2026-10-15 - Historic Resources Commission

00:04All right, we ready to begin.

00:12>> Calling to order the uh commission uh

00:15the uh uh

00:18sorry uh calling calling to order the

00:20October 15, 2026 uh historic resources

00:23commission meeting here in 111 North

00:25Front Street in room 204. The time is

00:28now 4:01 p.m. The next business meeting

00:30of the commission will be Thursday,

00:32November 5th at noon uh 2026 next door

00:36in room 205 with the next hearing of the

00:38commission being Thursday, November

00:4019th, 2026 at 4 p.m. here in room 204

00:43111 North Front Street. If you could

00:46raise your right hand, Morgan,

00:47>> do you swear to tell the truth in your

00:48testimony before the commission this

00:50evening?

00:50>> Yes, I do. Morgan Gra, thank you.

00:52>> Thank you. And introduction of the

00:54commissioners here present this evening.

00:56Starting on my far right,

00:58>> Melville Williams, Argo,

01:01>> Barthastic,

01:02>> Biden Henry,

01:03>> Joseph McCabe,

01:04>> Migosha,

01:05>> Steuart Gibney.

01:06>> Thank you. Are there any items of for

01:08public forum this evening?

01:10>> Okay, having none, uh, on to approval of

01:13the staff approvals.

01:14>> So moved.

01:15>> Second.

01:15>> Having a motion and a second. Is there

01:17any further discussion?

01:19>> Hearing and seeing none, all those in

01:20favor say I.

01:21>> I.

01:22>> Opposed? Abstension. Motion passes. on

01:25to approval of the minutes from the last

01:26meeting which will be September 17th,

01:282026.

01:29>> So moved.

01:30>> Second.

01:33>> You're my second.

01:34>> Sure. [laughter]

01:34>> Okay, great.

01:36>> Just getting a confirmation. Uh any

01:39further discussion regarding minutes?

01:41>> Hearing seeing none. Uh all those in

01:43favor say I.

01:44>> I.

01:45>> Opposed? Abstension. Motion passes. Uh

01:48now on to the uh staff reports for this

01:51evening and starting with the first

01:52application.

01:54So this is continued um COA2600509

01:591776 Brighton Road. I don't believe the

02:02here at the moment we circle back. Um

02:06>> okay we will we will uh hold off on case

02:09number one and move on to case number

02:10two 789 please.

02:13>> And that actually was moved to staff

02:14approval. So we can move on to um number

02:17three 604 South Champion Avenue.

02:19>> Okay. On to 604 South Champion Avenue.

02:22Case number three. Is anybody here for

02:24that one in particular?

02:27>> It does not appear so either. [laughter]

02:30>> Okay.

02:30>> Which are you here for?

02:32>> 939 Brighton.

02:34>> Yes.

02:35>> And then 724 Lynwood Avenue. So those

02:37are lower. Those are the new

02:38applications that are on the agenda. It

02:40doesn't look like our continues are here

02:42at the moment. So if we'd like to start

02:44747 is continued as well.

02:47>> Yes, that one's been continued.

02:49>> Okay. So then uh let's go on to 711

02:53Oakwood Avenue.

02:55>> They are not present.

02:56>> Not here. Okay. [laughter]

02:59>> Oh my goodness.

03:00>> Uh 857 South High is not here. I know

03:02that.

03:03>> And they were moved to staff approve.

03:05Well, so

03:05>> they were moved to staff approval. Okay.

03:07Good to know. Uh so then we are going to

03:09go on to 1725 Brighten Road.

03:13>> And they do not appear to be here

03:15either.

03:16>> Okay.

03:18Someone's here.

03:20>> Which project might you be associated

03:22affiliated with, Julie? Which which uh

03:25which project are you

03:27>> new business?

03:28>> Okay. You are a new business as well.

03:30>> Yeah. 48.

03:32[laughter]

03:33>> So, let's go to 939 Brighten Road. We'll

03:37have you come forward.

03:38>> You don't know if you don't.

03:39>> So, case So, cases one through eight we

03:42have to come back to. Yes, we will come

03:44back to those and maybe discuss or just

03:46move things along.

03:47>> Before you guys sit down, raise your

03:49right hands. Do you each prefer to tell

03:51the truth in your testimony before the

03:52commission this evening? [clears throat]

03:54>> If you could state your full name and

03:56association with the property for

03:57record.

03:58>> Peter Stevens, property manager.

04:00>> Okay.

04:00>> Michael, property manager.

04:02>> Okay. Wonderful. Have a seat.

04:04>> Uh, Commissioner McCabe just uh I snuck

04:06in here. Michael is present.

04:09>> Duly noted for record. Thank you, Mike.

04:14Okay. All right.

04:15>> And for your own justification, uh, if

04:18you didn't catch on, we're we're we've

04:19skipped all the way down to nine.

04:21>> This is the first one.

04:22>> Yes.

04:22>> Yes. We have not reviewed any at this

04:24time. Um, all right. So, this is COA

04:272600889

04:29939 Brighten Road. This is removal of

04:31the original steel windows, installation

04:33of new vinyl slider windows, not in the

04:35approved windows list, removal of

04:37existing AC units. Oh, this work was

04:40completed. Sorry. removal existing AC

04:42units um that were cut into brick

04:44elevation and new installation of

04:46limestone squares to match existing

04:47design on building and then refacing

04:50existing front door awning or

04:51installation of a large black awning to

04:53be similar in design.

04:55The AC units blocks and the awning have

04:58not been completed yet and it's just a

04:59new proposal. Um landscaping

05:02installation of 6T 6T wood privacy fence

05:05which has been completed. Um this has

05:08been extended in size. um from what was

05:11previously there applications response

05:13to a code violation for removal and

05:15replacement of original windows and

05:17installation of a new wood privacy

05:18fence. At the October business meeting,

05:20the commissioners provided the following

05:22feedback. They recommended applicant

05:23consider a cast stone with a similar

05:26color to the existing brick to fill in

05:27removed AC units instead of proposed

05:29limestone that would match the front two

05:31squares. Um they stated the applicant

05:34will need to propose an an appropriate

05:36window replacement system that is more

05:38appropriate for the style of window that

05:39was removed. Applicant to reach out to

05:41staff for guidance. Commissioner asked

05:43applicant to clarify curvature of

05:45neighboring properties. Um commissioner

05:48recommended applicant set back the fence

05:49behind the first side window as it as

05:52required for sideyard fencing for the

05:54district. They asked applicant to

05:56provide a scaled measured site plan to

05:58view the site and commission stated that

05:59the applicant will need to reach out to

06:01building and zoning services to verify

06:03the vision triangle since the installed

06:05fence is installed along an alleyway. We

06:08recommend to continue application for

06:09939 Bride and Road to allow applicant

06:11time to update the plan and drawing

06:13based on commission business feedback.

06:17Um basis for staff wreck is 31611

06:20standards for alteration.

06:24Thank you. Uh, is there anything that

06:26the applicant would like to add at this

06:27time?

06:30>> Are we allowed to address anything

06:31that's going on or present that the

06:33floor is yours to present?

06:35>> Okay. I'm going to go a little out of

06:38order because we did come to the

06:39business meeting and we heard what you

06:41guys had said. Um, you had said if we

06:45did cast something, you'd like to see

06:47some yellow in it. I actually tracked

06:49down some sim similar brick. So I don't

06:52know if we have to go back in and submit

06:55that digitally. Yes. To you guys.

06:58>> Any new materials that you're going to

06:59present this evening? We cannot view

07:01them at this time. They need to be

07:02presented or sent to us beforehand. Just

07:04>> FYI. So you're proposing to take out the

07:07existing old frame from the AC units.

07:11>> Yes.

07:11>> And you currently I see one that has a

07:13frigid air that's a little smaller. Are

07:15you going to be putting something back

07:16in or is this completely new system?

07:18Morgan, if you could remain on that

07:19photo, too, whether that might be a

07:20great reference photo. Yeah,

07:22>> we're we're enclosing them. The previous

07:24owner, they're not weathertight and to

07:28they put in window air conditioners

07:30instead of wall air conditioners, so

07:32they're leaking back into the building.

07:35So, at this point, we're looking to uh

07:38cover them up. Um, we were going to go

07:41with a limestone that matched the front

07:44uh to keep with the historical part of

07:46the building, but from recommendations

07:48of the business meeting, um, you said

07:52something with a little more yellow in

07:53it. I did track down uh very similar.

07:56It's not the exact brick, but I will

08:00submit all that digitally. I did bring

08:03pictures and enough to pass around if

08:05anybody would like them or hold off. Are

08:07you using like a mini splitter? What?

08:09How are you going to control the

08:11the

08:12>> the furnaces are on the furnaces are on

08:14the inside. If we decide to go back with

08:17AC, um the only way to do it would be on

08:20the roof.

08:21>> Condensers on the roof. Yeah.

08:22>> Okay. I just didn't know if those

08:23openings

08:25would be more purposely handled with

08:28some sort of a finished grate if you

08:30ever plan to use that opening again

08:31before you fill it all in.

08:33Uh we've talked about with uh with the

08:36owner about it. At this point, we would

08:38just like it to be weathertight. Um the

08:40damage on the inside from um

08:43condensation or just the water rolling

08:46back. Again, it was they had put in the

08:49wrong item and it's was probably the

08:53cheaper way to go than to get the actual

08:55wall unit that was needed.

08:58So, what since the applicant is

09:01requesting some guidance and input, uh,

09:04I'm going to How many copies do you

09:06have?

09:07>> And what does it all entail?

09:09>> Yes,

09:11>> it's awesome.

09:12>> Um, I can give you all my copies if

09:14you'd like.

09:15>> So, what what one thing I need you to do

09:17is whatever you're going to share with

09:18me, I need you to take a whole set right

09:20now, but you're gonna have to hand it to

09:22Morgan so she has it has it for file

09:24prior to giving anything to us.

09:26>> Okay? So,

09:28one more time, give it to Morgan.

09:30>> I I I need you to give one whole set.

09:32Whatever you're going to give to me to

09:33share with my commission, I need you to

09:35give her a set.

09:37>> Here's those. And then

09:39>> I just want to make sure she has stuff

09:41in record.

09:42>> We're giving you input. I only have one

09:44of the one brick, but I have multiples,

09:46which this this is the closest one that

09:49I've found so far.

09:50>> And this is just for the brick material.

09:52>> Yes. And I brought the spec sheets and

09:54everything. Uh, but I'll again digitally

09:56upload.

10:00>> And is it an orange iron spot brick that

10:02you found kind of yellowish orange?

10:04>> Um, it has the yellow and the red tones.

10:07You discussed that that there was some

10:09red in it. We do have a very red brick

10:12on the front as well. And if we could

10:15pull up that picture and if you want to

10:18give me a recommendation. I just didn't

10:20know if it would clash too much with

10:22>> what we have going on. Have you uh had

10:24the opportunity to take the brick sample

10:27and actually set it right next to the

10:29building and then take a photo because

10:31>> just depending on the lighting or or

10:33what you're printing from, it can change

10:35just about everything. So, it's really

10:38you need the right light and context to

10:40really be able to see. Is that something

10:42you guys have had an opportunity to do

10:43yet? I have requested the sample from

10:46Hamilton Parker and when it comes in

10:48then I'll have something tangible to put

10:51up and

10:52>> uh do it. So I'm in the process.

10:55>> Uh they just don't have all the samples

10:57on site.

10:58>> Understood.

10:59>> I was going to say if I I know the

11:01commission had suggested maybe a a

11:03pre-cast product to help fill in this

11:04this scenario if that's not what you're

11:06proposing. Um, I think it's very

11:09critical to know like to me these these

11:12photos are showing a lot. They are

11:15showing some yellow, but they're showing

11:16some orange and they're showing the

11:17prominent iron spot on the brick. And

11:20you may want to ask Hamilton Parker for

11:22exactly iron spot related bricks.

11:24>> Iron spot.

11:25>> That'll get you probably something much

11:26closer than this because I don't think

11:28this is going to be close enough. But I

11:30also do agree with Mike. Mike has a

11:31great point. Take those samples and put

11:34them up against the building. Give us

11:35photographs. bring those samples with

11:38you, please, to the next meeting as

11:40well. Okay? Like, that'll be critical.

11:42But I I think it's really critical to

11:43make sure that you're getting something

11:44as close as possible. If we're going to

11:47make an exception to say, "Yeah, the

11:48brick is going to be okay.

11:50>> It's going to look it's going to stand

11:51out no matter what is is the issue we

11:53have." But

11:55>> also, the mortar,

11:57>> excuse me. And also the mortar color.

12:00>> Yes.

12:00>> Right. Well, it it also appears that is

12:03the original brick a long brick?

12:05>> Yes. It's longer than uh regular

12:07>> brick brick. So a short brick in there.

12:12>> So your color's not going to match. Your

12:13mortar is probably not going to match

12:15and your brick size is not going to

12:16match.

12:17>> Maybe they're better off doing a solid

12:19fill.

12:20>> I think they need to be solid.

12:21>> It'll be a solid or maybe u I know we're

12:23not the designer, but maybe soldier

12:25course or think of a different brick

12:27detail so you're not reading it in the

12:30same exact context. I don't think it's

12:31going to blend away. That's the main

12:33point. It's not it's not going to not

12:35but the uh I mean you you can get the

12:37mortar match with a lot of trying you

12:40can get that.

12:41>> Sure.

12:41>> But um

12:42>> but the brick

12:43>> I think one of the two matched either

12:45the color or the size that would help

12:47you but if both the color and size are

12:49not matched then it really would be

12:50quite difficult to blend it in.

12:52>> But these longer bricks aren't very

12:53popular anymore. So they probably

12:55>> right they don't they don't make the the

12:56Roman dimension anymore. That's for

12:58sure.

12:59>> Now Mason is confident that he can match

13:01the mortar. That's the most

13:05>> he's confident on that. If I mean, could

13:07we revisit the limestone that's already

13:10in the building from when it was

13:12originally built? I mean, would that

13:13still be an option on the table just

13:16because it matches the front?

13:19>> I I do actually want to throw out one

13:21more quick suggestion because again, I

13:23we we do encourage and we la your goal

13:26of making this building weathertight

13:27again. I mean, that that should be

13:28recognized. you know, your goal here is

13:30to undo something that was is creating a

13:32water condition. Um, and in the

13:35commission, you know, this is just an

13:36idea. What about a um a stucco related

13:41coating infill where the the stucco

13:43colors can be the stucco color itself

13:46can be actually field matched and mixed

13:49in color. You know, I think about all

13:50the the stucco colors out there in the

13:53retail sector that can be customized to

13:55the degree. Would that be a better

13:57outcome? They can also sometimes match

14:00the they can do a faux brick pattern

14:03matching that length. And then now I

14:05know faux brick is you know frowned upon

14:07but I guess if you're going the route of

14:09matching it is possible to cut in

14:11grooves to sort of match the brick size.

14:16Well,

14:17not being the the designer

14:20[laughter]

14:21>> and getting too far into the weeds, but

14:25um I can imagine that the owner with the

14:30property manager

14:32consider also the transition and the

14:35trim and the border around that

14:38fistration and how does that look and

14:42you can devise some type of

14:45some type of design or something that

14:49that's ornamental. do some research on

14:52the historic uh uh uh the history of the

14:56building, the time frame, what other

14:59type of motifs might have been used in

15:01that time period and maybe design or

15:05defi um find a way that if it's whatever

15:08the material may be, if it's ephas or or

15:12um stucco or uh you mentioned uh what

15:16you wanted to use originally,

15:18>> the limestone. Yeah. I mean, that's

15:20what's originally was put in was the

15:22limestone.

15:23>> Well, well, I see it doesn't have a trim

15:25like a brick trim or

15:26>> Yeah. I mean, that's the

15:29>> as far as we know, that's originally how

15:30it was built.

15:31>> Yeah. I I see, you know,

15:35sticking with the adhering to the

15:37historic

15:39of how they solve that problem and put

15:42an insert in and trying to replicate

15:46and get your cues from what's already

15:49been done. I mean, chairman chairperson,

15:53I mean, frankly, I'm not particularly in

15:54favor of trying to infill with the

15:56brick.

15:58>> Um,

15:59>> but I think that going That route would

16:02be my pref preference.

16:04>> Commissioner, I I think my my viewpoint

16:06on the brick was that it was um not

16:09trying to create a medallion or a

16:12feature

16:13>> where there was none originally. And

16:15these don't these air conditioner

16:17locations don't align with the kind of

16:21gemstone front position. Yes.

16:24>> And I was worried about it sort of

16:25adding a

16:26>> something that's not

16:27>> a feature of a detail that's not

16:29supposed to be there. And I'd almost

16:30rather leave the

16:32acknowledgement of a band-aid being

16:34filled in over creating a medallion,

16:38>> particularly sometimes they don't

16:40>> really align with the windows.

16:41>> Right. I was really worried about

16:43>> they lined up if there was some type of

16:44rhythm.

16:46>> The applicant did provide a rendering

16:47kind of showing how it would fill in

16:49with the limestone pattern as well um

16:51that just provided. Um, one point of

16:55clarification. Um, you guys said the

16:58limestone was original, that was the

17:00original solution. Can you clarify what

17:02you mean by that? Like when was what

17:04detail and at what time period did you

17:07guys discover that this limestone detail

17:10was part of the history of this building

17:12>> because I just want to understand

17:15>> where you're seeing that versus what

17:17we're seeing.

17:18>> So, if we could go to a frontal picture

17:20right there. So they did originally do

17:23limestone. Then they have the red brick

17:25that uh goes around that entryway and

17:28then they did the limestone squares. So

17:32that's all original from all our

17:34research.

17:35>> And that was always a decorative element

17:37on the building, not an infill element

17:39after something else was put there.

17:41>> Yeah. No brick is behind it. It's a it's

17:44a cement building. There's uh

17:48>> Okay, I think I understand. And then I I

17:50think Commissioner McCabe, what you're

17:52saying is we don't want to create a

17:53false history of like yes, there might

17:54have been these medallions on one side,

17:56but they were never here on this other

17:57side.

17:57>> Right. Right. And and the language on

17:59the front of the building is that they

18:00were between

18:01>> the bottom window and the top window. So

18:03now all of a sudden they're kind of

18:04placed to the sides of the upper corners

18:07of the windows. And I

18:08>> I just feel like it it creates an odd

18:10architectural language of falsification

18:13>> where I'd rather sort of just look at

18:15some

18:16>> tooth thin brick that I'm it's always

18:20going to hit my eye is that's tooth

18:21dimin brick but at least I understood

18:23that that face never had a medallion.

18:26>> Yeah.

18:27>> True.

18:28>> With the um

18:30>> it's a difficult it's a difficult item.

18:32Well, I might it might well once they

18:34obtain the sample from Hamilton Parker,

18:37that will give some clarification as to

18:40take which direction.

18:41>> One thing I've noticed with Stuckco

18:43where you do a flat color since it's a

18:45field, you know, what color you decide

18:47to sample, there's a number of colors on

18:50there and it can either make it really

18:51stand out or certain hues can make it

18:54blend in. I think I'd like to see it

18:57blend in as much as possible. Um, but

19:00like if you did a one of the brighter

19:03side, like it looks like there's a

19:04really bright yellow that's thrown in

19:06there. I think that would really stand

19:08out. So you'd have to kind of test that

19:10as well to see what's going to kind of

19:12dissolve into the field best.

19:15>> It it would need to be midtone between

19:17all of them. So that would sort of like

19:19catch all the variations.

19:20>> Yeah.

19:22>> Is the red off the table that's on Okay,

19:25that's fine. just want to throw

19:27>> I I think that I at least for me the red

19:29feels like it would again create the

19:30essence of a medallion in a feature

19:33rather than letting it making it try to

19:35go away go first but

19:37>> what plans do you have or are there any

19:39plans for uh like tuck pointing

19:41restoration that sort of thing

19:43>> we haven't talked about tuck pointing

19:45yet uh he the owner uh does want to

19:49follow up with that we're running out of

19:51time uh weatherwise so we definitely

19:54need to do the tuck pointing But, uh,

19:56having those areas closed up, uh, before

20:00it gets really bad is our main focus.

20:04>> Um, I'm assuming there's a paraple wall

20:06because I can see that scupper on the

20:07side. So, you probably got what, five or

20:09six courses above the roof.

20:12>> Um,

20:14yeah, I would say, yeah, approximately

20:17there's a an overhang or it goes up. I

20:20>> I was just in my mind I was thinking in

20:21the event there was an an

20:25a masked area that you may need to do

20:27some serious tuck pointing. You might

20:28have loose bricks that that area could

20:30be a place where you pull the bricks

20:33from to infill the holes and then do an

20:36area of the upper that's might be of

20:39need and use newer stuff up there like

20:41it was intended just to just as a

20:44thought. I don't know the condition of

20:45the building. I just threw it out there.

20:47>> It's currently capped at the top with

20:48limestone. [clears throat and laughter]

20:50>> Okay. So, but I mean I can run that by

20:52the mason to see if he can scavenge

20:55anything.

20:56>> Yeah. If there's a whole portion of a

20:57area that cannot be seen, you know,

20:59that's in the back or near peripheral

21:01wall. Just a thought. I mean, just in

21:03general.

21:03>> Okay. So, I I do have another question

21:05for the commission. Um, you know, just

21:08thinking about lives of buildings,

21:09building systems change, needs change,

21:12need for uh future penetrations and

21:15walls change as technology changes.

21:18Would a better solution for the

21:22applicant potentially be to consider

21:25proposing simply a new painted metal

21:29louver that on the back side of that

21:31louver is just solid and then they

21:34insulate it accordingly and just leave

21:37sort of a new louver after they've

21:39removed all the old stuff. just a very

21:42nice new some sort of aluminum louver

21:46like a faux l

21:47>> a faux louver that's been it could be

21:48painted it could be painted out in one

21:50of the hues off the thing but

21:52>> I was looking if you match the down

21:54spouts because I was like if you match

21:55the down spouts with the infill

21:58>> then they don't read as medallions they

21:59read as

22:01>> the accessory materials of downspouts

22:04fire escape and infill the the utility

22:08>> non

22:10>> striking So I

22:11>> also transition that the building has

22:13gone through.

22:13>> I just go through the fact that like you

22:15know who knows if in like 30 more years

22:17a new building system will require fresh

22:19air or some other ventilation all a

22:21sudden we're putting holes back into the

22:23building. Is it better to just say okay

22:24this thing has been made here but

22:26>> replace it with a louver and

22:28>> fill it up on the backside make it

22:30watertight

22:31>> and then it kind of reads it what it

22:33was. It would honest

22:36>> and that's where

22:37>> it'd be quick inexpensive

22:39>> wherever that's going leave that hole

22:40alone

22:41>> but it would just be aesthetically it

22:43wouldn't connect into the apartment but

22:45we'd have that ability down the road to

22:47>> you have a couple couple inch deep

22:48louver you know very and then on your

22:51backside just you know you make it

22:53weathertight but it's front side face

22:55it's

22:56>> just a decorative louver then that you

22:59know if you need it open later on it's

23:01just a louver

23:02>> and and That would be in line with other

23:05precedences that we have done where

23:08people had to close off a window and we

23:10allowed them to put a shutter close

23:12shutter on it

23:13>> or a

23:13>> that would apply.

23:15>> Yeah. And so that would be in line with

23:17what we've done before with openness.

23:18>> It just kind of then just acknowledges

23:19what's there today. Doesn't try to lie

23:22or even try to fake it.

23:24>> What do you think about

23:25>> simple, inexpensive, and unnoticable? I

23:27kind of like it because fiscally I think

23:30it would be more reasonable than the

23:32>> We'll let you decide that. We don't talk

23:34about price points.

23:35>> Okay. I like it a lot color-wise. Then

23:38still try to get a something out of

23:40this.

23:41>> Match match your drain spout.

23:43>> Match match the color of the drain

23:45spouts and the fire escape and whatever

23:48else you're going to

23:50>> Okay.

23:50>> the the the utilitarian pieces of the

23:54building like a like a drain spout.

23:55>> Okay. all that because that's what your

23:58[clears throat] louvers would normally

23:59match. They their background.

24:03>> Okay.

24:05>> Um would it be helpful for the

24:06commission for the applicant to provide

24:07those couple options that we've kind of

24:09talked about as well as just like a cast

24:11stone or we kind of more supportive just

24:14>> feel like if this is the solution they

24:15propose I mean there's a lot of sort of

24:18people that seem to think that that's

24:19reasonable. Yeah.

24:20>> Just, you know, just in case, you know,

24:22sometimes always good to have options

24:23for us to look through, but if the

24:25questions feel uncomfortable with this

24:26route, then

24:30>> Okay. All right. And the other items are

24:32the windows, the awning, and the fence

24:35property. [clears throat]

24:36>> Could we do the fence next?

24:39>> Possible.

24:40>> Uh, so we took what you guys said about

24:42bringing it back, and we end up u

24:45measuring it. our our what we're really

24:48struggling uh with is the park next door

24:52and we're just trying to we want people

24:55to feel comfortable if they're living

24:57there and we went out and uh measured

25:05you want to pass these over to Morgan.

25:08>> Um what is this additional information?

25:10I guess

25:11>> this would be moving the fence back 53

25:15[clears throat]

25:16and a half in to still cover the last

25:19window on that side of the building.

25:21>> I I think it's been the commission's

25:23message though that the issue is is that

25:25we don't want to set a bad precedent in

25:27the district and when people do come

25:29forward with fence proposals, we only

25:32have allowed them to come up to just

25:34behind that first window. It's it's just

25:37it's a guideline. It's a recommendation

25:39that we have been consistent with. So

25:41just trying to go beyond it, it's

25:43probably not going to just get us there.

25:45>> Okay. It's just for us it's a big

25:48security that's for some reason that's

25:50the one they keep breaking and getting

25:53in the very front window. The very and

25:56it's the oddest thing because it's

25:57closest to the street. So that's why we

26:00ended up taking the fence. I mean we've

26:03had squatters. I mean, it's we're we're

26:05down there every day just to make sure

26:07the building's secure. We have cameras

26:09up now and everything, but I mean, if

26:11that's if that's what you guys want, we

26:13we'll abide by that. I mean, I mean,

26:15you'll find it that that has been the we

26:18have seen other bride and road fence

26:20proposals and we've had people

26:23>> abide by this. We've not heard of this

26:24being an issue for one window, but

26:26>> we we can get it. So uh to be clear, how

26:30far behind the window like 12 18?

26:35>> No. That we actually give a we've given

26:37an actual hard dimension more than just

26:40terminate it behind the first window.

26:42>> Okay.

26:43>> So it's held back from the front corner.

26:47>> Yeah. Maybe not just I wouldn't bring it

26:50right next to the

26:51>> Yeah. We're not going to butt it up

26:52right there. Give it a little space.

26:54>> Yeah. So So you still see some of the

26:56brick.

26:57gets

26:58>> No, we'll take it out. Um well, from the

27:00picture, uh

27:02probably right below that AC line.

27:05>> Yeah.

27:08>> And and what would be best is simply

27:10just draw annotated diagram of where

27:12you're going to take it to. You can

27:14submit a photo and just say

27:16approximately right here. Draw a line on

27:18it. Note it.

27:21>> Midpoint between the window could be

27:22reasonable between the two windows.

27:26That's good. Yeah, we'll measure them

27:28both out and do pictures and

27:30measurements.

27:41Was there anything else on the fence? It

27:44was just the moving that back or

27:46anything?

27:46>> Um, I think Commissioner Williams Agra

27:49had a um statement about the vision

27:51triangle.

27:53Um,

27:54since it was so close to the alleyway, I

27:56believe was the concern.

27:58>> I do remember that coming conversation

28:00point.

28:01>> I don't think that's an it's a walking

28:04path. There's not an alley behind the

28:06property.

28:06>> Okay. Yeah, we're going based off of um

28:10the

28:13>> AIAL image.

28:15Um,

28:17and over here it looks like from

28:20Franklin County that there was a path.

28:22So, I think that's what we're going off

28:24of. Um, but yeah, I don't see one in

28:25this um aerial image that we have.

28:27>> Yeah. So, directly behind the rear of

28:30the property, that's a walking path, and

28:32I believe it used to be a school there,

28:34but going across that walking pal uh

28:37path to the right is an alley, but

28:40there's no car. That's all foot traffic.

28:42>> I I I agree with you. However, I think

28:45it still requires building and zoning

28:46services to confirm because if you slide

28:49up and you do look at your auditor's

28:51site, there is a carved out right ofway

28:54it appears even though there's that walk

28:55path going down there and you still may

28:58be required to have a variance.

29:00>> Okay.

29:00>> So, I think this Morgan is something we

29:02just would like confirmation.

29:04>> Yeah. that the location of this is going

29:06to be acceptable because we don't

29:08approve variances though we are a

29:10recommending body on that and that may

29:12be a different item you have to yet

29:14consent with.

29:15>> Okay. So follow up with zoning and

29:17variance for that.

29:19>> Yeah.

29:22>> Everything else okay as far as

29:26>> Yeah. Um only condition or item that we

29:29would need is the fence would need to be

29:30painted within the year of installation.

29:31That's just a standard that we have or

29:33not painted. coated sealed clear coat um

29:37stain or paint, you know. Okay. So,

29:39>> just you you can submit what you're

29:41proposing to staff for that finish.

29:43>> Okay. Even if it's just a clear coat,

29:45that would need to be

29:46>> clear coat is fine. We just wanted to be

29:48protected so it doesn't weather into the

29:50kind of that gray pattern. Also, the

29:52fact that it it protects the fence

29:53longer. Yes. You know, longevity.

29:57And if that's not something we're going

29:59to do till next year, is it better to

30:01submit it now and or do you wait until

30:04you do the

30:04>> I would recommend you work with staff

30:06and just put that in as part of your

30:08submission.

30:08>> Yeah. Okay.

30:09>> Yeah. [snorts]

30:14>> Can all that go to staff approval? If

30:16we're talking about maybe breaking up

30:17what they submit. Yeah.

30:23>> The windows.

30:24>> All right. Um, now do we want to move to

30:26the awning or the windows?

30:27>> Awning.

30:28>> Okay.

30:28>> We had good drawings on that and I can

30:31find I know they're in here, but

30:38okay.

30:42So, it's either to match existing sizing

30:45or to expand the sizing, but still the

30:47same um, you know, fabric and style.

30:52I will note that the original that was

30:54installed does have close side awnings

30:56typically during typically our for our

30:58guidelines we like to keep them open if

31:00it is going to be a replacement awning

31:02um or [clears throat] for a replacement

31:05awning if it's going to be a re fabric

31:07awning then typically the framing that's

31:10there is fine but that's just from our

31:12guidelines.

31:19So in this case, what is what is the

31:21applicant preferring?

31:23>> The one on the left or the right?

31:25>> Right.

31:28>> Trying to give if people are entering

31:30the building, we're trying to give them

31:31as much space to be out of the weather

31:33as they're trying to get in with their

31:35bags or whatever they're coming in. We

31:38kind of the the smaller one on the left

31:40is nice and aesthetically it looks nice.

31:43just trying to think about who we're

31:46trying to get into the building and we

31:48want them to have um

31:52just uh some amenities

31:56outside. Is there any evidence on the

31:59stone that maybe there was a different

32:02application, different width, different

32:04anything?

32:05>> No, the uh original footprint on the one

32:08on the left uh everything is original.

32:11There's nothing nothing's been sealed up

32:13or anything in the limestone. It's all

32:15still the original.

32:16>> That's pretty rare.

32:18>> Yeah. Yeah.

32:21>> Aesthetically, I somehow feel the one on

32:23the left works better.

32:26>> But I'm just one voice here.

32:30>> Let the architects

32:31>> it looks like scale-wise it makes more

32:33sense to the eye. But uh you know I

32:35don't know if it is

32:37>> I don't know if it's a defining element

32:39at the end of the day for me. Um if if

32:42more worried about the

32:43>> yeah I mean

32:44>> comfort of the of the occupants.

32:47>> It's part of the the life of the

32:50building and the users.

32:52>> To me looks almost temporary. It's okay.

32:55>> I'm okay with it. Right.

32:58>> Yeah. I'm I'm okay with either also. I

33:00mean,

33:01>> I think you could actually make an

33:03argument for either one.

33:06>> So, sort of to

33:07>> maybe the color is the one

33:10>> the black

33:11>> the black is if you don't want it to

33:13stand out, but again, I don't care. But

33:15if there was an architectural reason why

33:16the or historic reason why there was a

33:18particular color that doesn't look

33:20black, right? But it's temporary, so

33:22does it matter?

33:23>> Was it black?

33:24>> I don't know. Was it black?

33:25>> It's a very It's a very faded brown.

33:28[laughter]

33:29Yeah.

33:31>> So, yeah, either ways I'm okay.

33:33>> Yeah.

33:33>> So, right now it looks like there's a

33:35joint that runs.

33:37Is it stuckco? What's going on here? I

33:39don't know.

33:42>> Like there's a joint

33:43>> like near the old one and then it's just

33:46outside the old rendering. If you look

33:48at the left picture of the

33:50>> proposed, there's a little

33:53>> joint line.

33:54>> Is that existing or is that not

33:56existing?

33:57>> It's existing. So the limestone is in

34:01slabs. Okay. And then it's just

34:04>> looks like square slabs.

34:07>> Justice to there.

34:09>> So there are more joint elements on the

34:11face of the building.

34:12>> I mean what if you took it to the joints

34:16>> for the hardware

34:17>> and generally these things we want you

34:20to make the attachments in the mortar

34:22joints not on the

34:24>> give you some more room. We agree. Yeah,

34:26>> I mean we don't want to drill into the

34:28existing. We'd better hit a joint.

34:30>> Who knows what'll change, but yeah, that

34:32might be a thought.

34:33>> That's a good

34:35be between the two.

34:37>> So maybe they could just revise their

34:38submission to reflect the an awning that

34:41aligns with the joints then.

34:43>> I think that's a good

34:45>> possibility if you like that.

34:47I think I think one thing that could be

34:48considered again in terms of color,

34:50maybe if it matched the brick that that

34:52would stand out stand out less than it

34:56being black, but but I don't know. Yeah.

35:00>> Well, you're not really going to match

35:01that that anyway. It looks like

35:04>> it looks like the one that was on there

35:05was probably kind of the burgundy that

35:08was popular

35:09>> back whenever that's kind of the color

35:11that fade. So, and the burgundy would be

35:13a lot worse than [laughter]

35:17The black's kind of nondescript. I I

35:19think it's fine.

35:20>> Okay.

35:22>> Um, so question with the larger awning,

35:24since it would be a completely

35:25replacement of the awning, it' be a new

35:27framing and everything. Typically, if

35:29it's going to be a new awning, we, you

35:31know, we request open size of the

35:33awnings per our guidelines um with the

35:35commission. That's something to discuss

35:37as well.

35:39>> I would be okay with it being closed

35:40because I think to your point, people

35:42coming there, there's going to be wind

35:43and everything else blowing in there.

35:45But for this one instance, I think I

35:47could

35:47>> tolerate close sides.

35:50>> Thank you.

35:50>> It would help the cause of your

35:52respective tenants with grocery bag and

35:54>> yeah,

35:55>> shuffling keys and all that or whatever

35:57they're doing.

35:59>> I have no personal opinion on

36:02>> I mean it does match the same style

36:04that's originally there. It's just

36:05something to discuss as a part of our

36:07>> staff. Be okay with that.

36:08>> Um I mean that's yeah my

36:13um you know the commission's final

36:16decision on that one. So yes, I think

36:18we'd be fine.

36:19>> Given the timesensitive nature on

36:21they're hoping to get some things done.

36:23Could we potentially with the caveat

36:26that a submission is followed up to

36:28Morgan? Could we approve this item

36:30tonight?

36:31>> Sure.

36:33So move just the awning portion.

36:35>> Yes. So there's a motion, but could you

36:37clarify what's in your motion? Just real

36:38quick.

36:39>> The motion for this application is to um

36:42>> So we're going to split the application.

36:43That's the first motion.

36:45>> Yes. So this particular one is for the

36:46awning. Um the mission's okay with the

36:49awning uh going a size up from what it

36:52what's existing, but only up to the

36:54joint. So that so that the any fitting

36:57any hardware goes just to the existing

36:59um joint in the limestone. Okay. And

37:02this will be COA 2600889A

37:06A.

37:07>> Correct. Yeah.

37:10>> There'll be a caveat that the applicant

37:13will submit revised materials,

37:15>> right? I mean, I think for all of the

37:16ABCs. Yeah. But this one too. Yes.

37:18Everything has to be first submitted to

37:20staff.

37:21>> Okay.

37:21>> And work with staff and they're okay.

37:24>> Okay. Okay. Second.

37:26>> Okay. Motion and a second. Further

37:28discussion on this item.

37:30and and caveat

37:32um from a discussion standpoint to note

37:34for the record that the commission felt

37:37that or at least some commission members

37:39felt I don't want to speak on behalf of

37:41everybody here uh that the enclosed

37:44sides though a deviation from our normal

37:46guidelines that it was appropriate here

37:48to provide a little bit of additional

37:49weather protection given the extenduated

37:51circumstances at the property.

37:54>> Thank you.

37:58>> Any other further discussions then?

37:59Okay. All those in favor say I.

38:01>> I.

38:02>> Opposed. Abstension. Passes. So your

38:06awning. You'll just follow up with

38:07Morgan on. [clears throat]

38:08>> We'll work together. New drawing.

38:10>> Now talk about windows is I think our

38:13last thing.

38:13>> Yeah, windows are the last item on this

38:14building.

38:18>> Knowing that you probably have an uphill

38:20battle on windows.

38:22>> Excuse me, sir.

38:22>> I said knowing that you may have an

38:23uphill battle on windows if you're going

38:25to propose trying to keep what you have.

38:27I I know and I'm working very hard and

38:32diligently on trying to come up with a

38:34solution. Um like we were talking

38:37earlier for security reasons and have it

38:39weathertight. Uh we did do the work. Um

38:43so we know where we're at and what our

38:45options are. Do you guys have any

38:47suggestions? I mean

38:49>> other than replace them

38:51>> honestly there there are build there are

38:53people that came through seeking

38:54approvals of replacement windows and

38:57they ordered the correct windows or they

39:00they made application using a product

39:02that was more appropriate.

39:04>> Okay.

39:05>> And those buildings look great and they

39:06look of the time and they look

39:09architecturally intact. So I, you know,

39:13I I don't see with the windows you've

39:15put in how they meet the character of

39:18the building.

39:19>> And and there have been a number of test

39:21cases.

39:22>> Yeah.

39:22>> Uh windows that that we have approved as

39:25text test cases for buildings of this

39:29age. And you could probably see some of

39:32those. Um they're they look like steel

39:36frame. They're actually I think aluminum

39:38frame. Uh they're the uh the vines are a

39:43little deeper, but they're narrow and

39:45they open appropriately,

39:48>> but they look like a steel sash window.

39:49>> They look like a steel sashwood. No.

39:51Yeah.

39:51>> Yeah. They do

39:54>> if if you're

39:56if you're a real historian up close, you

39:58know, they're not. But they but they

40:00really read as the historical window in

40:03in size, proportion

40:06um

40:08and everything

40:09>> and we can provide provid

40:11>> Town Street. Yes, Town Street's one of

40:13them. I remember that.

40:13>> I was looking we've done those.

40:15>> I can't remember the brand off the top

40:16of my head. Um but we do I mean we have

40:19record of those past,

40:21>> right? and and they're currently not on

40:23the approved list, but they've been

40:25>> they've been passed as test cases

40:28primarily for buildings of this age

40:29because most windows on the test case or

40:32on the approved list tend to be for

40:34older buildings. I mean, it was kind of

40:36put together in conjunction with German

40:38village and Italian village and the

40:40other ones. [clears throat] Um, but I

40:45think there's a number of them that have

40:47been approved for 1960s750s

40:50buildings. Yeah. Yeah. Especially for

40:52HRC because we see most of those

40:54buildings in our districts. Um but we do

40:56we do have that information, you know,

40:58just if you email us after the meeting,

41:00we can send you that information.

41:02>> So we can continue trying to find a

41:03solution for this for now.

41:05>> So and and that being said, I'd

41:07entertain a motion to continue this

41:09>> part B um of this application is for the

41:12windows to continue um while u the

41:15applicant finds a solution and you can

41:17work with staff to look at options. and

41:20the louver too.

41:21>> Oh, so if you want to do all of them

41:22together.

41:23>> Well, here's the gonna continue the

41:25rest.

41:25>> Yeah, you're just gonna continue the Oh,

41:27so B is then Okay, so B includes

41:29windows, the fencing, and um a solution

41:32for the um unit infills for the air

41:36conditioning unit infills.

41:38>> Um did you come up with a solution?

41:40>> Okay,

41:41>> second.

41:42>> A motion, a second. Any further

41:44discussion? U thing I add is just um

41:48clarity on the windows. Being an

41:51industrial building that window is such

41:53a defining element. I my opinion is

41:56trying like like these commissioners

41:57saying try to find something that's

41:59going to continue to give it that look.

42:03When you look at a building that's

42:06so simple like that and then changing

42:08out that one element completely changes

42:10the look. So just implore you uh I just

42:14wanted to emphasize that point at least

42:15from my standpoint trying to find

42:17something that is very similar to what

42:19was removed.

42:20>> Okay. And if I can do that aesthetically

42:23is that a possibility?

42:26>> I mean we we have

42:28>> case

42:29we we've seen windows that have looked

42:32like sash windows and we have approved

42:33them. Just

42:35>> you'll just have to look at what those

42:36windows were originally and how you're

42:38going to get close. You can't glue

42:40something on the outside of that window

42:41to make it look like so we know what

42:43we're really talking about.

42:44>> Yes. Okay.

42:45>> And I will mention cuz I know we

42:47mentioned this at a previous

42:48application. Um

42:50>> it was either Commissioner Henry or

42:52McKay. It was all of you. I'm not sure.

42:53But either way, these are sliders. So

42:55that also changes like the depth

42:56definition of the windows and that look

42:58as well. So just to consider that if

43:00looking to alter them potentially.

43:02>> Okay. It wouldn't be it was it wouldn't

43:05match um what was previously if there

43:08was an alteration of even just the

43:09slider windows just to just to keep that

43:11in mind.

43:12>> Okay. Yeah.

43:13>> So hearing and seeing no other further

43:15comment. All those in favor say I.

43:17>> I.

43:18>> Opposed extension. Motion passes. You're

43:20continued now until next month. Please

43:22work with Morgan on your next steps.

43:25>> Okay.

43:25>> Thank you.

43:26>> Thanks for taking the time to talk to us

43:28guys. Appreciate it.

43:30>> Of course. Um, it looks like some of the

43:32applicants that are earlier on the

43:34agenda have shown up. We can go through

43:38the list again if we would like. Um,

43:411776 Brighten Road. Is anyone here for

43:43that property?

43:46No.

43:47604 South Champion Avenue.

43:52No. Uh, 747 South Front Street. Okay.

44:02If you could raise your right hand. Yes,

44:04sir. Yep. Stay. Stay standing. Okay.

44:06Raise your right hand. Do you swear to

44:07tell the truth in your testimony for the

44:08commission this evening?

44:09>> Yes, sir.

44:09>> If you could state your full name and

44:10association with the property for

44:12>> Terry Summers and you are

44:14>> uh owner.

44:15>> Okay. Thank you.

44:17>> Morgan. Okay. All right. So, this is to

44:20install new Hardyboard siding over the

44:21old wood siding on the rear elevation of

44:23the house and add, you know, the

44:25traditional window trim elements on the

44:28building as well. This also includes uh

44:30hardy board siding added to the um

44:32cement block addition on the back. Um

44:35property received approval to repair and

44:37replace the wood siding on the rear

44:38elevation and add wood siding in um 2014

44:42under COA 14103. It does not appear that

44:45it was ever done. So um you know it's

44:47it's gotten a lot um a lot more

44:49deterioration than it was then. Um we

44:52have the minutes from the September

44:54hearing. if the commission would like me

44:55to review any of that at this moment.

44:56I'll just jump into the business meeting

44:58feedback. Um, commissioners requested

45:00applicant to call out the dimensions on

45:02the proposed trim for windows, doors,

45:04and corner trim. They requested

45:05applicant to clarify if the proposed

45:07siding is going over existing siding or

45:09stud wall. Um, commissioners asked what

45:12is the plan on the north side elevation

45:14where there is a door, window, and

45:15siding infill. They asked applicant to

45:18notate the photos to show what is

45:19happening on the concrete addition for

45:21the window door trim and cornerboards as

45:23well what is happening to the transition

45:24between the siding and the gable portion

45:26on the back. Ask the applicant to

45:29provide an updated detailed description

45:30of the scope of work. Um the applicant

45:34did reach out um at Dan Meyer. He wasn't

45:37receiving the emails I don't believe. So

45:38we sent him the feedback and he did send

45:40us some updated drawings um yesterday

45:43afternoon. So they were included. He has

45:45provided a rendering of the siding over

45:47the concrete block as well as some

45:49additional information on the sizing of

45:51the trim um and description of of the

45:56work for the infill. Um he has provided

45:59that. So we do recommend to approve

46:01application um as submitted with the

46:03following conditions to remove the

46:05non-historic deteriorate siding and

46:06install new wood siding to match or

46:08hardy board siding to be smooth with an

46:10exposure between 3 to 5 in. Final F

46:12final final siding and trim color to be

46:14submitted to HBO staff for final review

46:16and approval and trim details around

46:18windows and doors in connection to the

46:20brick structure to be submitted for

46:22review which we have received you know

46:24recently.

46:28Oh, basis of standard for alteration.

46:30I'm so sorry. 2005 amendments for

46:31exterior sidings. That's all. Okay,

46:36I will open this up to Is there anything

46:38the applicant would like to add before

46:40we move into our own comments?

46:42>> No, sir.

46:42>> Okay, thank you. Uh, I'll open this up

46:45for members of the commission.

46:51>> So, peel it off and put the new stuff

46:53on. And here we go.

46:56>> Awesome.

46:58>> I get your best. you're going to keep

47:00all those reveals and then you can go

47:02right to the edge of the window instead

47:03of you know going around things and to

47:06that level I think if I if I understand

47:08that correctly and one of your drawings

47:10did show that the

47:13I'm looking at your number two drawing

47:17on AO.01 01.

47:21Uh, number two, like the door window jam

47:23detail.

47:25Looks like the Hardy plank,

47:28you're going to butt up to what's

47:30existing. So, you're Are you sure that

47:32what's there doesn't go underneath the

47:34the um the trim?

47:36>> Positive.

47:37>> Okay,

47:39good. All right.

47:48Oh, and staff does note we did see that

47:49there was mention of 1x six for the um

47:53window trim. Typically, that's like a 1

47:55by three and a half. Um unless that's

47:58going to be cut down to size for like

48:00the vertical strips. Just a just FYI.

48:03Just a note of that there.

48:05>> As long as it's in keeping with what you

48:07have. I mean, what's up there now for

48:10>> uh I believe so. You're just going to

48:12rip them, but you need to modify this

48:16the drawing

48:23>> unless it is just a 1x six being cut

48:24down to four because of course.

48:26>> Yeah, whatever. As long as it matches

48:27[laughter]

48:28[clears throat] documentation keeping it

48:30in kind.

48:32>> Morgan, do you think you have clarity on

48:34the full extent of coverage? That's the

48:37only thing I'm just reviewing the

48:39applicant or application. Um, I think

48:42they've done a nice job pointing out

48:43multiple elevations and where some of

48:46the details are at and how certain

48:47elevations are going to be treated, but

48:49I don't know if I could tell you where

48:52100% or the extents of all this go.

48:55>> Yeah, I think I mean from what we see

48:57it's pretty clear. You know, of course

48:59we're going to ask for it looks like

49:00there's a reveal of the trim around the

49:03window. I don't see it on the corner

49:05board. Um I'm assuming that's there

49:07would be a a reveal which is normally

49:09like um oh gosh what is it like a half

49:12inch not half inch quarter inch quarter

49:14inch to [sighs]

49:16I don't remember my numbers right now

49:17but normally there's a little bit of a

49:18reveal on on the trim you know just set

49:20off from the siding um and just kind of

49:23what the we do recommend the 3 to 5 in

49:25for the reveal of the Hardy board siding

49:27and just kind of clarifying what that

49:29would be um would be our recommendation

49:33on that. Uh we did not get a

49:34confirmation of what's happening on the

49:36back of the building.

49:37>> That's what I was kind of getting at

49:39that whole view area. [clears throat]

49:41>> So we weren't sure if it's going to be

49:44all just, you know, um clappered siding

49:48on that side, if there's going to be a

49:49transition detail for the gable end, um

49:52with the concrete block. Um

49:54>> what are you talking about the addition?

49:56>> Yes, for the concrete block addition

49:58because on the back gable end it's

49:59infilled with wood siding.

50:01>> What What is your plan on the rear? Uh,

50:03we were just going to continue with the

50:04Hardy blank,

50:05>> but all the way up into the eve or what?

50:07What is the

50:09>> that was uh, yeah, I mean that was the

50:11plan. I mean, it's small section.

50:14You [clears throat] guys recommend

50:15something different and and we can get

50:17an approval today. That would I mean,

50:19we're all for it.

50:20>> I think the window needs trimmed out and

50:22the louver needs trimmed out, right, to

50:25look kind of more appropriate.

50:26[clears throat]

50:27>> Pretty much how you provided the

50:29concrete edition residing rendering.

50:32You did a good job with that.

50:34>> So, I think if there could be maybe a

50:35followup that adds this image, then

50:39notates all the things that are going to

50:40be added to that, that would be

50:42beneficial,

50:43>> right? But we could still approve it

50:44tonight. Yes.

50:45>> Yeah. And just you can submit that later

50:47and

50:48>> Yeah.

50:48>> And you can get moving because it's

50:50getting cold.

50:50>> Yeah.

50:51>> Yeah. It's It's been a two-year project.

50:53So, yeah. My my pockets are bleeding.

50:55Thank you. Yes.

50:57>> Personally, I would be okay if you went

50:59right up to it if you can scrape that

51:00and paint it up there and it would be

51:02great. But

51:02>> more than happy to.

51:03>> You can go either way. I don't either

51:05way. Honestly,

51:07>> I don't know how that's just me. I don't

51:08know how everyone else may.

51:09>> Yeah, I think that would look great. Um

51:11I mean, we can do definitely do that.

51:13That's what you guys want. It's

51:17no difference to us.

51:21[snorts]

51:24And we don't have a drawing for the

51:25sorry for this inville, but it's pretty

51:27clear in the description from the

51:28architect. Um, you know, it's just going

51:30to match the sizing and everything of

51:32>> the other windows and and door elements

51:34and things.

51:35>> Um,

51:36>> I know there strong opinions down there.

51:39>> I'd be okay with it. Um, escaped and

51:41painted also.

51:42>> Just scraped and painted on the either

51:44way. Either way,

51:45>> why don't you make a motion to that

51:47effect?

51:48>> Uh, okay.

51:54number four.

51:56>> Uh COA2501378.

52:02>> We have other letters on this before.

52:04>> We did.

52:05>> This is B.

52:06>> This is A. B. B was the garage and that

52:08was moved to staff approval. There's

52:10some final details that I think we still

52:11need to work out. Um so we can we can

52:14touch base on that as well later.

52:15>> Okay. But that was moved to second.

52:17>> So in accordance to a I move that we

52:20approve the motion as submitted with the

52:22following conditions. That um trim

52:25details be

52:28uh modify to

52:31warrant what the existing condition is

52:33around the windows as opposed to what's

52:35in the drawing.

52:37and that we have a clear drawing of the

52:40rear elevation of the block addition of

52:43how you're going to abut the

52:47um hardy trim up to what's existing

52:51and then final details for paint to

52:54staff.

52:55>> I will second that.

52:57>> Having a motion and a second. Any

52:59further discussion organ any

53:02clarification?

53:03>> No, I don't think so. Everything we can

53:04hash out with the applicant. Okay.

53:07>> Any further discussion hearing? Seeing

53:09none, all those in favor say I.

53:11>> I.

53:13>> The extension passes. Thank you.

53:16>> Do you want to talk about the garage

53:17quicker?

53:18>> No, the garage was fine. Yeah, it was

53:20moved to staff approval. There's just um

53:22>> the conditions we had need to be still

53:24sent it to us. So, just

53:25>> And by the way, Morgan, what was the

53:27other one besides number two that was

53:28moved to staff? What other case was

53:30moved to staff approval?

53:31>> Um the other one that was moved to staff

53:33approval was six and seven. six and

53:35seven.

53:36>> There are two applications on the agenda

53:38for 7-Eleven Oakwood Avenue though.

53:40Different applications. Um, one is the

53:43window one. Um, so we can see if Charles

53:45Smith is here for the 7-Eleven Oakwood

53:47Avenue property.

53:51>> Um, we skip five.

53:53>> I I was going to say do

53:54>> that is we have two for 7-Eleven Oakwood

53:56Avenue. There's Yeah. So five is

53:58>> But I was going to say we should

54:00probably go back to one and just confirm

54:02nobody's here for 1776. Brian Road.

54:06Okay.

54:06>> Nobody is here for case number three.

54:09604 South Champion.

54:13>> Okay. So then we are then on to

54:18>> 7-Eleven Oakwood.

54:19>> 7-Eleven Oakwood.

54:20>> Come on up.

54:25>> If you could raise your right hand. Do

54:27you swear to tell the truth in your

54:28testimony for a commission this evening?

54:29>> Yes, I do.

54:30>> State your full name and association

54:31with the property for record.

54:33>> Owner.

54:33>> Okay. Wonderful.

54:34>> All right,

54:37>> that um this is for 28 windows that have

54:39been replaced with new vinyl. New

54:41American Grand used double hung um that

54:43is not on the approved windows list. Uh

54:45the applicant would like to replace the

54:47vinyl windows uh with new allwood trim

54:49line heritage double hung windows. Um

54:52[snorts] the following is from the

54:54minutes from May 21st. Um

54:58um would the commission like me to cover

54:59anything from that meeting at this time?

55:01Okay. Um, from the October business

55:02meeting, commissioners asked applicants

55:04provide the details of what is currently

55:05there for the opening, if the jam is

55:07still existing on the property, and will

55:09appropriate trim, brick molding be added

55:11back since the originals were removed.

55:13Uh, commission [snorts] requested

55:14applicant provide a close-up photo of

55:16the existing conditions of the exterior

55:17of the window and opening condition.

55:19They asked staff to provide the window

55:21that is on the approved windows list to

55:23compare with the proposed. and

55:24commission asked applicant to ask a

55:26sales representative of the trimline

55:28window um what is the difference between

55:30the proposed heritage window and the

55:32eclipse and the Liberty from the

55:33approved windows list. So staff did go

55:36through um the trim line website to see

55:39what the difference would be. So the

55:41Liberty L300 from the approved windows

55:44list is an allwood double hung with full

55:46jam replacement. Um, the Eclipse E3

55:49EC300 from the approved windows list is

55:51an aluminum clad wood window double hung

55:53with a full jab replacement. The window

55:55proposed by the applicant is a wood sash

55:58kit which comes with the individual

55:59sashes and vinyl jam liners. Um, staff

56:02recommends applicant provide more

56:04information on the existing opening if

56:06the jams are still existing or if they

56:08have been removed. If the jams have been

56:10removed from the proposed units, um, oh,

56:14from the openings, new jams with the

56:15appropriate wood trim elements would

56:17need to be pre-constructed for these

56:19proposed units to function, as well as

56:20provide the appropriate wood trim

56:22dimensions for a historic window

56:24opening. We'd also request that the

56:26measurements of the jam liners be

56:27provided to ensure that the addition of

56:29the liners wouldn't reduce the opening

56:31size of the windows. And if the jams

56:33need to be reconstructed, we would

56:35recommend applicant look into the

56:37windows made by trim line that do

56:39include the whole jam replacement from

56:41the approved windows list since they're

56:43all in that package. Um HBO staff has

56:45provided that additional material. Um

56:47with that information, we do recommend

56:49to continue application to allow

56:51applicant time to provide the additional

56:52information requested by the commission

56:54and HBO staff pertaining to the jams um

56:56and photos and things of that nature um

56:58just to get a better understanding

56:59what's existing on the property. Um

57:02basis of staff wreck is 311611 standards

57:05for alteration

57:07as well as Columbus register of historic

57:08properties architectural guidelines

57:10windows page 52 to 55 and amendments to

57:13city of Columbus architecture review

57:15commission guidelines window replacement

57:17page 4 through 5.

57:19That is all. I'm sorry.

57:22>> What would the applicant like to add at

57:24this time?

57:26>> Um I I mean we just want to get the get

57:28it done. Um,

57:30I don't know if you guys were here for

57:32the last meeting. I wasn't, but uh,

57:34basically the guy that was contracted to

57:37do was supposed to pull the permits. He

57:39didn't pull the permits.

57:40>> Act like he didn't know this was a

57:42historic district. Um, and unfortunately

57:46my general contractor didn't check to

57:48see if he had pulled the permits before.

57:51Um, and

57:54to be honest, it looks like the the

57:56house next to us has vinyl windows. So,

57:59he says he didn't know it was a historic

58:01district. You know, I paid over 21,000

58:04to get these windows replaced. Um, and

58:07now I understand you guys want the

58:09windows taken out. We're just trying to

58:11find something that's going to be a

58:13reasonable

58:15replacement. Um because the quotes that

58:18I'm getting for the ones on the approved

58:19windows, I sent one over and this is

58:22like the lowest and they're talking

58:25about like $80 $90,000.

58:27>> Unfortunately, we we have to follow our

58:29guidelines. So any um issue regarding

58:32costs or economic hardships, you have to

58:34follow the guidelines for we don't hear

58:36cases regarding the economic hardship

58:39unless you can bring and present the

58:41case for economic hardship. So, I have

58:44to kind of defer you to that section to

58:45to look at that because we don't really

58:48truly look at those kinds of that that

58:50information just on cost alone. Um, it

58:53also sounds like you probably have

58:54recourse with your contractor, you

58:56should probably consider, you know,

58:58talking to them about as well. Um, I

59:01think the most critical thing though is

59:03is that, you know, again, if you know

59:05your neighbor, you know, doesn't have a

59:06code compliant. We know that's an issue

59:08between you and maybe filing a code

59:10complaint if that is indeed the case. I

59:12don't know where your house is in the

59:14district versus that house as well. So,

59:15we we also have to have, you know, take

59:17those things into consideration and they

59:19may have had their own approvals or no

59:21approvals as well. So, they may be in

59:23the same issue of of of having an issue

59:25themselves.

59:26>> Yeah. Or before it was a district is

59:27sometimes what we see,

59:28>> right?

59:28>> I was just saying that to say that yeah,

59:30he says that he didn't know and that's

59:32why he was shocked that he could hear.

59:34>> But but but he he you said he was

59:37supposed to get a permit but he did not

59:40get a permit.

59:41>> Right. Exactly.

59:41>> Okay. Just to clarify.

59:43>> Yeah, because if you go to pool permit,

59:45um, building and zoning does flag up.

59:47>> Yeah, that's what I said.

