Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2000-01-19CeECNN I. CALL TO ORDER CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES January 19, 2000 The Development Review Commission meeting of January 19, 2000 was called to order by Chair Julie Morales at 7:04 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commission members present included Chair Morales, Vice -Chair Nan Binkley, Doug Cushing, Sheila Ostly and Bruce Miller. Douglas Kiersey was absent. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner; Sandy Ingalls, Planning Technician; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Janice Bader, Senior Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Cushing moved for approval of the Minutes of December 20, 1999. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Cushing and Mr. Miller voting yes. Ms. Ostly abstained and Mr. Kiersey was not present. There were no votes against. IV. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order None V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 99-0042, a request by Venture Properties to modify the existing site plan by increasing the length of the three most westerly parking spaces from 18 feet to 28 feet [DR 27-97]. This modification will require the redesign of the storm water quality facility and landscaping will be reduced from 38.7% to 37.8%. The site is located at 4230 Galewood Street, Tax Lot 2000 of Tax Map 21E 813C. Staff coordinator is Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner. Continued from the December 6, 1999 and January 3, 2000 DRC hearings. Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, noted the following exhibits had been added to the record: Exhibit 35 (a letter from applicant's attorney dated January 14, 2000) and Exhibit 36 (a letter from the City Attorney dated January 19, 2000 responding to the applicant's attorney). He explained the correspondence discussed whether or not two City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Pagel of 8 Minutes of January 19, 2000 letters from the City Attorney and City Engineer (Exhibits 32 and 33) had introduced new evidence to the proceedings. He noted the City's position was that Exhibits 32 and 33 were written staff communications with the DRC and did not constitute new evidence, so the Commission was not required to reopen the hearing for additional testimony. Ms. Binkley related that she had not been present at the previous hearings and had not had an opportunity to listen to the tapes of the proceedings. Mr. Miller reported that he had not been present at the December 6, 2000, meeting. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, advised that at least four members present constituted a quorum and a motion could be adopted by a majority of those members eligible to vote on the matter. Deliberation Ms. Ostly observed that the applicant had not met the City's standard for drainage. Mr. Cushing commented that the proposed change in the parking lot would adversely impact the neighbors. Ms. Morales commented that the drainage facility had too many hard sides (three) and would be dangerous. She concurred with the staff that the City could not approve such a design. She observed that vehicle overhang would actually reduce the amount of landscaped area shown on the plan. She recalled that photographs that had been provided to show how the parking stalls were currently used had shown a truck and trailer combination infringing into the area of an adjacent stall and she also noted the location shown was close to the existing building's windows. Mr. Pishvaie advised that the application could be approved subject to a condition that the final drainage plans were to be approved by the City Engineer. He encouraged the commissioners to focus on issues discussed in the staff memorandum of January 6, 2000, including those related to Landscaping and Parking Standards. He noted that the Parking Standards provided that the parking requirement was for the purpose of accommodating the vehicles of patrons and employees of a business, and accommodation of loading and unloading areas to be used by business-related vehicles and trailers was a separate issue (see pages 2 and 3 of the January 6, 2000, memorandum). Mr. Boone advised that if the City Engineer had determined that the applicant's drainage plans would not meet the standards, the Commission could not find otherwise. He suggested the Commission determine whether the applicant had met all applicable criteria related to the application. Mr. Cushing moved for denial of LU 99-0042 based upon the impact of lighting on the adjoining residential neighbors, the visual impact of the detention pond as it was currently designed, drainage difficulties, and the proposed access (including the turning radius) as it related to Off-street Parking Standards. Discussion followed. Mr. Cushing and Ms. Morales clarified that they did not consider the loading and unloading of furniture to be an issue. Ms. Morales seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Mr. Cushing and Ms. Ostly voting yes. Mr. Miller and Ms. Binkley abstained. Mr. Kiersey was not present. There were no votes against. LU 99-0066, a request by Mr. Howard Franklin for a hearing regarding the proposed Tree Cutting Permit Application TC 99-0166. The applicant, Richard Breakiron, is City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 8 Minutes of January 19, 2000 requesting approval to remove nine trees, ranging in size from approximately 9" to 23" in order to construct a new single family dwelling on the site. The site is located at 15199 Lily Bay Court, Tax lot 7100 of Tax Map 2 1 E 913D. The staff coordinator is Sandy Ingalls, Planning Technician. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, advised that although the proceeding was not a land use hearing, the Code allowed the Commission to adopt procedures similar to the land use hearings process. The Commissioners decided to use those procedures. Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, advised that a request to remove trees from a vacant property was to be subjected to a higher level of scrutiny than for a developed property. He advised that the Type II Tree -cutting process provided for a 14 -day period for public comment prior to any staff decision. Vice Chair Binkley opened the public hearing and explained the Commission was to determine whether the application complied with the evidence and criteria required under LOC 55.02.080. She explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. Ms. Morales reported she was familiar with the general area of the site but had not visited the site. Ms. Binkley, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Miller and Ms. Ostly reported they had visited the site. No commissioner reported any conflicts of interest regarding the application. Sandy Ingalls, Planning Technician, related that the applicant had applied for a Type II Tree -cutting Permit. She reported that the City had received a request for a hearing during the 14 -day period of public notice. She advised the application was for construction of a single-family dwelling on the last undeveloped lot in the subdivision, Village on the Lake. She noted the original planned development included natural resource areas (wetlands and tree groves) that had been analyzed during the original development review process. Therefore, the requirements of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance were not applicable to the application. She presented a map showing trees at the site, including at least 21 trees of 5" or greater in diameter. She pointed out the location of a tree near the garage that might be preserved if the location of the building footprint was slightly modified and two other trees that were proposed to be removed next to the house foundation. She reported that the applicant had originally proposed to remove 14 trees, but was currently proposing to remove only nine trees. She reported that three of the seven trees within the building footprint were already dead, and staff recommended that Tree E (a dead tree outside the footprint) and Tree 16 also be removed. Ms. Ingalls also recommended that the location of the building be shifted slightly to preserve Trees 7, 9, 10, 15 and 21. She further recommended that the applicant be required to provide tree protection during building construction. She pointed out that the staff report provided a detailed analysis of the applicable tree removal criteria. She concluded by recommending approval of the application subject to the conditions recommended by staff (see pages 9 and 10 of the staff report). She clarified for the commission that the access to the site, between the existing drive (through an existing reciprocal access easement) and the garage could be routed between Trees 2 and 3. Applicant Richard Breakiron,13585 SW Stirrup Ct., Beaverton, OR, 97008, noted that the drawing of the home in Exhibit 63 demonstrated how the applicant had originally proposed to position the garage. He explained that if the garage was rotated, Tree 3 would still be removed, but Tree 7 would be preserved, and the amount of pavement would be reduced. He noted that the existing 20' front City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 8 Minutes of January 19, 2000 yard setback might have to be reduced. He said he desired to save as many trees as he could. Mr. Pishvaie clarified that the applicant's arborist had changed the number designation of trees on the map in his report (Exhibit 9) and had indicated that Tree 3 was along the east property line and was in poor condition, but could be retained. Mr. Pishvaie clarified that the staff report referenced all trees according to Exhibit 6. He noted that Tree 3 in the staff report was a 26" fir tree in front of the garage and staff recommended that it be preserved. He also corrected Recommended Condition A(1) of the staff report to refer to Exhibit 6, and not to Exhibits 9 and 12. Mr. Breakiron explained that if the garage access was routed between Trees 3 and 7 (as on Exhibit 6) then Tree 2 would be jeopardized. Ms. Binkley suggested the access could also be modified by stepping the building back. The Commissioners noted that the applicant had not submitted a variance request for the front yard setback. Mr. Breakiron related that the City had approved the subdivision with a specific provision that the City could adjust the setback for the purpose of saving trees. Mr. Pishvaie confirmed that and advised the front yard setback could be reduced from 20' to 10' and the side yard setback could be reduced from 10' to 5'. However, he advised that an existing 16.5' wide access easement along the north property line could not be built upon, which left the applicant with approximately 3 feet leeway in which to rotate the building. Mr. Breakiron indicated he believed that he could successfully relocate the building within that area; however, he asked that the Commission grant him the ability to remove Tree 2 (a 12" diameter tree) if necessary to allow an area of approach that would accommodate a vehicle. He pointed out to Mr. Cushing the location of the only area of standing water he had observed on the site. He explained that the applicant was to compensate Mr. Franklin in the future for supplementing gravel fill eroded from under the driveway over time. None. Proponents Opponents Daniel Kearns, 610 SW Alder, Ste 803, Portland, OR, 97205, stated that he represented Howard Franklin, who resided adjacent to the site. He clarified that his client considered the hearing an opportunity to comment on the application and he provided written comments for the record (Exhibit 16). He acknowledged the site was an extremely challenging lot to develop because of its odd size and shape. He noted that the applicant's testimony had raised a new issue regarding access. He clarified that although the subdivision's CC&Rs referred to reciprocal access, no easement had ever been negotiated and the applicant did not own the right to use Mr. Franklin's driveway. Mr. Kearns advised the Commission to ensure that trees at the site were preserved, that tree removal be limited to only what was necessary to allow construction of the home, and that no trees be allowed to pose a hazard to the new home or adjacent properties. He noted the area of the site and its surrounding area were heavily treed. He recalled that although 14 trees had originally been proposed for removal, Mr. Franklin could never find 14 flagged trees. He said there were currently six flagged trees, and one of them (Tree 5) was located next to a group of trees on Mr. Franklin's property and its removal would subject the remaining group to windfall. He asked that Tree 5 be preserved. He said a large Douglas fir on the Franklin property was near Tree 1, a 26" pine tree. He noted the Franklin arborist had reported that installation of a driveway over its roots could compress the soil and weaken its roots unless the driveway was of a specific City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 8 Minutes of January 19, 2000 design. Mr. Kearns observed that the applicant had not provided a specific tree preservation plan. He noted Mr. Franklin's arborist had listed specific issues to be addressed to protect trees from the construction project. He pointed out Tree 16 and Tree E on Exhibit 6 were designated to be removed, but he noted that on page 8 of the staff report staff recommended that Tree 16 be saved. Mr. Kearns contended that the applicant's proposal would adversely impact trees in the surrounding area and subject them to windthrow. He opined that if the 26" Douglas fir tree fell it could hit a house on the other side of Lilly Court. He requested that the applicant clarify which trees were to be removed and the staff clarify which trees they recommended be removed. He noted the issue of access remained to be resolved. He recalled that the Emergency Tree Removal Ordinance required alternative plans be presented to show that the number of trees the applicant was requesting be removed was necessary. He also requested that the applicant be required to provide plans showing the changes he had agreed to make prior to approval of the application. He pointed out the applicant had not addressed criteria for a variance to the setback. Mr. Cushing noted that if the applicant was not able to use the existing driveway, he would need to remove several large trees to construct his own driveway. Mr. Kearns explained that since the applicant had never approached Mr. Franklin to discuss the matter of an easement, his client had assumed Mr. Breakiron intended to install his own driveway. He stated that if the applicant constructed another driveway, it should be designed and constructed in a manner that did not result in removal of the large 26" Douglas fir tree. Ms. Binkley observed that if that the roots of that tree were already partially covered by the existing driveway, the installation of another driveway could hasten its demise. Mr. Kearns observed the tree was currently in good health, even though the existing driveway had been in place for many years. Mr. Pishvaie noted that the map in Exhibit 4 showing a portion of PD3-85, Village on the Lake, indicated the existence of an access easement at the site. Howard G. Franklin, 15203 Lily Bay U., Lake Oswego, 97034, presented a copy of his letter to the Commission for the record (Exhibit 17). He explained that he had requested the hearing because he was concerned about safety in the area of the proposed home and existing homes nearby. He opined the proposal would increase the risk to the area. He recalled that on January 6, 2000, a large Douglas fir had fallen and hit his house. He related that his neighbors, the Kemps, had told him of a tree that had fallen and struck their deck and rear house wall. He said that Exhibit 6 did not show that Tree 5 (which was close to his driveway) was to be removed, although it had a large yellow ribbon around it. He said he had only been able to locate 6 trees marked for removal. He said his arborist had determined there was high probability that the root systems of the trees were interconnected. He opined that the proposal would result in a weakening of trees on the Kemp property. He said the perimeter trees along the southern and northern boundaries needed the most protection. Mr. Cushing commented that although the applicant had originally proposed to remove Tree 5, his plan and driveway design had been modified, and now Tree 5 was to be preserved. Mr. Franklin related that his title City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 8 Minutes of January 19, 2000 insurance policy did not mention an easement agreement. Mr. Boone advised that if the policy stated the property was subject to CC&Rs that could mean an easement existed there. Mr. Franklin's arborist's report was entered as Exhibit 16 and his attorney's written comments were entered as Exhibit 19. David R. Cory, 11125 SW 106th Avenue, Tigard, OR, 97223, clarified for Ms. Morales that he had not visited the site after a recent storm to determine if any trees had been damaged. He also clarified that his report for Mr. Franklin referred to Exhibit 6 of the staff report because he believed it was the most complete. He clarified that he had reviewed the trees on Mr. Franklin's property but had not entered the site. He said the two trees that he was most concerned about on Mr. Franklin's property were a 26" diameter pine by the driveway and a 14" pine in his front yard. He said he had been under the impression that Tree 5 was to be removed, but he now understood it would not be removed. He advised the driveway was elevated near the 26" diameter tree, which could be because of its design or erosion. He advised that the underfilling of the driveway was not sufficiently compacted to remain in place. He advised that construction damage to a tree could be mitigated by aerating the tree's root zone. He advised that the large tree would surely die if the access easement area indicated on Exhibit 6 was compacted near the tree by construction equipment or heavy loads. He said that before any operations started, the tree's root zone should be protected by putting down 8" of rough bark mulch and ensuring it stayed there while vehicles drove by. He clarified for Ms. Binkley that he could not provide an assessment of the condition of Tree 16 because he had not gone onto the site. He stressed the importance of putting a good tree preservation and protection plan in place before construction began. He said he typically required contractors he worked with to read and agree in writing to abide by such a plan. Jim Bowdecker, 15495 Lily Bay U., Lake Oswego, 97034, requested that the specific trees to be removed be marked. He questioned that five of the trees on the removal list were dead. He called the Lilly Bay area a special place and he understood why someone would want to build a home there, but he did not want to lose any trees. He asked that the Commission not grant a variance at the site. Mr. Boone clarified for Mr. Bowdecker that no variance was required because subdivision documents provided that the setback could be reduced to save trees. Mr. Boone advised that staff research had not found a declaration that specifically addressed an access agreement at the site; however, he noted the staff did not have a copies of the project's CC&Rs, which might describe the easement. None. Neither for nor Against Rebuttal Mr. Breakiron acknowledged that it was hard to see the dead trees at the site because their tops had been blown off and they were currently only five to six feet tall. He opined City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 8 Minutes of January 19, 2000 the beauty of the site was due to its trees, and he noted that his application included tree protection provisions. He said that it had been his understanding that the PD intended an easement access at the site, and provided that the first driveway installed would also be used by the adjacent lot. He explained that if the existing driveway was not available to him he would construct another driveway. He recalled that the first communication he had from Mr. Franklin was through Mr. Franklin's attorney. He said he would agree to provide revised plans that showed a reduced deck footprint to protect trees; to rotate the garage to protect the two large Douglas fir trees; and to implement the tree protection plan. He explained that if he had to construct an alternate access to his property he would have to remove additional trees. He stressed that he would do all he could to protect tree roots and would plan to utilize a pervious type of surface for the driveway. Mr. Boone advised it was not in the purview of the Commission to make a determination of the condition of the title to the property. He noted the development application suggested a mutual access agreement, but if that did not exist, the applicant would be required to file an additional application to remove additional trees, based on additional evidence. He also advised that the Commission decision could be made subject to a determination by a court or agreement between the parties. Mr. Pishvaie suggested a condition that if the applicant failed to obtain shared access he would be allowed to remove specific trees in a specific order to construct a driveway. He explained that condition would help to avoid another hearing regarding the matter. He corrected Exhibit 6 to show that Tree 16 was to be preserved and Tree 11 was to be removed. Vice Chair Binkley closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. Deliberation Ms. Binkley recalled Mr. Franklin's concern about preserving perimeter trees and she noted that the applicant's proposal would save perimeter trees. Mr. Cushing referred to Exhibit 6 and clarified with the staff that Tree 11 was to be removed; Tree 16 was to be preserved; the dead tree just north of Tree 16 was to be removed; and dead Tree E was to be removed. He noted that a total of three trees outside the footprint and seven trees within the footprint were to be removed. Ms. Binkley observed that if the garage was to be slightly rotated Tree 11 could be saved. Mr. Cushing commented that depending upon where the driveway access was located one or two additional trees might have to be removed. Mr. Cushing moved to approve removal of the seven trees within footprint, as shown on Exhibit 6; removal of two dead trees outside the footprint (Trees A and E); and if required, removal of Tree 11; and removal of the minimum number of trees to allow construction of a new driveway, if shared access cannot be negotiated by the applicant. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion and discussion followed. Mr. Cushing stressed that the preferable solution would be for the neighbors to agree to share access. Ms. Morales asked that efforts be made to save Tree 2, if at all possible. The motion passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Cushing, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Mr. Kiersey was not present. There were no votes against. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 8 Minutes of January 19, 2000 AP 99-13, the applicant, WRG Designs, Inc., is appealing the Planning Director's decision [LU 99-0029] approving a minor partition request to divide a 1.28 acre lot into three parcels, including two flag lots. The property is located at 1501 Country Club Rd., Tax lot 2900 of Tax Map 2 1 E 4DB. The staff coordinator is Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner. Mr. Pishvaie related that the applicant had waived the 120 -day time limit in order to allow the applicant and staff additional time to work together to resolve issues related to the applicant's appeal of an administrative decision regarding the application. Mr. Cushing moved to continue to AP 99-13 to February 7, 2000. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Cushing, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Mr. Kiersey was not present. There were no votes against. VI. GENERAL PLANNING Lakeridge Field Lighting Mr. Pishvaie reported the Commission decision regarding the application had been appealed to the City Council. McDonalds Mr. Pishvaie related the City had notified McDonalds that their new paint colors violated their conditional use approval. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Development Review Commission, Chair Morales adjourned the meeting at 9:09 PM. Respectfully submitted. Janice Bader Senior Secretary l:Adre\minutes\mintemp.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 8 Minutes of January 19, 2000