July 1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• returned to the issue of safety stating that the situation at the rear, yard would be no more or less safe than at the front. Mr. Fine reiterated that the relative safety was not the measure of appropriateness. Fr. Bullene indicated that his concern for appropriateness was much greater in .the front setback - where fencing .is not otherwise appropriate than in the sides and back where fencing is ordinarily allowed. Mr. Oxian called the question. The motion failed a plurality with only Mr. Oxian voting yea and no nay votes. ' Fr. Bullene 'moved that the commission require removal of the lattice forward of the setback line and recommend to the owner that he investigate a permanent, fencing solution which is more appropriate for the neighborhood context. Mrs. Hostetler seconded the motion. Mr'. Talley questioned the partial approval of the act undertaken without COA. Mrs. DeRose stated that the commission needed to make determination of appropriateness without regard to the rules and regulations for process which were violated by the construction without COA. The motion was passed with four yea votes, Mr. Oxian and Mr. Borkowski voting nay and_ Mr. Talley abstaining. AU OFb _)� 2) 1996-0531-8 1121 East Wayne Street - new storm door Mr. Duvall presented the Staff Report and distributed photographs, drawings, and catalog information, noting that the replacement of the main entry door had been approved by staff as in-kind replacement. Mr. Eide, the applicant, made further presentation, stating that the storm door had been designed to be sympathetic with the style of the house and the entry door. At this point • Mr. Talley absented himself temporarily. Mr: Fine .moved that the commission approve the application for installation of'the new storm door. Mrs. Hostetler seconded the motion. Fr. Bullene noted that, he had observed that the door had been installed already. Mr. Eide stated that the storm door had been installed when the other door- had been but that it could be easily -enough removed without damage to the structure. Mr. Duvall clarified that neither door had been installed before the applications were received and the in-kind replacement approved and that.Mr. Eide had informed him at the time -of the application that all installation would be performed at the same time. The motion was passed unanimously (with Mr. Talley absent). 3) 1314 East Wayne Street - roof alterations Mr. Duvall presented the Staff Report and distributed photographs. Mr. Fine asked what the proposed roofing material would be. Mr.' Duvall responded that the proposal called for rubber ice -dam material to be applied as underlayment with asphalt shingle selected to match the slate installed over it. He further observed that because of the low slope the roofing material will not generally be visible. Mr. Fine asked whether there would be guttering. Mr. Duvall responded that the original guttering of this sunroom had been and integral box -gutter which has previously been built over. The new sloping roof will be built over this material and the existing 'soffit and crown mould conditions retained. There will thus be no gutter on the sunroom. The existing box gutter will remain enclosed in the structure. Mrs. Hostetler moved that the commission approve the construction of a low -sloped hip roof with Prominence green asphalt shingles over the existing flat roof at the sunroom on the west side of the house. Mrs. Choitz seconded the motion. Fr. Bullene inquired about the contractors proposal stated that soffit and facia are to be white • aluminum. Mr. Duvall stated that. he had confirmed with the contractor that the aluminum covering of the facia found in his proposal was not to be included in the work. The motion was passed unanimously. 4) 1333 East Wayne Street South - Landscaping Mr._ Duvall presented the Staff Report and distributed site plans and photographs. Mrs. Choitz moved that the commission approve the application for