The most notable discussion revolved around a proposal for a new single-family residence on Northeast 118th Street. The applicant presented a revised design that was approximately 20% smaller than the original. However, the lack of comparative documents showing changes from the previous design to the proposed one led to discomfort among board members. One member expressed the sentiment, “I don’t have the documents of the old versus what you have now,” highlighting the need for transparency in the modification process. Concerns were raised about the flat roof design of the front facade, which was described by one attendee as “the definition of a big box,” suggesting an aesthetic issue that needed addressing.

The board emphasized the importance of visual comparisons between past and current designs, and it was suggested that the applicant provide printed drawings for more precise evaluation. Despite the setback compliance, the absence of comprehensive visual materials made the board hesitant to proceed with approval. The proposal was tabled for further discussion at a future meeting, allowing the applicant time to address board concerns, including window designs and the opacity of large side windows. Board members collectively underscored the necessity of adequate documentation to facilitate informed decisions, with one member remarking, “To go through three stages and then come in for a final approval… it makes me uncomfortable.”

Another topic was the proposal for a paver driveway on Northeast 10th Avenue. The applicant intended to replace an existing asphalt driveway with terracotta-colored pavers. However, the board identified concerns regarding the design, noting that the plans were incomplete and lacked sufficient detail. Discussions emphasized the importance of uniformity in the driveway materials used on the property, and it was proposed that a border might enhance the overall aesthetics. Consequently, the board decided to table the motion until a more detailed drawing illustrating the proposed design was provided.

Additionally, a proposal for a gravel driveway on Northeast 9th Avenue was denied due to the absence of a calculation sheet and other critical documents. The board stressed the necessity for a complete submission that included the driveway selection form, gravel color, and a survey indicating the driveway’s location and border. The lack of these essential materials led to a unanimous decision to deny the proposal.

In other discussions, a request for approval of a pergola on Northeast 12th Street was met with unanimous approval after clarifications were made regarding its aluminum roof structure and compliance with setback regulations. Similarly, the proposal for a flat roof installation on Northeast 117th Street was approved, as it was confirmed that the flat roofs would be located on the sides and back of the house only, and would not interfere with the pitched roof.

The board also deliberated on a property on Northeast 108th Street, where a pergola was proposed. Concerns were raised regarding coverage calculations and whether the existing pool was filled in, affecting lot coverage. The presented survey was not signed and sealed, leading to further debate about its validity. As a result, the discussion was tabled pending the submission of a proper survey and additional calculations.

As the meeting continued, various proposals were evaluated with a focus on compliance with zoning regulations, accurate surveys, and the implications of design changes on property lines and coverage calculations. The board’s discussions consistently emphasized the importance of adhering to established guidelines and maintaining high aesthetic standards within the community. Several items were tabled for additional information.