Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2014-08-04 Approved 1p CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO rj imam. `� Development Review Commission Minutes • : Monday, August 4, 2014 Chair Needham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 A Avenue. Members present: Chair Bob Needham, Vice-Chair Brent Ahrend, Kelly Melendez and David Poulson. Ann Johnson, Frank Rossi and Gregg Creighton were not present. Staff present: Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner; Todd Knepper, Engineering Department; Evan Fransted, Associate Planner; Morgan Holen, Contract City Arborist; David Powell, City Attorney; and Janice Reynolds, Administrative Support MINUTES None. FINDINGS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS LU 14-0013: A request by Goodall Knaus, LLC, for approval of a Master Plan for a 16-lot single family residential development (including tree removal), required as art of a Development Agreement that was approved by the City Council between the City and the property owner on May 6, 2014. Public testimony is to be limited to drainage issue only. Location of Property: 12800 Goodall Road (Tax Lots 500, 502 and 503 of Tax Map 21 E 04 BA). Chair Needham opened the public hearing. Mr. Powell outlined the applicable procedure. Each Commissioner declared his/her business/employment. No other declarations were made. No one challenged the right of any Commissioner to hear the application. Staff Report Ms. Andreades noted the hearing had been continued to discuss the drainage issue. Exhibit numbers had been corrected for the Revised Drainage Report (F-14) and Memorandum from Todd Knepper, Engineering Department (F-15). The applicant no longer proposed doing infiltration and would address water quality on individual lots. The Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association's consultant, KPFF, had submitted their review of the Revised Drainage Proposal (Exhibit F-16) which indicated they concurred with it. The Engineering staff had reviewed it and found it acceptable. Staff continued to recommend approval with conditions listed in the previous staff report. Applicant Michael Robinson, Perkins Coie, LLP, 1120 NW Couch St., Tenth Floor, Portland, Oregon (97209), and Jesse Nemec, Proiect Manager, J.T. Smith Company, 5285 SW Meadows Road, Ste. 171, Lake Oswego (97035) pointed out that the Engineering staff agreed with their Revised Drainage Report dated July 18. They confirmed the applicant agreed to staff recommended revised condition of approval B(2). They asked for approval of the project. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 4, 2014 Page 1 of 10 Mr. Poulson asked about a specific detail in the Revised Drainage Report regarding the Time of Concentration of 22 minutes (footnote on page 71). Mr. Ahrend asked if the stormwater facility was designed to accommodate a corner lot (Tax Lot 501) as well. It was not part of the application. The applicant's response was that they had taken that into consideration for future development. Public Testimony- Proponents Chris Robinson. 14000 SW Goodall Rd., Chair of the Forest Highlands Neiahborhood Association, testified that the Association had met with the applicant to discuss drainage issues and had their consultant review the revised drainage plan. They were satisfied it addressed all their concerns. They favored the master plan and wanted the Street of Dreams project to move forward timely with the understanding that they had addressed issues with regard to Tax Lot 501 if it ever became a part of the development; and, with the understanding that there was going to be another level of review at the building permit stage. They anticipated they would continue dialogue with the applicant as the project moved forward. During the questioning period he clarified the Association's recommendation of approval was not conditioned on Tax Lot 501 as that would be a totally separate process. Rebuttal Mr. M. Robinson asked the Commission to approve the application. Deliberations Chair Needham closed the public hearing. The applicant waived their right to hold the record open for a final written argument. Chair Needham opened deliberations. Mr. Poulson commented that it was now a better project because the applicant was not going to use infiltration. In regard to detention/Time of Concentration he indicated he would rely on the Engineering staff review that was going to take place. Mr. Ahrend moved to approve LU 14-0031, including Findings, Conclusions and Order LU 14- 0013-1850 as submitted by staff. Mr. Poulson seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. *** LU 13-0063: An appeal by the applicant of the staff decision to approve with conditions a request for minor variances to the maximum retaining wall height and to the combined height of a retaining wall and fence in order to construct a 14-foot high retaining wall with a 6-foot fence along the north property line and the removal of eight trees. The applicant is Roy Rasera. Continued from June 16 and July 21, 2014 public hearings. This was the initial evidentiary hearing. Location of property: 1899 Woodland Terrace (Tax Lot 3800 of Tax Map 21 E 09CD). Chair Needham opened the hearing. Mr. Powell outlined the applicable criteria and procedure. Each of the Commissioners declared his/her business/employment. Ms. Melendez and Mr. Ahrend each reported making a site visit. No one challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Staff Report Ms. Hamilton advised the Code limited a retaining wall in a required setback to four feet high and limited a combined fence/retaining wall to eight feet when the fence was located within five feet of the wall. The applicant was asking for a 10-foot variance to wall height, which would result in a 14- foot high retaining wall. The applicant was asking for a 12-foot variance to the combined wall/fence height which would make a portion of it 20 feet high. They would remove eight trees in order to construct the wall. The retaining wall of lock and load blocks was to be located on a steep, vegetated, slope between the Rasera and Wynne properties. The two property owners had agreed to construct it. It would follow the property line until it jogged about five feet onto the Rasera property at the west end. The applicant proposed a 6-foot fence on top of the wall. They had submitted a geotechnical report which rated slope instability and erosion as low to moderate. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 4, 2014 Page 2 of 10 The applicant was appealing the staff approval of the variances because of the conditions of approval. Staff found what was proposed would have a materially injurious visual impact on the abutting property and imposed three conditions of approval to reduce the impact by requiring the applicant to: Reduce fence height to four feet; locate the fence at least three feet back from the wall; and plant 36" high evergreen shrubs between the fence and wall. The application showed all mitigation trees on the Rasera property. The conditions called for two of them to be planted on the Wynne property because the applicant's survey showed two of the trees to be removed were on that property. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report. Ms. Hamilton indicated she understood the applicant had a revised design to submit. When asked if terracing had been discussed as a way to mitigate the impact of the tall wall, she indicated staff had not pursued it because it was not in the proposed design. Applicant Andrew Stamp, Kruse Mercantile Professional Offices 4248 Galewood St. (97035); and Douq Doering, Prestige Design and General Contracting Inc., 12302 NE Max St., Portland (97230); testified initially for the applicant. Thereafter, applicant Rov Rasera, 1899 Woodland Terrace, offered additional testimony. They had submitted Mr. Stamp's August 4, 2014 letter (Exhibit 8) with an attached Site Plan View/Wall Elevation drawn by Prestige Design and General Contacting, Inc. Mr. Stamp outlined the problem. The steep slope along the Rasera/Wynne property line had been created in the 1960s when the Wynne property was developed and excavated to level the back yard. More recently the property owners had noticed mass wasting of the cliff. Trees were starting to lean. Fence footings which had been covered by ivy were floating in the air because the dirt under them had been eroded away. He indicated that the property owners had initially differed in regard to who was responsible for correcting the problem and then entered into a mediation agreement. Then, Ms. Wynne had surprised the applicant by writing a letter to staff asking them not to approve the application. Since then the parties had worked things out. He advised that Oregon case law made it clear that the uphill property owner had absolute right of lateral support. If the downslope landowner excavated and the hill fell down it was their responsibility. In this case, however, the applicant was the uphill owner who was trying to solve the problem with a practical solution. Mr. Stamp presented photographs of the site and discussed site conditions. It was a very steep slope which was wasting and trees were leaning. One of the photographs showed a leaning tree had not started growing back up straight which indicated this was a fairly rapidly moving mass wasting issue. He showed a photograph of the pre-existing 6-foot fence being held up by ropes before it was removed. He asked the Commission to take into account that there was a preexisting 6-foot fence as the applicant was asking to be allowed to have a 6-foot fence. He presented a 2012 survey that showed the location of the preexisting fence and where grading had occurred on the downslope property. Mr. Stamp discussed key points of the June 2013 mediation agreement. Mr. Rasera would built a retaining wall which would be 12 to 14 feet at peak height as well as a 6-foot high fence along the property line on top of the wall. Ms. Wynne would allow removal of vegetation as necessitated by the project. The applicant would restore the Wynne property to preconstruction condition, exclusive of planting trees or installing her garden gate/fence. Both parties agreed to cooperate, including consenting to all permits and approvals required by the City. Ms. Wynne would purchase an easement for the strip of land that she had been occupying. Mr. Stamp pointed out the agreement demonstrated that Ms. Wynne would not be materially injured. Mr. Stamp testified that although they were asking for a 10-foot variance to the 4-foot maximum height standard for a retaining wall located in a side-yard setback they thought they could get it down to the 6- to 8-foot range based on the topographic map. However, the map could be off by a few inches and they would not know exactly how much they could reduce the wall until they had removed all of the ivy. They had not proposed terracing because there was not enough room City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 4, 2014 Page 3 of 10 between the two properties for it. Their proposed solution was to locate the fence line on the property line until it came close to the street and then jog it so the neighbor would have a 5- to 6- foot easement to use. Within 10 feet of the street there would be a 4-foot fence and no wall. He noted that what they proposed would not impact anyone other than the two neighbors. From her back deck Ms. Wynne would be looking at an 8-foot wall with a 6-foot fence on top of it, for a total of about 14 feet. That was a considerable reduction from their original proposal and from what staff had approved, which was a 14-foot wall with a 4-foot fence on top of it, with the fence set back three feet, and with bushes in between. Mr. Doering had created an alternative design to the lock and load wall originally submitted for approval. Exhibit E-9 was the colored elevation drawing. He discussed the details. During this discussion there was confusion about height and how it would look because his engineer measured wall height differently than staff did; part of the base would be under the grade and not visible; and the geotechnical report that had been submitted had been done by another engineering firm and related to the previously proposed wall. He sketched an additional exhibit with dimensions so the Commissioners could better visualize it (Exhibit E-10). He detailed that the wall they now proposed did not do down into the ground as far. They had worked with their engineer, looking at factors including where they could get to stabilized soil to anchor it. There was a drainage system behind the wall. It was aesthetically more pleasing than the previously proposed wall in that it had less stone, which would be earth tone. This wall/fence combination would result in a 6-foot reduction in total height from the previously proposed design. The fence was set back one foot from the wall so it would not diminish the backyard of the uphill property. The 6-foot fence was safer for small children than a 4-foot fence when there was a drop on the other side. There were no plantings in the wall, which reduced the cost for both parties. He related that both property owners seemed to be very agreeable to it. Mr. Doering and the Commissioners discussed the how the slope changed across the site; how much excavation of parts of it would be required; and how the applicant would deal with soil disturbance related to removal of a particular tree in the back corner. He asked for flexibility. He clarified the type of grid engineering system they would use to support the wall. He clarified that due to how wall height was measured some of the height reduction was not visible as it was under the grade. Part of why they could achieve a reduction was because they did not have to set the footings as deep in the subsoil for this wall design. Ms. Hamilton advised the Code defined wall height as measured from top of footing to top of wall. Mr. Doering related they had talked to the neighbor about backfilling on her side so she could plant it. He indicated he would provide the supporting engineering information showing stability if the application was approved. Mr. Stamp confirmed he thought the hillside was moving rapidly because of the tree that had not started growing straight up yet. Mr. Ahrend recalled that one of the photographs showed a tree which had started to grow straight. Mr. Stamp clarified that the survey had been done in 2012. The mediation agreement called for Ms. Wynne to purchase the easement over an area she had been using and had previously claimed a right to via adverse possession. He clarified the parties were now in agreement and no longer adversaries. Mr. Doering's redesign had helped resolve their issues. That was why Ms. Wynne was not at the hearing. Mr. Ahrend asked the applicant to indicate what they wanted the conditions of approval to say so the Commissioners knew what they were asking for. Mr. Stamp said they wanted to be allowed to have a 6-foot fence; locate the fence closer to the wall; and not have the planting requirement. The neighbor understood and had accepted a 6-foot fence, which would be safer for children. The neighbor was fine with having no planting requirement because she anticipated the wall would become overgrown with weeds and not look good. Mr. Stamp and Mr. Doering explained they still wanted the 10-foot variance because wall height was measured from the top of the footing and they might have to set the footing down deeper than they now anticipated, but not as deep as the originally proposed wall design would have required. The visible part of the wall would be six to City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 4, 2014 Page 4 of 10 eight feet high and the other part of it would be subgrade - perhaps two feet - but they were not sure yet. Mr. Stamp suggested the conditions could refer to the Site Plan View/Wall Elevation in Exhibit E-8 as a guide. It showed the proposed visible portion of the wall (not necessarily the footing), which would be of hidden depth still undetermined. It might be one or two feet down in the ground. They would commit to doing something as close to that as they could physically do it. They wanted flexibility to make it whatever they needed and to do what the geotechnical report required. When Mr. Poulson noted the geotechnical report in the record was based on a different (lock and load) wall system Mr. Stamp offered to ask that the record be kept open for seven days so they could submit a report by Mr. Doering's engineer. Ms. Hamilton clarified regarding fence height requirements. The conditions of approval limit was related to the visual impact. The Fence Code limited fences within ten feet of a property line to four feet high. The fence needed to come down to four feet at that end but the plans submitted showed it at six feet there. Mr. Stamp noted the currently proposed plan showed it at four feet there. Rov Rasera, 1899 Woodland Terrace (97034), related that because of Ms. Wynne's concerns and the staff's recommendation he had sought a better solution. Mr. Doering had come up with the best design and Ms. Wynne agreed to it. She would not want to and she would not have to use about 20 feet of her land for a terrace. He indicated he had assumed the staff-recommended conditions of approval were based on her letter in opposition, which were things she had already agreed to. He wanted a 6-foot fence because he had young kinds and there was a ten foot drop. It would replace a 6-foot fence which had already existed. Maintaining bushes to her pleasure over a fence with a drop seemed untenable. He hoped this could be done before the rainy season as the effort was in its 3rd or 4th year. Three years ago he had been told his house foundation might last about five years. Staff confirmed for Chair Needham that the only communication the Commission had from Ms. Wynne was one letter. Mr. Stamp indicated he would ask them to continue the hearing so the applicant could provide the other engineering report if not having it would be a "deal-killer." Commissioners Poulson and Ahrend and Chair Needham each indicated they did not need anything more from the applicant because the engineering aspects would be reviewed by staff in a later phase of the process. If staff found the engineering was okay they could build it. If the applicant found they needed to use a design that exceeded the approved variances that was the risk they had chosen to take. The applicant waived their right to hold the record open for a final written argument. Deliberation Ms. Hamilton was asked and clarified that staff had not heard from Ms. Wynne what her position was in regard to the requirement to plant two of the mitigation trees on her property. The mitigation plan showed all eight mitigation trees on the Rasera property. Requiring two on the Wynne property was based on the fact the survey showed two trees were being removed from her property for construction of the wall. Ms. Hamilton also advised that fences were allowed to go up to the sidewalk even through it might not be typical in that particular neighborhood. Mr. Ahrend noted that staff had already approved the variances but the applicant wanted to change Conditions A(c)(i) and (ii) which limited fence height to four feet and required the fence to be located at least three feet from the back of the retaining wall with shrubs planted in between. Ms. Melendez indicated that allowing a 6-foot fence on top of an 8-foot wall made it more imposing on the downhill neighbor. In regard to the argument about safety of small children they could not get up and over a 4-foot fence any easier than they could a 6-foot fence. Mr. Ahrend and Mr. Poulson noted if it was a guardrail it would have to be 3.5 feet high and guardrails were considered safe. Any kid who could climb a 4-foot fence could probably also climb a 6-foot fence. Mr. Poulson City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 4, 2014 Page 5 of 10 commented that he hoped that than an older child would already know what was on the other side, but a younger child would likely not. Mr. Ahrend noted that Ms. Wynne's letter indicated she wanted a shorter fence. She wrote that she could not see into their yard anyway. Ms. Melendez mentioned they could plant screening shrubbery above the fence line. Mr. Ahrend suggested that the privacy issue was more about seeing into her yard down below from uphill. Ms. Melendez advised that the farther the fence was set back the less relevant it became. There would be less impact if it were both lower, and 1-foot from the wall, or taller and three feet back. The request for both increased fence height and having it closer to the wall added insult to injury. When asked why the fence had to be right on the property line she suggested it was likely to have a more useable yard. She noted there had been a preexisting fence but it had been removed so that was no longer a consideration. Ms. Melendez said the redesign was a great improvement. She was in favor of approving the variance for wall height as they a very tough property line situation. Mr. Ahrend noted staff had already approved the variance for wall height so the issue was now fence height and distance from the wall. Ms. Melendez indicated the wall was needed to stabilize the property. She could support a 6-foot fence set three feet back but not right on top of the wall. Mr. Poulson noted that even if it was three feet back one would still see it. They could position planters like they showed in the rendering. Ms. Melendez recalled that the downhill neighbor did not support terracing. There were things that could be done on her side that were not under consideration. Mr. Ahrend commented that terracing would be the way to go but the applicant proposed the wall instead. Mr. Ahrend related he had seen some waterproofing on the exposed foundation which indicated the ground level of the slope was changing. He noted the applicant had said they wanted the 6-foot fence height and were shortening the height of the wall. Mr. Poulson recalled they had talked about not having to dig so deep to install the wall, not about a slope on top of the wall and how that would affect how the fence would look. If they had a cross section of the wall it would show the elevation change of 14 feet from 502 to 516. That was 14 feet of relief to deal with one way or another. In regard to the wall, Mr. Poulson observed it was on the property line and it needed to stay away from the house to avoid engineering problems. Mr. Ahrend agreed to the proposed location. Then the Commissioners discussed the fence. Ms. Melendez said she agreed with staff that the visual impact of a 6-foot fence on top of a wall would be significant and it would be injurious to the neighbor. Thus, she agreed with staff it should be a 4-foot high fence, three feet back. The other Commissioners might want to allow it to be six feet high, but it had to be back from the wall. There would be an opportunity for planting there, whether or not the applicant did it. She advised that there were ways to address planting in such an area. For example, having a fence segment with hinges to it could be opened to deal with the plants and then closed. Planting would mean they could green up the wall and would not be faced with solid concrete forever. Mr. Poulson expressed his reservation that there was risk of legal liability if they limited fence height it to four feet and it increased the risk of a child falling over. Chair Needham noted there was no safety requirement related to the height of a fence. Mr. Ahrend said he was not opposed to a 6- foot fence. Chair Needham indicated he supported a 4-foot fence set three feet back. Mr. Poulson noted the City would assume the risk of liability. Ms. Melendez moved to approve LU 13-0063 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Chair Needham seconded the motion and it passed 3:1. Mr. Ahrend voted no. Mr. Powell announced the final vote on the findings would be on August 18, 2014. 7 p.m. *** City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 4, 2014 Page 6 of 10 TR 599-14-02633 FAP 14-071: A request for a hearing on a Type II tree removal application to remove five trees in order to construct a new single-family dwelling on the site. Location of property: 1008 Spruce Street (Tax Lot 9400 of Tax Map 21E 10DC). Chair Needham opened the hearing. Mr. Powell outlined the applicable criteria and procedure. Each of the Commissioners declared her/his business/employment. Ms. Melendez reported making a site visit. No one present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Staff Report Mr. Evan Fransted discussed the species, sizes, locations and conditions of the trees proposed for removal. The locations of trees and building envelope were shown on Exhibit E-2. He advised the allowable building envelope was approximately 30 feet wide x 40 feet long. Trees proposed for removal: 8" Douglas fir (mislabeled "Madrone" on site plan) by driveway, in poor condition. 13" Douglas fir and an invasive English Hawthorne located close to the setback. 18" Oregon White Oak within the setback. Removal necessary to excavate the foundation. 35" Oregon White Oak with a crown extending 21 feet into the allowed building envelope and covering approximately 46% of the envelope. Mr. Fransted discussed why staff had found the approval criteria were met. Development was for the purpose of landscaping/construction. Because it was a relatively flat site removal would not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface water, protection of adjacent trees, or existing wind breaks. Removal was not for the sole purpose of providing or enhancing views. The conditions of approval called for the applicant to plant five mitigation trees. In regard to the criterion that removal had no significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics or property values of the neighborhood, staff found it would not have that impact because a significant number of trees would remain on site as shown on the applicant's Tree Protection Plan, including three Oregon White Oaks on the southern portion of the site. There was also a 25" Oregon White Oak on abutting property to the south. Staff advised the City could grant an exception if it was found that no reasonable alternative existed that would still allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. The Arborist's report discussed numerous other trees in the surrounding neighborhood, including Oregon White Oaks. Questions of Staff When Mr. Fransted was asked what the footprint of the home that had been removed from the site had been he related that aerial maps showed it had been a very small house. He confirmed the proposed house would be right at the required setback lines and there was no option to require it to be smaller. He clarified that no alternative site plans had been provided that would require the applicant to seek a variance to the zone setbacks. Applicant Adam Hoeslv and Matt Edwards, Silver Oak Custom Homes, spoke for the applicant. Mr. Hoesly indicated his firm always tried to design a plan to fit the trees because tree removal was costly and could cause delay and keeping existing trees improved marketability of the product. They had kept the majority of the 18 existing trees on the site and asked to remove five. They were in the footprint of the house; a hazard tree that had been topped by PGE; and an invasive Hawthorne. They could not build a home on the site with those trees. The canopy of one of them went into the footprint 21 feet only leaving room for a very small structure. Cutting the tree back was not possible. The applicant was not asking for any special exemptions. They had a right to build a home on their site. During the questioning period Mr. Hoesly clarified that he did not know what the size of the home that had previously been on the site was because it had been taken down before they acquired the site. Mr. Poulson noted the staff report estimated that the building envelope would have to be City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 4, 2014 Page 7 of 10 reduced from 30 feet wide to 19.5 feet wide to retain the 35" Oregon White Oak. Mr. Hoesly confirmed they proposed a 30-foot wide, two-story, 1,800 s.f. structure which was the maximum capacity of the lot. He clarified aspects of the photograph on page 4 of the staff report, including how its location related to the proposed house and a neighbor's house. Opponents Nancy Osborne. 1217 Laurel St., submitted written testimony (Exhibit G-202). She indicated she was concerned about massive development planned by Silver Oaks in the neighborhood. She said she had admired the 60-70 year old Oregon White Oak for a long time. She discussed the importance and multiple benefits of trees in general. She read aloud two letters from downhill neighbors: Joanne Brown Rollins, 1028 Cedar St.; and Bruce Stanko, 1028 Cedar St. Ms. Rollins wrote that they had experienced annual basement flooding since tree removal for new homes in the 1950s. The proposed removal and excavation increased their concern about water levels and drainage, especially for those at lower elevations. Mr. Stanko wrote that the soil was over- saturated at 1028 Cedar Street much of the year and the basement flooded. Ms. Osborne advised that removing more trees would exacerbate the runoff problem. The prospect of cutting them had brought together the 14 neighbors she was speaking for. Ms. Osborne then discussed Oregon White Oak in particular, including the many benefits they provided; that older oaks, in particular, were of historical significance in the area; and the extent of their root systems. The root system spread out to several times the width of the crown so protection should extend well beyond the drip line. The greatest threat to the system was damage from nearby trenching and paving because most roots were in the top 12 inches to three feet of soil. She questioned that the applicant's tree protection measures were adequate to protect the root systems of the three oak trees which were not going to be removed because the lot was too small. She suggested they find a creative solution that would save the historical tree. That might be a smaller home design that incorporated the tree; or, the developer could leave this lot open and be satisfied with the 15 other homes they were building in the neighborhood. During the questioning period Ms. Osborne recalled that the house that had been on the site was a one-story home about 900 s.f., positioned at an angle near the center of the lot. It was like a little shack. She clarified that 1028 Cedar Street featured a tiny house on a triple lot north of the site. Silver Oak was going to build the other homes on nearby lots, including four at 1028 Cedar Street. Wendy McLennan, 1107 Spruce St., submitted written testimony (Exhibit G201). She shared that Silver Oak was building a total of 16 homes on six lots in the area. This site was at the highest elevation. Cedar Street was a block down from Spruce. For years downslope neighbors had dealt with inadequate storm drains, swampy soil, and flooding. She was concerned that the City was allowing each of the Silver Oak sites to be looked at in isolation and not requiring the developer to make any improvements to the substandard road and storm drainage systems. She advised that oaks such as the 70-year-old oak on the site had an extensive root system and were recommended for preventing soil erosion and absorbing surface water. She was concerned about the effect of removal on property downslope and across the street from the site at 1028 Cedar Street where the same developer was about to replace one small home with four larger homes. She noted the City's maps indicated the property had weak foundation soil and was potential slide hazard. She was concerned that the drainage reports for 1028 Cedar would be based on data collected before the large oak was removed. She contended that removal would have a huge negative impact on soil and drainage on that property and farther below. She questioned how an arborist could look at this site in isolation; not acknowledge that removal was going to affect those downslope; and conclude that removal of the tree would not have a significant impact on erosion, soil stability, and flow of surface water. She asked the Commission to consider the removal of the oak in the larger context. She wanted the record to reflect that she considered the piecemeal approach to dealing with the 16-home development dangerous and backward. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 4, 2014 Page 8 of 10 Rebuttal Mr. Hoesly explained that there were big drainage issues presently at 1028 Cedar, therefore, trees alone were not adequate to prevent water issues. Since Silver Oak owned that property it was now their issue to mitigate the water. The Engineering Department required them to design onsite stormwater management on all of those lots that would be far superior to what was there now. The opposition would be happy to hear that drainage issues and street runoff would be addressed by the new construction. He estimated that if opponents' were correct that the scope of the root system was two to four times larger than the canopy that would put the majority of the root system under Bickner Street. In that case the roots had already been compromised and the tree might already be to the point it was unhealthy—they did not know it yet. He said it sounded like the house that had previously been on the site was more of a shack that might not even have had a foundation that would impact the root system. Deliberations No one asked the Commission to keep the record open for additional written testimony. Chair Needham closed the public hearing. The applicant waived their right to request additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Mr. Ahrend observed that the applicant had the ability to design the house differently and ask for variances. He observed that the subject lot was 5,000 s.f. in an area zoned for 7,500 s.f. lots and a smaller home would not fit where the neighborhood was going. Ms. Melendez referred to the criteria. She suggested they needed to discuss the criterion related to significant negative impact on the neighborhood. She indicated that the criteria related to removal of trees for landscaping and construction purposes; creating views; and mitigation were met. She indicated that whether the criterion related to significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface water, and protection of adjacent trees and existing wind breaks was met was debatable, but to a large extent she felt it was met because of the water management that would occur with development. She had visited the site. She recalled it was a small site and that the [large Oregon White Oak] tree was a spectacular tree. She would have a hard time saying the tree did not lend to the aesthetic value of the neighborhood. It was very significant. The canopy was far-reaching in width and height. However, in regard to site development, there was no reasonable way to retain it with the setback requirements. She did not think telling the applicant to build a smaller house was reasonable. She thought they could have asked for a variance to setback requirements and pushed the house away from the tree but the Commission could not mandate that. Mr. Ahrend observed that there was not enough room on site to move the new house. It would have been easier to save the smaller oak on the property line by adjusting the house, but the large oak really impacted what the applicant could build and the smaller trees on the property line did not have the significant aesthetic and character impact on the neighborhood. The one that had been topped and looked butchered should definitely be removed. If they were to remove all of the trees on the lot he would say that was a significant impact. It might have a small impact - not a significant impact- on the neighborhood to remove all five trees. He doubted it would change property values in the neighborhood. Chair Needham noted there was no evidence on that issue anyway. Chair Needham commented that the loss of a 35"white oak was heartbreaking but he did not see any reasonable alternative. It was a small lot and it was hard to put a reasonable size house on it. The applicant was entitled to build a house on it. He indicated that he supported the Tree Code and felt the large oak was a gorgeous tree. He noted that if the neighborhood wanted to save it they could have bought the property but they had not. He did not see a way around having the trees removed. He was struggling with the spectacular white oak in the middle of the property. He indicated that he did not think it was reasonable to expect someone to build a 900 s.f., or even a 1,200 s.f. house these days. Mr. Poulson observed that they would be impacting and likely smother roots even trying to wrap a foundation around it. It was very unfortunate that it was located where it was. There was no way to get around it. Chair Needham observed that no one was happy about City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 4, 2014 Page 9 of 10 removing it. Mr. Ahrend said the request met the Code and the applicant was entitled to remove it to build the home they were allowed to build. Ms. Melendez referred to the language related to looking for alternative site plans. The only alternative that she could see would be designing the building so that it went into a setback and requesting a variance. Mr. Ahrend noted the City could not force them to do that. Mr. Poulson moved to approve the tree removal request presented under AP 14-07 TR 499-14- 02633. Mr. Ahrend seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Mr. Powell announced the final vote on the findings would be on August 18, 2014, at 7 p.m. GENERAL PLANNING AND OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business Chair Needham adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Janice Reynolds /s/ Janice Reynolds Administrative Support City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of August 4, 2014 Page 10 of 10