Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2000-08-21OREGON I. CALL TO ORDER CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 21, 2000 Chair Douglas Cushing called the Development Review Commission meeting of August 21, 2000, to order at 7:30 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commission members present included Chair Cushing, Vice Chair Nan Binkley, and Commissioners Bruce Miller and Dave Powers. Commissioners Julie Morales, Douglas Kiersey and Sheila Ostly were excused. 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 None. IV. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order None. V. Public Hearing LU 00-0043, an application by Beacon Homes, LLC, for approval of a development review permit to construct a 23,000 square -foot commercial center. The proposal consists of two buildings measuring approximately 15,500 square feet and 7,500 square feet in size, and parking spaces for 96 vehicles. The applicant is also requesting approval to remove six trees along the southerly property line of the abutting property to the north (Tax Lot 2300) in order to develop the site. The trees range from 5" to 8" in diameter at breast height (dbh). The site is located at: the SE Corner of Jean Way & Boones Ferry Road, Tax Lot 2400 of Tax Map 21E 18131). Staff coordinator is Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner. Continued from August 7, 2000. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 12 Minutes of August 21, 2000 Mr. Pishvaie recalled the Commission had limited the hearing to written testimony. Mr. Cushing recalled that no one had testified in opposition to the application at the previous hearing. He asked if anyone present desired to testify in opposition of the application. There were no responses. He noted the staff had provided additional information in writing and he asked if they desired to add anything to it. Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner, recalled the Commissioners had requested that the staff address several issues related to the application, including the design of the rear walls, monument signs and brick color and texture. She related that the applicant had presented revised illustrations of the rear walls, the monument signs and entry monument. She noted they now proposed entry monuments of reduced height that featured small caps. She pointed out new samples of brick the applicant proposed to use. Ms. Binkley wondered if the two proposed recessed lights over the sign band would provide adequate lighting in the wider bays. She also asked how far the brick was to be set back from the glass on the upper story, and she indicated that she preferred it to be set back 18 inches and she would not desire it to be flush with the glass. She also suggested that the storefront windows be required to feature a non -glass base so they would not resemble strip mall storefronts. Mr. Cushing observed the applicant's drawings showed two lights over each sign and an additional light for the general bay. Ms. Binkley noted that the recommended conditions did not limit the design to two lights per sign. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, advised that if the Commissioners desired further clarification from the applicant, they should re -open the hearing. Chair Cushing opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. Mr. Cushing noted that Mr. Miller had listened to the tapes of the previous hearing and all other Commissioners present had also been present at the last hearing. He asked Commission members to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, biases or conflicts of interest. None were reported. Mr. Cushing asked if any person in attendance desired to challenge any Commissioner's right to hear the application. No one presented such a challenge. Applicant David A. Bissett, 322 NW 5th Avenue, #301, Portland, OR 97209, stated he was the project architect. He clarified that the brick was to be offset at least 18 inches from the glass on the upper story. He explained the applicant had selected a color combination that would complement the wood and other elements found on the nearby Natures Store and Alpha Computer projects. He also opined that the proposed medium -colored brick would provide a nice contrast to other building elements, such as the green -tinted (solex green) glass, black window frames, darker base brick and lighter accent band brick. He explained that the copper roof would be the dominant design element. He held that the originally proposed medium -toned brick was still the most appropriate for the development. He also presented a lighter -colored brick sample that he said the applicant City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 12 Minutes of August 21, 2000 would prefer not to use and he said the brick the staff favored was a darker -toned brick with heavier surface texture that the applicant believed would not sufficiently complement the accent element materials. Ms. Binkley recalled the originally proposed brick had been too monotone. She asked if the applicant could find smooth brick in all the sizes necessary that would provide more color variation. Mr. Bissett confirmed that he could. He explained the brick vendor had pointed out that when the proposed brick was installed it would show more color variation than the single brick sample showed. He provided other samples of brick that featured more texture and he said the applicant could work with the brick manufacturer to obtain wire -cut brick that would feature more surface texture and color variation. He suggested that the bull -nosed brick and soldier courses would be of smoother brick and the body brick would be wire cut to create textural variation. He confirmed that the applicants had looked at brick samples from two large manufacturers. He asked for a condition that was flexible enough to allow the applicants to choose among brick manufacturers. He explained the building would feature a black brick base under a course of gray brick that would be topped by a course of red brick. He also clarified that the bottom of the windows would reach the ground in order to provide large glassed areas for retail tenants. Ms. Binkley opined that design would make the windows resemble those of a strip mall. Mr. Bissett then acknowledged that the applicant could agree to install an 18 -inch high window base panel of either brick or CMU. He also clarified the height of the mullion was to be 30 — 36 inches and to line up with the bull nose brick at approximately 30 inches. Mr. Bissett worried that a condition requiring the applicant to fill in the base of the windows would limit the applicant's flexibility to relocate door openings for retail tenants. He clarified that the applicant intended to locate the doors as indicated on the plan until a tenant desired them to be moved. He also clarified for Mr. Miller that the second floor featured a fixed ceiling for the lower level and canned lighting. He pointed out the bike racks were to be located under the entry canopy but would not block the walkway. Peter Kusyk, Beacon Homes, 9500 SW 125th Avenue, Beaverton, OR 97209, referred to recommended Condition A(2)(d)(v) and requested that the minimum shrub size be changed from the three gallon specification to the sizes the applicant's plan proposed. He worried that the applicant would have to upgrade smaller plants to a three -gallon size. Ms. Jacob explained that the staff typically required smaller shrubs to be a minimum of three -gallon size. Mr. Pishvaie explained the landscape should not appear to be of too small a scale for the development. Mr. Powers advised that some smaller plant species were typically accommodated by two or three gallon containers. Mr. Pishvaie recommended that minimum plant sizes be imposed (whether the plants were sized by the gallon or by their height) because the appearance of the landscape at the time of completion of the project was important. Mr. Powers agreed that a three—gallon minimum shrub size was appropriate for an area that was to serve as the gateway to the City. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 12 Minutes of August 21, 2000 Mr. Kusyk asked for further clarification of recommended Condition A(2)(e)(3). He asked at what point in the construction process the fire hydrant was required to be installed. Staff explained that the Fire Marshall was to determine if an onsite hydrant was required and, if so, the hydrant would most likely need to be installed prior to building construction. Mr. Kusyk asked for clarification as to whether a loan on the project would be considered an encumbrance in recommended Condition C(2). Mr. Boone confirmed it would be and he explained that the City wanted to ensure that the right-of-way could not be lost in the event of a foreclosure. He noted that typically a mortgage company would agree not to foreclose a dedicated right-of-way. Mr. Kusyk referred to recommended Condition D(2). He explained the only specific sign the applicant was currently proposing was the project sign to be located on the corner of Jean Way and Boones Ferry Road. He observed that the applicant would provide a background for tenant signs that was complementary to the building and tenant signage would be reviewed when each tenant applied for a sign permit. He asked that no additional restrictions on sign colors indirect lighting and lettering be imposed. Ms. Binkley held the Commission should establish consistency of signage. Mr. Pishvaie advised the Sign Code provided that sign bands in the GC Zone were to be limited to a maximum height of two feet and a maximum length of 75% of the building or business frontage. He advised the Commission to establish sign restrictions to be applied to the development during the approval process in order to avoid confusion later on when tenants applied to the City for sign permits. He clarified the Code allowed the City to review signage proposals to ensure they were complementary to the design of the building and the surrounding area. He noted the City had established precedents during the Texaco and Block 136 development approvals that signage was an important part of the overall development design. He stressed that the Zoning Ordinance had specified that the site was to serve as a gateway to the City. He clarified for Ms. Binkley that windows signs were regulated separately from sign bands, and that any unused portion of the applicant's maximum allowance for a sign band would not transfer to other tenants for their use. The applicant's representatives expressed their disappointment that the City would limit the applicant's choice of sign colors. They acknowledged that a height limitation of 18 inches was reasonable and agreed that a third canned lighting fixture should be added to the widest bays. They also clarified that the applicant planned to use ground mounted lights to illuminate the monument signs (and would not light them internally) and that they were proposing Alternate 1 lettering style for the sign. Opponents None. Neither for nor Against None. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 12 Minutes of August 21, 2000 Rebuttal The applicant waived their right to additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Mr. Cushing closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. DPlihPratinnc Ms. Binkley observed that the new brick samples presented did not feature additional color variation, but did feature additional texture. She also indicated that she favored the proposed combination of smooth and textured brick. She clarified for Mr. Cushing that she could agree to the applicant's original choice of brick color if it was cut to create more texture and if the applicant attempted to introduce more color variation. She suggested that Condition A(2)(b)(vii) be added to provide that the brick should be wire cut "Canyon" with enhanced color variation, and to require an 18 -inch minimum setback of the brick pier from the second story window bay. Mr. Cushing suggested the Sign Code should be modified in order to specify signage styles in the gateway area. Mr. Boone advised the Commission could address the gateway standards through their conditions regarding the appearance of the signs. Mr. Cushing indicated that he did not understand why individual lettering and specific colors on the sign band should be mandated when tenants might desire to use their own customized logos with established lettering and colors. He also worried that window signs might be more offensive. Mr. Pishvaie recalled the City had controlled signage at other developments. He stressed that signage was an important component of the design. He advised that color variation could be allowed within the same tonality, and he recommended restrictions that would prevent the use of pink, purple and orange colors. He noted that tenants could place their distinctive logos in their windows. Mr. Boone observed that a distinction could be made between the sign band, which would be highly visible from the street, and signage that would become more visible to pedestrians on site. Ms. Binkley indicated she could agree to the applicant's use of their proposed color range and to restricting tenant's logo signs to their windows. Ms. Jacob clarified for Ms. Binkley that the background area behind the signs was to be sand -colored stucco that would be complementary to the building's brick. Ms. Binkley stressed the site was special to the City and although there were no specific signage design guidelines to apply there, the Commission should acknowledge the area was to be unique and impose sign restrictions. She advised that signs were a significant part of overall design and that individual letters should also be controlled. She also opined the area at the base of the windows should be filled in to a height of at least 18 inches. Mr. Pishvaie recommended that the 18" base requirement be included as Condition A(2)(b)(ix). Mr. Boone explained for the Commissioners that recommended Condition D(5) was to become a standard condition in all approvals and permits in the City. He said it was intended to make the developer aware that approval of the development should not be City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 12 Minutes of August 21, 2000 construed to authorize a violation of federal and state laws, including any environmental law, such as the Endangered Species Act. Ms. Binkley moved for approval of LU 00-0043, subject to the conditions in the August 18, 2000 staff report, with the following modifications: A(2)(b)(vi — ix) as discussed Mr. Miller seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Miller and Mr. Powers voting yes. Ms. Morales, Mr. Kiersey and Ms. Ostly were not present. There were no votes against. Mr. Cushing announced that the final order was to be voted upon on September 6, 2000. LU 00-0061, an application by BC Kim Olympic Tae Kwon Do, for approval of a conditional use permit to establish a martial arts school for the purpose of teaching Tae Kwon Do. The applicant intends to occupy a 1,429 square foot tenant space in the Oswego Towne Square Shopping Center. The site is located at: 3 Monroe Parkway, Tax Lots 101 and 200 of Clackamas County Tax Map 21E 5AA and Tax Lot 6600 of Multnomah County Tax Map 1 S 1 E 32DD. Staff Coordinator is Elizabeth Jacob, Associate 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 present reported they were familiar with the site. Mr. Cushing asked if any person in attendance desired to challenge any Commissioner's right to hear the application. No one presented such a challenge. Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She said the site was in Oswego Town Center in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zone, which required the application to be reviewed as a conditional use permit. She recalled the Center had been initially approved in the early 1980s and revised in 1988, prior to actual construction, to allow multi use (office, service and retail) commercial. She advised it was an existing development and Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan issues, access, public services and lighting had been addressed at the time of the original approval. She said the proposed usage could be classified either as a school or amusement use, which were conditional uses in the NC Zone. She said the applicants proposed to use approximately 1,700 square foot of tenant space as a marshal arts academy for approximately 20 students. She said the proposed use fit the other uses in the complex and would not create any different impacts than any other retail use. She advised the applicants were required to show that onsite parking was adequate for their use. She advised that the applicant's use would require 16 parking spaces. She said the applicant had submitted a parking study of uses on the site (Exhibit 5) that showed 402 parking spaces were required and 475 spaces were available, resulting in an excess of 73 spaces for use by this proposed business. She said the application City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 12 Minutes of August 21, 2000 showed times of operation that were compatible with the other existing uses in the center, and there should be no excessive noise or other impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhood. She recommended approval of the application for up to 20 students. Applicant Tim Tuninga, 4110 SW 109th Avenue, Aloha, OR 97007, stated he represented BC Kim, the applicant. He explained that Oswego Town Center representatives had helped the applicant with the parking analysis and agreed with its conclusions. He said he personally participated in Tae Kwon Do classes conducted by Mr. Kim. He testified the school was a family oriented business and its students were not rowdy and their activities would enhance the center and the neighborhood. He clarified the school's hours of operation would be Monday through Friday between 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM (and potentially Saturday classes, depending upon demand). He also clarified that the applicant understood the number of students was to be limited. He indicated that classes were typically one hour in length, and competitions would be held in other locations, because the size of the school would not accommodate the typical number of contestants. He stated that students typically tested every three months in order to show increased skills. Opponents None. Neither for nor Against None. Rebuttal None. No one requested that the record be held open in order to submit written testimony or evidence. The applicant waived his right to additional time in which to submit a written argument. Mr. Cushing closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. Deliberation Mr. Powers moved for approval of LU 00-0061, subject to the conditions in the staff report. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Miller and Mr. Powers voting yes. Ms. Morales, Mr. Kiersey and Ms. Ostly were not present. There were no votes against. Mr. Cushing announced that the vote on the findings, conclusions and order was to be on September 5, 2000. The Commissioners took a five-minute break in the meeting and then reconvened. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 12 Minutes of August 21, 2000 LU 00-0070 [AP 00-121, an application by Richard Feinberg, for approval of a tree removal permit to remove one 12.9 inch Big Leaf Maple tree located in the front yard. The site is located at: 701 G Avenue, Tax Lot 20 of Tax Map 21E 3AC. Staff Coordinator is Sandy Ingalls, Planning Technician. 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. Powers and Mr. Miller reported they had visited the site and Mr. Cushing and Ms. Binkley reported they had not visited the site. Sandy Ingalls, Planning Technician, presented the staff report dated July 28, 2000. She related that the applicant was requesting a permit to remove a 12.9 -inch maple tree along his east property line. He had submitted a report by a certified arborist that concluded the tree should be removed because it was dying. The report had pointed out the tree was decayed and split and leaned sufficiently to crack the surrounding soil. Ms. Ingalls observed the tree was lopsided, and its foliage grew mainly one the side over utility wires and over a neighboring property belonging to Mr. and Ms. Randall. She related that the applicant and the Randalls had been permitted to remove 19 trees in the 1970s, and most of those trees had been located along their joint property line near the Randall's garage. She said the Randalls opposed the current application to remove the subject maple tree because they believed that damage to their garage that had been occurring since removal of the 19 trees would be exacerbated by the removal of the subject tree. Ms. Ingalls and Mr. Boone advised that the matter was not an appeal from a staff decision and the staff would be prepared to recommend action by the DRC after all of the evidence had been heard. Applicant Richard Feinberg, 701 G Avenue, Lake Oswego, 97034, testified that the tree was a hazard. He noted that its foliage grew on only one side, it leaned toward the Randall's child's bedroom, and it featured a large crack in the trunk that was widening over time (Exhibit 6). He pointed out that Morton Tree and Landscape Maintenance had recommended the tree was a hazard and should be removed. He explained that although the Randalls believed that the earlier removal of trees had created erosion and cracked their garage floor, there was no relationship between the cracking and the cutting of trees. He recalled seeing cracks in the floor before any trees had been removed. He said a concrete contractor had examined the garage floor and had determined that since the foundation was level and the cracks were in the center, they were caused by settling of the building. He explained that the garage had been constructed atop landfill. He noted the City's Plans Examiner had also concluded the cracking was due to ground settling and not soil erosion. He wondered why the Randalls were worried about the impact of removal of the tree when they had removed four other trees within six feet of the subject tree since the 1997 removal of trees. He said he had observed no indication of soil erosion on his property since removal of the trees in 1997. He contended that the subject City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 12 Minutes of August 21, 2000 tree was an immediate hazard to personal safety and property, and he requested immediate approval to cut down the tree. Mr. Feinberg confirmed for Mr. Cushing that the photograph on page 16 of the staff report had been taken from his driveway and he explained that he intended to remove the telephone and power lines there to accommodate tree removal. Mr. Cushing observed that the tree was in the center of a bed of perennial plants. Nina Johnstone, 701 G Avenue, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated she was co- owner of the property at 701 G Avenue. She requested that the applicant be allowed a permit to remove the subject maple tree because it met the City's definition of a hazard tree: it was cracked, split, leaning and physically damaged. She said the tree's condition and location presented a danger to the Randall's house and a certified arborist had determined the danger could not be reasonably alleviated by treatment or pruning of the tree. She recalled the Randalls had participated in the 1997 application to remove trees on their common property line. She clarified that after those trees were cut the applicant had not had two of the large stumps ground out, and they were currently covered with ivy. She said other stumps had been ground to only one foot down and still featured extensive root systems. She said the applicants had replanted the area near the Randall property, and had planted some evergreens, as well as the perennials. She stated that although the Randalls contended they were not worried about whether the tree was safe and they intended to rely on insurance to take care of any future damage, the applicants were concerned about potential property damage and the safety of people who could be hurt or killed if the tree fell. She requested the applicant be allowed to cut down the tree. Opponents Jerry A. Randall, 695 G Avenue, Lake Oswego, 97034, testified that during a discussion that day with Jim Byerly, the City's Plans Examiner, they had determined the foundation and wall of the garage could be repaired. He presented photographs of the area. He explained he was concerned that removal of the tree would result in further damage to his garage. He also explained that he had previously agreed to removal of trees because they were on the neighbor's property and he believed the owners should be able to do anything they wanted on their land. He recalled that at that time he had expressed his concern that the action might cause erosion or settling on the west side of his garage. He explained that he had constructed the garage 17 years ago, and he had first observed cracking of the slab and foundation walls after the trees had been removed. He added that the cracks had widened since he first observed them. He pointed to the locations of two foundation wall cracks. He noted that repair of the cracking would be expensive and he desired to protect his investment and prevent any further damage to the foundation. Mr. Randall clarified for the Commissioners that the subject tree was approximately 20- 25 feet from the garage, and its branches were close to the surface and reached close to the garage. He clarified for Mr. Cushing that vehicles in the photographs belonged to Mr. Feinberg. He pointed out the area where he was concerned about erosion problems and City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 9 of 12 Minutes of August 21, 2000 he explained that he was worried that as the roots of removed trees decayed the soil would move. He linked his problems with his garage to the previous tree removal. Mr. Miller asked about the condition of the structure's footings. Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners to determine whether or not the tree was a hazard. He explained that if it was deemed to be a hazard and the property owner was allowed to remove it, the owner had a civil obligation to address issues such as erosion control. Mr. Randall opined that if the foundation walls were cracked, the footings of the structure must also be cracked. Mr. Cushing asked what Mr. Randall believed should be done if the tree simply fell over and did no damage, and if Mr. Randall believed the tree might stand another 15 years. Mr. Randall recalled that a couple of trees on his property that had been deemed to be hazardous 15 years ago were still standing. He also clarified that although Mr. Feinberg contended that the Randalls had removed six trees prior to 1997 (prior to the date the Feinbergs had moved to the area), the Randalls had only cut down one dead 6 -inch tree. Joanne Randall, 695 G Avenue, Lake Oswego, 97034, testified that the applicant had proceeded with the application in spite of the fact the Randalls had requested that he wait for them to consult a soils engineer. She said the Randalls had been residents of the area for 22 years. She said the applicant had only resided in the area for three months when he had requested that trees be removed. She acknowledged that her 1935 home may have been constructed over an area of fill; however, the area of fill was most likely not under the garage. She said the Randalls had not experienced any problems with the garage structure until the trees had been removed. She explained she had supported the neighbor's previous tree removal application because she believed they had a right to do anything on their own property that would not adversely impact some else's property. She explained the Randalls would not have supported the application if they had known the problems that were to arise. She related that she had not been at home the day of the tree cutting, and she had discovered that more trees had been removed than had been identified on the permit, and the area had been entirely cleared of trees, laurel and shrubs. She noted that although the applicant's tree consultant had concluded the subject tree was a potential hazard, he could not determine how soon it would fall. She recalled other trees in her front yard had been deemed to be hazardous 15 years ago, but were still standing. She said that