards, and
•
therefore meets the intent of this subsection. The subsection states:
48.210 2.
Lot sizes and dimensions may be reduced for projects reviewed as planned
development pursuant to LOC 48.470 to 48.485. However the overall allowed on the site many not be exceeded except allowed by 48.205 (2)ty
• Setbacks: The proposed lots can accomodate the setbacks of the R-15 base zone, which are:
20-foot front yards; 10-foot side yards; and 25-foot rear yards. However,
reduced setbacks are allowed within "Village on the Lake", and these are 5-foot
front yards; 5-foot side yards and 15-foot rear yards.
Height of
Structures: The proposed home will comply with the 35-foot maximum height of the Code.
If necessary to maintain views, the applicant will impose a condition in the sale
of the property which regulates the height and architectural style of the proposed
house.
Lot Coverage: Both homes on the proposed lots will comply with themax
coverage standard.
yimum 30% lot
if
0
48.470
Planned Development Overlay
RESPONSE:
The property under review for minor partitioning is part of the approved "Village on the Lake" l p armed
development, and is therefore subject to the Final Order and Condition of Approval rendered by the
Development Review Board in Case File No. PD 3-85. These conditions were made after review of the
application and verification of its compliance with the provisions of this code section, As addressed in
the minor,partition application submitted to the City July 6, 1990 and throughout this narrative, the
application for minor partition is in compliance with these conditions. A decision of approval for the
minor partition will not increase the overall approved density for the planet development. No changes
in the approved uses and conditions rendered in the Final Order are proposed. a
on the Lake" Conditions of A royal refer to the staff report-ExhibitP (For the�list of "Village
PP 13.)
43.490
Authority to Approve Changes in Planned Development Approval
RESPONSE: •
This section is addressed above, under Requested Item #1 -Modification to Planned Development.
0
7
•
•
•
•
•
da.ti50 Variances
• r
RESPONSE: `
This section will be addressed on page 8, under Requested Item #3 - Variance to Access Stand
ard.
48.800 Hearing Procedures, Appeals
RESPONSE:
The application will be heard before the Development Review Board on September
'nio conformance with the provisions of this section. The public notifications have been issued, and17, 90 in
narrative response to the staff report is being submitted to theity on August 28, twenty d this
C the hearing, as required, days prior to
48.815 Criteria for Approval
1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval.
RESPONSE:
The information submitted in this narrative and as part of the initial application materials confirms
the application's compliance with the applicable Code and Comprehensive Plan rov`• i
providing support and' basis for approval of the requested minor partition, planned develo
modification and variance.
P vrsrons, therefore
pment ,
e2. For any application to be approved, it shall first be es to: tablished that the proposal conforms
a. The City's Comprehensive Plan, and...
RESPONSE:
The application complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive
• compliance with each plan policy is expanded upon beginning on page 12 of this narrati.ve. e specific
b. The applic.�'ble statutory and Code requirements and regulations including,
ng,
i. For variance applications, the standards found in LOC 48.650.
RESPONSE:
The application complies with these provisions as affirmated throughout this n
application submittal materials, narrative and in the
thirilarrativee Specific grov.isior�f for the variance request are addressed
it) the zfp)i c_ .c>-) 5' Y,e rrcet,k,. , vices( '° c�z of
Ubr►-�'�ctec, ,
)
6
8
F
sLOC 49.000 -Development Code:
The following are responses to the applicable sections of the Development Code which relate to the
proposed minor partition:
49.140 Minor Development
" RESPONSE:
Under subsection 1. (H.), a minor partition would normally be classified as a minor development and
would be processed administratively. However, because the application also includes a Class II variance
to The access standard, it ie subject to certain provisions of the major development application process.
40.140 (2)
• Applications for minor developments are considered pursuant to LOC 49.200- .225. Any type of
proposed development listed in this sectiof which is to occur as in integral part of a proposed major
development shall be processed as a pare of that major development.
if RESPONSE: , •
A Class II Variance application is considered a major development action. However, according to
Section 49.300 2., application requirements for Class II Variances shall be the same as that for a minor •
'development application as set forth in LOC 49.200. There is some discrepancy here, because the staff
required the applicant to meet the application requirements for major developments.
0 li •
49.300 Major Development Application Procedures
49.300 2. it!,
> •
,
The application requirements for major partitions, Class II variances,secondary dwelling units and
;group care facilities shall be the same as that for a minor development application as set forth in
LOC 49.200. A pre-application conference may be scheduled at the request of staff or the
applicant. All other provisions of LOC 49.300 - 49.335 shall apply to these types of applications,
9-305 Application Procedure -Initial Staff Contact `f
1"tESPONSE: €0(
The applicant contact�staff member, Mike Wheeler, prior to submitting the application, At that time Mr,
W1 eeler informed the applicant that no pre-application conference would be necessary for the proposed
minor partition, which is consistent with the provisions of Section 49.300 2. above. Therefore, the "
applicant submitted the application on June 22, 1990. The applicant was then contacted by staff member,
Lnn Bailey, who stated that the application would require a pre-application conference after all and it
would have to be re-submitted 7 days after the pre-application conference in compliance with Code
requirements,
II .
,,,
.
✓'
•
. .. Sr y
49.315 Application Procedure Pre-Application Conference
• RESPONSE:
A pre-application conference was held between the applicant, the applicant's planning representative and
the assigned staff members from the City on June 28, 1990. The discussion about the proposed partition
and Class II Variance application was positive and informal. To the applicant's knowledge, no checklist
was completed which defined specific information pertinent to the application. Neither the applicant or
the applicant's planning representative received a completed copy of a checklist as required by this section
of the Code.
It is important to note that at the pre-application conference the applicant was not clearly informed of the
specific items tha would need to be addressed for the application. The applicant was in contact with staff
members after1aication was formally accepted as complete, and new issues and negative observations
continued to be raised about the application that were not discussed during the formal submittal process. ,_..
Before the application was completely reviewed by the City, the applicant was told by the assigned staff
member to the case that a recommendation for denial would he issued. Subsequently, even more new
issues were raised in the staff report, requiring the applicant to request a postponement for the hearing
to adequately address staff concerns.
49.315 Application Procedure - Application to Development Review Board
RESPONSE:
In compliance with this section, the applicant has provided all information required by Code for review
and approval. Although LOC Sections 48.490, 49.140 and 49.300 2. (as stated above) suggest that the
111) minor partition/Class II variance/p.d. modification should have been subject to minor development /
application requirements, the applicant has provided information required for major developments to
support the application's compliance with the applicable provisions of the zoning and development codes
and standards and comprehensive plan policies as outlined below:
Narrative/
Statement of
Intent: An narrative describing the proposed development action and its compliance with the
applicable Code and Comprehensive Plan provisions was submitted to the City for review
in the application package.
Site Plans: Site plans, tax lot maps, surveys and vicinity maps containing all the required information
including proposed parcel dimensions,areas,setback lines,existing topography,trees and
distinctive natural areas, access and utility service to the site and adjacent property uses
were submitted,
Soils Data: A preliminary ' (
geotechnzc.u'evaluation confirming the site stability and illustrating two
feasible locations for hones on the subject site was submitted to the City. The report
verifies that there is no p entiai for landslide hazard on the site because the underlying
' material is comprised of slid rock,
Notification
List:
The applicant provided the City with a list of all adjacent property owners within 300 feet
of the subject development, as required by Code,
ill
10
II
l-�_' • ./
49.315 (13) Computation of Allowed UnitsIII
• RESPONSE:
Support for approval of the application is provided from this subsection of the Code which states:
F. The area of Density Transfer Acre may be added to the area of Net Developable Acre for
), the purpose of density calculation to the extent that the applicant has demonstrated by site
specific information (in specified cases by an engineer's report) that the requirements of the
` , Development Standards will be met for all units proposed to be built. The number of units
r alloecated to the Density Tansfer Acreage is computed in the same manner as the base
number of units or FAR is calculated pursuant to subsection E, less any units which cannot
be placed due to failure to comply with the requirements of the Development Standards.
• RESPONSE:
This subsection of the Code is consistent with the density table that was prepared for "Village on the
Lake" in the original planed development application (refer to staff report, Exhibit 14, page 5). The
requirement is that as long aft the proposed development does not exceed the calculated density cap (in
this case 101 units) and meets the applicable Development Standards, development can occur any where
within the developable area of the site. Y
•
The proposed partition will not increase the overall approved density of 101 units. As will be further
addressed later in this narrative, the development complies with the applicable Development Standards.
The development is proposed on land which has been designated and approved as developable area in the
original plan. 0 ,
49.320 Staff Review, Revisions
(1) The assigned staff person shall review the application for completeness and shall accept
or
return with written list of omissions within seven calendar days of the date of filing. The
date of acceptance of a completed application shall be indicated on all documents.
RESPONSE:
The applicant did not receive a written list of ommissions from the staff, and was not contacted by staff
for submittal of additional application materials until July 19, 13 days after the July 6th submittal date.
Although according to the written letter of acceptance, staff reviewed and determined the application to
J be complete on July 13, the letter was not actually written and sent until July 26, 20 days after the July
6th submittal date. (See attached Exhibit B.)
,.
It is critical that the applicant receive notices of complete application and requests for additional
information in a timely manner. Because staff failed to implement its request within the guidelines of ,
the Code, the applicant was not provided sufficient time to ten
respond,
areas where the application was not complete for review, p The staff report suggests several
were not made known to the applicant in the July 26th notice fof ompl to application,rtunately, these issuesof nd the ale licincomant
had to request continuance of the hearing in order to have adequate time to respond to the staff report,
ri. (2) Revisions or alterations of an application may be made following acceptance where mutually
agreeable to the applicant and staff. The applicant shall be responsible for providing fully
• .
revised application materials. The staff shall be responsible for clearly identifying revised
11
I
p. .
•
•
•
•
• 1
•
Application materials in the record of the application and related staff reviews.
® Recisions shall not be accepted any later
than on the application. Revisions after that timeemay be date of nmadee o►nlyon rbyor tresubmittinghe pl ic the
application. the
RESPONSE:
The applicant provided revised materials as requested by staff within the required twentytime-period to the hearing in accordance with this subsection: day time-period
49.615 Criteria for Approval (Hearing Body Approvals),
•
(1) The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval.
•
RESPONSE:
As supported by this narrative and the application materials submitted to the City, the applicant has
the burden of proof showing that the application for minor partition, Class II variance, and modification
to the"Village on the Lake"planned development'complies with all the applicable P borne
•
and Comprehensive Plan, and therefore, warrants a decision of approval P provisions of the Code
,
(2) For any development application to be approved, it shall first be established tht the
conforms to proposal
A. The City Comprehensive Plan
0 RESPONSE:
The applicant stated that the application complied with the Comprehensive Plan by
Development Standards and Code requirements specifically related to the request. To thoroughly
this, each applicable general policy of the Comprehensive Plan is addressed conforming to the
which are not applicable to the proposal are not addressed, below, (Note: g Plan policies ly support
iJrba— erviece Boundary Pnlicie.
General Policy III is the applicable Urban Service Boundary has the responsibility to manage and phase urban growth according ohe the levels oftusrbants r City
RESPONSE: ev,ces.
All urban services, including water and sanitary sewer are available to the site. "
was orginally approved for 101 single family homes. If the proposed partition is approved, the actual
• Village on the Lake"
built-out density of the development will be 94 units or single family homes - 7 less than the
• density.
approved •
According to the original application approval, all levels of urban facilities` including school capacities,
supportable traffic levers, Utilities and emergency services are in place to serve the approved density
101 units, The proposed partition which will make the total built-out density94 a
included in the review of level of services within the orignal approval of the plannedT e
site plans submitted with dre';t�Jplication illustrated the existingutilities units, has already been
proposed two lots, and the K�aff report verifies that these facilities development; The
and access available to serve the
staff report.) are Sufficient
III (Refer to page 8 of the.
12
,
v
•
•
•
r ' ' ?1 �M3'+ o
40
. .
Impact Management Policies: )
' F
The objective of having the Impact Management Policies is to ensure that new development and
redevelopment is compatible with community objectives related to the natural environment,
cornmunit character, public provision of services, facilities and programs, and ensures the quality
of life. All the general policies of this section are applicable.
General Policy I - Protect natural resources and processes.
RESPONSE: ,
As stated in the staff report, the "Village on the Lake" was approved after review of its compliance;with
these policies. One condition of the approval was that a 40-foot wide protected natural buffer be tinted
adjacent to the lake on the subject parcel. This buffer area will be maintained and platted on the two
proposed lots in the partition. The two lots will conform to the requirements of the preservation of this area as outlined in Condition of Approval #13 of the Final Order for the "Village on the Lake" planned
development. Additionally, the proposal meets the maximum 30% lot coverage requirement and the
standards for hillside protection and erosion control (as outlined in Exhibit 4 of the staff report).
' . General Policy II - Evaluate development proposals comprehensively.
}
RESPONSE:
It is important to note that if the minor partition is approved, the site will be developed to a density that
is 7 units lower than the 101 that were originally approved. Therefore, the proposed partition does not produce any additional impacts to the overall development which have not already been evaluated in the original approval.
III
Another important consideration is that the„developrent lies within the Urban Growth Boundary. In
order to assure protection of important rtsiiu rce lands and natural areas outside the U.G,B,,in keeping with the statewide goals, it is crucial that we use land inside the U.G.B. efficiently. Because the proposed
partition is within an approved development, and will not increase the overall approved density of this
development; and because the proposal complies with all the applicable Development Standards and Code "
provisions, it is an efficient use of designated residential land inside the U.G.B., and should be allowed.
General Policy III - Require new development to pray costs.
`')
RESPONSE: •
The applicant is responsible for the applicable costs of development of the property, including the cost
of gaining approval for the project:
General Policy IV- Require new development to pay for administration.
RESPONSE:
The applicant has paid the required City application fees in conformance with this policy,
General Policy V - Plan and program public services.
RESPONSE:
As are alread addressed under
the serve the onse totheUrban Service Boundary Policies, all the necessary public services
proposed partition, '
..
i
C ; n,
13 ;�
e
,
1.
•
Overall Density Pori y1
• The Comprehensive plan, zoning and development
•
or intensity for particular\parcels of land in the Urban Se vi a Area tablish Th The de the mimum density
be_related to site conditions, availability or capacity of public facilities and ability to satisfactorilyril
re'',olve potential impacts which may be.caused by proposed development. The actual dh.nsit.
will be permitted on each particular site cannot be estimated in advance. All General Policiesapply,which
and will be addressed in one response:
General Policy I - Maintain density within capacity of planned public facilities.
General Policy II- Maintain approximate overall average net developed residential density.
General Policy III- Allocate densities according to land suitability and facilities capacil •
RESPONSE: Y
The approved designated density of 101 units for "Village on the Lake" was determined under th
guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan,'zoning and development regulations which is consists e
objective of the Overall Density Policy. nt with the
•
As stated previously, the partition represents an efficient;use of land within the U.G.B., which is
necessary to maintain approximate overall average net developed residential density within the Cit
to preserve important resource lands and natural areas outside the U.G.B. y, and
Distinctive Natural Ara Pa fietp.
The objective of these policies is to preserve the wooded natural character of Lake Oswe
individual distinctive natural features prized by residents, go, and the
iipGeneral Policy I-Preserve tree stands.
;
RESPONSE:
The proposed partition will preserve the distinctive natural character of the site by preserving trees
and
vegetation within the 40-wide natural buffer area adjacent to the lake, as well as within other areas on
site. The existing home was built while saving the majority of trees on the site. The applicant is
,n sensitive to protecting the trees and natural aesthetic character of the property, and has evaluated the
proposed new homesite accordingly. It is estimated that no trees over 8" caliper will have to be removed
in order to build the new home,
General PolicyII- a
Preserve Distinctive Natural Areas,
•
RESPONSE:
Oswego Lake and the abutting 40-foot wide natural buffer on site are considered to be distinctive natural
ral
The applicant will comply with all applicable requirements for preservation of the natural buffet'
4 area, and in order to address the Lake Oswego Corportation concerns,
proposes
Approval be placed on the application that only Parcel II will be allowed to bu id a boat d ckndition of
IIII
14
c
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Potenith i,;aL5n1 l ie_Area Polici
The objective of these pol.'es is to protect life and property0 '4
to landslide, and to preserve the hillside beauty communiy natural from residents value.isaster and hazard due
General Policy I - Identify areas with potential landslide hazard.
RESPONSE:
The site is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as having the potential for severe limitation i
foundation or unstable soils are present. A preliminary if weak
completed. The evaluation confirmed that the underlying tsurface material evaluati�on thn of the site,
as ty has beeny
lakeside properties, is solid Miocene Basalt rock, extending several hundred feet te' w'� many )
stable condition for home building,and eliminating the concern for landslide potential.and producing a very
Site Plan, Figure 3, in the geotechnical report (Exhibit 12 in staff report) illustrates two
P ial, The Preliminaryo
foundation scenarios for the property, confirming the fact that two homes can bepossible
and supported on the site. feasibly be constructed
General Policy II-Encourage open space uses in identified high risk areas,
RESPONSE: > X
The site is within an area approved for residential development and does not include any
Protection Open Space areas or high risk areas. As discussed above, the protected natural buffer
identified
be maintained on both proposed lots. .
ffer strip will
General Policy III- Develop standards to guide development ip\
high risk areas.
ID ..
RESPONSE: �,
Because the underlying surface material of the site is concern. However, it should be noted that the applications omplid esrwitisk h applicable potential
is not a
• and erosion control development standards, which regulate development on steepslopes. protection
Exhibit 4 in the staff report, which contains slope and coverage calculations which have •
opes. Please refer to
by the applicant for both proposed lots, been prepared
A
Please note that the proposed building alternatives for Parcel I, as shown i
for Exhibit 4 represent scenarios for footprints that could be accornodated on the site while in
• P y g graphics
applicable development standards, No formal building footprint is proposed for Parcel ileastnthi meeting the
An actual building design, including specific plans for proposed footings, ,
p ps time,
P grading, roof drains, etc, will
construction,s submitted
for review during the Building Permit process, as is normally required of all single-family
Also, to address the concern that two of these buidding footprint scenarios are located on
a storm drainage easement. This is an error that appeared in the graphic development of these P lans,
however, it does not invalidate the plans because the building footprints can be flipped and moved to the
west slightly to avoid the storm drainage easement, while still meeting the hillside protection
Regulate standard.
General Policy IV-
g e density and intensity of land use in hazard areas;
RESPONSE:
As discussed above, the proposed partition is located within an area approved for residential
e tnt development does not increase the overall density of"Village on the Lake", i i ;
development.
applicable Development Standards, As supported by this narrative and the application,complies with the
development complies with these requirements,
the proposedIIII ,
•
15
,,\ 1,
,• �1,
„ „ .
Potential Erosion Area Policiest
,
.---\.)'The objective of these policies is to protect life and property from natural distaster and hazard due
to soil erosion, and to preserve the hillside beauty, community residents value.
RESPONSE:
Because the site contains steep slopes, potential for erosion exists. However, the applicant has
demonstrated that the City standards for hillside protection and erosion control can be met by the
proposed home construction. The applicant has also submitted a geotechnical evaluation which attests to
the site's stability.
Oswego Lake Policies;
These policies are implemented to protect Oswego Lake as a valued natural resource and to enhance
the community's visual access.
RESPONSE:
• The applicant has chosen to live adjacent to Oswego Lake because it is a unique natural feature and visual
amenity. The applicant will comply with all standards for development of which apply to his property
adjacent to the lake. Additionally, if necessary, the applicant will impose deed restrictions which regulate
the height and architectural style of the proposed home on Parcel Ito protect views to the lake for his
property and those adjacent.
As discussed previously in this narrative, in response to the Lake Oswego Corporation's concerns about
the applicant,having boat dock facilities for both proposed lots; the applicant proposes that only Parcel
II be allowed the ability to construct a boat dock. This solution is consistent with the original agreements
fb between the original property developer and The Lake Oswego Corporation.
4
Social Resources Policies:
The objective of these policies: is the developernent of a community environment designed to
encourage creative community living and sense of identity.
RESPONSE: •
• Again the proposed partition will not increase the overall approved density of"Village.on the Lake", and
the original application for "Village on the Lake" was found to be in compliance with these policies, as
the staff report states. The site design for access and utility service will not change
partition; The proposal complies with the applicable natural resource and hillside protection standards,
The applicants are the homeowners of the property and are therefore, part of the "Village on the Lake" t' '
community, Because of this, they are sensitive to the natural and aesthetic qualities of their community,
and if necessary, they will impose deed restrictions that regulate the home construction, including
obstruction of views and architectural style and materials in order to preserve the quality of the
community living that they and their neighbors value,
/, . 1.
s
•
16 f
•
4+
i jl
, .
Residential Density Poli ��•
. .
These policies are implemented to assure density is in accordance with site conditon • y,
of city services or facilities, s, and capacity ,,
RESPONSE: '
The application complies with this policy because the proposed two lots are part of the;,proved density
"cap" calculation of 101 units for "Village on the Lake". The proposal meets the Code standards for
development on slopes, lot coverage, lot sizes and lot dimensions, and the site has been confirmed
through geotechnical evaluation to be stable and suitable for the proposed residential development.
Considering these factors, the proposal makes efficient use of land by bringing the overall density of
"Village on the Lake" closer to its approved figure of 101 units, while meeting the objective of the
Residential Density Policies for density relationship to site conditions and facilities.
• Protection On n Sne Poli ts
Oswego Lake is a designated protected open space feature.
be regulated to protect essential natural processes, avoid naturaliahazardst andsW Oswego Lake are to
unique
natural areas valued for the scientific, educational, recreational or community dentityebenefits
, provided.
RESPONSE:
rotectP
' The 40-foot
protected natural buffer adjacent to the lake on the site is provided to meet the objective of
this policy. Through previous approvals, the applicant has the right for access through this buffer area',eceitopro theposed lake,to con as fiwellne as the right to build boat dock facilities. As previously discussed the
n� righdl to only proposed Parcel u not applicant
bcY�r 'special requirements for preservation of the natural buff Parcel I. Both lots will comply with the io
'i
es.µ- —' Conditions of Approval (PD 3-85, Condition#13).
er area, as outlined in the planned development
The staff report-seems states that these policies require hillsides and slopes with potential for landslide
hazard to be designated as Protection Open Space. As verified by the geotechnical
the underlying surface material is solid rock, eliminating the b$ncern forelandslide pvaluation of the ential.
Additionally, the proposed development complies with the standards for development potential.
Therefore, this portion of "Village on the Lake" is not designated and has never been designated
P on hillsides.
Protection Open Space. The only applicable area of Protection Open Space that concerns the application as
at hand is Oswego Lake, which was addressed in the above paragraph.
8
Ili ,
17
41
•
49.615
Criteria for Approval
0
(Z) Cont'd: For any development application to be approved, y
a proposal conforms to: It shall first be established tht
� the
B. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations,g lotions,
RESPONSE:
•
The application complies with all applicable statutory Code requirements and regulations
this supplemental narrative and the application materials, as outlined in
is needed to support the application's compliance with the Code tr qui ementst for Solar Accessed that
and
evidencer
Cutting. The following are more detailed responses to these ordinanc a; ess and Tree
Solar Access Ordinance:
The existing home is exempt from compliance with the Solar Access Ordianance -e it
built under the original approval of "Village on the Lake" which was not required to
solar access standards. However, it should be noted that the existinghomebecause is already,
standard anyway by having its long axis oriented south q comply with the
east-westtandad axis. This meets the Performance Option sectionsouof compliesn with the solar access
facing at an angle less than 30 degrees from a true `
the standard.
Because the proposed Parcel I, which will contain the new home, has an irregular
not be evaluated under the normal criteria for solar access. The Basic Requirement for
that the lot have a minimum of 90 feet of north-south lot depth and a front configuration, it can
30 degrees of a true east-west axis. The lot has the. min. 90 feet of north-south solar access is
because ite is a similar to a flag lot in shape, its front lot line is lot line that is depth, however,o within
411) east-west.ause However,rt the lot does meet the solar accesswithin
lot egr
not oriense ted n actu the 30h degrees oftrue
north-south, in keeping with the intent of the ordinance, and the home can be oriented lot is oriented front building line within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis, meeting the requirements for solar with access.front
• •
It should be noted, however, that tall firs are located south of the existing
which may impact solar access opportunities• and proposed building sites
• Tree Cutting Ordinance:
A tree survey was provided with the application which shows the location
of all in caliper measured at chest-height, The survey shows that the majority of thetth s with s�, and above
outside the proposed and existing building areas, a trees ire located
?,b
The applicant has preserved all but one or two of these trees in construction of the
new home, and was
approval. It seems ,
reviewed for compliance with the tree-cutting ordinance at the time of buildingpermit
evident for the proposed new homesite, no trees will be impacted, because the building will sit toward '
the top of the slope and the large trees are located down the slope.
P
The review of tree-cutting is normally an aspect that is reviewed on a site specific basis
permit application since it is during this phase that actual building and site construction -�+r
for each building �
residential lots are submitted, At this time, during the planning approvals
approval partition the roe plans for '
property rty and not approval for home construction npsi e. For this we are requesting
a , it
seems in appropriate to submit a site grading plan and tree-cutting plan at this time as staff
• this should be a requirement at the �
building permit approval stage, as is normally the case,requests, and
18
•
••
4, F.' , ,
•
1
49.615 Criteria for Approval11110 4,,
(2) Cont'd. For any development application to be approved, it shall first be established(
proposal conforms to: � that the ,
t
C. The applicable development standards,
RESPONSE:
The application complies with the applicable development standards as was supported by the original
application.materials. Staff made the observation that some of these standards were not addressed
adequately by the application. For this reason, the following responses are submitted in support of the
application. The responses are written with focus on the specific issues raised in the staff re
•
review of compliance with each,standard, port report
1) Parking and Loading:
The original application narrative clearly stated on Page 2 that two off-street ar ' c
provided on each proposed homesite in compliance with the Code standard.
P long �Qaces would be
The existing home and driveway are already built and comply with this standard. The
has not yet been designed. However, sufficient space is available to provide two standard-sized ooff-street
oe
parking spaces within the driveway/)garage entry area. This is an element which can be reviewed
verified during building permit approval for the home. and
III
Drainage
g Standard for Minor Development:
The construction of the existing home has complied with all standards and
drainage, The geotechnical evaluation of the site which was submitted with the apply at onuconfirms for
there is no concern for potential landslide on thel site, Again, detailed plans for foundations/footings,
grading around buildings and roof drain design are required at the building permit stage ofthef project,
and reviewed before approving the project for construction.
Weak Foundation Soils:
The site is not designated by the Comprehensive Plan as having Weak Foundation Soil
geotechnical evaluation of the property confirms the sites stability and suitabilitysadd_the
construction, Therefore, this standard does not apply to the application. for residential
.
•
Hillside Protection and Erosion Control:
This standard was thoroughly addressed in the application materials for the project and throughout
supplemental narrative, Please refer to Exhibit 4 in the staff report, b ut this
are at least three different home design options that can fit on Parcel Ihand meet cthisrstashows ndard,that there
The grading that has occured on the site during the construction the existing grades on the proposed adjacent parcel significantly enough affect the calculations onsting home has nots o f slope
coverage that were prepared, of slopeIII
° 19
.
Hillside Protection and Erosion Control, Cont'd:
110
The density transfer issue has been described previously in this narrative and does not relate
applications compliance to the Hillside Protection and Erosion'Control standard.<, to the
Access Standard:
The application also includes a request for a variance from this standard. In the
the specific Criteria for Approval were thoroughly addressed. Support for the variance is expanded upon
under Requested Item#3 Class )R'Variance. a application materials,
Site Circulation -Private Streets/Driveways:
The proposed lots will be served by Twin Points Drive, which is a private street.
currently serves four lots and can sufficiently serve the proposed new lot. The private street.
!I
The driveway for the proposed new lot will comply with maximum gradient re uiremants, as will be
reviewed during the building permit process.
9
49.615 Criteria for Approval
(2) Cont'd. For any development application to be approved, it shall
first be established that the
. IP D.
11\ Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS.
RESPONSE:
As noted in the staff report, no such plans exist which affect the proposed partition.p ition.
Request N - la c
IT ygrinu to the A n aec ca., a
sup+V.���
The Variance to the Access Standard has been requested because the site is rovid
a private street, The site actually has approximately 210 feet of frontage along this private
two proposed lots will obtain access from this street through a recorded ingress-egress
o provided access by way of
serves tree other lots. P ate street.a The
�nbress-egress easement that also
Howe er, ih�e C�Ode requires that fo
r or public streets, all Single family lots must have 25 feet of frontage.
'Thactuality request for a variance under these circumstances is common and not unreasonable,
tualit the development meets the intent of the ordinance by having sufficient frontage
issue is that access is onto a private street, not public, as the Code language because in
for access, The
immediate area of the proposed partition have the same access constraint, and have been
variances accordingly, ;;
l;tit tie specifies, Several lots in the
granted access
•
•
20
I
, LOT CONSOLIDATION GRAPHIC f, •
101 LOTS APPROVED '
99 LOTS PLATTED •
r,
93 LOTS ACTUAL • •
/ .:�•,,, 1 LOT PROPOSED IN MINOR 'PARTITION. - i
• • • 94 LOTS = BUILT OUT DENSITY
p
I�
', q 'I g I
\\............,-1....,'•• ,) of
;( R )
e
•
ro� ❑•0 1,:i. � .
;.','';;� 10. 6•,t•.Sr: J •
a � :370:17.3314.0151:terli:::/r4.8X,04.t
M1OpxN aFt•1cz
.• �2'J 31. slili}�'�._, t.' �',r• � • . . ' �•t14. 1tl t �•i' i.. •�
• ChNsal.1 ai'res:. • 1,,l =`- 1,}t'j,tj}t{' ,i
• j i i"•�1,11 " ' ,'
3Lars ii1i1,,' 1 ,, i ;' ~, o
,,,,Tv i}t, tt,t q;l�, tt.• p 0
' •+ 1ii,itlls.'•�•t,risiilt'itt pit -
, 1 Z. r t?iili. '•in•,, li li4 N t
}iii lilitilu :lift hi!ti' i� f ! I. `,
+ ,r i t;ili 1},i,itt�lliiiltt,i �1 �y � .' •
• ii�llQtii't,, R g -./O i 10 � •••S'•
' `' 'lit. ) �^
1 M v.
r ti¢li,:, i .."", '•......' . ,..,.••%•, VI N ! li tit, 0
....v.„,,,,,
..4de.tu. N / IQ
it l.V•
T �' ''• ,�
7C` t':1�"',;•lt lr � /I
� .�.I�ti d eo ♦ I
1.
ii, , t......ra
'''''. ig \\:,.. gs4Qu'rNFATEIL.,"AL"
suik
co
4 U 71-
J m ; .. r.. •t ,- a 15 P2oPOs$A Ott.
3' 1 • , 1 1 t
11',
ll 111 1t w'
ie
• t,� u.,i t ls� • , .O ila v., '••�
1 j1d'st ti Y•
•
•
tt itly r0
•.............
1i.i i.e i flit 7 +'. __
s st ,i f 11,{s t110 \ N rr�. ^
• 1.6-r.5 . 1,213
B4aw 7 .
• C4N60I..1 wont 1 • r 0
•• La-r't I) z,3,4, 5,
3 l.ot< IM/o 2- 0
DLde.lc i DAVIS MINOR PARTITION •
443IJ5O1..I0krtD 6 LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON
LDt"s !NIT) 4.
EXHIBIT A
r
l
. (.1)S)
5VEo 19
" July 26, 1990
/� 310'A•Aftnu,
' POeoi319 L
f , , 1..710twogo
W °""n$7071 Mandi Carver
�I nnieq OTAK, Inc,
P.O. Box 1379 ,
Li s�a.lss.osgl
Enllnlulnq �,
ao�.�as•oz�o Lake Oswego, OR 9703�i%
euudiq
soa.ius.10790 RE: SD 30-90/VAR 16-90/PD 3-85 (MOD. 7-90)
Up)
soa•us�FAi �>
Dear Mandl:
•
The above application was reviewed and determined to be complete on July 13,
I"" /e 1990. As discussed in our recent meeting, there appear to be several problems
Z that should be cleared up prior to further processing. First, the coverage
kJ) calculation for the applicable Hillside Protection and Erosion Control Standard
should be revised to provide evidence that 70%
be preserved. Second, the colored slope analysis is labeled•backwards and should
l
be redone using patterns so that reproduction on 8 1/2 X 11 paper can occur. I�1 would appreciate receiving any revised materials by noon on,July 27, 1990.
0 If a variance to DS 16.005-16.040 is necessary, the August 20, 1990 hearin
would have to be postponed to September 5, 1990, because the notice that i sg
It ready to be mailed on July 27, 1990 would have to be revised.
Please contact me ,
for the proper date for posting the site once you have submitted revised materials.
If no revisions are submitted, the posting date is July 27, 1990.
r I1 As we have also discussed, it appears that Staff may not be in support of the
%..J eN partition and plat modification request since density transfer for the site already
w occurred during review and approval of PD 3-85, V'
' 3o
Subdivision. Village on the Lake
Li I now have all the background files available in my office•. You are welcome to
come in and examine them at any time,
If you have any questions,please contact me.
• r Respectfully,
/_/ �
1 7
.1., Q r nn D, Bailey
Associate Planne ' 4
r4
LB:cf �`
1 I1 cc: Drew Davis
1 Jefferson Hwy., #68 ,
J Lake Oswego, OR 97035
1 P
(Cor esIl ynn>Carver.ltri 6
EXHIBIT
•
STAFF REPORT
' • CITY OF LAKE
OSWEGO
-- AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIV
ISION--
ApPLtf„ALI FD M
Drew Davis
SD 30--90WAR 16-9 PD 3-85(Mod, 7-90) `�
. PROPEK QW E\ STAFF:
Drew Davis Lynn Bailey
•
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT:
Tax Lot 2900 of August 10, 1990
+ Tax Map 2 1E 9BD Supplemental
LOCATIGN: DATE OF HEARING:
August 20, 1990
At the east terminus of Twin Points Drive
right—of—way (Lot 28, Block 4, Village on the OOD AScnrrnTrnlr+
Lake Subdivision)111 •�� .
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: None
R-15 ZONING DESIGNATION:
R-15 yr
n
4. ' 1. APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval for a land partition to create two lots. Since the site is a
• platted lot in the Village on the Lake planned development, this request is also a request to
modify the approved planned development layout. The applicant is also requesting a 25 foot
Class II Variance to the 25 foot lot frontage requirement (DS 18.020(1) for proposed Parcel 2,
II, APPLICABLE REGULATIONS `
A. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance:
LOC 48,195-48.225
R-15 Zone Description (setbacks, lot area, lot
LOC 48.470 coverage)elopment Overlay
LOC 48.470 Planned Dev
Authority to Approve Changes in Planned
Development Approval
SD 30-90\VAR 16-90\PD 3-85(Mod. 7-90) ' EXHIBIT
Page 1 of 10
So .36-9Nk1
01
0
13. 'Ciw of ,ak. IS ••4_eo v -lopment ogle;
LOC 49'090 Applicabilityof ailment Standards
0 LOC 49.140 Minor Development
LOC 49.220-49.210 Minor Development Procedures
•
LOC 49.300 Major Development Procedures
LOC 49.500 Variances
LOC 49.510 Variance Standards
LOC 49.615 ' Criteria for Approval
C. t :ake Osuan npvelonment Stanriande•
5.005-5.040 Street Lights
7.005 7.040 Parking&Loading Standard
10.005- 10.040 Fences
' , 12.005 - 12.040 Drainage Standard for Minor Development
• 13.005- 13.040 Weak Foundation Soils
14.005 14.040 Utility Standard
16.005- 16.040 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control
18.005- 18.040 Access Standard
19.005 - 19.040 Site Circulation-Private Streets/Driveways
D. City of?.akP n� .,o,,,,n ___
alb:
Urban Services Boundary Policies -I
General Policy III
Impact Management Policies • ,
General Policy I, II
Distinctive Natural Area Policies
General Policy I, II
Potential Landslide Areas Policies
General Policy I, IV
Social Resource Policies
General Policy I
Residential Density Policies
General Policy I, III
Protection Open Space Policies
General Policy I, II
(‘"
E.
Gwero nr ccpe� Ordinsnre;
LOC 57.005-57,135 ,(
F. C1tYiZfl.ake OSweQo Tree rttr_n^qY .
LOC 55,010-55,130
III
SD 30-90\VAR 16-90\PD 3-85(Mod, 7-00) 0
Page 2 of 10
•
III. FINS
• A. Ezit ' g _nnditinns:
1. The site is approximately 31,627 square feet it`asize and is similar to a flag lot in
shape. The western 160 feet of the site (the pole portion)is a paved shared access
easement area to properties to the southwest of the site (See Exhibit 1).
2. The site is a platted lot in the Village on the Lake planned development (PD 3-85)
which was approved by the Board in 1985 after public hearings (See Exhibits 141-
23).
3. In 1986, an administrative lot line adjustment was approved(SD 03-86-04) which
added a 3,754 square foot triangular piece of land onto the east side of the site (See
Exhibit 16.
4. A single family residence is under construction on the eastern portion of the site.
5. The site has been graded to accommodate the residence under construction. Aside
from the access driveway and building area for the existing house, slopes on the
site generally exceed 50% (based on site inspection and Exhibits 5 and 7).
6. There is an 8 inch sanitary serer line within a 10' public utility,easement, running
east—west just north of the residence under construction.
7. Public water serves the site through an 8" inch line in Twin Points Drive.
8. Roof and foundation drains for the residence under construction will be routed
directly downhill to Oswego Lake.
B. Compliance with Criteria for Approval:
As per LOC 49.615, staff must consider the following criteria when evaluating
development proposals:
•
1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval.
Though the basic submittal requirements of LOC 49.200 are met, the applicant has not
borne the burden of proof for all applicable criteria as will be demonstrated in this report.
The applicant's submittals are attached as Exhibits 1 through 12.
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 applicant provided only conclusionary statements regarding compliance with the
City's Comprehensive Plan policies (See Exhibit 3, pages 2 and 4). These statements do
not demonstrate compliance with Plan policies. Staff has listed and addressed the
applicable plan policies below:
•
SD 30-90\VAR 16-90\PD 3-85(Mod, 7-90)
Page 3 of 10
t •
•
•
Urban Service Boundary Policies
•
Specific Policy 5, which is used as a guide in interpreting the meaning of General Polic*
• I1T, states that new development shall be serviced by an "urban level" of services,
• including schools. This specific policy also states that these services are to be available
or committed prior to approval of development. Exhibit 28 (the City Council
memorandum of December 5, 1989)demonstrates that the current level of school
0
planning and coordination between the City and School District satisfy this General
Policy. The passage of a 17 million dollar school levy in November of 1989 further
assures adequate school facilities.
Impact Management Policies
These policies require protection of natural resources from development and
comprehensive review of development proposals. These policies require assurance th,u
distinctive areas will be preserved, soil will be protected from erosion, trees be protected
from removal,and that density be limited to achieve these results. These issues were
reviewed for the site during the planned development process for the Village on the Lake
subdivision (See Exhibit 13,pages 5-13 and Exhibit 14, page 5). The site is alrca iy
being developed at the density for which it was approved.
Distinctive Natural Area Policies
These policies require the City to preserve native tree stands and those features li ted as
distinctive, such as steep slopes. The site has already been reviewed for its natural
features and was approved by the Board for development of one single family residence `
(Sec Exhibit 13,page 6 "b" and "f'). The applicant has not demonstrated how the
proposed partition will preserve the extremely steep slopes and the large trees on the s° e�
Potential Landslide Area Policies
These policies require identification of arm with potential for landslide hazard and
t quire the City to regulate land use,density and intensity of activity in landslide areas,
The site is designated as having a high degree landslide potential. The applicant has
•
partially addressed these policies by submitting Exhibit 12, which is a preliminary
geotechnical report and consultation for the site. Exhibit 12 indicates that the site as a
whole is "suitable for residential support". It confirms excavation and foundation
requirements for the residence currently under construction and provides evidence that
two potential foundations sites on the site were evaluated. The applicant's proposal and
narrative do not address how density and development of the site are being limited in
order to preserve slopes, therefore these policies have not been met,
Social Reso me Policies •
P ese policies require protectionnd aestheticof ares valuableiu to community identity and
of features
reservation of the naturalwhich are the pride of residents. These
policies are implemented through the ,Natural Resource Policies discussed previously and
through application of specific development standards such as the Hillside Protection and
Erosion Control Standard. The Village on the Lake subdivision, in which the site lies,
was reviewed through the planned development process. Through that process, the site,
as part of the original proposal, was found to meet these policies, The applicant has not
adequately demonstrated how an additional increase in density on the site would meet
these policies,
SD 30=•90WAR 16-904'D 3-85(Mod. 7-90)
Page 4 of 10
Residential Density_Pglidu
General Policies I and III require that density be appropriately related to site conditions.
The site was evaluated during the previous planned development process as being an
0 appropriate size for one single family residence due to its steep slopes and trees (See
Exhibit 13,pages 8 and15). Exhibit 29 waa,submitted during thepublic hearing process
to demonstrate how disturbance to slopes on the site could be minimized. It does rot
indicated that two lots or two residences were proposed. The applicant has not
adequately addressed these policies and has not demonstrated how an increase in density
is appropriate for the site considering its steep slopes and treed character,
Protection Open Space Policies
•
These policies require hillsides and slopes with potential for landslide hazard to be
designated as Protection Open Space. These policies specify that the Natural Resource
Policies should govern the protection of these sensitive lands.
As
discussed/ the applicant has not adequately addressed the applicable Natural Resource Policies.previously,'
• a result, the applicant has Iikewise not demonstrated compliance with the Protection
Open Space Policies.
b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations.
Z!
Zoning Code Requirements and Analysis
•
The applicant's narrative addresses Zoning Code requirements (See Pages 1 and 2 of
Exhibit 3). The applicant has not adequately addressed all of the applicable criteria, '
which are analyzed below.
LOC 48.205(1)(b) states that the actual density allowed on a site will be determined at
•
the time:lf development review, and that maximum density will be based on the extent
•
• that the proposal meets the Development Standards. Density for the site was determined
during the previous planned development process(See Exhibit 13, pages 7(#2); Exhibit '�
13,page 8; Exhib t 14,page 5, and Exhibit 17,page 5). The Board added a specific
condition directing the applicant to keep development off steepslopes (Exhibit
15 (#14), Staff finds that the existing density on the site is apropr te t st cconditions.
The applicable Development Standards may not be met. They are addressed further on in
this report.
LOC 48.210(1) specifies a basic lot area per unit of 15,000 with a lot width at building
line of 80 feet and a depth of 100 feet. These requirements are followed by the
statement, "Except as otherwise provided in this section",
site (i.e. the size of the site) has already been found to be appropriate As d above,
foor sitdensity on the
and has been reviewed by the Board for compliance with iimm size requirements,
Lot width, measured perpendicular to and abutting the front building line, is not met by
either of the proposed lots (See Exhibits 6, 8, 9 and 10); however, lot width was reduced
to 40 feet for some lots through the planned development process. The application of
(5,_ LOC 48,210(2) has already occurred through the planned development process and
should not be applied again to further reduce the lot size.
The setback requirements listed in LOC 48.215(1)can be met for both parcels proposed,
Compliance with height as allowed pursuant to LOC 48,220 was reviewed for the
existing residence during the building permit review process. Review of height for arty
new structure will occur during the building permit review process,
• 'Q LCiC 48,225 allows The illa maximum lot coverage of 30% in the R-15 zone,
li
has proposed three alternative footprints for parcel 1 (Exhibits 8-10), Each of hecant
alternatives provides compliance with the 30% maximum coverage requirement.
SD 30-90WAR 16-90\PD 3-85(Mod, 7-90)
Page 5 of 10
II
The site was platted as part of the Village on the Lake Planned Development. LOC
48.470 states that
partpurpose of the planned development overlay is to conserv�
of the
natural land features". LOC 43.490 requires that the Board(no administrative review
possible)review any change to a Planned Development Approval that does not meet all
of the following criteria:
\5
1. Does not increase the intensity of any use,or the density of residential use; and
The proposed minor partition increases the density of residential use of the site,
2. Meets all requirements of the development standards and other le l
requirements; and S
The applicable development standards`are addressed\further on in this report. The
proposed minor partition requires a Class II variance because the Access Standard
requires 25 feet of road frontage for each created lot,
3. Does not significantly affect other property or uses; will not cause any
deterioration or loss of any natural feature, process or open space; nor „ .
significantly affect any public facility; and
Comment has been received that the proposal may affect other property and uses
(See Exhibits 25, 26, 27 and 30). Development on proposed Parcel 1 would disturb
steep slopes and trees.
4. Does not affect any condition specifically placed on the development by action
of a hearing body or City Council.
.(\
• The Board specifically placed a condition regarding changes to density in their
approval of PD 3-85 (Exhibit 13,page 15,condition 14).
Analysis of the above criteria indicates that it is necessary for the Board to review the •
proposed change as a modification to the approved Village on the Lake planned
development. ";
Development Code Requirements and Analysis i`" ,(
The proposed minor partition is appropriately being processed as minor development,
Other than the Development Standards discussed in this report, there are no other
Development Code requirements applicable to this request.
LOC 49.140(1)(H)classifies a minor partition as Minor Development. The submittal
requirements of LOC 49,200 were met (See Exhibits 1-12), LOC 49,300(2) specifies
that Class II variances are subject to the same submittal requirements listed in LOC
49,200 for Minor Development. The proposed Planned Development modification is
minor development requiring a public hearing as was demonstrated through application T 0of LOC 48.490. 'It
The applicant has requested a 25 foot Class II variance to eliminate the 25 foot lot
frontage requirement of DS.020(1), LOC 49,510(1)(A—D) lists the criteria that must be
met for approval of a variance. The applicant addressed the applicable criteria in Exhibit
3, pages 3 and 4 and in Exhibit 11,page 3. The variance criteria are analyzed below,
4)
SD 30-90\VAR 16-90\PD 3-85(Mod, 7-90)
Page 6 of 10
i
1
A. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship; and,
The site has 35 feet of frontage on the terminus of Twin Point Drive, therefore it is
impossible for each proposed lot to have 25 feet of frontage. The site was created
through,the planned development process for the purpose of providing a building
site for one single family residence,(See Exhibit 29). A single family residence is
currently under construction on the site. Increases in density have not occurred
elsewhere in the planned development. The applicant does not address density but
has provided evidence that other lots in the Village on the Lake subdivision and in
the surrounding area have frontages that are less than the required 25 feet (See
Exhibit 11).
The applicant also contends that the denial of the variance would require denial of
the partition, and that loss of an additional building site would create an economic
hardship. No evidence was submitted which addresses the extent of economic
hardship. Staff finds that compliance with this criteria has not been met in that the
applicant already has reasonable use of the property.
B. Development consistent wit0,,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
The applicant contends that this criteria is met because the proposed lots meet the
Zoning Code lot size requirement and that they are similar in size to others in the
vicinity. Staff finds thal\the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with this
standard. The proposed`new building pad is sited on extremely steep slopes and
soils with a potential for landslide hazard. In addition,comment has been submitted '
by residents in the vicinity (Exhibits 25-27 and 30), whose perceptions are that
additional residential construction on the site would be injurious due to visual,
traffic,drainage,erosion effects.
C. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the
property; and
Since the site has 35 feet of frontage, a full 25 foot reduction of the 25 foot
requirement mw;v not be the minimum necessary to provide access to both lots.
Although it is reasonable to allow a shared access, the variance is not necessary to
make reasonable use of the property. As discussed previously in this report, the
findings, reports and minutes of the planned development record (Exhibits 13-23)
indicate that reasonable use of the property is already established since the site is
being developed with one single family residence.
D. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant has not addressed the applicable Plan policies, therefore staff cannot '
evaluate whether this criteria is met for the proposed variance, The staff analysis of
the applicable Plan policies described previously in this report, illustrates that many
of the policies are not met by the proposed development,
Solar Access Ordinance Requirements and Analysis
This ordinance requires an applicant for development, including land partitions, to
demonstrate compliance with the Solar Access Standard, The applicant states, in Exhibit
4110 3, that the proposed lots comply by having a north—south depth of greater than 90 feet.
SD 30-90WAR 15-90\PD 3-85(Mod, 7-90)
Page 7 of 10
.
•
The applicant has only addressed part of the basic requirement of the ordinance [LOC 57.020(1)]. Further evidence and analysis is necessary to determine full compliant ww'
1 this requirement.
Tree Cutting Ordinance Requirements and Analysis
Although a tree survey was provided(Exhibit 5) the applicant has not adequately
addressed this ordinance. The Tree Cutting Ordinance is applicable to this request due to
the potential impact of proposed grading on the trees on Parcel 1. Protection of the large
fir trees and Protection Natural Buffer(shown on Exhibit 5) is necessary. A detailed
grading plan should be submitted in order to evaluate potential impact to these features, ,
c. The applicable Development Standards .'
