HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item - 2011-08-01 i
TO: Development Review Commission
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010 FROM: Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner
DATE: July 28, 2011
ItA
SUBJECT: LU 11-0009
ack and
On July 11, 2011, an appeal was filed against LU 11-0009, a request for three "single-lot" partitions to
legalize three illegally created lots; consolidation of these lots with abutting existing legal lots; the
creation of a total of three flag lots; and, removal of four trees for site development purposes. A public
hearing was held on July 18, 2011. Many people testified in apposition to the project and a request
was made to leave the record open for additional written testimony. The record was closed on July 25,
2011 for new evidence/testimony, and then closed on July 27, 2011 for rebuttal to any new
evidence/testimony submitted. The memo serves to address several questions raised by the DRC
members and also addresses the new and rebuttal evidence/testimony submitted into the record by the
applicant and opponents.
Summary of Issues
Please see the June 24 Staff Report, and July 6 and July 15 Staff Memos regarding previous
opposition to this application.
Several issues were raised that require additional review:
® Vision Clearance standards (LOC 50.21) versus On-Site Circulation standards (LOC 50.58) for
access lane location and sight distance;
® Required fire turnarounds per On-Site Circulation standards (LOC 50.58);
® Preservation of 50-inch Oregon White oak;
® Drainage;
• Provision of sewer for properties north of the project site;
® Screening and buffering for flag lots;
• Decommissioning of oil tanks on the site;
® Size of proposed parcels; and
• Proposed flag lot setbacks
These issues will be addressed in detail, below.
Staff Analysis of the New Information/Issues
Vision Clearance vs. Si_ ht Distance for the Access Lane
Questions were raised during the public hearing regarding proper application of sight distance
standards for the proposed access lane (Exhibit G207). There are two relevant standards: Vision
Clearance standards (LOC 50.20) and On-Site Circulation standard (LOC 50.58).
LU 11-0009
Page 1
• LOC 50.58.015(1)(d) states that driveway approaches shall be located and designed so that
drivers entering or existing the'driveway can see approaching traffic for a sufficient distance to
make a safe entrance and exit, and that American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards shall be used in determining compliance with this
standard.
• Vision Clearance standards per LOC 50.21.005(2)(b)(iv), which requires a vision clearance
distance of 10 feet for the intersection of a driveway and street.
When reviewing the application, staff analyzed compliance with just the Vision Clearance standards.
The applicant (Exhibit Fl) determined that there was actually sufficient vision clearance for 60 feet
along Wembley Park Road, which would comply for the standards of an uncontrolled intersection of two
streets per LOC 50.21.005.
When previously processing minor partitions, staff has not applied LOC 50.58 to determine the location
and sight distance necessary for safe ingress and egress of shared driveways and/or access lanes onto
streets. Instead, staff has followed the Vision Clearance standards. Staff finds that LOC
50.58.015(1)(d) results in a more restrictive, albeit more subjective, standard. Staff will now use the
more restrictive standard as outlined in LOC 50.58,
The applicant has provided additional materials addressing sight distance (Exhibits El 5, F1 1, and F12).
As determined by Lancaster Engineering, compliance with AASHTO standards would require a
minimum of 155 feet looking west onto Wembley Park Road and 165 feet looking east on Wembley
Park Road. The Traffic Engineer has reviewed the applicant's sight distance plan and report, and finds
that although the AASHTO standards were not referenced or applied correctly, the standard can be
met.
One of the traffic hazards on a neighborhood collector like Wembley Park Road is traffic backing onto
the roadway from driveways. The design and layout of the access lane will allow traffic to exit the site
in a forward motion, without having to back onto Wembley Park Road. As noted above, the applicant's
traffic engineer used the AASHTO stopping sight distance standards which can only be used for traffic
approaching the site access lane and addresses stopping needs to avoid a collision (Exhibit F12). The
correct AASHTO standards to use are the intersection/corner sight distance standards. Staff finds that
the intersection/corner sight distance to the east is impaired by existing vegetation in the ROW. In
order to get the maximum attainable sight distance, the applicant should remove any remaining
vegetation in the ROW in front of Tax Lot 4100 (the tax lot abutting the site to the east). This vegetation
consists of bamboo and holly. With the vegetation clearing, the maximum intersection/corner sight
distance is achieved in either direction.
Staff recommends the following condition of approval to address this issue:
C. Prior to the Issuance of anv Grading or Buildinq Permit on anv Parcel, the
Applicant/Owner Shall:
11, Remove or reduce in height to 30 inches a//obstructions in the sight distance
areas of the intersection of the access lane and Wembley Park Road as noted in
Exhibit F12, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, If required to remove trees
in the public right of way, the applicant shall obtain a Type // tree removal permit.
LU 11-0009
Page 2
Fire Turnarounds
LOC 50.58.015(5) states that dead-end driveways in excess of 150 feet in length shall provide a fire
department turnaround in compliance with the City's "Standard Details". As initially discussed in the
June 24 Staff Report (Exhibit D1), the Fire Marshal waived this requirement with the condition that the
applicant provide an alternate form of fire suppression methods (Exhibit F1 0). This waiver has been
' � '
used in prior applications. The applicant stated that afire ire sprinkler rinkler system would be installed in all
three dwellings in compliance with the Fire Marshal's memo (Exhibits F1 and F10). Staff has since
determined that the current code does not allow the waiver of the turnaround requirement. A code
amendment to allow an alternate method of fire suppression is in the process of being reviewed by the
City Council, with deliberation on the amendment expected in late September 2011. In the meantime,
the applicant has modified the site plan to show a fire turnaround in compliance with the City's
"Standard Details" (Exhibit E14).
Staff recommends the following conditions of approval to address this issue:
A. Prior to Approval of the Final Plat, the Applicant/Owner Shall:
6. Submit a "Notice of Development Restriction" containing the restrictions, below,
for review and approval of staff...
f. The Building Official may allow an alternative to the minimum
requirements of the One-and Two-Family Dwelling Specialty Code as
authorized by ORS 455.61,0, which may include, but is not limited to,
installation of an automatic fire'Sprinkler system, because the City of Lake
Oswego has determined; he fire apparatus means of approach to Parcels
1, 2, and 3 or the fire fighting water supply serving the parcel may not
meet the.local City standards adopted in accordance with the applicable
Fire Code and state building code requirements. When new construction
is proposed an any of the three parcels, the owner(s) or owner(s)'
representative shall offer an approved alternate method for fire
suppression,,such as an NFPA 13-D residential fire sprinkler system, to
the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal and Building Official.
C. Prior to the Issuance of anv Grading or Buildina Permit on any Parcel, the
Applicant/Owner Shall:
3. Submit revised site, utility, and grading plans for construction of the shared
access lane and utility lines that contain the following modifications:
c. Show the required fire turnaround as shown on Exhibit E14 unless an
alternate method of fire suppression is allowed per LOC 50,58,015(5). If
a fire turnaround is included, the plans shall include a note that details
"No Parking"signs in this area, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
LU 11-0009
Page 3
D. Prior to the Final Building Inspection or Occupancy of any Dwelling on any Parcel,
the Applicant/Owner Shall:
3. Construct an approved fire turnaround as shown on Exhibit E14 unless an
alternate method of fire suppression is allowed per LOC 50,58.015(5), as it
may be amended. If the fire turnaround is constructed, the area shall be
posted "No Parking", to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
Preservation of 50-inch Oren on White oak
An independent arborist report has been submitted that critiques the conditions of approval regarding
preservation of the 50-inch Oregon White oak on Parcel,2 (Exhibit G208). The report states that
development should be outside the tree protection zone of the oak with an approximate 25-foot radius
"setback" from the trunk of the tree, p6'rformance of a root crown excavation, no cutting of large roots
or pruning of branches, and calls for the presence of a certified arborist on-site if working within the
tree's dripline (Exhibit G208).
The current conditions of approval require an arborist report detailing tree preservation
recommendations prior to issuance of a building permit for Parcel 2; all excavation by hand within the
tree's dripline under a certified arborist's supervision; special foundation design including pier
foundations and bridging to preserve roots; and, terminating the access lane construction at the
dripline of the oak tree (Exhibit D1).
The applicant has submitted an arborist report in rebuttal (Exhibit F1 3) that details tree protection
measures both during the construction of the shared access lane and construction of the single family
dwelling.
Staff does not recommend any new conditions of approval or modifications of existing conditions
based on the new evidence submitted.
Drainage
Numerous opponents provided written and oral testimony regarding existing drainage issues in this
neighborhood (Exhibits G200-G206). LOC 50.41 outlines required drainage standards for a minor
partition. The applicant shall manage stormwater runoff quantity and quality, not alter drainage
patterns of other properties, and provide designs of stormwater management for the City Engineer's
review. Staff reviewed the applicant's stormwater management plan and associated stormwater
reports and recommended conditions of approval to revise and refine the stormwater plan to ensure
that all the above standards are met (Exhibit D1).
The project site slopes in a southwesterly direction except for a small portion of the northwest corner
of Parcel 2 (Exhibit E3). No new evidence regarding drainage patterns was submitted that
demonstrated how the applicant's stormwater plan was insufficient to meet the above standards, as
conditioned. The written and oral testimony detailed an existing drainage issue within the
neighborhood due to poor infiltration but staff notes that the proposed development will not
exacerbate this issue for any abutting uphill properties. The applicant is obliged by code to manage
drainage concerns created by development and ensure that properties downhill from the project site
are unaffected by alterations in drainage patterns.
Staff finds that with the current conditions of approval to ensure that all stormwater runoff is managed
on-site, no new conditions of approval are necessary.
LU 11-0009
Page 4
Provision of Sewer Service for Properties to the North
The applicant proposes to install three private sewer laterals in the private access and utility
easement rather than install an extension of a public sewer line in the access lane. The private sewer
laterals were required as the City Engineer declined to maintain a public sewer line in a private
easement. A question was raised at the public hearing regarding provision of sewer for properties
north of the subject site. Staff determined that all properties directly north of the site can access
sewer from the existing main line in Fir Ridge Road. Approval of the proposed private sewer laterals
will not negatively impact future development of these lots.
No further recommendations of approval are necessary.
Screening and Bufferin for Flag Lots
Mr. Schimmelbusch submitted three photos from his and his neighbors' backyards to illustrate the
sight lines into the subject site (Exhibit G209). The photos also show the height of the existing
screening and buffering landscaping already installed by the applicant. This letter corresponds with
testimony from opponents regarding the negative privacy impacts if the proposal is approved
(Exhibits G200-G206). Staff notes that the code requires the installation of a deciduous or evergreen
hedge at least four feet in height at planting which should grow to six feet in height within two years
[(LOC 50.20.035(3)]. The landscaping materials already in place at the perimeter of both flag lots
exceed this minimum height and will likely grow much taller. The materials proposed to be installed
after approval will meet the above standards.
Staff does not recommend any additional conditions of approval regarding the Flag Lot Screening and
Buffering standards.
Decommissioninq of Oil Tank at 3103 Wemblev Park Road
Mr. Ellison submitted a letter requesting that staff research the history of demolition of the dwelling at
3103 Wembley Park Road and the possibility that an oil tank had to be decommissioned (Exhibit G1).
Staff notes that decommissioning of oil tanks is regulated by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ), not the City. The City has no records of installation, maintenance, or
decommissioning of oil tanks. The applicant has responded to this request for information and states
that removal of an oil tank at 3103 Wembley Park Road was properly permitted and disposal
procedures were followed during the demolition process (Exhibit F11).
As this issue is not relevant to applicable City standards, no further analysis is necessary by staff,
Size of Proposed Parcels and Neighborhood Character
The DRC received oral testimony that the size of the proposed parcels is not in keeping with
neighborhood character. Staff notes t hat there is no,adopted neighborhood plan for Uplands
Neighborhood that supersedes the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet in the R-10 zone. All three
parcels exceed the required minimum lot size. In addition, the applicant has provided an analysis of
the lot size patterns in the immediate vicinity of the subject site (Exhibit E13). As noted in the
applicant's supplemental memo, there are a variety of lot sizes that exist in the neighborhood with
some smaller and larger than the proposed parcels (Exhibit F11).
LOC 50.79.040(1)(c) permits conditions of approval when "reasonably related to eliminating or
mitigating a negative impact ... on the built environment of the neighborhood which is created or
contributed to by the proposed development." Development consistent with minimum lot size
requirements of the underlying zone does not result in an impact to the neighborhood that requires
elimination or mitigation.
LU 11-0009
Page 5
As the proposal meets the minimum lot size of the R-10 zone, staff does not recommend any new
conditions of approval to address this concern.
Proposed Flaq Lot Setbacks
Mr. Schimmelbusch submitted a letter in opposition to the proposed flag lot setbacks and requested
that the DRC review the plan he attached to his letter that showed existing setbacks on properties
abutting the flag lots (Exhibit G210). Staff notes that the standard requires the applicant to provide
setbacks "...similar to the yard dimensions of primary structures on abutting properties... (emphasis
added)" per L®C 50.20.030(5). Due to the large yard dimensions abutting the subject site, it would
be impossible to match existing setbacks (Exhibit E12). The standard also requires that the sum of
the side and rear yards be greater than or equal to a total of 50 feet with no yard to be less than ten
feet per LQC 50.20.030(5)(c). Staff finds that the applicant's proposed setbacks for Parcel 3 equal a
sum of 50 feet but that the distribution of those setbacks could be better divided to the north and east
to be more equitable.
Staff recommends that the north side and east rear yard setbacks on Parcel 3 should be both 20
feet. In addition, staff notes that the rear yard setback for Parcel 2 was modified in the staff report
but that the table in the conditions of approval did not reflect staff's recommended adjusted rear yard
setback.
The setback table required in Condition A(6)(c)(i) should be modified as follows:
Yard Setbacks for Parcels 1, 2, and
Front/garage Sides Rear Sum of Sides and
Rear Yards
10 feet(north)
Parcel 1 10 feet/20 feet(east) 20 feet(west) 50 feet
20 feet(south)
10 feet(north) 10 feet(near west) 50 feet
Parcel 2 10 feet/20 feet(east) 10 feet(south) 100 feet(far west)
Parcel 3 10 feet/20 feet(west) 20 feet(north) 20 feet(east) 50 feet
10 feet(south)
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the DRC approve LU 11-0009, subject to conditions of approval as listed in the
June 24 Staff Report and as modified in this memo.
Additional Exhibits: New Evidence Submitted by Juty 25, 2t}11
Exhibit E13 Neighborhood Lot Size Plan
Exhibit E14 Site Plan with Required Fire Turnaround
Exhibit E15 Modified Sight Distance Plan
Exhibit F11 Applicant's Supplemental Memo, dated July 25, 2011
Exhibit F12 Sight Distance Report, prepared by Lancaster Engineering, dated July 25, 2011
Exhibit F13 Applicant's Rebuttal Arborist Report, dated July 27, 2011
Exhibit F14 Applicant's Final Written Testimony, dated July 28, 2011
Exhibit F15 Applicant's Public Hearing Presentation, dated July 18, 2011
Exhibit G1 Letter Neither for nor Against, Mitch Ellison, dated July 22, 2011
LU 11-0009
Page 6
ExhibitG208 Letter iO Opposition, James ZUpanCjC. dated July 18' 2O11
Exhibit G207 ErD8i| in {]ppVSdinO. j@rOeS ZUpGncic. dated JU|V 21' 2011
EXhibitG2D8 EDlgi| in Opposition, Ehc8chiOln08|bW6ch. dated July 25' 2011
Exhibit G288 EOU8i| in Opposition, Eric SchiD1[ne|busch' dated July 25' 2011
Exhibit G21O Email in Opposition, Eric SchiOOnOe(hU8ch' dated July 25. 2011
Additional Exhibits:
�
E�\� G211 Email in ' � b� H'�' dG� JU� �' �11
EXh|bitG212 Email in Opposition, VV. Larry Hope, dated July 26' 20112
EXhibitG213 AppeU8Ut's Public Hearing PFe8eOt@tion, dated July 18. 2O11
�
1
'
. /
`
,
"
' -
'
' Y
,
� While dated July 22. 2011. yWc Hope's letter was received as an e-mail attachment on July 26. 2011. Staff
finds that the content of this letter does not respond to or rebut any new evidence submitted into the record
prior toit being closed at5p.m. on July 25. 2O11, Therefore, staff will recommend to the DRC that the
contents of this letter should not be considered anpart ofthe record tobe reviewed by the DRC.
� Ibid. � ,^
LU11-UUO8
` '' ^ Page
t p �
M
o
m
o
N
h w o
N I� �-
� N �
IT
4
O aF mi
RN
cc
N
� O
N N n
N �
N N N
N N O
N
� � N I
M M
r � �
N h o6co
N
N N
O
O f ! N
_ N
� In
Q
W LaJ
F
¢
O �
Z�v
O O
O
EXHIBIT -13
LU 11-0009
W �8
W w $
>oi
4
9
i
X
y4
MU
✓ s I V € � ,s e s � ¢'� t\ \ as
I
ss, iz,wm 'WO. 0000s
,ao�fs _
- Q ------------------ -- '- - - -
-
OCI
TZ
GG�Y
a
I u �
T 8 ,
A � �
x
5
D
I �
Z
� e
~ i '* s rl�ggs U.8388SB�d {Q,'Yo /V'C
U. EXHIBIT E-14
LU 11-0009
8
g^ �m
f ^
8 \�
a
J�
RZ
2
t\ a
n
CD
—-—-—- --------
�N'C1 SS3�7
rd
" \' I
a =
F- W
mTja
� 31
q. 'a 9sSoAl8�8��B�S
EXHIBIT -15
LU 11-0009
ENGINEERING PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
FORESTRY A SURVEYING
13910 S.W.Galbreath Dr., Suite 100 AKS Group of Companies:
Sherwood,Oregon 97140 SHERWOOD,OREGON
Phone: (503)925-8799 REDMOND, OREGON
E'1sIC�dN£' '�tN &FORESTRYFax: (503)92.5-8969 VANCOUVER,WASHINGTON
www.aks-eng.com
RECEIVED
July 25, 2011
Johanna I-Iastay, Associate Planner
City of Lake Oswego O°
Planning and Building Services Community Icy o1 k wego
380 A Avenue(PO Box 369) Development Dept.
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
E> Wembley Park Road Partition-LU 11-0009 (additional materials and information)
Ms. Hastay:
The following information and materials are being submitted prior to closure of the open record
for City Casefile LU 11-0009. Thank you for your consideration of this information.
Emergency Access
Turnaround Exhibit (AIDS Engineering& Forestry, LLQ
This drawing was prepared and stamped by a registered professional civil engineer and satisfies
the turnaround requirement found in LOC 50.58.015.5.a. As noted previously, the City Fire
Marshal has reviewed and approved the project design, even without this additional measure.
Sight Distance
® Sight Distance Analysis (Lancaster Engineering)
This analysis was prepared and stamped by a registered professional traffic/civil engineer and
includes a discussion of the appropriate application of AASHTO sight distance standards and
verifies that the driveway access complies with all recommended AASHTO sight distance
standards.
® Intersection Sight Distance Exhibit (AIDS Engineering & Forestry, LLC)
This drawing was prepared and stamped by a registered professional civil engineer and shows
that 280 feet of intersection sight distance is available with removal of vegetation located in the
right-of-way. This distance exceeds the AASHTO recommendations for intersection sight
distance referenced in Lancaster Engineering's sight distance analysis.
Wembley Parlc Road Partition LU 1.1-0009 July 25,2011
Open Record Materials
=EXHIBIT
Tax Lots 4300 and 4400—Exisgg&Legal Lots
At the hearing, neighbor testimony was provided describing how future homes permitted by this
application would impact neighbor privacy. This is contrary to the fact that the current
application includes privacy measures above and beyond those required if the current application
was not submitted and.the lots were built on"as-is". As confirmed in the City Attorney's
11/5/2010 memo (in the record as Exhibit F-8), Tax Lots 4300 and 4400 are existing legal lots
that that can be built on"as-is". Absent the current application, new homes built on Tax Lots
4300 and 4400 "as-is" would be subject to different, and far less restrictive standards than those
approved with the current application. For example:
® Building permits would be issued for Tax Lots 4300 and 4400"as-is"without neighborhood
meetings, public notice, opportunity to comment, etc.
* The minimum side yard setback requirement for Tax Lots 4300 and 4400"as-is" is 10 feet.
This is 5 feet closer to the eastern property line of Tax Lot 4300 than in the current
application.
® The maximum height requirement for Tax Lots 4300 and 4400 "as-is" is 34 feet. This is
over seven (7) feet taller than in the current application.
® There are no screening and buffering requirements for Tax Lots 4300 and 4400 "to be built
on as-is". This is in contrast to the six (6) foot wide perimeter landscape buffer and barrier
fencing included in the current application.
Surrounding Area Lot Sizes
The Clackamas County Assessor's Tax Map showing the surrounding area is included in the
original application materials. A map showing the approximate areas for the surrounding
properties is included with this submittal. These maps illustrate that a variety of lot sizes exist in
this neighborhood, some larger, some smaller, and many of similar sizes to those included in the
proposed application.
Off Site Oil Tank
Recent testimony was provided regarding an oil tank on an adjacent off-site property(Tax Lot
4500). Proper permits were obtained and procedures followed for removal and disposal of the
oil tank as part of the demolition of that house. Home demolition/construction on that property
is not part of or relevant to this application.
Thank you again for your consideration of this information.
Sincerely,
AKS Engineering& Forestry,LLC
C rriosGoodCell, Planner
Wembley Park Road Partition LU 11-0009 July 25,2011
Open Record Materials Page 2 of 2
RECEIVED
it I 1 1 1117,"1-1 1- 21 1, ?.0 11
City of Lake Oswego
Community Development
July 25,2011
LANCASTER
ENGINEERING
Johanna Hastay,Associate Planner 321 SW 4th Ave.,Suite 400
City of Lake Oswego Planning&Building Services Portland,OR 97204
380 A Avenue phone:503.248.0313
Lake Oswego,OR 97034 fax:503,248.9251
lancasterengineering.com
RE: Wembley Park Road Partition
Sight Distance Analysis
Dear Ms. Hastay:
We have completed an analysis of sight distance at the shared access point to Wembley Park
Road for the subject partition in Lake Oswego. This letter provides a summary of our findings and
recommendations.
Wembley Park Road
Wembley Park Road is classified by the City of Lake Oswego as a neighborhood collector
and has a posted speed of 25 mph. Surrounding uses are residential,with numerous direct driveway
accesses. Many of the driveways are configured such that drivers must back out of the driveway
onto Wembley Park Road,resulting in operation much like a local residential street. On streets of
this nature, travel.speeds are slow and drivers have a general expectation that there may be a need to
slow or stop for other activities such as pedestrian or bike traffic, or other drivers maneuvering into
or out of driveways and intersections.
The shared access to Wembley Park Road will serve the three lots in the partition that do not
have direct street frontage. With ample room for passenger vehicles to turn around on-site,trips
exiting the three lots wilt be able to enter Wembley Park Road in a forward fashion,not needing to
back into the street.
Sight Distance
Because Wembley Park Road operates much like a local.street,there are a number of
considerations when deciding the appropriate use of sight distance at the site's access. Commonly,
intersection sight distance standards are applied to driveways and intersections. This is an
operational standard,which provides adequate visibility for a driver entering the major street from a
side street of intersection,to see oncoming traffic with enough distance to enter the traffic stream
without causing undue delay to drivers travelling on the major street. On a facility such as this
where many drivers back into the street, maintaining such a standard is not realistic. There are two
other sight distance requirements that should be met in order to ensure safe and efficient operation of
the subject driveway.
EXHIBIT F-12
LU 11-0009
Monty Hurley
July 25,2011
Page 2 of 3
First,Lake Oswego Municipal Code Section 50.21.005 provides minimum dimensions for
vision clearance at driveways and intersections. Section 20.21.005(2)(b)(iv)states that at an
intersection of a street and a driveway,the vision clearance distance along both the street and the
driveway be 10 feet. This ensures an unobstructed line of sight in the vicinity of the intersection,and
it is recommended that this clearance be provided.
Second,adequate stopping sight distance along Wembley Park Road approaching the
driveway should be provided. This will ensure that if drivers on the street must slow or stop to avoid
traffic entering or exiting the driveway,there is adequate line of sight. Stopping sight distance
standards are provided in A POLICY ON GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF HIGH WA YS AND STRFE TS,
published in 2004 by the American.Association of State Highway and Transportation.Officials
(AASHTO). Based on the posted speed of 25 mph, stopping sight distance of 155 feet is required.
For traffic in the westbound direction, the downhill slope of Wembley Park Road increases this to
165 feet.
For this exercise, stopping sight distance was measured in.the same manner as intersection
sight distance,with the driver's eye located 14.5 feet behind the edge of the adjacent travel lane.
This is consistent with page 651 of the Intersection Sight Distance section in the AASHTO manual,
which states:
"Sight distance is also provided at intersections to allow the drivers Ql'stopped vehicles a
suff
icient view of the intersecting highway to decide when to enter the intersecting highway
or to cross it. If the available sight distance for an entering or crossing vehicle is at least
equal to the
W appropriate
stopping sight
distance,for the
major road, then
drivers have
suff
icient sight
distance to
anticipate and avoid
collisions.
Sight
distance was
measured at the site
and found to be
approximately 100
feet looking to the
east. Vegetation
within the right-of-
way restricts the line
of site as shown in
Looking east along Wembley Park Road from�proposed,`access location
Monty Hurley
July 25,2011
Page 3 of 3
the photo. It is recommended that vegetation be cleared to achieve a line of sight of at least 165 feet,
Looking to the west,line of sight is obstructed by temporary construction activities,but with
completion of construction, sight distance well in excess of 155 feet will be available.
Conclusions&Recommendations
To ensure safe operation of the shared access to Wembley Park Road,the following
recommendations are made:
1. Comply with Lake Oswego Municipal Code Section 50.21.005 to provide minimum
dimensions for vision clearance at the driveway.
1 With completion of construction activities,maintain sight distance of at least 155
feet looking west from the driveway.
3. Clear vegetation within the right-of-way to achieve and maintain sight distance of at
least 165 feet looking cast from the driveway.
As demonstrated on the sight distance exhibit prepared by AIDS Engineering,it is possible to
comply with these recommendations for sight distance. If you have any questions regarding this
analysis, please don't hesitate to call.
Yours truly,
Todd E.Mobley,
PTOE
Principal
PR'D'D PR
"-t%e IN
OREGON
ENGINEERING I SURVEYING l PLANNING I FORESTRY
ZIWGINEVRING F0R1,,STR)' LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE / ARBORICULTURE
RECEIVED
Date: July 27, 2011
To: Roger Edwards Oity of Lake 5
13575 Goodall Road Community Development Dept.
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
From: Keith Jehnke, Certified Arborist-Certificate Dumber Phl 1908
Re: Response to Collier July,22, 2011 Letter on the Development Impacts to Oregon
White Oak Tree #10126 located at 3103 Wembley Park Road, Lake Oswego,
Oregon, TL 350Q, 3600, and 370Q Tax Map 21E 08AB, Clackamas County; LU
11-0009;
Dear Mr. Edwards:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to the July 22, 2011 letter provided to Eric
Schimmelbusch by Lyle Feilmeier of Collier Arbor Care regarding the Oregon white oak
(Quercus garryana) located in proposed parcel 2 of your partition, I observed this tree on
March 15, 2011.
Summary:
In brief, based on my site visit and review of the construction plans, the proposed partition and
street can be constructed with minimal impacts to the Oregon white oak. A dwelling can also
be constructed on parcel 2 while protecting a vast majority (84.1% well within the 66%
guidleine) of the tree preservation zone if adherence is made to careful site planning, tree root
location, foundation design, tree pruning, and maintenance of a good growing site after the
construction is completed.
SHERWOOD,OR VAmcouvER.,WA REDMOND,OR
03.926.6796 1 011 NE 99TI-I STREET,SUITE 1530 P.O.C ox#146
FAX:503,92 a.896 VAhdCOU`dE R.,WA 98682 1:2mmomD,OR 97756
6t',IER OOD,OR 714o EXHIBIT F-13
WWW.AKS- .CO LU 1 1-0009
Brief Site Description:
The site is Parcel 2, one of three parcels proposed in LU 11-0009. This parcel is located to the
north on an access road proposed for construction in this partition. The tree is located in the
"back yard" of an older larger parcel.
Visual Tree Assessment:
This tree is approximately 50 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) with two large
codominant stems measured at 23 inches and 35 inches above the split (see attached photos).
The codominant stems have "included bark" between the two stems. Included bark is a concern
because inside the tree the amount of holding wood between the two stems may be less than it
appears on the outside. Also, when the inside portions of the two stems compete (grow into
each other) leading to "included bark" which creates a plane of internal weakness. Over time
the codominant trunks can develop a lean away from each other-putting more stress on the
attachment point. Codominant stems with included bark are a major point of failure. Over the
lifetime of a tree. For this tree it is a concern, but not a major structural flaw at this time.
Mr. Feilmeier's Concerns:
Tree Roots During Partition Construction-Mr.Feilmeier calls out for a tree preservation zone
(TPZ) of 25 feet for this tree based on its size and condition. I agree with that assessment. The
attached Tree Preservation Zone Sketch shows the June 28, 2011 submittal layout for the street.
The TPZ for tree #10126 is shown as a radius of 25 feet from the circumference of the tree
(estimated to be a circle with a 27.08 foot radius from the tree's center with the entire TPZ
containing 2,304 square feet). As can be seen on the attached Tree Preservation Zone Sketch,
the street as proposed on the current plans is not within the TPZ as supposed in Mr. Feilmeier's
letter. Mr.Feilmeier may have been looking at a copy of an earlier street layout (such as the
5/2/11 plan set) that showed the street extending all the way to the northern property line and
coming within a few feet of the tree.
Recommendations to Protect the 50" dbh Oregon white oak's roots during partition street
construction:
1. Construct the street per the 6/28/11 Construction Plan Set (street stops 40 feet south
of the northerly property line).
2. Place tree protection fence as shown on the 6/28/11 Construction Plan Set's
Preliminary Tree Preservation, Removal, and Mitigation Plan.
Tree Roots During Home Construction-A home can be constructed on parcel 2 with careful
consideration given to best management practices. Trees can withstand disturbances to their
TPZ with the rule of thumb being they can withstand removal of 33% of the TPZ and in some
conditions can withstand the loss of 50% of the TPZ.
Recommendations to Protect the 50" dbh Oregon white oak's roots during home
construction:
PAGE 2 OF 6
1. The foundation wall be placed no closer than 15 feet from the center of the tree. This
eliminates only a small portion (15.9%) of the total TPZ .
2. An Airspade will be used to expose roots at the proposed foundation excavation line.
The number, size and location of the supporting roots will be evaluated.
3. The exact vertical and horizontal locations of the roots uncovered during Airspading
will be determined. This information will be forwarded to the structural engineer
who will design a foundation allowing the required structural roots to be bridged
This will protect all or most of the structural roots.
4. Tree protection fence will be placed where appropriate. Six inches of wood chips
will be placed in all areas where of the TPZ that are not fenced and that may be
impacted by equipment and construction workers during the home construction.
These wood chips are to remain in place until the completion of construction. The
area within the tree protection fence is not to be disturbed during construction.
Pruning of Limbs for Dome Construction-Mr. Feilmeier expresses concerns regarding
pruning and the potential for decay from the pruning cuts that would be necessary to construct a
dwelling on Parcel 2.
Trees are by nature "designed" to live in a forest with other trees. In a forest, the trees grow
up and the lower limbs get shaded and die and fall off the tree naturally over time. This is
called "self pruning". In the man made landscape trees most often grow in the open and this
self pruning does not occur. This leads to the 'need for pruning for many reasons including
shaping the tree, fruit production, and safety among others. Pruning has been done for
centuries and is a commonly accepted arboricultural treatment..
Tree Biology-Trees have a "system" of protecting themselves after an injury. Damage to trees,
unlike damage to light poles and pavement, cannot be repaired. Damaged tissues are not
replaced and restored with new cells. Damaged areas are physically closed off from
undamaged areas, and the damaged tissue remains within the tree for the rest of the tree's
life. Tree response to wounding or injury (including pruning) involves two processes:
compartmentalization and the development of barrier zones. When a tree is wounded, the
injured tissue is not repaired. Trees do not heal; they seal. As Shigo (1982) describes, trees
are generating organisms while animals are regenerating life forms. Animals repair, replace,
restore and regenerate tissue from existing cells. Trees "wall off" injured and infected
tissues and then continue generating new tissues. I,f;you look at an old wound, you will
notice that it does not "heal" from the inside out, but eventually the tree covers the opening
by forming specialized "callus" (Undifferentiated tissue produced in response to wounding)
tissue around the edges of the wound forming "woundwood" (lignified, partially
differentiated tissue that develops from callus associated with wounds). After wounding,
new wood growing around the wound forms a protective boundary preventing the infection
or decay from spreading into the new tissue. The woundwood extends in a smooth, thin layer
over a firm wound surface and curls inward on itself back toward the center of the injury. The
rate of wound closure is related to tree vigor as vigorous trees callus more quickly. Thus, the
PAGE 3 OF
tree responds to the injury by "compartmentalizing" or isolating the older, injured tissue with
the gradual growth of new, healthy tissue.
Not only do the trees try to close the damaged tissue from the outside, they also make the
existing wood surrounding the wound unsuitable for the spread of decay organisms.
Although these processes are not well understood, the tree tries to avoid further injury by
setting chemical and physical boundaries around the infected cells, reacting to the pathogen
and confining the damage. If the tree is fast and effective with its boundary-setting
mechanisms, the infection remains localized and does not spread. However, if the boundary-
setting mechanisms are not effective, the micro-organisms will successfully and rapidly
spread. These are the extremes of deterioration due to tree wounding, and all gradations in
between of boundary-setting and infection spread can occur. However, most vigorous or
actively growing trees are fairly successful in coping with decay-spreading mechanisms.
There are areas on the tree where the tree naturally already has these chemical and physical
boundaries in place prior to infection including "branch protection zones" at the branch
collar/trunk interface. This make logical sense as the tree is protecting its main stem from a
pathogen traveling through a branch. This is also where the pruning cuts will be made on
this tree. Following proper pruning procedures will maximize the tree's ability to resist decay
at the pruning cuts.
Recommendations for pruning the 50" dbh Oregon white oak 's branches that will fall within
the building envelope;
1. Make proper pruning cuts with the branch being removed just outside the branch collar
(which will leave the tree's natural existing defense compartmentalization in place)
pruning to be done per American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 standards.
Recommendations for Maintenance of the Growing Site After Construction:
The trees growing condition after construction will be a large factor in how the tree responds to
the stress of the removal of some of its rooting area and the pruning . Healthy vigorous trees
can handle more stress than trees in poor health. To maintain the health of this tree I
recommend that within the TPZ:
1. No landscape irrigation lines are to be placed within the TPZ.
2. Any landscaping to be done within the TPZ is to be done with careful regard to the
disturbance of structural tree roots (those over 2" diameter).
3. An area 10 feet outside the circumference of the tree is to be mulched and left that
way as part of the home's landscaping.
Pace 4 OF°
CONCLUSIONS:
Mr. Feilmeir expressed concerns regarding construction damage during the construction of the
street and during construction of the home on Parcel 2. It was shown that no disturbance to the
Oregon white oak's TPZ will occur during the construction of the street as currently designed.
Some disturbance will occur to the Oregon white oak during the construction of the home on
parcel 2, including disturbance to 15.9 percent of its TPZ and the removal of several branches
located within Parcel 2's building envelope. However the disturbance to the TPZ of 15.9% is
well below the allowable guideline of 33% and the pruning will be done to ANSI A300
guidelines ensuring proper pruning practices are followed,, After the disturbances are completed
the tree will then be maintained within the landscape in a manner to allow it to thrive. In
summary if the recommendations outlined above are followed, this tree will remain an asset to
Parcel 2 and the surrounding neighborhood.
I am a consulting arborist with a Bachelor's Degree from Oregon State University in Forest
Engineering with over 23 years experience as a consultant in the Pacific Northwest, I am also a
Certified Arborist per the International Society of Arboriculture (Certificate number: PN-
1908), a Member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and a Certified Tree Risk
Assessor per the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture
(Certificate number: 198). My resume is attached.
If you have any questions, please give me a call at 503-925-8799.
Very Truly Yours,
AIDS Engineering& Forestry, LLC.
CERTIFIED
W -=W
WA
-49 a
asc#3
A 81 E 9 1 CA N SOCIETY of 100� W&Alk 0
CON'S U LTI N IG A RBoRtsTs ARSORIST
KEITH JEHNKE
CERTIFICATE NUMBER PN-1905
EXPIRATION DATE: 6/30/2013
Keith Jehnke, PE, PLS, Principal;
Certified Arborist#PN-1908, Certified Tree Risk Assessor#192
Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists
Arborist Disclosure Statement
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education,
knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees,
PAGE 5 OF 6
recommend measures to enhance the health of trees, and attempt
to reduce the risk of living near trees. The Client and
Jurisdiction may choose to accept or disregard the
recommendations of the arborist, or seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead
to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms
that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are
often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot
guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all
circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise,
remedial treatments, like medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live
near trees is to accept some degree of risk. 'The only way to
eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.
PAGE 6 OF 6
TAXLOT 3601 TAXLOT 3701
MAP 2 1 E BAB R27.08 MAP 2 1 E BAB
2,304 F
1012
TO
PA END OF ACCt$S DRIVE I�
I
_.__.._.,__... W �, \
BARN
/ SH
� I I
l
o AXL
MAP
as
I1-
10450
I 102 i a
HOUSE
0 SCALE 1" 30 FEET
i �
285- t Q
\ - - DATE: O7/26 1
�" a
a
I I/ I cAXLO T 4500
z
1
ti 0
"L
xi
s �
'y CY)
r
Y,
U U
a
s;�
KEITH R. JEHNKE, Certified Arborist, Certified Tree Risk Assessor, PE, PLS, Principal
A
Keith Jehnke has worked in the arborist and forestry profession for more
than 21 years working extensively in Oregon, Washington and Alaska, Mr.
Jehnke is a licensed Certified Arborist, Engineer and Land Surveyor. As an
Id owner of AKS, Mr. Jehnke works with the clients and AKS staff to maintain
communication and project planning. Mr. Jehnke has been Project Manager
on numerous arborist, forest engineering, tree plan, civil engineering and
ENCLNE RINCr &IORIsSTRY forestry projects. His experience includes tree protection plans, evaluation of
hazard trees, field inspection of excavation within tree root zones during
construction, road layout and design, logging road layout, timber cruising(in
EDUCATION: Oregon, Washington and Alaska), appraisals, harvest unit layout, and
I3S 1�otC st 1:ngincer mg
Oregon State University 1986 construction contract supervision and compliance. Some of his relevant
High Ilonors project experience includes:
BS Civil I?ngineering
Oregon State University 1986 St. Cecilia Campus Improvements, eaverton, Oregon
� High Ilo"ors (2+005-2009): Mr. Jehnke provided/is providing the Certified Arborist
LICENSES: services for this project from the initial tree evaluations, to the civil design
International society of Arboriculture, process,through construction monitoring for the recent building additions.
Certified Arborist(PN-'190R)
r Housing Authority of Portland. Demar Downs
Northwest
h pteiRis Assessor.pacific Apartments Landscape and Site Improvements,
Northrnc tChaptci IS'I(;1�197) � � � f
Portland, Oregon (2009) Mr. Jehnke provided/is providing the
- professional Land surveyor Certified Arborist services for this ro ect from the initial tree evaluations, to
a Oregon(#2619)• p
Washington(432582) the civil design process, through construction monitoring on the 3 acre Demar
Downs site.
Professional Civil&Environmental
Engineer .S., Pokarney Place Planned Development, Lake
• Oregon(414971) Oswego, Oregon (2006-2009): .Mr. Jehnke provided/is providing
® Washington(932582)
m Alaska(fCE-9452) the Certified Arborist services for this project from the initial tree evaluations,
to' the civil design process, through construction monitoring for this 11-lot
Certified water Right Examiner planned development.
O Oregon(4302)
AFFILIATIONS City of Lake Oswego, Wastewater Line Extension, Lake
Pacific Northwest Chapter of the Inter-
national Society o1 Arboriculture Oswego, Oregon (2006-2005): Mr. Jehnke provided the
Certified Arborists services for this project from the initial tree evaluations, to
Consulting
American society of
Conulttn�;Arbo�tsts the civil design process, through construction monitoring for this 4,500 lineal
s
foot sanitary sewer construction project.
Societe of American Foresters +
City of Durham Planning Brown & Caldwell, City of Wilsonville Wastewater
w
Commission(3 yoars) Treatment Plant Improvements, Wilsonville, Oregon
City of Durham City Council (2009): Mr. Jehnke provided Certified Arborist services for the
evaluation of over 700 tree on the Wilsonville Wastewater Treatment Plant
City of Durham's Representative on the Site in preparation for a plant expansion.
City of Tigard Intergovernmental water
E3oard
Various Clients, Tree Plans and Expert Witness
v Professional ingincersof Testimony, Oregon, Washington ( 94- 009): Mr. Jehnke
Oregon
- has performed numerous tree plans for various public, site plan, and residential
Professional band surveyors of Oregon development projects for various jurisdictions including Vancouver, Beaverton,
National society of Professional Engi_ Durham,Lake Oswego,Portland, Happy Valley,and Sherwood.
fleets
1391.0 S.W.Galbreath Dr., . Offices Located In,
Suite. 100 SI IERWOOD,ORFGON
Sherwood,C?re ctn 971R0 REDMOND,ORE'f ON
r VANCOI iti I li.WAS111NG"FON
Phone: (503)925-8799 WWW.alc5�13g cc�zn
Fax: (50:3)925-8969
ENGINEERING PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
FORESTRY SURVEYING
13910 S.W.Galbreath Dr., Suite 100 AIDS Group of Companies:
Sherwood,Oregon 97140 SHERWOOD,OREGON
Phone: (503)925-8799 ENGINEERING&F ORESTR Y REDMOND,OREGON
Fax: (503)925-8969 VANCOUVER,WASHINGTON
www,aks-eng.com
July 28, 2011
Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner
City of Lake Oswego
Planning and Building Services
380 A Avenue (PO Box 369)
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
RE: Wembley Park Road Partition - LU 11-0009 (Final Written Testimony)
Ms. Hastay:
The following information is being submitted as the applicant's final written statement for City
Casefile LU 11-0009. Thank you and members of the Development Review Commission for
consideration of this information.
The Development Review Commission should affirm City staff s approval of Silver Oak Custom
Homes request to partition their property. Based on the evidence in the record, the application
meets all applicable approval criteria. Contrary to some comments that have been provided, the
application includes measures assuring neighborhood compatibility, provides an effective storm
water management plan, meets all traffic safety/line of sight requirements, and assures tree
protection and preservation.
All issues raised by others in writing and orally at the July 181h Development Review
Commission hearing have been addressed and satisfied either with information already within
the existing record and/or with additional information and testimony submitted by the applicant
on July 25, 2011 and July 27, 2011, The primary issues are as follows:
Neighborhood Compatibility
The application includes the creation of three flag lots from a development site that consists of five
tax lots included two existing legally created lots and three lots that were not lawfully created.
Hence, the application is subject to Section 50.20 of the City of Lake Oswego Development Code.
Per Section 50.20, the purpose is to "provide standards for site and building design compatibility
of new development with the existing neighborhood," Therefore, compliance with the standards
for flag lots ensures compatibility. The flag lot standards contain requirements for access, lot
configuration, setbacks, as well as screening, buffering, and landscaping. These standards go
above and beyond what is required for lots in the R-10 zone, which would otherwise apply to this
site.
Wembley Park Road Partition LU 11-0009 EXHIBIT F-14
Open Record Materials LU 11-0009
As evidenced in the application materials and supported in the City staff report, the application
meets these more restrictive flag lot standards and/or is able to meet them by satisfying
conditions of approval contained in staff s Decision approving the application.
Furthermore, the application involves single-family residential development that is surrounded
by existing single-family residential development, the same land use. No new or more intense
uses of land are proposed. Evidence in the record clearly shows that the application complies
with density requirements. Additionally, evidence shows that there are many existing lots in the
vicinity of the site that.are the same size, or smaller than those included in this application.
Finally, evidence in the record demonstrates that the application includes provisions that ensure
that future homes built on site will provide for neighbor privacy. This includes increased
building setbacks, a height restriction limiting future homes to the average height of surrounding
homes, and robust screening and buffering measures that meet or exceed the requirements for the
R-10 zone and the flag lot standards.
Drainage
Anecdotal testimony has been provided expressing concerns with storm water runoff from the
project. However, this testimony has been provided by neighbors located uphill from the project
site. A storm water report, prepared by a licensed professional engineer is located in the record
demonstrating that proposed storm drainage measures comply with City requirements and will
function properly. City Engineering Department staff have concurred with the report. Expert
testimony has been provided supporting this documentation in the record that the project will not
exacerbate any existing drainage issues already experienced by neighbors. This evidence has not
been rebutted by any source of equal or better probative value.
Traffic/ Sight Distance
Testimony in the record supports the fact that the proposal results in extremely low traffic
volumes (approximately 1 new vehicle trip during each the AM or PM Peak hours). There is
also substantial evidence in the record including written testimony from two traffic engineers,
stating that the proposal complies with AASHTO requirements for access. This evidence has not
been rebutted by any source of equal or better probative value.
Tree Preservation
The majority of on-site trees are not proposed for removal. One tree proposed to be removed is a
hazardous apple tree. The others are a cherry tree and an alder tree. These trees are not
significant and need to be removed fora shared access: New trees will be replanted to replace
those removed.
Testimony has been provided by two arborists (including the City's consulting arborist)
concerning the preservation of the existing Oregon White Oak Tree. The evidence included in
their testimony is superior to that provided by the Colliers arborist and demonstrates that the
project improvements will not negatively impact the preservation of the tree. Extensive
preservation measures are included in City Staffs conditions of approval assuring that the future
Wembley Park Road Partition LU 11-0009 July 28,2011
Final Written Testimony Page 2 of 3
home on Parcel 2 will be built so as to accommodate and not negatively impact this tree.
Preservation of this tree ensures that there are no negative impacts to the neighborhood.
Addressing Neighbor Concerns
The applicant would like to state that efforts have been made to work with neighbors and
respond to their concerns. For example, after receiving neighbor testimony concerning tree
removal, the applicant worked with staff to revise the project to preserve additional trees on the
site, including the Oregon White Oak. Upon hearing neighbor concerns regarding compliance
with solar access standards, the project was revised to make sure that this requirement was met.
Finally, after discussing landscape screening with neighbors, the applicant offered to,revise the
project plans to locate the mitigation trees along the perimeter of the property to further enhance
privacy for the affected neighbors.
Thank you again for your consideration of this information. We respectively request that the
Development Review Commission affirm City Staffs approval of this application.
Sincerely,
AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC
Cris Goodell, Planner
Wembley Park Road Partition LU 11-0009 July 28,2011
Final Written Testimony Page 3 of 3
r
cn ! ►
4ma
* ► rZ TOM E
•
■
x %move o
•
■ !
r
' ■ •
UO) ■ r
•
► r
06 !
■ ■ ■ !
■ ! !
■ 1Cf) !ML
• C13
u U
■ r
■ I= !
■
(/)
5 rw R " =
■ «
r r
w CL 0
Iwo
■
r
■
`-
ESL $ I ■
YA g I�l� � g Pa SC6C�
MOM wt �
■ I `
I R
I �
EXHIBIT F-15
LU 11-0009
RECEIVE[)
flA. 2 2 1,1 July 22, 2011
pity Of Lake Oswego
COMMUnity Devp,10PMent Dept.
Planning and Building Services Department/ Development Review Commission
Johanna Hastay
Subject: Development 3103 Wembley Park Rd. File # LU11-0009
Are there any records or documentation on file that the previous house on
the property had an oil tank buried next to the foundation? It may have had a leak
which contaminated the surrounding soil. If that is the case, where was the
effected soil disposed at? My mom Donna Knutson of 3180 Wembley Park Road
observed at least two dump truck loads excavated from the previous home site
were dumped behind the home at 3100 Wembley Park Road, There is also
mounds of excavated soil around lot 4500. 1 would hope that if there was
contaminated soil discovered, that it was disposed of in accordance with the law.
Thank you for checking into this matter,
Mitch Ellison
Donna Knutson
EXHIBIT G-1
AP 11-02 [LU I 1-0009]
ZMANCic RATHBONE
ia\V UM HP PC
5335 Meadows Road,Suite 161
Lake Oswego,Oregon 97035
Main:(503)968-8200
Direct Dial:(503)968-8200,x13
rax:(503)968-8017
jim@zupgroup.com
Wv t, .ZH2U,yGrourr.com
July 1 , 2011
Johanna f Iastay, Planner Sent Via Email
Development Review Commission Please Provide to Lo_mmissioners
Lake Oswego Planning&Building Services Dept, Prior To Hearipg
P.O. Box 369
380 "A" Avenue
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
jhastay@ci.oswego.or.us
Re: Appeal of Minor Development Decision dated.tune 24, 2011 (the"Decision")by
the City of I.,ake Oswego (the"City")Regarding Silver Oak Custom Homes
("Silver Oak")Land Use Application(the"Application"and the related
"Proposed Development") •-file No. LU 11-0009
Dear Commissioners:
On behalf of the following individuals (collectively"Our Clients") we hereby submit
these comments in support of our appeal of the City's Decision dated June 24,2011, As shown
on the attached Exhibit A, Our Clients are the following homeowners who reside on properties
that abut the Proposed Development:
Robin&Burt Bullock Carolyn Clark Ben&Lupe Rush ford Erik&Krista
3230 lair Ridge Rd. 3270 fir Midge 12d. 3051 Wembley Park Rd, Schirn elbusch
Lake Oswego, OR Lake Oswego, OR Lake Oswego,OR 3039 Wembley Park Rd.
97034 97034 97034 Lake Oswego, OR
97034
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Decision and we appreciate the conditions to approval and
development restrictions discussed therein. Even with the modifications imposed by the
Decision,however,the Proposed Development would have a significantly detrimental impact on
the neighborhood and would not comply with the applicable criteria.. Ilerein we propose
solutions to some of the important issues that Our Clients believe were not adequately addressed
by the Decision.
EXHIBIT -2
AP 11-02 [LU 11-0009]
Development Review Commission
July 18,2011
Page 2
A. Circumvention of Subdivision Criteria
Although the Application discusses plans for only three parcels, Silver Oak's clear intent
is to develop afourth contiguous lot: Tax Lot 4500, as well as an indeterminate number of future
flag lots. Tax Lot 4500 appears to have been included within the Land Use Application but is
excluded from the Decision, de facto creating a 4-lot subdivision. Indeed, LOC 50.02.005
defines a subdivision as"an area or tract of land [divided] into, our or more lots within a
calendar year,when such land exists as a unit or contiguous units of land under a single
ownership at the beginning of such year." (emphasis added). The Pre-Application Conference
Notes('PCN")reveal that the initial proposal was to create four developable lots,each
conforming to the requirements of the R-10 Zoning District. Section I of the PCN states,"With
the proposed site plan,the most efficient way to develop the site is to unify the site(with all
illegal and legal . . . tax lots) and subdivide into four lots,three of which will be flag lots
accessing Wembley Park Road through an access casement."An alternative and somewhat
convoluted strategy was also discussed, involving multiple lot line adjustments and a partition to
accomplish the same four-lot configuration. The latter strategy avoided application of
subdivision criteria and the need for a public hearing. As noted on page 4 of the Decision, Silver
Oak"chose to develop Tax Lot 4500 separately," even though Tax Lot 4500 is clearly part of the
integrated development plan. The Decision fails to provide additional analysis of the issue and
accepts Silver Oak's decision uncritically, ignoring the fact that this development meets the
definition of a subdivision under LOC 50.02.005.
As reflected on Page 8 of the Decision, Silver Oak also "proposes to extend the access
easement through Parcel 2 as the abutting property to the north is of sufficient size to be
redeveloped in the future."The Decision discusses, on page 16, the possibility that future
development of flag lots abutting the Proposed Development could result in the access lane
serving"five parcels, with the possibility of more with combined access." Accordingly, Silver
Oak's ultimate plans clearly extend far beyond the three parcels discussed in the Application.
The Development Review Commission should not allow Silver Oak to initiate a platting
in this unique neighborhood through a series of minor development applications via partitions
that thwart the due process rights of the surrounding neighbors. Our Clients believe that this
circumvention of the subdivision application process is inconsistent with the intent of the LOC
and does not serve the public good. The creation of more than three lots is outside the number
intended to be allowed under the partition process,and the result is a development that is
incompatible with the neighborhood and causes significant negative impacts on environment,
ecology,neighborhood character,traffic, safety and community. Lake Oswego and this
neighborhood are exceptional not because new developments identified creative ways to avoid
the process. To the contrary, our community is unique because development proposals withstood
the scrutiny of the public process. Our Clients believe this project should be no exception to the
tradition of open process and legal requirements long established by the City.
ZR34231
Development Review Commission
July 18,2011
Page 3
B. Look and Feel of Neighborhood/Building and Site Design Standards
As Our Clients will testify,the Proposed Development is inconsistent and incompatible
with the character and nature of this long-established Lake Oswego neighborhood. The
Application proposes to"shoe-horn"three houses into relatively small lots within a
neighborhood comprised primarily of large lots with significant setbacks and residences that
typically cover only a small percentage of those lot areas. The Proposed Development would
create a pocket of extremely high density that significantly deviates from the look and feel that
Our Clients and their neighbors relied on when they bought their properties, The Decision fails to
address this critical density issue, despite the provision in LOC. 50.20.030(1)(a)that empowers
the reviewing authority to "require conditions of approval to include measures such as specific
building locations [and] increased setbacks"in order to"provide the maximum separation and
privacy from existing dwellings on abutting lots outside of the partition site."
We propose a solution: one fewer allowed dwelling. Taking Silver Oak's plans as a
whole,the addition of four dwellings between Tax Lot 4500 and Parcels 1, 2 and 3,would cause
an intolerable increase in neighborhood density that would impact Our Client's rights and
expectations regarding their properties. Nevertheless, Our Clients recognize and respect Silver
Oak's right to develop its property. Rather than an extreme increase in density,this situation
calls for a reasonable compromise. Our Clients propose that Silver Oak amend its plans to
subtract one dwelling from the Proposed Development,thereby limiting the increase in density
and partially preserving the quality and character of the neighborhood.
C. Traffic Flow and Sight Line Dangers
LOC 50.57.030 states, "[d]etermination of the location and configuration of an access
shall be based on a traffic study, unless otherwise approved by the City Manager." Page 16,of the
Decision claims that a traffic study is unnecessary because the proposed access road will serve
only three lots. As demonstrated above,this premise is illusory. Page 16 of the Decision predicts
that the access road would eventually serve five or more additional dwelling units. If additional
developments are conducted like the Proposed Development, i.e. in piecemeal fashion in.order to
avoid subdivision requirements,then no traffic study would ever be conducted(according to the
City's logic) despite the fact that the access road would eventually burden the neighborhood with
more than 50 additional trips per day(assuming ten trips per parcel per day, as envisioned on
page 17 of the Decision). This is an unacceptable, dangerous result. We respectfully submit that
the City has made an incorrect decision with regard to the need for a traffic study.
Our Clients will testify regarding the already dangerous conditions on Wembley Park
Road. The Decision's conclusory assertion(on page 17)that"a 3-parcel partition access lane" is
automatically exempt from traffic study requirements ignores the critical sight-line dangers
associated with adding the access road at the proposed location. This access would create a
bottleneck of traffic at the crest of a blind curve, with no stop sign or traffic light to ensure that
vehicles exiting the access road can safely turn onto Wembley Park Road. A traffic study is
necessary to evaluate the impact of the Proposed Development on traffic flow and safety.
Consequently,this criterion is not met.
ZR34231
Development Review Commission
July 18,2011
Page 4
D. Driveway Screening and Buffering
The proposed access lane abuts the driveway of Tax Lot 4200. LOC 50.20.035(1) states
that"a minimum 6 loot landscape strip shall be provided as separation between driveways that
are within 10 feet of each other. . ."Page 14 of the initial narrative of Silver Oak,received by the
City of Lake Oswego on March 30,2011 (the"Initial Narrative"),claims that"there is
insufficient land area to accommodate a 6 foot wide landscape buffer between the access lane
and the,driveway of the abutting properties to the east and south."This assertion is inaccurate.
Silver Oak.provides no reason why the access lane must be located on the far eastern edge of Tax
Lot 4500. If Silver Oak were to relocate the access road entrance several feet to the west,then
there would be enough room for the statutorily required landscape buffer. Given that Silver Oak
owns Tax Lot 4500 and can freely relocate the access road(and Tax Lot 4500's driveway),the
City should not grant an exception to the landscape buffer requirement.
Setting aside the issue of the location of the access road entrance, Silver Oak requests,
and the City proposes to grant, an exemption from this rule by allowing Silver Oak to build a
fence in lieu of a landscape buffer. LOC 50.20.035(1) states that a fence may be substituted only
if it"will provide effective buffering and screening." On page 13,the Decision states, "In
determining the adequacy of the buffering and screening of the fence,it is measured against the
degree of buffering and screening that would occur from a 6-foot landscape strip."The Decision
continues, "Since there are.no planting densities or species requirement for the landscaping strip,
the amount of buffering and screening between the driveways does not rise to the level of a
sight and sound' buffer and screen."This assertion by the City is incorrect. In fact, LOC
50.20.035(1)mandates:
The reviewing authority shall require the landscape strip to be planted with trees
and shrubs in order to mitigate the visual impact of wide expanses of pavement,
and to provide a visual and noise buffer between the driveway and the affected
dwelling(s)located on adjacent parcels. Plant materials used for screening and
buffering shall be of a size to provide an effective screen within two years of
planting. Trees shall be a minimum 2 inch caliper, and shrubs shall be a minimum
of 5 gallon at time of planting. Maintenance of the buffer is an ongoing obligation
of the property owner.
This list of planting requirements for the landscape strip, which is contained in the
section of the LOC specifically applicable to flag lots, is the standard against which the buffering
efficacy of the proposed fence should be judged. The City failed to make this assessment in its
Decision.
Furthermore, even if a fence is used as a buffer, LOC 45.15.020(1)(a) states that the fence
must be four feet in height. The Decision states on page 13 that the fence between the access
road and the abutting driveway must be"30 inches in height or less within the vision clearance
triangle."Although the 30-inch limitation serves an important safety purpose, it destroys any
effectiveness the fence may have as a visual and noise buffer.This conflict is further evidence
that Silver Oak is attempting to cram too many houses into too small an area. Accordingly,this
criterion is not met. We propose that the entrance to the access road be relocated westward,
ZR34231
Development Review Commission
July 18,2011
Page 5
within Tax Lot 4500,to allow room for the statutorily required landscape buffer.
E. Tree Removal
The Decision modifies Silver Oak's tree removal plan by saving a 50"white oak,but
approves the removal of three trees clustered near the property line between Tax Lots 4400 and
4200 (the Rushford property). These are large trees that provide a potentially significant benefit
to the Rushford property(e.g.privacy, shade, subjacent support, and aesthetics).Removal of this
tree grove would have a significant negative impact on the Rushford property and the
neighborhood. Although the Decision(on page 20)dismisses Our Client's concerns on the
grounds that the grove is located 100 'Sect from the Rushford's property and 100 feet from
Wembley Park Road, Our Clients reassert their dismay at the replacement of trees with asphalt.
Tree groves such as the one proposed for destruction are an import-ant ecological characteristic of
the neighborhood. As discussed in Section A above,the City and Silver Oak foresee additional
future development of flag lots on the abutting parcels. For the City to allow tree destruction
along with ever-expanding flag lot development is to cause a permanent negative change in the
character of the neighborhood. This is a dangerous precedent,
F. Water Drainage
Our Clients will testify regarding the poor drainage already present on the properties
surrounding the Proposed Development, On Pages 14-16,the Decision observes"the low
infiltration rates measured on site" and expresses concern that the additional impervious surfaces
in the Proposed Development(access lane,roofs and driveways) will further exacerbate the
drainage problems present in the area. The Decision prescribes that Silver Oak must implement
measures to manage stormwater within the Proposed Development,and that such measures must
be approved by the city engineer. Our Clients share the City's concern over drainage issues in
the Proposed Development, given that water runoff from the Proposed Development has the
potential to flood adjacent properties and impact the subjacent support of the hillside. Our
Clients are also uniquely situated to provide input regarding the neighborhood's flooding issues.
Consequently, Our Clients request that they be involved in reviewing the stormwater
management systems proposed by Silver Oak.
G. Fire and Life Safety Access Turnaround
LOC 50.58.015(5)(a)states, "[i]f a dead-end driveway exceeds 150 feet in length,it shall
provide a fire department turnaround in compliance with the City's 'Standard Details'." Silver
Oak responds on page 23 of the Initial Narrative by stating,"[f]ire sprinklers for homes, as
allowed by the fire marshal, will be provided in lieu of constructing turnaround."Although the
Fire Marshal's memorandum contained in the PCN states that fire sprinklers are an alternative to
a turnaround, LOC 50.58.015 does not provide such an exception. Fire sprinklers do not address
the access and turnaround needs of ambulances and other emergency vehicles responding to non
fire emergencies. Additionally,fire trucks are often sent for health emergencies (such as heart
attacks and strokes)for which sprinkler systems are irrelevant. The Decision fails to address this
fact. By failing to provide the requisite emergency vehicle turnaround,the Application fails to
meet this criterion.
ZR34231
Development Review Commission
hily 18,2011
Page 6
CONCLUSION
In order to preserve the value and character of'their n6ghborhood,Our Clients ask YOU to
implement the reasonable SOILitions discussed above, as well as others that may be o(R-n-ed at (tie
hearing. Lastly, we respectFully request that the record be left open for as period of ten (10) clays
post-hearing Im the submission of additional inf�orniation.
Sincerely,
ZLI picic Rathbone Law Group, PC
11�ie. .sq., CRII,
neic. -,.sq., CRE mes A Zupl�!,
JDZ:qj
Z1134231
EXHIBIT A
APB OF PROPERTIES SURROUNDING
(Our Clients' properties are highlighted)
,Vc,e attached.
ZR34231
c�a
r-yt's
ti t�
WE
i s
1"
1
, 5
fit �f I
uk�u
PA a
Hit
s
a
d
� 1
From: Jirp Z4l20LJC
To: WAU_12 d,
Cc: !Erik S himmel us h"
Subject: RE:Wembley Park Road Appeal Hearing Follow Up
®ate: Thursday,July 21,2011 9:25:26 AM
Yes, please include this email chain as part of the supplemental record.
Thank you,
James D. Zupancic, Eq., CRE
5335 Meadows Road, Suite 363
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035
Direct: 503-941- 62:3
Main: 03- 6 - 20
Fax: 03-968-01
,Jir�1_.r,_{cZuprotxr crrm
h °! a ZRI�.arrcaut�Qom
zia
ZUPANCICRATFIBONE
HONORED TO€3E RANKED No. 16 AmoNG OREGONS.100 FASTEST GROWING C"OMPRNIEs
oil
We are now required by federal law to inform you that any tax advice in this communication is not intended or
written to be used, and cannot be used by the recipient for the purpose of avoiding;penalties that may be imposed on
any taxpayer. The information contained in this email(including any attachments)is intended for the use by tine
person to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged or otherwise confidential.It is not
intended for transmission to,or receipt by,an)!individual or entity other than the person to whom it is addressed,
except as otherwise expressly permitted in this message.If you have received this email in error,please delete it
without copying or forwarding it,and notify the sender of the error by reply email."fhank you.
From: Hastay, Johanna [mailto:jhastay@ci.oswego.or.us]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 9:05 AM
To: Jim Zupancic
Cc: 'Erik Schimmelbusch'
Subject: RE: Wembley Park Road Appeal Hearing Follow Up
Mr.Zupancic,
Staff will address this question as a part of the staff memo to DRC. Is this an e-mail that you would
like added to the record? If so, please confirm.
Sincerely,
Johanna Hastay
EXHIBIT - 07
AP 11-02 [LU 11-0009]
From: ]i [ iltV:j p.cnm]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 20118:55 AM
To: Hastay, Johanna
Cc: 'Erik Schimmelbusch'
Subject: Wembley Park Road Appeal Hearing Follow Up
Dear]ohanna:
Thank you for your courtesies during the recent hearing.
As a follow up on a question concerning the sight-line distance issue on the driveway, I refer to:
Lake Oswego Code 58.58D16 (1) (d) '
"AU driveway approaches s 'ba located and designed so that the driver entering or
exiting the driveway can see approaching traffic for a sufficient distance to make a safe
entrance and exit AASHTO standards shall be used in determining compliance with this
standard."
-
During the heahng. Hamid commented that this is not a standard that staff has typically applied.
Yet, our clients feel that this is the standard in the code that should apply in this case.
Please provide what evidence the Applicant has submitted to show that AASHT0 standards have been
oatiofied, or in the o|hamative, why staff has determined that LOC 50.58.015 (1) (d) does not apply.
Thanks very much,
James D. Zupandc. Esq., CRE
5385 Meadows Road, Suite 161
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97O35
Din*ot: SO8-841-B628
Main: 503-908-8200
Fax: 503-088-8017ZUPANCIc RAT' BONE
11owuna`rovsDxwxao No, 16 AMONG Oxow*m'S180 GuomvwsCnNIwwax
�~ 0
"~
We are now mq^im8 hr federal lavwb`0vnv you that any tax advice in this ovmmvuic^h^a is not intended or
w,hmu mh*used, and cannot bxused by the recipient for the purpose vfavoiding penalties that may h,imposed on
any taxpayer. The information ovnmi^vd in this email(including any attachments)im |omudvd for the use hythe
.
person to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged or otherwise confidential.It is not
intended for transmission to,or receipt by,any individual or entity other than the person to whom it is addressed,
except as otherwise expressly permitted in this message.If you have received this email in error,please delete it
without copying or forwarding it,and notify the sender of the error by reply email,Thank you.
PUBLIC: RECORDS E,AW DISCLOSURE
1'"hs c r;iail is a public record of the C 4y of Lake;Oswego wd is subject to, public disclosure UrflE,SS exs:,Mpt frem disclosswe under
Oregon Public Records Law. This etW-ill S Djec4 to the State Retention S,,,hedule.
Hastay, Johanna
^
From: EhkSchimmelbuooh PC.com]
Sent Monday, July 25' 2011 4:2G PM
To: Hastay, Johanna
,
Attachments: 110725 182558.pdf
Johanna'
Attached is e report prepared by Lyle J. FaUnneierof Collier Arbor Care. Mr. FeUnnaier is an \8A Board Certified K8astor
Arborist and |SA Tree Risk Assessor. In his analysis, Mr. Feilmeier expresses concerns regarding the effects of the
proposed development on the Oregon vvhibs oak tree that was described in the last hearing as a specimen tree, with
recommendations for conditions requiring the treo's preservation. To quote Mr. FoUmeier:
"Removing several large scaffolding limbs to provide clearance for the proposed construction envelope will onsaha large
injury and decay potential. The oak may not be able to produce callus wood and growth fast enough to enclose the inury,
thus giving opportunity to extensive decay in the future.
In conclusion, it is my opinion the proposed partitioning and development of the Wembley Park property as illustrated on
the attached site plan and described to me by you, will have long term detrimental effects on the survivability of this
Oregon white oak. The close proximity of the construction envelope of Parcel 2 and the proposed street is within the
TPZ. Further testing, by performing a root crown excavation will be needed to visually document the amount and size of
roots that will be affected, If minimal roots are discovered (less than two inches in diameter) then the construction
envelope can move closer. If larger roots are discovered (larger than two inches in diameter) then the construction
envelope may need t0be modified or the oak reassessed, preservation may not beauoceenfu|."
Please include this email and attachment in the `record and circulate hothe DRC members for review.
Note: Another email will follow with Appendix ( and Appendix U to the Collier Arbor Care report.
Thanks,
Erik 8. Snhimme|busch
Sohimme|buooh Law Group PC
4800 Meadows Road, Suite 300
Lake Devvugo' Oregon 97035
Phone: 503-534-3550 .
Fax: 503-210-0035
Circular 230-To comply with IRS rules, we must inform you that this message (including any attachment) if it contains
advice relating tu federal bsxes' wasnotinhandedorvvhttentnbeuaed. anditoonnotbeunad' hurMhepurpoaenfavoiding
penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law. Under these ru|eo, e taxpayer may rely on professional advice to
avoid federal. tax penalties only if that advice is reflected in a comprehensive tax opinion that conforms to stringent
requirements under federal law.
EXHIBIT G-208
�
'
`
1
COLLIER
RBOR CARE
July 22, 2011 *., Frlend�y_Shire 1937
Eric Schimmelbusch 11814 SE Jennifer SLrect, Ck 7()
lacamas, Oregon 915,
3039 Wernbley Park Road
Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RECEIVE[)
Re: Site visit memo
Site: Wembley Park Road Proposed Development UY of Lake0swego
Dear Eric, Community Development Dept,
At your request, I am providing you a memo of my observations made from a site visit on July
22, 2011. 1 met with you to make observations of a large Oregon white oak (Qttercusgarlyana)
near the northern edge of a property along Wembley Park Road that is in review to be
partitioned. The property will be divided into 3 parcels based on the site plan (Appendix 1---Site
Plan) provided to me. According to the site plan and information provided to me by you,
construction activity is proposed to take place within the drip line of this oak and will have a foot
print within ten feet of the trunk of the this tree and a height of approximately 30 feet. All my
observations of this tree were made from an adjoining property to the north.
During my visit, I observed the oak (Appendix 11—Photos—photo 1) to be approximately 50
inches in diameter and approximately 50 feet tall with a canopy spread of approximately 50 feet.
The canopy has several lower lateral limbs with branches eight to ten feet above the ground. The
oak has co-dominated steins of approximately 25 inches in diameter. The oak visually has
normal annual growth of four to six inches, good color and dense canopy. I observed all
excavation hole (Appendix 11 —Photos—photo 2) approximately 30 feet to the west of the oak
trunk with several exposed roots within it.
Tree Preservation: Construction Damage Effect on Tree Root Systems
A basic accepted guideline for tree Preservation is one foot of tree preservation zone(TPZ) for
every diameter inch of tree trunk. This formula usually falls around the drip-line of open grown
trees (trees growing without competition from other trees). For example, if the oak is 50 inches
in diameter,the minirrium, starting TPZ should be 25 feet radius around the circumference of the
tree giving an approximate 50 feet of diameter TPZ.This is a basic starting point. If the
construction envelope is to take place inside TPZ, then further testing is needed to reasonably
identify where the actual roots of the tree are located. This can be accomplished by a root crown
excavation.
In general,the Oregon white oak is a very temperamental tree species. They can be affected by
any grade or environmental changes. Most tree root systems are located within the top thirty-six
inches of soil, most being in the top 18 inches, When excavating in proximity to the root zone,
root damage may occur, affecting the health and anchorage of a tree's root system. Construction
impact to trees often includes; some level of root injury, soil compaction, change in soil
drainage, and changes in soil moisture. Cutting excessive roots may result in the loss of the trees
ability to absorb water and nutrients. Substantial root loss decreases the potential for a trees'
floolan(k 50 22-'"267 Vmicouvcr: 300-693-606
3m 5034723-5531
Wembley Park Road Development Pmject--Site Visit Memo 712 ?201 a
long;-term survival and eventually may cause death.. These impacts often don't result in acute
decline symptoms but rather result in chronic health decline over a long period of time, many
years after the construction project is completed.
Roots are damaged and the snail € icroclimate is changed by the initial excavation for the building
site. further changes occur with final grading and installation of irrigation and landscaping. The
root damaged tree may respond to these impacts in a variety of ways; from slower growth to
compensate roots loss to diebaek and/or death ArboriCLrtture "' Edition> Harris Clark and
MIafliQl
Tree Pruning: Response to Injury
Tree pruning,is an accepted prescription made by arborists for the benefit of trees' health and the
safety of people and property that dwell in proximity to their canopies. However,pruning is
creating"controlled it uty"vs. Mother Nature cresting"uncontrolled in any". With ally injury oil
tree, there is opportunity for decay, The tree has the ability to "wall offs'this decay by a process
of compartmentalization and create callus wood to enclose the decay. The amount of time the
tree tapes to callers over the decay depends on the size of the injury. The smaller the injury the
shorter amount of time needed to create callus wood, The larger the injury the loner time
needed and giving more time for decay to increase and expand within the injury.
Removing several large scaffolding limbs to provide clearance for the proposed construction
envelope will create lame injury and decay potential. The oak may not,be able to produce callers
wood and growth fast enough to enclose the: injury, thus giving opportunity to extensive decay in
the future,.
In conclusion, it is nay opinion the proposed partitioning and development of the Wembley Park
property as illustrated on the attached site plan and described to rye by you, will have long term
detrimental effects on the survivability of this Oregon white oak. The close ptoxiraaity of the
construction envelope of:parcel 3 and the proposed street is within the TP . Further testing,by
perfon ring a moot crown excavation will be needed to visually document the amount and sire of
roots that will be affected. If minimal roots are discovered Mess than two inches in diameter)
then the construction envelope can move closer, if larger roots are discovered (larger-than two
inches in diameter)then the construction envelope may need to be modified or the oak
reassessed, preservation may not be successful.
I recommended:
1. Performing a root crown excavation one to two feet back from the outline of the
construction envelope of Parcel 2 and the proposed dead-end street to determine the
amount or roots that will be affected during the proposed construction phrase of the
project,
?. Having a formal Preservation Ilan in place to provide guidance in the preservation of the
oak during the construction phrase of the project.
3. If any activity is to tape place inside the TPZ; have a Consulting i-borist on site to
provide guidance, observation and recommendations during;the initial start of the
construction phase of the project,
COLLIER
ARBORCARE
. �C'. �r Page 2 of 6
Wembley Park Road Development Project--Site Visit Memo V251201
`are has been taken to obtain all information from reli Ne sources, All data has been verified
insofar as possible:however, the consulting arbori.st can neither guarantee nor be responsible for
the accuracy of information provided by others, The inforniation contained in this memo reflects
the condition of those items at the time of inspection. There is no warn ty or guarantee,
expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of'the trees in question may not arise in the
future.
Sinely,
l ye J. i1mcie:r
Consulting ;rb rist
1ST . Beard Certified Master Arl orist MW-0 17 1
ISA Tree Risk Assessor 9870
Appendix I—Site Plan
Appendix II- Photos
COLLIER
ARBOR CARE
W,—4�'_F.t•,= Page 3 of 6
Wembley Party Road Development Project—Site Visit Memo 7/2W2019
Appendix I Photos
Site Plan
°
� B
0
I cil 101
.»»,.... •' $�'iFl i84 A#°@§ � � LY"Y,�,4 9P,D55 .._f �°•
..... ._
r------
�g-
{ 8
r
e
4 $ R
EXHIBIT
17 t-000
l»& tl
Site Plan—Provide to me by Frig;Schirnmelbusch by email.
COLLIER
ARBOR CAE S Page 4o 6
Wembley Park Road Development Project--Site Mist Memo
Appendix 11 Photos
Photo l
4
e
�s
E3
z
..3TF
y,
Photo 1- taken July 22, 2011- looking southeast from behind the wire fence along the south.
propetly line of an adjacent property to the no th.
COLLIER
ARBOR CARE
>ax I0 1 Pare 5 of 6
Hastay, Johanna
From: Erik Schimmelbusch [erik@SLG-PC.com]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 4:00 PM
To: Hastay, Johanna
Subject: UNTITLED,PPTX
Attachments: UNTITLED.PPTX
Johanna, -
This is the first in a series of photos I will be sending you to show the height of the current screening hedge around the
flag lot behind our property and the Bullock property. Please make this part of the record and make available for the DRC
members to review.
Thanks,
Erik S. Schimmelbusch
Schimmelbusch Law Group PC
4800 Meadows Road, Suite 300
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035
Phone: 503-534-3550
Fax: 503-210-0635
erik@SLG, -PC.com
www.SLG-PC.com
Circular 230 -To comply with IRS rules, we must inform you that this message (including any attachment) if it contains
advice relating to federal taxes, was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding
penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law. Under these rules, a taxpayer may rely on professional advice to
avoid federal tax penalties only if that advice is reflected in a comprehensive tax opinion that conforms to stringent
requirements under federal law.
EXHIBIT -209
1 AP 11-02 [LU 11-00091
;o
`' ,a� rr••� •RY
cr-
CU
t
T
'
1 ,
UO
4-0
k
1 i
•r .: i l 1
}
■
■
i
■
r •
} r
it
[ ■■
LY
r � `ftr��` �'"'Esc•' isi x.
�► -fir` y+r�i4� .�.,e!' ,
z �'• �I
_a - •
a�
r 1 } !
�d
.R S
a
Hastay, Johanna
From: Ehk0ohhnmolbuanh k@SLG-PC.00ml
Sent: K8onday, July 26, 2011 4:44 PM
To: Hastay' Johonna
Subject: VVembleyParkDevo|opment- EvidanceRegardingExisdngSetbacha
Attachments: Rear Setbacks.pdf .
Johanna' '
Attached is o map entitled "Existing Building Height 8umey), which is already part of the record. | wish to point out that
this map shows measurements of the existing setbacks of several existing lots (surrounding the proposed development)
from each house to the rear property line, which setbacks are substantial. VVe request that the DRC take these setbacks
into consideration in setting appropriate setbacks from each of the existing properties. Please make this email and
attachment part of the record and available toORC members for review.
Thanks,
Erik 8. 8nhimme|buach
8ohinomn|busoh Law Group PC
48OO Meadows Road, Suite 3OO
Lake Oswego, Oregon 07O35
Phone: 503-534'3550
Fox: 503-210-0635
Circular 230 -To comply with |R8 rules, at inform you thatUlis (including any attachment) if it contains
advice relating to federal taxes, was not intended or written to be used, and K cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding
penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law. Under these m|ea, a taxpayer may na|y on professional advice to
avoid federal tax penalties only if that advice is reflected in a comprehensive tax opinion that conforms to stringent
requirements under federal law.
EXHIBIT G-210
.` ^ .
^ y�
'
^
1
Yl p
•.```..,�. 'I{' Lei �"t
�h
k
C
.�
p
t
...:�, „ -. .w. ..... _.........�.a ...W„.w ,. �. ..:gym .� �.�.
Y
C7 v
R i
s.,....u4 ... ..........a...:...�....m...=.....my ..m.,. ....,.. _-..:«w i 4 N3NYJ t yk
3 k�5 jj�
d
t
r,
}
Ll,l
6
x
088CD9e0aG0! EXHIBIT E•12
12 LU 11-0009
'1--
s
Y
V E D
W, Larry Hope
3232 Wembley Pk.Rd.
01T,Y OF LAKE OSWEGO Lake Oswego, OR 97034
corriffuinilty Dekleloprrienl;DT,,nt-
07/22/11
Johanna Haslay,Associate Planner
Lake Oswego City Planning Commission
re- lot developmbnt at 3103 Wembley Park Rd.
Dear Ms. Hastay,
I am writing with a concern about permit LU 11-0009, 1 am the owner of two homes directly across
from the new development,namely, 3232 and 3184 Wembley Park Rd.
My major concern.is about the decision on the City Engineers part to not have these properties tied into
the existing sewer system. As was heard in repeated testimony of the meeting on July 18"', there is a.
serious problem with water drainage in this lot and the surrounding properties. If the ground will not
currently drain properly,where will the water runoff go when a large portion of the lot is covered in
water-impern,iiable surfiaces. Both of my properties at 3232 and 3184.Wembley Pk. Rd. are downhill
from this development, and the runoff will potentially be directed at my properties. I wish to know
how the I City is planning to be sure that there is no adverse efffect to my properties.
I also wish to state in.writing that I am opposed to the building of three homes on this lot. It will in no
way be in the character of the current neighborhood. In fact, it will change the.entire neighborhood. I
get.that the City wants more tax revenue, but at what cost? We the current community have supported
and paid for the current state of Lake Oswego, and are very proud of our community. If you drive us
away,then we can just become Beaverton. Is that the direction the City wants to go?
Sincerely,
W. Larry Hope
cc. Pat McDougal,Associate Engineer, Alex McIntyre-City Manager
While dated July 22, 2011, Mr. Hope's letter was
received as an e-mail attachment on July 26, 2011.
Staff finds that the content of this letter does not
respond or rebut any new evidence submitted into the
record prior to it being closed at 5 p.m. on July 25,
2011. Therefore, staff will recommend to the DRC that
the contents of this letter should not be considered as
part of the record to be reviewed by the DRC.
=IXH
'BT G;"1)2 [LU 1-00091
77C E I V FEE 0
W. Larry Hope
CITY OF[.AKE OSkNEGO 3232 Wembley Pk Rd.
Community Development Dept. Lake Oswego, OR 97034
07/22/11
Johanna Hastay,Associate Planner
Lake Oswego City Planning Commission
re-lot development at 3103'%Tembley Park Rd.
Dear Ms. Hastay,
I am writing with two issues concerning the new development all 3103 Wembley Pk. Rd, I am the
owner of two homes directly across from the new home, namely,3232 and 3 184 Wembley Park Rd,
Issue one. Given the current plan to create an access road through to the new 3 home development
directly behind this home, I am deeply concerned about runoff being newly directed into my 3184
property. We already fight water runoff coming down Wembley Park Rd, but the elevation of 3)103,
and a hard-topped driveway aimed directly at my property concerns me about flooding into my
property. What mitigations are planned to assure that there is no adverse impact.in this situation.
Issue two: It is my understanding that all of the dirt removed from the 3103 property was oil
contaminated. Yet the builder has placed multiple dumpster loads of this oil behind the two homes he
just recently completed.at 305013056 Wembley Park Rd. Is this legal? In addition, I believe the land is
designated as a wetland due to the creek behind the 3050/3056 properties.
I am writing a separate letter concerning the water-abatement issues on the LU 11-0009 permit.
Sincerely,
W. Larry Hope
While dated July 22, 2011, Mr. Hope's letter was
received as an e.-mail attachment on July 26, 2011.
Staff finds that the content of this letter does not
respond or rebut any new evidence submitted into
the record prior to it being closed at 5 p.m. on July
25, 2011. Therefore, staff will recommend to the
DRC that the contents of this letter should not be
considered as part of the record to be reviewed by
-the DISC.
EXHIBIT G-212
AP 11-02 [LU 11-00091
,y, _ 'ACT. '��{� +� ��-• - Y
_i.i��:•�i�. 'r � �f.?•:4 .. � `� a ..,1• i:�.� �.
Ai
IL
414
r j
e j
1'
EXHIBIT G-213
r
{
r
4
s
k
Rr J
7 o
I 7 C
lit
Am
CJ 4- �
r �
fn`
OL_
tj
w _
1
r,
1, ic
.47
•i R� I
W i
:fjr •; 4 ��,
I Al
'.L
x�
• - '� :!' ' f' fir.
t[•
At
F
r 441 f
- s•
1 iR • T`• °" 1 � e
1 " r r
• r1 .,
rVAWv _4
st
7 i
r
.r
f
F'
A� r •re �
4 r
, ■ � ry, r'
Ar
rrl.
Alk
'•+. :wit '° el'' ;.
w . ' 41
14
-. r. .
1 � ..S � ��'• ••,. '� ICE 1 ' t .-
FY• i
r� ■ f'4
�:. LL
T 40 r
y.
::V L
.04
If 7
irk r Sr Y `••
A
i 1 F F
�t 4 .1 .. A V..
'
VL
R f r
..Y �" y i ram •,
us
ms
OL
Jr
mK
' � ••r r 1 a�1'�i
v del
nib
Oak
4.
�• • � _L,5� �•.%►`'�-"°:mot•' ,� � �`�
' .
Lg
- 441. :,Y..
1 1 •
JA
.: A.vk
Ars
r 1
� I
. 1 y
w 'i
xr •
loom
k
n f..
fK
, I
!{ r j y
I ell
a I +rl+1rp'