Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Item - 2002-10-08
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY MEETING DATE: October 8, 2002 SUBJECT: AP 02-08; an appeal of the Community Forestry Commission's decision to approve a Type II tree permit requested by Stephen and Melinda Todd. The applicants are requesting approval to remove an 8" maple, a 13" maple, and a 12" cherry in order to expand their two-car garage to a three-car garage. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to affirm the decision of the Community Forestry Commission by denying AP 02-08. EST. FISCAL IMPACT: ATTACHMENTS: NOTICED (Date): N/A Council Report with attachments STAFF COST: $ BUDGETED: Ordinance no.: N/A Y N Resolution no.: N/A FUNDING SOURCE: Previous Council consideration: N/A A#Llrz ; MANAGER 'DEP RTMENT DIRECTOR CI ./`ANAGER ^12Vn2 7 02— 30 signoff/date signo /date signoff/de to • 1 BALL JANIK LLP A T TORNEYS 101 SOUTHWEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 1100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3 2 1 9 www.balljanik.com P L.F.MCDONALD,JR. fmcdonald b 11 com TELEPHONE 503-228-2525 FACSIMILE 503-295-1058 October 3, 2002 't i v E D bEf 0 4 togz BY HAND DELIVERY Re: File No.: TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06] - 1478 Dear City Council: David Wheeler and Kimberly Beaudet(the"appellants") appealed the Community Forestry Commission's ("CFC") decision approving Stephen and Melinda Todd's (the"applicants")Tree Cutting Permit because the appellants are concerned about the safety and value of their home. The decision does not ensure compliance with LOC 55.02.080(2) or(3). Although the applicant's have not submitted any evidence regarding a mitigation plan, the CFC found that an appropriate landscaping plan will satisfy LOC 55.02.080(2) and (3), and conditioned the applicants to submit a mitigation plan for subsequent review and approval by staff. See Findings 2.b. and c. and Condition 2.B. The CFC's findings and conditions of approval are in error because they are not based on substantial evidence, and is an improper delegation of authority. Rather than weighing the evidence before it and concluding that the offered mitigation plan is either in compliance with the approval criteria, or that compliance is feasible, the CFC simply asserted that appropriate landscaping would satisfy the approval criteria. CFC erred because there was no evidence before it demonstrating that mitigation is feasible, and rather than making the determination of feasibility or compliance in a public forum, the CFC delegated that authority to staff in a subsequent review that is not subject to notice and comment. At the hearing before the CFC, City staff asserted that the CFC need not provide an opportunity for notice and comment for the mitigation plan because the decision was not a land use decision. Lake Oswego's Tree Cutting Ordinance implements the goal and policies of Goal 5 Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources, Section 2, Vegetation of the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, granting the tree cutting permit will have a significant impact on land use because it will lead to an intensification of use that will alter the character of the neighborhood. As such, the CFC's (and City Council's) decision is properly characterized as a land use decision. The CFC's error can be easily solved. The appellants simply request the opportunity to participate in crafting an adequate mitigation plan that will satisfy the approval criteria. The appellants are willing to work with the applicants in either a public forum before ::O DM A\PCDOCS\PORTLAN D\304730\1 PORTLAND, OREGON WASHINGTON, D.C. BEND, OREGON BALL JANIK LLP October 3, 2002 Page 2 City Council, or in private to formulate an adequate plan. If the City and/or applicant prefer the latter, the appellant anticipates that the applicant and appellant could meet independently at a neutral location in the presence of counsel, staff, or an independent third party mediator and bring a mutually agreeable mitigation plan before the City Council for its review. At that point, City Council can review the mitigation plan and determine if it complies with the approval criteria. In the alternative, the appellants suggest that the applicants present a mitigation plan at the public hearing so it can be reviewed. If necessary, the appellants are willing to continue or reschedule the appeal hearing so that the applicant's have an adequate opportunity to create a mitigation plan. Sin rely, 1464 L.F. McDonald, Jr. LFJ:DLK:crs cc: David. D. Powell, City Attorney(by hand deliver) Stephen and Melinda Todd (by hand delivery) ::ODMA\PCDOCS\PORTLAND\304730\l 0i LAKE 0,4, CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COUNCIL REPORT OREGOM TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager FROM: Jessica Sarver, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: [An Appeal of a decision by the Community Forestry Commission] AP 02-08; an appeal of the Community Forestry Commission's approval of the applicant's request to remove three trees in order to expand an existing two-car garage to a three-car garage. This site is located at 1645 Lee Street(Tax Lot 1305 of Tax Map 21E 15BA). DATE: September 27, 2002 ACTION: The action before the City Council is an appeal by David Wheeler and Kimberley Beaudet of 1611 Lee Street (Exhibit A-1) of the Community Forestry Commission's (Commission) decision to approve a tree removal application filed by Stephen and Melinda Todd. The applicants are requesting to remove an 8"maple, a 13" maple, and a 12"cherry in order to expand an existing two-car garage to a three-car garage. The details of the applicants' proposal are found in the July 26, 2002, staff report(Exhibit D). COMMUNITY FORESTRY COMMISSION DECISION: Following the public hearing on August 7, 2002, the CFC voted unanimously to approve the applicants' request. The CFC heard testimony in favor of the application from the applicants and in opposition to the application from David Wheeler, Kimberley Beaudet, and their lawyer, Frank McDonald, who also read into the record a letter of opposition from Mary Anderson, Exhibit G202. Please see Exhibit C-1 for the CFC minutes. BACKGROUND: On May 21, 2002, the applicants applied for a tree removal application to remove an 8"maple, a 13"maple, and 12" cherry from the north side yard of their property in order to expand their two-car garage to a three- car garage. The application was processed as a Type II tree permit and public notice of the pending permit was given in accordance with LOC 55.02.082. Two letters in opposition of the application were received during the comment period from abutting neighbors to the north of the subject property, Exhibit F-2. As discussed in the July 26, 2002, staff report(Exhibit D), staff found that the applicants could meet the criteria for issuance of Type II tree cutting permits outlined in LOC 55.02.080. Staff posted the notice of the Council Report AP 02-08 Page 1 of 4 tentative decision to approve the application at the subject site on June 19, 2002. On July 3, 2002, David Wheeler and Kimberley Beaudet filed a request for a hearing before the CFC on the grounds that the application did not meet approval criteria number 2 and 3 of LOC 55.02.080, Exhibit G200. Mr. Wheeler, Ms. Beaudet, and their lawyer testified in opposition to the application at the CFC hearing on August 7, 2002. In addition, a letter of opposition from Mary Anderson of 1372 Larch Street was read into the record, Exhibit G201. The Community Forestry Commission unanimously approved the application, finding that the request met all the criteria for Type II tree removal. The details of that decision are provided in Exhibits B and C-1. On September 3, 2002, Mr. Wheeler and Ms. Beaudet appealed the Community Forestry Commission's decision, Exhibit A. This appeal is being processed according to the provisions of LOC 55.02.085. This matter is being forwarded to the City Council as required by LOC 55.02.085(5). According to this standard, the hearing before the City Council shall be based on the record established before the Commission, and only those persons who appeared before the Commission may testify. Review of Issues Raised before the City Council: The following is a summary of the issues raised by the appellants in the Notice of Appeal, Exhibit A. The appellants' issues are bolded. The appellants suggest in the notice that the Community Forestry Commission did not correctly reach a decision with regard to the following issues: 1. The appellants contend that the proposed construction does not comply with LOC 55.02.080(2),which requires that tree removal will not have a negative impact on erosion,soil stability and flow of surface waters. The appellants maintain that once the construction is completed the soil will be inadequately anchored and will erode and wash onto their property when it rains. The Commission found that appropriate landscaping in front of the garage addition would prevent a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability and flow of surface waters. The Commision imposed a condition of approval requiring landscaping materials to screen the new addition(page 3 of Exhibit B). Currently,there is a bare dirt slope underneath the trees, which would be replaced with a mixture of groundcover, trees and/or shrubbery that will provide better soil stability than the current conditions. In addition, the new building area will cover a portion of the slope and the remaining side yard would be primarily flat north of the addition. An existing small rock wall will remain below the area where the concrete apron will be constructed for access to the third garage bay. Roof drainage from the new addition would be directed to a gutter and discharged to a rain drain on the site. The Building Division will review drainage from the new addition during the building permit process. This standard is met. 2. The appellants contend that the application does not meet LOC 50.02.080(3),which requires that the tree removal will not have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics, and property values of the neighborhood. The appellants believe that the mitigation plan required by the CFC would not adequately replace the screening provided by the existing trees in scale and that the upkeep of the required mitigation would not be ensured because no maintenance plan was required. In addition,the appellants claim that the proposed development may impede access to the properties north of 1645 Lee Street,which would decrease the value of both properties. According to the appellants,the applicants recently Council Report AP 02-08 Page 2 of 4 4 piled landscaping rocks along the edge of their northern property line, making access to their garage at 1611 Lee Street difficult. The Commission agreed that there may be a negative impact on the aesthetics of the neighborhood as viewed by the neighbors to the north of the subject property,but that no reasonable alternatives to the proposal exist(page 2 of Exhibit B). Pursuant to LOC 55.02.080(3), the City may grant an exception to the criterion that the tree removal will not have a negative impact on the character, aesthetics, or property values of the neighborhood when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Since the existing garage is attached to the house the only alternative to the proposal would be to add to the rear of the garage. This would create a tandem configuration of the cars in the garage and would interfere with two windows on the side of the house behind the garage. The upper story window would be blocked, which would convert the three-bedroom home to a two- bedroom home due to the lack of egress from the second story bedroom(photograph 11 of Exhibit E-5). The Commission found that decreasing the width of the garage by two feet, and requiring landscaping, in addition to the required minimum 1:1 mitigation, would adequately mitigate for the negative visual impacts of the tree removal. The Commission imposed a condition of approval requiring that the mitigation vegetation include both groundcover and plant materials that will grow a minimum of 8-10 feet in height. The vegetation is to be maintained in a manner that will not impede on the use of the access easement on the property to the north of the applicants. If the City Council finds that the mitigation plan is not adequate to mitigate for the tree removal, Council may elect to revise the plan required by the Commission pursuant to LOC 55.02.094. There is no provision in the Tree Code that requires a maintenance plan for mitigation; however, staff interprets the mitigation provisions to require mitigation materials be maintained to ensure their survival. Otherwise,the purpose of the mitigation would not be accomplished. Compliance with the mitigation requirements is enforceable by City staff. The appellants raised the issue of access to their garage at 1611 Lee Street in their appeal notice (Exhibit A), and during the CFC hearing. This issue is not relevant because it is not related to the approval criteria for the tree permit. The recent placement of landscaping rocks on the applicants' property that allegedly interferes with access to the appellants' garage is also not relevant to the approval criteria and is new evidence that was not raised during the CFC hearing; therefore,this issue cannot be raised before the Council. CONCLUSION Based upon evidence in the record, the Commission concluded that the application met all the criteria for a Type II tree removal permit, and voted unanimously to approve the application. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council affirm the decision of the Commission, and deny AP 02-08. EXHIBITS A. NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL Notice of intent to appeal by David Wheeler&Kimberley Beaudet, dated September 3, 2002 Council Report AP 02-08 Page 3 of 4 ,.1 B. FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER TC 02-0318, dated August 21, 2002 C. MINUTES OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY COMMISSION HEARINGS C-1. Minutes of August 7, 2002, hearing C-2. Minutes of August 21, 2002,hearing D. STAFF REPORTS TC 02-0318, dated July 26, 2002 E. GRAPHIC/PLANS E-1. Tax Map E-2. Site Plan Illustrating Tree Locations E-3. Site Plan Submitted With Building Permit Materials E-4. Sensitive Lands Map E-5. Photographs of Trees and Site E-6. Photograph Submitted by Melinda Todd E-7. Photograph Submitted by Kim Beaudet E-8. Photograph Submitted by Stephen Todd F. WRITTEN MATERIALS F-1 Type II Tree Removal Application,TC 02-0318 F-2 Letters from Mary Anderson,David Wheeler and Kimberley Beaudet dated June 3, 2002 G. LETTERS Neither For Nor Against: G1-100 None Support: G101 None Opposition: G200 Request for hearing by David Wheeler&Kimberley Beaudet, dated July 3, 2002 G201 Letter from Mary Anderson, dated August 3, 2002 Council Report AP 02-08 Page 4 of 4 . 6 NE I/4 NWf 1/4 SEC. 15 T. 2 S. R. I E Wl M. sa toil CLACKAMAS COUNTY `E: J F. I".MO' o l .. • H N / W / • W F SEE MAP 2 i1E� IOCD L �� 3B1�JS:Ja-C 417.lO' 1 `y g. JA7• CH STREET _ RV.� �RR�7.�r „1/47 .. /�os e� s,. .�,ti .1300 `I ti�:l')31OC ' .s•.3 J.74 Jb•5 se 6 se•7 av•8 ae•9 : s'.i• „.� 00 f4 300 '401 I 400 ; 1302 1303 �� .124 rI • Sy ,1560 1 1530.1 • 1430 I 1400 ( ' 1314- 1;� Mt 1401 1400 ` tj • 'O' 21D• ?b' At. \fS' JO' 10• 1 J_• .{O C • f• :At,: 17 9b0 • 600 700 600 500 1 all• V 'S /Q :.--fi I{TT I/ST I{21 I t401 • O Jb • .I • • ("S."-t \ JiC / f -. ed • •p! • !f .e•17 .7016 ae•15 ..v.14 •fed 31 sb 12, . e.11 1 .av� '7O• ..•- v... =•.5 NI ( 10TH) STR E ES � r„et:, e AfS?Ed V)r �'� - �,aRwCc..� ..1 • •A p1 • s • ST• c 2 0 7 _ 02 �\ 2 ,50.30 \� `f .se 1301 o s� t • , r - : . .• a.,.ae• (J ` � Np 45 -- :.-' COLLARD DLO r c LINE F A' 22 .s�,.. •./• .J: 46 �/ 3'01 • ' ' .v e<"3''� zs F 1600 + •cs 1700 BULLOCK #86 *!• tBOON LINE 221 JESSE . 1 j 900 '�u6 n :i ; i r�e • 021 T: 1; , , . . ti \� Y� .rr E r.., 0 2400 ir° '3 ,' • .. COURT : 1 F ,ter T - S CORNELL ; 5A tia•t, - ..ao• iti , 300• . ..•.o :r7 01.. 2500 � ,1 E t•30 B 2600 , 0 4 5 G. a e i • `Win lir \-- 4 : ..V t It1{I ° r ..,,o Aiw0.58 Ac. t 220o�� 3.1 Insl : Y • ` IN North Y : b .• i\ b74 o',on...• • r � y R•L •N C , .h hh 7i«. O'y.:a a, .N i rsy.H e .r f-- '• \ :O!.T� 2900 R..i 1?1, 1 -;t1 !• 127 Ac. vaa� 112A5 0 - DAVID T . WHEELER and KIMBERLEY A . BEAUDET one onthS- oat 1266z September 3, 2002 L ale air flee egpieeqpie Members of the City Council City of Lake Oswego,Oregon RE:Notice of Intent to Appeal decision regarding File No.: TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06] - 1478 Dear City Council: This letter and the accompanying$65.50 appeal fee is a written notice of our intent to appeal the above referenced decision by the Community Forestry Commission. As explained in more detail below, the decision reached by the Commission on August 21, 2002 does not sufficiently address our concerns that two of the approval criteria in section 55.02.080 of the Lake Oswego Code("LOC")have been satisfied. We own the home located at 1611 Lee Street, formerly 1314 Larch Street. Stephen and Melinda Todd own the neighboring property at 1645 Lee Street and have applied for a Type II Tree Cutting Permit (#020318) that has been tentatively approved. The stated purpose of the Tree Cutting Permit is to allow northward expansion of an existing garage. Our property shares an access easement with the home located at 1372 Larch Street owned by Mary Anderson. Due to the allowed construction of the homes in this neighborhood, our front door, the bay window from our master bedroom, and the access to our garage all face the north side of the Todd's garage and the site of the proposed tree removal and proposed construction. The Type II Tree Cutting Permit application should be denied for the following reasons. Due to the topography of the Todd property in relationship to our property, the proposed tree removal and proposed construction will have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability and the flow of surface waters, in violation of LOC 55.02.080. The Todd property is several feet higher in elevation than our property, and once the trees are removed and proposed construction completed, the soil will be inadequately anchored and it will erode and wash down onto our property when it rains. In fact, due to extensive brush removal and other landscaping already in progress on the Todd property, we were forced to install a channel drain earlier this year to keep the surface of the easement and our driveway from being continually flooded with mud and plant material debris. The proposed construction will result in a soil bank between the proposed garage wall and the property line with a 3-4 foot vertical drop over 10 feet. The mitigation plan outlined in 2.B. on page 3 of the above referenced document does not specifically address our concerns about erosion of debris and plant material onto the easement and into our driveway. If the trees are removed as proposed, it will have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics, and property values of the neighborhood, also in violation of LOC 55.02.080. As mentioned above, our property and the Anderson property share a common access easement that abuts the Todd property. If the trees are removed and the proposed development constructed, access to our property and the Anderson property may be impeded, which will decrease the value of both properties. In fact, on the day following the public hearing before the Community Forestry Commission, the Todds piled several hundred pounds of landscaping rock EXHIBIT A AP 02-08 9 —2— September 3,2002 right up to the property line for no reason other than to impede access to 1611 Lee Street and 1372 Larch Street. This has resulted in damage to vehicles belonging to owners of both adjoining properties and has made access to the garage at 1611 Lee Street difficult. When Mr. Todd was asked to move the rocks, he refused to do so. Photographs documenting this action will be presented at the appeal hearing. As noted above, the Tree Cutting Permit application has been filed for the purpose of obtaining a building permit to extend the north garage wall closer to our shared property line as allowed by current building code. Construction of the proposed soil bank between the new construction and the easement will severely limit ingress and egress to our driveway, and may necessitate the use of a "3-point turn" to enter and exit our garage. Indeed, that has been the exact result of the placement of the rocks along the property line for the past 3 weeks. It would also limit the size and type of vehicle that could access our garage and will therefore encroach upon our rights of use and enjoyment of our property and negatively impact future salability. The trees that are proposed to be removed are 2 mature maples, one 8" and the other 13" in diameter and 1 cherry that has an 11" trunk from the ground to about 3 feet above the ground, and then splits into 3 main branches, each 6" in diameter. These mature trees are approximately 40 feet in height and provide a natural green barrier that camouflages not only the Todd house but also other homes in the neighborhood uphill from the Todd house. This screen is particularly significant from the bay window in the master bedroom on the south side of our home. Replacement of this greenery will require many years to reach maturity and the proposed mitigation plan falls far short of ensuring an adequate timeline. Paragraph 2.B. on page 3 of the referenced document fails to stipulate any minimum for the planting height of the screening vegetation, requires only a minimum of 8 feet at maturity and does not stipulate any required maintenance. We believe the vegetation should be at least 8 feet in height at the time of installation and be required to reach at least 20 feet in height at maturity. In addition, the time period over which the plant material will reach maturity and the penalty for failure to maintain the vegetation should be spelled out. The recent retaliatory and unprovoked nature of the Todds obstruction of our use of the easement has erased any willingness to trust their goodwill in carrying out the City's directives. Furthermore, there is no provision that the mitigation plan is subject to review and comment by the neighbors who it purports to protect. For these and other reasons, we respectfully request a formal hearing before the members of the City Council of Lake Oswego at such a time as will be mutually agreeable to all parties. We remain hopeful that an adequate solution can be found that will allow reasonable development of the property at 1645 Lee Street and will also safeguard the rights of the homeowners of adjacent properties. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, , 00-164/4 id T. Wheeler Kimberley A. Beaudet 1611 LEE STREET • LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON • 97034-6000 PHONE: 503.697.8624 • FAX: 503 697.8624 10 1 BEFORE THE COMMUNITY FORESTRY COMMISSION 2 OF THE I l RAPROP.3 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ti 5 6 APPROVAL TO REMOVE 3 TREES IN ORDER ) TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06] - 1478 7 TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN ) STEPHEN&MELINDA TODD 8 EXISTING TWO-CAR GARAGE. ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER 9 10 11 NATURE OF APPLICATION 12 A request by the applicants for approval to remove a 21" cherry, an 8"maple, and a 13"maple in 13 order to expand an existing two-car garage to a three-car garage. The site is located at 1645 Lee 14 Street (Tax Lot 1305 of Tax Map 21E 15BA). 15 16 HEARINGS 17 18 The Community Forestry Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its 19 meeting of August 7, 2002. 20 21 The following exhibits were presented to the Commission and were entered into the record: 22 23 Exhibit E-6 Photograph submitted by Melinda Todd 24 Exhibit E-7 Photographs submitted by Kimberley Beaudet 25 Exhibit E-8 Photograph submitted by Stephen Todd 26 Exhibit G-201 Letter in opposition of the application from Mary Anderson 27 28 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 29 30 City of Lake Oswego Tree Code (Chapter LOC 55) 31 32 LOC 55.02.080 Criteria for Issuance of Type II Tree Cutting Permits 33 LOC 55.02.085 Request for Public Hearing on a Type II Tree Cutting Permit 34 LOC 55.02.084 Mitigation Required 35 36 CONCLUSION 37 38 The Community Forestry Commission concludes that TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06] can be made to 39 comply with all applicable criteria by the application of certain conditions. 40 41 FINDINGS AND REASONS 42 43 The Community Forestry Commission incorporates the July 26, 2002, Staff Report (with all 44 exhibits attached thereto), as support for its decision, supplemented by the further findings and PAGE 1 TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06] - 1478 EXHIBIT B AP 02-08 - - 1 1 i conclusions set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the supplementary matter 2 herein and the staff report,the matter herein controls. To the extent they are consistent with the 3 approval granted herein, the Commission adopts by reference its oral deliberations on this matter. 4 5 Following are the supplementary findings and conclusions of this Commission: 6 7 1. The Commission considered the evidence in the record and heard testimony regarding the 8 removal of three trees in order to construct an addition to the garage at 1645 Lee Street. 9 The attorney representing David Wheeler and Kimberley Beaudet read into the record 10 written testimony from the Mary Anderson of 1372 Larch Street in opposition of the 11 subject tree permit. 12 13 2. The Commission considered the criteria that must be met in order to remove a tree that is not 14 dead or a hazard [LOC 55.02.080]. 15 16 a. The Commission finds that the trees proposed for removal are located within the footprint 17 of the proposed development, and that the addition meets the site development standards 18 of the zone. 19 20 b. The Commission finds that appropriate landscaping in front of the garage addition will 21 prevent a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, or 22 existing windbreaks. Drainage from the addition will be directed to a gutter and 23 discharged to a rain drain on the site and will be reviewed and approved during the 24 building permit process. The Commission also finds that tree protection fencing will be 25 provided around trees to remain, and an inspection by staff will ensure protection of 26 adjacent trees during construction. 27 28 c. The Commission finds that no reasonable alternative exists to the removal of the 29 identified trees because an addition to the rear of the garage would require two windows 30 on the main house to be blocked, and would technically reduce their 3-bedroom house to 31 a two bedroom house due to lack of egress from the upstairs bedroom. The Commission 32 finds that the staff recommendation reducing the size of the garage width by two feet, and 33 installation of landscaping, including appropriate trees and/or shrubs, and groundcover in 34 front of the garage addition would mitigate for the impact on the neighborhood aesthetics 35 and property values. 36 37 The Commission also heard testimony from the neighbor, Mr. Wheeler that the garage 38 addition would have an even greater impact to aesthetics and property values because the 39 roof would change from a hipped roof to a gabled end that would increase the bulk of the 40 structure near the north property line. The applicant later testified that the roof form 41 would remain hipped and that the garage wall will be closer to the property line, but the 42 bulk and height of the structure as viewed from Mr. Wheeler's property would remain the 43 same. 44 45 d. The Commission finds that the tree removal is not for the purpose of providing views. PAGE 2 TC 02-0318 [AP 02-061- 1478 12 1 e. The Commission finds that the proposed replacement of trees on a 1:1 basis meets the 2 Code requirement for mitigation, and that additional landscaping in front of the garage to 3 mitigate for the visual impact should be imposed as a condition of approval. 4 5 ORDER 6 7 IT IS ORDERED BY THE COMMUNITY FORESTRY COMMISSION of the City of Lake 8 Oswego that: 9 10 1. TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06] is approved, subject to compliance with the conditions of approval 11 set forth in Subsection 2 of this Order. 12 13 2. The conditions for TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06] are as follows: 14 15 Prior to Submittal of a Building Permit the Applicants/Owners Shall: 16 17 A. Submit revised site and building plans showing a reduced width of the proposed 18 addition from 15 feet to 13 feet. 19 20 B. Submit a final mitigation plan showing the size, species, and location of three 21 replacement trees in accordance with the requirements of LOC 55.02.084. The 22 mitigation plan shall also include the size, species and location of plant materials and 23 groundcover to effectively screen the garage wall along the north property line. The 24 vegetation shall be of a type that will grow a minimum of 8-10 feet, and that can be 25 maintained in such a manner that it will not impede on the access easement to the 26 north. The mitigation plan will be subject to review and approval by staff. 27 28 C. Apply for a tree protection permit, and install tree protection fencing around the 29 remaining trees that are within 15' of construction activity in the following manner: 30 31 i. Fences shall be minimum six-feet high chain link fence installed around the dripline 32 of the trees, or 10 feet from the trunk, whichever is greater, unless the location of 33 the fencing is modified by recommendation of a certified arborist. The tree 34 protection fencing will be subject to review and approval by staff. 35 36 ii. Signs shall be placed on the fence that clearly read "Tree protection area, Do Not 37 Disturb. No fill, compaction, or storage of materials shall occur within the tree 38 protection zone. Do not move tree protection fencing without prior approval 39 by the City of Lake Oswego." 40 41 iii. Notify all contractors on the site that preventing damage to the trees, including the 42 bark and root zone, is a priority and failure to adhere to the tree protection 43 standards, including moving or removal of fencing from its approved location, 44 could result in the issuance of fines or a stop work order. 45 PAGE 3 TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06]- 1478 13 1 D. Development plans review,permit approval, and inspections by the City of Lake 2 Oswego Development Review Section are limited to compliance with the Lake Oswego 3 Community Development Code, and related code provisions. The applicant is advised 4 to review plans for compliance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations 5 that could relate to the development, i.e., Americans with Disabilities Act, Endangered 6 Species Act. City staff may advise the applicant of issues regarding state and federal 7 laws that the City staff member believes would be helpful to the applicant, but any such 8 advice or comment is not a determination or interpretation of federal or state law or 9 regulation. 10 11 12 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Community 13 Forestry Commission of the City of Lake Oswego. 14 15 DATED this 2 I day of 40 V , 2002. 16 17 18 19 20 enemy Fried, Chairman 21 Community Forestry Commission 22 23 24 ' 25 )31111\40-k- 26 Jessia Sarver 27 Assistant Planner 28 29 30 ATTEST: 31 32 ORAL DECISION—August 7, 2002 33 34 AYES: Fried, Cory, Owen, Wagner and Morton. 35 NOES: None 36 ABSTAIN: None 37 ABSENT: None 38 39 WRITTEN FINDINGS —Ausgust 21, 2002 40 41 AYES: 42 NOES: 43 ABSTAIN: 44 ABSENT: PAGE 4 TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06] - 1478 - 1 4 of LAKE Os kppooyEe `�� ECO City of Lake Oswego �� Community Forestry Commission Minutes August 7, 2002 OREGON I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Jeremy Fried called the August 7, 2002 meeting of the Community Forestry Commission to order at 6:11 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners present were Chair Fried, Don Morton, Erin Wagner, David Cory and William Owen. Staff present were Stephen Lashbrook, Community Development Director; Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Jessica Sarver, Assistant Planner; and Jean Hall, Senior Secretary. III. MINUTES Mr. Owen moved for approval of the Minutes of October 11, 2001, with a correction to the second paragraph of page 2 stating that a certified arborist would be able to identify a "hazard" tree. Mr. Cory seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Cory, Mr. Fried, Mr. Morton, Mr. Owen and Ms. Wagner voting yes. There were no votes against. IV. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER None. V. PUBLIC HEARING TC 02-0318, a request to consider a tree-cutting application at 1645 Lee Street, Lake Oswego. The applicants, Stephen and Melinda Todd, are requesting the removal of three trees in order to expand a two-car garage to a three-car garage. Staff coordinator is Jessica Sarver, Assistant Planner. Chair Fried opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, biases or conflicts of interest. City of Lake Oswego Community Forestry Commission Minutes of August 7,2002 EXHIBIT C-1 AP 02-08 15 Se iQ41 vpale- Mr. Owen reported he had visited the site. No one in audience challenged any commissioner's right to hear the application. Jessica Sarver, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. She reported that the applicants desired to remove a 12-inch diameter cherry tree, and 10- and 8-inch diameter maple trees to accommodate an expansion of their existing garage. She explained that each trunk of the twin-stem maple had been counted as an individual tree because the split was below ground. She noted the proposed development was not close enough to the Resource Conservation District at the edge of the site to be subject to the Sensitive Lands Ordinance. She noted there was an improved access easement along the north property line that served both the applicants and their neighbors. She explained that the application had been tentatively approved by the staff, but was being contested by a neighbor. She then discussed the criteria that were to be met to receive a Type II tree-cutting permit. She advised the application met Criterion 1 because the removal was for a use permitted in the zone. She advised that the application met Criterion 2 because removal would not had have a significant impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks. She anticipated that new landscaping in an existing area of bare dirt under the trees between the garage wall and the access easement would improve that area. She said an existing rock wall that was to remain beside the garage would help maintain soil stability there. She observed the trees were spaced far enough apart that their removal should have no impact on existing trees and shrubbery on the site. She explained that staff found that Criterion 3 had been met after the applicants and staff considered alternate site plans that might lessen the impact of tree removal on neighbors at 1611 Lee Street. She reported the alternate site plan would have impacted two windows on the back of the house and required a tandem garage configuration. She said the recommended condition for landscaping would help reduce any potential visual impact. She said the proposal met Criterion 4 because removal would not provide or enhance a view for the applicants. She advised the Tree Code required mitigation and the applicants proposed to plant three trees in the rear yard and had agreed to a staff- recommended condition to provide screening for the garage wall. She said that although staff found the applicants had met Type II tree removal criteria, they were withholding their recommendation until all testimony had been heard. She pointed out staff-recommended conditions of approval were listed in the staff report. Applicant Melinda Todd, 1645 Lee Street, Lake Oswego, 97034, testified she and her husband planned to expand their garage to accommodate their child's vehicle, a workshop and a gardening shed and increase the value of their property. She related they were also improving their backyard with nine new trees. She said the applicants would agree to soften their neighbors' view of the garage with landscape. She said the proposed development would have no impact on the neighbor's access to their garage or access to property. She recalled the Deputy City Attorney had advised that a quiet title action City of Lake Oswego Community Forestry Commission Page 2 of 2 Minutes of August 7, 2002 16 brought by the neighbors was not at issue in the tree removal hearing. She clarified the existing access easement belonged to the Beaudet's and was over the Anderson property. She reported the proposed development had been approved subject to a tree removal permit. She reported the applicants had not been successful in their attempts to discuss the issue with the Beaudets. She said the applicants had agreed to reduce the proposed width of the garage extension by two feet in order to accommodate landscaping. During questioning by the Commissioners, she explained Photograph 7 showed the area of the proposed garage wall and it was 8 feet from that wall to the property line. She pointed out the locations of two small rock walls. She confirmed that the reduced garage width left a 10-foot setback to the garage wall and she stated that the applicants had not yet created a landscape plan for along that wall. She clarified that the landscape plan would not include large trees that might impact the access easement in the future, but would feature screening type vegetation. She clarified that the applicants desired to maintain access through that area to their backyard. Mr. Pishvaie clarified staff recommended landscaping would include vegetation that would grow to at least 8 or 10 feet tall. Proponents None. Opponents Kimberly Beaudet, 1611 Lee Street, Lake Oswego, 97034, testified the applicants had not considered how the tree removal would impact their neighbors and they had not discussed the proposal with the Beaudets or Ms. Anderson before the tree permit sign had been posted. She explained the impacts to the neighbors would include erosion and surface water runoff, which she had observed for the first time the previous winter after the applicants had removed brush and other vegetation from along the property line. She explained mud and debris consistently clogged a surface drain that had served well from 1979 until the brush removal (Figure 1, channel drain photo). She related the applicant's claimed installation of a cement apron between their garage and the Beaudet property would alleviate the problem. She opined that the apron would be aesthetically unpleasing, it would exacerbate the problem of water runoff that she believed was currently being absorbed by the subject trees, and it would make it impossible to landscape the area in a manner that would buffer her view of the garage. She said she believed that installation of another retaining wall on the property line would create an obstacle to access to her garage and that of her neighbor at 1372 Larch Street. She held that landscaping of 8 to 10 feet height would not provide anywhere near the level of privacy she currently enjoyed. She said the tree removal would have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood. She asked the Commission to deny the application. City of Lake Oswego Community Forestry Commission Page 3 of 3 Minutes of August 7,2002 - 17 During questioning by the Commissioners, she confirmed that the photograph on the bottom of page 5 of the staff report showed the applicant's property that was used for parking by visitors to her property and she explained she used a graveled area there while maneuvering her vehicle into her garage (Beaudet-provided photographs #1 and #2). Staff advised that what happened on the neighbor's property was not an issue to be considered at the hearing, and they advised the Commissioners to decide the application based on the applicable criteria. Ms. Beaudet confirmed for the Commissioners that she had lots of deciduous trees on her property and that she considered a gravel apron to be preferable to a concrete apron. Staff confirmed for the Commissioners that the driveway could be sloped away from the Beaudet's property and that the building permit process would require the applicants to address erosion control. David Wheeler, 1611 Lee Street, Lake Oswego, testified that approval of the tree removal would directly impact neighborhood character and values because it would impede use of the access easement. He stressed loss of the trees would reduce shade and privacy on his property. He observed that if the application were approved, the applicants would have the only 3-bay garage in the neighborhood. He recalled that the applicants had changed their projected use of the garage extension from a shop area to a third vehicle bay after they heard neighborhood objections to the development. He anticipated the neighborhood quiet would be disturbed by power tools while the applicants cars sat in their driveway. He suggested that if the workshop were relocated to the rear of the garage no tree removal would be necessary. He pointed out that even small-sized vehicles could not access his garage without driving over a portion of the applicant's property, which was also used by visitors to his home. He said loss of the use of that area would constitute a significant hardship. He provided photographs and demonstrated how the proposed design of the garage wall and its new roof orientation would adversely impact the view from his home. Mr. Owen observed that one of the trees was leaning at least 20 degrees and he advised that it would continue its incline until it became troublesome in the future. He further advised that if appropriate species of trees were planted against the new wall that would create a more aesthetically pleasing appearance than the existing view. Mr. Wheeler acknowledged that his view would be improved if the garage could be buffered from view, but he said it should be done in a manner that would not impede his access. Frank McDonald, 101 SW Main, Portland, Oregon, 97204, indicated he was the appellants' attorney. The Commission granted him time to testify. Mr. McDonald contended that Type II Criterion 2 had not been met, because the applicants had provided no evidence regarding the flow of surface waters and the staff had not taken into account the increased impervious surface area that would result from the shed roof and concrete apron. He said the staff report had avoided a conclusion that removal of the trees was for the sole purpose of providing or enhancing views. He contended that Type II Criterion #4 had not been met and the sole purpose of removal could be to provide a view based on the fact that the applicants had rejected an alternate plan for a rear workshop/garage on the basis that would block their current view. He noted the City of Lake Oswego Community Forestry Commission Page 4 of 4 Minutes of August 7, 2002 18 staff report called for a final mitigation plan per LOC 55.02.084 that was to be reviewed by the staff. He advised that section of the Code provided for replacement of trees and did not address screening. He noted the applicants had acknowledged in their testimony that they had not yet created a landscaping plan. He suggested the applicants could have considered an alternate plan to build a detached shed and not remove the trees or modify the existing garage. He said the applicants should find an alternate plan and he asked the Commissioners to deny the application. He referenced a recent Land Use Board of Appeals decision related to an approval that did not specify compliance requirements for a planting plan that was to be subject to staff review. He explained his clients questioned whether the planting plan would be appropriate and enforced. He said that because the plan was to be subject to staff review, his clients should have the benefit of notice. He read a letter from Mary Anderson of 1372 Larch Street, Lake Oswego, 97034. In the letter Ms. Anderson explained the removal of trees that buffered the site from her property would negatively impact the value of her property. She indicated she was also concerned the proposed development would make access to her home more difficult (Exhibit G20). Mr. McDonald then clarified for the Commissioners that it was Mr. Wheeler who was his client. Mr. Pishvaie advised that the Tree Code was not a land use law and that the application should be decided according to the applicable criteria. Rebuttal Stephen Todd, 1645 Lee Street, Lake Oswego, 97034, pointed out on a photograph of the area along the property line where vehicles parked inside the property boundary. He held that because the new construction was to be set back 10 feet from the line, access issues were not pertinent to the commission's decision. He related that he had observed the neighbors accessing their garage for several months and they seemed to have no problem pulling in. He reasoned that because the applicants' brush removal activity had begun this spring, the debris the neighbors had observed was most likely from the subject trees and their removal would alleviate the debris problem. He clarified the applicants never intended to use concrete for the apron. He recalled Mr. Wheeler's testimony about the design of the garage and he clarified that the design of the extension would be the same as the design of the existing garage, except that a small garden shed would be attached to the back. He demonstrated the shape of the roofline for the Commissioners. He said if the workshop were located at the back of the garage, it would not be as easy to use and would require the removal of a bedroom window - which would eliminate one bedroom - and double the cost of the expansion. He opined that the neighbors' view of the garage would be improved by the landscaping around the garage extension. Staff then confirmed the application met the applicable criteria and they recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Sarver confirmed for City of Lake Oswego Community Forestry Commission Page 5 of 5 Minutes of August 7,2002 It the Commissioners that the conditions would be enforceable and she advised that the commission could impose conditions of approval to mitigate a potential impact on the neighborhood. Chair Fried closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. Deliberations Mr. Owen advised that a mitigation plan to screen the garage wall that would include trees that would grow to at least 8 to 10 feet high could improve the neighbors' view of the garage and enhance their property value. He observed the subject trees were close to the property line and one tree was a weak and leaning specimen that would worsen over time and should be replaced. He said the testimony had not provided him with any grounds to deny the application. He suggested that the apron could be sloped toward the south. He opined that the project could be accomplished in a manner that would not harm the neighborhood. Ms. Wagner advised that as a landscape architect, she was aware of methods to aesthetically screen the garage wall and that erosion could be easily controlled by installing low ground cover and other planting methods. She noted the City would enforce the landscape plan and the neighbors would also be watching. Ms. Sarver confirmed that staff would review and enforce a landscape plan. Mr. Cory indicated he could find no reason to deny the application, and he observed that replacement of the existing unattractive twin-stemmed maple tree next to the garage would improve the aesthetics of the area. Mr. Fried said he saw no reason to deny the permit. Mr. Owen moved for approval of TC 02-0318. Mr. Cory seconded the application and it passed with Mr. Cory, Mr. Fried, Mr. Morton, Mr. Owen and Ms. Wagner voting yes. There were no votes against. Chair Fried announced the final vote on the findings would be held on August 21, 2002. VI. OTHER BUSINESS Election of officers Mr. Fried nominated Erin Wagner for Vice Chair of the Community Forestry Commission. Mr. Owen seconded the nomination and Ms. Wagner was re-elected by unanimous approval. Mr. Owen nominated Jeremy Fried for Chair of the Community Forestry Commission. Mr. Morton seconded the nomination and Mr. Fried was unanimously re-elected as Chair. Ad Hoc Tree Code Review Task Force Report City of Lake Oswego Community Forestry Commission Page 6 of 6 Minutes of August 7, 2002 20 Mr. Cory reported that Task Force members had agreed to recommend to the City Council that the City employ an arborist and develop a tree technical manual similar to that used by the City of Palo Alto, California. He also related the participants were discussing changes in tree mitigation requirements. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Fried adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /� 4... 1-kit / C � Jean Hall Senior Secretary L:\CFC\minutes\08-07-02.doc City of Lake Oswego Community Forestry Commission Page 7 of 7 Minutes of August 7, 2002 2 „�� DRAFT A,,,, City of Lake Oswego Community Forestry Commission Minutes ...ow : 1 t 1 August 21, 2002 a.moN I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Jeremy Fried called the Community Forestry Commission meeting of Wednesday, August 21, 2002 to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. in the Human Resource Conference Room of City Hall, 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Chair Jeremy Fried, Commissioners William Owen, David Cory, and Don Morton were present. Commissioner Erin Wagner was excused. Staff present was Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager and Debra Groves, Administrative Support. III. MINUTES Chair Fried inquired if everyone had reviewed the minutes from the previous meeting. Chair Mr. Fried stated that strong feelings do come up with these types of cases. Chair Fried inquired if there was anyway to show more sensitivity in the matters. The commission agreed that they had done a good job reviewing the issues. Commissioner Morton moved for approval of the Minutes ofAuRust 7, 2002. Commissioner Owen seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Fried, and Commissioners Morton, Cory, and Owen voting yes. Commissioner Wagner was not present. There were no votes against IV. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER TC 02-0318,The applicants (Stephen and Melinda Todd) are requesting approval to remove 3 trees in order to expand a two-car garage to a three-car garage Chair Fried inquired that everyone had a chance to review the Findings for the above case. Chair Fried asked about paragraph C pertaining to the design and confirmed that this was not their area of concern. Mr. Pishvaie clarified that this section was talking about an alternate location that relates to the site plan and not the building design. Chair Freid asked that mitigation does not eliminate the impact but lessens the severity, Mr. Pishvaie agreed. CFC Meeting EXHIBIT C-2 AP 02-08 r -i-wo fct.kie� 2 �$ August 21, 2002 Page 2 Chair Fried also asked about such issues as the roof form, that conflicting facts were presented, and that was the commison to assume that the facts by the applicate were correct. Mr. Pishvaie clarified that this was up to the Commission, but that is related specifically to the building design. Commissioner Owen questioned Sections D and E as being contradictory. Paragraph D is related to tree cutting not for the purpose of providing a veiw while paragraph E states that we are going to mitigate the visual impact. Additional discussion was offered that one statement was from the applicants and the other from the complainant. Mr. Pishvaie clarified that view enhancements are really for the applicant that may request a tree removal for a the purpose of immproving his or her view of a vista, not the view from one house to another. Chair Fried confirmed that all had read the findings and agree with the document. Commissioner Morton moved for approval of the Findings, Conclusion and Order. Commissioner Owen seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Fried, and Commissioners Morton, Cory, and Owen voting yes. Commissioner Wagner was not present. There were no votes against. V. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, Chair Fried adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra Groves Administrative Support 1:\cfc\mm utes\082102.doc % 4 N STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANTS: FILE NO: V. Stephen & Melinda Todd TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06] PROPERTY OWNERS: STAFF: V. Stephen& Melinda Todd Jessica Sarver LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT: Tax Lot 1305 of July 26, 2002 Tax Map 21E 15BA LOCATION: DATE OF HEARING: 1645 Lee Street August 7, 2002 COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: R-7.5 McVey-South Shore ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7.5 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicants are requesting approval to remove a 12" Cherry, an 8" Maple and a 13" Maple tree. The trees are proposed for removal in order to expand an existing two-car garage to a three-car garage. II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS City of Lake Oswego Tree Code (Chapter LOC 55) LOC 55.02.080 Criteria for Issuance of Type II Tree Cutting Permits TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06] PROP 1 of R EXHIBIT D 2 5 AP 02-08 LOC 55.02.085 Request for Public Hearing on a Type II Tree Cutting Permit III. FINDINGS A. Background/Existing Conditions: 1. The site is approximately 15,030 square feet in size and rectangular in shape, Exhibit El. There is an existing 2,432 square foot single-family dwelling on the site that was constructed in 1990. 2. Access to the property is from Lee Street, Exhibit E2. Properties abutting the site are zoned R-7.5 and developed with single-family dwellings. 3. The property slopes down from the front of the lot to the rear of the lot eight feet over a 150-foot length. The trees are located along the north side yard of the subject property on a small slope, adjacent to the access easement that serves 1611 Lee Street and 1372 Larch Street, Exhibits El and E3. 4. The applicants have applied fro a building permit for the proposed addition. Building permit 02-1693 has been reviewed and is on hold pending a plumbing permit for a rain drain, and approval of the tree cutting permit. Exhibit E3 illustrates the garage and shed addition proposed by the applicant. 5. The southeast corner of the property is within a non-delineated Resource Conservation (RC) District, Exhibit E4. The proposed addition is approximately 45 feet from the RC boundary. Since the proposed addition is more than 35 feet from the RC District boundary, as it is shown in the Sensitive Lands Atlas, the development is not subject to the requirements of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance [LOC 50.16.015 (1)]. 6. The property was posted with a public notice sign regarding the tree removal, and a letter was sent to the neighborhood association on May 21, 2002, Exhibit F1. The application notice period commenced on May 21, 2002, and concluded on June 4, 2002, in accordance with the requirements of LOC 55.02.082. 7. Comments were received from the property owners at 1372 Larch Street and 1611 Lee Street, both located immediately to the north of the subject property, Exhibit F2. Mary Anderson, the owner of 1372 Larch Street, raised concerns about a retaining wall that she understood the applicants would be building along the property line that abuts her access easement. She indicated that the construction of the retaining wall would impede access to her home, and would require the removal of a large cedar in TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06] Page 2 of 8 26 order to widen the driveway for adequate access. The applicant does not discuss or show a retaining wall on the site plan. The proposed addition will be set back eight feet from the property line and will not impede or alter the existing access easement in any way. Because the addition does not alter or impede on the access, it would seem unnecessary to widen the driveway to 1372 Larch Street and remove the Cedar when the current driveway width appears to have adequately serviced that lot since the house was built (see photographs 5, 6, and 7 of Exhibit E5). Mrs. Anderson also raised concerns about erosion and runoff from the site, and the loss of vegetative canopy to screen the garage wall. The neighbors at 1611 Lee Street, David Wheeler and Kimberley Beaudet, raised similar concerns about erosion, runoff, access, and aesthetics. These issues are discussed on pages 4-5 of this report. In addition, they argued that the proposed addition would not meet the setbacks of the zone, because the northern property boundary platted in the County records is inaccurate. Staff observed a property pin set by a surveyor (Photograph 7 of Exhibit E5) along the north property line that confirms that the proposed addition actually exceeds the minimum 5-foot side yard setback by over 3 feet. Mr. Wheeler and Ms. Beaudet claim that the current northern property boundary as depicted is inaccurate because they are initiating a quiet title action, claiming that they own by adverse possession a portion of the Todd's property alongside the proposed addition. The Deputy City Attorney advised staff that the City must examine the application based on the legal property boundaries as they now exist, not what a court may rule sometime in the future; until a final court judgment is entered, the legal boundaries are not changed. The neighbors at 1611 Lee Street also raised concerns about impacts that the proposed addition will have on the access driveway to their lot. Upon inspection of the site, it appeared to staff that ample room was available for cars to enter and exit the garage at 1611 Lee Street using the paved access easement that serves as their driveway, (see Photographss 4 and 6 of Exhibit E5). The proposed development is set back eight feet from the edge of the paved driveway and does not appear to impede or interfere with the neighbor's access in any way. 8. The neighbors at 1611 Lee Street filed a request for a public hearing regarding the applicant's proposal, along with the applicable fee on July 3, 2002, Exhibit G200. They indicated they were requesting the hearing because the proposed development would have a significant negative impact on erosion and soil stability, as well as the character, aesthetics, and property values of the neighborhood. TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06] Page3of8 2 B. Compliance with Criteria for Approval: The applicants are requesting approval of a tree removal permit under the Type II provisions of LOC 55.02.080. Tree removals under this standard must meet the following criteria: LOC 55.02.080—Criteria for Issuance of Type II Tree Cutting Permits "An applicant for a Type II tree cutting permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The City Manager may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. " 1. The tree is proposed for removal for landscaping purposes or in order to construct development approved or allowed pursuant to the Lake Oswego Code or other applicable development regulations. The applicants are requesting removal in order to convert an existing two-car garage into a three-car garage. The garage is attached to the existing residence on the south side, and currently maintains a 23-foot side yard setback from the north property line. The proposed addition would exceed all of the alteration standards for the R-7.5 zone. The two maples are inside the footprint of the proposed garage addition, and the cherry tree is requested for removal because it would impede access to the third garage bay. 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and The applicants indicated that there should be no impact on any of these issues, but did not elaborate in their application as to why there would not be any impacts. Upon site inspection and further contact with the applicants, staff concurs that the proposed development shouldn't have a significant negative impact on soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks. The trees are located on a small slope above the neighbors to the north, and after they are removed, the addition and a concrete apron will be built over the sloped area. Drainage issues will be reviewed during the building permit process. The applicants will be required, as a recommended condition of approval, to replant vegetation around the disturbed areas, which should improve erosion control and run-off problems from the site that the neighbors are currently dealing with. The removal of the trees will not have a significant negative impact on adjacent trees or existing windbreaks because trees and shrubs will remain on both the east and west sides of the subject trees, (see photographs 8, 9, and 10 of Exhibit E5). The trees and shrubs to the west are smaller and less mature than the subject trees and should have ample time to adjust to the absence of the trees as they continue mature. The trees to the east are larger maples and a cedar that have grown a majority of their life TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06] Page 4 of 8 28 without the windbreak of the smaller cherry and maple trees and should remain stable in their absence. 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact o the character, aesthetics, or property values of the neighborhood. The City may grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternative landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Lake Oswego Code. The removal of the three trees will have an impact on the aesthetics as viewed by the neighbor at 1611 Lee Street, and will have an impact on their property values if the garage wall is constructed without any screening or landscaping to soften the appearance of the garage wall. The removal of the trees will have an impact because it will open up the area directly in front of the garage in full view of the neighbor; however, a vegetative buffer will remain directly to the east and the west of the addition. Per LOC 55.02.080 (3), the City may grant an exception to the criterion that the removal will not have a significant negative impact on character, aesthetics, or property values if alternatives to tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. A three-car garage is a permitted use on a single-family lot, if the structure complies with the development standards of the zone. According to the site plan, the addition can meet the development standards of the zone. In looking at alternative plans for the addition, an extension to the south of the existing garage is not possible because it is attached to the home. Adding the third bay to the rear of the existing garage would require cars to be parked in tandem, and would block a window on the side of the house, (see photograph 11 of Exhibit E5). Staff finds that a reasonable alternative is not possible to site the third garage bay, but measures can be taken to reduce the impact to the neighbors in the form of a hedge, or other vegetative screening material such as vines to soften the appearance of the garage wall. Staff also finds that a reduction in the width of the garage addition from 15 feet to 13 feet would reduce the impact on the neighbors. The reduction will not allow the retention of the trees, but would provide a few additional feet to install landscaping material while still maintaining ample width for a third garage bay. Staff does not recommend replanting large trees along the north property line adjacent to the addition as they may impede on the access road for the neighbors as they mature. 4. Removal of the tree is not for the sole purpose of providing or enhancing views. The removal of the trees is expressly for the garage addition and will not enhance or create any views for the applicants. TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06] Page 5 of 8 2 9 5. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree pursuant to 55.02.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Initially the applicants proposed to site replacement trees between the addition and the north property line. They later revised the location of the replacement trees to the rear of the lot. The applicants will be required to replace the trees at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Staff recommends adding a condition of approval to require the applicant to mitigate for the impact of the garage addition by installing vegetation to screen the garage wall. The vegetation should be of a type that can be maintained in a manner that will not impede or interfere on the access easement of the neighbors to the north. IV. CONCLUSION Based upon the information submitted by the applicant presented in this report, staff finds that the application would meet the tree removal criteria in LOC 55.02.080; however, additional evidence may be presented at the hearing. Following receipt of additional evidence given before the Community Forestry Commission, staff will present additional findings and recommendation for action on this case. If CFC grants approval of the tree cutting permit, the following conditions of approval are recommended by staff: Prior to Submittal of a Building Permit the Applicants/Owners Shall: 1. Submit revised site and building plans showing a reduced width of the proposed addition from 15 feet to 13 feet. 2. Submit a final mitigation plan showing the size, species, and location of three replacement trees in accordance with the requirements of LOC 55.02.084. The mitigation plan shall also include the size, species and location of plant materials to effectively screen the garage wall along the north property line. The vegetation shall be of a type that will grow a minimum of 8-10 feet, and that can be maintained in such a manner that it will not impede on the access easement to the north. The mitigation plan will be subject to review and approval by staff 3. Apply for a tree protection permit, and install tree protection fencing around the remaining trees that are within 15' of construction activity in the following manner: a. Fences shall be minimum six-feet high chain link fence installed around the dripline of the trees, or 10 feet from the trunk, whichever is greater, unless the location of the fencing is modified by recommendation of a certified arborist. The tree protection fencing will be subject to review and approval by staff TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06] Page 6 of 8 30 b. Signs shall be placed on the fence that clearly read "Tree protection area, Do Not Disturb. No fill, compaction, or storage of materials shall occur within the tree protection zone. Do not move tree protection fencing without prior approval by the City of Lake Oswego." c. Notify all contractors on the site that preventing damage to the trees, including the bark and root zone, is a priority and failure to adhere to the tree protection standards, including moving or removal of fencing from its approved location, could result in the issuance of fines or a stop work order. 4. Development plans review, permit approval, and inspections by the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Section are limited to compliance with the Lake Oswego Community Development Code, and related code provisions. The applicant is advised to review plans for compliance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations that could relate to the development, i.e., Americans with Disabilities Act, Endangered Species Act. City staff may advise the applicant of issues regarding state and federal laws that the City staff member believes would be helpful to the applicant, but any such advice or comment is not a determination or interpretation of federal or state law or regulation. EXHIBITS A. [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] B. [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] C. [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] D. [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] E. GRAPHICS/PLANS E l. Tax Map E2. Site Plan Illustrating Tree Locations E3. Site plan submitted with building permit materials E4. Sensitive Lands Map E5. Photographs F. WRITTEN MATERIALS F1. Type II Tree Removal Application, TC 02-0318 F2. Letters from Mary Anderson, David Wheeler and Kimberley Beaudet dated June 3, 2002 TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06] Page 7 of 8 3 G. LETTERS Neither For Nor Against G 1-100 None Support: G101. None Opposition: G200. Request for Hearing Letter from David Wheeler and Kimberley Beaudet, received 7/03/02 TC 02-0318 [AP 02-06] Page 8 of 8 32 N NE I/4 NW1/4 SEC. 15 T. 2S. R. IE WM. rep� •' ,�E Tt fo� CLACKAMAS COUNTY F. • • I"=100' ••' • (— • N W • W H SEE MAP 2 .IE., IOCD 3 Bfe Jl•✓O-C 4/O 70• 7 • JBf. R C H Lk1�Cl� STREET .«. , .. ._. ._.R�� �3...�• Wi n.. ....1 /� 1300 . 'I { .w i0'a .f,.•3�.�,•� JS4 *Jv•5 .!'e 6I se•7 ,fy•8I .r7o 9 . sr./r•• PO.r- 4444 1500 I '14r,�5/ 3 oC f 2''100 14 300 .401 400 ; 1302 1303 1246 �t %• y ` 11560 I 1530.1 1430 I 1400 1 1311 1312 ,/� 1401 1400 I , • ; Z •.' o a • • 4 1"` ; //��'_�J•" 2 1286 1260 l y� 1 0 'U �TI-165 • • JO' 20• JYr• R. JS• JO• .!b' J .. f0 -es G - ••• , r/ ,....r.7.1 A I V / ., o z V/L'7A5 17 900 . 800 700 600 f 500 � � � , . ON I4 l • 1451 1421 I 1401 O p al • ~f IT r..I se•15i ,r0.14 Je131 Ja I ,ro� 'Ia. e - �5 :e• Z .fo•II ( -• • :N ( IQTH) STREEn 112 � ' °tl w h As �F� 1304 • 0 o 7 innII 0 2 ,„.„ .. _ . 00 , .. r ANl z• 1301 n ,: :rn4 0 Ow • A•ra. fa• U NO. 45 r— ..•. GOLLARO OLC v• " LINE F A. 22 ..r/a ; R, /.�J� NO 46 ;/ 3.OI ...•ptAT) S• .9 9S' / I OLG / �-r N 4,46,3,0 LJ' F 1600 ,. a' • /Ls• 1700 BULLOCK `� n/1 /86 •►• 1800N LINE :,223 JESSE o I9 ' 1900 v V b / \� �Ut21 159 `� ; �' �1 %• , 0 9 . c 7 , I,' '/(L S 0 o a C ,? 0 h c r,� Cf \� �� D' it?' E •-.• , 2400 /r° '3 / /ZS. AI / ,, A / • `,4,. 6°.LL/ 4•J/.6 JiOJL COURT _ "F � ? _ . }� " ', 5A 33 if". S. CORNELL f•4•,, e7 T. 0 lir B 2600 .. 0.4 3 At• a e i • ``�/7� .,30 ,. 2200 /y t1151 v r %17141 ' ` North o a lal ,s 142 /Y e ;u u • S .. /• R.a' \--I- r / EXHIBIT E-1 o� • .h "h tt°b ;.. .S. ..a,1 .fss• t AP 02-08 ,I 3 2900 :ef �' ...1, i-:sii 1.2 7 Ac. ve'� 11285 6� 1 V`tJ LVV Oil CV L 1 1V 1. 1 Vl LV 1 bb Lake Oswego Oswego Heights Oregon 97034 Clackamas Co. i'= r0o - • / -4 �� / l�(C`C_ �c c�` lab''C.LVCH Un. QA. �l.0�J� '`'� O r('C{ ! c7 -- ` '� Ta2'Ena� £d( Jp v ' %< J ueFH, S"`r.6,t f, •. < 4 ik yief 42.1: iS f 'PC° ::_l_., ..---.')1 • Ammo,o � �-s i X L A — v = fir `�~ - -': %� ~r %Oeb 6 �_- \ ? ' ` -----� l� s \ D2lV ��^^ e-r rf 1 D r �� ,/ Y Lee Street - Paved EXHIBIT E-2 AP 02-08 Re_ci, a,1 e_1-2 X, c Clo "5 , j'v 6425-7,7 Vie-e:-.e--,/,/i e-4 1/e--43 TO 5 /0/4-e.:-e-- le-7124)e_eyi i 7 eiz)p--,--z-a,C-:--2 4.--.7-1 d ,,,---,9 -&:7-7y l per- „,:. _ 3 5 I 100-0" I IP Co v / 23'-0" / — 2'-0" / 15'-0" / / 21'-0" - 104 ___- _ /-\---:\ y 15'-0"NEW / 14'-0"NEW / coma NEw TTER TO EXISTI%DS. EXISTING NEAT KW _7- NEW SHED zo �C��^ !— ,"-Tr 1 ��J e---- i 10 .-. If II'0 MAPLE / IREMOVE EXTEND EXISTING E>..IETING Dui_LLIN6 RELOC4rE if 8'0 MAPLE RIDGE / ..., AS MFTER f, NEW GARAGE EXISTING GARAGE/ r 1 1 RE 'XATE �; ELECTRIC ITER 1 , /4 ----- -- I wrap _____ r /l CONNECT NEW \-i ` TTER TO / EXISTING DS. i I lji I Tzo 8'0•��JT / -CCNGf£TE APRON � I f (- \li 11, EXISTING �EXPOSFD AGGREGATE: VT EXLSTU46 II ,,,,, , O - I r ____------1 , : Z"3XISTWG WATER LINE - GAIAGE ADO Ill ON 1 1 G, / 1 .7.. - 1___ I I - S T izzt '1" 23'-0' 2'-0' 21'-0" L_______ 5'-0" NE 4'-0" r Cor cT NEW 2- To EXATII6 Ds. EwS { ' p NEAT FL ,, ridal J NEU1 SIDED .*_ ... ` / iiiiiII ue.,-h 1 rt r . .,,,, fVrt , • „, ,. , reMAE ?�l�T1NC pU1ELLINC 4 f , pEGpC�►TE hi- -.I.. Jr12 re NFU RIDGE ,, lic p EXISTING GARAGE NEW GARAGE _ _ _ _ _ - I a �',;CATE • ELECTRIC r TER 1 r 1 wrap • CCPNECT NEW j ' �� R t0 j EXISTING Db �� r 'c) lir, I/,/I � 6l cv r!'a ,yE r NEW 810,, _ i / CONCRETE 4PioN , 1 / I , / /______ -c.j , l . , 7 EXISTING EXi'06ED DGGREGATE- laY r EXISTING I I r _--- XI511NG WATER LINE I r ' ,Addid. NEXT MAP A PAGE 37 NEXT MAP 1 rro.-�0 0 0 p o (600' fmU m mW fmU o --co w u w N I N � _ � - IUD T2SR1E i85 - —cr, N W N 537 W W N r5r7 Li W N N 16809 O Rl SECTION 15B r - .. N . ro m .A .� LAR( ' LARCH kp iO W ISTREET -� PAGE 46 1601 m p o ro o En N7. (LEE) I 1190 O c ca w 1610 m LARCHIry ro • 1196 _ m m m o o GLEE) t- 1372 so, °'� - =1'1 1691 _ -- � a0 70 cn LWnin 1 u��i c��n 1699 iv, ',` ,s. :': P-_ , �a SENSITIVE ASPEN • VSTREETVE> •' 1� LANDS z�169c � � °' ° °' ' m � � tLCEa• • • .� �. 32 o O o P• . • • ♦ • • • • • • • .' • • i y ♦ • • s • - • . • �� ��6) • -• • • • • • • • • • • •. . . • •. • • • '. Stream L1692 �S� '.,`,��� \b •.. T.G-2 . . .,1ZAS • •_ : •• ,161 a ` Corridor ........fl VE,,- -�- ,8, • . �+' • . ., w,�, . R! I beb . : .' • DI 11) CORNELL CCU 't o�ec- , $1, Wetland '` J. 'i RP 17151 17141 � ���� ( ) r ys� `v 'ii }.ir', k._.m (CORNELL (CORNELL r,°(Pro�,;yr,y:y.a:y;„��, a STREET) STREET) • .�, •.,,• �,� �, �� 9CP < w', ' i•; 1177 2020 „'•17285 , b. ..+,• .•, s,, (CORNELL .. - . ., •.s,y, STREET) (CORNELL �_ 1188 STREET) •,.•y" 9 '• • • - i;• • • -. Tree Grove v • • • ,.. (RC) 0 • .-sy • • T CLACKAMAS COUNTY CC L, V w o T 17345 w A. i DRIVE Q 17334 W Resource N W f 17367 17376 17384 Z 17389 (4,—Jj ///// ig 17392 / , Insignificant Lil 17404 f 17411 _ / 17433 17426 TRACT B / //� Resource I in TRACT D TRACT C BERGINS o SCALE: o 1 " = 300' 'I 0 100 200 300 1 Feet ! 1 EXHIBIT E-4 q 3 9/ ••• I 01 LAR[ rY • ; AP 02-08 0,,�-i • I Alp1 GEOGRAPHICAL 12A p0005489.jpg (1792x1200x24b jpeg) phoi-r) 1 ':! •�/CM-s ua,w� ..,.yam -1Yn.fit .+.-••••., r. r • Existing garage on the Todd's property at 1645 Lee Street EXHIBIT E-5 4 1 AP 02-08 12A p0005490.jpg (1792x1200x24b jpeg) i'1\o-Vo 2- " ;'.. .ja / R ,1 :to.c, 1,to1., .l{' -♦ r 4 rt 4� _ 'i• Ohl.. 77 ; gE u p,,,,,, • • • .Ar • f { t • r 4 n Location of proposed garage addition. The white stakes show the location of the proposed access pad to the third bay. The cherry(foreground) and two maples are marked with yellow ribbon. 42 12A p0005488.jpg (1200x1792x24b jpeg) -•• ..•.• ••..T'i „, X . ' t • ..-,,••,-•,., •,.• !III"...•- . '..,...... '..,,ti'4 4-. 4... ix ••• -:,..NA! ...: . .,,,....., ;: . . . iir 4 ,,,I,,, • „.1.......-- 4... ‘1 ,, • v St"144 . .1:" -' % '•: ' .., " 414 Ne's 0 7....4 ....cmiki, tis... .. .'. - i'. •• t'F'm '-''," 7%.,-•-'. " ..• ' .... . • . _ •,f-A,:".., ,- ,_•••'.4e fc.,._•" ...-fAn.; ..rekti.,*• ' 11 . q N % ,..." — -:;,.•'; •- %I ..- • • 4g.; .• - 4.;.'' .. . ', • '. !•¢,t-ft.i ,t, •• - ••• ' .. 44, *-' ' ... •- ••, ' - , , A (..• .-teak.4•,,' '1. ..•• V. ••vs... . ..--...:,..••• -11.r.(4' ,‘,, .1404 '''. s N.+••• s •"/""z5firitri ',i' . •,th1,5` ,s' . ir-,Ike.'"4: -.. .i' .."7614.0°'0,'. ' '' i'• 7'6 . 4, "s.''.,%•:2;'y .;•te /..itly s..• ... A ,s- • .. ,4 1 ja.'0•4,:-."- .*4 - -4r''/IQ'.:1 A AfigThFr ' • 's* fli'v '''''?"k4 • - - ,Z` - •tu •111,,sots AI*.s', _ .. . ' , •',ii. 9, l's.,„xlik .roei, , . .14.,,. 4„e,„'' let, '.•...k-• . ,,,,In '. 'Z:, . 4',1.1.4*, , A' . . ..'' t.:•.. ,•• ':.' . .p,•vt;ix ,i-4-• : -• 1- •4 ..., 4: 0,•-• . • -or t '4 ; : : ":,• • ,..,,..,:tic-,, ...- -,.;-,:.41,4.7-•al "a. r .,..„,..;t, ,:•.• •4;''ar ,,,,.. '4.3" , •.4.• I,'"' : ''' '''''',,• . '4,4°:,:.r-4.' ...' •,,...ip.147 l'; A1.407 , • - . Iv*, . , -•,,j.edtr"V .. ( 4 1 I. 'e. •.. •, • , 4'4 44 ... .4 eh,, , ,.. • •I,4, „. ° "Pk ,..0"" ,. 1......r. 114 Aii• r • • it• 44' 1,. r - pii,s . • itki' r ...:.•- 's. ''''s P,s,. ' 1.0.• - ''.47..‘ • 0 '.. . . • .41 n . ' .•,• 1..4. "` (r... • .,' , .. ,,'.."`• ''' Ify‘. *I" ‘.9,4 Tglmit.,. .A.,_ .. , ,N :,'1 •• • . . . .71•-,r. .alo•••••11;,- . -• xr----.• , . de. . , . , ,-• .,,,. . • .... ; • 7. ' - ... 1 . , •. ois ,,,,-. ,••••.! • - ...„, -. .wart • ,,"^s, , 0"...- . • XV«. ' AN • .011a.r.420'...f .......1•110n".ilr- . rr s in... •. • r - ,r. , „.,r V.,!,-..;-, 4••••. • ,_ - - 0 k ••'. _>,-4,._„. -.... ' : . "1.4_-. •• • '71. in .„, • •,;.\ ,• . ,...It- 4 •- -. , • . - . . .... . ...... . ...- - — -- • . - ... . - I k • _.--- .I.' . (.6.A.1 ...... .....-- -- 1 :.• ,. ,...^:•.--'.„". ., . l' Ci+E) 4 3 12A p0005492.jpg (1792x1200x24b jpeg) c ..,,Pi. we ,��Y y it4.: 6 °;SA'; , ;(, k , .*`.1 �- f ,I 'R �y '••• Jam',,yR' • n I`./ii , , ,.. _ eiv , \ , , , \, , , , , ,„ „,, , , ,, ,,. , . `r r: v 4 r , ... ^ • ..;cif`.. ��.• .. � � w The garage at 1611 Lee Street as viewed from the proposed location of the Todd's garage addition. The white stake in the foreground represents the edge of the proposed garage wall. It also appears that a car is able to adequately exit and enter the garage at 1611 Lee Street using the paved driveway. 44 12A p0005493.jpg (1792x1200x24b jpeg) ploA-o 5 _1 ,, '..:. ,r a.. *4, r �ti a + ,it... x,. 7 ir u, , 11 1 G ' F 1,110,,„,.. . , F M . . „,,..,, , . . , ....„, „,„ • om.. 1 'E�1. t� - . . � �'. The two maples proposed for removal is shown here with a yellow ribbon tied around the trunks. In the background are two cedar trees belonging to the owner's of 1372 Larch Street. 45 12A P0005541.jpg (1792x1200x16M jpeg) ?\ o+ (o ;; ' iii 4 I w�a: .. .* ...-.i" .7 ram_ �,}.M!V' o .. .........` . ..i . ,w ` ' � , 'tea tessit 'r i' ,- ''.'0 .1*;:' ,' A Ii!lir , a -00 aAF.. ... Access driveway to 1372 Larch Street (facing east). The maple further east of the two maples marked with yellow ribbon will not be removed. Tree protection will be required for this tree during construction. 46 12A P0005540.jpg (1792x1200x16M jpeg) F e)Okl) - Corner of proposed addition $ - "ge AP' F -it �. - i: ,, 44iter .s: --z:%eIto, a°' • ty; �•" J411 �. Property line pin "' -4. v- _ • ^� M . ,..:.,,, �Z, .. . l" 444F., ' ten \ 76 } ref`� _ T : i View looking east down the access easement that serves 1611 Lee Street and 1372 Larch Street. The property pin is marked at the edge of the driveway pavement. The line drawn in the right hand portion of the picture is the approximate location of the proposed addition. The addition appears to leave adequate room for access to 1372 Larch Street. LI 7 12A P0005732.jpg (1792x1200x16M jpeg) 1)V.b*C7 S 12" cherry to be removed mow: .:r s....4.44 e. .. . W fir.• „ y 4"!" te r' ;: `i= d r f. ^ ✓, l ___ _ Picture taken from Lee Street looking slightly northeast. The maple tree and small trees and shrubs, consisting of a rhododendron, vine maple, and small cedar to the west of the cherry tree will remain on the site. 48 12A ?\t1 C5\—t) 9 '....•0 ti M. , .'. ' ' , r'' 44." to .,. , • r 1i t /j•. h , n • J P! ',1 w • 1 v. at orts- , . e Myr :.4%r.'•4 I AAllt',-7 i:---f.:04* r .7.•• '. , .^., 41. View from the south property line of the Todd's looking north. 4i 1200)24ID -peg) 1.2 P... 131-jPg (1192'cr- poo°5 ‘ 0 renlaill Maple to to be reinoved 8,, and i.-- 'v, rnaPl1 es ...,... . -. •,: `...f, P .i• :. • •• ,. )t ' . _ .,. , .,...-.,-... . •Ark.4A. '4'At• ., •,'1 .71,;'.4 :-/ .,*- ...•*.'', '.4*L4f ,".. ' '' '...-''' ...-1,.....,„\.1.,. ::„4 4 .. :.i. , .'i.6.'---:,.t'- 01 'Caw ..:1"j14'r27 I .,;I, ''''';::,'..:.4,- •,.,., . -4 '''..- ,,,,.. ii.., .,--s, J..- g.'-, •4.-: "L•LL' .`." V".:- ' •i'' •L -,.. ... ' .11,-__'' •-... '""1/4', +.* _ '4.""''' .L-,• , ---- -": • ' --'1':-,,•' . '. - --.'..!!! ' 4'ie. -:. - ,^,,7,,--'i•4.41 ,:rt . •• L..: ;'.•-•": J.'''— ' -J..'• ' ' •',' ' ' ' -...' `,..` '-',-e:A.,,,A• - ,1., • siv-fr,....- • -:re , . • ...- , • • • • ,,,;,,,,.... 4„-"-.,4-..,,.......,:- ; -*-..7.•,. ', . ..,...d., . ti.,•-• .,.... -• - •• . ...... . . .. ,: '-‘0_,,-- I.*„. - -,---' . •.‘..-A-•-•-• ; ,' ,... ,!•It. . -•.-!..,•-,,, ,-.. r•,--. . 1 1.•iit.iii ....... 'Ir * IA/.• ' . A: .,. L '.••‘..' •'' r V ''• .' . - -;: ..--- - ',". , rt7- • - iv4 - - . .• -, , • . - -..."40414(7'!..;1."'"!,. • _aid': r....: . ----, _ , - •,, ......, .s..t 4.... 10.0..111t.,.. 4.... ,--- •.. i.• 'IIi , 414,,,,pf'.. '''',,',. ' L - , ''- , .„,,,..._ ,, ' ....., ,,...-• 5 -'''P - -:;_ :Pc,: .",i.....r."-t. !ii•11.,- . ' ,. . ..,-•-r '•,'...- . -In-,' ,iiiir..;- •' -,- re" .-.1.r'.• . .-' . "'-':'4,--tiA,).. . ' • -,-4-.4107 ) '.... '..").•', ' ' ,,, '4i • e;-;,,-,4;1.,,0 - ,L, .., .,,r••-. •,... ...,-&th- •• - -,..!,-,:,. -1; .:-••;!...;• 4 ....- . .. 1,,,i,....,,r. . ,. . 14,... At' sr-,,_. ,-.71..,;;•,...--,•:-;- ',-k 4.. Aifri;,,, •- .-. - ..-„ '4 ' 1;'-1%%k.,..1‘. _ ,. v,....*' !t:', - ,.:, ' •,..f," : .' ' - *., ,, .'/,' 12. ,.'s ,,,%7•_.,. ..‘" 24 - ..e, .. • " T q „„.. ,,„. -., . A.„...: ,..,;-„ --.....-.; ., . ..... . . S. .i. ' '----$., --t. ,..:,e,.... .,,..,, '.;';,,,-- _ --% . --,...„. — ,_, -: , 1.111111111111111.1111111MIFT7— , -,. .. ,,4‘441 -. . --**44-• •..:.'.1 i - 7- 7- -ti.,.-. ...-,r ......,_ - ! ----"Itgl .....:-......,.-L- ---,.. ,,.:... . '-i;-1.. ',7:'',77,04,,,',,.. , Iticli ----""'""'"Ni-Vi ,, 41.•••1101•111111MY-1,.,- ' :i , rr'-':•.;.-., ---, • , ,,,-,-,, , 1 ! I • ii '.:- : . . - ' • ' -- ____________ ----- , . - y ,... — / ; 1 1 , -L . --- • .- " - - .- --- ,.....4**1 ,.. ... / .1 il . , ,,.;-- . _ , ,. ____ _ ' . ."' ' i :, - , - . '' i /5 'k 1 / .-.: „,..! :!. '''''' ,1 —_ _ ,,r I r 51 / // :i , / ' I ,,' -.. i., i i ..,',.1: ' 5` „,-' • f - ' i'-t. `.'i '1 --- . --- --- - ---- - — _..------ , ,-.' i --- .i„," 4' .. . .-•. ...............,.....-.. ..-, -,.........^..-.-' --.-..... .2 -,..,..: -•1..... ---..--. -----' ..--..-.. ---...... ---.--.. w ! ' :,I t.„4;,:- . . .':-.-.,-....f..• . .. . ',J;''' ,... i ; -:',. . ,ii. i . , mu. ...-.- ,,,' -_-..J,.. , , ., ,. ........ ..„ (.6adc 149IxZ6L-Ex0OzT) .6dL'ot,LS000.3 1 1 C2A...014 d AZT . . f' +A` iJ PI Mgt f �� t ( .r,,, .yr, • .• • xttF A ' 1 nz, t, f { 'n N •{ 0.{w;t'f% x : �_ z:Ai, b jy dtiw w,. it �� y ' Y k 'it 1 y• a S +n �'• §AI. r �..` tif f A in sl(yw d „F 0 9� y'," YI 4 ,'Cry A i/4a (� • 4 ffS • ., - a • .4 ti " k i W' 4' .' a`y �l� 1 n ,' yS` 1. "e 40;N Y ....,. "'i? i lF 1,2, fi 1c. ,�, (f• g.R dd'tk -.„.,`,,.k.,‘i,.I..„'i••:•''".•'.,'4‘.1..•,..;,:„'-,,,'•*%C0,.:,.01A.•'•'•:•O•4,•,'x1'6',P,...s;'L'-,T';4't'.,;',''4, ',_.''..4,.i 4-....11"','',''4'',•5.'S'•';'e..,.;'lt''?''t'''oir,.,-',"'''-.''.'s''.1'.v,.--......:"f.'I-'-.:'—•--.1..•-'.'..1.. 7 y 444 , *.� • �� r j ' ,t i t o 1 :* ' rc n " ~ ` A yd i idEt 5 i 5 i)iiif � YE � h. M yP. k ' ytrV )'' fS i �//��� *wit A i X j r E • A EXHIBIT E-6 5:5 Ap0208 r �. --- T -m • '1. _• e1= _ fit i 'y �.►.• µr a ,'�. • !'i •., .--... - Ask . r ,.�.r� � :.,..G3" f r.._..._�. g.,__...� ��'-'.—� `$ 'z, 1 #` �. , „j jam ------ '''.4.!:--4.1'''' .4,:::--..,.-...." ..w, -------- 4 �.': ''"A•,;;._-: _- f .1-140 ---- _. r y t ,,ark •�(• ," - ate°'" _ ;. 5 ISy i jk Txk a z t,: `. E a h Rti • 3.K 3 ` a -. , "f`' f i • ,• s :' `'‘'r ... L ' !' _ _ _ - North wall of the present garage at 1645 Lee Street. Note roof line sloping away to soften the visual impact of the structure from neighboring property. _ o CO N ,i Go rn CA a a pt. / +44r —' / �"'`7 " ssar ' . r' /t �. s•• ' 4 YCs c'.;Ar. A y _ .�. if-4. r• ry 1 yp "i , If^ 'Y S' • Channel drain was required due to increased debris from erosion; 5 gallon bucket is 2/3 full of soil that collected in drain during 2-month period (most washes away). 5b • . .1. ';.4'.,4•7,:4.1:'▪,-, if,,•.! ,,., e, 7,2. .,,..,..-.L,::•„•„:•_,A ,--„,-,..!z•;-;r:. '-'' -,• - .,....%':A., •''' • •11 • .:'• :. -..•••-•....:•f:. ,.... • ••''.."-: 3 ---*'-"r‘i,-:• ''" . ‘ ,j '-'4- • - • :-..-• ▪ • ,„4040,4-4,--.Y'''''''•. •-.-,.- , ••••-•!,• ,.-''',•:!1,4 i40"*.7.".,4e ,.,,,- atri : tr:s'- -;r•..-".! '''.•:•-• A.,1:' ? -- - ''4*..c-; •:. 14.'il•'1'..,... • ' , .. •-,• , ..'' •' •"7:::.:-.- ,Z." '*'.;:t.• ,!'.14".4#e• .; ..' itt.''i-r.t...lf:Pri '.''.• ' 7:7; ' .- 4 •• '- . ...:.:,5tof.41,1i' 7,,,,,,•-4!.. ,...:‘,4:„.:..' .v... , :.,....a...".-...14..., 41r. , ••,--,,,7„,.t..$;,: ....- -'•'• ---.14,01;6.44.,--; r,--- ;"-.-.--- - :"•' •'• '''-....' ,'! P iiTql.....-C 4:11EAA .a,:a -.0 ri.o,.'`.: ..-,ktt.,;-,-.3,V.-., .-..r ., . '-'/0.40A. -•k... . 'r'... ''.•., ' ,' .,;', , . -" . •44„,dir.? T. . 7..4.."4...,:,.7-- -,:'. -.'-• ..,..or ..-7•,...,, r: ,... ••.•__.,,,_i •-":„.., : --. ,- .:,. ,?..iv--•...-:'•;?,, .•'.• .. .x., ._.:•-!' .i.•41.1::••4` •-.. 4-- '-'-i• •-'.. ..,...c.:*4 ,...," '••• -,,,-iri•-• -..,:c. ,.;...7 •', .i.•., .... , .,....,,,,,„ '• .4,-.:71,! . -.-i -...0k,••. . .,,,,..... • - .--'. ..•4,iti_'`'''. ",..44-.Sil.1„.:Itr-•,,''0,-1' -1-- -, :,.•;,•:,;!'A....;, ,IF.;.,-..- ' 104Ltk 1--,!, . , , .. ,,,..,-....,.... :=- • .••• .--.4 44.,.,-4,-,.4:.i - --.,": • --. - 41.',..-..., . ..;..,r,.. ,tf,,,,,,. --.'•, ...;'''.;: - ,....---4.:' . ' ... :-:. - .-. A .-,,,,,..;:,.--......,s. .. ..„. • . --. , t,,,,,,,,, . ,. . , .„...;. ; 4. ,,„..„-,....,... :-.r.-.',....-1.--... . . .1.1,1.'„ . '. ..1 . ' . '111, 1,...f.L.''.•'.-' .. $ ...... ' ..-. 1,;k1, ' ',•'-: , . '-: .4 ' ' ,.,4,k, '.' .5•,.. ., - _ A , :,'"7'• '."..*,,,:-'., •,-,..,••''''':."'4,•:,..? • '''. - ''• ' '" . lc ' .'1 ...‘ 4 ..‘ . . ;'•4: 14 . ."-;'---i,'•••.....;''7•P^;-11..:•:,7.;:• ..,,,.,,j.•'.71.:•'*t.:":,:•,''' ..":'e' ,'••lt,ii.:,•',4'1!• . ,:. _ .7' ''"' - ',....4 ',....‘. •-'41;t':...., •.....! lit,,,r4.-,„;',,,,;••••.7 ,;..., ,,,, ,.„4, .,,-7,;, --• . . . . . ' .L.,2•1 •.;;;".11,••••"1"'•f'-56. •'r,•••• • .s....,-'r.-1.--i,,',:t"Sk.t-t' ,„. -...•,•*'. . . - . ':...".. •It _...:,,,,;-,•,-,--'',, ..,... • .. . , - :- •. .. , .... . .. . , - — ' . . ill ' .., • ast be 7 - •;'..- 1 '-'... - f ra es• -, • e ._, ,• ,:. • aovg ° ect ve .. •,. ... .. . . . . ... . .• - - - 01 . , . •.... - 'Quo• a vie* ,ed,b'y ce ..„ ... sotAt°74av t‘y af"Cect. fi• ca' sigP . - .-,*,,,-,,,....,.,,,. ,,,•, . ... , . '''s p-• l'-,..., -',4 v-,.:•,. •Y't.r.--, •,,„ ..„ ,,,,- -. ---.72'i;•.;•,f,--.,...• ,•• .,f.,-• •-•`•j..'' . . ..g1;.ttP.4'', 1,.',. -• --..4 ,''• ' ',it'•'•''`.--' . f: ' - -• .-:•` 'ti''1 .14-''' -:..-.''.i.;..,•-L...:.. . •,..t • ..;,,4,-,-.-.7-9,c -,,,•4.c.?„,..„--•,..-,4,-..4 . •r.,-',,••. - - •.,-., . ,. i•- • . - • ••• '". — • "--)",".•',1 -,.7.-----,.7..;-10:-• .• :''''.....:-2*, 7 -', ..20..i••,,--;•.•t*.;"•-,-.4„--,e4‘,..;:•'.4,„,;1; ,..•.1,e,47.itt-'2'' -..'''.''Y;r••••'4.'i',•,'4•—•',.. l•'• .0',;:i'' , ... .,:4.--1- Y.t. .,•,. n- ,'.1 ,,nil:; -:`,'""i':,,„„,.c.;',,,'r L.:;-',,''s '.r..,,Z":0 . llk,41,65•,, ,:j....,-- !' ,ss' ..z,.voottc.,t4,..'.,!,.,;::•: •:,07*.lec",•:c.7,;.:;.:40t,?:''''' i'.'t‘ -'1 , '''' :.-1.,:iora`i•k:' r*'-',';:q°•.#4.,-••41% . . 4''•:..'%........: ....../”;4......-..---.. - 4 ! r-e.,.!;••••,..,..,..,..?!."..0-, . ...;.!,"'",. " .,-.• ,.-.- - ,-.. , "_,--,4•-••••:.,- ....•, •. ' . ,- ,. ...1,4-1.,......--Cr.:'..:' ,-...:,','''.'''-:.; tl! ',f:, '•,:v,.;...,c,',.. ' '•.'' ''.'', '-'' ', ‘.,' .,. . .. ',..s,—-:-•,‘'.4.,'..-.".....i',,,l'•''lw''si!t.'."!"—.-.-N;:o':t,0''s-,,0,.-,:'.',-,...:..;..`..:':',.7,.:-.,-':..•...1.,.0 n''...-.4,..-,.;...•-.,•'.-'',4‘'!. .-"' • ..1'....:7."•:,....'--'•'t:..••.:.;..',f•,--'.,''...l`.g"e'•,,-',,'u':"i"'.t.:..t.:4 — , ; , • ,'...*...f''S''p'''',i..•13•.,0..',,'.'!.;-..%'e•".'.';t....*'.ff•''t'.',., s.,4l.-.'.'....., ": , i t ....:-...,...„,%,....r., .--,, . ,,..... , . ... -1....,-..,..... ..,, . ..,. .., ,7, .-,......• • .„. - 4' ,e. : ,,,,,,,A .., 1, . ._ . ,t,.. „...,,,-- • * et .;0., e4- •.:1-.$, . ..4..',,-,... - - %;- ., •••,i,.::, •••••"41'.....0", T.` :•-'• 7.•,-.t.e.,.4 '''.: ' •• ,, ••• -..11 -'•''-'•14'''•••'"-:,,, J. ,.- ,.;• f:70-.---tr' ,•:..1;•- •••?' . . -- • - •....,-;v-•••.. Y--- • ,• , . ' .--," .f.-.•:•• .‘ . •.„-N,,.•,-,40; ••••.•,,•-•;-1 -••-•., . . .. • • . ''t•l'''...7..:Ii .. .'. .% ..-.:' . '. .. ..',' . i.' . .11;-',. ' . .',.!'-'7'''. •.,•,'',* . - ' ' "' ''' ' ',L*. '''''...''•:;1.;414'.'''' ?.'...'1 '. .•-,, •,,,. .' ,• _ - '• ' -'. .• .%Ilia .,,...4.04 . ' ...... . , . . .„., . . . "' ...• , , , • .i. . ,-. • ,"" " . . ' . • - Y. *'" , • ' • '• ' k. - - • •io - ." , . ,. . 0 . I• , 14 I- -. ,y, fv Y, tip �� .'! ._ 4, O,,,4 R„."'-c.lai1ird1-,4s • of„rilk" �, ►� - , , ,.' ,;: -fit 1�l� ' t ." } r i • .� J .. _ titY a y-f' "," • r i .` 'c� •e" r,• P•w � • �.� i !sue h:. . .. .. �" �r� .'„ f 1 t+, , ♦. s. Tye h Y 0. 4' of . T x�,r�51'H`a;,r✓,WD:t,�'S i- '. m 4 a of haw.-L'�y m.Ar#rka 4 a �+ i ".,+ua�ti.f..Jw St2a ��R mu . .r rah ,..+ ;.,... 0,rF 1�,Jt,a-,ri . a w "e° " .,, %�¢ +Xasl- -,-..v-n , ..,t f"."Fr�2.waF« v Ku+ieA. to '" �f a ..":# ,,,° "qi .. r,x, w.wrt,.we+a 5F A� v •,tw -s.. yyyyyyyy • g5ay.+`.+4i �W.Yi9h F lknhi.� f'.N k -!^•eM t J N t z tilt R:.r ' h" •t A moderate sized vehicle (Toyota Camry) is unable to back into and pull out of the garage without extending the radius of the turn beyond the paved driveway, or making a 3-point turn. j ,+✓,:. 4 nw:;fie r . .R. f hr.+' ',r,s gay.`°>. ;—. r �- • wq.,. u.�n k ! .` ... i .,.. rM. .44,E,f .. rf„ 1 w� ..,;y,,4 � y s x ,�ky rr,. ,4, ' . .- ,, _ , Yam.. (L .1 :3f�."��•' .LroL-Jre t .- - a Yt k r ti y • l+ ' 97v..k-,,- +i-- 1H 1".;.:A,,,..,v.'hi`..76 �44 v s "..y,, r4,- p "151 l 7z %.„,. -__ ^P3 a4 --, qk�, waM= z+a4.Sa M ,*44<.F nyf.-0,� 7. �! ,rs�' ti 4- . V., ,r. e., 'a9 i' r 3 >� 9w '3 }r f' '.�. fr �.�,'s .1 a• r r fr +.r t r.i o' > DVS fi'; xa{.✓.o taa• �' e, ^• > Jr,p• 'i, .-, ,°,.,14 rdL .,.. ra..y+ ,�, ��yfyy�.���aCVd-+?#.+.i -b.' ."tom ^r'rY I,vs.r, Yx x;Y`': .H- ���R,/�,�.. al :17 c a:-..t }tinwr.m 7 •......»: ,x " AA•1 'r �'1r- '" � i4� Jn..'.� tv, 5b * IOC q fr -- V.I 'tom t `' .. 'Fa. �AltJ�k �r f Ff 7f'K � . `.$ � Y �s "„ •., + I,y7�'q. Ems'--f :x 'r ,1 -` .. * - `' r' 4 iii • i � ;`t} '� .. �" -i'1, : *I aid ±` 'l � 4- CE ♦ -to..., i • L �F<" Y F. '-1 i N J. r3;1.- 8 ads ,, I • - . t} ,,' + • j 1� ' 6 ems �; { • - - - t..c, ., -Cies ' , '7 , -Illik4-0—' . • '14-;-.,""V ' . -)..,\S- 60-•t. ' c " t21 r` � F �� 11 4 µ tea►t "• — _�a : �' - - �:.! .,' ryrr; fir. it i.: a �'�`. W., .} t.6,...' r- sfir .j ••• r t x y Y L ^ •'.F fin^ 1- '' S ! • Tightest possible turn: SUV unable to navigate in and out of garage without extending beyond easement. CO y Dd e: • " • - n } a�e � Y r• "tft- 22 ,++ • .yam. This turnout has been continuously used by homeowners of 1611 Lee Street since 1990. Proposed construction will eliminate this area and compromise garage access. �r}• }„ kj f 7' • *� Y y- • 1. 0.• w • • v iw 2e aX ° _ _ }-A; - ' j t' _ - �r.;•q�ri „y,. �. ,,.s. 'wir a.J"aa� a� • 60 rs. �•�`a y! - �Y1 •f • •R+p j;4 11;, +" yi ;1Y _ ' d r t . d„ y f� j r F ' � tit �. 'r � r.� ,4 +, �� Y , �_ is• % ,4, M;+ 4 -sir s * F � �41 10- .,': 4 .• wd .. ,a a. t'" a �T .•i , • ,,, . . : , .. . . L .p. i 1�' r;Nr ,. k, - 4` �sM v _� • a a '3 5.� x �'"'' *tat s 9O �- ' u.+ to . -+ • '"" �a a .° "�:4 E --r -* r. F j:-Fi 6 _ j':- ••t;k... d49� 4 Y•--1- 4 * •-,+ , "� .�:i r,� sn-. `' ^.-,.,_4.,-% .� ''At.•' .yo-•x„'-r., . _ 6::J'i`A, '--,.-;,q,.! m ,'4--,.. ;�-: !6'� r ' 'j'1 t �� ..'.�' r , !o , '': 6 v f.��'L 'gt Kim-fc.§'• i-0, .-r, -y`s' , 7 . .. a ��'. 9r�¢e,. !'� '. i�_' - • .. Westward view from 1372 Larch Street showing the turnout across from the garage at 1611 Lee Street and the narrowness of the driveway beyond the turnout; a privacy hedge on the property line would worsen access. a) �r , , *.. 10. ,ems • op. ir 'IMF • f.#'. • ,._ , x�k+' ', , , . r 1 y0 r 7,": t v ,�',,a'^n APO'ili * 11,11F ,l'''' , vos ar R a < yam, _ ,i� 41140. ,„"!, .'h n �`m' �, } ' t� �•.. e fit., - '"• .,, i k r.*^'� •, .- ,r11!,,,, '* r ..� S ,° jwn 6S . ,-'yl 1- a k. s M f • • ,. . EXHIg1T E-8 ;s • • ,, • ', asp" „443,"• , . ,/,--- w``, Tree Removal 2 Permit No.42-6,3/53 .■� � Fee: /�31. v-� `' �^ Application Receipt No.//LcW7 i«oekk,= Date: S.7N/07-- Applicant: E`r Phone: .3 e/ Address of Tree Removal: /‘ y 7 er _ �,_ Property Owner: 5- e__— J Phone: L'3 - /U,c ze , ,,„„i 11_AS a jer // // Size, Number, and Type of Trees to be Removed: t-rt f � �� f � ---2 re/ J Reason for Removal: /�l'1 t� /. 1 � ;e - e-- ( (.) Old ) I agree to comply with Lake Oswego Code, Chapter 55,regarding tree removal. I grant permission to the City of Lake Oswego for employees to enter the above property to inspect the trees requested for removal and investigate any trees that may appear to have been already unlawfully removed. rKI Signature of P •perry Owner(required) Signature of Applicant(if different) The City must sign for trees located on public property including rights of way Tie a ribbon around the tree(s) and restrain your dog on inspection day. Trees that are not marked cannot be reviewed. Permit Type(Fill out with City Staff) ❑ TYPE I Submit: (1) Removal site plan TYPE lI * Submit: (1) Removal site plan, (2) Questionnaire, (3) Mitigation plan To Do: (1) Mark trees with yellow ribbon, (2) Post sign, (3) File Certification Form, (4) Stake building envelope &driveways Wait: 14 days until the comment period is complete, the City reviews the request, staff makes a tentative decision, and there will be a 14 day comment period for the public to request a hearing. You will be contacted if a hearing has been requested. ❑ DEAD Submit: (1) Removal site plan, (2)Photograph of tree/mark tree with yellow ribbon if required. Deciduous trees require a site visit by staff between November 1st and April 15t. ❑ HAZARDOUS Submit: (1) Removal site plan, (2)Photograph of tree/mark tree with yellow ribbon if required. (3) Arborist's Report and(4) Hazard Evaluation Form. EMERGENCY Submit: (1) Removal site plan, (2) Photograph of tree/or mark tree with yellow ribbon ❑ VERIFICATION * Submit: (1) Removal plan, (2) Mitigation plan, if required (Prior approval) To Do: (1) Mark trees with yellow ribbon, (2) Stake building envelope & driveways ❑ OTHER * Building permits will not be issued prior to tree removal or tree protection inspection and approval. City Staff to Fill Out: Intake Staff Zone R7 Tax ID fGf3DS R/4-7.5-3,4 Due Date 7144K y a' e.g. (R21E08CB 2100). Planning or Building File ft 6 rill Coma,t Mitigation Plan Approved/Denied Removal Approved/Denied V. Decision Staff _. b5 Revised May 14,2002,l\forms\applctns\tree permit apps\tree permit applic; Hearing Request: EXHIBIT F-1 l V 1 S t-4' c\l.0 AQ, 3, °U— AP 02-08 Sign posted 6 K. �l L �� , Due Date i I`?//el z TREE REMOVAL QUESTIONNAIRE The City's Tree Code discourages the removal of trees because they are a valuable community resource that contribute significantly to Lake Oswego's quality of life. The City's Tree Code requires a Type II permit for the following situations: • Removal of a tree on a residential property(that is occupied by a single family dwelling)that is larger than 10"in diameter or more than two trees in one year that are 5"or greater in diameter. • Removal of any tree(s)that is 5" or greater in diameter on a non-single family residential property or any vacant site. A Type II permit may only be approved if you can demonstrate through the required application materials that all of the following criteria are satisfied. Please be as thorough as possible with your answers, as a simple yes or no response is not adequate. Please answer the following questions: 1. Is the removal of the tree(s)for purposes of landscaping or constructing a development that is approved or allowed by applicable development regulations? 2. Will removal of the tree(s)have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters,protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks? f- e--r-e 5/e o /� Ze- 170 > 'C �� Cyr'/ &t e-sc_ / 5-6.,,c? S 3. Will removal of the tree(s)have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics or property values of the neighborhood? 4. Is removal of the tree(s) for the sole purpose of providing or enhancing views? l\/C, — 1-'e 5-e_ 1/2- e-5; . 7 use le- , a e-e 6 e -thv 727 / t---4a- 52_7- e0/1/— tc/f7 The marove a tree removal request if it is demonstrated that nonabl ltemative exists in 7 order to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. In making this determination,the City may required alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternative landscaping design that would lessen the impact on trees. Mitigation for the removal of each tree is required as a condition of approval of a permit, if approved. Revised October, 2000 l:\forns\applctns\tree permit apps\questionnaire(type ii trees).doc 6b °i' '' City of Lake Oswego „Alp V g PUBLIC NOTICE i1,, 101 r Pending Tree Cutting Permit dyName of applicant _.� G e.-l/�- ? ? 2 I Tree Permit No. 0,2 v3 1 Applicant's Phone Number 636 'gy‘6 I, ) cjq / /(2' do certify that I am, or I represent, the party requesting a print your name permit to cut _7 trees on property located at /(p 73 2,e_e- /'-e°_ _ 6 . number address or location Pursuant to LOC 55.02.082, this notice has been prepared to notify the neighborhood association of the pending removal. I will mark the proposed trees with yellow tagging tape and post a public notice sign on the subject property prior to your receipt of this notice. You may submit comments on the application in writing within 14 days of the date of this notice. I understand that I am responsible for maintaining the notice and marking during the entire 14 day comment period. .? , _76, Signature Notice Date: _.66p1-- Neighborhood Association: fed/l/ i'1-11' Map&Tax Lot:Z iS ...?0-(6 8// REMINDER: A tree cutting permit is required to remove trees larger than 5 inches in diameter. Topping trees is prohibited in the City of Lake Oswego. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Department 503-635-0290 b7Revised October,2000 I:\forms\applctns\tree permit apps\public notice ietter.doc June 3, 2002 Community Development Dept. RE E I E D City of Lake Oswego 380ASt. jai 04 2002 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 , CITY OF LAKE OS,�d EG Dept.of Planning&Development Tv Whom it May Concern: I am writing this letter in regard to a pending tree cutting permit submitted by Steve and Melinda Todd, at 1611 Lee St. in Lake Oswego (Permit #TCO20318). The trees that they are proposing to remove are located between their house. and mine. which is located at 1372 Larch St. The way the lots are situated, the front of my house faces towards the north side of their house, and mine is accessed along an easement driveway, which I share with David Wheeler and Kim Beaudet who own the property at 1611 Lee St. (formerly 1314 Larch St.). There are several issues that I am very concerned about in regard to their proposed development. The major issue is the access to my home. Access is very difficult even now, due to a very narrow opening at the entrance to my lot. There is a large Cedar tree on the north side of the easement at the entrance to my property which allows barely room enough to get a vehicle through. I understand the Todds are proposing to build a retaining wall at the edge of our paved driveway along the easement, which I believe will severely impact accessibility to my property, both making my daily life difficult, and negatively impacting my property value should I decide to sell my home at some future date. Further, I'm afraid that if they are allowed to proceed with their plans, I will have to remove the Cedar in order to be able to get into my driveway. My property is located downslope from the Todd's home. I am already experiencing problems with mud and plant debris washing down and pooling in my driveway during the rainy season. I feel with the loss of the trees, and clearing of other vegetation that this erosion will increase and I will be dealing with increased amounts of mud and debris accumulating on my property. The last issue is one of aesthetics. When I purchased my home, one of the main qualities that I enjoyed about the neighborhood was the natural feel,privacy, and seclusion that this wooded setting provided. The trees in question provide a very nice natural screen between my home and my neighbor's home. These trees form a large almost solid canopy between our homes, and their removal would open up this view directly onto the proposed garage extension, which would greatly change the natural feel of my setting. Please take this information into consideration when reviewing this case. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Mary And son 1372 Larch St. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 EXHIBIT F•2 6 AP 02-08 DAVID T . WHEELER and KIMBERLEY A . BEAUDET RECEIVED June 3, 2002 J(JN 0 4 200Z Community Development Department CITY OF LAKE ©SWEGODept.of Planning&Development City of Lake Oswego, Oregon Dear Sir or Madam: We own the home located at 1611 Lee Street (lot 1302 on the attached map), formerly 1314 Larch Street. Stephen and Melinda Todd own the neighboring property at 1645 Lee Street and are applying for a Type II Tree Cutting Permit (#020318). Our property shares an access easement with the home located at 1372 Larch Street (lot number 1303 on the attached map) owned by Mary. Anderson. Due to the allowed construction of the homes in this neighborhood, our front door faces the side of the Todd's garage and the site of the trees that are proposed to be removed. The Type II Tree Cutting Permit application filed by the Todds should be denied because the application has failed to demonstrate that three of the approval criteria have been satisfied. Section 55.02.080 of the Lake Oswego Code ("LOC") requires that "the tree is proposed for removal for landscaping purposes or in order to construct development approved or allowed pursuant to the Lake Oswego Code or other applicable development regulations." Emphasis added. The application does not meet this criterion because the proposed development does not comply with the required setbacks. In this case, the property lines on file with the County do not accurately reflect the actual property boundaries. Specifically, we have taken steps to initiate a quiet title action to establish that we own by adverse possession a portion of the Todd property due to our continuous and open possession of a parking turnout that has encroached on the Todd property since approximately 1992. In the event that we prevail on the quiet title action, the proposed development will encroach within the required setback. Due to the topography of the Todd property in relationship to our property,the proposed tree removal will have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability and the flow of surface waters, in violation of LOC 55.02.080. The Todd property is higher in elevation than our property, and once the trees are removed, the soil will not be anchored and it will erode and wash down onto our property when it rains. In fact, due to extensive brush removal and other landscaping already in progress on the Todd property, we were forced to install barriers along the boundaries of the easement earlier this year to keep the surface of the easement and our driveway from being continually flooded with mud and plant material debris. If the trees are removed as proposed, it will have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics, and property values of the neighborhood, also in violation of LOC 55.02.080. As mentioned above, our property and the Anderson property share a common access easement that abuts the Todd property. If the trees are removed and the proposed development constructed, access to our property and the Anderson property will be impeded, which will decrease the value of both properties. This will occur for several reasons. EXHIBIT F-2 AP 02-08 71 i Lo 'Dale -2- June 3, 2002 Firstly, the Tree Cutting Permit application has been filed for the purpose of obtaining a building permit to extend the north garage wall closer to our shared property line as allowed by current building code. Construction of a solid retaining wall between the new construction and the easement will be required to provide an adequate substrate for the proposed structure modification, and to minimize soil erosion. However, such a wall will severely limit ingress and egress along the easement and into our driveway, and may necessitate the use of a "3-point turn" to enter and exit our garage. It would also limit the size and type of vehicle that could access either our property or the Anderson property, including fire and rescue vehicles, moving vans and other commercial equipment. This will encroach upon our rights of use and enjoyment of our property and negatively impact future salability. Secondly, the trees that are proposed to be removed are 2 mature maples, one 8" and the other 12" in diameter and 1 cherry that has an 11" trunk from the ground to about 3 feet above the ground, and then splits into 3 main branches, each 6" in diameter. These mature trees are approximately 40 feet in height and provide a natural green barrier that camouflages not only the Todd house but other homes in the neighborhood uphill from the Todd house. This screen is particularly significant from the bay window in the master bedroom on the south side of our home. Removal of this greenery, and the proposed replacement with 2" stock, will require many years to reach maturity and negatively impact the privacy we currently enjoy. Thirdly, if the tree removal is allowed, it will likely result in the need to cut down a mature red cedar on the north side of the easement, between our home and the Anderson home. The current width of the easement at that location is only 8 feet at present. Access to 1372 Larch is currently possible using one or two feet of a graveled shallow bank on the Todd property, which is shielded from their house by native plant material. Therefore, granting permission for removal of the Todd trees will likely result in loss of four, not three, mature trees in this locale. Rather than approving the Type II Tree Cutting Permit, the City should require the applicant to modify the location and design of the proposed structure so that it will not encroach within the setback or impede access to our property and the Anderson property. Such a modification will also alleviate the need to remove the trees adjacent to and on our property, which will eliminate the significant environmental impacts. Such a modification to the proposed development is permissible under LOC 55.02.094.2.b. Sin L David T Wheeler Kimberley A. Beaudet 1611 LEE STREET • LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON • 97034-6000 PHONE: 503.697.8624 • FAX: 503.697.8624 7 2 DAVID T . WHEELER and KIMBERLEY A . BEAUDET AP 3 July 3, 2002 pa •aR. . . : Community Development Department ,, b S larr, vok City of Lake Oswego, Oregon li RE: Request for Hearing for Type II Tree Cutting Permit #020318 1 �Owego Ilecerdir l p Dear Sir or Madam: This letter and the accompanying $118 appeal fee is a written request for a hearing for Type II Tree Cutting Permit #020318. LOC 55.02.085. As explained in more detail below, the Type II Tree Cutting Permit application should be denied and staff's tentative decision should be reversed because the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the applicable approval criteria. We own the home located at 1611 Lee Street, formerly 1314 Larch Street. Stephen and Melinda Todd own the neighboring property at 1645 Lee Street and have applied for a Type II Tree Cutting Permit (#020318) that has been tentatively approved. Our property shares an access easement with the home located at 1372 Larch Street owned by Mary Anderson. Due to the allowed construction of the homes in this neighborhood, our front door faces the side of the Todd's garage and the site of the trees that are proposed to be removed. The Type II Tree Cutting Permit application should be denied and staff's tentative decision should be reversed because the application has failed to demonstrate that two of the approval criteria in section 55.02.080 of the Lake Oswego Code ("LOC") have been satisfied. Due to the topography of the Todd property in relationship to our property, the proposed tree removal will have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability and the flow of surface waters, in violation of LOC 55.02.080. The Todd property is higher in elevation than our property, and once the trees are removed, the soil will not be anchored and it will erode and wash down onto our property when it rains. In fact, due to extensive brush removal and other landscaping already in progress on the Todd property, we were forced to install barriers along the boundaries of the easement earlier this year to keep the surface of the easement and our driveway from being continually flooded with mud and plant material debris. Based on the existing inundation, and additional erosion that will accompany the proposed tree removal, we have taken steps to initiate a suit to establish an easement by prescription to maintain our ability to access our garage and property. If the trees are removed as proposed, it will have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics, and property values of the neighborhood, also in violation of LOC 55.02.080. As mentioned above, our property and the Anderson property share a common access easement that abuts the Todd property. If the trees are removed and the proposed development constructed, access to our property and the Anderson property will be impeded, which will decrease the value of both properties. This will occur for several reasons. EXHIBIT G200 AP 02-08 7 ,� - 2- July 3, 2002 Firstly, the Tree Cutting Permit application has been filed for the purpose of obtaining a building permit to extend the north garage wall closer to our shared property line as allowed by current building code. Construction of a solid retaining wall between the new construction and the easement will be required to provide an adequate substrate for the proposed structure modification, and to minimize soil erosion. However, such a wall will severely limit ingress and egress along the easement and into our driveway, and may necessitate the use of a "3-point turn" to enter and exit our garage. It would also limit the size and type of vehicle that could access either our property or the Anderson property, including fire and rescue vehicles, moving vans and other commercial equipment. This will encroach upon our rights of use and enjoyment of our property and negatively impact future salability. Secondly, the trees that are proposed to be removed are 2 mature maples, one 8" and the other 12" in diameter and 1 cherry that has an 11" trunk from the ground to about 3 feet above the ground, and then splits into 3 main branches, each 6" in diameter. These mature trees are approximately 40 feet in height and provide a natural green barrier that camouflages not only the Todd house but other homes in the neighborhood uphill from the Todd house. This screen is particularly significant from the bay window in the master bedroom on the south side of our home. Removal of this greenery, and the proposed replacement with 2" stock, will require many years to reach maturity and negatively impact the privacy we currently enjoy. Thirdly, if the tree removal is allowed, it will likely result in the need to cut down a mature red cedar on the north side of the easement, between our home and the Anderson home. The current width of the easement at that location is only 8 feet at present. Access to 1372 Larch is currently possible using one or two feet of a graveled shallow bank on the Todd property, which is shielded from their house by native plant material. Therefore, granting permission for removal of the Todd trees will likely result in loss of four, not three, mature trees in this locale. Rather than approving the Type II Tree Cutting Permit, the City should require the applicant to modify the location and design of the proposed structure so that it will not encroach within the setback or impede access to our property and the Anderson property. Such a modification will also alleviate the need to remove the trees adjacent to and on our property, which will eliminate the significant environmental impacts. Such a modification to the proposed development is permissible under LOC 55.02.094.2.b. Sincerely, David T Wh ler Kimberley A. Beaudet 1611 LEE STREET • LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON • 97034-6000 PHONE: 503.697.8624 • FAX: 503.697.8624 74 PAGE 02 MD 08/16/2002 12:43 5034946071 .___ DAVID Tie 5029446118 PAC 2/2 August 3,2002 To Whom it May Concern: I am writing this letter,as I will be unable to attend the hearing concerning the pmposed development at 1645 Lee St. I have previously expressed concerns to the Cry about this development,as my home is located immediiatel3 to the north of the proposed garage extension at 1372 Larch St.,and I feel that this project will have a negative impact on my property,both aesthetically and in terms of my keopei ty value. • . I amparticularlreeneerned ahom.thtrecovala three maples-which are lee the _ . ., boundary of the Todd's property and the property just west of mine,owned by Dave Wheeler and Kim Beaudet. These trees create a visual barrier between the properties, add to the natur d feel of the neighborhood,and=ate shade during the sumoum months. Their removal will open up this area,and emphasize the visual impact by the garage ascension,which wrill extend out to very near mine and my neighbors,Dave Wheeler and Kim Beaudets'property. I am also very dressed about how this project will impact access to my home. Access is already very dif icuk,and I believe that this project will make my access more difficult.I ass already experiencing problems associated with their project activity. The retaining wall has been disturbed,and large rocks have been moved into owe Semen which was previously clear of any of these rocks.Today,while trying to back my car out, I backed into some of these rocks and was fortunate not to damage my car. This project has already created a certain amount of stream and tension in the neighborhood.I have come home from week several times to find various stakes and markers placed on my property,with no explanation from either the Todds or die City as to what these mercers mean The only time my neighbors(the Todds)have attempted to contact me regarding the project was on July 3 at 7:15 in the horning,just as Y was leaving fir work.I am gauntly home-in the evens;and my phone-ninber is listed to the book I feel that if I had been included in on comuauniication much earlier in this process,possibly I would have experienced less stress during this entire process. In summery,I would request that the City take a very close look at the situation,and reconsider graining g a permit for the removal of the three maple tees. I have enjoyed the natural feel of this neighborhood since purchasing my home here nine years ago. This is one of the main reasons I moved into this area. It is very disappointing to think about the possibility of these trees coming down,and the uncertainty of not knowing how many other trees may come down as well that don't require permits. Sincerely, y n EXHIBIT G201 AP 02-08 75