April 1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

next three parts of the proposal, saying each part should be voted on separately. Mr. Pastor read the staff recommendation for part a. of the proposal, which was, initially, negative: the proposed window was not in keeping with Edgewater district standards regarding windows and doors. Since making this initial recommendation, however, Mr. Pastor said he had spoken further with Mr. MacHatton, and had switched to a favorable staff recommendation. He had changed his mind because, although district standards rule against altering window sizes, he felt the new window would be appropriate because it would be the same size as the other windows on the southeast facade. He passed around plans for the window proposal, submitted that evening by Mr. MacHatton. Commission members studied the plans and questioned Mr. MacHatton. Mrs. Choitz moved to gpProve re pla czn c„__ t h e o riginal window with the 28" by 40" windo specified in the plans, add_i_ng that the owner must retain the orig tra.m__ Mrs. Dennen seconded the motion. Motion aparoved unanimously_ b. Mr. Pastor first explained that he was presenting this part of the proposal as a unit only because the owner had told him a partial approval would invalidate his entire plan for this part of the house. The plan actually consisted of two parts: -- extend the front porch, build new steps, and install untapered wood posts -- replace two lower front windows with unglazed steel -core entry doors of the same width, and replace existing front entry with steel -core unglazed door. Mr. Pastor passed around the specifications for the steel -core door. He reported that the staff recommended retaining the old tapered half- length box columns and clapboard wall /balustrade, and disallowing the untapered wood posts. Also, the changing of windows to doors was disapproved, since doing so violated Edgewater District standard 2 c., and would create an awkward facade. 2