HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2022-06-20 PM
Development Review Commission Minutes
June 20, 2022 Page 1 of 12
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
Development Review Commission Minutes
June 20, 2022
The Commissioners convened at 7:02 PM at City Hall, in the Council Chamber, 380 A Avenue,
Lake Oswego, OR 97034.
Members present: Chair Jeff Shearer, Vice Chair Randy Arthur, Kirk Smith, Mark Silen,
Craig Berardi, Bruce Poinsette, and Dwight Sangrey
Members absent:
Staff present: Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City
Attorney; Ellen Davis, Associate Planner; Daphne Cissell, Associate
Planner; Kat Kluge, Administrative Support, and Iris McCaleb,
Administrative Support
REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIVITIES – John Wendland, City Councilor
Councilor Wendland was not in attendance to present his report.
MINUTES
June 6, 2022 Minutes - No corrections were noted.
Vice Chair Arthur moved to approve the Minutes for June 6, 2022, as submitted. Seconded by
Commissioner Smith and passed 6:0, with 1 abstention.
FINDINGS
AP 22-02 [499-22-00303-TREE]: A request for hearing appealing staff’s tentative decision
approving Type II tree application (499-22-000303-TREE) to remove a 15” Norway spruce and a
50” Douglas-fir for the construction of a new single-family dwelling on the site.
This site is located at 19175 Pilkington Road (21E19BA02900). The Staff Coordinator is Daphne
Cissell, Associate Planner.
Commissioner Smith moved to approve the Written Findings, Conclusion, and Order of AP 22-02
[499-23-00303-TREE]. Seconded by Vice Chair Arthur and passed 5:1, with 1 abstention.
PUBLIC HEARING
LU 22-0024: A request for a Major Variance and a modification to an approved partition (LU 20-
0038) to eliminate a condition of approval requiring flag lot screening fences along the side
property lines.
Development Review Commission Minutes
June 20, 2022 Page 2 of 12
This site is located at 1880 Twin Points Road (21E09BD02712). The Staff Coordinator is Ellen
Davis, Associate Planner.
Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, gave an overview of the public hearing process, outlined the
applicable criteria and procedures, and gave instructions for any additional verbal testimony given.
Mr. Boone asked DRC members to declare any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases, or
financial conflicts. All DRC members present declared they have no ex parte contacts, conflicts of
interest, and no bias. There were no challenges to the Commissioners’ rights to consider the
application.
Staff Report
Ellen Davis, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
The site is a flag lot without public frontage on Twin Points Road. Partition LU 20-0038 created the
flag lot, with the buildable site located to the south of the private access road. The conditions of
approval (COAs) from LU 20-0038 require a 6-foot screening fence along the side and rear yards
of the flag lot.
The property is very steep between the access lane and the lake (60% to 70% downward slope).
Staff interpreted that the flag lot screening fence standards did not apply to the rear property line
because it abuts Oswego Lake, but it does apply along the side yards.
The first criterion for a Major Variance is that the request is necessary to prevent an unnecessary
hardship. In this case, the hardship is the steep slope, making fence construction exceedingly
difficult and expensive. The slope is an existing physical circumstance of the property not created
by the Applicant.
The next two criteria look at potential impacts of the proposal and perception of neighboring
property owners. In this case, the lack of fence construction will cause less disturbance of the
hillside (no negative impacts are expected). The two nearest neighbors submitted letters in
support of the application because there are no other fences on neighboring properties (causing
privacy fencing to look out of place in this area). No comments in opposition were received.
The last criterion is that the request is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the hardship.
Staff finds that, due to the sleep slope, the minimum variance necessary would be eliminating the
requirement for screening fences for this lot. Staff also finds that the applicable criteria are met
and recommends approval with the COAs listed in the staff report.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Smith asked for an explanation of the reason behind the requirement for privacy
screening/buffering on flag lots, and whether there were any comments received by the neighbor
to the west. Ms. Davis replied they did not receive any comment from the owners of house on the
property to the west, which was far away from this lot and at a higher elevation. She then
explained that the idea of screening on flag lots stemmed from flag lots being considered
"residential in-fill" to create greater density in residential neighborhoods, and there being a need to
decrease the negative impacts of the new house being squeezed into an existing block; however,
in this case, the flag lot is much lower than the adjacent neighbors due to the slope of the
topography.
Development Review Commission Minutes
June 20, 2022 Page 3 of 12
Applicant Testimony
The Applicant was initially unavailable via video. Chair Shearer asked if their presence was
required. Mr. Boone responded that the Applicant did not have to be in attendance, and that
members could consider the evidence based on everything received. He suggested waiting a few
moments for the Applicant to be reached. Ms. Kluge was able to reach the Applicant through a
phone call and shared the images from the Applicant’s slide presentation as he described them.
Neil Tunmore, property owner of 1880 Twin Points Road, Lake Oswego, OR 97304, stated that he
was requesting the variance due to the challenges created with trying to place fencing around this
interesting lot. He listed the following reasons for seeking the variance: the steep topography of
his lot (the lake elevation at 98.6' and his lot at between 152' and 170', with many trees on the
borderline); the ground was a combination of hard rock and soft peat, making construction
extremely difficult and costly ($142,000 of micro-piles installed to support the lake front
foundation, with a $50,000 rock clause estimated for fence installation); and there were no
negative impacts to his nearest neighbors (over 100' away from his construction site).
Questions of Applicant
None
Public Testimony
None
Deliberations
Mr. Boone asked if the Applicant wished to submit final written argument. The Applicant replied in
the negative. Mr. Boone instructed Chair Shearer to proceed to deliberations.
Vice Chair Arthur opined that the purpose of the fence screening requirement on flag lots did not
apply on this extremely sloped lot. He noted there was no opposition to the application, there was
support from immediately impacted neighbors, and there were no other similar fences in the
adjacent area. He stated that he would be voting in support of the application.
Vice Chair Arthur moved to approve LU 22-0024, with COAs noted in the staff report. Seconded
by Commissioner Silen and passed 7:0. Mr. Boone instructed staff to return the Written Findings,
Conclusion, and Order on Wednesday, July 6, 2022, at 7:00 PM.
***
AP 22 -03 [499-22-000160-TREE] and AP 22-04 [499-22-000158-TREE] CONSOLIDATED
HEARINGS
The two applications, below, are for side-by-side lots owned by the same applicant. The
Commission will hear testimony on both applications in one consolidated hearing. The
following time limits will apply for testimony on both applications together:
• Applicant will have 20 minutes
• Representative of a recognized neighborhood association, homeowners’
association, government or government agency, or other incorporated public
interest organization will each have 10 minutes
• Individuals will each have 5 minutes
Development Review Commission Minutes
June 20, 2022 Page 4 of 12
• Applicant will be given 5 minutes for rebuttal
AP 22 -03 [499-22-000160-TREE]: A request for a hearing appealing staff’s tentative decision to
approve Type II tree application 499-22-000160-TREE to remove four Douglas-firs (30”-52” DBH)
in order to construct a new single-family dwelling on the site.
This site is located at 529 8th Street (21E03CA08500). The Staff Coordinator is Daphne Cissell,
Associate Planner.
AP 22 -04 [499-22-000158-TREE]: A request for a hearing appealing staff’s tentative decision to
approve Type II tree application 499-22-000158-TREE to remove five trees (one 36” Bigleaf
maple and four Douglas-firs sized 23”- 47” DBH) in order to construct a new single-family dwelling
on the site.
This site is located at 541 8th Street (21E03CA08501). The Staff Coordinator is Daphne Cissell,
Associate Planner.
Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney gave an overview of the public hearing process, outlined the
applicable criteria and procedures, and gave instructions for any additional verbal testimony given.
Mr. Boone asked DRC members to declare any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases, or
financial conflicts. All DRC members present declared they have no ex parte contacts, conflicts of
interest, and no bias. There were no challenges to the Commissioners’ rights to consider the
application.
Staff Report
Daphne Cissell, Associate Planner, added Exhibits F-005 to F-007 for both applications, and G-
324 to G-342 for AP 22-03 and G-326 to G-345 for AP 22-04 (the “G” Exhibits are all letters in
opposition) into the record prior to presenting the staff report.
Both properties had previously been developed as one lot with a very small single-family dwelling.
In 2021, the property owner requested a legal lot determination, in which it was determined that
there were two legal lots of record.
The request is to remove 4 trees (Type II Removal) from 529 8th Street (the south lot) and 5 trees
(Type II Removal) from 541 8th Street (the north lot).
Staff finds that LOC 55.02.080, Criterion 1 is met for each application (removal for development of
new single-family dwellings on each lot).
Staff finds that LOC 55.02.080, Criterion 2 is met for each application based on the COA that
these permits are contingent on the approval of both permits (no significant negative impact on
erosion or surface waters, and the trees only provide protection to the trees on the lots that were
the subject of these two applications).
Staff finds that all 4 trees at 529 8th Street are in "fair" condition, exceed 15" diameter at breast
height (DBH), and are non-invasive native Douglas fir trees. Tree #10310 is the only tree found to
be significant due to size (it appears to be substantially taller than the other 3 Douglas fir trees on
the lot). Douglas fir trees are not an unusual species in this neighborhood, nor does any individual
tree provide a distinctive character to the neighborhood. There is one other tree that will be
retained on the property. Staff finds that the proposed removal will have a significant negative
Development Review Commission Minutes
June 20, 2022 Page 5 of 12
impact on the character or aesthetics of the of the neighborhood due to the loss of continuity of
the neighborhood skyline. This sub-criterion is not met. Staff finds that the trees are also located
within a stand of trees consisting of a contiguous canopy that is at least 15' high and 120' wide
and that more than 50% of the stand, for each separate property, is proposed for removal. This
sub-criterion is not met. Because of this, reasonable alternatives must be considered. Three trees
are within or in close proximity to the footprint of the proposed building and even considering
alternatives that would retain the 4th tree, it would still need to be removed due to the risk of
windthrow from the removal of the other trees (this is in addition to 2 nearby invasive species
trees that have already been removed). Staff notes that the dwelling has been reviewed and found
to comply with setbacks and lot coverage permitted in the R-6 zone.
Staff finds that four trees at 541 8th Street are in "poor" condition and only one is in "fair" condition
(tree #10323), all five trees exceed 15" diameter at breast height (DBH), and are non-invasive
species (4 Douglas fir trees and 1 big-leaf maple). Tree #10323 is not considered significant to the
neighborhood due to size, species, or distinctive character, nor is it the only tree left on the
property, as two other trees will be retained. Staff finds that the proposed removal will have a
significant negative impact on the character or aesthetics of the of the neighborhood due to the
loss of continuity of the treed neighborhood skyline. This sub-criterion is not met. Staff finds that
the trees are located within a group of other trees that are part of a stand of contiguous canopy
that is at least 15' high and 120' wide and that more than 50% of the stand, for each separate
property, is proposed for removal. This sub-criterion is not met. Because of this, reasonable
alternatives must be considered. Three trees are in close proximity to the footprint of the proposed
dwelling and the other two trees are in poor condition. The only other alternative is to move the
footprint to the west, which would not be enough to retain any of the trees and would cause the
removal of the two maple trees that are proposed to be retained. Staff notes that the dwelling has
been reviewed and found to comply with setbacks and lot coverage permitted in the R-6 zone.
Staff finds that the approval criteria of LOC 55.02.080 are met for both applications because there
are no reasonable alternatives for the exception under Criterion 3. Staff recommends approval of
both applications, subject to COAs (each application is contingent on the approval of the other,
submission of mitigation tree plan, and plant mitigation trees prior to the final inspection for the
dwelling).
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Smith asked when the two invasive trees were cut down that are now causing
windthrow impacts for Tree #10283. Ms. Cissell replied that both were invasive species and that
the permit for removal had already been issued (after the species was verified).
Vice Chair Arthur pointed to the email received from David Rudawitz on February 12, 2022, where
reasonable alternatives were suggested for consideration, and asked if staff addressed the
following in the staff report: reconfiguring the basement to protect tree roots, or the relocation of
the stormwater handling cisterns. Ms. Cissell stated that there used to be a stormwater chamber
on the property, but a drywell system was proposed instead. Addressing the basement
configuration, she noted that basements were allowed in the R-6 zone and that the proposed
grading and excavation needed would impact the roots of the trees. Jessica Numanoglu, Planning
Manager, suggested that the Applicant respond to this question. She then relayed that a full
basement was allowed in this zone, but it was not to staff to determine what the Applicant should
build, rather, they were to look at alternatives that would lessen the impacts on trees and still allow
development as permitted by the zone.
Development Review Commission Minutes
June 20, 2022 Page 6 of 12
Applicant Testimony
Jeff Shrope, Chief Operating Officer at Renaissance Custom Homes, informed members that they
received a request from City staff for more information following the excessive amount of public
comment that was submitted (after the building and tree removal permit were applied for on
February 11, 2022). He then relayed the next steps taken by Renaissance (speaking with staff
and their contract arborist, Mary Giersch, updated the site plan to show the excavation of the
foundations and shoring methods, moved from stormwater chambers to dry-tech wells, explored
the root-zone areas, submitted additional alternative site plans, and provided justification for the
removal of each tree on both projects). He noted that the City's arborist recommended that tree
#10283 be removed due to windthrow. He acknowledged that they agreed with staff's findings,
adding that they had two home plans in the Building Department that were fully approved by
Planning and Zoning (just awaiting the decision on the tree removal applications). He encouraged
members to deny the appeal, as they had completely justified the removal of all trees.
Randy Sebastian, President of Renaissance Custom Homes, noted that he had been doing this
work for 38 years. He opined that it was currently "fashionable" to try to stop housing, as
evidenced by the crowd gathered that night, adding that the neighbor directly across the street
was so mean and threatening to his employees that they had to call the Lake Oswego Police, who
then gave the woman a warning. He offered that the real reason behind the opposition was not
because of the trees, rather, it was about stopping traffic and more cars being on the road, as the
lot was being used for parking for the school across the street. He pointed to SB-100, which
established the Urban Growth Boundary in 1973, while in reality, only 2% of Oregon's land mass
was available for residential housing (the rest being forest, farm, industrial, or municipality/Federal
lands). He shared that the trees termed "old growth" were actually not because the entire Lake
Oswego area was clear-cut in the 1930s. He opined that they met all required codes, and that, as
a society, they needed to provide more housing.
Mary Giersch, Certified Arborist consulting for Renaissance Custom Homes, shared that she
carefully examined all of the trees on these sites and viewed the exploratory trenches that were
dug. She stated that the trees close to the building footprint or excavation area could not be
preserved because the root disturbance would exceed what the trees could withstand. She noted
that Tree #10283 would be more vulnerable to windthrow due to the removal of the trees located
further into the lot in addition to the roots being impacted by construction.
Jamie Howsley, Attorney for Renaissance Custom Homes, highlighted points from the letter sent
on June 17, 2022 (Exhibit F-006): the applications met the criteria for "needed housing," several
standards/criteria were not clear or objective in LOC 55.02.080(2), LOC 55.02.080(3), and LOC
55.02.084, as required by ORS 197.307(4).
Questions of Applicant
Commissioner Smith requested an explanation of the windthrow theory for Tree #10283. Ms.
Giersch relayed that the theory was that all of the trees fought the wind together and that their root
systems were developed to withstand wind based on their surroundings. She explained that when
the surroundings were drastically changed, a tree left on its own would not have the root system
to fight the wind on its own.
Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Howsley if his argument was that the Lake Oswego Tree Code
was not enforceable under the Land Use Board of Appeals. Mr. Howsley affirmed that that was his
proposition, citing a warning issued by LCDC in August 2020 to update codes to comply with ORS
197.307(4). Mr. Boone stated that this argument was not raised in the original application (it was
submitted in the last few days) and, thus, had not been through an extensive review yet. He
Development Review Commission Minutes
June 20, 2022 Page 7 of 12
recommended that members review the case based on the criteria in the code and if they find that
any tree should not be removed, they will then need to address the applicability of the argument.
Vice Chair Arthur asked Mr. Howsley if his analysis would be different if the Tree Code were part
of the Development Code. Mr. Howsley responded that the Oregon "Needed Housing" statute did
not require that, adding that the requirement was that any housing ordinance needed to be clear
and objective. Vice Chair Arthur then asked the Applicant to respond to the suggestion by David
Rudawitz to reconfigure the basement to protect tree roots. Mr. Sebastian replied that all criteria
has been met and they adjusted the footprint to save as many trees as they could; however, some
could not be saved because they were in the middle of the homesite. He then opined that tree
codes should not stand in the way to stop development because of the "Needed Housing" statute.
He also relayed that they could build a basement under the entire footprint, but they chose not to.
Ms. Giersch added that the same windthrow situation would occur with the removal of the two
larger trees (on each side of Tree #10302), even if there were no basement installed. Vice Chair
Arthur also inquired if changes had been considered to the stormwater cisterns. Mr. Sebastian
affirmed that they have amended the size of the chambers. Ms. Giersch pointed to the two trees in
the front being in "poor" condition, needing removal regardless of the placement of the stormwater
chambers.
Chair Shearer inquired which tree was saved by moving the floorplan. Ms. Giersch stated that it
was the big tree in the front and that they work closely to preserve as many trees as they can,
while still building a home that will sell.
Public Testimony
In Opposition
Jill Schinn, First Addition Neighbors/Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FAN-FHNA) Board
Member, 949 Cumberland Road, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, stated that there was a unanimous
vote by the FAN-FHNA Board to file the appeal against the tree removals. She noted that there
were no other stands of trees within a 5-block radius. She urged members to listen to the opinions
of the surrounding neighbors. She relayed that the contract arborist analysis was performed prior
to spring growth. A video showing water runoff did not load, so she described what the neighbors
see during heavy rains. She agreed that there would be windthrow effects. She opined that there
will be a dramatic change in the character and aesthetics of the skyline. Examples of different
homes built with trees protected close to homes were shown. On behalf of the FAN-FHNA, they
requested that members vote to deny the application. She stated that 223 trees had been
removed from the FAN-FHNA since 2016, including these 9 trees, while only 8 trees had been
saved.
Vice Chair Arthur asked for specific examples of alternative designs not considered. Ms. Schinn
replied that Mr. Rudawitz was a member of FAN-FHNA, and his suggestions were some of the
ones they discussed during their last meeting, along with other houses in the neighborhood being
u-shaped or having bridged roots.
John Dunn, 556 7th Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, pointed to the property owner's arborist
report finding that the trees in the stand were in "fair" condition, which is passing, and as healthy
trees, they should remain. He informed members that he privately engaged Mark Bourgeois,
President of Arbor Trees, to look at the trees (visual inspection from outside the property) and
provide his professional opinion, adding that Mr. Bourgeois reported to him that the trees seemed
to be healthy and in good condition, given the condition of the foliage (agreeing with the contract
arborist report that five were in “fair” condition, but countering that three were in “good” condition).
Mr. Dunn requested that an additional arborist study be performed (a climbing inspection) and that
additional alternative designs be considered before development proceeded.
Development Review Commission Minutes
June 20, 2022 Page 8 of 12
Mr. Dunn also spoke to his home being in the line of windthrow, being just one lot to the north
across the alley from the subject property. He voiced his concern that the windthrow effect would
be significant on his over 80-year-old redwood tree. He stated that he also believed that the roots
of his redwood stretched across the alley and into the lot at 541 8th Street. He opined that the
requirement in the code that called for consideration of the impacts to neighbors was not followed,
as no one had spoken to him about how devastating the loss of his redwood would be to him, his
wife, and the community. In conclusion, Mr. Dunn urged members to take a deep breath, review
all of the facts, read all of the comments, and reflect on the input before allowing the look and feel
of First Addition’s skyline to be changed forever. He also encouraged members to spend some
time researching whether the City’s Tree Code was enforceable or not before taking any action.
Commissioner Sangrey asked Mr. Dunn to speak to the impact of removing the subject grove on
his Coastal redwood. Mr. Dunn stated that he used Honl Tree Care to maintain his redwood and
that they told him that the windthrow from the removal of the grove would substantially affect his
tree. He acknowledged that he has not confirmed that the roots of his redwood ended in the
subject lot, as he would not trespass on someone else’s property.
Stuart Eckmann, 741 B Avenue, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, noted that he had previously held
similar positions at the municipal and state level, such as DRC members. He shared that he was
comforted knowing that the City Tree Code prohibited the removal of more than 50% of a stand of
trees for development, and that tree removal was prohibited when it significantly changed the
neighborhood skyline. He then pointed to Renaissance Custom Home's website statement of
building "green" homes but refusing to adjust the footprint of the homes to save the trees. He
submitted that this builder could create a house design to achieve a balance between the
environment and their proposed development.
Lois Eckmann, 741 B Avenue, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, relayed that the proposed water runoff
would not work, given that the builder wanted to contain it at the high end of the lot (there being a
7' slope from high to low). She pointed to these applications receiving the highest number of
letters in opposition in the institutional memory of the FAN-FHNA's history. She stated that this
was not a case of resistance to development or progress, but it was a case of asking the City and
DRC members to ensure that development was done according to the code, without causing
adverse effects to nearby trees, nearby properties, or the First Addition skyline. She opined that
Renaissance Custom Homes did not need to build two 4,000 square-foot homes (much larger
than any nearby home) in order to make a profit, rather, they could reduce the footprint to save
more trees and still make a profit.
Mark Seabright, 782 8th Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, noted that he submitted comments
during both rounds of the permit process for both applications, and was opposed to them. He
informed members that he was a retired Business professor and had written and taken classes on
how to assess the tangible and intangible economic value of economic resources, which stated
that applying the value was the only way to make a rationale decision involving tradeoffs
(aesthetics should not be devalued). He encouraged members to explore other options.
Peter Toll, 639 7th Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, acknowledged that the City must examine
the trees on every property when the developer puts forth their plans and determine whether the
removal would impact the canopy or the benefit to the neighborhood. He asked if older trees had
a place in their community when a developer felt that they hindered a building and development
scheme, opining that the answer was "They are in the way." He then opined that the rules were
stacked against the trees and their beneficial impact on everyone living in their community. He
relayed that he understood that the code was not black or white in terms of the environmental
issues. He requested that members consider the impact on the people and neighborhood since
the code seemed to be for developers, and that they request a change in the code.
Development Review Commission Minutes
June 20, 2022 Page 9 of 12
Suzanne Meckel, First Addition Resident, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, stated that she had lived in
First Addition since 1989 and her family had lived in Lake Oswego since the 1940s, adding that
she found it hard to believe that Mr. Sebastian's family was from Lake Oswego because long-time
residents valued their trees (knowing that was what made the community special). She highlighted
the $5.3M spent by the City to mitigate surface water problems in the First Addition neighborhood.
She suggested that the developer hire an architect who would keep tree retention in mind, and
that they use high-end materials when building a smaller home to keep the value the same. She
requested that members broach the subject of aligning the Development and Tree Code to work
together, with the City Council. She shared several photos of trees saved during recent
development and photos of water runoff issues.
Terri Kraemer, 505 8th Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, stated that she was not opposed to
property development, having developed her own home; however, the properties must meet code,
and these do not. She listed the following facts: the subject property (529 8th Street) slopes down
toward her property and per scientific study, trees retain rainfall to reduce runoff by approximately
60%; the City had documented that the First Addition suffered from localized flooding due to flow
of surface water caused by property development; and the damage could not be undone through
mitigation. She requested that members enforce the Tree Code and deny these applications.
Yen Pham-Bassford, ceded their time to Melanie Anglin.
Diana Boom, 557 Evergreen Road, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, stated that she believed that all
testimony (oral and written) given in opposition showed that these were significant trees, and that
the Tree Code required that the developer provide reasonable alternatives to taking out the
trees. She requested that members support the appeal and require reasonable alternatives.
Melanie Anglin, 530 8th Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, informed members that she had lived on
8th Street for 15 years. She opined that the Applicant made no real attempt to compromise, and
that they failed to meet the burden of proof that no reasonable alternative existed, further opining
that the Tree Code must be upheld, and the application denied. She relayed that the tree removal
would affect the view from the front of her yard, cooling costs and property value. She questioned
why the developer was allowed to submit basically the same set of designs. She shared drawings
that her son made of alternative home designs that would save the trees. She noted that the
historic waive of opposition to these tree removal applications was primarily gathered in 4 1/2
days and that they were joined together to say, "Enough is enough." She voiced her concern that
the removal of these trees could cause instability and damage to the surrounding trees, or even
death on neighboring properties (habitat living in the tree grove). In closing, she called for the
Applicant to step up.
Jill Cabral Schinn, 949 Cumberland Road, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, speaking on her own behalf,
stated that she and her husband moved to Lake Oswego to raise their family in a unique and
beautifully forested area. She then stated that the devastation seen to the significant trees in the
last 3 years was staggering. She shared several photos of the trees to note their significance, the
windthrow impacts, the aerial proof of it being a stand of trees and a video showing the runoff
during heavy rains. She requested that these applications be denied, given that there were no
submitted mitigation plans. She asked members to ask themselves how they would feel if they
lived next door and lost the benefit of the trees through removal.
Nick LeSage, 523 9th Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, asked that members review the letter that
he submitted, which raised the issues he had with the manner in which the Planning staff applied
the "significant" tree standards to these applications. He stated that he was offended by the
Applicant's statement that they felt they were doing him, a prospective home buyer, a favor when
Development Review Commission Minutes
June 20, 2022 Page 10 of 12
the proposed homes for development would be far out of reach of the typical home buyer. He
disagreed with the concept that it was an either-or situation (trees versus homes).
Chair Shearer called for a 5-minute recess at 9:47 PM. Chair Shearer reconvened the hearing at
9:52 PM.
Applicant Rebuttal
Mr. Howsley showed the rendering that depicted the clear and objective lot standards for placing
houses on these lots, the location of the trees, and the potential root-zone impact areas. He
pointed to the challenge in designing homes that would meet City code for development on these
lots, and that City staff found that the Applicant met all code requirements, with conditions. He
opined that the statements made in opposition were subjective, value-laden judgments that others
were bringing into this application, or in the alternative, that the City's tree ordinances did not meet
the State's "Needed Housing" statute because they were not clear and objective. He closed by
saying that the obligation here was to deny the appeal and approve the project moving forward.
Deliberations
Mr. Boone instructed Chair Shearer to proceed to deliberations.
Vice Chair Arthur asked if the impact to trees on adjacent lots was considered, given the
testimony about Mr. Dunn's Coastal redwood tree. Ms. Numanoglu replied that staff did look at
trees on adjacent lots, because the code did not say if the tree had to be on or off of the lot, but
the findings by the Applicant's and City's arborists stated that the impacts would be limited to the
cluster of trees on both of the lots (Mr. Dunn's tree was seen in the upper righthand corner across
the alley and was a taller tree). Vice Chair Arthur then asked if staff's opinion would change
regarding the suitability of the application, given the discrepancy of the lot being shown as having
a slight slope. Ms. Numanoglu stated that the staff reviewed the Applicant's stormwater plan for
the increased impervious area, and they found that the onsite stormwater system plan complied
with the code.
Commissioner Silen requested an explanation of the criterion regarding the removal of 50% of a
stand of trees. Ms. Numanoglu concurred that staff agreed that the removal on both lots was
greater than 50% of the stand of trees. She explained that this criterion does not prohibit the
removal of more than 50% of a stand of trees, only that if more than 50% is removed, then the
exceptions to Criterion 3.b must be met (no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to
be used as allowed in the zone).
Commissioner Berardi stated that he listened to both sides of the argument (the ability to provide
more homes being critical, but there was a tree code that had a purpose), and that the ability to
provide additional design options was something on his mind and was something that was
possible to save a few of the trees.
Commissioner Sangrey relayed that he would have to make his decision based on the wording in
the Tree Code, agreeing that these were significant trees in a grove, but they heard from staff that
there was no reasonable alternative. He stated that to follow the code, they would need to
approve the application.
Commissioner Smith shared that this Commission was charged with following the code, and that
he saw that members of the community, who were upset about trees being cut down, voicing their
objections before the DRC when they should be going before their elected officials to share their
opinions regarding the Tree Code. He disagreed with Mr. Howsley's opinion that the Tree Code
Development Review Commission Minutes
June 20, 2022 Page 11 of 12
was unenforceable. From his personal experience, he noted that he struggled with the difference
between individual property owners being unable to remove 1-2 trees and developers being able
to remove many trees due to the "no reasonable alternatives" exception.
Vice Chair Arthur stated that he agreed with Commissioner Smith's analytical approach, as their
charge was to apply the criteria and the code, adding that he was persuaded that the applications
complied with the code after reading and listening to all testimony. He pointed to former Councilor
Theresa Kohlhoff's email testimony from June 10, 2022, adding that he generally agreed with her
analytical approach, as well. He opined that the removal of the trees would be a tremendous loss
to the enjoyment of others in the community but was within the rights of the property owner to
develop the property as applied for and as analyzed by staff. He stated that he would be voting to
deny the appeal, in favor of the applications.
Chair Shearer acknowledged that the most difficult thing done by the DRC was hearing Type II
Tree Removal permit appeals, opining that the Planning staff and Mr. Boone do their best to lay
out cases that were by the book, without favoritism. He agreed that their job was to see that the
rules were followed. He noted that he would be voting to approve the applications.
Commissioner Sangrey moved to grant the application for removal, AP 22-03 [499-22-00160-
TREE], with conditions recommended by staff. Seconded by Commissioner Poinsette and
passed 5:2. Mr. Boone instructed staff to return the Written Findings, Conclusion, and Order on
Wednesday, July 6, 2022, at 7:00 PM.
Commissioner Sangrey moved to grant the application for removal, AP 22-04 [499-22-00158-
TREE], with conditions recommended by staff. Seconded by Commissioner Poinsette and
passed 5:2. Mr. Boone instructed staff to return the Written Findings, Conclusion, and Order on
Wednesday, July 6, 2022, at 7:00 PM.
SCHEDULE REVIEW AND MANAGEMENT UPDATE
Ms. Numanoglu announced that Commissioners Berardi and Silen were at the end of their terms
and chose not to reapply to remain on the DRC. She took a few moments to thank them for their
volunteer service to the DRC and to City. She presented each with a "Distinguished Service"
award on behalf of Mayor Buck and City Manager Bennett. She noted that two new members
would be appointed and would go through orientation soon.
Commissioner Silen thanked the entire staff for all that they did to help him during his 3-year
tenure on the DRC.
Ms. Numanoglu, updated DRC members on upcoming meetings:
July 6, 2022 (Wednesday) has the FCOs from this meeting and the Rassekh Park project.
July 18, 2022 has one item.
August 1, 2022 may have one item.
August 15, 2022 has one item,
Commissioner Smith relayed that he will be absent on July 6, 2022. Chair Shearer also noted that
he may be absent. Mr. Boone stated that if the two new members were present, they would not be
eligible to vote on the findings; however, the three current members that would be present would
comprise the majority, so there would be quorum to pass the FCOs.
Development Review Commission Minutes
June 20, 2022 Page 12 of 12
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Shearer adjourned the meeting at 10:23 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Kat Kluge, Administrative Support