Street Lights (5.005—5.040)
Adequate street lighting exists within the development. The proposal will not result in
any additional lighting need.
Parking nd marling(Z. .t-7.040)
11
This standard requires that each single family dwelling provide two off—street parking
spaces in addition to a garage or carport. The proposed footprint alternatives shown in
Exhibits 8-10 do not demonstrate where parking will occur and whether this standard
will be met.
Fences (10.005— 10.040) '
No fencing is proposed with the request. 41)
Drainage Standard for Minor Development (12.005 12.040) +
•
This standard requires that drainage alterations, including new development, not
adversely affect neighboring properties. Roof and foundation drains for Parcel 1 could
• be routed directly to the Lake as is acceptable for the residence on Parcel 2. However, '
due to the landslide potential of the site, additional recommendations from a soils
engineer should be required. The applicant has not adequately addressed this standard.
Weak Foundation Soils (13.005— 13.040)
This standard requires that weak soils be identified and that the applicant provide a soils
analysis of the site's soils hazard potential. The applicant submitted a preliminary soils
report (Exhibit 12) which indicates that soils on the site are stable for residential
construction using either stepped footings or pilings, In order to provide compliance with '
this standard, the applicant should submit specific plans for proposed footings and
grading. This information is also necessary to determine compliance with the Hillside
Protection and Erosion Control Standard, which is addressed below,
Utility Standard (14.005 14.040),
V'
This standard requires that infrastructure improvements be installed underground, where
possible. Sanitary sewer and water are available to serve the site, Since access to the sit •
is private, a sidewalk is not required. No special street name signs or traffic control
devices are required. The existing private drive is proposed to be shared a access for
w
SD 30-90\VAR 16-90\PD 3-85(Mod. 7-90)
Page 8 of 10
4
•
ry.
0
(C)
both parcels. It is also shared by several lots to the southwest of the site. Driveway and
private street requirements are addressed in DS 19.005 - 19.040.
IP
Hillside Protection aj Jrosion Control (16.f05 16.0401
. This standard requires protection against soil erosion by limiting the extent of clearing,
cutting and filling of soils on slopes greater than 12%. '1 he applicant submitted a
•
�'
topographic survey(Exhibit 5) and slope analysis P y (Exhibit 7) which illustrates that the
majority of the buildable portions of the site exceed 50% slope. The applicant has not 'submitted a proposed grading plan. Grading changes on the site,that occurred to make a
driveway and parking pad for the residence under construction are not shown on the
topographic survey (Exhibit 5). Without an accurate topographic survey and proposed
grading plan,compliance with this standard cannot be determined. To address DS
16.020(7)(a-d), the applicant'submi,tted three alternative building footprints '
superimposed on the slope analysis (Exhibits 8,9, and 10).
This standard specifies that "land over 50 percent slope shall be developed only where
density transfer is not feasible." _Density •
for the site was reviewed during the planned_
development process. Lots on flatter portions of the Village on the Lake site are smaller •than the 15,000 square feet required by the zoning. Density was transferred from the
steeper and heavily Vegetated sites in order to allow creation of the smaller lots. Density
transfer was feasible'and has already occurred for the site, therefore the criteria listed in DS 16.020(7)(a-d)cannot be used to further develop and increase density,
',' Access Standard (1$.005- 18.0401
This standard requires that each parcel abut a public street for at least 25 feet. The
" applicant has requested a 25 foot variance to this requirement for proposed Parcel 2. The
w variance criteria were addressed previously, Inadequate evidence was submitted for the
variance criteria, therefore, this standard has not been met.
Site Circulation -Private Streets/Driveways (19,005- 19,040)
This standard requires that driveways for single family dwellings not exceed 20c grade q,
I nor 5% cross slope. The existing driveway to the residence under construction on
proposed Parcel 2 was reviewed and found to meet this standard during the building
permit review process. Inadequate evidence exists to determine if proposed Parcel 1 "
would meet this standard since the topographic survey does not reflect current grading of the site. In addition, the proposed footprint alternatives (Exhibits 8-10)do not indicate
the garage entrance, proposed grading or finished floor elevations. •
d. Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS
, P•
There are no such plans which affect this site, Y
C, Conclusions
>'/J pp °
Basedconcludes
nc udes that the proposal udoes not comhple y with�all and the analysis in this report, staff
complyapplicable criteria,
, / III, EF. S) EIMATION
Staff recommends.that the applicant's requests for a minor partition, Class II variance and
o planned development modificationto increase density on the site be DENIED,
•
.
0
. .. „ SD 30-90OVAlt 16-9fAPD 3-85(Mod. 7-90) „ • .
Page 9 of 10
\,
, ,
(4)
11
/
,
• .
EXHIBIT S
II -
,
1. Tax Map
,
2. Vicinity Map
3. Applicant's Narrative
4. Applicant's Supplemental Narrative dated July 26, 1990
5. Site Survey and Tree Survey
6. Site Plan of Proposed Partition and Residence Under Construction
7. Slope Analysis , (/
8. Slope Analysis with Alternative A,Proposed Building Footprint for Parcel 1
9. Slope Analysis with Alternative B,Proposed Building Footprint for Parcel 1
10. Slope Analysis with Alternative C,Proposed Building Footprint for Parcel 1
0 11. Maps of Surrounding Area As Evidence To Support Variance Request
12. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation dated May 11, 1989 and Geotechnical Consultation dated August 21, 1989.
13. Findings, Conclusions and Order for Village on the Lake Planned Development and ,
Related Variances.
14. Staff'Report dated March 22, 1985
15. Staff Report dated May 15, 1985
. ,
16. Staff Report and Decision dated March 26, 1986 for SD 03-86-04. ' 17. Minutes of April 1, 1985 Development Review Board Meeting
\
18. Minutes of April 17, 1985 Development Review Board Meeting P.
19. Minutes of May 6, 1985 Development Review Board Meeting
20. Minutes of Special May 22, 1985 Development Review Board Meeting
21. Minutes of Special May 23, 1985 Development.Review Board Meeting
. .V 22. Minutes of September 4, 1985 Development Review Board Meeting
23. Minutes from November 18, 1985 Development Review Board Meeting
t,
24. Letter from Nick Bunick dated July 28, 1990
()
' 25. Letter from Mark A. Roberts dated August 6, 1990
26. Letter from Robert Briede' dated August 6, 1990
27, Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Gene Arnold dated August 8, 1990
28. Memorandum dated December 5, 1989 from Mayor and City Council
29. Exhibit ab from DR 3-85(etc)/50% Slope Analysis for Lot 28 (prior to lot line adjustment)
30. Letter from Di.. Richard C. Cabot dated August 9, 1990 •• '
• 4
, -
•\
1111 ,
, fr
SD 30-90\VAR 16-90\PD 3-85(Mod, 7-90)
Page 10 of 10
i
'••
s , .
. .
. , a . .
. ,
,
'
STAFF REPORT
•
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
•
LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION -
APPLICANT: FILE NO,:
Jose and Christel Saraiva SD 36-90\VAR 20-90
PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF:
• Jose and Christel Saraiva Michael R. Wheeler
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT:
Tax Lot 3200 of September 7, 1990
Tax Map 2 1E 18AB.
LOCATION: DATE OF HEARING:
September 17, 1990
\North side of Rosewood Street, between
Tualatin Street and Pilkington Road NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION:
COMP.PLAN DESIGNATION: N\A
•
R-5 ZONING DESIGNATION:
R-5
• I. APPLICANT`S REQUEST
The applicant is seeking approval to create three parcels from a 41,471 sq, ft. lot, Each parcel
is proposed to be in excess of 5,000 sq. ft. it size: Also, the applicant is seeking approval of a
25 foot Class II variance to the access Development Standard which requires that each parcel
abut a public street for a minimum of 25 feet, The applicant proposes two parcels to have no
portion abutting a street,
III, APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
J I
A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Platt:
1 . '
Urban Service Boundary Policies •
General Policy III
Impact Management Policies
General Policy I, II, III, V
SD 36-90/VAR 20-90
Page 1 of 10
V)Ir.
1
,.
p
a
Wildlife Habitat Policies
•; General Policy I, II III
•
Distinctive Natural Area Policies
General Policy I' ,
Energy Conservation Policies
General Policy II
rz,Protection Open Space Policies
General Policy I, II
Transportation Policies
, General Policy IV
B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance: ,
•
LOC 48.120--48.155 R-5 Zone Description (setbacks, lot area, lot "
coverage)
LOC 48.525 Determination of Front Yard for Flag Lots and
Lots Accessing by Easement
LOC 48.530 Vision Clearance
LOC 48.535(4) Special Street Setbacks
C. City of Lake Oswego Developm nt `od ;
..
LOC 49.025 Interpretation, Regulations &Procedures 0 .
LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards
LOC 49.110 Concurrent Review of Development
LOC 9.140 Minor Development
LOC 49.145 Major Development
LOC 49,215 Authority of City Manager
LOC 49.220-49,210 Minor Development Procedures
LOC 49.300-49,315 Major Development Procedures
LOC 49,500 Variances; Classifications
LOC 49.510 . Variance Standard
LOC 49.610 Quasi-Judicial Evidentiary •
LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approv,;1
D, City of Lake Oswego Development Standards:
2,005 -2.040 Building Design ,
5.005 -5.040 Street Lights
6,005 -6.040 Transit System
7,005 -7.040 Parking & Loading Standard
8,005 -8,040 Park and Open Space
9,005 -9,040 Landscaping, Screening & Buffering '
11,005 - 11,040 Drainage Standard for Major Development ,
/ 12.005 - 12,040 Drainage Standard for Minor Development I
14.005 - 14.040 Utility Standard
18,005 - 18.040 Access Standard
19,005 - 19,040
Site Circulation -Private Streets/Driveways 0
SD 36-90/VAR 20-90 '
``\ Page 2 of 10 ,
,r
1
E. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance:
, 0LOC 57,005-57.135
F. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance:
LOC 55.010-55.130
III, FINDINGS
• existing Conditions:
1. The site is composed of 41,471 sq. ft. (excludes existing right-of-way) or about
one acre in a rectangular configuration.
2, °The site is located north of Rosewood Street between Tualatin Street and
Pilkington Road.
°�; 3. An 8 inch sanitary sewer line is located in the creek north of the site,
4. A 6 inch water line is located in Rosewood Street. A fire hydrant is located at the
southwest corner of the site,
5. Rosewood Street is a 14 to 16 foot-wide paved`street with no curbs, gutters,
sidewalks or street lights.
6. An existing single-family dwelling and carport are located as shown on the site
• plan (Exhibit 5).
7. Residences exist on abutting Tax Lots 3100, 3102 and 3300. These parcels are
much larger than two of the three proposed by the applicant.
B. Proposal:
The applicant is proposing to create three parcels from a 41,471 sq, ft. lot. The parcels
are proposed to be as follows:
Parcel 1 25,436,2 sq, ft. (following right-of-way dedication)
Parcel 2 7,348.9 sq, ft,
Parcel 3 7,256,9 sq, ft.
The applicant is also requesting a 25 ft, Class II variance to the Access Development
Standard which requires that each parcel abut a street for a minimum of 25 feet, Parcels
2 and 3 are proposed to provide no frontage on Rosewood Street. Access is proposed to
these parcels by way of an easement.
C. Compliance with Criteria for Ap i valL
As per LOC 49,615, the Development Review Board must consider the following criteria
when evaluating minor or major development,
•s
1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval,
III
SD 36-90/VAR 20-90
Page 3 of 10
1\
. 0
c ;
i `
The applicant has borne the burden of proof through submittal of documents marked as
• exhibits, accompanying this report. •)
2. For any develcipmcnt application to be approved,it shall first be established
that the proposal conforms to;
a. The City's Comprehensive Plan
. Applicable policy groups are: •
Urban Service Boundary Policies
These policies require the City to manage and phase urban growth within the Urban
Service Boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic services. Specific Policy 5,
which is used as a guide in interpreting the meaning of the General Policy, states that
new development shall be serviced by an "urban level" of services, including schools.
This specific policy also states that these services are to be available or committed prior
to approval of development. Exhibit 6(the City Council memorandum of December 5,
1989)demonstrates that the current level of school planning and coordination between
the City and School District satisfy this General Policy. The recent passage of the 17
• million dollar school levy would further assure adequate school facilities.
Impact Management Policies
• These policies require protection of natural resources from development, comprehensive
review of development proposals, and payment of an equitable share of the costs of
public facilities. These policies are implemented through several Development
Standards, addressed further below. The policies require assurance that distinctive areal)
will be preserved, soil will be protected from erosion, trees will be protected from
removal, streams will be preserved and that density will be limited to achieve these
results. Compliance with the applicable Development Standards reviewed below will
assure conformance to these Plan policies. Conditions of approval will be imposed when
necessary to assure compliance.
Wildlife Habitat Policies
These policies require protection of upland habitat in the form of preserved open space, ° ' '
natural vegetation or fragile slopes. The related development standards are reviewed in
this report following an analysis of the applicable Plan policies.
Distinctive Natural Area Policies
These policies require the City to preserve tree stands and those features listed as
distinctive, These policies are implemented through LOC Chapter 55, the Tree Cutting
Ordinance. The provisions of this ordinance are reviewed in this report following an
analysis of the applicable Plan policies.
• Energy Conservation Policies
•
These policies encourage energy conservation through solar orientation and site planning
which takes into account the site's natural features, These policies are now implemented
through the City','s'Solar Access Ordinance (LOC Chapter 57) which will be reviewed
later in this report,
•
SD 36-9O/VAR 20-9()
Page 4 of 10
.......... ... ... . . .. . ..
• • •
Protection Open Space Policies a
0 These policies further protect the natural resources identified in the Natural Resources o-
Policy Element. These policies are implemented by a variety of applicable Development 4
Standards which are addressed later in this report.
Transp iia ion Policies
These policies require the City to plan a residential neighborhood streets system which
• provides access to abutting land. These policies are implemented through LOC
48.535(4)regarding Special Street Setbacks;the Access Standard and the Site Circulation
r;Standard for Driveways and Private Streets, reviewed later in this report.
b. The applicable statutory and Code requirements and regulations.
Zoning Code Requirements and Analysis (LOC Chapter 48)
The site is zoned R-5 which requires a minimum lot area of 5,000 sq. ft. per dwelling
unit; there is no required minimum lot width at the building line and no required
minimum lot depth. Maximum lot coverage allowed in the zone is 50% [LOC 48,135(1),
48.140(1)],
The zone requires the following minimum setbacks [LOC 48,150(5)]: When a new
development abuts an existing less intensive residential use, a setback of a depth of at
least the height of the principal building on the lot proposed for development. All other '
setbacks are 10 feet (except where required off street parking is provided). Less
intensive residential uses exist on parcels east and west of the site; the parcel to the north
is vacant.
IP
The applicant proposes the parcels to be the following sizes:
F
Area
Parcel 1 25,436.2 sq. ft. (following right—of—way dedication)
Parcel 2 7,348,89 sq. ft,
Parcel 3 7,256.91 sq, ft. II
• LOC 48,535(4), Special Street,Setbacks, requires a 25 foot setback measured from the
center of the right—of—way orkosewood Street, The existing right—of—way provides 15
feet from centerline, The setback typically results in required dedication of needed right—
of—way, in this case, 10 feet, This will be required as a condition of approval, if gran ted,
Development Code Retirements and Analvr (LO chapter 49)
The proposed minor partition is appropriately being processed as minor development,
• However, the applicant's variance is classified as major development because the
reduction in lot frontage exceeds 11,5 feet, As such, this proposal is required to be
reviewed as major development, Development Standards applicable to major
development will be reviewed later in this report as required by LOC 49,090, The
applicable variance criteria are reviewed next in this report,
v As per LOC 49,510(1) [Development Code], the Development Review Board must
i, consider the following criteria when evaluating a request for a Class I1 variance: t •
i
•
SD 36-90/VAR 20-90 '
Page 5 of 10
a. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship;
The applicants indicate that the variance is necessary to make "the most reasonable and®
desirable use of the ro rty..."p pe The applicant cites the presence of a twenty—five font-
wide access easement on the parcels abutting to the east [SD 45-88\VAR 43-88]. The
m , • applicant also notes a partition approval to the south [SD 19-88\SD 20-88\SD 21— •
88\VAR 13-88]. This partition involved the creation of a street(known as a major
partition). In each of those cases a variance to the Access Development Standard was
approved because 25 feet of frontage was not conveniently available to all proposed
parcels.
Such is the case here. The site is 290 feet dee }' p Because of this depth, the location of the
d dwelling the , the ,
design
ng of a future on streets systemsiteand hasthe beenpresence impairedofan. Earlier variancesstream toto the Accessnorth
Standard in this area have taken this into account. A hardship exists in the neighborhood
with regard to providing frontage on public streets when such streets cannot conveniently
be built or planned.
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;
As evidenced by the use of private easements for access in this neighborhood, no
detrimental effect on the neighborhood would be expected by approval of this request.
- The applicant has noted nearby examples of such easements and acknowledges their
compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
• c. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of thigh
property;
•
IIIF
The net buildable area of the site is 41,471 sq, ft., which would allow a total of eight
jr homesites. For each of these eight potential parcels to provide 25 feet of frontage on a
• public street would require 200 feet of frontage, The site is 142.9 feet wide on Rosewood
Street, 47.1 feet short of this requirement.
While the applicant's proposal is for only three parcels, the position of the existing
dwelling on the site and the desire to preserve future development capabilities on the
west half of Parcel 1 make the requested variance the minimum necessary to make
reasonable use of the property,
d. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal does not conflict with the policies reviewed earlier in this report, Adequate
access to the proposed sites will be provided by way of a paved access easement,
• Solar Access Ordinanzaegairement'Wand An y.sis (,l`OC Chapter 57)
The applicant has not addressed the requirements of this ordinance, which requires that
80% of the proposed parcels meet one of three solar design standards [LOC 57,020j, All
three parcels must, therefore, comply, This can be accomplished through the imposition
of a condition of approval for Parcels 2 and 3, Parcel 1 is a solar lot because it complies
.
with minimum depth and orientation requirements, All three parcels must additionally
comply with the Solar Balance Point Standard [LOC 57,050-57,090], A note to this
effect must appear on the final plan and will be assured through a condition of approval.
if granted,
SD 36-90/VAR 20-90
Page 6 of 10 '
.. ,�
Treeg Cuttin Ordinance RcSl i_rcmentc and Anal ,sij (LOC Chanter�s
. 0 1,
" This ordinance is intended to preserve trees. It implements the Wildlif
e fe Habitat,and
Protection Open Space Policies. Only those trees which must be removed in order to site
proposed improvements will be granted tree cutting permits.
A tree survey is not required in an application for a minor partition, but is necessary to
meet the requirements of the Tree Cutting Ordinance. The applicant has provided a tree
survey, illustrated on the site plan (Exhibit 5). The applicant shall position proposed
dwellings so as to minimize the number of trees removed in compliance with LOC
55.080(2).
c. The applicable Development Standards (.'
BuildingDesign (2.005 —2.0401
.. While this standard;is applicable to all major development involving a structure, this
application is major development only because of the inclusion of the Class II variance.
Staff concludes that the single—family dwellings proposed on the site are minor
development, as is the proposed minor partition, and that,this standard is not applicable, a
Street Lights (5,005—5.040)
There are no street lights on Rosewood Street. A street light was required in an earlier
approval of SD 9-90, which will be placed on an existing utility pole on the south side of
Rosewood Street across from Tax Lot 3000. This will be at least 150 feet from the
southeast corner of the site.
4110
A street light was also required in an earlier approval of SD 19-88, which will place a
• street light on an existing utility pole on the south side of Rosewood Street,
approximately 100 feet west of the applicant's southwest corner.
The applicant must provide a street light along the frontage of the site prior to issuance of
any building permit requested subsequert to this request if none has already been
installed as required by SD 19-88, This will be required as a condition of approval, if
granted.
Transit System (6.005 —6,040)
The nearest transit facilities are located on Bryant and Jean Roads to the south. There are
no hard surfaced paths leading to the site from transit stops along those roads, No
additional transit developments are required to serve this site as a result,
ai:ki�g and Loading ( —7 04
This standard requires that each single family dwelling provide two off—street parking
spaces in addition to a garage or carport, All three parcels are large enough as proposed
to accommodate this requirement,
Park nhd Open Space (8,005 —8,040) N
This standard requires that all major residential development provide open space or park
• land equal to 20 percent of the gross land area of the development, Since the applicant`s ,
SD 36-90/VAR 20-90
Page 7 of 10
{
. f
request is considered to be major development only because i f the Class II variance
[LOC 49.140 vs. 49.145], and because the minor partition,existing and future single—
family dwellings are minor development [LOC 49.140], staff concludes that the Standai#
does not apply to this request.
Landscaping. Screening and Buffering(9.005—9.040)
The existing and proposed single family dwellings are not included among the range of
uses required to provide plantings,despite the fact that the standard is applicable to this
Class II variance, which is classified as major development. Staff concludes that the
standard is met.
Drainage Standard for Major Development(11.005— 1.040)
This standard requires that drainage alterations, including new development, not
adversely affect neighboring properties. No grading is proposed as a part of this
application. Compliance with the standard will be required upon application for a
building permit for each of the proposed parcels. Installation of an engineered storm
drainage system is necessary to serve existing and proposed development. Design and
installation of this facility will be required as a condition of approval of this action,
Utility Standard (14.005— 14.040)
This standard requires that infrastructure improvements be installed underground, where
possible. All three parcels can be served with water, sewer and storm drainage facilities
from Rosewood Street or facilities adjacent to the north.
A system for storm water disposal but must be designed to accommodate connection to
public system. This will be required as a condition of approval of this action. Utility
easements will be necessary to serve Parcel 1, allowing correction to the north,
Access Standard (18.005— 18,040)
standard requires that each parcel abut a public street for at least 25 feet. Parcel 1 is
proposed to comply with the standard; a Class II variance has been requested for Parcels
2 and 3, which was reviewed earlier in this report.
Site Circulation —Private Str ts/Driv�ways (19.005— 19,040)
This standard requires that driveways for single family dwellings not exceed 20% grade
nor 5% cross slope. The access easement to serve two of the three proposed parcels is
capable of meeting the standard. The grades of the site in the area proposed for
development will enable compliance with this standard ,
I•
d Any applicable future streets plan or ODPS
There are no approved Future Streets Plans affecting this site
C. Conclusion;
Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant, staff concludes that the proposal
complies with or can be made to comply with all applicable criteria.
SD 36-90/VAR 20-90
Page 8 of 10
.2 "
. t
}
•' 0 III, RECOMMENDATION
IIIThe staff recommends approval of SD 36-90/VAR 20-90, subject to the following conditions:
1. A final plan (as depicted in Exhibit 5 and modified by conditions 3,4,5, 6, 7 and 9) shall
be submitted tO City staff for review and signature of approval within one year of the date
of this decision. Upon written application, prior to expiration of the one year period, the
City Manager shall, in writing, grant,a one year,extension, Additional extensions may be $
• , requested in writing and must be submitted to the City Manager for review of the project
for conformance with current law, development standards and compatibility with
development which may have occurred in the surrounding area. The extension may be
granted or denied and if granted, may be conditioned to require modification to bring the
project into compliance with then current law and compatibility with surrounding
development.
The final plan shall reference this land use application—City of Lake Oswego Land
Development Services Division, File No. SD 36-90NAR 20-90,
2, The final plan shall be registered with the Clackamas County Surveyor's office and
/recorded with Clackamas County Clerks's office.
3. The following note shall appear on the final plan:
,
Parcels 1a, 2 and 3'are Solar Lots. Development of structures and planting of non-exempt
vegetation on Parcels 1, 2 and 3 shall comply With the Solar Balance Point Provisions of
the Solar Access Ordinance (LOC 57,050 -57.090). This requirement shall be binding
upon the applicant and subsequent purchasers of Parcels 1, 2 and 3.
, ' •
4. The following notes shall appear on the final plan:
Parcels 2 and 3 shall comply with one of the following;
a, Habitable structures built on the lot will have their long axis orien,►_iced within
30 degrees of a true east-west axis and at least 80% of their ground floor south
wall protected from shade by structures and non-exempt trees; or
b. Habitable structures built on the lot will have at least 32% of their glazing and
500 square feet of their roof area which faces within 30 degrees of south and is
protected from shade by structures and non-exempt trees, r
5. The final plan shall indicate the location and width of all utility easements necessary to
serve Parcels 1, 2 and 3,
6, The applicant shall design the access easement to provide an outside turning radius of540
feet (minimum) and inside radius of 25 feet (minimum).
7, The applicant shall dedicate 10 feet along the frontage of Rosewood Street for future
right-of-way purposes,
8, The applicant shall provide the City a signed nonremonstran f ce agreement for futu ,? strewt
improvements anticipated in Rosewood Street, This agreement shall apply to alrliardels
as approved. ..
,
SD 36-90/VAR 20-90
Page 9 of 10
,
\ ,. ,
•
•
9. The applicant shall dedicate the proposed access easement to the City as a fire lane. This
shall be shown on the final plan.
411)
7 10. Evidence of the above to be provided to the Public Works and Development Services
Department prior to the issuance of building permits requested subsequent to the date of0' •
this approval.
• ' 11. The applicant shall install all utilities necessary to serve Parcels 1, 2 and 3 as a condition
of building permit approval requested subsequent to this action. This includes positive
storm drainage (drywells or alternates). °
•
2. The City shall allow the removal of only those trees necessary to site a dwelling or
• r ;� accessory structure on Parcels 1, 2 and 3. This removal shall comply with LOC 55.050— • •
• 55.080(Tree Cutting Ordinance).
• 13. The applicant shall install a pole-mounted street light on Rosewood Street across from .5
the site unless one has been previously installed in conjunction with SD 19-88.
w
•
EXHIBITS
1. Tax Map
2,; Vicinity Map
3. Applicant's Narrative (Partition) •
4. Applicant's Narrative (Class II Variance) '
5. Site Plan 0
6, Council's memorandum regarding schools,dated December 5, 1989
i 7. Memorandum from Peter C, Harvey, City Manager, dated March 28, 1990 il
1
•
MRW;kaa i
y ' •
,.
( u • .
4\
r
1 ,
a
111'
o •t
Of 11 f
\'1 SD 36-90/VAR 20-90
t
Page 10 of 10
. ,
e
t
qo '•:•. V
,r A� f ��. O 1 ..• IAS 1 Aa \
x_ a I�
.� Ol
aCr: {r� ?.
,A+ \�� ° ow - +( ^ O ,...• t- p k0.�''•' � '; O ;0' `^ / N i� o � al 'i \� O n cxl'
salt O a
4.
in 0
er or 0 r." t , fa,+f C W Ciq '
C.1
r I' 1
•''N' ro'ovN� d a' i••
40 r 9nf %I to d+
CP s F N 7 col
155' �:
a •rO41 .
cs
' ' ° O (� 40.PI, \ Ctri zo fDr$• I'(a°° �
W �$' s tO
G 11.5�
a e
•
t t I _ . ``o r •AA` i O
• e �,3^�, ,3 rJe Lev 0ti n �t;, 1• �` QI
..7 ',i 4,,. (? \-..'''''. 1 t4Th q..." V.. 1;-...
6. 17\ `/• ,°t',)4 , 4, lir
Cy+ �tG 7S c
?
\ \ 0\ , / ...1 0.......,
Yr• T Z/ i� ON r•
'bZ". •C\111 ,, to
ft
•
t 0 2r 4 I i>" ° M / dA' '''
f�� `p
w'
�, N J
• r" V4.^ \''; v O YC ' `'Iy Jr' 9 j it
• ✓f►� tY ij 0 r„off , -
--
, I '
r.1 Z. �1 >
a
t
,�• 0 . 1 11\k , ,, .
\."‘L il.• a,+-` '
I i s \✓w �� ( 1 0
•
•
•
,.
I i;`
CLACKAMAS CO. P Pace 'so ,.
rti
Section 18
I. 5.+.,c1 , OUT \+: N C
S of. 'ti fie' a 2Q1!'
•
'ilia -•Ie►C a .'. '1 : : `1 at1A• 4✓"'.' ^'� ° Aeel'\1°11, °r .
. I1/71 $,IN tlel -. ,` • . °0 • . U1 • l p' .1°06 t'�+,
.OL♦�lt•lt et/ ,�,f�(�, ^1•� r� a 1: •ems Npo° n La.
,,..0, 114r1 ' • Isar u teste Y• 1611d ' ,, •n_V, .V •• ' ° 'f,(',1f1L' i e,Y'w M ..1, • o° /,•°13
lso . Y Y � + � „
.• i ..- U10 N Uleo •.r w 2'a 161071 , N o o • • 9' • / '1du
.114111 Z 1a110Y ••U 1' / pT++CPN ,.• ▪ •S '. , ' , • ,, .i.!.,\ +, •'•
•
. I_, rood- �,w U lest • .., -, Syr •• ' ' • \i0p1\,0,i yam..•� ,1,),,V r, fo cIIn
•
:�, rb • , I/ •,•',
,'� ores i" rs%o r +
,�, Pk,. a • !'TV- ,.. ` ° ,V +,�� Nam+
11,p.�, "+«' r I $ �r - °�o .,,., ♦ f'�I•pb'Ii.. tiflt
' �,• 4...
11 r 1 y tt j°t' r•• 1 0,. r'• �14 r
d{ �' L { "�1i + G,A1 r°'`f ,( r. °, ptic�yO r,lrta < .
t . to I, O n11r"- . `w + ,.'\: •�{0'. 0 , 11' • • 1,, 0 trir
/.,} '•e 17re1 e \ •-,.-- p 1 4 + a \'41s ui .,• i �° 11r c �1M1�
1:4
%
,-< ''\ °^ r J a ' • Ir., , ,, . 1 :4 Itrer .tors
,,+ notrllSPbld x.1+ ,+ + ' 6,r7,r 't� ▪ Z• ,
✓� g �^ LOnI ', \ u - 'b L I ., 1 • I 1 I I I 1 I_!IV'
\,r,• , $ I $ 1 �i ' Jo • Vr.• �A. ` • `°,°+' Il •iris. r.d01._ : IN I �I .1 =1 : i "{ MI
• •a ,•� „ , 1 !APTS. + °'� t J` ^‹ •:,,, ` \"<°I , ' I 1 `it' •- J 4401 eE S
} ' I1/101
/ • •,�•-+` I " lireeh It/1; -
{. �r A. X111 r �svi''•, r,r,+r /a,1+ ir lit' .1.-1�'of,
T I •i •1 •71, ,
.� - / S.^ 1.•1•' IJ ` 1.-'r, •S F 1116 rIw�I 11 $I �,1 �' I x, a 1 �' 1 i , 1
,,ti 1 t11f _I �,+ °.�° pry/ INi
y , 1,.,,•.. _. ., ... ..a ' ., . ., a.• a. \ ^,/,. L 170°_�`r'� 11-.I'-I L,r i� ,.
' •r. rq e. t \ Y ,, ,r •r,1.:\ \-/,I 171a »� »t 1
..r fir' 174e0 a• 1 a
.r•� /' r 1 I 1; \ •� + ti f/1I, t w 1 11 e < h. a Ci
�' . n »„I Ii001 ..- « •., Jam. • • �. • %/� 1..- .# ,'1 (�^ O,
' ii00, + i,'• I g t :I r '\/a + O !• I trims I1d01 Irw1 t` ,•••'I �--�
1 . iNw I r rr + a, - J _ _ - I1
60oJ I 'r'-'•
' j ��' Jlgq, + ••M.4, - _ ,°, ,'b • \ '•`,•� r�.\_1 Itet 'Iro 11 _ ,•.I. .. I..I_ U 17I 3.i•.:I y.-_ .
6. Y Iry-1s'��`oo��'►-_i r�. n .ar»r<.v., ....e .,d„a , ,7es frees i «'trerl ira l6 l.o. I ®
. •• •'! : I ' $ ' c i I f16t0 1T•a V° •��.� ' 7e» AIIIU7LY
i ree4 S .. -U611 '1 I I rr6e/
• 1 1 ' CITY 1 +, J I . r I %i 2 -- - i -•' Ire�oa .1 000 {_r✓- I I u;. r,',:G,.o, _ r6os Irw: • •r - -I`«I i "'I - '1
I 1 I t I UAINTI' •AMCE1 ,,•
,r• 1 rug f� n1 Ill'. 7ttr uelh { 1i;0e Iteoo}'Ue1i 1 b y t
�.�1 • ! .� I YHOV 1� W - i- 1- ••_ Rem - 1 « 1 - .
L .l 1_ 1 Ilrlel I. a 111fi0 IrlOtit.14.1 °f °� I.,.T T
_1I' ... ._..r. Rli d > {. Irer1 Irer6 -I `.s ,t1 ' + I Ir,_ 1 1114 , y ,l�a 1•Iiee•'• U46011i1e3< Ite6eH/r 4'17614�•.fish ,•.7. "•"22170e• LANE ,•,•{
I I•
'1 I ttr .. )T /. GI L,. .•L.. ... it d 1._JIFle �y E
I • -Ir---' t I I'� I Nr1• t I In17 1 fn0ax ur00 _ u
I 1. :n , - ', Vr0 5 f1177 ,lido W . yy,,Itid ,,,, _
' I 1 ,., ' I `- 11re0 .•, ' I I h- i r �'-• C •7-I• -- 1 '''* Niwe • itit O f.- --. Nq
-�LJ 1 t I I ittp , 1 , 1 I f1Te ,WY 1nedl iris a Uie .j4r116 , -1-• 1 c ee.
iy -I it Irtt .� u < -
Yi • : 1 1 . ley / N 4 T . .I , I► o— f1 i 71 •g l Inw ` ` ' itgo. , L i < {
j ., r ,1 •a a I» . --a .t« 1 .. ' - u 1 t°' [...'. w I .w, f/tU �,
•ROAD 1. _ • txr JEAN gOAo•
e _ vue N1N Ir-r )retd li`eso i w- ..J -.. -. �r11 `+ —+ ..«,,_, t..% II MN�re
.b , - VIb •,[ w . . _ .. 1' w..l 1/113. I. . to
• ,--.,1, e' OlektN ti' r • . .1i.tour - . t Iredl 19e10 a lreer INp . _ : • r•••- --- J •.• 'o!Orn/'V
n *oust amour, .1....l 11os0 < Il.r1. - - Itwe~ ,- « i".l 'l �i ° t $ALUOA Jq. C 1
ndi L - � x S\ • feN
• two► I r°, �7' "ow) 116f0 1 -_ . _ _ - UM j Ndi�` • ..— •Nab/- W «1.$4 - 11d I" 1 I NION EcN00L S �rdlrr IJ u
Y• , ' L.--.. a• - ,11'1.r , trele •-,.Vail Irbt•'-Itb1 "..« - -.t - q,,!. 4
H'ItI0$ >< leoae Cuss
JAl+v. " -_ -- - . ' 16d00 Iist1 Nerd x I3M1 1 �J .
fir'?'' ti, Ulr" • IC rl� Ilnll ' - '_1 -, _•_ .• _ i tr1/0 ` .. . h - .T «• - '4•11YANT onAOE A-/ .5 4.4,< �,,
f''+e •-), I!Old ledx, 1e011160rr tdort - « . ..J , Ie01e SCHOOL �"
e. t . . .0. w F c. Iweee ' °�I WWI •
,.Iof,
r4f Hs I.0)1 Ieoo1, d. t 1Id1er • 1
f {4 1° d, flood Ibll Isola •14040 .dote'1 R r
/ y «•yhcva o Ildu, tbtf ulei
'0'ti•, .•1I$K r� ° I/d 101 MINI O r .F. _ - _ . 1 . -,•_ r ...- T:1 �felds •
•01S w•'Ir 7.f ' 1 W w14 ...1. _ ., « .Iv..a.L 1 : y'-,y .1.• r I = '" .. :1i111 N
, !r ••,.+1''+ . ..1 a'rI y'L" '4j.1wt0 111le TREE . . r STREET -n ''q bleI I n
• ` V r «
v / +� Yi$' y Iwr .. . . ..,ill, w u u I Y tole �y., .. .. .. .. Id1d x
yy
/ENNYCn0/� MAY �Ii °p,d tuv E :. ,• „3„ :., .•_ " 'L . - - ... _ _ 7, 7; ., ,.+«+�« t 1 n
' "2: • R)q ,. ,1. - 14113 100d 161r1 Y-�"• e✓...'•"r' r, . Idjri'• +.•• ., ,,r �,C C , I 11
« its _
r w « +
r $ 11,14 ,,•. 1 ,..Idr 1 :,. ., - _ ': ,. . dot, -.te?tt Cln +01°..1 °..`F ..- .- •r
. - - 1•. J -' t _ IIN1 • TUALATA LANK •
$ C ` 11 Y is/i/ I;.1•q. ,t ,r „ u " ;. G « son.. i1S1 uiei 00.0 1 t� 5 I :I, G,, R I 1, A ei 5.
r,.
% 3 �' ' - »� Idol"` � � '� luidI C�tw ,$ Y �I , 000i e n 8 SI-y 1 +: i 1 r
, �1 -. 111 t, +� , i,w1,d , . ri. r"° N •;°/?d :,!°1. «{1 . J L r"..
o r detf ` w Aly MIcENNY '.. r uu till
•Y Y � .(�- C 1640 silo rleJ`,' C l'. Idloo / I1 Y • , ' ,r , r1,, w I
' ' ''1 ua u • E Y'.'•i . ;•.► Y+Ils6o (0 i111 a /s- -6 WAY I°eh,`r 3 yl 'd1'1,IF4°r5 idlo. //0
•
'$ I u i••"nl I1J 1 el 10' It
L/ de;Art ;. a,. , •
Il/ilie . x • i 1 ,1_ - . 16'1 t, , ,IYI Id AY,. .1,4u1�coil ^ 0.
• ' C , : •• Iltu" * •Itsa1 Idtu ,.y «y $ r• ���- /.Iesoe , r,,lu i ,
L ulpl
..,4 G , Y I1edr 4 .fes11 +Noe 16134 • ,d11i $ « " lesri' I. s _ .fll l+, !I ` - ,
7K$TNOROOK,. _ 1 ds 7 L iddi Idsa, TUALA TEA CT 4 ���}� + * l4,i' ` YY }
., . • ,. •• U r rw _alit
y UUY 6. ,, AN Y 1
X II 1
r lull' t: .. « •
I '? J • u u 1 Y M!1 • TIME u Ilia! IQf Olq006
° 1t+:1►11 j i
e lilt/ 1 g . ' ul0 C C
-, rase 1 y ./' •WAY .. •• .0,.•.•1 •-'.•o« 7 ' za• 1 ' + dll, 11 a'. .e, ,1
E' ,e
kia
Lam._ ' ° '• '4°0 ' i F - tlb'0ilt : : ....
�11df1 �fl. ,C'" ��
y r /�
i ' C1ncLe I oNenO k w , d :sett o1 " of rrom- .-LL ->1 I !r less, ,I. AI'4.0' dFt.0, • r �$e'e.20.
�t w N. ro6a1,•. ,.. ,tllo•IlN I Y1eu1 ,. also•• 1� �•1 ., i
' � a ° Md10 @ 111d f! i • +,, leant L p.�". . i Id11d. leas I•Illn - Idlttd ' of/l' y '
" 11/1 J S fedlo if
i ., . Iddu " WAY filial x r uea%l/eee',,y ,
Ides eud, °Ki+�
•'
4 • •
@7�°t• d A
. . . . nEPPFE0 . .
/1UG � Gi990
4111 ,I. Introduction City of tato Oe+r4o • '
land DuYcbpm:nl SclYIC01
The following is a formal request for the City of Lake swego '
for a Minor Land Partition. Approximatley 1 acre will be -
developed into three home sites . The site is located at •
5207 S.W. Rosewood, Lake Oswego, OR, 97035.
II. Project Summary
A. Description of Project
The applicant proposes to develop three single-family y.
lots ranging in size from 7 , 256 . 91 to 28 , 722 . 9 square
feet. The site is accessed from Rosewood Street. A •
•
proposed private road will be constructed to access
the two newly created lots from this minor land
partition.
The Rosewood one-half street improvement along with
an additional 10 foot dedication across the frontage
of the site as required by the city. This will
accomodate future improvements of Rosewood Street.
ft• B. Site Description
g •I.
' The site, which is rectangular, .and consists of
i; 43 , 614 . 50 feet in size and is generally flat overall.
It contains no wetland. There are 30 Douglas Fir Trees
ranging in trunk size from 12 to 30 inches .
III • Compliance : Lake Oswego General Ordinance
The following are written responses to the applicable sections
of the ordinance related to the porject. The preliminary plan,
details, calculations, and other data enclosed are also in
responce to these standards, and should be reviewed in conjunction
•
with this required narrative.
i.
Section 4 . 005 - Wetlands •
- The City of Lake Oswego hydrology map indicates the presence
of wetlands adjacent to the north property line of the subject •
>, property . No development is proposed involving wetland area ,
therefore it will not be impacted.
Section 48 . 115 Zoning districts
The proposed property is zoned Residential- High Density R-5
• with a minimum lot size of 5000 square feet. This Minor Land •`.:`•
0 I
Partition complies as the smallest lot size will be 70256 . 91
' 6 1C )
+
, . , + Syt 'Nr ',,i
o
w ' .
•
k
square feet.
®Section 14 . 005 Utility Statidard
+ •
a
All utilities will be extended into the property p y per the± '. ' , r4; City' s requirements as there will be two houses built on the
two newly created lots
Section 18 . 005 Access
The property will be accessed by a private road to be built
off of Rosewood Street. it will be aO feet in width as already
approved by the Fire Department.
14
a Tree Protection
•
The preservation of the maximum amount of trees located on the
property will be enforced.
Drainage
The proper provision will be made for all storm drains and '
minor drainage affecting the proposed property.
Parking and Loading
The required space will be provided for each proposed lot
4 �,^'; the City' s requirements for parking and loading. per 4
L
• . ,
•
' p .
r
o
'•
' P
.I i
m i.
L. •
e. o
•
The following is a narrative designed to meet the re uiremen q is dA0 for a class II Variance Procedu e. L'lnclosed you will also find .k,
a site plan, tax map and property ownership list, all relatin
' to the property that is proposed for the variance. g
Our first and most important goal in this project is not to create
any unnecessary hardship or undesirable impact on the surrounding r'♦
community. At the same time achieve our desire to acquire this
Variance so as to minor land partition our property into three
seperatc� lots. This will make the most reasonable and desirable ♦ : '
use of the property without being in conflict with the Comprehensive
Plan of the City of Lake Oswego.
I. Variance Request
' The variance requested from the City of Lake Oswego is to have o,
' " their
•
permission to build a private road down the center of the
proposed property which would be accessed off of Rosewood Street,
•
This would allow ingress and egress to the newly created lots . +° � 1 .
A. Prior to this request, we met with the Lake Oswego Fire
Department and reviewed our road
T ' we weregiven proposal. At that time • _
permission to proceed with our design as it
fufilled their requirements for private roads . As you will
see on the enclosed site drawing, the road would be 20 feet
in width, approximately 215 feet in length with a residential
turn around at the end. This would be consistant with the ` .v,
City of Lake Oswego's standards for private roads .
B. In granting this variance, the proposed property would
become consistant with the surrounding neighborhood. Adjacent
to the east property line is a similar situation. Two new
homes have been built on a minor land partition with a private
road accessing them. Across Rosewood Street, adjacent to the
south property line, a minor partition was •
improvements are being made to create new lotsnted and currently M
•
C. The physical circumstances of the proposed property all lend
themselves to the proposed variance.
The flat and rectangular in shape. There are 30oDouglassFirltreesly
that are located towards the rear
portion of the property. This
A • is advantagous as it will be possible for most of the trees to ♦'': ,
•
remain. This enhances the property and remains consistant with
the surrounding neighborhood . No wetlands are located on the
pro"•1ty and any and all drainage and erosi
' da r, n �krol will be
^o "lcted to comply w' 'rh th - ,k, r 1 ��
�. aCS s
:r I'�I�}ryU 11 I f l'
411)
PUG ��6 '4 I g EXHIBIT N
I: �Z
•
4 •
l dhj�lditf�hlll��l "iGIY a�i 3,.. 0\\44.J po 1_• , ti
yi
• , • 1,
•
II. Variance Advantages •
' •
A. Our obtaining this variance is essential for us to •
achieve our goal and long time dream of building our own
home. We have been residents of the City of Lake Oswego Of
for 23 years and have resided in our home on Rosewood
during that time. We wish to build a new home on one of
• the two newly created lots and at the same time enhance the
surrounding heighborhood.
r•
In summary, we feel our proposal will have a positive affect on
all concerned. The improvements necessary to build a private road
and create three lots is consistant to the surrounding neighborhood.
Two new homes could be built which would improve the neighborhood
but also allow many trees to remain. The proposed property lends
itselr well to three lots and no undesirable conditions exist
to conflict or create hazards to complicate the needed improvements .
Any building, utilities and road improvements would meet the
development standards as outlined by the City of Lake Oswego.
Lastly, our personal goal would be achieved to build a home on
0a newly created lot and at the same time remain in our neighborhood
experiencing the added beauty it has brought to the area.
4 f
1
Y
' 1
rl..
•
111 . .
o
o
0
, • .
. .
. , , . ..' . . . •.
, -— • ..-
.
. . .
, . .
•
. -- 1/
i . . .
• ' • .
. ' :. ,,. .14',11. , ... . •
.,..; • , Parc e.L ..z
Po.vc.d. 3
, • $,,,,,;) ,..16. , .
. .
'v•g•) ..P ... .
. .
, .
.. ,
, .
. ...1.0 ..,..0 „ .
. • . .
. .
. ,
• . . . .
. .• . n ..15 .
, . .., •
. .
, . 4....
. .
N 140
. , •
, .
. . • lb ,..
,.. . :to •, .0
.. ' . - .,.:,p •••...., . . ,.... I
. .
1%0
. •
• i
, ...• , . „e,
'
, • . 1 I ‘f-CI. s/..
. „
. .
. . . ' I • I .
. ' .
.
. k I I t.1
I• ,
i • . I. X.1
, . /
.. , /) / ,•'•.
f4 • / ,
. .
., , , ..,......
ii 1 ut Pc,A
(It '
,, .• I , /3' I
II II .11,,' ....Vqil. r:.77 \\.49. . .
•
A3 .
.. . ,. ,., . .. .
(N, ' . .
• '
,. . /
,-: iz I ek.,6.•t t?.
• t 0. 1 .
....1 1--....3.1.1621._ /
•,—
••.,
• ' • L.1.02.......A.4 ,,,
LI
•' I 1 P"C6CZ / 11;1 .
I.A ni. ', :: ng@gPlrffij I 1 Ammomm.•••••••••.. ,
J,i"..1 x H i a r
AUG18 isgo . . . .
,
.. .L . .,
0 G.of tali oleo I
44*K1w04014r0M d/,3 I I
I
' t ..'
. o
itA.7 414., ,
/ •' . .
. !
' '1.":"•1.,.."..;." . ',
•
' ''t ", . • . - , • ' h!
,. ." • ,
, .
. .
'' • ,
. . •
.,. .
•
•
, .' . . •
,
• ' • .
' , . ' •1 .
pdate to the Odtober 17, 1989
Memorandum (which ;related the „ •
August 19, 1989 mur+ioLandum) .
Adopted by Council December 5,
1989.
MEMORANDUM
4111
To: Development Review Board Members
Planning Commission Members
4 4 LEXHIBIT ,
; . From: Mayor and City Council G Gel ) .
h •
Date: December 5, 1989 3G-'���V �-4�
Subject: Interpretation of Comprehensive Plan Policies Relating
to School Capacity
This memorandum is an update to the City Council 's prior
memoranda of August 19, 1989, and October 17, 1989. The initial
August 19 memorandum contained the City Council 's initial
determination of the school capacity issue. The October 17,
• ''' 1989, memorandum contained updated information and data received
\, by the City Council at a joint meeting with the Lake Oswego
School District Board held on October 2, 1989. This memorandum
contains updated information and data relating to voter approval
of a $17,800,000 Lake Oswego School District facilities
improvement bond issue on November 7, 1989.
As a result of recent determinations by the Development Review
Board in its consideration of two applications for residential
development that there is a lack of elementary school capacity , ,
the City Council has conducted an inquiry into the necessity for
` the enactment of a moratorium on residential development, in
accordance with the provisions of ORS 197. 505-197.540 . A pattern
of denials ofresidential development applications is defined by
state law as 'a moratorium. The Council has been made aware of
the exclusion from that definition of actions "in accordance
with" an acknowledged Comprehensive Plan, and, on the advice of r
the City Attorney, concluded that the exclusion is not applicable
to the current situation. State law does not permit the adoption
of a moratorium without the City first making the findings
required by the statute.
The conclusion of 6 of the 7 Council members at the end of that
inquiry was that the facts currently existing do not provide the
,� basis for the Council to make the findings required by state law
to justify the need for a moratorium.
The resulting dilemma is obvious: on the one hand the °
Development Review Board denied two applications for lack of
school capacity based on City Comprehensive Plan policies (a
pattern which st. W law classifies as a moratorium ) , and yet the ,'
`'„ Council has concluded that facts do not exist to make the, � required findings under state law that are a precondition to the
enactment of a moratorium.
It is the purpose of this memorandum to provide to both of the
C“'y land use hearing bodies the Council 's interpretations of the
' .,rl~t•ehensive Plan policies regarding school capacity . It is
r . essar'y to have consistency in decision making from application
to application, and between the hearing bodies and the Council.
,
f A 1 1 r .
Memo: Development Review. Board Aii ! ~•
and Planning Commission Members
IP
December 5, 1989 •
Page 2 •
These interpretations reconcile the apparent inconsistencies
between state and local law in a way that gives deference to the
• superior state law while giving effect to <<the Plan language t,, � ' , '
through an interpretation process that ha historical precedent .
' . ' , These interpretations are based upon factual determinations set 1 "
7.4',`,4 forth in Attachment No. 1 . ".\(
The interpretations provided in this memorandum will maintain a
consistency between state and local law. The Comprehensive Plan ' ,.. "
policies, with regard to school capacity , will be satisfied k '' '
unless the Council in the future declares a moratorium. Because
facts will change over time, so may the conclusions concerning
Comprehensive Plan compliance and the current lack of the factual
preconditions for the enactment of a moratorium. Staff will
update the factual portions of this memorandum on a regular
basis , in coordination with the school district, and keep the
Council and District aware of the changing circumstances .
Future Planning staff reports will rely on this memorandum when
addressing the school capacity issue. The Council expects that
if Comprehensive Plan compliance based on the school capacity
issue is raised during a hearing on a residential development0 . :„
1 � application, each hearing body will reach the conclusions set
p forth in this memorandum. This issue is not static and will be
t?, with us for the foreseeable future. The Council is committed to
improve the current data exchange efforts between the District
Jiit and the City.
The Council wants to insure t-k t applicants receiving development
approvals are aware of the current school capacity situation and
understand that the Council is very concerned about this issue
and has the authority to enact a moratorium at a later date if
justified by the facts . The Council directs staff to develop '
appropriate language to be included in the approval orders, to be
reviewed by the hearing bodies , to accomplish this purpose.
Attachment No. 1 provides the factual findings of the Council
with regard to the school capacity issue upon which these
interpretations are based. Attachment No. 2 is a listing of the
!actual information relied upon to support those findings .
Attachment No. 3 contains the interpretations of the relevant •
Plan policies .
The City Council sincerely expresses its gratitude to the members .
of the Development Review Board who have been faced with the
difficult job of dealing with this issue in the first instance,
. , ,
and who have done so with professionalism and obvious great411 ,
concern for the community as a whole.
Atty/Correspond-7
. Attachments 1-3
4
r r ,
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
411) FACTUAL FINDINGS
( 12-5-89)
The City and the School District have coordinated concerning the
impact of development on the ability of the District to meet its "
legal obligations to educate the children of the District . A
significant portion of the School District lies outside the city
limits and the City has no c•r:ntrol over the impacts of growth
occurringoutside its boundaries. •
The City has received no
communication from other jurisdictions served by the District s'
that they perceive a problem or intend to limit development due
4 . to school capacity problems . :,
The District has provided the City the following facts :
•
• . •.•f''1 1 . Attendance in the 1988-89 school year at the Lake Grove
•
Elementary School exceeded the capacity the District
r. '
}. determined necessary to provide an urban level of
service at that school. The Lake Grove Elementary
School population has been reduced for the 1989-90
school year. Enrollment on June 1 , 1989 was 651
students . Enrollment as of October 2 , 1989 is 530
students .
2 . The District has short term plans in place that address
® the current capacity problems on a District wide basis .
By implementing these plans, the District stated it will
continue to provide an educational experience to its . .
students that meets District standards .
Through use of the short term plan, the District can
,
3.
accommodate a maximum capacity of 3 ,726 elementary
students .
4 . The District as of Octbber 2, 1989, had an elementary
school enrollment of 3 , 157 students. Based on maximum
capacity and current projections , on October 1 , 1989 the •
District by implementing the short term plan will have
unused capacity system wide that will accommodate 578 �"
additional elementary students .
5 . The District has a long term plan to provide capacity in
addition to the 578 seats to be made available through
, the short term plan. These long term plans include an
additional elementary school and remodeling existing
•
facilities .
6 . The maximum capacity of 3 ,726 students , assuming a
continuation of the current rate of growth, will v
accommodate new students into the 1991-92 school year.
4 , ,..
• .
. ,
. .
. .
. . . ., ,
() .. ' . . ,
Attachment No. 1
December 5, 1989 111 " ,
.
. Page .2
7 . The earliest completion date for the new school
authorized by the November, 1989 bond facility election ,,, ',
is Fall, 1991 . The remodeling of existing facilities , •
to be funded by the bond issue will be completed before
that date and will provide at least 250 additional
® seats. The new school will have an ideal capacity of
500 students .
8. The District as a practice does not construct facilities
in anticipation of growth, but attempts to coordinate •
the construction of facilities so they will meet a
current demand at completion and not stand empty or he
underutilized.
9 . The District projects student populations using a
computer model. The projections are based on school
. attendance areas and the District does not attempt to
project at the level of individual subdivisions or
houses . Projections are compared with actual student
' t-:.% counts . Based on these comparisons, modifications to
the computer program factors are made if warranted. The411 . .
District 's projections in the last 2 years have been
:Cr quite accurate. The physical counting of children in
the district on a regular basis, as the data base for
° � projections , does not provide a significant enough
improvement in accuracy to justify the additional
expense it would take to carry out such program.
By comparing data compiled over the last six years concerning
development approvals .-:nd vacant lots with the actual growth in
school population, the conclusion can be drawn that there is not
`m a quantifiable and direct relationship between the school
population and those '2 factors that will assist the District in
making short term student projections . Other factors such as
market reception, interest rates, the health of the Oregon
economy and family size of buyers and sellers of existing homes
also affect the number of new children in the District 's
population. Based upon the present level of sophistication of
the City and District planning processes, it is not possible to
predict with any degree of certainty how soon after approval
children from new residential developments will enter the school
system.
411, . .
`„,;,.:
4
ha
4111 Attachment No. 1 '."
December 5, 1989
Page 3
The District voters in May, 1989 approved a new district tax base by an approximate 2 : 1 margin. The old tax base was $19 ,542,310 .
The new tax base is $29, 975,00t. The new tax base contains levy
authorization above that levied by the District in the current fiscal year and is intended to fund growth and staffing and
- .l maintenance for the new capital facilities to be funded from the November, 1989 bond issue. This community has a solid history of support for school funding measures . The November 7, 1989
facility bond issue passed by a substantial margin.
The District has been planning to meet the demands generated by
growth. During the middle 1980 's , the District proposed using a
middle school concept. A switch to middle schools would have
freed space in the elementary schools for additional students.
The debate caused turmoil in the District and the concept was
dropped.
Coupled with the change in Superintendents occurring soon
thereafter, the District planning and implementation of funding
measures to accommodate elementary school pooulation growth was
, " ID delayed. The growth was anticipated but the community debate
over how to best address the impacts of
provision of the District 's solutions . growth has delayed the
The City Council may, at anytime when justified by the facts,
enact a moratorium on building permits pursuant to ORS 197 .520 .
i The District has the responsibility under state law to educate
•
the children of the District. The Council views the District as an expert in educational matters. The Council accepts the
statement of the District that it will provide an educational experience for its students that meets District standards .
Atty/Correspond-7
40 .
, .
•
. ,
•
;w
1, .
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
* 7
FACTUAL INFORMATION CONSIDERED BY CITY COUNCIL,,'` ®
( 12-05-89)
1 . sill Korach, Lake Oswego School District Elementary
Enrollments- August 8, 1989
2. Karen Scott, packet containing:
Building permittl year, single-family, graph
- Building permits\rbi year, multi-family, graph
- Total single family lots recorded by year
- Inventory of vacant lots, July 1 , 1989
- Number of lots recorded from 7/1/83 to 6/30/89
- Number of building permits issued for single-family from
7/1/83 to 6/30/89
- Number building permits issued for multi-family from
7/1/83 to 6/30/89
- School enrollment K-6 from 1983 to 1989
3 . Class size and public policy: Politics and Panaceas, Office
-ref Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of
Education
4 . Opinion issued by James A. Redden, Attorney General,
June 11 , 1979
5. Memorandum from City Attorney to Mayor and City Council,
July 31, 1989
Y4' 6 . Report from Lake Oswego School District, July 5 , 1989,
with attachments
7. Proceedings of joint City Council/School Board meeting,
July 31 , 1989
8 . Proceedings of City Council meeting, August 8, 1989 fr,
9. Letter from Susan Brody, Director, Department of Land
Conservation and Development, dated August 8, 1989
10 . Handouts from Bill Korach, Lake Oswego School Superintendent
a . Teacher-Student ratio and classroom space
b. Enrollment projections , service level, and short and long
term solutions
11 , Lake Oswego School District: The Facts, submitted by Wick
Bunick 410
12 . Transcript excerpt from August 7, 1989 Development Review
Board meeting ( tape including excerpt also submitted)
•
• 1 '
A
Attachment No. 2
1110 December 5, 1989
Page 2
13. Enrollment graph showing actual enrollment from 1962-1967 and
projections through 1989-1990 submitted by Warren Oliver
14 . Statistical chart titled "Determination of K-6 Student
Factor" submitted by Erin O'Rourke-Meadors
15. Letter from B. Ayres dated July 24 , 1989
a 16. Letter from Jae Rieg dated August 3, 1989
•
17. Letter from Pam Sparks dated 'August 8, 1989
18. Letter signed by Chamber of Commerce pastresidents
Decker, Paul Graham, and Rob Barrenti,ne andBobChizum,
Chamber members, dated July 28, 1989
19. Letter from Douglas Oliphant, Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce President, dated July 20, 1989 • •
20. Letter from William T. Ryan dated August 8, 1989
Ah 21 . Letter from Leonard G. Stark, dated August 7, 1989
•
111,
22. Letter from Robert
and Mary Larsen, dated August 5, 1989
23. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Clark, dated August 6 , 1989
a
24 . Letter from Robert Butler, dated August 4 , 1989
25. Letter0from Lynora Saunders, Chair, Forest Highlands �' o
Neighborhood Association, dated August 1 , 1989
26 . Letter from D.R. Norris, dated July 29, 1989
27. Letter from Judith D. Umaki, dated August 1 , 1989
28 . Charles Hales, Staff Vice President for Govetnmental Affairs ,
Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, letter
dated August 14 , 1989
29 . Gregory D. Meadors letter, dated August 13, 1989
30 . Celeste Ward letter, dated August 14, 1989
31 . Debby and Doug Kemper letter, dated August 14, 1989
Ash 32. Carol Webb letter, dated August 14 , 1989
•
Attachment No. 2
December 5, 1989
Page 3
a
33. Bill Bache let. er, dated August 14 , 1989
34 . Debbie Seitz u1.11,cer (undated) received August 14, 1989
35. Benjamin Schwartz, M.D. letter, dated August 14, 1989
36. Gayle Bache letter, dated August 14, 1989
37. Martha Rothstein letter, dated August 14 , 1989
38. Ala F. Rothstein letter, dated August 13, 1989
39. Robert S. Dahlman Sr. letter, dated August 13 , 1989
40. Janice A. Burt letter, dated August 13, 1989
41 . Jane Culberton letter, dated August 14, 1989
42 . Toni Smith letter, dated August 13, 1989, including attached
newspaper articles and copy of Bill Korach's memorandum dated
July 5, 1989
43. Deborah B. Feldsee letter, dated August 14, 1989
44. Steven M. Berne letter, dated August 14, 1989
45. Wilma McNUlty letter, dated August 14, 1989
46. Leonard G. Stark letter, dated August 14, 1989
47. Gay Graham letter, dated August 11 , 1989
48. Marilyn Roberts letter, dated August 10, 1989
49. Mary Avery letter, dated August 10, 1989
50. Bill Tucker letter, dated August il , 1989
51 . Kim and Barb Ledbetter letter, dated August 14 , 1989
52 . Richard M. Bullock letter, dated August 11, 1989
53. Charles D. RUttan letter, dated August 9, 1989
•
54. William Sorenson letter, dated August 11 , 1989
•
55, Mardi Nemhauser letter, dated August 10 , 1989
56. Charles A. Mansfield letter, dated August 10, 1989
.
Attachment No. 2
December 5, 1989
Page 4
57. tarry E. Walker letter, dated August 10, 1989
58. Katherine and Donald McMahon letter, dated August 14, 1989
59. Stephen Swerling letter, dated August 14, 1989
60. Karen Griffin, League of Women Voters letter,
dated June 20, 1989
61 . Cheryl M. Petrie letter, dated August 13, 1980.)
62. Letter from Rick Newton, dated August 15, 1989
63 . Letter from JaAnn Gillen, dated August 14, 1989
64 . Letter from Patrick F. Stohe, dated August 11 , 1989
65. Map of City and District boundaries
66. Determination of impact as of July 28, 1989, submitted b
Erin O'Rourke-Meadors Y
• 67. Bill Korach, "Questions and Answers:
District Coping with Growth. " How is the School
Joint School Board/City Council CMeeting eofd tOctobero CitC2, 1989. )
68. Bond issue information, November 1989
( Oswego School District. ► prepared by Lake
69. Election results, November 7, 1989, Lake Oswego School
District 1989 Facilities Improvement Bond.
Atty/Correspond-7
•
•
ATTACHMENT NO. 3. 111
PLAN POLICY INTERPRETATIONS
( 12-05-89)
In the consideration of the school capacity issue within the
framework of a quasi-judicial hearings considering specific land
use applications, one Specific Policy has been focused upon by
those seeking denial of the applications on the basis of a lack
of school capacity. That policy is Specific Policy 4 for Urban
Service Boundary General Policy III . A few other policies have
also been raised. Before stating the Council 's interpretation of
• those policies, it is necessary to restate the rational for the
City's interpretation that the General Policies of the Plan are
the regulatory language of the Plan.
The City's Comprehensive Plan was first adopted in 1978 and was
developed as a result of legislation at the estate level in 1969
• and 1973 which required local jurisdiction to adopt a
• comprehensive plan which was consistent with established
statewide land use planning goals .
A "comprehensive plan" is defined by state law as:
" (A] generalized, coordinated land use map and policy
statement of the governing body of a local government that
interrelates all functional and natural systems and •
activities relating to the use of lands, including, but not
limited to, sewer and water systems , transportation systems,
educational facilities, recreational facilities, and natural
resources and air and water quality management programs.
'Comprehensive ' means all-inclusive, both in terms of the
geographic area covered and functional and natural
activities and systems occurring in the area covered by the
plan. 'General nature' means a summary of policies and
proposals in broad categories and does not necessarily
indicate specific locations of any area, activity or use. A
plan is 'coordinated ' when the needs of all levels of
governments , semipublic and private agencies and the
citizens of Oregon have been considered and accommodated as
much as possible. 'Land ' includes water, both surface and
subsurface, and the air. "
At
tthestate level each statewide planning goal, which are
mandatory statewide planning standards and are general in nature ,
is accompanied by "guidelines" . The guidelines are:
" (S)ug,gested approaches designed to aid cities and counties
in preparation, adoption and implementation of comprehensive
plans in compliance with goals and to aid state agencies and
special districts in the preparation, adoption and implementation
of plans , programs and regulations in compliance with goals .
Guidelines shall be advisory and shall not limit state agencies ,
cities, counties and special districts to a single approach . "
Y
Attachment No. 3 f
,.
