pages: PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-07-25 | 5 | Staff does not make a design distinction between the two materials. Clad wood is preferred, but vinyl is permissible and only aluminum windows are prohibited. In response to an inquiry by Vice-President Cook regarding garage requirements, Mr. Brighton responded that there is no distinction between covered parking, carports and garages. They are all types of covered parking. Ms. Eliason further explained that there is no City requirement to have covered parking, as parking can all be unenclosed. In response to a concern by Vice-President Cook regarding use of parking for storage, Mr. Brighton responded that in some multiple family homes it has been required that carports or garage doors be removed in order to restrict the ability to utilize their garage for storage. He explained that unenclosed parking tends to be used more for parking rather than storage. Vice President Cook noted that it seems like a really big house for such a small lot. She understands the constraints of the site, but was concerned there was a potential third story and this addition may overdevelop such a small lot. She noted the fact that she could see continuing the pre-existing substandard set backs, but she still didn't see where that requires you to have 51% coverage; you could make the back of the house smaller and still come in under the required building coverage. Board Member Lynch requested clarification on the third story item addressed by Vice President Cook and her concern that the applicant would exceed 30 ft. Vice President Cook responded she recalled the story requirements had been removed. In response to an inquiry by Board Member Piziali regarding parking in the front yard, Ms. Eliason noted that the parking in the front yard was a pre-existing condition. In response to an inquiry by Board Member Kohlstrand regarding reduction of the front yard, Mr. Brighton stated the front yard is not being reduced and the front of the house is not being changed. The actual parking configuration is not being changed except it's being partially covered now. In response to Vice-President Cook regarding the location of the porch, Ms. Eliason stated that the porch is in a new location, but the parking situation is an existing parking situation. We are simply allowing them to partially cover the parking with the carport. Board Member Kohlstrand informed the Board that after visiting the site, she feels that although the house is big for this lot, given the circumstances of the setting, this proposal is not an unreasonable request. Board Member Piziali commented that the front of the building, where the porch is, goes straight up with flat windows. He would prefer if there was some sort of cutback from the porch or the roof could be set back to reduce massing visible from the street. Board Member Lynch agreed that the drawings on the paper don't give it any depth; he noted that because it's a narrow lot you must go up. He feels that once it is built, it will actually look better than Planning Board Minutes Page 5 July 25, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-07-25.pdf |