Board of Architecture

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Board of Architectural Review held a meeting on June 15, 2022. The meeting focused on two main agenda items: Certificate of Appropriateness Applications and a Conceptual Review for 326 South Broadway, both of which were informational in nature. During the session, the board conducted 5 motions and votes while hearing from 8 members of the public who provided comments on the matters under consideration. The meeting served as a forum for reviewing architectural proposals and gathering community input on development projects within the board's jurisdiction.

Votes and Decisions

The board conducted five voice votes during the meeting, all of which passed unanimously.

179 Old Park Avenue 1:00:00 The board voted to continue the case for 179 Old Park Avenue to July 20. The motion passed by voice vote.

206 East Bell Court 1:30:00 The board approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for 206 East Bell Court with standard conditions. The motion passed by voice vote, subject to the standard two conditions.

453 West Third Street 2:00:00 The board voted to postpone the case for 453 West Third Street to July 20. The motion passed by voice vote.

519 Central Avenue 2:30:00 The board voted to continue discussion of casement windows for 519 Central Avenue to July 20, while approving other parts of the application. The motion passed by voice vote.

109 Constitution Street 3:00:00 The board voted to continue the case for 109 Constitution Street to July 20. The motion passed by voice vote.

All votes were conducted by voice vote with no recorded individual member positions. The specific board members who made and seconded the motions were not recorded in the available data. Four of the five decisions involved continuing or postponing cases to the July 20 meeting, with only one case receiving approval during this session.

Public Comment

Eight residents spoke during the public comment period, all expressing opposition to a certificate of appropriateness for a new door at 109 Constitution Street.

Braxton Crenshaw opened the public comment session 3:30:00, voicing opposition to the proposed new door and citing negative impacts on the neighborhood. Beth Crenshaw followed 3:35:00, raising concerns about privacy issues and the impact of having a bar located next door to the property.

Martin Ginocchio spoke next 3:40:00, emphasizing the historical significance of the area and expressing concerns about potential negative impacts on property values. His concerns were echoed by Mary Ginocchio 3:45:00, who focused on issues related to loitering and crime that could result from the proposed door installation.

Clifford Houston, representing the East Second Street Christian Church, addressed the board 3:50:00 with concerns about crime and safety implications of the new door. Local bar owner Jim Brown also spoke in opposition 3:55:00, citing specific concerns about parking availability and noise issues.

Deborah Hurd continued the opposition 4:00:00, raising multiple concerns including parking, noise, and the potential impact on the historic district's character. Jesse Crenshaw concluded the public comment period 4:05:00, expressing concerns about noise levels and the effect on property values in the area.

The consistent themes throughout the public comments included concerns about: • Safety and crime prevention • Parking availability • Noise impacts • Property values • Historic district preservation • Privacy issues

All speakers unanimously opposed the certificate of appropriateness for the new door at 109 Constitution Street, with no public comments offered in support of the proposal.

Contested Items

The primary contested item during this meeting involved a proposal for a new door installation at 109 Constitution Street, which generated significant community opposition.

New Door at 109 Constitution Street

Several community members voiced strong objections to the proposed installation of a new door at 109 Constitution Street. The opposition centered on three main concerns:

• Noise concerns - Residents expressed worry about increased noise levels that could result from the new door installation
• Crime-related issues - Community members raised concerns about potential security and crime implications
• Historic district impact - Opponents cited concerns about how the new door would affect the character and integrity of the historic district

Multiple residents participated in the discussion, though the extracted data does not specify the exact number of speakers or their names. The community opposition appeared to be organized and focused, with residents presenting a unified front against the proposal.

The outcome of this contested item is not specified in the available information, leaving unclear whether the proposal was approved, denied, or tabled for further consideration. The level of community engagement suggests this was a significant local issue that drew substantial public interest and participation in the meeting process.

This item demonstrates the typical tension that can arise in historic districts between property modifications and community preservation concerns, with residents actively participating in the democratic process to voice their opposition to proposed changes they viewed as potentially detrimental to their neighborhood.

Certificate of Appropriateness Applications

30:00

The board reviewed multiple Certificate of Appropriateness applications during this agenda item, focusing on proposed renovations and new construction projects within the city's historic districts. The discussion covered various property modifications that require approval to ensure compliance with historic preservation standards.

The applications under consideration included both residential and commercial properties seeking permission for alterations, additions, and new construction within designated historic areas. Board members examined each proposal to determine whether the proposed changes would be appropriate for the historic character of the respective districts.

The review process involved evaluating the architectural compatibility, materials, scale, and design elements of each proposed project against established historic preservation guidelines. The board considered how each application would impact the visual integrity and historical significance of the surrounding neighborhood.

This agenda item served as an informational discussion, allowing board members to review the applications and prepare for formal consideration. No final decisions were made during this portion of the meeting, as the item was designated for discussion purposes only.

The Certificate of Appropriateness process is a standard regulatory procedure that ensures proposed changes to properties in historic districts maintain the architectural and historical character that qualifies these areas for preservation status. Property owners must obtain these certificates before proceeding with exterior modifications or new construction in designated historic zones.

Conceptual Review for 326 South Broadway

5:00:00

The board conducted a conceptual review of a proposed addition to 326 South Broadway during this discussion item. Paul Lee served as the key speaker presenting the conceptual plan to the board members.

The review focused on examining the design elements of the proposed addition and evaluating its potential impact on the surrounding historic district. As a conceptual review, this agenda item was informational in nature, allowing the board to provide initial feedback on the project before more detailed plans are developed.

The discussion centered on how the proposed addition would integrate with the existing structure at 326 South Broadway and whether the design approach would be appropriate for the historic character of the area. Board members had the opportunity to examine the conceptual plans and provide guidance to help shape the project's development.

This type of conceptual review is typically conducted early in the design process to identify potential issues and establish design direction before applicants invest significant resources in detailed architectural drawings. The informational outcome indicates that no formal action was taken, but the feedback provided will inform the next steps in the project's development.

The review represents part of the board's ongoing responsibility to ensure that modifications to properties within the historic district maintain the area's historic character while allowing for appropriate contemporary additions and improvements.