The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda Packet - 1991-11-04 A • AGENDA b i CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,CITY HALL,380 'A' AVENUE '.' Monday, November 4, 1991 7:30 P.M, ' I. CALL TO ORDER Agenda Book k II: ROLL CALL ). , ..r; ID. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1 May 20, 1991 June 3, 1991 July 11, 1991 IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. PUBLIC HEARING ti D1_L21, a request by David M. Norris for approval of a building permit and tree cutting permit in order to construct a single family dwelling on a 12, 153 sq. ft. parcel which has been identified in the 4 • 0 f' Comprehensive Plan as being a part of a Distinctive Natural Area (No. 20; Specimen firs—W. of Goodall Road). The site is located at , Country Club Road [Tax Lot 3700(portion) of Tax Map 2 4 •"i lE 04CA]. Staff coordinator is I R, ,21 1991. `�� Wheeler, AsSnrl�te Planner �'',�n n�ue from October t DR 6=21, a request by David M. Norris for approval of a building permit and tree cutting permit in order to':onstruct a single family dwelling on a 9,267 sq. ft, parcel which has been identified in the Comprehensive Plan as being a part of a Distinctive Natural Area (No. 20; Specimen firs—W. of ' 2. Goodall Road). The site is located at 14161 Goodall Road [Tax Lot 3700 (portion) of Tax Map 2 I E ,04CAJ. Staff coordinator is � 'f Michael Ii. Wheeler. Associate Planner mtinitprl from ) ig f�er 2l ,, _� DR 10-91,review by the Development Review Board of the emergency tree cutting permit for removal of the Cottonwood tree on Canal Road. The issue is whether the permit should be revoked based on intentional or unintentional misrepresentation of facts. The site is located west of Canal Road and south of Childs Road(Tax Lot 400 of Tax Map 2 l E 20BC), Staff coordinator is Humid_ r Pishyaie, Develo rtent Review nntinued from October 21, 1991. VI. GENERAL PLANNING Proposed Planned Development Standard VIL OTHER BUSINESS Findings, Conclusions and Order ! h t� • SD 25-79(Mod. 6-90)/HR 15-90(Revised) .-Lula F. Simpson DR 13-90 Michael Moody • • r '' •; ` � P , fir ,_. �nX 4 4. V131 ADJOURNMENT • • i • Tbe Lake Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go as you please. , • i • DRB Members:; Robert H.Foster,Chair Tom Coffee,Planning Director Skip Stanaway,Vice-Chair Robert Galante,Senior Planner James A.Bloomer Ron Bunch,Senior Planner • Robert D.Greaves Hamid Pishvaie,Dev.Review Planner Ginger Remy g Catherine Clark,Associate Planner Harry N.Starr Jane Heisler,Associate Planner Norman J.Sievert Barbara Smolak,Associate Planner Michael R.Wheeler,Associate Planner • Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney Barbara Anderson, DRB Secretary Kathy Avery,PC Secretary rr� • r• .• • • 44 • • • • r,Y 'r • • • • u . • .. . zak '. '/' 'r. ..z , • ti 1 4 y 1 d CITY .. F LAKE OSWEGO . .. ,,, ., .. . . . . . ... --PLANNING DIVISION------ INMINIIM u • �' TO: Development Review Board FROM: Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planneingk • SUBJECT: DR 5-91;DR 6-91 (Summary of Prior Action &Conditions, Review of Exhibit 92) DATE: October 25, 1991 On October 21, 1991 the Board requested a summary of prior action taken regarding the two i applications and a review of Exhibit 92 (Kirschbaum), Summary of Actions: r' July 3, 1991 Staff report published July 15, 1991 Staff memo published: Exhibits 34—58 added to record r July 15, 1991 Public hearing held. Following the close of the hearing, motion to continue was unanimously approved to allow applicant to specifically address the Tree Cutting Criteria. August 23, 1991 Memo published: Applicant's response to Tree Cutting Criteria provided(now known as Exhibit 68). 1 . September 20, 1991 Staff memo published: Exhibits 59—67 received at July 15 hearing and applicant's response to Tree Cutting Criteria (Exhibit 68) were provided. September 27, 1991 Staff memo published: City Attorney's memorandum regarding hearing procedure (Exhibit 69)provided along Exhibits 70—86 received following the close f thewith hetaring on July 15, 1991 October 11, 1991 Staff memo published: Listing of Exhibits 87—93 provided, along with synopsis of Exhibits 70—93 and recommendations regarding their acceptance, ,� October 21, 1991 Hearing reopened to take limited testimony as directed by City Attorney in Exhibit 69. Exhibit 94 submitted, Motion to continue, leaving record open for acceptance of all or part of Exhibits 70—94 was approved, •' ` , ' ` Summairy of Conditions (Tentatively Approved).:a Included with this addendum are copies of the draft findings regarding DR 5-91 and DR 6-91, to Mustrate the conditions of approval included in the Board's motions on September 4, 1991, a a 'y ' y i Review of Exhibit 92: n The Board requested review of a letter from Marjorie and Edward Kirschbaum,dated October • p 11, 1991 (Exhibit 92). Specifically, the Board requested review of Paragraphs 1 and 2,page 1; and the first full paragraph on page 3, for inclusion in the record as urged by Tim Sercombe, attorney for the applicant. Staff recommended acceptance of Paragraphs 1 and 2,page 1. Paragraph 1 is introductory in nature,proposing to address the applicant's August 29, 1991 letter(Exhibit 81). The paragraph notes that Exhibit 81 was intended by the applicant to have been part of th.. September 4 hearing • record. The paragraph notes that Exhibit 81 is in response to the author's letter of July 15 t ` (Exhibit 61) which was received at the hearing on that date. The paragraph also notes that the authors wish to address testimony of the applicant's attorney presented at the September 4 hearing. M y. Despite the fact that Exhibit 81 was received following the close of the hearing on July 15, 1991, and is currently being considered for acceptance into the record, staff recommended acceptance of Paragraph 1,page 1 because of its introductory nature. The testimony of the applicant's ' attorney on September 4 is already in the hearing record, so written testimony in that regard is appropriate. Paragraph 2, page 1 begins to address the applicant's August 29, 1991 letter(Exhibit 81), The paragraph defends the number of trees which the authors claim would be removed and suggests an unpredictable result. Staff recommended acceptance of Paragraph 2 because it addressed the issue of tree removal relative to evidence already in the record, and was not solely dependent upon Exhibit 81, whose acceptance is still being considered. The first full paragraph on page 3 of Exhibit 92 refers to a letter in the record (Exhibit 65) • regarding preservation of tree stands. Exhibit 65 refers to denial of land use applications by the : City because of the presence of trees. Based upon those assumptions of denial, the authors suggest that the Board be consistent in upholding the Comprehensive Plan policies applicable to • this case because they are the same policies applied in the referenced denials. The authors of paragraph 3 of Exhibit 92 have relied upon false assumptions made by the authors of Exhibit 65. There have been three cases approved in 1990 and 1991 regarding the area x' described in Exhibit 65 [SD 5-90/AP 90-3 (Lindley); SD 29-90(O'Connor)]; SD 40-90 (Winston); there have been no denials by the Board or the staff regarding the area described. Staff recommended that the paragraph not be accepted into the record because of the authors emphasis on these false assumptions. Staff has no objection to the inclusion of the paragraph in the record as long as the assumptions made are acknowledged by the Board as being in error, Exhibits Provided,.Recommendations Clarified:• Included with this addendum are copies of Exhibits 70 through 94 with paragraphs numbered, ' Also included are notations of the recommetidations for acceptance as they appeared in the October 11, 1991 staff memorandum. These notations are provided to assist the Board in considering which paragraphs or exhibits to accept or to delete from the record, r' ' (D11,9I4kEtq uabKS36-9I/TN1l/Menio113»2.1 , i. • d• v 1 BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD ' OF THE 2 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 3 4 4)4 .,: .:. , . A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF) DR 5-91-908 5 A BUILDING PERMIT AND ) (David R. Norris) ' 6 TREE CUTTING PERMIT ) FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &ORDER 8 9 • ' 10 NATURE OF APPLICATION 11 The applicant is requesting approval of a building permit end tree cutting permit in order to 12 construct a single family dwelling on a 12,153 sq. ft. parcel which has been identified in the ., 13 Comprehensive Plan as being a part of a Distinctive Natural Area (No, 28; Specimen firs— • , 14 W. of Goodall Road). The site is located north of Country Club Road, west of Goodall Road, �, h` 15 [Parcel 3 of Partition Plat 1990—53; Tax Lot 3700 (portion) of Tax Map 2 lE 04CA]. 16 17 HEARINGS, 18 The Development Review Board held a public hearing and considered this application at its 19 meeting of July 15, 1991 and September 4, 1991. 20 * 21 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 22 A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: 23 'Impact Management Policies 24 Wildlife Habitat Policies ' Distinctive Natural Area Policies 25 Distinctive Natural Area 26 Douglas—fir Groves; Number 28, Specimen Firs—west of Goodall Road Potential Landslide Area Policies 27 Potential Erosion Area Policies .,$ Energy Conservation Policies '` Stream Corridor Policies 29 Residential Neighborhood Policies , 0 Protection Open Space Policies R Bikeway Policies ''' 31 Pedestrian Pathway Policies • .:; 3 2 B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance: 33 34 LOC 48.015(25) Definition: Height of Building LOC 48,015(36) Definition: Lot Lite, Rear LOC 48,015(63) Definition: Yard, Rear ' 411 PAGE ` 1 DR 5-91-908 I r 1 LOC 48,195-48.225 R 7.5 Zone Description (setbacks, lot area, 2 lot coverage) . ,.. , 3 C. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: e ,t. ,, 4 LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards 5 LOC 49.140 Minor Development LOC 49.220-49.210 Minor Development Procedures 6 LOC 49.215 Authority of City Manager ix.`''., 7 LOC 49.610 Quasi judicial Evidentiary Hearing '' LOC 8 'rocedures 49.615 Criteria for Approval • 9 LOC 49.620 Conditional Approvals J • . 10 D. cityf L•oa_ke Qsw go Development tand^rrds: 11 3.005—3.040 Stream Corridors 12 5.005 —5.040 Street Lights 13 7.005 —7.040 Parking&Loading Standard 12.005— 12.040 Drainage Standard for Minor Development 14 14.005— 14.040 Utility Standard 15 16.005— 16.040 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control i • 3 19.005— 19.040 Site Circulation—Private Streets/Driveways 16 17 E. City ei.,T,ake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance: 1 8 LOC 57.005—57.135 • 19 F. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance; 0 . : • 20 21 LOC 55.010—55.130 22 G. Pathways Ordinance 23 LOC 42.900—42.920 24 LOC 44.374 25 H. Lake Oswego City Charter b: 2 6 27 Section 46A Maximum Height of Structures in 28 Residential Areas " 9 CONCLUSION : 0 L The Development Review Board concludes that DR 5-91 can be made to comply with all 31 applicable criteria by the application of certain conditions. • 32 3 3 FINDINGS AND REASONS 34 The Development Review Board incorporates the July 3, 1991 staff reps ; the July 15, 1.991 ' , and the August 23, 1991 staff memorandums on DR 5-91 a; support for its decision, ? PAGE supplemented by the following: • , . ' 2 DR 5-91-908 1 p,. + t ; 1 1. The Board found that the applicant had adequately addressed the applicable criteria for ' . ti tree removal [LOC 55.080] as presented in the applicant's correspondence dated 2 August 8, 1991 (Exhibit 68). 3 2. The Board found that the applicant's proposal complies with all applicable zoning 4 requirements in effect at the time of application for Building Permit No. 91-0570. The Board also found that the applicant's proposal complies with the requirements of an P 5 q earlier minor partition approval affecting the site (SD 45-89), particularly a 10 ft, 6 slw.cial setback from the edge of the conservation easement which protects the stream 7 corridor and the stream corridor buffer zone. 8 3. The Board found that the applicant's proposed route for sanitary sewer over Parcel 2 to 9 serve Parcel 3 (Alternative No. 1,Exhibit 24)did not comply with all applicable criteria due to the 18 to 24 inch trench that would need to be dug through the stream corridor, 10 which is a conservation easement. The Board found that the applicant had not 11 identified the location.of trees whose health or removal would be affected by the digging of the trench and the construction of the sanitary sewer line. The Board 12 determined that the annual maintenance and replacement of components (estimated 15 `' ::.` ' 13 year life) of the system proposed was inappropriate for location within the conservation easement designed to protect the stream corridor and stream corridor buffer zone. The ;' 14 Board found that connecting to sanitary sewer located in Country Club Road, as 15 illustrated in Alternative No. 2 (Exhibit 25) was necessary to maintain the integrity of the stream corridor. ' 16 17 4, The Board found that the applicant was eligible to build a dwelling on the site in compliance with applicable regulations because the parcel was created as a result of ; " 18 City approval of an earlier minor partition (SD 45-89), which is a final decision, 19 5. The Board found that it was appropriate to require a subsequent arborist's report during 20 site excavation to determine whether any trees in addition to trees number 11, 15, 16, 21 17, 20, 21, 22 and 28 as identified in the arborist's report(Exhibit 21) must be removed. The Board also determined that subsequent tree cutting permits as may be 22 required upon the arborist's recommendation should be processed by staff and not 23 returned to the Development Review Board. The Board found that no trees would be • cut within the stream corridor, the stream corridor buffer zone, or the 10 ft. special 24 setback designed to protect the stream corridor. 2S 26 ORDER 27 IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD of the City of Lake 28 Oswego that: • • 29 A. DR 5-91 [building permit (No. 91-0570) for a single family dwelling and tree cutting "• 1 0 permit application (No. 119-91)] is approved subject to compliance with the conditions 31 of approval set forth in Subsection B of this Order. B. The conditions for DR 5-91 are as follows: 3 2 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the arborist's report 3 3 (Exhibit 21) with regard to the number of trees proposed to be removed and the ' 3 4 methods of protecting those that are proposed to remain. i PAGE 3 DR 5-91-908 • 4, a: Ow '' M.. : 4, 1 • 2 2. The applicant shall provide a written report of the arborist regarding observations made during foundation excavation which may increase the number of trees • 3 described in Exhibit 21 that must be removed(#'s 11, 15, 16, 17, 20,21,22 and { ' 4 28). This report shall include recommended measures intended to contribute to the survival of those trees allowed to remain. The applicant shall submit an additional 5 Tree Cutting Permit Application as necessary. Such subsequent tree cutting 6 permit applications as may be necessary,as determined by the arborist's written report, shall be processed by staff and shall not be returned to the Development 7 Review Board. 8 3. The applicant shall implement the measures recommended by the arborist as • 9 required by Condition No. 2 above during and following construction, as applicable. 10 4. Prior to, and during construction, the applicant shall install a protective fence at 11 the west edge of the conservation easement as illustrated on Partition Plat 1990-'53 12 (Exhibit 3). • • 13 S. The applicant shall install the sanitary sewer to connect with the existing sewer line in Country Club Road as illustrated in Alternative No. 2 (Exhibit 25). This "t 14 installation shall be a condition of building permit approval. 15 } 16 17 18 19 200 .'• • 21 22 • 23 24 25 26 27 •• y; 28 • 29 N' 31 32 ',- 33 '. • 34 PAGE • 4 DR 5-a9 1-908 N r A l ! • t r . • • 2 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the 3 Development Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego. 4 DATED this day of , 19_, 5 �q r.tL 6 Robert H.Foster, Chairman • g Development Review Board . • PJ 10 11 12 Secretary 13 14 Al PEST: 15 16 ORAL DECISION—September 4. 1991. 17 AYES: Stanaway, Foster, Starr and Bloomer 18 NOES: None 19 ABSTAIN: Remy 20 ABSENT: Sievert and Greaves 21 22 WRITTEN FINDINGS— 23 24 AYES: 25 NOES: 26 ABSTAIN: 27 ABSENT: 28 • 29 • .• �0 c 31 32 33 34 , 410 PAGE • 5 DR 5-91-908 t 4, BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 OF THE • 2 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO • . . . . 3 01? . . 4 P • 5 A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ) DR 6-91-909 A BUILDING PERMIT AND ) (David R. Norris) 6 TREE CUTTING PERMIT ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &ORDER 7 8 ' 9 NATURE OF APPLICATION :� `' 10 The applicant is requesting approval of a building permit and tree cutting permit in order to 11 construct a single family dwelling on a 9,267 sq. ft.parcel which has been identified in the 12 Comprehensive Plan as being a part of a Distinctive Natural Area (No. 28; Specimen firs— 13 W. of Goodall Road). The site is located at the northwest corner of Goodall Road and 14 Country Club Road, [Parcel 2 of Partition Plat 1990—53; Tax Lot 37(X) (portion)of Tax 15 Map 2 1E 04CA]. 16 17 HEARINGS ... • a .18 The Development Review Board held a public hearing and considered this application at its ' • 19 meeting of July 15, 1991 and September 4, 1991. 20 21 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 22 A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: • 23 Impact Management Policies 24 Wildlife Habitat Policies Distinctive Natural Area Policies 25 Distinctive Natural Area 26 Douglas—fir Groves; Number 28, Specimen Firs—west of Goodall Road Potential Landslide Area Policies 27 Potential Erosion Area Policies 28 Energy Conservation Policies Stream Corridor Policies 29 Residential Neighborhood Policies 1 0 Protection Open Space Policies Bikeway Policies 31 Pedestrian Pathway Policies 32 B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance: 33 , 34 LOC 48.015(25) Definition: Height of Building . LOC 48.195-48i225 R 7.5 Zone Description (setbacks, lot area, • lot coverage) PAGE LOC 48.530 Vision Clearance 40 „ , 1 DR 6-91-909 4 1 v. 1 C. C i of A Oswego Development Code: • - 0 2 3 LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards LOC 49.140 Minor Development 4 LOC 49.220-49.210 Minor Development Procedures ." 'y 5 LOC 49.215 Authority of City Manager LOC 49.610 Quasi judicial Evidentiary Hearing • 6 Procedures 7 LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval LOC 49.620 Conditional Approvals 8 9 D. City of Lake Oswego Devdopment Standards: 10 3.005 —3.040 Stream Corridors 11 5.005—5.040 Street Lights 7.005—7.040 Parking&Loading Standard ! 12 12.005 — 12.040 Drainage Standard for Minor Development 14.005 — 14.040 Utility Standard . is 16.005— 16.040 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control 14 19.005 — 19.040 Site Circulation—Private Streets/Driveways { 15 E. City of Lake Oswego Solar Access Ordinance: 16 ry� 17 LOC 57.005 —57.135 18 F. City of Lake Oswego Tree Cutting Ordinance: 19 LOC 55.010—55.130 20 21 G. Pathways Ordinance 2 2 LOC 42.900—42.920 23 LOC 44.374 24 H. Lake Oswego City Charter : f 25 Section 46A Maximum Height of Structures in r 26 Residential Areas ° 27 28 CONCLUSION 29 The Development Review Board concludes that DR 6-91 can be made to comply with all 10 applicable criteria by the application of certain conditions. 31 32 FINDINGS AND REASONS The Development Review Board incorporates the July 3, 1991 staff report, the July 15, 1991 33 . ` • 3 4 and the August 23, 1991 staff memorandums on DR 6-91 as support for its decision, supplemented by the following: '' PAGE a 2 DR 6--91-909 , Y 1 1. The Board found that the applicant had adequately addressed the applicable criteria for tree removal [LOC 55.080] as presented in the applicant's correspondence dated 2 August 8, 1991 (Exhibit 68). • 3 2. The Board found that the applicant's proposal complies with all applicable zoning 4 requirements in effect at the time of application for Building Permit No. 91--0569. The 5 Board also found that the applicant's proposal complies with the requirements of an earlier minor partition approval affecting the site (SD 45-89), particularly a 10 ft. 6 special setback from the edge of the conservation easement which protects the stream 7 corridor and the stream corridor buffer zone. 8 3. The Board found that the applicant's proposed route for sanitary sewer over Parcel 2 to ' 9 serve Parcel 3 (Alternative No. 1,Exhibit 23)did not comply with all applicable criteria 10 due to the 18 to 24 inch trench that would need to be dug through the stream corridor, which is a conservation easement. The Board found that the applicant had not 11 identified the location of trees whose health or removal would he affected by the 12 digging of the trench and the construction of the sanitary sewer line, The Board determined that the annual maintenance and replacement of components (estimated 15 13 year life) of the system proposed was inappropriate for location within the conservation easement designed to protect the stream corridor and stream corridor buffer zone. The 14 Board found that connecting to sanitary sewer located in Country Club Road, as 15 illustrated in Alternative No. 2 (Exhibit 24) was necessary to maintain the integrity of 16 the stream corridor. 17 4. The Board found that the applicant was eligible to build a dwelling on the site in 18 compliance with applicable regulations because the parcel was created as a result of City approval of an earlier minor partition (SD 45-89), which is a final decision. 19 20 5. The Board found that it was appropriate to require a subsequent arborist's report during site excavation to determine whether any trees in addition to trees number 6,7, 8 and 9 21 as identified in the arborist's report (Exhibit 20) must be removed. The Board also 22 determined that subsequent tree cutting permits as may be required upon the arborist's recommendation should be processed by staff and not returned to the Development 23 Review Board. The Board found that no trees would be cut within the stream corridor, , 24 the stream corridor buffer zone, or the 10 ft. special setback designed to protect the stream corridor. 25 26 ORDER , 27 IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD of the City of Lake . °. 28 Oswego that: 19 A. DR 6-91 [building permit(No. 91-0569) for a single family dwelling and tree cutting Y' • 10 permit application (No. 118-91)] is approved subject to compliance with the conditions 31 of approval set forth in Subsection B of this Order. B. The conditions for DR 6-91 are as follows: 1, The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the arborist's report 3 3 (Exhibit 20) with regard to the number of trees proposed to be removed and the 34 methods of protecting those that are proposed to remain. PAGE 3 DR 6-91-909 . i t r ti 1 2. The applicant shall provide a written report of the arborist regarding observations made during foundation excavation which may increase the number of trees 2 described in Exhibit 20 that must be removed(#'s 6,7, 8 and 9). This report shall 3 include recommended measures intended to contribute to the survival of those ` 'i trees allowed to remain. The applicant shall submit an additional Tree Cutting 4 Permit Application as necessary. Such subsequent tree cutting permit applications • 5 as may be necessary,as determined by the arborist's written report, shall be • processed by staff and shall not be returned to the Development Review Board. 6 3. The applicant shall implement the measures recommended by the arborist as 7 required by Condition No. 2 above during and following construction, as 8 applicable. 9 4. Prior to,and during construction, the applicant shall install a protective fence at the east edge of the conservation easement as illustrated on Partition Plat 1990-53 10 (Exhibit 3). 11 5. The applicant shall install the sanitary sewer to connect with the existing sewer 12 line in Country Club Road as illustrated in Alternative No, 2 (Exhibit 24). This installation shall be a condition of building permit approval. 13 14 15 16 • ' 17 18 • 19 20 r , 21 22 23 24 • 25 • • 26 27 28 ' 29 0 31 32 • 33 34 PACE , 4 DR 6-91-909 ;G. • 1 t 2 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Development Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego. 3 4 ) DATED this day of , 19__, to 5 4' 4" At 7 8 Robert H.Foster, Chairman 9 Development Review Board 10 11 12 Secretary 13 • `: . . • 14 A'1'1'hST: 15 16 ORAL DECISION—September 4. 1991. 17 AYES: Stanaway, Foster, Starr and Bloomer 18 NOES: None 19 ABSTAIN: Remy • 20 ABSENT: Sievert and Greaves 21 • 22 WRITTEN FINDINGS — 23 • 24 AYES: 25 NOES: • 26 ABSTAIN: 27 ABSENT: • . ' 28 29 • • 10 31 r, 32 33 34 • PAGE 41/ . 5 DR 6-91-909 • • _ n' ,;i L 1 6 ._ 1051 SW Forest Meadows Way `.;• Lake Oswego, OR 97034 July 15, 1991 • VIA PACS/MILE / 635-0269 Development Review Board City of Lake Oswego •• 360 "A" Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 . ,t Re: File Nos. 5-91 and 6-91 • Building and Tree Cutting Permits on Distinctive • Natural Area No. 28 •f Dear Board Members: My wife and I oppose the proposed building and tree cutting permits. The planned development does not satisfy the cc Comprehensive Plan. It completely destroys the Designated z Natural Area by removing the significant grove of Fir trees. • W The property does not have room for the two houses with • •• • a yards and driveways and still protect the stream corridor and "` distinctive grove of trees. In fact, the tree cutting permits • • will allow removal of 44 percent of the trees larger than 15" from Parcel 2 and 88 percent of the trees larger than 15" from Parcel 3. This does not protect the Distinctive Natural Area as • required by the Comprehensive Plan. Please deny the permits. • Sincerely.,.. , ' '. 1 - , I \ Dennis and Leila Elliott d EXHIBIT • • +. -7c7 t ' La.Z..% GRG-qI , • • . . .1 t-- k'' ' Lake Oswego, OR 97034 d' ' 6 July , 1991 ... : Development Review Board City of Lake Oswego 360 "A" Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: Files No. 5-91 and 6-91 Building and Tree Cutting Permits on Distinctive Natural Area No. 28. • Dear Board Members, • We want to go on record as opposing the proposed building and tree cutting permits. The planned development does not satisfy the Comprehensive Plan. It completely destroys the 1 Designated Natural Area by removing the significant grove of Fir trees. it The property does not have room for the 2 houses with yards t c and driveways and still protect the stream corridor and Qdistinctive grove of trees. In fact, the tree cutting permits will allow removal of 44% of the trees larger than 15" from • Parcel 2 and 88% of the trees larger than 15" from Parcel 3.f` > This does not protect the Distinctive Natural Area as require by the Comprehensive Plan. ' Please deny the permits. 6 ' ki • Sincerely, ( I I . d , '• ` IeIT f . -71 Dg.S-9) Da 6-41 • ., �.;;. .u : - yr, • } ; "d' • 1 • • July 10,1991 To the Board Members; .` ;;_ 1 6 1E91 Please deny permits on the Distinctive Natural Area No. 18 , that is at the corner of Goodall Road and Country Club Road, • u This is a habitat for many wild birds * racoons and should not be destroyed for the purpose of building more homes. I have lived in this neighborhood for over twenty years and am appalled that permits would be granted that would disturb this stream bed. There is simply not room for two houses on this site. via I suspect the fellow that proposes this project is from California . ' Having recently visited San Jose for a week I do not wonder why he ..t thinks it should be done, but I cannot imagine that the Board of Oregonians permitting this destruction of natural habitat for wildlife. It is areas like this that make Oswego a beautiful and exceptional • place to live. Please do not allow this construction. Sincerely, Joan Powers :. p Joan Powers • 13875 S.W.Johnson'terrace Lake Oswego, OR 97034 6,3G Li 3`9 • • • EXHIBIT 72. DR,6-+€41 .,.' .41 'y 1 • p . • • .r • [ iIir�•. , nib-- .._. 1r'•..E '1+ ,��i� 1 6 i��1 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 July , 1991 Development Review Board /} City of Lake Oswego 360 "An Street ,;„ t '_ Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: Files No. 5-91 and 6-91 Building and Tree Cutting Permits on Distinctive Natural '1 Area No. 28. Dear Board Members, We tree wantogo on record as opposing the proposed building and cutting permits. The planned development does not satisfy the Comprehensive Plan. It completely destroys the Designated Natural Area by removing the significant grove of us I Fir trees. z • Q The property does not have room for the 2 houses with yards ,.v and driveways and still protect the stream corridor and < distinctive grove of trees. In fact, the tree cutting permits will allow removal of 44% of the trees larger than 1501 from `r Parcel 2 and 88% of the trees larger than 15" from Parcel 3. This does not protect the Distinctive Natural Area as re P ' by the Compre�,ensive Plan, quire Please deny the permits. o • - 73 Sincerely, Ok 5-9t Dn b-411 . I ,-1 / 1 t / i -/ 0 • .. 7/e,---i l / / ..fit,c. 4).c.:6, 2 , /,1Z ;` _ • • • P. • •r • am-. • r. . / • l +,Y• .. f •/ as N '` ,a I ..t {' • t r� 1,• JUL 1 6 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 July , 1991 Development Review Board City of Lake Oswego 360 "A" Street .I. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: Files No. 5-91 and 6-91 Pe and Tree Cutting e is on Distinctive Natural Area No. 28. Dear Board Members, We want to go on record as opposing the proposed building and tree cutting permits. The planned development does not ,� satisfy the Comprehensive Plan. It completely destroys the g Designated Natural Area by removing the significant grove of z Fir trees. a The property does not have room for the 2 houses with yards wand driveways and still protect the stream corridor and .t distinctive grove of trees. In fact, the tree cutting ts will allow removal of 44% of the trees larger than 15" from Parcel 2 and (.8% of the trees larger than 15" from Parcel 3. This does not protect the Distinctive Natural Area as require by the Compreheensive Plan. Please deny the permits. •+ f Sincerely, -I .t ••~ / J ..�$ �-� :✓;� l.. .� I • r EXHIBIT • 74 • Y P . 1 , ♦ - it - . .* .i ‘ . . . fur 1 11. 0 4 u n 1-. v! Lakk Osweg o, OR 97034 July , 1991 4 {. Development Review Board City of Lake Oswego 360 "A" Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: Files No. 5-91 and 6-91 Building and Tree Cuttima� 4 Permits on Distinctive Natural Area No. 28. } Dear Board Members, ' 1 We want to go on record as o tree cuttingopposing the proposed building and , ' permits. The planned development does not satisfy the Comprehensive Plan. Xt completely destroys the Fir trees. Natural Area by removing the significant grove of P z ` The property does not have room for the 2 houses with yards W and driveways and still o protect the stream corridor 4nd ox distinctive grove of trees. In fact, the tree cutting ' will allow removal of 44% of the trees larger than 15" permitso Parcel 2 and 88% of the trees larger than 15" from Parcel 3. `r This does not protect the Distinctive Natural Area as require by the Comprensive Plan. Please deny the permits. • 0 r ar! Sinc y, rt " tom, G/ a • ,, EMtll191X s', `7 5 . . • D2.5-9I DR(o-91 . Lake Oswego, OR 97034 July , 1991 u; Development Review Board City of Lake Oswego 360 "A" Street :;' Lake Oswego, OR 97034 j RE: Files No. 5-91 and 6-91 Buildin and Tree Cutting Pe is on Distinctive Natural Area No. 28. Dear Board Members, We want to go on record as o sin ) tree cuttin pp° g the proposed building and g permits. The planned development does not {; J satisfy the Comprehensive Plan. It completely destroys the ,+' y w Designated Natural Area removingthe significantgrove • z Fir trees. of z Xr� a The property does not have room for the 2 houses with yards w and driveways and still protect the stream corridor and distinctive grove of trees. In fact, the tree cutting permits will allow removal of 44% of the trees larger than 15" from • Parcel 2 and 68% of the trees larger than 15" from Parcel 3. i~ . This does not protect the Distinctive Natural Area as require by the Comprehensive Plan. Please denythe permits. . Sincerely, el EXHIBIT - Ort.54% ma...c 1 • i t k. � I 11' . s ,r '1 '%?% ' • r b :. r-F f ,_ < a a Z,41J . G cdl , Lake Oswego, OR 97034 July l 7 , 1991 ° Development Review Board City of Lake Oswego 360 "A" Street • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: Files No. 5-91 and 6-91 Building and Tree Cutting Permits on Distinctive Natural Area No. 28. Dear Board Members, . We want to go on record as opposing the proposed building and ` tree cutting permits. The planned development does not w satisfy the Comprehensive Plan. It completely destroys the • T Designated Natural Area by removing the significant grove of z Fir trees. w The property does not have room for the 2 houses with yards *,. and driveways and still protect the stream corridor and distinctive V grove of trees. In fact, the tree cutting permits will allow removal of 44% of the trees larger than 15" from Parcel 2 and 88% of the trees larger than, 15w from Parcel 3. • ,. This does not protect the Distinctive Natural Area as require , by the Comprive Plan. • • Please deny the permits. ` Sincerely, r EXHIBIT -7 0•4 4z;4"4-( Da 5-91 taR.fi-011 • T7 , nl��"r /./1/ 61, a.o1 (/,'4e✓ a.. JUL 7 Lake Oswego, OR 9i91 491 , 9 } i Development Review Board • City of Lake Oswego 360 "A" Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: Files No. 5-91 and 6-91 Ruiildling and Tree Cutting Permits ors Distinctive Natural Area N0. 28. ' + Dear Board Members, We want togo on record as opposing the proposed building and A' , cutting perr tits. The planned development does not satisfy the Complsehensive Plan. It completely destroys the ¢ Designated Natural Area by removing the significant grove of • a Fir trees. W Theproperty does not have room for the 2 houses with yards u and driveways and still protect the stream corridor and distinctive grove of trees. In fact, the tree cutting will allow removal of 44% of the trees larger than 15" ffirm is Parcel 2 and 88% of the trees larger than 15" from Parcel 3. This does not protect the Distinctive Natural Area as require by the Comprepensive Plan. Please deny the permits. Sincerely, A (747•$ .. .-7164.4„ c_ • . 7E) talc.5-9f ,24,11 • • • 1 , o • . t . • • ' ' ' J U L 1 7 1991 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 July , 1991 Development Review Board , , City of Lake Oswego 360 "A" Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 » RE Files No. 5-91 and 6-91 Building and Tree Cutting Permits on Distinctive Natural Area No. 28. Dear Board Members, We want to go on record as opposing the proposed building and • tree cutting permits. The planned development does not J satisfy the Comprehensive Plan. It completely destroys the w Designated Natural Area by removing the significant grove of i Fir trees. ' , a The property does not have room for the 2 houses with yards ' and driveways and still protect the stream corridor and h < distinctive grove of trees. In fact, the tree cutting permits • will allow removal of 44% of the trees larger than 15" from Parcel 2 and 88% of the trees larger than 15" from Parcel 3. This does not protect the Distinctive Natural Area as require 'A by the Compre.#ensive Plan. Please deny the permits. Sincerely, 7'31 • • ,JL:i 2r Lake Oswego, OR 97034 July , 1991 Development Review Board City of Lake Oswego 360 "A" Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: Files No. 5-91 and 6-91 Building and Tree Cutting • Permits on Distinctive Natural Area No. 28. Dear Board Members, We want to go on record as opposing the proposed building and tree cutting permits. The planned development does not satisfy the Comprehensive Plan. It completely destroys the • • Designated Natural Area by removing the significant grove of ► . Fir trees. The property does not have room for the 2 houses with yards and driveways and still protect the stream corridor and distinctive grove of trees. In fact, the tree cutting permits will allow removal of 44% of the trees larger than 15" from Parcel 2 and 88% of the trees larger than 15" from Parcel 3. V This does not protect the Distinctive Natural Area as require by the Comprehensive Plan. Please deny the permits. Sincerely, Lot- EXHIBIT ORS DR -91 • • • �, 1 •r. 1, • • • i. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ii '"r 5XH114ii? August29, 1991 (stop) • bra s-q, ete a-ei • Development Review Board ��° ,la sty of Lake Owego (.�Ltt_- • Lake Oswego City Hall Lake Oswego, OR 97034 r Re: Norris Minor p Permit Pn p __G_ (DR 3.91 DR i.91) r.AU 3 0 '1091 a, � of the Board: • We recently received a copy of a July 15, 1991 letter to you purportedly from the Forest Hills Neighborhood Association. The letter was submitted in connection with the 0e1 building permits, tree cutting permits,and sewe ing plans for our building sites on Country Club Road. A of this submission was not provided to us at the July hearing. It ?isreLcontains several statements deserving of rebuttal argument. We emphasize that we are not submitting additional evidence for your consideration. Instead,we wish to point out those portions of the.egg record which are relevant to the ' W concerns raised by the ICirschbaums. These concerns are relevant to the tree cutting permit 2 w issues which you have reserved for further discussion. We respectfully submit the following i° comments for your consideration. Matter,; Irrelevant to the Pending Proceedings F Several issues are raised which contain factual inaccuracies or which have been decided in previous land use approvals for these properties. Many of these issues,however, 1: o are irrelevant to the pending requests and do not merit detailed factual rebuttal. These issues include: the lack of development plans or City discouragement of "' development by the previous owner of this land; the lack of a ?ark Overlay" zoning designation description in 1989 staff staff motivations .Phreports; in failing to seek DRB approval in 1989; the content of prospective development plans for Lot 1; the width of the ' u stream corridor setback previouslyestablished; the.. , . .^ �� potential use or lack of use of a east- • • o west sewer easement granted to an adjacent property owner, pending caused at the street • level because of temporary blockage of the culvert under Country Club Road; and, consideration by the DRB of purchase of this property for municipal parkland or open space. q. . •Ili , However, the questions before the Board at this time are more narrow and are r 5 limited to whether the requested building permits, tree cutting permits and sewer line d placement should be allowed under applicable code and comprehensive plan standards. Again, we emphasize that the City has decided the applicability of most of these • 1 standards inprior development ws p approvals for these tracts. The previous July 24, 1989 d annexation, December 27, 1989 zone change and March 7, 1990 partition approval for each 1 r` r.r r t, r • Development Review Board August 30, L491 Ike 2 • tract were all based on findings of consistency with the comprehensive plan and code ' w` standards. These findings were not challenged or ' disputed. We have made substantial 1 expenditures in reliance on these earlier approvals. We earlier provided substantial 0 evidence to support these approvals and are not aware of were even. changed conditions since y, these approvals et Therefore, we believe }' instead the the i now is notAught these lots developed, but .hoc these lots are id, It is to that question, we now turn. 0 ihinaususs TreesCustnagstakzetatisigus ars MINA states that the tree cutting 83 trees on Lot 2 should not be removed. permit submissions are inadequate and that certain • Our August 8, 1991 submittal and the August 5, 1991 and Associates report 64 supplementsthe provided at the JulyId r < respond to the general concerns raised in FHNAeas hearing. We believe that these submissions • FHNA rai.es,however,particular concern about the shoul8, Lot 2. A claims that these trees lie within the 10 f removalmu cf trees a d ' not be removed. Moreover, FAA stream buffer area and 'C, < contribute to erosion of the stream bank and soils adjacent to the& nese these trees could Fuse,we note that these trees may not need to be removed. They will be removed ut only if absolutely necessary to allow construction. Second, we do not believe that this 6 bated removal is"development"within the stream buffer area and subject to the standards < of LODE 3.020. Finally, it'these standards apply, we believe that they are satisfied. As we have shown earlier, the substantial dedications of land to the City requiredviously has Ieft only a small area within which to build a house on both Lots2 and 3. e Satisfaction of the necessity and aesthetics criteria for tree cuttingsufficient u 7 show compliance with the same criteria in LODS 3.�r1O. � �m� o < trees whose removal is absolutelynecessaryforeotsnumber of be cut. The removal of these four trees will not cause harm to the stream or its or residential banks.will arbenst Owen reported in his August 5, 1991 submittal: As a'• n The trees slated for removal toward the creek bottom area on both lots, if �, found to be uu stainable, are well above trees on both slopes a pes which will be u 8 left undisturbed. Based on my experience in situations similar to this in a wide variety of projects, the removal of these trees should not create any serious problems with erosion of soil. or retention of same, or stabili of the site, or even flow of surface wnte �' Y, FAA characterizes the "w��rst case , • a. U9 scenario"of tree removal to "be in the range of 80." There is no evidence in the record to support this claim and it is false. ki • • • •' , , ` 1 • r ' I� A 1. I, 1, • ,J. e . . . Development Review Board August 30, 1991 Pa 3 ,'I Nineteen trees are slated for removal on Lots 2 and 3. Up to an additional 12 trees may ' need to be removed, depending upon site conditions at the time of construction, The w1 mu rases at the July hearing showed that no trees will need to•be removed to facilitate a 9 saw pipe or pump on the tracts. 'Thus, the 'svorst case scemizio" involves 31 and not 80 trees. n • y . F1NA Est suggests that the "LOPRI repast appears to identify the site as being In a a moderate to severe erosion and landslide hazard area with low soil strength." We are i 2 unsure if the report was part of this record. There was somehey field material made peat of the record, but not the report itself. In any event,the evidence in the reourd supports the conclusion that there is no low soil strength or severe erosion problems on those portions of these lots which are to be is level I •: Page 43 of the Lake,Oswego • Comprehensive Plan sham the areas of the City 83 which . • potential for weak foundation soils. The subject site is not identified on this ` map that characteristic. This the ' way, was formulated on the basis of the March, 1976 Lake Oswego Physical Resources Invent ory (B-q . '` The building and fotmdation plans earlier submitted to the City show where areas will be cut and filled. These plans show that there will & e no substantial grading as part , a of the construction of the houses. The houses will be built using a "step-down foundation i ' system." This means that the houses will be built using the existing contours of the laud. Any soil which is taken from the building sites can be removed by travel over the existing driveway. Soils from the part of each site where a cut will be made will be used for fill in another part of the foundation alignment. e record an August 7, 1989 report by Pujitarni Hilts 8t Associates Inc, k , 85 g� associates, on the soil stability and landslide hazards for the sites. Mr. Fujitand, registered professional engineer, certified the , r a Based on our recommisse*», we are of the opinion that the slopes of the va6 drainage swaie on the site are stable and that the site is geotechnicaily`' a suitable for construction of residential dwellings , c . 8' It is our opinion that the proposed residences can be satisfacto S on sp3ead footings founded on the native soils typical to the site. ril supported A` • e This report contains several recommendations which will be followed l construction of the residences. This during the comply any requirements imposedand its recommendations are sufficient to , by LODS 16A)20(4)(b) and 16.035(3). la We dispute that there are hi ghly• a control plan will be needed. As earli noted, most on the site and that an erosion of the vegetation on the site will be •t, r ,f Development Review Board 'f August 30, 1991 W Page 4 it retained. The areas where the homes will be built are not ., a not classified in the comprehensive plan as having erosion problems. The area is •'a' Finally, we believe the materials that we have submitted thus far are =facie= to comply with LODS 16.035(7). That section of the development code a grading plan of particular contemn when development development on Lot 2 is well baDow this 1tin excess of 20%. The ►- portion of theslopes10�96. However, a siteiti on Lot 3 exceeds 2096. On this site, v2 foundation will use the err ing contours of the land and there will be ' the holey, 4 meolved. Thelocation of nearbylittle,if any, andphteement of cuts,fills the contours of the , and the thereale& The restrictices in J wails shown on which part oft e construction on this site. tffituntr noted above, will followed during r Cesuxuenebenew Pi Pc)ljcles o Residential Densities e A next contends that our proposed constraints of the site and, development Is too denuce for the physical therefore,inconsistent with a part of a residential density policy an p 75 of the the development we is very love-density and amsistent with the ddelopment pattern in the ' boyhood, The footprint for the house on Lot 2is only WI.. I5 �othere total lot area; for Lot 3, the footprint is 11.1% of the total lot. Lot 2 is 19%a lot size. thedevelopment nimem lot size for this zoning. Lot 3 is 38% larger than the min imum . This, is proposed on a verysmall part substantially larger than the sizerequired by your plan and codes. of lots which are w Second, the plan policy cited contains other factors relevant to residential densi determination which are overlooked by FHNA. The availabili �S facilities, capacity of adjacent streets, and other tY of public services and bomesitcs here. factors support allowance of the two EThe building plans we submitted showed a deletion of the deck 6 steam corridor buffer area. The development on Lot 3 does not intrude intrusion into the p rear setback area. The development on Lot 2 does not infringe on the front�se back the fiveu t area. fairaLtuis We appreciate the opportunity to submit these additional argtul utsents. We believe that our interests and the interests of the public coincide here. We planed o build these ? homes to live in ourselves. We are not planning to build shod natural amenities of the area. shoddy facilities or to destroy thet. • IL .F • ram • . • Jj 1 Development Review Board August 30, 1991 Page 5 We have spent a very Iong time shaping these dawelopanent plans. We have hired g competent pr.," 4onalls to assist us in their preparation. No question has been raised eabout the qualineations or competence of the soil scientists, and engineers we have retained,who have concluded that these sites can be developed without risk of public harsh or destruction of public assets.• Again,we stress the in this case. We do not believe it to be fair or lawful for the City to make 1 ., of this site for urban ell development, rezoning to a residential density and use, and partitioning into residential 2, lots, and then, with no cheese in cis preclude uses of t� 8 the comprehensive plan s2nd Our development is the of property allowed these los. Nor do we believe it fair to preclude building after exacting dedications to the City • of 47.5% of Lot 2 sand 60.691a of L.ot 3 in these pest proceedings. ts Thank you for your consideration of these issues. very truly yours, e A.) David(� A Norris art. Norris `.. VV I f M. p J • • • • • • • ' 17. r • :r , ,t..t V i i t• . t:. V. 0 p' . t4 t • A 'y.-_ .' • Y • 6 t• i , ' / �. , Irb September 2, 1991 City of Lake Oswego Review Development Board SEP Lake Oswego, Oregon .: 1. } RE: David Norris Property , E H t d IT Corner of Country Club Road and Goodall Road 82*- ) '. Deer Members: De5�I Ca-all s . I am a Lake Oswego resident end live in the Forest Highlands neighborhood where �' development is proposed for the subject application. I am a Registered Professional Geologist and Certified Engineering Geologist in the State ofOregon on and am concerned that the proposed development is being reviewed with an inadequate data base to make an educated decision concerning its feasibility. The le proposed development is supported by a reconnaissance level geotechnical survey V 4 Oswego...Oregon by Fujitani Hilts & Associates dated August 7, 1909) that was conducted over two years ago. This studyis very preliminary in scope, needs to be reviewed and updated by qualified engineering geologic/geotechnical t professionals, does not include subsurface soil strength testing information for foundation feasibility, does not determine the feasibility Of the three proposed building sites, and makes several conclusions that are supported by an inadequate data base. • It seems that it is critical to determine that three building sites are feasible before the City approves the lot split and development of two of the lots. The referenced geotechnical survey does not provide adequate data to assert that three 04 building lots are feasible, Of particular concern is the assessment of the 2 stability of the incised stream banks. A recent review of the property revealed 1 •.^ re evergreen trees with curved trunks which indicate accelerated soil creep or possible slope movement and a vegetated slope area with definite landslide topographic features. The geotechnical survey stated that no curved trunks were noted Which is a misstatement. "• Also the survey was completed by a gotechnical': engineer and not a certified en ineerin geomarphol o . 9 g geologist. Interpretinggy ` • • and landslide features is a speciality of geology and not soils engineering. The geotechnical survey also characterizes the site as relatives flat y with a 41 bisecting drainage swale. A site review indicates the site has moderate to very �3 steep slopes and that a significant portion of the property includes a naturl • o stream corridor. The report also cites an outdated geologic reference for vicinity geology. An updating of the report should reference the most current r r c ,' rrrf , ,r %... ✓ : .. ,. ."y' , J '' rat 1' ^' .. .. . s,fl r'. .i' w� published geology map for the area (ie, Geolpgy of the Lake Oswego Quadrangle. `? < published the Oregon State Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, 1990). A ti y. The feasibility of the proposed building lots appear constrained by building on top of the fill materials which cover the downstream end of the drainage where it , goes under Country Club Way. if these fill materials are not properly compacted 42 end few,dations not properly designed, structures could have settlement problems. , M Also of concern is the how the top of bank has been !'eterminod and what building setbacks ore proposed for grading and drainage impre iemanta. If the top of bank is located where the break in slope occurs between gentle and moderately steep slopes, insufficient space may be available for the three building sites. I highlj recommend that an up-to-date, detailed engineering geologic/geotechnical investigation be completed to determine the feasibility of three building sites. This investigation should be supported by subsurface soils information (e.g., v� borings), soils testing information to characterize the strength parameters of the 4 natural and artificial materials where construction is proposed, and include site- r specific recommendations for foundation design, grading and drainage improvements that will minimize impacts on the site's marginal slope stability and high potential for erosion. , a' Beyond a review of the geologic/geotechnical aspects of the proposed development it is my opinion that the City and natural environment would be better served by r3a leaving this area undeveloped and in its current natural state, The City's natural areas are limited and other areas exist where development can be pursued with limited impacts to old growth forests and natural stream corridors. I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed development and a. offer my services to walk the property with the Review Development Board 4 members to show you first hand the geologic features I have described in this e. letter. R spectfully submitted, it. J, .0t4T-044( , , . .. . ... . . . . Peter L. Stroud Registered Professional Geologist Certified Engineering Geologist } 12831 S.W. Alto Park Road Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 (503) 697-3912 0 : .% . • ',9 r I. • 1 1 I I + In1 r 1• August 30, 1991 DEPARTMENT OF -'f ORE001! FISM AND e Mr. Robert H. Foster, ChairmanFA WILDLIFE `' Lake Oswego Development Review Board SEP 3 1991 '"= r ` 380 A Avenue Columbia Regional Office Lake Oswego OR 97034 Dear Mr. Foster: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Biologists visited some home construction sites in Lake Oswego at Goodall and Country Club Roads and at Knaus and Country "1 Club Roads recently. ,-''; are concerned about impacts i R from development on stmler,, at these sites and have the following comments. Our Department encourages the city to preserve the `; ; "Distinctive Natural Areas" as designated by the Lake ,a.` Oswego Comprehensive Plan. Our Department recommends that all development be set back a minimum of 25 feet from the top of the bank on all waterways. We also ' � , : support buffer zones of greater width. Stable headwater d2 areas such as those found at Goodall and Country Club Roads and Knaus and Country Club Roads are the remaining �.` q;; areas that help maintain water quality downstream. Iron • Mountain Creek and tributaries directly affect the water quality in Tryon Creek. Tryon Creek supports t' populations of coho salmon, winter steelhead, and ;,,I cutthroat trout. The Distinctive Natural Areas contain important riparian overstory vegetation that provides shade to maintain `' W lower water temperatures in the downstream areas. These • sg areas have relatively stable slopes in there present c condition so sedimentation and erosion is minimal . Maintaining water quality in these waters is very important. a The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife recommends 114 that Lake Oswego adhere to the standard developed for < Stream Corridor Buffer Zones. • a We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed 1.15 development in Lake Oswego. If you have questions < concerning our comments, please call me at 657-6807. Sincerely, • - X H I;.B I T f it. • 1 4 *•. c OS * 4 0Patrick L. Keeley !' ,w ., Assistant District Fish Biologist ) C. ' Inv tir I. elt n Street ,' Cl lck rnil.Olt 07011.a4 4 pkm 1,z11y1 h�;••:.{Yv1 c: Mr. Fritz Hayes P\\ 1 it;1 h,;.2".4i1 r . ° 1, Fez W. HAYes 980 ATWATER ROAD LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 t-! September 2, 1991 Mr. Robert Foster, Chairman Development Review Board , City of Lake Oswego P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97O34 SEP 4 1;;''"' • RE: DR 5-91 and DR 6-91, Addition], Exhibits (8/23) r;. Dear Mr. Foster, The Review Board has given Mr. Norris an opportunity t_ hatter g address the five criteria for tree cutting permits. I have reviewed Mr. Norris's submittals. He has not met the requirements of Criteria No. 3 and Criteria No. 4. Therefore, a tree cutting permit should not be granted. To meet Criteria No. 3, Mr. Norris must show that the removal of the trees "preserve the ecology of the City" . with respect to z erosion, soil retention, and flow of surface waters. His argument t.• 4 is based on a statement by an arborist, not a biologist or soils engineer. This statement is not sufficient to prove the case % u2 especially when addressing erosion, soil retention and surface ° waters issues. The letter submitted by Patrick Keeley, Fish and , Wildlife biologist, indicates a large buffer is required to 0 ♦ ° provide for stable slopes, preventing sedimentation and erosion. Mr. Norris has not shown how the tree cutting will provide a stable condition for the stream corridor. Criteria No. 4 looks to the neighborhood characteristics and the effect the tree cutting will have on those qualities. To assess , the neighborhood traits, one must look at areas which contain stream beds and Distinctive Natural Areas. This is to assure an m3 apple to apple comparison. Mr. Norris has presented an apple to a orange analysis. In stream bed areas, the neighborhood's traits ' W include heavy tree cover and vegetation. Please refer to the stream bed flowing East between Atwater Road and Country Commons n (Carrera Lane) into Tryon Creek. The proposed tree cutting is not within the neighborhood's characteristics. Again, Hr. Norris has not made his case. ►- ' c4 Please deny the tree cutting permits. Sincerely, 4,, H 111' 154 • DRS" . 4-rN k' Fr tz Hayes '� ' 1 LOC 55.010, Tree Cutting, Stated Purpose 4 • E. .'ard H. & Marjorie R. Kirschba , 12897 SW Forest Meadows Way Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 (503) 636-5753 Mr. Robert H. Foster, Chairman ..,(: Lake Oswego Development Review Board ccj1. 380 A StreetOt 7.� Lake Oswego, OR 97034 c c— " ir•rr • Subject: Tree Cutting Permit for SD 45-89, DR 5-91, DR 6-91 September 4, 1991 r• Dear Mr. Foster, We have had the opportunity ity to read two letters submitted to you recently; one from Patrick z ' „ •.• Keeley, a fish and wildlife biologist from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the other from Peter Stroud, a registered professional geologist and certified engineering < �. �•: � g g geologist. The letters are documentation of the concerns we brought to your attention at the last hearing. We v ,� ; agree with the statements in these letters which clearly and succinctly address the importance ' of maintaining adequate protection of both the stream corridor buffer zone and water quality of ' the stream. We have reviewed the materials submitted to you by Mr. Norris in response to your request for • u� additional information for a tree cutting permit. His response to Criteria number 4 does not give a complete picture of the extent of vegetation in comparable stream corridors within the a neighborhood. We do not believe that an arborist is qualified to address the specific areas of m2 concern under Criteria number 3 relating to the removal of trees for construction of houses, sewers, septic tank, etc. within this major stream corridor. This type of assessment should be done by a person properly qualified to address the required criteria. As we have pointed out in previous letters to both the CityCouncil and toyou, the Norris soils report contained incorrect information concerning tree conformation and site description as well as an inadequate soil • assessment. The development permit was issued on the basis of this faulty report. In his letter of 8-8-91, Mr. Norris again refers to the "specimen firs" designation on the 1975 Inventory, one of which he states is a sequoia (48" caliper) "outside our property". We e. pointed out in our last letter to you that Mr. Burt had clearly identified this tree as a sequoia. • na Although the tree is on county property and not subject to the Lake Oswego Ti ee Ordinance, we believe the arborist, Mr. Owen, would agree that this tree will probably die as it is immediately t . 4 adjacent to the house to the west and construction of the Norris home will not leave enough area for this and the other large adjacent trees to survive. We would be interested to know if these ' trees are slated for removal. Again, Mr. Burt has clearly outlined with "a ripple marking" the area in which he identified a significant number of specimen firs. In issuing approval for this three lot development, there appear to have been two violations of • the Stream Corridor Development Standards. LOC 3.015 No.4 establishes a stream corridor • buffer zone setback of 25 feet measured horizontally from the edge of the corridor bank outward. We find no exception in the ordinance which would permit any adjustment to this e, established setback. However, staff required only a 10 foot setback from the edge of the bank. .A According to code, in order for house construction to be allowed within this 25 foot stream s corridor buffer zone, the developer must comply with Ordinance No. 3.020, Standards for Approval 1, 2, and 3. Number 3 specifically states that "the hearing body shall find, based on specific site information and analysis of the plans for the proposed development, that all of • the following criteria are met:" The criteria, a. b. c. and d. follow this statement. By this • directive, we believe that the intent of the code is made clear; a request for development other ` • than that allowed under 3.020 No.4 shall go before a hearing body, This development permit was approved by staff without being remanded to a hearing body. 4 HiBIT 85(2rP) . , • to 5-9► txt6-11 a • • • l / et • E card H. & Marjorie R. Kirschba a. Wte•urge you to deny this application for the cutting of trees in this Distinctive Natural Area. 1, 1, " V1 Mr. Norris has not provided reliable evidence to show that this development will not have a " a detrimental effect on the stream corridor and water quality of this tributary to Tryon Creek. Sincerely, Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association by: • Marjorie Kirschb rt --• :", • * •`;‘, • C.t% • �.��.. . �� Edward Kirschbaum cc Fritz Hayes, President FHNA • 4110 . • • • • • • • • • tl • F• C;;Wai,"7- 7.41:; • MgE'OWE l.....: September 2, 1991 • : . City of Lake Oswego Development Review Board Lake Oswego, Oregon S EP 4 1991 5t Dear Board Members: I am a Forest Highlands neighborhood and Lake Oswego resident that is concerned about the management of our City's natural -.. resources. I am requesting that you take action to adequately • - protect the stream that crosses the Norris property located at ,.,...; .: the corner of Country Club and Goodall Road. The development 0- of this property should only be done in a way that offers the ;" maximum protection to the stream and trees. This site is a Distinctive Natural Area for the speciman Douglas fir trees. • It seems reasonable that the City would apply at least the •' minimum level of protection to this site considering the • special features it has. , I have reviewed the Planning Division Staff Report regarding approval of a building and tree cutting permit, and I attended ma the July 15, 1991 Development Review Board public meeting. I "- am concerned that the minimum 25 foot stream corridor or buffer ma zone(measured from top of bank) was not applied to this steeply sloped stream corridor. The report states there io a 10 foot setback from the buffer zone. From my review of the report ;: • it appears that the 25 foot buffer zone has not been included. I am requesting that the Development Review Board take a ` t n r careful look at this case and include the minimum 25 foot y,: 23 buffer to the stream(measured from top of bank) . In addition • i' G to the concerns mentioned above , I have the following questions and comments: W 1. What is the fate of parcel 1? The City should be • 0- addressing the entire .7 acre property and not c4 allow a piecemeal approach to the development of a site that is a designated Distinctive Natural Area. 2. This project may not be in compliance with applicable 25 Impact Management Policies which states that density will be G limited to protect distinctive areas. ma 3. The absence of a stream corridor buffer zone Will '6 allow additional trees to be cut. How many trees • c will be cut because of this? It is important that you • have this information before; you make your recommendations. %,, ,� EXHIBIT . e6(2.,,,s . . . DR 5-41t/ort 4.-qi '' i,, 4. Cutting trees close to the stream corridor will t disturb the soils and promote more erosion and damage 411/ n to the remaining uncut trees within the steep Q slopes of the stream corridor. i2 5. How was top of bank determined? 6. Why was the minimum 25 foot stream corridor or buffer zone left out of this project, especially considering thOensitive nature of this property? I read in the . el report that water backs up in the stream and floods 3 during storm events. This is identified as a problem © area in the 1975 Resource Inventory. With the development of the site,runoff will increase and intensify the problem. al 7. Prior to any development, top of bank needs to be _ redelineated. t appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed r development. • Sincerely, ic44,...., tl,,i__ . Karen Ingels 12831 Alto Park Road Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 ,) . • a r • , I o a •' WILLIAM L. OWEN and ASSOCIATES - Tree and Landscape Consulting Services „ .1A . • BM P.O.B 641,PORTLAND,OREGON 97207 303/222-7007 503/656-7057 .::='"'... .P;. September 30, 1991 Yt, • Mr. David Norris 1000 SE 160th Avenue, Apt. *22 0 C T 1 1991 Vancouver, WA 98684 Dear Mr. Norris: , As requested, 1 have reviewed the letters written to Mr. Robert Foster, Chairman of the Lake ' • Oswego Development Review Board, relative to your application - DRS-91 and DR6-91, which • September 2nd and 4th respectively, from Mr. Fitz Hayes and Mr. and Mrs. Edward Kirschbaum. The letter from Mr. Hayes states a concern relative to erosion problems, soil • retention, and flow of surface water and relates that the statement relative thereto by an arborist should not be taken as expert as would one from a biologist or soils engineer. As I \� pointed out in the hearings, my statements stand as submitted and as qualified in my letter of August 5, 1991 relative to soil erosion, soil retention, and flow of surface water. As a g consulting arborist, I see no threat to the area from the construction proposed relative to z those matters from an arboricultural standpoint. a a Regarding the Kirschbaum's letter, they refer to the large Sequoia tree on the property west of Lot 3 and indicate they feel sure I would agree that that tree will probably die because of • • • 4 the construction of your home on Lot 3. I must'say that is not the case, I do not feel that way at all. The Sequoia tree should suffer no ill effects from the construction on your property, as shown on the plot plans that were provided to me for my work. Its proximity to the building is very similar to many projects on which I have worked where buildings were constructed near Sequoia trees with no negative effects upon the trees whatsoever when distances of this sort between the tree and the buildings were possible. Therefore, I see the - ` construction as no threat to the Sequoia tree. I trust this brief reiteration of my position regarding these matters is sufficient for your • needs at this time. Please let me know if you need further information relative to this • matter. Thank you very • • Very trul , • 0 ' /mix /r!fy 'AK i e , ,S., ;'.A., C.A. -" American Society of Consulting Arborists d EXHIBIT • WLO:ps _7 ;, cc: Mike Wheeler, Planner, City of Lake Oswego 4.-9i ; ® i, "r.+�i'l': INSPECTION,DIAGNOSIS AND EVALUATION OF TREES,SHRUBS AND RELATED i LANTINGS `r `''i �'y�"' CONSULTATION WITH RESPECT TO PLANTING,TRANSPLANTING,PRESERVATION,MAINTENANCE AND • y+.,."�`+�;41' ' ARBOREAL PLANNING,COMPREHENSIVE LOSS OR DAMAGE REPORTS,DULY SANCTIONED APPRAISALS FOR LEGAL OR CONTRACTUAL PURPOSES,LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE TESTIMONY IN COURT CASES. • . . , . •• , .• . . . . . . ' •• ' •, ° • • -•.- •• , . . .• ,•,•• • ;,. " ,• . , • ., • ,.'• :;. • • ' • 1 • • t . . t'• . . • • f • • • • •-• . • P[V:S oN 3200 U.S.Saucntp*war III 3,W,Pit*Meek* • THORGRIMSON Portland.OR 97204.334111 SH I DLER Telephone:(503)223.3200 GATES & ELLIS Facsimile:(503)240.9035 7 .1,t1 a' ATTORNEYS AT LAW TIMOTHY J. SERCOMBU V . October 1, 1991 • Michael Wheeler r City of Lake Oswego Public Works and Development Service • 380 "A"Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97031 Re: DR S-91, DR 6-91 Dear Mr. Wheeler: Enclosed is a letter to the Development Review Board in!'.onnection with the above matters. We would appreciate its placement in the public record in connection with the October 21 hearing. Thank you. 411 Very truly yours, ✓�� • mow" ,p• �- TimothylJ.,Sercombe TJS:cd Enclosure 28159-00,00b\791.41811►L.o31L • • EXHIBIT f y. 3 ` Anchorage a Bellevue • Scottie 6 Spokane .Tacoma + Washington,D.C. A Partnership Including A Professional Corporation 5 .51 • , 3200 U.S.Bancorp`lower a ��IE ?I l v 1 I1 S.W.FUTh Avenue THORGRIMSON Portland.OR 97204.3688 SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS Facsimile:(303)228.3200 N Facsimile:(503)248.9085 ATTORNEYS AT LAW TIMOTHY I. SERCOMBE 1 October 1, 1991 Development Review Board .., City of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego City Hall Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Re Norris Minor Development Permit Proceedings 'b ., (DR 5-91 and DR 6-91) Members of the Board: We represent Roy and Mark Norris, who are the applicants for the minor a development permits at issue in DR 5-91 and DR 6-91. The applicants request the <1 following: 1. .50pe of the Hearing. Evidence at the reconvened public hearing should be limited to evidence about the appropriateness of the tree cutting permits. It is no a • longer timely to submit evidence about the suitability of the site for residential ., 5 2 development. If the Board desires to hear evidence on this latter topic, it will be a necessary to reopen the public hearing on the building permits. The applicants will need a continuance in order to respond. The applicants do not wish further delays. We therefore request that the matters be confined to the tree cutting permits. 2. Reception of Evidence. Consistent with this limitation, the applicants have no objection to the reception of Exhibits 70 - 80 and Exhibit 84. These letters appear to address issues relevant to the tree cutting permits. The applicants object to the reception of Exhibits 82 and 83, and those portions of Exhibits 85 and 86 that Er pertain to parcel 1 and the issue of the stream corridor buffer. The width of the stream corridor buffer and the suitability of the sites for residential development have been decided in earlier land use approvals and are irrelevant to the tree cutting permits. 3. Modification of Conditions. The applicants request modification of the conditions previously appended to the request by the Board's September 4 decision. ' g As discussed at that time,there are a certain number of trees located on the building footprints which must be removed in order to allow for any residential development. Other adjacent trees may have to be removed depending upon circumstances " encountered during construction. ID ' 4,, Anchorage + Bellevue • Seattle . Spokane .Tacoma 4 Washington.D.C. A Partnership Including A Professional Corporation ' 4, .6 . PRESTON THORGRIMSO, ;IIIDLER GATES & ELLIS t 'f Development Review Board October 1, 1991 Page 2 ' The July 3, 1991 staff report recommends a number of conditions, including • 1 the following: • 2. The applicant shall provide a written report of the arborist regarding observations made during foundation excavation which may increase the number of trees described in Exhibit 20 which must be removed (#'s 6, 7, 8, and 9 [for Lot 2 any No 11, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, s 1 2 22, and 28 for Lot 1]). This report shall include recommended measures intended to contribute to the survival of those trees allowed to remain. The applicant shall submit an additional Tree Cutting Permit Application as necessary. 3. The applicant shall implement the measures recommended by 3 the arborist as required by Condition No.2 above during andfollowing } construction, as applicable. r cuttm We understand that City Attorney Condit has opined that if additional tree g permits are needed as a result of construction conditions, the permits must u r. be issued by the Development Review Board after notice and public hearing. j 1 ; '•` Obtaining these permits during construction will interrupt construction for 3 - gs 6 months and result in loss of construction ' • N financing. p ; a ' • 1 I w We therefore request that permits be presently issued for allowing the cutting lu of these optional trees (Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 9 on Lot 2 and 11, 15, 16, 17, 20,. 21 r and 28 on Lot 1) but that these permits be conditioned as follows: ' During the course of construction, the applicant shall obtain from an arborist recommendations about whether Trees 6, 7, 8, and 9 on Lot " k 2 and 11, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, and 28 on Lot 1 can be retained 1`: •, T notwithstanding the effects of construction. The applicant shall implement the recommendations of the arborist during and following construction, as applicable. A copy of the arborist recommendations shall be filed with the City within 2 days of its receipt by the applicant. 18 Imposing this condition will allow protection of the trees if possible, but allow construction to proceed without protracted delay. Please note that it is th still applicants' desire to protect the trees and avoid removal whenever possible. e • ^' 4. ,ewer Access. The Board re ` P liminarily decided to preclude connection of Lot 3 to the sewer system through the stream corridor and Lot 2. In directing that • another option be employed (boring under Country Club Road), we fear that the Board inadvertently precluded a more safe and cost effective solution - allowing an open cut trench across Country Club Road, k�. • t 4 • PRESTON THORGRIMSOJ ,HIDLER GATES & ELLIS Development Review Board October 1, 1991 Page 3 • Our engineers inform us that a bore under Country Club Road (as opposed us to a location near the street surface) has a significant risk of tatting into the U.S. J : West fiber optic cables lying beneath the street. Such an event would cause a very substantial disruption in telephone service in the region. You might recall that a similar event stopped 911 service in Clackamas County last myth for a long period. Moreover, a bore cut under the street will require=aviation of a good part of the street surface in order to position the boring equipsawan. Allowing an open 2 cut trench will be much safer and will affect the street surer a severely as a bore underneath the street. We request allowance of a trench au for sewer connection. S. August 29. 1991 Letter. Finally, we request that the Board receive our August 29, 1991 letter commenting on the FHNA July 15, 1991 submission (Exhibit 81). We respect the limitation of issues and evidence to the tree cutting permits. • 433 However, the letter contains no new evidence. It is a comment on issues raised by the opponents to these permits, We appreciate the scrutiny brought to bear on our applications. While we are • w frustrated by the number and duration of required land use proceedings, we share the • r Board's concerns that development proceed in an environmentally correct manner. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. .. • Very truly yours, Timothy J,'ercombe I TJS:cc 20139-00,001\79LDEVRw,031C • • • • • .. • • r y • 6 �^, ', / ` / • ...` .% • Mr. Aichael Re Wheeler, Staff Coordinator Development Review Board 4 380 'A' Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Lr� , _ October I j i:. `':• 2D 1991 To: Mr. Michael Wheeler, Staff Coordinator F,a We are both opposed to the proposed action of 2 building permits and 2 tree cutti ng permits of David R. Norris (Case File No: DR5-91 and Case File No: DR6.9l)e y 1 These 2 parcels have been Identified as being a part of a D is- w 'fixative Natural Area (No. 20: Specimen firs--W e of Goodall Rd. ) w i, It is absolutely TRAGIC that the Development Review Board has 0yM taken such an "irresponsible" position. , •b Our mini-ecosystem in Lake Oswego and extended boundaries Ls in jeapardy, Good-bye to the quality of life and wildlife n. : habitat. WE OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL VEHEMENTLY) 11 • 4 Greatly Concerned Cit tens, i ,' c„..*74.4a--0J ors and Dick Saunders EXHIBIT e$ , , 4" , 4. . . , . • tr , • a 1 1� I Corporation gin• i.. u Aaaeel As Receiver for Beni. Franks i n P.O. ea 14023 denim Id SAIVigne I Loam Association patient Aso 77204 (503)2.364350,FAX(303) 1039 I f m . t. • r , FARO ko '-0 69 OCT 7 1991. FAX TRARSNIITTAQ, QW%.TIMES � " w ,. ...... , .. MINDER OF PAGES BENS SENT, INCLUDING . I -ER SHEET: iiii• `: :;il i OPPr''.0w7tima . , ME. . 4..31 ' . ...4."... ". *. , . „„.*:. ' ,j, t, 40. ., rf Fir TV i'' r i , .. . . .. .. ... ,, , .. . :o- IF YOU 00 ROT'.RECEIVE ALL THE Pam. PLEASE CALL AS SOON AS MOLE:i .(50a)235-A350 t :. ' . 'al, u alimp,77_,__T_______ •. it d. , \ wi u ► f 1 °.L.• ea°' • ' i — . • . V.M.B.o.........................6 . ; 4. \ 'L� ". 94t) h , / Y , �t e tigi .,1 ..' (04,6 Ttil. . ..,.. ., . . .‘, ..., ,. , . . . ..: ..,... .,. „ . • • • .... i EXHIBIT 634. 4,. ..., 6 91, 6 0 Die.. c�Rr�l • «' li if F 11 L , " ',,. ; October 10, 1(Al Mr. Robert Foster, Chairman OCT 1 1 1991 Lake Oswego Development Review Board 380 A Street Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 •� r • • Comments on Building and Tree Cutting Permits for Case Files: DR 6-91 and DR 5-91, Norris Properties • Dear Chairman Foster and Members of the Development Review hoard: • I live in the neighborhood of the proposed development and am concerned that critical planning decisions concerning the subject lots may be based on inadequate • data presented by the applicant. I am a Registered Professional Geologist, a Certified Engineering Geologist, and have worked as a City Geologist (consultant) for 1 several years. I have reviewed several letters and reports from your files which comment on the site's suitability to tolerate the proposed development. Key issues • include how the proposed tree cutting will impact the site s; slope stability, soil ` erosion rates: and the natural stream corridor which passes through a significant OM LW portion of the two lots. • n The arborist report states that 14 to 33 trees could be removed from Lot 3 and i to 21 trees could be removed from Lot 2 depending on the level of precautions • U taken during construction and the impacts from grading, The applicant has stated } • ` that the proposed two-story homes will avoid the need for grading, 1 have not • seen grading plans for the proposed development but know that excavations for the proposed stair-step construction are considered grading. The City should `. • 2 request the applicant's Geotechnical Engineer to review the site grading plans and ' render an opinion as to how much fill would be placed around the structures. Without such an opinion, the City should assume that the maximum number of trees could potentially be impacted. The arborist states that a maximum of 33 trees could be removed from Lot 3 and a maximum of 21 trees could be removed from Lot 2, • r EXHIBIT • dI I (3 b2 5-1, pa 4-'11 4 • .1. Numerous studies have documented that removal of trees eventually leads to the 0 -: ;, : .... decay of the trees' root structures and that the absence of root structures weakens j soil streng th particularly on slopes. It would seem prudent for the City to base its opinion of the tree cuttings' effect on slope stability on soil engineering and e geologic professionals trained to assess such situations. The arborist stated, ,......the e 1 removal of these trees should not create any serious problem with erosion of soil, or retention of same, or stability of the site. or even flow of surface water," This assessment made by an arborist. is based on limited knowledge. Geotechnical Engineers are trained and licensed to assess slope stability. Their opinion is <.. required here to address the potential instability and accelerated erosion of the y subject lots considering the potential removal of 33 trees for Lot 3 and 21 trees for Lot 2. '' The geotechnical evaluation of the impacts of tree removal on the site's slope stability and soil erosion rates should be based on engineering geologic mapping of ' • ' n 2 the stream bonier. a hydro!ogic assessment of the creek's flood levels, a R • • g hydrogeologic characterization of the site's perched ground-water table, on-site soil , i exploration, and laboratory testing of samples. SI SI The engineering geologic mapping should asseee if bank failures have occurred in i the past and which areas may have the higher potential for accelerated erosion, ,, °h. lv such as the steeper drainage swales that extend into the building envelopes on Lots . • a 2 and 3. The hydrologic assessment of the creek's flood levels is needed to a understand creek bank erosion during high flows and the increase of saturated soil ' ' st conditions when flood waters back up due to the slow draining culvert at Goodall and Country Club Roads. The hydrogeologic characterization of the site's perched 3 ground-water is also needed to understand how saturated the soils could become during the winter months when slope instabilitywill have the highest potential. Also, site-specific soil exploration is needed to understand what types of geologic materials underlie the slopes and provide samples for laboratory strength testing. Slope stability analysis should consider the worst-case scenario; maximum tree • ' removal, saturated soil conditions, elevated stream level, and make appropriate adjustments for soil strength, ground-water levels, and geologic structure, ,' , T At present the impacts of the proposed development are being qualified by a geotechnical reconnaissance that did not include subsurface exploration, soil t,,, 4 testing, or an assessment by an engineering geologist; and an arborist s opinion on slope stability, stream flow, and erosion/deposition rates, Information based on appropriate professional opinions and site specific testing is merited. • • 0 • , • 2 •, • J• - ' The quality of information is critical because the development is proposed within a designated "Distinctive Natural Area and the City is attempting to reduce its standard 25 foot setback for the "Stream Corridor Buffer Zones" to 10 feet. Without adequate data to appropriately judge the proposed development, the City is 1 potentially jeopardizing a valuable natural area and setting precedents for poor planning practices. The City of Lake Oswego has the opportunity to set the . • standards for other Oregon communities with state-of-the-art planning and decision-making, that in the long run will produce an outstanding balance of well, thought-out development and conserved natural areas and parks, I encourage you to require the applicant to provide the technical analyses and opinions described above before the Development Review Board makes a decision on the proposed development. 2 I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the subject applications. p Respectfully submitted, i., pit L. _ ,sEbiltii . ... ..,. . UM Peter L. Stroud Registered Professional Geologist Certified Engineering Geologist n .:'t 12831 SW Alto Park Road Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 • • • • , • . ' 0 . .. .• y . . . .i„ ,. . . . . , 4 y A 'v ro 1 7 0 • �. • • • • ; • r • • • ,.k �•' • •• , • • • • • • r; • • • t • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 171, 1_'i Mr.Robert H. Foster,Chairman Review Board Members Lake Oswego Development Review Board 380 A Street OCT 1.1 1991 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 fil M Subject:Tree Cutting Permit for SD 45-89,DR 5-91,DR 6-91 • r: October 11, 1991 Forest Highlands Neighborhood Amoebae= . taket go, EXHr017 Dear Mr.Foster, We would like to have the opportunity to respond to the the Applicant's August 29,1991 letter which was received by the City on August 30th and was intended l 1 to have been pan of the September 4th hearing record.The letter is in response u to our letter of July 15th to the DRB. We also would like to address testimony by the Applicant's attorney at the September 4th hearing. First,we would like to respond to uue Applicant's opinion on page2 of his letter, > ' ,tl.. that we have made a false claim in stating that the worst case scenario of tree • removal could be in the range of 80 trees,and that there is no evidence in the record to support this claim. Our estimate was based on the three building to proposed ts, along with the following explanation, "Because this development is within a DNA,we do not feel it is prudent to give piecemeal approval for this application. 2 There should be a completed plan for all lots". There is an approximate total of ' r 91 trees on the three lots;39 trees on lot 1,21 trees on lot 2,and 31 trees on lot 3. r.1 Therefore, considering the number of trees on all three lots, the worst case i scenario could be in the range of 80 downed trees.With unstable,steep slopes on the inner edge of the sites and within the lot 3 building footprint,it is impossible to predict what might happen to the trees, root systems and soils during tree removal,excavation and construction. •co On page 3,under Culdinalaul,the Applicant is correct in stating that the map , : •.:. available in the Planning Department does not indicate weak soils in this area. However,the Lake Oswego Building Staff has stated that this is an area of weak soil. This is furiner verified in the soil Survey of Clackamas County,pages 30- . ". 3 32. The City map also does not show the existing year round stream west of the property where severe erosion has occurred. The Applicant has referenced the soils report on the site by Fujitani,Hilts&Associates.This report was based on a geotechnical reconnaissance, not a geotechnical investigation as normally FritzHayes would be expected for areas of identified potential landslide,weak soil bearing, °' , ,President •, no Aiwa*"Raul and erosion: Lc a I- s, 97Q3A 03)636.1405 1 4 The Applicant stated at the July 15th hearing that no grading would be done,but Page- 1 .W, , r 11 4 e on page 3, paragraph 3, he says no substantial grading will be done. On page 4, he states that "placement of cra'�s,fills and retaining walls are all shown on materials which are part of the record." tat 1 The building department records show no plans regarding proposed grading and retaining walls,and Et to our knowledge there is nothing in the planning file. The construction of driveways,entrance walks etc.,will undoubtedly require grading. If not already submitted, such plans should be filed. • There are no indications on the plan elevations or sections showing the elevation of the floors in a relationship to the site grades.The lot 2 plan shows that the driveway will be sloped to drain toward 32 Goodall Road.The plan should show the grading required to accomplish this.The plans should show the number and placement of the steps that will be needed from the entrance deck to the front entry into this house.Our rough assuming as slope of 1/4"per foot for driveway drainages, . ". indicates an approximate 5'differential from existing glade to the estimated first floor level at the front entry. On page 4 • ,The Applicant contests our statement that the proposed development is too dense for the physical constraints of the site and inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Density Policies. He states ?, :3 that his development is low-density. We consider development nY to be very high density when the buildings cover nearly 100%of the building envelopes. • Also mentioned is the capacity of adjacent streets as being a supporting factor for development.There should be discussion of existing and probable future traffic hazards on these streets at this location. The driveway for lot 2 intersects Goodall Read, a collector street, at a point very close to the intersection of Country Club Road,an arterial.The plans do not show a turnaround area in the lot 2 driveway. Without a turnaround,cars will back out onto Goodall Road close to this's intersection.This J4 introduces the same unsafe situation the City seeks to correct in requiring a shared driveway • c turn • around for lot 3 on Country Club Road. On lot 3,there is limited sight distance to the east and ,, westbound traffic travels past this drivewayat a highrate of speed. The Staff Report of March 6, 1990,page 12,states,"Sight distance for Parcel 3 along Country Club Road is hazardous.Vegetation • must be removed and remain absent from this area to improve this condition."From observation, cutting back the vegetation does little to correct this existing limited sight distance problem. Also, this lot 3 turnaround area is very limited in size,and we believe it is reasonable to assume that with two families sharing this restricted area,turnaround maneuvering may often be impossible.There has been previous testimony that this Goodall/Country Club intersection area is particularly hazardous • for a driver,whether to maneuver a car in and out of the driveways,or to attempt to make a left turn • • onto Country cub Road from either the Goodall Road intersection or from lu►t 3. " Alta),on the Request for Comment sheet in the file,is a recommendation from a City engineer stating w that some land should be dedicated for the eventual widening of the Goodall Road intersection to i5 provide for a possible future need for a turn lane. (See Comprehensive Plan,page 155 - Collector , .)The above recommendation which is in compliance with the stated planned goals has not , • y been acted upon. r • UnderConclusiong.the Applicant has stated that"our interests and the interests of the public coincide . k here." We are not in agreement The interest of the neighborhood lies in the full protection of this 26 Distinctive Natural Area and stream corridor.The Applicant has expressed interest in protection of 0 . . the trees;however homes cannot be built in this restricted site while at the same time preserving the natural area. Letters on file from experts in the fields of geology and biology have stated the • Page-2 minimum amount of protection they consider necessary to maintain adequate vegetation fur a� wr protection of the water quality of Tryon Creek. They stress adherence to the 25' stream corridor g setback as required by City Ordinance. Testimony from the neighbors has shown that there is unanimous opposition to this development proposal. • r hen ve Pla i active Natt l urea G neral Policy page 32,states: Preserve Tree Stands. In a similar case,the letter to the DRB dated July 13, 1991 from Jack and Linda Mclsaac states that the DRB denied building permits for a Distinctive Natural Area Fir Grove on Egan Way last year on the premise that the stand of firs was important to the image of Lake Oswego and should ' not be changed. Development within this Major Stream Corridor and Distinctive Natural Area at Goodall and Country Club Roads will change not only an important"image"for Lake Oswegans and others who travel through and enjoy this area,but will alsoremove the protective elements necessary for preservation of the stream water quality. We concur with the Mclsaac's observation that the Board should be consistent in upholding the Comprehensive Plan directives related to DNAs, and • should also be aggressive in protecting stream corridors. Under LODS Dr age Stantrds for Minor Development 12.035#2. "When a watercourse is present on the site,information regarding its hydraulic characteristics shall . r be submitted." To our knowledge,other than information submitted by the neighborhood regarding 83 the problems of the stream, there is no information in the file addressing this requirement. The n LOPRI Tryon Creek Basin Map shows springs on this site. We have pointed out before that the area along the base of the stream corridor is very wet. We believe that the source of this water must be identified. If there are springs on the proposed building sites,they should be located. • Lastly,the Applicant's attorney stated that they do not think there will be public harm in allowing the permits to be issued.We disagree!The community has relied on the City to require compliance with the Comprehensive Plan in order that public harm,be it to the residents or to the environment, not occur. There hes not been compliance with LODS 3,020 Standards for A rova _S�n �bsect±ons t1 and 3. Subsection 1 states: "Development within the Major Stream Corridors Buffer zone, l n other than that allowed by sub Son 4,shall be allowed only to the extent that it preserves, enhances,and is compatible with the natural features of stream corridors.Such development must satisfy the criteria listed in subsection 3 of this section." Subsection 3 states:"The hearing body shrill find,...." This development approval was not remanded to a hearing body which is a requirement for consideration of the above Standards for Approval. Less that a 25'setback without public hearing or review should not be allowed. The setback of only 10' approved by staff without public hearing or review is contrary to this City ordinance. The . • g ordinance was enacted to ensure full and open investigation of an application for which an approval • might cause public harm. We have made CADsite drawings created from City file material to substantiate the violation of the N 25'setback requirement for the stream corridor as defined by code and further substantiated by the • �g City Engineering Technologist in his statement of definitions. We would be pleased to review these v r 8 with you should you desire, These drawings have been reproduced from the contour map which was submitted to the City after the filing deadline had passed. The Applicant's attorney has stated that"this is the 4th land use proceeding for these parcels that have S occurred before decision makers in Lake Oswego in the last two years." We believe that other than Page-3 r ,-• w w • • 'r ... .H. .,• . .. . . . ., - 1, the the Planning Commission hearing,all approvals for this development have been by the Planning aStaff,and not before"decision makers". .i d 4 Annexation of the parcel was approved by the Boundary Commission on July 26, 1989 without a public hearing. Prior to the current DRB hearings,there was only one land use proceeding in Lake Oswego held before a hearing body.This was the Zeneaspeleaeadm=ZC 12-89 hearing which .1 came before the Planning Commission on December 11, 1989. When ZC 12-89,was submitted to 2 the Planning Commission by Staff for approval,information required under L f. and,g. a was not included.The Planning Commission was not given the required information related to the b site. Also,the location of the site was misidentified on the information submitted to the Commission s , • K and on all public notices. The notices read,`°The site is located at the northeast corner of intersection of Country Club and Goodall Road." We believe that the City Council remanded this and future applications to you for full review prior to tree cutting and building permit issuance because of it's concerns related to development within m the designated DNA sites. Your review need not be limited to tree cutting and building permits,but 113 should address the total site development impact, and its implications. Only at this point in the ® planning stage,with all required documentation submitted and reviewed, can the final implications • of the total site development be evaluated. w ' No review has been made by a hearing body with the benefit of site contours,easements,and final building envelope described. Staff alone has made the determination of compliance with develop- mentrequirements.Approval of the tree cutting shouldrely on a thorough study of the site conditions, °' 6.4 which are not within the expertise of an arbarist. The geology report upon which this whole project .1 has relied to prove that the site is buildable,has been shown to be faulty and insufficient in scope. • .°' • 4, At the first hearing,you inquired of the neighborhood as to whether it had expert testimony to rebut 0 this geology report. Expert testimony has been documented by letter to you from a registered soils engineer and geologist who has offered to walk the site with you to further explain his testimony. a Please weigh the evidence before you which we believe shows that the planned density of this `'"', tit development will prove to be incompatible with the natural resources of this stream corridor and inconsistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for DNAs. Sincerely, • Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association by Marjorie R.Kirsc Edward H.Kirschbaum,AIA cc.Fritz Hayes Page-4 • 5 ' , 1,ey5 .W. Hide-A-Way Ln. Lake Oswego Oregon, 97034 October 15, 1991 Development Review Board City of Lake Oswego 380 ' A ' Ave. Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 , t '. Re: Case File #DR 6-91 Applicant: David R. Norris , 1 6 151. Property: 2 1E 04Ca :c' , Property address: 14161 Goodall Rd. Northwest corner of Goodall Rd. and Country Club Rd. 4 EXHIBIT 6/A 7 d To Development Review Board: reL5-qttn4-411 As I stated in a previous letter to you, I have no personal oomaaeroial'P gt nor financial interest in the above named property, nor have I ever met the 1 owner Mr. Norris. But I think I see an injustice when it is committed and my interest is to request that the injustice be rectified. Mr. David Norris has owned the property and has been paying taxes on it Wfor two and a half years. Also his ownership was recognized and in 199u ho •, !2 received a final decision and approval to build on the Section was raised at that time, although ample o pioyewa was s Non given.. ug plopportunity a• . h 1110o A year later when Mr. Norris retired and was within a few weeks of be- 3 ginning his building of a home for him and his wife on his own rt a • e few people headed by a Mrs. Kirschbaum, who does not even ve h the city limits, came forwara to raiee objections. • Mr.Norris then complied, at great expense to himself, with requests by the Wcity to have a Tree Survey and a Contour Mep in order to satisfy the objections. May 3. 99 r • �, When a Public Hearingwas held on 2 1 1 about this case Mr. Norris was N. not Notified of the meeting nor was his son who lives just a short distance away and could have been there. Is it legal to held such a hearing and to'not even notify one of the principal parties involved? le It seems that on the basis of a few foolish objections bY one email Om special interest group the City Council, wavered and true considered revoking approval already legally even to Mr. Nor::s. ' W I pass the property in question almost every day, on one side or the other, ` 12,1 6 and I see nothing attractive about it the way it stands. A nice home or two on it c would be a great improvement. ",. a As a citizen of Lake Oswego I would like to sae justice done by letting "7 Mr. Norris build on his property. It the hearing on October 21,1991 decides otherwise then I suggest tnfit 1 � those who oppose him r ppo purchase the property from him at the fair market price,' � • �8 repay to ham his paid taxes and that they use their own money, not our taxes, 4 to turn it into the 'park that they want. CC: Mr. N;.rris Submitted sincerely by Lake Oswego Review Charlotte L. Steen 0 =L 2, e_....-sL., . (.i! r E ••? ' r T• (J) �' LA``dl 1 t 'p'• �j 1 ... • •'�'' •� �++�}_•/ t 1• '"'V`• _. \',i�'�• �t.`.•�• '•t._``�::L 1�t i, ` •10p�1 r..�t,/ .w `, 1i iI ytt 1• •1 �• r., �i,� 11' 1\r^(11'Id:JI 1'\,'t•\� %+/t Jl �,fI••r�....1`1r' I'';,•% � r••,l I"` 1 1 7 . •t' , ' `' Pre.. ! 1 •1 9 1 it/, / ,, i,:I 1 '' 1 1 •�.. 1• , 1 •, •i:• �• • ' 1. • •�.� `I1. fc 1 /••///r ' ) ,� r• , 1 11) . } , 1•i ' r'''. •'\1�~••,. • ,.' 1,J„1�1, + ♦ .A •� ..i `,1 ' I 11 •'/1/, ,i ti•II '1 • 1I ' I i ' •�YI j1 ..,/� N. •11 ' i• : Arm.. t ,`II a ••,1� 1,11. • 1A•1. . 1.1.1 1 .: ,j / 11, /1 , ) •/ ,•1• 1/ ,/� '� Y• • . ; �'+ , .k,. . ' +• �'' .{I ti, i IA 1 i /, (l t.i 11e11, f` I 1 .y .,,• i �` .` •��y,,,,:�,.�•., 1 t.'f~� f,1,T'll'`,0,A 1 / i • •1� ••/1 , •1 \1 \.,•," 1,1•1 ' ' �•«.,.O ,,,•1 1 , gtt,,,I� , `!. 1 .(l:,t' v.,. •.�.Ilr i��, - �• "• f, .r ( U �1' '1 V. ,1' 1,, ' i 11' \. .N:.4,4.14.4) I.:" `• •t',i.:j ' ... . . , •• ` d' ' ', 41„ju i 1 tj 1 . i., ,, t ,1 ,�r, . ,� i F, v •`. 11 , ' � • , `. • • • •t 1•``,1 1 1 wtnL{ •"• 'lll•1 P., Fi 1 1 '. .7 1� (1 G ' ~I ' ,f i.4., :'I�� .I• ..f� r',(1 y 11 I. ,1 '{ ' t - . %', ' .,'f.. 1 •I/ ` !1 t -•..: .. ♦ "'+�' �•: .�'N. rr1 `.�` �T. �' ',',Ir 1•/t�+t•1•t�i 1 ./ �1 1 11 ,•'1 1, • '' ,,1,'1 •, , ' �, 1 . ' i, '� ' �i, ,.'� .1 .. ' , •'�,•�� •�'�'! t �.t' �l�l!/' t. j d•) •,'� i , ,J!I 1' "��,'j `1._y,'' 1 ,) 1 1 ,'l ( 4•� `I , `.1 ^ $r r, ,+M• ,. .-a •.a•. •,• j1 t•`s • 7 • .,,,, r ;/,J' / •,' ,r' 9 , •ti , it I 0,4, ! I„t t.J.,,. 1 , ilk 1,1.• f , ' w� ,Q ,, 1 1 , f,4 •• •',apt•,. . • ' 'r,tt . ,p, 4.`1, r • 11 '`.•` a 11• • a.,' 'f'•� ,,0 1•.., , //�� ,.I•I• 1 ^i-,i I. • -1 +1 1 t i1 +J•u• h .. ,c r • • /J," • w 1! 1. ' !• 1•,l ,r / "•'V.tri'''' . , -, _� J`I ;1.,'i t;• y .�,,•.. • 1, /,••'� 11 , jj•1�il� r,, . ' `, f .. 'a„,O.1 y� �1 j•\ -1�j1 t, •./! •••. 1 11 1 1\'..y )7 a • �• + AM . tt+► f , ..Y .•.• „ 1• ' • 1,'•1 ' '', • '' I •.. L"•�� ,,. !•,•.M' /I• i 01••' , ; y le,,,• ...la l ' ' iuM.•. 4 •• •',. '/ . la 1 '!��.a f - Itnw ,I 1, , I ,I/ 1• 1 1 / •• ` • . `�„• .r, • I •..:• i a''f. 1,i 1J',I: ..1;„1•u` a►•1' li'- , , ,•' I /•!/ ,�j••r11••i'�1 �'`� v , .1 , 1:-1,�,• 4 •,' . r 1... 'I'1 ` 1,,• '+Ie /,, ,Y4:tl f,1L. ` 1 i••...1j y'1.-^• •1 It 1 � (,,/ 1' , '• 'rAf ,+• ',,,'',`,' ,'.'`I �_ II a{,wi�1) ,.� fll.l•, +' r''y./. l�) •,� '+ �1 '11 S. yC1/(I/•1 ,I':t'� •• �'r,e/,• iy • „ /1 _• 1. •‘,•�i r+ •. '"i j1�'I`1»`.11:/ :•1••• ,,.., ••I ,,Y'•'i I It' ••• .• I • 1 .,tom! ` . 5 5 5 • 4 * : i• 7••• . :. 4\I...f: I 4 . •... . „, : ., , _ ..,._•. . . : ,, .. ,,. ...;,. .... . �: ' 4. `•! �.,I.,:.,,,. 11 \ f j " 401 . ,i l i, i f l'1., •.. 4s, 1.,' , 1 1 ' 1 i .,j'+.,1 l l 1 1•y,.11 �.:IL., ; ;�+-„�, ar i •. fi • li'1 , Y 1~ ,r' i ~.• , L .6. I•,,/ './ 1. •f. •I : z ll ,li. r.. • -S 4t , 1 , •., , ' i1v ��1.••., •' / • ' -� tr ' P....". ,• 1_ 1!. `l 1. 1 .t 1 j',• w / el'�1•.••,i'1."‘f1 Ijl "�`yf 1' 1. '�.b.L . '' a '• ', '1. 11: !#.1.:•-t , . ( l./ ,1 C;1, tlf�l. br . - -(/ .J',''••f•,�h,,••�1 1 t1n..• 1 r•(t`(�' I 1 +EMI: +.4 1 I 'il•1: • •+, i y Y r, •1 .1 '•�f:r',•' i! �, I' V (1,1'� ''1 u• ��ttj �+1 tr. • y� ,,�� • , , •' 1 ..- , '1 �r �I. A••. ;`1` I'1 • .....1.60,,1 1 • I;/,w1 ''+' !I !:.,.r��J�7 • .1' e. ah _ I ci ,1,1 1 • :_01 • 7`RYQ CrEeI< B�Zi • 1'*k' / i t • •:� ' 1 1 f `t ' 1'I • 1 ! i. • ' , d 36 ay 1 �' r , 1 .! WATER RESOURCES t'> i, • , 0 5 1 .N }. y '4, General Information . Located in the northeast section of theplan area. " (See Figure lla) - .R . Drains into the Willamette River north of Foothills Rd. ;•, Drainage (divide) boundary; see Figure 13... . Source: surface runoff; springs; wetlands. ' . basin a -,1,. ' .. Runoff complex: AREA AVERAGE VEGETATION PK. 24-HR. DISCHARGE (CFS) ' �' =: (ACRES) SLOPE W EXISTING WCOMPLETE INCREASE ' � 445 20� RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DEVELOPMENT t 30 0-YR STORM ' CONIFEROUS 10-YID STORM 10-YR STORM , A-52 cfs+ 1 x • HYDROLOGIC LdGIC APP . 40g6 l ter .': , A- C s . ,A 65Tr ,. SOILGROUND IMPERVIOUS DECIDUOUS ' ` o '' ------- YR STORM fit: COVER I 30% 1 �5- 25-YR STORM 25-YR STORM C OPEN A-80 Immo CULT. cfs A-130 c f A - 63 .6 9 • .. Hydrologic Features (numbers correspond to numbers on map (Figure 13) . (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Principal streams/drainage channels; Tryon Creek and ' tributaries. M Y4 (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Wetlands; marshes, bogs, etc. (11) (12) Ponds. ,,, (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) Springs. (20) (21) (22) Significant points of erosion. (22) Canyon wall slumping. h,�r -_-PI (23) (24) Flood plains; Flood hazard zone (HUD). .i3`r Findings: . Well-defined drainage channels, characterized by dPep natural ravines, especially the tributary designated "A" on map. 1 7= • The average % slope is 20%, the highest in the plan area, and some canyon walls have slopes ranging from 50 to 80%. . Tryon Park, a 600-acre preserve, is a unique water-related resource sup- porting verYljgsir_. a...flora and fau na. , . HUD Special Flood Hazard zones associated with Tryon. Somer ints subject to frequent flooding. 1�5�1 C(71. � 7 1 / 1 • , • r • �. - + r ..... - 64 \ ' • A ' r.• • ___ ,Ll.,Myi•. /t +_ • '- i. i.`% •1,1' t ••S•t'•••IP• IAA• •h•i t'IPA„; 5. 1r h'! `'f '1 * II `n ., •I t 1 '•��\c� ` `1, .A"•--��.1nJ• iv.�y,•ra-•�'' [ .. I� 13. G.. .,.'!6 \ 1 ! [; `f�C"� fl 1l� it !.Touti[r [ It r 1-= Al:.r�/ r;;•• ". D 1-i .� 1 r li t'+ j• + / ., , 1 if 4►a_17J1_!�[ 'sl " ([r�[. � r 1. C .'+. /1 �..e.. r 1 .1 111 rtr .,l`n'r/ `�WA►41 III sri l 1 /'�' /"�l•. r,ti •, . . •1 I�•• , . Y d `•Iq t .i l ', 1 �l •`•�•I = I'! J !,.,. f� /• , q 11� v.s. II _ \ t I I'. 1 iI I.!: • �t:'i1Ti[1 [r, I �,., --- (+ or-1, CLIP, , __ 1 • •�1},iw1/•'1/'` 0.14z12...I.L...$.v..'�1�,'tir-"-� , :/ '�'.'l•ln1 tpl . :, V&l wal 8 1;1�/ ' •.�li 1 '„ . :... „ •.� _ t1 '� e-nI� �Iiir:1 1 i 11" '"' �1,��' 1:!:J ,M �"l� 1i .I ( �;f l •%�/�!\\I1 V J.•_.l- I q/rl n[u eunl uu ,� 1. _ 1 hIL/�I�I A {• _ I •• ',wt.,. • 1� w, - _ �Nul1N �`�. I ... I''•(IIpV L I ` ..d i • 1II IT C �ii\`.• �i''''1[_,,yyyJJ)�,..' ir)) `_ iIA #<`a J , i OOEJ1r-'I •11 1.lowtI 1[[[[uu[[111j [:,). ' Ii p� IL�{ It • ,Y I. /L r. ..1, 11 ( ! 1,1 ' ,�[l.. / '..' _ » ,, ''3,,,'14 ,..LLll.%•y/,�' S.r..Nlii�J� 1 J� I� ••�. 1 I , . /� �i 'll llli �' '::':1•)' / `< . J Cw •[.1„'•`'- j r,, ,,'�• _ • � �'` i �� I, ;• r � 1� `J }'. 1 1% [ (; 4f��` /+ II ,,,,._... ,._. .....__I ,• 01h„ °c�� Ib./� t Q. �, 1 •1 1• / t //! , •,'.'i 1.' IV /• dI �'1Y,'��./• ' .�".`_ [�1`ll,�•(�' ',Mh11[M[ IV'�+..�r�l [''It'-U I,� I, [ + // �..�-' 1,-+%�• •-.'1.=I'[ !, 4,.,....Ll �i�l'.lr.t• i)r-•/'./ ' M,t''ir-~ '�.,./�S , Iw I•VM IIIIY K' C1�� [ 1 fr� "��UUv(1 u,., • .11,. .CI ` r�"'[['�...-• ;:� • ' ��'c NtK�'_--w • 1. �.�. _"Ci ",�•.j11..• I�� , I t • i .t�".•.3 i,I.i '.J r.1 `t -,y`n�i' ,_.,, . 1'iu:.i2:/ + 1, xr(I,'1/I�..^n.•q�y,'i1N' / ..;•4 . 1 - � t ..,i t • /J i// • �.n. 1i ? IN• - J a• .:!��'1�,u„u / r I 17, IA •✓\/,�}r •0 ".til ,_ ^'Y tt ...L. .., ,•• ,• . •• 'I ,�+ / . ..[• `,"Y iA=I tot y►�r41�✓� I e., '' �• ✓� =•�e�l ' •,e •' `�`'� J1_._ �MM/��`��- �I�• I 't. •/� '3•ir� ('^� Ur...�.11kd 'ii"' j� 1(J�w 19{[[-it.'�.rkaGlJ�r'2: l'tf ' �� ': .<.. ..._�i1 ! \� ./'' gjt_slC='`�% `1.\�'�y 1 ji1 • ..... / - 111•� `.L[ �.ir 1\12•1• .•` ~`�1 ' 1<, . `ti ,/%1,'.-'.._._�- i 1•►01' : rtar=._. _ ,l r` n, •urlL.= �y...kIt'l�1.t•1...�i,� i'' '1 •,, i. �, �i., .�1 0IUi � U,r11''1 y�•' r=r r. .g.,-i•--[if..i'..�:J�L-ti7 jam.. n.[= 1 ��•li �� lli) ✓ i''`•� [11,IN I. II'}i,�'I� �=•�-�1 'fiYf.Jt-J-L.1J�•I1•f..II I1��n �••J 1"„ i0•• ,.�1�r,. 'f :'; , ,,.�// t1 !, • �'fi"�JI_.�!1 = 1�J{ iU t(U 1 �1 r � • , ,I,t/ . 1.�1:' �rt ) 1[[mm 11 %�•r�r11 c.t rlff��11 �•I ty 1 I� ,� 1 •�:% t / r11.0 :' , !��'��,''\ �• 11 II, r• I.54)r,l{,_„! t • L' - .'**.a. � i.l Iw �� , J/ 1 �.1 '� wl f�••+-� �-•�`� .�..�J [' :ri Di�4 11 •7/ .e'er. .IaJ// / fr' tdli U "r ''J{,, 1 t•1•, �/J�� .ti{'['ll� 1 '[11... J.Hwn4t•L.1 L�.1+ ��' 1�4!t'1 I1 I / ��✓- V r ,1 •f. c. �'�c�r�yCi1e:{'.4;: /�C,1.[.u •�L'•» l ,j .ln:., ;_ ,11 ''1 �' --''� ,5�,,1•-'/'�' ��•/ •• •, \' i---• II r,;. 1�t 3,a `� 7 .1(��s•-4-0a�G1�3 It 1 L�ain• 1 ... ry �- ".'c��/ '�:.. �� ;no,q[.J111„ ,1 ,.,. v[... �L� I"1,0„,.'t _ }11�r[.fl� +;.�. �1. Ltt=1�1s 11 t� �, [::1�t1 I ,� / t 1 . \ yr�I /�<'1 } / qQ u lira I f 1�''I r �U}�)IJt! I`( w.[ H 1.I „yiisr:'�y' /I1•' !/ / 1,-: 1/. 1„I••.r,,, I .'•1r ! , i-1 1W 1.LJlti.. 1. �tN"'t I:- L r�i:^ ��`• •' „��Li / tt•-fit t ,._ .J.Ji_ 3l II� t'.r / (!%.[r5[5 u{. GtRr" _J lll�•a' i < C • f t11._..•1� r. rltlltlq -[i"'r pwull I aIJr}+ r ' Nti,u. j :,r l.:1!/. r:• ,r �Y /1 i,...i1 i 1 r.!L r ♦ �, I 1 / ,./I( f•i'�rf. .,.+1 ... ). ,..,v�i P. J ..• 4:4" py` 1-"'It's wr^ 1.-- [fir /�,-,y1 .."' r • ✓ /�''/,[ S�b.NWwh.� ��.!•d.f/ __^,�,,tl 1 �Lw ILA '1I ryF y=t} ilflirrtij 1 ./1 �� l�.,l•,1� • 1 ' . fb'' /., / �,a it Ur..[_ •r :', ..r,� ./ / 1 Jr-i ' ' `• ,ww IL ia _ru^rl i t p{'i / 17I I% �i / j �._n�'./ 1 / w[uu.,. / I1 ,I .�r�} ; 1 t. / ,' lyjl I1 Ails, a0./ •..„4 .a,pCi_/r •i1.p,•t} / , r/�r� 11 ,.__1.... r.l +� .� I� Cl t• �� 111.1 It{ I,( �1 .I I i ,i .r..,�f ,' , �! /' / ! t.,11'I�.G ,�/�� III �NN�A, •[ J �t _;_ tu'I�.jr.�«td[<.,1,11,1[� 1 1./ `,•, / /.�n[I, ,:i'.....:,) t. zp, ' . : � , I.. 1, _ fi l.001) P LA I NS A SP�fi.l AL VIscOp NAtAk'D-:ONES 1, , 1, 6.` (Ig1iU 11111IWq,11. ;I 1 •' + 7 '1 .a 33lt i ., h:*, • it I rt• ��, h f 1�'I �;yl �L :J ' Y '. / a • Ilt;l17� _J 1f� ;Taal TIIC ENTIRE DTI CT TLIP L./IT I"! RIIICf2 • I; t C. 1 WITHIN L,o. PLA I5 rL000 PLAIN (PREPARED BY H.U.D.) 1 ,• . e y y