Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 1998-02-02 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES February 2, 1998 CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Commission meeting of February 2, 1998,was called to order in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A"Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon,by Chair Douglas P. Cushing at 7:05 PM. II. ROLL CALL Commission members present included Chair Cushing, Laurence M. Magura, William F. Horning, Julie C. Morales, Nan Binkley and Douglas Kiersey. Staff present were Tom Coffee, Assistant City Manager; Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner; Michael Wheeler, Associate Planner; David Powell, Deputy City Attorney and Jean Hall, Senior Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. IV. PUBLIC HEARING DR 24-97/SD 19-97 a request by Jim Morton to construct a mixed use development consisting of approximately 6,600 square feet of commercial use, and 16 townhouse condominiums with detached garages. The proposal also includes a property line adjustment to reconfigure four lots into two lots. The site is located at 440 &452 Fifth Street, Lake Oswego (Tax Lots 7300, 7400, 7500 of Tax Map 21E 3DC). Staff coordinator is Elizabeth Jacob. Associate Planner. Continued from 1/21/98 hearing. Staff Report dated 1/9/98. 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 ex parte contacts, including site visits. Ms. Morales and Mr. Horning reported they had visited the site since the previous hearing. None of the Commissioners present reported any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. No one challenged any commissioner's right to hear the application. Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner,presented the staff report. She recalled that the staff had met with the applicant and the neighborhood association representative since the previous hearing to discuss the application. She related that the City Attorney had advised that City regulations would allow retail commercial uses at the site. She advised Development Review Commission Minutes Page 1 of 23 February 2, 1998 that staff report included an analysis of the recommendations for improvements to the alleyway between A and B Avenues that had been proposed in testimony at the previous hearing. She stated that staff had determined that it was in the public interest to improve the alleyway to a 20-foot width and not to make it a one-way alley. Ms. Jacob explained that after staff had recommended approval of the application the applicant had modified his proposal and would present the modifications as new exhibits at the hearing. Ms. Binkley asked if the backup space at the garages would be sufficient if the alleyway was improved to less than a 20-foot width. Ms. Jacob answered that the Standard to be followed currently required a 24-foot width and noted that the parking spaces were in narrow garages with little maneuvering room. Applicant Jim Morton, 3353 Parker Road, West Linn, 97068, indicated that he and the City staff had met and resolved issues related to the application, including the issue of inclusion of retail uses in the development. Mr. Morton related that the staff had agreed to allow 6 feet at the narrowest portion of the sidewalk width and he clarified that the sidewalk would generally be 8 feet wide. He testified that in the period between hearings he had reconsidered and redesigned the roofline so trees would hide most of the roof He explained that he the design he was currently proposing was similar to his original project design. Mr. Morton explained that while the landscaping plan had not been modified, his final plan would be according to the staff narrative and the staff would review and approve his final landscape plan. He testified that all of the issues regarding parking at the site had been resolved. Mr. Kiersey commented that from a practical point of view there was not enough parking available for a site with 16 two-bedroom units but only 18 parking spaces. He asked where occupants with two vehicles would park their second vehicle. Mr. Morton gave an example of buyers of row houses he had recently sold. He related that most of the buyers owned only one car. He estimated that 50% or less of the residential occupants of the development would own two cars. He stated there were spaces on the street that were empty and available for residential parking after business hours. He said he was confident there would not be parking overflow into the neighborhood. He added that the project's CC&Rs would include parking restrictions, because he wanted to avoid a situation where one occupant owned many cars or parked a recreational vehicle at the site. He said the CC&Rs would protect both the project and the neighborhood. Mr. Morton clarified that the project's CC&Rs would restrict occupants to no more than two vehicles because he did not feel he could realistically restrict them to one vehicle per unit. He recalled a project in Multnomah where residents where single and had only one car garage. He said that was the type of occupant he was trying to attract to the project. Development Review Commission Minutes Page 2 of 23 February 2, 1998 Mr. Morton explained for Mr. Horning that the center divided space was approximately 50% of the total space. He said he understood that he could not include a restaurant use in the building unless he was able to negotiate shared parking with a neighbor, and high- turnover uses like Starbucks might be permitted after a traffic analysis. He testified that the uses he intended to attract to the site were smaller retail for the ground floor and office uses above. Mr. Morton presented a photograph (Exhibit 41) showing a project on First Street with a 20-foot improved alleyway, which he said was not visually appealing. He said that after talking with the City Engineer he wanted to propose a 16, 17 or 18-foot alley; although he would widen it to 20-feet if the residents and the City agreed that was the right thing to do. He stated he had tested moving a vehicle in and out of the area. He stated that both he and the neighbors would prefer that some of the alleyway be allowed to remain as green space. Ms. Morales asked if Mr. Morton's other project included garages directly on an alleyway. He answered it did not. He said the turning radius at the site would require a 19-foot wide paved area out of the full 25-foot wide right-of-way, although he wondered if that entire width actually needed to be paved to accommodate a turn. He offered to prepare the design to provide for future additional asphalt on the alleyway, if it was needed. Mr. Morton indicated that some of the staff recommended conditions in the staff report should be corrected, as follows: Page 18, Item (B.)(2.)(a.)(ii.): Change the language from an "8-foot unobstructed sidewalk width" to indicate a 6-foot width. Page 19, Item (B.)(2.)(b.)(i.): Modify the requirement for a "20-foot paved alley" to a "20-foot paved alley to be tapered 16-feet wide beginning at the south line of the proposed project and extending north to B Avenue,with the provision that additional paving will be provided opposite the project frontage if deemed necessary by agreement of neighboring residents and the City Engineer." Page 18, Item (B.)(2.)(b.)(ii.): He explained the staff agreed the concrete aprons could be asphalt garage ramps instead of concrete. Page 19, Item (B.)(5.)(a.): Modify the reference to include both Exhibit 11 and Exhibit 30 (Design). He explained that he wanted the final design to be similar to his original design. Robert Simpson. 1318 SW Freeman Street. Lake Oswego. 97034, explained that although the applicant had decided to utilize his original design for the development, he also desired to include changes that had previously been recommended by the Commissioners, including changes to the design of the roofline. Development Review Commission Minutes Page 3 of 23 February 2, 1998 Mr. Simpson presented an elevation showing the end wall of the commercial portion of the project; the fronts of the residential units as they faced the street; and the end wall of the garage. Ms. Binkley asked how are apart the commercial ends were and he answered they were 16 feet apart. Mr. Simpson explained for Mr. Horning that the entrance would include a gate framed with pillars and a small roofed trellis. He described the fences as about chest high. The Commissioners reviewed the elevations and site plan presented by the applicant at the hearing as Mr. Morton and Mr. Simpson pointed out which designs they currently proposed would be used. Mr. Morton explained that he had utilized columns because he wanted to avoid an "industrial" appearance. Ms. Binkley commented that the garage facades appeared to be fairly harsh and blank. Mr. Simpson explained that he intended to include small gateways there and to construct the trellis to project out beyond the facade of the garages. He clarified the trellises would be hung from the sides of the building and there would be 6—foot high cedar fence between the garages and the courtyards. Chair Cushing asked about parking and a clarification regarding which of the multiple plans the applicant had presented was the currently proposed plan. Mr. Simpson pointed out the currently proposed site plan and the proposed parking arrangement. He noted the trash storage area had been moved to the far north and south ends of the parking area. He pointed out where the recycling area was. Ms. Jacobs designated the revised site plan as Exhibit 38 and the plan showing the currently proposed parking layout as Exhibit D-1. Mr. Simpson clarified that the average width of the sidewalk at the site would be in excess of 8 feet. Proponents Eila Chisholm, 473 6th Street. Lake Oswego, 97034. testified that she supported the project. She referred to a memo in the staff report from the City Engineering Department staff to the Planning Department staff which she said advised that it was not within the purview of the DRC to decide on the direction of roadway traffic, and that if the alleyway was made a one-way improvement the residents on its north end would be forced to travel south. She stated that she believed that the Commission should determine the appropriate width of the alleyway based on how much traffic would use it. She related her observations of her neighbor's parking habits over the 20 years she had resided there: The resident of Lot 7700 at the north end of the alleyway did not have a garage; parked on B Avenue; and did not use the alley. The renter at Lot 6600 had no garage and parked on B Avenue in front of his door. Lot 7600 included a small garage; however, the lot was part of a beauty shop and she had never seen a car in that garage. Lot 6700 included a duplex with carports in the back along the alley. The back unit of the duplex probably used the carport; however, the other tenant always parked on 6th Avenue because it was more convenient to his residence. Ms. Chisholm stated that her residence was included in Lot 6800 and she found it most convenient to park on 6th Street. She clarified that the Development Review Commission Minutes Page 4 of 23 February 2, 1998 only time she used the alleyway was to access her yard to haul away yard debris. She said the occupant of Lot 6900 had only lived there for a week and had not established a parking pattern. She said a renter on the back half of Lot 7000 never used the alley, and the other half of the lot was part of Kasch's nursery area. Ms. Chisholm testified that patrons of Kasch's used the alley to leave the store area. She worried that if the alleyway were paved more drivers would be inclined to use it to exit to B Avenue. She stated that a Volvo station wagon could turn around in a radius of less than 16 feet. She added that she preferred trees to trellises on her side of the alley. She stressed that even if the DRC was not allowed to determine that the alley should be only one-way, it was important for the Commission to consider the pavement width as a factor in encouraging traffic. Craig Chisholm, 473 6th Street, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated that to improve the alleyway to a 20-foot width would change the character of the neighborhood because it would eliminate trees and shrubs that provided visual appeal. He said the 20-foot dimension was the legal width of the right-of-way and was not related to what was necessary for a turning radius. He asked the Commission to consider the character of the neighborhood in making a determination regarding the alley. Ms. Morales noted the turning radius represented the City's requirement for sufficient space to accommodate vehicles backing out of the garages, and more space might actually be required. Mr. Pishvaie explained the standard had been adopted in 1981 and was based on research calculations showing that 26 feet was the minimum amount of back up space required for a nine-foot wide parking space, and 20 feet was the minimum necessary turning radius for a compact parking space that was eight feet wide. He clarified that the regulations were to change in several weeks, and the 26-foot minimum would be changed to 24 feet. Mr. Chisholm responded that even a reduction of two feet would allow him to maintain a strip of vegetation along the alley. Ms. Morales noted the garages were five feet from the alleyway, so that the total available width would be 25 feet at the garages. Mr. Chisholm stated that he had determined he needed 18 feet to turn a station wagon. Neither for nor Against None. Opponents None. Rebuttal None. There were no requests to hold the record open for additional testimony. The applicant waived his right to additional time to submit written argument. Chair Cushing closed the Development Review Commission Minutes Page 5 of 23 February 2, 1998 public hearing. Deliberations Mr. Magura commented that the City Attorney's clarification that retail uses could be allowed at the site closed a worrisome issue. Chair Cushing commented the City Attorney's interpretation of the regulations made sense. Mr. Horning noted the new Parking Standard would be in effect prior to the applicant obtaining a building permit. Mr. Kiersey indicated he would be in favor of reducing the alley width by a foot or two. Mr. Magura suggested the alley be posted"No Parking". Mr. Kiersey opined that drivers would attempt to park there anyway, which made the decision regarding the width of the alley more significant. Mr. Magura observed that the width of the alley should be sufficient to accommodate two-way traffic, which he believed would be at least 18 feet. Chair Cushing noted that the newly-reduced turning radius dimension requirement would be 24 feet, which equaled the total of the 5 foot garage setback and a 19-foot alleyway. He noted the staff supported the tapering of the paving down to 16 feet at the north end of the alley. Ms. Binkley commented that turning a sport utility vehicle there would be very difficult if the turning radius was less than 19 feet. Ms. Morales commented that she favored making the alley one-way. She added that the addition of 16 cars would be a large increase in use of the alleyway. Mr. Kiersey noted that there would actually be 18 vehicles parked along the alley. Mr. Horning noted that if a 19-foot improvement was made to the alley, six feet of right-of-way would remain unimproved. Mr. Coffee clarified that the width of the right-of-way there was 20 feet. Ms. Morales expressed her concern that there be sufficient room for fire trucks and emergency vehicles to service the area. Mr. Horning commented it was important for the alley to be paved on each end; however, he wondered how much paving was necessary on the north end. He recalled the testimony that historical use of the alley was normally very low; and opined that if the alley was only minimally improved, the need for a speed bump or some other remedial solution to traffic in the future would be reduced. He suggested the portion of the alley north of the site remain narrow. He said that he had easily driven through the alley that day; and that if an additional 10-12 feet was paved, it would accommodate two-way traffic. Mr. Kiersey indicated the width should safely accommodate two cars. Mr. Magura and Chair Cushing indicated they felt that 16-feet of improvement would be sufficient. Mr. Magura pointed out that the staff recommendation was for a width of 16 feet. Chair Cushing asked how far south of B Avenue the 16-foot width should extend. Mr. Horning noted there was 100 feet of alley north of the applicant's north property line. Ms. Morales commented that if vegetation was removed and replaced by a hard surface, plantings should be made on the garage side of the alley to soften the appearance of a "wall of parking". Mr. Magura indicated he favored trellises there. Ms. Binkley stated that the staff had recommended a similar condition. Mr. Horning noted that the site plan Development Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 23 February 2, 1998 (Exhibit 38) indicated that sidewalks would be positioned so that trees could be planted between the garages. Ms. Binkley commented that was only 10-12 feet in width. The Commissioners reviewed the applicant's landscape plan to determine the space that could be available for trees. Chair Cushing noted the Commissioners generally agreed that the alley would be improved to a 20-foot width at the site. Ms. Binkley and Mr. Horning indicated they would be comfortable with a 19-foot improvement, because there was an additional 5- foot setback to the garage. Ms. Binkley noted that Exhibit 10 of the applicant's original application package showed a mix of shed dormers and gables. She commented she liked that kind of variety because the units were so tightly packed in the interior courtyards. She said she also liked the small porches over the doorways. She said she approved of the bays; however, she did not favor the roof over the bays because it gave the design a monotonous appearance. Ms. Morales and Mr. Horning agreed they also favored roof variation. Ms. Morales commented that she was concerned that the commercial wall appeared to be very large when viewed from the garages, through the courtyard. Chair Cushing noted the applicant planned fences there to break the wall up. Ms. Morales asked if the applicant planned gables on the garages. The applicant verified that was what he intended. Mr. Horning commented the courtyards needed trees, instead of the large shrubs indicated in the landscape plan for the interior courtyard. He said the trees should be at least the size of pear trees or small maples (30 to 50-foot height range) which would allow light and air to pass through, but which would break the vertical plane between the units. He noted the courtyard was 20 feet wide and the sidewalk through the yard was 5 feet wide, which left 6 feet on each side for trees. He said mid-sized trees, such as Palo Alto maple and sweet gum could be placed there. Ms. Morales moved for aunroval of DR 24-97/SD 19-97 with the following changes to the conditions recommended by the staff: (B.)(2.)(a.)(ii.): Change the sidewalk width from 8 feet to 6 feet; (B.)(2.)(b.)(i.): Change "20 feet" to "19 feet"; (B.)(2.)(b.)(ii.): Change "concrete" to "asphalt"; (B.)(5.)(3): Add this item to require trellises along the garage facade; (B.)(5.)(a.): Item to refer to both Exhibit 10 and Exhibit 30; (B.)(6.): To require mid-sized trees in the courtyard; and, Reference the staff report addendum dated January 30, 1998, in respect to the finding regarding retail or office use and standards; and the color board as submitted by the applicant. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Mr. Magura, Mr. Horning, Ms. Morales and Ms. Binkley voting yes. Mr. Kiersey voted against. Development Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 23 February 2, 1998 CU 6-97/DR 28-97.the applicant, Oswego Heritage Council, requests approval of a conditional use permit and a development review permit to develop the City's historically designated Murphy House as a museum for historic artifacts and records. The development also includes an approximately 215-square foot addition and on-site parking for 19 vehicles. The site is located at 398 10th Street, (Tax Lot 5300 of Tax Map 21E 3CD). Staff coordinator is Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner. 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 conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts, including site visits. Chair Cushing, Ms. Morales and Mr. Magura stated they had visited the site. Ms. Binkley and Mr. Horning stated they were familiar with the site. Mr. Kiersey stated that he was a member of the Oswego Heritage Council and the Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce; however he felt he could be objective regarding the application. No one challenged any commissioner's right to hear the application. Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner,presented the staff report. She stated that the application was for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the Heritage Council to use the Murphy House (a structure on the City's historic buildings list) as a museum. She said this was an institutional use that was permitted as a Conditional Use in a residential zone. She described the site as heavily treed and the house as significant to City history. She explained the requirements for Conditional Use required the use at the site be in conformance with the Zoning Code. She said the staff had determined that the existing structure complied with the Code's requirements for setbacks and lot coverage. She said the applicant's desired to add 215 square feet to the back of the existing structure and the additional would also conform to the Code. She noted that utilities were already in place on the site. She advised that specific requirements for institutional uses was access off an arterial street, or, if that was not possible, a traffic study was required regarding the impacts of access off of a residential street. She noted the applicant had provided a traffic study. She said the existing driveway was off of Country Club Road, a Major Arterial. She said the applicants proposed the Country Club Road access be one-way, egress only, right-turn-out only, due to potential traffic conflicts during left turns, especially at peak hours during the day. She said the applicant was also proposing two- way access off of Chandler Road. Ms. Jacob related the Heritage Council had indicated they intended to utilize volunteer staffing a the site and there would be no full-time staff there. She said they had indicated that usage would include monthly meetings with 14 to 15 persons in attendance; however, the conference room would have a capacity of up to 35 people. She said that the traffic report and the City Traffic Engineer had concluded that the proposed use would have minimal impact on traffic and the parking capacity on the site was sufficient for the proposed usage. Development Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 23 February 2, 1998 Ms. Jacob explained that the site met specific criteria for a conditional use in a residential zone, that yard setbacks be 2/3 the height of the structure and criteria regarding noise generation. She recommended that lighting be installed at a low level in order to prevent glare impacting adjacent residential properties, especially the two properties that abutted the rear parking area. She observed the site was physically capable of accommodating the proposed usage and driveways with minimal impact to the trees there. Ms. Jacob explained that the applicant proposed 19 parking spaces; however, there is not any specific standard in the Parking Standards; and the Parking Study had concluded that 19 spaces was sufficient for the Heritage Council's monthly meetings. She clarified that the applicant anticipated times when tours or other activities would require more parking spaces. Ms. Jacob advised the applicant's plan to address drainage by channeling water into the existing system and installing onsite surface water facilities. She noted the applicant intended to discuss proposed landscaping at the hearing. She recommended that fencing be required along the property lines as a buffer between the site and adjacent residential uses close to the site's parking area. She clarified that although a laurel hedge would screen the site (after it grew back from being trimmed), the fencing would provide additional protection. Ms. Jacob clarified for Ms. Morales that the parking plan had been reviewed for museum use and not office use. She pointed out that Exhibit 6 showed the museum reception and display area. She clarified for Mr. Horning that although the minimum parking requirement was 1 parking space per 300 square feet of office space (which would require the site to provide 10 parking spaces), museum usage required more parking spaces than typical office usage. Mr. Coffee clarified that the purpose of the Parking Study was to determine a reasonable standard for the site. Ms. Jacob explained for Ms. Binkley and Mr. Horning that the applicant would present the proposed landscaping and drainage plans. Anplicant Mr. Harold Campbell. 398 Furnace Street. Lake Oswego. 97034. related that he had been a resident of the City for 46 years and had served the City in many positions, including that of mayor. He stated that he was Treasurer of the Oswego Heritage Council, which he said was 28-years-old and the largest historical organization in Clackamas County. He said the Heritage Council desired to remodel the Murphy House into a permanent home for the organization and to provide the community with a link to the past. He described the history of Mr. Paul C. Murphy and his firm, which had participated in the development of the community and the lake, beginning in 1910. He recalled that Mr. Murphy had originated development standards; developed the lake; used the finest architects for homes in the area; and left the City with a fine legacy. He said Development Review Commission Minutes Page 9 of 23 February 2, 1998 the project was a civic project that would be privately funded($110,000 had already been pledged to it). He said Oswego Heritage House would help to define the downtown area and be a lovely presence in the City. John Baines. 19 Condolea Drive. Lake Oswego. 97035, stated that he was President- elect of the Oswego Heritage Council. He explained the Council had purchased the Murphy property and begun renovations to correct its deteriorated condition. He related that over 90 tons of debris had been removed from the property. He testified that two issues were to be determined by the City regarding the site: 1) to allow a Conditional Use to use the building as a museum; and 2) to allow the Chamber of Commerce to use the site as a tenant of the Heritage Council. He explained the Planning Commission was to hear the issue of the Chamber use on February 13. He testified that a neighborhood meeting had been held on December 11, 1997, and residents within 300 feet of the site and the Evergreen, First Addition and Forest Hills neighborhood associations had been notified of the meeting. He said that as a result of the meeting, the applicant had modified its plan for access to the site to that previously described by Ms. Jacobs. He clarified that the applicant's traffic study had used the heaviest traffic and parking use scenario and had included the impacts of traffic generated by the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Baines related that the Heritage Council had negotiated a reciprocal parking agreement with the neighboring Christ Episcopal Church, which allowed the Church to use the Council's parking area on Sundays and would reduce parking on residential streets by 19 vehicles. He presented a draft of the agreement for the record. He requested that the Commission approve the museum as a Conditional Use. He introduced Ralph Olson as the project's architect and Bill Gerber as the project's landscape architect. Mr. Baines clarified for Mr. Kiersey that the building would contain a large conference room that would accommodate historical pictures and artifacts and that the main entry of the building would be from the parking area in the back of the building. He further clarified that it was possible that the conference room could accommodate additional community activities (besides the Council and Chamber uses) and the kitchen would most likely be used to serve caterers who would bring food to the facility. Chair Cushing noted the parking agreement was for a term of five years, with no ongoing option. Mr. Baines said he assumed the arrangement would continue forever. He clarified for Chair Cushing that he understood the Heritage Council could use the Church's parking facility any time except Sundays and the Church could use the Council's parking facility any time. He clarified for Ms. Binkley that the proposed addition and the entire south wing of the building would be for general office space for the Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Binkley indicated she felt that there was a deficiency of windows planned for the addition. Mr. Baines stated that the Chamber was to plan the space and indicate windows for that area. Ms. Binkley commented that the addition should have similar windows to the windows in the original structure on its south wall. Mr. Olson related that it was anticipated that the Chamber intended to use the back portion of the addition for file cabinets and storage, so Development Review Commission Minutes Page 10 of 23 February 2, 1998 no window was required there. Ms. Binkley advised that another window should be planned there for aesthetic reasons. Ms. Jacob pointed out that Exhibit 14 was the applicant's landscape plan. Bill Gerber, 17177 Cedar Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated that he had resided in the City for 57 years. He said the adjacent property to the west included a patio that was exposed to the site and was two feet higher than the site, so a 6-foot fence would not be sufficient protection and would seem like only a 4-foot high fence. He said the best protection for the neighbor was to allow the existing laurel hedge to grow out to create a screen. He said the installation of a fence next to the hedge would be redundant and would not allow the hedge to fill out and grow. He said the current hedge had been cut back during cleaning of the site; however, it was a mature plant and would fill out again. He noted there was also an existing laurel hedge the full length of the north property line. Mr. Gerber noted that additional camellia plantings would be made to supplement the screening provided by the existing shrubs. He requested that the Commission not require that the applicant install a fence. He stated that the parking configuration had been planned to save as many fir trees as possible. He clarified that the applicant had requested to be allowed to remove several trees that were susceptible to winter storm damage: a seedling cherry; a Portuguese laurel that was interfering with the hedge; and three small cedars that were interfering with the growth of larger surrounding fir trees. He clarified for Ms. Binkley that the landscape plan was somewhat similar to the original arrangement at the site; however, the configuration of the original walkway was not planned because it would not be used. Proponents Cliff Christianson, 1612 Highland Drive, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated he was the Business Manager for Christ Church Parish. He explained the Parking Agreement between the Church and the Council had been intended to continue in perpetuity; however, the parties wanted to be able to be flexible in case of any future changes in use or functions. Ms. Karen Silverstein 380 Berwick Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, testified that she resided near the site. She expressed her approval of the project, and the Heritage Council's efforts to preserve the landmark site, with certain limitations. She opined that only minimal traffic would be generated by the Heritage Council and Chamber uses; however, she indicated her concern about traffic that might be generated by other uses of the conference room. She recalled that she had heard it described as being both as a 35- person capacity facility and as a 75-person meeting facility. She noted the site was close to the Church, which was already an active facility. She requested clarification as to how large the meetings would be at the site and whether limitations would be set as to how often the facility could be used. She said that because the site was at the entrance to a quiet neighborhood she would not want many large functions permitted there. She asked Development Review Commission Minutes Page 11 of 23 February 2, 1998 what number of meetings and what frequency of meetings had been considered in the traffic and parking studies. She requested that the site be closed on Sundays. She expressed her concern that the plan for the parking area on the Chandler Road side of the site had no shrubs to visually buffer it from the street. Chair Cushing pointed out the applicant had provided an updated landscape plan. Ms. Morales commented that the Fire Marshall and the Building Code would place limitations on the number of people who would use the space. Mr. Coffee advised that if the City Council approved the zoning text change amendment, the Heritage Council and the Chamber of Commerce would again come before the DRC for approval of the Chamber activity at the site. He advised that the DRC would have an opportunity at that time to place limitations, including a limitation on operating hours, for the facility. Lynn Herring 1090 Chandler Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated she lived beside the church. She said that although she was pleased the Heritage Council was to preserve the house, she was concerned about any commercial atmosphere that could result if the facility was rented for office space or special events. She asked that commercial office use not be allowed at the site. She observed that traffic created a hazardous condition on local streets and along the blind curve between the intersection of Country Club, A Avenue, 10th Street, Chandler Road, and the Council driveway on Chandler Road when the church hosted functions, and that those conditions would be exacerbated by drivers accessing and leaving the Heritage Council parking area. She requested that approval of the application be conditioned upon a written agreement between the Council and the church to coordinate non-overlapping events for the purpose of reducing traffic. She asked that traffic flow be one-way ingress from Chandler Road with egress onto Country Club Road, or a two-way driveway onto Chandler Road with ingress and right-turn-only egress and egress-only onto Country Club Road. Richard Ross, 510 Country Club Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated that he lived 300 feet west of the site. He said he had known a former owner of the property and was pleased that the Heritage Council was restoring it. He stated he had resided in the City for 41 years in the same house. He indicated that he was concerned about the pattern of ingress and egress at the site. He opined that a making a left turn while eastbound on Chandler Road involved risk of accident because the curve included a blind spot for drivers. He suggested that traffic only be allowed to access the property from Country Club Road via a right turn (no left turn allowed); and traffic only be allowed to access the property from Chandler Road from a westbound right turn. Mr. Ross related that at 4 PM the traffic past his house averaged one vehicle every four seconds. He asked how often the site would be used for meetings and at what times of day. The applicant answered the Council met once a month on a Wednesday, at 5 PM. Mr. Ross suggested the meetings be scheduled for Saturdays or Sundays. He worried about what other uses a zone change would allow in his neighborhood. Opponents Development Review Commission Minutes Page 12 of 23 February 2, 1998 None. Neither for nor Against Jim Bolland. 804 Fifth Street. Lake Oswego, 97034, stated that he was Chair of the First Addition Neighborhood Association (FAN). He indicated that most FAN residents supported the application; however, he indicated they were concerned about what other uses the proposed zone change would allow. He cited an example of the City Library ( a conditional use), where he said operating hours had been expanded over the years to include more evening and Sunday hours. He stressed that issues resulting from conditional uses should be solved before approval was granted. He asked if weddings and private parties would be held at the site. He requested that types of uses, dates and hours of uses, etc. be clearly defined. He clarified for Ms. Binkley that the number of guests at a garden wedding at the site should be limited to a reasonable number in order to limit the impact on the neighborhood. Mary Shepherd 216 10th Street. Lake Oswego. 97034, stated that she lived at the corner of 10th Street and Berwick Road. She testified that she was concerned about the number of persons who might attend private functions and events at the facility. She noted the staff report had not specified the allowed occupancy of the building, nor how many church parking spaces would be required to accommodate overflow from the site. She stated that cut-through traffic and vehicle parking had already become a problem in the neighborhood because the church held many functions during the week. She suggested that frequency of use, hours of use and occupancy of the facility be limited and that any overflow parking be limited to the church's Chandler Road parking lot. She also asked that the church and Council be required to coordinate events to ensure they were held at separate times. She clarified for Chair Cushing that she lived at 10th and Berwick Road. A brief discussion took place regarding the occupancy limit for the building; however, it was determined that a review of the Building Code would be necessary to determine that limit. Chair Cushing asked Mr. Olson what numbers of persons the Heritage Council expected to accommodate at the site. Mr. Olson answered the facility could accommodate anywhere from 1 to 100 persons. Ms. Morales calculated that a maximum of approximately 78 persons could be accommodated by the facility, using a criterion of 15 square feet per person. Mr. Coffee advised the Heritage Council could be required to state its intended capacity and if that was approved by the City, it could be required to post the maximum allowed occupancy at the facility. Mr. Campbell indicated the Council anticipated that people would use the facility for meetings and seminars, visits by school children on field trips, receptions, and social events for Council members. He stated that the applicant hoped to increase the frequency of its membership meetings from its current schedule of one meeting per year; however, it would monitor attendance by requiring that reservations be made in advance. He noted Development Review Commission Minutes Page 13 of 23 February 2, 1998 that part of the space in the conference room would be used as space to display artifacts. He stated that meetings would most likely be held evenings and Saturday afternoons, and the facility would probably not be open on Sundays. He clarified for Chair Cushing that some meetings might last as late as 10:00 PM in the evening. Mr. Campbell clarified that the central hall and two front rooms of the structure were the only remaining portions of the building from the year 1920. He noted that a full bath, kitchen and detached garage had been added in 1941, and an addition to the building to the north had been added after that. He said the building would be carefully restored and new doors and windows were to be made to match the older doors and windows. He clarified for the Commissioners that that access to the basement was on the west side of the north office and that there were no stairs to the attic. Mr. Campbell noted that concerns expressed in a letter from David Evans (Exhibit 12) regarding access to the site had been addressed and the turning pattern at the intersection of the driveway and Country Club Road would be right-turn only. Rebuttal No one requested additional time to submit written evidence or testimony. The applicant waived his right to submit a final written argument. Chair Cushing closed the public hearing at 9:43 PM. Deliberations Chair Cushing observed that approval of the application would set a precedent for future applications. He noted the primary issue to be resolved was the use of the conference room and whether the DRC should impose limitations on the occupancy of the facility other than what was in the City Code. He asked if the Heritage Council should be allowed to rent the facility any time. Mr. Pishvaie advised that any functions allowed to take place at the site must be associated with the use of the site as a museum and art gallery. Mr. Coffee advised that those uses had to be temporary uses. Ms. Binkley commented that the Three Rivers Conservancy was an organization that might desire to meet at the facility but that did not have a direct connection with it. Mr. Pishvaie advised the use could be limited to non-profit organizations. He also advised the Chamber of Commerce use would be a long-term rental use. Mr. Coffee suggested the Commission might chose to focus on the impacts of use and rely on the applicant to manage the facility rather than to attempt to draft language specifying potential temporary uses. He gave the example that the applicant and the church be required to coordinate events in order to reduce the impact on the neighborhood. Ms. Binkley opined that such a limitation would adversely affect the applicant due to the high level of activity at the church. Development Review Commission Minutes Page 14 of 23 February 2, 1998 Chair Cushing asked if it was realistic for the City to require that the applicant always check with the church concerning scheduling of events. He suggested it made more sense to limit hours of operation of the applicant. He asked if Commissioners felt the City should require both the church and the applicant to limit attendance numbers when both organizations scheduled meetings at the same time. He noted that the church would likely use the applicant's 19 parking spaces on Sundays and asked if the applicant should be required not to use them at that time. Mr. Christianson's noted that events at the church during the week would not require use of the applicant's parking area. He said the applicant and the church had indicated a willingness to share schedules with the applicant, and the church scheduled its activities two months in advance. He commented that the two organizations had indicated their intent to share schedules. Mr. Kiersey commented that a right-turn-only exit onto Country Club Road made sense. He noted that driveway was proposed to be an exit only and not as an entrance. Ms. Binkley commented that a right-turn-only exit onto Chandler Road would direct traffic into the neighborhood. Mr. Horning recalled testimony regarding the hazard of the curve on Chandler Road. He commented that drivers tended to cross the intersection and speed up in that area when they should be anticipating meeting additional traffic. He opined the City needed to consider improvement of the intersection. He recalled the community felt the renovation of the house was a positive change; however, he said he was concerned that the amount of parking the applicant proposed was not justified by the scale of the use. He said if the parking had been planned in anticipation of a use that was not permitted, then it should not be allowed. Mr. Magura noted that in that case perhaps the driveway exit onto Country Club Road was not necessary. Mr. Horning commented that the area required a public works solution to the nearby poorly-designed major intersection. Ms. Morales commented that the parking and landscaping plans indicated that the parking area would be appropriately screened and that it would be better to provide onsite parking for the conference room use than for attendees to park on the street. Mr. Kiersey agreed that to reduce parking at the site would result in vehicles being parked on Chandler Road because that was what was happening during the church services. Mr. Horning opined that 50 people using the site would not generate more than 21 vehicles that required parking. He added that the office use required only 10 spaces, and not 21. He disagreed with depending upon the laurel hedge to grow into a screen when it was actually on someone else's property. He said that if the amount of parking the applicant was requesting was to be allowed, the Commission should be certain the area was adequately screened. He said he did not believe the applicant's plan accomplished that. Chair Cushing commented that he had initially been reluctant to approve as many spaces as the applicant had requested; however, a large meeting would then require the use of the spaces across the street. He said he felt the applicant's parking layout was appropriate if Heritage Council meetings attracted 15 to 40 attendees. He opined the Commission could require conditions that would protect the neighborhood, such as Development Review Commission Minutes Page 15 of 23 February 2, 1998 limiting an exit from the site onto Country Club Road to right-turn only. Mr. Kiersey indicated the Commission should provide sufficient onsite parking at the site. Mr. Horning stressed that the site was in a residential zone. Chair Cushing observed that the Commission could decide whether to allow the Heritage Council to use the site as a Conditional Use and allow the Council to go forward with a request that the Chamber be allowed to rent part of the site. Ms. Binkley observed that the applicant had provided a plan that allowed school buses to enter and exit without the necessity of backing up during the process. She said she had no problem with the number of spaces in the back of the building because they were to be buffered. Mr. Magura observed the Heritage Council itself did not need the amount of parking area it proposed. Mr. Horning commented that if the DRC approved a smaller number of onsite parking spaces the reciprocal parking agreement between the church and the applicant would accommodate the applicant's additional parking needs. He calculated the applicant actually needed 10 spaces onsite. Ms. Binkley opined that the applicant would need 14 spaces onsite to accommodate a meeting of its entire membership. Mr. Horning expressed his reservations about the amount of parking the applicant had requested under a conditional use in a residential area. Chair Cushing commented there should be adequate screening at the back of the site, whatever means was used to accomplish that. He suggested limitations be required that use would not extend past 10:00 PM in the evening; that the applicant and the church be required to coordinate events; and that the reciprocal parking agreement be required to be longer than five years, and perhaps be made permanent. He clarified that if use by the parties changed and they desired to terminate the parking agreement the conditional use could be terminated. He opined that a limitation on the number of days of use per week might be excessive and not easy to accomplish. He said the occupancy limitation was a function of the Fire Marshal and the Building Code. Mr. Kiersey commented that it was not clear what size of functions would be held at the facility. Mr. Coffee suggested that the City might monitor the schedule of events and the applicant and the church could coordinate them in order to ensure events that required each other's parking would not be held simultaneously. He indicated his concern that if the facility met a level of maximum occupancy, without coordination of events with the church, parking issues would be exacerbated. The Commissioners examined the site plan and Chair Cushing noted the north hedge appeared to be located on a neighboring property. Mr. Olsen noted the west hedge was on the applicant's property, and he opined that was where the most screening was necessary. He said a 6-foot fence would not be high enough to provide adequate protection, so the existence of the hedge was important for screening. Mr. Kiersey agreed that a 6-foot high fence was not of sufficient height to provide appropriate screening of the site. Mr. Horning agreed that plantings were more effective for screening there than a fence. He opined that screening was particularly important to accomplish if the Commission approved the parking plan as submitted. He indicated he Development Review Commission Minutes Page 16 of 23 February 2, 1998 saw more screening problems along the north line of the property than along the west line. Ms. Morales opined that the property that created an impact should be the one to be responsible for a fence. Mr. Horning opined that along areas where there was no fence the existing hedge could be sufficient if it was actually on the applicant's property and could be maintained at an appropriate height for screening. Ms. Binkley commented that the structure's addition should have windows, because it was the entry to the building. She said she would prefer to see windows planned all the way around the building, but especially on the south side. Ms. Morales stated windows were necessary on the south side, where a blank wall was highly visible, but perhaps they were not necessary on the north and west sides. Ms. Binkley suggested windows be placed the same distance from the corners. Ms. Morales commented that the courtyard side wall there did not necessarily need to feature two symmetrical windows. She said the long wall on the south side needed another window. Mr. Magura moved to approve CU 6-97/DR 28-97 as recommended by the staff with the following additions to staff conditions: (A.)(1.)(a.): Add language to include a window on the southern exposure of the addition. The windows is to be the same distance from the west side as the existing window is from the east side; (C.): Add this condition to limit the hours of use for meetings to between 7 AM and 10 PM; (A.)(1.)(d.): Modify this Item to require a fence or an intensive landscape buffer on the northerly property line; (A.)(1.)(e.): Modify to refer to Exhibit 14; (B.)(4.): The term of the written agreement is to be for a perpetual term; and (B.)(1.): Modify language to include a wood fence or hedge. Ms. Morales seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Mr. Magura, Mr. Horning, Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley and Mr. Kiersey voting yes. There were no votes against. *Mr. Magura left the meeting. AP 98-01/FVAR 14-97(a-e)1. 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- Development Review Commission Minutes Page 17 of 23 February 2, 1998 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. 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 conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts, including site visits. Ms. Binkley stated she had visited the site and Mr. Horning stated that he lived in the neighborhood; however, he had no personal bias regarding the application. No one challenged any commissioner's right to hear the application. Michael R. Wheeler, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and graphic exhibits that had not previously been included in the Commissioners' information packets. He explained the Commissioners were to hear an appeal of an administrative decision to deny four out of five variances that had been requested by the applicant, who desired to remodel an existing dwelling at 2240 Summit Court. He said the variance requests included variances for side and rear yard (Oswego Lake) setbacks, non-conforming use, and lot coverage. He explained the staff had reviewed the application and had concluded the applicant had not demonstrated compliance with pertinent criteria for each of the four variances. Mr. Wheeler recalled that a five foot setback had been approved when a building permit had been issued in 1976 for the garage on the east side of the property; however, he said a recent survey revealed that the garage was closer than five feet from the property line. He recommended that a variance for the garage setback be granted because it had been in place and unquestioned for many years. Mr. Wheeler explained that when the structure was constructed in 1977 the City allowed 20-foot front yard setbacks, 25-foot rear yard setbacks, 5-foot minimum side yards (with a combined total of 15 feet), 30%maximum lot coverage. He recalled that subsequent changes in regulations had tightened restrictions and disallowed the inclusion of an easement area of 2,300 square feet in the lot coverage calculation (an area that had been allowed to be counted at the time the house was built). He clarified that total square footage of the site was 8,000 square feet. Mr. Wheeler stated that the remodeled structure was proposed to include an addition south of the garage and a three-story breakfast nook area fronting the lake with an additional four feet of deck around it. He presented Exhibit 14 (site plan showing existing structures and perimeter of proposed remodeled structure); Exhibit 24 (front and rear elevations showing existing and proposed rooflines and the proposed breakfast nook); Exhibit 25 (east elevation showing existing and proposed roofline including the new roof structure of nook addition); and Exhibit 26 (superimposing the blueprint of the existing structure over that of the proposed structure). He said he described how he had calculated the height of the existing roofline as 50 feet high; the height of the proposed roof as 47.5 feet high; and the height of the garage roof as 33.5 feet high. He added that the height of the nook addition would be 51 feet high (measured from grade to the Development Review Commission Minutes Page 18 of 23 February 2, 1998 midpoint of the new roof). He advised that current Zoning regulations allowed a maximum height of 35 feet; however, he clarified that"spoken"height at the time the house was built was a maximum of 35 feet; however, the calculated height would have allowed 10 additional feet for the sloping lot. He also related that at the time of construction the applicant had requested a variance from regulations that allowed no more than 2.5 stories. Ms. Wheeler advised that the height of the existing structure did not conform to current Code because it was proposed to be three stories tall. He noted that the site was in violation of the Code at the time of construction of the original house because the maximum allowed lot coverage was 30% of the 8,000 square foot lot; however, it had been constructed over 32.4% of the lot. He pointed out that staff had provided a discussion of changes in methods for determining lot coverage on Page 11 of the staff report and the applicant could no longer include the easement area in the lot coverage calculation. Mr. Wheeler explained that during the review process, the staff discovered that the height of the existing structure was legally non-conforming. He explained it met the requirements in effect in the 1970's; however, more recent Code revisions meant that the roof height did not comply with the Code. He said the reason that posed a problem for the applicant was because the applicant proposed a three-story addition required a variance for the proposed height. Mr. Wheeler related that during the review process, the staff discovered that at the time of construction the maximum lot coverage allowed was 30%, and the calculation was allowed to include the entire 8,000 square-foot lot. He explained the coverage that was built at that time represented 32.4% lot coverage; which he advised was a Code violation in 1976. He stated that the current application included the 8,000-square-foot gross lot size in the lot coverage calculation; however, the current Code did not allow the area of the easement on the site to be included in the calculations, which would mean the existing structures covered 46.3% of the lot. He said the applicant's current proposal represented an additional 5.1% of lot coverage. He said the proposed addition comprised a floor area increase of 769 square feet, or an increase of 8%. He said this was 308 square feet greater than the average square feet of floor areas in the listing of like properties the applicant had provided. He said the applicant's proposal would increase lot coverage by 296 square feet, which was 558 square feet larger than the average in the sample of comparable properties, which was 2,428 square feet. He noted the applicant desired to achieve a greater amount of living space on the main level of the house and his proposal for 1,675 square feet of living area was 96 square feet less than the average in the examples provided, which was 1,771 square feet. Mr. Wheeler explained the applicant had provided an analysis of the steep slope at the site (Exhibit 13). He said the slope at the site varied from zero (near the road) to possibly as much as 125%. He explained staff could not determine (by measurement) how much of the area of slope would be impacted by the proposal; although they believed there might be a need for a variance to the Hillside Protection Standard that allowed coverage Development Review Commission Minutes Page 19 of 23 February 2, 1998 by impervious surfaces of up to 30% of a grade over 50%. Mr. Wheeler advised that the existing parking was legally non-conforming as it predated the 1982 Code regarding off-street parking. Mr. Wheeler advised that the applicant had not met the burden of proof in demonstrating compliance with criteria regarding four variances. He said that although the applicant was proposing main floor square footage that was less than the average of comparable properties his proposed total square footage exceeded the average for comparable properties, and the proposed lot coverage exceeded the maximum coverage demonstrated by comparable properties. He advised that a claim of hardship did not justify relief through a variance that would result in the large increase in volume of space proposed in the application He said the variances requested were not demonstrated to be the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the property, because the building would become much larger than the average in the comparable sample. Mr. Wheeler recommended approval of Variance 14-97(a) for the setback on the east side of the garage and denial of the remaining requests. He presented Exhibit 8, a photograph showing the view of the property from the lake. He clarified for Chair Cushing that a survey (Exhibit 18) had estimated that the distance from the property line at the lake to the building's wall was approximately 28 feet. He noted that at the time of construction the applicant had not requested a variance for the existing south deck, which had been approved at 18.5 feet, but had been built at 17.5 feet from the property's south line. Auulicant Roy Goecks, 2240 Summit Court. Lake Oswego, 97034, testified that he had resided in the City since 1957 and in the house at the site since 1978. He described the street as a private road with easement access and the area along the street as fully developed. He recalled that Zoning regulations had changed over the years from a requirement of 7,500 square foot lots to 15,000 square foot lots. He compared a 1978 survey and a recent survey (accomplished by the same company) that differed regarding whether there was an encroachment on the east setback at the site or an encroachment on the rear yard setback. He said that no one today would be allowed to build on the lot because it was not large enough. He said he did not recall that the building's height was an issue at the time it was built. He said he was not aware of building height or lot coverage issues being discussed at the time the building permit was issued. Mr. Goecks stated that his family situation had changed, and he and his wife were at an age when they were not as likely to climb stairs to an area on the third level that accommodated entertaining, and they currently had no family room on the main level. He indicated the changes he proposed were not unreasonable and provided photographs that he said showed that major maintenance of the structure was necessary. He clarified that work would be done simultaneously with the remodeling. He introduced his planning consultant, Rick Development Review Commission Minutes Page 20 of 23 February 2, 1998 Givens, and his remodeling designer, Dan Smith. Mr. Goecks described the existing three levels of the house, including a dining room and kitchen at the top level; three bedrooms and a laundry at the mid-level; and two storage rooms, a wine cellar, sauna, and two furnaces at the bottom level. Rick Givens, 13395 S. Leland Road, Oregon City, 97045, explained the existing main floor living area of the residence was smaller than was typical for the area. He said that the existence of the family room two floors below did not reflect how the applicant lived, entertained and his ability to supervise his grandchildren when they were visiting. He added that the deck was currently only 6 feet wide and not large enough to accommodate a gathering at a table, which he said was unusual for the neighborhood. He stated the applicant desired to extend the deck out another four feet. He related that the staff review had determined a need for additional variances and that information had been conveyed to the applicant at the time of the administrative decision. Mr. Givens explained that the recent survey showed the setback for the house was 4.2 feet rather than the 5 feet shown by the original survey. He said the survey company had explained that the difference was the result of improved survey technology and the steep terrain at the site. He said that might also explain the difference in the rear yard(special Oswego Lake) setback. He advised that a hardship did exist regarding the deck because the applicant's choices would be to either reduce the width of the deck or move the structure's wall back one foot. He noted the number of years the condition had existed without generating any complaints. He said that to grant the variances would not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood, and there were no Comprehensive Plan policies that would preclude the DRC from granting them. He requested that the Commission approve the variances in order to allow the applicant to bring the existing structure within Code. Mr. Givens explained the discrepancy regarding lot coverage in the application was because the applicant had included the stairway to the boat dock in the calculations when it had previously been excluded from them. He said this type of structure had historically been interpreted by the City Planning Director as a walkway and had been excluded from lot coverage calculations. He clarified for Chair Cushing that he had discussed that information with staff and he believed they were in agreement. Mr. Givens presented a site plan for a neighboring property to the east of the site to show that it was typical for lot coverage calculations to be accomplished by not including the stairways that followed ground terrain down to the lake were in the calculations. He stated that exclusive of the stairway the lot coverage calculation was 30%. He added that the stairway was an existing condition, and to remove the stairway would create a hardship for the applicant in that it would remove the applicant's access to the boat dock similar to the access available to his neighbors. He introduced Dan Smith, the remodeling project designer. Dan Smith. 10548 SW Woods Street. Portland. 97225. presented Exhibit 37 showing the existing house with an overlay of what the applicant proposed. He pointed out where Development Review Commission Minutes Page 21 of 23 February 2, 1998 the highest level of the house on one end of the lot was three feet below grade. He said the applicant proposed to fill in the stair space and take up 4 of the 5 feet of the deck to solve slope issues. He pointed out details of the proposed layout, including a redesigned stairway that would improve access for the occupants; a relocation of the kitchen to the view side of the property; and a new family room. He explained the deck was proposed to be enlarged in order to be large enough to accommodate a picnic table. He explained that after he discussed the roof height problem with the staff he decided to tuck the nook addition inside of the existing roof overhang in order to eliminate a need for a roof change there. He explained that the proposed front roofline was at least three feet below the height of the existing roofline for the purpose of lowering the scale of the structure and to revise the style of the house. He described how part of the existing garage roof would be removed. He pointed out the change in the impact on the upper neighbor's view after the remodel. Mr. Smith pointed out for Ms. Binkley where the proposed stairway to the boat dock would be located. He clarified that the deck was 40 feet from the ground in the area of the nook; supports for the deck would be cantilevered out from the house; and the existing vegetation under the deck would be maintained. Mr. Givens presented an aerial photograph of the existing house and surrounding properties in order to show that the applicant's request was reasonable and that the remodeled structure would be similar to surrounding properties. He said the main floor area of surrounding properties averaged 1,773 square feet while the applicant currently had 1,088 square feet. He said the average main deck area was 713 square feet and all the surrounding properties had significantly-sized areas for entertaining. He said the existing rear deck of the applicant's house was only 282 square feet. He said the total coverage average of the surrounding properties was 3,004 square feet and the applicant was asked for 2,792 (excluding the stairway to the boat dock). He related that the Oswego Lake setback had been modified on the surrounding properties: a 20-foot setback had been approved for the northern neighbor's property and a 17-foot setback existed on another property. He presented a photograph showing the view of the site from across the lake, which he said was the only direction from which the rear deck could be viewed, and concluded that the visual impact of the site would be negligible because the view included the vegetated hillside that would remain under the deck. He concluded that there was no longer a need for the applicant to request a height variance. He said the applicant no longer needed a variance for coverage of the slope because the he and the staff had had determined that the allowed 30% coverage would allow 862 square feet, while the applicant was proposing 448 square feet. Mr. Givens clarified for Chair Cushing that the Lake Corporation had provided a letter that recommended approval of the application. He requested that the Commission find for the applicants. Chair Cushing noted the applicant had provided new information at the hearing and indicated his desire that the staff review it. He requested a copy of the letter from the Lake Corporation be included in the Commissioners' information packets. Mr. Horning moved to continue AP 98-01/WAR 14-97(a-e)to 7:00 PM on February 18, 1998. Mr.Kiersey seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Mr. Horning, Development Review Commission Minutes Page 22 of 23 February 2, 1998 Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley and Mr. Kiersey voting yes. There were no votes against. Mr. Magura was absent. 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. Develonment Review Manager. Due to the lateness of the hour, this application was held over to February 18, 1998. V. GENERAL PLANNING None. VI. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order None. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Development Review Commission, Chair Douglas P. Cushing adjourned the meeting at 11:30 PM. Respectfully submitted. Jean Hall Senior Secretary p:\drc\minutes\02-02-98.doc Development Review Commission Minutes Page 23 of 23 February 2, 1998