Music Good evening. I would like to welcome you to the October 26, 2011 public hearing of the Board of Architectural Review. We appreciate those of you in attendance today. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Gratz Park, and we now have a total of 14 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is a part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The Board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Fine Street, Room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on our agenda. In each case, we will have a presentation by the staff and will hear any additional comments from the applicant. The Board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from any other interested parties. The Chair will then ask the Board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the Board, please come to the microphone, state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so that the information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of applications. There are certain items the staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applications to appear before the Board. There are a total of 14, oh, excuse me, 12, no, 16 staff approvals, approved applications noted on today's agenda. The first one is in Southland Historic District at 241 South Ashland Avenue, renovate front porch and garage in the Ailes yes, Ailesford Historic District at 342 Ailesford Place Tuck Point Chimneys and install chimney caps at 326 Woodland Avenue renovate front porch and remove tree at 343 Woodland Avenue Tuck Point Chimneys in the Bell Court Historic District at 213 Bell Place replace sidewalk and porch steps at 625 Sarah Avenue renovate structure in Constitution Historic District 118 East 3rd Street paint concrete block garage and repair fence. In the Ellesmere Historic District, 607 Ellesmere Park, renovate structure. In Fayette Park, Historic District at 444 Fayette Park, replacement install paving. In the Northside Historic District at 415 West 3rd Street, renovate front entrance. 415 West 3rd Street, remove tree. In South Upper Historic District at 355 South Mill Street, remove tree. At 362 South Mill Street, tuck point structure. 324 South Upper Street, renovate rear dormer. In the Woodward Heights Historic District at 833 West Maxwell Street, renovate structure. In the Western Suburbs Historic District at 718 West Short Street, install storm windows. We shall now proceed with the review of applications for a certificate of appropriateness. The first case on the agenda this evening is at 615 and 617 West Short Street in the Western Suburbs Historic District. The scope of work is to demolish a loading dock roof system. Is that applicant here this evening? Would you please come forward and introduce yourself? I'm Zeph Maloney. I reside at 3552 Newtown Pike, and I own the property at 615 and 617 West Short Street. Thank you. And this is the gentleman that's John Cox, and I'm buying the property. And your address, sir? That I'm at now? Yes. At 145 North Limestone. Thank you very much. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations this evening? Yes, we have. I thought they were thorough. And do you have any comments or are you in agreement with the findings and recommendations? It was recommended approval for tearing it down. Is that correct? Yes. Yes, the staff recommendation is for approval of the demolition of the loading dock system with the condition that care is taken when it is separated from the existing rear stair system. I think it would really help the property, and I appreciate it. Very good. Are there any comments from the board or questions on this application? Is there anyone in the audience to speak to this case this evening? Hearing and seeing none, Chair would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, with respect to case number 17170617-D at 6610617 West Shore Street, I move that we approve the application as submitted with the condition that care be taken when it's separated from the existing rear stair system. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? I second the motion. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Very good. The application is approved. Thank you very much. Thank you, gentlemen. Ladies. Thank you. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 450 North Broadway, Northside Historic District. Scope of works change door design. Is that applicant here this evening? If you would please come forward and introduce yourself. My name is Phil Robinson, and I live at 450 North Broadway. Thank you very much. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations this evening? Yes, I have to disapprove. Yes, that's what I have here in front of me as well. Do you agree with these findings? Well, I'd like to disagree. I understand. What we'll do next, we'll have the staff come up and make their presentation, and then we'll talk to you about it some more. Thank you very much. Thank you. This is the property at 415 North Broadway. On site inspections, staff noticed the door had been replaced. So a notice was sent, and the owner submitted an application to replace the door. This is the door that was replaced. This, of course, was a T-plane cottage. It was enclosed. The porch was enclosed, and the door was a six-panel door before. Wood in the new door is a metal panel door with glass in the top. Sort of the existing door that was taken off that sort of popped up on the side. And the door that was installed. Guidelines are included for your reference. This circa-1880s T-Plain Cottage had a front porch up through the time of the 1972, date 1934 St. Bourne Insurance Map. The replaced six-panel door is not original to the structure. It probably dates to the porch's enclosure in the 70s and 80s. The porch's five-panel metal door with a glazed top panel is not in accordance with guidelines. Guidelines 1, 7B, that state doors that cannot be repaired or that are missing may be replaced. Replacement doors should match the historic door and materials in size and should be appropriate for the style and the period of the building. This should have the same series of panels and have a frame of the same dimensions. Door replacement should be based on documented research and historic photographs. Neighboring buildings of the same style and similar date of construction may provide guidance for identifying appropriate doors. In replacing missing original doors, replacement doors should be similar to design to original style materials, glazing, glass area, and light. and pain configuration. Recommendation staff recommends disapproval as submitted, and the applicant is present. Thank you very much. If you'd like to come forward or come back to the microphone, what do you have to say? Well, first, I want to have a good working relationship with the Historic Preservation Society because I'm wanting to fix up this place, and you can tell, and I don't know if you all have seen this place in the past, but it's been a pile of junk. And I've been working about four years now on a limited budget, doing most of the work myself. It's the first major exterior change besides painting and replacing rotting boards that I've done and unintentionally put the door in there. We like the door. I recognize it's not within the guidelines. My wife likes that little bit of light coming through there, but we're not willing to place a door in there has more light coming in due to security reasons. I guess there's also a financial issue. If I'm asked to change the door, that will be an issue for us. Open to willing to whatever needs to be done to do that in a good way, but I want to state that for the record. that that's an issue that we have going on. Hence the slow progress with the house. So I've got a good heart with what I'm doing to the place and want to work with you all in a good way. And we'd like to keep the door. It also offers us some warmth as it is right now. The other door was rotting out pretty good and sucked air in the wintertime. So we're pretty excited about this door. I also want to state my intentions with exterior work from here on out to consult Amelia on that to make sure that I'm not overstepping my bounds in a way that I don't need to be. Do you all have any questions or anything of me? Well, let's check. Are there comments, questions from the board? You bought this house about four years ago, is that correct? Were you aware it was in the historic district? Yes, it was. Okay. I understand what you've been doing, and I appreciate it, and I appreciate budgetary issues and so forth. I can't tell you how many times, just recently, we have had people who didn't know that it was a historic property. They didn't know that there was an H-1 overlay. They're really sorry and all that kind of stuff. But by going ahead and doing it and incurring a financial cost, that's not really our problem. We've been trying to deal with people that have done that. But it's getting a little tiresome. So basically, it's sort of the message that it's sending is that we'll just do whatever we want and do it, And then we'll beg for forgiveness and say, oh, it's going to cost us money to change it and all that kind of stuff. That's not really a good excuse. And if you were aware that it was in a historic district, you should have been aware that it needs to go through the process. In this case, this is something that is fairly simple. It was something that you wouldn't have incurred any additional costs by going through the process. And this is not just you, but it's all the people that have been doing this exact same thing. You know, on one level, I think that it didn't follow the process, and I really think that it should be changed out to meet the appropriate regulations. Now, that said, there are a couple exceptions in this case. Number one, the door is on an enclosed porch. It's not original to the house. The door that you replaced was not original to the house. So there's a lot of leeway in the way the guidelines can be interpreted because it's not an original feature. So in theory, what you put on there, although it doesn't meet the guidelines to the exact letter, might be acceptable. But the method in which it was done plays a big factor. Sure. So, you know, for me, I think there might be a way that this could be worked out to everybody's satisfaction. But, you know, it's just really bad that it was not done in the appropriate manner. Absolutely. I'm sure the other members of the board have some comments about this. Can I speak to that? Yes, absolutely. I'm sorry. Okay. Yeah, I recognize what you're saying as a truth. And I don't know about the other people. I know my heart, and I did not intend to do this in a dishonest way. I can appreciate that, absolutely. And I also think that that will be proven by you. You'll probably see me here again because there are external changes that I want to make. Well, I appreciate that very much. And I recognize, too, that probably a lot of people, and I could see why it would be frustrating, do the exact same thing that I'm doing. So I recognize that as truth. Well, thank you. Any other comments or questions? Excuse me, I'm recovering from a cold in these couple days. I appreciate the points you've made, and I'm grateful to see that someone has picked up this house and they're trying to make it better, trying to be a better part of the neighborhood and take care of what you've purchased. That's a great thing. It's commendable. I don't think anybody would argue with replacing a rotten door. That's a good thing. Nobody, of all the guidelines, there's nothing in there that says you should keep a rotten door in place. now of course the contention here is not that the door has been replaced but what replaced it and I think the guidelines Rob has mentioned that there is some gray area but I don't think it's a very wide area of gray that this door could fit into which I'm sure we'll talk about some more I don't think there's any need to go over the reason to use the process or that you went around the process on purpose or otherwise. It happens. You've heard what Rob had to say, and I think we would all agree with that. And, of course, use the staff in the future. They're a great resource. It doesn't cost you anything. And they can help you, and a lot of times it will shake out that you avoid these kind of issues, or at least when it does come to us, you have a more solid proposal. and if there are changes to be made in your proposal, we make them before you spend any money on it or that effort. So those are the points that I would like to make. Any other comments from the board at this time? We're kind of out of people to speak on it in the audience. Is there anyone here to speak to this case? There's one person hiding behind you that I can barely see, but she doesn't have anything to add. One more thing. If there are changes that can be made, like what just comes to mind is painting the door or any other exterior changes, steps that can be made that will work for you all, then I'm also open to hearing those changes and ideally not changing the door. But if there's something that can happen to do that, I'm open to that too. I just want to state that. I think I appreciate that. But I think the biggest change in the door, aside from the material, is the addition of the light and the glazing in the door. And I don't even know that I'm opposed to the glazing being in the door. It's the shape of the glazing that's in the door that seems out of character for the rest of the house. And that's my biggest gripe on the door, to tell you the truth. The color, maybe it can be painted. it's not my biggest concern it's the glazing the shape of the glazing that's there but I can and we'll hear what else the board has to say about that sure I would agree with you that you know the guideline 7B specifically says that neighboring buildings of the same style and similar date of construction may provide guidance for identifying appropriate doors that replacing missing original doors, replacement doors, should be similar in design to the original in style materials, glazing, and lights. Now, we don't know what the original was, but one can look at adjacent properties and similar properties of that era and know immediately that the door in question is not appropriate. the kind of light that is in that door is something that really only started to be used I think in the I would guess in the 70s when they started cutting mechanically cutting openings in in doors and in factories and inserting ready-made lights so i i personally think that the staff's recommendation for disapproval is appropriate and and support that Thank you. Any other board comments at this time? Hearing none, before we move for motion, I just want to stress, please don't be deterred from continuing to work on your house because of this. I hope we'll see you back here with future proposals for improvement and that you continue doing what you've been doing. And we hope you're more successful in the future. It's a good thing. It's a good thing to work on your house. Hearing no further comment from the board, the Chair would entertain a motion. I'll move in reference to case number 02500450-B, 450 North Broadway, that the board find in agreement with the staff to disprove the application in light of guideline 1.7.B that clearly spells out how doors should be considered if they are to be replaced. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? I second the motion. Any further discussion of the motion? I'd like to move them in the motion that the application is submitted, be disapproved insofar as it's seeking to replace, to put in the door that's in place, but it be approved insofar seeking to replace the door, and that the applicant have permission to deal with staff to find a suitable replacement door, and that if one cannot be found, then they can come back to the board. That would obviate the need for a second hearing. In other words, we would approve the application to remove the old door, disapprove the door that's in place, but empower the applicant and the staff to try to reach a resolution as to another door that would be appropriate. And if they can't reach a resolution, then it comes back to the board for hearing. Accept that amendment. I second that. Very good. Before we vote on that, we've had instances in the past where an application is made, and then we disapprove it. They try to make a new application. If the application is not different than the original application, we can't hear it for another year. And if you had a new door, it would be my application is to replace the door. But we'd have to talk about it here again to see if the door you're proposing is new enough that it constitutes a new application. What this does, hopefully, is avoids that whole process. We're giving you the latitude to work with staff to replace the door with something else. So the act of replacing the door is a good thing. Using this door, we're disapproving that. Okay. Okay. We made this motion make it as easy as possible for you to get something worked out with staff. Thank you. And us too. All right. All that being said, all those in favor of the motion and its amendments, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Very well. the motion has passed for disapproved. Thank you very much. Is there a time frame that I need to work within? Well, since it was disapproved, there's really... Typically, it's like 60 days or something. We can, as we work towards getting this done. That's not the maximum time. That's the soonest time. Yeah. You don't have to have it done this week. Right. All right. Can we talk to you? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Next item on the agenda has actually been withdrawn at 607 Broadway to install paving. Other business on the agenda this evening is the approval of two sets of meeting minutes. The first one is for July 13, 2011. have the board members that were present for that meeting had a chance to review the minutes are there any comments or items you'd like to discuss or add to the minutes at this time there was one change i wanted to make where we say there's a two inch green strip and i believe it's supposed to be a two foot Green strip. Very good. I saw that typo as well. On the 430 North Broadway, page 2. It'd be under the action? Under the action, yes. You guys have that under control over there, staff? Very good. Any other comments to be made on these minutes? We have to make a motion to accept the minutes. Is that correct? That being said, I would entertain a motion. So moved. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Is there any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, minutes are accepted with the change of inches to feet. Next, we have minutes from September 14, 2011 meeting. I was not present at that meeting. I have no comment. Have the other board members had a chance to review these minutes? We were just given these today, I believe. So take a moment. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a second? A second. I'm sorry. Before we get that far, are there any comments on the minutes? Any corrections to be made? Okay. We have a motion on the approval of the minutes. Is there a second? A second. Very well. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The minutes have been accepted. Mr. Chairman, motion to adjourn. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Outro Music