HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-3-12Minutes for March 12, adopted Mar. 24
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
2 Fairgrounds Road
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
xv-,v-,v.nantucket- ma.gov
Commissioners: Linda Williams (Chair), Dawn Itill- Iioldgate (Vice- chair), John McLaughlin, Diane Coombs, Raymond Pohl
Associate Commissioners: Jascin Leonardo Abigail Camp Kristine Glazer Staff: Mark Voigt
-- MINUTES --
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Public Safety Facility, 4 Fairgrounds Road, Training Room — 12:00 p.m.
Called to order at 12:08 p.m.
Staff in attendance: T. Norton, Town Minutes Taker
Attending Members: Williams, Hill- Holdgate, McLaughlin, Coombs, Glazer
Absent Members: Pohl, Leonardo, Camp
Late Arrivals: Glazer 12:09 p.m.
Early Departures: Hill- Holdgate 1:04 p.m.
Agenda adopted by unanimous consent.
COMMENT 1. PUBLIC
None
11. PRELIMINARY REVIEW
1. Sachem's Path/ Housing Assistance Corp 95 Surfside Road Review of 40 house designs 67 -513 Rowland & Assoc.
Sitting
Williams, Hill- Holdgate, McLaughlin, Coombs, Glazer
Documentation
File with associated plans, photos and required documentation.
Representing
Mickey Rowland, Rowland and Associates — Reviewed an artist's concept of the overall layout of the neighborhood and
the vegetated buffer. All houses are between 24 and 28 feet tall. The goal is to make the houses simple, attractive and
affordable; the designs mimic houses Nantucketers built for themselves in the past. Over years the houses can be
modified by the owners as well as personalized with landscaping.
Ben Normand, Rowland and Associates
Public
Rich Trurer, Community Preservation Committee (CPC)
Concerns
Williams — This is a 40 -unit, affordable- housing development. The size and height of the structures has been capped by
the State.
Discussion about the materials: all white cedar and asphalt shingle. The colors are noted on the plans.
Hill - Holdgate — The Anderson 200 series are not acceptable because they are snap -in muntins.
Rowland — Went through the 8 separate designs A through H.
Williams — There is an issue with the fenestration and the lack thereof. There are small windows on the 11, floor and larger
on the 2nd floor; that needs to be corrected.
Coombs — The first 5 houses along Surfside Road
Hill - Holdgate — Along Surfside Road the bulkheads should move to the side. The window issues need to be alle- hated;
there is alignment of windows that is off and needs to be fined.
TYPE A
Hill- Holdgate — It looks odd without a chimney and something needs to disguise the vents. Will need to know where the
air conditioning units (A /C) will go. A porch would be better than the pent roof. One window is not over the counter and
they can be bigger.
Williams — Suggested a buried central A/C system servicing several houses. (That is geo- thermal.)
McLaughlin — The casement window should be a hopper or fixed.
Coombs — Would prefer two windows on the R elevation 1 I floor. Thinks the left elevation door should have a banister
along the wall.
Glazer — Addition of another window or two would help. Looking at the structure from the side with the pent roof and
the wart, if the pent roof comes off it looks unbalanced. Agree with Ms Hill - Holdgate about the porch rather than the bent
roof.
Williams — She won't approve any Anderson 200. The pent roof is out of place here and is not appropriate on a design of
this style especially over a large deck. Right elevation, the edges of the wart are less than 1 foot from the corner boards; it
needs to come in 6 more inches and evenly centered and needs another window. Rear elevation facing Surfside Road, the
Page 1 of 3
Minutes for March 12, adopted Mar. 24
little windows need to be centered, especially when facing Surfside Road and are too tiny; the window that is not over the
counter should be larger. The left elevation door and deck are not set up for a railing on the wall.
Rowland — Suggested that not every elevation needs to be symmetric.
TYPE B
Williams — There is a lack of trim around the front door and fenestration especially on the front. Back elevation, the
dormer could be larger top to bottom and the 1 It floor windows larger.
Hill - Holdgate — If this elevation faces Surfside Road, the bulkhead should be moved to the side.
McLaughlin — The dormer should sit higher to match the one on Type C, then it could accommodate double hung
windows.
Rowland — The floor level is already way below the windows so they are presently normal head height above the floor; if it
were taller, it would end up 8 to 9 feet above the floor.
Coombs —The Nr. 2 windows have square panes.
Hill - Holdgate — Whether or not 1- over -1 windows are allowed in here is a question to be addressed.
Glazer — The 2"d -floor bedroom needs another window in the left dormer.
TYPE C
Williams —The Nr. 4 and Nr. 1 windows are too small. The dormer should be a full shed facing Surfside Road; as it is, it
is too large for the little window.
Hill- Holdgate — Historically, there are a lot of random dormers on saltboxes; she doesn't find this objectionable.
Glazer — Agrees with Ms Hill- Holdgate about the single dormer on the back elevation.
Coombs — Thinks the window should be larger to fill the dormer or the cheek walls should be tighter to the window.
Doesn't think this should have the deck between the house and the bike path.
TYPE D
Williams — The gable trim doesn't match anything else in the house and shouldn't have projecting rakes. Doesn't like the
12 pitch roof. The small 2- over -2 windows don't work. The back elevation over the doors lacks fenestration and the doors
should be 6 lights. The right elevation lacks fenestration; the left elevation fenestration needs work.
Coombs — The upstairs bedrooms only have one window; if they don't have A /C, they don't have circulation.
Glazer — She doesn't like the verticality, the fenestration, the sliders on the back.
McLaughlin — It is typical to find 3- gables like this along Fair and Pine Street.
Hill - Holdgate — The porch should fill in the entire space going all the way out to the gable. Modern sliders are 6 lights; in
the old historic district (OHD) they are probably 15 light. Suggested going to a door with a window.
TYPE E
Williams — This has more windows than the rest of them. The front right bump out doesn't work. She understands the
idea of picking up simpler styles built in town; but there are some additions we would not approve today and this is a
brand new house in a brand new subdivision and a lay person driving by is going to wonder why that "stupid" thing is
there and won't understand why he can't have it. The rear elevation left, no body builds anything like that. The public isn't
going to understand why we permitted something "so ridiculous" on a new house.
Hill - Holdgate — This fenestration is more successful. Front elevation right large bump -out that wraps the corner; if the
gable were moved over, it would protrude out more. More projection on the rear left gable would be better. The windows
on the rear elevation need to align better. The bulkhead if it is on Surfside Road it should move to the side.
Rowland — If he moves that rear gable to the right, it makes the structure too linear to the main house. If he moves it left,
it projects out more.
Coombs —The left elevation, the only window on that elevation is coming up the stairs; that needs more fenestration.
Mulcahy — The bump on the right could come back 2 feet.
TYPE F
Williams — The windows are chaos on the left, right and rear elevation. The front is okay. This is a Colonial and the
windows should be aligned. Thinks the Nr. 2 windows on this house are better than the Nr. 1.
Hill - Holdgate — !Agrees.
Glazer — Agrees.
Coombs — The Nr. 2 and Nr. 1 windows should be switched.
Page 2 of 3
Minutes for March 12, adopted T'\1ar. 24
TYPE G
Williams — The dormers have too much space, the cheek walls need to come in or get another window. "That" isn't
appropriate, the sill is lower than the flanking windows. The windows on the back elevation should be separated more.
Hill - Holdgate — There window alignment issues and some too tiny windows.
Coombs — Back elevation, moving the window closer to the closet will allow more air and align with the window below.
McLaughlin — This is not a true Victorian style. This and Type H should have 6 -panel doors.
TYPE H
Glazer — She doesn't like the design, particularly the sliding doors on the back side.
Williams — Not happy with this house at all. Would like something more like a cape. Would like something more now
Nantucket. Reiterated her displeasure with trying to create a "Disney World old house on Back Street "; she's not buying
that. Off the gable is another thing; it should be off the other side.
Rowland — Feels they need another gable- forward house to put variety in the streetscape. He believes it is a good design
to have in the subdivision.
Hill - Holdgate — Suggested a full gable forward with the bump off the back. The problem with this is similar to those with
the Type D.
Coombs — The little "poof' on the right shouldn't be everywhere but it balances the house out.
Williams — That bump out is as wide as the house and throws the entire house off, it is competing with the house. Some
of the floor plans on these is ridiculous. This is a 2 '/z bath house and still very small. This is ridiculous, people buying the
house are his clients.
Global comments
McLaughlin — The A/C needs to be fenced, front door colors should match the trim, Victorians with French doors
facing Surfside Road aren't appropriate.
Glazer — Looking at the site plan, the one thing that is missing is the delineation between properties in the back yard. That
will become a major issue.
Coombs — All the houses are the same distance from the road; that makes it look like track housing.
OTHER
Approve Minutes
None
Review Minutes
None
Other Business
None
Commissioner Comments
None
Motion to Adjourn: 1:15 p.m.
Submitted by:
Terry L. Norton
Nantucket Old Historic District
`Sconset Old Historic District
Page 3 of 3
Old Madaket Village+