Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Additions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues review of two‑story addition and garage connector at 232 East Bell Court to May 21
Summary
The board continued a contentious application to add a second floor to a rear addition and to connect a new two‑story garage to the house at 232 East Bell Court after staff recommended disapproval over guideline conflicts and board members raised massing and compatibility concerns.
The Board of Architecture Review continued consideration of an application to demolish a garage, construct a new two‑story garage with an apartment above, and add a second floor atop a rear one‑story addition at 232 East Bell Court. Staff had recommended disapproval, citing multiple H‑1 guideline conflicts related to height, massing and the proposal to connect the accessory building to the main house.
At the hearing, the applicant’s architect, Darren Taylor of 239 North Mill Street, described design changes made after a prior conceptual review, including lowering eaves and introducing material changes to break up massing. Taylor said the changes were intended to reduce the appearance of a “tower” and to provide space for a multigenerational household. Staff presentation noted the property’s garage is a non‑significant accessory structure and that demolition itself would not be detrimental, but that attaching a two‑story connector and enlarging the main building by adding a new story conflicted with guidance that additions should not add stories that overwhelm the original form.
Board members repeatedly questioned the scale and roof treatment and said the proposed Second‑Floor mass read more like a separate building attached to the main house rather than a subordinate addition. Multiple board members recommended that the applicant return with revised plans that reduce the vertical massing and make the addition read as an addition separated from the historic form.
The applicant requested a 60‑day waiver of action to allow time for substantial revisions and for staff and the applicant to meet; the board agreed to continue the hearing to May 21 to allow staff review and further work.
The continuation preserves the applicant’s ability to revise plans and avoids a final denial at this hearing. Staff advised that if the connector remains part of the proposal, Planning and Zoning may treat the ADU square footage as part of the primary house for FAR/site‑coverage review, which could trigger a variance process.
Next steps: the applicant will submit revised drawings addressing rooflines, massing and the connector; staff suggested planning an on‑site coordination meeting with building inspection and preservation staff prior to the next hearing.