1111 December 5, 1989
Page 2
The City's Plan, at page v, explains the difference between
Objectives, General Policies and Specific Policies in the
following way,
"The adopted plan contains Objectives , which are short
statements of the purpose of the policies, General Policies ,
which are major methods of achieving objectives, Specific
Policies, which are more detailed steps to carry out General
Policies , . . . . " 1J
There are also strategies for carrying out the plan found in
Volume II, which is the background information and supporting
tikt,' '• documentation for the plan. The language has historically been
applied as follows :
The general policies of the plan are the portions which are
"regulatory" in nature. They are the "generalized policy
statements" which constitute a comprehensive plan as defined by
' state law. A hearing body, in order to ap
rove *an must conclude that the applicable general policies of the
comprehensive plan have been followed. Each land use decision
must identify and explain why the requirements of the applicable
. IIIgeneral policies have been satisfied by the application. Not all
general policies are applicable to every decision.
In reaching a conclusion concerning compliance with a general
policy the hearing body will be
the specific policies for the guided in its decision making by � '
narrative language and strategpies�forlar thegeneral policy element.olic Inhe
many cases the specific policies for a general policy are
extremely detailed, to the point of describing area limitations
to the one/hundredth of an acre and specific building square
footages and many contain multiple detailed subsections .
If the specific policies are
given
t s
are the general policies then each provision rofuaa specific gp policy
will need to be complied with to the letter in order for an y
application or project to be approved. There is no the granting of variances from the regulatory provisions of
for
g
Plan. When an application or project conforms tothegneralhe
policy, but perhaps not to the letter of a subsection of one of
the specific policies for the general p-ylicy, the application or
project as a whole must be denied if the specific policies are
construed to be regulatory in nature. All must be complied with in order for an applicationttoybetnrrvs
approved .
Attachment No. 3
III
December 5, 1989
Page 3
. 4
The specific policies are considered during the analysis of an
application or project. If the staff recommendation is that a
project complies with a general policy, but the detail of a
specific policy is not followed, an explanation should be
provided why, notwithstanding that inconsistency with the
specific policy, the recommendation is nonetheless consistent
with the applicabra general policy.
This approach has been employed in City decision making
consistently for 7 years and has twice been considered by LUBA
without a reversal on this point. This methodology implements
the Plan in a manner which is consistent with the state law
definitions which govern local land use planning and at the same
time does not minimize the level effort and scrutiny that went
into the original plan development ,,
Each of the applicable General Plan Policies will be discussed
below. No General Policy specifically requires that adequate
school capacity be established prior to the approval of a
residential development. Schools are mentioned in a few specific
policies and it is from these references that the policies become
applicable in the review of a development application. S
1. Overall Density General Policy i
The Comprehensive Plan will maintain the overall, average
residential density of the Urban Service Area within the
• capacity of planned basic public facilities systems,
including at least water, sewer, streets, drainage and public
safety.
Specific Policy 3-
The City will coordinate planning of facilities with the Lake
Oswego School District, to assure that school capacities and
expansion costs are considered. "
This policy requires that the Comprehensive Plan density be such
that the, planned densities do not result in land uses that will
exceed the capacity of public facilities systems available or
planned This policy regulates Comprehensive Plan map densities
and is not applicable in the development review stage. The
appropriateness of the plan map designation or zone designation
•
on a given site is not an issue in a hearing on a development
application.
0
v v
. C
Attachment No. 3
December 5, 1989
IIIPage 4 L-,
2. Impact Management General Policy II
° ' The City will evaluate zoning and development
�, comprehensively for their impacts on the community,roposals
q
the developer to provide appropriate solutions before
approval is granted.
Specific Policy 6:
Encourage the Lake Oswego School District to provide specific
information on school capacity to be taken into consideration
in development review. "
This policy is the one most directly focused upon school capacity +, ax
in the development review, process. This a
• detailed review of ts policy requires that a
City seek capacity informationtakfre omathece aDistrict.directs the
development review process and the development standards insure
that this review takes place. The City is coordinating with the
School District on school capacity issues and is encouraging the
District to provide the City with school capacity information.
The July 5, 1989 report from the District and the July 31 , 1989
0 and the October 3, 1989 joint meetings are examples of this
coordination and "encouragement" . Because of the variety of
factors that impact school population, it is not currently
possible to predict with a great degree of accuracy school
populations beyond the coming
unpredictable when a child from ea rhometonsaelotlin auncerta
and
approved development will enter the school population. However,
once a building permit has been issued for a dwelling, i
t reasonably certain that the structure will be occupied in bheomes
near time frame (3-6 months)
. By populations and outstanding building
monitoring actual school
6 month time frame can be done withaneacceptablermits, edegreegofver 3-
reliability.
If this coordination results in the development of data which
supports the findings required by the state moratorium statute to
establish a capacity shortages a moratorium on building permits
can be enacted in sufficient time to minimize the inflow of new
students to the district.
3. Impact Management General Policy V.
The City will plan and program for the provision of adequate
public services and facilities.
•
Attachment No. 3
December 5, 1989 410
Page 5
Specific Policy 3:
Prohibit land ues or intensities which tax or exceed the
normal capacity 'of public services except in instances where
the developer pays all costs of providing additional required
capacity, subject to City Council approval. '
The General Policy requires that City to plan and program for the
provision of adequate facilities. This City cannot plan or
program for the School District. The City does coordinate with
the District. This policy does not require the city to plan
facilities for the school . Through the enactment of the
moratorium statute, the State Legislature has prevented the City
from carrying out Specific Policy 3 on a case by case basis due
to a lack of school capacity. The moratorium statute is
available to temporarily prohibit on a system wide basis land
uses which exceeded „the capacity of the schools.
4. Urban Service Boundary General Policy III
The City will manage and phase urban growth within the Urban
Services Boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic
services:
To establish priorities for the phased extension of services,
the City will identify areas within the Urban Services
Boundary as follows:
(1) Lands suitable for near future development (IMMEDIATE
GROWTH)
(2) Lands in long range growth areas. (FUTURE URBANIZABLE) .
The City will schedule public facilities through a
capital improvements program and financing plan.
Specific Policy 4:
New development shall be served by an urban level of services
of the following:
a. Water
b. Sanitary sewer
c. Adequate streets, including collectors
d. Tyansportation facilities
e. Oben space and trails, as per Open Share Element
f. City policy protection
g. City fire protection •'
h. Parks and recreation facilities, as per Parks and
Recreation Element
o
Attachment No. 3
• December 5, 1989
Page 6
1p
i. Adequate drainage
• j . Schools
Services shall be available or committed prior to approval of
development. Such facilities or services may be provided
concurrently with the land development for which they are
necessary if part of an adopted capital budget at the time of
approval of the development, or if provided by the developer
with adequate provisions assuring completion, such as
° performance bonds. '
The Urban Services Boundary Policies direct that the City. define
the future growth area for which it intends to he the major
provider of public services. Within the ultimate growth area ,
General Polieiy III directs that basic services will be logically
extended andthat the phasing of service extensions be first to
immediate gri wth areas and secondly to '''the future urbanizable
areas. The City is then to schedule public facilities through a
capital improvements program and financing plan.
Specific Policy 4 relates directly to nothing in the language of
the General Policy. The Specific Policy almost seems misplaced,
and would be more logically placed in the Plan as a Specific
Policy for Impact Management General Policy II, discussed above,
which addresses the impacts of development on services . It is
notable that the specific policies for that General Policy do not
require the type ofprecise fit in timing between development
approvals and the provision of services that is contained in
Specific Policy 4.
The most relevant language of this General Policy to the issue at
hand is that the City will "manage and phase" growth with a
"logical planned" extension of "basic" services .
District is logically planningto The School
demands generated by provide new facilities to serve
growth. The District, like school districts
in general, provides facilities in response to demand--not in
anticipation of demand. The Director of the Department of Land
Conservation and Development urges recognition of this fact and
identifies schools , along with police and fire services , as
"responsive" facilities . The Director draws a. distinction, for
planning purposes , between these responsive facilities and
transportation, water, sewage and drainage facilities which in
her words "must attend,, rather than follow or respond to,
construction. "
II
' C
C . .
I
Attachment No. 3
December 5, 1989 Page 7 •
'Specific Policy 4 , on the other hand, directs
available or committed that schools be
that has not occurred, the SpecificPolicy states that approval" of development. If
y schoolso
,ma be provided "concurrently" with development "if
adopted annual capital budget at the time of part the an
development . "
approval of
I' The Specific Policy contradicts the language of its
Policy in that it is illogical, and inconsistent General
function in this state, to require schools to be constructed
with how schools
;funded prior to the approval of the development which orf\ \ serve' hich they will
The City has experienced the result of a strict a
the language of this Specific Policy. A defect() morator pplitor iumi m of
resulted in circumstances which did not justify the enactment
a moratorium pursuant to state law.planning and coordination between the TCityhe uandnSchoolt lDistrict satisfy this General Policy., District
In summary, �
the three General Policies listed above which are
applicable to the school capacity issue in the consideration
specific development application, when read together, require
City to de ration of a � � '
plan for services sufficient to accommodate t e the
coordinate with the School District on capacity issues
` evaluate p growth,
applications and determine impacts. School capacity
a system wide issue and forecasting when new
the school system is notwill city is
precise. growth r impact
single land use applicationA Quasi-judicial hearing on a
which to make deteminationslconcernin s not the asystem appropriate forum within
capacity. There is not reliable data concerning1futureoim
pacts
that will result from a single application
impacts. The current level of crdi,natoonoandhplanning of those,,
continual monitoring of actual school
these policies . g► with ��
If it is determined that School capacitys swillfbe'
exceeded, with certainty,
exceeded
law toA
the City Council may employ the state
while the Districtpimplementsan cprogramsgtof the correctt� facilities
.
the problem.
Atty/Correspond-7
S . .
° I)
r((1 )
il
• ' ,_,..,.....11.,,,.___} .
•
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE .
MEMORANDUM
i EXHIBIT
TO: Planning Staff and
City Attorney's Office
igolf. *4
FROM: Peter C. Harvey, City Manager .01• v.4v2•. ►
SUBJECT: Interpretation of Minor Change to Variation of 25' Street Frontage Requirement (LOC 49.500(1)(B))
DATE: March 28, 1990 ,,
A request has been received for an interpretation of the language "minor •
change" in LOC 49.500(1) as it pertains to the 25' street frontage requirement.
That section further states that the City Manager shall determine whether a
• request is a Class I or Class II variance.
• The City Code (LOC 49,025) provides for the City Manager to interpret all
terms, provisions, and requirements. These interpretations may be appealed in
accordance with LOC 49.630.
For purposes of LOC 49,500(1)(B), an interpretation of the language, "minor
change" needs to combine the wording of the introductory portion of 49.500(1)
with the wording on the 25' street frontage requirement, This combination
would result in a phrase as follows:
`' A Class I variance is a minor change to vary the
street frontage requirement.
The next question is, how much of a variation is "minor," thereby, meeting the
requirements for a Class I variance; and how much of a variation would exceed
the "minor" change, thereby, becoming a Class II variance?
It would seem logical that a lot should have sufficient frontage on a street to
provide at least one vehicle travel lane and for emergency acess, On vehicle
travel lane is 10 feet, Some additional distance on each side is deeded, The
width needed for the operation of fire department emergency equipment is
13,5',
410 It is therefore my determination that a variation from 25' to 13.5' of the street
frontage standard would be considered "minor change" and a Class I variance,
and a variation to less than 115' would be a Class II variance,
<cmo>planning,st,variance
380"A"AVENUE/POSTOFEICC8OX369/LAOOSWEGO,ORECON0034/(503);635.0215
r ;,
1f co �_f m Jar ,♦.. .cy ri v♦ 4;0
d
•
,�
� 1�
) .7
;' My. �u
CITY' F LAKE 051N EGQ
_ PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING SCHEDULE ° a
JANUARY THROUGH JUNE, 1990•
•
„ A,�ppplacet on Due Dates Meeting, Da4 e a �, . ;
(Fridays, typically) "
'�5* m
Plan & Zone. Amendments Other ,* plicationa Second _ Foerth,.Mond:a, ds
November 13, 1989 (Mon. ) .November 27, 1989 (Mon. ) . .January 8
November 27, .1989 Mon•) ,De cembe 8, 1989. • . . . . . . . ♦January 22
December 8, 1989. .,.. . . . . .December 29, 1989•' . . . . . . . .Febr.uary 12 °
December 29, 1989. .". . . . . .January 12: , . . . . . . . . . . . . . .February 26" °
January 12• . •°. soli . ,I, ., . .'.Jenuary 26 -
larch 12
January 26. . , . . . . . ."• • . Y . .February 9Y . . . . , . , • ♦ . . . . . .March 26 °
February ,/9 -February 23 . April 9'
February 23. . ♦ . . . . . . . . . ::March 9 , . • ♦ . . . .,. :Apr$1 23
March/l!6. . ♦ . . . Y . . .March 30Y . , ♦ • . : . . iMal, 14
March 30c . April 3 . . a . . . . .May 30 (Wednesday)
o i3
April 6. . . • ♦ . . .April 27 • . . . . . ."June 11
April 27• . . . . . . • . . . ♦ . " "May 11 . • . . . . . . . .June 26 ,
Y,r
,,
! `l� /
SEE OTHER SIDE FOR DEVELOPMENT REVj�L �n„ ARD SCHEDULE
�' <, • J ,,,, `'..'
380"A"AVENUIE/PC�51 OAF r_ I IV
•
n ' M " � ' 1 ! ' -r, ! r�" k ,' rt : , p � 7 ',...•• `'..,r41 . ,, ,,+ ,, p14, t "-.i` . T „ ' '4.
•
.', i0• )4 f yd A,,, , � •r� . 1, ,I *p " ,,r*1R
' " .4'' w I,Yi '',...• •."JfM ♦aS �1 `il �frt 7ft • 1 r • 4" i '''l y ' -R -4r"' d --1! t • 4FJJ 7q,:c lr :f '1) i ••4'
"nl
.F P .., ,t43• '1.Pr \" • ' r it i
e $° 1 d h. i
S' 1 yy, �4 ni r n`
ia
�, " ' ,cy i1A y, yamI 'C N } aFI u.'V"A 4 1. '''
•V
it
� H " � i�a
'r vt yp[ � r tv Ain y 4a .r ,' Yf7"+ � 4 a f
r xw
-� .., ..,cr. n srs3ry�•. a.^t�""�� • '� �i' M'' 1 , y! C ,
�. " o JA iu ��t " aut�F.y 1990 w'
,x }or
i
x
�lircation' bus bates. r !f a '
0 1�p ° „Mee�ti,nyr Dees 4
(Fr1daye,, ty c tll` y F�irr .t._:6:.Third •M h e. ` '' "�
'i4.
y �.( ypice'1, )
0
,
O
- November .17, 1989 „• • . . . •.r.�•.;•�: January 3 (Wednesday) '
trecainber 1., 1.989. . • i • • • • • • • • • January 15
i ecenn er 22 p 198.9„. 4 . • • 16,. • • • • . . • • F'lebruary 5
January 5• . . • • • • • . : .;;• • • . 4 • • • 4 February 210 ''
y (Wednesday)
'January 19. . . . . .,.a • • ♦ ••0 • . • •• 6,,• • . . • March 5
February 2. March 19
_ w
February 16
March 2. • 4 • • • • . •,. ' • . . e • .. . .. April 16
March 23 'z ., . ,
• �•' . • •' • • • • •.. • • . e . • • b . . •.a•. • • May 7
c.
")L Apri1 6,
{ If• • • .♦ • e . .,e • • • i. eee `ie • • • • e • •,♦ • -• May 21.
•
Ap'r i l 20,• . . • • • ♦-•• . i`• i • i • i • i-• •.• • • e 1 • Gina, 4 ,a »
fa
May �, ♦ i • • • . • • .'/ i • •A,•..• •• • • e • i . . • . • Y 1
•
June 18
0 _ II; .lW
Ik
t "
:iS DL _ • a r B810M � � D%�
'.
(' 0 �}' '
i.
B,{1.. ».. is z 1)F? `E^''-M1+.q19,1 L:.P-i7� 41..• •131 f F Swl'S O 'YCG 0 `EI +Ayl,IN l 703 0(5 a 3 t'� "0.,� "•'''r+. FY"'-* ,` ,'"'.
..«......,..._.,..»».+,...._.,.nw.:..,..u.....W,_....._......,..,u.i.......:.....-.w�.»...,.........,...,...-...r..-..,,....r......sa...........,.,...,......!,'.�.�.,...� .�. .»...:+:«.. ,_,._...,.e......,..w....,d......<.....o.......,.......�............_,.. ..u,...._.a,._..._..._..:, .. ..,.,...