pages: PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-03-26 | 8 | In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether the ground-floor bathroom towards the rear of the property would be new, Mr. Ekstein replied that there was a toilet but no tub. The existing ground floor windows would be replaced by the applicants, and he noted that the existing windows in the two storage rooms already met the requirement for egress. The setback facing the streets was less than 20 feet. In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara whether the home had an existing interior staircase, Mr. Ekstein replied there was not. In response to an inquiry by Board member McNamara whether the parking in the front yard counted as a parking space, Mr. Thomas replied that it did not. Board member McNamara noted that parking was a challenge in this neighborhood, and believed there were case-by-case situations that the Board could not ignore. She believed the interior staircase was essential to the remodel design. Mr. Thomas noted that staff endeavored to make the planning standards consistent, and that case-by-case situations were usually addressed by a variance. Board member Kohlstrand noted that it was a disadvantage to not have the existing site plan. She was uncomfortable changing the parking standards, but would look at it on a variance basis if the hardship findings could be met. Vice President Cook noted that she was troubled with respect to parking, which had been the subject of much discussion. She did not believe this would be a unique as people wanted to build up or down, and thanked the applicant for his candor regarding his plans. She was not sure this plan would work as a variance, as it may be possible that it would be a common request in this neighborhood. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there would be an exterior ground level door. Mr. Ekstein replied that had been removed from the plan. She noted that this house was somewhat of a blank slate, and suggested that the interior stairway be placed elsewhere in the house to accommodate parking and still retain the historic character of the house. President Lynch noted that the front yard-parking scheme was not consistent with City policy, and if it were, this would be a conforming use. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether it was staff's position to retain the two parking spaces and relocating the stairwell, Mr. Thomas replied that was correct. Mr. Ekstein replied that moving the stairwell would probably end the remodeling efforts of this home. He noted that there were other alternatives to this question, but they would be very costly. He noted that many residents in the neighborhood would not be able to park two cars in the garage. Planning Board Minutes Page 8 March 26, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf |