pages: PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-01-28 | 7 | President Cook suggested that 1,000 square feet should be the dividing line between a boat house and an actual dwelling. Mr. Thomas noted that may be an argument for the applicants' approach, which was to call it a main house. He noted that the parcel was large enough, the setback requirements could be made, and it remained to be seen whether the open space and parking requirements could be met. The applicants could request that the Board initiate a Zoning Text Amendment along those lines, which would then be considered by the City Council. Vice President Kohlstrand believed the rear structure was consistent with everything else in the area, and she had seen many two-story boat houses all along the waterfront. She believed a Code Amendment may not be finished in time to solve the applicants' problem, but that it was something that could be considered. Mr. Thomas noted that there were many Code violations along the waterfront, which had been very problematic to enforce. President Cook generally agreed with staff's analysis about variances, which are difficult to make the findings for. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that some of the nicest homes she has seen have had some kind of renovation that displayed a seamless look. She wanted to ensure that the regulations would not penalize people or prevent them from doing things that would be to the betterment of the entire community, not just their property. She would be open to dealing with the existence of boat houses from a Code point of view. She supposed people being able to improve their properties, but believed there should be some reward for undertaking a project such as this that would improve the entire street. With respect to the center porch being more welcoming, most of the entrances along that stretch of Fernside were off-center as well. She noted that the cover of the City's Guide to Residential Design did not show a single centered entrance. She submitted that an off-center porch could be welcoming as well. Mr. Thomas invited Board comments regarding their thoughts about a variance on the front house for height, the overall quality of the architectural design; and the Board's thoughts on initiating a Zoning Text Amendment to examine boat houses. Staff would then be able to discuss the phasing of the project with the applicants; perhaps the front house could be addressed first, while the Text Amendment followed. Board member Cunningham could not find a compelling reason to raise the building nine inches, and the existing base slab was still 10 inches above the road. He believed that by massaging grades on the driveway, it would be possible to mitigate any drainage problems. He suggested adding a drainage system around the foundation, given the site's proximity to the Estuary. He did not see any reason to support a variance for a nine-inch height increase. He did not have a problem with raising it to 30 feet. He appreciated AAPS's comments about preserving the integrity of the building, but he found the cut-in driveway to be more oppressive than the open driveway that was proposed. He would like to see some Page 7 of 15 | PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |