HomeMy WebLinkAbout637 COWAN STREET - FDP - 21-03A - CORRESPONDENCE - (9)I
B
mum
Anne Aspen - Re: 637 Cowan _ _ - _ _ _ Page 3
> > building
> > setback for the rear property line. It is tight and though I've got
> > some
> > options I'd like to get your feedback about one plan I like but has
>a
> > different look than what I've shown you in the past. All the plans
> > I've
> > shown so far are either one story or two stories with a dormered
> > second
> > floor. Please see the attached home design and let me know if you
> > think
> > this would meet the criteria of consistency in character for the
> > single
> > family unit I plan for this project.
> > I would not include the side porch, only the front, and the garage
> > would be
> > attached as shown on the floor plan not as shown in the perspective.
> > Also,
> > this seems to be a stucco finish, I'd probably be doing a lap board
> > siding.
> > If you don't think this will work, I understand, I just want to
> > understand
> > my options.
> > Thanks,
> > Michael
Anne Aspen - Re: 637 Cowan _ _ _ _ _ _ Page 2'
> amendment. I didn't think the house was subject to that, I thought only
> the garages. So for clarification, the house is being reviewed as a
> minor amendment or is it the entire project being reviewed as a minor
> amendments?
> 2. You're not processing anything until I submit formally, correct?
> 3. The plan is not exactly like the footprint of the existing home.
> The existing house has a foot print of approximately 24' wide and 36'
> long plus the depth of the porch in front, which I think is another
> 64feet. The house plan I sent you has a general foot print of 26'
> wide and 28' deep plus a 6' porch. If you think I need to get closer to
> the existing foot print, let me know.
> 4. 1 did get the photos to Karen McWilliams and she gave me the okay to
> remove the building, so I'm good there.
> Thanks for your comments and help on this.
> Michael
> — Original Message —
> From: "Anne Aspen" <AAspen@fcgov.com>
> To: <mbellol0@comcast.net>
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 4:33 PM
> Subject: Re: 637 Cowan
> > Hi Mike,
> > Thanks for sending the drawings. In answer, I don't think this
> > represents a change in character because it is an approved use and
> the
> > drawing that you submitted is similar in character to buildings
> already
> > in the area and further, meets the design guidelines of the area. I
> > assume that the footprint of the house is similar (not including the
> > garage) to the existing footprint. So I think we're good to go on a
> > "pending minor amendment". We'll process it as a minor amendment
> but
> > within the process already underway. I assume that you have
> submitted
> > photos of all four elevations of the existing building to Karen
> > McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner in Advance Planning for
> her
> > review. If not, be sure to get those to her soon so she can process
> it
> > and make a determination on the building.
> > Let me know if you have any further questions.
> > Anne
> > >>> "Michael Bello" <mbellol0@comcast.net> 05/01 11:50 PM >>>
> > Anne,
> > I've been working on the coming up with a house plan for the single
> > family
> > home and the garages behind that works with the criteria of a 15
Anne Aspen - Re: 637 Cowan_
From: "Michael Bello" <mbellol0@comcast.net>
To: "Anne Aspen" <AAspen@fcgov.com>
Date: 05/03/2005 9:29:55 AM
Subject: Re: 637 Cowan
Great, thanks. And by the way I was thinking about an eggshell finish too!
— Original Message —
From: "Anne Aspen" <AAspen@fcgov.com>
To: <mbellol0@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: 637 Cowan
> Hi Mike,
> Well actually, we've already started working with the contractors on
> this one; we're thinking of an eggshell finish on the exterior paint —is
> that going to work for you? Just kidding. We won't process anything
> until you submit and our email about options is just a discussion. To
> answer your other questions:
> 1. Any changes to the plan as it has been approved for Barry need to go
> through some sort of review process. In this case, the types of review
> are most like a minor amendment or a major amendment, though technically
> the review is not either since there is no recorded plan to amend yet.
> But we process it like an amendment so you are spared going through the
> whole PDP process again (neighborhood meetings, big fees, public
> hearing...) If the changes represent a change of character, we will
> process it like a major amendment (high fees, no hearing). If the
> changes don't represent a change in character, we process like a minor
> amendment (low fees, no hearing). Then we proceed with mylars.
> 2. See above!
> 3. The difference in the original and proposed footprints is nominal.
> The only thing to be aware of is the front setbacks here. The Building
> and Zoning folks will hold you to that 15' front setback. This is one
> of the comments that Barry needed to address before going to mylars. He
> was showing the triplex at 14'-10" which believe it or not was not going
> to cut it.
> 4. Good, one less hoop to hop.
> Hope that helps. Further questions? Let me know.
> Anne
> >>> "Michael Bello" <mbellol0@comcast.net> 05/02 7:59 PM >>>
> Thanks Anne. Just want to make sure, the drawing I showed is an
> option, not the option, right? I need more time to determine which way
> I'm going to go, but your answer tells me I have this as an alternative
> to the design options.
> I'd like to clarify a few things from your reply.
> 1. You mentioned that we will be processing this under a minor