Design Review Committee

By City Clerk at 9:42 am, Jul 28, 2023 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE TUESDAY, MARCH 1st, 2022 1. Call to Order at 6:05 pm 2. Roll Call – Members present: Rachel Harris, Matt Sherrill. Nipun Jain staff. 3. Minutes - None 4. Public Comment – none 5. Communications - None 6. New Applications a. Sign Permit Application: 205A Elm Street The Applicant is seeking to replace the existing signs with the same sign type and in the same location. There is a change in the sign lettering due to change in ownership of the business. As this is a residential zone, no signs greater than two square feet are al- lowed. DRC acknowledges that the current signs are pre-existing non- conforming signs. As the proposed signs are not changing in size, loca- tion or the total number of signs, no relief from the Zoning Ordinance may be needed. DRC members generally like the primary sign over the large window. They questioned the need for the secondary sign next to the entrance door. The Applicant stated that they need the sign with the phone num- ber so that patients could call the reception before coming into the dental office. Due to Covid health and safety protocols, no patients are allowed into the office before checking in by phone. It was recommended by DRC that the phone number can be placed on the entrance door. Since the sign on a door is typically limited to contact information or hours of operation, it can be changed without further approvals. Also, the second- ary sign next to the door does not read well given its small size and the patients with appointments are already parked in the parking area. The DRC Minutes 03-01-2022 Approved 1  applicant indicated that they could discuss this option with the client but would like to keep the original option as well. Rachel made a motion to send a positive recommendation for either op- tion to the Planning Board. Matt seconded. Approved unanimously. b. 20 Maple Street - i) The Applicant’s representative, Nicholas Cracknell was present. Mr. Cracknell made a brief presentation to the DRC. The application is made to the Planning Board to preserve an existing historic structure under the Historic Preservation Special Permit as well as to subdivide the parcel into three lots, including one of the lots where the historic structure will remain. Mr. Cracknell went through the history of the structure and some of the improvements that are being proposed to the site and the structure. No changes are proposed to the existing his- toric structure. Rachel asked the applicant to do some more research and see if there are any indications of the original structure being modified over time. ii) Mr. Cracknell also showed the proposed architectural designs for the new single family dwelling units on the new lots. Rachel asked the applicant to verify if there will be window wells as shown on the building plans. There appears to be some discrepancy between the grades and whether there can be windows at basement level as shown. Also, there appears to be a deck above these windows and it would be in conflict with any window wells. The finished grade ele- vations were asked to be shown on the subdivision plan. Rachel indi- cated that the front door style would be reviewed further as a Victori- an style entrance door would be more in keeping with the architectur- al style of the proposed house design. There is a view easement on Lot 1 to allow for an unobstructed view of the historic structure and prevents the installation of any permanent structure or other landscap- ing materials – trees and shrubs that would obstruct the view from Maple Street. The applicant indicated that this will be more clearly shown on the plan. It was also recommended to adjust the location of the structure on Lot 1 so that the rear yard was more usable. iii) Lot 3 – this lot requires relief from the required minimum frontage. The location of the detached garage was discussed. It was suggested that the area between the house and the garage be expanded. This DRC Minutes 03-01-2022 Approved 2  would provide some usable yard space in addition to smaller rear yard. The architectural design was also discussed and it was suggest- ed that the gable end of the house should face the front of house. Fur- ther, Rachel asked that the existing historic photos of houses as shown by Mr. Cracknell should be used for incorporating certain ar- chitectural elements in the façade for the proposed house. iv) Fences – The Applicant indicates that there will be privacy or proper- ty fences along lot lines. No details for the kind of fences or there lo- cation have been shown between the individual lots. The Applicant will provide more details on the type of fences and the locations for each fence type. Overall DRC members commended the applicant for their research and efforts in designing new houses that are inspired by historic architectural styles and incorporate details from those periods. Rachel made a motion to send a positive recommendation to the Plan- ning Board. Matt seconded. Approved unanimously. 7. Continued Applications - None 8. Other Business - None 9. Adjourn. Matt moved to adjourn @ 8:30pm. Rachel seconded. Approved unan- imously. DRC Minutes 03-01-2022 Approved 3