Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Improvement 28 32 Bottles topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner seeks fence, retaining-wall and rooftop changes at 28–32 Bottles Avenue; commission requests revisions and details
Summary
An owner-developer presented proposals for a 36-inch metal fence on top of a new 2-foot CMU retaining wall and a rooftop patio at 28–32 Bottles Avenue. Commissioners requested revised drawings showing heights, setbacks, material samples and gate/step coordination; staff recommended continuing the application for further detail.
At a June meeting the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed conceptual and preliminary applications for 28–32 Bottles Avenue that propose (1) a 36-inch metal fence mounted atop a retaining wall and (2) a rooftop patio on the third-floor roof. Staff recommended continuing the fence/retaining-wall application to allow more detailed drawings and material specifications.
Applicant Rick Carapa told the commission he wants to create a small courtyard and to deter littering around a free little library. He said the proposed design included a 36-inch metal fence atop a new 2-foot concrete masonry unit (CMU) retaining wall and removing/replacing existing stacked stone. Staff and commissioners raised multiple questions: whether dry-stacked stone could be retained, how the fence would attach to the retaining wall, how gates would swing relative to existing steps, and whether the combined wall+fence height would be visually intimidating to the sidewalk.
Commissioners requested revised drawings that: show the relationship of the fence to existing steps and gate openings; reduce the retaining-wall height where possible (staff suggested no higher than the existing wall or the step starting point); provide section drawings and measured gate swing clearances; and include material/samples for stone or a recommended natural-stone look (staff noted concrete block with a stone veneer or larger stone pieces might be appropriate). Commissioners discussed pushing the fence back from the sidewalk to reduce perceived intimidation and asked the applicant to present design options (for example, a lower wall plus a slightly taller fence) that meet both site safety and aesthetic goals.
On the rooftop patio proposal (same address), staff asked for sight-line studies, a roof section showing load/support and water-infiltration detailing, clarification of the doghouse/doghouse dimensions and skylight openings (applicant listed a proposed skylight 2'3" by 12'10" and a doghouse roughly 15'11" by 4'), and confirmation that railings would be set inboard to avoid attaching into historic parapet walls. Commissioners noted the conceptual nature of the submittal and offered design feedback; no formal action was taken and staff recommended a continuance to allow the applicant to address requested changes.
The commission asked the applicant to return with revised drawings that address step/gate integration, material samples for the wall and fence, and options that reduce the visual scale of the proposed wall-and-fence combination.