a tree on another neighbor's property (near the Randall's property line) had been dead for at least seven years and the Randalls would let that owner decide if and when to remove it. She related that her son did not desire to see the subject tree removed. She indicated that the Randall property and house had suffered from a lack of shade after the previous removal of trees. She acknowledged that she did not want the tree to fall on her property; however, she did not believe it was as dangerous as the applicant contended. She related that concrete professionals had examined the structure several weeks prior and had observed settling and she had also observed protruding screws in the garage. She said the Randalls had noticed an acceleration of movement of elements of the garage after the tree stumps had been ground. She clarified that her letter should have referred to "settlement," or "movement," rather than "erosion." City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 10 of 12 Minutes of August 21, 2000 None. Neither for nor Against Rebuttal Mr. Feinberg pointed out the staff findings questioned whether the uplifting of the Randall's garage floor and cracks in the wall were caused by the removal of trees in 1997 (see page 3 of the staff report). He noted that the Plans Examiner had indicated that the type of cracks he observed in the garage floor were indicative of settling, and not the type of cracks that would result from tree removal. Mr. Feinberg added that his construction consultant supported that conclusion. He contended that there was no relationship between the cracks and the previous tree removal. He said the subject tree was a danger, since it was cracked on one side, and the crack had been widening as the tree leaned further to one side (see Exhibit 6). He worried the tree could fall over in a windstorm and could fall into the Randall's child's bedroom. He stated that he could provide photographs showing that the Randall's had previously removed four small trees. He indicated that he was concerned about safety and liability issues. Mr. Cushing clarified that the issue to be determined was whether the subject tree was a hazard. He closed the public hearing. Mr. Boone related that because staff had heard all of the evidence, they were ready to provide their recommendation to the Commission. Staff Recommendation Sandy Ingalls, stated that the staff recommended approval of the tree -cutting permit. Mr. Cushing asked for clarification of the staff recommendation that the removed tree was to be replaced by only one 2 -inch tree. Mr. Pishvaie and Mr. Boone explained that the City had historically required mitigation to be one-for-one; however, the City Council had suspended the mitigation requirement for hazard and dead trees when it adopted changed to the Tree Code on August 1, 2000. They noted that the application had been submitted prior to that change in Code, and it was not clear whether the ordinance change was to be applied to pending applications. Mr. Boone advised it would be up to the applicant to decide whether or not to appeal the mitigation requirement. Deliberations Mr. Powers observed the extensive crack in the bark showed the tree was under a great deal of stress, and its leaning indicated that it had grown up within a grove of trees. He also observed that the surrounding clay soils would crack as a result of lack of moisture. He advised that the subject tree's major roots would be within 10 to 15 feet of its trunk and the tree was distant enough from the garage that its roots would not be the source of erosion or subsoil problems there. He also advised that the roots from removed trees would completely decay over 20-25 years. He recommended that the applicant be allowed to remove the tree and be required to mitigate that action by planting two or three City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 1 of 12 Minutes of August 21, 2000 new trees. He said he had seen no erosion on the bank where it had been contended that previous trees had been removed and he noted that the perennial plantings in that area were helping to hold the soil. He observed soil movement in the general area had also cracked the applicant's driveway. Mr. Boone advised that the Code's mitigation requirement was that an applicant was to plant either a minimum 2 -inch caliper deciduous tree or a 6- to 8 -foot tall evergreen tree for each tree removed. Mr. Powers moved for approval of LU 00-0070, subject to the conditions in the staff report, and an additional condition requiring mitigation by the replanting of one tree. Mr. Miller seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Binkley, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Powers, and Mr. Miller voting yes. Ms. Morales, Mr. Kiersey and Ms. Ostly were not present. There were no votes against. Mr. Cushing announced the vote on the findings, conclusions and order was to be held on October 6, 2000. Mr. Boone advised that any future disagreement between the parties regarding an issue of damage caused by removal of the tree was to be resolved in a civil procedure. VI. GENERAL PLANNING DRC Meeting location change Mr. Pishvaie announced the Commission would hold its second meeting in September at Marylhurst University. PC/Council Joint work session Mr. Pishvaie related that the Planning Commission and City Council were to hold a joint work session on September 5, 2000. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Development Review Commission, Chair Morales adjourned the meeting at 9:59 PM. Respectfully submitted. Janice Bader Senior Secretary 1:\dre\minutes\08-21-OO.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 12 of 12 Minutes of August 21, 2000