59:48>> Yeah. So, then we were all notified.

59:50>> Yeah, that was where he obviously should

59:52have known,

59:53>> right?

59:53>> Um, and I you as the owner knew you you

59:56were in a district, correct? I mean,

59:58>> what's that?

59:58>> You you knew you were in a district.

1:00:00>> Yes, I did. But the contract literally

1:00:02said he was pulling the permits for the

1:00:04correct. So in in this case too that the

1:00:06the critical thing for us is that the

1:00:08difference in the window is noticeable

1:00:11because it it doesn't have what's called

1:00:12a brick jam which goes around the window

1:00:14>> and [clears throat] it's just a critical

1:00:16missing component. Um you're approve

1:00:19you're requesting windows that still

1:00:21don't have that detail and that is a

1:00:23kind of a critical detail in window and

1:00:25window detailing. So I I think what

1:00:28staff has suggested is that there's a

1:00:32continuation of your application to give

1:00:34you time to figure out whether you do

1:00:35have those jams existing around the

1:00:37edges or not because that is the biggest

1:00:40thing is if you do have those jams then

1:00:42the windows that are being proposed may

1:00:43be acceptable. If you don't have those

1:00:45jams we really need a window that either

1:00:47has that jam or you need to propose

1:00:49recreating that jam.

1:00:51>> Okay. And this is all going to be

1:00:53detailed like in the notes from today so

1:00:55I can give it to the person that's doing

1:00:56the windows because I don't know

1:00:58anything [clears throat] about

1:00:59>> Yeah, I well it's it's you may want to

1:01:01sit down with your contractor and or

1:01:03bring your contractor in or bring in an

1:01:05architect or bring in somebody or even

1:01:06bring the window reps in. Um you know

1:01:08you can look at the technical details

1:01:10they've provided for the two windows and

1:01:11they're just very different.

1:01:13>> It will be in the notes for today.

1:01:15>> It will be something. So after the

1:01:17meeting, we do our minutes for the month

1:01:19um for the hearing and then after that

1:01:21we send letters to the individual um

1:01:24applications in the portal. So you'll

1:01:25get a notification saying, "Hey, here's

1:01:27the letter for the month and it will be

1:01:29there in your attachment section so you

1:01:31can access it there. If you can't find

1:01:32it, you can always email us and we can

1:01:33provide it for you."

1:01:34>> Okay. The last question I have, they did

1:01:36mention um I think in the notes or

1:01:40something and I heard you guys mention

1:01:41again today that you've approved other

1:01:43windows for like test cases. Can we is

1:01:46that information available? Where do I

1:01:48find that out? [clears throat]

1:01:49>> Well, that the if if we have approved

1:01:52those windows as a test case, it's

1:01:54because we're believing they have a

1:01:56similar profile or meet an obligation to

1:01:59look substantially enough like a

1:02:01historic window. The issue still comes

1:02:04down to that the windows you are have in

1:02:06your application do not have the detail

1:02:09that we need. they just don't feature

1:02:11this thing at all that we keep talking

1:02:13about which is the brain.

1:02:15>> So I guess I'm just wondering as far as

1:02:18like alternative options if I know that

1:02:21there's other ones there that have been

1:02:23approved then I would like to know you

1:02:25know I would that would be something

1:02:27that I would explore in case these ones

1:02:29aren't because every time you know we

1:02:32come to these meetings and it's not

1:02:33approved now we got to wait another

1:02:34month and then another month and another

1:02:36month. So I'd rather try to get all the

1:02:38information. There are other windows on

1:02:40the list. How many other windows are on

1:02:41the

1:02:42>> um I can't remember. There's all wood

1:02:44options and then there's the aluminum

1:02:47clad that was in the uh that's in the

1:02:49document that I sent uh to you

1:02:50previously. Those are all the ones we

1:02:52have.

1:02:52>> Those are test case ones.

1:02:54>> No, those are

1:02:54>> the test the test case is a very

1:02:56specific scenario. It has to be specific

1:02:58to the house. for example,

1:03:00>> that really unusual window or

1:03:02>> in in the in the previous case that

1:03:04building was a totally different design

1:03:06where none of these windows would be

1:03:08appropriate for that design of a

1:03:10building.

1:03:10>> Okay. So there's not any alternatives

1:03:12from the list that you could say you can

1:03:14look at these these

1:03:15>> not for the style of building you

1:03:20>> but but some of the historical buildings

1:03:23now are from like the 1970s.

1:03:25So, and the list was really compiled for

1:03:28homes earlier than that.

1:03:30>> So, we're now looking for windows to

1:03:32replace

1:03:34windows from the late 60s, early 70s.

1:03:36And so, those tend to be the test cases

1:03:39that they're posing. Uh, I I have

1:03:41another I have a additional question.

1:03:44>> The glass block in the basement, was

1:03:46that added as part of this window

1:03:48replacement also?

1:03:49>> No,

1:03:50>> that was there earlier.

1:03:51>> Yeah. Yeah. I think um

1:03:54they need to be like repaired or

1:03:56something because there's water getting

1:03:57in. So, we've been dealing with that,

1:03:58too.

1:04:02>> Okay. Do we have any idea when those

1:04:04were added?

1:04:05>> When the glass block was added? Yeah,

1:04:07>> I have no idea. I mean,

1:04:09>> that's a treatment we wouldn't normally

1:04:11>> Yeah.

1:04:12>> encourage somebody to do. So if if you

1:04:14ever had to do anything to remove any of

1:04:16that, then we would need you to take

1:04:18those back to what should be there

1:04:20because that's a condition that we

1:04:21wouldn't have allowed traditionally.

1:04:22>> Oh,

1:04:23>> maybe somebody got away with it or you

1:04:24know.

1:04:25>> Yeah, there are instances like that.

1:04:27>> Um

1:04:29there I was told that they were 11

1:04:31modern so I don't know

1:04:34>> but in the event you do something to

1:04:35them then when you guys need to Yeah.

1:04:37Right.

1:04:41Are we ready for a motion?

1:04:44>> Yeah, there's really nothing more for us

1:04:46to do at this point. So, yep.

1:04:48>> So, move to continue to the next

1:04:50business meeting or the next uh

1:04:52commission meeting.

1:04:53>> Second November.

1:04:55>> Having a motion in a second. Any further

1:04:56discussion?

1:04:58Hearing none. All those in favor say I.

1:05:00>> I opposed. [clears throat]

1:05:02Abstension. Motion passes

1:05:04>> and a notification will be sent out.

1:05:06Typically takes us about a week after

1:05:08the meeting. um to get the letter sent

1:05:10out to everybody. So, just

1:05:14>> other I think applications just

1:05:16>> um your other application for the garage

1:05:19or for the new construction um or for

1:05:21the landscaping, I'm so sorry, for the

1:05:23patio was moved to staff approval at

1:05:25last month's business meeting or at the

1:05:27October business meeting. We just need

1:05:28final details on um the door step

1:05:32situation going down to the onreate

1:05:33patio. So, if your architect wants to

1:05:35send me those updated drawings, I was

1:05:37actually going to follow up with him

1:05:38soon.

1:05:39>> You've been communicating with them

1:05:40about that.

1:05:40>> Yeah. Then we just need that final

1:05:42detail and we can submit a COA for that.

1:05:44>> Okay. And tell me that. Okay.

1:05:47>> Sounds like you might want to wrangle

1:05:48your team up to get some better little

1:05:50bit. Well, it's not going too well

1:05:52because of the situation with the

1:05:53windows and there's obviously we're

1:05:56talking about these windows could have

1:05:58just been repaired and now we're talking

1:05:59about getting close for 80 and $90,000

1:06:02on a house I bought for 290,000. So,

1:06:04>> now [clears throat] a strain

1:06:06relationship

1:06:08and it's not going well at all. So,

1:06:11>> yeah.

1:06:13>> Thank you for taking the time out to

1:06:14come in. I appreciate you guys. Have a

1:06:15great rest of your day. Thank you. You

1:06:16too.

1:06:17>> Okay.

1:06:19Is anybody here yet for 1776 Brian Road

1:06:23or 604 South Champion?

1:06:27Okay. Carrying none. Uh 1725 Brighten

1:06:32Road.

1:06:37So here.

1:06:40>> Sorry, it's very cold. I don't know if

1:06:41anyone

1:06:43[laughter]

1:06:52If you could each raise your right

1:06:53hands. Do you each swear to tell the

1:06:55truth in your testimony for the

1:06:56commission this evening?

1:06:58>> I do.

1:06:58>> If you could state your full name and

1:07:00association with the property for

1:07:01record.

1:07:02>> Dr. Susan Wilson Brooks, 1725 Brighten

1:07:07Road.

1:07:08>> Bel Spencer Architect.

1:07:10>> Wonderful. Thank you.

1:07:11>> Okay. [clears throat] So this is to

1:07:12install a third floor balcony and egress

1:07:14access door facing south after removal

1:07:17of center windows of the three existing

1:07:18windows in south dormer. Replace center

1:07:21window with a single door that would

1:07:23match the um historic configuration of

1:07:26the windows and install steps with

1:07:27guardrail and balcony with surrounding

1:07:29guardrail to match the existing

1:07:30secondress.

1:07:32Property was recently approved for

1:07:33retractable awning on the second story

1:07:35terrace. Um, we did provide the separate

1:07:38September 17th commission meeting

1:07:40minutes for record. Uh, from the October

1:07:43business meeting, the commissioner

1:07:44stated that the applicant may want to

1:07:45consider reducing the replacement door

1:07:47size to 28 in to potentially keep the

1:07:50weight pockets in the two existing

1:07:51window jams to guarantee that they are

1:07:53functional. Um, commissioner stated that

1:07:55the applicant may want to consider

1:07:56getting a custom door size in order to

1:07:59keep the molion detailing or we'll need

1:08:01to replicate it. that would be between

1:08:03um that is between the existing windows

1:08:06right here. The commission asked

1:08:08applicant to clarify if they're

1:08:09proposing to refinish or remake the

1:08:11existing window trim since it appears to

1:08:12be in poor condition on the existing BM

1:08:14room. Currently, applicant has submitted

1:08:16updated materials that include the

1:08:18removal of the central window on the set

1:08:20um fiberglass door. They've also reduced

1:08:23the third floor terrace to just be um

1:08:27what size? I apologize. I did not write

1:08:29that down. four feet by four feet um

1:08:31coming out of the door. Um staff notes

1:08:35that the proposed door style does not

1:08:36match the existing window design or the

1:08:39window trim elements would strongly

1:08:40encourage the door to um to match that.

1:08:43Um as well we recommend to continue

1:08:45application COA 2600898

1:08:48um uh to allow applicant time to update

1:08:50the plan and drawing based on commission

1:08:51business meeting feedback. Bas for staff

1:08:53wreck is 3116 standards for alteration

1:08:57um and short north design guidelines

1:08:59rooftop structures and spaces and

1:09:00rooftop canopies and awnings.

1:09:05>> Is there anything the applicant would

1:09:06like to add at this time?

1:09:08>> I don't think so.

1:09:10>> You do?

1:09:11>> Hi. Yes. Um, unfortunately the applicant

1:09:15just got the staff uh recommendations

1:09:19yesterday via email, but in reviewing

1:09:22them, we are in agreement with the

1:09:24recommendations of keeping the door size

1:09:28to fit within the millions, which would

1:09:31have to be a special door. And I want to

1:09:34know if you guys have any

1:09:34recommendations for excellent

1:09:37>> I have no idea

1:09:38>> craftsman because we're going to have to

1:09:39get it probably specifically made for

1:09:42that.

1:09:43>> Uh and um

1:09:44>> I have an update.

1:09:45>> We've reduced the size to just a

1:09:47platform that

1:09:48>> that she could walk out onto. By

1:09:50>> by the way, thank you for taking that

1:09:51consideration too.

1:09:54>> Your packet. So

1:09:56>> thank you.

1:09:56>> Thank you.

1:09:56>> You're welcome.

1:09:57>> Okay. [laughter] So

1:09:59>> So you're amendable to the staff

1:10:01recommendations. And I think they've

1:10:03really done a lot of adjustment over

1:10:05this one. So,

1:10:06>> right.

1:10:06>> So, we

1:10:07>> make a motion to approve. But,

1:10:09>> can we I do have a quick question. Did

1:10:10we come up with a with a final width of

1:10:12what is there?

1:10:13>> We had included that in the packet.

1:10:15>> Can you just tell me what it is?

1:10:17>> I should just read it. I think it was

1:10:184.4.

1:10:19>> Put it on the door.

1:10:20>> Yeah.

1:10:20>> Um, this was the previous materials. If

1:10:23there was any updated, we didn't see

1:10:25updated materials.

1:10:26>> Updated.

1:10:27>> We haven't.

1:10:27>> Yeah. Updated drawings. This is the

1:10:29updated drawing before the phys. So if

1:10:31anything was sent after um step off um

1:10:35it does say I think to feed six

1:10:37>> I think it does address that doesn't it

1:10:39on those drawings

1:10:40>> did

1:10:42>> it's there maybe not

1:10:44>> can we approve it

1:10:46provided that

1:10:48>> the

1:10:49>> the drawings and the details

1:10:52>> okay

1:10:53>> let's do that um I move to approve uh

1:10:57COA260089

1:11:009 [clears throat] 8 uh 1725

1:11:05Brighten Road uh as [clears throat]

1:11:08uh uh amended

1:11:12uh provided that all documentation

1:11:14required is submitted.

1:11:17>> Okay.

1:11:17>> Is that all right?

1:11:19>> There's a motion

1:11:20>> and a second. So just for clarity too,

1:11:23the applicant has acknowledged that

1:11:24they're willing to make the uh staff

1:11:26recommended changes as well.

1:11:28>> Yes.

1:11:29uh [clears throat]

1:11:30>> for the business meeting,

1:11:31>> right? A amended

1:11:33>> to the staff recommendations as recorded

1:11:36at the business meeting.

1:11:38>> That work.

1:11:39>> Okay.

1:11:41>> Thank you.

1:11:42>> Any further discussion?

1:11:45>> Yeah. Can I speak?

1:11:48>> Will we get a specific list of what

1:11:50those items are so we're all clear?

1:11:52Okay. Thank you.

1:11:53>> And the letter will be uploaded to the

1:11:55portal for the attachment.

1:11:59And when when will it need to be

1:12:01submitted back to you by?

1:12:03>> Um there's

1:12:05there is no deadline technically. Okay.

1:12:08>> Yeah. If it's a continued and you want

1:12:09to get one for next month.

1:12:11>> Okay.

1:12:12>> Just whenever you get the drawings to

1:12:14us, we'll look through them.

1:12:15>> Hopefully, you know, hopefully not have

1:12:16back and forth that happen. We'll wait

1:12:18for you.

1:12:19>> Okay. [laughter]

1:12:20Thank you.

1:12:20>> Did you want to address the um Okay.

1:12:24Stuart, you still look like you're

1:12:25mulling over discussion wise.

1:12:28>> You won't have to come back in. You'll

1:12:29just work with Steph, right?

1:12:30>> It'll just be okay. Okay.

1:12:33>> Thank you.

1:12:36>> I was just looking at the drawings.

1:12:38Looks like we've got about 2 feet and a

1:12:40half an inch of actual window opening.

1:12:43There's six and a half on either side.

1:12:44So, we'll assume we split that six and a

1:12:46half.

1:12:48>> Yes.

1:12:49>> In half. So, we're gonna have about a 3

1:12:50inch trim out on a 30-inch door is kind

1:12:56of what

1:12:57is [clears throat] that what I'm sort of

1:12:58looking at?

1:12:59>> Correct.

1:13:00>> Okay. I don't know if the rendering

1:13:03represents that that well, but

1:13:06>> it's old.

1:13:06>> Yeah, this is the old

1:13:07>> the old

1:13:09for the business meeting, but the

1:13:11applicant is saying that they

1:13:13>> Yeah.

1:13:14>> They'll submit new drawings.

1:13:16>> Yeah.

1:13:19Go to the check box.

1:13:21>> Okay. Hearing and seeing no further

1:13:23discussion. All those in favor say I.

1:13:24>> I. I.

1:13:26>> Opposed. Extension. Motion passes.

1:13:28>> Thank you.

1:13:29>> Thank you, Commissioner.

1:13:30>> You might check with with Landmarks

1:13:31Foundation for a they they have a list

1:13:34of crafts people and historical

1:13:37contractors that might be helpful to

1:13:39you.

1:13:40>> Thank you. Have a good evening.

1:13:41>> You

1:13:43too.

1:13:44Uh we will then go down now because

1:13:47there's no additional new folks in the

1:13:49room. We will go down to case number 10

1:13:52then

1:13:54uh 765 Lynwood

1:14:01numbers. [laughter]

1:14:03>> If you could raise your right hand.

1:14:05>> Josh, do you swear to tell the truth in

1:14:06your testimony for the commission this

1:14:08evening?

1:14:08>> I do.

1:14:09>> Association with the property for

1:14:10record.

1:14:11>> Josh Town, architect.

1:14:12>> Wonderful. Have a seat.

1:14:15This is to demolish the historic garage

1:14:17and construct new twocar garage to

1:14:19closely match existing 127 foot by 24T

1:14:22wide concrete driveway. Property

1:14:24received an unsafe building order in

1:14:262023 after experiencing a fire. A

1:14:28applicant applied in July

1:14:31well not this applied in July 2025 which

1:14:34included the window repairs window

1:14:36replacement of three windows affected by

1:14:37the fire. Siding trim, sopet facial

1:14:39repair placement in lake kinding, gutter

1:14:42repair, asphalt jingle replacement, and

1:14:44garage demolition. Applicate was

1:14:46approved. Applicant was approved for all

1:14:48the other items was told to apply

1:14:49separately for the garage demolition

1:14:51since it would need to go to the

1:14:53commission for review. Based on the

1:14:55current design elements of the existing

1:14:56garage as well as sandbar mats from 1921

1:14:59and 1922, appears the existing garage is

1:15:01from the 1920s, so it does make it a

1:15:03historic.

1:15:04property was previously reviewed under

1:15:062600265B

1:15:09to demolish the existing and re recede

1:15:11site. We included those minutes just for

1:15:13record of a property. Um but of course

1:15:16it has been revised to install a new two

1:15:18garage. At the October business meeting,

1:15:20commissioners recommended applicants

1:15:21look into wider sighting profile for

1:15:23corner boards to match what is currently

1:15:25on the structure and to provide those

1:15:27measurements as well as sighting

1:15:29profile. They recommend applicant

1:15:30include windows on the structure to

1:15:32match what is on the structure.

1:15:33applicant has updated the drawings to

1:15:35include 1x6 trim details as well as

1:15:38wider siding to match more of the

1:15:40existing structure. No windows have been

1:15:42included at this time. We do recommend

1:15:44to approve application as submitted.

1:15:47Basis of staff wreck is 311614.

1:15:49Standards for demolition um Columbus

1:15:52registered historical properties

1:15:53architectural guidelines garages and out

1:15:55buildings page 86 to 87.

1:15:59>> Okay. Anything that the applicant would

1:16:01like to add at this time? Uh we did bump

1:16:03up the siding to six inches after the

1:16:05staff meeting.

1:16:08>> It's reflected.

1:16:09>> It's one of the few unique scenarios

1:16:11where I've ever had to say, "Can you

1:16:13expand a little bit?" [laughter]

1:16:15>> And it was extra weird because the house

1:16:16has 4 in.

1:16:18>> Yeah. Strange.

1:16:19>> Yeah.

1:16:22>> Like a pretty solid application.

1:16:25>> Yeah.

1:16:30So, this was

1:16:32>> number 10.

1:16:33>> So,

1:16:33>> what was the number?

1:16:34>> 10.

1:16:35>> 10.

1:16:35>> Number 10.

1:16:36>> I'd like to make a motion to approve 7

1:16:39uh application COA2600998765

1:16:44Winwood Avenue as submitted.

1:16:47>> Second.

1:16:49>> Having a motion and a second. Any

1:16:51further discussion? Where's the second?

1:16:59hearing. Seeing none, all those in favor

1:17:01say I.

1:17:02>> I.

1:17:03>> Opposed. Abstension. Motion passes.

1:17:05>> Thanks, guys. Unanimous.

1:17:09>> On to case number 11, 724 Wilson Avenue.

1:17:26If you could raise your right hand, do

1:17:28you swear to tell the truth in your

1:17:29testimony before the commission this

1:17:31evening?

1:17:31>> Yes.

1:17:32>> If you could state your full name and

1:17:33association with the property for

1:17:34record.

1:17:34>> Jenkins.

1:17:35>> And you are the

1:17:36>> owner.

1:17:37>> Owner. Okay. Thank you.

1:17:39>> So this is to approve existing

1:17:41landscaping which includes an infill of

1:17:44installed pond. This application is

1:17:46response to a code violation at the

1:17:48October business meeting. Commission

1:17:49provide the following preliminary

1:17:50feedback. Um recommend to revise the

1:17:53proposal and regrade site and recede the

1:17:55area where the pond has been installed.

1:17:57If applicant is possibly seeking to

1:17:58install a pond, the commission would

1:18:00need drawings of the pond to consider

1:18:02adding one to the site and commissioners

1:18:04as staff provide additional past

1:18:06documents and context the application

1:18:08for the review. Um property received

1:18:10code violations 2019 for the following

1:18:12items. Retaining walls and plantings is

1:18:15installed in the yard area without a C

1:18:17of bay. Um throughout the exterior of

1:18:19the structure, peeling and shipping

1:18:20paint exposing wood, mortar voids, um

1:18:23broken and missing panes and windows and

1:18:25main roof um had some broken and missing

1:18:28tiles. Property was reviewed at July

1:18:302021 HRC hearing. The commission with re

1:18:33um the commission with recommendation

1:18:34from HO staff was to table the

1:18:36application since at the time the

1:18:38property was enrolled in the lead hazard

1:18:40reduction program with the city of

1:18:42Columbus department of development

1:18:43housing division. Property was to be

1:18:45monitored by code enforcement and HBO

1:18:47staff as the process progressed and any

1:18:49repairs on the house or landscaping of

1:18:51the property that were not covered by

1:18:52the lead abatement program would remain

1:18:54as open code orders and would require

1:18:57appropriate action by the property

1:18:58owner. owner was approved in 2024 for

1:19:01the lead abatement program but could not

1:19:03be included during that funding cycle.

1:19:05Um owner apply reapplied in 2025 and

1:19:08reapproved in October of 2025. It

1:19:10appears that painting has been completed

1:19:12but unclear if it was performed by owner

1:19:14or the lead abatement program.

1:19:17um advocate recently received a CO a

1:19:19staff approved COA in September 2026 to

1:19:22oh I'm sorry [laughter]

1:19:25to resolve the broken window panes

1:19:27remaining bare wood areas not covered by

1:19:29the lead abatement and the mortar voids

1:19:31in the chimney still pending from

1:19:32previous violation the landscape the

1:19:34landscaping is still pending it appears

1:19:37from the most recent site code updates

1:19:39um that there are mortar voids on the

1:19:40walls and foundations damaged front

1:19:42porch so and gutter systems windows

1:19:45landscaping retainable feature of the

1:19:47field pond. Uh staff recommends to

1:19:49continue application to update

1:19:52applications for the applicant to update

1:19:54their proposal to remove the pond liner,

1:19:56regrade and seed the pond and provide

1:19:58updated status information from the

1:20:00letter program. U basis of staff brack

1:20:0413 standards for site improvements.

1:20:08>> Thank you. What would the applicant like

1:20:10to add at this time? The pond has

1:20:12already been refilled and when I got the

1:20:15house, the landscape was already like

1:20:17that. So,

1:20:19it was pre-existing for me when I when

1:20:20the last when the house went into my

1:20:22name.

1:20:23>> What when did uh the house go into your

1:20:26name?

1:20:26>> I think it was 2014 2013.

1:20:28>> Yeah. Unfortunately, I don't know when

1:20:30this became a district. Um

1:20:34that's a we can verify that. But

1:20:36unfortunately, even when the h so even

1:20:37when houses unfortunately when people

1:20:39have bought houses if there was a code

1:20:41violation code violation

1:20:42>> was never a code violation when I got

1:20:44the house

1:20:45>> that was in 2019 when she said it was

1:20:46made. So it was never

1:20:48>> ever called actually the lady that did

1:20:51it um I think she just passed away.

1:20:53>> Okay.

1:20:53>> Um the code violation lady she passed

1:20:55away. We have actually had an issue. She

1:20:58thought I was being funny to her

1:21:00>> and I asked her was she sick cuz I had

1:21:02Crohn's disease. I had Crohn's disease

1:21:04and diabetes. I no longer have either

1:21:06one. I actually cured me and my wife's

1:21:09both of those and my wife has some

1:21:11senior graphics. She no longer has it.

1:21:12So when I said something to her when I

1:21:14saw her gaining weight and I saw

1:21:15something was going on, she got

1:21:17offended. Very offended. Made sure I

1:21:19made sure I document in the court

1:21:21documents too. She was very offended.

1:21:23She came to court. When she found out

1:21:25that my wife had my gravis in the

1:21:26wheelchair, she wanted to look at me

1:21:28like she was crazy then. And at that

1:21:30time there was another lady that was

1:21:31actually doing um the case. I no longer

1:21:34have meno um Louisa Mendoza that was

1:21:37over my case. He actually took her off

1:21:39the case because they saw started being

1:21:41biased. So now Steve Dunar actually

1:21:44handles my case. So I became I I went

1:21:47into a situation where it should have

1:21:50never been for the simple fact the

1:21:52landscape was pre-existing before I even

1:21:55got it. So the landscape I got the house

1:21:57in 2013 2014 and 2019 is when she made a

1:22:00case against me and she talked to me

1:22:01every day. Every day I saw her in that

1:22:04neighborhood. She talked to me because I

1:22:05did not one, not two, probably about

1:22:06seven or eight houses of redoing them in

1:22:09the neighborhood.

1:22:10>> So if there was a problem, she would

1:22:12have stated then right then and there.

1:22:13But I don't like to speak ill or bad of

1:22:15anyone that's passed away cuz I asked

1:22:17her and the crazy part is the letter p

1:22:19lead abatement person, what's his name?

1:22:22I can't think of his name. He called me

1:22:23and let me know that she passed away.

1:22:25Like I knew he was having great issues

1:22:26with it. She's passed. I said I He was

1:22:29like, "You said it." I said, "I wasn't

1:22:31crazy."

1:22:32>> Unfortunately, the issue I think we have

1:22:34here though is that this is like a a

1:22:37code violation that's outstanding and we

1:22:39have no way of proving whether that's

1:22:41right or wrong.

1:22:41>> You said you said the landscaping.

1:22:43>> Yes.

1:22:43>> The landscaping. All you got to do is

1:22:44look at the pictures. You'll see

1:22:45pre-existing that it was already done.

1:22:47Well,

1:22:47>> you can look more into that right now. I

1:22:48think the question more is the is the

1:22:51that was installed. pond is gone.

1:22:53>> Okay. Yes. But

1:22:54>> it's been it's been refilled and I have

1:22:56pictures I sent pictures to

1:22:57>> and we have that materials. I think the

1:22:58Kusher's concern was that it still looks

1:23:01like the liner is there and they just

1:23:02recommend to you know

1:23:04>> No liner. No liner. Nothing.

1:23:06>> Our photos we have do have it. So if you

1:23:08do have any updated ones of that then if

1:23:10you could provide that to us. But we

1:23:12have the liner and the gravel and things

1:23:14of that nature.

1:23:15>> I'll make sure.

1:23:17>> I mean this is what we have right now

1:23:18for

1:23:19>> Yes, ma'am.

1:23:19>> Yeah.

1:23:20>> Yeah. If if you have any additional

1:23:21relevant information, it's easiest for

1:23:23us to just continue it at this time. You

1:23:25provide Morgan the information and then

1:23:27>> make sure that the liner is completely

1:23:28gone. Send you pictures. Am I correct?

1:23:30>> We we I think we just had a concern

1:23:32that, you know, it should just be

1:23:33brought up level and if you're going to

1:23:35plant grass, just plant grass. Just show

1:23:36us a picture. Am I correct?

1:23:39>> Yeah.

1:23:40>> I don't I don't know.

1:23:41>> Be dirt and seated, I think. But

1:23:44>> what is that material surrounding the

1:23:46old pond? What are we looking at there?

1:23:48Is that gravel around it?

1:23:49>> It was a pond liner at one time.

1:23:51>> Is that like a vapor barrier where the

1:23:52gravel is? You see that blue stuff?

1:23:54>> Yes.

1:23:54>> So, that was to keep weeds and stuff.

1:23:56>> Are you going to get rid of the gravel?

1:23:57>> It's not It was not for the pond. It was

1:23:59the keep all the weeds and stuff from

1:24:01growing up.

1:24:01>> Gotcha. Are you getting rid of all that,

1:24:03too, or what are you going to do?

1:24:04>> It was just um he's actually filled my

1:24:07tenant actually filled it in. He's

1:24:08actually has a garden out there now.

1:24:11>> So, none of that gravel is there

1:24:12anymore?

1:24:13>> The gravel's still there, but where the

1:24:15pond used to be?

1:24:16>> Oh, I see where that is. Yes, sir.

1:24:18>> Okay.

1:24:18>> He's a garden like like

1:24:20>> Yes.

1:24:20>> Vegetation. Yes. So, okay.

1:24:23>> If you can send us some pictures, that'd

1:24:25be helpful.

1:24:26>> Just for more context, this has been a

1:24:28you know,

1:24:31I know who I'm think of that. So, there

1:24:33has been staff cycling through. So, I'm

1:24:35trying to

1:24:35>> this way. [snorts]

1:24:37I'm starting to feel like I don't know

1:24:39how to say this. I'm just gonna be

1:24:40honest and frank. I feel like it's

1:24:43starting to become a problem because we

1:24:45would not not with anybody here. But if

1:24:48you understand what I mean, this process

1:24:50for land abatement has not been it's

1:24:53been going on since 2020. They got me

1:24:56approved.

1:24:57Then when they found

1:24:59>> just for our records, sorry,

1:25:02>> they got me approved. Then when they

1:25:04found it was over $450,000 they was

1:25:05giving me for the house,

1:25:09it seemed like something else came up

1:25:11and every other every situation came up

1:25:13and I'm like y'all been through all

1:25:14these situation before. So now I'm still

1:25:16in the process of just waiting

1:25:19and waiting and waiting seven years

1:25:22later waiting.

1:25:23>> I know there's been some funding issues

1:25:25just locally and nationally and things

1:25:29like that. So, I'm sure that's

1:25:31>> So, now I'm So, so now I'm applying for

1:25:33um a grant block fund. I didn't realize

1:25:37I can do that. Someone told me when all

1:25:39the other properties that got done in

1:25:41the neighborhood, it was like probably

1:25:42five or six houses that got done with

1:25:43the grant block funding. Do you do y'all

1:25:44remember that?

1:25:45>> I mean, we're we're just historic review

1:25:48commission. We don't get into any of

1:25:49these other

1:25:50>> No, I'm not saying get into it. I said,

1:25:51do you remember when all of the houses

1:25:53got approved? There's like five houses

1:25:55that got approved for like probably a

1:25:56million dollars a piece.

1:25:57>> We We don't Well, no. That's now.

1:26:00>> Yeah.

1:26:01>> So now I'm reapplying for that funding

1:26:04but as an individual.

1:26:06>> Okay. So let's talk. So what are we

1:26:08doing with the the front of the house?

1:26:12>> We could try to again dig a little

1:26:14deeper to get more information um on

1:26:17that because again as the applicant

1:26:18saying um it was there before he

1:26:21purchased the property and there was no

1:26:22code violation that was submitted for

1:26:24it. So it's not that he inherited a code

1:26:27violation. Um but his code violation was

1:26:28submitted in 2014 or 199.

1:26:32So um we can look into that a little

1:26:34further. Um and provide whatever other

1:26:36information that we have on that and um

1:26:38talk to code about about that. When

1:26:41>> did this become a district?

1:26:43>> 1990.

1:26:44>> Was it some research?

1:26:45>> I was going to say it was the '9s.

1:26:46>> So it so that so anything after 1990

1:26:49could be a code violation if it didn't

1:26:51have an approval though.

1:26:52>> Yeah, that's true. Mhm.

1:26:54>> So even if it was

1:26:55>> that's the one thing that you you may be

1:26:57up against is at one point if if it was

1:26:59noted that there was no approval after

1:27:021990 on an item despite the transfer of

1:27:05the title of the house that's still

1:27:07>> despite that the code violation person

1:27:09talked to me every day and she was in

1:27:10that neighborhood. It doesn't matter

1:27:12once the code identifies code

1:27:15identification

1:27:16>> because from my understanding

1:27:18>> let let me speak please once the code

1:27:21violation has been noted but if there

1:27:23was no approval for the item from this

1:27:26commission it would be a code violation

1:27:29>> and even perhaps I'm just I'm just

1:27:31throwing this out there could have been

1:27:32a thing where there was lots of

1:27:34vegetation maybe we didn't even know

1:27:36that existed you know maybe it was one

1:27:37of those things that the the growth had

1:27:39overgrown own those retaining walls. So,

1:27:42you did something by trying to clean it

1:27:44up and then exposed it,

1:27:45>> right? Maybe. I'm just saying I don't

1:27:47know that.

1:27:47>> That would be nice to say yes, it would

1:27:48be.

1:27:49>> What's that? [laughter]

1:27:50>> That would be nice to say yes, it would

1:27:51be.

1:27:52>> I'm just saying I don't who knows what

1:27:53the condition was like when it was done

1:27:54or right after. Right. I don't know.

1:27:56>> Unless we have a photograph.

1:27:57>> Yeah. If you can find a photograph prior

1:27:59to 1990,

1:28:00>> not 19 I wouldn't find a photograph

1:28:021990. It was done probably in 200.

1:28:05>> Right. But but there are historical

1:28:07photographs around. if it had something

1:28:09like that, if it had other stuff. Maybe,

1:28:11you know,

1:28:11>> the library has some old photographs

1:28:13>> as a solution to a problem that maybe

1:28:15existed before. So, I'm not sure.

1:28:17>> And there are other resources for

1:28:18historic photos. For example, the city

1:28:20library and that

1:28:21>> So, this is this is the issue though

1:28:22right here, I believe. I mean, Morgan

1:28:24just pulled it up. Is is this is a photo

1:28:26from 2009 that shows the grass.

1:28:29>> Oh, okay. So,

1:28:31>> still,

1:28:32>> right?

1:28:32>> I bought it. I got it in 2013 or 2014.

1:28:35>> Yeah. But you you you bought you bought

1:28:37a but I'm saying though you bought a

1:28:39house that had a code issue.

1:28:40>> It didn't have a code issue. There was

1:28:42no code issues on the property. The code

1:28:43issue didn't start to 2019.

1:28:45>> It wasn't um

1:28:46>> documented recognized.

1:28:47>> Yeah. It wasn't like recorded.

1:28:48>> It was documented.

1:28:50>> Yeah.

1:28:50>> Nothing documented about a code

1:28:51violation on my property at all. Not

1:28:54until

1:28:54>> the 2019 2019 of that year. And she

1:28:57thought I was being funny. Once she

1:28:59realized I was being funny, she changed

1:29:01her.

1:29:02>> I don't know that that changes the case

1:29:03before us tonight though is what we're

1:29:05trying to say. And that may be something

1:29:06that maybe you you have

1:29:08>> my understanding. Anything that's

1:29:09grandfathered in when you purchase a

1:29:10home and as long as it's the way it is,

1:29:12it's yours once it's been grandfathered

1:29:13in. And that's what my attorney brought

1:29:15to my attention. He said it's yours once

1:29:16he said it was nothing against you at

1:29:18that current time. There was nothing

1:29:20against the property and then all of a

1:29:21sudden they cured up a situation. He

1:29:23said, "That's different."

1:29:24>> It sounds like honestly you should

1:29:25probably have your attorney fight the

1:29:27code violation. So that's

1:29:28>> I don't have to fight it because I know

1:29:29I know the law and if you know the law

1:29:31and she just said she just stated once I

1:29:32look at it

1:29:34>> once I look at it and see before that

1:29:36time 2019

1:29:38I'm one of the people very confident

1:29:40just so we're clear

1:29:40>> 2019 once she said 2019

1:29:43>> and that's what I remember

1:29:46no I'm not saying that it's been

1:29:47documented that she just said once it's

1:29:502019 she said if there was no co

1:29:53violation before that time then you said

1:29:55well well we can say No, she said if it

1:29:58wasn't documented there was anything

1:29:59nothing on me at that time.

1:30:00>> Sir, there are two issues. One is

1:30:02officially documented

1:30:04>> versus

1:30:05the the problem existed even though it

1:30:07wasn't documented. It is a problem. So

1:30:10what we're saying is we won't be able to

1:30:12set settle the debate here today. If you

1:30:15have a concern, we you should follow up

1:30:17with the right folks at the city. We are

1:30:19a volunteer group that just has to

1:30:21follow what's in front of us

1:30:23>> and the guidelines. and we we understand

1:30:25empathize your concern. We can't solve

1:30:27it for you.

1:30:28>> I didn't ask her to solve I just listen

1:30:29to what she just said.

1:30:30>> Yes. So that is yes that's a fact that

1:30:32official code was 2019 but the problem

1:30:35I'm not being disrespectful but you're

1:30:36talking

1:30:37>> neither are we. No. So that what what

1:30:40what he's saying is that in 2019

1:30:42>> it was officially documented as a code

1:30:45violation but the code issue or the the

1:30:48problem on the property existed even

1:30:50before. So what we're saying is that as

1:30:52a property owner, you inherit the

1:30:55problem and we now it's in front of us

1:30:57now as a problem. So we got to fix it.

1:31:00>> Now whether you fix it by getting

1:31:02recourse from the city and get um an

1:31:05exception to the rule and that's fine or

1:31:07it comes in front of us and we have to

1:31:08make a judgment.

1:31:10>> We can continue this so that you have

1:31:12time.

1:31:12>> What do what do you mean recourse from

1:31:14the city?

1:31:15>> If you have an issue, you'll have to

1:31:16take it up with the city and explain

1:31:18your case like you're explaining to us.

1:31:20We cannot make any code and code

1:31:23>> enforcement determine the code

1:31:24violations here.

1:31:25>> Yeah, it's a different department.

1:31:26>> Yeah, we're just reviewing

1:31:29>> is it historically appropriate? That's

1:31:31it.

1:31:31>> And the reason it came here is because

1:31:33of the code violation, but we don't

1:31:35judge on the code violations.

1:31:37>> Correct. Yeah.

1:31:37>> Yeah.

1:31:38>> Could you um give me

1:31:39>> We can't remove a code violation. That's

1:31:41not our That's not our perview.

1:31:43>> I understand that. I understand that

1:31:44part. What I'm the part that I'm stating

1:31:48is the pawn

1:31:50I understood it was before my time too,

1:31:52but guess what? I made sure that it was

1:31:55>> Yes.

1:31:55>> filled.

1:31:56>> I think that we're good on the pawn. If

1:31:57you submit the photos, um that so we can

1:32:00There are two parts to this. The pond

1:32:02seems like we have we just need photos

1:32:03and so it should be okay.

1:32:05>> Okay.

1:32:05>> Once we see the photos and staff says

1:32:08good to go, you're fine there.

1:32:10>> We're just talking about the front part

1:32:11of the house, the landscape, which is

1:32:14the question right now.

1:32:15>> Okay. Mhm.

1:32:16>> And who do I talk to about that?

1:32:20>> Who do That's me.

1:32:21>> Well, okay.

1:32:22>> Yeah. For submitting anything additional

1:32:24for the pond information for what we're

1:32:26viewing tonight. That is my jurisdiction

1:32:28for the historic preservation staff

1:32:30who's, you know, oversees the historic

1:32:32resources.

1:32:33>> He's talking about his concerns about

1:32:34the front landscape.

1:32:35>> Oh, front landscaping. Sorry. That would

1:32:37be I again that's you know if that's an

1:32:39issue with a code violation you would

1:32:41want to talk to code enforcement about

1:32:43that um and talk to them about that a

1:32:45little bit further maybe get an

1:32:46understanding of why if it was something

1:32:48that was existing before you purchased

1:32:50the house that a violation was submitted

1:32:52in 2019 that could be they could provide

1:32:54more information on that since that's

1:32:55their jurisdiction.

1:32:57>> Yeah.

1:32:58>> Okay. So and the code violations in this

1:33:00building too right? Yes, it is. Code

1:33:03enforcement. Um,

1:33:04>> second floor.

1:33:05>> Um, they're not here anymore where, you

1:33:07know, offices are

1:33:07>> No, no, no. I'm talking about is it the

1:33:09second floor?

1:33:10>> Um, I No, it's not. Um, I can't remember

1:33:12where they're [laughter] at the moment.

1:33:14>> When When you enter the

1:33:15>> I don't mean to be hostile.

1:33:16>> No, no, no. When you when you enter the

1:33:17building, they should be able to guide

1:33:18you. Whoever's in the front desk will

1:33:20tell you where to go.

1:33:21>> And typically, um, anything above the

1:33:23second floor, you know, whoever you're

1:33:25having a meeting with will come meet you

1:33:26down on the first floor. And at the

1:33:28time, I think it was Miss

1:33:30Sue Carter that was the

1:33:32>> We don't don't know.

1:33:34>> I'm sure everyone's changed.

1:33:36>> But so for for today, we can continue

1:33:38the case so that you have time to figure

1:33:40all this out,

1:33:41>> right?

1:33:42>> Okay.

1:33:42>> Sound good?

1:33:43>> Yes.

1:33:43>> And submit additional information and

1:33:44we'll put you on.

1:33:45>> I'm sure I'll take a picture. I'd like

1:33:47to um

1:33:49make a motion to continue COA2601053

1:33:54724 Wilson Avenue until the November

1:33:58commission meeting.

1:33:59>> There's a motion. Is there a second?

1:34:01>> Second.

1:34:01>> Having a motion and a second. Is there

1:34:03any further discussion?

1:34:04>> Hearing none. All those in favor say I.

1:34:06>> I.

1:34:07>> Opposed.

1:34:08>> Abstension. Motion passes.

1:34:10>> Thanks for the explanation.

1:34:11>> Yeah. Thank you.

1:34:12>> I I don't mean to hostile, but

1:34:14>> No, no, it's all good. I've had it for

1:34:1520 years or in total. So, I'm like, "No,

1:34:18no, no, no, no."

1:34:20>> Thank you. God bless you.

1:34:22>> Yeah.

1:34:22>> Thank you for your understanding of what

1:34:24what our role is as well. Thank you.

1:34:29>> And which which case are you? Which

1:34:30property?

1:34:31>> I am 4886

1:34:33Tangi Boulevard.

1:34:34>> This is new business.

1:34:35>> This is the new business. Okay.

1:34:37>> Yeah. We're out of our other

1:34:38applications into new and old business.

1:34:40>> Okay. If you could raise your right

1:34:42hand. Do you each tell the truth in your

1:34:44testimony before the commission this

1:34:45evening?

1:34:46>> I do.

1:34:46>> If you each state your full name and

1:34:48association with the property for

1:34:49record.

1:34:49>> Uh Juliet Bulock and I'm the owner.

1:34:52>> David Bulock and I'm the husband.

1:34:54[laughter]

1:34:56>> This is a fun case of architect's own

1:34:58home. [laughter]

1:35:04>> All right. So, this is to remove

1:35:05existing slate roof on the southeast

1:35:07singlestory edition and install new

1:35:09standing seam 16inch hand crypt on site

1:35:12with burnish brown as the finished color

1:35:14and coating. Um, I believe that's to

1:35:16match the existing goers and downspout

1:35:17color. Due to the recent weather and

1:35:19raintorms, property has has been

1:35:21experienced a major roof leak on the

1:35:23southeast edition. Property edition

1:35:25received repair of missing slate tile

1:35:27interior renovation and mold mitigation

1:35:29and replace repair of edge flashing

1:35:30three years ago to correct the water

1:35:32issue. According to the owner, um the

1:35:36slope of the roof is a 312 and is too

1:35:38low for the current slate material and

1:35:40water is getting under the slate and in

1:35:42the home. The applicant is proposing a

1:35:44metal standing seam roof to replace the

1:35:46current material to correct the issue.

1:35:48It does appear from the Sandborn maps

1:35:49that the addition was originally um a

1:35:51porch that possibly was enclosed and I

1:35:53unfortunately forgot to include that,

1:35:54but that's what we found on record in

1:35:56the sandborns. Um which might explain

1:35:59some things for the water issues. Um, we

1:36:02recommend to continue application

1:36:05uh COA2601065

1:36:084886 Boulevard to allow further

1:36:10documentation of conditions of slate and

1:36:13roof to be submitted for future hearing.

1:36:15Standards is 311611

1:36:18or sorry 31611 standards for alteration.

1:36:22That's all.

1:36:24[laughter]

1:36:25>> So we purchased this house um about four

1:36:28years ago and it's my office. So, have a

1:36:31personal interest here as well. And

1:36:34after about a year, we noticed a little

1:36:36bit of staining on the inside on the

1:36:38roof. Um,

1:36:41finally, we had, I don't know, four or

1:36:42five slate guys come out. We had the

1:36:44insurance company come came out. Um, it

1:36:47ended up we thought maybe just the

1:36:49couple of the slates sleep slipping and

1:36:51some flashing details were causing the

1:36:53problem. So, we did fix those. um and uh

1:36:57had to replace. We found out we had

1:36:59white mold. We had to take down the

1:37:01whole wood ceiling, abate it, do all

1:37:04kinds of things. So, I don't want to get

1:37:05in that situation again. It was very

1:37:07expensive. Um because we matched the old

1:37:10pine wood ceiling that was in there and

1:37:12tried to restore it in proper manner. Um

1:37:15I've had, you know, I have a lot of

1:37:16contacts with contractors. I've had

1:37:18three different guys come out and take a

1:37:20look at it. Um David and I have both

1:37:23looked at it. It's a very thin slate.

1:37:26It's um less than 38 of an inch. It's

1:37:30also spalling and breaking on corners.

1:37:32You can see that. Um it doesn't help

1:37:35that the neighboring lot, it's um owned

1:37:38by the next lot over. It's completely

1:37:41wooded.

1:37:42>> Um older woman and it's, you know, so

1:37:45there's a lot of trees, there are a lot

1:37:46of debris that is falling on the house.

1:37:49There's no um you know, ice and water

1:37:51guard under the slate. What what is the

1:37:53pitch on this thing, too? It looks like

1:37:55a lower pitch than I normally see.

1:37:57>> Yeah, it's like a two I think it's

1:37:58somewhere between a two and 312. It

1:38:01>> It's not even appropriate for

1:38:04>> You're only asking to replace the slate

1:38:07on this lower roof.

1:38:08>> Oh, yes. Okay. We I mean,

1:38:09>> and I I agree. I've done a lot of work

1:38:13with slate roofs and the pitch is wrong.

1:38:16It should never been put on there. No

1:38:18matter what you do, it's not You can't

1:38:20fix it.

1:38:20>> Yeah. So, I totally support you.

1:38:24>> Awesome.

1:38:24>> Taking it off and

1:38:26>> you want to do uh

1:38:28>> we want to do

1:38:29>> small seam seam

1:38:32in on center and this matches our

1:38:34gutters and down spouts on the house.

1:38:35It's it's also not visible really, but

1:38:38>> yeah. I think it's the right thing.

1:38:40>> Yeah, it was a hard clearly as

1:38:42architects, it was a hard decision for

1:38:44us to come to, but

1:38:46>> especially me.

1:38:47>> Yeah, especially him. And if it was a

1:38:49porch at one point, there wasn't the

1:38:51thought about, you know, rain.

1:38:53>> Can we can we approve it tonight or or

1:38:55is that to be submitted or is this is

1:38:56conditionally on

1:38:57>> think it could be based?

1:39:00>> Yeah.

1:39:01>> Okay. This is number 12.

1:39:03>> Okay. I move that we approve application

1:39:07uh 8 uh 4886

1:39:10Oangi Boulevard

1:39:13um as submitted.

1:39:15>> I do have a quick condition.

1:39:17>> Hold on. If if I can.

1:39:19>> That's right. I always I'm like gonna

1:39:20catch you before. [laughter]

1:39:21>> Sorry.

1:39:22>> We have a second. Now we can talk.

1:39:24>> Sorry. I know. I was forgetting. I'm

1:39:25like before we move forward.

1:39:27>> Um uh we would just recommend having a

1:39:29slate assessment just included since you

1:39:31know that is our standard if it is a

1:39:32slate removal of the of the roof to have

1:39:35that on record.

1:39:36>> And the contractor that came out that

1:39:38he's a roofer.

1:39:39>> Okay. Um was that provided the materials

1:39:41or

1:39:41>> Yes. Okay. I'll double check.

1:39:43>> Building and construction.

1:39:44>> I'll double check. a a roofing

1:39:47subsidiary.

1:39:48>> Okay, I'll double check that

1:39:49>> for g and given given the limited area.

1:39:52I mean, honestly, I would say for in

1:39:55this unique scenario of approval this

1:39:57quickly, given the small size of this

1:39:59porch and there is a ton of photos here.

1:40:02I mean, there's four photos, three

1:40:03photos here of the roof itself.

1:40:05>> I mean, I I have owned multiple homes

1:40:08with with slate and this is this is at

1:40:11life,

1:40:12>> right? It's it's it's beyond its useful

1:40:14life and replacing it with slate again

1:40:17would be inappropriate because these

1:40:18this slope is

1:40:19>> rock just for standards you know we

1:40:21normally ask if it is going to be a

1:40:22slave so that's why it would just be our

1:40:24recommendation for that but of course if

1:40:25the commission can tell that's fine here

1:40:27it's not

1:40:28>> I do feel I do feel like the the photos

1:40:30are pretty good documentation of the

1:40:32existing conditions

1:40:33>> um applicant has said that there is

1:40:34something included by the the architect

1:40:36or the contractor

1:40:37>> do we have [laughter]

1:40:40>> do we have information based on more of

1:40:42the details of the infill new product

1:40:44for the roofing material.

1:40:46>> I'm sorry. Can you

1:40:46>> was the new roofing material submitted

1:40:48as well to staff? Yes. And

1:40:50>> I brought a sample today.

1:40:51>> Okay.

1:40:52>> And I do have the specs if you want to

1:40:55get

1:40:55>> um the dry

1:40:57but

1:40:58>> um this is what we have. It's going to

1:41:00be it's going to be hand crimped on

1:41:02site. So it's going to be hand

1:41:05>> um the seam is going to be handone on

1:41:07site and it's a a coated seam like

1:41:08steel. Correct.

1:41:12Yeah.

1:41:12>> Yeah. Not like a kit or anything. Do

1:41:14>> you mind if we keep the

1:41:16>> 16 in?

1:41:16>> Can we keep the sample? Put the file

1:41:20>> just so we've got all the things because

1:41:22it says burnished brown, but if that's

1:41:23the burnish brown, I don't

1:41:24>> give you this.

1:41:26>> There you go. The cut sheet.

1:41:28>> Just in case. I mean, yes. With timing

1:41:30and things, it's all good. Thank you.

1:41:31[laughter]

1:41:32>> Typically, that would have to be

1:41:33submitted and then reviewed again. Even

1:41:35though we're, I think, rather

1:41:36comfortable with preservation of the

1:41:38property. We want, you know, we're

1:41:39coming into some bad weather. So,

1:41:40>> we sent a picture in of it, but we just

1:41:42wanted to give you the

1:41:43>> Oh, there is a picture of it.

1:41:44>> Yeah. So, we do have a picture

1:41:46>> the application.

1:41:47>> Okay.

1:41:47>> And with it being steel.

1:41:49>> Yeah.

1:41:49>> I didn't see all of it.

1:41:51>> Our concern mostly would be if it's

1:41:53going to be a kit and things like that.

1:41:54So,

1:41:54>> I'm just making sure all all concerns no

1:41:56further comments, questions.

1:41:59>> Okay. All those in favor say I.

1:42:01>> I. I.

1:42:02>> Opposed? Extension. Motion passes.

1:42:05>> Thank you very much for your time.

1:42:06>> Thank you.

1:42:06>> Appreciate it. I'm sorry.

1:42:09[laughter]

1:42:10>> And then, uh, Morgan, it looks like we

1:42:12have one item of old business here.

1:42:14>> We do.

1:42:15>> Item number 13.

1:42:17>> Yes. And they said they would be here,

1:42:18but apparently they're not. Um,

1:42:21>> I think I did say,

1:42:23>> let me see.

1:42:26>> Yeah. So, they they were moved to staff

1:42:28approval. Um,

1:42:29>> let's walk through what the issue is.

1:42:31>> Yeah. So, they removed a staff approval

1:42:33to move the uh front five from this

1:42:36elevation.

1:42:37>> Their updated drawings did move them off

1:42:39the front elevation, but they added two

1:42:41more on this elevation

1:42:44um which is covering the whole roofing

1:42:46slope. And we have the old uh drawing

1:42:49here for comparison. So, the condition

1:42:51was to move these over to this slope

1:42:53here on the roof. Um, but they they

1:42:57added two more and then have taken up

1:42:59that whole area it looks like. So that's

1:43:03that's the change.

1:43:07>> Wait. Okay. So

1:43:09>> it's back at that back corner.

1:43:11>> They moved the tree.

1:43:12>> But everything's off the front.

1:43:15>> They moved them where we wanted to move

1:43:17them, but they just put a couple more

1:43:18back there. But it's way in the back

1:43:19anyway

1:43:20>> to offset because they don't

1:43:21>> put a couple more in this side. Yeah.

1:43:23But I think it's okay because yeah, our

1:43:25concern was not to be in the front,

1:43:27>> right? And and they may have had to do

1:43:28that because the sun

1:43:31>> there could be different sunlight on the

1:43:34side wasn't the front. So yeah,

1:43:35>> I'm fine with it. Do we have a picture

1:43:36of the old one just for the heck of it?

1:43:38>> Yeah, of course.

1:43:39>> You can pull it up

1:43:39>> there. Yes, it's right here.

1:43:40>> Oh, there it is.

1:43:42>> So it's almost the same.

1:43:44>> Yeah, just Yeah, but I think Morgan's

1:43:45right. Like

1:43:46>> she just wanted us to check. Yeah, I

1:43:48think that's

1:43:49>> Yeah, we just wanted to make sure. Yeah,

1:43:50the logic is that um we didn't want the

1:43:53visual in the front, so it's still not

1:43:54there.

1:43:55>> And there are already panels um on the

1:43:57roof that they've added more, so it's

1:43:59fine.

1:43:59>> Yeah. And that was also they added two

1:44:01more. Yeah,

1:44:02>> there was additional that's so I just

1:44:03wanted to double check.

1:44:03>> Mr. Chair, you ready for a motion?

1:44:05>> Sure. [laughter]

1:44:07>> Anybody can make a motion. You don't

1:44:08have to have the chair's permission.

1:44:11>> 69. I move to approve 69 uh uh 7 South

1:44:17Champion Avenue uh in is Oldtown uh as

1:44:22submitted.

1:44:23>> Second.

1:44:24>> Go ahead.

1:44:25>> Second.

1:44:25>> Okay. Having a motion and a second and

1:44:28uh just for a discussion note is as can

1:44:30be reflected in the record here today is

1:44:33it still was consistent generally with

1:44:35the commission concerns. So

1:44:36>> yes, we having no further discussion.

1:44:38All those in favor say I.

1:44:39>> I. I. I.

1:44:40>> Lovely. opposed abstension. Motion

1:44:42passes. Uh having no other further items

1:44:45of new rural business, is there anything

1:44:47else on our agenda this evening?

1:44:48>> No, we just need to um go back to those

1:44:50two applications at the beginning.

1:44:53>> Um uh looking at case number one and

1:44:55case number three.

1:44:56>> Yes.

1:44:57>> So case number one, they've been a

1:44:59no-show and a non just

1:45:01non-communicative.

1:45:03Um I would advocate that we should just

1:45:05simply have this removed from the agenda

1:45:06at this point and no longer continued.

1:45:08>> I agree. They did email us. um right

1:45:11before the business meeting saying that

1:45:13they did find someone to replicate it

1:45:16and that they were going to install it.

1:45:18Doesn't look like they have, but that

1:45:19was the last communication that we

1:45:21>> shouldn't we vote on it though one way

1:45:22or the other? I mean,

1:45:24>> yes. If we're tableabling it, we should

1:45:25vote.

1:45:26>> So, should we vote table?

1:45:29>> This would be a vote to table. Yeah.

1:45:31>> Okay.

1:45:31>> Yeah.

1:45:32>> Because they're still in communication.

1:45:34>> Yeah. There's been very limited

1:45:35communication and they have been absent

1:45:37for the past three. This is now the

1:45:39fourth hearing. So that is our that is

1:45:41our standard if we don't have um

1:45:43attendance is to table.

1:45:44>> I'd vote against it be done with it. But

1:45:47>> can I make the motion to table?

1:45:49>> Well, so anybody can make a motion. So

1:45:51So if if if somebody decides they want

1:45:54to make a motion, by the way, motions

1:45:56are always in the affirmative.

1:45:57>> What's the motion to not see this on our

1:45:59agenda anymore?

1:46:00>> Just that just to table.

1:46:02>> Motion table.

1:46:04>> Motion to table.

1:46:05>> Second. having a motion and a second uh

1:46:08to table it. Any further discussion?

1:46:11Hearing none. All those in favor say I.

1:46:13>> I.

1:46:13>> I.

1:46:14>> Opposed. Extension. Motion passes. Case

1:46:16is now tabled. On to case number three.

1:46:20[clears throat]

1:46:21>> 604 South Champion.

1:46:23>> Yeah. Um they were initially a no-show

1:46:26and that was just because we had the

1:46:27cancellation of the August meeting and

1:46:28you know we did not have a lot of

1:46:30attendance from applicants at the time.

1:46:32Um they did show up for last month's

1:46:33hearing um just to talk about it. I

1:46:37don't think they're getting clear

1:46:38communication from their roofer. So I

1:46:40would recommend continuing um for now.

1:46:43Um they have been in communication with

1:46:45us. So hopefully we can maybe settle

1:46:47this staff administratively ways, but

1:46:50we'll see how that goes.

1:46:52>> I make a motion to continue um

1:46:543A2600182.

1:46:58>> Second.

1:47:00Having a motion, a second. Any further

1:47:02discussion? Hearing none, all those in

1:47:03favor say I.

1:47:05>> I.

1:47:05>> Opposed. Motion passes.

1:47:09>> Okay. And that is all for this evening.

1:47:12>> Okay. I would entertain a motion to

1:47:14dismiss.

1:47:15>> Motion to dismiss

1:47:16>> to adjurnn.

1:47:18>> Sorry. Motion to adjurnn. Uh I have a

1:47:20motion and we have a second. Second.

1:47:21>> Great. Okay. All those in favor say I.

1:47:23I. I.

1:47:24>> Opposed. Abstension. Motion passes. We

1:47:27are adjourned here at 5:48 p.m. Thank

1:47:29you. wet. I'm very very impressed.

1:47:31Everyone [laughter]