Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2014-03-31.pPPROVIa CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Development Review Commission Minutes March 31, 2014 CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL Vice -Chair Gregg Creighton called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 A Avenue. Members present: Vice -Chair Gregg Creighton, Brent Ahrend, Ann Johnson, Kelly Melendez and David Poulson. Bob Needham and Frank Rossi were not present. Staff present: Hamid Pishvaie, Assistant Planning Director; Jessica Numanoglu, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Reynolds, Administrative Support MINUTES None. FINDINGS None. PUBLIC HEARING AP 14-04 [TR 499-14-00235]. Note: The case number was corrected from AP 13-12 [TR 499- 13-04788]. A request for a hearing on a Type II tree removal application by Darryl Fleck to remove 40 trees in order to construct a new single-family dwelling on the site. The site is located at: 17918 Kelok Road (Tax Lot 00205 of Tax Map 21 E 17CA). Vice -Chair Creighton opened the hearing. Ms. Melendez reported a site visit. Staff Report Ms. Numanoglu reported the site was a vacant lot that was almost completely covered in trees. The applicant proposed to remove 40 of the 67 trees there to construct a new dwelling and driveway. The appellants, neighbors to the east, had appealed the decision because of their concerns about impacts on Douglas firs trees on their property and on soil stability. She pointed out the subject site sloped downward toward their property. Staff compared the application and the appellants' arguments with Type II Tree Removal criteria. Staff found the removal was for development and landscaping purposes, which the criteria allowed. Grading was necessary for the driveway and four trees would be removed for landscaping the rear yard area. Staff found removal could not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks. The appellants contended it would expose their own fir trees to damaging winds; it would negatively impact soil stability because the area was at risk of shallow landslides; and grading and construction of retaining walls under the drip lines of their fir trees would harm their root systems. The City consulting arborist had reported that the trees to be removed did not provide any significant windbreak and another stand of trees and the new dwelling would serve as windbreaks. Staff acknowledged that the landslide hazard and risk study the appellants had provided to show their City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of March 31, 2014 Page 1 of 8 property was susceptible to shallow landslides was newer than the city's soils map, which did not show the area as being in a landslide area. However, the appellants' study covered a large area and was not site-specific. The City typically asked applicants to confirm that weak foundation soils existed on their property by providing a site-specific study. The applicant had recently changed the plan so runoff from the roof would be directed away from the appellants' property and toward a stormwater facility to the west. The site would be landscaped to stabilize soils and prevent erosion. Because staff agreed with the appellants that it was possible that grading and construction could impact the roots of their fir trees, staff recommended conditions that did not allow retaining walls or mitigation trees under the drip lines of the appellants' trees. That meant the location of the proposed retaining wall would be shifted. There was a criterion that tree removal could not have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics or property values of the neighborhood with the exception that it was allowed if there were no reasonable alternatives that would lessen the impact on trees. Appellants argued it would impact the neighborhood and their own property values. Staff concurred there would be a significant negative impact on their particular property. However the criterion was about the impact on the neighborhood as a whole. The applicants were going to help maintain the wooded character of the neighborhood by preserving a lot of the trees at the front of the lot. There was a backdrop of trees that would remain in the view from Cardinal Drive. Overall, staff found removal would not have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetic or property values of the neighborhood. However, even if removal had been found to have those negative impacts, the applicants' tree -covered site was a private property that was developable and many trees would have to be removed to do that, no matter how a house was positioned on it. If the house was moved further west, as the appellants suggested, it would be in a steeper area of the site where additional trees would need to be removed while the trees on the rear (east) part that would be saved were all listed as having poor structure or an invasive cherry tree. Staff found there was no reasonable alternative that would lessen the impact. Staff reported the mitigation plan complied with the code requirement for mitigation on a one-to-one ratio. They recommended approval subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report. Questions of Staff Ms. Numanoglu confirmed that trees along the driveway were to be removed to grade it to comply with the driveway slope standard. She clarified that staff expected the retaining wall to be shifted to the west. She noted the appellants had provided Exhibit A-1 showing the approximate location of drip lines. She confirmed that the Code required tree protection from the drip lines of trees. Applicant Darrvl Fleck, 4695 Black Forest Ct., (97035), submitted Exhibit F-7. He held the application met all of the tree removal criteria. They had submitted plans that showed a number of compromises with the appellants. The site topography meant they had to excavate 17 feet down to meet the driveway slope requirement. They had to grade and excavate in order to address stormwater on site. They proposed to position the house on an area that was the most level, required the least amount of excavation and had the least overall impacts on soils and trees. There were more healthy trees on the front of the lot and that was where there was the steepest slope. To move the house forward 40 feet would put the house in a kind of bathtub; require 10 to 17 feet high retaining walls; and require removal of additional healthy trees. They had made compromises that involved additional costs, including relocating the stormwater facility toward the front of the lot and moving the house further west and away from the appellants due to appellants' concern about privacy. They had offered to work with the appellants and replant trees wherever they wanted them to preserve their privacy. They had sent the appellants a December 27, 2013 letter saying they granted them permission to continue to use the part of the applicants' property the appellants had leveled to use for a trampoline until further notice. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of March 31, 2014 Page 2 of 8 The applicant then discussed how they met the criteria for removal, referring to their letter and documents in Exhibit F-7. Removal was for development (36 trees would be removed for the building) and four for landscaping purposes). They had certified arborists evaluate each tree's health and condition. 31 of the trees proposed for removal had a poor or very poor condition of structure, and one was an invasive species. The City consulting arborist had found removal of 39 trees was necessary for the purposes of construction and removal would not result in significant negative impacts. Their own arborist had said removal would not have significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface water, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. The 21 trees to be retained would continue to provide erosion control functions. Each removed tree would be replaced with a healthy tree and the area would be landscaped after development to further prevent any erosion. No surface waters were flowing on the site. There were several Douglas firs of varying sizes near the property line that appeared to have the characteristics of trees able to withstand the effects of wind. The City arborist had advised that generally trees with less than 30% live crown ratios were considered to have an increased potential for wind throw. The neighbors' trees generally had ratios of approximately 70% and they had good structure and were not predisposed to wind throw even if the trees proposed for removal were removed. The proposed house and a large group of trees on the lot south of the site would serve as windbreaks. Staff had looked at the City map and said there were no slide issues indicated on that map. Mr. Fleck testified that the applicants had spent time trying to not have a lot of negative impact on the neighborhood. It was a challenge because any construction on the lot would require the removal of many trees because it was fully covered by trees. Mr. Flanagan, their arborist, had said that removal would not have significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics or property values of the neighborhood. The 21 trees remaining on the property and right-of-way were clustered towards the Kelok side thus preserving the wooded character and aesthetics along the streetscape. He also advised this would maintain the property values of the neighborhood by preserving the overall wooded aesthetic of the area and softening the impacts of new development. The applicant explained the decision was made not to place the house near Kelok Road because tree removal and a new structure in that location would have a more negative impact on the overall neighborhood than setting the house away from the street. The applicant read aloud from experts' reports (Exhibit F-7). The row of Douglas firs on the appellants' side would help preserve the character and aesthetics of the neighborhood from the Cardinal Place and Cardinal Court side. In regard to impacts on property values, the Comparative Market Analysis by Jennifer Reitshtein estimated the market value of the completed home was between $800,000 and $1,000,000 while the Cardinal home was between $350,000 and $500,000. John Nieland, Hassan Group, a broker who lived on Kelok Road, said it would have a positive impact on neighboring values. Arborist Terry Flanagan had reported that removal was not for the sole purpose of providing or enhancing views as the property was not a view lot and removal would not open up views from the property. He said all of the removed trees would be replaced with new, healthy trees. Of the 40 proposed to be removed 31 had a condition or structure rating of poor or very poor. Replacement would significantly upgrade the quality of trees in the area. Mr. Fleck testified that alternative plans had been evaluated. They found that the proposed location was the best location for the house and for the area as a whole. They had signatures of support from 11 of their Kelok Road neighbors (Exhibit F-7). The applicants had already offered a number of compromises. At this point they felt moving the house forward would impact more healthy trees in front, cause more delays, and increase the cost. Rvan Stvqer, Pacific Lifestvle Homes, explained that placement of the house was influenced by the required slope of the driveway and the need for a leveled off spot and a hammerhead turnaround at the top of the driveway. They could not move it forward and maintain the required driveway slope. They would have to tier retaining walls, create more soil disturbance, and damage tree roots. Working with an engineer they went with the 2:1 slope because it worked out better and it would be a more natural grade and less of an eyesore. Once it was landscaped it would blend into City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of March 31, 2014 Page 3 of 8 what was there now. He referred to two exhibits of cross sections of the property where the house was currently proposed (taking it down five feet to make the driveway work); and, if the house was moved forward another 45 feet (which would require more grading). He described a potential problem that the site had many large boulders and they might run into some very big ones if they had to move the house forward and excavate even deeper. If they moved the house forward they would have to reduce the building envelope about 10 feet in width and deal with runoff. He related a City engineer agreed with the applicant in regard to moving the storm chambers to under the driveway. The driveway was 12 feet wide with a rock shoulder and a hammerhead at the top which was used to turn around and required by the Fire Department. Terry Flanagan, Taraaan & Associates, 3145 Westview Cir. (97034) testified they had looked at alternatives that would reduce the number of trees that had to be removed. His opinion was they had done a lot to try to address concerns of the neighbor to the east. Questions of Applicant The applicants' builder clarified for Mr. Poulson that the house was not going to have fire sprinklers in exchange for being allowed to have a steeper driveway. They had not known that changing the grade was an option. Installing fire sprinklers would be costly. Moving the house forward would mean taking out more healthy trees. They confirmed they were flattening out the back yard by filling the area and using a retaining wall constructed of boulders from the site. In regard to root protection each tree was individually analyzed to do what was best for it. They estimated the existing slope from the retaining wall to the appellants' property was about 10%. It had been tiered in some areas when they built their house. The appellants were actually using the applicants' property to site a trampoline. Ms. Menendez noted the appellants had brought up a cluster of trees numbered 61-64 which included a large white oak. She asked if the oak could be pruned and salvaged. The applicant's arborist advised that it was an Oregon White Oak with a lot of dead branches. It was not an ideal specimen to try to retain. After the Douglas fir growing through its crown, the 10 -inch big -leafed maple growing under its dripline, and the invasive cherry tree were removed it would be a high - crown, one-sided, oak tree. If retained, the maple and Douglas fir would cause the oak problems as they all competed for resources. Ms. Menendez talked with the builder about whether the proposed two -car hammerhead could be just single -car size so they could push the structure forward about ten feet and save trees in the rear. He clarified it was used for guest parking as well as a turnaround. Shortening it could bring the storm chambers underneath closer to the house; effect the cross slope used for backing up at an angle; and change the soft transition area in front of the garage to a harder transition. Vice - Chair Creighton asked if reducing the hammerhead size would mean the applicants could save Trees 41, 42 and 40. The applicants' representatives advised that grading would still impact Tree 41. Tree 40, a 12 -inch big -leaved maple on the property line, might be saved. Neither for nor Against Dave Beckett, 7738 Kelok Rd., Chair of the Blue Heron Neiahborhood Association, testified that Mr. Schaeffer had invited him out to look at the property. Mr. Beckett's immediate thought had been that the applicants could move the house forward about 30 feet, but when he talked to Mr. Fleck later he heard he would have a problem digging down because of the steep slope of the lot. So there were contrasting needs and desires involved. Mr. Beckett confirmed the Shaffers' fear of falling trees was very real. He described trees falling onto a house and in a yard at 17913 and 17937 Kelok. He said it appeared that the applicants had compromised by moving the house forward at least 12 feet. He said he would love to see them try to save the white oak tree. In regard to digging the house down further, Mr. Beckett indicated that if they needed to have a 17 -foot retaining wall as the applicants had said that would not be a desirable configuration for the lot. He anticipated that the lot to the south would eventually be built on and that would also affect the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of March 31, 2014 Page 4 of 8 neighborhood's character and its tree canopy. He indicated that trees were being removed in the neighborhood each week. It was the ones closer to the street that were very good that needed to be saved and those towards the rear of the lot needed to be saved for the sake of both beauty and the windbreak. During the questioning period he advised that the lot was so steep there was no way to curve a driveway up there. What the applicants proposed looked like the best configuration. Proponents Elia Chisholm, 473 6th St., testified that she owned the lot south of the site. She recalled trees falling on a neighborhood house and her family's concern about the harm large falling trees could cause. She indicated that she wanted the applicants' family to live in that wonderful neighborhood. She said she had given the applicants permission to remove trees on their joint property line because it made sense not to have a tree growing right on the property line. She could agree to them taking as many trees down as he needed to ensure his home would be safe and trees would not come down on his or others' properties. Many of those trees they were talking about had been planted by the Chisholm family as seedlings since 1949. She said she had no plans for her lot now. She was agreeable to allowing children to use it as a playground as long as they respected it. Opponents Kvle Aaron, 17736 Cardinal Ct., said many of the applicants' trees were visible from the front of his yard and from Cardinal Court. He had seen the Shaffers' reports and was also concerned about the number of trees proposed to be removed and the potential impact on his own trees; the risk; and how it would look from his side and impact home values. He indicated he could not understand why the house could not be shifted forward as the Shaffers proposed to save trees and for safety. Dana and Jacaueline Shaffer, 17832 Cardinal PI., the appellants, submitted their March 31, 2014 letter (Exhibit G-202). Mr. Shaffer said their biggest concern was safety. They wanted to preserve the trees on their property so they did not fall on their home. Mr. Shaffer asked the Commissioners to look at the photographs they had submitted in Exhibit G-201. He pointed out they showed the incline down to his home dropped almost straight off from the property line. His trees were on that very steep slope, close to the property line. When he saw plans indicating the applicants' house would be located all the way in the back of the lot and he would be looking straight up at it he had expressed concern about the placement of the house and removal of all the trees behind the Shaffer's home. It would change the character and aesthetics of what they had been enjoying for years. They were concerned about privacy. Shaffer had then consulted arborists to find out the impact of the applicants' house placement on the Shaffer home and trees. Their reports indicated concern that the placement would pose a danger to his trees. His pictures showed the trees were large trees on the slope with root systems that went uphill into the Fleck property a good distance. They would be affected by any kind of grading in that area and their roots would be suffocated and weakened if more than two to four inches of soil was put on them. The loss of windbreak was also a concern. A big windstorm in February had knocked a 17 -foot limb off of one of his big Douglas firs. Those trees had been protected by trees on the applicants' property. If they took all those trees out the Shaffer's trees were going to lose that protection. Mr. Shaffer related that the big, native, Oregon White Oak was a wonderful tree. His arborists suggested it should be a Heritage Tree. They enjoyed it aesthetically and it and the big Douglas fir next to it provided a windbreak. They were both healthy trees, although they had some dead branches. His arborist said they could be limbed up and be there for another hundred years. He said Trees 61-64 were very important to the Shaffers because they had found out they were in an area which was highly susceptible to a landslide. He pointed out he had provided the Landslide Hazard and Risk Study of Northwestern Clackamas County Oregon by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (Exhibit G-201). It was a more recent report. It came with a disk with plates of various sections of northwestern Clackamas County including slides of areas within his neighborhood that showed it was clearly an area that was highly susceptible to shallow landslides. The trees he was talking about were older trees that held water City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of March 31, 2014 Page 5 of 8 with deep roots that were holding soil in place. When they were replaced by younger trees with root systems that were not as deep those trees would not hold the soil as well and the water would infiltrate deep down into the slope. Mr. Shaffer related that he was happy the applicants moved the stormwater chamber to the front of the house because a geotechnical engineer had told him it could be dangerous. In regard to compromises he clarified that he had not been aware the applicants moved the house 12 feet forward until he heard about it from Mr. Beckett the previous weekend. He said he would like to get together with the applicants to discuss what the plans for mitigation were and where the trees would be planted. He summarized that the Shaffers were most concerned about the safety of their trees and their home. There were some character, aesthetic and property value issues for them as well. Obviously they would lose the woods as all of the trees in the back of the site were being taken down. He acknowledged that he did not want to see the applicants having to spend more money to excavate in front, but he was just concerned about the safety of his home. If they could retain some of the trees in back, such as Trees 61 - 64 that were closer to his property, they could retain some of the aesthetic value that way and also protect the soil and the safety of his trees. He said he also hoped the City would not allow the applicants to add soil over top of his tree's roots. Questions of the Appellants Mr. Shaffer indicated he had sent a geotechnical expert the U.S. Geological Survey reports. The expert's response had been that it looked like the Shaffers were in an area of high susceptibility for landslides. Additional overflow from the storm retention chamber (that the applicants had since moved) would have been problematic because it would have been located close to and above the Shaffers' property. The Shaffers clarified that the trampoline was right on the property line in the only flat area available to position it in. They had not moved soil but had removed ivy and rocks and covered it with bark dust. A previous owner of the site (Mr. Chisholm) had indicated he accepted them having it there. The Flecks had sent them a letter saying they could use the property as it had been used before. Mr. Shaffer clarified that he thought Trees 61, 62, 63, and 64 could be saved. That clump of trees included the giant native white oak. In regard to one of them being invasive he said it was a pretty tree that was blossoming and not invading. Sue Ellison, 17856 Cardinal PI., anticipated that when the Chisholms sold the lot behind hers she would be in a similar situation and have similar concerns as the Shaffers. For that reason she hoped they could find a compromise. She was concerned about trees and erosion. The boulders were huge and could come down on her house. Rebuttal Mr. Fleck indicated the applicants had worked toward and hired the right experts to make sure they did not have a negative impact in any way including safety, values, character and aesthetics. He was very sympathetic to the neighbor and was sorry they had not had more of a conversation in regard to the compromises. They were real and genuine and had been submitted to the record so everyone could read them. It was hard to figure out where the applicants would build on the lot that would have less of an impact. They would have to take trees down so the question was what was the least amount of impact on the trees. The two arborists they had hired plus the City arborist had evaluated it and indicated if they removed the trees it would not cause susceptibility to windbreaks; the Trees 61-64 cluster was not currently providing any windbreaks for the trees on the Shaffers property; they would represent a safety hazard to the applicants' home if they were left; and the appellants trees had better than minimum crown ratios. He said safety was very much of concern to the applicants. He believed they had found the best location for their home. He referred to the landslide hazard report with red areas they understood were slide -prone areas (Exhibits F-8 and F- 9). He pointed out the applicants' building area was outside slide areas. The City's slide map did not shown it in a slide area. He summarized that the applicants believed they had positioned their City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of March 31, 2014 Page 6 of 8 house where it would have the least impact. The trees they were removing were not providing a windbreak according to the experts. Their house would actually provide a windbreak. When people talked about sliding the house forward even a foot and trading impacts on one tree for another that meant removing more of the healthy trees in front. It was a tough decision, but the applicants believed they had landed on the 'sweet spot' of what provided not only good privacy for the Shaffers but also for the neighbor on the other side of them. He noted that 17884 Kelok and 17890 Kelok both abutted the Cardinal side and their setbacks were 30 feet. He said he did not believe they had any slide issues or falling trees and he noted they had a 12 -foot shorter setback than the applicant had. Questions of Applicant Mr. Fleck was asked and clarified that the applicants were not going to build a split level house and they did not plan a garage -under home design because they had elderly family members and they wanted them to be able to enter from street level; it would have a greater impact on overall character and aesthetics of the neighborhood; and it would impact more soil and more tree roots. It was going to be a two-story home with the garage on the left side looking at it from the front. The reason for the proposed size of the hammerhead in front was because they had moved the storm chambers from the back to underneath it. The applicants had to deal with a lot of constraints on his lot that residents on Cardinal side did not have to deal with because they could hook up to stormwater facilities. Deliberations Vice -Chair Creighton opened deliberations. Mr. Poulson said his thoughts were that in designing a house you were informed by the site you were building on. The site has a steep slope that almost wanted a house that contoured to the slope, in the interest of trying to reduce impacts. What he was seeing was that the applicants were building a size of house on that slope and they had to be able to get up to it and be able to build a flat spot there. They had a significant amount of excavation and they could either truck it away (which would cost a lot of money) or they could dispose of it in the back yard and create a nice flat spot. It was a qualitative decision to dispose of the fill in the back yard, coming at the expense of at least Trees 61-64, including the live oak. He wondered if the house could be put in in a way that would allow the backyard to be left more in its natural state and to save those trees and provide the appellants with a little greater comfort level for their home, slope and view. He noted they were putting in a retaining wall there just to create a flat spot. Ms. Menendez and Mr. Poulson discussed that the only other flat spot would be the hammerhead. Vice -Chair Creighton noted that staff had approved the application but called for the retaining wall to be moved outside the root protection zone of the trees along the east property line. He referred to Mary Giersch's map (Exhibit G-200) to point out the 30 -foot setback line going right through the grove of four trees they were trying to save. He noted the retaining wall would be in the root protection zones of some trees whether it was moved or not. Mr. Poulson noted that if fill was not put back there the retaining wall could go away and the trees could stay. Ms. Menendez talked about the overall criteria and strict application of the Code. Staff and the City arborist had addressed purposes of development, erosion, windbreaks and soil stability, water retention and the retaining wall. Condition 3 regarding impacts on the neighborhood was really the main reason for maintaining any of those trees back there, which would be adding the backdrop for those on the Cardinal side. Whether or not they created a flat spot did not really play into anything other than that. The applicants had said they hit the 'sweet spot.' Ms. Menendez indicated she thought they were close to the `sweet spot' but maybe a few feet off. Perhaps they could have satisfied everybody a little better. However, she said she did not think what they proposed was directly in conflict with what was required. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of March 31, 2014 Page 7 of 8 Ms. Johnson said she would agree with that. She thought they had met all of the criteria. They had tried to satisfy the neighbors. She did not think that saving the four trees in the back yard sounded terribly viable. They were all in fairly poor condition because three of them were growing so close together and the fourth one was the cherry the applicant would be allowed to take out no matter what. In regard to saving the white oak and the Douglas fir trees it did not sound like they were very aesthetic or particularly enhancing to this property or any of the others. She added that she could be wrong as she had not gone back there to look at them. Mr. Ahrend observed the appeal had caused the applicants to revise their plan a bit in regard to the storm chambers and moving the home from where they originally proposed it. Staff had added some conditions to help protect the neighbor's property and their trees. He indicated that overall he thought they were at a good compromise position. Certainly if this had not been appealed he thought the house would have been closer as would the retaining wall. Vice -Chair Creighton agreed with Mr. Ahrend. He noted a 30 -foot rear yard setback was substantial. There was another one like it on Cardinal. Mr. Ahrend added that it would have been interesting to see a profile of where both houses sat and the grades between them but the Commission did not have that information. Mr. Poulson indicated he thought the slope on the east side of the property was greater than 10% and probably more like 3:1. The applicants were scarifying it, adding fill on top of it, putting a retaining wall around it and that probably would impact roots on the downslope side. Ms. Menendez noted the recommended conditions of approval did not allow the applicants to put the retaining wall within the drip lines of the big fir trees. They would have to move the wall back, well into their property. If they had moved the house back 12 feet they probably had room to do that now and still get a flat spot there. Vice -Chair Creighton commented that it was the applicants' choice to have the retaining wall or not. Mr. Poulson noted that rainwater falling on the roof was going to be directed toward the front of the property instead of infiltrating into the slope on which it fell now. He indicated that other than the fill itself adding weight to the top of the existing slope he did not think they were creating a geotechnical issue. He indicated he felt they should have had a geotechnical expert's report. However, in the photographs it looked as if the slope was a pretty solid matrix of large, embedded, boulders. It did not look like it had a history of sliding because none of the trees in the pictures had any bows in them. Vice -Chair Creighton remarked that he could not tell anything from the slope maps that had been provided. Ms. Johnson moved to approve AP 14-04 [TR 499-14-002351 as conditioned by staff. Mr. Ahrend seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. The final vote on findings was scheduled on April 21, 2014. GENERAL PLANNING AND OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business Vice -Chair Creighton adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Janice Reynolds /s/ Janice Reynolds Administrative Support City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of March 31, 2014 Page 8 of 8