Approved Minutes - 2000-09-06OREGON
I. CALL TO ORDER
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES
September 6, 2000
Chair Douglas Cushing called the Development Review Commission meeting of
September 6, 2000 to order at 7:02 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380
"A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon.
II. ROLL CALL
Commission members present included Chair Cushing and Commissioners Julie
Morales, Dave Powers, Douglas Kiersey, Sheila Ostly and Bruce Miller. Vice Chair
Nan Binkley was excused.
Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, Evan Boone,
Deputy City Attorney and Jean Hall, Senior Secretary.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Ostly moved for approval of the Minutes of July 17, 2000. Ms. Morales
seconded the motion, and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Ms. Morales, Mr. Kiersey, Ms.
Ostly, Mr. Miller and Mr. Powers voting yes. Ms. Binkley was not present. There were
no votes against.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order
LU 00-0043, an application by Beacon Homes, LLC
Mr. Miller moved for approval of LU 00-0045-1388, Findings, Conclusions and
Order. Mr. Powers seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Mr. Miller
and Mr. Powers voting yes. Ms. Morales, Mr. Kiersey and Ms. Ostly abstained from
voting. Ms. Binkley was not present. There were no votes against.
LU 00-0061, an application by BC Kim Olympic Tae Kwon Do
Mr. Miller moved for approval of LU 00-0061-1389 Findings, Conclusions and
Order. Mr. Powers seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Mr. Miller
Development Review Commission Page 1 of 11
Minutes of September 6, 2000
and Mr. Powers voting yes. Ms. Morales, Mr. Kiersey and Ms. Ostly abstained from
voting. Ms. Binkley was not present. There were no votes against.
LU 00-0070 [AP 00-1211, an application by Richard Feinberg
Mr. Miller moved for approval of LU 00-0070 [AP 00-1211 Findings, Conclusions
and Order. Mr. Powers seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Mr.
Miller and Mr. Powers voting yes. Ms. Morales, Mr. Kiersey and Ms. Ostly abstained
from voting. Ms. Binkley was not present. There were no votes against.
V. PUBLIC HEARING
LU 99-0060, an application by Hallmark Inns and Resorts for approval of a major
modification of an earlier Development Review Permit (DR 1-93) in order to modify
condition B.(2). The applicant intends to eliminate a pedestrian access way from
Hallmark Drive to Collins Way to construct a fence along the west property line. The
site is located at: 15455 Hallmark Drive, Tax Lot 9400 of Tax Map 21E 8CB. Staff
coordinator is Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager.
Chair Cushing opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits
to be followed. He asked Commission members to report any ex parte contacts, site
visits, biases or conflicts of interest. All Commissioners present reported they had
visited the site, and Ms. Morales recalled that she had served on the Development
Review Commission at the time of the original application. Chair Cushing asked if
anyone present desired to challenge any Commissioner's right to hear the application.
No one presented such a challenge.
Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, presented the staff report. He
related that Associate Planner, Morgan Tracy, who was no longer on the City staff, had
prepared the written report. (See Planning Division Staff Report dated August 23,
2000). He explained the applicant was requesting a modification of Condition B(2) of
the original (1993) development approval for a 10,000 square foot, two-story office
building. He related that the applicant contended that condition did not require them to
provide a public pathway easement through the site, and only required a 2.5 -foot wide
public access easement (where the public sidewalk encroached onto the site) along the
site's Hallmark Drive frontage (Exhibit 4). He said the staff had interpreted the
condition to mean the applicant was required to dedicate a five-foot wide public
pedestrian easement through the site to connect Hallmark Drive with Collins Way
(Exhibits 1 and 2). He observed that although Collins Way was currently a dead-end
road, it had once intersected with Hallmark Drive (Exhibit 17). The right-of-way had
been vacated in the area of the site in 1988, and the pavement had been removed in
order to prepare the site for future development, which took place in 1993.
Mr. Pishvaie advised that the Code required that modification of a condition imposed as
a part of a development approval be reviewed as a new application. He also advised
that the original development approval had adequately addressed all 1993 development
Development Review Commission Page 2 of 11
Minutes of September 6, 2000
standards, and no physical modifications of that approval were proposed. He related
that because the Development Standards had been changed since the 1993 approval,
some aspects of the development related to streets and sidewalks were now considered
nonconforming and the standards of LODS 20 (On -Site Circulation) were currently at
issue. He related that the applicant had contended that Condition B(2) did not require
the applicant to dedicate a public walkway easement through the site, and even if it did
require the easement, that would be unconstitutional. He pointed out the staff report
addressed the applicant's contention on pages 6 to 10. The City's position was that
LODS 20 (which included standards adopted in 1997) reflected state -mandated
Transportation Planning Requirements (TPRs) that required that every project was to
address safe and convenient pedestrian access to and from residential neighborhoods to
shopping centers and other uses. He advised that the current standards applied to the
application because the modification request was to be reviewed as a new application.
He noted the disputed condition specified "The applicant shall provide a public
walkway/sidewalk easements and utility easements." He also noted that the applicant's
original narrative and site plans in 1993 had provided for a five-foot wide walkway
through the site from Hallmark Drive (then called Lana Drive) to Collins Way. He
advised the Commission to apply the current standards and to determine whether
removal of the public walkway was consistent with LODS 20. He said if the answer
was "yes", the standard would not be applicable; however, if the answer was "no", then
an additional test was to be used to determine whether the Condition B(2) met the
"proportionality test" set forth by the courts (see Nolan vs. California, 1987; and Dolan
vs. City of Tigard, 1984).
Mr. Pishvaie held Condition B(2) was consistent with LODS 20, which required both a
walkway and an accessway. He noted that a "walkway" was defined as a strip of land
that connected one public entrance of each building to the nearest right-of-way. He
pointed out the applicant's building had two access points: one from Hallmark Drive,
and one from the parking lot. He acknowledged that the walkway requirement could be
partially met by connecting the east building entrance with a public easement along
Hallmark Drive; however, he advised that the most direct route to connect Hallmark
Drive with Collins Way was through the site. He added that the most direct route from
the site to Waluga Park (along Quarry Road) was also through the site and along Collins
Way. He advised that LODS 20 requirements would not be satisfied by elimination of
the walkway.
Mr. Pishvaie discussed the constitutional tests to be applied, including public need for
the exaction; the impact on the public system caused by the proposed development; and
whether the exaction imposed was roughly proportional to the nature and extent of the
impact caused by the proposed development. He advised that the staff had found all
three conditions were met by the requirement for the easement. He recommended that
the application be denied and the applicant be required to dedicate a walkway easement
to public use. He noted that the applicant had indicated in their narrative that they
might seek final resolution of the issue via the court system. He then clarified for the
Commissioners that the site was approximately 27,200 square feet in area. He also
clarified that both the original (1992) and revised (1993) site plans and the applicant's
Development Review Commission Page 3 of 11
Minutes of September 6, 2000
narratives included a walkway (indicated by a dashed line in Exhibit 15) across the front
of the building linking Hallmark Drive and Collins Way. He advised that LODS 20
required a public easement that would ensure permanent access through the site. He
related the applicant had initially provided such access and had subsequently
disconnected it by installing a fence. He recalled that the City had always assumed the
applicant would provide an easement for the walkway area; however, the applicant had
never provided it, and they had occupied the building under a temporary occupancy
permit. He explained the City had retained a utility easement within the vacated
right-of-way of Collins Way. He said the applicant held that if the City really intended
the walkway to remain in Collins Way they should have also retained a walkway
easement in addition to the utility easement. He explained that the City interprets
LODS 14 (in effect since 1981) to mean that sidewalks were also considered utilities
and were therefore, included in utility easements. He related that subsequently, in order
to accommodate the applicant's development, the original utility easement located in
the center of the site had been moved into the area of the parking lot, and water and
sewer lines had been installed there. He recalled that the City had continued to expect
the public walkway easement would be provided in front of the building. He recalled
the applicant had prepared the necessary documents to create that easement, but had
then changed his mind. He noted that by that time the building had been occupied for
several years. He said the City had then decided to initiate civil infraction proceedings
against the applicant in order to enforce condition B(2).
Mr. Boone clarified for Mr. Kiersey that the City had issued a citation to the applicant
after they installed a fence across the walkway, and the applicant had subsequently
requested a court ruling that they were not required provide the easement. The Circuit
Court had agreed with the City that a land use decision was necessary before the
applicant could appeal to the court.
