Approved Minutes - 1998-03-16 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
March 16, 1998
CALL TO ORDER
The Development Review Commission meeting of Monday,March 16, 1998,was called to
order in the Council Chambers of City Hall,at 380"A"Avenue,Lake Oswego,Oregon,by
Chairman Douglas P. Cushing at 7: 04 PM.
II. ROLL CALL
Commission members present included Chair Cushing, Lawrence M. Magura, Julie C.
Morales, M. Nan Binkley, Douglas Kiersey and Sheila Ostly. Commissioner William
Horning was excused. Also present were: Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review
Manager; Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner; David Powell, Deputy City Attorney
and Jean Hall, Senior Secretary.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Binkley moved for approval of the minutes of February 2, 1998. Mr. Kiersey
seconded the motion, and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Mr. Magura, Ms. Morales, Ms.
Binkley, and Ms. Ostly voting yes. There were no votes against. Mr. Horning was
excused.
IV. PUBLIC HEARING
AP 98-01/WAR 14-97(a-ell. an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to approve
VAR 14-97 (a), a 5.8-foot Class 1 variance to the required 10 foot side yard setback
(east) for the recognition of the location of an existing garage, and to deny VAR 14-97 (b-
e), which include reductions of the rear and special lake setbacks at varying degrees, an
increase in the maximum lot coverage allowed and an enlargement of a non-conforming
structure. The applicants are Roy & Barbara Goecks, the site is located at 2240 Summit
Court, (Tax Lot 3600 of Tax Map 21E 9BC). Staff coordinator is Michael R. Wheeler,
Associate Planner. Continued from 2/2/98 and 2/18/98 meetings. Staff report dated
1/23/98, 2/13/98 and 3/6/98.
Chair Cushing opened the public hearing, explained the rules for the proceedings and
outlined the amount of time that would be allowed for testimony. He asked Commission
members to report any biases or ex parte contacts. Ms. Binkley reported she had visited
the site since the previous hearing. Mr. Magura reported that although he had not been
present for the entire previous hearing, he had listened to the taped record of the hearing
and he recalled the site. Ms. Ostly reported she had driven by the site and had listened to
Development Review Commission Minutes Page 1 of 13
March 16, 1998
the tape of the previous hearing. Chair Cushing then asked if there was anyone in the
audience who would challenge any Commissioner's right to hear the proposal. There were
no challenges.
Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner, related that the applicants had provided
additional evidence regarding the application since the previous hearing. He noted the
Memorandum dated February 13, 1998, provided a staff analysis of the new evidence. He
advised that the staff did not believe the applicants had proved through their sample of
comparable properties that the use they proposed in the application was reasonable use of
the structure.
Mr. Wheeler discussed Variances 14-97(f) and(g) regarding lot coverage and side,rear
and special lake setbacks. He noted the Lake Setback requirement was 25 feet. He
advised that the applicants had satisfied the relevant criteria for a variance to the side yard
setback for the existing garage and for a variance regarding an encroachment of the
existing decks. He clarified that a survey had shown that although the existing decks had
been originally approved(through a variance process) at 18.5 feet, they had been built at
17.5 feet.
Mr. Wheeler noted the applicant contended that because the proposed dwelling was 46
square feet less than the average square footage of the sample of properties they had
demonstrated that what they proposed was reasonable use of the structure. Mr. Wheeler
advised, however, that the applicants had not provided data that compared the functions
of the comparable structures. He said staff had attempted to provide such a comparison in
Exhibit 62, which he said compared amenities within the sample dwellings to those in the
applicant's house. He corrected the Exhibit to indicate that Tax Lot 3401, at 2236
Summit Court, did have a family room on the main level and a recreation room on the
lower level. He advised that staff had concluded that the applicants had still not fully
demonstrated that"reasonable use"required those living functions to be on one level. He
additionally advised that the staff had concluded that the applicants had not demonstrated
that the proposed 11-foot deep deck in the area of the breakfast nook was necessary to
make reasonable use of the deck space. He noted that appropriate evidence to
demonstrate that could be evidence that showed the furnishings that might be used in such
a space that could not be used on the existing deck.
Mr. Wheeler summarized that the applicants had demonstrated that the living area was
1.1% smaller than the average in the sample of properties they had provided, which he
said demonstrated"reasonable use". However, he said, the applicants had not provided
evidence of functional floor area circulation to show that the living, dining and family
room uses were necessary to locate on one floor, nor had they demonstrated"reasonable
use"regarding the proposed deck width.
Mr. Wheeler advised that Variances 14-97 (a, f, and g) regarding the existing
encroachments should be granted; however, Variances 14-97 (b-e) should be denied
because the applicants had not satisfied the applicable review criteria. Mr. Wheeler
Development Review Commission Minutes Page 2 of 13
March 16, 1998
entered into the record two sheets of building plans and a revised table showing the
correct data regarding 2236 Summit Court.
Chair Cushing noted that the property had a cliff at the lake frontage and asked if the City
took any horizontal dimensions into consideration when the 25-foot setback area was
measured. Mr. Wheeler explained that each application needed to demonstrate some merit
to comply with the variance criteria when a reduction was sought. He clarified that no
slope relationship had been included in the setback calculations. Chair Cushing noted that
the existing poles of the structure were a foot or two further from the lake than the poles
of the proposed structure. He asked what distance they were from the water line. Mr.
Wheeler clarified that the measurement for the setback was made from the property line to
the wall of the structure. He further clarified for Chair Cushing that the walkway between
the existing house and garage was considered part of the lot coverage. Ms. Binkley noted
there were no separate drawings showing the existing structures on the site.
Applicant
Richard Givens. 13395 S. Leland Road, Oregon City, 97045. stated that he was a
planning consultant speaking on behalf of the applicants. He noted the applicants had
provided a lot of new evidence since the previous hearing. He said the evidence showed
that the total amount of floor area the applicants' were asking for was typical of the
surrounding homes in the neighborhood. He noted an analysis of the total square footage
of the sample of neighborhood homes showed the applicants had approximately 50 square
feet less that the average of the sample. He said the applicants believe that difference in
area demonstrated"reasonable use". He noted the staff memorandum said the applicants
needed to show the type of use within the home was comparable. He presented a table for
the record to accomplish that. He noted the existing house had 1,088 square feet on the
main floor,which was a much smaller area than the other homes in the sample as far as the
amount of area available for living functions on the main level. He described this as a very
limited amount of square footage for entertaining guests. He noted the sample data
showed that the main floor area of the other homes averaged 1,822 square feet, which was
734 square feet more than the applicants home.
Mr. Givens explained that the applicants were concerned that they had very little area to
use for entertaining people or holding family functions without requiring people to
descend two flights of stairs. He said the new table included four homes from the sample
for which there were building permit records to review. He said a comparison of the
amount of main floor area of use showed that there was a significant discrepancy.
Chair Cushing recalled that the applicants had testified that when they built their home 20
years ago they had a different family style and usage and did not worry about having three
levels. He said that the issue went beyond square footage to a philosophical issue. He
related that five years ago his family decided to live in a one-story house and bought a new
home to accomplish that. He said he understood the applicant's desire to live on one
Development Review Commission Minutes Page 3 of 13
March 16, 1998
level; however, he wondered why the applicant chose to propose a structure that was
beyond the boundary of the Code, and asked why the Commission should approve of the
applicant remodeling his house to exceed the limits of the Code because it did not fit his
current family style of living and because his neighbors had larger homes.
Mr. Givens explained that the evidence that he, as a planning consultant, was required to
demonstrate to staff was based on the history of how the Codes had been interpreted. He
said that whether or not it was the applicants who were the occupants of the home, the
value of the house had been affected by a number of factors. He explained that the value
of lakefront property had skyrocketed and the homes that were being built there were
much larger than what the applicants' remodeled structure would be. He said that even if
the applicants decided to sell their existing home and purchase another, the amount of first
level living area of the existing house would limit its marketability and value. He added
that a certain amount of main level space was what was expected for a home in the area.
He noted the living room area of the applicants' existing house was 328 square feet,
although the average was approximately double that size. He said it was not reasonable
for the occupants to have to send guests down two flights of stairs to a recreation room to
host a function. He said the present total square footage of the home was 2,414 square
feet, or 1,516 square feet less than the sample's average. He said that because the
applicants' home had much less square footage to use than that of the surrounding homes
it could not be contended that they had"reasonable use".
Mr. Givens noted the property was zoned R-15 although there were no 15,000 square
foot lots on the applicants' street. He testified that since the applicants' lot was less than
half of the size allowed in the zone, the allowable lot coverage would be smaller than lot
coverage on a 15,000 square foot lot and created a hardship for the applicants. He said
the hardship was compounded by the fact that there was a deduction for the driveway
easement across the site. He said the resulting lot coverage was approximately 5,000
square feet, or about 1/3 of what would be typical for an R-15 zone. He noted that the
City's standards had been made increasingly stringent over the years,which he said
created significant problems for owners of existing substandard lots. He said these factors
should be factored into the philosophical aspect of the discussion: rising expectations of
land values; the site was a premium view site; and the structure was much smaller than all
of the homes in the surrounding area. He said the applicants were attempting to remodel
their home to make it look better and fit in with the character of the surrounding homes.
Mr. Givens presented a Memorandum of Support from neighbors of the applicants. He
noted the Lake Corporation also agreed with the application. He noted that although the
proposed structure would be set back 14.5 feet, its impact would be minimal because it
would be open underneath and there would be vegetation growing under the house. He
referred to a photograph he had presented at the previous hearing that he said showed
there would be no impact to the view from the lake. He presented new photographs that
showed the existing deck and a typical patio furniture layout on a 10-foot wide deck.
Chair Cushing commented that a deck width of 10 feet was probably the smallest useable
width.
Development Review Commission Minutes Page 4 of 13
March 16, 1998
Mr. Givens stated the applicants were simply asking to be allowed to have a family room
on the main level of their home for entertaining; to accommodate their current lifestyle;
and to increase the market value of their property if they should decide to sell it in the
future. He said the proposed addition was well within the side yard setback of the existing
home and would not be visible to anyone but someone standing on the deck of a nearby
home (he pointed to the home). He clarified that the variance request to increase the deck
width was limited to the first floor level.
Mr. Givens stated the applicants had demonstrated a hardship in terms of total square
footage; in terms of the constraints of the lot; and because the living area on the main floor
was approximately half of what was typical for the neighborhood. He said the deck was
the minimum width for reasonable outdoor usage.
Mr. Magura commented that the applicants had lived in the house for 20 years and
questioned whether a hardship actually existed. Mr. Givens answered that the home
would not meet the needs of whoever occupied it and that condition would limit its
marketability. Chair Cushing wondered if it was correct logic to base a decision to
approve the application based on the fact that other people had larger homes.
Mr. Givens advised that if the property was simply an existing unbuilt lot of 5,000 square
feet, a new structure would be allowed 25% coverage, and variances would be required to
build any type of structure on it. Ms. Morales and Ms. Ostly indicated that their
professional opinion was that would not necessarily be the case. Mr. Givens said the issue
was whether a home could be built that was typical of what was expected by the local
marketplace, given the slope and the footprint of the existing home on the site. He said
the applicants had demonstrated that they were not attempting to maximize the proposed
structure, but desired to make a structure that was typical of surrounding homes. He said
the remodeled house would include a combined living area of 515 square feet, or 100
square feet less than the average of 618 square feet. He said the applicants were asking
for a total living area on three levels, compared to two in the sample, and a total of 3,883
square feet, compared with an average of 3,929 square feet.
Mr. Kiersey suggested that any similar lots in the area be compared with the site, instead
of comparing houses. Mr. Givens replied that the City of Lake Oswego interpreted
"hardship" differently than other jurisdictions, and allowed"hardship"to be demonstrated
by the fact that the characteristics of the property made application of lot coverage
regulations unreasonable. He said if that criteria was applied to the applicants' property,
the easement and the slope of the property could contribute to a hardship. He said the
City applied the criterion of"reasonable use", and his experience in the City was that he
was required to provide data regarding homes in the area. He said that to look around the
area of the lake for the smallest lot as a comparable property would not reflect that the
proposed structure would fit the character of the neighborhood or what the impact of the
proposed structure would be there.
Development Review Commission Minutes Page 5 of 13
March 16, 1998
Ms. Morales noted that the adjacent lot was 15,000 square foot and contained a larger
home. She further noted that since that home was included in the sample, it affected the
averages in the sample. Mr. Givens stated that the smallest lot in the sample (excluding
the site), Tax Lot 6000, had a total living area of 3,750 square feet, which was similar to
what the applicant was requesting, and showed that the applicant was not requesting
conditions that were not already to be found in the area. He indicated that the sizes of the
lots in the neighborhood was not a useful factor to use for comparison because a larger lot
might simply have more cliff area. He noted that Tax Lot 3500 was an 8,500 square foot
lot which included a house of 3,510 square feet.
Chair Cushing asked what was below the deck on the upper level in front of the family
room and what the effect would be if that deck were eliminated. He noted that Exhibit 49
showed another deck on the next level that appeared to have no door access. He asked
what was located on that level. Mr. Givens answered that one level contained the master
bath, and on the next level down a media room was planned. He clarified that there was a
door out from the master bedroom bumpout. Mr. Wheeler clarified there was a door
there that was shown in Exhibit 6. Mr. Givens explained the door was designed for
maintenance purposes since there was still a long distance to the ground from the lower
level. Chair Cushing commented there should be some algebraic calculation to use to
factor the horizontal dimension into the setback calculations for a steeply sloped lot.
Mr. Givens related that the applicants desired to remain in their present home because they
liked the view and the neighbors and did not desire to move. He said they were requesting
to be allowed to make their home compatible with the neighborhood and to increase the
home's square footage to what was typical square footage. He asked that they be allowed
to achieve a home that provided what was demanded by the real estate market. He said
that not to allow them to do this would impose a hardship on the applicant. He
commented that although an architect could probably build a nice home on a small lot, the
house at the site was a 20-year-old existing home. He said the data calculated from the
sample of homes provided by the applicants demonstrated a hardship for the applicants.
He said the applicants' request was not out of character with the neighborhood and was
not unreasonable. He said the proposed structure would be in the mid-range of homes in
the neighborhood.
Proponents
None.
Opponents
None.
Development Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 13
March 16, 1998
Neither For nor Against
None.
Rebuttal
None.
The applicant waived his right to additional time to submit additional written evidence.
Chair Cushing closed the public hearing at 7:40 PM.
Deliberations
Mr. Kiersey asked Mr. Wheeler to summarize the variance requests that he recommended
be denied and the reasons why they should be denied.
Mr. Wheeler stated that Variances 14-97 (b) and(c) were to alter the rear yard and special
lake setbacks. He noted the variances had been requested by the applicant to enable the
deck to be widened, which would bring it closer to the lake. He said Variance 14-97 (d)
was a request to allow a 21.4% increase to the allowed maximum lot coverage of 30%.
He said the evidence in the record showed that the overall square footage would be similar
to the sample properties. He advised that the staff was not allowed to remove any
properties from the sample provided by the applicant; however, the Commission could do
that. Mr. Wheeler explained the applicants had proved part of their case; however, staff
did not believe they had demonstrated that having a family or recreation room on the main
level was the norm. He recalled that staff had prepared Exhibit 60 to explore that concept,
and had concluded that the evidence did not support that main-level living was the norm.
Mr. Wheeler concluded that the evidence did not support the three variance requests to
expand the lot coverage.
Mr. Wheeler explained that Variances 14-97 (b) and(c)were requests for setback
reductions that would allow the deck to be widened to accommodate patio furniture. He
said the photographs provided by the applicants at the hearing might have demonstrated
that need, however, the proposed lot coverage was still 21% over the maximum coverage
allowed. He said the question to be answered was whether it was reasonable use to have
the primary living functions on the main level or to disperse them to more than one level.
Mr. Magura asked what conditions the Code required to be satisfied in order for a
variance to be approved. Mr. Wheeler explained there were four specific variance criteria
and related guidelines.
1. It must be established that the request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship;
2. Development consistent with the request is not to be injurious to the neighborhood in
which the property is located or to property established to be affected by the request;
Development Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 13
March 16, 1998
3. The variance is to be the minimum variance necessary in order to make reasonable use
of the property; and,
4. The request is not to be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Wheeler explained that the guidelines listed factors to be considered when establishing
the existence of a hardship: physical circumstances relating to a piece of property;
whether reasonable use similar to like properties can be made of the property without a
variance; whether the hardship was created by the person requesting the variance; and
what economic impacts upon the person requesting the variance may exist if the variance
is not granted. He said a key point in the guidelines was the demonstration of reasonable
use. He said there should be an analysis of any physical impacts, such as visual, noise,
traffic and increased potential for drainage, erosion and landslide hazards. He advised the
perceptions of residents and owners in the neighborhood as to the economic impacts
resulting from the variance were to be considered. He stressed that the minimum variance
necessary must be demonstrated in the context of what constitutes reasonable use. He
noted that the first test to be accomplished was the reasonable use test.
Mr. Powell stated that the four criteria listed by Mr. Wheeler were mandatory. He
advised that the factors to determine unnecessary hardship were guidelines; however, legal
decisions had determined they were not exhaustive. He said a balance of competing and
conflicting interests was to be attained. He noted that many jurisdictions interpreted
unnecessary hardship as a condition where the owners were unable to make any beneficial
use of a property; however, the City of Lake Oswego interpreted hardship as being unable
to make reasonable use, similar to like properties.
Chair Cushing noted that if the total lot size was 8,931 square feet, 30% coverage would
allow up to 2,400 square feet coverage.
Ms. Binkley referred to the site plan in Exhibit 47 and asked what the correct dimension
was for the front yard setback. Mr. Wheeler answered that a table in the original staff
report showed a distance of 32 feet from the north property line to the projecting deck.
Ms. Binkley asked what the setback from the private street was to be. Mr. Wheeler
advised that there was no setback there. Ms. Binkley asked what the distance was from
the existing house to the existing street. Mr. Wheeler answered it was approximately 12
feet.
Ms. Ostly asked if the applicants had considered alternative designs for remodeling the
house. She noted that the proposed structure was typical of new construction on the lake;
however, she noted there were many different styles of houses there and many of them
were very marketable. She asked if the applicants had considered expanding the existing
space. Mr. Wheeler indicated that no alternative designs had been submitted as part of the
application; however, he noted that between the pre-application conference and the first
hearing the applicants had modified the roofline associated with the proposed nook
addition.
Development Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 13
March 16, 1998
Chair Cushing noted there was an issue of the distance from the lake at the back of the
property; an issue of lot coverage and and issue of total non-conformity. He said he felt
the deck extension was high enough from above the water that there ought to be some
kind of measurement that factored in height and water level to be used there. He indicated
he agreed with the deck extension. He said he was concerned about the size of the
proposed family room and the right deck. He wondered if the family room could be
reduced to a 12 foot dimension, with no deck, in order to get closer to the allowable lot
coverage amount. He indicated that similar use in the neighborhood might be considered
a factor. He said that even though the Commission should not review the application any
differently for the applicants than for a new buyer, the house had been in existence for
many years and he could not say that that presented a hardship that would allow the
applicants to create a house that was larger than what the Code permitted.
Mr. Magura commented that he did not believe the applicants' request was the minimum
necessary to achieve reasonable use of the structure. He said the applicants had not
demonstrated that the variance requests met all of the required criteria. He stated that he
agreed with the staff.
Ms. Binkley commented that the applicants' sample of properties did not demonstrate they
were like properties. She noted that small properties existed all around the lake; however,
the houses on them did not usually include family rooms, dining rooms and large kitchens.
She advised it might be possible to extend the house toward the street and reconfigure the
structure, but further encroachment on the Lake Setback was going the wrong direction.
She said she believed the application was based on the applicants' desire to have the main
rooms on the water. She expressed empathy regarding the constraint of a small lot;
however, she believed the applicants' design would result in the structure appearing to
loom over the water. She said that compared to surrounding homes, the applicants'
existing house already had an excellent position on the lake. She indicated she agreed
with the staff regarding the application.
Ms. Morales agreed with Ms. Binkley, and commented that she was aware of many view
homes in the market value range of the applicants' property that included a great room
plan. She said it was not necessary to have a formal living room and a family room. She
said the applicants' square footage on the main floor would accommodate a great room
type configuration. She commented that she felt that the hardship had been created by the
person requesting the variance, which made it wrong for her to approve the application.
Ms. Binkley commented that the existing house encroached upon the setbacks required by
the Code at the time of construction, although she noted possible surveying errors.
Ms. Ostly commented that the size of the existing deck, which did not appropriately
accommodate a table, was a hardship for the applicants. Ms. Binkley noted it would be
possible to create a space within the existing footprint of the house for that. Ms. Morales
agreed the deck was small; however, she noted there were decks in use that were smaller.
Development Review Commission Minutes Page 9 of 13
March 16, 1998
Mr. Kiersey noted the Commissioners felt sympathy for the applicants; however, the
proposed structure did not conform to the Code. He said it was a hard decision to have to
make.
Mr. Wheeler advised that Exhibit 18 showed the distance from the driveway easement to
the building; and Exhibit 13 was a slope analysis showing the edges of the pavement in the
easement. He clarified that the dimension was 12 feet in front of the face of the garage;
however, it was less in front of the building wall and the deck in front of the house.
Ms. Ostly moved for approval of AP 98-01/WAR 14-97(a), (f) and (g)1, and to deny
AP 98-01/[VAR 14-97 (b-e)]. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed with
Mr. Cushing, Mr. Magura, Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Kiersey and Ms. Ostly voting
yes. Mr. Horning was excused. There were no votes against.
PD 10-97, the applicant, Mark Dane requests approval of a 7-lot planned development to
allow construction of a mixed-use residential project. The site is located at 5111
Lakeview Blvd., (Tax Lot 1800 of Tax Map 21E 18AC). Staff coordinator is Hamid
Pishvaie, Development Review Manager. Continued from 2/2/98, 2/18/98 and 3/2/98.
Staff reports dated 1/23/98, 2/12/98, 2/27/98 and 3/13/98.
Chair Cushing opened the public hearing, explained the rules for the proceedings and
outlined the amount of time that would be allowed for testimony. He asked Commission
members to report any biases or ex parte contacts. There were none indicated by any of
the Commissioners present. All present Commission members noted that they were
familiar with the site. All Commission members present had visited the site previously.
Chair Cushing then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would challenge any
Commissioner's right to hear the proposal. There were no challenges.
Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, referred the Commissioners to the
staff report dated March 13, 1998, which he said summarized new information provided
by the applicant as well as the conditions of approval recommended in the original staff
report and the Memorandum of February 12, 1998. He recalled that at the previous
hearing the Commission had requested that the project be reduced to six lots in order to
be more consistent with the existing development pattern in the neighborhood. He noted
the applicant had submitted revised plans that included two single-family lots at the project
entrance and four enlarged townhouse lots along a short street. He pointed out that
Exhibit 23 showed that the units resembled single-family homes, and included front
porches, lap siding and a large building facade, excluding the garage area,unlike a typical
townhouse. He also pointed out the applicant had provided a new side elevation for the
single-family dwellings (Exhibit 25). He said the new site plan provided more open space,
which now represented 26% of the total site area.
Development Review Commission Minutes Page 10 of 13
March 16, 1998
Mr. Pishvaie advised that because of the reduction in density and the elimination of single-
family Lot 3, it would be difficult for the project to comply with the requirements of the
Solar Access Ordinance. He recommended that the percentage of lots that should comply
with the solar access requirements be reduced; however, he advised that Lot 1 should
continue to be required to protect the existing solar access to Tax Lot 1701. He
recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions listed on Pages 2
— 5 of the staff report, with a correction that proposed Condition (A.)(1.)(c.) specify 30%
of lot coverage for Lots 1 and 2, instead of 25% coverage.
Mr. Magura noted that the proposed conditions still required a sidewalk be installed along
the west side of Lakeview Boulevard. Mr. Pishvaie advised that condition could be
deleted and a reference to a sidewalk could be made a part of the condition requiring the
applicant to participate in a future Local Improvement District (LID) along Lakeview.
Mr. Pishvaie clarified for Ms. Binldey that the yellow striping visible on the plan was the
shadowline for the roof. He clarified for Chair Cushing that the townhouse garages were
15 x 23 feet, and probably not wide enough to accommodate two vehicles. He explained
that Exhibit 21 showed there was a 22-foot-wide access easement on Lot 6 for the benefit
of Lot 5, and Lot 6 included a small impervious area for the purpose of accommodating
the backing of vehicles. He explained the open space that surrounded the townhouses was
to be maintained by the homeowners association. He noted the applicant had increased
the back yard setback to 20 feet from the required setback of 10 feet. Chair Cushing
noted the only change to the color board was for the shingles.
Mr. Magura indicated that he found the layout to be acceptable. Ms. Binkley commented
that the townhouses included a long elevation of flat windows that were all on the same
plane. She indicated that she preferred that the units be shifted front to back. She noticed
there was sufficient room on the lot to accomplish that. Ms. Morales indicated she agreed
with Ms. Binkley. Chair Cushing commented that the applicant had made many
adjustments to the project that had been based on Commission recommendations.
The applicant waived his right to hold the hearing open for additional written testimony.
Chair Cushing closed the public hearing at 8:40 PM.
Deliberations
The Commissioners discussed the affect on the townhouse project of moving the building,
staggering each building, or including a back porch on the units. Ms. Morales indicated
that she did not believe the building should be moved, because she liked the design of the
front elevation. Ms. Binkley noted that staggering of the units would change the roof and
wall of the front elevation and provide more definition of the garages. Ms. Ostly
commented that would result in a sense of individuality of units. Ms. Morales indicated
her agreement that the units should be staggered.
Development Review Commission Minutes Page 11 of 13
March 16, 1998
Ms. Morales noticed an elevation in Exhibit 25 showed a large amount of blank wall
above the garage. She suggested that some kind of detail be used to break it up. She
commented that she felt the layout was a big improvement, met the minimum standards
and the design fit the site. She applauded the applicant's extra effort.
Chair Cushing noted there was 5 to 6 feet of room in the back of the townhouse lots for
an adjustment. He asked if it would be necessary to shift the units or if a rear porch could
be built in order to provide additional planes without the additional cost of readjusting
building lines. Ms. Ostly asked how such a change would affect lot coverage on Lots 3, 4,
5 and 6. Mr. Pishvaie pointed out that Exhibit 20 showed the driveway area was included
in lot coverage and the maximum amount of impervious area allowed ranged from 1,800
to 2,371 square feet. He said he could not tell what percentage of the 1,800 represented
driveway. He said as the buildings were staggered their footprint size would stay the
same, so the driveway position would vary by two feet, depending upon which way the
building staggered. Ms. Binkley commented that she preferred a staggering of the
buildings to using porches to break up the long elevation.
Mr. Magura asked that Condition (B.) (1.) (c.) regarding the Lakeview Boulevard
sidewalk be deleted as a condition of approval and be referenced in LID discussions.
Chair Cushing suggested that reference to the sidewalk be placed in (A.)(8.).
Ms. Binkley asked where a condition to require the townhouses be staggered should be
placed in the conditions for approval. Mr. Pishvaie suggested it be placed in (D.)(5.). Ms.
Binkley suggested a minimum of three feet be required when staggering the units.
Ms. Morales and Ms. Binkley suggested that an additional window be required on the
west (garage) side of Lots 1 and 2 in order to visually break up the wall.
Ms. Morales moved for approval of PD 10-97, subject to conditions recommended
by the staff, with the following additions and changes:
Delete (B.)(1.)(c.);
(A.) (8.) Add the condition that was formerly(B.)(1.)(c.);
(A.)(1.)(c.) Change 25% to 30% lot coverage;
(D.)(5.) Add a condition that the applicant stagger the townhouses by a minimum of
3 feet between Lots 3 and 4 and between Lots 5 and 6; and,
(D.)(6.) Add a condition to add a window on the northwest elevations of Lots 1 and
2 near or above the garage.
Mr. Magura seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Mr. Magura, Ms.
Development Review Commission Minutes Page 12 of 13
March 16, 1998
Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Kiersey and Ms. Ostly voting yes. There were no votes
against. Mr. Homing was excused.
V. GENERAL PLANNING
Chair Cushing asked if the doors on the garage units on Lakewood Bay were to be
painted. He commented the garages had a pleasant shingled appearance; however,the
doors appeared to be overly white and reflective and provided too much contrast to the
shingles.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order
None.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Development Review Commission, Chairman
Douglas Cushing adjourned the meeting at 8:55 PM.
Respectfully submitted.
Janice Benn
Senior Secretary
p:\dre\minutes\3-16-98
Development Review Commission Minutes Page 13 of 13
March 16, 1998