Citation in context
September 4, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
Cited passage
Mr. Antkowiak indicated that there is one on the last page of their submittal.
6 The property owner, Christopher Springer, approached the podium and informed the members that he just had his slate tile roof redone; he went from Spanish to French and that he believes there is enough left over to use on the addition. He added that he has received positive feedback from his neighbors; his current garage is unsightly and this addition will improve the appearance.
Chairman Lichtenfeld agreed.
Ron Reim stated that he’s okay with the Hardie Board as requested; the addition will be more difficult to see from the back roads.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that it will be more noticeable from the north side of the Parkway during the winter.
Ron Reim asked if work on the garage is anticipated.
Mr. Springer replied “yes”; in the future.
Richard Lintz asked if the project results in a change in lot coverage.
Susan Istenes replied “no”.
Anna Krane added that they are under the allowed coverage.
Susan Istenes asked about the roof.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he prefers it to match.
Mr. Springer informed the members that he needs to have the roofing contractor to come out; that the roof slope needs to stay, but it can come down a little bit.
Ron Reim stated that he, too, would like to see the roof match.
Hearing no further questions or comments and hearing none from the audience, Ron Reim made a motion to approve as proposed with the condition that the roof of the addition is to stay sloped (slope can be reduced from what’s shown on plan as long it is not flat) and the tile is to be French to match existing roof; Hardie Board approved as proposed; staff to approve the color of the Hardie Board. The motion was seconded by William Liebermann and unanimously approved by the Board.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – GENERATOR/SCREENING IN FRONT YARD – 241 LINDEN AVENUE
line, not the south property line as shown on the plan.
Ron Reim asked staff if changing the setbacks will alter the review.
Anna Krane replied “no”.
Mr. Antkowiak commented that the comment that the addition can be seen from Shaw Park Drive is inaccurate.
5
Chairman Lichtenfeld indicated that it is due to the time of year.
Mr. Antkowiak stated that they believe the addition as proposed is consistent with the area.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the applicant understands the need for a variance.
Mr. Antkowiak replied “yes”. He added that they were instructed by staff to come to this Board first.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if material samples were available.
Mr. Antkowiak stated that brick is not in the budget. He presented print-outs depicting the proposed siding, which will, according to Mr. Antkowiak, match the house trim.
Brochures depicting the proposed windows (Anderson), roof shingles (Certainteed) and siding were presented.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if there is supposed to be a small window in the addition that is shown on the plan submitted as blank.
Mr. Antkowiak replied “no”; that’s a mistake.
William Liebermann asked the minimum percentage of brick or stone that’s required.
Anna Krane replied 75%.
William Liebermann commented that the siding is less than 25%.
Anna Krane commented that the percentage of material is found in the Architectural Review Guidelines.
William Liebermann asked if there are Trustees.
Craig Owens commented that there may be.
Mr. Antkowiak stated he’s not aware of any.
William Liebermann asked if there is a color rendering.
Mr. Antkowiak indicated that there is one on the last page of their submittal.
The motion was seconded by William Liebermann and unanimously approved by the Board. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – GENERATOR/SCREENING IN FRONT YARD – 241 LINDEN AVENUE
7 Charles Deutsch, owner, and Chris Leonard, agent for owner, were in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that the proposed project consists of the installation of an emergency generator adjacent to the existing HVAC units in the front yard along Kingsbury Boulevard. The proposed generator measures approximately 4.5 feet wide by 11 feet long by 5.67 feet tall. Two retaining walls are required to create a level area for the generator and a solid screen fence is proposed. The proposed generator location is in the secondary front yard along Kingsbury Boulevard. The generator would be highly visible from the public right-of-way; however, the applicant is proposing a solid screen fence. Staff supports the proposed location of the existing generator because it is adjacent to existing mechanical equipment and the necessary service connections. The proposed screen fence is black vinyl. The Architectural Review Board has previously outlined a strong preference for wood and metal fences and more specifically, decorative metal fences when located in the front yard. A solid fence is preferred by staff in this instance because it would be used to screen the generator. Staff recommends that the proposed fence material is revised to solid wood. Front yard fences are also usually limited to a maximum of 4 feet tall. Staff supports a 6 foot tall fence because the generator is over 5 feet tall. The subject property contains a metal decorative fence along the sidewalk of Kingsbury Boulevard that will remain in place. The applicant is also proposing additional landscaping between the new screen fence and the existing metal fence. The new landscaping will help provide screening of the additional mechanical equipment and soften the visual impact of a tall and solid fence. The applicant is proposing two retaining walls to create a level area for the generator pad. One size and color block are proposed for the retaining wall, which does not conform the Architectural Review Board Guidelines for three size blocks and a varying color pattern. The proposed site plan shows the retaining walls behind the solid fence and therefore not visible from the right-of-way. Staff has concerns about this design because existing grade slopes down from the house to the right-of-way. As shown, the fence will be installed at a lower grade than the generator, leaving a portion of the generator visible above the top of the fence. Staff does not support increasing the height of the fence and instead staff requests that the site design is altered to allow the fence to be installed at the same grade as the generator. The altered design would shift the retaining wall north, toward the right-of-way making the retaining wall visible from the street. Staff recommends that the proposed retaining wall material is revised to meet the Architectural Review Board Guidelines for retaining wall materials. Director Istenes continued by stating that staff is of the opinion that with revisions, the design will be compatible with existing neighborhood character and requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and the Architectural Review Board Guidelines and as such, recommends approval with the following conditions:
at the same grade as the generator.