2007-04-27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In this public hearing the applicant answered questions for about an hour. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board asked the residents and applicant if there were any changes that the applicant was not willing to make (as required under Section 2.57.040). Theodore R. Jacobs and Joan Botwinick (President of the neighborhood association) stated that they felt the height of the roof of the proposed building at 527 Westview was too high. The applicant said he would talk with his architect about lowering the height, but would not promise to do so until he received his architect’s advice. Mr. Jacobs, 545 Westview, (an architect) also noted what he called a “lack of cohesive design” and requested changes to comply with his understanding of such. Ms. Botwinick, 511 Westview, deferred to Mr. Jacobs on that due to his profession. All requests to be heard having been exhausted, the Board moved into regular session. The Board made the following decisions (all unanimously): 1) 1) The resubdivision (dividing 519 and 527 Westview into three equal sized lots of 50' x 140' totaling 7,000 square feet) was resolved to have been approved by the board because all three proposed lots exceed the requirements of minimum lots size per the Zoning Code (of 50' widths and 6,000 square feet) and will be reviewed by the Plan Commission and City Council. The design review here is limited to only the proposed home on the far northern lot (proposed address 527 Westview) since that was the only proposal before the Board at this time. The residents may request a review of the other homes (at proposed addresses 519 and 523 Westview) if and when application is made to build on this property in the future.We find the “lack of cohesive design” argument is in conflict with Section 2.57.050 D “The IRB shall strive to ensure that individual creativity is not suppressed just for sake of strict conformity.” 2) That despite the applicant’s clear willingness to consider the lowering of the roof on the proposed project at 527 Westview, if viable, his refusal to agree to absolutely commit to such should not be a problem. We find the applicant’s current plan is in conformity with the neighborhood and his willingness to consider modifications is an indication of good faith. 3) We find that just two residents of the approximately 24 of the potentially interested households ultimately asserted any objection at all to the project at the conclusion of the process, substantially lower than the 15 who signed the petition and approximately 30 who attended the first hearing. This does not, in our view, indicate the majority of the neighborhood felt the project is in inconformity with the neighborhood. In fact, we find less than 4% had a potentially unmet objection.