pages_fts: 18637
This data as json
rowid | text |
---|---|
18637 | Board member Knox White stated that Plan B1 is the preferred option to provide clearance for the windows and suggested that setbacks be required specifically where the adjacent buildings windows are, and not the entire length of the property. Board member Köster asked if the residential building next door, which is historic, can be torn down, and inquired if it's owner has spoken with staff regarding the project. Mr. Thomas stated that the building is historic and there is a demolition process for historic properties. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Board's direction to staff, when bringing this back for review, should include the landscaping plans. Mr. Thomas stated that commercial buildings on the main corridor are reviewed and approved by the Planning Board and that the landscaping will be included in the plans when staff presents the design review to the Board. He clarified that the only reason staff suggested that the board not review the design again is because the board has reviewed the plans twice. Board member Knox White motioned to approve the staff recommendation with the flexibility that Plan B1's design be allowed to explore the "bulb outs," or other design options around the wing-walls to protect the windows and lighting of the house next door, that landscape plans be included in the design review plans, and that the design be brought back to the Board for approval. Board member Köster seconded the motion. Vice President Burton stated that the Board needs to be very careful with how specific staff direction is in regards to the "bulb-outs" and that the architect needs flexibility. He stated that staff and the architect have a good sense of what the Board wants and doesn't think that the Board needs to be very explicit in their direction to staff and the architect. Board member Knox White replied that it is important that the Board be explicit in their direction, because Plan B1 has a 5 foot setback. He stated that If the Board asks staff to look at building within the 5 foot setback; it is confusing to make a recommendation for a setback without saying its okay to "play around" in the setback a little bit as long as the spirit of the purpose for the 5 foot setback is achieved. Approved Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 14 May 30, 2012 |