soon on facebook so just assume that
that's happening right now
youtube youtube i mean youtube sorry
sorry sorry sorry okay
one second now
ben i'm i'm showing that we have 11
participants
11 panelists but no attendees yet and
uh do we have does that mean that people
aren't requesting yet
because we're not broadcasting so karen
now going to be the host
she's now the host and she can hit the
broadcast button we are now live
all right you need for me just give me a
call or text all right
sounds good i think we are under control
we are now
okay and i'm showing that we now have
three attendees which is good
yes we do four attendees yes
all right do we have
it it is now 6 p.m
uh welcome to our uh special meeting of
the
bexley architectural review board for a
decision and recording of action
for 424 south columbia avenue
uh and with that uh i will uh
turn the uh framing of our
conversation this evening over to karen
boker and to catherine cunningham
okay welcome to our special meeting for
424 south columbia
um a little change from the original
application
is that this this application is
actually for a recommendation to the
board
we need to call the role oh yes we do i
don't have kathy
okay
bear with me i'm new it i'm new at doing
everything
uh suzanne tony here
peter bardwell here bill heyer here
larry hellman here pete scott
here and i think that is everyone we do
have
two alternates as well jocelyn and
joanne but i do not believe we need you
at this time but i'm glad you're here
and welcome
thank you okay so this application
go ahead i'm sorry i just said thank you
oh you're welcome okay this application
was actually noticed
as um an approval
seeking approval for architecture review
and a certificate of appropriateness
um in the in the interim and catherine
you can speak to any of this if i
if you need to fill in anything for me
the research that staff has done
has confirmed that we actually um
this need to do a recommendation to the
board of zoning and planning
so while the discussion won't be very
much different than it originally would
have been
for a straight out approval and
certificate of appropriateness
um we are going to end up voting on a
recommendation
of um to the to the board of zoning and
planning
the um request is is pretty simple
there's
really two parts to this one is to
approve the modifications to the
original design
um and i'll give some background in a
second the second one
is just a potential application which i
don't think is going to be necessary but
it's to approve solar panels if any of
the changes
um come out with an alternate roof plan
that would
show the physical location being visible
from the front of the house
currently the solar panels that are
proposed are on the flat part of the
roof so they're not visible at all from
the front of the house
so we're going to start with the first
one which is to approve the
modifications to the original design
i want to give a little bit of
background this project which was
originally approved in february of 2018
is has been built is not completed
but it was built with several items not
according to plan
the applicant is before the board to go
over modifications to the original
design
um and there are two set drawing sets
and i've included them in the staff
report
uh that are going to be the two drawing
sets that we're looking at
the very original design which is the
only
approved design and the
um new application that has been on the
city's website for the last week so you
all have had
a chance to go over that in fact i've
done a lot of cutting and pasting
and comparisons in the staff report for
ease of use because i know it's a ton of
documentation so i hope that was helpful
as well as pictures i just want to give
a little bit of background of the case i
don't want to read verbatim my staff
report for anybody that's in it
as an attendee you can also access the
staff report through the city's website
but i'm going to summarize it here the
um
the project was approved in february of
2018 the only condition really at the
time was that the landscape plan
be submitted to the um tree and public
garden
commission which it was and it was
approved
uh there was also caveat which we always
have
in any approval that their details in
the development of the construction
documents
can be approved minor details by staff
some tiny things were approved by staff
but no major changes were approved
the new drawing set has now the
new drawing set only the one that is
dated february of 2018 is is what i'm
referring to
there have been interim drawing sets but
they have not been approved drawing sets
so we are just looking at the original
drawing set
and the new one they have both been done
by the same architect
um the new drawing plans that are being
looked at today reflect
changes that have already been made in
the field
and they also reflect proposed changes
to what is there now
so that the project and the home would
adhere better to the original design
um i'm going to go through the
elevations on the staff
can everybody see my screen okay great
so we'll start with the front elevation
i've included in there the sketch that
um was done by brian kent jones you'll
see where it says proposed
and the current picture as built below
is what is currently there the top uh
elevation
and i won't do this for every single
drawing but just to orient you the top
one is the original application the one
below
or or to the right depending on how i've
laid it out
is the new drawing on the front i'm just
going to zoom through these and then we
can
no no pun intended i'm going to rush
through these and then we can we can
open it up for discussion and invite
attendees in as well and by the way i do
see attendees that have their hands up
and please just bear with me while i go
through
this introduction and then we will
invite
the audience to speak after the
applicant is given an opportunity to do
their presentation
the ridge height and is
taller than was originally approved the
ridge height changed from 3 36 feet
6 inches to 39 3 inches maximum
allowable according to zoning code is 40
so they are still within the zoning code
but it's not what was approved on the
original design
there's also been i'll skip to the
bottom one some grade changes if you've
driven by you can clearly see that the
grade
of the floor plate the floor plate is
much higher than grade um it is it's not
what we expected to see
from the original drawings so it does
bring the elevation quite a bit higher
than was originally proposed um the
window grid patterns have changed
um as well as the the size the width is
uh not they're more narrow because they
were three over three and not two over
twos
um there were brick lentils used instead
of the limestone lentils
that i just want to point out is um
point is
is called out in the new drawings it's
clouded in the new drawings
to be changed back to limestone
this is further back the west elevation
you can see the little the
the part that is behind the portico
the only real difference there is the
ridge height also is higher on that
particular on that gable as well
than the original and the window grid
patterns have also changed you can see
them
it's i would consider this minor but you
can see that the grid patterns are a
little different
um the north elevation the changes from
the original submission again
the ridge height kind of goes all the
way around the the elevation so i
not at the risk of repeating myself that
will be a consistent change
as are the window grid patterns um the
garage door style
is changed on the drawings um the
applicant can speak
to what the actual door style is gonna
be right now they're just um
boarded up they're not installed yet the
side entry portico which was originally
this kind of rounded
top piece which i think was built there
at one time
is now a more rectangular figure and the
roof line has changed a little bit
as as has the the window pattern and
size
here and here
and again brick lentils were used
instead of limestone which is already
proposed to be changed out
um the rear elevation there is a roof
change on the second floor
a slight roof change on the second floor
window grid patterns and sizes have
changes and there
there is a little skylight added which i
don't think you can see from the picture
but you can see
here in the bottom picture
and there are some window changes this
is kind of like a clear story window
kind of around the the um family room or
kitchen i
can't remember what the space is inside
i walked through it yet again today so
i'm the interiors are not completely
finished but i can
clearly see where these windows are this
is the
east or rear elevation
um you can see where this is the pool
again there's ridge height changes and
the window patterns
are different than what was originally
proposed
this one this particular drawing is
meant to represent
this portion right here so you can see
that it's really just grid patterns
the brick lentils again were used
instead of limestone they will be
changed
this is the southern elevation it is
the changes are again as they are all
around the house the ridge height the
window pattern sizes and placements
just to be just to be clear also because
i had i did have a board remember to ask
me there are no
additions there there are changes to
heights
window grid patterns that kind of thing
but there's no additional space
except for a little height for the sun
i mean for the us um
i can't think of what i was the clare
story windows and also
um let's see
right there's a little additional height
here
you can see it on the elevation there's
also
a relocation of a stone wall
um behind the pool house or lynnae
i'm going to use those words
interchangeably so so as not to confuse
anybody
um and in the pool house
the changes from the original submission
this was a
proof this was an approved change that
staff approved
was to change the direction of the ridge
so that the water would run off not
in the direction of the pool however the
footprint
change was not approved it the interior
space
is not that much different but what they
have done and the applicant can speak to
this as well
is enclose the pool equipment but then
rather than have it
outside so um while it is a lot of
additional
brick work and enclosed space it's
actually probably beneficial to the
neighbors because it encloses the pool
equipment
and lessens the noise um
i also wanted to mention that um
this is still going to be painted white
this is the only part of it if you
didn't get a chance to
drive by or walk around this will also
be painted white
the rest of the house has already been
painted white i did put a side by side
comparison of the plans
and you can see that the pool is larger
that will go to be zap the
um pool house or lynnae is larger uh
because of
everything i just explained to you with
the enclosure for the equipment
and the ridge direction there's also an
a
different landscape plan here you can
see there's this um
this step down right here in the
original drawing
and here there's there's a wall that a
kind of low wall that comes here
this will be looked at by the tree and
public gardens commission
as well the landscape plans which um
i'll get to in a second uh these just
i'm really hoping that everybody had the
chance to drive by but
it's quite a dif the original plan
called for the house to be painted white
i'm very pleased that it got painted
white before this because i think it
makes a tremendous difference
um to see the house painted you know in
a uniform color
uh it does a lot for it uh
landscape plans have changed the
original
um application and you can see i'm i'm
pointing out the circular drive
that was before the board of zoning and
planning and was not approved
so this is the original landscape plan
but it that this
this circular drive was not approved so
that is not that will not be
part of this application they're not
asking for that again but it was on this
this is the new app this is the new
landscape plan
and the i know these look a little
blurry in the staff report but i can
also pull them up on granicus if we want
to go over them in more detail
they have quite a few differences this
not the job of this board to go through
them
um but i strongly recommend
that a condition of our a condition of
our recommendation
that makes sense is that the
new landscape plans be reviewed and
approved by the tree and public gardens
commission
and um elena andrews who's the landscape
consultant already knows i've i've been
dialoguing with them back and forth so
everybody's in the loop
so this is just a kind of a sample but
there is a big packet
okay that is the staff report
i wanted to go back up and just remind
you that the
the actions that we are taking on this
application once again
is a recommendation to the bees app for
the approval of a certificate of
appropriateness
we can also do a recommendation to be
zapp for the approval of certificate
appropriateness
with conditions or modifications that we
identify
that's what we'll spend time talking
about we can also
recommend we haven't ever done this and
it's a little confusing because when we
just do a straight out approval we
always frame it in a positive
and i i do believe we should continue
that as just because
because that's what we do but um because
this is just a recommendation we could
we could move that it just not be
recommended i i don't
as staff don't recommend that because i
don't know where that gets
us we need to come up with some
resolutions for this
um we can also
there's one other possibility and i just
want to bring it up
i don't i also hope that we don't have
to go down this road but if we have some
really unanswered questions that we need
more time for the applicant to research
or for staff to research we can continue
this to a date certain
if we had to so that is my staff report
i'm going to give the applicant an
opportunity
to present or fill in any blanks
and then i do see hands um no worries i
we will get to the to the attendees to
allow test
testimony but i'm gonna go ahead and um
invite in
the um the applicants
so give me a moment to promote them to
panelists
and karen while you're doing that i do
see that we have 17
attendees in addition to the board and
staff
panelists i i would ask that anyone
who wishes to speak on behalf of
the owner and the application identify
yourselves
now so that you can all be sworn in
at one time i would similarly ask that
anyone with standing
who wishes to speak at a later point
hold for that point of time in the the
conduct of this meeting
okay so we now have the panelists um
in
we we now have the applicants in the
panelist room which
are um uh the shaw's summit and lika
shaw
um who are the owners we have um brian
kent jones
we have tom popoff and matt sullivan
please raise your hand if you're an
applicant and wish to speak to this
application
and i will also invite you in
okay hold on one second i see
okay i want to go ahead and um swear in
everybody that's in the panelist room
um can everybody state your name please
matt sullivan anybody that wants to
testify
who else tom popoff okay
okay can you raise your right hand
please
do you solemnly swear to tell the whole
truth nothing but the truth so help you
god
thank you thank you and am i correct
that only
matt and tom are the ones requesting to
speak at this time
correct okay thank you okay
um tom did you want to start or matt at
whatever you want if you
would like to testify or go ahead and
and fill in any blanks or
anything you'd like to do sure um i will
just say that it's a very
impressive staff report covering a great
deal of information
thank you and we're here to answer
questions and do what we can
just just to add a quick note
i agree with tom we're here to help and
answer any questions that we can
i did want to just note for the record
that i did send the new landscape plan
to your consultant as well so um you
could have that
as well so i think we're trying to cover
all our
our bases in this meeting in terms of
getting the right stuff to the right
people
um so you know feel free to point us in
the right direction if we fall short and
on that side okay great thank you i
really appreciate that
um if we could have uh any attendees
that would like to testify
raise their um hand and i'll i'll put
you into the um
the panelist room okay
and karen just so that i'm clear you're
asking for
uh any anyone with standing not
representing the applicant
that would be added okay anyone was
standing correct
but but who would not be speaking at
this time
yeah but i need to move them into the
panelists room in order to swear right
exactly i just wanted to make it clear
that we're not looking for their
testimony at this moment
no i will be moving you into the
panelist room and
swearing you in as a group and then when
the chairman asks you to speak
um you'll have an opportunity to give
your testimony
sorry this is all new to all of us so
everyone please bear with us
and while karen's doing that
for matt and for tom uh
again one of my objectives as chair is
to make this
meeting as productive and expeditious as
possible
so i i would offer
that it might be productive if you were
to
to open the discussion with what
you presume has been done
or that you are prepared to do to
address
the issues that karen has outlined so
that we
we have your plan of action
in hand prior to inviting board comment
okay what i'd like to do now is swear in
anyone that would like to testify
um if you could state your name and i'll
i'll raise your right hand
we'll just start with uh carolyn allen
ratner
state your name
you are on mute and if
if each of these individuals could
identify either by address
or affiliation uh what they are
representing
okay this is carol and alan radner can
you hear me
yes thank you we are at 400 south
columbia
the second house from the one involved
okay
next how about charlie heyer
the westerns david and jody weston we
are
at 399 south columbia okay
anyone else like to testify
mr young yes stuart young
435 south columbia
start your video
it doesn't matter it's a that's up to
you miss ms yuck
it's yak y-o-c-k sorry um your address
and
uh 2-2-4-0 brighton road
i see the property from that's full from
east to west
okay is there anyone else
somebody else in the attendance room
hold on one second
are you talking about me
okay um i just moved into more people
devorah
um hi this is this is uh devore lipkind
and your address 431 south drexel i'm
directly behind the property
okay and there anyone else in the room
that would like to testify please
state your name in your address and
karen i heard you call
on uh mr heyer but i did not hear a
response
mr heyer oh um
charlie higher yeah i did not hear a
response either
okay
okay everyone raise your right hand
do you swear to tell the whole truth
nothing but the truth i help you god
i do do thank you
thank you all right chairman bardwell
well and and thank you to the attendees
thank you for your participation in this
uh we will ask you to uh hold on your
testimony
until we've heard from from two bodies
uh one is i've invited uh
mr popoff and and uh mr sullivan to
speak
on behalf of the applicant uh and then
when they are complete we will uh i will
invite each of the members of the board
uh to offer their questions and comments
and at that point in the conversation i
will invite each of you
as you wish uh to address this so
uh let me let me turn this over uh
to our rep representatives of the
applicant and again i'm inviting you
to be preemptive in uh helping the board
and others know what your plan of action
is moving forward
tom would you like me to start
yes please okay um this is matt sullivan
with sullivan builders i'm the general
contractor and i've been working with
brian jones and tom popov and brian
marzich the architects
to formulate a plan i think
what we would i think the the
plan that's illustrated today in the
staff report
is our attempt at finding a compromise
from where we found the building
two and a half months ago to where we've
got in the building today
i think one of the reasons that we
haven't fully explored the front door
or the garage doors is that we feel that
that may be
an area to discuss with the board in
terms of
architectural propriety i do uh
i think would like to draw attention to
the ridge height
change is currently from rough grade
i believe that the ridge height as drawn
in the plan
the approved plans at 36 6 is from
finish grade
i do understand there is a concern about
grade changes
in general and i would look to the board
and
uh any other testimony to help us
understand a little better
what that concern is so we can better
assuage it
i think at this time we we don't have a
good on
great understanding of the concern and
our hope is is that with an
understanding of the grade
concern and then seeing how it relates
to the ridge height concern
that we can then um try to combine
both into a satisfactory solution um
and i believe that we would argue that
the grid change
uh is a reasonable
a reasonable change uh and that
we are um hoping that everyone finds the
lanai to be an
improvement with the additional square
footage to keep the
pool equipment out of um both weather
and kind of sound pollution and light
pollution
i hope i covered most of that stuff tom
did i miss anything is there
anything else we want to add i i think
that covered
uh most of it uh the garage doors as
depicted on the elevation
in the new submission are
the intention that the homeowners would
like to go
um also the front door as depicted is a
little bit more modern in character
and that is again a direction that they
would like to go
[Music]
and i think i'd like to just leave more
time to be able to respond
to items as they come up or
matt and tom thank you and matt just for
my own clarity on that
uh you had addressed the grade change uh
you you then addressed the second
subject and i just wanted to make sure
that i was clear on whether you were
addressing grade
or grid uh great
so my my comment is my comment was i
believe
the architect the homeowner myself when
it comes to the window grid
will hope we are asking that the
architectural review board find what is
existing to be acceptable
when it comes to raid uh my my question
is i don't quite
understand the concern of grade
considering that we're at rough grade
currently um and with that
the current ridge height is from rough
grade
to which is essentially subgrade to the
ridge
so in typical construction you then have
topsoil and other
um you know whether it's you know turf
or grass or whatever
mulch that actually builds it up which
would further reduce the difference
between the
approved grade approved ridge height and
the existing ridge height um so i'm i'm
curious to see where the um grade change
uh concerns get us in terms of that
discussion
and and again just for my own thank you
and again just for my own clarity on
your second point
did i understand you to say that the
grid
change uh you believe to be uh
appropriate that that is the position
of the architect general contractor and
owner
thank you i appreciate it uh so uh
for matt and tom any further comments
before i
turn this over to the board
here that's hearing none uh thank you i
i would actually like to add a couple
more things certainly i wanted to
what i did go over was everything that
was uh presented to us in the new plan
um by the architect and builder um i did
want to point out
that just to keep in mind that again i'm
going to emphasize that we're doing this
as a recommendation to be zap so we need
to
instead of our typical facts findings in
fact we're going to just come out with a
list
of recommendations to give to bzap of
things we either approve
um as changes or recommendations or
conditions of
of those changes the second thing i just
want to emphasize i know i already
mentioned it
but we do need to make sure we include
the condition that the landscape plan be
reviewed by the tree and public gardens
commission
and the only other thing i would like to
bring up architecturally that wasn't
covered in the new drawings
i'm sorry to do this but i feel the
responsibility as architectural
consultant to bring this up
um is that i i do have an issue
and i'd like to find a resolution for
the columns on the front porch as well
they're just awkward without some detail
i mean
really only just a limestone cap and and
and adding some steel to center them
in a traditional way would probably
solve that problem but i
it was not addressed in the drawings and
i want to make sure we do have
discussion over that
and that's all i have i will now be
quiet and just run the meeting
no no that we appreciate your comments
so we appreciate the
comments on behalf of the applicant uh
members of the board i will invite
your questions and comments
uh mr chairman do you are we going to
hear from the um
people who have standing first or do you
want board members to no i'm commenting
following our customary process i would
like to hear
uh first from the board
i i have just one question to start off
with to staff
i am presuming just for technicality
that the
uh additional site coverage by the
addition to the pool house
uh doesn't put us into a uh overage on
allowable ground coverage no i don't
believe it does but even if it did we
are taking this to be zapp
thank you
thank you uh mr hellman and
others any further comments or questions
uh hearing none for the moment i i want
to
echo a comment that karen concluded with
a moment
before uh and that is that uh absent any
any scale drawings or or uh
any any uh measurement that i've done on
the ground
my observation is the the columns
uh along the front or west face
are not equally spaced nor
do they uh align appropriately
with the windows and doors behind
and i i would like someone either to
correct my presumption on that
or help us uh with how that would be
addressed
uh this is matt sullivan um i'm looking
at the picture on two
on page two of 11 on the um
on the staff report and based on the
picture it does appear that you're
correct
um to be honest uh i have not noticed
that prior to this
so the in that as built drawing that
we're all seeing
or picture rather that definitely
appears to be the case
i think there's a number of ways that we
can navigate that structurally
but i can certainly uh in short order
get a
uh get a tape measure on that because it
based on this picture
it does that does appear to be the case
thank you mr chairman
i have a comment uh yes pete uh
karen you can leave this page i was
looking at this page and i was trying to
figure out
what the the proportion of the original
design submittal
versus the drawing of the new seemed
seems there was something off and i
couldn't i couldn't figure it out until
actually i was looking
uh through and and noticed it on when
karen was giving me
her presentation the the
scale and the proportion of the original
submittal
uh has a character to it and a scale to
the overall architectural
uh architecture that is is is seems
very different in the proposed design
and i think unfortunately uh uh
for brian's office i don't want to pick
on the drawings i think the roof is not
and the roof
specifically the eve line is not
accurately being represented on what's
actually on site
looking at the photograph of the azimuth
condition it's actually
i'm really kind of making a statement
more towards the board it's actually
lower in relationship to the window and
the mullion in the window
and being represented in brian kent
jones as revised drawing
and i think the proportion of that space
of the second floor
is misrepresented a little bit and i
think uh in the drawing versus what's in
the field and i think that's what it for
me that's what it is because it doesn't
feel correct
in that drawing but it felt but i drove
by it right before this meeting it feels
better in person
uh for that second floor proportion and
i know the windows have gotten
thinner and or longer in the in the
existing design but
i just wanted to point out to the board
i think we've you know i've heard some
conversation about the the roof
proportion and
the height but i think in the drawing
itself
it's actually should be a little bit
lower compared to how the windows are
drawn
in the elevation and if you zoom in on
the photo you could see that the
eve is actually a little lower in in
reality than actually in the drawing
and peter i think i clearly understand
what you're addressing
but i for the record i just want to make
sure that we're all clear on
what the it is that you're addressing
uh i'm making an observation on the
because
if there's any discussion i want to make
it clear that the
the as bill condition i believe and
again looking at the photos
uh and and my drive-by isn't
maybe as accurately represented in the
proportion of the new
cad elevation it is not a recommendation
or survival
or criticism or uh of the design of the
as build it's just
i i i'm not a the the drawing on the
bottom there is something that
i you know if it was originally
submitted to us i i would have some
issues with some of the proportioning
and i think it's subtle but i think it's
because of that
eve line being a little higher than than
the actual
um actual build condition
well i could be wrong could be a window
placement it's just how i noticed that
tonight no i think you're correct
pete and i think that's a great
observation and it also i think holds
true for the
extensions to the right that the eve of
the
connector piece is actually lower in
reality and same with the uh
the space to the right of that you know
with its own gable
if you look at the photos there there is
a definitely a different relationship
between the top of the window and the
eve
so that's a that's a very important
observation i think
and i don't want to make this a a a
critique of the actual drawing but i
think
if we're going to be reviewing this we
should be aware of uh
what is really as the as built versus
some of the uh
the documentation that's here and i and
i get it it's hard to
again you know i don't definitely want
to be picking on brian's office too much
but
uh it's hard to get all of that
accurately depicted when you have an
existing drawing so
i just want to make sure we're all aware
of it
to be clear your point is that what's
actually built
is preferable visually than the drone
i i i think it's closer to the in in
just the second floor proportion
i think it's in between what is being
proposed as new versus what has been
built so i think there's a little bit of
uh
and again i'm comparing two drawings to
a photo there's always a perspective
change and
but looking at it from different angles
the eve
the eve is definitely represented in
relationship to the window in the
millions a little higher
in the new drawing that's that's just an
observation i i i will
take that line of conversation and and
add to it because
again i think uh a focus of this
evening's conversation
may be this this front or west face
uh and what what may need to be
addressed on that
uh one of the things that that i've
noticed
is is that in the the horizontal
dimension as you've already heard me say
uh the the spacing of the columns and
the openings appears to be
awkwardly different from what is
happening behind
but in the vertical plane
my sense is that those openings
are much lower in relationship
to their width than what has been shown
either on the original or the subsequent
drawing
the proportions appear on what has been
submitted
uh in in both of the drawings
that we're looking at on screen appears
to have a
proportion that is higher than wide and
i don't see that same proportion
uh in the as built which appears to be
wider than high
and to me that exacerbates
what is an awkward relationship between
the bottom of the window and the top of
the porch opening
and i think it's important for me to
clarify uh
karen kind of touched on during my my
my discussion there but i think the
balancing act between the two
in the as bill condition uh and i would
agree with you mr chairman on that
the spacing between the windows and the
and the porch but the
where the lower roof line with the
window proportion
a little bit more vertical verticality
to that window
um i'm comfortable with i don't i don't
have a major problem with on the as
built condition
i i'll i will echo that i i am less
concerned about the proportion of
the the dormer windows and more
concerned about the proportion of
uh the the openings uh
on the overhang
um i just also want to uh just offer
that
i put the staff report together for ease
of visual
cues to look at but if you if anyone at
any time would like me to pull up
anything from the website please let me
know
thank you uh members of the board
i'd like to invite any additional uh
comments or questions from you before we
open this to the other attendees yeah
i'd
uh mr chairman i'd just like to segue
off of those comments about the
proportion at the front
uh in the windows my uh observation
is that the space the triangular space
above the
dormer windows is actually much taller
in the as build photo than it is in
either of the drawings that we've been
presented with
and that that is of concern to me
because i think it makes
the front elevation of the house
especially in the streetscape when
you're looking at it compared to the
houses
on proportion either side of this that
those
really make this house feel
much bigger and so that's that's one of
my concerns i would
ask that those be lowered so that
they're a better proportion
and even uh the option of you know
maybe changing them to shed dormers that
would lower that condition
i think the eve as mr scott pointed out
if you if you're if you're there on
site the eve is not too far off from the
house to the north
it's a little bit taller but those
dormers just really make it feel
so monumental and i think that takes
away from it also
my concern is the pitch change that
happens if you look at the side
elevations you can see that there was a
pitch change
between what was proposed originally and
what was
what they're showing as the new what was
actually built
and i think that is
those two items in particular the white
triangular area above the
front wall dormers and the pitch of the
gables is what is driving this to feel
so much bigger than it should and and
what was originally approved
uh i i will
add to that and simply offer that
one of the key issues that i have in
addition to what you've
already heard from me is that in
contrast
to the the greater uh columbia avenue
streetscape
the front facade of this building is is
horribly flat uh
i didn't read that in the original
submittal nor do i even
read that in the the subsequent drawings
uh it appears that there is as an
implied far greater opportunity
for projection and shade and shadow uh
than what i see uh in reviewing the
building as
built and again that that is in stark
contrast with virtually the entire
remainder of
the street and it is in contrast to what
had been
originally improved i think having said
that
that there are ways that that can be uh
mitigated with relative ease but that is
an important
point for me
i i'd just like to add one other thing
about the columns mr chairman
i went to the site and was observing not
only the things that i mentioned
but also in relationship to the columns
it seems that the column that's the
north most column
on the front of the building is actually
not in line
with the brick uh of the story above it
and this is uh it looks like the the
upstairs
brick is actually cantilevered slightly
to the north
and i don't know if this is a pier not
being built plum and vertical
or if there was just a a wall that
uh the upstairs wall was actually built
and sort of move to the north a little
bit but it's it's clearly not in the
same relationship as the
pier or column on the south edge of the
building having a clean relationship
with the walls above
being being flush and plumb so that
that's just a comment on the
construction of it
not not meeting uh i think the visual
especially for a front elevation having
having part of it being uh you know sort
of out of out of line
with uh with the pier below
uh thank you and again i'd like to
invite any other
comment from members of the board and
then uh i'm
before we ask the attendees to speak i'd
like to turn
turn it back to uh mr sullivan and mr
polov to respond to board comments
uh briefly before we move back to the
uh to the attendees so members of the
board any additional
comments or questions i have just one
what are the colors of the shutters that
are proposed
tom do you know that the question on the
shutters
i believe they were to be black
okay uh if
if there are no further board comments
or questions i just have a comment
um uh i i'm listening to all the details
and all the things that don't match up
to the drawings but
my biggest problem with this house and
the way it is built
is that it feels like a monster
and i was on the board and approved
these drawings
um the original drawings with the
um feeling that this house was only only
going to be a couple feet
taller than the houses next to it
um and when i look at it now
i mean i can't get up there and measure
but this house feels
like it's six or seven feet taller than
the two houses next to in it
and it feels like the house especially
to
the south of it looks like it's down in
a hole
and i just have a problem with
with again with the size of this it
feels to me that the grade was never
taken down
to um the grade of of what the previous
house was built on
and then that the house was built you
know three foot taller and between the
two
we ended up with a house that's five or
six feet taller
than what i expected thank you
peter it's joanne strasser can you hear
me uh i can
okay first i just want to apologize
because i have to step away for a moment
so if this has already been covered you
can interrupt me
but my um question relates to the
i guess it's the north facade
the change in the window
over the entrance
and that image um
it you know it appears that it went from
a more traditional style window
to the very large yep there you go
and seeing that on site
[Music]
i think that's for me that's a challenge
that
change does not seem appropriate for the
rest of the
pro the house thank you
uh if there are no further comments or
questions from
from the board i'd like to return
back to matt and tom before we go to the
attendees
and offer you the opportunity to respond
to what you've heard from the board
thank you i know starting from some of
the simpler
things there is a detail
that i believe is in the set but perhaps
it did not make it in
where there is going to be another piece
of steel added
above the columns so that we do get a
continuous
width lintel that matches the width of
the column
um and i do believe we would be
quite amenable to changing the bases and
capitals
of the the columns to stone
there is also a stone band
that is an entablature that was supposed
to be originally
executed in stone and it was executed on
brick and then of course when that's
painted out it does
really wash that surface out and i do
believe we have
it noted on there that we would be
changing that out as well
um so that's going to add a a little bit
of a color break and a little bit of
dimension
on that um in the
impediments above the dormers
i think one of the things with it being
the brick painted out
it does wash it and make the field
seem very top-heavy and i think that if
we
do get back as we as we're planning to
getting back into the stone headers over
those
i think that's going to help break that
field
but i do take your comments about
lowering it to heart and i think we need
to
see if you know maybe matt can see
give a little bit more on that if he
thinks that is
a practical possibility um
i don't believe that we did change
pitch of the front roof i think it was
the height got changed um and frankly i
did not recognize that on-site so
we'll have to go back and see if it did
change pitch
[Music]
the northwest column here uh yes that's
a
major concern that that's out of
alignment because it should not be
[Music]
and the side window is one of those
inter one of those steps that occurred
between the original set and this set
that i'm
not sure how to address this evening i'm
sorry tom which was that that you were
just speaking to
the side window above the side porch
i see okay yeah right there and
tom you had mentioned the introduction
of a of a lentil
i'm presuming on the west face uh
can can you walk me through that in more
detail as to what
what that will do what that changes both
structurally and aesthetically
oh the the steel lintel right
all right so between the columns right
now
the steel that is there is only and i
don't know that it shows up in
any of these photos but the steel that
is running column to column
is only like half the width
of the column and we were planning on
inserting another piece so aesthetically
we would have a continuous
with header running between the columns
and i think that was a comment that
somebody had brought up that
they thought that steel should be added
i'm sorry that i did not catch who
who brought that and let me
make sure that i'm clear does that then
again you've heard me address the fact
that the proportions
of those openings between the columns
has inverted from being higher than wide
to now wider than high does that
introduction of that little make them
even lower
no no because that that is in the same
plane as the steel that is already up
there so it's behind and in the same
plane so it would not be lowering
anything
and does that correct what i
believe might be the case which is that
the columns
are irregularly spaced
i i've while we've been on i've been
looking at the plans
and according to the plans they should
not be irregularly spaced
but i will have to go we'll have to go
back and field and just
verify because their
dimension to be equal bays i i think it
might be the window placement that's
making it up here though in that view
yeah
i mean it looks like this window is
lined up
and these two are a little off well i
think that's
i really think that's because of the
perspective remember that plane of the
first floor is way back
yeah from the plane of the upper floor
it's hard to tell from this picture
and short of counting bricks uh
my takeaway was that those are
irregularly spaced so i
but again i didn't take a measure to
that right
they are not supposed to be and the
windows are to be centered
per plan the windows are centered
between the columns as well
it was something that i did not see and
did not think to verify
that that as built condition yeah
i i think we can we can be that can be a
matter of fact
tomorrow morning i i don't think it is i
think it's a matter of perspective
but i but obviously i'm not there so i
can't tell
and again i i i cannot argue because i
don't have the facts
uh but my sense is that the north
opening is slightly narrower than the
south opening
and i think i think we can all say for
the caliber of home that's going to be
centered
i think i think there's no way we're
walking away from this and have our name
on it without it being right from the
streetscape
i i appreciate it so matt and tom any
any additional thoughts from you before
i uh
invite the attendees to speak yeah i i
have i have
at least one i think um i think the
uh comment regarding the dormer on the
on the street facing facade uh the three
dormers
and their relationship to the
perceived height of the the ridge there
i do think that those um
that condition is pretty tricky and it
was one that was done
poorly when we came on site and we had
to do some reconstructive kind of
surgery to make that work
one of the ways that you can relatively
inexpensively
add both some depth and perhaps kind of
marginalize those the prominence of
those is to actually bring
the roof line a little further out
towards the street
and to be honest it's really a matter of
taste and kind of um you know preference
and so that was one of the conditions
where there was just enough stuff wrong
that we had um water infiltration and so
we
we rebuilt it as best we could in its
existing condition
but to add what's referred to as a rake
and bring it out a little bit would
start to create some depth
and i think also as you did that the
darker roof
would start to kind of shrink the
prominence of those three
um kind of it almost feel like capital
sticking on the front of the building
so i think there's some ways to minimize
that height
and also if you when you did that i
think it would also start to
reduce the the starkness of the peak
because you'd start bringing that roof
towards the
um street so i wanted to i wanted to
kind of bring that up and then tom
touched on it but
um what mr heyer referred to as the
column that's out of whack
well on the um closest to the neighbor
that is something that uh certainly uh
should be addressed structurally so
we'll get that right you that can that's
should be a non-concern
and then the final um comment i have
regarding
um the again the the what's perceived as
a grade
uh change i would challenge that
only from the perspective of someone
that's only been here three months
but when you go and you look you stand
where their garage is and you look at
their neighbor there is no significant
grade change between their driveway
and their neighbor's driveway so that
would lead me to believe that at least
on that
side the um the driveways would indicate
that this house is
where it where the previous house was um
it would be hard to believe that it was
six or seven inches
lower there that that two driveways that
co-mingle
would be seven or eight inches lower one
than the other
so i think there's an argument to be
made that that what you're seeing is the
is the denuded lot does make any house
stick out
a lot um but i but i do think that
um one when you add the um the brick
walls across there that will delineate
and kind of
further push the house uh wider than
where it is now but i
i would reckon to believe if you ask the
neighbor to the left that this house
is uh their driveway the two driveways
are at
just about the same height thank you
very much
mr chairman uh yes sir you revisit
something i think
bill mentioned i don't know
whether it would be feasible to at least
design wise explore
a shed roof on those three
windows in the front if they if they had
a little bit of width to them
uh it would tend to maybe visually lower
the scale of this thing as opposed to
these three
kind of exclamation points on the front
of the house
and it may be a cheaper way of solving
the issue than extending a roof line or
doing some other things that we're
talking about is that worth exploring
uh i i will i will invite
the representatives of the applicant to
speak to that
my initial reaction is i think if we
pull those down if we if we eliminate
and go to a shed
that that is going to
make the roof read taller
because we won't have that break going
up as much
um
again i think if we get the stone lentil
in there
that's going to having that color change
in there is going to help break that
the feel of that white poke up and then
as matt was suggesting if we
extend the the rake we have a pretty
minimal rake on there right now
if we start to uh build up that rake
trim
a little bit i think that can help break
that field as well
okay the other option might be to make
them hip roofs so that the white doesn't
extend up you could
make a hip that would uh allow it to
become more part of the roof
even though you're not really reducing
the geometry
at the ridge
thank you i mean really my cons my
concern from being there on site
is that the eve
uh and the pitch of the gables the main
gables of the house
to me that that's the issue here these
the dormers
the the white area above the windows and
the pitch
of the main gables the two main gables
the front house and the
uh there's an extension through to the
other
wood framed cable behind those
to me are the main issues that i'm
grappling with
in terms of how to address those the
great issue that
ms tony brought up um i understand that
especially to the house at the south
i think part of it is the construction
level of grade
where the trucks park out front i mean
it really does feel higher
than both the south house and the north
house and that i think should be brought
down
however if you do that then the house is
going to feel even taller coming out of
the grade so it's conundrum but
i i'm my i'm trying to figure out a way
that we could you know reduce the
um you know the pitch and to work with
those three front dormers
i i think we should also uh in fairness
say
uh under architectural review
uh we can't mitigate
necessarily uh the allowance under code
for
certain kinds of heights certain kinds
of bass i mean this house from the start
was much larger and out of scale with
its neighbors it's just
it's just a new house and it's a big
house and it goes deep it has all the
stuff to the rear uh so i don't think in
any cases house was going to
live in some great compatibility with
its neighbors
and uh yet at that same thing we can't
use architectural review to say well
this house should have been
uh half as large and half as long and
half as deep
we can we can think about the design
proportions of scale but we have to be
careful that we're also not
uh um eliminating what our basic writes
in the code
correct i also want to make a mention
you know we're at a stage of
construction
uh with rough grading and gravel and
again i drove by today
that's all going to get filled in that's
all going to raise up a bit and the
house is going to settle down into its
site
landscaping is going to help immensely
and i think um
you know i'm not as worried about that
because i think that's going to settle
that down a lot
um
[Music]
we're just seeing it as a big blank dirt
patch right now in front that's that's
hard to see
uh i agree uh i i'm going to
observe some time management here and
ask that we move on
uh to testimony from uh the attendees
uh with standing uh and
uh very quickly uh mr heyer i see that
you you're on screen
am i correct that you did not wish to
speak to this
can you unmute
you're speaking to mr charlie higher not
mr bill higher right
correct this is this is for mr charlie
heyer who is
uh uh in attendance uh i thought karen
you had
indicated that he wished to speak yeah
he just was muted but he's unmuted now
did you wish to are you going to wish
the time i would like to reserve
the opportunity to speak after i hear my
comments okay we'll just tell you great
thank you uh thank you uh
and again in in uh fairness to all
and and in in overall time management uh
i will
ask that that each of the neighbors with
withstanding
uh speak as best you can to the facts of
this
uh and to uh not be
uh repetitive with other uh testimony
thus far this evening uh we welcome your
comments but we would ask that you be as
succinct as possible so that with that
karen i'll turn that over to you
to promote each one to
a speaking role um certainly
um did you want me to do do we want to
do a five minute time limit with this
amount of speakers i i would think that
five minutes per speaker
should be more than adequate and that
i'm showing that with five or six
speakers that will take us another
30 minutes for that portion of testimony
alone so
i would ask each one to be again to be
as absolutely
to the point and succinct as possible
okay i'm gonna um
actually use a timer and we'll do five
minute um time limits i'll let you know
when you have about 30 seconds left
um and we'll just go um i'll just go
through the list
as they appear on my panelist with no
particular order
um carolyn allen radner yes hey
before you start your timer could you
put up sp1
picture which is the original design the
only one approved
and and it has the row of houses where
you can see
my house
in relation to this owner's house
and the two neighboring houses yeah i
have to find it
hold on a second please i think i know
which one you're talking about
um and forgive me uh mr mrs redder
are you the house immediately to the
north
no we're we're one more house to the
north
okay we're the second house to the north
okay thank you
it's number it's number b on uh
this diagram is that's up it's number b
and the owner's house is the one that
says proposed
on the bottom these houses in relation
to this this tree
okay i believe i have the drawing you
requested you
do if you could just feature that lower
part
is it possible to do that or is that is
that
no no no draw it back draw it back
so you can see all the houses okay and
just
yeah center it up in a little bit
can you move it up the best i can do
okay that's great karen thank you
i lost it okay all right go ahead
um uh we're we've lived in our house for
40 years
we're fans of the arb when our neighbor
uh submitted plans the arb some 10 years
ago
to over build a house and lot the arb
including karen worked with the owner
the architects and the builders and got
a good plan for siting it in the
neighborhood
and also building it those owners
builders and architects followed that
plan
to the t and everybody is happy with
that house now
uh i think the arb rightly relies
on the owners architects
and builders to in good faith build
according to the plan
when we went to look at how this house
would look
compared with our house what we saw was
this
sr1 or sp1
site plan one and you see not only is
the roof line
not monstrously tall
but it is actually below because they've
dropped the grave
you can only understand that in
retrospect
and i think this is what the
architectural
committee member tony was referring to
now what happened here is that they did
not
uh build it according to what we thought
or we would have come in and objected
to this roofline the two
most egregious things here for us
as neighbors is one that roofline which
is monstrously high
and it's been commented on throughout
the community
and the second is the drainage
one thing about their roof line is it
has no
utility there's nothing up there
there's no room up there the the
the roof uh the the ceilings
in there and there's a tremendous amount
of empty space
there just totally wasted
now for the last many many years
i've been sitting in my um
sun room and my sunroom overlooks this
owner's sidewalk and for more than
two years i've watched people walk past
this house
stop raise their hands
walk back look at the house because it
is so
out of place if i'm unfortunately on my
front lawn
they will stop me and say what's going
on here
how can this be permitted some people
who are less politic of my feelings will
say
how can you live here uh this has
been pretty distressing uh for carol and
i and
particularly when you compare the job
that the arb did with the glimpser and
the tishkoff
houses which are big houses they're on
big properties but they're
cited beautifully particularly as to the
roof line
and in the 10 years i've been
occasionally
coming or listening to the arb meetings
the roof line in relation to the other
houses was a major
feature until tonight where everybody
talks about the roof line
without reference to the other houses
except for
committee person county i think that
that
is is an issue here uh painting it white
i thought would improve it some are
saying it's now a white elephant
um we went to the building people
immediately when that roof framing went
up
to complain they said they were aware of
it that was in 2019
and they would take care of it there
wasn't a
notice of a special meeting until may
of this year and now we have this
this opportunity the drainage issue for
us
is is one that for more than two years
we've had standing water in the front of
our yard through the winter
through mosquito season
though frank lloyd wright says doctors
can
bury their mistakes but architects can
only advise their clients to plant vines
he said that in 1931 i think the arb was
established
to prevent those kinds of mistakes that
have occurred here
i'm sorry you cut me off but i recommend
that you do not approve these changes
that were not done in good faith thank
you
thank you very much
um
next we will have um david weston
hi david and jody weston we live at 399
south columbia which is uh
just to the north and across the street
from 424.
we've got a great view of of the houses
both
uh the ratner's house as well as the
house just north of 424 as well as 424
so
uh bottom line is is 424 south columbia
sticks out like a sore thumb
uh you know so much it again it's
so much taller and the way it's built uh
with the with the second floor i think
somebody mentioned the second floor how
it hangs out over the porch
actually makes it look like it is is
even further
closer to the street which makes it even
even larger for us and
and uh uh i mean it is all like with mr
radnor here it's i mean it is
it's a monstrosity i think it's the best
way to put it um
you know a couple things one i did want
to to mention to
uh sullivan mr sullivan and the sullivan
builders
uh we do appreciate the noticeable
change uh when they came on board it was
night and day as far as
uh the quality of work uh quality of the
site uh no longer did i have to worry
about if i
got out that the dog would go run into a
big uh
a big hole in the ground that wasn't
fenced in uh across the street which it
was for
about three months uh the the piles of
dirt and everything else so i'm not
gonna talk about that but i do
appreciate mr sullivan uh for the work
uh that they've done there
um so one of the things when we
when the house was was first being built
we did watch and we watched for several
days as
they built up the ground uh several feet
above what the original grade was
and uh that i i do have to disagree with
uh with mr sullivan that that the grade
is
is significantly above the neighbor's
grades and
if one were to stand at the front corn
front north uh was that
north front corner there uh looking out
at the house at the north
there is a clear about three to four
foot difference between the grade
the current grade not i guess that's the
rough grade and i guess the the
permanent rate will be even higher than
that
uh between that grade and the grade uh
of the house to the north of that and uh
i mean that is
unfortunate when you look at a house
that
had an approved height of 36 and a half
feet
when the axle height is now 39 and a
half feet and that's from the
gray that's been raised by three feet so
in reality is
that that roof height is now sitting at
about 42 and a half feet
now that's not approved that's there's
nowhere in
in the uh in the code allowing for a 42
and a half foot height
uh roof and so that's the reality of
what this thing looks like especially
compared to its neighbors
um one thing that i did want to
highlight is
um you know we do appreciate the arb uh
we actually our house
uh we're starting a an addition in our
house uh
and we got that approved through the arb
this summer which we do appreciate
um you know we're currently looking at
uh potential of needing
wanting to raise the the height of that
by a couple feet so that we can fit a
small rv in the back
um and you know i'm obviously very
interested to hear how this goes because
uh what we've originally told was that
uh to get any kind of changes like that
we would have to go back to the aarb
uh to get that approved and and if you
know if this
is allowed to go through the way it is i
see no reason that i would need to go
back to the air b and we'll just figure
it out after the fact and
and uh so i'd hate for that precedent to
be set uh
you know obviously i i want to make sure
that things are done right
uh at the end of the day that that uh
you know decisions that are made tonight
are
are going to have ramifications not just
for this house but also for other houses
that are being built in this
neighborhood and throughout the city
the only other thing i would like to add
is that the original drawings had the
roof line and with
in line with the other ones uh the
original drawings had this review flying
that much higher i can guarantee you
i would been online on the arb meeting
uh
saying my dissatisfaction for and that i
didn't feel it should be allowed to be
built that way
so i'm not quite sure why we're
considering allowing the roof line to
continue
when it wasn't even proposed that way
i think that's it so thank you very much
we do appreciate this tony's a
comment earlier that said that uh the
house feels like monster
that that was about as accurate of a
statement as you can possibly make this
house
absolutely feels like a monster and it
does not there is no way that this house
fits in with the other 100 year old
houses that are sitting on this street
uh it is it is a complete and i mean it
is
it doesn't fit at bexley let alone on on
a street that has 100 year old houses
thank you
thank you and karen who do we have next
karen you're on mute
sorry about that i didn't want my alarm
to float throw everybody off
i'm not sure that i do want to speak oh
okay i'm just going down the list
so if you don't want to speak now and i
hit your name just
pass that's fine um i have a
jonathan but i don't have a last name
yeah this is a jonathan joffrey with
modern energy i'm the solar installer
oh okay we're going to come back to you
um
um mrs yack did i pronounce that
correctly
you did great um
so again i live on short brighten
and i see the new build from
east to west i have an email documented
on thursday november 8th
2018. so literally almost two years ago
where i reach out to kathy rose and
indicate that i just returned from fall
break i pulled into my driveway
and i saw something in the distant
until the next morning when i woke up i
realized it was the roof of the new
build
uh she indicated that the height
restriction was an r3 zoning district
for two and a half stories
she'll not exceed 40 feet which we
already talked about
but the construction was 36 feet and six
inches
from peak to peak she also said that
these structures always appear to be
very bold in the rough stages of
construction but i believe the finished
product will have much less of an impact
than what you're currently viewing that
showed to be
false i'm also the
individual who sat almost three hours on
the may meeting
for this project 424 columbia
at the end of the meeting i was then
told that the solar panels were not
going to be
reviewed there has been several emails
voicemail messages phone calls between
myself and reaching out to the city
between david and kathy rose um many
that were not ever returned
or followed up on uh we were indica
informed that the
may meeting um that there was going to
be a separate
special meeting for 424 south columbia
that was in may
it's november six months have gone by
i was told by david several times that
they want to give the new
um contractor time to clean up the mess
from the
previous business owner and i understand
that
but since that time you know everyone
was all excited about the dirt pile
being moved
and yes that was an eyesore but you know
the sidewalk is still
not passable for the children that live
in this area they're having to cross the
street which is not age appropriate
some of the sidewalk was fixed but not
to the entirety that david had promised
and during this time the project has
continued and continued and continued
there's been one too many variances for
this project
there are rules in this city for a
reason and i don't understand why this
project does not
follow them there seems to be no
consequences it doesn't seem to
um people to know whether it is um
employees approving changes this board
that's approving changes
but the bottom line is is this project
that's built right now
is not approved i sent a picture miss
karen i'm not sure if you can um pull it
up i sent it to your email
we have three rear-facing windows um to
our back
that show the building from uh
west to east and i'm hoping that you can
pop
that one of those up because it will
show you the extreme height difference
between
mr um higher's house and the new build
it is beyond three feet um i know that
someone referred to this house
as a monster it's been known as big
white
we think it's like a pac-man it's just
one big pac-man that
is eating up the little houses down the
street this is a new build
um they had the ability to
build what they won within um the rules
and guidelines
as referred to another owner on south
columbia
many of us live in houses that were
built in almost 100 years ago and we do
not have the flexibility they do
and that we will have to follow the
guidelines when it comes to our turn to
do a project
i feel like we've taught our children
that actions have consequences
and i guess we need to know what are
these consequences for
um an owner and a builder for not
following the guidelines
so those are the three pictures i sent
to you that's face those are the
pictures that i look out in our back
window
and you can see if you i don't know if
you can zoom in but you can see
um the the white house the white roof
and how much taller
the peak is um from mr heyer's house
bear with me this is hard on zoom so i'm
doing the best i can
i'm gonna um can you see that picture
now
yeah yes okay so this is looking up my
back bedroom window and you can see the
damascus
is the first house you can see mr
heyer's house and then you can see the
roof
um that is his rear roof
but you can just see what a difference
there is between the height you can also
see
from left to right which was referred to
how deep
they built into that lot that it goes
way beyond
the damascus garage and the hires garage
oh i'm i i'm asking the oh i'm sorry
that would that's five minutes
okay i'm just asking the board to please
review the roofline
great
okay
i'm sorry hold on just a second next we
will hear from
mr
miss young could you please load the
picture that the uh the rad must have
you
upload sure
thank you um
okay is that the one yes please great
first
firstly i'd like to raise my objection
to the sonar panel application being on
tonight's agenda
besides the application being devoid of
details they're required for the arb to
make an informed decision
i would refer the committee members to
the lorient fiber solar panel
application in october
2019 the city of bexley already has
established due process for reviewing
applications
and tonight's special meeting of the arb
is not one
tonight's special meeting of the arb has
been called specifically because over
the last two and a half years
the owners have made significant changes
to the architectural plan that was
approved by the arb
in 2018. these changes were neither
tasked to the city's design consultant
by the arb
nor were they received reviewed and
approved by the arb
bzap nor the tree and public gardens
commission in effect the city of
bexley's due process was ignored
by far the most egregious violation is
the roof or ridge height of the building
i could not recall why at the time i and
i now know my neighbors did not comment
at the arb meeting on the sheer size of
this house as evidenced by the disparity
of the roof or ridge height
between this two-story house and the
neighboring houses to the north and the
south
i reviewed the approved plans further as
there were three new builds on this same
block of south columbia
i also reviewed and listened to the
audio for those applications
i noted that much attention was paid by
the arb to the roof height for the new
build by the glimpses at 291 south
columbia
including a request for a rich height
study with the neighboring properties to
the north and the south
again for the new build at 270 south
columbia the tishkoff residence
a similar ridge height study was
requested before the application could
be reviewed and approved
upon my review of the application of the
architectural plan for 424 south
columbia as submitted and approved
i noted it did in fact include an
illustration of this house set between
the houses to the north and the south
as you see here however the house's
grade is shown lower than that of its
neighbors
this illustration as a result gives the
disingenuous appearance at the roof
height of this new builds
will be comparable to that of its
neighbors and therefore aesthetically
pleasing
this is not how it appears today nor is
the house's grade level
lower than that of its neighbors quite
the opposite
had the illustration in the application
been an accurate depiction of the roof
height
in relation to the neighboring houses
those with standing would not have been
silent but rather
would have quite but we've been quite
vocal in expressing their displeasure as
we are today
to make matters worse as noted in the
staff report not only was the ridge
height
it is illustration disingenuous but the
actual height of the roof was increased
by an approximate three feet from the
approved height of 36.6
to 39.3 serving to further magnify this
disparity
and with it our displeasure in addition
to this violation
others as noted in the staff reports i
would like to draw your attention to the
following violations were either
overlooked or highlighted with
insufficient detail in the staff report
the lanai in the planner submitted and
approved by the arb has this structure
attached to the main house
the lanai is not only detached from the
house but it's further relocated south
on the property line close to the
neighbor's house
the plan for the side yard as submitted
and approved by the arb
and bsap included a raw-timed fence to
the south
a wall on a raw-town fence has been
constructed further in constructing this
unapproved wall
the ground between the pool and the wall
has been artificially raised with gravel
by some 20 inches or two feet
again contrary to the plan as submitted
and approved by the arb and visa
the plan that was approved by the arb in
2018 described the pool decking
terminating well before the side yard
setback
to accommodate steps down to a lawn and
with the lawn then rolling into a raw
tired fence
now a wall with a neighbor to the south
in actuality once the grade had been
artificially raised as noted earlier
the size of the pool decking was
increased and now encroaches all the way
up to and potentially into the side yard
setback for an r3 plant
the raised decking terminates at the
property line with a stone wall
and a water feature or fountain the
raising of the grave the increase in
size of the pool deck and the wall and
the water feature or fountain are all
violations of the original plan
in summary regarding the need to balance
the benefits of preserving the city of
bexley's existing qualities and
character
as reflected by the high quality
architecture and overall
athletic and physical attributes to the
residential districts of the city
the city of bexley established the arb
and per ordinance 1223 1223.03
tasked it with ensuring the
compatibility of new developments my
question to the committee member is as
follows
given that the staff report has already
established that what has been built is
significantly different from the plan
that was approved by the arb in 2018
if in reviewing this new application you
do not find this current build
acceptable in discharging your
responsibility
in ensuring the compatibility of this
house with the neighboring houses
then there is no alternative other than
to reject this application
consequences of which could be a total
dismantling of the house
to at a very minimum lowering the ridge
height of the roof to a level that is
compatible to the neighbor's house to
the north and the south
even two minutes
given those of us with standing we're
providing disingenuous information at
the arb
meeting in 2018 and as a result
silenced irrespective of what decision
you come to this evening
my concern is given that the city of
bexley is obliged to treat
every resident equitably you are setting
a precedent
for all to follow finally should the arb
decide the current plan requires
reworking and resubmission
i would ask the city of bexley to
consider using a stop order
to all work on this property until such
time that a final plan
is received reviewed and approved by the
arb
bisac and the tree and public gardens
commission in other words that the
city's due process
be allowed to run its full course i
raised this in light of what has
happened in the past
but also what is happening today as the
current contractor today and all this
week has been working to complete
elements of the house
that have not received approval by the
arb
and with that i thank you mr chairman
committee members
miss boca for your time thank you
if there's anybody else that would like
to testify please raise your virtual
hand
because i do not um
i don't i don't see anybody else that
that actively asked to testify
uh mr heyer charlie higher would you
like to testify
i i think not okay and um
uh devorah weapon
um i i just i just um
it's just an overall question of how how
does this happen
like overall how does someone how does
how does like this kind of egregious
violations happen
without like and get this far that's
just my overall question
um well let me just start by saying
this typically doesn't happen and i i
i hear the frustration and i feel the
frustration and i share the frustration
but i also want to make clear that the
um
this this we're a small city that
doesn't have a lot of new builds
and i take great pride in the other four
new builds that we have
simultaneously going on and we
sometimes have um
things that are built that aren't built
to plan and we're doing our best right
now
to try to um the the culprits of how we
got to where we are are no longer with
us
so we are trying to mitigate the
the um what has happened
with the building at this point and to
come up with resolutions that's why
we're here
i can't i can't answer that question
completely it's a
it's a confluence of a lot of different
things i i do want to um
just say quickly to miss to the the
question of what staff omissions
were made in the staff report and i
don't take any of this personally i've
been doing it
for 24 years but i want to make certain
that a lot of the things that were
pointed out
were part of the condition that i would
require that the landscape
plan go to the public the tree and
public gardens commission
almost everything that was pointed out
would be under their
uh judgment and the uh the only other
thing which would be the attachment to
the house
of the stonewall would be to be zap so
i'm well aware of those things but
they're not under the
umbrella of my arb staff report
mr chairman can i uh add some comments
please uh maybe maybe a little context i
i certainly understand
uh all of the comments that have been
said and and uh
and and and the sense of relationship
um maybe a little background uh without
belaboring this
uh when when bexley started the big
houses started from the north the
smaller houses were on the south
uh there were two development areas uh
and then they kind of met
in the middle uh that is pretty much the
case with drexels pretty much the case
with south columbia
uh there are there tend to be bigger
houses on the north end of columbia
uh the smaller houses were part of the
the village of pleasant ridge that
started out
and so you do have scale issues on this
street
you can see from the map that mr radner
talked about and i think that's an
appropriate map
that the lot size that this house is on
is almost equal to the two lots to the
north to the two lots to the south
within our code that creates a pretty
serious problem
because the uh the code
has does not confer the right
of any of the boards to say how much
square footage
can be on a lot it has lot requirements
you can't be this close to the side and
this close to the back and this close to
the front
and your ground coverage can only be so
much but obviously on a larger lot
it's it is designed for a it can be a
larger house can go on it
so when you have a large lot sitting
around in the middle of smaller lots
uh we end up with situations like we
have
and people call it a monster and that's
understandable and i can see that
the arb doesn't have any ability to
control that we do not have in other
words
the houses next door are two-story we
have a house on broad for example that's
a new build and it's uh
i believe it's a 39 40 foot roof and it
sits next to a ranch house
on broad street uh that lady felt that
the house should be
more to the scale of her house well
because she lives at a ranch house
we can't then say to the house next to
it i'm sorry you could only be a
story and a half that's not how our
codes work
so i think it's important for there to
be some distinction
uh between what is achievable under
architectural review
versus what is a planning issue that
then comes from
the board of zoning and planning and
likewise
is the code that we must legally live
with
so we do not have the discretion uh
even the bz even the planning board
doesn't have the discretion to say
you can only build a house of this size
on that lot even though you could build
a bigger house
as much as we think that's an issue but
i wanted to raise that because i think
that's important because
i think from the get-go because of that
large lot
we were always going to have a situation
to where there was a conformity issue
with the houses next door uh do i
do i think this house is too long and
too big yes
uh but the remedy is what and and
we have to also be legal because we we
represent the city and
uh the city can can also run into legal
issues
that said now getting full full bore
here
um what is the remedy what is the remedy
to this i think the
uh the prospect of saying yes this house
must be
completely torn down uh is that
considered a remedy uh is that where
does that put us
i and and then likewise to stop work on
this
house to have it sit around for another
two years in a raw stage
i'm not sure how much that good people
this is a tough situation
tough for the neighbors tough for us
tough for the city but we're going to
have to figure out what the best way to
move forward is
thank you mr chairman yeah karen can i
respond to mr heilemann
excuse me one second i have one more
thing i'd like to add
and then um i have to defer to the
chairman
um on how to handle more rebuttal but i
i also just want to point out and this
really is to miss
mrs yock um i can't apologize enough for
how long you must have sat there
waiting for the solar panels um we did
announce it at the beginning it was my
decision to take that off of the agenda
we are in the midst of a pandemic and
that was um just a nod
we were already having major problems
with this project and the last thing i
was going to do
was to hear the solar panel case without
first dealing with this
so i do ask a little bit of your
consideration i know we're all sick
of hearing the excuse of covid pandemic
but it is the truth and we're trying to
deal with something
that started right at the that really
came to our attention
and and the confluence of everything the
solar panels which
in all honesty if this was an existing
house those solar panels would be
approved just through staff
because it's not on a visible surface so
it was hard for staff to figure out how
to handle it
um and it like i said again it it all
happened at the same time
that we were closing down everything i'm
not trying to use it as an excuse but
please bear with us as we try to deal
with a very difficult
um problem and to exactly to mr
hellman's point find a resolution to
this
at the same time thank you and mr ratner
i i
will welcome your comments i will ask
you to be very brief and
and uh we earnestly do not wish to
engage in any
uh rebuttal uh conversations this
evening from anyone other than the
applicant but
uh since you had requested uh please
offer your succinct comments
my it's it's on this picture the house
next to me to the north is a house
of similar it's um it's number
uh a is
a house that is on the same lot as this
owner's house
that roof is level with all the houses
the next two houses and the house
on the other side as a matter of fact
where where the ball was dropped here
and it wasn't on my neighbor because my
neighbor was trying to
do the same thing the arb
had accurate plans saw that the
roof lines were too high worked with the
neighbor
to lower it i don't think we do a
service to this owner
to permit this house to stay the way it
is
i i i just don't that's all i have thank
you
thank you mr ratner uh with that and
i i would like to put uh
catherine cunningham uh on notice that
uh i i will seek your guidance
uh as to how we draw this discussion to
a close
uh from the city's legal perspective uh
the staff summary of actions uh
that karen reviewed at the outset
identified essentially
four broad categories of
recommendations again these are
recommendations
that range from outright approval to
outright disapproval
and then we have a couple of options
that are in the middle
and my
my sense as chair is
that we are not in a position
to recommend uh uh
unequivocal uh approval for
a certificate of appropriateness so
i personally am approving i am presuming
that that option has been uh removed
uh to mr hellman's point
uh we can indeed
recommend disapproval or or the
corollary would be
bring this to a vote and not approve it
for a certificate of appropriateness
but again to mr hellman's point is that
serving the city the neighbors
and the applicant in any fashion so
i am presuming uh that we
would appropriately for the greater good
leave this
discussion this evening with some
form of forward movement
that that gives the applicant
and the city an opportunity to
identify mitigation of the issues that
have
so eloquently been stated in this
discussion but
again i will look to uh city staff
uh and legal counsel to guide us through
that process and i will also
look to my board colleagues as to
whether my summary
conforms with your thinking
peter maybe just continue my little um
conversation about this um
we a disapproval
leaves us exactly where we're at with an
unfinished project
and what changes i mean uh does a
disapproval mean something has to be
torn down i don't think that's
what we consider to be a a remedy here i
i don't think that's going to be a
situation that's going to happen
so we have to work our way through this
this is a mistake
it was a mistake and it looks like i
don't know all the background
but it looks like um we had a builder
that screwed up
he made a mistake and he wasn't very
good um
did the owner know about it i don't know
i mean that's but
it doesn't matter we're at where we're
at and we have to figure out what's the
best way to move forward
um and i don't think the remedy is going
to be to tear the house down
and i just add something um so
there's a whole list of things here that
have been built
differently than the original plan and
normally we would never redesign a
project
we can say what we don't like about
things but we don't tell people
how to fix things typically
i'm not comfortable doing that here
either i feel like it it's the
architect's
job to go back and look at this and put
together
a fix for it and
and tell us okay so here's what we think
fixes it because
i i can't believe that they're
comfortable with the way that it is now
and unless if i'm wrong if they are
comfortable with it i guess i would like
them to say that that
they are very comfortable with how this
has been built
um and then you know maybe the
contractor goes through and prices out
all these fixes and then somebody
decides what gets done
i'm not sure that's me so um
but i do think someone else should be
addressing this and showing us
real drawings you know if you're adding
a stone lentil
then show us a drawing of how that
changes what is built
because right now just to look at the
photo and say you're going to add a
stone lentil i don't know the size i
don't know the shape i don't know the
color
and i can't really even make a judgment
on that
well i want to echo what suzanne has
said
even in far more simple uh
presentations testimony and deliberation
this board
does not take on the burden of
designing or redesigning within the
confines of a meeting
so i'll echo what suzanne has said we
the board would not leave this meeting
from my perspective
uh as serving any good purpose by
dictating specific design changes
uh to suzanne's point we will look to
the applicant
uh and prospectively in deliberation
with the city design consultant
to uh identify what that mitigation
would be
and says suzanne i hope that i'm
paraphrasing your comments accurately
so and i would also add if we
uh certainly we would be derelict
if we did not have a clear understanding
of what can be done what what
improvements to
getting it back more to what was what
was uh intended
uh are well known and well documented
and i agree with suzanne i don't think
that's the case so
at the very least at the very minimum
let's not make any further mistakes on
this
uh let's not allow further mistakes to
be made on the south house
and to mr hellman's point uh one of the
the great issues that we have
collectively
faced throughout the entire gestation of
this project
is everything that has been presented
has been two-dimensional
you heard me in earlier testimony saying
that that my
great uh uh
disappointment uh with the house
particularly since it's been painted
is in contrast to all of the buildings
along
colombia it is very flat
i i think that there are some things
that
the architectural firm should be
able to uh present to us
that mitigates that flatness
and further mitigates the appearance of
this
uh monstrously high uh
ridgeline i i certainly am very
sensitive to that but i
i would like to see the architect come
back to us
with how that can be mitigated
uh short of uh major
structural change to the height of the
building
that having been said uh to again to
suzanne's point
uh and to my earlier point everything
that we have seen to date has been
an equally flat two-dimensional
elevation
we have never been able to see this
building in any
simple form of axonometric or
perspective
that allows us to see uh how these
elements are working in cons in context
and to my earlier point some sense of
the
shade and shadow and detail that gives
the richness that we all value about
colombia
we have not seen that and i would urge
that if it is the will of the board
to move this forward with some uh
proposal for mitigation by the architect
i would hope that those elements are
included
well i'm going to defer to catherine
but i'd like to just repeat what i what
i think i'm hearing
which is that um the new drawings that
were proposed and
all the clouded areas and everything
that i've highlighted if as you've
noticed
i didn't really give a staff opinion i
just
highlighted all the clouded um parts of
the drawing there there was a lot
changed in in what and what was original
drawing to what
is in this drawing now admittedly a lot
of it is because it's built so the
drawings were
kind of you know trying to find a happy
medium
between what was originally proposed and
what could be fixed
um having said that it's the board's
prerogative to either
accept the changes that the architect
chose to present today
through the the drawings that are on the
website and the ones i've highlighted
in the staff report that are clouded
where there are changes so i think it's
it's
easy to see what the changes are
proposed or we can say
and i think it's pretty clear what the
issues are to the architect we'd like to
continue this to a date certain
we won't need to send notice out again
we can set an exact date
and they can come back to us with more
proposed changes that's that's
those to me are the two options right
now
aaron i have a question i i
and and maybe this is for legal counsel
but
the message that i believe the board
wants to send to
be zapp and the message i think
the majority i'm not certain but i i
my sense is the majority position is
that
if i could articulate this that the new
plans
that have been submitted to to the board
are not acceptable that
the new plans do not
um mitigate and address
the design deficiencies
and therefore the
the architectural review board
recommends
that bzap not approve
or issue a certificate of
appropriateness
and that the applicant be required to
return to the arb
with revised plans that address the
deficiencies
that have been identified by the board
uh and uh joanne if
if i'm interpreting your recommendation
uh correctly and and i'm supportive of
that
i am reading that as uh option
number four on our summary of actions uh
could you confirm that my understanding
is correct
and again i will look to city legal
counsel to guide us
uh on uh what you believe uh the
appropriate
next step would be i also want to point
out that mr popoff has had his hand up
his real hand so i just i didn't notice
it it wasn't his virtual hand
so it might be helpful to hear some
reaction from the applicant
and i will welcome that but if if we
could uh
if joanna if you could affirm or or
correct me in my presumption that you're
describing
uh number four and again i will invite
catherine to opine from a legal
standpoint
as to whether that's a viable plan of
option
or option um i don't know if it's a
table or a continuance
because i don't it's i'm not it's not
clear to me
if we table or continue does this go to
be zap if it's gonna go to be
zap my only concern is that the
the the the consensus which
we have to figure out what that
consensus is but i would like to know
that the
the consensus of the board is clearly
expressed
to be zapp in writing in our minutes
and i guess i would want to open up to
the board
to see if that's the consensus of the
board before we call for a vote
all right thank you i'd like to add one
additional thing
mr chairman at the uh the landscape plan
i think looms large in this
uh and uh we to your comment about
details
um not seeing uh it would certainly be
essential in my mind to see the
landscape plan
uh as a rendering as to how it does deal
with grade how it deals with the
landscaping
how the landscape looks across the front
of the house what landscape can do to
help
um step the scale a bit so that there's
not this because right now the house
couldn't look any worse right now i mean
bear lawn bear not dirk uh white
wall you know i mean it couldn't look
any worse so uh
i i think a strong recommendation would
be
uh the next time we see this that should
be in play it should also be in play
right now so the neighbors can see what
that's going to look like
thank you uh well taken uh
and again i i i i am
challenged to try to to shepherd us
toward a direction that can serve
uh as many of the parties to this call
as possible
uh and again i
as chair em i believe that i'm hearing
that it is
some form of uh option four
uh which is to for those of you not
looking at
that in writing uh that is to recommend
to the bzap a remand
back to the arb for final determination
of certificate of appropriateness and
that is
we would forward that to them with no
approval or disapproval
uh the other is a
a continuation to a date certain
uh that would remain within arb
if again if i'm legally understanding
that correctly
uh and would afford the applicants an
opportunity
to return to us uh addressing
uh the issues that have been identified
by the board
and the the other
neighboring stakeholders uh so
again i'm looking for uh counsel
from uh from catherine and from karen as
to
what the city believes that appropriate
action would be
i also think it'd be important to hear
from both matt sullivan and tom popoff
who have raised their hands because
they may want to offer some of their own
insight into solution that we're not
considering but karen if i can interrupt
i don't think it's appropriate to them
to bring solutions verbally
i'm not suggesting that but i'm just
saying
they may i don't want to put words in
their mouth i'm just saying i want to
hear
do they want to just table or not table
but continue the case
and suggest that yeah we want to go back
and draw things
i mean important is short if that's what
they want to do
and and it is my understanding and again
i'm i'm hopeful that catherine
can speak to this it it is my
understanding that the applicant
uh can request a table the board cannot
do that but the applicant can
but again catherine i i will seek your
guidance
based on everything that you've heard uh
as to what the
uh appropriate course of action would be
as as we've gone through multiple
nuances of of
various options
thank you mr chair um
the karen was correct in saying that
under the
the codified ordinance of bexleys and
the powers and duties of the board
the applicant can choose to table
and come back to arb for additional
consideration
but the arb cannot require you to table
so that's i think karen is right that
you you're going to want to hear from
the applicant to determine whether they
want it whether
they think they can come and make some
accommodations
um to address concerns of the board stay
and do that before they move on to visa
or not and and i i guess i should point
out just from a legal standpoint they do
have a certificate of appropriateness
they're just not in compliance with that
so
technically i would view this as a
modification of an existing certificate
of appropriateness
because they're going to have to either
come into compliance
or get a modification and that's really
what the conversation is about and i
think that's kind of what larry is
trying
to address too to say you know we've got
a circumstance here and we've got to do
within whatever we can within the
limitations of architecture
to address those things so as it relates
to a tabling
um that would be up to the applicant to
request it if they choose to do so
i've been advised that we are not going
to request
tabling okay so since they do
not want to table then then the next
thing is for for under under
the provisions of the code then this
board has to
is is would typically then make a
recommendation to be
zapp and and you know you you
can make recommendations for an approval
approval with modifications uh or
conditions
you can under your code it allows you to
make a recommendation for a disapproval
or recommendation that would be remanded
back to the board
make another comment please all of those
things will move forward yes
um to be clear
the only detail that we're talking about
today that is not represented on the
drawings
are the capitals of the columns and the
bases of the columns
the stone lentils are represented
as is the stone band above the porch
and the way that those are represented
also goes
back to what was originally approved
um i know that that still leaves the
questions that mr hire
bill heyer has brought up about
different approaches to take
to the dormers but
if if we would look at the drawings
on sheet 585.1 in bulletin 5
and zoom into the clouded areas
[Music]
the things that have been discussed as
details are are
not just verbal discussions they are
drawn
they are included in the submission
package
uh mr pothoff i i i
i have to again
share my earlier statement that the way
this has been represented
two-dimensionally
to the board and to
all other uh participants in this
meeting
are inadequate to convey your design
intent let me restate that
your current drawings are inadequate
to convey your design intent and that's
one of the reasons
that we are all uh facing the the
the intensity of dialogue in this
discussion i can
only uh convey to you my own personal
recommendation uh that you take that to
heart
and return whether it is to this board
or to the bzap
or to city staff but with something that
represents a more
three-dimensional uh approach to
conveying your design intent that is all
uh a a commonly
employed means today
with computer generated drawings
we see those on even the most humble
homes that come before us
for the arb and for something of this
importance i i cannot
personally understand why there
continues to be such
reticence to do that
so you're asking for three-dimensional
modeling
of a house of details of a house that
already exists
i'm saying i'm saying that it is to your
advantage to convey
your design intent for
mediation of what you have heard uh
in testimony this evening that you
convey your
design intent in response to that in
some
three-dimensional fashion that gives all
parties a better
understanding of your design intent i
have no question but what you
understand that uh but again
you've heard uh significant testimony
this evening from me and from others who
are uh
able to view the the building from the
street and we've questioned
any number of aspects of what we
have seen and we would like some form of
affirmation that you are comfortable
with what
in fact has been built
and in fact a lot of this could be
pretty easy with photoshop
you could take images of the house and
you could show how you're going to
change it
um you know but with landscaping and
color and things like that and that
would go a long way to help us
all understand your intent
yep i agree and i i
because of the nature of the problem we
face with this house and its scale
uh i don't think the landscape is is a
separate issue i think it's very much
part of the total issue of this house
and how we deal with its scale
uh so i think the uh next submission
should have what that landscape
rendering
can look like i think you also owe it to
the neighbors
all right wow
i'm sorry i'm sorry because we hope that
you can fix some of the problems with
lands with landscaping which
is sad but right
um again mr popoff
uh i i i it appears that it is clear
in your mind's eye what the uh the the
remedy is
i i would say that that is not clear to
this board
uh not clear to the city and not clear
to the neighbors
and so i i'm offering you the
opportunity
through some relatively swift
straightforward measures that we see
in most other applications that come
before our board
i'm offering you the opportunity to
convey your design intent in that
fashion
so i i again i i am i'm eager to
uh create a path forward for the
for the greater good here i personally
am not comfortable remaining to be zapp
uh what we are concluding with in its
current form
my sense is that is simply putting all
parties
to this back through the same uh
multi-hour dialogue on what
what needs to be done i don't think that
that's fair
to the applicants to the neighbors or to
the city
so my own personal bias is
to continue to date certain
for this to return to this board uh
as soon as possible then
that's my personal bias and again i will
look to the board and look to
city staff and legal counsel to guide me
on that
the i think we also need to ask the
question of our of um
of catherine um if we
if if this is if this if
if everything is held up do they stop
work on the house
or how does that work because again we
want to make sure
some of the other stuff that isn't
impacted by
this can maybe move forward or must they
just button it up until they get
the final approval that's up to city
enforcement
i mean they'd have they'd have to issue
a stop work order
so that's not within the the parameters
of
of this board or even these app that
that is
uh that would be up to the city staff
and law director to make a determination
on
the issue but it would in fact impact
the
uh occupancy of the house i mean that's
what's the
a disapproval does what in terms of
of of what they then can't do
well they you're gonna it's good it's
gonna go to bees at first
for for any final decision so if your
recommendation is
disapproval it's a recommendation it's
still going to go to be that for final
determination
yeah then is that the bees app to either
amend the certificate of appropriateness
or up to the city to enforce the
certificate of appropriateness as issued
you know that's a bigger question
that's really out of the jurisdiction of
this board that
your your choices um
you know i i understand what mr
bardwell's saying and he's
encouraging i think the applicant to try
to get some things mitigated and worked
out
here at arb if they choose not to do
that
or to want a table to a date certain it
will move forward to be zapped get put
on b's eps agenda
and and the recommendation can be for
remand
and you could go to b zap and they could
send it right back here too i mean
that's
that's one of their choices is is they
they do
have the authority to to delegate
um back to arb so
even forward that doesn't mean that
they're the final determiner either if
they choose not to
and catherine just so that i'm clear on
the the legal ramifications here
uh because we often use table and and
continuation
uh uh interchangeably uh we we know that
only the applicant
can uh can request a table and they have
indicated in testimony that they wish
not to do that uh
is the board empowered to continue to
date certain
um that's part of it that's part of a
tabling at the request of an applicant
i think the the the way that
the the ordinance was written was that
the only way it gets delayed beyond a
meeting is that the
uh because it's all in line with you
know the notice of moving forward
is that the um applicant would have to
request it
well given given that and again you're
hearing uh my own uh personal
uh filter on this is that
again my my personal bias is that
anything that we
uh vote on this evening that simply
remands this
to be zap uh for its subsequent review
uh serves no purpose
for the applicant the neighbors or the
city
because uh what we have spent two plus
hours
uh discussing this evening will only be
revisited
again in another city foreign forum
only likely to be remanded back to this
body
so i personally don't see a viable way
forward in through that mechanism
that uh is to the benefit of anyone
so that's why i'm i'm trying to figure
out a way that
we can resolve this uh within
arb before it goes to be zap
if that is legally feasible karen can
you
karen can you put back up on the screen
the summary of the um available options
can i okay thank you
um i'd like to have some
because it's going to fall a lot on me
i'd like to have a little bit of a
a minute to to um express some
concerns and opinions we've spent an
extraordinary amount of time in the last
15 20 minutes talking about process
or procedure and i respect that and i
depend heavily on catherine to guide us
the problem is as staff when we hang up
with the zoom call
i'm the one that's dealing directly with
tom and matt
and everyone that's working um in the in
the
in you know that's rolling up our
sleeves and i have no direction
how to help guide a solution to this
problem
um i can't imagine that you actually
want an axonometric
or a model done of a live building
that's already there i mean
i understand exactly what miss tony's
saying like to put um
photoshop onto a drawing and make it
a much more realistic representation of
how landscape can mitigate
issues um how details of lentils
expanded so that we can see how they
look maybe in color so we can see the
color contrast
but we have a live model and i
i have to go to the site and in the
field
and try to figure out how to help these
owners who
you know i just want to apologize only
for me
i i feel bad that they're hearing how
how
hideous their house looks right now
because this is an investment
and it's something that they feel
strongly about and it's a terrible thing
that has happened
and we're all here trying to find a
resolution but i feel
and i don't do this very often those of
you that know me i've done this for 22
years with the city
i never speak like this in meetings i
feel very strongly that
we are being kind of not fair to the
resident
i get it they should have been more on
top of this more responsible
but to hear that now your house is a
monster and is hideous
and couldn't look worse is just not okay
and i
as staff have to help get to a solution
and i need the board's help not finding
that solution but
we're spending a lot of time figuring
out whether we should do a continuance
um boot it to bza just deny it which i
think will go to an
appeal to bga and just have this whole
thing at bga i
i don't know what the right solution is
but i'm feeling very overwhelmed as
staff which i never do
well and karen i i respect your your
comments and and agree with
uh the vast majority of them with with
one exception and
i'm i'm the one who is has uh
initiated the line of conversation about
my own
personal desire and recommendation to
the applicant
to come back to us with uh their
proposed remedy in some
three-dimensional fashion yes we have a
completed
structure in front of us but
the testimony uh throughout the the
two-hour conversation in
your staff report has indicated that uh
what we see before us is is in need of
significant
remedy and i don't
see that remedy clearly conveyed
in anything that has been put before us
to this point
so i am trying to assist the applicant
by saying uh there are relatively
straightforward
relatively quick means by which you can
convey that remedy
to the satisfaction of the city and
hopefully to the neighbors
mr mr chairman can i speak please
certainly
i think uh typically we would uh
circle i mean i think we had a fairly
productive conversation
as we started to dive into this um
and there are obviously been some
comments and and some concerns
uh from a lot of the different parties
but i i would like if it's not too
appropriate inappropriate to have
uh mr popoff or mr sullivan uh
kind of address and summarize because
they
they they haven't taken an approach of
we're not changing anything
they've obviously been working with the
city uh working with the existing
structure and trying to make
uh changes to that i would love to hear
at least a response
before we move any further from from
each of them about
uh their willingness to look at things
and or
address some of the concerns tonight
obviously we don't need to hear
specifics um but i i would like to hear
that before i'm able to
uh take a position on how to recommend i
i agree and uh so for mr sullivan mr
popoff we welcome
your uh closing comments
um tom are you okay if i if i start
first sure
okay i would like i'd like to say you
know thank you again for hearing us out
and i think
um i don't know that it was actually
said out loud but i know that the
homeowners
are um they are not
absolutists they are people that are
that are
you know upset that uh their their
previous builder
took this space in a way that they
didn't expect it to go and and frankly
um you know perhaps feel that they
trusted the wrong person
too much um but i would say
a couple things that i i'm in order to
assist them
i'm hoping in the board's closing
comments i can get some clarity on
i think there is a very strong
distinction between doing something
incorrectly and having a mutual
misunderstanding um there is plenty of
things that are not done wrong and
that's done right on this building that
are done
incorrectly those i think we are trying
to remedy
by returning it to what's already been
approved
i'm at the at the risk of um
maybe sounding a little paternalistic i
see
bill i see um people all the time i
build things all the time
for people that don't know what they
approved and in my opinion unless there
is
something otherwise there is just a
common misunderstanding between
what the height of the the roof line is
with the adjoining buildings
if they're if if to my knowledge if you
know and
and for those of us that have dealt with
the construction the architecture world
if you do not say this needs to line up
with this
then you're talking about relative
heights yes it's slightly taller
and yes i absolutely understand that the
neighbor the neighbors
feel like it is um considerably taller
but if it was not clear um in in
construction language that this was
supposed to align with someone else's
roof line
that is just asking too much for that to
be inferred
i i deal with this all the time people
say i have you build a closet that i
can't store my stuff and i say
i can't tell you how your stuff fits in
your closet i can tell you that the
closet was supposed to be six foot by
four
so i think to a certain extent i think
tom and i are going to do our best
to accommodate the our arb and our
clients wishes to find a middle ground
on the things that are done wrong i
would ask for
some introspection on part of the board
and the neighbors to say whether they
made an assumption
and the previous builder made an
assumption that are just not compatible
and i think i would be happy to have the
philosophical discussion with anybody
about
relative grade and how that is
referenced on the construction drawings
that were approved so i think
um that's kind of my my statements i
want to
definitely uh offer the olive branch on
things that are done wrong and a remedy
that we can illustrate
i do also suggest that uh some
introspection on the things that were
assumptions
that just turned out not to be true and
matt i thank you and i want to echo what
you've just said
because you've used the word remedy and
i i just
want to uh return to where we started
this meeting and a quick paraphrase
uh is that the the very nature of the
conduct
of this meeting is to look forward not
backward
uh we we have all inherited what exists
uh and it is the province of this board
to uh to identify
what we believe uh is an appropriate
remedy for the benefit of the applicant
the city and the neighbors so we are
looking forward
uh and identifying a remedy as opposed
to looking backward
to what went wrong if i if i could just
add one more
point that i i hope illustrates maybe
the difference in assumptions
i think if you took the a picture of the
house
and you took a the drawing that was
approved
and showed it to the average person on
the street they would not
they would not have nearly the laundry
list of
complaints that folks have on the
architecture that doesn't mean they're
not there
but i think what it does mean is in law
they refer to it as the reasonable
person principle
i think the reasonable person would say
this house is
far closer to what's designed than it is
not close
and i would argue that our that with
good architecture
and some uh well-meaning um
let's let's get this behind us this will
be a relatively quick
uh series to remedy
now again for
mr sullivan mr popoff uh you've you've
heard me say
uh a number of times to this point uh
that that i don't feel that it is in the
best interests of any party here for us
to simply remand this to be zapp uh
as karen has correctly said without a
clear
direction and have all parties to this
uh
endure another two hour plus meeting
revisiting all of these issues i
personally don't think that that is to
the benefit
of anyone and so that's why i'm trying
to leave the door
open for uh you mr sullivan you mr
popoff
to return to the city
uh to this board uh with
your proposed remedy uh that allows us
to to
hopefully place a more
clear recommendation for remedy to be
zapped
i i do think i mean let's cycle back
um and i understand the neighbors
and yet there is a certificate
appropriateness that has been
issued on this house so we're not
starting over
a lot of those issues were faced then
and you know they're
they're being talked about right now
but a lot of those are passed i still
hold that
and this may be moderating between
peter's comments but
um and maybe this is just an issue of
the times
pandemic's a good thing to blame it on
uh but it's awful hard sometimes to see
on the we don't have drawings in front
of us we don't have what you and karen
deal with in terms of well there's those
littles
and here's this and there's how it all
works we don't have that we're looking
on computers
we're looking at this stuff it's okay
but it's not
great and so things that aid us in
understanding
how you've gone from what should have
been
to what we how far back we can now get
it there
um the more clear those are the easier
it is for
us to get comfortable and to know what
goes on and again the landscape plan i
think is a big piece of that as well
we need to get this resolved i mean this
house needs to be finished
the owners need to be in it uh we need
to move on
and so we need your help to do that
mr chairman i'm going to jump in again
and say uh offer that uh
time to mr popoff to see if he has any
comments
i i i'm i'm really well juan i do
appreciate your time this evening
and the depth and level that we're going
into these things
and we've spent several months coming up
with remedies
and they are in the drawings that we've
submitted
and they are clouded so they are clearly
called out
the only item that is not in the drawing
as a remedy that we've discussed this
evening
that we said we will do are the column
bases and column capitals
the lentils that we are showing in the
drawings are the original approved
arb drawings of the lentils the stone
limestone band that's being returned to
the front that was for some
reason omitted is what was in
the original arb approved drawings i'm
you know we're i'm getting direction
to not table it
and i'm having a tough time
with the idea of coming back with
a photoshopped 3d
image of something that is drawn
that is on the elevation sheet and it's
on the wall section detail sheet
and the drawings that were submitted to
you
um a month ago
and you know i appreciate your comments
so it's hard to look at it
on screen i agree it is very hard to
look at on screen
but i'm not sure
where to go from that um i i don't think
there
is a remedy that involves
tearing off the roof um
and so i just have to go back to what
we've submitted
which is clouded to show where things
are proposed to be changed from existing
conditions
that's our submittal
and i want to say thank you for your
time but i
i'm instructed to not table it
mr chairman may i make a comment uh if
if larry can speak first he
he was starting on that well yeah i'm
sorry i didn't want to interrupt
um you know i i think you're making it
harder than it needs to be
i mean there's been some issues talked
about with the columns there's been some
issues talked about with the windows
there's been issues you've talked about
the dormers
those have not those don't those aren't
represented at any drawings you've had
in terms of what possible
additional things might be dealt with we
don't have a set of drawings that shows
that
so we would take your word at it or we
would just go ahead with that
i mean i i don't understand i'm sorry
the dormer
for what we are proposing is represented
i know what bill higher brought up as an
option of going to a hip
is something that we could consider we
can take back to the client and go over
but what we have submitted is our
solution
putting us in a position to where you
say um
voted up or voted down and you're not
and there's no further
alterations you think you can make or
changes or even clarifications or better
drawings
well i i feel like um
the the the direction so far this
evening i've gotten on better drawings
are 3d models
forget the models let's talk about the
drawing yeah
and nowhere in my conversation have i
recommended constructing a model
uh of this i've simply asked for better
3d representation and
ms tony has spoken about photoshop those
are all
very easy quick things to do
because i think you're putting us a
position to where it's to take it or
leave it and
and i'm not sure that's serving the
applicant very well and
certainly not serving the neighbors very
well uh
i concur and i appreciate that i'm i'm
also getting
texts that are you know
we aren't going to take we don't want to
table it we need an action
and that's that's the direction i'm
getting okay uh thank you mr pop off and
uh bill was that you or pete that had
wanted to speak next
uh i believe i i just had a comment i
would like to make a motion that we
um recommend approval as submitted
with the risk of course that this would
be a unanimous no vote i
i say we move to that point
do i hear a second and
um just bill just i think we can make it
in the affirmative
um we can vote to deny the application
yeah well it's a recommendation it's not
a approval or a denial
but to joann's point and to bill's
motion uh we can
we can catherine to my best of my
knowledge that that motion can
i think as bill stated still be stated
in the affirmative
uh and uh it is certainly the province
of the
board to vote yes no or uh
no vote uh actually i'm a little
confused because
the recommendation to be zapp is to have
them approve it as submitted so an
affirmative would be
a yes to the uh drawings as submitted
no we could we could we could make a
recommendation that be zap
our recommendation can be that bezap
deny
uh a revised certificate of
appropriateness
that doesn't look like one of the four
options
uh that's number number three
three is tabling no you're that's
that's an old version bill that's what i
had me confused as well if
are you looking if you can look what cat
what karen pulls up
yeah the quick paraphrases it is
number three is to recommend to be sap
that a certificate of appropriateness
not be issued uh although uh
parenthetically
recommendations do not need to be in the
positive
so uh excuse me for interrupting but i
think catherine should probably
just chime in here oh absolutely
um okay so i'm i'm reading to you
from the modified ordinances of what
your options are
so it says you can make a recommendation
to be
zapp for number one approval
of this is the approval of an
application approval of the application
to amend
the um
certificate of appropriateness two
approval with modifications or
conditions
or recommend a disapproval
or recommend that they remand it back to
you for final determination of the
certificate of appropriateness
bill do you see those on your screen now
it's easier if you see them
yes i have two screens up one from the
staff report and one from
the screen that i'm seeing now live so i
i understand what you're looking at now
i'm sorry about that
no and and i like just walking through
the these um
personally i would not vote for i mean i
would not make a motion for number one
i would not make a motion for number two
because i don't think
the board is in a position to articulate
all the conditions or modifications that
would be necessary
in this time frame if we stayed another
six hours we might be able to do that
uh number three to recommend to the bzap
that a certificate of appropriateness
not
be issued i i think that's basically
what bill was
suggesting or recommend that bzap
rebound it back to arb
for the final determination which is no
approval or disapproval
i'm sorry i'm sorry joanne please
proceed
no it's i it seems like we're at three
or four so so we have a motion on the
floor
uh bill now that you see uh the
the summary of the actions uh as a point
of clarity
are you indeed offering a motion that is
tantamount to number three
uh i would like to move that the board
uh recommend to the bees app that a
certificate of appropriate
not be appropriateness not be issued
and i'll second it thank you
and catherine uh just to affirm uh even
though it's not our
historic practice we can make a motion
in this case for a recommendation
uh that is in the negative
you can under the ordinance when they
amended the ordinance they specifically
provided that you could make a
recommendation for a disapproval
okay so so disapproval of the
modification of the existing
appropriate right so well but but number
three
would be in the affirmative yes and i
was just going to state that
is just so that it's clear a yes
vote on the motion uh means that we are
recommending that a certificate of
appropriateness or a modification
to the certificate of appropriateness
not be issued
yes yes means no correct
so we we have uh a motion in a second
uh any further board discussion
uh we we are not asking for findings
we're just going
i believe directly to a vote karen would
you kindly call the roll
miss tony yes mr scott
sorry my fault uh yes mr hire
who am i yes um
sorry mr hellman
yes
and mr bardwell chairman bardwell uh yes
so uh the applicants uh
and the neighbors have have heard uh the
vote of the board
uh this will now move to bzap
with with our recommendation
for karen and catherine any any
concluding
statements from your standpoint
nothing from mine it should be
advertised on the agenda
at the bezap meeting later this month
hearing anything from you no i mean
it'll just go
um you know i would encourage the
applicants to
um talk to me in between and we'll
get organized to go to be that
uh i want to thank everyone for your
participation in this meeting
this has clearly not been easy
uh in the meeting as this has not been
an easy process for all
uh over the last uh many many months and
and
that is deeply regrettable uh but i
i hope that everyone feels that this has
been a
a fair and open discussion uh
and i i earnestly hope that this can
move forward successfully
uh for all parties uh
following the meeting with bisap so with
that i will wish
everyone a very fine rest of your
evening and thank you for participating
thank you thank you thank you
good night
you