Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 115 Old Orchard Exterior topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant told to redraw porch and façade details after proposing cedar roof and larger porch at 115 Old Orchard Road
Summary
An applicant seeking exterior revisions for a cottage at 115 Old Orchard Road proposed a cedar shake roof, Hardie siding shakes and an expanded front porch; committee members said the drawings lack key details and asked for revised elevations by the 8th ahead of the next meeting.
An applicant presented revisions to a previously approved exterior renovation for a cottage at 115 Old Orchard Road, proposing a cedar shake roof in place of asphalt, Hardie siding shake panels instead of lap siding and an expanded, roughly 8-foot-deep front porch intended as a rocking-chair porch.
The applicant's representative said, "So, I'm proposing a few revisions ... One being ... a cedar a cedar shake roof instead of uh the asphalt roof," and described moving some window locations and keeping the existing footprint of the structure.
Committee members pressed for clearer drawings and details about how the new portico would meet existing siding and brick. A committee member said the architect "didn't draw everything up," pointing to missing pilasters, unclear brick treatment above the door, and inconsistent column placement. The reviewers suggested pilasters against the brick, better proportioning of columns to the door, and resolved trim and head details to avoid an awkward junction where a new barrel-vaulted portico would meet the existing second-floor siding.
The committee also discussed removing an existing chimney to install a window at the top of the staircase and converting some windows to egress units. The applicant acknowledged cost and constructability concerns but said the team would consider adding stairwell glazing if feasible.
The board emphasized that the construction drawings must match what the applicant tells the committee: if a new door is proposed, it should be labeled and shown as new; if trim or pilasters are intended, they should be depicted in the elevation. The applicant said the project manager and architect would provide additional cut sheets and more detailed elevations.
The committee set a procedural deadline: the applicants were asked to submit revised drawings by the 8th and provide two physical copies and an emailed set so the proposal could be considered at the meeting on the 15th. No formal vote was taken at this session.
The next formal review will occur after the committee reviews the revised elevations and materials submittal.
