pages: PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-06-23 | 9 | believe this process should be so arduous for the applicants, and that their home should not be placed under a magnifying glass. He urged approval of this item. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she had taken issue with the height, the façade and the fact that the variance was being sought when this item was first heard. She believed the revisions addressed those issues. She noted that Mr. Buckley's letter mentioned the Golden Mean, and was concerned that it was not discussed in the staff report. Mr. Brighton noted that the Golden Mean issue was a general issue discussed with respect to historic homes, generally Victorians and revival homes. He noted that Craftsman homes received special treatment in the design guidelines. In this case, Craftsman had certain proportionality, including a lower proportional base which meant they stayed low and wide. He noted that staff was critical of popping up Victorians and creating front staircases that were inconsistent with the scale of the structure, as well as the architectural integrity of the structure. Staff believed it was critical to maintain the integrity of the Craftsman structure. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that this kind of discussion made a better community, and that it returned to the drawing board by mutual agreement of the applicant and staff. She requested that Mr. Brighton explain the difference between a bungalow and a Craftsman home, which he did. She was concerned about the relocation of the stairway, and noted that most of the homes in the neighborhood did not have center porches and center walkways. She liked the porch treatment, and believed the double-wide garage doors were in proportion to the rest of the house. She was concerned with an item brought up by the AAPS, and did not want to see a home tower over its neighbors. She believed the 30-foot height limit was fine, and inquired about the 9-inch architectural element. She did not believe the roof in the front added enough detail, and liked the back of the house. She agreed with Mr. Buckley's comment that the sides of the house that they would be made to look more authentic in the Craftsman style with bay windows. However, the only people who would see the side of the house would be the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Cunningham believed that a lot of progress had been made since the last hearing, and that the appearance of the front of the house looked much better. He believed the excavation would be a detriment, and would like to maintain the 30-foot height limit. He believed the appearance would be improved if some relief were to be added to the roof. He would like to see improvements to the side of the house visible from the street, rather than encumbering the applicant with architectural gyrations on the back of the house. He believed the design looked much better than it had before. In response to an inquiry by Board member Autorino regarding the details of the excavation the applicant, displayed and described the method by which the excavation would be accomplished. He noted that they planned a very expensive installation of an elevator so their parents would have access to the entire house. In response to an inquiry by President Cook why the extra nine inches would be necessary, and why the ceiling height could not be 8'6", the applicant replied that he would not be certain the Page 9 of 23 | PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf |