pages: PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-01-28 | 8 | architectural relief to the front elevation and the high wall in front. He liked the changes to the garage door. He did not believe the boat house design was objectionable; he believed it was more of a Code issue. He was mindful of trying to get too much density on the lot, as well as pushing the dock too far toward the water. Board member Cunningham liked the use of boats in a waterfront area, which should be encouraged because it activated the waterfront. He was concerned about people building too far into the Estuary. Vice President Kohlstrand encouraged staff to include more detail in the staff report because of the complexity of this project. She echoed Board member Cunningham's comments, and she did not have an issue with the boat house; she wanted to take into account the two-story structures on the rear of the property. She understood that the legal requirements of the variance, but did not think the proposed scale in the rear of the property was out of scale with the adjacent structures. She had some concerns about a height variance, and had not seen one in her three years on the Board. She agreed that the blank façade on the front of the house was overwhelming, and would like that to be treated. She liked the design of the garage doors. With respect to the boat house, Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it was important to remember that the applicants bought a waterfront property, and that it was not unreasonable to expect that they would want to make use of the waterfront behind their home. She agreed that the structure as designed would be one of the more attractive structures on the back of Fernside Blvd. President Cook generally agreed with the Board's comments, and commended the applicants on the amount of work they had done on their home. Her main concern about the design was that the area around the garage felt heavy to her. She would like the amount of concrete to be limited, and for the massing to be broken up. She believed the issue of height was more critical than the number of floors, and encouraged the applicants to stay within the height limits as much as possible. She noted that the parking requirements would need to be addressed. She understood the applicants' conflict since they were trying to build a smaller structure, while the Code seemed to be pushing them towards a larger structure. She noted that the issues of density and the public rights to the waterfront were important issues. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that there were pavers available that allowed grass to grow between them. Mr. Thomas noted that staff would regroup with the applicant and examine the scenarios for the main house, back house, and parking open space requirements. Board member Cunningham moved to continue this item to February 25, 2008. Vice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4. Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara). The motion passed. Page 8 of 15 | PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |