Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2011-07-18 LAKE OSWEGO yed Centennial 1910.2010 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO APPI Development Review Commission Minutes 1111 July 18, 2011 CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL Chair Gregg Creighton called the Development Review Commission (DRC) meeting of July 18, 2011, to order at approximately7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. Members present: Chair Gregg Creighton, Vice Chair Don Richards, Brent Ahrend, Jeffrey Peck and Frank Rossi Members excused: Bob Needham and Peter Scott Staff present: Hamid Pishvaie, Assistant Planning Director; Johanna Hastay Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Reynolds, Administrative Support MINUTES Mr. Richards moved to approve the Minutes of May 2, 2011. Mr. Peck seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. Mr. Ahrend moved to approve the Minutes of June 6, 2011. Mr. Rossi seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. FINDINGS (None) PUBLIC HEARING AP 11-02 FLU 11-00091, an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to approve the following requests by Silver Oak Customer Homes, LLC: • Three "single-lot partition" of illegal Tax Lots 3500, 3600 & 3700, conditioned upon consolidation with existing legal lots; • Creation of a total of three flag lots from the consolidated parcels: Parcel 1 (12,488 square feet), Parcel 2 (11,209 square feet), and Parcel 3 (14,100 square feet); and • Removal of four trees for site development activities. Site location: 3103 Wembley Park Road (Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700, 4300 and 4400 of Tax Map 21 E 08AB). Chair Creighton opened the public hearing. Mr. Boone outlined the applicable procedure and time limits. He announced that a request to hold the record open had already been received which meant the hearing would be continued. He asked the Commissioners to declare conflicts of interest, ex parte contacts, bias, and their employment. Commissioners Peck (engineering technician), Richards (landscape architect/certified arborist), Ahrend (traffic engineer) and Chair Creighton (architect) each reported a site visit. During his site visit Chair Creighton had met and exchanged names and affiliations with a representative of Silver Oak Custom Homes. Mr. Ahrend reported he had worked with the applicant's engineer in past years. Mr. Rossi declared his employment was plan/site coordinator. When invited, no one present challenged the authority of any Commissioner to hear the application. Staff Report Ms. Johanna Hastay presented the staff report (dated June 24, 2011 Staff Report and July 15, 2011 Memorandum). She added Exhibit G-206 to the record. She corrected the record to replace references to Tax Lot 4500 with references to Tax Lot 4300. She explained the proposal would unify three illegal tax lots (TL 3500, 3600 and 3700) with two legally-created flag lots (TL 4300 and 4400) into one large area. Three flag lot parcels would then be created from the unified area. She advised that creating three lots was a "partition," not a "subdivision," so the application was correctly being processed as a minor partition. She clarified that TL 4500 to the south was a legal lot of record and was being developed separately under a building permit. An appeal had been filed on July 11, 2011. Appellants' issues were conveyed in Exhibits G200-G206. The June 24 Staff Report addressed the issues raised in G200-G205. In response to those concerns modifications were made by the applicant and in the recommended conditions of approval. One of the modifications was a revised site for the proposed flag lots. Exhibit G206 had just been received. The issues raised in that exhibit had already been addressed. Ms. Hastay advised the three new parcels met the R-10 Zone 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size after the access was deducted: Parcel 1 was 10,293 sq. ft.; Parcel 2 was 11,290 sq. ft.; Parcel 3 was 14,100 sf. She advised that flag lot standards superseded non- flag-lot depth, width and setback standards. Lot coverage depended on the height of the primary structure. The floor area calculation was shown in the staff report. She advised flag lot standards called for a 20' wide access easement with 16' wide pavement and 2' shoulders. The front yard was to be oriented toward the access easement. The height limit was the average of the height of primary structures on abutting properties: which in this case is 26.91 feet. That was lower than what could be built on a non-flag-lot property. She reported the proposed perimeter and driveway screening was adequate. The sum of the side and rear yards met the 50-foot maximum requirement. Some were greater, including the south side setback on Parcel 3, which had an actual setback of 10' but it was perceived to be 25' because the area of the 15' strip of Parcel 1 passed across it. Ms. Hastay described the changes that the applicant had agreed to in response to opponents' concern. Parcel 2 had been increased in size. The rear yard setback there had been modified so it no longer extended into the 15-foot strip. The access lane pavement was to end at the 10' setback around the significant Oregon White Oak tree. That would preserve the tree and provide scale and privacy for abutting dwellings. The City arborist had confirmed that the house on that lot could fit below the oak's canopy. Four Douglas fir trees formed a grove in the western part of Parcel 2, but the arborist City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 11 Minutes of July 18,2011 had determined that one was actually located off site. The plan preserved the three that were on site. Ms. Hastay discussed drainage. There was a very low infiltration rate on the site. The Wembley Park Road system had a capacity issue. All stormwater generated on site was to be managed on site. The applicant was working with the City Engineer to refine the proposal to ensure all stormwater concerns were adequately addressed before any building permits were issued. The drainage matter was not within the purview of the DRC. Opponents' letters held a traffic study should have been required to determine the location of the access easement and they also held a turnaround was required. Staff had taken a closer look at the code and agreed a turnaround was required. They now recommended a condition of approval that called for the applicant to install a turnaround, unless the Council adopted a pending code amendment that would allow the Fire Marshal to waive a turnaround if fire suppression sprinklers were provided. Ms. Hastay advised the City did not require a traffic study in connection with private access lanes for partitions because the additional daily trips did not have significant impact on the street system. She advised that the vision clearance area the applicant proposed more than met the vision clearance standard in LOC 50.21. Ms. Hastay observed the Oregon White Oak was now going to be preserved. The other three trees proposed to be removed were small deciduous trees: an apple, alder and cherry. They were clustered in a corner of Parcel 1 in an area that was going to be used for access and utilities. Their removal met the applicable criteria for tree removal. Staff recommended approval of the application subject to the conditions they had recommended. During the questioning period, Ms. Hastay clarified the Stormwater Management Plan was in Exhibit F-3. She clarified that the properties to the north would not be landlocked. The new access lane would not be their only access if they redeveloped, because they could gain access from Fir Ridge Road. But the applicant had to conform to the new flag lot standard that required them to provide access all the way to the northern property line because the properties beyond it had the potential to be redeveloped. In this case, the access easement would go all the way through, but the pavement would stop outside the Oregon White Oak tree canopy. She was asked if the access road could also feature a sewer line to serve any properties developed along it. She clarified the applicants were putting in private laterals. The City Engineer did not support the idea of having to maintain a public sewer line in a private easement. She agreed to check to find out for sure if there was a sewer line in Fir Ridge Road. She confirmed she had visited the site with the City arborist to look at the White Oak. The arborist had determined that 10' setback from the tree trunk would be a sufficient distance to protect it and that a few lower limbs could be pruned. That would allow a two-story house to fit under the canopy. He recalled the applicant had indicated that none of the three trees to be removed (an 11-inch apple; 11-inch Red Alder; and 13- inch cherry) was in good shape and the apple was close to being dead. She clarified that a part of Parcel 1 had been shifted to Parcel 2 and a part of Parcel 3 had been shifted to Parcel 1 so each of the lots met the minimum lot size after the access easement area was deducted. That shifting created a 15-foot strip out from Parcel 1 City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 11 Minutes ofJuly 18,2011 just below Parcel 3. That area would be used for stormwater filtration. It would never be built on. Its presence made the perceived south setback of the building on Parcel 3 seem like 25' (the actual setback of 10 feet, plus the 15 feet width of the strip). She clarified that the 15-foot strip on Parcel 2 did not mean the primary structure could be larger. However, a secondary structure could be potentially built in that area. Mr. Ahrend recalled opponents were concerned about vision clearance he asked for clarification which standard applied. Ms. Hastay and Mr. Pishvaie advised the City had never applied access standards to determine vision clearance for shared driveways that were connected with a flag lot partition. The applicant was providing 60 feet in either direction at the intersection of the access lane and Wimbley Park Road and that seemed more than sufficient for three homes with 38 daily trips. But they would consult the Public Works Department and report back to the DRC. Mr. Ahrend reported on his site visit he had observed a home being built very close to the access easement. Ms. Hastay clarified that the code required a 5-foot landscaped setback from the edge of the easement (not the edge of the driveway). Chair Creighton inquired about the setbacks on Parcel 3. Ms. Hastay advised the new Flag Lot standards required a primary structure to be set back 10 feet from the access lane and the garage had to be setback 20 feet. Both setback lines were shown as a double line on Parcel 3. She explained the new standards allowed more flexibility. The rear and side yards were to be similar to those of abutting properties, but not less than 10 feet, and they had to add up to 50 feet. It was a little difficult to compare the proposed setbacks on Parcel 3 with the abutting, triangular-shaped property. The applicant had originally proposed a 10' setback - then modified it to 15'. The proposed house would likely be 60 to 70 feet from that property line (building envelopes were much larger than the allowed lot coverage). The northern setback was 25' and the perceived southern setback was 25'. Staff clarified that none of the houses had been designed yet. The applicant would have flexibility in orienting the garage. The new Flag lot standards said the "front of the house" was to be oriented towards the access easement. However, there was no standard that required garage doors or garage openings to face any certain direction — only a requirement that it be 20' back from the access easement. So it could be a side- loading garage. Applicant Chris Goodell and Monty Hurley, AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC, 13910 SW Galbreath Dr., Ste. 100, Sherwood, Oregon 97140 represented the applicant. They pointed out on the revised plat map how they would combine five tax lots (three of them were illegally created years ago) and then partition the area into three legal parcels. The parcels would share an access that crossed TL 4500 coming from Wembley Park Road. After hearing from the neighbors they proposed to preserve the oak tree by stopping the access lane short of the north property line. They proposed to remove three trees (a hollow apple, a cherry and an alder— each about a foot diameter at breast height) that were in the area of the proposed driveway. They would mitigate for the removed trees and preserve the other trees on the site. They would accomplish the perimeter landscaping, screening and buffering required by the code. They proposed onsite stormwater management that met all City standards and had been reviewed and approved by City staff. The representatives testified they had worked with staff to City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 11 Minutes ofJuly 18,2011 address the neighbors' concerns. Just before the hearing they had met with one of the neighbors and his attorney. They were willing to work with the neighbors in positioning mitigation trees. That would provide additional perimeter landscaping and buffering. The application met all the criteria. They asked for approval. During the questioning period, the applicant's representatives clarified the driveway was lower elevation than the house on TL 4500. Runoff would go down the slope and away from the perimeter property line so no runoff would go from the access drive onto a neighboring property. It was all contained in the project. They clarified that grading was being done on the separate tax lot as well because the owner of that lot also owned the subject site. But the separate lot was not part of the current application and the access to that house could be slightly different than shown on the proposed plans. When asked, they said they did not believe they needed a temporary slope easement, but they could obtain one if that was deemed necessary. They clarified the applicant would agree to the recommended conditions of approval. There were no other proponents. Opponents Jim Zupancic, Zupancic Rathbone Law Group, PC, 5335 Meadows Rd., Ste. 161, represented a group of abutting property owners. They held the proposed project put the overall character of the neighborhood at risk. It was a neighborhood of very large lots with very small lot coverage. The proposed lots would not fit the general character of the neighborhood. There was also a privacy issue. Mr. Zupancic held the right of the applicant needed to be balanced with the right of the people who had lived there for many years. The solution could be to address setbacks and screening. In some cases a 25' setback on the north with some nice, mature trees, such as Italian Cypress, might be appropriate. He asked the DRC to consider that. Erik Schimmelbusch, Wembley Park Rd., explained he lived in the neighborhood because it had larger lots and his view was of undeveloped land with beautiful trees. He would be looking down on the project's structures. Privacy was an issue. The proposed setback between his property and the footprint of a home on a flag lot was 15 feet. It might be 15' from his play structure. He submitted photographs to show what the neighbors' backyards looked like. Each of their lots was a similar situation. They were used to looking at a green, open area. But they would be looking a straight back to the proposed development. He showed photographs of the lot that was not part of the application that was in the process of being developed. He concluded the project was actually four homes. That was too many for that space. It was inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood did not have CC&Rs or a homeowners association to help them maintain that character, so they were depending upon the DRC to balance the applicant's interests with the interests of the existing homeowners. Krista Schimmelbusch, Wembley Park Rd., indicated her family had moved to the neighborhood because the Uplands Neighborhood Association was dedicated to preserving its quality of life. The value of the area was linked to its unique, park like setting, large lots, and feel. She testified that water was a large, ongoing concern in the area. When they dug a post hole in her back yard it filled up with water. Four new homes would make the existing problem worse. She was concerned about having more City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 11 Minutes of July 18,2011 vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian traffic coming around the corner. She urged the DRC to consider the unique characteristics of the neighborhood and ensure the development conformed to what the neighborhood was already like, improved it, and did not change its character. Robin Bullock, Fir Ridge Rd., explained her family valued their privacy. Adding four homes would mean more social problems and noise. She had moved to the area because of the trees and greenery. The big lots created privacy. The neighborhood was unique. She held the development was "just too much." She believed that flag lots that were not carefully done were ugly. She cited examples of that on Twin Fir. She observed the proposed access road was pointed towards her house. If someone developed her neighbor's property in the future it would bother her. The project residents would be looking right into her windows. She wanted the proposed development to be consistent with her neighborhood. She did not want all the proposed little flag lots. Burt Bullock, Fir Ridge Rd., indicated he had bought his large property for the openness trees and beauty. He had expected to be able to retire and sit in his back yard and enjoy it. The proposed development would lower the value of his property. It would shoehorn in homes on flag lots and change the personality of the neighborhood. He said his yard was like a swamp this year. He was concerned the new development would add to the water problem. He asked the DRC to be fair and honest and do the right thing. Carolyn Clark, Fir Ridge Rd., testified that her home had been flooded two different times by water running down the upslope area. Water made it hard to access her backyard most of the year. She described drain tile projects that had not resolved the problem. She was concerned the project would generate extra water. She was concerned there would be something too close to the fence line in back that would shade her garden. She observed the applicant had not addressed concern about contamination of the creek down the road. She felt that cramming a lot of houses onto the project site would lower the value of her property. She was also concerned about traffic. There had already been a terrible accident and death. Lupe Rushford, Wembley Park Rd., testified that she and her husband had lived in their house on a 3/4 acre lot for 54 years. They had wonderful neighbors. They liked their privacy and their quiet, safe, environment. She had seen water running on the neighbor's property. Mr. Zupancic asked the DRC to require those things that were required by the code. He asked them to ensure the applicant was in strict compliance with things like traffic standards and sight line distance. He asked them review the application's conformity with neighborhood standards and decide if it was in conformity. He observed they had tools to apply, including requirements related to setbacks, buffering and screening. There were very effective ways to be able to allow a developer to be able to do what they wanted to do but still balance the privacy for them and also for the people around them. The tools could be used effectively in this situation so the people who lived in the neighborhood would not feel encroached upon by two-story homes that might take up large portions of the lot. He asked the Commissioners to consider the testimony and City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 11 Minutes ofJuly 18,2011 the submittals the opponents had already provided. He asked that the record be left open for 10 days post hearing. During the questioning period, Chair Creighton wanted to know the approximate distance the Clark, Bullock and Schimmelbusch homes were separated from Parcel 3. Mr. Zupancic would not guess. He recalled staff had estimated about 60 to 70 feet. He said the nature of the neighborhood was that homes were set close to the street so they had deep back yards. The Commissioners examined the exhibits to try to determine the distance. During this effort the following observations were heard: If Parcel 3 was 100 feet wide it might be about 120 feet to the house; houses on the west site of the site were much closer than those on the east side; most of those who had testified resided on the east and north sides. Mr. Richards compared the E-11 Preliminary Landscape Screening and Buffering Plan with Mr. Schimmelbusch's photographs. He noted the plan showed an existing 8' to 10' tall arborvitae hedge along the edge of Parcel 3, but it could not be seen in the photographs. Mr. Schimmelbusch clarified it was an old photograph he had on hand and he used it to show the area. But he had a newer photograph that would demonstrate that from his vantage point the hedge did not help much because his residence was at a higher elevation and looked down on the arborvitae. Those trees did not provide screening from the upper level. The opponents suggested planting some additional vegetative screening that would grow rapidly there. The existing material was not sufficient. Chair Creighton observed photographs demonstrated the big oak on the northern edge of Parcel 2 would not buffer the Schimmelbusch residence to the east. Mr. Richards compared the landscape plan with the photographs of the Bullock's and the Clark's yards. He noted the proposed plan was to plant 10' to 12' tall cedars along that property line. Sarah Chambers testified she resided on a half-acre lot across from the Rushford's and her property did not abut the proposed development. But she had experienced adverse impacts from a recent development next door. Two houses had been shoehorned into a pie-shaped lot with Sensitive Lands behind them. A two-story house now loomed over her yard and she had more water under her house. The arborvitae hedge in between did not block their view into her backyard from their second story. She asked why four houses could be built on the site instead of just one. She questioned why the project was not categorized as a subdivision. She was concerned the applicant would get too close to the tree. That had happened in the development next to her house. She wanted the project reduced to a total of three houses, including the one on the lot in front that was being built on separately. She held it was part of the applicant's project. Camie Smith, Fir Ridae Rd., was concerned that project residents would look into her back yard from their second story. She was concerned about privacy, children's safety and wildlife. She believed there should be two - not four - new homes. She was concerned that a 20 foot structure would be built where there was a grove of Douglas fir trees now. Colin Smith, Fir Ridge Rd. (Lot 3501), testified that he had moved to the neighborhood and planted trees on his property so it would look like the neighbors' properties and would have a private look that fit the neighborhood. The illegal lots drained towards his City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 11 Minutes of July 18,2011 property. He had spent a lot of money to address the drainage problem and it was now manageable. He was concerned about the four Douglas fir trees behind his property. They were really old and large and visible to all the surrounding neighbors. He held the 10 feet setback on Parcel 2 did not come close to fitting the neighborhood standard, even if the combined total did add up to 50 feet. Even through all the trees he had planted he could still the sawed up barn. So he was certain he would see a two-story house if one was built there. He estimated it would take at least a 30' tall screening tree to protect his privacy. He indicated it would be ok if there were not so many homes, good screening, good drainage, and if the tall fir trees and the oak tree were protected. He concluded by saying he was opposed to the density of the proposed plan. Stacy Ainge, Wembley Park, testified she could have built three or four homes on her acre parcel, but she built one home that she lived in. She agreed with rest of her neighbors that the proposed plan was not consistent with the neighborhood. She opined the applicant should have the integrity to be consistent with the neighborhood and proud of what he put into the neighborhood. She said drainage was a significant issue. She described her own problems with drainage issues and her own storm infiltration system in her backyard. Her experience made her question where the applicant's infiltration system was going to drain to. Mitch Ellison, Lanewood St., related that he grew up nearby. He recalled there had always been a drainage ditch running through the site. He used to clean it out every summer (Exhibit G203). His experience was the area was a swamp. He was concerned about the impact the project would have on drainage. He held the project was a subdivision and the applicant was circumventing the subdivision criteria by developing TL 4500 separately. He recalled the seller of the property had told potential buyers that only three lots could be developed on his property. Mr. Ellison opined that a total of three houses might be reasonable. Jody Jeeter, Fir Ridge Rd., testified she and her husband had moved to the neighborhood because it was well planned out and offered privacy and homes on large lots. If they had known about the proposed project they would have had second thoughts about buying property there. During the questioning period, Ms. Jeeter clarified hers was one of the smallest homes in the neighborhood and she lived east of the Bullocks. Alan Wolf, Fir Ridge Rd., said he and Ms. Jeeter had bought into that neighborhood because it did not have a "developed" feel. They liked it because all the homes were individual, and all of the properties were independent of one another. He was concerned that to put four homes on the site would make that feeling go away. Merlynn Wright, Wembley Park Rd, had lived north of the Schimmelbuschs and east of the Bullocks since 1959. Her family had moved there because the lots and the backyards were large. She said the applicant was "cramming" houses into little spots. It was wrong to move land around to create lots to accomplish that. The development did not belong in the neighborhood. Donna Knutson, Wembley Park Rd., agreed with previous opposing testimony. She related that she was already experiencing water running across the street and down into City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 11 Minutes of July 18,2011 her yard. She also concerned about traffic, especially at the corner at Wembley Road when additional traffic would be coming out of the new road. John McKinnon, son-in-law of Carolyn Clark, described how his father-in-law had tried to address drainage issues by installing drain tiles in different areas. Part of the property was a "swamp" most of the year. He was concerned that adding more houses would ensure the problem could not be resolved. He was concerned the setback would allow a two-story house to be too close to the Clark residence. He did not think a 10' arborvitae would be adequate screening. He stressed the Smiths had made their property fit the neighborhood. He asked the DRC to consider that there might be a benefit to the City from having more homes and more tax revenue, but the impact of the development on the value of the existing homes around it had a negative effect on the City as well. He urged them to seriously study the water flow in the area. He had gone out there three times a year to try to resolve flooding problems that were the result of runoff draining north from the applicant's site. Audrey Mattison, Glen Eagles Rd., testified that water issues had increased due to development over the past six to eight years. She was concerned about the impact of developing three parcels in a small space. Runoff from higher elevations on Parcels 2 and 3 impacted homes on Fir Ridge Road. She had seen flooding in the right-of-way, yards, garages and lower floors of homes. Two neighbors had to trench their property lines. The area had hidden springs and hard clay. Uplands Neighborhood Association had not yet been able to fashion a neighborhood plan and overlay that would convey what the neighborhood was, so the DRC would have to rely on the testimony. She pointed out it was not consistent to say the White Oak played a role in drainage in one section of the staff report and then anticipate the White Oak might come down when the access lance was put through in another section of the report. She urged the developers to over-engineer on-site retention of water on the parcels they developed. Rebuttal The applicant's representatives explained it was not accurate to characterize the neighborhood as all large lots. The aerial photograph showed there were some small lots. They observed there was no adopted neighborhood plan and the applicant had to rely on R-10 zoning and Flag lot standards. They had worked with staff to put together an application that met those standards. It provided setbacks that met or exceeded the requirements. They were proposing three lots that were each more than 10,000 sq. ft. and met the code requirement. They recalled the screening and buffering requirement was a 6' tall fence with a 6' wide buffer. They were required to buffer with landscaping that was 4' tall at planting and would grow to 6' tall in two years. The proposed and existing landscaping exceeded that standard. They talked about setbacks. They had put together a detailed analysis of surrounding properties: how far away from the site and the relationship between setbacks. Staff had reviewed it and found it to be acceptable. The applicant had changed it since then and made some setbacks bigger, including the setbacks at the east and north property lines. They addressed the subdivision v partition issue. They explained that TL 4500 was not being used in the lot area calculations, so they were not circumventing the code and cramming more lots in than could be accommodated by base zoning requirements. TL 4500 was a separate, 10,000 sq. ft. lot. It did not need to be included in the density calculation. So the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 9 of 11 Minutes ofJuly 18,2011 proposed project was not a subdivision. They explained they had begun the planning process by considering how many legal lots were there and combined them with the illegal lots. They got two legal parcels and ended up with three, so it was a partition. Mr. Hurley stressed the average lot size of 13,000 sq. ft. far exceeded the R-10 standard. He said the applicant had worked with the City to try to preserve as many trees as possible. Only three were to be taken down. They were all small and one of them was a hazard tree. He said extending the access easement to the northern line was a City requirement. The applicant agreed with the City decision to stop the access road short in order to preserve the oak tree. He addressed the issue of a traffic study. He said the applicant was adding one more legal lot to two existing legal lots. The additional lot would generate one peak hour trip. That would be added to what was already allowable under the existing legal lots. He talked about storm water drainage. He said the applicant looked at filtration at the site and worked with the City Engineer to develop solutions that would work and put them into a preliminary design. The conditions of approval required a final design that was to be approved by the City engineer. The applicant was comfortable with those conditions. He concluded that Silver Oak Custom Homes was a reputable developer that developed a lot of homes in Lake Oswego and wanted to build a good product that enhanced the neighborhood. He asked the DRC to approve the application. During the questioning period, the Commissioners wanted to know how likely it was that something would be built on the arm of Parcel 2. The applicant's representatives observed that a primary dwelling could not be located there, but perhaps some kind of accessory structure could be built there. They confirmed that the structure being built on TL 4500 was a replacement dwelling. They confirmed that the new stormwater facility might help address runoff heading north to the Clark or Bullock properties and it would not make it worse. Saving the White Oak on Parcel 2 would help too. Chair Creighton observed that the topography indicated that Parcels 1 and 3 were sending water down on TL 4500, which was also owned by the applicant. The applicant's representatives confirmed that staff had initially told them to run the access road all the way to the north property line. But after staff had heard about the concern about the oak tree the applicant was allowed to stop the pavement short of the tree, while continuing the easement up to the property line. Ms. Hastay confirmed for Chair Creighton that this application presented the first opportunity for staff to implement the new Flag Lot standards. After she and the City arborist saw the Oregon White Oak she realized the tree provided scale and screening for the new home. She examined the code again to see if it would be possible to just extend the access easement in case the property to the north developed. She found that was what the standard called for - there was no need to pave a driveway to nowhere. The conditions of approval provided that if the rest of the access easement needed to be improved to serve developments to the north, the owner of Parcel 2 would be responsible for that. Mr. Richards moved to continue AP 11-02 [LU 11-00091 to August 1, 2011. The record was to remain open for new written evidence until 5:00 p.m. July 25, 2011; and to stay City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 10 of 11 Minutes ofJuly 18,2011 open for rebuttal until 5:00 p.m. July 27, 2011. Mr. Rossi seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. GENERAL PLANNING AND OTHER BUSINESS (None) ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Chair Creighton adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Janice Reynolds Administrative Support DRC\minutes\July 18, 2011 .doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 11 of 11 Minutes of July 18,2011