HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2008-09-30 (02)-
City of Lake Oswego
Development Review Commission Minutes
September 30, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bill Tierney called the Development Review Commission meeting of September 30, 2008 to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 “A”
Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chair Bill Tierney, Alby Heredia, Krytsyna Stadnik and Don Richards. Staff present: Hamid Pishvaie, Assistant Planning Director; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney;
and Janice Reynolds, Administrative Support.
MINUTES (None)
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER (None)
PUBLIC HEARING
AP 08-02 [TC 08-0349], an appeal of the Community Development Director’s denial of applicant Jeff Parker’s request for removal of five trees to construct a driveway across the front
of the property. Location of property: 1600 North Shore Road (Tax Lot of Tax Map 21E 09AA 02000).
Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contact (including site visits), bias
and conflict of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant. Mr. Heredia reported that he had visited
the site. Chair Tierney reported that the applicant’s arborist had contributed funds to his mayoral campaign and served on his campaign committee. He reported that he and other candidates
had attended a meeting of the Country Club/North Shore Neighborhood Association. Each of the Commissioners present declared their business or occupation as follows: Heredia (real
estate broker); Richards (arborist and landscape architect); Stadnik (civil engineer) and Chair Tierney (utilities inspection business). When asked, Chair Tierney clarified that he
had not discussed the application with the project arborist. Isaac Quintero and Mark Holady, officers of the Country Club/North Shore Neighborhood Association, confirmed that no lobbying
had been allowed at their association meeting. No one present challenged any Commissioner’s right to hear the application.
Applicant
Terrence Flanagan, Teragan and Associates, 3145 Westview Cir, the project arborist, represented the applicant. He requested that the DRC continue the hearing in order to allow the applicant
to modify the application from a request to remove five trees to a request to remove one tree (Tree #14) if it could not be saved. He said they needed more time to examine how they
could do that.
Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners this was a de novo hearing to be conducted like a new application. New evidence could be introduced, and staff could offer a new recommendation.
He noted Tree #14 was one of the five trees the applicant had previously applied to remove.
Chair Tierney explained his concern about the process being used. He said that staff had the authority and should review the request to remove one tree, and it should be resubmitted
as a new application that required notice and time for public comment. Staff anticipated the modification would be a reduction in what the application had asked for and addressed,
and what the public and staff had already analyzed. They said the DRC could remand it to staff, but if the Commissioners continued the hearing they could allow the public to provide
more evidence and testimony. They advised that the applicant, or some other interested party, had the right to appeal the staff decision. They recalled the applicant had explained
they hoped they would not have to remove any trees, and if that was the case, the applicant could decide to withdraw the application. Otherwise, the DRC could condition approval on
an effort to save the tree. Commissioner Richards said it made sense to continue the hearing and allow the applicant more time to come to a conclusion about whether they could save
the tree.
Commissioner Richards moved to continue AP 08-02 [TC 08-0349] to October 6, 2008. Ms. Stadnik seconded the motion and it failed in a 2:2 vote. Mr. Heredia and Chair Tierney voted against.
Chair Tierney suggested the applicant could either withdraw the appeal and submit a new application, or opt to go forward with the hearing. Mr. Flanagan explained they had already hand
dug around the tree to discover where its roots were in relation to the driveway. One root might be impacted, so they needed additional time to determine if that root could be cut,
or if they could redesign the driveway with an appropriate grade that met the 20% code requirement. They wanted the permit in case they could not save the tree. Chair Tierney encouraged
the applicant to submit a new application and restart the application review process. This process would provide 14 days for public to comment before the staff report was issued
. He noted the applicant would have an opportunity to appeal that decision, too. Mr. Boone advised that was more than the code required of an applicant, and Mr. Pishvaie observed
that someone could raise a technical issue on the last day that would further prolong that process and require more time for staff to analyze it.
Chair Tierney asked if Commissioners wanted to change their vote. Commissioner Richards said he had read the written testimony and believed the positions of parties who
had submitted it would not change even if the applicant reduced the request to one tree. Because of that he did not think it made sense to restart the application process to receive
the same testimony. He said it was more expedient to allow the applicant to modify the application, ask staff to review it, invite public testimony, and make a DRC decision at the
October 6th hearing. Ms. Stadnik anticipated that someone would appeal the decision and prolong the process, even if the applicant started over. Mr. Heredia agreed, but he wanted
to move the hearing date out to October 20th. When Ms. Stadnik asked, Mr. Flanagan said the applicant could cover the exposed roots to keep them moist. Because the DRC would not have
a quorum on October 20th, the Commissioners agreed to schedule a special meeting on October 13, 2008. They directed staff to find a meeting location and post the notice on the City
website.
Mr. Richards moved to continue AP 08-02 [TC 08-0349] to October 13, 2008. Ms. Stadnik seconded the motion and it passed 3:1. Chair Tierney voted against.
Audience members wanted clarification regarding whether the applicant was to be held to an application to remove one tree – specifically, Tree #14 – if they could not save it, or if
they would be allowed to ask for removal of more trees at the next hearing. Chair Tierney explained the Commissioners had voted to allow the applicant to return on October 13th with
a modified request to remove one tree, and the applicant seemed to be considering asking for a permit to remove Tree #14. Mr. Boone said he had heard the applicant asking for a continuance
to modify the application to remove Tree #14 and not the other trees. Mr. Flanagan confirmed that.
GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS
An audience member questioned the DRC action to continue AP 08-02 when the community had weighed in on the matter years ago when the applicant had applied for and been denied the exact
development permit he asked for. He suggested the applicant wanted to “trick” the community. When asked, staff said they would post a sign on the site showing the date and location
of the continued hearing and invite public comment. They also clarified that the modified application would be made available to the Commissioners and the public as soon as the City
received it, and that the staff report would be emailed to the Commissioners and made available to the public before the hearing.
ADJOURNMENT
There being not further business Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:54 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Janice Reynolds
Administrative Support III
L\drc\minutes\September 30, 2008.doc