Applicant
Mary Ellen Farr, 520 SW Yamhill, Ste 600, Portland, OR 97204, stated she was an
attorney and represented Hallmark Inns and Resorts. She requested that the record be
held open for an additional seven days for additional testimony. She pointed out the
area at issue was the front entrance to her client's private corporate headquarters and the
17 occupants of the building generated very little foot traffic. She held that the
applicant had always intended to protect their property rights, and the City was the party
that had changed its position regarding what had been intended by the disputed
condition. She stated that the applicants had complied with all other conditions of
approval. She said Condition B(2) provided that Hallmark could only receive an
occupancy permit when the applicant provided "easements for all public
walkways/sidewalks." She said the issue was not whether the walkway was to exist, but
its ownership. She noted the walkway did exist and connected the Hallmark Building
entrance to Hallmark Drive. She recalled the United States Supreme Court had found
that the right to exclude people from your property was a basic right of property
ownership. She said the applicant was willing and able to leave the walkway open until
use of the walkway became inappropriate. She requested that Condition B.(2.) be
Development Review Commission Page 4 of 11
Minutes of September 6, 2000
modified to provide that Hallmark must "provide easements for sidewalks around the
perimeter of the property and all public utilities..." She said the applicant had already
accomplished that. She held the parties had expected that the applicant would leave the
walkway open for appropriate use, and the property would continue to belong to
Hallmark. She stressed the applicant had always intended to be a "good neighbor," but
events had taken place that Hallmark had not anticipated. She acknowledged the
applicant had participated in discussions regarding the walkway. She pointed out there
was access around the site to Mercantile Village for the residents along Collins Way.
She said only those half-dozen Collins Way residences were affected by the walkway.
She recalled that Hallmark had closed the walkway in 1996 after incidents of vandalism
that had cost over $50,000 for cleanup and repairs. She also recalled instances where
skateboarders had pushed pedestrians and building occupants' cars had been broken
into. She stressed that the walkway had become a place for people to congregate and
conduct themselves inappropriately. She explained that the City had cited the applicant
after Hallmark had closed the walkway for the safety and convenience of the people
who worked in the building. Then the applicant had requested the Circuit Court to
interpret the condition, and to require the City to compensate the applicant if the
easement was required. She explained that the court had dismissed the complaint
pending the land use process. She said the applicant would prefer to resolve the issue
now.
Ms. Farr related that the applicant disagreed with the staff's interpretation that the
requested modification made the development subject to LODS 20 On -Site Circulation
requirements. She acknowledged the record showed a discussion had been conducted
regarding public use of the walkway through the site; however, she held that the
applicants had never intended to lose rights connected with their ownership of the
property. She referred to the following language in LODS 20.20(2): "Walkways shall
connect at least one public entrance to the nearest public walkway." She pointed out the
public entrance for people using the Hallmark Building was connected by a walkway
that was open to the public (even though it was not dedicated to the City). She noted
the Code provided that "Walkways shall also connect to other areas of the site, such as
parking lots and outdoor activity areas and then to adjacent streets and nearby transit
stops." She noted the site was connected to the transit stops in nearby Mercantile
Village; however, it did not connect directly with Collins Way (because of the fence).
She said there was nothing in the record showing anyone from Collins Way would
come to the site, and the necessary circulation was to and from the Hallmark Building
and Mercantile Village. She referred to LODS 20.020.(5), which required accessways
for use by pedestrians and bicyclists when necessary to provide direct routes. She
pointed out there were existing rights of way available to residents of Collins Way, and
the longest distance that the closest Collins Road resident (on the other side of the
fence) would need to walk was .4 miles along Collins Way to Douglas Street and then
to the front door of the Hallmark Building. She said the City had interpreted "when
necessary" to mean that the property owner had to provide a direct route to every street
for every person - whether or not they were going to the Hallmark Building. She
pointed out a goal of the Waluga Neighborhood Association was to separate their
residential properties from other uses in order to create a safe neighborhood. She
Development Review Commission Page 5 of 11
Minutes of September 6, 2000
opined that the walkway requirement was contrary to that goal because the requirement
would allow skateboarders, partiers, and others performing undesirable activities to
access the neighborhood.
Ms. Farr advised that the Supreme Court decision in the case of Dolan vs. City of
Tigard meant that the applicant was to be compensated if the City required them to give
up ownership of their property. She referred to the proportionality test put forth by the
courts and maintained that although the City contended that the applicant should
provide a public easement in order to facilitate travel of people between Collins Way
and the Hallmark Building, and between the site and Waluga Park, the applicant was
only required to accommodate traffic from the frontage street to their building. She also
pointed out the City -proposed public access had not existed at the time of the original
approval of the development. She said the only connection to be made between the
Hallmark Building and the Collins Way neighborhood was that the applicant desired to
be a good neighbor to the neighborhood. She said the Dolan vs. City of Tigard decision
meant that the applicants were to be compensated for exactions that were not
proportional to the development's impact. She held that the applicant's development of
the Hallmark Building had not created a need for a public walkway, and the City had
provided no calculations to demonstrate their position. She acknowledged that the
applicant was willing to address the issue of appropriate width of sidewalks. She
clarified for the Commissioners that Collins Way had traversed through the site to Lana
Drive before the applicant purchased it.
Mr. Pishvaie clarified for the Commissioners that the roadway pavement in Collins
Way had been removed in 1988 (after the 1987 photograph of the street in Exhibit 17
had been taken), however, Collins Way neighborhood residents had continued to use a
pathway through the site. Ms. Morales recalled that the location of the walkway in
front of Hallmark building had been determined during the development's original
development review hearing in 1992. Ms. Farr agreed that the record showed where the
walkway was to be located; however, the related condition was a very general one and it
had not been established that the applicant would be required to forever give up
ownership of an area that included their front entrance. She clarified for Mr. Cushing
that the applicant had deeded easements for perimeter sidewalks; however, the site plan
did not show a sidewalk across the western side of the property, and the applicant only
desired to provide sidewalks on the south and east sides of the site. Mr. Pishvaie related
that the City had negotiated the issue with the applicant for a year and they had come
very close to resolving the issue by planning an alternative walkway route that would
travel from Collins Way to Hallmark Drive along the west and south property lines. He
indicated the City could agree to consider other alternative routes.
Ms. Farr stated that the applicant desired a resolution that provided that whatever
easements were required had been satisfied and no sidewalks in addition the existing
sidewalks would be required. She said the applicants were concerned about who would
be responsible for keeping the area clean and safe and who was to improve the walkway
to the wider Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards.
Development Review Commission Page 6 of 11
Minutes of September 6, 2000
Bill Allred, CEO, Hallmark Inns and Resorts, Hallmark Drive, Lake Oswego,
97035, testified that the applicant had spent $3,000 for a site design that would relocate
a PGE power pole in order to accommodate an alternate route for the walkway. He
explained a problem arose when they determined that the route would travel over a PGE
power vault that would cost the applicant $30,000 to move.
Opponents
Jeff Novak, 4322 Collins Way, Lake Oswego, 97035, testified on behalf of the
Waluga Neighborhood Association and presented a petition opposing the applicant's
request to be allowed to eliminate the pedestrian pathway from Hallmark Drive to
Collins Way (Exhibit 21). He noted that residents of 18 of the 19 currently occupied
residences along Collins Way had signed the petition. He said that all residents who
attended the neighborhood meeting opposed the applicant's action of blocking the
walkway. He said the residents had supported the previous vacation of Collins Way
because of heavy vehicle traffic there, and after the vacation, residents had used the
pathway through the site. He related that after the applicants installed the fence
residents had to either walk an additional quarter mile around the site or drive
(increasing traffic in the area). He cited the Comprehensive Plan goal to reduce the
impact of traffic on neighborhoods, and he worried about the impact to Mercantile
Village if residents used their vehicles to shop at more distant businesses. He related
that at a May 26, 1992 neighborhood meeting the residents had asked the applicant to
install a formal pathway through the site, and the applicant had promised to provide
access without making a distinction between appropriate and inappropriate access. He
testified the residents along Collins Way had not been aware of vandalism at the site
and the applicants had not shown that the vandalism was directly attributable to the
existence of a walkway there. He contended that the loss of the route through the site
would create a hardship for residents who currently used it. He said the applicants had
misinterpreted the neighborhood's draft vision statement in its neighborhood plan. He
clarified the neighborhood desired to discourage cut -through vehicular traffic and
encourage walking and biking, and the on-site walkway promoted that goal. He
recalled that the residents had supported vacation of the roadway through the site for
nine years before it was vacated because they desired to reduce cut -through vehicle
traffic. He held that the record showed the applicant's original proposal was to provide
public pedestrian access through the site, with no related conditions proposed by the
applicant. He said he believed the applicants were not fulfilling their commitment, and
he indicated that residents supported the City's decision not to issue the final occupancy
permit for the building.
Mr. Powers noted that the record showed the applicant had filed 13 reports of vandalism
with the Police Department and he observed they had installed motion detector lighting
in the area. He also observed that a tall fence and hedge separated the neighborhood
from the commercial area, which made him wonder whether the residents would be able
to see activities along the walkway. He related that he had observed "tagging" on the
building's west wall. He wondered how the area was to be protected if the public
easement was dedicated, and how the neighborhood could be protected from activities
Development Review Commission Page 7 of 11
Minutes of September 6, 2000
moving into the neighborhood from the walkway area. He also observed that activity
on the west side of the building could not be seen from the parking lot. He recalled that
the City had constructed a skateboard park and skateboarding was prohibited on City
sidewalks. He encouraged the City to work with the applicants to resolve the issue.
Mr. Novak stated the applicants had not demonstrated that vandalism at the site was at
an abnormal level, and the residents had not experienced it on their side of the fence.
He suggested the applicant could be provoking others' negative reactions by their
comments to people passing through the site. He said the residents had suggested the
applicant install surveillance cameras to reveal who the vandals were, and they would
deal with their children if it were shown that their children were creating the problem.
Ms. Farr clarified for the Commissioners that the applicant had closed the access for
approximately two years. Mr. Allred noted that act of vandalism had declined after the
access had been closed. Mr. Novak observed that someone had torn the fence down
twice, and the presence of the fence had not stopped people from climbing over it. He
wondered what the difference was between the levels of vandalism before the fence was
installed and after it was taken down. He speculated the level of vandalism might
actually have been reduced.
Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners against basing their decision on the Waluga
Neighborhood draft plan because the City had not yet adopted the plan and because the
application was considered a minor development, and the minor development process
did not require Comprehensive Plan policy criteria to be met.
Keith Campbell, 4290 Collins Way, Lake Oswego, 97035, testified that he had
resided in the area since 1986. He recalled that Collins Way formerly provided
residents with a direct route through the site to the business part of Lake Grove. He
related that although he sometimes left tools in his vehicle or did not lock it; the only
problem he had experienced was litter from nearby fast food businesses. He could
recall no evidence (such as empty beer bottles) to indicate that youth partied through the
area as they walked toward the park. He opined the presence of the fence would not
have eliminated vandalism, because he had observed kids hopping over the fence with
their skateboards or bicycles. He also recalled that during their original meeting with
neighborhood residents the applicant had agreed to provide a walkway to serve the
entire vicinity. He said they should be required to stick to that agreement.
David Waggoner, 4161 SW Collins Way, Lake Oswego, 97035, stated that he had
resided in the area for 30 years and along Collins Way for 15 years. He said residents'
ability to access Lake Grove from Collins Way by foot had been a factor in his decision
to purchase of a home there for his family. He acknowledged that he did not understand
the applicant's position regarding legal ownership of the walkway, but he recalled the
applicant had committed to installation of the walkway. He asked the Commission to
consider that to access Lake Grove shopping without crossing the site, residents would
have to cross Quarry Road, which was a challenge for his neighbor, who used a
wheelchair. He added that after the fence had been installed, and the neighbors could
Development Review Commission Page 8 of 11
Minutes of September 6, 2000
not easily access Mercantile Village, they had decided to move to California. He
recalled the applicant's testimony that the fence had reduced vandalism at the site. He
explained he was the resident on the other side of the fence from the site. He testified
that although he could not see the site's parking lot because of a fence, trees and
landscaping, he had never seen or heard evidence of vandalism in the area. He
questioned whether the applicant was accurately representing what was happening on
the site. He opined the correct approach to the problem was to rely upon City law
enforcement, and not to close access across the site.
Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners that the level of vandalism was not a criterion to
be satisfied under LODS 20.020(5).
Carole Jack, 4230 Collins Way, Lake Oswego, 97035, testified that she rode a scooter
around the neighborhood when her dog needed walking, and she had previously
traveled across the site to work at Safeco Insurance. She stated that because the
intersection of Quarry Road and Collins Way was unsafe, she used the access across the
site. She recalled the applicant had agreed at the original neighborhood meeting that
access would remain open.
Ron Hall, 15194 Quarry Road, Lake Oswego, 97035, clarified that although he was
chair of the Waluga Neighborhood Association, he was testifying as an individual. He
said he understood that the applicant had agreed to provide a walkway from Collins
Way to the Kruse Way and Boones Ferry Road area as a condition of approval of the
development in 1993. He observed that the City had allowed the applicant to occupy the
building before they satisfied that condition. He related that he had requested the City
to pursue a legal remedy, and Association officers and City staff had met with Mr.
Allred to discuss the matter. He related that the applicant had determined that the
proposal for the alternate route for the walkway would be too expensive (approximately
$25,000 to 30,000 to move the PGE vault). He said that he and his family had observed
skateboarding and vandalism at the site and had reported it to Mr. Allred. He said he
had not recognized the youth involved in the activities as neighborhood residents. He
related that his office was located near the City's skateboard park and he did not believe
the participants there were the persons vandalizing the site. He said the applicant had
discussed the issue with the residents at the neighborhood's annual meeting in May and
the neighborhood had agreed to work with him to resolve the issue. He indicated that
all parties had agreed to keep the access way open and he opined that the parties should
continue to work together to resolve the issue.
Jean Underhill, 4321 SW Collins Way, Lake Oswego, 97035, stated she had lived in
the area since 1975. She recalled the entire history of the access since then. She said
the street had been closed by a barrier for five years and kids had played in the street
and used it to access the Seven Eleven store. At the time the applicant vacated the street
he had walked it with the residents and they had clearly expressed their desire to
continue to use it. She recalled the residents had enjoyed the new landscaping after the
barrier had been removed, but then the applicant had modified the access without
discussing it again with neighborhood residents.
Development Review Commission Page 9 of 11
Minutes of September 6, 2000
None
Neither for nor Against
Rebuttal
Ms. Farr stated that although "Good fences make good neighbors," it was unfortunate
that the applicant's fence had reversed the residents' good feelings about the applicant.
She referred to the transcript of the neighborhood meeting on April 24, 2000 (Exhibit
7), where Mr. Allred told the residents that there had been virtually no vandalism at the
site and at the office building across the street during the two years the walkway was
closed; however, after the walkway was reopened the vandalism started again at the site
and the other office building. She clarified that the applicant had purchased the site in
1991 and had not participated in the action to vacate the street in 1988. She speculated
that the reason the residents had not asked the City to retain the easement at that time
was because they had anticipated that the property owner would make the site a more
pleasant place. She confirmed that the City had never issued the applicant an
occupancy permit. She recalled a period when the City had ceased to pursue a
resolution of the issue after the applicant had refused to grant the City a deed to the
walkway area. She said the applicant's position was to not deed the area to the City and
give up their ownership right to control who was on the site. She clarified for Mr.
Cushing that the applicant desired to re -install the fence.
Mr. Cushing recalled the applicant's request to hold the record open. Ms. Farr stated
the applicant would agree to hold the record open until September 12, 2000. Mr.
Cushing stipulated that any new written evidence was to be delivered to the City by
5:00 PM September 13, 2000, and opponents were to submit written responses to the
new evidence by the following Friday. He continued the hearing to 7:00 PM September
18, 2000.
VI. GENERAL PLANNING
Tree -Cutting Ordinance
Mr. Cushing reported that although he had appeared before the City Council to
recommend the deletion of the mitigation requirement for dead and hazard trees, the
City Council had decided not to consider any amendments to the Tree -Cutting
Ordinance.
Block 136
Mr. Pishvaie presented three illustrations the applicant had provided to the staff
showing the dimensions of window trim and fascia on the commercial building on the
site. One of the drawings illustrated the dimensions that complied with the condition of
approval of the development (18" fascia board and 12" wide window trim). He related
Development Review Commission Page 10 of 11
Minutes of September 6, 2000
that the staff had agreed with the applicant that the approved dimensions made the
building seem top-heavy, and the staff had advised them that to deviate from that
requirement would require a modification of the approval. He asked the
Commissioners to indicate their preferred range of trim widths for the staff to
recommend to the applicant. The Commissioners reviewed the drawings and generally
indicated they preferred 12 -inch wide fascia board and 8- to 10 -inch wide window trim.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Development Review Commission, Chair
Cushing adjourned the meeting at 9:05 PM.
Respectfully submitted.
Janice Bader
Senior Secretary
l:\drc\minutes\09-06-00.doc
Development Review Commission Page 11 of 11
Minutes of September 6, 2000