Board of Architectural Review

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Board of Architectural Review met on March 27, 2013. During the meeting, the board considered nine agenda items, including eight project proposals and approval of minutes from a previous meeting. The board took five motions and votes and heard two public comments.

Of the eight project proposals reviewed, six were approved: the removal and replacement of a deck with a brick patio at 414 North Limestone; installation of signage and a small outbuilding with courtyard re-landscaping at 207 South Limestone; replacement of rear steps and deck at 600 South Mill Street; installation of a pool and patio changes at 611 Russell Avenue; enclosure of a rear porch at 125 South Hanover Avenue; and replacement of an existing wall sign at 426 East High Street. One proposal was denied: the painting of a masonry structure at 454 East Maxwell Street. One item—a conceptual review for installation of new openings at 466 West Sixth Street—was presented for informational purposes. The board also approved the minutes from the February 13, 2013 meeting.

Votes and Decisions

The board took five votes on applications during this meeting, all conducted by voice vote.

414 North Limestone — Deck Removal and Patio Replacement 1:08:49 The application to remove an existing deck and replace it with a brick patio passed.

207 South Limestone — Signage and Outbuilding Installation 1:10:57 The application to install signage and a small outbuilding passed with five conditions: - Arm of the sign reduced to 30 inches - Distance between sign and corner board no more than four inches - Paving alongside building held off foundation - Final details to come back to staff or board - Changes to be reviewed by other LFUCG divisions and returned to staff

454 East Maxwell Street — Masonry Painting 1:36:03 The application to paint the masonry structure failed.

600 South Mill Street — Rear Steps and Deck Replacement 1:54:35 The application to replace rear steps and deck passed with conditions: - Second and first floor decks moved off corner of building - All exposed wood except flooring and stair treads painted or opaque stained - Railing height as required by building code - Final details to come back to staff

125 South Hanover Avenue — Rear Porch Enclosure 2:12:02 The application to enclose the rear porch passed with conditions requiring resubmission of drawings: - Redesign to give more transparency to porch infill style and respect horizontal language of filling between columns - Drawings resubmitted to staff for input and approval

Public Comment

Two members of the public provided comments during the meeting.

Brianna Shelton 1:34:25 addressed the painting of brick on a historic home. She questioned the distinction between painting trim and painting brick, noting that trim is painted for protective purposes. Ms. Shelton asked why brick, which is not typically painted for protection, cannot be painted. In response, she received an explanation that painting brick would alter the historical character of the structure.

Montel Buckles 1:52:23 raised concerns regarding deck construction at 600 South Mill Street. Mr. Buckles expressed worry about the long-term structural integrity of the building if the concrete porch is removed. He specifically noted concerns about an exposed 18-inch stone foundation and the potential for damage to occur during excavation work.

Contested Items

Painting masonry at 454 East Maxwell Street

A heated discussion arose regarding a proposal to paint the masonry at this address. The applicant argued that painting the house was necessary because the structure looked unattractive in its unpainted state. Board members, however, strongly opposed this plan. They advocated for preserving the original brick, emphasizing its uniqueness and historical value as reasons to maintain the masonry in its current condition.

Deck setback at 600 South Mill Street

The board experienced a split vote on a proposal involving a deck setback at this property. The applicant opposed moving the deck back one foot, contending that such a minimal distance would make little practical difference to property use. Board members took a different view, stressing the importance of the one-foot setback for long-term structural integrity and to maintain aesthetic consistency with established guidelines.

414 North Limestone: Remove existing deck and replace with brick patio; re-landscape yard

1:08:49

This certificate of appropriateness application proposed removing an existing deck and replacing it with a brick patio, along with re-landscaping the yard at 414 North Limestone.

Staff recommended approval of the application as submitted. The applicant was not present at the meeting. No discussion occurred regarding the proposal.

The motion to approve passed by voice vote.

207 South Limestone: Install signage and small outbuilding; re-landscape courtyard

This agenda item concerned a certificate of appropriateness application for 207 South Limestone, which proposed installing signage and a small outbuilding, as well as re-landscaping the courtyard.

Presentation and Discussion

Applicant David Jones appeared before the board 1:10:57. Jones agreed with the staff recommendations presented for the project, indicating alignment between the applicant's proposal and staff guidance.

Conditions

Five conditions were stated as part of the approval process, though the specific details of these conditions are not provided in the meeting record.

Public Comment

No further discussion or public comment was recorded during this agenda item.

Outcome

The motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness passed by voice vote.

454 East Maxwell Street: Paint masonry structure

Proposal

Applicant Anthony Humphress requested approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness to paint the masonry structure at 454 East Maxwell Street. The proposed work included painting the brick yellow or green and the stone white.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommended disapproval of the application. The recommendation was based on established guidelines that prohibit the painting of previously unpainted masonry.

Board Discussion

Board members, including speakers identified as Sarah and Graham, expressed strong support for preserving the original brick on the structure. The discussion reflected concern about altering the building's historic masonry character through painting.

Outcome

The Board voted to disapprove the application by voice vote. The motion to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness passed.

1:36:03

600 South Mill Street: Replace rear steps and deck

1:54:35

Applicant Andy Biggers requested a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a concrete stoop with a wood deck at the rear of the property located at 600 South Mill Street.

Proposal and Staff Recommendation

The applicant sought approval to remove the existing concrete stoop and install a wood deck in its place. Staff reviewed the proposal and recommended approval, contingent upon specific conditions designed to ensure compatibility with the existing structure and long-term durability.

Key Condition

The primary condition imposed by staff required that the deck be moved back one foot from the building corner. This adjustment was intended to address concerns related to the project's structural integrity and visual appearance.

Discussion

The discussion centered on structural integrity and the long-term appearance of the proposed wood deck. These considerations were central to evaluating whether the replacement would be appropriate for the historic district.

Outcome

The motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness passed with the conditions specified by staff, including the requirement to relocate the deck one foot from the building corner.

611 Russell Avenue: Install pool; change patio

1:16:26

Applicant Scott Campbell presented this certificate of appropriateness request to install a pool and change the patio at 611 Russell Avenue. Campbell agreed with the staff recommendation regarding the proposed work.

There was no discussion or public comment on this agenda item.

The motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness passed by voice vote.

125 South Hanover Avenue: Enclose rear porch

2:12:02

Applicant Frank Godofka presented a proposal to enclose the rear porch at 125 South Hanover Avenue. Godofka appeared before the board and indicated his agreement with the staff recommendations for the project.

During the discussion, board member Sarah raised concerns about the porch infill design. Specifically, Sarah noted that the proposed design did not adequately respect the horizontal language of the existing structure, an important consideration in maintaining architectural consistency with the property.

The board voted to approve the certificate of appropriateness with a condition: the applicant must resubmit drawings for further review to address the design concerns raised. This conditional approval allows the project to move forward while ensuring that the final design better reflects the architectural character of the existing building.

426 East High Street: Replace existing wall sign

1:20:21

The board considered a certificate of appropriateness application for a wall sign replacement at 426 East High Street. Applicant Christine Oberst appeared before the board and indicated her agreement with staff recommendations for the project.

This application was processed as part of a group of eight similar sign applications, which the board handled together in a single motion. All eight applications were approved by voice vote, with the condition that any changes to the proposed signs must return to staff for review and approval before implementation.

The application was approved.

Conceptual Review: 466 W Sixth St: Install new openings

This agenda item was listed on the meeting agenda but was not discussed or addressed during the meeting. No presentation was made, no speakers participated in debate, and no vote was recorded on this conceptual review for installing new openings at 466 W Sixth St.

The item remained informational only, with no action taken.

Review and approval of February 13, 2013 minutes

The minutes from the February 13, 2013 meeting were presented for review and approval. No discussion or debate was recorded during consideration of this agenda item. The minutes were approved without objection or recorded vote.