2022

This is an AI generated summary. There may be inaccuracies.
Summarize another video · Purchase summarize.tech Premium

00:00:00 - 00:55:00

The Design Review Board met on July 7, 2022 to discuss a proposed design for a new home. The board recommended minor design revisions to help the applicant work with the subcommittee.

00:00:00 Today's Design Review Board meeting will be conducted both in person and virtually, with the public able to observe the meeting via Zoom. The agenda is approved as submitted, and the board moves on to the public hearing portion of the meeting. The first project on the agenda is a request for a design review permit to construct a new 5958 square foot two-story single-family home.
00:05:00 The design review board met on July 7, 2022 to review a project to build a new home. The board recommended minor design revisions to help the applicant work with the subcommittee comprised of board members Nichols and Vice Chair Psy.
00:10:00 The Design Review Board met on July 7, 2022 to discuss the revised plans submitted by the applicant. The meeting included discussion of the design comments brought by the Design Review Board during the meeting of June 2nd. The applicant has made modifications to the plans based on these comments, as well as the suggestions provided by the Board during the last hearing. The plans include a proposed single-family residence and attached two-car garage, with a new pool and spa located at the rear of the property. The first floor includes two bedrooms, two living spaces, one dining area, a kitchen, and a 212 square foot covered porch. The proposed second story includes one bedroom, one primary suite, one yoga room, and a common living space with a 300 square foot deck facing the front of the property and a 525 square foot deck facing the rear. The applicant has also removed the rear deck previously extending over the garage and replaced it with a newly proposed 72 square foot balcony. The plans also include a proposed roof terrace, which has been removed by the applicant. The proposed exterior elevations consist of various building materials, including but not limited to smooth plaster, limestone fixed panels, casement windows, doors, and wood accents. Finally, the Design Review Board provides additional feedback to
00:15:00 The applicant's proposed landscape plan was based on the development standards in the zoning code, but a final landscape plan will be submitted as part of the plan check process prior to building permit issuance. The design review board has the option of approving the project without any changes, with recommended changes to the conditions or the design, or continuing the project to a future hearing date.
00:20:00 The board discusses the applicant's proposed design review board meeting and decides to approve it. The board member younger comments that the house will be stunning. The architect and applicant agree that the material on the facade of the garage and area under the entryway is limestone.
00:25:00 The Design Review Board (DRB) meeting for project 107 South Lane was held, and the project passed with a vote of 5-0. Board member Carlson expressed that due to her property interests, she needs to recuse herself from the project. Board member Younger then took over as project chair, and presented the project. The DRB approved the construction of a 240 square foot uncovered rear balcony as well as modifications to the front facade.
00:30:00 Today's presenter will be discussing project 2480, which is a design review permit for a new 240 square foot rear balcony located at the top floor visible from the public right-of-way. The project is categorically exempt from sequa under section 15031, class 1 for existing facilities this includes addition to existing structures no greater than 10,000 square feet. The property the subject property is located on the south side of south lane in between warwick place and the end of the cul-de-sac. The existing split-level single-family residence was built in 1974 with an attached two-car garage the property is not part of the city's inventory list or within a historic district. Since the original construction of the home, there have been no large additions proposed. Here we have a real-time picture of the front of the property as you can see the property is in need of a little bit of rehabilitation. And here are two other perspectives of the front facade. One shows the backyard after a few feet and the other is an area of the site plan. The applicant is proposing a rear balcony that is outlined in red. The rear balcony is visible from the public right-of-way but it's also the only addition that's visible from an
00:35:00 The design review board met to review a proposal to add a new balcony and modify the facade of an existing home. The board voted to approve the project as is, recommend modifications to the conditions of approval, or continue the project to a future date.
00:40:00 The board met to discuss the design of the front house of a cul-de-sac. Gary Mckee, an associate with a different firm, introduced himself and said he was wondering if the client had any questions for him. They discussed the excessive cantilever of the balcony and the need for steel beams to support it. They also discussed the design of the house in relation to the neighboring houses. Mckee said he was assuming the design would not change much because the structure is on a hill and would need support.
00:45:00 The Design Review Board meeting discussed the applicant's proposed remodel of their home, with particular emphasis on the balcony and lights. The Board agreed to add a condition requiring a chair review for any changes to the balcony materials, and to review the elevation of the front elevation again.
00:50:00 The Design Review Board meeting 7/7/2022 discussed a proposed change to the cantilevered balcony, and after discussing the issue, decided that a chair review would not be required if the steel was covered or boxed out.
00:55:00 The Design Review Board met to discuss and approve the meeting minutes from the May 5th meeting. There were no comments from the board or subcommittee members. Staff reported that they were trying to catch up on minutes and that they would remind applicants to speak into the mic during the interviews for the assistant planner position. The meeting was adjourned and the next meeting is scheduled for August 4th.