Loading...
Agenda Packet - 1992-02-03 • • a 9 • LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING DEPT. FILES rk :;. • Development Review Board Agendas 1992 •• e: 6 4. 61 { { 1 r f •1 • � y Y' • r T, N� ' ;d�,x 1 J Y s AGENDA ' y+ CITY OF LAKE OSVVEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW • CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,CITY HALL,380 'A' AVENUE ®A.RA • Monday,February 3, 1992 7:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Agenda Book' ' �� II. ROLL CALL �`+ 'r • b, p} F III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES nr, August 19, 1991 November 4, 1991 , November 18, 1991 t January 20, 1992 IV. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS V. PUBLIC HEARING �u s � SD Z5-790,10d, 6-9O)/1IR 15-90 U, a request by Hilary Mackenzie for approval to build a single family home next to a historic landmark site. The site is located at 1100 Westward Ho Road[Tax Lot .' 5300(portion) of Tax Map 2 lE IOBB]. Staff coordinator is Catherine Clark. Am�o ,•nte piaaper, GENERAL PLANNING NNINCi Emergency Tree Cutting Standards • Vu• OTHER BUSINESS—Findings, Conclusions and Order None VIII. ADJOURNMENT • The Lake Oswego Development Review Board welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go as you please. 12138' alzers: &ff: Robert H.Foster,Chair Tom Coffee,Planning Director Skip Stanaway,Vice-Chair Robert Galante,Senior Planner James A,Bloomer Ron Bunch,Senior Planner Robert D.Greaves Hamid Pishvaie,Dev,Review Planner Ginger Remy Harry N.Starr Catherine Clark,Associate Planner Jane Heisler,Associate Planner Norman J.Sievert Barbara Smolak,Associate Planner Michael R.Wheeler,Associate Planner 'r Cindy Phillips,Deputy City Attorney Barbara Anderson, DRB Secretary Kathy Avery,PC Secretary `r 4 ,, y, .. .,6 x .,. .. .. .� _, ,tom..... • _.• ... } f t A S F STAFF REPORT . . CITY OF LAKE oswEG0 PLANNING DIVISION r N ti APPLICANT: FILE NO: �f' Hilary Mackenzie SD 25-79(Mod.6-90)\HR 15-90 II: for Lula F. Simpson Review of Single Family Construction PROPERTY OWNER: STAP ',. Lula F. Simpson Catherine Clark LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT: . .; Tax Lot 5300 of January 24, 1992 r'+ Tax Map 2 1E IOBB LOCATION: NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: ;` 1100 Westward Flo Road None COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: R-10 R-10 -, • I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST ' The applicant is seeking approval of the design of a single family home at 1100 a Westward Ho Road (Exhibits 1-3). The ^object property is part of a historic site that received approval for partitioning by the Board on July 18, 1991 (Exhibit 4). ' ` II, APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. Zoning Code LOC 48.115-48.225 R-10 Zone Description (setbacks, lot area, lot coverage) { SD 25-79(Mod.6-90)/HR 15-90 II ,.1. y Page 1 of 12 -M F B. Development Code: LOC 49.090 Applicability of Development Standards , LOC 49.140 Minor Development • LOC 49.200-49.210 Minor Developrr er.t Procedures LOC 49.215 Authority of City Manager LOC 49.615 Criteria for Approval $: 'fit'. C. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 4. ;, ' t 7.005 - 7.040 Parking &Loading Standard 12.005-12.040 Drainage Standard for Minor Development 9 14.005-14.040 Utility Standard 16.005-16.040 Hillside Protection & Erosion Control ` 18.005-18.040 Access Standard 19.005-19.040 Site Circulation-Private Streets/Driveways / 58.005-58.165 Historic Preservation 1 . D. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: y:. . The applicable policies were previously addressed in the original application for :'':�;. a minor partition: SD 25-79(Mod. 6-90/HR 15-90). E. Solar Access Ordinance: LOC 57.005 - 57.135 i . . F. Tree Cutting Ordinance: LOC 55.010 - '5.130 • : ' G. Subdivision Ordinanc LOC 44.374 - 44.580 L III. FINDINGS . A. Existing Conditions: • .. 1. The site is located at 1100 Westward Ho Road, on the south side of the road, 2, There is one existing home on the west side of the site, known as the ,' Dudley Allen House. It is itn the English Cottage style and has been • *' designated as an Historic Landmark, 0 ' . , ` SD 25-79(Mod,6-90)/HR 15-90 II ` Page 2 of 12 . y r y ' A mew ' ` .; .• i: ,. : ...,. .. ., .,,, 1 The site is 0.79 acres or 34,412 square feet in area. The lot frontage is w ''i presently 205.99' along Westward Ho Road. . ",-, .• : so 4. The site is heavily forested on the east side next to a steep ravine, and there is a rock outcrop and a steep chop-off on the north side. Al S . 5. The site is generally level on the northern portion next to Westward Ho "" Road, but slopes steeply from north to south on the lower portion, where . . there is a cliff which overlooks Oswego Lake. The slopes on the south side of the site range from a 12% - 70% grade. The ravine on the east ~ ' side ranges from 20% - 50% or moia, in grade, The site is in the designated slide area on the City soil inventory map, The applicant is -.7‘..'—:-:-.-,", proposing to build portions of the house in areas where slopes exceed a 20% grade. 6. A 6" sanitary sewer line is located in Westward Ho Road. , ` 1 7. A 12" water main is located in Westward Ho Road. 8. There is no storm drainage line adjacent to the site, • ., .'" .' 9. A fire hydrant is located approximately 400' from the site, at the southeast {`> corner of Berwick and Troon Roads. 0 10. Westward Ho Road is an existing paved street that has a 40 foot wide right-of-way. , B. Previous Actions: This parcel was approved for a partition into two lots on July 18, 1991 (Exhibit • 4). The Board approved p p thepartition with conditions that the designplans for the house on the new tax lot be reviewed and approved by the Board (Exhibit 4, .�A. conditions 11-14). These conditions are reviewed in detail in Finding 3-C ,•.1 (Historic Preservation) of this report. C, Proposal: The applicant's proposal is to build a second home on the new parcel, and to '01 A. provide a conservation easement to ensure that a cluster of trees will remain in a " ••` buffer area between the two homes (Exhibit 2-c), One fir tree within the easement ' is proposed for removal, which requires approval by the Board according to N " condition 7 of the Final Order (Exhibit 4). D. Compliance,with Criteria for Approval: As per LOC' 49.615, staff must consider the following criteria when evaluating • minor development: • • • SD 25-79(Mod.i-90)/HR 15-90 II • Page 3 of 12 ,' w • 1. The burden of proof in all cases is upon the applicant seeking approval. The applicant has borne the burden of proof through submittal II of documents 0 v '', ' . marked as exhibits, accompanying this report. 2. For any development appl; 'ion to be approved, it shall first be I u, established that the proposal :,nforms to: a. The City's Comprehensive Plan J `5 The applicable Plan policies have been previously addressed in the original application for a minor partition: SD 25-79(Mod.6-90)/HR 15-90. 3. The applicable statutory and code requirements and regulations. i a Zoning Code Requirements and Analysis ,. The setback changes and lot coverage defmitions adopted for the Zoning Code on r May 2, 1991 are applicable to this proposal. , The site is zoned R-10 which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit; required minimum lot width at the building line is 65 feet; required minimum lot depth is 100 feet [LOC 1.1.210(1)]. Maximum lot coverage allowed ' in the zone is 30% [LOC 58.225(1)]. ` . The applicant proposes the parcels to be the following sizes; Area Width Depth Parcel 1 19,335 sq. ft. 135' 183' `• (Existing Home) • Parcel 2 15,077 sq. ft. 65' 152' /... ,• (Proposed Home) 4. { 4 0 , . • • SD 25-79(Mod.6-90)/HR 15-90 II Page 4 of 12 1 ' 4'. R . -, tub .^. .'1:1 it 1t t, • 4 .. . t'/ . 13'' ,'• \ 1. X' r t } r 1 1 A The proposed lot coverage for the new house is 1,993 sq,ft. or 13% of the lot area. LOC 41.215 (1) requires the following minimum setbacks: Front yard: 25' ' Rear yard: 25' Side yard: 10' 1 r } The site plan in Exhibit 2-c shows a front yard setback of approximately 72', a rear yard setback of 25', and a side yard setback of 10'. The maximum height in the R-10 zone is 35' (LOC 48.220). The proposed house r will be 12' in height at street level, and 21' in height as measured from the lowest elevation. The proposed building plan conforms to all applicable zoning requirements. Development Code Requirements and Analysis The proposed building review is appropriately being processed as a minor development. Other than the applicable Development Standards, them are no other Development Code requirements applicable to this request. • -dam Solar Access Ordinance Requirements and Analysis (LOC Y 57.005 - 57.040) • The proposed house is within 30 degrees of the true east-West axis, as required. The proposed building footprint complies with the Solar Ordinance, Tree Cutting Ordinance Requirements and Analysis (LOC 55,030 - 55.130) { The applicant is proposing to cut two trees in order to developthe lot (Exhibit 2- �+ c). One of the trees is a 12" fir located within the building footprint on the east ' side of the site. The other tree is a 15" fir next to the oak tree cluster within the conservation easement. In the original partition approval, Condition #7 required that no trees be removed from the conservation easement ` � as shown in Exhibit 3 the15" (Exhibit 4). However, fir is severely bowed and has exposed roots, which makes the tree a potential windfall hazard. Staff recommends that the Board make an exception to Condition #7 of the partition to allow for the removal of the f bowed fir tree. The tree ordinance permits tree removal when them is a hazard, and in order to ::: construct improvements. The proposal to remove the two firs meets the criteriaof the tree ordinance,y` ``' Chapter 58.135 (3) also applies to removal of the fir. tree o- a1 ', • within the conservation easement, since mature trees on the site were designated k as important landscape features of the historic landmark, SD 25-79(Ivlod.ti-90)/1°iR 15-90 II Page 5of12 :::,:.,,.. Chapter 58.135 (3) states that: In order to approve a major alteration of a landmark, the Development Review Board, for a major development, and the City Manager, for all other ~ ". : ' development, unless referred to the Board pursuant to LOC 58.025 (t,) (d), shall find that: *. ,. (a) the proposed alteration will not diminish the:"istorical or architectural significance of the landmark; or, ... . ! p (b) wor alterations which diminish the historical or architectural significance, through an ESEE analysis, it can be shown that the benefit to the community of allowing the alteration outweighs the A` 1A M benefit to the community of preserving the resource in its present 4 t condition. • • ;. F i . The subject fir tree is one of several mature trees associated with the historic house. There are two large fir trees in the front yard to the west of the house; a cluster of oak trees to the east of the house, and a large oak tree in the terrace area in back of the house. Because of the• existence of other large trees on the site, the removal of the bowed fir tree will not diminish the historical or • architectural significance of the landmark. Its removal should actually benefit the oak tree cluster that it is adjacent to by giving the oak more space and light to ,' grow in. , . Subdivision Ordinance Requirements and Analysis. (LOC 44,374-44.580Z • • This ordinance requires that streets for new developments conform to City specifications. Currently, Westward Ho is substandard in width, so that a nonremonstranc(;agreement for future street improvements on Westward Ho Road was required in the partition approval. ,, c. The applicable Development Standards s Parkins and Loadine (7 005 - 7 This standard requires that each single family dwelling provide two off-street ' parking spaces in addition to a garage or carport, The proposed :ryveway shown 'r in Exhibit 2-c will accommodate two cars, and meets the parking requirement. Drainage Standard for Minor Development (12,005 - 12.040) This standard requires that drainage alterations, including new development, not adversely affect neighboring properties. A soils report will be required when a building permit application is submitted in accordance with condition 8 of the • Final Order, Exhibit 4. The final drainage plan will be reviewed in conformance with that report at the time of application for a building permit. SD 25-79(Mod,6.90)/l-1R 15-90 II Page 6 of 12 I • • • • • ,. . �r t , Utility Standard (14.005 - 14.040) This standard requires that utilities be constructed according to City specifications, Underground installation of utilities will be required when a building permit application is submitted. rt Hillside Protection and Erosion Control (16.005 - 16.040), This standard requires protection against soil erosion by requiring that no more than 65% of the area in slopes of 20 - 50% may be graded or stripped of vegetation; and where development is proposed on land over 50%in slope,density transfer is not feasible, and at least 70% of the site will remain free of structures or impermeable surfaces. • The applicant has not submitted calculations yet to verify compliance with this standard, although it appears that the standard can be met. These calculations should be submitted to demonstrate compliance to the Board's satisfaction. ° The hillside standard also requires a soils report when a site is located on the potential landslide hazards map. The soils report submitted with the partition application concluded that the proposed site is suitable to support the residence with special footings and removal of surface fill materials. A final report will be required at the time of Building Permitting. Access Standard (18.005 - 18,040) This standard requires that each parcel abut a public street for at least 25 feet. Parcel 1, with the existing home, has a width of 135 feet. Parcel 2 will have a width of 65 feet, Each proposed parcel provides frontage along Westward Ho Roan i:, e:'cess of the requirement. Site Circulation - Private $treets/Driveways (19.005 - 19.040) This standard requires that driveways for single family dwellings not exceed 20% grade nor 5% cross slope. The contour map shown in Exhibit 2 demonstrates that there is a relatively flat area which can meet this standard. Compliance with this standard will be required upon application for a building permit. Y " Historic Preservation »Major Development other than Alterations 158.140(1)&1l Section 58,140(2) of this standard requires that: "' �► 1. The Development Review Board, in its review of major development applications affecting landmarks or property within a historic district, other than alterations, shall conclude that criteria in this section are • SD 25-79(Mod.6-90)/HR 15-90 II Page 7 of 12 " 4 • met before granting approval to the development. 2. In order to approve an application for new construction which is a major development, the Development Review Board must find that: • • (a) The design of the proposed structure is compatible with the �_ design of the landmark resource on the site or the • characteristics of the Historic District considering scale, style, • W height, architectural detail and materials. (b) The location and orientation of the new structure on the site is consistent with the typical location and orientation of similar •` structures on the site or within the Historic District, y't considering setbacks, distances between structures, location of entrances and similar siting considerations. 4' y • In addition to mz.eting the criteria of Chapter 58, the DRB Imposed the following conditions related to the design of the new house: • The design plans for the proposed house on the new tax lot shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Review Board prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. The design shall 't provide for a house that is small in scale and compatible in proportion, materials, and color to the existing buildings and the neighborhood. The proposed elevation shall be shown in detail, • .'' including a materials board. 1; •• • The new house shall be sited with careful attention to the placement of the existing Sundeleaf designed homes to the east and ' west of the site. The site plan shall include topographic lines, and I shall show all structures within 100' of the site. • A revised site plan shall be submitted which clearly delineates the conservation easement, which shall include, at minimum, the area shown in Exhibit 7 and the two clusters of trees nearby. The historic Dudley Allen house is a two-story English Cottage approximately • 3,000 sq, ft. in area that has a steeply pitched, cedar-shingled roof with gable • ends. The siding is a combination of, natural rock, bi-ck wood shingles, horizontal board and batten siding, and stucco. The window are multi-light, and generally vertical in appearance. (Slides will be shown at the hearing as Exhibit 8), n '': t• proposed The house will be one story (12') in height as viewed from the street; and two stories (21') in height as viewed froln the rear elevation. It will contain 2,341 square feet of living space exclusive of the garage, The roof will have a medium pitch and will be covered with cedar shingles. The siding will be a vertical board and batten with an earth tone stain. The stain color is proposed to SD 25-79(Mod.6-90)/I`IR 15-90 II Page 8 of 12 be selected after construction from a range of colors to be shown on a materials board to be presented at the hearing as Exhibit 7. • Natural stone from the site will be used to create an entry trellis, and windows will be single-light and generally vertical in appearance, Additional landscaping will be provided at the driveway entry, and the conservation easement has been enlarged to include oak and fir trees associated with the Allen house. The proposed house has been designed to fit the linear, ridge-like nature of the site and the steep topography. The garage and stone trellis will be the dominant feature facing the street, with the rest of the house terraced down the hill (Exhibit 2-f). The new house has been designed to defer to the Allen house in its scale and placement, and is intended to appear more like an accessory building than a full scale house from the street. Analysis • ' DESIGN The proposed house will have a 1,993 sq. ft. footprint including a 419 sq.ft. garage which is integral to the structure. The structure will appear to be one story • in height from the street (north elevation: Exhibit 2-f) and two stories in height when viewed from the downhill portions of the site (south and west elevations: • Exhibit 2-g), The roof pitch of the proposed structure is approximately 3:5, and ` 0110 is planned to be less than the pitch of the existing Allen house, which is approximately 1:1. The applicant proposes a concept for the siting and design of the proposed structure that will allow it to be compatible with the historic Allen house with respect to scale, style, height, architectural detail and materials. Those factors, required to be addressed by LOC 58.1.40(2)(a), are addressed below: SCALE/HEIGHT - While the footprint of the proposed house appears slightly larger than the historic house, the new house defers to the historic h• ouse by its siting and roof line. The placement of the structure's entry and garage on grade, allowing the remainder of the house to drop down to the south and west, presents the structure's smallest facade to the street. This view of the house is diminished further by a roof pitch that lowers f`. the building's height and makes the new structure appear less dynamic w than the existing house. These features and the preservation of mature landscaping within a ccnservation easement between the structures, preserve the strength and character of the existing house, STYLE/ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL/MATERIALS - The new structure appears to be more contemporary in style th_;n the existing 410 historic residence; however, the contemporary style is consistent with the lowered roof line, and it does not detract from the historic character of the Sly 25-79(Mod.6-90)/HR 15.90 11 Page9of12 ., .r. t u* ` .. +l. ' ..• �,, F •fir • .I. ' •w • '�.I • X v Y. existing structure. To have designed a similarly styled structure would w `` create a campus of buildings or a "compound" that would have confused \ . the historic qualities of the Allen residence. The materials and architectural details chosen for the new structure help the two dissimilar . `� buildings to be compatible with each other and with the wooded and rocky a :a site. The natural stonb trellis and windows that are generally vertical in f appearance are elements which tie in with the architectural detail of the Kr t ' historic house and are compatible with it. There is no detailing shown on ; rF the proposed garage door, which will be a prominent feature viewed from ry " Westward Ho Road. The proposed garage should be detailed in a manner fK similar to the Allen house, which has a pattern of raised rectangles, An �,•- • elevation detail should be submitted showing the proposed garage door. K ,� • ; The materials used, including board and batten siding, natural stone, and ' .' '•�'' cedar shingles carry out themes which are used in the existing Allen house, and are compatible with the existing house. As the natural stone begins to patina and landscaping matures around the new structure, the positive -- a relationship between the two structures will be reinforced. • Additional design concerns raised by the DRB: ' Smallness of Scale - The proposed house is small in scale. Proportional Compatibility P P ty - The proposed house is one-story as viewed from the street in comparison to the two-story Allen house. Th' architect consciously chose this approach to minimize the .`..',' impact of the new building. Viewed as a secondary or accessory building, the proportion chosen is compatible with the original • tea house. ' Color - A range of earth-tone stains has been proposed, to be r shown on the materials board at the hearing as Exhibit 7. The "w "` applicant proposes to select the specific color after the house is J q constructed. • SITING - Chapter 58.140 (2) (b) requilos siting compatibility considering ` .� the "ollowing factors: . .‘ Location and Orientation '• The proposed house is approximately 72' from the road, which is well behind the existing house, which is approximately 25' from the road This is consistent with the - r architect's approach of minimizing the new house. The proposed house has been rotated so that it will be viewed at an angle from the street - consistent with the orientation of the existing house (Exhibit 2). '• " y,, 0Y..A rA SD 25-79(Mod.6-90)/HR 15-90 II . ' 4. Page 10 of 12 . . . I 1 + }.,'tie + •3 - 'a,,5 •. !, y , ,, * • - a rr \' TI Distances between Structures - The proposed house is approximately 28' to the east of the existing house, which is an • z adequate distance to provide privacy and landscaping buffering for • ' both houses. Location of Entrances - The entrance to the proposed house is on the east side of the building, consistent with the location of the entrance to the existing house. Additional siting concerns raised by the DRB: Placement in relation to Sundeleaf house east of the site - The proposed house is shown on a site plan in Exhibit 2-b which shows all structures within 100' of the site. The historic Patton house to the east of the site is approximately 190' away from the proposed house, and at least 20' below the proposed house. The proposed r, house has been well sited in relation to both of the existing ,�' j^ Sundeleaf houses, and also conforms to the natural topography of .' the site. CONSERVATION EASEMENT t The DRB directed the applicant to submit a revised site plan which clearly delineates the conservation easement, and includes two clusters of trees (an t Oak with multiple trunks and a fir tree) associated with the Allen house, As shown in Exhibit 2-c, the conservation encompasses the two trees, although the fir tree is proposed to be removed, as described earlier. , R E. Conclusion: , Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant, staff concludes that the }• , proposed house is compatible in design and siting with the landmark resource; and that the proposal complies with or can be made to comply with all applicable : criteria. IV. RECOMMENDATION I • '. Staff recommends approval of the proposed single family home, subject to the following conditions: 1. All of the conditions required in Si) 25-79(Mod.6-90)/HR 15-90 shall continue to " apply. Plans submitted for a building pennit shall be substantially in conformance with the plans shown in Exhibit 2 a-g. Y • • SD 25-79(Iv1od.6-90)/HR 15-90 II Page 11 of 12 ', ,. i r % : 1 \. I 1 z. x 1 .;t s 3. A garage door detail shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to submittal of a building permit. 4. When plans are submitted for a building permit, all setbacks shall be as shown in Exhibit 2-c. i s Or * 5. Tree cutting permits shall be obtained prior to the removal of any trees. } 6. The conservation easement shall be fenced, and then inspected and approved by "4; 1, planning staff prior to issuance of a building permit and any site construction. ✓j ti;. `'"` 7. EXHIBITS A%` '' ` , 1. Applicant's narrative describing proposed construction ` . 2, Site Plan and Elevations 3. Tree Cutting Application .: '. 4. Findings, Conclusions and Ordf r: SD 25-79(Mod.6-90)\HR 15-90 w 5. Letter from H. Mackenzie dated July 18, 1991 ', 6, Excerpt from July 18, 1991 DRB Meeting 7. Materials board (to be shown at hearing) -- ro: 8, Slides and pictures of the existing Allen House (to be shown at hearing) ' '- • "•" 9. Letter from the Peters Family dated Jan.23, 1992 CC:kaa f#Simps.mem y. .1t Y • U ,1 Y SD 25.79(Mod.6-90)/HR 15.90 II ; Page 12 of 12 ti. Il f'r ` .' 1 'f N fy lilt ;\ Rl \i \ ' , \ () R 1 11 \\ ( r . 1, [ , ; , , ‘, • \ , ;,; F W9�W µl December 6, 1991 '' Development Review Board City Hall ' 380 'A' Avenue Lake Oswe o Oregon 9703 \ '',..,.• , 9 ► 9 Re:SD25-79\HR15-90 Dear Board Members: The design for the proposed house adjacent to the Dudley Allen house is a contemporary building • that incorporates some of the materials and characteristics of the older homes in the r neighborhood. The house plan has been made more compact than the earlier proposals. Both the garage and the living room wing have ;." been shortened to open the views out from the Allen house to the south and the east. This also improves the view of the landmark house from the street. The new design has been rotated j counterclockwise to reduce the mass of the garage from the street +, and to make the entry more promirent. All of the adjacent Sundeleaf houses have steep pitched cedar r shingle gable roofs. The proposed design has a medium pitched gable roof with cedar shingles. A lower pitch was chosen to keep the new house as low as possible in relation to the existing Allen house. This preserves views of the landmark from outside the property and P P Y preserves important views out from the Allen house. It was also important that the new building appear as a secondary building in relation to the landmarks. w4 The proposed design has board and batten siding similar to that on the Allen house with stained finish. Most of the windows will face west and south. It is intended that the north wall of the uFtl house be fairly blank to allow privacy for both residences. There will be a landscape buffer between the two buildings. The entry way will incorporate stone pillars at thefporch and front } trellis by the garage. We intend to use stone from the site for ,, � � _ ' .\ this work as I believe the Allen house has. Two trees are to be removed for construction. The large landscape buffer to the east on this lot and the property to the east will remain. Additional landscaping will be provided at the ;" driveway entry to soften the approach to the house from the street. The conservation easement has been enlarged to include • w the existing oak tree to the west of the new driveway. • , Our intr t in this design is to build a comtempory house that is small in scale and compatible with the surrounding landmark *{ , Y buildings. Yours truly, ) EXHIBIT 5o z5.7y/inod �' ' ' HiLary Mack nxi C, • b� RI o e ' ad...,-' i p a l .a. 'l. 4 �` - t 4 • ,.---A -.�. •1 4• J v f ,.N y 1h •h. t t . •t• + f q y y ... r e f y ,1 � 1.'1 y.. }y}Ay } I • YOi ' • • ' 1 a� 4 , . I . .. t ,„.. 1 _, ,.,,,.....,...„-, -. : , ;, , ., . , . ... . ..... . , . ., ..,,, :„ .,.. .• . 1 / .. t 0 . Itt! \\#,N „...1„4„„ ,110 , ‘ .... % _ I fr-;i'l ,,--, . . .., . 0 41 4 \ , , y r (NI) . ---..,.-„ ...., , , - - j_ -- r„ X r ^J ' ,1.1 1. ,. f..A... _ , �.1 --, • (74' w w I I p j .� , �/ W \., 1 „ '-AV ‘F11 � I� II I'1 ,,e r r rl J .'•134 }� 1 � t, ' \ ��0 ' q\ '�' + itti4 14 ' 11 it , 1� AV\ Dill i ,D, 1,iQ f ` . f �.t is r , rtrr 1. � `1 �•'ri;r-«/ � ,`T 1 y� '�`7 '�y� Lt `. ';�i ?' f, ^.t r 1 li �'i 1_�. �, �r } l ` —.. Vt. _ _ ! .fit 1TT<�i k. - .-.tt n ] , r �., ...., 0.. ',V.5,:it., , ,, t; ti , ;Y r1� t \ � 1'� - �� _ I. i r,?'a4.' �. 1 w L� I� a��7 y' 11�` • Llr `5r5 y , - t , =: _ l If _ ',Q)/ 1 ,'I„`i` _ `1 '1, r yt I "- ""� F `'_`s.-. I ��I - -.- -�S�:r ........... •�`; � 1 L I r 1►1. �� `P :a • Y , lip I •, r�i / `l11 •may 7 •.T *_ \`��.� c..ra a �;, 1 I i yr ..,. .,...,.^.-M-,.crrtccfn'� I` ' 1 tv i 1ta'A v.(.�1 1 y Pry. 1 r. y i r,.yi.ly1 tf .*. 1-' 'r:j�Y^,f J y 1 ^* . 3�� ,�[- + :, t /1 • 7 r►w 11 ti ,ryj jT p'f V�)y •�)`'Ii 6:r• ' .Y- 't*.1 A.O.' ' . 710 1 f� . .c ,J;/.Il•••_ i ► �N !� 'I ' /J{" si �i{iilh, .., r^ i� Ian + T. }• * / '° #1. ° yf il A i .., . ,/r//), • 1,0.., 711 ... . .. .. , . ., ,.. , _ .. ., #4 , 4k, 4,0 4-,i0-e, if(J9 T(4,/,- , . , itb a N. aaa d � ' � l � ;< , , 1 . ,, Lp y / St. \4 14 �. � �/ r • 4t C . Ij I y �d � I j ,,,t1F ^la ii .' � Si !d j ►W i'. ,11'f\nr t:-: . 61 1 r`�'r` I t ___„, , .,,, .:„L.,4.,,, -, :,,. 1. • hw I yj�r/G j 11'. r'p. ` dl , t. - -."-:I:'-- . . ' ' *: , '. ' ' . . " r . .r } • • • �w l • 1 Y S � r tl I 1' .�, t` . -. �., t't C r �4v •r v .,. ;� .L..,b� ,� 1 v '• - r rf t ;, i .43 ,. ::::-...:"-,:, ti ,• I �+ -,�:.• — r - -r..,'•.'- , I',. I Nr - NsNN/NN..........,............ '� j• 1 �_ • 11 i+..r 1 1 /�IC/. 1 ��V w 1 1 of 1:1P I sr I\ . . 1hTING1 • VectErArIoN , 1 r ,ty • hi`WA12p Nb r.o1'cD voww , . . ~ ,. rr' ,L.....- ._ 4 c , 4. , I— E 'SGICVioNT144.1 • 1 1 h MENi 1 a 1 el 1 ( rlNt / �rtru r AU.5TI NouhE ,\` ( ��EL-tETATIoN / �I`l'�b}j �bWse �9r) EX1'S I C \\\`� 1 �7 r if 1 1 V 1 'h�'lo►.►�•----� pl�opa p - - - it .,. :.. . . \ r AIM y/+ N I\Csl PIT F1,WNc�WIN�� ,� 11✓I F''oI•I R ED 11»N Er W I GI �Y t✓1 AQ k�toN Z I EHoU6E.S fJoRTIWEWr PE51 N �,�"'o R' ::': 5dALE : , w _G �-c _ �► „ � � � ��. _ � .r ti �- ► —y� - �,.�I_ 4 u 4 r t '2o7�T2LhNto1 • y z ll i �`=:. .. �� .`•� i ,, r 'nil ly. - � 'i .... t rir 8. tr . r i^ 4 )" • li 1 ! i L-' } i . h• . F r 1 r • r • . t j .. 1 /\ I \ ��1111 '•1� .i I \ \ 0° WPi hLLcl! 11oUti6 Cki I \00 , 1 \ c y \ Wye > , r 0 .....` „' r .....2.1.- .. .,.. .:-..,., • . .. 1 . ,s, \ , ,• • - - . ,z.v.z,-,7 , //,.,- -....,..- - ell \-.... :., ... z., \ 01111 . , . 0. , .-„t.._colvda-..,41.4 5.,,,,ki5.,t.11.-r,....--- v lig • • y ' Cam. • • `1 i t y , 115".f. +` y e+ -4 f f1 .if rI • 1 I. �.; 17�' /!/ "f �, ` i.. ' pyp{1o1111 ftlfJP d �` ✓ r it . d iryRaiinvao "\ �1`Db .,._.�,,E\ ` `� ti▪ ' 4.} 1 r• t •`. ,� �\ \I, r , 7C v♦x\� • �• � L i+in �•ItiY w fi:. eicr pet IYers `\Wt. , " L. ; It •r4M1t:9 e • may..`. ® U'111 1 ,.. N. +,�, 1 y"af: . f ' f4AME.,. •. • ');...e. ..•. . .....' ' EDE): s ` y ,� fJ, 7, 1992 MMvNlC 61TE t'tl�tJ - SINPboN R�41veNdE �/� �/ 11tnivic• 1.r,nlrrs, ,^ _ w�'•n r r n ►�'+wc�r+r:E!fiya�N a u0 °, �y�r 1'• In'ro 'Z'IL1 '. •1 �rwl' 1E}� � � .. .• fbN11`1'1d,, OR. q/30 i t. -1n$•Z `1 • '\'t Y. . • ' f 4 , M. � ,�1 ..y'tj •4 y �♦ ' 1� L t 7 ` , t .mil � tt� 4 -•r i Y '° i• o CU I , ---J c____>1_ I7% x I dT IP IN. Roar-1 IL,' r. IL'' 'II• --I -°' ,' f F.. .--1:2-,4-71 �C'1© ._ -- 1N1T1K I „_._, . �" I • J Sou iron l it WtaNcN `/ r Sit x� a P 4 I _ ,•,. 7 AARAc.G' d Ir � b I r. 0 1 V , •ria I \ II l_ .......... I �, \I \ 1 tIOSbT —j ",fib, } I `•,;� t� ... • I� — , I ,: 116/ $ Isk. i orl` I a I 7„..." -, t - - ,. - I V\ -ift.,,,,,Ii c 1 _ i.,v c, . I I 6 L_ I_ H emit 7" — . Q ._. y.r . 1514 H {itllkfh MIdkE11 I , . (I) a s lbfvllNE x3usN•116Ki ,,.Oil. �' rrl410 i ' ENT1 L:VEL *t.cor. T1. 11rIK1ANv et 171a 1 . it•u•LC s 1/4"" 11.a : A11 a NIX. 22st- Sots t LL '' 1 '' M t r '.t .M Y .:i 4 ' " •„• . a.p' .:. .ate . ... ,. .f .........._ ..— -.-..... e.- .......,..e. ... — :. ... ,.. . . .. r-...• ' ••t • { 414. d y .—. — .-..,.. — M • ILI cV. I Qo � i �; I . 0 b i!L_= _ _ 659K[oII . rt- . Sr k� —1 • IS' I I1i'' 1,.• 1\ Ei— -- — — -- Fs 7,73 -^ L ----] . . _ I sroK.he,� i '/ . ,�� 'I I r , It i ff _..... .. G�' aµwL arks i A . • ( " I ,J4114 _' 1992 Y - 1 ' tt i, oh ` .. N11J$.1 t"ti`4KeNtlE • .6enu' : t/4 . 1'-o vIt id 3rrFNtt N t'rRTlnNp + of f 91 i " PM01104T PLOOV. ft•444 5 4 LM 4 1111 SW ItuftMtr TWldr i �. M 1 tt� ''3oA'z • 1 w 1 a'I .L 1. i _ 1 U" ` ' j -- _ — -- _—._ I ( II - - _ + x. 1^ .'L! r i s..._� ... _L II 1 I I I I! Ir II 7 r� i ^i II I, i I I i fI. b`* LH - II II r • I I _11 __ I Noma ELUVti71ON' .w.►.t . I/'4• • I'.io n _ - , I I ° � UE ili� �' I , __ r ✓' " °1—'-11' t I^I it 1 1( 1��I iI ��1UZI • II ---•�•°' ` y'" „ 1' ,_ �. kI V4 1 1.992. r r . ��__._ '� L r , !. ' '' 1 III I �` �� =f`" _ ._ _ ' ± 1 I I ter �� I �I r � 1I —` rj I t•o'91 ' �r'I 1 ---• :' I ' ' r it ,1 . I 1 u 1 ,.. .n. Y -U�`K N•Walk + . I►baf141 ' L., .-l.-. — .... _ p... �.«.-. _.»I mo -.«»__ 8h1 7EIM + 4 ELEVh1 IoN tnz bW RurtlNv TE7�iV11 - fcf Vt4r) of. gyzol 214 • .508 w . 41/0 , a , 1 A w •� / Y • t , , . .A. rC ♦rY'• e L A•. r ♦ gib' 1 A- ," 1,t' ' ' .... .«" • 1 e �1 r f �i x•. ,I' \, +, ri ' I�� It 11 I I j 5 s ,•xP• 1 • til 0 1 1 1 ill I 1111 rri , rti i !! ,,,,...,, . . . ...„- 1 ,. , , ,...1,, . ,,_. 1 , i i [1 : 9001 : Ill . 1 ob i I IT 'LI,I I, • • • . B���'I,I'�I I I I II I I,I I I, 6,4 • i a �. -�h- -� 1 rI � / r/ � i t. EAST` eLevATIoN K ' me , 7„_,,„-21,77:,ILI._.--..z --z:-••:;:..--- vill a.... —,_..„_____________________J___„_ __ __.,,._. ,. . . . . rill' t 1 I I - _sue_"__ T. _ r • ` irl I [I] I 1 ��t �I l� ,rl I I h 1 t 11 III , I 1ffII H / ! LiiDr7/ Li!'fuIJfJIJ.ff$JIJJ , I • I 11..,. . . ' :-., r \`L_ 1 . . iI . ILI 1 , „,I . . . . ,, 1 1 i II i I ✓—` ! I '. .1 I I ' • . , , , I 1 ll 'fi,� 1 1 II 1 11 ! II I . . '., d I ,I I 11 , .r It I ' �1„r P�So IPCT�G q M N K6 " r: WK1' GL61/A7lor1 —1._ �,,, ,. IIILA�.`{ M�V'f EN xIC� rtl No1a11.J6,si +PE'hV•WoKk; .A' • m' `°; 5d.�t r I i/4'- I=h 2722 3u FtTI ASin Y= hE , rolt1t I 11IYNp OK q •p _red, M ,..•' , +' .,:- ,.m., .....K..__._�.._" ..,,e�,, 1�"� ► ttrf 3aBZ � . Y Y , 1w • w i TREE CUTTING APPLICATION � :• CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO , p,... Permit No. ----- Fee: Receipt No . .,.....-., Date : : a � r�L r: r f1 Applicant : �k /et.• 1 r 1 1-r-1,50h •Address: // co Ilk-J.5/ W,,tv,/ Ho \ c/ Property Owner : So h,N ., Address of Tree Removal Site : // 676 116s w,_, 4, d No Rd Tax Map Tax Lot 6-3 c,c1 " b Number of Trees to be Removed: - eico , 7. Please attach to this application a plot plan drawn to scale indicating the size, location and species of all trees over 5" in diameter to be removed from the property in que&ltion . Date of Removal : /3" Fi r Reason for Removal : » e' cc. r, ill., _rao -�,5 exlrr5e d .e1Frar1171OrJ/ �fr a n State Future Landscaping Plans : r -79,G, /l e Is any property contiguous to this site owned by this Property Owner : `{� isoIf yes, give Tax Lot number of contiguous properties in same ownership: O e. It shall be the responsibility of the undersigned to comply with Lake Oswego Code, Chapter 55, governing tree remova3 and to comply with the terms of this permit . , :.6•.. .7.- 2' Signa ure of PropertyOwner I. Signature of Applicant ( If different ) c C.i • 1. IC; ACTION : DATE : s r• • ' •" Staff "'+r Conditions for Approval : �, \ Building Permit No , I, planning File No , .r;. Engineering File No . ) EXHIBIT , 4 492t;/Revised 1/86 • t .4 43 HR+ 15 %9/11 `: ' i +• ry SW lk' k4 f 1,04 14 0 Zji fT, �JPV&. "A _f , , 6 47R, Owl Ave I "Eire :j.1 t-r" 'i IVA 71 lie, 43 LIP., Wo I's OVM-� el 41 N. 'It,.Cqf fj. D ij. Zo I ON 14 �e Id x .1 IZ Q s m**h !t4 IV l_lq Is Alt, 'At;x • r • ,:.� •; F ` 1 •,‘ `1• 4. • . d 1 BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD as OF THE 2 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 3 . , 1 t ;, 4 A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF) SD 25-79(Mod, 6-90)\ A MODIFICATION TO A MINOR HR 6 PARTITION FOR A HISTORIC ) 15-90(Revised)-898 F. Simpson) 7 LANDMARK SITE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER 8 • 9+ e I. 0 NATI T R nF APP rr e�rrni.r 11 The applicant is seeking approval to partition a 0.79 acre site into two,parcels. This 12 action would affirm a previously approved partition which occurred in 1979. The subject Y . 13 site is also a Historic Lr.ndmark, so that LOC 58.145(2) regulating minor 6 partitions will 14 apply in addition to other standards. The site is located at 1100 Westward Ho Road (Tax ' • Lot 53 ° 15 00 of Tax Map 2 lE IOBB), � ' 16 • „, 17 1�.�AZ�INGS 18 The Development Review Board held a public hearing and considered this application at F 19 its meeting of July 18, 1991. 4 20 ND SR1IERIA A STANDARDS 21 22 A. Z nin ', 23 LOC 48.195-48.225 R-10 Zone Description (setbacks, lot area, 24 lot coverage) 25 B leioDment 26 • LOC 49.090 27 Applicability of Development Standards LOC 49.140 Minor Development 28 LOC 49.200-49,210!� LOC 49.-15 Minor Development Procedures � LOC 49.615 Authority of City Manager Criteria for Approval ti • 0 C. SSitY�Lake O v m n 3l �w ego D Bloot tanda_rds; 3 2 7.005 -7.040 Parking & Loading Standard 12.005 -• 12,040 3 3 Drainage Standard for Minor 3 4 14 005 14 O4O Development Utility Standard �� „ 16,005 - 16,040 Hillside Protection and Erosion Control 18.005 - 18,040 Access Standard µ PAGE 1 SD 25-79(Mod, 6-90)\HR 15-90(Revised)-898 J EXHIBIT So26 79/iso4 . Hik lE*0 r t. [ `•. - ' 4 Y .11 1.• , R a 4 ` z '' • X 1 19.005 - 19.040 Site Circulation —Private " �': 2 Streets/Driveways 58.005 —58.165 Historic Preservation 3 D. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: 4 5 1. Growth Management Policy Element 6 Impact Management Policies General Policy I , General Policy II, Specific Policy 3 `.� S 8 General Policy III 9 ,, Urban Service Boundary Policies , 10 General Policy III, Specific Policy 4 11 2. Natural Resource Policy Element , � 12 ` 13 Potential Landslide Area Policies General Policy II 14 . General Policy III 15 General Policy IV 16 potential Erosion Area Policies 17 General Policy II ': ` : General Policy III 18 General Policy IV 19 Energy Conservation Policies 20 General Policy I . ,, • r ^ 21 General Policy II / General Policy III 22 23 3. Transportation Land Use Policy Element 24 Transportation Policies va ,4yt ' 25 General Policy IV General Policy VII 26 General Policy VIII 27 4. Social Resource Policy Element 28 29 General Policy II, Specific Policy 3a ;,`; I 1 0 E. Solar Access Ordinance: Y , LOC 57,005_57.135 3 2 33 V, Tree Cutting Ordinance: 34 LOC 55,010_55.130 ,r�' PAGE 2 SD 25-79(lvldri, 6-90)\HR 15-90(Revisrd)_89g . ' G. Subdivision OA�inance -' • 1 2 LOC 44.374-44.580 x' a 3 `' 4 CONCLUSION 5 The Development Review Board concludes that SD 25-79(Mod, 6-90)\HR 15••-90 : * `' 6 (Revised) can be made to comply with all applicable criteria by the application of certain 7 conditions. 8 • 9 ENDINGS AND REASONS 10 The Development Review Board incorporates the July 8, 1991 staff report on SD 25- 11 79(Mod. 6-90)\HR 15-90 (Revised), and the record established during the public hearing 3 ' t '' 12 on July 18, 1991 as support for its decision, supplemented by the following: ''' 13 1. During the staff presentation, a new Exhibit#16 was submitted: a letter from 14 Hilary MacKenzie dated July 18, 1991 (Exhibit A). MacKenzie is an architect and the granddaughter of Richard Sundeleaf, who designed the historic home owned by "• • 15 the applicant. The letter requested that the Board place additional conditions on the , �` 16 partition approval to require any new house built on the subject site to be compatible with the historic house. -s • 17 Staff concurred with MacKenzie's letter, and cited LOC 58,145(1)(a) and(b) as the L 18 section allowing for design review of the new home as a minor development. ., `Fe 19 Section (a)regulates minor development and requires the design of proposed structures to be compatible with the design of the landmark considering scale, style, 20 height, architectural detail and materials, Section (b) requires the location and 21 orientation to be consistent with the layout of the existing building. Staff recommended that the design of the house be reviewed as a staff function, with 22 input from architectural advisors with historic backgrounds. ` '• 23 The applicant, Lula Simpson, felt that the new :.ouse should be modern, not a 2 1 duplicate of the older home, She explained that she wanted to build a smaller house • ' to live in herself on the partitioned area for her retirement years. In response to the 1t" .. •• 25 design review suggestion, she stated that she was willing to work with staff on = , ' 26 matching materials to the existing house. 27 Vernon Grey, Mrs. Simpson's contractor, testified in support of the applicant, He e pointed out that Simpson had already submitted three different designs to staff, and , 4: 28 questioned the need for design review of the new house, The Board acknowledged Ms, MacKenzie's expertise as an architect and a student 10 of her grandfather's work, They agreed with her letter and observed that a new house in the proposed location would have a significant visual impact on the • ` 31 historic home, ' 32 The Board clarified that the design of the house should not replicate the existing , 3 3 house, but should be compatible w:t:d it. The Board found that the new house should receive design review, They found specifically that the new house should be 34 compatible in siting, rooflines, scale, proportion, and massing with the existing t . house, and that materials needed to match the existing house, In regard to review of PAGE 3 SD 25-79(lvtod. 6--•90)\HR 15-90(Revised)-898 1 1 , I •k' • 1-0-++_ r ,A - ,I 6 , - tik0 YI IS T ...i4._.J 11 �_: fY i i�F 1 the design, the Board's opinion was that they should be the decision—making l n in this case, because of their broader with 2 perspective and the expertise provided ;�, two architects, one landscape architect, and other members, • t• 3 2, Under the historic ordinance, partitions must meet three criteria according to • 4 LOC 58.145(2): 5 a. The partition can not allow a significant feature of the landmark to be located 1 6 on a separate lot; • b. Adequate setbacks and buffers must be provided; and or. l 7 c. Landscaping and large trees associated with the landmark must be retained 8 with the structure when possible. • 9 The staff report concluded that each of the above—listed criteria had been met. 10 -,....` ; Hilary MacKenzie's letter, Exhibit#16, contended that further design work was 11 needed on the proposed house and its layout to ensure that adequate setbacks and •.° 1`7 . 12 buffers were provided. The letter stated that the impact on the surrounding historic resources, including the Dudley Allen House (Simpson house) and the Patton llouse 4•,;;• 13 (east of the site), needed to be minimized. The Allen and Patton houses were both t ,, ;.: . , 14 designed by Richard cundeleaf, and ate both landmarks. 15 Jim Peters, testifying in opposition, contended that a new house would have a 16 negative impact on the existing historic landmarks. He said that he livr , in the Patton House to the east of the site, which he believes to have been designed as a 17 cluster unit of three homes by Sundeleaf, including another home west of the Allen , 18 House. Peters argued that the proposed house is vastly dissimilar in design from the other houses,and that it would destroy the beauty and unique feeling that the three 19 homes together generate. He submitted Exhibit#21, pictures of the three houses, to '`. 20 demonstrate his idea of the clustering concept. 21 Staff pointed out that there was no discussion of clustering, or the Allen House's •t , 22 relationship with the other Sundeleaf houses, in the field form used for designating the house as a landmark, While the Board acknowledged that the Sundeleaf homes ' 23 are a communityresource, theyagreedwas with staffs assessment that there was 24 insufficient evidence to prove the three homes were designed as a cluster unit, However, the Board agreed that the new house should be carefully designed and 25 placed to be compatible with the landmark homes east and.west of the site, 3, The staff report found that the proposed setbacks and conservation easement 27 between the existing and proposed house provided adequate buffering for the 28 landmark house. 29 ^.lacKenzie's letter, Exhibit#16, stated that a landscape buffer needed to be • I maintained between the new house and both of the adjacent residences, 31 The applicant, Lula Simpson, rebutted that the conservation easement to the west • 3 2 and existing trees to the east of the proposed house provided natural buffer areas, 33 . , The Board found that additional landscaping should be provided for buffering, ' 3 4 especially to soften the view from Westward Ho Road, The Board observed that : . the proposed conservation easement did not clearly include two significant clusters of trees on the east side of the existing house. They found that the conservation PAGE easement should be clearly delineated in a revised site plan, and that the two .... ' clusters of trees should be included in the easement. 4 SD 25-79(Mod, 6 -J())\1I12 15--90(Revised)--898 1 tr r , ty. 1'.. '•x 4 4. aim Peters, testifying in opposition, felt that the placement of the proposed house '1 2 near his property line was Inappropriate even though the minimum setbacks .vcre f met, because the house would not have a yard of its own and would "borrow" tie f ••,. !;' yards of the two adjacent houses. 4 .` 5 The Board noted that the three existing Sundeleaf homes on Westward Ho were very well sited and designed. They found that the new home needs to be very } 6 carefully sited, considering the relationship to the existing homes and the 7 topography of the area. ►' 4, ',- 8 5. The staff report found that other code requirements not related to the historic Y { 9 ordinance were satisfactorily met by the applicant, except for some intrusion of a 10 deck into the required rear yard setback. y , r 11 Jim Peters, an opponent, testified that the site was not suitable for building, due to potential drainage problems from steep slopes, fill materials and vibrations from a :; 1, Y '` 12 nearby railroad track. He submitted Exhibit#20, pictures of slopes on the site!. • 'N;u j t,. 13 Y, 1 During rebuttal, the applicant, Ms. Simpson, reminded the Board that the staff 14 report already contained conditions requiring a revised soils report reflecting the 15 location of the building footprint, and that this report was to address methods for ' providing appropriate drainage from the site. She explained that the only fill area to ' 16 be built on would be where the driveway would be located, She also remarked that 1 17 her existing house did not vibrate, and that she was used to noise from the train. ' 18 The Board found that the staff report showed that the site was suitable for 19 development and found no reason in the record to deny the partition.20 ORDER 21 22 IT IS ORDERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD of the City of Lake P. Oswego that: 23 <. A. SD 25-79(Mod. 6-90)\HR 15-90 (Revised) is approved subject to compliance ! 24 with the conditions of approval set forth in Subsection B of this Order, which 25 includes modifications and additions made by the Board at the July 18, 1991 hearing. 26 ° B. The conditions for SD 25-79(Mod, 6-90)\HR 15-90 (Revised) are as follows: 27 1. A final plat (as depicted in Exhibit 15) shall be submitted to City staff for • 28 review and signature of approval within one year of the date of this 49 decision. Upon written application, prior to expiration of the one year period, the City Manager shall, in writing, grant a one year extension. 10 Additional extensions tnay be requested in writing and must be submitted 31 to the City Manager for review of the project for conformance with ' current law, development standards and compatibility with development ,' 3 2 which may have occurred in the surrounding area. The extension may be ' ;.. 33 granted or denied and if granted, may be conditioned to require ,'' ' 3 4 modification to bring the project into compliance with then current law and compatibility with surrounding development. 2, The final plat and conservation easement shall be registered with the PAGE Clackamas County Surveyor's office and recorded with Clackamas • County Clerks's office, '' •; 4 5 SD 25-79(Mod, 6-90)\HR 15-90(Revised)-898 • t. M ,, t ,r \ w t J r r ::.:',,::::.,:::" .'''.::, :!.%:,;'''':\...:..1:':.......t':4.'T.::'''':.4..:..'11::'14 '''''': '1' '...::‘,.:":':::.'..:,..,:,.:,.r..:':.\::\.::':.: :. a ,r a 1 2 _ is 3 3. Legal descriptions (metes and bounds) to be specified on legal instruments ' .r for title trarster for recording with Clackamas County Clerk's Office, , ' 4 shall be provided to City staff for review. Actual recording shall not be a �/ ' 5 condit�,on of approval of this decision. However, when recorded the instruments for both parcels shall reference this land use application — 6 City of Lake Oswego Department of Planning and Development, File No. '� ` ` 7 SD 25-79(Mod. 6-90)\HR 15-90. 8 t 4. The applicant shall provide the City a signed nonremonstrance agreement and petition for future street improvements anticipated in Westward Ho # 10 Road. This agreement shall apply to all parcels as approved." 1 11 5. The following note shall appear on the final plan: , 12 Development of structures and planting of non—exempt vegetation 13 on Parcel 2 shall comply with the Solar Balance Point Provisions of ' • the Solar Access Ordinance (LOC 57.050-57..090), This 14 requirement shall be binding upon the applicant and subsequent 15 purchasers of Parcel 2, 16 17 6. One of the following notes shall appear on the final plan: a. Habitable structures built on the lot will have their long axis . ';'' ,..,','• ',.;, i 18 oriented within 30 degrees of a true east—west axis and at least 80% 19 of their ground floor south wall protected from shade by structures 20 and non—exempt trees;or, 41) -y, ..,,',.. ' •-• ' 21 b. Habitable structures built on the lot will have at least 32% oftheir glazing and 500 square feet of their roof area face within 30 degrees 22 of south and be protected from shade by structures and non—exempt 'r ' . 23 trees. 7. Tree removal shall be evaluated during building permit review. The City 25 shall allow the removal of only those trees necessary to site a dwelling or 26 accessory structure on Parcel 2, This removal shall comply with LOC' 55.050—55.080 (Tree Cutting Ordinance), There shall be no trees 27 removed from the conservation easement area, nor any disturbance of J A ti vegetation. This area shall be surveyed, fenced off and clearly delineated 28 prior to and during any site preparation or grading and preserved during 29 construction. . 4 } O ' a 8. application soils report shall be provided with the building permit •• 31 pp ication which addresses the final footprint location of the building, as .4",. ., ' 3 2 approved by the Development Review Board, and methods of storm water disposal, `., . 3 3 F.: 3 9, All utilities shall be installed underground, 10. Decking which is " in b greater than 30 height shall meet the setbacks of the zone. PAGE0 . : . '..„. . .. 4 ' .tY 6 SD 25-79(Mod. 6-90)\HR 15-90(Revised)-898 is } )' a „2,.,...'' ... .°. ` .... + .. It^ .,. .. ..s .. .. .'a.. :, . .. . .,. ` ,..+ �. .. 1 •H 1 2 11. The design plans for the proposed house on the new tax lot shall be • 3 reviewed and approved by the Development Review Board prior to •. ,• 1 issuance of any grading or building permits. The design shall provide for , 4 a house that is small in scale and compatible in proportion, materials, and 5 color to the existing buildings and the neighborhood. The proposed elevation shall be shown in detail, including a materials board. ,' 6 7 12. The new house shall be sited with careful attention to the placement of the existing Sundeleaf—designed homes to the east and west of the site. The ' 8 site plan shall include topographic lines, and shall show all structures ,yi ,' .. within 100' of the site. 10 13. A revised site plan shall be submitted which clearly delineates the conservation easement, which shall include, at minimum, the area shown 11 in Exhibit 7 and the two clusters of trees nearby, 12 , \ , �` 13 14. Evidence of the above to be provided to the Planning and Development , ' , • Department prior to the issuance of building permits requested subsequent 14 to the date of this approval, 15 ft 16 • ��� 17• 18 ` i P y�.%�,..�a 19 °t '� 20 21 22 23 -� 24' . 25 • ''t 26 28 , 2 9 �,.w !.. " 10 : r •,' 31• '� 32 ' ;d 33 34 i PAGE , 7 SD 25-79(Mod. 6-90)\l-HR 15-90(Revised)-898 • y x 1 ..,• '''''''':.„'. x ' t -ft 4 . t r tit ti • y S 'fe ` , r. ' ' .3• :•I, '" ''-',1,',.'' :�•fi , s rx i '� { ••♦ .• .r; • .•„ .:.* : ,.., ,......: .. ' 1 r 2 I CERTIFY THAT.THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the 3 Development Review Board of the City of Lake Oswego. 4 . S DATED this day of " , 1991. r - • : h „F � 6 7 8 . • ' • Robert H. Foster, Chairman 9 a Development Review Board ll , ; 10 11 1: .----`--61/1"—'14-7Ad.---e4Z:1-1,2.)e____-•••••• 13 Secretary 4•,, 14 A'I ii ST: 15 16 ORAL DECISION July 18, 1991 ! d.l 17 y : AYES: Sievert, Stanaway, Greaves, Remy, Bloomer 18 NOES: None 19 • ABSTAIN: ' • 20 None ABSENT: Foster, Starr 21 22 WRITTEN FINDINGS November 4, 1991 • 23 AYES: • 24 Sievert, Greaves, Remy and Bloomer ,r 25 NOES: None 26 ABSTAIN: None • 27 ABSENT: Stanaway, Foster and Starr r r • 2 8 = 10 1. :�• • 31 ri, y. 32 33• 'J '.' 34 'r c. ✓ PAGE ..` 8 SD 25-79(Mod, 6-90)\HR 15-•90(Revised)-898 •• - • • _ _ t. fib. r � i J . ., .. ., .. . .. fir A. ,t i • /,,,,,rtia" • ' •, . 1 1 2:; �( • 'll l 1111, • (4 1 ' July 18 , 1991 J N• (JUL .1 .. . .r �z City of Lake Oswego 6 99..4 Development Review Board :c , , ru 380 "A" Avenue { 1 r+ „ Lake Oswego, OR 97034 t Re: Case File No. SD25-79 (Modified 6-90) HR15--90 Dear Board Members. I have been following this application for the past severa]. months. , I am glad that the applicant has worked with staff to improve her e.+ . 4 • application so that the impact on the historic resource is J • �'0)' minimized. The proposed house has been reduced in scale and set back from the street. This i somewhat compromised views from the interior of the Dudley Allen House but it will not affect any of ,, ; the major rooms. I support the staff recommendation for approval , however, addi- tional conditions need to be added to insure that the impact on the R surrounding historic resources will be minimal. There are several �y Sundeleaf designed properties on Westward Ho Road. The two that will be the most affected by this development are the Dudley Allen �! House and the Patton House below the sight. Any new house built on i , ,�' • ,. the subject parcel must be small in scale and compatible in • r _ proportion, materials, and color to the existing buildings. A 1 landscape buffer needs to be maintAined between the new residence and Patton House below If conditions regarding these points are not added to the approval any structure could be built within the approved footprint regardless of the negative impact on the surrounding properties. The most recent house plans that the ' • applicant has submitted will meet some of these requirements. I ' "' e suggest that these plans be made a part of the minor partition , .� r r. : approval. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Yours truly, Hilary Mackenzie 4. HM:sm EXHIBIT zs-,tis/m pp • 'r • ',y + .. .�•;c•i•4 • �• + I.�v �, 4 \•w'r 1 W 1 f ••r ,+ `•t s ' t Y .ti • • Nye r 1• d R Excerpt of July 18, 1991 Development Review Board Meeting ;, • SD 2.5-79 (Mod. 6-90)/HR 15-90 (Revised. Mr. Greatves: With that I think I can frame this. I will move for the approval of SD 25-79 (Mod. 6-90)/HR 15-90 (Revised), in accordance with the deliberations of this Board and the y F' staff recommendations with the following changes or exceptions to the staff recommendations. First, in condition #1, that the Development Review Board be substituted for the review in place u' of the City Manager. Two, that the specific conditions referenced in Hilary McKenzie's letter of • 'July 18, 1991 be included as part of the recommendations in item 1, or wherever else the Board or staff believe it would be grammatically appropriate. Third, that the applicant be required to submit a revised site plan before this Board in conjunction with the review of the design and that ' that site plan shall show the clearly delineated conservation easement and that the conservation easement shall include at a minimum, what is shown on the exhibit in our package tonight plus M R the two clusters of trees which are shown on the site, and I think that's the end of my motion unless I forgot something. • • Vice—Chairman Stanaway: As far as a, you say specifically required site plans, any other information you feel should be presented other than the site plan? ' • Mr. Greaves: Well, I'm open for suggestion on it. Oh, condition #1, if we modify it with what Hilary wants, and, it really I think makes it pretty clear, but I, let's just read it real quick. Additional extension's been requested ,..,, they are submitted to DRB in this case, for review of the project for conformance with current law Development Standards and compatibility with the } development which may have occurred in the surrounding area. Urn, ' guess to make it • •••• ` • ultimately clear for my motion let me state that the design review which we wish to have come back before this Board will include at a minimum, the scale of the building, elevational drawings and the typical drawings that are submitted with it, and showing the proportion of the building materials, color, sidings. EXHIBIT • . 7/.8/91 DRB Excerpt sp z ••• SD 25-79 (Mod. 6-90)/FIR 15-90 (Revised) `� H2I5r L • • Page 1 of 3 t , i y r ;: Mr. Bloomer: The materials for it? . , )1‘.. Mr. GreaveL The materials for it. ' ` ` Mr. Galante: I might suggest that you add a side section that includes topography of the J 1:• struert'res within, let's say 100 feet of the property line or something like that so you really get a , picture of the relationship of the site. Mr. Greaves:. That would be very helpful and I would incorporate that as well for the, for • ,r„;::1 •. (, checking out the siting of this very carefully in terms of the, well it would be helpful for the l , elevational drawings, particularly if it's a multi—story home, let's see what it is. Um, and knowing from what the deliberations of this Board have been, when I say it's in accordance with ','r the deliberations, you know you've got a tough design ahead of your It's not going to be easy to i, get your design through I wouldn't think, so, that's that. The more thorough it is, the better. Vice—Chairman StanawaxI Okay, is there a second to the motion? Mr. Bloomer: I'll second it. °•" r. r'- Vice—Chairman Stanaway: It's been moved and seconded, Any discussion on the motion? " ..- Please call roll, r r SecretaryL Mr, Sievert? }' h Mr, Sievert. Yes. ` it 'b• c r ,� 4ti• 7/18/91 DRB Excerpt SO 25-79 (Mod. 6-90)/HR 15-90 (Revised) Page 2 of 3 • y;' Secretary: Mr. Stanaway? t r r . • Vice—Chairman Stanaway: Yes. t * • y f Secretary: Mr, Greaves? r: Mr, Greaves: Yes* • Secretary: Ms. Remy? 4J :i • d. Ms. Remy: Yes, t Y� i •V Secretary: Mr. Bloomer? w, J Mr. Bloomer: Yes. 7 t • { s y i Ms. Remy: My hesitation there was because I just wanted to make sure that this means that it d R must come back to us for another motion, is that correct? For actual approval, Mr. Greaves: The partition's approved, but in order to get anything put on it, they have to come back with the design, • t`: r Ms. Remy: Right. • ° /kaa u:a • (SD9O-6)<tepcxts>5D25 79 LLccrpt •: • r* rr: 7/18/91 DRB Excerpt * „�• SD 25-79 (Mod. 6-90)/HR 15-90 (Revised) Page 3 of 3 q - f • r • �• .,rt_ * l�. -• r°�<. . .rr ,v • '" N :r r { d r 1 1)i i l t r'� t i t T i January 23, 1992 iJF'JV 2 a 19 y� ' 6 : 92 Lake Oswego Development Review Board t 380 "A" Avenue '• Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 r t: • ;? Re: SD 25-79/HR15-90 s h To the member, of the Board,Last Jul y'.. Lulu Simpson was granted a minorpartition property r ,t Westward Ho Road. We spoke in opposition this her presented numerous reasons and exhibits �itaon to and ' h{,'; objections.ecticar�s. xh ibits to back up our 7 While the Board was left with no legal choice but to ' approve the partition, we were encouraged by the debate and • ,': comments of members of the Board relating to the degree of difficulty that would be involved in securin a type of house design on this property the u per°val for any p P future. ' ' The basis of our objections were centered around two primary points: 1• The suitability of this property to su' the steep terrain which make it an extremeorl a house y dangerous d area. Proximity to the railroad tracks behind and below the site and impact to ourproposed a� a house property from the construction and siting +� • that would be literally perched on a cliff on three sides. 2. The historical significance of the Sundeleaf impact another house would have on these culturalr houses and the In order to meet zoning re resources. b, g qu3.rements, the new house would have to • built virtually on a direct line behind the existing Allen r House. M 4„� � Our position has not changed in the past 6 months and r p are even more concerned based on a number of e ents in fact, we r this entire process which we would like to bring to the attention of the Board. •. , Tr• a e ' , First, at the Board ,meeting this summer, the ` question was asked of the members as to how many had personally visited the site of the partition and future house. We learned that no members had been recently to the area. We again re { •r making a fair assessment of the guest► for the sake of proposal for a house, that each ". r,{ member visit and survey the property.err the same fears we have will be shared byetheeBo rdeoncear►ro�.er . , , ,' ,r�r idwn� WxnK.r .,y ti +.. il F. , • {tril r . JJ'' i or ` t• + + l • (( t5 A s,,. i r fit. t evaluation is made. We strongly feel that this property is completely inadequate to support a house such as that which is ' , 1 ,• proposed by Hilary MacKenzie. Second, the location and placement of a house on this property degrades the existingAllen House in that the design in no way t 'compliments it or the other three Sundeleaf houses. The Allen House will look out directly onto this structure as it is in r essence, located in the backyard.. Mackenzie'n site plan is deceiving in terms of distance as we must remember that most of ,' this property is extremely steep and the distance between the e4 proposed house and the Patton House is much closer than appears. 4 Again, a personal visual inspection will bear this out. We appreciate the comments in Ms. Mackenz e's letter to the Board dated December 6, 1991 where she states that placement of windows is done in such a way as to not intrude on the privacy of the two adjacent houses. However, in reading the letter carefully, it is apparent that the design is attempting to 'I minimize the amount of disruption which is in itself, admitting „;: that there will be a great deal of change and loss caused by the building of this house. How can a house of this proposed size be considered as a "secondary building" in relation to the other houses? How does matching siding and roofing materials in any ` g• way lower the impact of placing a new home of complete alternative architechual design beside one of historical " ' significance? If Ms. MacKenzie is a student of her grandfather, • can she explain why Richard Sundeleaf or anyone else for nearly a 50 year period did not propose to build another house on these properties? We would venture to say it is due to there not being : ,� ' a suitable site to place a house on either property. h, f-, . ! y•l1. We could go on for several pages in this letter outlining reason t ' after reason why acceptance of this house plan or any other would be wrong. To build a comtemporary house in the back yard of an historical residence, especially one that has been built in • such as way as to last hundreds of years, is disgusting. To attempt to design a house that would be English Tudor/Cottage would be a mockery of these existing homes. In short, there is no design that is suitable simply because there is no way to design and site a house on this property that will not destroy the beauty and privacy of the Allen House. Already, Mrs. Simpson 'has applied for a permit to cut an additional tree based on a �•` fear that since its' roots are exposed, it may fall down. This is simply an attempt to allow for more driveway area. We would have to clear cut most of our property if we took out every tree r with exposed roots. The anchored property is rock and the trees are ,, quite well. How many other trees would be damaged ;,. • • • , during construction and require removal? We have received support from many of our neighbors who feel the 0 ''4 * - -,.. . same way we do. We have tried to not make our objections to thisproject reach a point of dividing the neighborhood and ' te frankly, we feel the Board will reach the same conclusion we have • A •.i E ', , F '',h ! Y.• , 1 .� ♦ '♦ to ' f ..f r; c ` f 4.. ` LA ,�': if you will simply visit the property, Inconsistencies in the reasons for Mrs. Simpson's desire to build this house have made ' us wonder if it is not simply for profit as the value of the ' Allen House is quite substantial in today's market. We have received unsolicited phone calls from current and former • residents on Westward Ho Road who know Mrs. Simpson well who have i 'y validated this "profit" motive and have encouraged us to continue b. to fight. We were responsibile for initially contacting Hilary Mackinzie and asked her to write a letter to the DRB in defense of the preservation of these three houses as a unique grouping. We were shockedat Board meeting last summer to see the letter we had ` 'I A A} F the requested of her totally disregard the real issues and instead focus on compatibility of design. The fact that Ms. Mackenzie goes on record with the DRB and then goes on to become the designer of the house is, in our opinion, a complete conflict of ' • interest and raises serious ethical questions! How can someone . write a letter to the DRB stating that any house built must be in keeping with the other historical houses, and then be paid by the builder to design the house? Who suggested to Mrs. Simpson that she hire Ms, Mackenzie to design the house? Is this not a clear attempt to manipulate the ,... Board by having a supposed authority on Richard Sundaleaf design • ' be paid to pursuade the Board to accept a proposal for which there is a financial consideration? Why did Katherine Clark, a staff member of the DRB, rush to talk to Mrs. Simpson at the conclusion of the meeting in July? Why did Ms. Clark clearly tell us we need not be at that Board ' Meeting in July on time as there would other business first and if we were there about 30 minutes into the meeting this would be .,,•. fine (we arrived 10 minutes into the meeting and the staff report on the partition was well underway)? Why did Mrs. Simpson lie to the Board in her rebuttal when she stated that: we had tried unsuccessfully to sell the property between our lots, but that it had fallen through just prior to closing? , (We have never entertained even a verbal offer for this property and never will! ) The point of bringing up these questions is simply to point out r:, that this entire project is suspect and wrong from the beginning. `. We do not feel that the DRB staff has given those of us in ,« ': opposition the same support or advise that has been given to Mrs. Simpson. 0 . There is no valid reason for trying to force a structure on property that is unsuitable for a house. Where will future occupants/owners have space for any type of yard except to + , borrow from the owners of the Allen and Patton Houses? How safe is this house in the event of children being present or living on the premises. What does this house do for the privacy of future ' occupants of the Allen House? .M . "t••e 1, .. .... " ., . .' ... (a yt 1 r, Yy • For over 50 years Westward Ho Road has been one of Lake Osweco's most beautiful streets with four of the grandest houses to be found in the City. Three of the houses are grouped together in a forest like setting and should any proposed house be built on the .'•'•: property between the Allen and Patton Houses, this unique feeling will be destroyed forever. Each dayhundreds of joggers, bike riders, and walkers pass up and down our street admiring the ;r'. 4 serenity of the setting. Please do what is right for our and future generations and deny approval for this house desig n and u any future design submitted to the Board on this property. Please take a positive step for Lake Oswego and preserve one of our historical treasures and prevent them from being degraded by '` development which is not necessary, is unwise, and will have a negative impact forever. This is a perfect example for the Development Review Board to ' make a statement that there are some important areas of Lake . Osewgo that are worth maintaining in their present setting for the good of everyone. There are many valid and completely justifiable reasons to stop this development. We have been pleased to see the Board has taken a stand on other development ': projects in the City that were conceived solely for profit and has rejected them. We can only hope that members of the Board "' .` will stand united with conviction to stop this project and to make the message loud and clear that there will be no development allowed on this property. tips Sincerely, 1 Jim, Sally, Brisa, & Austin Peters The Patton house v^ L• 1"of 4• le t J t i. '. ` 1 ' f ;,`• � .• a •` � �o . f i ` h . . ,. . .. , • • n" 4' r r' 1 • ' Fe, ', i4 i t MEMORANDUM s TO: Lake Oswego Development Review Board FROM: Catherine Clark, Associate Planner a'.0-614, DATE: January 24, 1992 RE: Amendments to the Emergency Tree Cutting Standards A, • Ol Attached are proposed amendments to the Emergency Tree Cutting Standards. Staff is requesting your comments prior to the Planning Commission holding a Public Hearing. Your g comments are important. Please review this material and be prepared to discuss it at your i regular February 3, 1992 meeting. j 4 These changes were developed by the City Attorney at the City Council's direction to deal ' with problems identified as a result of the cutting of the cottonwood tree on Child's Road. The attached City Attorney's Memorandum explains the changes in detail It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing February 24, 1992 to consider recommendation of the new standards to the City Council. The City Council will subsequently hold a public hearing for adoption in March, 1992. .' rb/a:mdrbtree.rb 9, i '4' d I • .I Y o y• k ' Y i y i' ,y. . _ .+ 'y ^ 1wAy ' `' !h Y i•s "� • " �yi_•i r i J.- !.y t t t S y: 't V\ r hr A -f'•4 +` f t 1 - _.. 1 4/ t7"S) • • , . 9 \<411 ii- --1.ifi) . , , , r ' CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO • r: CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE ,r a . MEMORANDUM '• y ,, To: Lake Oswego Planning Commission, ' Tom Coffee, Planning Director From: Jeffrey G. Condit, City Attorne ' • Date: January 6, 1992 Subject: Proposed Amendments to the Tree Cutting Ordinance ' ! �' INTRODUCTION , r r. The Council directed the City Attorney to work with the Natural Resources Commission 1. (NRC) to develop amendments to LOC Chapter 55 (Tree Cutting) to deal with problems with the ordinance identified as a result of the cutting of the cottonwood tree on Childs • Road. The proposed ordinance recommended by the NRC was forwarded to the , Council at its December 3, 1991, meeting. The Council directed that the ordinance as ,, 4 , recommended be referred to the Planning Commission for public hearing and �' recomm ndation. Several Council members noted some areas of concern, which I will note in iiy discussion of the text. BACKGROUND y.ar As a result of the cutting of the cottonwood tree on Childs Road, I submitted an August 13, 1991, memorandum recommending the following amendments 'to th' tree cutting ' • ordinance: • 1. The Ordinance should expressly provide additional protection to trees `` h designated,as distinctive natural areas or which are required to be preserved ' • ys as a condition of approval of land use permits; y ,: 2, The emergency clause should be clarified; 3, The vague criteria for issuance of permits should be clarified, t , r +' • "` ,.. OM A" AAt',41 i_ I I'OSTO1 It I U )on ^ Ohl 'ISI,A1(,(a ()Rit,t)kr 1'111`I ,',ust I.s r,.1`, ' , 1 • .1•j 1 ] 1 . r. Y t T * r Memo: Planning Commission and Tom Coffee January 6, 1992 Page 2 At its August 20, 1991, meeting, the City Council forwarded this memorandum to the NRC for review and recommendation. The Council also requested that the NRC consider requiring an applicant for a tree cutting Ci ty pp g permit to pay a fee to enable the City to 1 : hire an independent arborist to verify the condition of the tree, that the Commission consider increasing the penalty for cutting a tree in violation of the ordinance, and that the NRC forward any other revisions or recommendations to improve the operation of „ the ordinance. Iy ' . DISCUSSION ' " The proposed ordinance is attached. Additions are shown in bold and deletions are shown by strike through. The following is a section by section description of the proposed changes. I.. 55,010 Purpose. , : The existing Tree Cutting Ordinance was adopted in 1971, prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The current purpose statement is therefore r deleted and replaced with a reference to the Plan. Because the purpose clause now references the Comprehensive Plan and because LOC 49.140(1)(k) defines tree cutting development"g permits as "minor pursuant to i the Development Code, staff determined that the tree cutting ordinance is a "land use ordinance" within the meaning of ORS Chapters 197 and 227 and ! therefore must be referred to the Planning Commission. 55.020 Definitions, — "Cutting": The proposed amendment adds topping of trees to the definition of "cutting" for which permits would be required, This change was made as a result of responses re9«rding the current Tree Cutting Ordinance from r•. arborists and tree services. These professionals indicated that the indiscriminate topping of trees is Just as deadly as cutting a tree, and suggested that topping also be regulated. The topping provisions are taken yl from the attached Tree City USA Bulletin, which includes model ordinance provisions.ry,' Note: Several Councilors expressed concern that the addition of "topping" e as a tree cutting permit could create substantial additional costs to the ' Planning Department at a time when current revenues are not enough to support the existing program. The Council desires an analysis of the costs, , • r "Developed Parcel": „ `" pThe proposed amendment to the tree cutting ordinance •, continues to exempt "developed parcels" from compliance with the tree cutting permit criteria, The term is redefined to be consistent with the zoning .' designations in the current code, The definition Is also narrowed to exclude t. land In the Commercial and Industrial Zones, and properties Ir. residential •` zones used for Multifamily, conditional or nonconforming development. Currently, only commercial properties are excluded from the definition. As 0 • ...`: `a. f ''tIt .a{w Ol t " ,.; Memo: Planning Commission and Tom Coffee January 6, 1992 , ,` Page 3 r proposed, the "developed parcel" exception would apply to single family • ` ° residential parcels in residential zones that cannot be further partitioned or ` subdivided. NI <" — "Topping": This definition of topping is taken from the model topping ordinance drafted by Tree City USA. (See attached brochure). • Note: Several Councilors expressed concern that the definition of "topping" F r ,' • is too vague and would thus be difficult to enforce. '°" "Tree": Tree is redefined as meaning any woody plant 5" or more in ,. diameter at 4.5 feet, instead of 24", above ground level. This brings the ordinance into compliance with the standard professional practice of measuring trees at breast height. Note: The Ordinance as proposed placed the responsibility for enforcing the ordinance on the Planning Director. The Council directed me to amend the proposed Ordinance to change the reference to "City Manager" to make it • consistent with the Zoning and Development Codes. I have done so. The ` ' current ordinance places the responsibility on the Public Works Director, • :' who has not actually administered the tree cutting program for several ' • years. The remaining definitions are self explanatory. 55,030 Tree Cutting Without Permits Prohibited. This amendment cleans up confusing language to make it clear that all persons have to obtain a tree cutting permit in order to cut trees within the City • .< limits. ("Developed Parcels" do not have to comply with the criteria, but do have to obtain a permit. Once a property owner has demonstrated that his or ,y her parcel qualifies for the developed parcel exemption, the permit is issued without further review. This is consistent with current practice and is necessary to make the ordinance enforceable.) ' 55.040 Exemption of Certain Lands. The current provision is deleted and is reformatted and relocated at 55.071. : 55.050 Application for Permits. t ' ' This amendment cleans up language. ''` 55.060 Fees This amendment deletes the fees adopted by ordinance and provides that fees are to be established by resolution of the City Council. This is consistent with City pi actice in other ordinances. (If the proposed amendments to the tree cutting ordinance are adopted, a fee resolution will need to accompany second • reading and adoption of the ordinance). o' y ..,1'''',.:',': . u Memo: Planning Commission and Tom Coffee ' January 6, 1992 Page 4 b 55.065 Review of Applications. This is a new provision; it provides that applications are reviewed and approved by the City Manager or designee, except in two cases; ., 1. Tree cutting permits for trees that have been protected as a condition of approval of a land use action must be processed as amendments to that • land use action ai.d are reviewed and approved by the body responsible ' ' ° for reviewing such land use actions. This amendment will make the Tree Cutting Ordinance consistent with the Zoning and Development Codes, which require conditions imposed by the Development Review Board and wrr 1 • the Planning Commission to be returned to those bodies for any change to a condition of approval. See LOC 48.550(4) and 49.125(4). 2. Emergency tree cutting permits must be signed by the City Manager him— or herself, unless the manager is unavailable. • x 55.070 Emergenciel. ' This provision Is deleted and reformatted and relocated at 55.030(3). 55.071 Applicability of Tree Cutting Criteria. Subsection 1 exempts "developed parcels" from compliance with the tree ' ' cutting criteria unless the tree is designated as or located within a "Distinctive • ` �� Natural Area", has been protected as a condition of approval of a land use action, or is located within an area or parcel that has been placed on Historic Landmark Designation List. a The latter two exceptions to the "developed parcel" exemption are necessary . to correct the current conflict between the Tree Cutting Ordinance and the ".' Development Code. As noted above, the Development Code defines a tree • , cutting permit as a "minor development." LOC 49,615 requires all minor developments to comply with the Comprehensive Plan and ail applicable 'y °, ordinance requirements, The Comprehensive Plan requires Distinctive Natural Areas to be protected as a condition of development. The Historic Resources Ordinance requires a finding that all gyrations of a landmark pursuant to a minor , development do nut 'diminish the significance of the resource. LOC 58.135 2 , (3) and (4). A number of landmark designations identify significant trees, Placing such review requirements in the Tree Cutting Ordinance will make the ordinances consistent and avoid future argument. Subsection 2 states that the tree cutting criteria do not apply If trees have been A\ specifically approved for removal pursuant to a land use action. This provision is designed to avoid duplication of staff effort and double jeopardy for an applicant where the removal of trees has previously been reviewed an r , . '' . approved as part of a land use action. 0 :,.. .. ' . ti w•t'r• • a m ,+. A • ) ` Memo: Planning Commission and Tom Coffee January 6, 1992 '' "' Page 5 „ "" Finally, Subsection 3 states that the applicant has the burden of demonstrating that his or her application is exempt from review. 55.080 Criteria for Issuance of Permits. The current language Is deleted. The criteria contained in the current provision are reformatted and combined with emergency permits and topping permits into tour separate types of tree cutting permits. 1. Dead, Dying or Dangerous Tree Cutting Permits: This is clarification of the current criterion in LOC 55.080(1). y' n Note: Several councilors expressed concern about requiring every •'+ property owner of an "undeveloped parcel" to pay for an arborist report to } . remove a dying or dangerous tree, as is required by proposed LOC .. ; 55.080(1)(b). A suggested distinction was to require an arborist report if • .' 44, the parcel could be subdivided (Le, if four or more parcels could be , '` created), but allow the City Manager to waive the requireent If the parcel • °., could only be partitioned (i.e. if three or fewer parcels could be created) unless the tree cutting permit involved a DNA, an historic tree or a tree required to be protected as a condition of development, n '{' 2. Removal of Trees to Allow Development: This is a compilation and •'� clarification of the current criteria in LOC 55,080(2) through 55.080(5), ;, . w; Note: The Council desired LOC 55.080(2)(a) as proposed by the NRC to be clarified to allow persons to apply for a tree cutting permit to remove a tree for landscaping reasons as well as development reasons [as long as the removal otherwise complies with subsections (b) and (c)]. I have so clarified this provision, 3. Emergency Permits: This provision significantly limits the definition of '.• N L "emergency." 4. 4. Topping Permits: This criterion is taken from the Tree City USA Model I.. Ordinance. ;, f " Each type of tree cutting permit has a separate standard for review, and In most cases, each requires the applicant to pay a fee to enable the City to hire . a professional arborist or forester to review the application. ,� 55.125 Evidence of Violation, . This new provision is designed to improve enforcement by solving the proof x problem that occurs when a tree has been cut arid removed and there is no clear evidence of the diameter of the tree at breast height. • • f , ,<� ) makes it a violation of the ordinance if anyremainingSubsection 1 : M' stump is over 15.7" In '' circumference, Subsection 2 makes removal of the stumpA . prior to a IS.), 4 ;r ' . Memo: Planning Commission and Tom Coffee January 6, 1992 „. Page 6 determination of circumference a violation. Subsection 3 states that proof of �• ' , violation is prima facie evidence that the violation is that of the owner, which will enable the City to prosecute both the owner and the tree cutter. 55.130 P er�alties, The penalties section has been significantly expanded to provide that tree �. cutting in violation of the ordinance is subject to all of the standard penalties which the City "•�� provides in its other ordinances. This section is taken directly from the penalty section in the Historic Resources Ordinance. 55.135 :'u Mifigation Required. As you are aware, the chief complaint with the current penalty Is that $500.00 • f is not be sufficient in many cases to deter a property owner from cutting a tree where the development allowed bythe removal of the tree may be worth considerably more than $500.00. ` A • The chief problem with crafting an effective penalty is that tree cutting, which is a single act, cannot be made into a ` continuing violation justifying a daily citation, Conversely, (ncreaaing the • amount of the civil penalty for violating the tree cutting ordinance runs the risk ' ` of having the fine declared criminal in nature, subjecting the City to compliance with the higher burden of proof and greater procedural costs involved in ° prosecuting a crime, , The mitigation provision solves these problems while addressingthe n ' publicimpact caused by the unlawful cutting of a tree. Such mitigation M ' ,f requirements have become the standard method for enforcing natural resource , ; , •' violations. As designed, the new provision also has the benefit of being F, relatively easy to enforce because it makes use of the existing citation process, c; '`¢d `" •• This provision requires any person who cuts the tree in violation of the .:, ordinance to enter into a mitigation agreement within thirty days after the date r °' of notice of the violation, The mitigation agreement requires replacement the tree with another tree or trees of substantially similar natural resource value, and requires that person to,maintain the trees for three years. Failure to i , r enter into such agreement is a violation of the Tree Cutting Ordinance, as is failure to comply with one of the conditions of the agreement, Such a violation ' 4 Is a continuing violation subject to a $500,00 per day fine. This provision also gives the Planning Director the power to refuse to accept any development or j • ' r to stop work on development until In acceptable mitigation agreement Is In place, r ALTERNATIVES ,) The Planning Commission may recommend all, amendments, and may propose its own amendments, part or none of the proposed , JO,bp1. Attachment: Draft Tree Ordinance dated 01/06/92 " Tree City USA Bulletin CAO4,MAfno :' s ' , t t DRAFT 01/06/92 ti CHAPTER 55 '. k J,, . k TREE CUTTING ;' ' .. 55. 010 Purpose 55 . 020 Definitions ' , 55 . 030 Tree Cutting a Without PermitsProhibited ' 55 . 040 Exempt ' 55 . 050 Application for Permits Fees 55 :060 La 55.065 Review of Applications 'S5. 074 -----Enn' rgcncics 55.071 Applicability of Tree Cutting Criteria 55 . 080 Criteria for Issuance of Permits T ' 55. 090 Repealed by Ord. No. 1807; 09-15--81 , 55 .100 Repealed by Ord. No. 1807; 09-15-81 . 55 . 110 Repealed byOrd. 55 .120 Repealed Ord. No. 1807; 09-15-81 . .: p by No. 1807; 09-15-81 . 55.125 Evidence of Viola64on 55 .130 Penalties 55.135 Mitigation Required I. ': f-S:i r � r I rx 1 Y' 'j r• 1 Page,� 1 of �• ., y 4 y I f I a C r• 1 Y L ! r y CI 1 �•• �•. r �.. .1 r. ... R l$ad 1, r " d ji 1, k. P i, T 01/06/92 • J A 55 . 010 Purpose. " ' i. Originally, the area now constituting b e- Citz -e -ke e3b�E�e--waJ fel�es�eC�—StTi t h fir, �i nr, ^eu�L � ' !e - na-e-i-�Fe � frees . Early settl _ wh; ha o� ��n-.- :r e enhan-'- • e�-a t.ractivc trees which enhance ���}e�a-��y-�-rid-�e-.��;�tr��e-��ndividuality of the City and '' n fited by large numbers of trees, both natural growth and which have-b d 1 ee„ N.".uaaGG.. and- t-h u ut ire- ear e-ma -- ,f trees and weed � �— re �,, -aid$-to-t-hc -scenic beauty of thc City. The preservation of trees also t-endo -to preserve the ecology of the City and to retain a livable environment 'w through the filtering cffcct of trees on air pollution and through the pree* d rg e-f ro -bar i-crs . Much of the-i- pektty within the City is on hillsides and sloping t-erraill. The '4 ' untie a F y or-a -u.,.,.1.,�� ob ces and wooded-are;- will ' -eaee-f-1-©odahazards and tie--risk- of landslides; will reduce windbreaks and-e4iaded--arc s;- t ,'. Will du ernent-o-- ` rn nt- d-w- - eft in the-der l:ruction of acat-he ,: ga ' ' " ' T i1 of thc City of limits-G e therefore finds it in the public interest and safety to enact ' regulations controlling the removal of tr cs w i n-the City in '; order to retain as many trees as possible consistent with tie . t • rivate property. a The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the cutting of trees in order to implement the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan .4 policies calling for preservation of the wooded character of the City. (Ord. No. , 1429, Sec . 1; 05-18-71 , ) 55 . 020 Definitions ..'1**.*: 1. "City Manager" means the City Manager or the Manager's designee, except where the context expressly requires otherwise. b 5 I 2 " "Cutting" defined" As used in this chapter, cutting means falling or removal of ''• i ` :,. a tree, or any procedure the natural result of which is to cause the death or substantial destruction of a tree, "Cutting" does .� not include normal trimming; or pruning, er but does include ' topping of trees . 3 " "Developed parcel" land" defined, • Y c; , means a lot or parcel or 1ar,c1 which: (a) Is located in a residential zone (any zone designated with an R, WR or bD prefix pursuant to the Lake Oswego Zoning Code) ; : ,, Page 2 of 11 4'-: ''-C'' ,t J.' 1 "-, 1 { t. ,� 1 A K LEA y 0 1 ' t DRAFT 01/06/92 .:,'.':'''t: -Fad- (b) 4-1s occupied by building. or structures, a single ' •"ti,:r fi. . family dwelling; 4'„ a y. (c) Is exclusively used for single family residential ` use; and ';, ' ; (b) (d) Cannot be w -u -y further subdivided or , partitioned es a matter of rift-under existing r etrbd,i-a-psi-errl-uww and ordinaneee pursuant to the `, Lake Oswego Zoning or Development Codes , v '-y 4 . References-t6 "r'crpi i-�`itiTeirriz"n azug cz� r t ` R-€e e �t-h-:� e= - , , We '-k a Manager" a shall be deemed to mean the administrative 'head-el the Public Work Dep rtme��-e e loyee who i r�' QLTi'e-,�^�GTt�-C}�}p .i na'ym'-time to time be designated--byhe- y—Manager to perform the funet4e e "*. delegated to the Publie-Wark-o Manage - "'' hapter- "Person" means any individual or legal entity. 5. "Topping" means the severe cutting back of limbs to stubs larger than three inches in diameter within the tree s crown to such a degree so as to remove the normal canopy and disfigure the tree. �Y 'Ire i 6. -1-"Tyree" de€inC,d- As used in this chapter, a tree means any living, standing . ' woody plant having a trunk 5" or more in diameter, maximum cross section, at a point 24" 4.5' above mean ground level at the base of the trunk, (Ord. No. 1429, Sec . 1; 05-18-71 . Ord. No. 1631, Sec . 1; 07-20-76 . ) 55 . 030 Tree Cutting once o e-or Pubs T a Without Permits Prohibited. ' r No person sha-] -ctrl: a tree upon private or public property a ' without first obtaining from the City a permit-to-do so. The provisions of this chapter arc intended to apply to the United r'. cnts thereof, to the fullest ext u'-.Txhce.. _ , , ng of any tree lawfully required te-h - r t-e pre _n- . t. 1 No person shall cut a tree without first obtaining a tree `' ' cutting permit from the City. Or Y (Ord, No, 1429, Sec, 1; 05-18-71 . ) 55 .040 Exemption of Certain Lando "= f �1 a` i .1 V M, — apply—a p „1 ped 4erid e x c t in-drier _ ra4-- e , , -' ,, , ` s Page 3 of 11 ,< y e, rt • ,r r t; s : #, DRAFT 01/06/92 Y '\ , the provisions sha14 1 i7._-, a ,. .� , a ped-a 'gip y t o �unzr,---s�cr —e�—v -r� thi-s-e�Le�efte --pi =armclaiming exempt ' s ' hep*e-r by reason of thie—see-ion shall have the ee-ta-h -shing the- exemption. (Ord. No. 1429, Sec. 1; e : 55 . 050 Application for Permits . • 1 y r-morc trees sha-1l fide gyp" en with--t m-x t to de-e.o- r s,. i �ie e An application for a tree cutting permit, shall be , y, made upon forms be-be prescribed and furnished by the City. The � application shall contain: •1. The number, size, species and location of the trees to �'' be cut, T ': h:. ,.,, 2. b The time and method of cutting or removal;; 3. a A statement of the reason for cutting or removal;; ) 4::'... . . : x ' 4 . and i Information concerning any proposed landscaping or. - r, .`J planting or any new trees to replace the trees to be rut--; and r ,. 5. n-add bienr#he app .leant shall furnish such Any other .hj information as-may reasonably e required by the City. )rjb �-,' 55 . 060 Fees . rl The application shall be accompanied by a filing fee. as • .., ,. here-np. 3-e- bed--The fling fcc �e reftna e et cr cola ' not a -p n, 1 caf t y anted--- n er�Y.� -nag- e-T be paid, -a4-1 tcd within-a period ofyone Year for cutting of tr-e � e-a a , 1 be considered as having bccn filed in a single applicat en- 1 . For cg .e--o €eye --trees; no fcc. ��� �� er-m re reca from a parcel of land (including al' - ��„� ,t ' g i�d i n c ommer ownership) nob-exceeding 24, 000 square feet in area; a fee of $12 . 0 0 . ,x),-- ', (�y. 3 . All other applications; a fcc of,.. $50 , 00 . ` •:��'.� wired with an application fcd by a gevernmcntal agency. Fees shall be established by reau'lution of the City Council. (Ord. No. 1429, Sec , 1; 05-18-71 , ) 55.065 Review of Applications. 1. Except as provided in subsections 2 and 3 of this section, applications shall be reviewed and approved by the City Manager. `, yf Page 4 of 'p. M'J, • • t r r s, + .a �. 7 , , *' F- .,. 1 ... •/1•. .. .... . .. ?' =r.. 1 ... r •r •.b'1 1 . -1 i r 1 Y.' si' •7 1. _. o yr DRAFT 01/06/92 r .r i } x 1 P 2. Except in cases of an emergency as provided in LOC r ' 55.080 (3) , if the tree proposed to be cut has been required to he preserved or protected as a condition of approval of a land use y action pursuant to the Lake Oswego Zoning or Development Code, 4 ' the tree cutting application shall be processed as an amendment ' to that land use action and shall be reviewed and approved by the body responsible for reviewing such land use actions. 3. An emergency tree cutting permit issued pursuant to LOC t • , 55.080(3) shall be signed by the City Manager and not by the City Y . Manager's designee, except as provided in LOC 55.080 (3) . cc non E,..� r ' ✓✓ . 0 r 0 -�-g n .7. r e :r In thc event of emergency conetitians requiring the immeeliet.e 1 cut trng"orr"emo 7 of r e.r-e-r hazard t-o permit will be itoucd without paymentee•c- d--w }-eu �- ?. application, by the Public Were-Manager or in his absence, by any--}1ember,-ef-Lh -..Building Division. If the Public Ne-r ee-Men-a .er ^ un.,v 1 ���1.e in the event of such emergency, it shall be law-f-true-p-,reeeed with the r cutting of a tree or trees without a per- m±-La--floe exert er or hazard. 7n thc event of the cutting of any tree unde.rhe provisions e-f- hi i-a—se-t-i-eZ without the prior filing of an application with -t4e-Public Work M ger- `'h e pe s ear--deirg--e-e e wi t h i n 48 he •a-thc reaa f t c r ,``' report the action taken to th Pb, 1 W -i M -ger, without payment-et-fee, and shall forthwith provi-—suei j- m-tion and 4 i evidence as may be rc sonably -_ , u-i-re ' by the Public Works '- ' Manager to explain and justify the action taken.--fG d--e. 1429, ' ; Sec . 1; 05 18 71 . Ord. ire-y1631, Sec. 3; 07 20 76)- a 55.071 Applicability of, Tree Cutting Criteria. �'V 1. The criteria contained in LOC 55.080 shall not apply to p; ° applications for tree cutting permits for trees located on developed parcels, except where the tree proposed to be cut: r� 1 i ' (a) Is designated as or located within a "Distinctive Natural Area" pursuant to the Lake Oswego 4 Comprehensive Plan; or ' • 1 • (b) Has been expressly protected or required to be {: preserved as a condition of approval of development ' pursuant to the Lake Oswego Zoning or Development .;: ., ,. ; Codes; or 1 parcel (c) Is located within an area or p that has been : r placed on the Historic Landmark Designation List pursuant to LOC Chapter 58. :::'''Aii 2 . The Criteria contained in LOC 55 .080 shall not apply to applications for tree cutting '�'. ' .. permits for trees on property subject to a final land use action approved pursuant Lo LOC 5' ' +\i e f Page 5 of 11 • - ..1'•, 7 tea' .,« 1�'. ,. 6• - 7. - -.•. - . I t .n ti t• _ ., ' p f 1 7 . ',R r DRAFT 01/06/9Z , w Chapters 48 or 49 if the removal of specific trees was reviewed . �:• and approved as part of the land use action. Removal of trees in violation of such land use approval, however, will be considered •, a violation of this chapter. ' 3 . The applicant shall have the burden of proving that his { r or her application is exempt from review pursuant to subsections "` 1 or 2 of this section. If the applicant demonstrates that his 4:' or her application is exempt from review, a tree cutting shall be approved. permit 55 , 080 Criteria for Issuance of Permits . estcd in the-appal ation; may be-i-seue'd i d a part, or m cd subject;to ;.r plic\ant with reasonable conditions to be esein--orde.r to P ow-thc purposes of this-ehaptcr.. h permit 3t: ---state t-h•e- zed-eftime-€or ;eh : M lid. A permit issued for the reason that an improvement i:�-�--te-be conotrueted-u:- ee +i-n---s--s" all contain a provision that the is -the-p"��.. ' --- h permit is not valid until a building permit has been issued--- its on the t , applicant ^to chow that granting of a permit would be consistentF with the- ea-ted-pu*p -e f s-�.;hegte The f ol-1 �., 3 ha 11- ____dl- cw -� ��u Y 1 . The condition e£ the ~ ecto ca3- danger of falling, proximity to cxi d structures, ;' and in t e r i�e�r e-�.z�--uti�� a.f-et y-r. T n es-s to=. i„ rd e en 3 t ruc t « ' --rxTp� �tr t�v�-c�eC� imposed improvemen- -e t wise utilise the applicant-Le proper .tis, - nable-manner. ' 3 . The topography---eth a-e n. e-e f f c c t of-tree • removal on erosion, soil retention, 3..:ability of colti, f' -1 r•; ' surface waters, protection- ea el ___ % •.t.: 1 desirable balance between shade and open spaces, and a G- -ef�--"-^= -e'er-ng "- .c neighborhood, the ' is character and property ucc3 in the neighborhood, and the effect ° of--tie cighborheed-eharacteristics, beauty and property values . ' 6 . The adequacy of the ^ - ' --p=opo- l-, .f any, to • , " i� e t-ne -g -r ees-e - egeteeion as asubstitute for the trees-to--be x Except as provided in LOC 55.071, the applicant must comply f with one of the following four provisions in order to obtain a tree cutting permit: 1. Dead., Dying or Dangerous Trees Except as provided by Y subsection (c) of this section, a tree cutting permit shall be i . 4:.� r .r }• r '4•' Page 6 of 11 ... � 5 , I + N t . DRAFT 01/06/92 , 5 51 �• ' 5 ', A , issued if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is dead, dying t '. or dangerous . ,_,�N • (a) For the purposes of this section: i) . "Dead" means the tree is lifeless . ,• ., . ii) . "Dying" means the tree is diseased, infested t i by insects or rotting and cannot reasonably be saved by treatment or pruning, or must be f r removed to prevent spread of the infestation " •"E-' or disease to other trees. ,,.,-. iii) . "Dangerous" means the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property " , damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be ' , ;• alleviated by treatment or pruning. (b) In order to determine whether a tree is dying or 41 1:i.:1 dangerous within the meaning of LOC 55 .080 (1) (a) , the City shall require the applicant to pay a fee in a sufficient amount to enable the City to hire ,.+ 1A a professional arborist or forester of the City's .t ' choice to review the application, x` (c) In order to provide for wildlife habitat and natural processes, the City Manager may require ,, the retention of dead or dying trees located in • " wetlands, distinctive natural areas, stream corridors or open space required to be "1"preserved I as a condition of development approval unless the • tree presents a potential hazard Lo persons or #, property. 2. Trees that are Not Dead, Dying or Dangerous: The City shall issue a tree cutting permit for a tree that is not dead, dying or dangerous if the applicant demonstrates : r '''' ° (a) 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;1 (b) Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or " • r existing windbreaks; and ' , • (c) Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics, property values or property uses of the ' ,, q� neighborhood, In making this determination► the + ' r, Page 7 of 11 ' A • �; •- 4r . 1 r 4 Its ,. It y 1. t �t DRAFT 01/06/92 ," City may consider any proposal by the applicant to L u mitigate for the loss of the tree by planting new '. � ' i5 trees o1: other vegetation. The City may impose . : , , " 1:` such mitigation requirements as a condition of approval of the permit. • i y.1 3 . Emergency Permits : , (a) If the condition of a tree presents an immediate danger of collapse and if such potential collapse represents a clear and present hazard to persons or ,, + • property, an emergency tree cutting permit may be issued without formal application or payment of a fee. For the purposes of this subsection, "immediate danger of collapse" means that there is " a significant likelihood that the tree will topple or otherwise fail and cause damage before a tree cutting permit could be obtained through the non- • 1 • emergency process . "Immediate danger of collapse" • does not include hazardous conditions that can be alleviated by pruning or treatment. ,: , (b) Emergency tree cutting permits must be signed by the City Manager, or in the City Manager's absence, ,.. by the acting city manager or a shift supervisor of the Fire or Police Department, but only i! the acting city manager or shift supervisor has been , t r•' trained in the application of this chapter. If an emergency situation ariset,i at a time when the City ; jr '` Manager, acting city manager or members of the � * > Po?i�:e or Fire Departments are unavailable, and att � such emergency creates a significant likelihood that tree will topple or otherwise fail before such ,fi "" officials become available, the tree owner may � r proceed with removal of the tree to the extent necessary to avoid the immediate hazard. Within seven days after such removal, the tree owner shall apply for a retroactive emergency tree cutting ", permit. If the evidence and information presented by the tree owner does not justify the emergency ' tree cutting standards set forth in LOC 55.080 (3) (a) , the application shall be denied and th e tree owner shall be subject to penalty pursuant to LOC 55.130 and the mitigation requirements of • `` LOC 55.135. (c) Unless the emergency Situation is apparent to a layperson, the City Shall require the applicant to pay a fee in Sufficient amount to enable the City . 1+ A to hire a professional arborist or forester to '.. r review the application. For the purposes of this M section, an "emergency condition apparent to a la person" means a tree that is cracked, split, 1 leaning or physically damaged to the degree that it 1. Page 8 of ii. • . DRAFT 011/00/92 �. is clearly likely to fall and injure persons or property. .• ( 4' ' 4 . Topping: In order to obtain a tree cutting permit for the purpose of topping a tree, the applicant shall demonstrate that other pruning practices are impracticable to alleviate the problem, such as hazards caused by storm or weather damage or ` `' 1 5 t • Ti ,.':growth of trees under or next to utility wires or other ,.., obstructions. The City shall require the applicant to pay a fee % in a sufficient amount to enable the City to hire a p;rofes 'ional arborist or forester to review the application. (Ord. No. 1429, " "^. Sec. 1; 05--18-71 , ) 55 . 090 (Repealed by Ord. No. 1807; 09-15-81 . ) 55 . 100 (Repealed by Ord. No. 1807 ; 09-15-81 . ) 55 .110 (Repealed by Ord. No. 1$07; 09-15-$1 . ) 4� 55 .120 (Repealed by Ord. No. 1807 ; 09-15-81 . ) 55.125 Evidence of Violation. 1. If a tree is removed without a tree cutting permit, a ; violation shall be determined by measuring the stump. A stump ° that is 15.7" or more in circumference shall be considered prima ' facie evidence of a violation of this chapter. .1` .. 2 . Removal of the stump of a tree cut without a tree cutting permit prior to the determination provided in subsection " . it . 1 of this section is a violation of this chapter. 3 . Proof of violation of this chapter shall be deemed prima faci® evidence that such violation is that of the owner of the . ., a '' property upon which the violation was committed. Prosecution of ` or failureto prosecute the owner shall not be deemed to relieve " : any other responsible person. 55, 130 Penalties . 1. The cutting of a tree in violation of this chapter, or ' the breach of any condition of a permit granted under this chapter, or the violation of any other provision of this chapter shall be ' awfu n a civil infraction, Such infraction shall 4 be subject to a civil• penalty of $500 . The unlawful cutting of each individual tree shall be a separate offense hereunder, Failure to comply with a condition of approval shall be a " = separate infraction each day the f;ailuar�, to comply continues . r..` 2 . Cutting a tree in violation o,.. g `� this chapter is heresy declared to be a public nuisance, and Day be abated by i° , appropriate proceedings. { Page 9 of 11 A i ', CRAFT 01/96/92 t , � ? F y r.IS 3 . Upon request of the City Manager or direction from '�b '', Council, the City Attorney may institute appropriate action in s ' ' any court to enjoin the cutting of trees in violation of this ee chapter or to require the replacement of trees cut as required by LOC 55.135. 4. A person holding a City Business Licence who is f ' convicted of violating any provision of this Chapter is subject to a proceeding to consider revocation of the license pursuant to LOC 20 .085. " ` l` ` ' 5. The rights, remedies and penalties provided in this ' chapter are cumulative, are not mutually exclusive, and are in addition to any other rights, remedies and penalties available to the City under any other provision of law. (Ord. No. 1429, Sec, ". 1; 05-18-71 . Ord. No. 1880, Sec . 1; 02-07-84 . ) 4'. ; 55.135 Mitigation Required. 11' s A rti ,` , : 1. If a tree is cut in violation of this chapter, the owner ,e ' of the property shall be responsible for mitigating for the loss F " of the tree. As soon as a violation is determined,' the City { j shall notify the property owner in writing regarding the �, . I mitigation requirements of this section. Within thirty (30) days tc, of the date of mailing of this notice, the property owner shall • enter into a mitigation agreement with the city. The mitigation agreement shall provide for: • J I tit I`• J (a) Replae'ement of the tree cut in violation of thin chapter with a substantially similar tree, taking into consideration site characteristics. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree cut is not reasonably available in the local commercial market, the City Manager may allow replacement with + a different spect.es of equivalent natural resource ` 7 value. If a replacement tree of the size of the f ' ; tree cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the City Manager rI shall require replacement with more than one tree. The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated circumference of the tree cut by the circumference of the largest F,',Y• : reasonably available or viable replacement trees . If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject - "property, the City Manager shall ; , '4 require one or more of the replacement trees to be + planted on other property within the City. , v. 4.(b) A replacement plan providing for the planting and = ' i'' maintenance of the replacement tree or trees . The e replacement plan shall provide that if any replacement tree dies within three years of planting, the property owner shall replace the tree. Page 10 of 11 J. Y . v + r F 4 0 ' a..0 •.r• M DRAFT 01/00/92 7'f':' ,.:..%, 0 jo .„ •;,, ,, . _ •_ , _ __ ,_ ` 2 . Failure to enter into a mitigation agreement as required 0 ,. by this subsection or failure to comply with any condition of that agreement shall be civil infraction subject to a civil penalty of $500 . Such failure shall be a separate infraction each day the failure to comply continues. In addition, the City . Y' . Manager may refuse to accept any development permit application , • for the subject property or stop work on any development approved for the subject property under LOC Chapters 48 or 49 until an acceptable mitigation agreement has been executed. r; (ord.1)<c;ao> ly**.'.' l t ry Y•.- 1 r • f, a , ''. " u • 1 Page 11 of 11 �.. t .. � �•. .. a , '• °". i' .. .. ..... ° '. .•w Bulletin No, 8 . ... ., ..• ,..,. Jitrnes R. Fazio, Editor O TREE CITY USA BULLETIN ., .. - �'� ' .., -40 't' for the ti. , . i 1 Friends of I've City USA Ion' i .. '. , Tre „,„.. , . . .. Tree topping is the senseless brutalizing of older i trees.It brings about the uglification of America's f, N j y 4 •�• 'A't s urban forest,striking some communities like a • r ��� �" 'ii+� . �`.;w " tf ' �° 1 I ��.rr•.,r.. plague. ,1 i P z, $':y;+ Seeing trees that have been permanently desecrated by topping both angers and V saddens me.I'm angered because it is so +.; • senseless and so destructive. I'm • j saddened because I know that peoplelir . I `• f� iii have spent good money to perform this mutilation, often with the best 'I l of intentions. �. II V It's not that people who pay for ' trees to be topped aren't good • �, •I•1 a people.They're just uninformed ` •�� ,. did I /i' about the consequences of topping `\r, 1 �/ • f and about the better alternatives ;� iia that are available to them, �� ' � 5•' Nationally, neither individuals nor comntunitles are spending +,I ' enough money on tree care,It just < " makes nd sense to use the money that is bei'sg spent on a practic,as ' htI • , • M detrimental as topping, '� ` Jim Fazio has skillfully described e� �� the reasons you should not top trees, /Il 1 and the available alternatives, in this i! : wry important Bulletin edition. t, q,,, I hope you will be relieved of the i!;+ l ! slightest temptation to top trees on your , �ii property,and that you will lend strong Jj l 4 . support to ending the topping of trees In your , i /t f w • community, ' r �j. `li 'fit (424" s '* ,I i « ik " "' 4John ttnsenow t executive director National Arbor Day Foundation «, . ...to , y./,, LA:, A0I•t.w `t"�"�• ` A a' a v tgr VF t w• What Is Topping? , '. • ^, � ���y .'-,.::. . . n r '- u�FY� �S��SZ�4. ui Zrrr 1 + c d ;, ;,4' O'�rll ,>: 4 ,. k ,� .� .: . f, The sight of topped trees is all too common in . ' ,' ' ;' -,-"� .•�,,•, `t ' f•X•- the communities and along the roadwa a of'`�S''' "' tit:+,;1t 1l vt!1' America trunks with stubby limbs standing fr,t�' ':iis�"' . '' '. 4.,,4 1 Ir \:` naked in the landscape, trees stripped of all E3 •p • d''; �yill tip+. ;y;,VOW ill t`.'r dignity and ace.To one 1 ' '''�`f'�( +; sight who loved locos, the ` N1ft'''t g usually evokes anger and disgust. t _,ti_ +.:r ""' '{� sC ; � �+, { %- As more is learned about the long-term of ect5 > ►�� 4«, .. u ., '•. ���Ah ►', » of tree topping, the more senseless this practice � �, *, '— •• ,-� ?fig .• ',t 'r � 1�`-(� becomes, it is more than an assault on beauty, it '�` — •"ti. r ,*' f t,;rct� 2,: ., •is unnecessary stress and increased risk to the " in ,_? . ,e '"•...„,,?.,.: ., 144:- !;,. �f 1 tree's health, It is also a self-defeating exercise e f•, - ,�,. n,:.n 'st usually not worth the expense, and the results : i. 1: ''' 'l'k + I w. ,^ y' f./ •I' pose a danger from r•ot and weakly attachedr I, `i , i I I '!'l, ✓1'", regrowth. In short, as one atborist said, .- + : i •. ,. ! \ ' ' / i' ' , "Topping is the absolute worst thing you can do i,' f '• ,� \\ ' • •, �+ •• ilvf, ;1 r �,t for the health of your tree." ` i ,� �;t' 1 ,�, . '�,,% •• Trees arse often topped because they grow into,,� �, 1, ' tltI. ,� utility wires, interit!ro with views or solar di�I \ • Ml, r �. collectors, or simply grow so large that they " i t �� �..„ worry the landowner, Some h' , ' ,t people havint, ':'' `\,\• � v •.t i, kk4 ' %t ` V," , o seen trees topped in a park or other public place ' `1, `` `ii-i 1 .�' try',`; t.• ., Y 1 a under the care of an"expert" — top their trees , •• ,, }' . t ,;�" t , b because of a mistaken impression that the ` \' ' •` ;' t ',i4: :A + ., i1' , ,j y r practice is good for trees, especially because of ` .4 r , ,�:;D '; . , 'I•. the obvious flush of new growth that follows. . 4d' } ,x*. ; Topping is also a result of irtcruutable"tree t . ��,�; • �,, , a1:1 E. experts" knocking on doors And c,onvincing the r Ir:. . ., i 'i, ,;�it:4,:, Ai,..,',: homeowner that for stn`ety reasons, the job r 1 - should be done.'t"heir services are then offered - : •_''•` ,Wol.. . „' Ire' ' . ' 34I r` if — quick'n cheap. ` • . . , ,'r:•`d•,. •k '" \ThyNOTTø "Top" Eight . ,. • ,,:: ; ., .,!,,,, ; UStarvation: Good pruning practices rarely remove more ® Rapid id New Growth: The P goal of topping is usually to than V. to 1/2 of the crown, which In turn does not seriously control the height and spread of a tree.Actually,I'has just interfere with the ability of a tree's leafy crown to manufacture the opposite effect.The resulting ' '� ' ,t sprouts(often called water food 'Topping removes so much of the crown that it upsets spr•t oast are far more numerous than normal new growth an older tree's well-developed crown-to-root ratio and and they elongate so rapidly that the tree returns to its ; temporarily cuts off its food-making ability. original height in a very short time— and with a far denser Et Shock: A tree's crown is like an umbrella that shields crown. much of the tree from the direct rays of the sun,By suddenly a Tree Death: Some older trees are more tt.terant to removing this protection, the remaining bark tissue is so topping than others. Beeches, for example, do not sprout It exposed that scalding may result,`There may also be a readily after severe pruning and the reduced foliage most �� dramatic effect on neighboring trees and shrubs, If these surely will lead to death of the tree. thrive in shade and the shade is removed, poor health or is ilgliness: A topped tree is a disfigured tree, liven with its " • death may result. regrowth it never regains the grave and character of its �i int►eetti and Disease: The large stubs of a topped tree species.The landscape anti the community are robbed of a have a difficult time forming callus.The terminal location of valuable asset, these cuts,as well as their large diameter, prevent the tree's ® Cost: To a worker with a saw, topping a tree is much F;chemically based natural defense system fro n doing its lob. easier than applying the skill and lodgement of good pruning `"'�• , 'rhe stubs are highly vulnerable to Insect invasion and the Therefore, topping may cost less in the short run. However, spores of decay fungi If decay is already present in the limb, the true costs of topping are hidden These include reduced t • opening the limb will speed the spread of the disease property value, the expense of removal and replacement if II Weak Limbs: At best, the wood C �` the tree dies, the loss of other trees and shrubs if they of a new limb that sprouts after a succumb to changed lisle renditions, the risk of liability larger limb is Ir•Iritrated is more �'` Crmt weakened branches, anti ° weekly attached than a limb that �` t increased future maintenance tlrvrlopr more normally Kral exists �� or develops at the revered soli of ' the limb the weight of I memohr pruut ',ttanyer„us 'ideation ,. makes a hail situation men worse • h 2•nor IT 1st tliilrii \u is.N rt,un,,i l,Im, U,n luun,l.,uun , t .,. . , � ..•' . i V:�• Pruning Topping by Any Other Nam Topping is just as 1g 5 When a decision is made to • Sometimes pseudo tree experts use b duce the size of an older tree, ‘ 1 / can be topped, or It can be different terms for the malprarttce of untied properly.Although the topping Here is a rogues gallery of speed and nature of regrowth synonyms: will depend on species and it.•,,,• • Stubbing • flaunt king local factors, any comparison 1 of irresponsible topping vs. ' ` `,t' / • Hrnding • topping oil' ;: competent pruning will be 'I 11 I .' • Beading bark • UUr�,horrung dramatic. ..;1,, • swbhing.off • Imppss; ' a I! C �=1 .� t 4's . ,, , ... ..'. .> 1 1 �``�� ''V Year 1 i 11 The topped tree is air ugly stub and a l• 1 (t'i !� remnant of a once lovely tree. If primed • 1k ;'. I properly,size is reduced but form and jil i II._ 1 t beauty are retained. a v I Year Vigorous sprouts have sprung out of . it X I the topped tree in large numbers and are growing with abnormal rapidity. I 11, The .. . pruned tree adds growth more slowly and more normally distributed. I I . . . . . ... . . .. , . . . • . I 1 •„ i ., , , , .. I�r 1 /""j 1, \ y • ,. ,,�• II 70,e i� Year 6 �, ! , il'. j�1 '' in a relatively short time. the topped 11: \,` S�1 /�/• U•t,e is us full -- and Car bushier and ' .. �'� morn dangerous tlran it was to l)egtn IP with-TimTimproperly pruned tree is sufrr. 1 more beautiful, and its size.better ' ' I I 1 controlled • it 1 1 i i ,' 1 —► . ina ogaa • lw' TREE t',tfl I SA tit 1 LEINN'1,', n.%,linnet 'rti ar D r iuun,Lrnuu 4 4 . . . .. ..... .. .. . .. Alternatives .. .. ... 1 : . . . ..`1 `there are times when the size and shape of a shade tree need to be controlled 11 lilt care and skill, this can .. { ti ;, ? be accomplished without marring the trees beach or usefulness. Responsible ,runmg t ern c ontributes to the health ; h + , � c .y M f„ �; ;•� t and safety of a tree • �' r,' t. it: �� As alit'I•IlaIiVeS to topping,some • i .� } • }ti. .. 4 N� 0'++ vk"F �1' „ i.. I ,'� Y. �.r' .r, general principles are: '1 yr'r/lf`w �.• t ` ; 4 � . ld e�I y H• +w;i p ,!:� •,i � r r � . ,i • i ,A Ny +ir, • ' tr!t,IN, '� f•} •f Y y J', \t a� i y'af r r t /]'Start out fright by planting trees that t • P 4 , } , +!+ }�+ry will fit your available space where ;' they reach enatuur•tty Set!Tree City t t ' ' ,? • • '' � • .i. " :...4) USA Bulletin No.4,—111e flight free • to..t, y • t t;•.i 1 ' ' ,7 , ,,• ,.,' },:.. for the Right Place ,M.` " ' '' , • ' • t < , I•: 1 -, . r ro y .1 jJ ♦ wr r 1 L 7 }''h lr; -1 r*r r n r 'r.-• 6 t J +r y. s ! Begin proper pruning early in the. ` „' `' life of it tree. See TreeCity USA .� +t 1yyh ,� h '� C� J t A 13uncorn P o_ I. 'How to Prune Young " ,.�• ... •� y'�,i;l' .'�M e �YV . } Shade 1'r'r c s ey k� / .aa '.., } Tn slow growth of a tree, avoid the ` Y ` • use of ttllt•ngen fertilizer •„ ,• :•," !!,► rt F+' t4r •M9 ,v 4 tiA i ` a r y '• Xt"„'9}P'�t 1.% ,• '4!•4,. l Prune properly and regularly A light r "+. pruning es ers three,years will keep i � :r your tree in healthy condition. It i'' will also have less drastic effects on • ) ' both the landscape and your• , financial assets cnrnpared with �' T fi 11 neglecting older trees or resorting to topping , 0 .. . „, 1• • " Proper PruningPrince '. p p�.�s A Dead Branch i I } Living Branch B I } 11[1 \N :- )inc i •.. . ., . \, _...:, : I (I Rii 1 s : _‘.. 9 :„.,,,,,7,,/‘'. . , • ,. . . .. ., .i .,. a I :t A A �� QIBranch � �► ., '�yl, \1 �` t4•'Collar n , / p;t D � / , le Branch Branch I k ,: First cut part way I Branch through the branch i ( 1 t • Collar \ .. . at A,then cut it off + x (Co not cut alongCollar it lI ., tl at B.Make the final I 1 i I, line C•X) I l �+cut at C•D. Hardwoods Conifers thanks largely to the work of Di'Alex I,.Shigu and other work ecu/i tat her Ihan against a tits ',mutual tendency to scientists ntists at the 1151)A t'erest Setvic.(t's Nurtht'agtei ii lin twt wall oil mimed tissues and pl i•tottt the'`,ur t•,ul ul 1ler.n' In Espenment Station in Durham.NH,touch is now thi w illu',tr uunn4 final c Oh ,hnuld he mule b nm pointy t •r cindertilood about a trees natural system al dt•lensi'against lu 1) Du tint„Lit along III)('I \ wiw h e, •,IJn1th an "11 ' inlet lions ft am wuuritis nosed ore this knowledge• the'•i' im aginal v►sito al line to help NMI Int,it'^t 11 methods of making pruning cuts are reeunnnt'nclotl to hell} • .t•Tttlt CtTI ISA StttIll4 Nu S•National,allot Uiiv Foundation 'r , • . r k " y• • I„t7 N • . , y _ a, . „,,,,....•. „:„. Reducm. g the Height of a Large Tree . ... Through the use of drop-crotch pruning, . .. ... .. tree size can be reduced without weakening \► I 1 the tree or creating an eyesore. I \,1 \ I / i. A \� ` NI /� The tallest branrhrs urn' \ `\ ♦ ` 1 a / I Y / i // cut back to a large. ` \\ �\ A / r �i (/ / diameter secondary \ �� �,�� / branch so that a)curler 0 / r�!mains. Perimeter limbs areN. • pruned where they join �' �� �'►, '.r /A / /J �'/ large-diameter side \ 0 / / / branches. \ f I / / ' . \ \ \ •• 1�z 1 �,' 1 / % 1 \ \ a1�/ `` 11 \i ' . I •I \ `� ` \ , ' `�.• 1 t I i _k \.... •L. �� ®� • .� 1 ,,..- .., 1,/ ''\•'K, To thin the trig,sortie t�II branches are rut oJJ N,'l back to the main trunk. i , Arborists have different terms for rumn operations, p g3against sprouting, large cuts can,a treated with usually based on the purpose for pruning and diameter of the naphthaleneacetic acid tNAAI, but this should be applied only limbs to be cut,These go by such names as safety prune,crown by or with the advice of an arbot•ist. • lifting(removal of lower limbs), medium prune, and many With care,dr•ep•crotching can reduce tree size while at the others.A good reference on the technicalities of pruning is same time retaining the species' natural form. It can also often Richard W. Harris'Arboriculture(Prentice•call, Inc., Englewood be accomplished without cutting limbs larger than six inches in Cliffs,Ni 078321. diameter As an alternative to topping, the technique of most �- Importance Is one called drop•crotching.'rho results can be most amazing. When done correctly, drop•crotrhing is like a r 11;•»q good haircut-, virtually unnoticeable. Drop•crotching is a method that combines thinning out the r crown of a tree anu,•educing its height and spread. but rather An example of P '• than the ends of branches simply being lopped off, limbs drop-crutch % ' . ., forming the perimeter of the tree are pruned at their iuot'tinn pruning to .,-\ �f '' ,• •"�' �►uh shorter, largu•tliat►teterside branches. In this way.a leader control trace d' K� always remains. In turn, the presence of a leader prereent or ,growthstlhhty iltvi h • lines, lures latent buds from sprouting into the bushy growth that • suits from'upping off branch ends Vor even more assurance " " �.�, Drop Cro#chng " TREE CITY t SA Stl.LC11N No a'National Atitor DAv tstsslaun'5 '' a0 • `Q� / N.,.. an �J f,,... s .�, �r o, /ii . i,' y ''A r ; . An active communidy forestry program can 1; '�,` be the strongest line of defense against the �' " defacement of trees by topping. r dr i WorkingUtility .. .. , • 4.,..., , . ,.. ..• . .: Companies ,.. .,,,.,. . , ... , .. ..,• ' A major challenge of urban forestry • is working with utility companies to help keep overhead wires safe from t tree damage while at the same time I \ r ' assuring that street trees are not ►I. J " ' • . 1 l . . mutilated by topping. Fortunately, this " problem Is diminishing as increasing ' ' numbers of companies assign tree l �. -- I L� • • trimming to trained arborists,many of �� \� '� �/ "� j whom are members of professional i - :\ / ¢� -- `•..,,,'I. . groups such as the Utility Arborist ;'.'I �i i Association.Workers who are not - ^-t1 members should be encouraged to join '' - \ I ' and can do so by contacting the I f ,. executive director,do Metropolitan .11 Edison, PC)Box 542, heading,PA 19640, 'I Under Pruning0 '' ,,. . In utility line maintenance, .. • • • •,, . fr/i)if a modifications of drop•rrolrh pruning ji:.• can be used as an alternative.to toppling or making a tree lop-sided to •' keep It away from wires, 1, i i Under pruning is a technique to remove r ' r ]• 1 A y+ r fi i limbs of a large street tree to allow / wires to ass below the trees To `f: ill e, \r ,I \, prenerve the tree's symmetry, lower i / r—,p'111"' I- limbs on the opposite side of the tree `�/ --''r / -��°' I'/ should also be removed.Additional //� ),r, / crownthinningwillhelpkeepthetree1 yr .rf t healthy and less likely to drop limbs f / r�gI �' ..\Yffe .�.,i I during a storm. =K'r f iil. l' *, Side pruning is often needed when a ` r j�._ " \`. ' �� \ ,'j"�' tree la located close beside transmission y ' -•: :. :..,...•;,,'' . A '_;+ \'ii• •'""� -'\ ' T: . Y� linen.An the limbs extend toward n If \ l pole or the wires, careful pruning can . \\I �!'--�✓ N N, I �/ be used to avoid a lopsided tree or -„' t . '"'� . i ,,,'', t unsightly notch in the crown. Using the �' \ V✓' I \ ,. . drop-crotch technique of cutting al ''•`A i� f• lower limb junctions, troublesome '+' . t 1`. branches can be removed without ,`' hedge like truncations.Limbs above "'-' ' l' and below the problem spots, and _ t. • some on the opposite aide or the tree Side Pruning cart also he nhuruvtcd to totem halent r J,r°‘*4. ', L _ .. . _ 4. t' G•Y'kElt t ITY ISA lit LION 1u s 0 National Aibor 11,1c ruund,•tlout '� • Y t ' Ft• �.}�• ' yy "A. ` 1 .- _ T ' to . ,, ,• . . . ... ,..:, .. an Put an End to Topp ng . , Through pruning,sometimes referred as creating a diughnut hole, is an t " o alternative to topping when trees that , \( have been planted beneath wires grow \ ` / .',/ ' ."': too large.This method is especially / , f useful around secondary lines or those \// r,.,, leading into individual houses or / \ buildings.With care and the use of 1/' .M o drop-crotch principles,inner limbs can be removed without creating a highly �'�l •, . / i r/ noticeable tunnel appearance. \ ,. ` — ► t \ t r_� ) AQ At times,duo to prior topping or fir ~A '�' ' extremely bad placement under wires, 1� . `l it is best to remove a tree and replace it '~ \ �'r 1 �' lik with a more suitable tree.(See Bulletin �° l 111 r 4‘111‘‘. \\Il, ‘\ p,- .* • ---\ '1( A \-.-.-,%„,, 1 tv 11.,,,,4, ,,,-, ‘4,,_.„., ,4,.,,1-/, , ill ( ,-- ' , ; 1_ I ...yr..•nrrr.•w••. • ' '. , . . r: rl +"•-•..----,• r�Y�'W Yvtti^�',iiIi 4.ti4•�. - j.. Through Pruning • Education Ordinances Once again,education plays the most important role in When education and voluntary action Fall to stop tree promoting good tree care practice.In the case of reducing topping, some communities decide to take the most serious crown sit:,, the need is not only to help individuals who do form of action.In this ease,tree topping is outright prohibited their own work,but more importantly, to reach the la.'ger or closely controlled through the use of a municipal number who are likely to use the services of a tree expert. ordinance.Usually this is part of a broader tree ordinance, Uerting citizens to the foolishness of most tree topping and the subject of a future issue of Tree City USA Bulletin. Y helping them recognize and select a professional arborist go Here is an example of an applicable section taken from a - , hand in hand.We suggest the use of this bulletin together model ordinance developed by Kansas State University's with Bulletin No.6,"How to Hire an Arborist." Forestry Extension; n i • SECTION XIII : , Tree Topping It shall be unlawful as a normal practice for any person,firm, or k.ity deparCment to top any street tree,park tree,or other • �' tree on public property.Topping is defined as the severe ti„r� " "{ cuttingpruning backpractices of limbsare to stubsti larger may than be three exem pted Inches lit I diameter within the tree's crown to such a degree so as tothis ti p remove the normal canopy and disfigure the tree.Trees severely damaged by storms or other cau,e or certain 1 j� J ECM( * SA trees under utility wires or other obstructions where other 0imprac ordinance at the determination of the City Tree Board • "r , �p,��Z�`''" Taft:ore l5A bttttTlY'�u A•r�♦,nun.0 \,bur Ita% t,narvlarwn+" t . WV` r.. J '• ' ' _ N. .._. - _ . , '- �+�. ' - Y 1. ' • • •R .• .M , i '! , . - -i ' r • , ♦ " , • tit