HomeMy WebLinkAboutExh C-1 PC Minutes 11-26-18 LU 18-0059 APPROVED: 01/14/2019 EXHIBIT C-1
LU 18-0059
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
LI" . 0 Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 2018
1
2 1. CALL TO ORDER
3 Chair Rob Heape called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall,
4 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon.
5
6 2. ROLL CALL
7 Members present were Chair Rob Heape, Vice Chair Bill Ward and Commissioners Skip
8 Baker, Ed Brockman, and Christian Pape. Commissioners Sweers and Hansen were
9 excused.
10
11 Staff present were Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and
12 Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support.
13
14 3. COUNCIL UPDATE
15 Councilor Manz provided an update on recent Council actions. She off- -. o find out timing
16 of groundbreaking for new City Hall.
17
18 4. CITIZEN COMMENT
19 There were no citizen comments.
20
21 5. COMMISSION FO: IZEN INVOLVEMENT
22 Chair .-..e announced an upcoming neighborhood association meeting and current
23 .cancies on boards and commissions.
24
25 6. PUBLIC HEARING
26 6.1 Community Development Code Amendments Establishing Incentives for Tree Preservation in
27 Lake Grove Village Center Overlay District (LGVCO) and West Lake Grove Design District (WLG)
28 (LU 18-0059)
29 A request from the City of Lake Oswego for amendments to the Community Development
30 Code (Chapter 50) to establish incentives for tree preservation in the LGVCO and WLG;
31 standardize tree terminology in the WLG; and identify design standards applicable to single-
32 family, duplex and townhome development in the LGVCO. Staff coordinator was Leslie
33 Hamilton, Senior Planner.
34
35 Chair Heape opened the hearing. Mr. Boone stated that since there were no individuals
36 present to testify, there was no need to go over the hearing procedures. No conflicts of
37 interest were declared, and no one challenged any Commissioner's right to consider the
38 application.
39
40
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of November 26, 2018 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 1 of 4
APPROVED: 01/14/2019
1 Staff Report
2 Ms. Hamilton, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, provided background and reviewed the
3 proposed amendments to tree terminology in the West Lake Grove (WLG) Overlay and tree
4 mitigation changes in West Lake Grove (WLG) and Lake Grove Village Center Overlay (LGVCO)
5 zones. She advised that mitigation requirements had not proven to be a disincentive to tree
6 removal; she reviewed tree preservation incentives, limits to reductions and design standards.
7
8 Public Testimony
9 None.
10
11 Questions from the Commission and Deliberations
12 Commissioner Brockman asked if there were instances of large tree roots uplifting asphalt in
13 parking lots due to asphalt being close to large trees. Ms. Hamilton said she was not aware of
14 any, she advised that applicants were counseled on alternatives to tree removal such as branch
15 trimming, shifting the building envelope, and root cutting. Mr. Brockman asked about the types of
16 trees being planted and if they were the right tree for the site. Mr. Boone reminded the
17 Commission that the tree code was not a land use regulation and they were looking at the
18 landscape design standards that might specify the types of trees to be planted as part of a
19 development.
20
21 Commissioner Brockman addressed Exhibit G-1, a letter requesting a postponement of adoption
22 of the amendments pending the advisory committee's review of Item 2-Tree Mitigation. Ms.
23 Hamilton said that the charge of the advisory committee was solely for addressing preservation
24 incentives.
25
26 Vice Chair Ward suggested that the code clarify that when measuring caliper, it should be six-
27 inches above grade. Regarding mitigation, he was in favor of/2-inch per inch.
28
29 Commissioner Baker had a concern about tree safety in terms of trees being removed and trees
30 left behind. Ms. Hamilton advised that there was an analysis done under the tree code to
31 determine tree safety. Chair Heape commented on the importance of planting the right type of
32 street trees. Chair Heape acknowledged the need to have consistency of terminology between
33 the City code and WLG and LGVCO standards, and also with national standards. Ms. Hamilton
34 indicated that only the inconsistency between city codes was remedied with the proposed
35 amendments.
36
37 Chair Heape reviewed the advantages of large stature trees—cooling rate, more shade, more
38 energy savings, cleaner air (absorb more carbon), better stormwater management. He
39 commented that community members were likely not educated on the value of larger trees versus
40 smaller trees. Ms. Hamilton acknowledged the significance of larger trees.
41
42 Vice Chair Ward asked about the WLG Design District and the applicable zoning and the
43 comparison to the LGVCO standards and zoning. Ms. Hamilton explained both were similar in
44 applicability of design standards.
45
46 Mr. Boone asked about credits for tree preservation — did credit apply to any qualifying tree on the
47 site following construction. He looked at trees being "preserved" when there was a development
48 opportunity and the trees were not removed or there was a covenant that protected the trees. Ms.
49 Hamilton pointed out that the bonus was limited to 5%. Mr. Boone asked the Commission to help
50 define preservation and what needed to be shown as proof of preservation in order to get the
51 credit.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of November 26, 2018 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 2 of 4
APPROVED: 01/14/2019
1
2 Chair Heape closed the public hearing and opened deliberations.
3
4 Deliberations
5 Item #1: Tree Terminology
6 Vice Chair Ward and Commissioner Baker stated that they were in favor of the proposed
7 amendments related to terminology. Commissioner Baker commented that he would like to
8 see the terminology in the tree code and land use code be the same. Commissioner
9 Brockman commented that generally there had been an onerous requirement on some sites
10 and speed of development was impacted; he expressed concern that development
11 opportunities were possibly being lost to other areas due to over-regulation. Chair Heape
12 opined that he would like to see more alignment with national tree terminology and definitions,
13 but he supported the staff recommendation. Commissioner Pape stated the dictionary
14 definition of"substantial" was better than "significant".
15
16 Item #3: Incentives for Preservation of Large Trees
17 Chair Heape asked for discussion on defining preservation —active or passive.
18
19 Commissioner Brockman opined that "preservation" of"significant" trees should be clearly
20 defined. Vice Chair Ward pointed out that there weren't many large remaining commercial
21 sites and there were good incentives to encourage preservation.
22
23 The Commission discussed active and passive tree preservation. Commissioner Baker asked
24 whether preservation included long term or site design preservation of trees. Mr. Boone
25 opined that preservation was for the long term and there would have to be a condition in order
26 to preserve a tree forever.
27
28 Commissioner Pape questioned how many trees would be affected by the proposed code
29 language. Ms. Hamilton provided some examples of trees removed with different
30 developments, she clarified that not all preserved trees were necessarily substantial trees.
31
32 Mr. Boone suggested that a simpler policy choice would be to count the number of substantial
33 trees on the site, with credit being limited to the 5% landscaping reduction.
34
35 The Commissioners reached consensus to keep it simpler as suggested by Mr. Boone.
36
37 Item #4: Design Standards
38 The proposal was to exempt residential developments from pedestrian-oriented design
39 standards that are more applicable to non-residential and mixed-use buildings. The
40 Commission reached consensus to go with the staff recommendation.
41
42 Item #2: Tree Mitigation
43 Vice Chair Ward reiterated that mitigation of 1-inch:1-inch was very onerous and that a 1/2-
44 inch:1-inch mitigation was still a burden, but provided a reasonable alternative. Commissioner
45 Brockman suggested that %-inch:1-inch would be another option and not as burdensome. He
46 added that another option was paying into a tree mitigation fund.
47
48 When asked about "takings" applying to tree preservation, Mr. Boone advised that if there was
49 no alternative to development due to a tree, the tree could be removed, therefore there would
50 not be a "taking". He clarified that under the tree code, if a tree was not significant under the
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of November 26, 2018 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 3 of 4
APPROVED: 01/14/2019
1 code definition, it could be removed under most circumstances, for landscaping or construction
2 purposes. Mr. Baker asked why the definition in the LGVCO standard was more robust than
3 the City tree code. Mr. Boone stated it was to retain more of a tree canopy, based on the
4 community's standards for the LGVC specifically.
5
6 The Commission discussed the pros and cons of the tree mitigation rate. Commissioner
7 Baker stated that there was no factual information to support any specific number and noted
8 the suggestion was the middle road, a '/2-inch:1-inch mitigation rate. He advised that the
9 disadvantages of preserving larger/older trees needed to be taken into consideration. Vice
10 Chair Ward pointed out that Douglas firs got old and as they aged they were more prone to
11 health problems and root rot. He held that some of the biggest Douglas firs in the community
12 probably had root rot, to some extent, at their centers and they would ultimately die and could
13 pose a hazard. He added that growing trees put on about 5% volume annually and the tree
14 canopy was growing all the time. Commissioner Baker pointed out that while mature trees
15 were beautiful, they could be expensive to maintain. He stated that he was in favor of the
16 compromise previously discussed (1/2-inch:1-inch mitigation). Commissioner Brockman stated
17 that he was in favor of the %-inch:1-inch.
18
19 Commissioner Brockman questioned whether the Commission had the expertise to make a
20 recommendation on mitigation and Chair Heape agreed. Ms. Hamilton said that she didn't
21 know if an arborist's opinion was used in establishing the current mitigation requirement when
22 the code was first adopted; the question was whether the mitigation was a deterrent to tree
23 removal. She advised that current projects had shown how the code was being applied. Ms.
24 Hamilton said that the letter received from some of the advisory committee members was not
25 agreed to by the majority of the committee. Vice Chair Ward said not everyone would be
26 happy. He supported a 1/2 inch:1-inch mitigation. Commissioner Brockman said he supported
27 the staff position. Commissioner Baker was in support of the 50%
28
29 Chair Heape asked to seek more public input on the mitigation requirements. He asked for a
30 straw poll on mitigation.
31
32 The Commission was unable to reach consensus (one abstention, two in favor of keeping
33 current code and two in favor of staff recommendation 1/2-inch:1-inch mitigation rate).
34
35 Mr. Boone was asked for his opinion on procedural options. He stated that there could be a
36 delay in decision-making, seeking further input or making a decision with the current
37 information.
38
39 Commissioner Baker moved that deliberations on LU 18-0059 be continued to the next
40 meeting on December 10, 2018, when more Commissioners would be present. Commissioner
41 Brockman seconded the motion and it passed 3:2.
42
43 Mr. Boone advised that deliberations were continued, no additional testimony would be
44 accepted.
45
46 7. WORK SESSION
47 Citizen Involvement Guidelines—Work Session #2 P
48 This Work Session was contin /14/18.
49 The Co reviewed the public input received to date. Ms. Hamilton presented on
50 alf of Mr. Siegel in his absence.
51
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of November 26, 2018 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 4 of 4