pages: PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2006-09-11 | 5 | Member McNamara was pleased that the applicant had made changes to address Mr. McCarver's concerns about shading and his quality of life in the main area of the house. She respected the applicant's property rights, as well as the feedback from the neighborhood. She was inclined to deny this project as presented at this time. Member Cunningham did not believe the Municipal Code restricted a two-story extension, and was similarly compelled by property rights and the concerns of the neighbors. He did not believe the elevations had been drawn correctly. He noted that when the bedroom was pulled back, the roof pitch was pulled back as well, affecting the stair. He noted that the shading study for the morning of February 28, the side of Mr. McCarver's house showed two shaded areas, including by the stairs. "The eave ridge line of the main roof had been incorrectly drawn, and was about three feet higher than it should have been above the grade level at that point." He had considered ways to eliminate the shadow cast by the stair. He described the details of his suggestion and displayed them on the overhead screen. Member Kohlstrand agreed with Member Cunningham's assessment, and also understood the interests of the neighbors as well as the property owner. She was uncomfortable with the idea of restricting the ability of anyone on the street from adding a second story to their house in the future. She was encouraged to see redesign of the structure to address the shading issues, and would like to see a solution to further reduce the shading impacts. She did not feel comfortable denying this project because it caused additional shadow on the adjacent property. Member Ezzy Ashcraft appreciated staff's responsiveness to the Planning Board's concerns, and expressed concern about parking. In response to her inquiry about parking, Ms. Eliason confirmed that two off-street parking spaces were required for this property because it is less than 3000 square feet total; it met Code with respect to parking. Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that while it met the letter of the law, it may not meet the spirit of the law. She appreciated staff meeting with the involved parties, but was concerned that there was no mention of communication between the applicant and the homeowners. She was very concerned that the Board had not heard from the applicant. She did not know whether the driveway could be made larger to address parking congestion on this street. She understood the property owners' concerns, and added that it was more economical to add on to the existing house than to buy new for more space. She was mindful of balancing the needs of property owners and their neighbors. She wondered if another solution for Mr. McCarver's house could be found, and was not persuaded that this was a street of homes that should always remain one- story; this was not a historically designated neighborhood. President Lynch did not believe it was appropriate to revisit documents that have already been adopted by City Council. He noted that if the neighborhood would like to be known as a historical neighborhood, there was a process to accomplish that goal. He noted that property changes because people change; he noted that this design legally fit within the City's guiding documents. He suggested allowing the applicant and the design team to look at Member Cunningham's architectural suggestions, and possibly incorporating them with an eye towards voting the project up or down at that time. In response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether the Board had that option, Mr. Thomas noted that Planning Board Minutes Page 5 September 11, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf |