3. LUBA 2015-019 RECORD_Part15

Transcription

Material provided to City Council by electronic link in 2-4-15 Planning Commission Meeting Packet
(a) Percentage of window coverage per elevation is decreased by more than 20
percent (may affect the number and/or shape of windows); or windows are
installed on a previously blank wall on the perimeter of the site;
(b) Building materials for the main walls of the facades are changed;
(c) Any architectural feature is reduced by more than 20 percent. Architectural
features include such items as the number of windows with trim, the number of
dormers, the number of columns, the number of shutters, the square footage of
porches, the number of window boxes, the linear footage of porch or deck
railings, and/or the linear footage and/or height of parapets, reveals, and/or
cornices, etc.;
·
(d) Roof pitch is reduced by 20 percent or more;
(e) Building offsets or recessed are reduced by more than 20 percent; or
(f) Garages or carports are eliminated.
Response:
There is no modification of architectural building elevations proposed.
e. A modification to specific requirements established at the time of Planned
Development approval, including Conditions of Approval, this Code's requirements,
and all aspects of the Planned Development proposal, may be considered as a Minor
Planned Development Modification only if it falls within the definition of a Minor
Planned Development Modification described in Section 2.5.60.02.c.
Response:
Not applicable. The revision to the boundary of the Planned Development does not
fall within the definition of a Minor Planned Development Modification described in
Section 2.5.60.02.c.
Section 2.5.60.03- Procedures for a Major Planned Development Modification
d. In reviewing the proposed Modification, the Planning Commission shall follow the
procedures herein required for Detailed Development Plan submittal and review. The
Commission shall consider the review criteria in Section 2.5.40.04 to determine whether
to authorize a Major Planned Development Modification.
Section 2.5.40.04- Review Criteria
Requests for the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be reviewed to ensure
consistency with the purposes of this Chapter, policies and density requirements of the
Comprehensive Plan, and any other applicable policies and standards adopted by the City
Council. The application shall demonstrate compatibility in the areas in "a" below, as
applicable, and shall meet the Natural Resource and Natural Hazard criteria in "b" below:
Page 16
07-430 Narrative
Regent Parking Addition
Coronado Subdivision
Corvallis PlannJng Division
501 SW Madison Ave
Corvallis, OR 97333
541.766.6906
[email protected]!lis.or us
THE REGENT- PARKING ADDITION
PLD07-000t0 I CDP07-00006/ MRP07-00006
ATTACHMENT J- Page 16 of 43
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1401
a. Compatibility Factors 1. A~proval Criterion
1. Compensating benefits for the variations being requested;
Response:
The net result will be a more efficient fire department access connection, additional
parking for the Regent Retirement Residence, and less impervious surface in the Tract
"C' land area. A new sidewalk connection will be provided between the Regent
Retirement Residence and NW Mirador Place, to compensate for the placement of the
parking lot between the building and the street.
2. A~proval Criterion
2. Basic site design (the organization of Uses on a site and the Uses' relationships
to neighboring properties);
Response:
Expanding the boundary of the Planned Development to include Tract "C" would allo
for the construction of a portion of 74 new parking spaces for Regent Retirement
Center and a new emergency fire accessway to Satinwood Subdivision. The net result
is a more efficient fire access route, additional parking for the existing retirement
resident, and less impervious surface being constructed on Tract "C".
3. Approval Criterion
3. Visual elements (scale, structural design and form, materials, etc.);
Response:
The expansion of the existing Regent Retirement Center parking lot would not result in
any visual elements that are out of scale or varying in materials than what currently
exists on the adjacent lots.
4. Noise attenuation;
Response:
No special measures have been considered for noise attenuation, nor will this project
create any noises greater than or not typical of the surrounding residential, uses.
5. Odors and emissions;
Response:
Odors on the site are anticipated to be similar to
residential lands. Corvallis is currently in compliance
water quality standards. It is anticipated that any
development will be minimal. This project is not
compliance with these State and Federal standards.
those permitted on adjacent
with State and Federal air and
emissions resulting from this
expected to affect the City's
Page 17
07-430 Narrative
Corvallis Planning Division
501 SW Madison Ave
Corvallis. OR 97333
541.766.6906
[email protected]. or .us
PLD07 -00010 I CDP07 -00006 I MRP07 -00006
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1402
6. Lighting;
Response:
All new exterior lighting for the project will be shielded so as not to produce glare onto
adjacent properties. See Attachment "K", Landscaping and Lighting Plan.
7. Signage;
Response:
There is no new signage included in the proposal.
B. landscaping for buffering and screening;
Response:
Attachment "M," Landscaping and Lighting Plan, indicated the proposed landscaping
and screening, all of which is proposed to be in compliance with LDC 4.20.30 and
4.2.40.
9. Transportation facilities;
Response:
The existing transportation facilities adequately serve the site as it is.
10. Traffic and off-site parking impacts;
Response:
No additional vehicular traffic is anticipated with this proposal. The increase in on-site
parking for Regent Retirement Center will have a positive impact on off-site parking,
potentially reducing the number of veh;c/es that park off-site in order to access the
Center.
11. Utility infrastructure;
Response:
No new public infrastructure is proposed.
12.
Effects on air and water quality (note: a DEQ permit is not sufficient to
meet this criterion);
Page 18
07-430 Narrative
501 SW Madison Ave
Corvallis, OR 97333
541.766.6908
[email protected]
PLD07-00010 I CDP07-00006/ MRP07-00006
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1403
Response:
This project does not create any air or water quality impacts which would be
inconsistent with or in excess of the RS-5 zoning or the surrounding residential uses.
Stormwater quantity and quality measures will be made consistent with the City's
adopted Master Plan and Design Standards.
13.
Response:
Design equal to or in excess of improvements required by the standards
in Chapter 4.10- Pedestrian Oriented Design Standards; and
Not Applicable, as there are no new structures are proposed for the site.
14.
Response:
Preservation and/or protection of Significant Natural Features, consistent
with Chapter 4.2 • landscaping, Buffering, Screening, and Lighting,
Chapter 4.5 • Natural Hazard and Hillside Development Provisions,
Chapter 4.11 • Minimum Assured Development Area (MADA), Chapter
4.12 • Significant Vegetation Protection Provisions, and Chapter 4.13 Riparian Corridor and Wetland Provisions. Streets shall also be designed
along contours, and structures shall be designed to fit the topography of
the site to ensure compliance with these Code standards.
There is no inventoried Significant Vegetation, Riparian Corridors Wetlands
Floodplains, or Landslide Hazards on the site. The site grading for the new parking and
fire access will be in compliance with the requirements set forth in LDC Section
1
1
4.5.80.04d.
CHAPTER 4.1 -PARKING
Section 4.1.20-j
1.
LOCATION OF REQUIRED PARKING
Vehicles
a) Vehicle parking shall be located consistent with Chapter 4.10 - Pedestrian
Oriented Design Standards, such that it does not separate buildings from
streets except for driveway parking associated with single-family
development. An exception may also be granted for up to two parking
spaces per dwelling unit for Duplexes and Triplexes, provided that these
spaces are within driveway areas designed to serve individual units in the
Duplexes and Triplexes, consistent with Figure 4.10-15- Driveway Exception
for Duplexes and Triplexes. Parking to the side of buildings is allowed in
limited situations, as outlined in Chapter 4.10- Pedestrian Oriented Design
Standards.
Page 19
07-430 Narrative
501 SW Madison Ave
Corvallis, OR 97333
541 .766 6908
Planmng@d .corva!lis.or. us
PLD07-00010 I CDP07·00006 I MRP0?-00006
ATTACHMENT J- Page 19 of43
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1404
Response:
A variance is being requested from this Standard. While the new parking is not
located between the existing group care facility and Elk's Drive, it is proposed to be
placed between the facility and NW Mirador Place.
The new parking area is an expansion of the existing parking lot, which was in place
when NW Mirador Place was constructed. The primary street frontage for the Regent
building is Elks Drive, pedestrian access to which the new parking area does not
obstruct. Lastly, the applicant proposes constructing a new pedestrian connection
between the Regent building and Mirador Place, to compensate for the expansion of
the parking lot between the two.
b) Vehicle parking required for Residential Uses in accordance with RS-1 1 RS3.5, RS-5, RS-6, RS-9, RS-9U, RS-12, and RS-12U Zone provisions shall be
provided on the development site of the primary structure. Except where
permitted by sections 4.1.30.g.4 and 4.1.50.02 below, required parking for
all other Use Types in other zones, as well as Residential Uses developed in
accordance with RS-20 and MUR provisions, shall be provide on the same
site as the Use or upon abutting property. Street right-of-way shall be
excepted when determining contiguity, except on arterial, Collector, and
Neighborhood Collector Streets, where a controlled intersection is not within
100ft. of the subject property.
Response:
The approval of the accompanying Minor Rep/at application will bring the proposal
into compliance with this requirement.
Page 20
07·430 Narrative
Corvams Planning Division
501 SW Madison Ave
Corvallis. OR 97333
541 766.6908
[email protected]
PLD07·00010 I CDP07-00006/ MRP07-00006
ATTACHMENT J ·Page 20 of 43
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1405
PART Ill MINOR REPLA T
• MINOR REPLAT REVIEW PROCEDURE
An application for approval of a Minor Rep/at must contain the information and follow the procedures
described in LDC 2. 74.30 and 2.14.50. Compliance with those procedures, and the information
required to be submitted by those procedures, is discussed as follows:
1.
Submission Requirements
Section 2.14.30- TENTATIVE PARTITION PLAT REVIEW PROCEDURES
When an application is filed for a Partition, it shall be reviewed in accordance with the
following procedures.
2.14.30.01 ·Application Requirements
When the Director deems any requirement below unnecessary for proper evaluation of a
proposed application, it may be waived.
Applications shall be made on forms provided by the Director and shall be accompanied
by:
a. Location and description of the subject property(ies), including all of the following,
as relevant: address; tax assessor map and tax lot number; parcel number; written
description of the boundaries of the proposal; and one set of assessor's maps of the
subject site and surrounding area, with the subject site outlined in red;
b. Signed consent by the subject property's owner(s) and/or the owner's legal
representative(s). If a legal representative is used as a signatory, written proof of
ability to be a signatory shall be furnished to the City. The owner's name(s) and
address(es) 1 and the applicant's name, address, and signature shall also be provided;
c. An electronic version of these documents (both text and graphics, as applicable) if an
applicant has produced part or all of an application in an electronic format. The
applicant shall coordinate with the City regarding compatible electronic formats, to
the greatest extent practicable.
Response:
The application form (signed by the owners of the property) and appropriate
copies of the graphics are being submitted with this Narrative.
d. Graphic Requirements - The Tentative Plat and other graphics for both
Nonresidential and Residential Partitions shall be drawn to scale and shall contain a
sheet title, date, north arrow, and legend placed in the same location on each sheet
and contain the information listed below. The Tentative Plat and other graphics shall
not exceed 24 by 36 in. and shall include the following information as applicable:
Page 21
07-430 Narrative
501 SW Madison Ave
Corvallis, OR 97333
541.766.6908
[email protected]!is.or.us
PLD07 -00010 I CDP07 -00006 1 MRP07 -00006
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1406
1. Name and address of owner, partitioner, engineer, and surveyor as appropriate;
Response:
Attachment "L," Tentative Plat.
2. Property boundaries of all contiguous land in the same ownership as the area
encompassed in the application;
Response:
Attachment '1," Tentative Plat.
3. Sufficient description to define location and boundaries of the area to be
partitioned, re-platted, and/or adjusted;
Response:
4. location of existing structures;
Response:
Attachment "V' Tentative Plat.
5. Number and type of units proposed when known and appropriate;
Response:
Not Applicable.
6. location and width of all existing or proposed public or private accessways
(rights-of-way) including any reserve strips and parking areas;
Response:
7. location of all existing and proposed public and private utilities, including water,
sewer, and storm drainage;
Response:
Attachment "K," Grading and Utilities.
8. Proposed parcel layout indicating dimensions, parcel lines, and lot areas.
Response:
9. Approximate location and width of Watercourses for review in accordance with
Chapter 4.5 - Natural Hazard and Hillside Development Provisions and Chapter
4.13 - Riparian Corridor and Wetland Provisions; and
Response:
Not Applicable.
10. All areas to be dedicated to the public and their proposed Uses including street
right-of-way, drainageways, easements, and reserve strips.
Response:
Not Applicable.
F'age 22
07-430 Narrative
Corvams Planning Division
501 SW Madison Ave
Corvallis, OR 97333
541.766.6908
[email protected]
PLD07-00010 I CDP0?-00006 I MRP0?-00006
ATTACHMENT J -Page 22 of 43
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1407
11. Significant Natural Features Map(s) - Maps shall identify Significant Natural
Features of the site, and provide all Code-required Significant Natural Feature
information including but not limited to:
a) All information and preservation plans required by Chapter 4.2 -landscaping
and Buffering, Screening, and lighting, Chapter 4.5 - Natural Hazard and
Hillside Development Provisions, Chapter 4.11 - Minimum Assured
Development Area (MADA), Chapter 4.12- Significant Vegetation Protection
Provisions, and Chapter 4.13- Riparian Corridor and Wetland Provisions, as
applicable;
b) All jurisdictional Wetlands not already shown as part of "a" above. While not
all jurisdictional Wetlands are locally regulated by Chapter 4.13 - Riparian
Corridor and Wetland Provisions, they need to be shown so that the City can
route the application to the appropriate state and federal agencies for
comment; and
c) Archaeological sites recorded by the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO).
Response:
See Attachments "E"-"1", Natural Features Maps. The site contains Steep Slopes on
a portion of it. There are no inventoried Significant Vegetation, Riparian Corridors,
Wetlands, Floodplains, or Landslide Hazards on the site.
12. Tentative Plat and Other Graphics
a) General1. Nonresidential Partition Graphics shall include features within a
minimum 150-ft. radius of the site, such as existing streets and parcel
boundaries; existing structures; driveways; utilities; Significant Natural
Features regulated by Chapter 4.2 - landscaping, Buffering, Screening,
and lighting, Chapter 4.5 - Natural Hazard and Hillside Development
Provisions, Chapter 4.12 - Significant Vegetation Protection Provisions,
and Chapter 4.13 - Riparian Corridor and Wetland Provisions; Minimum
Assured Development Area information from Chapter 4.11 - Minimum
Assured Development Area (MADA), if applicable; and any other
information that, in the Director's opinion, would assist in providing a
context for the proposed development. The Director may require that an
applicant's graphics include information on lands in excess of 150ft. from
a development site, such as in cases where an adjacent property is large
and a view of the whole parcel would be helpful, or when existing
infrastructure is far away from the site.
Response:
Not Applicable.
2. Residential Partition Graphics • Residential Partition Graphics shall
include features within a minimum of 300 feet from all exterior
Page 23
07-430 Narrative
Cor.rallls Planning Division
501 SW Madison Ave
Corvallis, OR 97333
PLD0?-00010 I CDP07-00006 I MRP0?-00006
541.766.6908
[email protected]!lis.or.us
AITACHMENT J- Page 23 of 43
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1408
boundaries of the site, showing existing streets and parcel boundaries;
existing structures in excess of 100 sq. ft.; driveways; utilities; Significant
Natural Features regulated by Chapter 4.2 - landscaping, Buffering,
Screening, and lighting. Chapter 4.5 - Natural Hazard and Hillside
Development Provisions, Chapter 4.12 • Significant Vegetation Protection
Provisions, and Chapter 4.13 ·Riparian Corridor and Wetland Provisions;
Minimum Assured Development Area information from Chapter 4.11 ·
Minimum Assured Development Area (MADA), if applicable. Additionally,
if existing infrastructure is more than 300 ft. from an exterior boundary of
the Residential Partition site, the Residential graphics shall extend beyond
the required 300 ft. to include said features and all lands between the
Residential Subdivision site and the existing infrastructure.
Response:
Attachment "L", Tentative Plat.
b) Conceptual Grading Plans -Existing and proposed topographic contours at
two-ft. intervals. Where the grade of any part of the Partition exceeds 10
percent and where the partition abuts existing developed lots, a conceptual
grading plan shall be required as follows:
Response:
Attachment "K" -Cradin[JJ and Utilities Plan
13. Where it is evident that the parcel can be further divided, the applicant shall
show, either on the Tentative Plat or as an attachment, that the Partition will not
preclude efficient division of land in the future.
Response:
Attachment "L"- Tentative Plat
14. Narrative Requirements
a) Phasing- Statement describing phases of project, if proposed.
Response:
The project is to be constructed in a single phase.
b) Explanation of how the proposal complies with the review criteria in Section
2.14.30.05; and
Response:
See response to review criteria below.
15. Traffic Impact Study
a) Nonresidential Partitions- Any proposal generating 30 or more trips per hour
shall include level of Service analysis for the affected intersections. A Traffic
Impact Analysis (TIA) is required, if required by the City Engineer. The TIA
shall be prepared by a registered professional engineer. The City Engineer
shall define the scope of the traffic impact study based on established
procedures.
Page 24
07-430 Narrative
501 SW Madison Ave
Corvallis, OR 97333
541.766.6908
PLD07 ·0001 0 I CDP07 -00006 I MRP07 -00006
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1409
Response:
Not applicable. The proposal will not generate any additional traffic.
16. Information required by Chapter 4.5- Natural Hazard and Hillside Development
Provisions, Chapter 4.11 - Minimum Assured Development Area (MADA),
Chapter 4.12 - Significant Vegetation Protection Provisions, and Chapter 4.13 Riparian Corridor and Wetland Provisions, as applicable.
Response:
The site contains Steep Slopes on a portion of it. There are no inventoried
Significant Vegetation, Riparian Corridors, Wetlands, Floodplains, or Landslide
Hazards on the site. The site grading w;[f be in compliance with the requirements
set forth in LDC Section 4.5.80.04d. See Attachment ")"-Site Layout, Grading,
and Utilities Plan.
2.14.30.05- Review Criteria
Requests for approval of a Tentative Partition Plan shall be reviewed to ensure:
a. Nonresidential Partitions- Requests
1. Consistency with the purposes of this Chapter and the following: the City's
development standards outlined in the applicable underlying Zoning Designation
standards in Article Ill of this Code; the development standards of Article IV of
this Code; the standards of all acknowledged City Facility Master Plans; the
adopted City Design Criteria Manual; the adopted Oregon Structural Specialty
Code; the adopted International Fire Code; the adopted City Standard
Construction Specifications; the adopted City Erosion Prevention and Sediment
Control Ordinance; the adopted City Off-street Parking Standards, and any other
applicable policies and standards adopted by the City Council;
Response:
The proposal is intended to be in compliance with the above listed standards;
except for the variation to LDC Section 4. 1.20.j discussed in Part /l of this
Narrative, page 20.
2. Pursuant to Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.2.7, demonstrated compatibility in the
areas "a" through "m" below, as applicable
Response:
See the response to LDC Section 2.5. 60. 05-d1 in Part II of this Narrative, pages 76-7 9
for a discussion of how the proposal complies with the review criteria listed.
3. Approval does not impede future development of property under the same
ownership or on adjacent lands planned for urban densities with respect to the
provision of City services and access from a public street;
Response:
Complies. Enlarging the Regent Tax Lot to include Tract "C" will not impede future
development of the property or of any adjacent lands.
4. Consistency with density requirements of the Zone. When calculating the
applicable density range for a subject property, applicants may include in their
Page 25
07-430 Narrative
501 SW Madison Ave
Corvallis, OR 97333
PLD07-00(l10 I CDP07-00006 I MRP07-[l00(16
541.766 6908
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1410
acreage calculation 50 percent of the area of any streets that front the subject
site, for the distance the streets front the subject site; and
Response:
Complies. The density requirements of the underlying zone will continue to be met, as
the use will not change.
5. For properties with Natural Resources or Natural Hazards subject to Chapter 4.5
- Natural Hazard and Hillside Development Provisions, Chapter 4.12 Significant Vegetation Protection Provisions, or Chapter 4.13 - Riparian Corridor
and Wetland Provisions, no Partition or Minor Replat shall create new lots or
parcels unless each new and remaining lot or parcel contains:
a) An area unconstrained by Natural Resources or Natural Hazards;
b) An area that includes Formerly Constrained Areas; or
c) Contains an area that includes the areas in 5.a) and S.b) above;
and that area is equal or greater than the applicable Minimum Assured
Development Area(s) for the zone or zones is<sic> which the site falls.
Exceptions to this requirement are:
d) lots created for public park purposes; and
e) Privately- or publicly-owned lots completely contained within an area zoned
Conservation -Open Space.
Response:
Complies. The lot created by combining Tract "C" with the Regent Tax Lot will contain
an area unconstrained by Natural Resources or Naturai Hazards.
END OF NARRATIVE
Page 26
07-430 Narrative
501 SW Madison Ave
Con~allis, OR 97333
541.766.5908
[email protected]!lis.or.us
PLD07-Cl001 0 I CDP07-00006/ MRP0?-00006
ATTACHMENT J- Page 26 of43
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1411
FIGURE 1
After recording ratum to:
Square G Davelopmants, LLC
305 SW C Avenue
Suite 3
Corvama, OR 97333
DECLARATION O.E' COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS Coronado
"'Subdivision to the City of Corvallis, .Benton County,
oregon
··
Declarant: Square G Deve~oprnents, LLC
.·1
Row, therefore, Declarapt hereby declares that the purpose of these covenant~ and
restrictions is to .insure the use of the property for attractive single-family
residential purposes only, to prevent nuisances, to prevent the impairment of the
attractiveness of the property, to maintain the desired tone of the community, and
thereby to secure to each site owner the full benefit and enjoymeht of his home with no
greater restrictions upon the free and undisturbed use of his site than is necessary to
insure the same advantages to the other site owners. Anything tending to detract from the
attractiveness of the property ~nd its value for residential purposes will not be
permitted.
UU-D USE AND BUILDING TYPE
No lot shall be used eKcept for single-family residential purposes and must contain BOOO
or more square feet. No building shall be erected, ~ltered, placed or permitted to remain
on any lot other than one detached single-family dwelling not to eKceed two and one-half
stories in height or 30 feet from plate to sill. Lots 23-30 shall have a height·
restriction of 20' from the highest point on the adjacent top of curb to the highest
point on the roof. l'he nrl.niDIUIII footprint for eaCh home shall be not less than lBOO
square feet eKcluding the garage.
Ari accessory building oontaining less than 300 square feet will be allowed provided it is
located more than 30 feet from a street line and is separate from the residence by at
least five (5} feet. Accessory buildings are to be construed as buildings needed for the
keeping of a swimming area, boat storage structure, patio area, or other like structure,
Such structure must generally conform to the architectural design and finish of the horne
and may not be used for living purposes. All such structures must be completed and
painted within six months of first construction.
RESIDENTIAL USE
No trade, craft, business, profession, commercial or similar activity of any kind shall
be conducted on any lot, nor shall any goods, equipment, vehicles, materials or supplies
used in connection with any trade, service or business by kept or stored on any such lot.
The me~e parking on a lot of a vehicle bearing the name of a business ahall not, in
iteelf 1 constitute a violation of this provision. Nothing in this paragraph shall be
deemed to prohibit (a} activities relating to the rental or sale of living units, (b) the
right of Declarant or any contractor of homebuilder to construct or install living units
on any lot, to store construction materials and equipment on such lota in the normal
course of construction, and to U$8 any living unit as a sales or rental office or model
home or apartment for purposes of sales or rental (c) the right of the OWner of a lot to
maintain his professional personal library, keep his personal business or professional
records or accounts, handle his personal business or professional telephone calls or
confer with business or professional associates, clients or customers, in his living
unit.
- 1-
501 SW Madison Ave
Corvallis, OR 97333
541.766.6908
P!anning@ci corva/lis.or.us
PlD07-00010 I CDP07-D0006/ MRP07-D0006
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1412
DWELLING QlJALITY AND SIZE
It is the intention and purpose~f the covenant to assure that all dwellings shall be of a
quality of workmanship and materials substantia~ly the same or better than that which can
be produced on the date these covenants are recorded at the mintmwn cost stated herein for
the ndnimum permitted dwelling ai~e. All dwellings shall be built (stick framed) on site.
No Tlll aiding, vinyl siding or aluminum siding will be permitted. No manufactured
housing in any fo~ will be permitted. The mini111um footprint for each home ~hall be not
less than 1800 square feet.
All building permit applications for hamws
compliance with the following provisions.
\
~
with~n
the development shall demonstrate
.,
Any faQade (inclu4~ng garage facades) facing street$, access ways, sidewal~s, and /or
multi-use paths shall contain a minimum area o£ 15% windows and /or doors (excluding
garage doors). Gabled areas need not be included in the base wall ca~culation when
determining this m;nimUm percentage calculation.
All garages shall comply with one of the following options:
Garage recessed - The garage shall be recessed a minimum of 4 feet behind any
habitable living space of the residence (Note: the living apace does not include
a front porch, a bay window, or other projection or architectural feature.)
Garage Plus a 60 sq ft Covered Porch - The garage is recessed behind the front
of the house, i& flush with it, or in front of the house a maximum of 4 feet, if
a covered porch extends a minimum of 6 feet from the face af the house and is a
minimum of 60 square feat in area.
Garage Plus a 80 sq ft covered Porch - The garage is in front of the house a
of 6 feet, if a covered porch e><tends a minimum of 2 feet further
towards the street than the garage face, and is a minimum of 80 sq ft in area.
maximum
A side loaded garage - The garage door(sf are oriented away from the street at a
minimum angle from the street of 90 degrees and the wall of the garage that
faces the street has at ~east lOt glass.
EASEMENTS
Easements for installation and maintenance of utilities, landscaping and/or drainage
facilities are resexved as shown on the r;,corded plat.
Within these easements, no structure, or other material shall be placed or permitted to
remain which may damage or interfere with the installation and maintenance of utilities,
or which may change the direction of flow of drainage channels in the ea~enta, or Which
may obstruct or retard the flow of water through drainage c~nels in the easements. The
easement aroa of each lot and ell improvements in it &ball be maintained continuously by
the owner of the lot, except for those improve~enta for which a public authority or
utility company is responsible.
DRAINAGE
~he
home owners shall maintain the drain along the south property line side of site.
NUISANCES
No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on upon any lot nor shall anything
be done thereon which may be or may become an annoyance or nuisance to the
neighborhood.
·2-
501 SW Madison Ave
Corvallis, OR 97333
541.766.6908
[email protected]
PLD07-00010 I CDP07..fJ0006/ MRP07..fJ0006
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1413
.
'
TEMPORARY ST.ROCTORES
No structure of a tempor~ry character, tr~iler, basement, tent, shack, garage, or
other outbuilaing shall be usea on any lot at any time aa a residence either
temporarily or permanently,
SIGNS
No signs shall be erected or maintained on any lot except that not more thiin one "For
Sale" or "For Rent" sign placed by the owner, Declarant or by a licensed real estate
agent, not exce~d~g twenty-four (24) inches high and th!rt~-six (36) inches long, may
be temporarily d{~played on any lot, except that two such sign~ may be placed on a lot
during the course of initial construction of a dwelling on such lot. rhe restrictions
contained in this paragraph shall not prohibit tbe t~orary plac~ent of "political"
signa on any lot ~y the OWner, subject to reasonable size and length of display.
LANDSCAPING
Each property owner shall be responsible for maintaining and keeping in good order the
condition end repair of all trees and plantings existing on said lots and abutting
easements and right-of-ways at the time of purchase or planted and grown subsequent
thereto. The City ot Corvallis will be responsible for maintenance of the plantings
along Satinwood street and NW Elks Drive.
~
Landscape Installation and Maintenance - Street trees shall be planted along Satinwood
street and Elks Drive concurrent with public improvements. Landscaping within or
abutting Tracts ~A", "B", and "C" ahall also be inst•llled concurrent with public
improv~ents.
The locations of these trees will be shown on all site plans submitted for
public improvement design. The revised streetscape plan for new local streets (approved
prior to construction of public improvements) shall be used to install trees concurrent
with dwelling construction. All street trees shown along new local streets and
landscaping shown on Notice of Disposition Order No. 20~6-D25, Attachment G-44 within
Lots 1-4, 7-12, 14-33, 35-37, 44, 45 and 52-55, shall be installed prior to issuance of
the Final Occupancy Permit for each affected lot. A naintenance plan for all plantinqs
!hall be provided prior to the City's on-site approval of the landscape installation.
This plan shall provide meas~res to assure all new plantings attain the minimum 90
percent ground cover required by LDC Section 4.2.20 within three years from date of
installation approval,
All vision c:le&rance 9.reas llt street intersections =e<tted by the subdiv.idon and
subsequent development will be unencumbered by landscaping shown on Notice of Oisposition
Order No. 2006-025 1 Attachments G-43, G-44, and G-46, Landscaping shall be maintained by
the HOA to ensure this standard is met ~er time.
FENCING
All fencing shall be cedar or masonry or a combination of the same and have a minimum
height of four feet and a ~ximum height of siK feet. Cedar fencing must be stained
within 30 days of construction. Reference Exhibit "Aw for cedar fencing detail. All
fencing shall be "good neighbor fencing". Absolutely no wire fence of any kind shall be
permitted. If a fence is used for pet containment, i.e. sball be screened !rom view from
adjacent and other properties locate4 in the subdivision.
All viaion clearance areas at street intersections created by the subdi~ision and
subsequent develoPment will be unencumbered by fences shown on Notice of Dispo8ition
Order No, 2006-025, Attachments G-43, G-44, an4 G-46.
501 SW Madison Ave
Corvallis, OR 97333
PLD07-00010 I CDP07.Q0006/ MRP07-00006
541.766.6908
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT J ·Page 29 of43
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1414
SERVICE FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
Service facilities and equipment (garbage cans, fuel tanks, clotheslines, clothesline
poles and other outside drying of clothes,,linans and such, fir6wood, gardening tools,
and equipment, etc.) shall be in the OWner's garage or abed, or out of sight. Appliances
may not be stored outside.
OUTSIDE FURNITURE AND HOT TUBS
FUrniture left o~taide a living unit shall be limited to itenw commonly accepted as
outdoor or patio furniture. The hot tub mciat be installed out of sight of the main
traffic patterns; ~king cQVers are required and shall remain locked when not in use.
NONBIODEGRADA8LE SUBSTANCES
No motor oil, paint or other caustic or non-biodegradable substance may be deposited in
any street drain, sawer syetam or on the grounds within coronado subdivision. Any fine
and/or costs associated with the cleanQp of any non-biodegradable substance that is
caused by any owner or their guests shall be the responsibility of the offending owner.
VEHICLES
Parking of boats, trailers, motorcycles, trucks, junk cars, or other equipment of a
type not normally used for family ttansportation shall not be allowed on any part of
the said property nor on public ways adjacent th~eto excepting only in rear yard
within the confines of the enclosed garage or behind a 6 foot fence. The term "of a
type not normally used by family transportation" includes campers, other vehicles and
other equipment primarily used for camping, recreation, or overni~ht accommodations.
Trucks, trailers, campers, motor homes, moving vans, and pickup coaches remaining
within the area between the front building line and the property line for not more than
24 hours duration for loading and unloading personal goods or supplies will not be in
violation of these restrictions.
LIVESTOCK AND POOLTRY
Dogs, cats, or other household pets may be kept provided they are not kept, bred
or maintained for any commercial purpose. No other animals, livestock or poultry
of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any lot.
GARBAGE AND RE!i'OSE DISPOSAL
No lot shall ~e used or maintained as a dumping ground for rubbish. Trash, garbage or
other waste &ball not be kept eKcept in aanit~ry containers. All incinerators or other
equipment for ths storage or disposal of such material shall be kept in a clean and
sanitary condition.
SATELLITE DISHES & RADIO ANTENNAS
Satellite dishes and radio antennas shall only be allowed within the confines of the
rear yard, ~rovided it is scteensd and not visibl~ from the street or neighbor's yard.
An 18" or smaller dish PlAY be mounted on roof area.
HOME BUSINESS
Lawful commercial activity commonly conducted within a dwelling by members of the family
occupying the dwelling, with up to one additional employee not to exceed 40 hours per
week. The residential character of the dwelling shall be maintained 8nd the activity
-4-
501 SW Madison Ave
Corvallis, OR 97333
PLD07-00010 I CDP07-00006/ MRP07-00006
541.766.6908
[email protected]
ATIACHMENT J- Page 30 of 43
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1415
conducted in euch a manner as not to give an out~ard appearance nor manifest any
characteristics of a business in the ordinary meaning of the tenn. The activity also
does not infringe upon the right of neighboring residents to enjoy the peaceful
occupancy of their homee. Garage sales ar~ considered to be home businesses. Bed and
breakfast businesses that rent up to two rooms within owner-occupied dwellings are also
considered to be home businesses. To be considered a home business, the ~ae must comply
With a11 of the following:
a. No display shall indicate from the exterior that the building is being used in
whole or in part for any purpose other than a d~elling, except that &ignage
consistent with City code section 4.7.90.01 of Chapter 4.7- Sign Regulation is
allowed. Garage sales are exempt from this provision.
b, No outsrddlstora~e of merchandise or material~. Garage sales are exempt from
this proV'i;icl..
c. The amount of commercial activity is less intensiV'e than activities pe:onitted in
a commercial zone,
d. 'rh" use will not ca'll.&e excessive o:.: 11nusnal traffic in the vicinity b<ac~ee of
deliV'eries, pick-ups, parking, sales, or other activities.
e. Noise, smoke, or odors dO not exceed those created by normal residential use.
f. Each garage sale i$ limited in duration to two consecutive days. No more tnan
six garage sales in one calendar year may be conducted at a residence.
ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR TRAFFIC CALMING MEASUEES
The applicant has proposed that prior to final plat approval, the applicant will place
$10,000 in escrow to support traffic calming measures within one half mile of the
proposed subdivision that are approved by the city within three years from the date the
plat is recorded. consideration for, and implementation of traffic calming measures
shall be considered and approved through the city's Neighborhood Traffic calming Program
and funded by the applicant's escrow account.
i'ERM
The covenants and restri~tions of the Declaration shall run with and bind the land, and
shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable hy the owner of any lot subject to
this Declaration, their respective legal representatives, heirs, successors and ssaigna
for a term of twenty-five (25) years from the date this Declaration is recorded, after
which time said covenants shall be automatically extended for successiV'e periods of ten
(10) years. Any of the covenants and restrictions of this Declaration may be amended by
an instrument signed by sixty (oO) percent of the lot owners.
ENFORC!MSNT
Enforcement shall be by proceedings at law or in equity against any person or
persons violating or attempting to violate any covenant, aither to reatrain
violation or to recover damages.
Any and all claima, dispute5 and controV'ersies arising under or relating to ·these c c ~
R's shall be submitted to arbitration. The arbitration shall be conducted by and pursuant
to the rules of the American Arbitration Association arbitration's proceedinge in effect
at the time of the request foe arbitration. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final
and binding and may be entered as a judgment in any State or federal Court of Competent
juris diction.
The initiation or participation by any party in any judicial proceeding shall not be
deemed a waiver of the right to enforce tbia arbit~ation provision, and notwithstanding
any provision of law to the contrary, shall not be aaa~rted accepted as a raason to
delay, to retu&e to participate in, or to refuse to enforce this arbitration proV'iaion.
Any party ahall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney'a fees and costa incurred in
enforcing this arbitration provision, and the arbitrator shall have sole authority to
-5-
501 SW Madison Ave
Corvallis, OR 97333
PLD07 ..()001 0 f CDP07 ·00006 f MRP07 ·00006
541.766.6908
[email protected]
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1416
award such fees and costs.
SEVJ!:RAIIILI'l'Y
Invalidation of anyone of these covenants by jud~ent or court order shall in no way
affect any of the other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect.
Th:,.undersi~'{:.~ has caused this instrlllllent to be executed this
~j~
__ct_ day of
ACKHOWLEDGEMENT
STA'l'E OF OREGON
s.s.
COUNTY OF BENTON)
,_m
t<\o.-U.
lOb}
This is to certify that on this __
l -_P._ day of 8&tl4;~&1', :16&6, did personally appear
before me the
above named Robert I. Gonzalez, as Member, Square G Developments, LLC, and acknowledged
the
foregoing instrument to be freely and voluntarily executed.
Signature-Notary Public
Print Name
='fjff J.-'
Notary Public for the State of Oregon
.My Commission Number:
My
Commission Expires:
fiJ.IS
1
. OFFICIAL SEAL
:#10
THEREBIA AKEEFER
NOTAitY
··OREGON
410628
29,201()
~6-
501 SW Madison Ave
Corvallis, OR 97333
541.766.6908
[email protected]_us
PLD07 ..0001 0 I CDP07 -00006/ MRP07 -00006
AIT ACHMENT J -Page 32 of 43
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1417
RECORDING COVER SHEET
~AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO
BENTON COUNTY, OREGON
DE·CCR
Square G Developments, LLC
Cnt•l Stn•7 COUNTER2
305 SW C Avenue
2007-423440
08/22/200711 :20:28 AM
$48.00
$36.00 $11.00
UIIUJWU~IIIllllll~ll
••rtW
~
Suite3
CorvaJUs, OR 97333
I, Jlllln V. Mortloo, Couhly Clorll for Bonton
Co~~nl)<, orooon,
!hot 11\o lnltruiMIII
ldonlltltd llortln Will rocoNiod In tho Cieri!
rtcONir.
NAME OF THE TRANSA<!J10N
Declaration of Covernultland
Restrictions
....
James V. Mora lee· County Clerk
~-
t'DECLARANT
Square G. Developments, LLC
Robert I. Gonzalez
2. OWNER
Square G. Developments, LLC
Robert I. Gonzalez
Corvarhs Planning Division
501 SW Madison Ave
Corvallis, OR 97333
PLD07 -00010 I CDP07 -00006/ MRP07 -00006
541.766.6908
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1418
A1rx:r Recording, please return to:
City of Corvallis Planning Department
501 SWMadisonAve.
Corvallis, ()R 97339
Deed Restrictions -Coronado Subdivision
Consistent with the stipulations of City of Corvallis Order #2006-025, the following deed
restrictions :;hall apply to the identified lots within Coronado Subdivision:
·
.Significant Tme CJ.ming Prohibition:
.Signifi~ t=s no~ fQr ~ation on atw:bment G46
are prohibited from being cut. Should the health of the tree pose a safety hazard, removal ar
limited pruning may occur upon inspection and a recommendation for pruning or removal by a
certified atborist 'Ih& City Fomrter sbsll b& contaeted before any significant tree on Lots 1, 2,
22, 23, and 34 is temOved due to a hazardous situation.
·
Additional Tree Plantipg Reauirement: Additional trees shail be planted and maintained on Lots
7-12, 14-33, 35, and 36 as shown on attachment 044.
Pressure Rs!ucing Valves: There is potentiai for the need at Pressure Reducing Valves. In the
event that such valves are necessary all costs related to the instal.lation and maintenance of these
valves will be bome by the property owners. This applies to all lots in the subdivision.
Special. Rear Yaro Setbacks: Lots 24 tbrough 29 rear yard setback is increased from 25 feet to
fm. I.ma ~0 'lhroltl&h 33 atl.li tots 22 !m4 23 ~ yarll ~Jr; is increued from 2S feet to 3S
4Q
feet.
These restrictions are intmded ro benefit the City of Corvallis and shall nm with the laud burden
all successors in~ whether by devise, assigxnrumt, conveyance or any other transfer.
Dated • ·,, 13
day of
2007
STAlE OF OREGON
COUNTY OF BENTON
STATE OF OREGON
COUNTY OF BENTON
)
) s.s.
)
Personalty appeared the above named
~tJa';{~ dt?; , Member, Square G
Developments, LLC, and acknowledged the
going instrument freely and voluutarily.
Ofi'!Ct~$EIII.
AMBERLWALUR
NOfAAI' PUBUC· ORmON
COMM!ftlOII NO.IWI4084
•
lol'tCOIIM18BION I!XPIIIE$API!IL t,IGfO
501 SW Madison Ave
Corvallis, OR 97333
PLD07-00010 I CDP07-00006/ MRP07-00006
541.766.6906
[email protected]
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1419
Regent Retirement Center
PARKING ADDITION
0
300
600
VfCINITY MAP
1200
~
SCALE IN FEET
Attachment "N
July 23, 2007
501 sw Madison Ave
Corvallis, OR 97333
541.766.6908
[email protected]
PLD07 -00010 I CDP07 -Q0006 I MRP07 -00006
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1420
City of Corvallis
Community Development Department
Pfanning Division
Revise<;!; Seplembert2004
Historic Preservntian CNelfay
M_.'· •.,r
Wifla:mettn RiVE"r Gmenway Boundary
/V
CityUmit
1\1
Urban Growth Boundary
Pubilc Schcof
Solar Access 0/erlay
RESIDENTIAL
r.::J AS·3.5
Low De11sity Family
RS·S
C]RS<l
AS•l:l
Medium Density
0
CJ
t:i:EJ RS-12
Low Density Family
RS·12U
1
I
•
AS-20
High Density
COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE
~~U :~::::~: ~::: Uni~e~~
SSD
Special Shoppin9 Di:litrict
CB
Central
CBF
LC
Centra. Business F1inge
l.il'll!arCotnmerclal
8~ines.s
OS
Community Shor~ng
P·AD
MUC
Protes.sional &, Administrative Office$
MIXed Use Commerciell
IN=ousn:;~
Mixed Use Employment
Gl
Re.seen:h Tec-hnology Center
limited
General
II
lnlens!Ve
ATC
u
I
Regency Retirement Center
PARKING ADDITION
QTHORS
0
0
Q
A.G·OS Agri~::utture ·Open Spoce
OSU
Oregon State Univemlry
PO( )
P!Bnne-d Developmarlt Dver1ay
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DESIGNATIONS
0
1200
SCALE IN FEET
Corvalfls Planning Dlvision
501 SW Madison Ave
Coc.<allis, OR 97333
ATIACHMENT "8"
July 23, 2007
PLD07-00010 I CDP07-000061 MRP07-00006
541 766,6908
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1421
City of Corvallis
Community Development Department
Planning Division
Rs\iised: March 2004
.South and West Corvallis Plans Boundaries
I' ~ CityUmr!s
~~~~:~ ~:~:~~unda~
Qs.enaot
Trnnsporo.tion Plan Functional CJas.siHeatkm System:
roximatel.ocs.tionsJ
,
Existing Collectors, Menals. and ArteriAl HJQhW<cy.!i
Proposed Collector.~, Arterials, and Artetlal Highways
Nerghbofhcod Cerl!ers:
NOTE: Clrcses reprGSent a \f-4 1"1cle distance from Center.;,
LOCHtlon of Centers is approXImate ordy.
(t.,
Proposed Minor Neighborhood Center
(e~ Proposed Major Neighborhood Center
-~ :,· Proposed Neighborhood Center Study Area
Comprehe.nsive Plan Desginalions
--.-.
-
LD
MD
<I
<il>,·
~
MHO
HD
Residential • Low Density
Aesidantitll • Medium Density
Residential • Medium-High Der.si!y
Residantla! ·High De-ns-tty
MUR
CBD
PO
MixedUseResldenliat
MLC
Mixad Use CornmeR:iaJ
Llmitedind!Js:'ria.l
u
uo
Central Business District
Professional Offrce
Li'11i\.edlndiJ!IIria!-Offlw
•
MUE
Gl
Mixed Use Ernpklyment
Generflll ndustria!
GID
Gen&ra.llmlustriaiOfi'ICe
" ii'
II
41!1
MUT
Mixed
"''Il>
RTC
Fiesearc:h Technorogy
PI
Publlo lnstltl.rtlonal
A
lntensiv13lndustrial
U~a
PARKING ADDITION
Transilicnal
Open Space • Agrlc•.llture
Open Spa,ce • Canservetfon
0
G
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS
Probable Wetland CNer1ay
Signll'ica.t Stteam Corridor OVerlay
0
500
~
1000
2000
SCALE IN FEET
Corvda
Oragon
Attachment "G'
(541l757-M1
July 23, 2007
Corva!l,s Planntng Div:s:on
501 SW Madison Ave
Corvall'ls, OR 9733:>
PLD07-00010 f CDP07-00006 I MRP07-00006
54U666!l08
[email protected]!is .or .us
ATIACHMENT J -Page 37 of 43
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1422
1200
Attachment "0"
Julhy 23, 2007
501 SW Madison Ave
OmaiT•s. OR 97333
541.,766.6908
Planning@cl,corvallis.or us
PLD07 -00010 I CDP07-00006 1 MRP07 -00006
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1423
NATURAL FEATURES
SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION
800
Attachment "E"
SCALE IN FEET
July 23, 2007
Corvams Pfanning Division
501 SW Madison Ave
Corvallis, OR 97333
PLD07..00010 I CDP07..Q0006/ MRP07..Q0006
541.766.6908
Planning@~.corva/lis.or.us
ATIACHMENT J ·Page 39 of 43
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1424
NATURAL FEATURES
RIPARIAN CORRIDORS
1200
Attachment "F"
July 23, 2007
SCALE IN FEET
501 SW Madison Ave
Corvallis, OR 97333
PLD0?-00010 I COP0?-00006/ MRP0?-00006
541.766.6906
Plannfng@ci carvaJfis.or us
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1425
'\·-.
,: ..
:~,.. ··.~
'""'·~"· ..... :
PftOJE
.
..----....
NATURAL FEATURES
FLOODPLAINS
1200
Attachment 11 G11
SCALE IN FEET
July 23, 2007
501 SW Madison Av:e
Corvallis, OR 97333
541.766.6908
[email protected]
PLD07-00010 I CDP07-00006/ MRP07·00006
ATIACHMENT J ·Page 41 of 43
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1426
i/!
0. . . 300
.
600
NATURAL FEATURES
STEEP SLOPES
1200
Attachment "H"
SCALE IN FEET
July 23, 2007
501 SW Madison Ave
Corvallis, OR 97333
541.766.6908
[email protected]
PLD0?-00010 I CDP0?-00006/ MRP07·00006
,
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1427
NATURAL FEATURES
0,. . .
300
600
LANDSLIDES
1200
Attachment "I"
SCALE IN FEET
July 23y, 2007
501" SW Madison Ave
CorvalliS, OR 97333
PLD0?-00010 I CDP0?-00006/ MRP0?-00006
541,766,6908
[email protected]_us
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1428
)
CORVAI..IJS
Community Developmem Services
Planning and Housing
180 NW Fifth Street
ENHANCING COMMUNITY LIVABILITY
P.O. Box 1083
Corvallis, Oregon 97339-1083
(503) 757-6908
August 5, 1986
Jerry Nelson, Trustee
Corvallis Elks BPOE #1413
3892 NW Jameson
Corvallis, OR 97330
RE: Minor Land Partition 86-2
Dear Mr. Nelson:
The City staff has completed their review of your request for a
Minor Land Partition on the parcel identified as Assessor's Map
#11-5-23A, Tax Lots 1000 and 1100. Listed below are Conditions
of Approval you will need to meet before the Minor Land Partition;
can be approved. You have one year from the date of this letter ·
in which to complete the conditions, after which time this
application will become null and void.
Conditions ot_Approval
1.
A survey and new legal descriptions conforming to the
standards established by the Land Development Code, Section
113, shall be submitted prior to final approval.
The map
containing the survey also needs to show all structures,
driveways and easements.
2.
Permanent easements for the following shall be submitted
prior to ·final approval :
a.
Access to· the E1k's Lodge parcel across the
Congregate Care Center parcel.
b.
Any ut.i li ties crossing one parcel to serve the other:
If you have any questions regarding these conditions or the Minor
Land Partition, ~eel free to contact me at 757-6908.
If you
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1429
Corvallis Elks·BPOE #1413
MLP-86-2
August 5, 1986
agree to the conditions, please sign below and return this letter
and the Minor Land Partition map to Community Development
services.
Sincerely,
~~
.rack Pace
Associate Planner
JP: lh
cc: Elizabeth Papadopoulos, Uti1ity and Transportation
Lee March, Building Division
-----
- -
S~rvices
- - - - - - - - - - ---- -- ----- - - -
I hereby agree to the above conditions of approval for my Minor
Land Partition (MLP-86-2).
Signature of Legal Owner
Date
MINOR LAND PARTITION APPROVED BY:
community Development Services Manager
Date
City Engineer
Date
Reference Benton County Surveyor 1 s Office
cs
2
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1430
June 26, 1992
The Corvallis Clinic P. c.
3680 NW Samaritan Drive
Corvallis, OR 97333
RE:
Minor Land Partition No. MLP92-0007
The city staff has completed its review of your request for a
Minor Land Partition located on Assessor's Map No. 11-5-33A, Tax
Lots 1000, 1100, 1101 and 1400. Below are the conditions of
approval you need to meet prior to finalizing your Minor Land
Partition. You have one year from the date of this letter to
complete the conditions of approval, after which time your
application will become null and void.
Conditions of Approval:
1.
A partition plat for the minor land partition shall be
prepared by an Oregon licensed land surveyor in accordance
with ORS Chapters 92 and 209. The plat shall conform to the
partition plat standards established by the County Surveyor.
2.
The notarized signature of the legal owner(s) of the
property being partitioned shall be affixed to the partition
plat.
When your surveyor has prepared a partition plat the following
sequence needs to be followed:
1.
copies of the partition plat are submitted to the County
surveyor and city of Corvallis Development Services for
checking.
2.
surveyor makes any changes required by the County Surveyor
or the city on the original partition plat.
3.
original partition plat is brought to city of Corvallis
Development Services to obtain necessary City signatures
(Developmen~ Services Manager and City Engineer) .
4.
original partition plat with required city signatures is
provided to the County Surveyor who will transport the
partition plat to the County Recorder for recordation.
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1431
Minor Land Partition No. MLP92-0007
June 26, 1992
Page 2
Benton county charges fees for both review of the partition plat
and recording of the plat. The amount of those fees can be
obtained by contacting the County Survey Office at 757-6821.
If you have any questions concerning the above conditions 1 please
feel free to write or call (757-6929).
c:
Lisa Scherf
Cliff Cramer
Claire Keith
Nancy Dimmick-Spain
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1432
.J
• l
•
'
'.
••
'·
\
:
l~---·
'
\
\.
~~~a----:::~--.
'
···..,..~-~-.......
··..._
:;~.'tfl :-... ____ ·- ->-·&cceooli'Yo.
'~.,/ ~;' ,;~:
·.] · ::·:.~.·.'..: .. ·. -.,
---·······
...
·,
•
-· -
. -
- . ()a
tO»<>
-
5
···~~.
..... '
,
••
;;......... 4"' ~--'-<-....:......:,
~13'
(Jt.w.!IJI:S~
<
~
• . ·-
r······\t..-·-··· - ...... •
·-----1--__
... ·-- , """""'!"';;i.,.
•
,
. : ~
- ·. ' ·. ·.,
--
--
:
r
t
___ ../
.-··c;;;~c;o·-~-: '"---:~~F:::_~·--SX::&G;·:::.\;;~'(
:, .::·. ;.
' Jl' . :_ ~--<'! . ', \ '· . ,\.
, .... _ ,
:l:----r'>:··:>;.~-;·1
. ': ::: ...~ ~~-
r·t _, ... ·.. ·.
·.F]~\-~
- . , . _\ (
,f:·:).-.~\~:5\\ · :} // (
f}~----·.··.-.:~>--~, ·--.._ _:
'
, -
-,-
_,
.~
u:,,....,-r,,-,,.,..,,.r::-r
0~=
a.••rTrltf'
•!iJI
'•.
:
I
•
'
\
'
-~""
JUNE: !0, !992
"--"'
I
t
-
--------~-- :'U)I~ I
5f'I:IIIW.~
--------II
-----,.._~Uti(
_________ ...... ____
l,J¢
~
-·--·--~~ ~
------~~-----1
'
I
~
·~-r...=:.:.:.;:.:,.:- ~~:-:""... ~·'>
-..:, ·.:7.~:
1··.•.· .··0
:·-._ .
. ....
\....-'-·\ ·:
r
:t•.:TJ"
~·~~
t.L_r.,..~ ta-W
·~
w~,~~:
_,...,.
u:.-n-•r.!t'll.
-.,.
11)
8~
V)
"'
·i!
~
i::)
~
d-J!
~
V)
V)
0
oa;
........
u "
-~
~ ~
~"
a..
.li
"'
11)01)0-
o-
z-=r--
3::~~10
. :;:5
,.,..,
~ ...
0 ...
"'o
oo
c:
.,..
·:
u;
~
..
0
,..,
,..,,._
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1433
.
~
l')
Q
:;::
'Q:..:;.
:::: ~
(),
<>u
~
('.J
""'
-~ ~
~-r' ":
;],
"''"'
"''"
ii'Jlj
•·I
\)
'·
,,,'"
:..;
~---
_.
-----·-
ffiUN ROD
< n
.,
~
'~
\)
U;
r"
""'
V
n
1
1
@
\
··r:
r.c.
j ,"'NT 1,sf 8
1
a NIDC
06"ii2'•!2"
15"'1 ?' 42"
15"'16'41"
1!...-"' 1'1' 37"
o6 "'J:r 37'-'
.
\
/
,), '
)
I
s
11"-
I
;-.o1
I
(i\
. . ,7 0
~\(',...1:1,\:!C
~
I
,.
?2"48'39"£'
61 °48' 36"£
'I'
7?"10' 21. "!
?7°15'06"£
88"06 '24"£
YC.,5~
"":::"-::':;;-•:=--",": ~·:-::
,
j
]
I
_!<•0,
(£ !?';[{;
~(
( ·/,
-,J
l
, ' !))
~·
'\
~
"',C!!t/
Qj 't
'hi
'
1
ff'J
7499J
7499)
IO::J&J
7038)
0
.
.
......
{',j
lh
~
<r
:::_r:;
~ "'·
;;
'rET RECORDED
f:J\'1~
---
C.S,
0
# 0~
o.~O~~ ?~
FfJ!JND
97J30
P, L. S. ,}26>'
suiTE 1A
/ .___.-
·-
l
JA~.l~~·,'!le·r
I
--·-·---'
TACCIJI N I
,._cJ<~fGONV
JOHN P :·
C:'"
(';;.A!:/,~4L
~
LANDSURVEYO_fl_j
/ ---==-ii'ES!SflREIJ
\
P~OFESSIONAL I
(503)?5-i?:ZOO
COPUALLIS.~ Ok.E.Y.;;'ON
L'OGE E'YJST!NG GJ\AU£l. PARKIN[;
J?t'FERENf..!:.' 1U C!:.'UDI:J I C CGA' !NUL
RtrEf.,>Cf,;C£' TO CU/?V£ DA T~ TABLE
£'DbT E'XiST/:-.ru· fiSf-ll-lfJLf f'fJR,I(JNG,
F/ J:.~
CURB l.INE
ft~kK~~a::rAcl.~;N~R~~L~~:-·; ~~'£~;/3~ ~ifi.~{;~~i?-IP
£>-'!STING <:JTREF:T L!G'HT 8 POL£
rNE'RC lW£ E.XISTlNG E'ASEHENTS OF RECORD FOR ELECl'RJC
L Ulf:.~~- •JN Tl-lf S PRDP£/?T't'. TI-l£' fk7CU!1£WTS OF RECORfl DD NOT
OIUf' DEAR!!/GS DR DJSTANC£'S AND Tf-IEREFD/?£ AF.'£ NOT 'S'J-IONN.
Ti-l£' DD:::Ut1£NTS OF RECORD ARE A5 FOl.LONS: BOOk' .155, PAGE
370, CONSUHf."HS ?UWE:R INC, / BOOK 176, PAGE S53,
BENTON-LINCOLN EL£CrRIC CCOPEf?flTfl}£ / /1-53676,
CDf./SUi'!ERS PCJNER l!vC. / 11-l6~10, C'Ut1SU/'1ERS ?DHE:R INC.
,'j!J(£:
®
(!)
SC:4.U': / " : 80'
T/ICOi/~1,
FUL''VD HO!¥Uf1£Nr AS NUTED AND SfEJWN
-·n·,:;o;o
P.
cos- M1 5TN STRECT,
j(),4fi
r.f/','r; 8 riS50CIAT£'l £Nl"J/i'h7C.91NG
TACCH!Ni,
PLS 22(,?
SffPJ'ff.ifEJ.Sfi' 14. 1993
;':';~:-::;''"::::"',,=
SI/E.er 1 o.rz
==
CITY O.Ji' C0fiYA£LJS A.f/NO.N LAJVJJ PA.RYYr/OH .tVO. At.tPBZ-0007
J,¥ tor 9, LJtOCK 3 OF ft/i:s' ALJ.IJ/77'0){, /H 7'H£' HO.RTH£1/ST 1/4 OF SCC7YOH 23,
TOmVSH/P 11 S:Of/TH, J?AHCE.' 5 lf'fi'ST, IY//J.A.I/JJ'lTK Nfi'R/LJ£1H, CYYr OF CORMU/s;
B.fi'HTOiV COf/Hn; OR.fi'CO,V. £V 7:1/.fi' //.fi'NAH t.!i'/1'/S lJOiVAYYON blHlJ C'£A/A/ NO. 47.
'Jd_- .,!,2
FA/?7'17'/0iV FLAT NO.
FOR THE CORl'ii/JJ.. ) CLI!V/C, PC
JDHN P.
-/--?:._::-:2~~~------------·---
r!Ef?EB'r' CERTIFY TNAf Tl-1/S !SAN EX!ICT COP'! OF THE DR/GJNAL
PLAF,
lO:Jf:l
c. s.
-:;:::,·,-__ ,,_ _ :~~";:",;;:; ==-=;:::::';;:,
~1>.
C.:..~~.
"
jV~\'
oO
\QI'
~Q ,_j~p s$
.11 f:t;;
}YQI~a
,~S,o·.~\~"'1>
,~ f' ~~~ c~·
'\0
c .s.
\ ~
~·
~~\~~\},f\~
U\ t?' iJ PEV
~
JPfJN Reo Pn<
8.l1
r.rftJND
74'39
f03B tJ
•
?~.t_dJ
5/8:' IRON ROD PERC S.
sre" .'
1
?
749 li ?O..;~f?
1
1-ft::'£;1 AS FOF--<·,0
FD~~·!J
AfJ. 70'' c. s. ?030)
((/,v o~
OS "09' 57"E, 80 87.'' c. 5. 7499 J
<>oe' 1, "£, ac 87', t1-BS3Ba-es J
::9.97'
( 60. 00' > NCJAr?£ SUDD. J
rl£f.'7
VG~
TH£ PPOCE.J l.
RtGI-tT nF ylA"' Lit,£
05,f1 03"£
R: ~ ~
1', ~·
1
f'l - - - O~"
[-i ~ i
\J 0
·-1.
t
~ ~
{.
f1
(800.1( B.PFJG£ 34)
!VUlVD s-/tl 1 ' JRON t<!OD Pit-?
6 ~~ ~ :"
(g
~ ~
-,
Q
,
"I,''
r
BUT /,';
f: S'!Bqli.J!.:J/ON
!ELD AS FDUVD
80. 8:J
N 05 "09' OS"~~
,, . , J.~ FC'c:m
S-"B"
< ~I
7499 -
";
~ 1]
,r•
j-
s.
Pfu'iT!C !,';A•-" t1/RK£D "K fJ D
163u" L!£R "R!lJGC:I./JEH
Cf:,\{£P
'WOf£<:;':;fO'VAf
L.
6 8
NORJ.7iJNT.&iL D!STlWC£ ..: 611. SV'
FDRES~r::!Jg/::~ "':t~:~Hf0():r ·:l~/ ~1~~ ;%;:)'T"@
BACKS!CHT C!T'r' OF COl?t'i~LL/3 CONTROL SffiT/ON t/ 18, H
S/8"JR0f/RODINFAST£;flGEOFt';r;pHAl.TOFHiGNWiiY99,
O~PO~(TE, EL!<S "DR!~£',-;_@ " NO! S'HONN
T'- 3~.:.,.5.)0. 41U, ,oc;_ ...L,L84,644.010
rouvo 5-"8' IROn PEF C.::. ?499
(1J , HtLU
rio -{)UJU /U t~'ii'IELJS I
---
v . . ..._rqlfOB,
kl
--.
(;~
:~ '\~~ c,,
: "> ' 1 &;
1
(\l1n
nJ,
jl>
,P}r;,Jf../
I
/
;
1
/~
1
I
1
/
~ o. f\o, f({)'
/
1
j
1
/~ r"'2{/+rff/[[;~~f:
I._ }"'~/68?2
/
-,
uJ·ctr
--
t- -
I
"CE0iJi:"{J_C,.{,T/t,;(fioL
~:f'~~~~rs~i.i~~U,TOX~;_~,§~~~:J~~~fc;·@
r.:ou
!NSTFW/1£'/1! HF CIT'r' JF CONVALLIS C:JNTf..:Dl. STHT!ON it
5/8" !fo.".!DN
:JV !HE S.'UU!/-f.SJUJ:: OF !:.'LKS.DR/1./E IN
FOUND 5/8" JRCN RDD W--""'£0
uUNN
Ir---r- -
:::-.. --~ ---
~
"'-~~~~ .,u ~ f ") l'{'t"'-~f
,'
I
/
I
10.78)
f
I
(? '(]),
;:-:::::=::;-:-:;:::..-;:.::~::•=;:-::..:,
£
c..s.
:
e;.;;J~·;,RY' l
I
-"'v0'?,<r
\'/0 i] )I
<' e
·~'
I
!,_,F.,tvrf:"'R
f!E:<>cNT
,l
·y
1
/ j~JotNr
l/j
;
j 'y ~r?)~_,-V,..J 7~
r~·m 1 );>'jl
8£ARitVC
N
~
)-1' o\,
S &&"'10'15''£'
s
s
1·1'/. 56'
.!.47. '/1'
63.35 1
63, 3Df
r!<J'
17' ,''
72"'47' J2''£
0
.('~
~!f) r~
,Clrj
\!},
~co,-
,•"Y
YJ'
' '
~
,~«ci0
S 61. 48' SZ"E )(C. S.
77".1:!'15"£
s
s
s
~-:-;T~f-
g\f,~~~
k6081
()
1
;' 1.:r"l
~ "--
s...___
t~ r~t- ~/
--I
;:: . . -.
-
)W; /
~"· t,o,.~ /,
~'?'<', 1;:;
· { .0~,?
s
v~
'
r
<0,
IJ
If)'
'-'
....__;:;}
I
r
art)'; 2
t~ $.
t; 1\.fJJ.._,1 t':: \y~'/
\"""tC:'~.r1 i{f'!
'--~""'li
n" 1
--y
-"
I;>
'>
"v ~;~'I"
1
; ' '(IV
f
',
~.
.£
'u,.1·/
1
FDU!J/J 98' iRON .uuu RER
r S G"~""~B fi£'LD A~ r:·oU'JD TG
f:'srABl:f'sH.l?!GHT cf·
. . . . .'f1.:_ Y-y_ V'J~~
- '·~s"$9~~~ ".l_,'.J"S;-,?::-----.
:o
::; ->t-, -...c ..S,
_ _.)
--...._
. ~- &-yc!.~, :,.~<>!&. . ; .:::::"~~~$,.,·
' -.. .
'--:t~
~-
,
FOUND S/R" !PO!/ !?(J!J PER c. s. 6078 , l. 3
v 43°56'03'"H, 0. 29' DF SE! NO/</UMSNT
0 . .:::0', C. S. S07f!J
(N fi9°.1'2':05 1 h,
(\v/:;~,__~J'
0v 'i ',
\_ t, C. I
--
®
'
···\
96. '10'
147. ?2'
191. 83'
96. ?0'
3'! 0 25'45"
15"26' l4"
15"26 '14"
ChURO
191. 7_')J
.7/"24'05"
D5L tl1
\
\
(
,
D.c.. "15~00''£
d \
.C9. .74'~ c;··
l
\
\'\! ~.t-Y,
HS.'Rf:Ei':'£N [
;t1AlfVTPVWt-E
/ '!~/"181.!.
J
I
/
L
I
I
I
,
~s~.,EHS!
fJf
1.
1coo
;•;•::::::==::=::_~,;;:::;,',x"-
63, 38'
63, 40'
_t ../{],11'
(555. ()OJ
&55, OO-'
96, 99'
97. aa~
LEN& Til
195. .f4'
1'J5. Z9'
AS'i-HAL r.
SCT
!1ARtfED
~~R'Bis,
148. 16'
148. ()0'
),555. 00'
PARC'££ 1
~\~
\
-~,
L'£
-----......
\
_-- -~,
' ,
\
. \~~.......:' '~
___ _!:!!_R~·-~t,;;
£Vff
·--~-
7.78,...fC.R£'S
?'J'
~~ 9 ·"
\
\
??R~:'E~rFf.[t S
H,
,
I
-
ASPN~LT
555, 00'
·.' 5S5. oo-
\360. 00'
\298. 94'
.760. 00'
(2)
@
29&. 94'
CD
P.'1D 1 L!S
l/!BLF
f'MRCP£ 2
5.89ACRCS
/.,O
"" ,,
(/
,~, ,,.,~--
'
I
I
1
I
'
'i
L:i
~~, .t
:::
;::_1
t!) 1
j
~~
1
',..
-~1
\
/
'
',
406.
r--}
S 88 .:;c?
CUf?V£ DfJIA
cJ
).G
)..
(
!
I
EX/Sl!W}'J
!
;
--
£,\
~
r
CUP. JE
)l
r.t
r.t
N arr'::JO' 26"
?~'
\
FOUND 5"0" IRON ROD PER C. S. 7038
f-IELD A.':i· FO!.!"JD TU E'S(AUL/SH R!u"H!
OF t1li'r'---·
·\
o
,
"
~6 60' C •; 7038 J ······-·
(N FJ!i 2(j_3_2 __ §__4~.:J_.· ___ __L_·--·--.~-----. ---- N Bli"30'26" £, _456.
/
·----
o. 65' SOt/TH (}f" Lil:F.
7';)38
f'lUND 5/8" fR!N .RDfl PER r. S.
PEP ''EJKS ADDIT!!JN'',
80-:Jt.( '?, p,.)[;£' 1.
1-/ELJ' AS F!7UND
f'!S
L8"
F(JIJt;.J
1
~~l_n
CDRN£/:;J LDf r·.1s OO' 1
9,8LOC•t (C.S~;Jt!f.l_
3, El!<Sr , . " '/5, 02'
flDD·,.DOOx "
__
~~g~nRg~~-~:~
"!N!fft.iL POJ."JI"
9~-2-.h
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1434
OFESS I ONAL
1~.
~"
trt07
JOHN P. Tf/CCHINI, PLS 226?
LING' 8 f/SSVC!f1TES ENGINEERING
605 NW 5Til STR££T. SUIT£ 111
CDRVIJLL/ S, DNEGDN
97330
( S03J ?51-7200
PfiRSDNS,
flONINISTRATOR
...
r
r
_______ .. ____ ,
.J
THESE PfiRC£LS fiRE TO BE
STflfC OF· OREG'DN
HV C011NISSIDN EXPiRES ___{:!_t_?:~_'lJ
N0Tf/RY PUBLIC.
_L)1J~·===--~:::f~,1---------I
__ _
L-- ......_ .~. ,_,_,_
·~/ ~p /'" .·~
-~-
.~..-.,_
-·
!!~ . ;'::~. ·-~,
~"'·-
I·.:.. · · . . {/lit:i-
J
r-r,:k--·---·--.r:---7-J
THIS' IS TO CC.RTIF'Y THAT ON THIS_? .. ~---~·- OA'Y DF --~-~:Qt
19.92, BEFORE NE, A NOTARY
PUBLIC IN fiND FOR Sfl/0 STfiT£ fiNO COUNTY, DID PERSONilLIJ.Y fiPPEflR BERNIE H. PARSONS, IN THE Cf1Pf'£'1TY
SN-UNN IN IH£ ABOVE lJECLfiRAT/Oh~ WHO BEING OUL'r' SHORN, DID Sfl'r' TI-JAT NE.' IS THE IDENTICAL PERSON NAI1J:D
IN THE FOREGOING INSTRUHENT AND THfJT SAID INSTRUNEN! Wf/S EXECUTED Fl?E."EL'r' fiNO ()DLUNh1RILY ON BE.'HfiLF
OF [i;IECORVALL'! CLINIC, P. C.
COUNTY OF BENTON] S. S,
STATE OF OREGON
A CffJVO ff'.££'LJ C/f'Ji./If'JIJ'
BERN!£ H.
/),lk.!Y.~.:i~lf0_L:,rx,{.,~--------------
RIGHTS fiPPUR(£'NflNT T7 THIS PARTITION AND II£ /111K£ NO CLfi!N FOR WATD? RIGHTS.
SERrb.t:D E'Y TN£' Cf'T'r' OF CORUIJLL!S f'IU!viCIPAl. HATI:::R SYSTEN.
THE ATTt:ICHED /'ff'tP f/1::; .'10!?£ PARTICU£..f1Rl..Y DESCRIBED IN THE 5'1../NVE::'r'OR'S CEfi'T!FlCfJT£ AND HfJI.Jt' CAUSED
SA/0 LfJNDS TO £11:: SUNUEY£V, PART! T!C01£D AND P!.ATT£0 INTO PA,RCELS fJS SHOWN ON THE t:ITTAC!iED NAP iN
ACCORDANCE HIT/-! CHOPTER 92, OREGOA! REVJSE'D STifTUT£'5~ 1991 ED I !JON. FURfHE'R, ti-!ER£ ARE NO Wf/TER
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS TflilT THE CDI?IJALL IS CLINiC P. C., A,V ORCGDN PROFESS!ONfiL
CORPORATION, BERNIE H. PARSVNS, AD/1/N/STRAT{]f'?, IS THE RECORDED DJ'INER OF THE LANDS REPRESENTED ON
LJ/f'CMRA J'/OJV
N,
OREUON
- TACCH.IN!
(;,;;;~
ND SURVEYOR
~
R~EU'~ls···T'E'R'tD.:~
BEGINNING flT THE "INITIAL POINT", 11 5/B" IRON RDD NRRKING THE NORTHNEST CORNER OF LOT 9, BLDCA' 3 OF
£LKS fiODITIDN 11 SUBDIVISION OF REGDRD IN BOOK ?, PfJG'£' 1, B£'NTON COUNTY PLAT RECORDS, SAID RDD BEING
ON THE SOUTH LINE OF N. N. £LKS ORIIJ£. fl 60, 00 FOOT RIGiiT OF ilflV: TIIENCE fiLDNG Sfl!D SOUTH LINE OF
/V. H. ELKS DRIVE, NORTH 88°30' 26" EfiST~ 456. ~7 FEET TO A 5/Bn ll?ON ROD: THENCE CONTINUING ALONG Sfl/0
SOUTH RIGHT OF WilY LIN£, ON THE fiRC OF 11 290,94 FODT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT ( LONG' CHORD BEfJRS
SOUTH ?2"47' 32" £115'7, 191. ?0 FEET J fi OISTIJNC£ OF 195,14 FEU TD A 5..-8" IRON ROD: THENCE fiLONG THE
fiRC OF fl 360. 00 FOOT RflOIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT (LONG CHORD BE'fiHS SOUTH 61 "4B' 36" £fiST, 96, ?0 F££'TI 11
DISTfiNCE OF 96.99 FEET TO fl 5/8" IRON ROD: Tf/ENCE SOUTH 69°36' 18u £fiST_, 25.64 FEET TO fl 5/G" IRON
ROD; TIIENC£ LEfiVING Sfl/0 SDUTII RIGHT OF HAY LINE 01' SfiiD N. W. o'LKS DR !(I£, ALONG THE HE'S! LINE OF
DF.£0, 11-8.'03B0-86 AND N-853B1-B6, SOUTH 17"30'04" HEST, 245.00 f'EET TO A S/8" IRON ROD; THENCE SOl/Til
24"24' 33" WEST, 15S, 55 F££( TO fl 5/8" IRON ROO; THENCE SOUTH 02"15'00" E'fiSI, 220,00 P£'£T TO fl S/8"
IRON ROD flT THE SDUTIIHEST CORNER OF Sfi!D f>/-85380-86 fiND 11-B53B./-86: THE'NC£ ALONG T/!£ SOUTH LINE DP
Sfi!D 11-85380-86 fiND H-B53B1-B6, NORTH 87"15'00" F:fiST, 238.00 Ff!ET TO f1 5..-8" IRON ROD ON THE EAST
LINE OF Sfl/0 LOT 9. BLOCK 3, £L/(S flODITIDN: THENCE ALONG SAID c'f/ST LINE, SDUT/1 02"11'38" EAST,
144, 46 F££T TO fi 5/8" IRON ROD flT THE 5'/JUTHERST CDRNF.R OF Sf//0 LOT 9, BLOCK 3, ELKS F/001 T!ON:
THENCE ALONG Til£ SOUT/1 LINE OF SfliO LOT 9, BLOCK 3, ELKS f/0017'/DN, SOUTH 88"20'40" WEST, 856.65
FEET TD 11 5..-8" IRON ROD Ill THE SDUTI/HEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 9, BLOCK 3, £LKS ADDITION: THENCE ALONG
THE HE'ST LINE OF SfiiD LOT 9, BLOCK 3, £U(S ADDITION, NORTH 00"27'10" WEST, B54. 51 FEET TO 11 5/8"
IRON ROD flT THE NORTHNESI CURNER DF S'liO LOT 9, BLOCK 3, ELKS flDDIT/01/, Til£ "INI TfflL POINT" flND THE
POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS []£SCRIPT/ON,
I. JOHN P, TflCCr!INI, 11 REGIST£R£D PROFE'SSJDNIJL LilND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF OREGON, DO HE.REBf'
DEPOSE fiNO SfiY THAT I HAVE CORRECTLY SURVEYED fiNO /iflRA'EO WJIH PROPER NDNUN£NTS !tiE UIND REPR£St~IIED
ON Til£ fiTTflCH£'0 PflRTITJDN PLAT, THE BOUNDARY OF NIIJCH IS DESCRIBED fiS FDLWHSc
S'URV/f'YO/?'S' C.!f'R'/'/Ji'/CAJ'A'
THE PURPDST OF THIS SURVEY IS TO Pf/PTITIDN TfiX LOTS 1000, 1100 fiND 1400 INTO TWO PARCELS lOTH
RESPECT TO THE EXISTING CI TV OF CDRVfiLLIS ZONING ON Ef/CH PARCEL. PARCEL 1 IS P. 11, D. , PNOFESSIDNfiL
8 AD!1/N!'STRATJUE' OFFICE AND PARCEL 2 IS RS 3. 5 , RESIDENTIAL.
THE BfiSIS OF BEfiRINGS IS THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 9, BLOCK 3 OF "ELKS fiDDITfON" 11 SUBDIVISION DF
RECORD IN BOOK 7, PAGE 1, BENTON COUNTY PLAT RECORDS,
THE BDUNOfiRY or SAID LOT 9, BLOCK 3 WAS £STilBLISH£0 BY HOLDING FOUND HDNUNENTS fiS PF.R C. S, 7030,
C. S, 607B. C. S, 7499 fiND "ELKS ,qDDITIDN" flNO fiLSO PER THE PLfiT Dr RIDGEVIEW PROFESSIONAL CENTER, 11
SUBDIVISION NOT Y£1' RECVRD£0 BUT !N PROCESS. THE WEST 11ND THE SOUTH LINE OF TAX LOT 1101 WAS
ESTfi8L!Sii£D fiS PER DEED FDR Sfl!D TflX LOT, N··B53BO-B6 fiND 11-B53B1-86,
THE SOUTH LINE OF N, II, ELKS DRIVE Hf/S ESTflDLJSI!ED BY NOLDING FOUND 110NU11ENTS fiS SIIOWN fiND f/LSO BY
1/0LD I NG RECORD Til£' RECORD RflDI US FOR CURVE It 2 flND t/ 3.
JVARRA '1'/V/f'
Fo<
R.!f'CORLJ/JVC
a· cwcr:
DATE
__________ . ____________'j_3.L:!l-
DATE
PLS 2267
-----------------~·------
TflCCfi/NI,
5'L:P7'CHP.8'11 14, 1992
C/Jr OF COJIJ-:4££/S H/HOR LAIIP P.4/17Y7'/0JY HO. Jl'£/'92-0007
I
S/f.8'!!_!_ ~
.&Y £07' 9, B£0C'K 3 0? C£KS ALJLJ/7'/0H /H 7'HC UOI?7'//CAS7' 1/4 0? .S.8'C7YOH 23,
7'0/YHSH/P 11 SOl/7'H. RAHC:.C 5 !YCS1; !Y/.£/.A.V%77'.8' HCfi/0/AH, Cffr Of CORIQU£/.S:
BCI/7'0# COlW7'Y, OR..;'COH. l'H 7'HC HCHAII £C!Yl'S LJOHA7'/0H £AHP CYAl'H HO. 47.
FOR THE' CORI'l1L..!JS CL/JV/{-; PC
.PART/T/OJV PLAT JVO. ____!l_<l- ...lJ....
JOHN P.
_/U/.~::.b
/'-----. ---·· --
I HEREB'r' CERTIFY TNfiT THIS IS f'iN EXACT CUP'r' OF !HE DRIGJNfiL PL:C!T.
BENTON COUNTY SURVt'YOR
--==~~--w~--------
DEVELOPHENT SERVICES f1f1Nf/GER
CITY DF CORVALLIS,
DfiT£
_'3._-_·u:_?fxc_
- ______ J.:_2:_1__<]2 __
ENGINEER
CIN OF CORVALLIS,
AFFROfALS'
BFNTDN COUNTY CLER!(
ev. --~ ______ j/l~:lf~tf:~------------
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT Til£ flTTflCH£0 PLAT NilS RECIE'iJED flND DULY
R£'CORD£'/J BY 11E IN Til£' BE.,nTON COUNTY REC'OfjpS, ,fiOOK OF Pf/RTITJON PLATS
flS Pl,_flT NO.
/9 ··..! :1,
./ ON TNIS
.t;X!;c' 1
DfiY OF
____a,,y;~".!aFL~T:-"J.f(-~/1992. flT -==';l~(!t/===A_.~"~·
COIJNIY OF BENTON}<
STATE OF OREGON
~· S.
9.i-,.tJJ
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1435
Nanc Edwards
Rob Wood <[email protected]>
Wednesday/ January 28/ 2015 10:14 AM
Nancy Edwards
FW: Tract B development
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
CENTURY MANAGEMENT LLC
s\Robert Wood
Post Office Box 13969
1838 Lancaster Drive NE
Salem, Oregon 97309
503-589-9797 (0)
503-589-9951 (F)
503-302·4826 (C)
From: Yaich Jason [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 8:43AM
To: Rob Wood
Cc: Chapman, Shannen; 'Lyle Hutchens'; Young, Kevin
Subject: Tract B development
1
Hi Rob,
Based on your previous email to Shannen Chapman, I wanted to caution you that tree removal on Tract B would be not
permissible (with the exception of the hazard tree referred to below) until you have the Planned Development
Modification land use approval that you need to proceed. The tree preservation I removal plan is one component/ of
many, in your current application (PLD12-0000S) that needs to be approved before any site work can occur. Additionally/
the property has a Planned Development Overlay and is subject to Land Development Code provisions which limit any
development activities, including vegetation removat until approvals are obtained from the City.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Jason Yaich
Associate Planner- City of Corvallis Planning
Division
541.766.65 77
jason .yaich @corvallisoregon .gov
corvallisoregon .govI cd -Planning
From: Rob Wood [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:20 AM
To:Chapman,Shannen
Subject: Tract B Oak tree
Shannon:
Thanks for the call yesterday. To recap our conversation, we paid to have a tree removed at a neighbors request, that
had a split at the 'V' at the base ofthe trunk. The neighbor was concerned of the potential of more than half of the tree
falling onto his house.
The neighbor's name is David Spaeth (541) 740-4707
1checked with Kevin Russell and subsequently Ken Gibb when I received the request.
In addition, per Ken's recommendation, we obtained an inspection from an arborist prior to removal. See attached PDF
1
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1436
I understand that none of the trees on the Southern property line are protected and will all most likely be removed with
the upcoming development.
I have learned there are 2 trees on the Northern side that are part of the PO for Coronado that have been identified to
preserve.
I hope this all helps answer your questions.
Rob
s\Robert Wood
Salem, Oregon 97309
503-589-9797 (0)
503-589-9951 (F)
503-302-4826 (C)
2
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1437
Nanc Edwards
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Rob Wood < [email protected] >
Wednesday, January 28, 2015 10:12 AM
Nancy Edwards
FW: Tract B Oak tree
Spaeth damaged Oak - Elwood Tree Service.pdf
s\Robert Wood
Salem, Oregon 97309
503-589-9797 (0)
503-589-9951 (F)
503-302-4826 (C)
From: Rob Wood
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:20 AM
To: Chapman, Shannen
Subject: Tract B Oak tree
Shannon:
Thanks for the call yesterday. To recap our conversation, we paid to have a tree removed at a neighbors request, that
had a split at the 'V' at the base of the trunk. The neighbor was concerned of the potential of more than half of the tree
falling onto his house.
The neighbor's name is David Spaeth (541) 740-4707
1checked with Kevin Russell and subsequently Ken Gibb when I received the request.
In addition, per Ken's recommendation, we obtained an inspection from an arborist prior to removal. See attached PDF
1 understand that none of the trees on the Southern property line are protected and will all most likely be removed with
the upcoming development.
1 have learned there are 2 trees on the Northern side that are part of the PO for Coronado that have been identified to
preserve.
1 hope this all helps answer your questions.
Rob
s\Robert Wood
Salem, Oregon 97309
503-589-9797 (0)
503-589-9951 (F)
503·302-4826 (C)
1
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1438
Nanc Edwards
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Yes, see attached and below
Rob Wood < [email protected] >
Wednesday, January 28, 2015 10:12 AM
Nancy Edwards
RE: Removal of Oak Tree at Tract B
woodjpg; 43453.jpg; Arborist Report.pdf
I'll also copy you on other pertinent emails
From: Young, Kevin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:46 AM
To: Gibb, Ken; Rob Wood
Cc: 'Trish Weber'
Subject: RE: Tract B Tree
Hi Rob,
1 spoke with Trish Weber about this yesterday, and will include her in this email response. The subject site was not
inventoried for natural features and is not protected by the site-specific protections in the LDC. However, there is a
standard in LDC Section 4.2.20.d.1, which states that significant trees (defined as 8" or more in diameter at four feet
above grade) "should be preserved to the greatest extent practicable and integrated into the design of a development."
That standard would be brought to bear on a Planned Development application for this site, but I cannot say whether
the ultimate decision through that process would be to protect the tree or not. If you have good reason to think that the
tree poses a hazard to the neighbors, or cannot be preserved while allowing for a reasonable level of development on
the property, those considerations would support removing the tree.
At this point in time, we have not received an application for a Planned Development for this site, and the City does not
have regulations, outside ofthat process, that would require City review and authorization for removal of the tree.
(However, in the case of trees within a Highly Protected Significant Vegeation Area, or other highly protected resource
area, regulations would require replanting and would not allow development on the area ofthe removed tree.} Given
the neighborhood's interest in development on Tract B, I think it would be a good idea to be able to document what
hazard concerns or other considerations led to the decision to remove the tree, if you chose to do so.
- kevin young
From: Gibb, Ken [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Rob Wood
Cc: Young, Kevin
Subject: RE: Tract B Tree
Rob, 1 am forwarding this to Kevin Young and asking him to look at it- as I recall, when I spoke with Chuck about this, my
thinking was that we need to make sure that the ''T's are crossed, l's dotted" because of the neighborhood attention that
you guys are well aware of.. ....
Ken
1
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1439
From: Rob Wood
To: Gibb, Ken
Subject: Tract B Tree
Good Morning Ken:
Chuck mentioned that he spoke to you about a tree we have on Tract B that is threatening one of our neighbors
homes. It is one of the trees that would have to come out anyway with our upcoming proposed development, but with
the neighbors urging, and to which I concur, we need to take it out sooner.
1 understand that none of the existing vegetation onsite is protected, considered heritage, nor does an special overlay
exist.
Chuck said you mentioned that someone in the city needs to review this.
Can you let me know who that would be and what the process is?
Thanks, Rob
s\Robert Wood
Salem, Oregon 97309
503-589-9797 (0)
503-589-9951 (F)
503-302-4826 (C)
Rob:
David Speath is the owner of a property on Survista that abuts tract B on the southeast side of the property. He
has a couple of trees that are on our property that are leaning over his house and would like us to remove them
if possible. His number is 541-7 40-4 707. He would be happy to meet up there any time to look at the trees and
discuss ways to avoid a tree fall on his home. Thanks dk
Dale Kern
Principal Broker
Commercial Associates
202 NW 6th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
541-754-6320 ph
541-758-0508 fax
[email protected]
From: Nancy Edwards [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:58AM
To: Rob Wood
Subject: Removal of Oak Tree at Tract B
Rob,
2
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1440
r
Century Management LLC
Attn: Robert Wood
1838 Lancaster Dr NE
PO Box 13969
Salem, OR 97309
November 26,2012
Coronado Development
RE: Oregon White Oak (Quercus garryana)
Location: Tract B in the Coronado subdivision at the end of Mirador Place,
Corvallis, Oregon.
Mr. Wood,
The tree borders the property line with a heavy natural lean towards the neighbors
property and home.
Wisteria vines are growing throughout the canopy of the tree
At the base of the tree is an inclusion also called a tight 'V' or pressured fork.
These inclusions are weak and have a potential to fail at that point.
Considering the lean of the tree and the pressured fork, I am recommending that
the tree be removed for safety purposes.
ElwoodA.
se
Certified Arborist PN#0735
TREE
F:O. Box;, 72·1 8 Salem. Oregon 97305
CA..RI: l.'IDUSTRY AssoctATJON
Sal8m (503) 390-2838
\\\'.'"'\ .elwuocbtrees.enrce.com
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1441
\.b) ..........} .......,..., .....
JCOe,. C€J\T urya::au• 1a~- c.:ov•'
li.
N~
BID
43453
BID DATE CA1..L.6D
t~L-'
TREE SERVICE
Office 503-390..2838 • Fax 503-390..9648
11
/ol
10
/a e?.e ~AM
Mailing P.ddress: P.O. Box 17218 Salem, OR 97305 • Headquarters: 3989Timbet Dr. SE Salem, OR 97317
Web: www.etwoodstreeservice.com • [email protected]
Customer:
~
F-OB \ l..'Y.:C:)D
PrPjssW,afs in SlrborkuUNrt
H.
w
__,...--.:::.e .-. & o f"S--t,._;.a<cfc!..--y---IM-r.:-w-:-~-a..,...rJ-.-v_ __
Rental Y 0
CDS2.uB.LU-s.__ - - ---- ')( SA-T\\J o.x::oD
Property N
can ahead
go anytime
(
}___________
l'be'>
0 ---ce!l !fo?j
0
Fax
(
)- - - - - -
o~~r5Ll h ltJC@ - 8LI g I
--- -~----==-==-===;::::;==;::=::;:=;::::::::;=:...,.......,..-r-~~~=
Billing Info ____ _
.-.I
~
·r· .
__ _
Plot Plan (no to
-~
-~
C/KI, ...,---
' .)rrl · i-- - Vl1l'-ctt\
'f'!i-··-j ! u4 ___ •·:- ~'A ~,:::,_- .
I
-.,. r-~ j} ,
1
11,
·~~~
·-·
1
f
1
.
l Hl\-\.{ A
1-1
:
~.
\
Job Oeser phon.
It
...
--+-+1-+:-·
...,...~--""'
-p- _ _
.. .
p
·-·
_____
0
other dimensions:
0
grind s t u m p s : - - - - -
0
0
remoVfl viS!ble surface roots
~= ~::~:.
l<yl\"(.!.J.
~stumps:
. ~~../~~- ~vestumps(hBight): "$ .,cz
\'~~""'
--+-i>---t--+-....
12· 14" 16" 16"
9f;;J.no wood cuttlng; - - - -
--i,__-t-1--·-,
-'.~P-·-:+-+-+-+~..M~t-...rli f
Ju ( -- -'
\
-+. _ _ _
..
• ·
T
·-'
Please see back ol job order 1D def1no
theseseMCea:
0 cut fiTIIWood:
1
..--_;_·-~~~+-++t--,f-/-t--
~- (Jill~.
..,
1
~
1
1
::z.D~;~
~ -..
v ,,
; i
b
1caN ) ___ 4 ..,./4 f-r'.:.-t---.f-+r--.,-....,_+--+-··-+--
'~~
-t-rt--i~-1·+--+-+·H-t\-\:-J
.11
· ..
-·
·-..·t-- t--
-+--+--++-··+--+--+-- 0
remove chips lrom Slumping
leHYB chips from stumping
o~~~
/-r
··--f--t-+--- 0
::a underground ulilities
(
BIDTOTAL $
Stu~•P GJindlnu Conlract ~:w 1r " Jlllll•r.:, 111 ~" C]11f••ll h •i!i~r1' ISIII;on:e ...U W!llia!l3" COO•pem.li:OO lnsur<nte cerllhca:es•"'~ tljlCII fftllle!l f.cii!!IUC!!Il!l cortadllll! B2724 II isogletd !1'..1'
!1 [11.,.>1 <T!"" ot.I>ILlO lllh1Jt' :0 II· CIJIIIIo· Ollit.ton;Cf lorpwll'J".O. ol on!ottlll~lhb a~, !!leundeFSI!;nM lrlll
HWIJOOS Ji<oSelv;'-", m oliJd,IIOO many olher damaiJIS !I nt4P l8l'.IM!I a! I
,l'it<IIC/; Ices II (I 11>1 l) biC>·d · >liMtill&":>lliill• O! 1M '-llnr.;r !a\)ai!IIIS! 1)\~l!Eih!lrSlli!IShli:d,al ~al ii1!l iJI)Ollolllyappe;l lh!rai:Gm
lh '""'"a<~
·n ""' 111r g1011nd Ullllli•s 1-J~III.'Il !leiole l'ellcum 1~ gol110 Sll:m~ Mol1!1311) 1t.ase tt:iliiii!Sar&. but llllllimYPrlln N'li!Jtal Gtt!. etechr.ll). US 'Nest. TC1 sewer ""~1. ilfl\1
ol ·~•"•'•'I S1r11 • • n,.,r; •. nc c •• ge 1o1 ·'liS '""' e The 11!il>'! cJlllp3nitS oil! INii: wil!> -.r sni,!IJIP. p;~ont "" fotllllltl ct \llosllllllillles Do Nlll OISIIn ~'ai:t ~t~~n our job " Cllltllliel• All otlCI
r.av:O
"''"''n
r,.,.
un•lrl\):r.,rlfl ell! I" no• li>f·l!<t't t, 1"'1~ nr 1111e '"'f'IW .I!Mhl; .~ ll•·oJJII's
s..- Ccrnpany Nor ISE!w:JOO's TrecSemce (XIrnpanytf!S!!M'"bl' ltll tl:tma!jl!l.ID ll1)'llnlll! (Willy QJ 1101) ootlerg~Cuod
fiC' l"l'J:I~ I tr; ',. lfu- li!C u<lt > i<J IS llilli m•lldTO Sjlflni~ ( 5Vstt TIS lej:lle Cf d~ai~ "~ 111;l!n h!e.l. OlidOOf ~!)hlmTJ lt.t: l
T1e0 SarwiCII CID11KI A!l CJIIIIII 1!· "'" IMliKIO I" r.l•lllf'ltlellm a>t-b>tl!lhal ...UWillt.lnllllli<t lnillllCI ~ 10 ~n:l:lfd praelitt.5 Anj azi.IMI,;;'deY!illli;,;~IO liTe .!Ill!'.;; ~licaJkl."lS iiMllvl:>g
...,I·Whl ulnll!i "·' '" ll"' wrl 0.11t be Cll)> utt:e upon «lr.tnonttr• for same. and Wlllilet.<lmeana~acl!a'{J!CWOI 11\Bllllll Nrellllooal mtlntfll111ilCl It ;sagree~thal i!Elwno!l's T~Smit••"'"'JJIftd
lu 111n~lo·, l<l il!1 •IF• yfu ~u po·~ o' enfG~r.•1.)1Ma•pe<.menr lh• u ~!JiladWJIIIS'I Etworos Tm! Semoo.m.»~n!ll lll)'ollteroamages II mrg!llll!llll!cmo'(> ~ lflCI!tRXI tyEiwxd's
r;:h~&?;t~~;t,_·;~,~Jm~~~oJ"lft1!
rc:lllet wlrlrlud. lllllalillldupoo"'f;wtdll!1er<lmm
.
RHspec!lull" Gubmltted b
ed ro !umish an materials and tabor reqUJred lo complete !he wo~ monHoned in the above propo!!Bl, fm
which-------Accepted
agrees to pay the amount mentioned In sa1d proposal, according to ths tsnns themof.
Oa~·--------------
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1442
Elwood's Tree Service Co.
PO Box 17218
Salem, OR 97305
INVOICE FOR SERVICES
12/13/2012
Rob Wood
rob(a),centurybuilds.com
JOB DESCRIPTION: Bid # 43453
Oregon White Oak removed, Cleaned up brush, and left stumps 3ft high @J Tract B in the
Coronado subdivision at the end of Mirador Place, Corvallis, Oregon.
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE:$ 3,170.00
Terms: Payment is due upon receipt of this invoice. We accept Visa and MasterCard.
INTEREST WILL BE CHARGED AT A RATE OF 1.5% AFTER 30 DAYS.
We certainly appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you.
Please call wjth all your Arboricultural needs. 503.390.2838
-------------------------------------------Feel free to call with card information ........
CREDIT CARD AUTHORIZATION FORM
NAME AS IT APPEARS ON C A R D : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ACCOUNT NUMBER: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
EXP. DATE: _ _ __
FIRST THREE NUMBERS OF MAll.JNG ADDRESS (THAT GOES WITH CARD):_ _ _ __
ZIP CODE: _ _ _ _ _ __
AMOUNT (IN FULL): _ _ _ _ _ __
SIGNATURE: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (J DIGIT SECURITY CODE FOUND ON BACK OF THE CARD): _ _
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1443
APPLICANT’S SUBMITTAL - JANUARY 28, 2015
A link to supplemental materials provided by the Applicant on January 28, 2015, before the close of the
written testimony period, can be found here:
http://archive.corvallisoregon.gov/0/doc/517090/Electronic.aspx
EXHIBIT VII - PAGE 34
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1444
EXHIBIT VIII - PAGE 1
Ƶƌƚ,ƵďĞůĞ
WůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶϭͬϮϭͬϭϱ
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1445
PLANNING
RECEIVED
VALLEY
RECEIVED
OFFICE
CITY MANAGERS
JUN I 72008
Community Oevelopme,_
Planning Division
JUN 1 7 2011
WILLAMETTE
June 17, 2008
Ms. Kathy Louie, City Recorder
Corvallis City Managers Office
501 SW Madison Avenue
Corvallis, OR 97333
Subject: Appeal of The Regent Parking Addition (PLD07-00010, CDP07-00006, MRP07-00006)
Dear Ms. Louie:
We wish to appeal the P lanning Commission's June 4th. decision on the The Regent Parking Addition
referenced above. Having submitted written testimony on behalf of Safe Equities LLC, we are
considered an affected. party V\rith standing. On its face, the Planning Commission's decision affects Safe
Equities LLC's interests and, if our property is part of the Detailed Development Plan as th e decision
suggests, that plan cannot be changed without our consent.
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1446
The second ground for appeal is as follows:
It is a fundamental tenant of planning that variances from development standards cannot be
granted for self-created conditions. If the Detailed Development Plan was intended to apply to
portions of Tract B, those portions should have been sold with the existing congregate care
facility because the Detailed Development Plan envisioned expansion of parking to the south of
the approved development. The need for a variation to the parking standard arises only from
tbe fact that Tract B is not a part of The Regent's property. Tbis is a self-created condition
that should prevent the granting of any variations.
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1447
REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval ofa 57 lot tentative subdivision plat on 15.81 acres.
The two tax lots that make up the 15.81 acres have three different zoning designations.
Tax lot 100 is 10.13 acres and is zoned PD(RS-3.5), (Attachment D). A District Change
application has been submitted for this property to remove the PD overlay from the
parcel, (Attachment E). The applicant is hopeful the PD overlay request will be removed.
which will allow the subdivision to be reviewed under the RS-3.5 development standards.
Tax lot 200 is 5.68 acres and is zoned RS-3.5 and PD(RS-12). The PD(RS-12) portion
appears to have been established when the Regent Retirement Residence was approved
Because this portion ofthe site appears to have been part of a previously approved
Detailed Development Plan, the applicant is proposing to leave this portion ofthe
property in a separate tract that is not proposed to be subdivided.
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1448
RECEIVED
'E~ 1 ' ,..,
n...,..,.,..,
P~ m...,.cm
O>m...,nlly
Safe Equities District Change
An Application to Remove a Planned Development
Overlay From a Vacant Residentially Zone Parcel
frlparedfor
~
(~0,.,
--UVN!&IJY
CORVAlliS
The Ciry or Corv•llls
S4ll SW MAdi.son AvMt~e
Cof"\111lli61 09 97333
!SIIbmitflld by;
97JJ!l
S.fe Equit!e."' LLC
P.O, llo.J. ,06
co.... m,, OR
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1449
2007 -
f.
Benton County recorded the Coronado Subdivision which included Tract B as the
subject property, but not as a lot within the subdivision, (Attachment L).
For requests to remove a residential Planned Development Overlay, copies of any
applicable Notices of Disposition and documents that explain the background
regarding the established of the Planned Development Overlay on the site and the
status of any land use approvals on the site.
In April of 1981 the City Council initiated a District Change on the subject
property to change it from RS-3.5 to RS-12 with a PD overlay, (Attachment G-2).
The Planning Commission approved the District Change and a Detailed
Development Plan for an 82 unit congregate care facility on the eastern 3.12
acres, (Attachment.!). The 3.12 acre boundary for the congregate care facility is
shown on the original1980 plan submittal, (Attachment F-2). In 1986 the Elks
sold the 3.12 acre congregate care property, (Attachment J). In 2007 the subject
site was designated as Tract Bon the Coronado Subdivision Plat, but was not a
lot created through the subdivision process, (Attachment L).
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1450
B.
Approval Criterion
2.2.50.06 - Review Criteria
3.
A final Subdivision or Partition plat filed and recorded;
There must be no active Detailed Development Plan on any part of the site.
An active Detailed Development Plan includes one which has:
b.
The land division performed under the Coronado Subdivision Plat has
no impact upon this request, as the subject site was established as a tract
and not a lot through the subdivision process, to meet the states needed
housing.
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1451
Planned Development Modification (Major): Land use process that provides an
opportunity to allow flexibility with regard to site planning and architectural design for
previously approved Conceptual or Detailed Development Plans. Such flexibility is in
excess of the thresholds that define a Minor Planned Development Modification and
provides benefits within the development site that compensate for requested variations
from the approved Conceptual or Detailed Development Plan such that the intent of the
original approval is still met. {2005 LDC 1. 6.30)
2.5.60.01- Purposes of a Planned Development Modification
a. Provide a limited amount of flexibility with regard to site planning and architectural
design for approved Conceptual or Detailed Development Plans; and
b. Provide elements within the development site that compensate for requested
variations from approved Conceptual or Detailed Development Plans such that the
intent of the original approvals is still met. {2005 LDC 2.5. 60. 01)
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1452
The original 1980 Congregate Care Center application (PD80-9) was denied by the
Planning Commission because:
III . Due to the scale of the proposed s t ructur e , in conjunction
with nearby development (Elks Club Lodge, Good Samaritan Hospital
and adjacent facility approved thr ough the Planned Development
Modification for the Novare Planned Development ), a suitable balance
between the oroposed structure and open space was not provided.
The proposed development would be disp r oportionate t o t he overall
site area .
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1453
The Elks BPOE is proposing to create three parcels on the site currently
containing the Elks Lodge and the Regency, a congregate care facility.
The site or~g1nall y consisted of two parcels (and two tax lots ) but in
1986 a nd 1988 add~tional ta x lots were created without Mlnor land
partition aporova1. One of these taxlots has since been sold . 1n effect.
Makino it a separate parcel. The condit 1ons for th1s proposed oartition
include iteMs tha ·l w1ll Meet our conc erns reoardino the the earlier
parcel creation.
Proposed parcel 2, which would contain the Regenc y is a l ready a single
tax lot (tax lot 1101 ). However, the land to the south of the reoenc~
parcel was 1ntended to serve as open space for the Recency . Thu~ the
southern boundary of parcel 2 sho~ld b~ extended to the south to include
the ooen soace. ln addition easeMents for the e xt ension of public sewer
and water to parcel 3 are needed.
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1454
In the staff report during the July 21 , 2008 City Council PLDO?-0001 0 appeal hearing
Assistant Planner ~b. states the following:
>>
>>
From the approved drawings, the Conditions of Approval> and the 1981 staff
fmdings, it is ap parent that Tract B was part of the 1981 DDP, as evidenced by the
PDO boundary on the Zoning Map reflecting the 1981 boundary.
The fmal 198 1 Planning Commission approval included the prop erty south of the
Regent building as part of the open space and building set-back for the approval.
A 1981 Condition of Approval indicated a 135-foot distance between the Regent
building and the southern property line. The southern property line referenced in
1981 is the ctnrent southem property line of Tract B.
During the May 21 , 2008 Planning Commission hearing for PLD0?-00010
Commissioner Hann said he remembers that there was a lot of discussion about Tract
8 by the neighborhood at the time of consideration of Coronado Subdivision, related to
assertions made during the 1981 approval process. Planner Yaich said that any applicant
for developing Tract B would have to address the 1981 Condition of Approval that
assumed an open space area between the Regent building and the south property line.
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1455
WĂƌƚϭϴͬϭͬϴϯƵŝůĚŝŶŐWĞƌŵŝƚ
ŝƐƚŽ ϭ͘ZŽƵŐŚŐƌĂĚĞƚŚŝƐĂƌĞĂ
Ϯ͘WůĂŶƚƚŽĂƚĂůůĨĞƐĐƵĞƚƵƌĨƚŽďĞŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚ
ďǇŽŶŐƌĞŐĂƚĞĂƌĞ;ŶŽŶͲŝƌƌŝŐĂƚĞĚͿ
ϯ͘WůĂŶƚĂĨĞǁĂƐƉĞŶ
ŝŶĂƌĞĂƚŽŵĂŬĞƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶ
ĨƌŽŵĐĂƌĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚǇƚŽƵŶŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚĂƌĞĂ͘
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1456
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1457
ϭϵϴϱWŚŽƚŽŽĨZĞŐĞŶƚWůĂŶŶĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƌĞĂ
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1458
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1459
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1460
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1461
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1462
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1463
=
/' t -. ."'--. . '"-.'
.r--·- .~
_.,.
•
'
I
....
""'::1.1/1
..._,
'
/II
.
....
---............_,
~1/,1
_':t~
~'
'
I
'
·,;
I
,I
I
I
II
f
1
I
'
•
~
/
(
/
/
.
.
I
J - .. ' ~r,
I)' /£/,'.11·
I~r;./ill~)
i I,.,
~~~:II·,'··-~
') , '
/I
'.
' ' ·IJ
'
/JIJ
I
i
'
J'
I
I .
\
\
\
I
. '
"7.1..
/_if.
I.
I I
I
'
.
0
-
'
I ~
,,,._
I I 'I
I ., I IIIlO
I I.
o oOI ML
:
l
::..
1 • ·, 1 1 1 ·,
., .. ., I
I
.,,:· ' ;,.
.'i:.•<
' , ;,'
I. . ..,k.J' ' ,-I .. II' '
I
I
I (' ' !t!'
I
~
i
y I "! 1
' -d 1:·11'· .!-- : / '
..... •
'
,...o-r ...,
_
\ (I•'
, .,,, .'
•
I
.
'/,_,·.~,.,)' . ~
if''
,,,,
r
~~
~
~
~i
'~ /' '
.· I ••••
.
I 1 0 - • ..
1 ''[
' ,' •'
'/ . / '' ' ,
••
,I
0_. :II
... •' '
1
I - ' ' f I II
'.,.-/ /
r '. '.'"'' ',' '', ' ' .,. .I- '
~
(ftv
"
'
,'
I, '
~
r,'·~~\
0
• - • .;,.,
-
60
'I
'T1'
""'~-0
""'."':
••
~
~
E::!:!:Zl
0
()
0
30
'
L£0 END
I
.
1 41~
OURS
"'"'
""'
~ . . . _.,
--
"'"
IC'Jl"';.'..,
~.,
"'""''
-~.....,_,,,
""
NEW GROUND C
py
NEW TURr
CRASS
NEW BIOSWAI..E
NEW~EDtUM CANO
STR(.,, tREES
E CANOPY
NEW LARGE.,.. :!0' O.C
12()
"""
NEW SLOPE
BAN~
""" " ~-
SC<~..£ INF'EET
II
(J)
(S
:)
C
'!;
a..
~
j
~~
2
"'
,
0]
a
......
-~
o
l'i
..
~~
0
(!)
ICEF I
~~u)~
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1464
...
~ -·~--
.
--- ------------- --
------
GRADING AND
TREE PRESERVATION PLAN
I'AOJECT:
SATINWOOO SUBDMSION
PROJECT I..OCAllON;
CORVAWS, OREGON
CUENT:
9th STREET PARTNERS, LLC
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1465
1.6" CAL..
ABSK7NN
I
JAPANESE p,.a.~ ~me:
TREES
PLANT LIST AND LEGEND
SOPHOAA.JAPONICA ~
-
SJ
)
'
I
1
J
II
~·)
-
~
~
m
~
0 4-456
;I
JOB NO.
08/ 08/1
ORA~
t OF 8tEET8 f
L2.00
-~~ ~
ISSlEI)I
VI VI
AS SHOWN
~
u-l
~"'
1H CAL.
easTlNO DEaDUOUS TREE TO 8E PRESERVED
Lm~
EXIS11NG EVERGREEN TREE 10 Be PRESERVED
LarD
4111 o l
~CEIV£o
II ~w u...
PROSPECTOR E1 .M
I
LOTl'D
,ULM\JS Wll.SONIANA l'ROSPECTOR'
I
1.0110
l1W
0
e
~
~
0
Lmla
I
~-
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1466
~
* B:cokm~t~s
C archive,corvallisoregon.g\
)L
'1 2'
65'
40'
36'
X
X
l(
X
D c~~m;;:-;;~, tJ Orad• I P.E\>ple5Jlft ...
12"
21'
nL ARTest li'.' ebiit"e
- C D archive.corvallisoregon.gov(O(doC/505603/Eieroonic.aspY
::· App;
N0.1 04
DOUGLAS FIR
N0. 105
GARRY OAK
N0.106
GARRY OAK
12" /10.8"
GARRY OAK
DOUBLE STEM
36'' • 42" EST.
DOUBLE STEM
NQ. 101
GARRY OAK
X
15' EST.
48'
N0.108
16'116'116'
22"
10'
20'
18'
34'
46'
X
X
X
X
X
N0.109
N0.111
20'
TRIPLE STEM
52'
RED MAPLE
GARRY OAK
36'
N0.117
N0. 115
N0.1 14
PINE
GARRY OAK
N0.113
N0.112
DOUBLE STEM
12.5"
10'/10"
QUADRUPLE STEM
4"/5'/5"/6''
16"/11"
DOUBLE STEM
191'
11.5'
19" EST.
20'
32'
15'
20'
40'
40'
28'
50'
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
GARRY OAK
N0.110
BLACK WALNUT
NO. 111A
DOUGLAS FIR
PINE
9.5"
36'
10' - 18'
MT. ASH
N0.120
N0. 119
PLUMSP.
GOLDEN CHAIN
N0. 116
PINE
PINE
GARRY OAK
N0.11B
32"
X
ROWOF4
SMALL TREES
15'
FIG
NO. 121
MULTI.STEM
N0.122
DOUGLAS FIR
N0. 123
HAWTHORNE
I
2014 SAN!1AM CHP,...
m
"'.E
~
~ 5r· National Schedule ~ Sr Ameri<an s~hedule
LOT23
l
I
l,
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1467
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1468
ŝƚǇŽĨŽƌǀĂůůŝƐƌĐŚŝǀĞƐʹ ϭϵϳϲĞƌŝĂůWŚŽƚŽͲKϮͲϵϱͲϰͲϭϬ
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1469
Aerial Photography by WAC Corp. T11S, R5W, Sec. 23 1982-83
ĞƌŝĂůWŚŽƚŽŐƌĂƉŚǇďǇtŽƌƉ͘dϭϭ^͕Zϱt͕^ĞĐ͘ϮϯϭϵϴϮͲϴϯ
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1470
ŝƚǇŽĨŽƌǀĂůůŝƐƌĐŚŝǀĞƐʹ ϭϵϴϱĞƌŝĂůWŚŽƚŽ͕&ůŝŐŚƚ>ŝŶĞϲ͕/ŵĂŐĞηϳ
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1471
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1472
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1473
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1474
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1475
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1476
MEMORANDUM
Oqte:
January 14. 2015
To:
Planni'ng Commission
From:
Amber Bell, Assistant Planner- Community Development Department
Re:
Coronado Tract B (PLD14-00005)
Additional Written Testimony
This memorandum includes copies of written testimony received after printing of the
staff report, through noon on January 13, 2015.
EXHIBIT IX - PAGE 1
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1477
RECEIVED
MAY 2 8 2ffi3
Testimony of May 28, 2013 to Corvallis Planning Commission
RE. Tract 8 Apartments MaJor Planned Development Modificat1on
I and my neighbors on Autumn Street and the neighborhood on Mirador, all ObJect to this proposed
development as being in violation of city codes aga1nst excess1ve housing unils on a cul-de-sac, as bemg
out of scale for a s1ngle family neighborhood, safety 1ssues of added traffic on a vary narrow street. It's
proximity to a retiremen t center, wttere the elderly will have to walk past the new driveway Ttus is clearly a
safety 1ssue Have these Regent residents been apprised of the situation? What of the ability of the Fire
Dept. lo respond to a fire on the very narrow proposed driveway into the Tract B site? In the 2006 Corvallis
Compret1ensive Pian ( 2.1 .30.06 )
1. Safe Equities Will leave only one tree on Tract B. In ( zoe 07- 00005 ), Tract B Is identified as an open
space tract containing existing signif1cent trees to be preserved Developers have already cut one of the
large n;;~ks down r.lr!imlng It Wrl~ rl srlfety h::lz::~rrl I would like same real answers on this from the city as to
Who originated this hazard complaint A huge and magnificent Douglas Fir Is also slated for death as it is
rn the narrow driveway for the development. Many of these significant trees had red ribbons placed around
them by the developers. We were led to believe they would be preserved.. Now we are told they are not. 3
large pines beh1nd my house that were planted In 19B1 (all have red ribbons on them) provided a nice
buffering alllhese years. They will be destroyed The Regent's orlginal,and, my landscaping were planted
on portions of Tract 8, Mine was pul in by Garla11d Nursery, for which I have the original plans. They have
been there all these years. All is slated to be removed by Safe Equities. They didn't obJect to the trees and
plantrngs all these years I feel they were put there as pan of the buffering for the original Regent setback
agreement and should remain intact tn their present locations.
D
JAN - 9 2015
EXHIBIT IX - PAGE 2
The Corvallis Comprehensive Plan 2.1 30.06.b- compatab11ity factors 1. visual elements. scale. The
building will be a massrve one dominating the site, out of proportion to existing single family homes. I was
supposed to have a buffer and had the buffer with the Regent (PO 81-1 ). Where is my 55 ft. buffer from
the property line? 2. noise attenuation The apl complex parking tot willl be directly behlnd my home and
uphill from rne. I will be getting noise from car's starting up at any hour of day or night. Where goes my
restfu l sleep at night? Where ls my buffer? How can they even create a rational buffer when my bedroom
will be so close to this lot? How can they screen this from me? 3. noxious odors. Not only will my coastal
breeze disappear. It will be replaced with car exhausts with unknown health effects for me. I will also be
getting from the thoughtful developers, shown in their latest plans, a garbage collection slte at the very low
end of their park1ng area, directly above my kitchen and bedroom areas, This Will bring further noise and
odors at anytime of the day or night. (refer to site plans submitted Jan. 18, 2013 to C1ty Planning Dept.) 4.
Lrghtlng -I currently have no hghtlng on Tract 8 , New lighting will Include the apt. building itself and the
park1ng lot for 20-plus cars. According to codes, I'm not supposed to be affected by them. I don't see how
this fs possible from an uphlll site Again, my bedroom and sleep will be affected. I will also lose any
nlghtsky Views on the site 6. landscaping for buffering and screening - Proposal calls for a retaming wall
above me. Buffering w11l not protect me. It wm wall me in. My backyard has been a very prwate and
pleasant space for 28 years. The calls of a dozen or more bird specres and deer will be replaced by
obnoxious odors and vehicles. I will al so be on view to the new tenants 24/7 It place my property within
easy reach of tntruders. I don't want to see wires and fences where I have had a pleasant grassy field all
these years. I don't want to become a victim of crime either I've never had to worry about this before. 7.
traffic - from zero traffic to service vehicles, mail and delivery trucKs. 10 apts and 20 parking spaces. 8
affects on off-stte parking - already the end of the cul-de-sac on Mirador 11as experienced vehicles of the
stalt at tne Kegent par1<111g there Further down Mrrador, a new c1ty parK rs berng constructed on 3 lots. I'd
like Ihe city to reveal how this development came about when no mention of it was made to the
neighborhood. Please explam the timellne and the proposed funding of the site. Why hasn't this been
made public yet? Why is Safe Equities building it? Why wasn't neighborhood consulted?The neighbors
suggested Tract B for a neighborhood Park and would have preferred It over an apt. building at the end of
a cul-de-sac.The new park will only add more congestion on a very narrow streetrand 'ftll11@'a~1?0yl,G
solitude that the homeowners thought they would be gettlng when they bought thejr prow:rties. Why. was ..l.-1
thls not disclosed to them when they purchased their land? 9. • effects on air ar~d water QUality. All wfll be
Cvrnmunity flP.Ve1oproent
'?Ianni :1.; ;)tvision
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1478
dimtsheO from my perspective Vehtcle exhausts replace fresh atr No1se Will replace qutel space. Water
runorr from the s1te will be very unpredictable. I don't see how a water collection system that the
deV1!topsr.h,re;pr'OpasiP~an be guaranteed to do me no harm.
JW•.u-~ia~t
The ctty will absolve themselves from hability but I will have to llttgate if something happens to me I recall
the people at 5994 NW Rosewood Dr whose home was knocKed off It's foundatJon during heavy rains on
Jan 19 2012 Who w•ll protect me from a similar occurrence? Thetr homeowner pohc1es wouldn't cover
earth movement I've already had some of this from the current dramage system on the Tract B site_Who
wtll make me whole 1f thts happens? I feel the proposed development fails to provtde me any real or legal
protection In thts area. It also Will deprive me of the enjoyment of my property as 1{ Will saddle me with a
host of new worries and very real problems caused by the developers disturbing the soils. The purpose of
the Comprehensive plan is supposed to protect the surroundmg property owners not just to help the
developer I don't feel the developers have made their case that this proposal has any benefits for our
neighborhood or the city, Tract 8 still has Covenants, Codes and Restrictions on It that I feel the city is
legally bound to adhere to. They made a deal with this neighborhood in 1981 to a 135 ft southerly and a 55
ft. easterly setback and should stick to the open space agreement made at that lime, fn perpetuity. The
developers knew these restrictions were in place when they somehow managed to aqwe the property
(city needs to show how, when, why and who was involved tn making that happen). For the Planning
Commission to give approval to ll1is project at this time ts a total travesty of fairness, transparency and
JUSilce not JUSt to our neighborhood, but to all the citll.ens of Corvallts. The history of this hill needs
thorough investigation
1 am totally opposed to the Tract 8 Development Plan I say no to any variances requested by Safe
Equities • this includes vanances to maximum vehicle parl<tng, gradtng area limitations max1mum front
yard setback and pedestnan.anented design
Sincerely,
James Khne
3098 NW Autumn Street
Corvallis
!.'T'TL~ t4~5 c~~"J .f~
fl..t.SQ.. bW&4]«t" Vlht- lJo h-.
-1'4
~
'f"'v~ej,. ~ 1V-£ ~._. t.~\- of-
L.q,s.:- 11'\.CfoS.~._ ~~ ~h~ b(!J) i.EA :k->
c,'r1
Cov~ c. n.. ~ ~ f"ti\,./JI •(t.ler ~'s~ )~
~"-Ovl
t.
~ kv.o1 -n;,f' > ,~ .
. .;z.o1s-
EXHIBIT IX - PAGE 3
l~lf
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1479
T)\~
Pt..CU~$C:. lJCL~ t-4\S j~$'il,v..~~ ;.::, ( PLP- I~ .. Oboos)
IJJ\J ~.> 1-\ ,_.u..:, ~Jo,- c I-\I:IU1€l:> P ~.J4tlop~ ;;f- T"R..Ac.r ~ P]Vf:?t~->AL ~
f'-1~et> l>rtvJ,J v,.. .J\JIJ~ l0\3 B'1'
1-Cf _Js;-
Gn JJ\\\ts. G,~ C,t~,t)c.l(. ~ fu,~tJ ',.;:J C,JAM~tH r~ V~'k..s _
~4-~
.
• t.
JUN 1 1 2013
..
,...
Corvallis Planning Commission - Jason Yaich
Traer B Apartments- ( PLD 12-00005)
Major Planned Development Modification
Thts ts a lener in oppos1lion to all the variances requested by Group B for developing
Tract B. The project proposed makes a mockery of the original intent for the property.
Trac t B was originally part of the Regent Congregate Care faciHty, To get approval for
maJor variances to city code, in place at the time, 1981, the Regent (present name) got
approval to exceed the number ofllving units and got to provide fewer parking spaces
than required by code. The facility's site was chosen for tt's quiet location, it's seclus1on
lack of traffic and noise, and for it's great views, You can find these intentions in
Corvallis Planning Staff Findings of May 4, 1981 which deals with city codes DC-81-2
and PD-81- J on pages 5-9. These deal with setbacks, open spaces, and parking.
You can also see intent for the site in Corvallis Planning Comm1ss1on minutes for 6-381 which mcludes statements from neighboring property owners who had origmally
opposed the development They agreed to changes that created the 135 ft. southerly and
"3 ft easterly boundary setbacks and open spaces. Th1s space was codified in Condition
I 2 Subsequent hearings have not changed the intent of this prov1s1on and still ex1sts
ll'JB)'.
t\lso, the R~:g~ut developers, Colson and Carrick stated they wanted tbe Regent site for
terrific v1ew, !he large amount of open space. This space has since been reduced
ltl!mendously in surrounding areas but the setbacks remain. Until this latest attempt by a
Je , eloper to get this zoning changed, the Regent and neighbors have enjoyed a good
rdattonship . The Regent recently added more parking but what will Lhcy do in the future
, J they need rnorc ? The Regent has space to handJe a much larger volume of traffic than
I ract B Apts. Could. Very nanow entrance i.nto the site with two quick right-hand turns
needed to get lO parking. Fire trucks can' t enter to that area.
th~
EXHIBIT IX - PAGE 4
Traffic volume and noise were two important issues mentioned by Regent developers .
.\1trador cul-de-sac can't handle it well. Regent had no one around them. Tract be has
extremely close housing on its eastern bordt:r. They will be seriously intruded upon The
ongmallivabtl1ty issues touted repeatedly by the Regent developers are almost
completely ignored by Tract B developers. Traffic noise and volume are also a problem
as tiny Mirador will be flooded daily flooded by traffic They bought for the safety of the
narrow street and 1ts quiet and low traffic volume. Developers never told them they were
already exchanging proposals with the city to develop Tract B with apartments when
they bought their lots. I feel this is Wlethical.
ECEIVED
JAN - 9 2015
r J arz..
Cummun.ity Development
Plannmg Division
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1480
As for public need for these apartments there are literally hundreds of apartments
within a couple of minutes of this site on Conifer, Lancaster, Seavy Streets and many
more are already in the planning process. Tract B apartments have no handicap
accessibility. How can rhese people access it from Satinwood? Can you picture a
wheelchair or a person with a cane trying to go up that steep slope? High rents will
prevent most hospital workers from living there. Trac1 B will provide Jittle, if any, buffey
for the neighbors. A far cry from the originaJ Regent intent .
Where are the compatibility factors that are supposed to be applied to this site in
2.5.40.04. The relationshjp to neighbors are pretty much ignoted. 20 parking spaces for
cars are seen as normal for a site that had none when Regent made their agreement in
1981. Lighting coming off the site wlll be shining down onto easterly homes. The site has
to exceed it's legal grading area to be built It has to cut down trees that are supposed to
be preserved by previous agreements. Developers already stripped the southerly fence
line of most of its vegetation, a common practice of theirs. Trus shouldn't have been done
according to some city codes.
Developers want to bujJd part of their own building on a hazardous s1ope 15 -25%.They
want ro put in a sewage pump station directly above a neigbbor 1 s kitchen area, along with
their trash dumpster in same area. This will bring odors, nose from container, waste
clisposal trucks. Trucks will have a hard time even negotiating down into the area because
of parked cars. A planned drainage collection system, along with the sewage lift pumping
system will all be located above my home. along with a 7-ft. wall of concrete and more
fencing on top oftbat. South neighbors get a 5 ft. wall along their property. Gone will by
my views of skies, sunsrune and sunlight for many hours of the day. when its was
previously unhindered by structures.
Tracts were made to serve a specific purpose. Tract B's was to provide open space,
buffer zone to its neighbors. Tb.is will aU just disappear with new apartments. The
original intent will be ignored and we neighbors will lose tl1e livability thal Corvallis
supposedly, in it's codes is supposed to provide us.
This is an ill~conceived project that a group of developers want and have tried for years
to get around city codes to get built. They should not be allowed to suggest to the city, in
a Feb. 22, 20 J3 Jetter that if they aren't allowed to build it, they should be compensated.
See the letter to the planning dept. The way they got tbe city to develop a park on
Mirador on three of their lots that the taxpayers will pay for also needs to be looked i.nto.
V1. e.p,.S4.-
R.eAJ> nLDtfa-1\ ~~~ -Nt tlft;.r... .SJ>.t~,<L, ,-R..Ac. t<> t !SufhR ~~.p~
ltl'l"b (!.tll.\fAT\~\L\}y' Wll~ .f.JJlR04Nl>~ N~\?llo..V t...:. 'f Q"lA C.i:1o1~>. T~C'J
tA)\.; t,;-.
~ ~ I'HI ~j
...JAy.s.
B
EXHIBIT IX - PAGE 5
I beg you, commissioners, if you haven't visited the site, do so. Read all the lencrs of
opposition to this project before you decide and read the things we have spent a lot of
times looking into your codes that will show you how serious this ruling is for us.
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1481
B
EXHIBIT IX - PAGE 6
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1482
EXHIBIT IX - PAGE 7
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1483
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Carol Russo
Bell Amber
Re: Coronado Tract B- PLD14-00005
Sunday, January 11, 2015 10:16:14 PM
eoronadQ Tract e.oor
EXHIBIT IX - PAGE 8
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1484
January 11, 2015
Amber Bell, Assistant Planner
City of Corvallis Planning Division
P.O. Box 1083
Corvallis, OR 97339
Dear Ms. Bell:
I am a resident of NW Mirador Place. Neighbors have shared the city's
consideration of a development application for Coronado Tract B
(PLD14-00005) with me. I had no previous knowledge of this proposal nor any
notice from the developer.
From the information I have had the opportunity to review, I understand that a
similar plan (PLD12-00005) was unanimously rejected by the planning
commission less than two years ago. It would seem that many of the reasons
for denying the original plan would apply to the latest proposal.
As the residential homesteads continue to be built along Mirador Place, I cannot
understand how multi unit apartments could positively impact the
neighborhood.
I am opposed to the new development and would hope the application be
denied.
Sincerely,
EXHIBIT IX - PAGE 9
Carol A. Russo
683 NW Mirador Place
Corvallis, OR 97330
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1485
From:
Renee Marie Edwards. ENp. MN. BN. BS
To:
Bell Amber
Subject:
Date:
Testimony Re :Coronado Tract B-Major Modification (PLD14-00005)
Monday, January 12, 2015 11:29:03 AM
Hello Ambern~
Thank-you for entering this note as testimony against PLD14-00005
before the meeting on 01/21/15.
The Coronado Tract B-Major Modification (PLD14-00005) in essence
proposes to undermine the American dream.
Americans work hard to buy their families homes in a single-family, low
traffic neighborhood.
Home represents stability and security for the family.
Debasing the stability and security of a neighborhood is NOT the
American way.
Building an apartment complex at the end of a cul-de-sac is the way of
those motivated by financial gain that is inconsiderate of others.
Anyone who spends a day up here in Coronado can see and
meet numerous pedestrians, some who have taken their routine walks
here for many years, even before it was developed. One can observe
children walking and biking to visit the neighborhood park (close to Tract
B), which necessitates 2-4 adjacent street crossings.
It can thereby be deducted that more traffic would confer greater public
endangerment.
I have worked all my life (I am 56 years old) to one day have my 1st
home ever in an area that was what I BELIEVED this subdivision was.
In fact, my realtor told me I could not buy the lot of my 1st choice, the
largest lot, named ..Tract B, .. because it was a non-developable lot
needed for fire route access. It was therefore clear to me before
purchase that this would be a single family dwelling, typical, American
subvision.
I implore you to please help us not allow greed to further diminish
American society any more than it already has!
Sincerely,
tv Renee Edwards
EXHIBIT IX - PAGE 10
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1486
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Jeff Diamond
Planning
Jeff Diamond
Written testimony In Opposition PLD 2014-00005 - ATTN: Ms Bell
Monday, January 12, 2015 2:05:07 PM
Planning Comm Letter J Diamond Jan 2015.pdf
Attn Ms. Bell, assistant planner
Please include the attached letter in the publication packet and written record for the
Planning Commission members at the meeting on the related case PLD 2014-00005,
scheduled for Jan 21, 2015. Thank you, Jeff Diamond
m
X
X
a]
H
X
"0
>
Q
m
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1487
Jan 12, 2015
City of Corvallis Planning Commission
Corvallis City Hall
501 SW Madison Ave Corvallis, OR 97330
Attention: Amber Bell
RE: Coronado Tract B Apartments PLD 14.00005, Written Testimony in Opposition
Corvallis Planning Commission members,
We are residents at 548 NW Mirador PI, the proposed access road leading to the land which is under
review and consideration for approval for the modification of a Detailed Development Plan. The
applicant proposes to build a 10 unit apartment building at the back end of a single family residential
neighborhood on a cul-de-sac. We are opposed to this proposed plan.
We have had very little time to prepare for this hearing and contest the applicants claim that they have
notified and met with us on this particular application. There is a 368 page application and 1032 pages
of LDC to coordinate. Having less than 1 month and starting the clock over the Christmas/New Year
holiday season has been a distinct disadvantage for average, but involved, citizens. I would request an
extension for more time to prepare our responses.
Variances Requested
Applicant requests two variances to the LDC. All variances requested must provide a compensating
benefit. Compensating benefits (that) offset the requested modifications to development standards
(LDC 1.6 pg 18)
Variance 1)
LDC 3.6.30.e.1: Requires maximum setback within RS-12 zoning to be 25'. Applicant
seeks approval for an 91' setback, an increase of 364% above the standard. Applicant states that the
compensating benefit "allows property to be developed".
Variance 2)
LDC 4.10.60.01.b: Requires 40% street frontage within the setback zone. Applicant
seeks approval of 0% within the mandated setback zone. No compensating benefit is listed anywhere
within the application.
then goes on to say that the variances and compensating benefits are "discussed in great detail" on
Table 1 (pg 107). Both variances and their compensating benefits are together represented by merely 4
sentences, just 79 words. Not exactly great detail. Variance 1 offers that it "allows property to be
developed" and also that the extra long setback provides a "grasscrete fire truck access for a pleasant
pedestrian streetscape". This pleasant streetscape is shared by the trash removal service. The applicant
provides NO compensating benefit for variance 2.
The applicant's narrative (pg 36 of Application) states only 1 variance is requested (LDC 4.10.60.01.b). It
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1488
Review Criteria
#13 (LDC 2.5.40.04.al states "Design equal to or in excess of the types of improvements required by the
standards in Chapter 4.10- Pedestrian Oriented Design Standards
The applicant shows a pattern of accessibility conflicts. P.O.D. states: "ensure direct and convenient
access and connections for pedestrians and bicycles." The applicant seeks one variance from P.O.D.
standards (LDC 4.10.60.01.b) and does not accurately answer or comply with 5 others:
LDC 4.10.60.01.a:
All dwellings shall be oriented to existing street
"Structure oriented to the north, existing street (Mirador PI) is to the west
LDC 4.10.60.02:
Parking shall be placed to the rear of buildings
"Parking is oriented to the side of the building as viewed from Mirador PI
LDC 4.10.60.01.a.3:
Vehicle circulation shall not be placed between buildings and the streets to
which they are oriented.
"The main access drive to the proposed apartments comes from the west off
Mirador through a 25' accessway (20' roadway).
"Attachment "P"- Vehicle Circulation Plan (pg. 90 of Application) clearly shows
the Trash Service access using the Fire Access lane (as per Attachment "N",
pg.88) which crosses the main walkway which connects the building to the
existing sidewa Ik
LDC 4.0.30.b.3.a:
Pedestrian circulation system shall connect sidewalk on each abutting street to
the main entrance of primary structure
"Page 37 of Application, applicant responds "complies". In actuality, the
pedestrian access easement and diagram shown on Pg 196, does not align with
the submitted Site Plan "N". Applicant intends to utilize private property
without authority. The application is in error and therefore not approvable
LDC 4.0.30.b.3.d:
Walkway/driveway crossings shall be minimized
access." Incorrect, as Attachment "P" (pg 90) shows sanitation services using
the Fire Access lane to the north side of building for trash removal. This access
crosses the main walkway connecting to Mirador Pl.
"Applicant responds on Pg 37 "complies, only 1 crossing proposed for ADA
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1489
We also submit the following pertinent LDC sections in which the applicant either does not comply, has
failed to answer satisfactorily in their application, or has not been addressed:
LDC 4.4.20.03.a - Lot Requirements, Size and Shape: Lot size, width, shape and orientation shall be
appropriate for the location of the subdivision and for the Use Type contemplated
The tract's shape and orientation therefore do not seem to be appropriate for the land use type
contemplated. Tract B apartments have an orientation to the north which is necessitated by the
tract's shape. This orientation will force the apartments to be reached by an accessway and long
sidewalk crossed by vehicles. This orientation also conflicts with several Pedestrian Oriented
Design Standards which call for: maximum 25' setback, minimum building frontage, and no
vehicular circulation or parking between buildings and the street.
LDC 4.0.60.c.2- Cui-de-sacs should not exceed 600' nor serve more than 18 units
Applicant wishes to place a total of 27 units on Mirador PI (150% above the recommended cap),
and add 335' more roadway to the existing 600' (935' total= 155% above recommended cap)
Transportation Master Plan 3.50.30.C.3: Cui-de-sacs; "They should be considered on a case-by-case
basis and used only with a consensus of the affected residents".
Applicant states "Cul-de-sac formed by development of site (via access off of NW Mirador Place)
is limited to 335' and 10 units". Applicant is proposing to form a new cul-de-sac with the
proposed development of the building site. The affected residents have reached a consensus
(although never formally asked by any city authority) that we do not want a cul-de-sac on the
subject property.
LDC 1.6.10.e- Definitions; Cul-de-sac: local street with one outlet and a turnaround
Applicant contends that Mirador is NOT a cul-de-sac, because of alternative fire department
access through Regent property. This contradicts the above definition because the emergency
access is blocked by bollards and is NOT a public access. Also, the secondary fire access is often
blocked from either side (Mirador PI or on Regent property) by vehicles in the fire lane.
LDC 4.10.10.j- Ensure that developments contribute to the logical continuation of the City's street and
block form
Transportation Master Plan 3.50.30.c.3 states "Cul-de-sacs ... purpose is to fully block access to
the adjacent street. Use of cui-de-sacs reduces the permeability of the street network and
forces drivers to use a limited number of routes to their destinations. In effect, the traffic
removed from a cul-de-sac is forced on to other streets. potentially causing traffic problems in
these locations." Cui-de-sacs are discouraged by transportation planners because they do not
contribute to the connectivity of the street network. Creating a cul-de-sac extending from a culde-sac is not a logical continuation of the city's street form.
Applicant proposes to create a new cul-de-sac 335' from the bulb of an existing cul-de-sac.
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1490
Transportation Master Plan 3.50.40- "A street 28 feet wide with 7ft parking width on both sides leaves
a 14ft travel lane. Two cars conceivably can pass within 14ft lane, but the street does not feel
comfortable to the driver"
Mirador has less than the stated 28' travel lane. It also has no bicycle lane, so bikes are in traffic
with the cars (shared surface). The travel lane is so narrow as to make an unpleasant situation
when a car and bicycle share the travel lane. There is added pedestrian/bicycle activity at the
newly constructed park on Mirador Pl.
Also note, Fire and emergency equipment request a 20' clear passage under Uniform Fire Code. This is
not possible on Mirador PI with cars parked only on one side of the street, let alone both sides.
The added traffic flow to the proposed apartments up a narrow road without bike lanes is concerning as
a parent. LDC 4.10.10 - Purpose of Pedestrian Oriented Designs Standards states "Encourage street
activity to support liveable neighborhoods", and "Promote pedestrian safety by increasing the visibility
and vitality of pedestrian areas".
LDC Table 4.0-1 Street Functional Classification System: Local street of 28' wide with preferred adjacent
land use as Low-lntensitv.
Medium-high density apartment building does not appear to be Low-Intensity
LDC 4.8.70.a.2- Site Development Standards; Street widths- "Streets serving more than 30 dwelling
spaces shall be a minimum of 28ft".
Mirador PI has 261ots and applicant proposes 10 apartment units for total of 36 dwelling spaces.
Actual measurements of Mirador Pl. show that curb-to-curb width is less than 28ft
Transportation Master Plan 3.30.10.c states: "Limitation of the reduced street widths to low-density
(one and two family dwelling units) development only. Narrow streets may not be appropriate for
apartment complexes"
LDC 4.10.10.e- Promote pedestrian safety by increasing the visibility and vitality of pedestrian areas
The proposed apartments are to be located beyond single-family housing, and accessed off of a
cul-de-sac. This design will increase traffic flow and degrade pedestrian safety and vitality. AS
vitality of pedestrian areas.
LDC 4.10.10.1- Encourage street activity to support livable neighborhoods
Pedestrian Oriented Design Standards call for: maximum 25' setback, minimum building
frontage, and no vehicular circulation or parking between buildings and the street to create
liveable neighborhoods. None of the previously stated goals are met by the applicant's plan.
well, the apartment entrances will be 182' from Mirador PI which also reduces the visibility and
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1491
Increased traffic flow on a cul-de-sac street, which will have a city park as well, will discourage
street activity and dramatically increased traffic will make it unsafe as well.
Applicant proposes to create a new cul-de-sac (a parking lot for the apartments on private land)
on Tract B, while simultaneously destroying the existing cul-de-sac bulb with a 96' diameter
which is 335' closer to the existing homes and future city park. According to 2007 study Cul-desac and Children's Outdoor Play from University California Davis: "Cul-de-sac streets increase
spontaneous outdoor activity by children. The findings indicate that culs-de-sac showed
substantial increase in play activity than the open grid street pattern. Culs-de-sac reduce
perceived danger from traffic thereby encouraging more outdoor play".
LDC 4.1.40.c.l- Vision Clearance areas shall be provided at the intersections of all driveways and alleys
with streets to promote pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular safety
Applicant has submitted in their plans Attachments "W"(Iandscape plan) and "P"(Vehicular
circulation plan). These diagrams demonstrate that a vehicle exiting the apartment complex
would be moving upslope beside an 8' retaining wall topped with 6'-8' evergreen shrubs before
negotiating a 80 degree left turn. After completing the turn, a vehicle would finally be at road
grade and have a clear sight line to the roadway; but also only has approximately 20' -25' before
crossing the sidewalk. Most vehicles are 13'-16' long. A driver would be moving at some speed
to maneuver uphill and then have just over one car length to react and stop for pedestrians on
the sidewalk. The Lateral sight lines are also obscured by 3'-4' shrubs on either side of
roadway(as per Attachment ''W") and also future landscaping of adjoining lots meant to buffer
owners from this development.
Existing parking on Mirador PI bulb also reduces visual
clearance.
Applicant stated in the May 3, 2013 letter to Planning (PLD 2012-00005)that 17 homes plus 10
apartments will generate 235 trips/day. The Traffic Calming Program uses 300 trips/day as a threshold
for moving to Step 5, which calls for post-development construction of traffic calming measures. The
applicant's calculations do not account for the city park which was constructed on Mirador Pl.
Furthermore, Memorandum of Dec 3, 2012 from M. Grassei/Engineering states: ''The traffic analysis for
the Satinwood/Coronado Subdivision did not include trips for this Tract. It was not part of the zone
change, and it was counted as a tract not a lot in the subdivision." Also, the cul-de-sac is used for
employee and visitor parking associated with The Regent, which account for more trips/day not shown
in applicant's calculations. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) may be needed
Applicant is also the developer of Coronado subdivision, the above requirement has never been
met, demonstrating non-compliance with the LDC.
LDC 4.0.30.a.3.b- In no case shall construction of sidewalks be completed later than 3 years from the
recording of the Final Plat
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1492
Transportation Master Plan 3.50.40- "The vision for Corvallis neighborhoods is livability and safety. The
neighborhood is the home, a place for refuge, rest, enjoyment, raising children and living. Streets and
motorized vehicle traffic have a large impact on the safety and livability of the neighborhood. The ideal
neighborhood street is, above all else, one that is safe"
We would like to ask the Planning Commission to deny this application for the reasons stated above.
On a more personal note, we specifically moved to Corvallis in February 2012 because of the community
safety ratings and Bike USA designation. We chose our neighborhood because of the proximity to both
an elementary school, an established upscale neighborhood, and a hospital. We paid a premium for a
home at the rear of a cul-de-sac so that our son, Nick, who was born April2012, would have a safe and
quiet place to play. Isn't that the idea behind a cul-de-sac? We feel that placing an apartment building
at the rear of single-family housing street and accessing off of a cul-de-sac is not a compatible land use.
It does not fit the character of the neighborhood. It does not fit the vision of the city's comprehensive
plan. It will increase traffic flows and render our quiet cul-de-sac a dangerous intersection with limited
sight lines.
Please take into consideration that 26 homes (and 4 currently empty lots) either share the access to
the proposed project or border the land directly. Doesn't their collective negative impact outweigh the
applicant's projected plan?
Sincerely,
Jeff Diamond
Maria Diamond
548 NW Mirador PI
Corvallis, OR 97330
541-286-4656
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1493
From:
To:
Julje Hansen
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Testimony In opposition of Tract B
Monday, January 12, 2015 4:43:18 PM
Bell Amber
20150112Jes!:jmony,doc
Dear Amber,
I am attaching my testimony in opposition of the application for development of Tract B; I
will not be able to testify in person, unfortunately, because I feel very strongly that this little
parcel of land is the 1bastard child 1 of the union of the Regent and the Coronado subdivision. Basic concepts of this piece of property need to be settled before any further
consideration can be given to its development.
1
1m not closed minded to the developers making a return on their investment, but I do
believe the city needs to re-visit the zoning of this land so that a more reasonable
development can be considered.
Thank you for your work on this project.
Julie Hansen
435 NW Maxine Ave.
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1494
Testimony Opposing
PLD14-00002/00005
CORONADO TRACT B
Presented to the Corvallis Planning
Commission via Amber Bell, Associate
Planner of the Corvallis Planning Division
Prepared by:
Julie Hansen
435 NW Maxine Ave.
Corvallis, OR
1
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1495
January 12,2015
Cotvallis City Planning Commission
Attention: Amber Bell, Associate Planner
Corvallis City Hall
501 SWMadisonAve.
Corvallis, OR 97330
RE: Testimony opposing PLD14-00002/00005 CORONADO TRACT B
Corvallis Planning Commission Members:
I have lived on Maxine Ave. for 30 years; I am active in coordinating the Neighborhood
Watch and annual block parties for our area ofthe neighborhood referred to as Cougar
Hill. This area encompasses all of Maxine Ave., Survista Ave., Autumn St. and Autumn
Pl.
After reviewing the application and the Corvallis Land Development Code I found the
following areas where I believe this development does not fit as a development on this
h·act of land for the city of Corvallis.
It is unclear when the zoning ofthis property was changed from RS 3.5 to medjum
density. but as of June 10. 1992 it was included in Parce1 2 and was zoned .3.5. Please
reference ZDCOS-00009:
TractB iB
part of
Pan:e12 and
__
=--1
------ -~.
=.:.:.=.....:.= ;::..-
._ ._....__..
::-:::-..::-=..-::
zoned3.5
~
-·- -
I
...._
.. ... 10'0
;~:-
...
JIINE 10, f992
2
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1496
In Chapter 1.6 DEFINITIONS there is the definition of a Tract which is the description
of this land vs. a lot:
A piece of land created and designated as part of a land division that is not a lot,
lot of record, or parcel. Tracts are created and designed for a specific purpose.
Land uses within a tract are restricted to those uses consistent with the stated
purpose as described on the plat, or in the maintenance agreements, or through
Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Examples include stormwater
management tracts, private access tracts, private street or alley tracts, tree
preservation tracts, landscaping or common area tracts, environmental resource
tracts, and open space tracts, etc.
It is my understanding that this 'tract' of land was to be set aside for the homeowners of
the Coronado Subdivision as a maintenance area or green space.
Another term that applies is:
Open Space - Undeveloped or predominately undeveloped land, including
waterways, in and around an urban area. Open Space lands are reserved for
general community use, and include parks, preserves, general drainageway
corridors, and other areas permanently precluded from development.
At one point this land was designated at a setback/open space as a condition of the
building of The Regent and it makes sense that the reference to it has been as a tract
rather than a lot.
My neighbor Margot Pearson will be writing in much more detail about the history of this
tract of land, but it appears to me that this tract has been sliced and diced multiple times
and the allowable usage for it seems somewhat muddy.
I would assert that the history of this tract ofland and its zoning are murky and should be
clarified before considering advancing with any plans to develop.
In reading through the recorded CC&R's of the Coronado Subdivision this apartment
building conflicts with this document in that it states clearly:
3
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1497
DECLARATION OF COIIEN.I\N'l'S AND RESTRICTIONS Coronado
Subdivision to t he City of Corvallis, Benton County,
Oregon
Declarant( Square G Developments, LLC
No1~, thez:efore, Declarant hereb-y ~:tecl<ires tbat the purpose of these covenants and
res trictions is t o insu re the use ot the property for attractive s i ngl e-family
rosldential purposes only, t o prevent nuisances, to prevent the iR~pa.l.rment of the
attractiveness of the property, to maintain the desired tone of the community, and
ther eby to secure to each site owner the full benefit and enjoyment of his home with no
greater restrictions upon t he free and uud:l,sturbed use of h.is site than is necessary t o
i nsure the same advantages to the other site owners. Anything tending to dettact from the
att.ractJ veness of the property and it:s value ~or residential purposes will not be
permitted.
Building an apartment building would surely detract from the attractiveness of the
surrounding properties and potentially decrease their value.
Buildinganapartmentbuildingwould surely detractfromtheattractiveness ofth~
sun·ounding properties and potentiallydecrease their value.
Loo.kin.g south from Tract B; home in the background is on Survista Ave.
4
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1498
Looking South East from Tract B, note slope down to Autumn. Notice the roofline of the
h~e below, this gives some idea of the
Looking East from Tract B.
In fact one of the reasons this application was declined before was due to:
Failure to protect significant trees on the site "to the greatest extent praeti.cable,"
per L DC Section 4.2.20.d
5
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1499
e. This multi family building con:flicts directly with the single family homes located in
this Planned Development.
2.5.40.04 - Review Criteria
a.2. This basic site design does not fit on this cul de sac with the other single family
dwellings.
a.4. Apartments by nature of their density tend to create greater noise than single family
dwellings that surround it.
a.5. With at least 15 parking spaces facing Autumn St. there will be an increase in carbon
monoxide fumes.
a.6. Lighting that needs to be added for the safety of the parking lot at night will shine
down on the homes on Autumn St.
Homes on Autumn
most effected.
a.l 0. There are already cars that park .o ff site along the cui de sac and the excess parking
of guestst etc of the apartment could increase and become an issue for emergency
vehicles and/or Allied Waste vehicles. The traffic coming down Mirador, through a cul
de sac will be greatly increased. It will now also be going past the park being built on the
comer ofMirador and Coronado. This becomes a huge safety factor with the pedestrian
traffic in the area.
6
(LUBA No. 2015-019) Page 1500

3. LUBA 2015-019 RECORD_Part15

Transcription

Similar documents

Scanned Document - Covenant Health

Ref: SB0160 Sun and Mountains Near the Sea, Busot Alicante

Ah-Nab-Awen Park - City of Grand Rapids

Directions to UCSD Extension K-12 Facility Located at: 6256

2001 4118 Dawson Street, Burnaby

Schottenstein Center

Unit 413, 121 Woodbridge Ave, Vaughan L4L

Parking Lot Striping - Parking Control Unit

Lyndale Farmstead Park - SouthSide Operations Center Parking Lot

Ref: SA0153 Spacious City Center Flat, Alicante