Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2000-11-20CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES November 20, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Commission meeting of November 20, 2000 meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM in Room C-106 of the Commons Building of Marylhurst Conference Center at 17600 Pacific Highway, Lake Oswego, Oregon by Chair Cushing. II. ROLL CALL Commission members present included Chair Morales and Vice Chair Cushing and Nan Binkley, Dave Powers, Douglas Kiersey, Sheila Ostly and Bruce Miller. Staff present were Tom Coffee, Planning Director; Sandy Ingalls, Assistant Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Janice Bader, Senior Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Ostly moved for approval of the Minutes of October 16, 2000. Mr. Powers seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Ms. Binkley, Ms. Ostly, Mr. Miller and Mr. Powers voting yes. Ms. Morales and Mr. Kiersey abstained from the vote. There were no votes against. IV. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order LU 00-0055, a request by KPFF Consulting Engineers for approval to construct the Old River Road Pathway. Ms. Morales moved for approval of LU 00-0055, Findings, Conclusions and Order. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Mr. Cushing, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Ms. Binkley, Mr. Powers and Mr. Kiersey abstained from the vote. There were no votes against. V. PUBLIC HEARING AP 00-15 [LU 00-003:9, an appeal by Wis and Susan Macomson of the Planning Director's decision to approve a two -parcel minor land partition request. The applicants, Raymond and Delal Lehman had proposed to divide a 28,498 sq. ft. parcel into two parcels approximately 15, 129 sq. ft. parcel (parcel 1) and 10,134 sq. ft. parcel (parcel 2). The site is located at 635 Iron Mt. Blvd. (fax Lot 2100 of Tax Map 21E 3CB). The staff coordinator is Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 1 Minutes of November 20, 2000 Chair Cushing opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. He asked Commission members to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, biases or conflicts of interest. Mr. Cushing, Ms. Ostly, Ms. Morales and Mr. Miller reported that they had visited the site. Ms. Binkley and Mr. Powers also reported they had listened to the taped record of the previous hearing. Mr. Kiersey reported he had not listened to the taped record. Chair Cushing asked if any person in attendance desired to challenge any Commissioner's right to hear the application. No one presented such a challenge. nplihPrntinn Ms. Ostly observed the partitioned lot met zoning requirements and the issue of allowable height remained to be resolved. Ms. Morales observed that the addition of impervious areas on the site could impact drainage in the area. Mr. Cushing suggested that the Commission establish 16.2 feet as the maximum allowed height. Mr. Cushing noted that although the Flag Lot Ordinance addressed height, screening, and buffering, there was little the Commission could do to address this application's "compatibility" issues. Ms. Binkley observed that the City would have more control over the actual "bulk" of a new structure to be constructed on the new lot than on a structure that might be planned to replace the existing house if it were to be torn down. Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners that a Commission decision would not create a Measure 7 liability. Ms. Binkley wondered how the Commission could deny an application that met all of the City's criteria. Ms. Ostly moved for approval of the staff recommendation to deny AP 00-15 and approved LU 00-0034, subject to the conditions in the staff report, and an additional condition A (4)(b)(iv) to provide for an onsite inspection to determine the average height of adjacent homes and to provide that the maximum height of the house on parcel 2 was to be 16.2 feet or less, as determined by the average height of all homes adjacent to the site. The height was to be determined by measuring from the ground to the midpoint of the roofline. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Powers, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Mr. Kiersey abstained from the vote. There were no votes against. Mr. Cushing announced the final vote on AP 00-15 [LU 00-00341 was to be on December 4, 2000. Mr. Cushing suggested that the Planning Commission and the City Council should reconsider the issue of flag lots. Mr. Coffee advised that recent Metro regulations prevented the City Council from continuing their previous practice of not allowing flag lots. He clarified that Metro Title I provided the City "shall not adopt regulations that prevent partitioning." He recalled the City Council had subsequently adopted regulations that the "pole" area of a flag lot did not count in the lot area, and other provisions that addressed maximum allowed height, screening, landscaping, and building and garage orientation. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 2 Minutes of November 20, 2000 LU 00-0084, a request by Gramor Oregon, Inc. for a major modificiation of an earlier Development Review Permit [LU 00-0007]. The proposed modifications will reduce the width of fascia and window trim on the commerical building from 18" and 12" to a minimum of 12" and 8" width, respectively. The site is located at Block 136 (Tax lots 8400-9100 of Tax Map 21E 3DD). The staff coordinator is Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager. Chair Cushing reported that the applicant had requested that the hearing be continued to January 29, 2001. He noted the closest meeting date to that was January 17, 2001. He observed that the applicant had agreed to an extension of the 120 -day rule. Ms. Binkley moved to continue LU 00-0084 to January 17, 2001. Ms. Morales seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Powers, Mr. Kiersey, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. There were no votes against. TC 00-0405 JAP 00-161, an appeal by James Houle of the Planning Director's decision to deny a tree removal request to remove one 11.9 inch in diameterTulip tree. The tree is located in the middle of the front yard. The site is located at 252 N. Shore Rd. (Tax Lot 8100 of Tax Map 21E LOAD). The staff coordinator is Sandy Ingalls, Assistant Planner. Chair Cushing opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. He asked Commission members to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, biases or conflicts of interest. All Commissioners reported that they had visited the site. No one present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Sandy Ingalls, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report dated November 7, 2000. She reported that staff had inspected the site on September 19, 2000 (as was required by the Tree Ordinance). She observed the neighborhood is heavily wooded, and related the staff conclusion that the request to remove the tree should be denied. She observed that the applicant had appealed the staff decision in a letter that argued that the 10 -year-old Tulip tree should be removed because it required aphid treatment each year and had the potential to grow to a very large size with flowers that would produce a large amount of nectar. She reported that the applicant had subsequently submitted additional evidence on October 10, 2000 that showed the potential growth pattern of a Tulip tree and compared it to the growth pattern of a Flowering Cherry tree that the applicant planned to plant to replace the Tulip tree. She reported that after the second site visit (when they had inspected the area's tree canopy for the second time and had taken photographs of the site), staff had again denied the tree removal application. The staff had found that removal of the tree would create a large opening in the neighborhood's tree canopy and it would take many years for the replacement tree to fill in for the Tulip tree. She referred to photographs and illustrations in Exhibit 2, which showed the area of the site with the tree and with the tree removed. She related that the applicant had not submitted a landscaping plan for staff review at the time of the application, but had submitted City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 3 Minutes of November 20, 2000 landscaping information after the application was denied. She said staff would refrain from a recommendation until after the applicant had provided fiu ther information at the hearing. She clarified for Ms. Binkley that the Tree Cutting Permit application asked for a landscaping plan if the purpose for removal was for landscaping purposes. She also advised that applicant was informed that one-for-one mitigation was required after removal of a Type II tree. Applicant James Houle, 252 North Shore Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, related that he had resided at his current residence since 1952. He recalled that he had completed the tree cutting application and had received a permit to remove the tree on August 15, 2000; however, he had not been advised at that time that he was required to provide any other evidence. He recalled that the staff had explained the City's regulations regarding tree cutting after the application had been denied. He held the tree created an aphid problem and was messy. He said the tree had grown too tall for him to reach all areas of it to remove aphids. He said a professional tree service had estimated the cost of dealing with the aphids would be between $75.00 and $100.00. He confirmed for Mr. Cushing that he had planted the subject tree and all of the trees in his front yard approximately eight to ten years ago after a windstorm had blown down other trees there, including a cherry tree. He clarified that he had submitted his application with the explanation that the tree was "becoming too large for the area," although he staff report had reported the tree was to be removed "because the tree was perceived as too large for the lot." He said he desired to replace the subject tree with a more suitable tree. He requested clarification of the meaning of the term "landscaping purposes." He said the tree was leaning noticeably which made it "ugly," and it overshadowed all the other trees on the site. He recalled he had discussed removal of the tree with an arborist who had agreed to removal. He said they had also discussed the cost of pruning, which would be between $135.00 to $150.00 every other year. He said maintenance of the tree included spraying for bees and aphids and pruning. He explained that he simply wanted to remove the tree and replace it with another tree that would better fit the landscape. He pointed out that page 19 of the staff report described the Flowering Cherry tree he would use as a replacement tree. He pointed out that page 15 of the staff report described the Tulip Tree as a tree that "reaches a height of 80 to 100 feet and a diameter of four to six feet with a maximum of 198 feet by 12 feet" and featured flowers that produced "a considerable amount of nectar — seven to eight pounds per year." He noted the tree had recently started to produce flowers. He referred to information on page 18 of the staff report, which said the tree was "Used for large public plantings, avenues and highways" and "it may be too large for the average home grounds." The material also included a "warning" that the tree "attains immense stature." He asked what the language "mitigating" meant. He explained that he had planted the two immediately adjacent trees, including a beautiful flowering cherry tree and a dogwood tree, at the same time as the subject tree. He said le had planted them after the windstorm had felled other trees on his lot, and he had purchased the Tulip Tree on the recommendation of a local garden center after he had asked for a recommendation of a tree that would provide shade for the kitchen window. He explained to Mr. Cushing that he intended to replace the subject tree as soon as possible. He confirmed for Mr. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 4 Minutes of November 20, 2000 Powers that he had sprayed the tree with a chemical sold at Seven Dees Nursery. Mr. Powers confirmed that the tree had a serious aphid infestation, and he advised that most Liriodendrons (the tree's botanical name) grew to 50 to 70 feet in the Lake Oswego area. He noted they became a nuisance to a neighborhood and needed to be sprayed with caution that the chemicals used would not be blown elsewhere by the wind. He advised that the tree should be removed and replaced with a variety of cherry tree. He noted the specific variety of cherry tree the applicant planned to use as mitigation would grow into a massive tree at maturity, in approximately 10 to 15 years. He also concurred with the staff that the subject tree was very healthy. Bruce Goldson, 4260 Country Woods Ct., Lake Oswego, 97035, testified that he agreed with the Mr. Houle's plan to remove the subject tree and replace it with another tree. He concluded that was a sufficient mitigation plan. He also agreed that a Tulip Tree was not appropriate for most residential areas. None. Opponents Neither for nor Against Timothy Cushing, 1921 SW Marigold, Portland, OR, 97219, explained that he had recently completed a program offered by the City of Portland's Urban Forestry Division, and he planned to pursue a career in forestry. He advised that urban trees provided shade, produced oxygen, and helped to stabilize the soil, and he would never recommend removal of a tree because it was a nuisance. He noted the City of Lake Oswego had recently tightened the Tree Code to require mitigation (replacement of a removed tree) with trees that would equal the size of the tree that was removed. He acknowledged a Tulip Tree could become 60 to 80 feet tall and provided habitat for aphids. He advised that although the subject tree was a healthy tree, its leaning made it a potential hazard in a wind or ice storm, and it should be removed. He recommended that it be replaced by at least two new trees, noting that Exhibit 2 showed there was sufficient room for them in the yard to the left of the subject tree. He said any of a number of varieties of Flowering Cherry trees were appropriate for the site. He recalled the Tulip Tree was not on the City of Portland's listing of approved street trees. Tom Coffee, Assistant City Manager, advised that the Tulip Tree was not on the City of Lake Oswego's listing of prohibited trees or on the City's listing of approved street trees. He also related that changes in the Tree Code meant that "landscaping purposes" could be an acceptable reason for tree removal in the future. Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners that although the Tree Code only required one tree to be planted to replace the removed tree, the criteria regarding removal for "landscape purposes" would allow the Commission to require that two trees be planted to mitigate a negative impact on neighborhood aesthetics. The staff recommended approval of the application with a condition that the applicant was to plant two trees to mitigate the impact of removal of the subject tree. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 5 Minutes of November 20, 2000 Rebuttal Mr. House agreed to replant with two trees. Mr. Cushing then closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. ni,iihorntinn Mr. Binkley observed the subject tree was a large tree and served to screen the parking area next to the house. She suggested that the Commission require three or four more trees to be planted on that side of the house in order to wntinue to screen the parking area. Mr. Powers advised that two Flowering Cherry trees would be adequate for that purpose and fit the available room on the site. Ms. Morales suggested that the mitigation trees be a minimum of 2- to 2.5 -inch caliper. Mr. Powers moved for approval of TC 00-0405 JAP 00-161, subject to the conditions in the staff report, and a condition to require the removed tree to be replaced by two trees of at least 2- to 2.5 -inch caliper. The staff was to help determine an acceptable variety of tree and locations that would serve to screen the parking area. Mr. Miller seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Powers, Mr. Kiersey, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. There were no votes against. Mr. Cushing announced the final vote on TC 00-0405 [AP 00-161 would be held on December 4, 2000. VI. GENERAL PLANNING Meeting location Mr. Coffee announced that the next meeting of the Commission would be held in the newly remodeled City Council chambers. Traffic control device at Fourth and Evergreen Streets Mr. Coffee clarified for Ms. Binkley that the adjacent neighborhood had been concerned about through traffic on Evergreen Street, and the developer of Block 136 had agreed to install the traffic control device to discourage drivers from taking a shortcut through the neighborhood. Measure 7 Mr. Boone advised that Measure 7, which had recently been approved by the voters, was to be effective on December 7, 2000. He noted that the City would have 90 -days to process a claim and resolve it by either compensating the property owner or removing the regulation City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 6 Minutes of November 20, 2000 from the property. He predicted the Commissioners would be hearing applications where some regulations had been removed. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Development Review Commission, Chair Cushing adjourned the meeting at 8:10 PM. Respectfully submitted. Janice Bader Senior Secretary 1:\dre\minutes\11-20-00.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 7 Minutes of November 20, 2000