[Music]
welcome all to the november 11th
veterans day
edition of the arb
um i'd like to
call the meeting to order and ask for
the roll call miss rose please mr scott
here mr hallman there hellman
here
and chairman heyer here
uh
the meeting will take a vote on the
meeting minutes from the october 14th
2021
meeting of the arb with corrections i
believe
as of today november 11th correct yes um
i've had several directions where
they've been forwarded and updated
okay
uh is there any discussion
for approval the minutes second
second
i have the role
mr hellman
yes mr scott yes
yes strasser yes chairman higher
yes
having approved the meeting minutes this
is now a period for public comment
uh this is the opportunity for any
bexley resident to offer a brief comment
on any relevant issue of general public
policy
and irrespective of whether the resident
has standing or on an agenda item
standing is defined as having a direct
relationship to an agenda item by virtue
of proximity or financial impact
is there anyone present that would like
to come forward for any public comment
yes sir please come forward
there is no being sworn in for public
comment i believe is that correct
correct you're free to speak
should we have your name please uh james
harris james harris thank you 37 south
park
uh
i'm here to
ask the board to consider uh
voting against the demolition permit on
the 261 south colombia actually that i'm
sorry to interrupt but that is uh an
item on the agenda and not of general uh
comment
so
in general i would
like i would ask the board to consider
its policy to compare the demolition if
i will not be allowed to speak later
i was told that uh i may or may not have
understanding if you don't have standing
then you would not for that particular
application
i realized there's a notification issue
presidents that are within 200 feet
of a property however that notification
i don't believe
prevents or precludes
this citizen from speaking to any board
you can speak to us on and on in general
terms about general policy of the board
at this time
so if there's aspects that you would
like to bring forward about historic
preservation or
about uh the demo ordinance in general
you're free to speak on that now thank
you i will uh how many minutes
uh
uh we have a long agenda tonight so i
would just ask that you keep it as brief
as possible
i think it's pretty clear
uh
historic trick or historical report
process would cheat
unlike german village or the state
section of arlington uh oregon new
hampshire
there is a speed bomb by the store
[Music]
you don't ask a barber if you need a
haircut
i don't believe that historic
societies or historic experts are often
involved
more often it's builders owners and
architects
in general i would say the estate
section of bexley probably relates to
the old bullet park which was a 20-year
neighborhood before that stage in the
north and west from dryden to maryland
from parkview to drexel including
new homes opening plans
for a historic
green
tree line
city
and every time we knocked down the 1928
house and filled with 2022 house
foreign
[Music]
so all i'm asking for is if i
would be prevented from speaking on any
specific house
i'd ask you to step back and basically
slow the roll
you've got a baby everyone know right
now
bought for 1.4 million and rates
that's the value of the law
we should all ask ourselves
would anybody park calls
20 homes
have any excess value
over that pricey value of a lot if so it
would be a very small percentage
relative to the
million dollar molar part a lot
if that's the measure
i can't see how almost any problems
it could be prevented from being
demolished at the right architect
when the right
owner came forward
proposing to spend one or two million
dollars to go with it
as a cfa i think they want
qualified to speak on financial matters
one or two million dollars of capital
expenditures
is invested i personally don't believe
two million will be added to a lot value
above
1.0 or 1.4 million in any particular
demolition case
finally i don't know that
in-depth historical review
is being done we know the names of
architects we
lazarus stones
other famous names of the columbus's
history and they demolished
we clearly lost downtown unless
indexedly try to preserve the
remaining historical authorities
um
mindful of your time that
has submitted to your
officer on behalf of the board the
letter with exhibits
or in general defeated also specific
reviews with the items tonight
whether it's the arb
sony commission i don't know however
for the city council i hope you'll uh
review these thoughts
thank you for your generous comments
i will comment uh
to you that these this issue is front
and center for the architecture review
board we have
a historic preservation working group
that is currently working on
uh documentation for the city of bexley
which includes a lot of the information
that you're talking about
this particular issue brings great
anguish
to
you know people who are involved in this
process
and i just want you to know that those
comments are well taken and uh
as we move forward in bexley
establishing historic preservation
which is
uh
and you know we're in the process of
working on that documentation
those kind of comments will definitely
be kept in mind
in the meantime we have a particular
ordinance with particular rules to
follow
for demolition and for establishment of
new structures in bexley
and we have to follow those ordinances
as best we can keeping in mind you know
the value and the architectural
character and history of the buildings
that we have
so there's a process going on and
i'm greatly heartened that there are
residents like yourself
who also feel the same
and anguish over this issue so i
appreciate your comments
thank you thank you one last question
attorney knows i'm not here with you one
of the things there is this question
standing and i'm familiar with the
notification ordinance of 200 feet in
general for demolitions or other similar
or
is there such an ordinance or a pixel or
a
statute that prevents a
citizen of let's say that actually
speaking on any particular issue and
having that weight as testimony
what you can tell us about that
specifically related to
how you are directly impacted by an
individual's case
i think the question is
is it clear that
notification and standing
[Music]
are we certain that that is included
because he doesn't
know this
question
above and beyond being notified if
you're notified you're directly impacted
by case but above beyond that i guess
you would have to share with the board
how you believe you are directly
impacted by a case even though you
aren't within 200 feet
can you direct him to a particular to
the ordinance where it would where would
outline that
it may be in our policy
right i would be happy to provide
[Music]
um
[Music]
she will be here for that individual
case she is here she doesn't want to
participate in the movie at this point
um due to conflicts with a case so she
has stepped away
[Music]
okay
to weigh in here um my understanding of
how this works uh is that
items of general interest and so that's
a fine line and so to speak in general
about this issue which you have
uh is probably in
uh to speak specifically of this
property
and not have standing is not and and the
reason for that they may that may sound
unfair um but
we also have gotten there by experience
and so we'll have people that'll show up
that'll be you know at the far south end
of the community and raise an issue with
the house that
whatever would happen with that or that
property would have just no impact on
them whatsoever
and so at some points you have to call
it uh and you have and you say it's a
it's a relationship of what who is
impacted
pretty directly by what might happen on
that property either in terms of its
mass its size its scale its operation
its function
or what not that becomes obviously less
of an argument if someone lives mile two
miles
away in a corner of the community so i
think that's the basic distinction we
try to operate with so i hope that helps
and because we operate as a volunteer
board for the city of bexley i would
encourage you to always write letters to
city council
to staff here at the city
and um for concerned citizens in general
i would say that getting those letters
in early in the process of you know
something coming before us would be
critical
um
but that is something that that you know
the city attorney would have to and
staff would have to determine whether it
had standing
you know for us to be able to access as
the
arb
thank you
appreciate it any other public comments
at this time of a general nature
okay let's move to old business
the first application is arb 2151
oh right consent agenda item sorry so
there were several items that during the
pandemic we started consent agenda items
for applications that
um
staff felt uh
were
ready to be passed and elicited the
the review of arb
prior to this meeting which will help to
expedite this meeting tonight
and those three applications should i
read them in order
sure
application arv 2170 the address is 2456
sherwood
the applicant is jamie parrish and the
owners are bill and elisa litvin
number two is application arv 2171
address is 2549 brentwood
the applicant is amy lauerhouse and the
owners are barb and steve fishman
and the last number three uh bees app uh
2146
application number
address 2831 east broad street
the applicant is gary alexander
architect and the owner is kimberly
demond demond sorry
um
is there any comment from staff on those
three items um these were all pretty um
[Music]
consented across the board there were a
couple of suggestions and i just like to
unrefer this all the suggestions that
were offered were accepted by the
applicants that will be
made in the application
is there any further discussion from the
board
hearing none can we ask if there's
anyone here in the presidency if there's
anyone in attendance who has standing
for those any of those three
properties we would ask you to come
forward now if you wish to speak about
those any of those three
properties
uh 2456 sherwood
2549 brentwood
or 2831 east broad sorry
seeing none
then we can move to a consent agenda
vote
so moved
second
uh ms rose can we have the role please
mr helen
yes
chairman
yes
the consent agenda items have been
approved
yes thank you okay
um we have
moved one agenda item on this list
uh
yeah
so old business old business as is as
listed but we have moved in new business
uh item h which is
uh 81 north drexel we've moved that to
the front
of the new business agenda
just wanted to make everyone aware of
that
anything else
okay we'll move on
with old business
our first application tonight for old
business is application number arb 2151
the address is 2010 east broad street
the applicant is brent foley the owner
is the catholic diocese of columbus
the applicant is requesting
architectural review and approval of a
certificate of appropriateness for the
addition of a convocation center and the
renovation of the lobby area attached to
the existing building
we have the applicant come forward and
be sworn in
state your name brett foley please
rejoin him
do you swear from the testimony you're
about to give this evening is the truth
thank
i think first before we do this
particular project i wanted to give
everybody an update brent and i kind of
planned this out last time but they had
asked to be tabled so
we're going to do it because we have a
very long agenda we just want to show
you quickly
what was approved
as a master plan
um just by way of uh reminder this had
come to
all of this board for recommendation to
visa
um it was
there was no requirement for it to come
back to you but i'm very pleased to tell
you that
um they
that
st charles worked really hard with staff
with board members
comments and really followed all the
suggestions so i just wanted to share
that right did you have anything you
wanted to add just
directly across the entrance court so we
have large events there there would be a
special future officer
who would show people to that expert to
go through we also connect our
investment access to the bridge across
the creek
which is suggested and then we come
that's kind of the high level of stuff
but uh very happy with this
what's it read there
excited to talk about this one
so we just wanted to do a little i mean
if anyone has any questions but i think
all of you should be extremely pleased
with how much
yeah one question i guess i i would
certainly say the progression from where
we started in terms of
something that had a
dominant parking focus less a pedestrian
focus less a campus focus and was maybe
not as well organized as it could have
been a vast improvement as we so i
appreciate that my question would be
what of the site plan improvements that
we see on this master plan
are associated with the new building
project
um so we we have completed the the east
parking lot project which was not a part
of this but was
prerequisite to this project and then
the parking to the south is actually
been approved as well through bzap and
we have engineering approval and we
submitted for uh
the tree and garden commission for that
portion as well so those are both either
completed or underway
and then we will be
doing the
the grotto work as part of this project
as well as the additional parking
along the drive
we will not be able to
complete
the courtyard at this time but we would
be prepping the site for the courtyard
as a future project so
the
uh it does relate to this project there
is a walkway off the walters commons
that goes to the north we will be
connecting as a part of this project
that walkway through our new entrance uh
but we won't be creating the walkway all
the way around that would come in later
to close that courtyard and finalize you
have a is there and maybe it's in the
set and i missed it is there a site plan
that then is specific to phase one
not completed yet we add an engineer
okay because we'll obviously need to see
what that is sure
so since we're since what we're seeing
is not what we'll get originally and i
understand that uh we have to know what
the what the what is associated within
this project and its scope sure and so
what i will note too is that uh one of
the suggestions that was made to was to
uh
move the drive kind of to the the west
uh and so the drive will be moved as
part of this project as well so the
drive as you see it there
uh and the parking and all of those site
components will be will be done it
likely won't be we don't know what the
paving surfaces all will be at this time
um but all of the so i would say all the
drip the drip the drive and parking
components of the project will be
completed as part of this project
uh as it associates with the courtyard
it will be more like a quad
at this point with um access for for
cars to get up there for people that are
in wheelchairs but it'll be more of a
lawn space
at this moment at this phase
thank you that helps describe it
you mentioned the bridge isn't there
already a bridge existing a pedestrian
bridge yes so what we did was we
actually what we tried to do though was
create a pedestrian experience from that
bridge to the courtyard so that you're
not
uh just dumping into a parking lot and
so cars will be able to see the students
coming from that bridge more easily
correct the location on the pavement so
correct
and i i have another question
and then associated landscaping that
would be i believe you've looked there's
been landscaping approved for the front
correct uh has there been landscaping
approved for the remainder of the access
drive against the against allen creek
going from kind of midpoint to clifton
uh it was not a commission of the zoning
approval only only the screening was the
condition of the zoning approval and
that's what's in for submission will
there be landscaping and there will be
landscaping associated with the project
that's to be determined i don't know and
i guess it's a question for city
under the understanding that that does
not require approval only all that
requires approval is the
screening typically if there's new
driveways being constructed
there's new grading that happens by
definition and then that's the time when
landscaping usually done so
i'd recommend that we that you move
ahead with your landscaping so that you
have an area of finish
so new drive new landscape uh and and
that's on all sides so you've already
got it on your east side you got it on
your south side uh and to complete it on
the west side would i seem logical with
that yes
yeah i guess the i misunderstood the
question the intent is to do all that
landscaping as part of the the first
i think we need to have a plan approved
then we can determine how much can be
put in when but we need a landscape plan
i guess my question to staff is is that
the purview of this border reach out to
mr foley and they are planning to submit
to the three public garden commission i
believe the record decision simply calls
out critical areas that have to be
addressed as far as screening along
abroad but whatever else the tree and
the public garden commission finds
appropriate for the new design i think
that will be discussed okay so we'll
work through that i guess is our
intention yeah so to clarify that would
not be coming to this board that would
be going to the tree and public garden
commission correct right right
and we'd be happy to make all those
necessary applications okay
okay appreciate your comments thank you
uh miss vocal or any uh staff comments
about the application so this
application for the um convocation
center which does match
the site the approved site plan the
proof master plan um was to be before us
last month and for reasons that brent
can you get into or not
um it was tabled by the applicant and
not hurt at all
they
had some budgetary
um
challenges challenges
and you will find
online for this meeting
a modified version of what was um
applied for last month um kathy
i think rightly so suggested that we may
want to look at both and have a backup
approval for the
um first plan in case some funding comes
in so that you have that all through but
what's before you tonight is
um
the
the new version which it takes i'm gonna
let correct go into details but
generally it takes away the pupil up
um it takes away a lot of the brickwork
on both the side of the style
and
[Music]
the sister the sister arches on the main
entrance
and i don't know if i was clear on the
phone the other day can so i want to
make sure i mentioned it today the
intent for the roofing material the main
structure is to be a simulated clay tile
as well similar to what saint paul's did
if you guys are familiar with that
project and i forgot about that when we
talked on the phone the other day so i
wanted to make sure we were going over
all the changes
and then the solar panels
but the skylights correct i've also been
um
this is this is actually the first
submission correct
oh you did have it i did it okay because
i was going to pass it around it no i
didn't
pretty
um the changes in more detail but that's
generally
um
what has happened correct
correct so so as karen correctly
alluded to we um
as we were doing our budgeting exercise
we were as as any project you're trying
to balance when you get your application
in your budget to make sure that they
align so that you don't get something
ahead of yourself and as we uh we made
the submission with the intention of
coming
uh last month however as we got the
budget numbers we were over budget and
so we had to do a series of things
to try to bring it back into budget
there are components of the design that
we have that
don't affect you on the interior that
we've done to bring in things back into
budget we've also shifted the building
slightly to
uh the south to so that we don't affect
as much of the
uh existing uh notatorium locker room
for those of you familiar with the st
charles facility
um
but essentially the the concept concepts
of the plan are still the same
um character you might just go to page
one real quick
uh so you will enter the building
primarily through the south there
um and that is our main entrance you'll
see on the elevations that space creates
a large space that will be our um entry
vestibule you will see the colonnade
that connects to the other colonnade on
the south
for those of you who are familiar that
colony that we have created is now
aligned such that it will directly go
into the tunnel
through st charles and the intent is
actually to make that tunnel that is a
vehicular experience a pedestrian
experience we will be incorporating
courtyards into the learning resource
center project that will be coming next
um but you can then we have our large
space which is the octagonal space with
bleachers for basketball games
volleyball games events uh locker rooms
restrooms etc
karen if you want to maybe go to page
three
second page is just the
uh the mezzanine level so you can see
here the colonnade that i was speaking
of on the south elevation there comes
across to the main entrance of the
building
um and connects to the existing
colonnade uh that that portion of
colonnade we do intend to have the
actual clay tile on not the simulated
clay tile and in fact there's a portion
that has to be removed of the existing
colonnade so we're going to try to reuse
some of that so we get a better match as
well
but the intent is that for the roof
portion above uh that would be the
simulated clay tile um there is we
reduced the brick detailing quite a bit
and it is hard to see on this maybe uh
karen as you go the next one will see it
but you can see as you go around there
you go thank you as you go around the
west side we have incorporated some of
the typical cross brick detailing at the
top
we've included the band that is uh that
is typical of the school at the mid
level
and we will have a guttered roof around
the around the perimeter there as well
if you want to go maybe to some of the
more large elevations
so you can see uh
something not
showing up right there on that one
i'm sorry go to the next one karen
there's something not quite shown oh i
know what that is okay
um so that is the main entrance now so
you can see there is the the uh triple
um
soldier course along with the soldier
courses along the side which takes uh
some language from the existing what
they did on the archway that comes down
from the walter commons the existing
archway did not have that that
rusticated base
uh but as it came down they added a
rusticated base uh down so as you come
across the archway to our main entrance
we're maintaining that rusticated base
uh and then we're maintaining kind of
the typical dental detail around the top
and the cross
and that's the side of it now can if you
go back to i'm sorry to page four now
so what you're seeing there is
through that that is intended to show
through the um archway there would be a
glass opening on the other side there
um
and if you go down to the next one i'm
sorry slide down there and there you can
see that that archways with the
rusticated base so actually the top of
the rusticated base is the existing what
we would call zero elevation for the uh
for the archways that are on the front
of the building and as i mentioned as it
come down the hill
from the walter commons they added that
rusticated base so we were matching that
as we go across there and we will be
matching all the detail of that existing
archways with the
um the layers of brick as you turn the
corner and the the little ins and outs
zigzags as you come up zigzags as you
come around
and i think that is and if you go back
around there that would be kind of
that's really just the um
as you come around to the
the
oh that's just the south entryway that's
just the south side of that so the
building as you go around the perimeter
would match
uh on page three karen
um
that elevation on the other elevations
as well
now as karen mentioned uh
the you want to go back to the now go
back to the
original submission
so you can see on
the uh the main things that have changed
there is the cupola has been removed
uh the
on the lower elevation karen
um
the main entrance has been lowered and
the sister arches have been removed
um
the cupola and the sister arches
uh a reduced version of what you're
seeing here is being bit as an alternate
the intention for the cupola now is to
have like a three foot brick cupola uh
without windows um just very similar to
if you go to around to the front of the
building there's a
small brick cupola on the front of the
building uh and then obviously the
sister arches because the front entrance
has been lowered uh would be lowered as
well
and then uh so we're intending to bid
the cupola and the sister arches as an
alternate and if we can afford them we
will
we are also planning on doing the same
thing on the skylights which you can see
on the right there
on that elevation otherwise as you go
around the building obviously the
detailing has been greatly reduced
to to accommodate the budget uh perhaps
it may end up being better because it
may end up being offsetting the original
building more appropriately rather than
trying to mimic it so
that's it in a nutshell i'd be happy to
entertain any questions and get your
feedback
yeah so we'll ask for uh board member
questions or comments start with uh mr
helman uh yeah i think the
the loss of detailing on the west
facades i think is um is sad that that
really added a lot to this building uh
but i understand your issues uh my other
only comment is that for your future
phases uh i think uh it would be helpful
uh it certainly helps i think with the
public as well uh just to have maybe a
colored rendering so we can see the
materials uh black and white drawings
are
they can be interpolated a lot of
different kinds of ways uh and so for
future projects and i think that's
actually a requirement anyway uh but and
i'm not sure there is a set but if there
is it's not in the set that i have here
so
more of an ideal when it was initially
submitted yeah it's not uh it's a
rendering it's in the package but it's
not uh it's not it doesn't represent
this design
it doesn't reflect the current design
correct so i think as again as a matter
of course uh it
it's a little odd to approve
architectural drawings uh when you're
dealing just with black and white
drawings and you don't know any of the
colors
and and it's tough to read the materials
so next time let's make sure that's i
guess our
our incorrect assumption is was because
we're matching everything that's kind of
existing it was less of a less of an
issue but we'd have to do that right
i'm sorry is this the drawing that
correct so that yeah it shows the
materials yeah well so i think kathy was
actually referring to the
renderings that were included when we
did the um
master plan submission right but those
are early designs those were very
sketchy
about indicating correct so this is the
intention the bricks would match the
existing bricks
uh the
the rusticated base would match the
rusticated base all the matching all the
other materials
uh for the school along the way
including the
as you come around it has a
like a dark bronze uh window framing etc
matching the glass glazing colors etc
etc as you work your way around
so i guess that was uh that was what we
were trying to do the first time we
submitted we took we had to take a lot
of those pictures off because it was
also very representative of the
detailing that we weren't doing
this time
mr scott
um
first i think um
in the first meeting prior to the
monthly table um
[Music]
that was a you know very
disgusting a lot of discussion topics
and i saw and and it was evident in your
submittal last month with the monthly
table uh that you one listened very well
and not just because we you know i think
he really paid attention to the
direction and the ideas and the
connection we were looking for uh and i
really appreciate that i think the
effort there was
was very well done and actually got very
excited about the project
and i thought also your thoroughness in
using photographs and tying that all
together was very well done so thank you
obviously
budgets are a huge effort and i
understand that uh but i i would
you know i need i was disappointed to
open up the new one because of those
budget constraints
um
i do think the overall design does
blend well with the existing the
existing structures and i think as long
as we're continuing to hold on to the
same materials the bricks the roofs
i think it will blend in well i'm
worried about the large expanse of the
blank walls and i would love to see
those um
maybe even minor details or other maybe
depending on how the budget comes in on
the as you work through this to see what
other little things can be done in the
brickwork to kind of at least provide a
little bit of a visual interest there
uh and i do miss the cupola
i think the roof is a is a very
overpowering mass
and even if the cupola is not a full you
know lit you know glass windows or
something but some sort of structure or
some sort of
element there architectural detail i
think would be important to kind of cap
that building because that roof is so
immense and it's it's going to be
visible right so i feel that there needs
a little bit of detail but i understand
why it's out
those are easily taken out so overall i
i appreciate the efforts i like the site
plan
and i and i appreciate the the
connection to the existing buildings no
other comments thank you mr
uh this is more of a procedural question
if
we go back to some version of a coupon
will we have an opportunity to review
that because it seems like that would be
a pretty uh significant
piece of the design
yeah
it's not what was in the original
application it's a new it's a new
version
yeah i'm uncomfortable bringing this to
a vote you know not but there's there's
so much stuff in play here tonight
is you and of course you knew that
coming before us
so
is this a design review for you that you
will come back uh with uh that completed
after the budgets have been finalized
and the the challenge that we have is
i'm not sure the budget will be fully
finalized in timeline standing but what
we could do um
we we certainly anticipated that we
might have to come back next month i
mean that's that's just the situation
what's that january yeah we don't meet
in december
correct
so
jim could you be sworn in jimmy negron
quantico cozy
yes i do so it would be our intent to
get approval and the cupola if we have
to if we're going to if we get budget
we'd have to come back in for the cooper
no no doubt
yeah so if we if we
yes that and the answer to your question
is that so if we have to add the cupola
we'll have to come in so what the idea
was we leave here with approval so we
can get because there's just the market
conditions in construction goes far
beyond what we all i mean we've i've
never experienced the things that we're
experiencing now so
the concept of not just getting drawings
locking up subcontractors and locking up
the manufacturers is critical so if
we're going to add the cupola we'll come
back for the cupola knowing that that
that component would have to potentially
be delayed and but we can get a lot of
work done
while we're going through so just as a
point of clarity i think i think that's
important and the other thing is
from an architectural brick standpoint
you know the original building is what
you saw which was so beautiful the brick
detailing is consistent with what we did
in 2006 and it's better than what we did
in 94.
so in perspective not that perspective
counts all the time
we're doing what we did in 2006 which
was it did honor the existing building
but it was less than but we're not when
we're not going back to what we did in
94 and i just thought it would be
important to say that okay thank you
thank you yeah i think if i can if i can
extrapolate on what mr negron said our
original intention was not to
seek approval for both that was it
through common conversations that came
with staff our original intention was to
try to get approval of the revised
version
but because of conversations with staff
they mentioned that perhaps we should
try to get both but if it's cleaner and
it makes everybody more comfortable
and i didn't know there was a december
meeting to be honest so that kind of
threw me off here a second ago my
thought was if the
yeah so i think i would i would like to
present this as an application trying to
get approval of the new version and if
we are able to find funding for the
cupola the sister archers and things we
will come back at another time as a
revision to the application okay well
let's continue with the comments and
then we'll okay then my only other
observation is that i know it's hard to
forget the other details
because
it was
just
they're great
so i'm trying to just focus on what we
have in front of us and
forget that
because
without forgetting it's
you know it's hard to be judgmental of
the new design
so
that's that was my only comment i'm
trying to put that front center let's
focus on this design forget about the
old one
and see if it works
my other question is this may be off the
wall but was there any consideration for
solar on this new
solar panels uh we have not discussed
that and i wouldn't imagine that we have
the budget for it right
thanks
thank you ms krosky
okay so
uh since i wasn't really a part of the
previous design that helps you out
in terms of september
up here reviewing um i guess i would say
um
[Music]
uh
if
there are
if you find through the budgetary
process
um
some additional funds because it is
stripped back quite a bit
um i would say the base the fact that
you have you know a base
um down there uh potentially carrying
that around on the other
uh elevations would help tie the
rusticated base
yeah that rusticated base is nice
another option is okay maybe you can't
do
uh the rusticated perhaps you know it's
uh banding with the brick right so
perhaps think of some other
less costly ways to mimic some of the
things going on
um
you know i don't know
enough about the building you know what
is like the original building versus the
94 versus the other
was it 2002 2000
yeah there we go um
but you know in looking at the pictures
because we did have access to the
previous set
you know there are some other details
that probably
could be explored some of the band some
of the vertical banding
uh what i call the dots of brick which
were a little bit darker
um you know that can help
play you know you can look at that for
maybe some of the
what is that west but the west
elevations
yeah the west elevation is the one that
is the other main elevation yeah
so i mean there are some of those some
of those
and i even think that elevation shows
some banding down at the base
i'm not positive but i feel like i see
it there um
so just some things to consider those
are
not as
you know probably expensive as like a
rusticated base sure um and then i don't
have any issues with the the rest of
what you did with um the entry i think
that's still very nice i think the
colonnade is very nice
um and i like that you kept it kept uh
detailing up around the top of it so
all right thank you mr chairman one more
question or comment um
the west facade
there are a lot of changes from the
previous one which i think we all really
liked and felt really comfortable with
because it did a lot and the details
matter and a lot of those details are
now gone um
so on the western facade i think one of
two things or both uh is to work with
staff to figure out the the most
westerly of the three panels
what can be done on that panel to put
some detail back
and or
uh obviously landscaping uh in the area
there so to soften that wall because
that that wall is going to be the
largely public side of this thing people
going to drive by that it's just a
real large expanse
unbroken uh and and
the dissonance of going from what we saw
before with the detailing which helped
resolve those mass and and to give it
some life in fact they they framed the
details and now to say they're all gone
that's a big change
so i think we understand budgets we
understand that we all have budgets uh
but at the same token
where we take things and what we put
back are going to matter on this project
so i i would uh i would almost make that
as part of the condition
sorry what was the what would you say
one of two things or both
that we look to providing work with
staff provide some detail on that
western panel
and there'd be landscaping installed to
soften that particular wall
as it against the
uh against the um
between that and the drive
but that it would be remanded to the
design consultant correct
and that would be your condition correct
i can speak to that we do have
intentions to include landscaping there
so that we can we can certainly okay
certainly include that part the
detailing is still up here an additional
condition of course is obviously
that there be a phase one site plan that
shows what site construction will take
place as part of this project uh and
what section that is subset that is of
the master plan that we're looking at
got it so there's just clarity with what
phase one is yep that's in the works
okay
uh so
i would say that
uh
i understand budgets i understand the
constraints that we have these days and
i understand the importance
or the
the uh
intent to get moving
however the arb is here to
review something that is going to be
there for a long time and we look back
in 30 years
and you know the rushing through is
either going to be evident or it's going
to not be evident because you really
worked out the details
so i'm uncomfortable
with this elevation in particular i'm
also uncomfortable with the lack of the
not necessarily a cupola but more like a
crown
something at the top there are lots of
examples in architectural history of
this
it doesn't even have to be something
that interferes with the roof structure
in any way it's something that is simply
a cap or a crown there's there's some
churches in rome that are octagonal that
have that it can be done in stucco it
can be done in you know terra cotta it
can be done in metal
we worked on a project in a chapel in
fort wayne where the whole cupola was
metal but we divided the panel so that
it looked like it was a traditional you
know layout
um and it was inexpensive so
that being said you know there's i think
there's things that you could look at in
your budget that could help bring
something back that roof
the amount of tile that's on that roof
is overwhelming the amount of brick on
the facades is overwhelming for it's a
massive building it's very monumental
and it needs some uh additions i think
now
can this be phased could you say that
you know we have a phase one and we're
gonna do this and we have a phase two
for the building i understand master
plans always have faces
why can't the building have a couple
phases um and maybe people will get
excited you know during the building and
if they can see images of
the crown and you know phase two for
some other brick work or like some kind
of panels that could be inserted later
then maybe they would say well why
aren't we doing that and they they fund
it in time okay but i i would want to
see that design
so if the if the idea is that you you do
not want to table this tonight and
you're looking to go for an up or down
vote
um i'm uncomfortable i can bring it to a
vote but i'm uncomfortable you know with
what i'm seeing here tonight as a final
design for
forever for the convocation center
the challenge uh we face is in a
shame on me i didn't realize there
wasn't a december meeting um
we
losing all the way to january losing two
months
in our process
is crippling
could we do a special meeting
yeah we could we could we could make it
a condition
you would have an approval okay that
would be that would be amazingly helpful
yeah we have approval with conditions to
come back on these specific details
right
now
like i'm like i would say and this is
completely up to you and your client but
if the budget constrains you in such a
way that those other elements could not
be added at this time
can it be something that would be you
know phased you know for the future um
this happens all the time on churches
as mr negron knows and everybody
so
you know but we would want to see that
design we would want to see absolutely
the arb would want to know that the
final design of this building included
you know these elements i 100 understand
i mean i sit on the german village
commission and i would
have the same opinion
and they do the same kind of things
right mr chairman wanted i mean
just a thought out of the uh
the other thing would be interesting and
i don't know how the rest of the board
would feel about this uh that there'd be
a large cross
at the top of that roof it kind of reads
for that i mean there's there's
something that just provides some finish
some level and is and obviously is then
representative of what you're all about
anyway we discussed that uh there was a
lot of discussion about the cross and
the appropriateness of it um our concern
was we didn't want to take away
from the cross on the main the main
building uh and the importance of it uh
and obviously every time you install
across as mr hire knows on a catholic
facility it's a very important decision
and i know uh i'm on the board for the
mount carmel college of nursing when
they removed the cross from the top of
that building the bishop had to approve
removal of that cross and and how they
did that so
um that being said
some kind of crown whether it's a cross
or whether it's something that's more
appropriate for the use of the building
we've we've talked about how what's fun
about the quad is that you have almost
uh towards the grotto you have a
spiritual component towards the north
you have a physical component towards
the right you have a academic component
towards the south you have a uh
arts component and so something perhaps
more appropriate on the crown
we would certainly consider
if you were to have a phase two on this
building
would you be able to in this phase for
instance block out
the framing for the
future windows
oh i see uh for future you know
special brick projections that might be
on these blank facades
i mean these are these are things that
is part of the design process i think
this is a long-term project right you're
going to build this you're going to want
it up
but in terms of its embellishment
and the fact that it's going to be with
us for hundreds of years you know we
would want to see
what how that's all included even though
it's not all built at once and is is
that feasible is that something that we
can
expect from
your team you know for
perhaps
on the roof is an easy enough
um component even
framing out windows would be i just
don't know how you would detail the
brick so that you can come back and do
it later on right so mike that that's
the
thought in my head is how the heck you
would do that's kind of i've never had
an architect ask me that
we
we always work with the brick dimensions
[Laughter]
so we could um i guess we could put
panels in that would be removed and re
then relayed up we could
contemplate you know brick expansions
where that would come down and then you
would be able to add detailing later on
later on right we could do that right um
and that's just in the brick detailing
then we could work through with staff on
that right yeah so i guess trying to
consume what you said right the concept
of
if we were able to work through with
staff and say okay this is what a future
condition would potentially look like
and then how we would detail the brick
so that we had expansion so we'd
basically be pulling out those panels
and relaying those and windows could be
framed in destruction now
that can be done and then in the cupola
as you as we all the architects and
builders know we could easily make sure
that that that that condition could be
added so
the answer to your question is yes
you caught yourself through it i didn't
i needed that i needed to think well
just you don't want to spend money twice
right you got to be careful right right
exactly right right we have a few shares
i want
out there putting this cupola on you
know yeah three years from now when well
we replaced cupola's on
religious structures all the time so the
concept of that is
but making sure that it's ready i think
is important so i'm i'm comfortable with
what we just said there so as a
condition
the condition in this case would be that
the design of a
crown or cupola on the building
as well as the clarification of
the blockouts for potential future
niches
uh brick details on the facades
would be
presented to the arb
correct
after review by uh city staff that
sounds great subject to final design
review by the arv yeah subject to final
design review by the arb in the meantime
you can get started and
and then down the road when you're ready
to take out the panels and put in design
faculty through staff or
through arb right i think we would like
to see it because this is such a
prominent building
that's actually very helpful for us
to start ordering yeah
that sounds like a great resolution and
i think the public you know when they
see this go up and they're going to
wonder why the big blank walls and why
the big
area of tile roof with no detail
you know everybody can explain that this
is a phased project if there are
questions like that to come up and there
are many components of st charles
chairman hires you know that are named
after people so those are all sponsor
opportunities
i like that
is there anyone in the audience that has
standing that would like to speak on
this on this project
seeing none
um
zeros can we have the findings of fact
and decisions of the board the findings
of fact and decisions of the board for
application number arb-21-51
for property located at 2010 east broad
street
for the proposed improvement which is a
convocation center and renovation of a
lobby area the board finds that a
certificate of appropriateness should be
approved for the proposed structure and
modifications
which are architecturally compatible
with existing structures
with the following conditions
a play is included as a roof roofing
material
b work with staff to add more brick
detailing to the west facade
c include a site plan with the
plan
final plan
and d a phased approval
be granted for final design ideas of a
crown slash cupola clarification of
block out for improvements
which would be subject to final design
review by the architectural review and e
the landscape plan for the west edge of
the property
do you say that i didn't hear it
i guess it's a site plan should i say
flight plan which includes landscaping
yeah for the western edge that's been
approved for the front
um
but not the western edge
if i may kathy i believe you read clay
tile roof and what we mentioned was we
wanted to do the simulated clay tile
thank you yes simulated clay tile
simulated simulated yep related
any other corrections or comments to the
facts
do i have a motion
hello
yes mr hellman yes
scott
yes strasser yes
chairman
with the conditions that have been
granted and approved yes thank you thank
you all so much thank you
our next
order of old business
application number arb 2158
the address is 221 ashborne the
applicant is carrick cheryl
the owners are alex marsh and katie
walker marsh
the applicant is requesting
architectural review and approval of a
certificate of
appropriateness for the demolition of an
existing fire damaged home
and the construction of a new single
family home the applicant could come
forward
good evening mr chairman members of the
board mike shannon on behalf of the
applicant should be sworn in please yes
you saw me swear or from the testimony
you're about to give this evening it's
the truth i do thank you uh
ms voelker do you have comments yes i do
this on an applicant is a requested
review and approval and a certificate of
preference for the demolition of the
existing
fire damaged home this applicant was
tabled
at the august september and october
airbnb meetings
um in the staff report and i can go
through them but i think it'd probably
be better
during the design discussion
there was a list of
requested information things like
clarification of the even heights of the
ridge heights
development of details gutters
downspouts deep lentils soffit brake
details
reconsideration and placement of the
band board um i have
quite a few lists
almost
almost everything in there has been
addressed with the exception of a few
things
um
and we can go through those i think when
the architect comes up to speak about
the design
um
he had extensive conversation and i
believe that um
we have discussed demolition
pretty thoroughly not that that can't be
discussed again but we had gotten to the
point where we
have really concentrated on the design
of the replacement of the home and
making it and keeping with the scale of
the neighborhood
and streetscape um better bringing the
eave and the ridgeline to better match
the neighboring properties and the floor
plates to better match the
tapering properties as well
um
all of the i don't want to go through
them in detail again but all of the
criteria for demolition we've gone
through and are included in the packet
and have been online for those of you
who
would like to follow along or didn't get
a chance to look through those there's a
preservation
um criteria addressed by
joe berardi
we went through
the fire damage that's from an
engineering structural engineers report
so i'm not going to rehash all that
there's also some streetscapes that i've
put together through photo montages and
the staff report that i can bring up as
well to kind of show
the ridge heights relative to the rest
of the streetscape and the details
um that
the original design didn't really seem
to go with the neighboring properties
but i think we're getting there
it's um it's much more in scale and
massing
um
just in conclusion my staff comments the
applicant has addressed some of the
board's concerns but not all one of the
things that i'm most concerned about is
the lowering and perhaps when the
architect comes up he can talk to this
so we've talked about lowering the floor
plate um at least one
one step i think it was one step for two
steps down two steps down to make the
grade level
equal to what it is now i didn't see
that in the
um although admittedly i thought it was
drawings fairly late so i didn't have a
chance to do a
really thorough review
before this meeting
if the board chooses to move to a vote
to this tonight i would
suggest that the final material samples
and colors and i believe they might have
brought them with them
be submitted for staff review and for
board review
a height measurement that grade floor
plates and ridgeline be provided and
marked on site and approved by staff
that the landscape plan be reviewed and
approved by the bexley tree and public
gardens commission
um or the city's landscape consultants
whichever the board
prefers commission it's got to go to the
commission i'm sorry it has to go
through the by code a preservation plan
for existing trees be submitted i didn't
see that in there but you just correct
me if i if i'm wrong uh it's part of our
arguments that there needs to be a
survey what's exactly there before not
just
i'm comfortable with the condition of
that but that's for trace reservation
etc
uh final design to be reviewed approved
by the city's design consultant and all
minor changes to the design subject to
approval by residential design
this point i'm going to hand it over to
mr shannon
mr chairman members of the board
happy veterans day
um to you
just occurred to me that if i make it
till january i will be a veteran of 40
years of the practice of law
and um
[Laughter]
[Music]
and
[Music]
i wish i had learned uh a long time ago
um
something that i call um
the juncture we're at tonight
and that's what i call the epiphany or
the rule of inverse proportionality
uh we are at the stage in this process
where
my clients chances are of success are
inversely proportional to how much time
i speak this evening
[Music]
i think that um not to be dismissive of
the demolition issue
but i think there's been sufficient
testimony and uh be willing to rehash
that subsequent to
carrick's presentation
but with respect to the demolition um
for lack of a better term i don't want
to be at that house
i think staff has been um
extremely professional to work with
i like the bullet points and the staff
report that allows the applicant to try
to respond to them it doesn't include
everything that was maybe said at the
meeting but it serves as a great frame
of reference uh to the extent the
discussions are going to center on
uh the new design
um from our perspective and then we can
certainly address any questions the
board has about demolition in addition
to that i'd like carrick to come up and
and walk through um
the new rendering and address staffs
comments one by one and thank you for
your time and consideration thank you
be sworn in please
please state your name carrick cheryl do
you finally swear or from the testimony
you're about to give this evening is the
truth i certainly do
please proceed
um
we've made some uh adjustments to
the design of the building
in response to
your comments from last month primarily
on the on the front facade we've
changed up the proportions a little bit
of
the windows
to provide some additional emphasis to
the first floor
as discussed uh we removed um some of
the
the band board detailing
uh that was um
[Music]
spoken about unfavorably the last
meeting um
we've added uh majora
most of the information that you asked
for with regard to eve heights and ridge
heights is on the drawing
um
i'm going to respond briefly to um the
comments about
the um
the
relationship of grade to the first floor
um it's noted there
in the elevation as well as the detail
on sheet 825
that's 20 inches from grade to first
floor
with a
14 inch
a floor member and a sill plate that
doesn't provide uh too much room between
um the grade and the beginning of wood
construction
um so
i don't i'm not sure
that it's good practice to lower the
building much further into the ground
with regard to that
there's been some discussion about the
the comparison um of our design to the
building behind us
that is a new construction building
and we're only providing that as a
reference because it's on an adjacent
parcel not because
we're comparing it as a new construction
and new construction so
um with that i
will take your comments
thank
uh you josser if you would start the
comments from the board please
i have trouble if you're finding
a better understanding of the
relationship behind this
down here
which document yeah oh a01
01.
well
i i would observe that
um think continued feedback from
the architects on
the panel tonight
this is probably still in order and i'm
going to disperse them because at this
point we're past the
thank you um ms krosky
sure
um
[Music]
and you're new to this right because
yeah a little bit i mean i i sat in
in the audience um so i've seen past
versions yeah
um
[Music]
so some of the things
that i
like uh seeing
on the site plan
i think it's great that you're
preserving the old growth trees
especially in the front
uh i'm assuming that one in the back is
similar is that an old growth i'm a
little concerned about whether or not it
will be able to be preserved so
um i think it's just it's something that
has to be reviewed with um
the specialists in the city
uh i hope it can be um
[Music]
the
with regards to the elevation so the
front elevation i think it's way better
that you took the band out
um i think the front elevation looks
much better
um
something i i was looking at the details
uh
because you provided them
sometimes we don't get to see these um
i guess i would ask why
um you are proposing
uh wood cells and aprons over i mean
you're using brick you already have
some brick rolox you know why are you
not proposing using brick for the sills
uh versus
wood i i i would just be concerned about
maintenance longevity
um i'm i don't know if your it says wood
sill i don't know if you're using
like real wood or if you're using a
you know modified product of some sort
so i'd like you to speak to that a
little bit
um i i understand the concern about wood
um i was
doing what i could to
pay some respect the existing building
that has uh wood sills on the front
um
uh in
pace some homage to
to what we're um removing
with the wood cells um
you know if through
further investigation of the available
products um you know we choose to go
with a
composite product that would that would
emulate wood for those sills in order to
increase the longevity of it uh without
continued maintenance i think that's
something that could be
discussed with staff
as an equal alternative but for now i
would say it's wood
um
did that answer your question yeah
that's okay um
i think that's probably yeah
one of my
probably a larger concern for me just
you know as an old as a homeowner i know
it's going to be a new building um and
the old ones
you know potentially being taken down uh
and if it was me you know i would want
the longevity
um so
you know there would probably be less
maintenance than if you're having to
paint
wood sills everywhere right
um so that's just a consideration to
think about and to work with potentially
with the design consultant
am i right
um
[Music]
i think that's it that's all i wanna
uh
oh um and we i
don't know you did talk about that so
never mind i'm good thank you that's it
here's one other thing for recognition
i'm struggling with the absolute changes
what we have now and we're losing
that's a big loss
um so
that's something that
let's see what the other board members
think about that but
we're doing a demo
yeah
with
a slate right or play and then losing
thank you
uh mr scott
we're still just to make sure i'm clear
we're still looking at the demolition md
design yes that is correct we have not
voted on either so they're both up for
discussion
so under the city of bex's code codified
ordinance for demolition removal of
existing structures
uh there is a process i'm sure we're all
fairly aware of the document under
section c the process for review of the
architectural review board
the first statement number one is the
structure to be
to be demolished or removed is not
historically or architecturally
significant
it is my position that the exterior of
the building is architecturally
significant uh and worthy of
preservation
under the ordinance uh there are other
factors which i will go through um if
the historic or architecturally
significant and worthy of preservation
that denial or certificate
of appropriateness would cause
a or one a substantial economic economic
hardship or two
that the demolition is justified by the
existence of unusual or compelling
circumstances
in the ordinance that takes us to
section e
the criteria for determining substantial
economic hardship
knowing what
has caused what what the interior
condition of the uh the building is
obviously through the reports
um
and the damage that is taking place
um we need i need to go through each one
of these and see and evaluate that and
then give you my position uh number one
under e section e is denial of the
certificate results in a substantial
reduction in economic value of property
um
this is a complicated
topic but since the the damage is
already done the economic damages in my
eyes is already done
and the property value is should be
represented of that
so that doesn't necessarily qualify e2
for me denial of the certificate results
in a substantial economic burden because
of the structure cannot be maintained in
its current form at a reasonable cost
i believe that this is something that
actually does apply to this application
because of the interior conditions it is
non-habitable there's no one's living
there so that is an impact and an
economic burden because
um the structure can't it could be
maintained but there's maintained for
what non-occupied use
and then e3 denial of the certificate
will result in a substantial economic
burden because the cost of prison
preserving or restoring the structure
will impose an unreasonable and
financial burden
this is the clear definition for me of
what is really related to the demolition
of this property or not and i am unable
to get past e3
because i believe that there is a
substantial financial difficulty to
restore the interior electric
um install of hvc
and bring back the interior to a
reasonable livable conditions
uh section e continues with the criteria
determining unusual and compelling
circumstances i won't go through each of
these because some of these do apply
some of these do not but again with the
interior damage and the fire uh i i lean
towards that there is also unusual and
compelling circumstances for this
property
and
as much as i
it pains me i really do like the
exterior this pro this building i like
how it sits on its property uh i i will
not be able to
deny a demolition based on these
ordinances that is set by excellent so i
will be have to be just to let you know
i'll be happy to be i will have to be in
favor
of that demolition
that being said uh part of that is
related to some of the part of that
ordinance is of course the revision or
the design and the building that's
coming being proposed
uh you have worked hard at updating that
design and working with us on that and i
appreciate that
i think the the latest elevation
uh i think is is much better i was
looking at the rendering a little bit
earlier and it was
i realized that it wasn't the latest
design because i was questioning some of
the movies that you had ever made but
they were the ones that we discussed
last time so uh this particular design
that is that is at a date uh because i
would not be able to support that i
think you are uh have come very far
especially on the the front i think is
is a is um
it's approaching where it needs to be
and i think i really like how you
continue to develop the sides in the
rear of the house so i don't have any
specific critical
feedback for you tonight but i think you
are definitely moving in the right
direction and for me
now that i'm past the demo decision
i think i would i would be continued
support while you uh for this particular
replacement with working with the staff
so i'll emphasize thank you
mr hellman
uh yes
clearly on this case and the case to
follow uh we spent a lot of time and uh
i know all of us individually have gone
through
our own processes of dealing with this
and likewise
reviewing the code and going through all
and so i think
at the end of the equation we all have
to come to our own individual
understandings of
our decisions and why we make the
decisions we make
um and i think at
uh at first blush i think my opinion of
the way the code is structured
uh the way that the um the
purpose section is written i won't go
through that i've read that into the
minutes before i think demolition needs
to be a high bar to get over
uh and for all of the right reasons in
terms of um
the character
the the the community uh the retention
of buildings historic fabric and go on
and on and on with that
but at the same time there needs to be
quote responsible renewal and
redevelopment
um
and so i've gone over that in my head
over and over and over many times
and
so i'm
in a position where mr scott is
uh in going through a turning point for
me there were two turning points one is
architecture i'll get to that but but
the first regarding demolition um
was
looking inside the house looking through
the windows finding out that there's
nothing inside the house and at a house
a house's value if you go through the
components of building uh the all of the
building pieces uh the things that are
missing on this house constitute about
44
of the value of a house
um that if that in my if that is not a
unique and compelling situation and i'm
not sure there are any uh so uh i do
think in the nature of
uh we've we've certainly batted around
terms like architecturally significant
historically significant and so forth
and so forth tried to put some meaning
to that and i believe architectural
being architecturally significant is a
continuum
some houses are more architecturally
significant than others some are
insignificant and we may talk about that
uh
as the evening
ensues i do not think this house is
architecturally insignificant that said
i don't think it's that high on the
scale of significance
but i will not demean the existing house
that's there
so in my mind uh what has happened to
the inside of this house um
is a major problem and uh and now i then
move to
the architecture and the progression of
this application when it first came in
um with a house that i would say
maybe didn't quite fit in quite in a few
ways let's say
to where we are now is very commendable
uh i
my own
impression of this house is one of
balance and cohesion
the center of the house
is the dominant piece it and then it
steps down on both ends
and then the porch on one side and the
garage on the other are antecedent
pieces so i think the vocabulary of that
works really well then the porch brings
the center piece of the house out
further
gives it a little monumentality but not
an overt amount amount and so in my mind
this is a
very harmonious design uh that we've
gotten to
step by step but nevertheless i believe
that uh that we are here
those are my cause
thank you
there anyone in the audience that has
standing that would like to speak on
this project
please come forward
um thank you your name and your address
jamie ruff 180 ashbourne i'm two houses
down from this build on the opposite
side of the street please be sworn in
raise your right hand
you sound like from the testimony you're
about to give this evening is the truth
yes thank you and thank you please go
ahead i feel like there are several
things that are kind of unclear about
what's going on here first off i almost
feel like i walk in here and we're about
ready to approve this for a demo um and
like there's been back channel
conversations that happened i hope not
um i thought that once we left the
meeting last time around this was dead
in the water so when it was already up
for to come before to the board in
november again i was a little bit
stunned that we were kind of talking
about the same thing
a home that still had an asphalt roof
and last time the criteria was pretty
much
come to the table with something that's
natural material that's consistent with
resident street i mean i made the point
last time that 88 percent of the street
is either
tile or slate there's only three homes
on the entire street they're asphalt
this is a significant roof line that
they're presenting in this house it has
a lot of roof the home is also a scale
that's outside of anything else that
sits on a third of an acre on our street
everything else that's a third an acre
is probably about
i mean 3200 square feet for the existing
home
our home which is 34. um
anyway roughly that scale is what exists
on that type of set size lot on the
street
this home is closer to the bowman house
which is maybe another seven homes down
the street on the same side that sits on
a double lot that's 6 400 square feet
i've never heard a square footage figure
thrown out for this house but i'm
guessing it's gonna be close to six
thousand once you include the third
floor and build out a bathroom there
um
so i i'm kind of curious also who owns
this property is this contingent upon
the demo that they actually
seal the deal because this house has
never been up from up for sale on as far
as i'm aware um this is more or less an
inside deal
is that a question for the staff
i'm throwing it out there because
there's been not there's not been much
transparency about last time last time i
i felt like there was possibly perjury
being committed in fact that
the the the the proposal was coming
forward and saying that he owned the
place and then his lawyer comes up and
said well that's not really true i've
got the owners listed on the application
as alex marsh and
katie walker marsh okay
is there a deed that actually went for
did actually was there closure on this i
mean have have we seen
what the what the sale prices usually
there's a closure on that and when was
the closure on the property i do not
have that information that wouldn't be
relevant for this board
no but it's public information right
it's a franklin county auditor issue
as far as i know and i it's i've got an
issue for this
okay
well
okay we'll move away from that but the
fact is that we all know what type of
square footage we're even talking about
here for this third of a lot
and there's also easement issues i think
are possibly that are also
possibly at stake here the way this
thing sits on the lot relative to the
street and the adjacent homes the square
footage
it meets code as far as live coverage
square footage
based on the art the footprint yes so
otherwise it would be going to the board
of zoning and planning okay well then
we're talking about scale you know
height width breadth
depth
that you're right
but the material the material is the big
issue that i have i mean when you when i
saw what was being
presented i was kind of like i'm not
sure what that was but
um
it doesn't look like the rest of the the
stock on the street and so that's my big
concern
thank you
um
yeah character if you wouldn't mind
coming back forward
i uh took a look at through these
drawings
and you know i'm very
uh encouraged you know with the
direction that the the design is going
um there are a number of things that um
i'd like to comment on in terms of the
design the first is
it is actually quite common that a house
with a brick veneer
has the sill plate behind that brick
veneer and this wood
joists for the first floor being at
greater lower
because there is a solid grouting that
happens in that cavity
and the waterproofing actually extends
and and protects that band board and the
the sill plate and the the joist so it's
quite common we our our firm does a
number of projects uh like this i mean
in terms of uh you know having the
veneers and then the the framing behind
being protected
um you'll find throughout bexley and new
albany and upper arlington that this is
quite common
so i wouldn't
say that it's bad practice to provide a
sill plate and floor joists that
actually extend below the grave when you
have a brick veneer like this
and therefore you know one of the things
that we asked was that this house be two
steps up and that was i thought agreed
upon at the last meeting
so i'm asking that that happened i think
it's important that that happen
if you do that
then my concerns about the eve
really go away because you're there
now
i have other issues
with the eaves but i think if you lower
and make this the two steps then my
concerns about the eaves in terms of
their height are are taken care of
you've lowered that can you clarify the
actual dimension of what you mean as two
steps is that 16 inches
from grade to plate
grade the first floor well the steps by
code can't be more than seven inches
so whatever your seven inches off of
grade plus seven inches to the first
floor finish floor then you work your
way down okay yeah
and that's
that would mean code
um
but that's what your other neighbors
have you know
i'm not saying that i measured all these
other houses in terms of their heights
but it's consistently
two steps pretty consistent and
um you just need to meet code in terms
of the height i'm not saying that some
of the other ones don't but
that's an important aspect for me
um it brings your eaves down into
you know what i think is what we had
asked for before because your
neighboring thieves
are 19 6 which is two houses north and
18 feet which is the house to the north
directly to the north so you're well
you're within range you know right now
uh you're you're you're there or almost
but
it's the number of steps and the primary
block of the house it's eve being so
high the rich height i'm not is
concerned with it's really that evite
which is what you see from the street
and what brings you into relationship
with the other houses
and this is something you know as we've
said here on this board many times
uh we've we've been uh we've gone
through some pain you know in anguish
over this on other houses and so we're
being firm about these things so that
you continue to keep the context of the
neighborhood
and the quality of the architecture
because for me as i stated in the last
meeting if you're going to replace this
house which has to me a lot of character
you have to provide us with a design
that is equal or better
and that gets down to the details and
those details are essential not just for
the aesthetics of the house but also for
the longevity and so that brings into
question these wood sills which even if
the second floor
of the existing house has these strange
wood sills with aprons
it is not
you know in today's construction it
would
it's not going to be done to that same
kind of quality whatever you want and
nobody does wood sills on the outside of
brick houses if you go to the first
floor you you have roe lock you have a
rolox sill
and i would
strongly encourage you to maintain those
row rolex because the brick veneer needs
to be a solid it needs to be solid
masonry
unless you're using teak you know or
some kind of material like that that and
even sealing that against the brick
wood's going to shrink
so this is a this is a maintenance issue
and it's about preserving the integrity
and the value
of the houses in this neighborhood okay
the details are
to me critical at this point
in order to
feel that
you know we've met this condition
in the demo
that
even if the house has even if the
existing house has architectural merit
and it's significant in the board's mind
whatever testimony other you know not
notwithstanding other testimony from uh
people who have uh standing
then
we can say that the existing structure
is architecturally significant or we
could in the final vote
but
we could
say that the replacement was of superior
quality or equal or superior quality to
what's there
that's where i'm trying to get you
because that's my argumentation
and so if we're gonna get there we need
to go through these steps and i'm sorry
that you know
it may seem like it's you know getting
into a lot of details that you as an
architect are competent professional on
but
for the public record we need to make
sure that it's all said um so that the
public understands that the architecture
review board went to great lengths
to provide the provide the city of
bexley with something that's equal or
greater than what's there sure i
understand that and i appreciate it and
you know i
i apologize that it's um
taken
as much as it has for you guys to to
carry me along my um
you know
maybe
lack of
experience with this particular board um
and the
the level of detail that's required for
across these hurdles is
i've learned a lot thank you
you're not dealing with nantucket here
okay this this board is
you know
try to do a house on nantucket let me
tell you
um
so i'd like to just go on with a few
more details if you don't mind um so the
wood sales i i think need to go because
just for the value of the property and
the long-term maintenance of of this
house
um the second is um
that is a condition
and and
you know from my point of view these are
things that are not that cannot be
remanded to the design consultant these
are things that this board needs to see
and we're going to have to see this
again in my in my estimation now you can
go for an up or down vote
but in my estimation this house has to
be seen again in order that we do public
justice
for the design of this house
so the other issues are
again the floor plate coming down
the wood sills going away the other
thing is these eaves if you go back to
the 3d view
of this house
we have a real problem here
with the long-term maintenance and
longevity of your eve system
where you've got a crown at your main
block of the house that just turns and
dies into the roof
that is a very difficult detail to flash
okay and you're going to have all kinds
of deterioration there almost
immediately
so either you bring all the eaves in
line with each other which i think would
be outstanding it would it would have a
similar quality to what the existing
house has in that regard
and you just make you make the roof one
roof and maybe maybe you uh expand the
dormers you'll save your client money by
doing that um you're going to
well you'd have two different they would
be offset still but
having those eaves align is going to be
a better detail for long-term
maintenance and it's going to look
better
when you turn the corners on the gables
of the house you have the same issue
you're turning it and dying it into the
roof of that side addition and that is
going to be another area of instant
deterioration
and devaluation of the house
and so what you need to do is do a
return eve okay that extends about a
foot or a foot and a half and that's it
and there's lots of examples of colonial
architecture where it just returns and
ends on itself you know and then you
just take the material from there
straight up into the eve
which would be my
preference is to see the brick go all
the way up in the in the gables like the
existing house
what i'm trying to do is help you to all
to take on some of the characteristic of
this existing house even though you want
to do something that's colonial
contemporary i understand that
but some of those just knowing and
making it for the public record that you
are paying deference you're paying
tribute in some way to the existing
house
will go a long way for this board
and for the neighborhood i think
um
the other thing is is the columns the
peers
so
if we're going to do something equal or
better than the detailing that we see on
the existing house
we can't have wood peers that just have
block capitals we need to do something
that's unique and as a designer i would
ask that you
consider doing something that has more
style and a little more you know detail
than the blocks that you see on this on
the uh it's on the back porch of the
house
the front i think is
looking very nice in terms of the porch
but these
so
those columns
these piers
this house deserves better than just
block caps and bases
um
bexley houses as you know pride
themselves on their detail
and this detail is happening in bexley
all over the place so what you're doing
by putting them on here
is you're taking this design on ashborn
down to the level of some of these quick
additions
that get put up in bexley and i think
you can do better than that for the sake
of this house
the bases the pedestals are i'm sorry
the the capitals
and then there's just a whole
arrangement of things of these crowns
that don't make sense to me that i think
are going to devalue the house if you
don't fix them now
one of them is
that this crown condition here seems to
be projected out past the edge of the
roof
and so where is all that water going is
it going into a gutter it's right there
because as you know code requires you
for most building codes require you to
have
a roof line extend beyond so that ice
can slide off a roof and not destroy the
gutter
so this would not allow for that okay
you get any ice filled up on any of
these roofs
and they're going to slide down and
break your gutter
just long-term maintenance value value
of the property
so if you go to the detail sheets
you'll see these details that i think
need to be worked out
and if you go to the
second or the last design sheet
we have a crown detail
that
and i appreciate that you want to do
something that's kind of contemporary
for the eve condition
but i think you're
you're not putting enough design into
this detail
just having a beveled line instead of a
crown like you would see like a reverse
sema or a regular sema for those
moldings
is not enough you know do something um
that is more contemporary or something
that's paying tribute
to the existing house maybe but doing
something contemporary with it the other
thing is this whole system for the
gutter where you're building this block
out
what's gonna first of all you can't
provide slope on a gutter with that
detail and the gutter has to slope
and
and secondly if water does get behind
it's going to come into your eave system
and destroy it so that's another
long-term maintenance and uh valuation
issue for this property
um that gutter really should be outboard
it should probably be a half round which
would be lovely
um and you need to make sure that your
whole fascia system is protected from
those kind of conditions
on top of that i really believe that
this house if it's going to be better or
equal or better than the existing needs
to have the clay tile or a slate roof
the asphalt shingle is not typical in
your neighborhood and so we need to
bring this up
the brick and the colors that you choose
for the windows and the gutters and
downspouts those are all things that
i think we've talked about
and we can resolve that all i think
uh hopefully in the next in the on the
next round but as far as i'm concerned
right now if we're going to approve the
demo
uh with with the idea that what is it's
being replaced with is equal or greater
that we need to see this again
modern design
it doesn't matter he can it just
this needs to be worked on more
especially with the wall you know the
way that the water and the gutter is
going to work this
if there's a buyer for this house that
would be the first detail that i would
have to change i would have to put money
into this house to fix it immediately
mr chairman um
obviously i i'd like to be deferential
to the chair
um we've heard the comments of the other
board members i do want to clarify
something um in terms of ownership um
alex and his wife are or designated to
act on behalf of mr tom schottenstein
who is still the owner of the property
i too as well um i am authorized to
represent
uh mr schottenstein centrist
and that's part of the
it's not an economic hardship under your
code but the personal hardship
that my client has experienced is their
inability to close on the property
because they can't meet this condition
to get approval for the demolition
permit
so again with
under your scenario ultimate approval
not being until january arguably um
it uh presents a real challenge uh
i would acknowledge for the record that
a lot of our wounds have been
self-inflicted
um but i think the level of detail that
you went into
um quite frankly um i started to fade
there towards the end a little bit
um
i i do think that you were so specific
that it it could be accomplished
if the other board members agree by
submitting those additional details to
staff
again i want to be deferential to you
chair heyer
but
this is the fourth fourth time in the
barrel and um
um
it seems to me that the other members
have indicated a comfort level in
proceeding
so i i was wondering if um
you would consider it possible to uh
as you've done in similar situations
delegate that final review uh to staff
as opposed to the commission itself
understood
if we did it would be an up or down vote
yes uh with us with that condition yes
sir and the board members would vote on
that and if you were not able to get a
majority
then you then the demolition would be
denied and you'd have to come back to us
with a completely new design be a new
application
and um
both parties would have to evaluate
whether they'd be able to go
go forward as under the contract is
currently constituted in full disclosure
to the board
of questions i think i know the answer
just to clarify is it possible chapter
two
um if if the board
voted tonight
reached a conclusion as to the
demolition aspect
am i correct that the demolition could
not occur
until final design is approved
yeah that's
the physical demolition yeah
right
so i think one of the
what you're leading to is
i think
you don't worry about one thing you
could do
is i think you're leading towards
an approval of the definition i
understand what mr
hire is saying about
you know he's looking at some of the
factors for relating to
whether or not there's a justification
for um permitting the demolition if you
think it's a participant
um
[Music]
want
[Music]
those final details come back
or that um
but also i don't want to speak for
hearing but that really puts karen in a
hot seat and she's really doing the plan
if there's something that she's not
comfortable with she can take that back
to the board so
we may be right back where
we may need to go can we do
can't we do an approval with the
condition that they come back to the
board for these final detail reviews
i know it's not typical but well here's
the here's the dilemmas i see i can
speak
i believe that
my sense
is that
several of the board members believe
that there is architectural for
historical certificates to this house
so
that's step one
i heard at least one board member say
that
the board member has concluded that
retaining the house is an economic
hardship
and therefore that is a reason to
proceed
i hear another board member saying
i don't see an economic hardship here so
we're going to open the demo there has
to be a compelling other circumstance
which is
the new house
knocks it out of the park
so i think what i'm hearing is from mr
heyer's perspective
he he in his conscience maybe couldn't
approve a demo right now because the
factors have not been identified
addressed we have an artificially
significant building we don't have a
compelling circumstance to say we're
going to approve this because wow what
ability
on the other hand i think i've heard mr
scott say i i think this bullying is
architecturally significant but it
appears to him that there's an economic
hardship here did i hear that right
compelling circumstances yeah there's
there's multiples of the from the
ordinance that i think they've fallen to
apply to this case so i can see we're
billed to say
i i'm not there because i don't see this
it makes me want to upload this
demonstration and until we see a great
plan a great design how do we perceive
i hear other people saying
yeah i understand this is significant
but there are several reasons to move
forward and
probably bill rp you would say
like where i'm running this i could say
i'm there on demo i can approve that but
nothing's been a bit torn down because
and we don't have a design that's
finished and it's too far
for
i'm not doing this a staff person to
approve
and
we
i also think it gives a consensus that
asphalt is not going to work and if you
have to spend another fifty thousand
dollars on the roof
i don't know what a
[Music]
slight request but it's gonna be an
investment so
[Music]
deal with that
but
the applicant has to know that
there's a long
fair amount of work here
to get a fruit plant so that's all
interesting i would say the other
question for that too is if you can
identify i think like chair hired it
with some specificity
what it is you're looking for them to
have and do so that they can evaluate
you know what that is if it is you have
to work we can't approve anything fellas
like ruth
that's a significant cost that that if
there's a consensus on the board and
maybe there isn't but if you know if you
can identify
the specific conditions that you want to
see on a site plan i think that's
helpful because you could approve it on
the condition and it come back and
be very relatively specific i'm not
saying you have to make every detail
obviously it's a little bit of a target
but would that be
made as a motion among the board members
prior to the vote
it would be part of the vote yeah it
would be part of the vote i think i have
a question all of it but because the
demo
is primary okay the demo comes first
wouldn't we have to somebody would have
to make a motion that those conditions
would allow the board
to split it or make that condition of
all these details because some not all
these board members are going to have
the same reasoning for the demo that's
true
um i don't think the
the question you don't all necessarily
have to have the same reasoning if
everybody
has the reason
that you know if
as the board for the reason whatever
reasons you're facing on it everybody
gets there whether it's because
there is you know whether it's because
it's not it's an economic hardship or
whether it's because of the replacement
structure
as far superior but you don't believe in
the economic hardship or whether it's
both factors right one of the factors
let me ask the applicant can i yeah i'll
go ahead essentially i want to get a
question
if there are conditions put on this and
allowing the demo to move forward with
the condition that you're coming back to
this board in january with the
corrections and the you know the
updates that we are going to make a
condition is that acceptable to you
based on what you've heard me say
tonight
from my from my perspective
do you want to ask me a question i'm
trying to i think it's also
let me add a question on to his it's
it's related what is required on your
client's behalf for closing
approval by this board of both parts or
in all candor i i believe the language
says uh approval of the demolition
which
could arguably be both parts
or could arguably be part a i think it
needs to be clear it it would be both
parts i mean i think the issue is we
would be in agreement that maybe that
the demolition could happen but it's
contingent on the approval
um
contingent that demolition is always
contingent on a building permit period
absolutely period you cannot get a
demolition permit until you've achieved
your building permit we're trying to
maybe help facilitate when maybe we
don't need to
some of this process to say hey you know
we think we can get to a demo
based on things that we've all different
argument maybe it doesn't happen i don't
know
but there are things in the drawings
that you've submitted that have been
have expressed and i agree with a lot of
what mr hire said
my comment was maybe it would be
remainder to
staff if they're comfortable with that
if they're not doesn't sound like they
are mr chairman to res
well
i don't speak for staff i'm sorry to try
to respond to your question
um
from my perception
we have one board member on the record
who said uh that
they were persuaded by
the historic preservation analysis that
we provided
um
by
who's the architecture to that right uh
by mr berardi
and then um
you've had another board member who uh
uh acknowledged a compelling
circumstance
while at the same time acknowledging the
historical significance of the building
you've had another board member who has
paid deference and homage to the
architectural and historic significance
but has felt that uh it's a
my words not his a primo fascia case of
an economic hardship because of the
damage uh done by the fire to all the
mechanical units
um you have
if i may be simple the newest board
member who appears uh in the first
public discussions i recall
on this seem to have a comfort level
with with the replacement project
because we started this hearing off with
a tacit acknowledgment by staff that we
had looked at the demo thoroughly and
that we should focus on the project
and then we now have the chair who would
want to condition a motion of approval
uh on a second hearing
um and we have one member who has said
that the vote may sway on whether or not
we change the roof
so
uh
what i'm trying to do is is
filter all that so i can advise my
client what to do
so
nothing you said 90 of which i
understood um and all of which i believe
my client understood was objectionable
on his face mr heyer in terms of
conditions
so um if the
the
motion was made conditioned on amending
the plan
[Music]
and subject to confirmation of the
amendments that you specify
i think we would be on board
but if it would automatically
and i would leave it to the board's
discretion whether uh you're comfortable
doing that framing emotion that way what
you said to me initially is you just
voted up or down um with the conditions
or without uh we'd like to split the
baby and try to have a conditional
approval that enumerates those
conditions you made with specificity so
we know our target
uh
because even i understood the vast
majority of them and i'm being candid he
kind of lost me there when you
got into the roof section and uh
but he's he understood it so
i'd like to just say
in in
this has been a gun a progression and we
discover different things i am
in line with i mean bill
bill knows his onions knows him well
uh and
the so i'm concerned for those people in
the back of the room
that are going to end up with this house
that they have details that are actually
going to work
and not lead to premature aging of the
house so that so
those kinds of conditions to me
that bill raises are doing a grand favor
for the eventual owners of this house
and so some of these i'm not sure you
would
would be in the client's mind debatable
because if you've got a detail in terms
of how the guttering is going to work uh
that will not pass the test of time uh
now is the time to do that and to figure
that out so
those kinds of so those are beyond an
aesthetic issue in my mind those are
those are related to the integrity uh
and longevity of the house and the
investment that's put in the house you
don't go this far and then put on a
detail uh that's that's that's gonna
create
in the house you don't do that that does
not make any sense roof that's an
aesthetic issue back and forth i
understand that one uh but these other
issues to me are pretty fundamental uh
to a sound investment in that
had house about a special meeting for
saint charles so if we schedule a
special meeting it's going to be arb we
could put both cases on that agenda
could you explain that please
being we're not going to have a december
meeting
typically
we could have a special session of the
ar the public section of the arb to
discuss this project but this i this one
on the agenda as well as st charles
and as long as i can give a two-week
notice to the neighbors we can do that
and if we did that with the would the
applicant be willing to table this
for that special session
yes sir
i think that would be preferable so that
we can come to a full vote on the
demolition and the new construction and
that everybody all the conditions
whatever they are are labeled the
reasons for the demolition or not
the reasons for you know the the
criteria are all there in one vote would
be preferable
believe it or not i am in total
agreement
we got there
so you are requesting a table until
i think
that's assuming that there's a special
move in december we have to
would we would we make a motion for a
special session in december
yeah
i would think first before you go that
direction i would strongly suggest that
the board check their calendars and make
sure that you can actually
all
be available for a special meeting and
staff can be sure that there's a
location that's appropriate so
so the motion would be
that to a date certain
in december in december
the air the architecture review board
agrees to meet in a special session
regarding
application number
well you can just have a special meeting
i would be unwilling to table this
without a date being established
i think we have to do that
eighth ninth
december 9th
yeah the night
i got to make sure because it could be
the city
christmas christmas party i think it's
the suitcase but
sorry i mean wednesday the 8th is i
don't see anything on the calendar i'm
not here 11 9 are you here in the night
i'm gone
does it have to be
does it happen
does it have to be in the evening
i know that in in
hurts some other folks that actually
work for a living but uh does it have to
be in person if you could attend by zoom
those don't work real well but
we can do that
let's get complicated yet
would the applicant be willing to have
the special session during the day
instead of an evening is that
yes 16.
you know what i am free on both those
days so
if we wanted to set this no larry you
would hate
the night i'm here the eighth is perfect
then just kidding
just kidding
all right i'm gonna do the eighth
at five o'clock and if i've got to
change it i've got to change it but we
could shoot for that
[Music]
uh
this application to december
9th at 5 pm
[Music]
or
more information i i think the applicant
should be working with the design
consultant in the meantime to address
the issue you know
at least i just want it in writing i
want it stated
in the record
okay and do i are those
um
how about the 16th
meeting on the we've got
[Music]
november 30 december 6th december 8th
any of those days
december 6th is fine for me
december 6th a saturday monday
december 6th 6th december 6th yeah i'm
i'm not back in town to the 8th or to
the 9th
so anything earlier than that i'm not
here
but hey who needs me why why why is the
knife not working
i don't know i think we could do the
night
i know it's the night that's right
oh no christmas card party uh
[Music]
it's not until in the evening yeah oh
that's fine i think we should set for
the night because everybody can be here
you want to meet at five five o'clock
is that acceptable yes sir so what did
we say that yeah the ninth at five let's
keep it there so moved hold on later
yeah okay so you have your list i made
motion oh you already made the motion
all right mr scott seconded it
mr helman
yes mr scott yes
yes
yes chairman
yes thank you very much thank you for
your patience
[Music]
we're going to take a
five minute break thank you for your
patience
we've been doing this for so long and we
still don't have to mix up
it's just hard to tell
[Music]
they seem like they were
[Music]
what's good how are you
oh man
uh
he already yelled at me to be
i gotta make sure
forward
[Music]
all right i'm sorry
is
one two one
or
okay
see i really think
that the main mistake with these things
is there's not a shelf under here yeah
so that she can
i put it at the end last time
i hope you're
i am
we're going to continue our arb meeting
for november 11th
our next application
is old business application number arb
2163 the address is 261 south columbia
the applicant is nathan sampson the
owner is
261 south columbia llc the request the
applicant is requesting architecture
review and approval
and a certificate of appropriateness for
the demolition of an existing home and
the construction of new single family
home
applicants are here thank you please be
sworn in okay
state your name starting with you sir
nathan sampson hi joe miller do you
strongly swear the testimony you're
about to give this evening is the truth
yes i do thank you uh karen uh miss miss
vocal do you have comments for us from
the last year
um
so this one this
application
is
also for
a demolition
of an existing home and a replacement of
a new um proposed
home there has been uh let's see
let me make sure i'm right this table is
september and october this is the third
hearing
um
the
applicant has
submitted all the materials that the
board has asked for the board was pretty
pleased with the replacement um
structure at the last meeting and we
have gone through all the demolition as
well we can discuss anything you know no
voting
for anything it's all for discussion but
to jump right to the the point that we
are
at the board had asked that the whole
home be lowered into the ground
i can't remember if there was an exact
number or one step or two feet
or
and um
mr sampson completely agreed he has
provided new drawings
open here
thanks to the pandemic i've learned
with some zoom but i i wanted to point
out an interesting drawing um which i
think is very helpful
that the appleton has provided that
shows
the relationship of the existing home
kind of superimposed on the new build
from across the street to show the sight
lines because one of the things that we
asked them to do was show that by moving
the
structure back onto the
site and moving
um so that the front
was a lot further back than the original
that it diminishes
the size of
my explaining that correctly
yes those guys i'm gonna give you a
chance but here is a good um
drawing of the change in height
how the building has been sunk into the
ground we didn't really have any other
requests of this particular project that
i had documented at all except that um
to move it into the ground was critical
um
to diminish the mass
um
at this point i will hand it over to you
okay
all right um thank you very much um i
think that
after our discussion at the last meeting
um
there were some very good points made
and i i think you know we all agreed
that there's uh
some fine-tuning that needed to happen
from the time that this application was
originally submitted and the discussions
that came about over the last few months
um
the
i'll cover the
uh
i guess you would say
the updates here and we can certainly go
back to any other questions as needed uh
by the board uh relative to our previous
hearings so
uh after our last discussion
last month um we did a couple of things
one
we took the house
lowered it into the site 12 inches so uh
our subfloor in the first floor that was
36 inches out of the average existing
grade at the front of the house now got
lowered 12 inches
we also updated the detailed building
section because i think in our last
application when we talked about the
material change the building section had
not been updated to reflect the stucco
versus stone
materiality and in doing that um it's
not a great difference but just in you
know taking away that dimension in the
wall section the roof you know the
overall height of the building itself
went down another three and a half
inches and that's just a relative to the
slope of the roof and the build up of
the wall
um
so
i think in
hearing what the comments were at the
last meeting we also developed
more of a
three-quarter site section that relates
the street the sidewalk and the
positioning of the new house
with sort of the
modifications made from the last meeting
to
you know for ourselves initially but
also trying to find a way to present
this to the board
uh in a clear manner
where we were talking about the
character of the neighborhood i think
was where most of the comments were
stemming from
so with the
moves that we make we're landing
basically the first floor where
whereabouts within probably an inch or
so of where the first floor of that
existing house is now
and as outlined in our previous
application as well talking about how
far back the new house sits on the site
relative to the existing home
um
we
as it's an experiential thing somewhat
we talked about you know how deep the
house sits in the lot you know adjusting
those heights of the roofs and the eaves
in the first floor so this diagram is
basically a way to help us understand
and sort of see how those
you know the old house presence on the
street relates to
what we are proposing so i think you
know cars are lower than people walking
along the sidewalk so you know this is a
beautiful neighborhood to walk so we
wanted to get that perspective because
that's probably the most
uh extreme
angle from just a street experience
perspective so
what we are showing here and because uh
that portico is a majority of the facade
we used that as a reference point for
this view we could certainly extrapolate
what that
is relative to um
the eve of the main body of the house as
well and we got some dimensions to talk
about
the
existing portico line of sight is that
first top line
showing just you know that is certainly
at the peak of that which we relate to
the roof line which is the
line directly below that's a second from
the top and how that line
intersects with the outline of the old
house and then shows where that falls on
the
elevation of the proposed location of
the structure that we've designed the
last line on the bottom
is existing eave height so
again because that portico is the
majority of the facade we use the corner
of that or the eve of that as the
projection line to show that it's fairly
close from a viewpoint with the setback
of the house to where it is now i think
that if we're comparing sort of
eve of the house to eve of the house now
we're just i think just at three feet
higher than the existing house although
stepped back
um
the
overall height
of the building now to the top of the
roof is 36 feet
and the 40 feet is the zoning limit but
also this lowering of the roof in a
couple different ways helps it tie back
into the streetscape which is
i think on
the top slide but if we flip back to
that just to
sort of understand what that line is you
know previously we were certainly a wee
bit higher so this gives you a feel for
the existing houses on the street the
outline
of the existing house on this lot
with the proposed house overlaid on it
and the relationship between the two
the existing eve height that on the
existing house so the main body of the
house we're talking about
uh we had it from our laser scanned
about 21 feet two and a half inches plus
or minus maybe an inch depending on
where you measure it from i think we're
going from the average grade height at
the front of the existing building
and now we've our proposed eave height
is uh 24 feet two
um which is that three foot difference i
mentioned
at the beginning
with those differences i think that it's
helpful to see that diagram just from a
viewpoint perspective
also
i think in the interim from our last uh
discussion we submitted a letter from
the
relatives of the
um residents who built the house in 1926
to 28
um in support of the project
um
yeah i mean i think as we go through
those
trying to make sure we sort of check the
boxes for the concerns the board and how
and outline a way to understand that
graphically so that we could discuss it
um
you know
in stepping back just a bit you know i
think that
over the last few months you know we've
talked to
what is a nationally recognized historic
preservation architect uh outlining just
his perspective on this project in the
neighborhood and he's resident as well
letters of support
from neighbors and also the family of
the original owners of the house
and certainly um
being careful but also very uh
conscientious about making sure that we
are that this is a dialogue and a
discussion between the board and myself
and the owners to try and make this
certainly feel in place and feel
appropriate and
develop a
proposed design that would replace this
existing house that the neighborhood
can be proud of
so i'm happy to go over any other
questions we have about the updates or
previous
uh discussions that we've had for the
last couple months
if many has a question thank you um is
there anyone with standing that would
like to speak about this project with
standing please
could you state your name and your
address please james harris i live at 67
south parkview avenue
i do i don't live within 200 feet and
therefore i did not receive
notice and i understand that's a
pertinent detail for standing
however i believe i'm directly
economically impacted uh
i don't live in the far corner of bexley
this is not a new porch proposal this is
a demolition
um
does he have standing i'm 11 homes away
i own a historic home
in the same neighborhood the bullet park
neighborhood of bexley
so the demolition of this home directly
affects
my own investment of what my
want value is worth
how easy a demolition of my house would
be
if i'm required to
create a historical easement for my
property
or if i would more easily be able to
sell in the future my house raised
of its current structure
yes actually
it's the finding of the board to
determine but the issue on
standing is whether you're directly and
adversely affected by whatever is
happening
um so 200 feet is a notice requirement
under the code but that doesn't
automatically guarantee standing one way
or the other standing is based on the
facts and circumstances of every case
so it's up to the board based on the
evidence you hear to determine whether
you believe that that somebody who wants
to speak is directly adversely affected
has the interest unique to them not a
general city interest that's unique to
them
if i mean whatever
reason reasons
on behalf of the applicant i may just
briefly speak to that
that is correct the law of ohio is that
to have standing and an administrative
decision such as this an administrative
hearing
the person must express unique and
specific harm to them separate and apart
from that of the general public
ohio courts have typically
found that properties that are adjacent
and contiguous to the affected property
may have unique and individualized harm
specific to them
however away from that often the harms
expressed property values effects upon
my neighborhood are generalized to the
rest of the public and it would grant
standing to everybody in the area and
that is not consistent both with your
law and with ohio case law and frankly
that's why a lot of municipalities uh in
and around central iowa specifically
limit such comments to contiguous and
adjacent properties so we would contend
that this gentleman while i'm certain
that his concerns are genuine they are
generalized and shared in common with
the surrounding public and we would
object to his lack of standing
well
um
in general but not specifically because
it just kind of it depends on what
the circumstances what the use is
what the circumstances it are so if it's
a
you know a manufacturing facility with
significant odors that's one thing if
you smell them a half mile away or if
there's a significant impact on your
property based on what is being proposed
there
that's one thing but um another thing it
really is supposed to be a direct and
adverse impact
on a person
on them
and their their property their use their
some interest that they have beyond just
um
a general
community interest and what you've
stated is that the impact on you is a
general
impact
the impact on me is specific in this
regard uh bullet park laws are million
dollar lots
this is a million dollar property there
it's a million dollar property down the
road i'm 11 homes away
the allowance of easy demolition versus
more strict demolition of this house or
any other directly affects my economic
interest because i need to know
can i easily demolish my home
to be fair
to other applicants
would that be considered specific or
general to this property um
an interest in the application of the
law would be
to me would be a general interest
um if you have some direct specific
impact to your house
from something that's being proposed and
that's a specific interest with regard
to my home i have an 1893 home in need
of renovation
and the specific
economic impact is
if i'm allowed to easily demolish my
home or not or if i'm required to expand
uh
monies on investments in legal easements
to restrict historical demolition of my
home or not
as well as the fact that there's a
limited number of available building
lots in this particular neighborhood of
bexley
and with specificity the scarcity
of vacant lots or demo lots
directly affects the value of my line
if it's extremely scarce if this demo is
not permitted
the value of my property goes
up as well as everybody else because it
makes available building lots even
scarcer
mr chairman yes i think the dialogue's
already started
yes
so since we have not shut down that
dialogue i would support
listening but i think we should have
that be a timed i agree discussion and
not a
question and answer period but only a
statement
thank you so i will give you uh
four minutes and if you would be sworn
in please
thank you please go ahead
very briefly i have submitted a letter
requesting that this permit be denied
and with exhibits
was that accepted for the record for
this particular
therefore i will be very concise
the bullet points that i would like to
hit upon are i do feel that this
property is historic
uh
i'm not an architect however it was
listed in the columbus
journal back in when it was built very
few properties were profiled that way
but in 1928 at the height of the
roaring 20s it was profiled the family
as well has very strong historic
associations
with columbus the old west water mansion
downtown
demolished
the few
west water family
houses that may remain i believe are
significant in the sense that the west
water family was one of the most
prominent columbus families
james westwater being columbus's most
famous abolitionist
with regard to
demolition of this valley property
and the increased value
i don't have a specific opinion on how
beautiful the new house may be
with regard to my
request
other than an economic comment that
we've got a lot here worth approximately
1.3 million dollars
and
i'm not convinced that spending one or
two million dollars on a new house will
dollar debt per dollar increase the
value
of the results into property
if you look at the current owner's
opinion
of the house
in the exhibits
they have termed this house when they
marketed it
as you can see on zillow it's a true
bexley treasure
this is what the current owner
or immediately preceding owner and it's
difficult to tell
if they're related or not with the
current llc owner
this is what the current
that the the then current listed owner
suggested about the house and yet the
prior testimony contradicted that by
saying it's basically of no account
we have a difference in marketing
and and then convenient opinion
to justify a demolition later
i won't go on any further other than i
have submitted my letter and my thoughts
and uh hopefully there'll be an
opportunity for you to
review it and i thank you for the time
thank you thank you very much
my name hire uh briefly respond
please uh and i will be brief because uh
i tend to do better when he's talking
more and i'm talking less uh joe miller
we have appreciated the specific
feedback over the last
several months especially last month and
we feel that we've listened closely and
frankly nate agrees this is a better
home as a result
this would be a 100 year asset to the
community in response to ms tony and mr
hire in particular we've lowered the
height in response to mr higher and miss
tony in particular we've lowered the
second floor eve uh by the requested i
know ms krosky you've been here and have
listened to the discussion
and while i'm very respectful of mr
harris's opinions the only expert
opinions before you from a national
nationally recognized historic
preservationist is that large and old
doesn't necessarily equate to historical
architectural significance
the opinions are in the record of mr
lovers ridge that
on each of the factors under 12 2305
that you must consider this home is not
historical or architecturally
significant and we are gratified to have
support of miss westwood miss westwater
in the record
and mr scott while you have correctly
observed that some of the additions to
the home are quite unfortunate
you must consider the structure as a
whole that that's how the ordinance
reads
and so we believe that we've not only
met the requirements for demolition we
do believe that we've satisfied one
criteria that i know has been important
to this board tonight
and in the past
namely
1223.05f
is the proposed replacement plan
superior to retention of the existing
structure thanks to each of your input
we believe that it is
and finally uh
mr hellman i've given a lot of thought
to your concern over the last month
about does this create
a test case um
respectfully every piece of property
is unique and in fact that that's not my
opinion that's the law of ohio that
um every piece of property is unique and
i've had the privilege of appearing
before this board
before as well as being here the last
several months and i know this is not a
board that would somehow abdicate its
responsibility to fully
consider each case before
you're going to be presented
with different circumstances in every
case some perhaps more compelling than
this one and certainly some that will be
less
we submit to you that this will give an
amazing home to this community for many
decades to come
and based on the factors of the
ordinance
in this case based on the evidence in
this case
we have met those factors and it would
not carry over into other matters and so
we do ask for your approvals
thank you
is there anyone in the audience who uh
has standing that would like to speak to
this project
anyone else
nathan would you like to come back up
and
and then i'd like to have comments from
the board please
give other applications to tonight and
i'd like to
move um move through them
yeah i'm happy to move on to questions
and comments absolutely so let's uh
let's have comments from the board mr
hellman
sure um
it's a tough one
this is one that we struggled with
and we'll probably continue to struggle
with
i guess
in my mind we can we all have to come to
our
rationale for the decisions that we make
um and in my mind a lot has been hung on
the term architecturally significant
um whether this house is and it's been
deemed not architecturally significant
so in that sense
if it's not architecturally significant
it's architecturally insignificant
when i look then at the decisions we've
made in the past
we have three
demolitions we've done on columbia
uh the bluth house i believe was
architecturally insignificant i believe
the house the white mess that was a
couple houses up on the
from from bryden that was
architecturally insignificant a little
bit of a battle with keener johnson's
house a little dutch colonial was cute
so that slides up on the scale but
probably architecturally insignificant
the north roosevelt house clearly
architecturally insignificant and on the
one on francis maybe a little bit
marginal
this house unfortunately for me is a
bridge too far
uh it is
in my mind it is not an architecturally
insignificant house it does not follow
in the track of our exact of the
precedence that we've taken to this
point um
obviously and i've made no comments
about the house
how kenya the house is wonderful it's a
great house i mean we understand that
i just wish you were on a different spot
and had a different lot
so
i will obviously not be in support of
the demolition
thank you mr scott
um
again going back to the
codified codified ordinance of
demolition and removal of existing
structures
um
c1 takes us right to that steam
statement mr helman references the
structures demolished or removed is not
historically architecturally significant
i do not believe the house is
historically significant
um
architecturally significant is a much
harder one to determine
um looking at the house
uh i i am continuing in my position that
uh the sides and specifically the rear
of the house with the additions
um with i i think there's hard argument
to find that those are significant at
all uh they're fairly poorly done uh
there's no architectural detail their
scale is off
so looking at the
those sides and rear of the house
one could argue that those are not
architecturally significant
the front of the house and its detailing
um is of a style
and of a character
that's a little out of uh not found
commonly invested but has other
properties which we've even seen photos
of
um and it does lean towards
architecturally significant um i think
that architecturally significant term
for me also
ties into
the ordinance in
when you're looking for
section d criteria to determining the
preservation significance
and there's five there in that category
age and condition quality of the
structure the importance of the
structure to the character and quality
of the neighborhood the significance of
the design and style the structure to
the historical architectural and
cultural development of the city
and phi being the impact on the city's
real property tax base i think three and
four is where the front of the house
loses its argument for demolition
because the importance of the structure
to the character and quality of the
neighborhood i think is undeniable i
think that that the eclectic mix of the
different houses or the more
let's say the older houses
specifically uh this house fits into
um the significance of the design and
style the structure to the historical
architectural and cultural development
of the city i think it also plays in
death there's history to this this house
there's a history to this uh this this
development we there's
articles on it there's
all sorts of things to tie together
um
but in saying that when you look at the
totality of the project in the house
and i weigh all the different
characteristics
it gets very difficult and it's quite
close to
leaning either way and i guess i'm not
totally convinced but i know that when i
look at the overall
project the rear and sides of the house
are not are potentially significant to
me and that's three quarters of the
facades
so that's kind of where i am
when you weigh in
the new design and you look at the
overall site planning of the new design
uh i said it in the last meeting that i
think the the design of the new house is
is
very well done i think it's even better
now that you come back with the
revisions
uh
the the the the
impact of that house and that new design
within this the street does fit within
the character and the improvement of the
street this is the streetscape character
of that street
it does not take away from that in any
way it does not impact
other houses on its scale or
or
design or its characteristics it's not
out of place i think it fits in
so
that argument of the new design and
we're not talking about specific details
here more of the big picture for this
um
is is a strong argument that the
replacement structure is significantly
well designed and and arguably
increases the character and the even the
property values of the city's real
property tax of the neighborhood i'm not
convinced that the keeping the existing
house does that as well as the new um
so i it's hard it's it's it's still very
difficult decision i don't think i have
a very determined uh
outcome of how this is going to play but
i think
in that whole i know in that overall uh
looking at the totality of all of that i
think there's
there is an argument for
demolition based on architectural
significance
that was clear enough other comments uh
miss drosser
well i for me what we have on the record
uh
a report from a reputable
architect that indicates
that
the building is not architecturally or
historically significant on the flip
side i have board members who
are
well educated and trained in that topic
so i give deficits to both
um
but
on balance
um
because of the additions
and the totality of the building
i'm
comfortable with my conclusion that the
building is not
historically or architecturally
significant worthy of preservation
as i said last week or last month it
wouldn't be my decision to do it this
way
it's not my personal preference but my
personal preference is not relevant
so
for me the quality
in addition um even if the conclusion is
it is architecturally historically
significant
this um replacement building is a
compelling piece
of
residential architecture the quality is
outstanding it will serve this test of
time unlike the you know some other
applicants
um and
i am in favor of approving the plans
tonight and the demolition
provided that any
what i would consider
small details remaining to the extent
there are any we worked out with staff
i think we have a high degree of
confidence in the expertise and
professionalism of this architect
and the quality of the materials are
clear
it will be a grand addition to the
street and will we miss
what is there a little bit but i suspect
not for long
thank you ms krosky
i'll make it simple i agree with pete i
agree with joanne
and uh i would like to just offer one
design suggestion if that's all right
i'm only leaning forward so far because
it's hard to hear oh sorry
yeah yeah sorry
i should have spoken louder i i said i
agree with pete i agree with joanne in
their assessments
uh the one design thing that i would say
is i'm not a huge fan of the stucco base
um partly because personally i have a
stucco home
and part of it has a stucco base that
goes down i don't think it's a very
durable i it's durable it's a durable
material
i just don't think it's great to have
going down to the base and
uh i really like
um
i'm assuming is that stone in the main
entry right there what is i couldn't
find what is that right there yeah
correct that the in the last hearing we
talked about the
home being uh stucco finish yes with
with uh cut stone limestone accent at
the front entry yeah the rest would be
detailing in stucco and there was a
number of examples of pictures that we
looked at because it was
relative to the time period 20s and 30s
yep
i know i have a 1920 home stucco got it
um i really i like that stone i
i just feel like it would be really nice
along the base
if you took from that band down and had
that go around i think it would ground
your built like your house better
and i think it would tie it in because
you have
the stone at each of your entries
um
even even some of the you know you have
like a what is that the north elevation
around the door
uh there so i just think it would like
tie it in a little bit better you're
simply saying consider that possible
yeah consider that possibility
yeah
and
could i just make a comment relative to
that just as uh as we move forward
the
you know this psycho material there's
certainly you know different uh
aspect aspects of stucco and certainly
with building code now there's you know
a break at the bottom for moisture
absorption all those good things um
but i think you know there is a way to
do it correctly and also this uh
particular drawing although they're
smattered in there
the landscaping which will need to be
approved as well uh by the city is not
necessarily shown in here
because uh that would probably be too
bold for me to
make a stab at that because that's not
my
field of expertise yeah yeah that's fine
it's a suggestion okay i appreciate that
yep
thank you
um
i guess i'll round out the comments by
um
i guess agreeing with ms krosky i think
that's a great
idea for the longevity of this house is
to have that stone
belt course
um
we know that this is not an economic
hardship on this project
i do see in your building sections that
there are some
materials that
i think could be better
for instance
and i appreciate all the natural
materials you're using the stucco the
slate
but with a graduated slate is 5 8 roof
sheathing really enough is that enough
to support your
your system and then the thickness of
your stucco the stucco bands
are those precast stucco bands because
they have joints in them are they really
going to have joints in them the way
you're showing on the those stations
those would be tool joints like it's a
build up it's a build up base that this
psycho goes on on one coat over all of
them with the tool joint
uh in there you know a lot of times as
you know uh that stucco detailing to
make it
somewhat more authentic you know that
was used as a material also as a
as a stone-like material so some of
those detailings were trying to carry
through right except
in the 1920s stucco was you know three
inches thick yeah and now it's you know
just
a quarter inch yeah so i do worry about
the you know the value of the property
if you're not going to use traditional
lime stucco and that will have that kind
of longevity and therefore
ms krosky's
uh request that that be stone will add
to the longevity of this house by not
having that thin stucco going down the
grade is that something that you would
be willing to
accept
as a condition
the i think we're sort of talking about
two different things one is maybe a more
traditional
type of stucco application that's
sturdier yes
versus
they're both ways to help certainly the
longevity of the house and the
maintenance of the house going down to
grade um
you know i
i think that you know in this
application
certainly we've gotten um
this to a certain point that in
development that you know
helps to show
what this proposed structure will look
like with
although you know we've delved into
that section to help explain that i
think that uh
there's probably still things on my
plate that we need to work through a
little bit to get that exactly right
down to
the inch right and so that stucco
application there now is
probably inch plus which would be
i guess my
the farthest you'd go
um and then the projections of the
surrounds could be plus or minus another
inch or so
related to some of the other historical
stucco houses uh and the relief uh found
in those details but
it's a fine-tuning i understood thank
you
um
i think this is uh
for those of us architects on this board
and for really everyone on this board
it is really emotionally
difficult
to
be presented with a beautiful house
built in the 1920s
that
is desired to be torn down in our city
the reason why we're all here on this
board as you know is because we love
bexley we love the architecture of
bexley
and we have to be able to
balance the needs of a growing city that
is you know bound uh by a deaf
definitive border
and yet preserve the beauty that we have
here in our architecture
and
you know some neighborhoods are more
fortunate to be able to do things like
put on large editions or to do a
demolition to provide a larger and
equal or more beautiful house
so
my feelings about the house that exists
are that uh despite previous testimony
um i do believe that the original house
and i'm not talking about the additions
and when i think of this rule about
totality
i'm not sure
that
i need to
say that if
uh
you know the main block of the house
built in 1927 is architecturally
significant that i necessarily have to
say that everything on the house is
architecturally significant or vice
versa i think it's my prerogative as a
board member to state my opinion
that i believe the original block of
this house built in 1920 in the 1920s
1927 28
is architecturally significant for the
following reasons
that the original house which is that
original 1927 house has an important
part of the has been an important part
of the character of its neighborhood
all of these come
from
the directive for the arb to protect and
enhance the quality of architecture in
bexley
b the aging condition of the original
house
are good i'm talking about the exterior
see the building massing of the original
house is historically well proportioned
d the front portico of the house is
historically well designed and
proportioned and detailed with the
attenuated square piers moldings
pediment tympanum with the oculus window
and plaster swags
and including the second floor
chippendale wood railings
very well designed
e that the english bond brick veneer is
historically well executed
f that the federal brick jack arches
over windows and fan lights and the fan
light over the front entry are also
historically well executed
g the windows with brick molds real
shutter and shutter dogs and and the
dormers are historically well
proportioned and detailed
age that the slate roof is intact and
historically well executed
i that the gable rakes and return eaves
and gable windows and vents are
historically well designed and executed
based on that
i would say that the house is
architecturally significant
and whereas there is no substantial
economic hardship for the cause of
demolition and whereas the maintaining
that maintaining the structure is
feasible and the existing structure has
no adverse effect on the neighbors
that brings us to
the
new plan
having a compelling
uh
you know reason or
there's compelling evidence that the new
design is equal or superior to the
existing
i struggle with that one because it's
it's like apples to oranges a historic
building
versus a new building uh from a historic
historic preservationist and archite
historic architect's point of view as
you know
they're very different you know you can
have an outside that's well proportioned
but you you know we we have like x-ray
vision we know what's in those walls
and we know the longevity we know that
it's not a bearing wall condition
anymore if you know that there's there's
a wood frame structure instead of a
brick frame structure and so on
so it's very difficult to
say that one is superior than the other
we're trying to
to build uh with modern construction and
we have to do that we're not going to go
back to doing bearing walls i know that
um
brick bearing walls
um so how do we get this house to be
architecturally superior than the one
that is there and i think you've
you've you've um
you've won
that argument
on a number of fronts for me
uh one is
the proportion of the house the large
windows
the uh first floor being what you what
we had requested it being two feet off
of the existing grade that the eve
height was brought down
um as requested because the house to the
north is is a beautiful english georgian
revival house that has a very low
parapet
um you've set the house back
in order to provide that distance so
that the height of the house even though
you're only eight inches higher than
what i requested
i had asked between 21 and 23 feet and
that was kind of a condition but we
talked about
that if you had moved it back that that
visual would you know allow you some
flexibility remember yeah and that
you've done that
so i would say for a new build
um
and a demo you've done everything that
has been asked for
for a project of this caliber
um
and so based on that you know
i would say that
we
that i would be comfortable with you
moving forward with the project
those are my comments
thank you are there any other comments
from the board or from
from the applicant
so i guess we would then move to a vote
yes
we did not vote on its architectural
significance because i've already heard
from the board from several members that
they do not feel that it's
architecturally significant therefore a
vote
if we did
i mean we could vote for it as as a
we could vote on it just so that um we
have a record
because i think it's important for
precedent that we do that so could i
have a motion
for that
i believe the
vote there's a vote for a demolition and
then vote for the house well no this is
we're actually going to make a motion
prior to that
to that the board is going to take a
vote on whether the house is
architecturally significant or not
and why are we doing that because it
sets the precedent for
the
um
but that's just one reason there's so
many other reasons we've talked about we
went through that over and over again so
you're gonna isolate one thing
and when there's all the other things
we've talked about so i i'm i'm
certainly not in favor of that
if majority of the board believes that
the property is not architecturally
significant
then
the other factors
frankly become their role i don't
believe that i don't think that's
correct and worthy of preservation the
economic factors all of those the code
does not say uh this one is worth 50
this one's worth 25 and 30.
i don't think that's i don't think
that's a logical conclusion to draw
and i'd ask legal counsel
the threshold is
it either is
historically
architecture significant and worthy of
preservation
or
it is not
and
um
if it is then we have to do the next
step
that's why i said i'll ask
[Music]
um
this is the
this was what we talked about in our
uh
in our retreat okay so
there's a difference of opinion on what
is is is there a particular hierarchy in
this and in the retreat we determined
that yes that there was that it has to
be architecturally significant or not
and from there follows the others mr
hellman disagrees
[Music]
is to say if you find that it is
historically
um or architecturally significant and
worthy of preservation
the answer is no you can't grant a
certificate of appropriateness unless
you find there are exceptions to that
that would allow you to do so
yeah
my my opinion is that it does not those
are three separate things historically
significant architecturally significant
and worthy of preservation
and we're taking one thing
among those three and saying that's the
dominant reason because i believe this
has even is is worthy of preservation i
also think it's architecturally exciting
but i think it's also worthy of
preservation
so but i don't care uh it doesn't really
matter i'm in the minority and i do that
so that's fine so do do as you as you
wish
but in your findings you say how you got
there
right and then people can vote up and
down
this is the vote for demolition and the
design this can i don't think we should
be voting on my impression we shouldn't
vote for the appropriateness
for whatever reason and then vote for i
think it's all one vote well as we did
in the previous applicant
i think you can vote on the demolition
and also vote on the architecture
i think you can do both it's not just
one
yeah
do we have any conditions or
recommendations well that that was what
i was
it was my impression from our retreat
that if we did
that we would make a motion within the
board to determine if it was
architecturally significant and worthy
of preservation or not
okay and then if it was or if it was if
it was then did it meet another
condition and we would state that
publicly in that motion
but you're saying that we could actually
state that in the final
findings of facts with conditions okay
but not everybody's going to agree to
that therefore they're going to have to
vote no if they disagree with the way
that we got there
i thought because i
understand the concern about
consistent results
the board not approved the certificate
of appropriateness which includes
demolition was simply a finding upon
consideration of the facts and evidence
before them that this application
satisfies
any necessary criteria like 1223.05 and
that allows each member to quote unquote
their conscience based on their own
rationale and methodology to get to the
same result
i understand i think the board has been
trying to move in a direction of making
specific findings to support their
decisions
um
it's
i guess it's a specific finding that you
met the code without finding how you got
of each there
um statements sure but statements are
not the decision on the board
yeah
if it's going to be the decision of the
board it has to be
part of a motion that's voted on as a
majority of the
you can make statements about how the
different members felt feel and if
that's the way you want to get there
it's possible the end game is the
certificate of appropriateness and you
don't get that without demolition and if
you can't get past historical
significance
then um
you you can't qualify under the
demolition statute for a certificate of
appropriateness
so
right unless there's there are
compelling circumstances
and i think members have tried to
articulate that if you're comfortable
with that as a board i think as a board
there have been concerns about
that being appropriate and it being part
of the findings so that these
all stand on the facts and circumstances
of each case
yeah i guess it was my hope but that's
fine
that we could vote on the demolition and
also then vote on the architecture
because
obviously my concern is the demolition i
would like to be in support of the house
now that the demolition question is
pretty much
established
but
that's just me
would it be
significance
concludes that
other factors
required by the statute
establish the necessary criteria
to grant
the demolition
yeah my last comment i talk too much
just
i'm i'm more comfortable with that
because what i don't think you want to
leave in your minutes and in your record
is this thing went up or down
based on architectural significance
because that's not what i'm hearing for
everybody right it was the sum total of
the pieces and you do not want to in my
mind you do not want to create that
precedent out there uh because you will
you will rue that day because you'll see
this come back well here you said this
was boom and none of the other factors
are showing up or talked about so
just be thoughtful about that that's my
last
comment that seems like actually
there was a lack of consensus on the
architectural preservation
properties
despite that the criteria of the statute
happens that i would make that version
but the demolition is justified and
therefore
those were not conditional according to
ms krosky they were those were just the
recommendation correct
it's water table certainly
the quality of construction is i think a
shared concern between the comments
about how to deal with
how that house meets the grade
um
yeah we would strongly consider it i
think you've seen me take your feedback
seriously it's just
going to have decisions
yeah
so is that an issue
well i think that those final details
would be um
would be
worked out with the design consultant
[Music]
but to just to note for the record that
this board strongly you know favors the
materials that give this house its
longevity which would be equal to or
superior than the house that's there
yeah
so based on um ms strasser's motion
would you
be able to
give us the findings of fact based on
that motion
ms strosser would you please
would you please make that motion again
for the board
and then we'll take a vote here's where
it's awesome to have a court reporter
just so we can have somebody's second
articulated
a consensus
on the architectural or historical
significance and preservation
worthiness of the property
having failed to make a conclusion in
that area
however
the board has concluded
that
the other criteria
of the ordinance
demolition is justified by uh
and that demolition
uh or a certificate of reportedness that
will
allow the demolitional property
is appropriate
based on right criteria including the
qualities and
meets compelling circumstances provided
by the architectural significance of
quality structure
and is superior to retention of an
existing structure
and
a certificate of appropriateness should
be issued
for the plan submitted reviewed
at the november
the 11th to 2029 meeting
the following conditions
that the construction documents for
replacement structure need to be
approved under a building from required
to demolition
permit being issued
height measurements at grade four plates
and bridge line be provided marked on
site or approved by staff
the landscape plan is to be reviewed and
approved by the invex and public garden
commission trees can be moved can be
removed until an escape plan has been
approved
a preservation plan for existing trees
should be submitted in accordance with
1223.04b
final design to be reviewed and approved
by the city's design consultant
and all minor changes to the designer
subject to approval of the residential
design consultant
thank you you've heard the findings of
fact and the decision of the board do
you understand these conditions will be
part of the application yes i do
may i have a motion
second
ms rose please call the role
um
yes
no
great house but no
yes your application's been approved all
right thank you
appreciate it
our next application
we move on to new business
is
um application number is a bzap 2147 the
address is 81 north drexel
uh
there's the owner and applicant on this
yeah
the uh applicant is nathan sampson the
owner is
i don't see that on here
consecutive primes
okay i'm sorry repeat that
okay it's not on my
it's not on my uh
agenda
oh sorry
i'll just read it from there
the applicant is keith whit and the
owner is consecutive crimes llc the
applicant is requesting a recommendation
to the board of zoning and planning for
architecture review and approval and a
certificate of appropriateness for a
pool
pool house and fence in the front yard
you've already been sworn in
uh mr sampson so if you would um
well actually i would ask that
ms volkow give us her staff report on
this
last year
yeah
[Music]
um
i think we can pull up the site plan
maybe first i'm gonna walk through the
the variance requests
and then we can go and then zoom into
the the actual pool house uh indesign mr
sampson i would just ask and this has
been a long evening that as a pool house
if you could keep your comments you know
concise please you got it thank you
um
or the uh one more down
okay that's an outline not showing
planting from the the landscape design
plans are in that packet but this just
gives you a clear idea because we we are
um asking for a couple of variances uh
for this project um one of them uh
relates to the fence surrounding the
property
one of them or you know two of them are
based around the excessive deviation of
the location of the house
on the site and at some point we talked
about this last year
what is typically the front of the house
on a corner lot which is the short side
which is drexel which is where the
address is i think based on previous
applications over the years
somewhere in there clifton got
designated or changed to the uh front or
the frontage uh of the property
so with the
location
of the house
the what is called the front yard is
really the only yard that we've got to
work with here so um
the the fence uh
variances that we're asking for uh is i
think um
a deviation of just a couple of inches
from the guidelines of 48 to 50 inches
as far as the fence is concerned which
is a metal picket fence that is
concealed within plantings along the
perimeter what we're proposing to do is
take down the six foot fence
that is there now uh replace that with
what is basically um going to be a
protective fence but also a fence that
complies for uh pool protection
uh which will be hidden again in that
planting now uh it gets a little bit
technical on the fence in some ways
because
you know what
the code talks about a 72 inch high
fence based on the mean average grade
height between the property line and the
setback
so i can go into that a bunch
or we can uh ask questions about it
later for the sake of time
but the the two inch deviation for the
average fence height is simply to
overcome uh small deviations in grade to
help them try and keep that a straight
fence
the um
height uh
deviation from that mean grade which is
a chart in this in the landscape package
that shows that is simply the same
yeah i just want to make sure that we
want to focus on the elevations of the
project
oh
oh i'm so sorry and so i didn't know if
you need to make a recommendation for
the zoning
[Music]
very good i can dive right in to the
pool pavilion
okay
so as we talked about the excessive
deviation of the house on the lot
creating basically the usable front yard
space
that we see along clifton so
uh what we're proposing is you can see
the plan is a pool and a pool pavilion
that runs parallel to the historic
structure and the addition that we
talked about a number of months ago you
know uh besides their location um
we're not requesting any
deviations from a variance standpoint
besides maybe a couple inches of height
based on the parapet of the pool house
um the pool house itself is a stucco
structure uh with columns that's open on
both sides it has a central sort of
utility and storage core in the middle
but overall is left open
with um
you know the ability to grill out there
next to
and basically the pool sits in between
the pool pavilion in the house offer
privacy
there is a elevation as well in that
package just showing the street view and
the model of the pool building is
actually in there
and we're just showing the proposed
planting along clifton as a street view
of what that
what will be visible i guess from the
sidewalk
the section at the bottom there is just
a scale relative
of the poo pavilion to the house you
know it's meant to sit down low in the
landscape and not be an object that's
sort of uh put out there understanding
that it is located in what is considered
the front yard we want to be very
careful about the scale of that
i can go into questions about that it's
just a
i think there's going to be a number of
comments is there anybody was standing
that would like to speak about this
project
seeing none
um
we can have the board uh ask questions
or comments please miss drosser
um
uh
sorry thank you can you go to this site
plan
so i can just sort of see over here
yeah or one of the other ones i just
want to see like what implant can you
zoom in
this doesn't wanna um it might for a
holistic understanding of this it might
be best to go to the landscape
yeah where is that where's the landscape
plan uh you pulled it up earlier there
it is
yeah i think what i'm wondering about is
what is that rectangular box is it a is
that the pool equipment is in there
where right there that she just circled
it right there right there yeah yes like
how loud is that that's the pool
equipment the pool equipment is set back
uh within the code guidelines from the
property line yeah it's just facing the
neighbor and i know that
sure and it is in
for visual and sort of noise
considerations yeah i understand it's
just i know
they've had some issues with multiple
things going on over here and
is is there a way that does that have to
be in that location adjacent to their
property could it move someplace
towards i don't know
uh what what way is north here i guess
the south
um i i mean i think that there there's
an efficiency certainly with the design
of it for the pool equipment working
properly and meeting the sort of
guidelines of the zoning and
architectural code
you know we're trying to wall that off
for both you know some noise and
planting around it for also noise and
visual protection um
it starts
other available spaces start to move
very far away
could the neighbors also have a swim spa
i don't know
on the other side of that wall
must not have seen that a few months ago
they did that or a year ago maybe okay
yeah and their house is
you know
further to the right you can there's a
uh
zoomed out so is that like a fence on
that side of it of the because i see
walls on three sides left hand side
fence for access and also that abuts the
plantings
right and those plantings i think we
went over in the last application we
talked about the addition to and have
some renderings in the record of that
they're
taller screening sort of a mix of
evergreen and deciduous
plantings to help that
throughout the year okay
that's the only comment i have
thank you um
mr scott
can you go to the other rendering please
the next one
just yeah just some questions uh
the the column details are interesting
uh where they're kind of this kind of
profile
i'm assuming steel uh are they a wrap
that goes over a steel pipe
it's
the uh composition of those right now is
a stone with a
hollowed out with a round three inch
steel pipe column in there okay yeah
and those those wrap up and down around
each of the openings right correct um
so that's very interesting um
the one
question i had is how do you see that
just do you see that just hitting the
pool deck just sitting flush there's no
i don't necessarily want a base but just
how that would actually sit on the the
deck you want that modern clean kind of
yeah look at being represented here yeah
i think that the uh paving stones the
blue stone would be cut out around it so
that that column engages it it's all on
a uh
uh
and then
waterproof but it's on a slab underneath
there for just the base of the pool
house and also the
the deck i mean i think that that is a
great question and it was a call that we
had today actually um just how that
starts to meet i think what we're trying
to achieve is just the
cleanest possible
you know connection there
without deviation one way or the other
so if it sits on it or it's engaged in
it certainly sitting on it would be
better long term um
and i think with the materials we're
talking about we could probably achieve
that
yeah i think that because i think if you
had any sort of you know pull off of off
the deck you're gonna expose the steel
then you have longevities and then you
have a concrete raise and then you start
to
fall apart right right i think that
detail is gonna be very important to
maintain this look
because i think that that detail of the
column is is quite unique and how it
wraps around
um two more questions the green the the
live roof that you're showing is that a
a traced style system or is that an
actual built up live
the planting there is it's a it's a
trained
i think they're thinking that it trains
up a bit but it's sort of from the back
it's not like meant to be a planter with
stuff in it they're sort of
romanticizing this uh as a rendering for
the owners a little bit but uh it's not
a green roof
no green room right okay
because i think that's that's kind of
important because from the street side
that's the kind of element that you
start to see through the landscaping uh
as a green roof it starts to kind of
blend into that landscaping but if it's
it's just going to be a
maybe a gunner uh
okay
and then actually there's a question as
a flat roof are you just doing internal
drain or are you just cheating it off to
the one side or
in the sections that we provided it's a
membrane low slope roof um
dark in this case
um
that slopes back towards the street
uh so the rendering that we submitted
was basically street view walking down
the street looking sort of
just because the sidewalk comes up
there's an existing sort of bump up that
gets planted and that's where that fence
is this so that's um the intent is just
a very low slope membrane roof
now again and i appreciate that
minimizing that because again
it's not the front i've always
considered this the backyard of that
this property because it is
um but it unfortunately comes across
this front so having this the back of
that pool house now being the thing
that's against the street
is not desirable but if it's well
screened and maintained then i think
that's that's fine
um and then just out of curiosity the
the main block under the flat roof of
the
basically what i'm assuming is the
restroom
uh is kind of a rounded stucco panelized
almost grooved stucco
um
obviously you're looking to match based
on when i saw the notes match the
existing stucco
texture of the the existing house yeah
were you did you consider pulling in any
other
subtle details of that of the house i
know
the other side of the pool deck there
are columns and other little details
that are articulated in the house
obviously it looks like you went to a
very modern
interpretation of that which
i think works well with the pool design
but in a way is a little disconnected
from the house
um i don't think it's too far where i
would say you have to put columns in or
change it but i i think just as this
continues to move forward you know as
those details
uh move forward and get finalized um
little subtle things that can be brought
in to kind of tie that you know yeah
that could be a handle on the door or
yeah just the trim i think the column
wrap does that i think that's enough for
me to kind of yeah in this but i think
you know just looking at them i don't
want to change it too much because i
think it's very appropriate with the
scale and
from the street and the pullback
the intent i guess for that material
match but sort of mute it because it is
a pavilion and meant to be more open so
we're not building up this mass and in
that yard um
that's kind of i guess
our thinking and sometimes i would agree
with that i think yeah you wouldn't want
a structure heavy and weighted like that
in this location in this spot sorry i
totally agree with that uh um
unfortunately the slide isn't modeled in
the rendering yeah and i did see a photo
which is just fabulous
you know if that was more visible maybe
that's the most visible thing that
you'll see from the street um
but it's pretty wild so i don't have any
other comments
thank you mr hellman uh
i have the same issue is it or not issue
but just a question on the school or the
the spa equipment location is there
anything that shows that that shows its
elevation
i could not find maybe it's in here but
my my ipad's acting up here a little bit
so i don't know what that looks like i
don't know how tall it is
um
and since that's the biggest building
piece closest to a neighbor uh that's
something i think we should understand
what we're approving i think on
in the landscape design plans
there is a we could show it on the mic
my thing isn't working here so i can't
get anything these
yeah the solid portion of that wall is
shown four foot eight off of the deck
um
as far as that progressing and i think
that there's also a wood
fence detail in the landscape drawing
yeah because
yeah landscape drawing that has that
wood fence which is a four foot tall
wood fence certainly uh tall enough to
conceal and cover
any equipment height which is you know
36 to 32.
so what is what i'm seeing on the
landscape plan is it says screened and
fenced pool spawn equipment location
that's an open
there's a wood fence on the uh west and
half of the south side okay and then the
east and north side are a continuation
of the pool wall which is that right
and then how what but how tall is it i
mean there's no there's no
right the wood fence is four feet if
there's a detail in the landscape and it
calls out the elevation and section of
both of those wall types so it's four
feet tall four feet on the wood side
four foot eight on the side
thank you sure
any other comments
mr helm
uh no i think it's uh it's a nice design
all right i guess that leaves
me um
i would say that um
you've outdone philip johnson in some
ways i mean you didn't you don't have
the glass walls in the bed you know
right there which is fantastic but um
the green at the edge of the roof really
does it for me i think if that green
wasn't there
that this would feel
very stark
and i think actually would conflict with
the house so i think it's important that
that green edge whether it's wisteria or
however you're looking at this like a
pergola trellis system i think it's
critical to the to the design and the
softness of this building i love that
you have these piers you know sort of
i guess the green just makes it for me
because of
the modernist you know take that you're
that you that you have here
um i think of the florence train station
you know designed by mikalucci i think
of philip johnson i think of you know a
number of other things but
that green is important i also
in the renderings make it look like
they're
that this is taller than it really is
but you're saying it's eight feet from
the pool deck to the underside of the
ceiling yeah
so the i mean
renderings are funny right but the
rendering is made out of a model that is
represented in our sections
so yeah it's a eight-footer yeah
um and if there's any issue with the
landscaping that if there's anything uh
there's any issue on this clifton side
that
ice storms or whatever that would be
replaced the owners would replace that
all for the keep the screening it's all
going to be evergreen screening on the
clifton side
yeah i think that those plantings are
called out but yes it's mostly
evergreens for
just
you know through privacy throughout i i
think we call them out now i don't know
what species they are because it's i'm
not very good at that but um
the intent is
sort of having that as a uh privacy
barrier also built up sort of green
space in between the lawn and the yard
um
if in a landscape plan i think it's
called out if we want to identify them
it's no it's not it's i understand what
you're what you're looking for here the
gutter is on the clifton side of the
pavilion correct yeah
and i don't have any further comments
anybody the only additional thing this
would be a great plan to go to the
public to attribute public garden
commission for the review of the
landscape plan yeah because i think
they'll enjoy seeing it as well so it's
uh
the landscape architect has been um
working with
the uh the city review
thank you uh
i didn't hear any conditions that were
asked so i think we just go right to the
finding of that
oh is there anybody in is there anybody
present with standing that would like to
speak to this project
seeing none
this project is for bees this is a
recommendation to bzap correct
so
um
and this will go to the tree and public
garden commission that'll be a condition
of the application
ms rose can we have the findings of fact
and recommendation to pisapp
located at northwestern
recommends
design approval to the board observing
the planning subject to the designing
approval
as the they find the
whole structure is architecture
compatible with the principle structure
it should be
proven for recommendations with the
condition that the landscape has been
reviewed and approved by the treatment
you've heard the findings of facts and
the decision of the board do you have
any
do you understand that these
these conditions uh
these findings the fact that they will
become part of the application yes i do
may i have a motion
yes
all right thank you very much
i appreciate it
our next application
uh let's see can you pull that up so i
can see it on there
there thank you there's application arb
2172 the address is 492 south drexel the
applicant is amy larhouse the owner evan
and dana williams the applicant is
requesting architecture review and
approval and a certificate of
appropriateness to for the replacement
of a slate roof with asphalt shingles
the applicant could come forward please
your
state your names and be sworn in please
evan williams
and glenn williams
do you finally swear or from the
testimony you're about to give this
evening is the truth
yes yes
um ms book or do we have staff comments
this applicant um
[Music]
wherever he had
i
don't understand it was constructed
um
i
informed him that this was death
documented
the
today
um
yes
so amy amy uploaded that here in the
last
i think earlier this week
um
what i didn't see
which i'd like to see it's an evaluation
of what it would cost to repair this
language because
um i'm no slave expert except that i'm
too homeless
and the pictures are pretty
not apparently a lot of facts
um
uh
thank you
please proceed
yeah i mean so
just to be clear
we didn't want to have to replace the
sliders
we liked it we've been here since 2014.
um and the addition went up and glen
will be able to talk about the specific
details but as the addition was going up
and connecting to the back of the house
where
there is slate um it was clear that
there were severe issues with the slate
that was on the home in that location
glenn i guess i'll turn it over to you
to talk about technically what that is
um
of course
you're going to reiterate i i guess
what's up here too
so i am evans builder we are kiwi home
renovations we are no relation
just to clarify
um
if you wanted to go back to the picture
of the roof i'll give you the two-minute
backstory
um the back please i'm sorry
have you been sworn in
yes thank you thank you
uh the bottom left picture
so the bottom left picture is showing
the original addition that was on the
house had an eptn membrane and it was
butting up to
the underside of the lean-to i would
call it a lean-to dormer
please if you don't understand my
expressions i'll put on my immigrant
head and say i'm from new zealand then
what we call things and what cool things
are here are
quite different sometimes so please
oh okay
i'm fine either way but whatever's
easiest
um
when we pulled the old edition off the
house we realized that the existing epdm
membrane had been leaking it had damaged
a whole lot of rafters the whole thing
was completely rotten we threw it all
away
we were putting a new we're putting a
new addition on the back of the house
and gabling back into the existing roof
running this way
we were going to leave part of the
lentu dorma up
but when we got into it we realized it
had been leaking and the whole structure
was rotten
the chimney on the right had come down
or has come down as part of the
construction process
and by the time we got our gable in and
started working on the slate we realized
that the slate was done
at that point was when i applied for
the original
change from asphalt to from slate to
asphalt
however
that's when we got involved with we
reached out to precision slate and
durable slate both were could not give
us anything in the time frame requested
and we ended up with legacy restoration
who was also a slate contractor
he has given us two reports
and answering to your question karen
about the maintenance program
he came and looked at the roof and
determined that the roof is beyond
maintenance i bought some
just representative pieces of
slate
you touch it it just
just
disintegrates in your hands it's just
done
the life of it
this is
any given piece i'm happy to show you or
anybody wants to look at anything
where it's been under cover it's
reasonably solid where it's been exposed
it delaminates you touch one
that dies you go to the next one you're
10 in before you get to anything solid
it's just done its time
and that is reflected in his report um
he believed that
um
[Music]
his well straight out of his paragraph
that's not the letter that's the
original one there's two others from
legacy restoration that was similar yes
the roof evaluation
you'll see in his report that he says
that you can
replace few and carry on but that is not
effective in this particular
situation um he felt that there was no
way we could
do a maintenance program based on where
we are the front valleys are rotten
we've got some issues with underlayment
that is soft
and
literally as soon as you touch one
shingle you're into 10 15 20 and going
from there
his recommendation is full replacement
in either slate or asphalt
and he gave us a slate replacement cost
which is effectively 38 000 for front
and back
the question i wanted to note on the
front and back of the house so
going back to the picture we were
looking at originally
the back plane of the house you cannot
see from anywhere
this plane of the house you cannot see
this you can't see it from the specs up
to the alleyway you can't see it from
there
on bryden road you can see the top right
hand corner about a foot and a half
square
of the top right hand peak you can't see
anything else
so when i originally started talking
with karen
i made the suggestion can we
asphalt the back of the house
at that point i had to get us waterproof
so we took that option on the proviso
that whatever the board recommends is
what we will do
so at the moment the back plane of the
house is fully asphalted
and completely waterproof the front of
the house is still the original slate
and the option comes back to then
what's acceptable and what's not and
reformer placement and that's back to
evan
thank you
is there anybody in the audience that
has uh standing that would like to speak
about this project
seeing none i think we could have uh
board comments
mr helman
and you have been sitting
um
again the request is to do
what place the shingled roof with
asphalt the addition
the entire roof or just the entire
entire entire roof
okay and partially
the the roofers assessment identifies
how
poor of shape that is in including the
underlayment under the slates itself
and what's that what's the year
construction of the house 1923.
and the roofers report calls the slate
out as a pennsylvania black slate with a
service life of between 80 and 100
years i have no question
mr scott
um i don't
what what is the replacement asphalt
being proposed
the state gray
what what is the division
sorry it didn't heat up
the asphalt shingle that's being
proposed is
the manufacturer and name of it
for a dimensional dimensional asphalt
uh you know we we have seen uh a few
slate roof replacements uh pennsylvania
slate um at this time frame
based on what i've seen um is is having
issues in the neighborhood so
um
you know obviously we would love to see
a full replacement of the slate um but
that's you know that's not a standard
installation cost that you see something
about that too
so i don't i don't you know i think the
uniformity of the the slate it's held up
quite well
uh looking at the photographs they're
they
they look great except for some certain
conditions but again that's because
they're not moving yet correct as they
start to continue to fail
um and you in this may without touching
it you this may have lasted until the
substructure totally failed
for you know 10 more years
um
but since now you're in it it's you have
a problem so i don't have any other
questions i think you've presented
um
you know the paperwork you know we
needed to kind of what we require to
kind of see and evaluate this i don't
sure any other questions
thank you miss strasser
have you considered any um
[Music]
um
no we went through the addition and
estate gray was chosen
so we were going to carry through with
the addition and carry on with the with
the whole roof and the one stall i did
consult uh amy lauerhouse about it and
we ended up selecting the same thing she
used on her house for what it's worth
oh yes
all new valleys all new flashings
and all new gutters
anything that needs replacing now's the
time to get it done so yes
and the porch gets a new epdm roof as
well
thank you so
i was looking at the application package
and to me there's there's things missing
we i didn't receive in the package the
pricing for the slate replacement
nor did i receive the pricing for an
asphalt replacement
so
these are that was an important part of
the packet that i think
the
slight replacement is in this letter
it's in the second part of that letter
there's two pieces of it you have one
there's another
document
yes
yes please
hey i got this but i only got the first
page
i don't know i just get two separate
documents yeah we didn't get this roof
evaluation and then there was a roof
replacement quote
yes that's what we got
it was about a week later we put it in
thank you legacy didn't give me that
when we requested all the information
and we were rushed for time the legacy
didn't do what it asked them to do so i
went back to them and said please i need
this
um the asphalt replacement cost i'm
sorry we did not submit that that is uh
five and a half thousand dollars was the
quoted price
so the documentation that we normally
request as ms bokor had stated earlier
uh the estimates as you as you
had sent us a a a history whether it's a
page or a paragraph on the
history of the roof maintenance
which it appears there hasn't been much
on the slate
i've been there for four years and we've
had uh some years as much as a 700
repair other years as low as 400 right
it's just range but there's no
documentation prior to your ownership uh
no no none was available right
um a written statement of the
architectural importance of the existing
slalet roof
and that
applicants are to work with design
consultant to determine the additional
level of documentation necessary for
consideration of a slate roof removal
which i think you've done
so my sense on this is
based on everything i've seen that you
know
there's a couple of things missing in
the application i understand
uh
your your circumstances
but
i think we've learned the hard way that
doing asphalt shingles on drexel is a
huge mistake for the houses that have
existing slate and i can't vote for the
removal of more slate on drexel and this
slate seems to be in fairly good
condition except for valleys and mostly
it's your underlayment and your
flashings
that are causing this problem and the
slate obviously deteriorating
is an issue but is there any way to
compromise and have the front of the
house done in slate and switch to
the asphalt on the back and do the ridge
as an as a slate cap
can i answer your question based on the
report the roofing report very clearly
states that the slate is the problem
not only the flashings and the
underlayment understood but is it the
slate in total or the slate in
particular areas
it doesn't say that
so from the photographs it seems from
the observation of the other board
members that the slate
in a lot of the body of the roof is
actually in pretty good condition sorry
it says it's i thought it said it
specifically
many times we recommend an option of
performing what is called a pickup and
relay of the existing roof
this process allows us to keep initial
roof material costs down because of all
that is placed as the underlayment and
the existing slates would be re-secured
with the new roofing nails
that is not recommended for this roof
these slates are not in proper condition
to be salvaged it is our recommendation
to have this
roof replaced with new roofing material
right
thank you i think i think that there
could be different interpretations as to
how much of that is the case but
regardless
um
slate is
incredibly important for bexley and
especially on drexel
and the replacement cost of 38 000 to
last you 100 years you're going to
replace your asphalt
uh
five times over that same period at
least
for a total cost of over fifty 000
so
are you building are you are you you
know putting the money in now to to
build a permanent roof
for you and you know your your your
genera generations to come or
are you well the the asphalt was
5500
yes
so five replacements of that with all
due respect is
still less money and it's also spread
out over 100 years instead of a
one-time purchase
there are some that have been
that we've had to
so we know that uh
that shingles are
roughly a 20-year lifespan it says 50 on
on but we know that they they don't go
much longer than that right so you're
five times 550
over
uh
100 years and you're at 27 thousand five
or so years you're less
but
and it's that cash flow spread out sure
i understand but this is bexley and and
this is drexel avenue and i i just i
can't see that there's there has not
been an argument for economic hardship
in this in this particular case
and i would i would ask to compromise
that you put the slate a new slate on
the front and that you can put your
asphalt on the back would that be
acceptable
is it is it constructable first off
it's yes it's totally constructable
there's a reasonable argument that we
are
doing almost a half million dollar
update on the home
and that
by what you're asking two thirds of the
house will be asphalt
and the front third will be slate
is it reasonable to ask that the whole
house could be the same material
i see that it could be converse
um particularly when i look at two
houses this way and two houses this way
that are all asheville i understand yeah
yeah and this has been a problem you
know that we've been dealing with
a slate that has not been maintained and
there's economic hardship or there's a
leaking roof and somebody needs to get
it repaired right away and they can't
afford the slate there's all kinds of
issues here
but what i'm hearing and what i'm seeing
in this documentation
is why i'm asking that compromise and
we've learned that uh asphalt shingles
facing drexel which is the most public
street really
in bexley for residential architecture
okay
we've learned to our detriment
that we reduce the quality of the
streetscape
and so it's the streetscape is a public
viewing corridor
and it's also
reflective of who we are as bexley and
so i'm asking for that compromise that i
have to defer to evan for that
procedurally i mean
if i say
no to the compromise is that what
happens like then we go to a straight
vote
and you you would then be asking to the
board members to just vote for the whole
replacement
and you would be hopefully counting on a
majority for that to happen to get you
trying to figure out what my out is if
if that doesn't happen right i mean like
is it i'm back here next month
what is the time frame if if we have to
replace the front roof
is there a time frame given
to do that with
uh ms rose
is there a time frame for the
replacement if they they get it the
front roof needs replacing now if if the
26 000 expenditure is out of our reach
is there a time frame that we have to
comply with
from the city of bexley or it's all up
to us the roof's leaking it's got to be
fixed
i mean
are you looking to repair it
well my my professional roofer said it's
it's unrepairable it's it's got to all
come off and we'll have something else
go on
so for us it's a a chunk of change
expenditure but again i am the
contractor i am not the homeowner that's
got to spend 20. i'm fearful i've got a
professional roofer who's told me that
it's it's bad it's at its end of life it
needs to be replaced and
there's a 26 000 cost
to replace the roof and that's
that's a lot of money and we've already
had significant costs on that
operation
correct correct we had a verbal approval
to
do it
with the outcome based on what you
decide understanding there are some
risks now i can look at once i needed to
have a waterproof roof i had no way of
doing it
yeah i'm concerned by the and i
understand the issues we've talked about
this but it's like
we that require slater we don't i mean
you know this this is a little uh this
is kind of
a bit awkward in my mind because the
material wears out it just simply wears
out and then when it wears out it takes
the
it takes part of the framing with it so
uh we've got to do we've got to be fair
here with this and while i understand
the civic part of the street we turn
right around and put solar panels on it
too and then you know we don't the
slates
doesn't matter anyway um so i'm a little
uncomfortable with with requiring that
um and at that price differential uh and
we've been uneven i mean we've other
folks have had their
asphalt shingles and we're just fine and
other people we do this so i i don't
know whether we need to fix policy on
this or something but uh these one-offs
i'm not i'm not i'm just not comfortable
with it
does anyone have a sense for the
legitimacy and reputation of the
company that provided
the report saying that it was not
i ran multiple companies and nobody
could get to it in our time frame so i
went back to recommendations for
companies and legacy was recommended to
us
that's how i ended up with these people
i mean i think durable told you it was
going to be many months before they'd
even give you time today
and they they were interested in writing
a report and it was like ghosty slate
what are you talking about
i've
not heard anything good about princess
[Music]
it certainly
[Music]
and we did approach the slate company
saying i need both options please i need
a repair plan if that is possible or i
need a full replacement if that is not
possible and their outcome was it is not
possible or it's not recommended that
the slate is at the end of its life and
it needs to be redone completely
[Music]
so you'd like us to proceed with the
vote
as stated in the application and not not
to entertain the cond the condition that
i am
proposing
yes
okay
um
any further comments from the board
ms rose will you
state the findings of fact and
um
decision of the board
the existing slate to be replaced
with asphalt shingles due to the
deteriorating condition of the existing
you've heard the findings of fact and
decision of the board you understand
that these conditions will
make
[Music]
just for the main house right just the
main cable yes the original the original
the addition is all covered under the
existing permits saying that we can use
the estate price so it's for the main
the main block of the house
the existing existing roof of the house
correct the two-story portion yes yes
you've heard the findings the fact you
understand that these will be
made part of the application
may have a motion
some move
second
miss rosary call the roll
mr helmet yes
yes
no
thank you your application's been
approved thank you
thank you for your time
our next application
if i get these right
is arb 2173 the address is 2453 seneca
park the applicant is suncraft
corporation
inc
the owners are sandra and adam salove
salovey sorry
the applicant is requesting architecture
review and approval
uh and a certificate of appropriateness
for the addition of a rear porch
the applicant is here would you please
state your name and be sworn in uh
james knox with suncraft you please be
sworn in do you finally swear from the
testimony you're about to give this
evening is the truth yes
is booker do you have comments
um
the plans
oh i think i just got twice
um this application is for an addition
to
an addition
that that's probably the best way to put
it
um
i have a few concerns i i just want to
understand a little bit more of how the
two
how this connects to what is
currently an existing mudroom edition is
that correct
here's a picture of what is now existing
and my understanding is that this will
be just a further extension
from it and i'm curious how that ties
into the
existing roof line how it deals with the
door that's currently above that just
stays there
i have i have some concerns about how
the two come together
um it kind of looks like it just abuts
it and doesn't tie in
really smoothly so i would like to have
those details more worked out
happy to work with the applicant but um
wanted to hear some board comments
initially too
um some concerns about the columns how
they're
um
placed
i think the applicant can be sworn in
yeah yes oh i'm sorry then yep word
comments please proceed do you have any
comments to add
as
far as the
roof goes it has an existing uh
rubber roof we're gonna just extend that
roof line
with the same slope
to uh
was it six feet uh six feet further out
as an open porch
over where there's an existing
enclosed porch
it's basically the substructure is
basically built um
like uh deck framing uh it's got a beam
underneath of the uh posts there's
corners
uh posts out on each corner they'll the
weight of
the two columns is just transferred
straight to the foundation
thank you any comments from the board
i'll just open it up
yes i'd like to start um so i'm looking
at your elevations
uh specifically well all of them um
your column detail i think um
how it
at the roof where it's hitting the
header trim
isn't really architecturally accurate um
i think
and i think you know what to do so i
think i'm just going to make a list and
you can work with them right so i think
in the in the end it's not a big deal
just you know make sure the details are
correct
i think the the handrail uh since we
have one on the steps this needs to also
be
um
make sure make sure it's obviously we
don't do code compliance but i think we
need to make sure it's code
the treated pine vertical skirting uh
for the kind of porch wrap i think it's
nice that you're doing a poor trap i
don't know if
if that treated pine will make it more
than a year
so how that sits at grade and
you know how that's detailed i think is
going to be important because i don't
think it will hold up
um what's back here what's the backer
behind that and you know how that means
and it's treated but how does it
actually be great
and then of course what's the finish are
you planning on painting it or leaving
it just the treated plywood um i believe
it was intended to be uh um
[Music]
just uh leave it as treated but
uh we can certainly i just i worry
longevity but i think it's gonna be yeah
yeah another one of our uh finishes we
use is uh cement board uh
that would be an appropriate painting
the plywood will wick water even if it's
treated and if it's actually touching
the ground it needs to be
ground contact treated which is a
different type of treatment so
just be mindful of that
i think that's going to be important so
that finished material if it's cement
board would be great it's a
recommendation but also then how that
comes and meets the grade
that's all i have
thank you okay anyone else
sure i'll go
uh i agree with that i agree that that
skirt board
something different needs to happen
there uh the fiber cement
i'd
go that route
um i noticed it says that existing
structure is gonna stay as is um but it
looks like it has quite a bit of
stuff going on with the
um like if you go to this photo
please
it i don't know there there's some i've
got concerns about
you know what's going on with that
i'm what i'm assuming is is that like
wood
siding of some sort uh yes okay yeah so
the paint's chipping it looks is that
brick down below it it's hard to tell
next to the stair or is that just like
there is yes there is some brick there
on the corner
is that brick oh so it's wood down there
too so you're gonna cover that up and
you know you've got some
issues going on with like you know
maintenance and is that stuff like
rotted is it not
i think that needs to be addressed i
mean
it would behoove the owners to consider
that
um
the columns out front are nice columns
and
i don't know if there's a way that they
can be replicated for the back to at
least tie
um tie in what's happening there with
you know the new porch that they want to
put on the back
so that's another consideration
i think that's where i'll stop
anyone else
i just repeat the comment on the columns
and to the extent you can integrate some
of that same
proportion to that the back i think that
would serve me
okay are you looking at uh some sort of
a
um
necessarily plastic but uh
some sort of a round column wrap for it
it could be fiberglass it could be
lots of different materials i think the
the issue is is the proportions and the
detailing okay yes we could certainly
we could certainly change
that cohesive if you consider doing
something similar to the front yeah the
mac
yeah it's the front because the front
also has a
flat roof as well and right yeah various
that we're going to be trying to emulate
the
profile of that as
closely as we can
so i think that the these comments are
all helpful i would just i would just
add that you know the design consultant
will work out all these details with you
uh it'll be mentioned in the findings of
fact
um i would just add that i think that
this this should be painted
and not just left as treated um and
mainly because of the other details that
we're trying to
you know tie in
well the homeowner will be painting uh
all the new surfaces of the of the porch
right and i'm
i would assume that they would also
address the
back porch while they have the
paintbrush in their hand
to do the siding on the back yeah back
wall there i i will state that um
when you set those columns the beam
system is probably going to have to be
inboard of the out edge of the existing
edition
so that the beam works correctly with
the columns and ms bocor can help
you know
work with you on that
that's all i have any other comments
as long as you're comfortable that
there's sufficient slope on that roof
that it doesn't you don't have a slope
going to a flat
in in over the uh new addition
right there's enough so that you're
going to yeah and then you will extend
it there
and
do you have a sense of i'm not sure it
was on my computer died uh what the
height is coming off the back of the
house and what that taper is what what's
yours
uh i want to say it's uh somewhere in
the uh two to three inch range
in the back and from the house
to the front which is three inch three
inches here to go into zero right and
then how do you 26 feet and then how do
you handle the slope from the new
addition outward
it would just continue we'll just
maintain well but it can't it's
continuing flat or is it continuing the
slope it continues to slow it's going to
then drop down yes
so that's going to be a different
and and do we have a side profile that
again real quick karen what's the
the side profile yeah there is the
elevations they show that it shows the
slope the on the drawing so i think by
code you have to maintain a quarter inch
per foot yes
so as long as you as long as he's
meeting code of a quarter inch per foot
he can meet the warranty of the membrane
okay it'll be all in the material
documentation
is this the membrane staying on and
you're just extending it so you're gonna
seam it or you're putting on a new
membrane
uh it'll be uh at the recommendation of
our route our roofing uh installer
weather i mean with it only being
um six feet and
uh
was that uh
10 feet
oh
yeah six roughly six foot by 14 he might
just recommend just redoing the whole
thing while he's there yeah i would
recommend that but i don't know how we
make that as a board here but because of
compatibility with product and how long
that's been up and related yes
the last point would be uh in terms of
we're talking about the column but there
has to be some way to get the drain
spout
down from the gutter and would that be
on a round column is that if we okay
with that or where does the downspout go
uh it is
right now it is at the uh
corner uh the outside corner of the uh
yeah and it could remain there for the
window
right where that cursor is yes yes
that that that would be that would be a
good location
you don't have problems with the ground
around
a new
is there anyone in the audience who is
standing that would like to speak on
this project
thank you
uh
ms rose can we have the findings of
facts please
you've heard the findings of fact and
decision of the board do you
understand those findings in fact yeah
to become part of the application yes
sir
uh any conditions or other modifications
from the board
hearing none
um may i have a motion
moved
second ms rose we have the role
mr scott yes mr nelson yes
yes
yes thank you your application's been
approved thank you for your patience
tonight oh thank you
our
next and last application is
a
bzap2144
uh the address is 280 south columbia the
applicant is corey tishkoff
the owner is corey tishkoff
the applicant is requesting a
recommendation to the board of zoning
and planning for architecture review and
approval and a certificate of
appropriateness for a pool and a pool
house in the side yard
the applicant is here
um would you kindly be sworn in
greg tishkoff
[Music]
i do
thank you chairman before we start i'd
just like to thank mr tishkoff for being
patient and staying here all night i
found it really it was all very
interesting you guys are you guys earned
your money tonight
all right thank you if we could have
staff comments please
well
a lot of that a lot of that's
attributable to this board so karen and
you know all of you were the
recommendations you made
we were frustrated at the time but
um it turned out well so i i we all
appreciate it
um
[Music]
unfortunately accessory structure is
[Music]
that's so that that's 13 feet
um i don't know if that's you know
if you're actually
if you're if you're saying the elevation
as far as the height of the pool house i
don't know if i'm oh
standpoint if you were missing that part
of it but um okay
gotcha um
between now
and
these renderings are great but
there aren't any applications
i
you know i think in consistency
you know we're nothing if we're not
consistent so um is to
[Music]
i don't think we can approve
drawings that aren't there so
we either have to have the draw remanded
to you to
say what we're seeing here is in a set
of drawings dimensional that you're then
comfortable with
and or it has to come back
but i i
we can't give a full-throated approval
based on computer
is if drawings wasn't clear
we could do a recommendation
to visa with the request that it come
back here for final design
i will make that that'd be fine
unless he came to the special session
right december you're already you're
already meeting december
let's do it
[Music]
come
on we won't be alone
and
you're sure that i know corey's saying
you provide a few different comments she
didn't send any any elevations in any of
the different things she said
i think we should wait until
this will all change to elevation you
know
i mean
what did they submit
first and then we determined that
because of the location
possibly yeah i know she sent you and
she knows
well
i i i'm
i'm not prepared to look at the computer
model unless we have elevations with
real details yeah i'm just checking to
see if they actually
because the bees that meeting is
which day
december 2nd
and it would be it would come back to us
on december 9th and we would have a
quick review on december 9th
first
is that acceptable sure
yeah as long as we can get them to
provide that by the way
yeah
well you've got almost a month so
for us
so i would like to give you some at
least some comment because you're if you
don't have them you're gonna have to put
them together i think massing
in style of the pool house i think is on
the right track i think the details is
something we're gonna need to see in
review
uh and
we can go through and listen to those
details but i think you can probably
work with karen to kind of work through
that because she knows
but i think you know looking at this the
proportions and you know what you're
looking at kind of as a design elements
i think is probably fairly appropriate
so
yeah right
but you know obviously pay special
attention to how the columns the columns
are working the basis of those columns
and those details that the eaves and
the cupola being centered on the tv or
not on the tv is a big one but uh those
types of things i don't want to get into
specifics tonight because we're going to
come back but
yeah i don't think it's necessary either
but that's
yeah that's yeah i mean
great thank you and i think just making
sure we have a nice strong clear
presentation
with with elevation
elevations
and as far as the
side
yard issue that's i mean is that
something that just has to that's pizza
oh okay all right
okay okay do we need to vote on that
recommendation
we are voting on it yes that's we are
voting tonight on this recommendation
for design
there's the motion you want to find i'm
sorry i'm taking oh can we
second
i have a second
i think i said second second
uh kathy we please call the role ms rose
yes
thank you
thanks for your patience no no
i don't know if anybody wants to give me
a ride home but she took the car
is there any further discussion
any anything else for the board to
discuss tonight
thank you
okay
[Music]
have to like you know