August 1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

when material is deteriorated. Mrs. Sporleder inquired about screens and Mr. Bowyer responded that there would be screens in the new windows 3. 962 Riverside Drive - RSD -LHD; tree removal Mr. Duvall read the Staff comments. No representative of the applicant was present. Mrs. Sporleder asked if the tree was dead. Mr. Duvall responded that at this point it was effectively mutilated having had its branches removed before the work was stopped and COA requested. He also noted that the tree was presently precarious and leaning toward the house. Mr. Oxian repeated that the work had been commenced without COA and that he was disturbed by individuals who participated in the development of the neighborhood standards doing work without proper approval and that this COA application was requested by letter under his signature. Mrs. Choitz moved that the application be approved for removal of the maple tree with the requirement that the bank be replanted with Rroundcover as recommended by Staff. Mr. Fine seconded the motion. Mr. Oxian asked for clarification by Staff that they recommend only ground cover and not the replanting of the tree as would be normal in the removal of a tree. Staff responded affirmatively, that the tree was not significant to the historical oak stand and that the crest of bank location would remain problematic for such trees, and that surface groundcover would more effectively stabilize conditions. The motion was approved by a affirmative vote of all present except Mr. Oxian who abstained. 4. 938 Riverside Drive - RSD -LHD; replace gutters, storm windows, etc. Mr. Duvall read the Staff comments. Mr. Tidmarsh stated that he had little to add to staff description of the work. Mr. Talley commended Mr. Tidmarsh for his copious restoration of this structure, and inquired about the process for re- rating suggested by Staff. Mrs. Sporleder and Mrs. Choitz indicated that the---re-rating should await a---recommendation -from Staff following- the -- completion of work. Mr. Talley moved that the application be approved as recommended - - Staff.- Mrs -- Sporleder - seconded - the motion. The -- motion was - unanimously approved. Mr. Talley moved that upon completion of the restoration work. the Director shall re- evaluate the building with the approval of the commission. Mrs. Petrass seconded the motion. This motion was unanimously approved. 5. 1001 Hudson Avenue - RSD -LHD; shutters Mr. Duvall read the Staff comments. Carole Streeter, the Owner indicated that she had not been aware that she should have attended the Meeting last month and that she had just moved into the neighborhood. She further recounted that the house is not considered contributing and that it has been altered by the aluminum siding. Mr. Duvall observed that the Staff comments were written by Ms. Christine Anderson before her leaving the employ of the commission and that one could only presume that the aluminum siding reflected the style of the material below and that there was little evidence of detail apparent on which to base judgments regarding appropriateness to the style of the house. Mrs. Petrass inquired as to whether there was any other suggestions that could be made on other ways to improve the appearance of this house. Mr. Oxian suggested that the preceding applicant could serve as a model. Ms. Streeter stated that she was not disposed to undertake removal of the siding and was attempting to find a way to improve the appearance of the property. She noted that it would be acceptable to her for Staff to approve her selection of shutter style. Mr. Talley moved that the application be approved because the house is non - contributing and because of the (relatively recent) age of the house with the requirement that the shutter selection be approved by Staff. Mrs. Choitz seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. Mrs. Sporleder inquired about the interior trim details of the house. Ms. Streeter a,e 2