okay
it should
work you came all the way for that
okay
sorry about that um
so this is the new rendering that was
just submitted this afternoon late this
afternoon um site plan
it's updated with landscape
as well as a full document
package here with the new
floor plan which is significantly better
and works um
pretty well in terms of flow and usage
um and then we have elevations here
which
i'm going to let the applicant walk
through
and hand it over to their
representations i don't know what order
you'd like to address the issues but i
know that some professional experts are
here to address a lot of the questions
this time
is the applicant here
please come forward and be sworn in
please state your name you mike you've
already been sworn in mr shannon okay uh
carrick cheryl do you always wear from
the testimony you're about to get this
evening is the truth i certainly do
madam chair members of the board it's a
pleasure to be back here this evening
for a third time
um
i don't want to get uh crossways of
board members that have differing
opinions on code sections um
but i
i would like to maintain that
we believe that
we've demonstrated that
the threshold issue as legal council was
referred to
with respect to the architectural
significance of this building
we feel there was robust discussion
about this certainly at the first
meeting uh when we got off to a bad
start
and when we reconnoited last month when
most of the current members that are
here were here
[Music]
we know the expectations of the board
and we've rolled up our sleeves and gone
to work on uh working on the replacement
project
but um
i would like to state for the record and
incorporate by reference the fact that
in addition to a structural engineer's
report that recommends a demolition of
the building vis-a-vis
rehabbing the building
that there initially was a
document submitted by mr berardi
which at least one or two of the members
last month placed a great deal of
emphasis on that indicated that this uh
this structure was not historically or
architecturally significant
you may disagree with that assessment
but
we provided an independent evaluation
from both a historic preservation
expert as well as a structural engineer
who went through this fire damaged
property
[Music]
we quite frankly agree with staff's
assessment as it's currently constituted
here in the staff report
um
we placed a lot of emphasis on um
the value of the replacement project and
as an attorney i won't try to address
that carrick the architect can address
that
but
if you want some numbers i have some
numbers
first of all
the current property value
at the auditor's office for this
property is eight hundred thousand
dollars
uh the cost of renovation is
approximately seven hundred and fifty
thousand dollars
uh in lieu of that uh the client is
proposing a replacement project
which all in
uh
is going to equal that amount it's going
to be about 1.6 million dollars
now for new construction that is about
350 dollars a square foot and we took
the time to take a look at comparables
in the area
um
and for the record uh we looked at
268 ashburn place 4100 square foot
property
sold for 9.85
that's 240 dollars per square foot
102 ashborne 36 31 square feet
that sale price was a million 75 which
is 296 per square foot
uh 225 stanberry and these are all in
close proximity to the site and part of
the neighborhood
um
225 stanbury was a 5 800 square foot
house that went for 1 million 375 000
and that was at 285 dollars a square
foot
and we have 297 stanbury which was a
6500 square foot property
that's at 1.6 million and that was about
246 per square foot
uh then there was 91 ashborn that was uh
4 384 square feet
sold for a million 95 that was at 250
square feet
if you take the same analysis and apply
it to the square footage here at 1.6
million we're above 350 dollars a square
foot
so what i'm trying to say is number one
we feel we've demonstrated uh to the
satisfaction of some board members that
the structure is not historically um are
architecturally significant
number two
in the sake of an argue window
if this board were to determine that the
building is structurally significant or
otherwise worthy of preservation
um as larry pointed out
is one of the
claims in the intent clause
uh we feel that we can demonstrate um
that truly it is an economic hardship uh
to require
the purchasers of this property
um
to put um 750 000 in it to renovate it
when for the same price they can build a
new structure when you consider the
current value of 800 000 plus the cost
of rehab being 750
to scrape and build and do a new
structure which we think is a superior
structure in terms of its replacement
value
um that they should not be
dissuaded from making that type of
investment
obviously there is a also a provision in
here that you look at the economic
impact the city of bexley
obviously a house valued at 1.6 million
visa the current fire damaged house and
that 800 000 evaluation i confirmed was
done before the
fire
substantially
rendered the property
rendered the property recording in
progress
so i'm not trying to be health or
sculpture but i'm trying to say that we
feel that we've met to test that this is
not an architecturally or historically
significant building
that therefore should be preserved
we feel that if you feel that
if you disagree with us and if you
disagree with staff that
number one we provide a superior
replacement project
we've provided the materials to staff
since the uh the last meeting
we've resubmitted a new drawing that i
like eric
i'm sorry carrick
to go through that addresses a lot of
the board comments by those who were
present
last month
we feel that we do have an economic
hardship here if we were to acquire this
property
and be forced to renovate it
and obviously we feel the fire damage
to the property is an unusual and
compelling circumstance
so what i'm trying to say is we feel
we've made the case that this uh
should be
permitted for demolition vis-a-vis the
threshold issue in your code
and to the extent you disagree with that
we feel that we meet the exceptions
as they are listed in your code and we
have provided the necessary
documentation
so
those of you who weren't here i'm sure
watched the hearing or saw the minutes
from the last meeting
i know we were far from consensus on the
replacement project but i do think it is
noteworthy that a significant amount of
time was talked about
was done to talk about
how the replacement project could be
refined
with at least a couple members
acknowledging that mr berardi's letter
was persuasive
so with that um with permission of the
chair i'd turn it over to our architect
who could go over the replacement
project is that okay that'd be great
thank you before you do that i asked mr
shannon sure just went pretty fast i
just want to make sure i have my notes
correct so um
you
indicated a
rental cost of about 750 000
that's correct what is that based on
it's based on estimates that
my client received
that's fine and then my other question
was
i think you indicated a renovation cost
of about 350
dollars a square foot
that would i'm sorry that is a new build
cost to scrape and build and build the
new house okay
and
um
do you have a square foot
estimate to renovate
uh yes i
have to alex can you help me out
yeah i uh
alex come forward and be sworn in please
i apologize that's okay
please state your name and raise your
right hand alex marsh you saw me swear
from the testimony you're about to give
this evening is the truth yes thank you
so the current house is 3 200 square
feet we received bids for that for 750
000
our new construction bid was 950 000.
so the new constructions cost more than
the renovation
and you also have the purchase price
already correct yeah that doesn't
include that
cost a lot that's that's a wash i
suppose so um
no i guess it's not so the purchase
price was six hundred eight thousand
bucks
and a renault of 750 so you're at like
14.
the the renovation cost came in at over
400 square foot and the new build cost
came up 350 square foot because the new
build is bigger than the existing
property
so the per square foot price with that
i guess the way i'm thinking about it
maybe this is the wrong way to think
about it but
if the purchase price was 680 and the
renovation is 7.50 right you're still
stuck with 3 200 square feet correct
that means your cost per square foot to
have a finished product is going to be
it's over 100 per square foot compared
to the market
that's what i was thinking okay so that
that's where
the decision to build new versus
renovation thank you that's very helpful
thank you
hello again
you want to walk us through your
changes and your
he was he was already sworn in
sure um so
last time i was here we talked about um
the
generally the style of the building and
how
the front of the building had made some
tremendous strides in terms of
compatibility with the neighborhood but
the remainder of the building uh was a
little was a little bit of a mishmash
and um i didn't disagree
so um you know over the last several
weeks we spent some time um
refining the
remaining elevations
uh tuning up the front elevation
um
in addition to making sure that the
interior and exterior were uh were
syncing up and we're compatible with all
the window locations door locations
things like that so
um
this is generally
uh you know a fairly typical
um georgian colonial
size and shape
i think what we're trying
to do here is
provide a little contemporary nuance to
uh to that style
especially when we look at the rendering
with a look with a little bit of copper
detailing in the the gas lamps that are
on the front posts as well as uh some
copper flashing right on the
on the on the front
eve um at that porch level
so
you know those are very minor details
but i think they kind of bring
this style of architecture um you know
in into
a little bit more of a contemporary zone
uh the detailing around the windows is
fairly typical but we've removed uh some
of the more historic detailing um
to be a little bit more straight and
contemporary
but the massing of the building
while it's
you know large compared to um other
um
homes of that style
i think it's in keeping with the with
the way that this neighborhood has
developed in terms of um
the size of the homes um and the in the
way that they have been added onto but i
feel like the composition of this home
uh certainly looks and and feels um like
it's all of the same time
uh which is uh something else we we
discussed
last time i was here
um
i know i went through that pretty
quickly but i think that's about all i
have and i would be glad to answer any
questions you have
thank you
um mr heyer would you go first um
because this is well a question first
because this uh is from the table from
last month
do we hear from the public before the
board starts
we don't normally do that but it that's
the thing we should hear from all the i
mean i deferred it um catherine to this
kind
but i think we should probably hear
about the demo
the preservation
the expert that's here
and then and then what about homeowners
or uh who have standing in in the
neighborhood so last time we went
through the board
comments first and then we asked for
public comment are we are we to do it
that way again catherine or do we switch
and let the public go first well
typically in the course of the year
testimony from the applicant then if
there are questions before relevant to
that
you just do it now
and then have the next witness in the
before we
significance to bifurcate those we don't
have to we can choose as a board to do
that and we can speak
[Music]
is there a different demolition a
historical person here than what was at
the last meeting then what
report and i believe that the applicant
has told me that
do you have someone else on your team mr
priority was unable to be here
okay
before you start asking questions i was
remiss and not uh indicating that you
should have in your packet um
um a document that uh a number of uh the
marsha's potential new neighbors uh
signed that indicated that they had
reviewed the
new plans and were familiar with the
existing house and they supported it and
at least two if not three of those um
are
contiguous and adjacent to his property
so they wouldn't have standing
how many of you do you have
um in total the petition that we have
and i was told was submitted
let me grab it here please
dated october 7th 2021
um and i'll just read it into the record
since perhaps you didn't get it dear
architecture review board members we the
undersigned are residents of bexley who
live in the ashburn
stanbury area of the city as current
residents of the area we know very well
the charm and unique nature of our
neighborhood we are aware that mr and
mrs marsh are excited to move into our
neighborhood at 221 nashburn contingent
on the demolition of the fire damaged
property we have also seen the proposed
drawings for a new house on the site we
fully support the marsh family in this
endeavor we feel the city should
encourage young couples such as the
marsh family to live in north bexley the
current structure is a tired structure
in quotes the demolition and new build
we will restore some vibrancy and
diversity to our area as have previous
decisions by this board in our city
thank you for your countless hours of
dedication you provided to ensure our
city continues to prosper while at the
same time protecting culturally and his
historically significant properties
and our opinions
221 ashborne as it's currently
constituted is neither either coarsely
or historically significant
i have andrew and lindsey dunn from 124
ashburn
mike linsker from 148 stanbury bruce
fraser from 317 berry pat giller from
145 ashborne
john real
from 154 stanbury
obi manumi
nimi i'm sorry 134 ashburn trisha
guckstetter
41 stanbury
paola p-a-o-l-a
bazaar
112 ashburn avenue
sarah brewer 250 ashburn avenue zack
hickman 102 ashburn and jessica and don
bennett
241 ashburn
and then mr john meyer 85 stanbury
avenue and
since this didn't make it into
your practice
one question this was a document that
was drafted by
you and and or the owner and provided to
these residents to review and to sign
yes
just a question do all of these um
addresses that you mentioned do they all
have standing no sir
it looks like most of these are
e-signatures
if that is even relevant but
so um that did not get uploaded to the i
i it wasn't on viewpoint okay
so we can add that too now
so are any of the um
uh neighbors on that list in the
audience today that
would like
yes for clarity it was circulated by mr
dunn not my client
um
and
i apologize it didn't get into your
record
that's fine
okay um okay so where are we at this
point are you completed with your
um
presentation of the changes that you've
made and
yes okay
ready for questions okay so we were and
we've decided we're gonna go ahead and
the board is gonna ask their questions
and then if there's audience members we
will
go in that same order that we've been in
before
mr heyer are you
i am prepared to go first yes
i'd like to uh just you know say for the
record as a board member that uh this
existing house um in my opinion does
have character
um
and that the existing house the the
details are very important to the
character of this neighborhood
the loss of that house
will
remove character from the street as
you remove anything from a street and
you're going to lose
something in this case i think you lose
architectural character to the street so
what i'm looking for in the new design
is that that character
cannot be replicated
but that it have a equal quality
or better quality than what is being
removed okay and i think that's part of
the purview of this board
is to
improve for the tax base
uh for the quality and the character of
a neighborhood
which of course as i said earlier are
two terms that are
uh frankly undefined and subjective and
therefore i have an opinion about this
um
as a board member so i'd like to just
kind of walk through some of the things
that are important for me in order for
the new design to retain that character
at the same level or improve it okay
the first thing
is that
[Music]
we
i uh
determined the eave height of several
houses
in the in on the street
and what we're looking for is that in
order to retain that character that this
house is the current house
by demolishing it would remove
is that is that the eve height is part
of that character now i'm not asking
that it be exactly the same eve height
but i think it should be in the realm
uh within a foot or two of what's
existing in the neighborhood on average
okay
that's part of one of what my criteria
for quality
and architecture and character of the
neighborhood needs
what you have here is it's not defined
what your e-height is so i need to know
that
now based on your floor-to-floor heights
and so on it looks like you're not far
off
which you know is encouraging but i need
to know what it is
the current house has an eve height of
17 feet six off of parade
i have i i assume that's
uh substantially lower than what you're
proposing but i just need to know what
that is um
the
uh
the eve heights of the houses to the
north
are at 19 foot six so they're a little
higher okay
and i'd like to see at least an average
or something that is similar
on those
um
[Music]
and
so that is the first and then the second
along with the e height is
the
grade i need to know that the grade as
it exists now is going to be retained
or be within
you know
criteria i'm going to set it because
this is all
subjective right
i'm going to say within a foot of what's
there now okay so no
burning up to a new build okay that's
that's what i would ask
um also all the houses that we saw in
the visible range of this house
have uh
let's see two steps up to the main entry
two
okay
and i think that is important to retain
you have three
so we would ask that i would ask i'm
sorry as a board member with subjective
opinion
that
the
first floor plate be lowered
to be about two feet off of
your grade which is what we see as a
pretty average in that on that street
again this is about retaining character
we're not talking about style yet we're
just talking about you know the general
character of the neighborhood
um the house that's being worked on to
the north
uh has a ridge height of 29 feet
off of its nearest grade okay
the house that is to the south uh and on
stanbury has a similar ridge height of
29 feet
off of grave
what you're proposing is five feet
higher than that okay so this is
substantially higher in my opinion
than what is
around in the neighborhood in the
visible range of this house
your florida floor heights are
uh really not a consideration for me
because this is something that's come up
in other
uh reviews where we understand that you
know modern living asks for a higher
ceiling height than what you would find
in this house or in other historic
houses and i understand that
but i think uh as i've stated before
on at this board that the eve height is
a major consideration because it is part
of the character of the neighborhood
um and that it should be it should be
there should be a
a deference a consideration to that
um
the other considerations that i'd like
to discuss in this are have to do with
um
the details okay the current house has
character because of its details that's
the brick pointing
the you know six courses of brick
coining to project an inch on each side
each corner of the house
the colonial entryway which has a
distinctive character
the uh brick molds uh i'm sorry the
brick sills of the of the windows have a
distinct character
um and
there are several other details on the
house that give it that distinct
character
um
i'm not asking that those be repeated
but in my opinion they have there has to
be new details that are equal to or
better than what's there in order for me
to say that this new house
is more compatible than the existing
structure quoting from f in our demo
guidelines
and is more compatible with the existing
structures and uses within the portion
of the district in which the subject
property is located
um what i'm seeing in the set of
drawings right now i need to see
i need to see more details
i need to know that this house in its
details and in its ridge or i'm sorry
it's eave height
uh in its floor plate
um in its ridge height and in its eave
height right as i said need to be of a
better quality
than what i'm currently seeing in the
set or i just don't have enough
information to be able to make that
determination right now because the
details aren't there for instance even
in your rendering there is no
brick sill for the windows okay
um
there are many issues
regarding brick sills you know for
weathering properly and retaining the
quality and character and
for that matter the
um integrity of architecture in bexley
we have to run the water off and it's
got to be done well or else the house is
going to deteriorate and the next thing
you know the value of the house is going
down
uh same thing with eve conditions and
gutters and downspouts which we don't
see here and i would ask that you render
those
because i think they're an important
part of the character of the house
the gutters and downspouts what color
are they how are they placed and so on
the band board that you have that is at
the top of your first floor windows
in my opinion is in the wrong location
because it makes the second floor look
really tall now i understand according
to your drawings that the first floor
and second floor have about the equal
floor to ceiling height which again i
don't have an issue with that but that
band board is in the wrong location in
order to create a good quality
proportion for the front of this house
therefore you know a suggestion
would be to move the band board up to
the
second floor windows in order to
make the first floor look more important
second floor or less important and maybe
it ties into the eve condition or the
freeze board of the addition on the side
there that's all clabbered
um
the other
determination for me is oh and then on
those details i see that that band board
is projecting well beyond the brick at
the main house which is not a quality
detail
it needs to be better done it does not
fit into bexley in any style
the way the the way the eave condition
above the first floor windows extends on
the cloud edition does the same thing
where you have this
soffit overhang which is not a good
detail
uh it doesn't apply in terms of quality
of you know a colonial look
um
and then the wood details around on the
windows the dormers with the crowns or
the the the raking
crowns that are there
i need to see those details i need to
see them be of a higher quality and a
better character for the neighborhood
the other consideration for me is
materials the house that you're taking
down is
or you propose to take down
um
has a quality brick on it i don't know
about the paint job i know it's been
painted several times
i don't know about the mortar condition
maybe it's bad behind the paint this is
one of my pet peeves about painted brick
because it can't be repaired anymore
um
but
the brick has a good character
and i would want there to be a brick and
replacement that is not a thin brick
that is not a
three and a half inch material it's a
three and five-eighths inch material
which i think you have in your report
um it has to be a quality brick
uh even if it's painted because again
long-term maintenance longevity of this
property is important to this board
because of the tax base because of the
material uh
stability and uh integrity that we're
looking for
um the roof
uh currently is a clay tile roof as far
as i know it's definitely not asphalt
shingle
i would ask that that material be equal
to or better than the current roof that
you want to demolish so it has to be a
clay tile which would be beautiful
but i would not accept asphalt shingle
for this project
in terms of the
[Music]
other materials i'm sure other board
members will have comments about those
but
for me personally
i would be willing to
accept this new design
if those conditions were met and in
order for that to happen
i would need to see this again
with all of that information and the
upgrades and the improvements to it
before i could uh vote yes
not remanding it but seeing it again
a demolition especially in this
beautiful neighborhood is too important
to me to simply you know have it handed
over to sid the city to to do all this
fixing there's too much in my mind that
needs to be adjusted
and it's because i do see that this
existing house has character and quality
that is going to be lost when it or if
it is demolished those are my those are
my comments
thank you
mr asser
so
from my perspective
i believe that the applicant has
demonstrated
with the evidence of presented
that the house
does not have historically or
architecturally significance
but it is a judgment call and i think
for me it's close
i personally am comfortable relying on
the report that was provided by
reputable
architects
but even if we get to the if if that is
not the consensus of the board which it
might not be
the next step is the
[Music]
substantial economic hardship
and again i'm comfortable that the
applicant has presented sufficient
information
to conclude that there would be a
substantial economic hardship
if the demolition was not allowed
and i based that on the report in the
materials
including the engineering reports on the
structure
i'm also
influenced by the analysis of the
replacement costs
versus not the replacement cost so much
as the renovation cost
by this vote i'm sorry but the
renovation cost is significant
and in my view
it's not reasonable to expect a
renovation
at what's roughly i don't know 350 per
square foot when the neighborhood
doesn't support that
is it possible could someone do that if
they wanted to of course
but i don't feel like it's my position
based on a statute to require
so i think i'm aware
maybe where bill is going is that
it's not right for approval because i
don't think we have all the pieces in
place that are required by the statute
um in particular i plus i missed it
karen i'm not sure i saw a time schedule
for the replacement project how long
will they'll take maybe this is the
materials and i missed it because
there's a lot in there um
i'm not sure we have the site plan for
the existing site it's not that
important to me but it's part of the
statute and i don't think we should
proceed unless we can check the boxes
right
and honestly conclude that all the
information was provided as required
so what
where i am is
with the proper plan
and a quality replacement that we're
assured that the replacement property
will be of
the quality to enhance the neighborhood
and not detract
recognizing that the current house does
add significant character and quality to
the neighborhood so we can't go
backwards from there in my view
so i'm in agreement that at least my
view is that with
with an improved plan
it demonstrates in detail that the
character and quality of that
neighborhood will be protected with the
new build
believe that the preservation issue
is dealt with
and if you disagree
in my view the information provided
about unfair burden or undue hardship is
satisfied
and even though i
personally
would rather see the house
renovated
i don't think my personal opinion is
relevant
and that's why i'm going back to the
statute over and over again because
do i want to see that house turn down
absolutely not
i really respect the the opinion of the
neighbors who spoke very
they have very compelling cases for why
the house should not be torn down and i
i am very sympathetic to that because
it's a cool house as it says
but i'm reading the statute i think
that's my job on the board
and
the attention to detail that mr heyer is
talking about
is a tremendous ad
and i think we can help
do the right thing for the neighborhood
that's all i have
thank you
uh mr heyer
sir i'm sorry
mr hellman
h
um
yeah maybe backing up here a little bit
uh when we first saw this application we
know we have two sides of the equation
we have a demolition to deal with and
then what it's if that if that gate is
passed and what the
replacement looks like um and
let me do the second one first uh the
uh
the first middle as we know was um
kind of out of scale out of character uh
with anything that is that we think
about in terms of what's one of our more
significant
areas of kind of architectural integrity
so that has
substantially changed and i think that
has to be noted
i am also concerned with both of these
issues the demolition as well as the as
the new bill
that we are careful as a board in terms
of our precedence
and what we establish in terms of a
record of the decisions that we make
uh in my mind they have to be clear
we can't
we can't be all over the place
and we have to be clear
what precedence we are establishing
so in in that light
right behind this house as we know is a
new build it wasn't a demolition but it
was on a free a lot that hadn't been
built up
in this house
we approved that house this house in its
massing generally and i agree with
bill's comments generally
is similar and how it sets them a lot is
generally similar
so to me that gives a bit of a precedent
as we would then talk about this one
uh the details and all i leave to others
they are far more equipped than i to
talk about that
as it relates to
the criteria
in my mind
all three criteria categories are
continuums
and so one might be higher one might be
lower and so forth but it's the sum
total of those
that you look at to arrive at a decision
this house i think has merit
maybe that's not its most outstanding
feature with those three categories
uh what i
what was a turnaround for me a little
bit uh was coming to the realization and
the understanding that there nothing
exists inside this house
there's no plumbing there's no
electrical there's no plumbing or or no
hvac uh
so
a substantial amount of what can cons
what you would construe as a house is
not present
and when you total that up i don't know
what it is in residential i i think you
would get close to about a 40 maybe to
40 45
of
what you'd expect to find in a house is
not there from a cost standpoint
because those kinds of things are
expensive framing is the most expensive
and so forth so there's no no better
than eye on that um so to me that is an
economic hardship
clearly an economic hardship uh because
we have we've had a fire we've had a
gutting of the house
and so
that sways at least my opinion on the
direction that i will probably vote on
this property
uh that said uh i think uh and we might
sound
um
high caliber regarding
the standards and the detailing um they
don't necessarily always have to provide
high cost but it does make the
difference and
when we talk about
beckley and we look at the houses bill
is just spot on
with the importance of details because
it is not about obviously the box and
the mass and the square footage
and and what's what's a delight when you
walk up and down these streets and drive
up and down these streets is your eye
goes over the details you see wow that's
an interesting stone detail there wow
that's a really great doorway and it's
just one thing after another uh that
adds to that and
uh there should be no philosophical
reason
why something new coming in
um
gets a free pass on that
so uh i i would encourage
you to think through that and i think
also
um every house has a story new houses
have a story and for the applicant for
the owner um i mean i can we won't take
all night here but i can go through a
lot of stories of folks that have come
in in your circumstances uh to where we
said you know wow did you ever think
about doing this do you ever think about
doing that and this is you know this
will really because that that feature
will haunt you or you'll come back and
you'll say why did i do that and we've
had people come back and say boy that
was right you were exactly correct about
that and because they become part of the
story of the house and the understanding
of the house and the detailing that goes
into the house
and every time you pull in the driveway
said you know yeah that that those that
brick lenses those are you know those
look great i could if they were if they
were there and they weren't if they were
taken back out i'd miss them you know so
uh long story short uh but uh i think
we're uh we're progressing
thank you
mr scott
i kind of agree with
everyone on the board i think the the
exterior of this house is
for me does have significance and and
though it's maybe not historical
in any way um
really i mean this is one of my favorite
streets in
um
and
this house this existing house does sit
on a different type of a lot uh that you
see but i find that quirkiness kind of
very interesting it does it's more
forward
so on an exterior side um if the
interior was you know maybe more not
what it is i probably would have a very
hard time
uh because the even with you know based
on the ordinance i i couldn't support
the demolition
that being said
looking through the comprehensive
dwelling evaluations report that was
submitted
and
the economic information which i
appreciate you bringing tonight
um you know there i do
understand and think that there is an
economic hardship i put myself into the
position if i had purchased this
property
would i spend seven hundred thousand
dollars
renovating
the from the photos of what i've seen i
mean fire damage is one thing but the
water and the basement conditions and
all that there's a lot of and of course
no electric so there's just so much work
that has to get done
um on a house that's probably been
piecemealed over the years so
i think there is an economic hardship
and that would be the exception that i
would probably have to lean on
to to to vote in favor of demolition
that being said then we look at the
design and i think i agree with a lot of
what has been said tonight uh by mr
heyer and even mr helman here um i think
one thing i want to note is i was
looking at the eve heights i think
you're you're hovering around 120
specifically noted but you're about 21
and a half to 22 potentially feet off of
grade and i think that's starting to
approach kind of a fairly high kind of
out of that zone of comfort so we want
to continue to look at that
and see that's uh
where that you know there's ways we can
get that down a little bit to be more in
compliance with the other neighbors
properties
i think another thing
that i'm sure by now you understand on
demo projects especially of the scale um
in bexley is the importance of
conveying that design to us right and as
a board of architects but also
of other professions
that level of information in the
drawings is pretty critical and i know
based on what i'm seeing in your
drawings i understand the level where
you're probably at in this development
and you are changing this from previous
design so i understand that and i
respect that but i think there's there's
things that though we don't
review interior floor plans we've had
comments on that before about how worked
out those were and i think i want to
make a comment or two about how worked
out this still is because that leans
towards the overall massing and quality
of the structure itself and some things
that that worry me is like in the main
stair in the house
um has a return at the top landing
i'm assuming to make the florida floor
works but that
encroaches right into a bedroom suite
door which in plan seems quirky then
maybe needs to see things need to shift
and i start to wonder if that starts to
shift massing and change the form of the
building so i think we need to continue
to develop the design and see what that
looks like in the impacts of the
exterior because that's really all we're
looking at
but then there's also the the the
exterior
massing of the dormers uh especially on
the back side of the house there seems
to be some conflicts with interior walls
so again a little red flags in my head
say well are those going to have to move
and shift so as you continue to develop
that i think that's
i'm going to want to see that and see
that development of the design and then
i get to the exterior renderings and the
elevations and i agree with mr heyer's
comments on the brick detailing right
this is going to be a critical aspect of
making this kind of a production home
look or
or kind of a custom home
uh in the nature of the scale of the
money that's being invested and i think
that's what i'm assuming the owner is
looking for anyway so i think those
details of around the windows
the brick detailing the quality of that
brick is going to be very important for
me to see
but also looking at your dormers
you know i think you have renderings and
you have the look of these elevations
coming from those renderings so i
understand the graphic nature of that
but i'm going to want to see how those
dormers are actually trimmed out because
right now you have just siding being
shown as where maybe trim would be and
if that's the intent
how you're showing it then i want to
know more about what type of siding that
exactly is so how those joints are going
to look so that those hold up over time
um
i also agree with the banding i think it
starts the misproportion of the second
floor i would be interested in maybe
having that broken up or maybe moving to
something else
i don't think it's a huge deal but i
think it does now that mr brought it up
i can't get out of my mind so i'd like
to have you take a look at that
um
the last thing i think i'm going to
mention is the site plan and the
landscape plan
there is a
a lot of reference to existing and again
we're not a landscape review
here but i think there's something
important to note that
there is a lot of
vegetation and plants and trees that are
fairly close to the new build and the
existing house that are being
slated as to remain
and i don't know if those are being
removed off-site or relocated and
brought back in or if the plan is for
those to remain but i'm pretty sure most
of those won't survive construction uh
in this type of a
demolition as well as new construction
there's a lot of overdig a lot of a lot
of disruption to those trials and i'm
guessing that a lot of that's going to
be disturbed so i don't know what the
process is
with the city exactly and the landscape
revolution the tree commission but i
think i think there's going to be some
kind of a little bit more this is fairly
optimistic and what's going to stay
and i'd be interested to see if you know
how that goes or our recommendation
affects that type of yeah and to the
straw source point there should be a
preservation plan that is
kind of a
survey of what's currently existing so
that when you go to the tree and public
gardens commissions they can
see where they are currently as a site
in relation to the house because exactly
to mr scott's point
there's a high probability that the
damage is just not good
and somebody's you know by the time you
call out
and run over roots so the tree and
public gardens commission and mr helper
correct me if i'm wrong but has a
tendency to say like if you lose this
you may need to replace it with this
caliber or a accumulation of that same
number
yeah we've gotten we've got
we've got a little smarter over time um
about tree protection
uh places for construction access
uh protection of our brick curbs uh
because we've
we've learned the hardware we've crushed
a lot of brick and we've killed a lot of
trees unnecessarily so so and they're
simple things to do so it's just a
matter of being conscious of it uh
making the plans for it so that'll be
dealt with at the tree and public garden
commission because obviously you also
don't want to have a void
in the vegetation beyond what you have
to in other words heavily treat heavily
tree big void you know heavily treat so
you do what you can to protect the trees
not just the street trees but other
trees that give her character if we have
to lose something we lose something um
but we we make that we try to make that
determination a good one so in in in
finishing i think
i i
appreciate the efforts you've made on
the design updates from the previous
kind of style of the house i think it's
definitely in the right direction i
think the massing those there's some
concern on heights i think you're
getting much closer
uh and also like the
the the balance of the window and the
fenestration openings and the dormers i
think it's it's not too busy it's not
pushed it's it's it's conservative and
what it wants to be
uh to the kind of nature and style of
the aesthetic of the house so i think
you're definitely on the right track
there i think it's just for me
getting into those details now you do
have a 3d model there's potential you
know getting into those details and
showing more 3d views or even rendered
color views as you said that one
exterior so as those continue to develop
i think for i definitely want to see
this again
but
i think that that would probably
as long as you put those together i
think that would definitely
lean towards that approval
thank you
i am
very similar to the rest of the board
members um at this point i feel like it
is really important for you to show that
you will be replacing it with something
that is um what you called a superior
replacement project
and i'm
concerned that we still aren't there yet
one big thing for me is the roof
i i feel like if you're going to tear
down a house with a tile roof that the
roof on this house
really should not be asphalt it should
be something um comparable to tile
so that could be slate that could be
tile there are many things that are
a high quality roof
um and then there's other details that i
still think are problem i actually heard
bill cover all of them
but gutter
just this little um
piece that comes out to the north if you
put gutters on those three and all the
downspouts that come down
just think about the way the downspout
is going to have to go around that giant
detail that comes out of the middle of
the house
um
things like that all can get very goofy
and so i think all that has to be
thought through
um before we would
you know move forward and approve all
this so
i won't reiterate anymore but i'm
basically on the same page as most of
the board members that
we just need to see
a lot better
quality of materials and
more details to to show that we are
getting
um you know nice quality details things
that won't cause problems won't end up
looking bad within a couple years so
thank you madam chair members of the
board
my
objective's last subjective opinion i
think we're trending in the right
direction
and i don't want to do anything to slow
uh what i perceive to be as momentum
i thank you for your candor
and
it
it does make it easier
when you're as candid as you have been
this evening
and the fact that you acknowledge that
some progress has been made is also
important to my clients client having
said that i'd respectfully request a
tabling to a date certainly well we
still need to let all the people in the
audience that might want to speak on
this so i want you to know that and them
to know that uh we want to go back to
the drawing board for another month and
i thought it important to get that out
okay thank you for your time all right
thank you
do you want to i would like to ask a few
questions
of the board regarding details um
regarding the materials um
you know
the intent here is to take the
the
style of the building you know the
standard kind of colonial georgian
um
and and add that more contemporary
nuance so
um we've removed um
turned brick roadblocks at the sills and
we'll be using a sand mold brick turned
on a head horse so
you know some of those details will
while they may not be
um
you know
fully detailed in this set of drawings
um
you know they haven't been not
considered
so those so the way that the
the windows are flash you know all of
those things are
are
yeah it's a work in progress but
not completely missing um to answer the
question about um first floor off of
grade or right at two feet
um from from the existing grade with as
much of the existing planting that we
intend to keep
[Music]
there won't be any increase in the grade
um
my personal belief that i will be
working with the with the contractor um
who's you know i work with on a number
of homes um the location of the home in
comparison to the portions of the
landscaping that we're keeping and the
way it can be demolished i think can all
be pulled out of the existing driveway
obviously it will take some care but
those things have not been not thought
about
as well as the sequence of construction
for the new home
in order to maintain that landscaping so
i hear a lot of comments but i i want
you to know that
can't represent all these things at this
stage of our of our drawing so
they're not not considered um
with regard to the eave height i believe
we're right around um you know within a
handful of inches of that 19 foot six
off of grade
um for the
for the
flanking eaves um that are the primary
for the primary eave height of this
building um yes the
front eave height is um
about eight inches taller
but we're but we're we're right there so
the building is a little deeper
so the ridge height does get a little
higher
i'm not sure
uh you know
the comparison to the other homes
i feel like we're in a pretty good
average of of what's what's there
i did not go out with a measuring tape
to measure the ridge heights i i can do
that
um
so
uh
i don't know so so part of my question i
know that was
kind of a rebuttal but part of my
question is
the colonial detailing is it incredibly
important
or can we use more contemporary
detailing
at brick sills
assuming that we all know how to build a
home and keep it watertight and make
sure it doesn't fall down
yeah or is the expectation
you know angled
um
brick headers and uh and brick road
locks or cast stone road locks i mean
these are honest questions may i respond
uh sure uh
there's there's no restriction on being
contemporary about this building and we
just want good proportions we want good
details it's important that quality
feed as good or better than what's
existing if you want to do that in a
contemporary way i wish you all the luck
but a lot of those traditional details
are time honored and they keep out the
water like nothing else and we keep
trying to come up with these new items
and they fail
there's a house nearby that's a recent
construction that already has its wood
paneling siding
falling apart because the details aren't
done in a traditional way
okay so you have to be very careful and
this board i think as we grow as a board
we're becoming much more sensitive to
what is going to
be a long-term sustainable detail
and that just isn't about the value of
the property
it's about uh the sort of sustainability
of of a building
um you have to be really conscious of
that we want to see that um when you do
a demo we are all our you know
everything is
uh
more sensitive okay
we have to be because we're removing
something that has character of in a
neighborhood that we are that we are
losing
a project where it's an addition or you
know uh somebody wants to
reform a roof you know from a gable to a
hip or something like that
it's not at that level okay there's an
existing character that is being
retained
in this case we are removing that and
we're trying to do something else
so no problem with contemporary but just
do the details right they need to have
good proportion okay that's something
that is consistent throughout bexley
especially in its historic architecture
is those details all have good
proportion whether it was built in 1927
or whether it was built in 1954 or
whether it was built in 1996 there are
buildings on parkview columbia wherever
that have excellent detailing in their
contemporary buildings okay
so that's really critical what i'm
seeing in this model in sketchup or
whatever this program is can be a
deterrent
for
coming before a board like ours because
we always see those things and we will
get right on it
um so you you know if it's an elevation
if it's a detail if it's a section cut
you know show us because those are going
to be important to get clarified
otherwise
what i'm seeing here is what i think is
going to be built
okay
um
the other thing i would say is that the
materials
need to be of a caliber especially uh on
this building anything that is a demo
replacement that has to be of equal or
better value
um we need a brick that's going to be of
a higher caliber okay
the brick that you've chosen uh there
are bricks out there that are there's
number of bricks out there that are at a
higher quality a higher caliber than
what's on the list same with the windows
okay
we want this building this new house
to be
low maintenance right i'm sure the owner
does too
and the details that it comes down to
the details how you keep the water out
how you're doing good proportions how
you're using the right materials that is
all critical
uh for
you know building something that's going
to have equal or better character and
and value than what was there before
but no no issue with contemporary if you
i'll recommend a book if you don't mind
there's a book and it really has mostly
colonial details
um it's right it's by a young
woman who um
i actually went to school with
but she wrote this book called how to
get your house right or get your house
right her name is marianne cusado
um
she covers mostly colonial
and sort of georgian details okay so you
can understand how the proportions work
and then go you know from there take it
and turn it into something contemporary
but you got to start with the basics if
you're calling it colonial if you're
calling it georgian
then there has to be some relation to
that in the proportions in the way
materials come together in the way
details come together and then
express yourself you know in a
contemporary way that's my suggestion
what was the author's last name cusado
c-u-s-a-t-o again you're going to see
mostly colonial and georgian details
but
they're going to show you how the
proportions work and then be able to
expand on that in your contemporary way
it's actually a book that we use here in
the office we have it
in everybody's office thank you
anything else
thank you
um we are going we're approaching our
two hours um i think a few board members
would like to use the restroom so we're
going to take a quick break and when we
come back we will do um
uh people with standing we need to vote
on the table or no
we're we're still going to let the oh
the residents yes yes but um i have a
couple people need a restroom break
quickly so
so she's probably in her 40s now
on this project
if so uh
i see
i see mr grubb please come up to the
thing kathy can swear you in
please
jamie rupp 180 ashbourne road
yes
uh okay so i was walking the street
today because i wanted to like draw some
points to make this meeting i think
characters the big issue and i think
that if you actually look closely at
ashborne
it's probably one of the most or
probably the most historically intact
street in bexley if you actually examine
it look at it closely you look at the
roof qualities you look at the
downspouts the gutters just the general
materials whether they've got stucco or
they've got brick
they're not homes of veneer you know
there's stone
you've got some wood siding but not a
lot of good siding on the street it's
mostly stone stone
and slate there are only three homes in
the entire street that actually have
asphalt there's no other street in
bexley with the higher content of slate
than tile
um which i don't know if anyone else
took notice of that or realized that but
it's kind of a big deal and i think when
we talk about not preserving that aspect
of a house and unfortunately i'm like
hearing that it's actually important to
the board too that you're actually
holding a high bar to whatever
transpires to this property whether it's
preserved or becomes something else
that whatever happens there is at least
as good as the quality sorry there i
agree that the house there that's what
is is worth preserving i think that if
somehow this house i don't know if the
sale was the purchase price of 10 000.
okay anyway
my thought is that's too much for this
pro for this house that is supposedly
gutted and worthy of destruction that
something went wrong with that strike
price now that's not really shouldn't
really be the discussion here but we're
talking about hardship and the applicant
came in here in august and said that he
needed a demo from this board
pronto so that he could go forward with
the purchase of this price of this house
you guys weren't giving him that demo at
that time and yet something transpired
between then and now that i guess he now
owns that property
i mean that to me sounds like it was a
risk that he felt was worth taking
whether he was going to get approved for
demo or not
um so i kind of would think that
hardship's not really a valid discussion
to have on this house frankly i think
the house is actually very valuable if
it were to be restored properly um we
live in a house that was that house i
mean as i spoke about last at the last
meeting our home is very much the same
house as this old shot and seen home
built 1939
all brick slate roof it had aluminum
gutters they had a lot of bad veneer on
the house had bad windows bad
replacement windows so we took out all
the windows we put copper on the house
we restored the slate put in new copper
in some of the valleys we spent a lot of
money on the house and so for someone
else to come in and round on a house
that's equally of equal type of quality
and same type of proposition that our
home was and to tear it down to do
what in my mind looks like canal
winchester
i don't think that's cool and it kind of
i think the true dimension is the value
of my home
so
that's my position on the whole thing um
the other thing is it's not just the
material that the home is presenting
with that they're presenting this in
this
status
it's also the scale of this home on this
lot the current home is only thirty
three thousand
thirty three hundred square feet roughly
and now they're proposing something
they've not even told us what the square
footage of this new home is going to be
i'm guessing it's going to be close to 6
000 square feet you take into account
what will probably become bedroom on the
on the you know bonus room on the third
floor that's a big difference i mean
just look at the scale on the map it's
twice the scale of the current current
home or existing home on that lot
both width depth there's not much yard
to that new home and then the
applicant's also putting together
materials like not just you know the
home the veneers are going on the face
of the of the structure
but they've got blue stone but the blue
stone is not real blunt blue stone i
think it's like some sort of
impregnated tile that's to look like
blue stone on the exterior so i think it
all adds up to what they're really
trying to propose in terms of the
character of this house being a lot of
veneer it's a lot of show and not
something actually has a lot of
integrity i think our street is all
about integrity and so that's why i come
in here because i think our entire
community is about integrity and that as
we allow certain things to slip or
standards to like fall
under i mean the home next to me they
put an addition on the back end
those drawings that they first proposed
with the recessed windows suddenly were
no longer recessed once the house got
put into place um so it had certain
characters that that were identified
with the existing home the addition got
slapped together and was no longer
consistent with the front half of that
house
now this board that's not what they
approve but they end round and got a
variance
later on from from someone on this board
and so that's what i'd be afraid of
happening in this case that even if you
want slate today somehow it becomes
something else once uh once the rubber
hits the road
that's about it
thank you
thank you very much is there anyone else
with standing that would like to speak
on this applicant
okay
you're standing again
madam chair uh members of the board um
i actually want to apologize to you um
i've had a bad year today and uh
got a little deal fog going on this
evening and i i apologize but
it occurred to me um
as i was sitting there that
at least three if not four board members
three definitely indicated on the record
that they thought there was an economic
hardship
and i think all board members are
motivated
uh to see the replacement project be of
such quality
that they can approve the demolition
with all the safeguards that staff has
in their conditional approval and the
fact that plans have to be submitted
prior to any demolition it occurred to
me that the board might be willing to
approve the demolition
condition on the approval of the
subsequent replacement project
and i would like the board uh to
entertain that if there uh is a desire
to do
so that is not typically
how we proceed um
we typically tie
the approved drawings to the demolition
um
because what we don't want is a house to
be torn down and then we never get to
the approved drawings
right and we're saying
i would say we're not there because i
don't believe we have the definite plan
yet for the replacement i don't i don't
think i saw a time schedule for the
construction
and so some of the tick the boxes okay
in the statute have not been met so i
would not be prepared to
okay
well that's two out of five and i think
i know that which way this is going so i
thought i'd assume my client a
disservice by not asking that so yeah i
i appreciate that but there is a reason
um why we tie the approved drawings to
the demolition the last thing we want is
a house to be torn i was suggesting that
the demolition permit would still be
tied to the approval of those drawings
yeah so well if you want to yeah
but we could do that procedurally we
could
condition that condition
well what's the point
so very so so they're not going to worry
about spending a lot more money for
something that's not going to happen and
also we don't own the property that was
a misstatement
and if we had
approval subject
to getting the drawings into the level
you want to be uh perhaps that would
change
and i would just say that um
as long as we stated the conditions and
i would defer to um
that um
that it was ironclad that the demolition
approval does not ex does not
matter unless it's conditioned on an
approval of a new structure by this
board that this is an extreme case and
that now we're
this is now the third meeting and we're
asked
i think it's just fair to the applicant
before spending a lot more money on
design
to kind of have an indication
because it's not
not that it's not that we owe them that
but i just think it is a possibility i'm
not advocating one way or the other but
if i think if we stated the conditions
that it was ironclad that a
design would have to be approved here
and a certificate of appropriateness
issued or else the demolition approval
goes away
but we still have
i'm i agree with miss strasser we don't
have all the box checked um
and the fact that we've had to go to
three meetings and probably a fourth to
get it
i don't think i think we've been clear
from the very beginning that the details
have not been there
um
some of these things we're still asking
for in this meeting we asked for in the
last so
um
i'm not inclined to i i don't know are
any of the other board members i would
my comment was only related to
procedurally we could
not that we would so
and i'm there was more of a question
looking over kathy and council madam
chair at this hour i'd say it's the
prerogative of the chair you've made
your feelings known so i'll withdraw the
request and absolutely table to november
11. thank you okay thank you
do i have a
board member that will
table your
uh the applicants he's acceptable to the
table yes sir yeah move to the table
and a second
yes
yes thank you for your time and
consideration thank you thank you
okay our last application for the
evening
is number arb
21-63 the address is 261 south columbia
the applicant is nathan sampson and the
owner
261 south columbia llc the applicant is
requesting architectural review and
approval and a certificate of
appropriateness for the demolition of
existing home and the construction of
the new single-family home
this is the second time we have heard
this application
um so karen do you have any more
background on this i don't um i'm going
to hand it off to the applicant i am
going to just point out um the one major
i think it is a major change
and that is the exterior material
changes to the building which i will let
the applicant go into but the basic um
the the premise is that it's been
changed to suck up
oh some of it
most of it and i'm gonna let um nate
kind of walk through that i have all the
old drawings available to pull up as
well
so let me know what you would like to
have pulled up
i believe some of the
expert witness or testimony that we had
um by way of documentation is present
tonight to
testify
in terms of architectural
significance of the existing structure
so
i'll let you be sworn in
and hand it to you to do your
presentation
um okay so
just understanding sort of the
procedural
uh outline
uh that we discussed before these two
hearings
maybe we should start then um
with the considerations outlined in the
zoning code so you know in
researching the project and also
deliberating and talking with our uh
expert witness about the sort of the the
two factors that we want to focus in on
first you know one is a historical
significance clearly and one is uh going
to be architectural significance or
uniqueness
the um
you know through
the
you know preparation of the last
application
we had or i had a number of
conversations with
family members who
who built this house and lived into
lived there until 1962 i think
just as a way to try and understand
you know what
you know certainly you know upstanding
citizens uh but
with during that time period not
necessarily anything historically
significant to bexley columbus or
you know the united states i guess
um
so
then we started talking about uh
architectural significance and we
touched on this i think uh some in our
last presentation
where you know the house that's there
now um could be defined as you know
classical revival right uh there are
a number of examples
of that housing style within bexley um
done to differing degrees and that's not
to say they're all bad by any means
let's just say they've done
differently detailed to different levels
of quality
um
in looking at this particular one which
is our focus tonight um
trying to understand like
you know
our view is that the existing house does
not
sort of represent a unique or you know
uh uniquely detailed example of that
style of architecture um
so in our view that it does not meet the
criteria for architectural significance
and i think in our application we
submitted uh a letter um
from mr loverzidge and he is here
tonight as well uh to be able to speak
to that letter um
talk about that since we're on that
topic
sure
wait so where are you in
thank you um
so you know i spent a lot of time
looking at this house and
you know it's it's old right it's it's
from the 1920s and that's when bexley
kind of grew up
so
the first thing you look at is okay it's
the 1920s house is it significant
well it's big
um
and it's old and i don't think those two
things alone uh are enough to suggest
that this house is architecturally or
historically significant in a big way
um
when you compare it to other houses in
our community of that of that era
uh it kind of comes up wanting i walked
all through the house today and it's
full of little tiny spaces that don't
really make much sense i don't think
they make much sense then
it's been added to badly several times
it's been renovated on the inside badly
several times and so you walk in this
house and it's a hodgepodge of spaces
that
that don't translate into a 21st century
house
so i think that's one thing to consider
uh your criteria talk about age and
condition the condition of the house is
okay i mean somebody lived there before
it's sold recently so
you could walk into that house and paint
it up and fix it up and live in it
but it wouldn't be the kind of house
that that belongs on south columbia that
that fits into the neighborhood with the
other houses that
that are there and i think
that's part of of the criteria that is
significant
you look at the houses on south on they
they vary quite a bit from very very
large houses to more modest houses and
this one is sort of in the middle
the house is proposed is about the same
footprint as the one that's there now so
it is not representing a large change in
scale
i don't think that this house um set the
world on fire architecturally i don't
think it set any trends i don't think it
represents even the best of
uh what was available at the time
uh that it was that it was built
so i think when you look at
all of your criteria put together and
you come down to compelling
circumstances the fundamental reason for
having
a demolition ordinance which i'm really
excited that there is because when i was
on this board there was no ordinance
like this and
it was much more difficult you have a
set procedure that makes sense
but the compelling reason to have it in
the first place is that if you're going
to tear down something invexley what
you're replacing it needs with needs to
be better
that is really the fundamental
compelling argument that needs to be
made and i think if you look at the
house
that uh b-hall samson and leets is
designed for this site
compare it to others in the neighborhood
compared to others in our community
uh you're going to see that in the whole
we're making an improvement
to our our city and i think that's what
really is the bottom line for this
ordinance is that
is this better than what's there
and i believe it is i think the quality
of the design the details some of the
things you've been talking about in the
last case
when you look at what's being proposed
for this site
they're going to do it right
and it's going to be a house that's
going to be a 100-year asset for the
city of bexley
in a way that the current house can't
really compete with
that's that's kind of what i want to
have to say i happen to answer any
questions
do any board members have questions
i would just ask
thank you for your presentation
do you feel that this house does have
character that contributes to this to
colombia currently
well it it has it doesn't detract from
the the community but when i look at
this house i look at that portico that
just seems to be out of place and
i look at the hodgepodge of detailing
um
i don't think it contribute i don't
think it advances the character of the
of the neighborhood
if we were going to tear it down and
build a box or something i i might have
a different opinion but i think
that
on the whole it's not really advancing
where we want to be as a community
thank you
any other questions yeah one question um
and i don't want to try to put you on
the spot but um
yeah at the last meeting don't want to
put him on the spot uh gave all these
examples of
existing buildings houses had the same
general style
and and i think in the in the sense that
then
there this was not significant because
there's so many others i know you're a
voice for preservation
i very rarely come to a border right
and so
how do you handle those of us that have
a concern regarding precedent
that said okay
if this house doesn't measure up then
all 15 houses are on those photos they
don't measure up either and there may be
another 15 beyond that they don't
measure up either
so all of a sudden we're in free space
and as someone who
is respected for your and and i honor
that your sense of preservation uh what
how do you how would you square with
that how do you think we should square
with that
well
um
i'm not a lawyer so i don't like the
word precedent
but i know it exists i know you have to
deal with that
i've only
come here twice
on this kind of an issue and the first
one
i was explaining to the chair a little
while ago first was really easy
it was the 1960s house that had very
little character
and was being replaced by a a very nice
house that fit the neighborhood much
better than the one
you know that that was to me was a
no-brainer
when the owner approached me on this one
i had to think about it i had to say
well look you know i have to go look at
i have to research this little further
partly because it's old and partly
because it's you know it's a
neighborhood kind of house
so i think you have to treat these
things as
a case-by-case basis
i don't think that that it was
mr sampson's uh
intention to tell you that all the
houses of this style should be turned
out i know that
but look at the proportions of some of
them some of them are very handsome some
of them have really interesting details
some of them have porticos and bay
windows and and slate roofs and other
things that give them a great deal of
character
this house is
i don't know for me i look at the
portico on this house and it's just
everything behind it looks
like it doesn't belong there
i thought it was an addition i still
think it might be an addition but nate
tells me that he's got photographs to
say it's earlier than i thought
it just doesn't fit
and i even thought about well what if
you tore that off and started with
what's behind it and it's just
uh
it's not a house with the elegance and
style of say the four that are up there
right now even though they might be the
same
style
there's a qualitative difference the
architect of this house was
known in the 20s for doing a lot of
commercial stuff
maybe they weren't good at houses i
don't that's probably not a fair thing
to say but it doesn't compute in the
same way that some of these other houses
that we have
do
thank you very much
um
yeah and i think that mr leverage is
right i think each one of these as we
use as examples just for different
reasons
those are houses to be judged on their
own their own streetscape their own
history um
so
understanding you know
that
looking into this maybe not any
historical events or historical
significance that's outstanding applied
to this house and then
understanding just the context which you
know the architectural detailing level
was
uh
executed at you know we have
focused
our attention a lot on
understanding that that's a sensitive
thing to ask for
so
we have worked to develop a
new home or proposed new home that lives
up to the character of the neighborhood
that tries
uh to
fit in in its material in its
detailing its style uh
in a way that does not detract
in a way that we don't feel like there
is
something missing uh from the
streetscape the the house is
presented in a style that is
represented from the 1920s
which i think this would be an eclectic
italian uh
romantic style
so
you know
in understanding that and looking at
other houses in the neighborhood
we are working very hard to make sure
that this stands up to the level of
detail to make the proposed design
significant in a way understanding that
we're asking a lot for it for the house
there to be replaced as it is
um
as noted recently we you know since last
meeting i've been talking about design
with the client and talking about design
within our office um we decided to make
a fairly big uh material change uh since
the last hearing from brick to stucco
and that is simply an evolution of
understanding design more uh
understanding the neighborhood more and
you know working to
uh have something that is
uh you know
adds to not only the quality level but
the diversity of the housing stock
that's in bexley uh in general not
trying you know the i think with that
style of house that we're proposing
brick wasn't the right material so
that's sort of our background for
you know how we came to that evolution
um
i can go
i can go into some of the site you know
outline of what we need
to bring up
um
so as a comparison
uh
you want the site plan yeah that'd be
awesome
okay yes
existing site plan
there
if we want to
sort of point out that yes yes that's
the box of the
existing site right
um so the sighting of the house that
we're proposing um the facade of that
house sits back five feet from the
facade of the existing house 15 feet
from the front of the portico as it is
as you know we're working to
fall within uh the zoning guidelines
that are present now that weren't
present then we're going with the
average setback of the houses on the
street versus uh the prescribed setback
which this is greater
um
we are
22 feet further south from the north
property line
um
and we're well within the setback on the
south property line of 14 and a half
feet
uh we are positioning certainly within
that we were very much trying to
make this house an exciting you know not
have additional complications as far as
zoning is concerned uh there was one
issue that uh we were addressing this
week with the
uh building department and that this
lots uh
40 141 and a half feet wide
and according to the current zoning it
has to be 150 feet wide of a circular
driveway so we submitted a variance
request for that so part of our
application now will continue uh to the
bza just to legitimize that pre-existing
condition as we stated last time
we want to keep the existing curb cuts
uh and use those and just refine the
driveway as it uh goes in front of the
house um this you know is
in keep trying to keep the character of
the you know historical streetscape it
also helps to preserve the uh street
trees you know the sidewalk that
presents so in the front of the house
we're proposing to
maintain
sidewalk you know certainly the sidewalk
trees the large trees in front of the
house uh this building will be built
behind it we do note that there is a
couple of trees in the backyard that uh
need to be removed to accommodate this
plan i think if you go back to the uh
existing site plan
it's kind of like seeing that they're
dashed right um
and that is simply trees that
would be lost either through the
footprint of the house or through the
development of the site and we just
wanted to note those so we could talk
about them
um lot coverage you know
the proposed lot coverage for the house
is 13.9 percent
where the
maximum is 25. overall coverage so we're
proposing is 40.3 and 50 is the
allowable
nearly identical square foot footprint
uh from the existing house proposed it's
within
uh just under 250 feet
greater what's proposed uh
building height we're at 37 feet tall in
a area that's uh a 40 foot
height
limit just from the zoning perspective
um and building with you know the
the facade pieces of the proposed house
that we've uh put in our application
um is within 10 feet of the width of the
house that's there now very much trying
to respect the streetscape and the
fabric of the south columbia
housing you know in this
we've been working a lot on the
detailing so
um
with that you know footprint and with
the style of house we have
uh we've been
fairly rigorous in how we're uh
approaching and scaling the cornices the
windows the second floor the detailing
on the side of the house
um
certainly
you know
scaling down the detailing on the second
floor uh the roof slope was at 8 12.
we're proposing a slate roof uh just
again
we're doing a lot to try and make this
feel like it has been there before we're
just adapting the site for a new house a
new owner and a new use
um
i think that you know
in
our minds you know actually is a
wonderful place there's lots of terrific
residents there's lots of terrific
houses
um
and it has
grown and evolved over
you know 100 years and in that evolution
the vibrancy and the energy
of the neighborhood
is because of the evolution and the
people there and people adapting sites
to and houses to fit their needs for
building new houses that are appropriate
that fit into the
fabric of the neighborhood
um
and i think our proposal is just
continuing that tradition um
i'm happy to answer any questions
anybody has about the designer about our
application
okay we will go to the board um let's
start on this side
mr helman you want to go first well i
think i prefer to hear all the
presentations before i comment
okay so is there anyone else from your
team that wants to present
um
i'm just uh on the arctic side so
i have a great day i think joe miller
returns for the uh earlier i'm finally
coming in it's better to have art since
can you guess warning then i i didn't
take it earlier oh you did i'm sorry i
didn't remember that trying to be brief
i think last month we had a powerpoint
presentation that's part of the record
and mr hire if you haven't seen that i
have an extra copies we have mr samson's
narrative statement and mr lumberg's
letter
now with all of that i think the
testimony tonight is is that there's
compelling evidence
that this residence
is without the historic
or architectural significance and
worthiness of preservation necessary to
throw an establishment
under
1233.05 c
this board shall determine both those
things
is it historical historic and
architectural civilization
preservation is the more specific the
controls over the more general purpose
section of
this
ordinance that governs this war
um
likewise we are gratified to have the
support of certain neighbors understand
this kind of
is in support there's also in the record
an email from mr tishkoff who lives
directly across the street you would
think one of the most invested
stakeholders in support of this and well
uh very respectful of the opinions of mr
zofa
he is not contiguous or adjacent he is
more than 400 feet north of the northern
boundary of this property line across
dale avenue and so i think the evidence
in the record that has to guide your
decision is compelling and likewise even
if you were to
find the homework historic
or architecturally significant and
worthy of
preservation still
we would submit under the code and the
factors for your consideration that this
is a superior structure to the existing
structure
that the proposed replacement plan
is more compatible i think mr
loversbridge put it very well in his
letter when he said that the
new uh structure he said that an
objective comparison of the old to the
proposed design shows clearly that the
new house designed as what might be
styled quintessential vaccine and will
be a significant addition to the
streetscape
the neighborhood and our city i i
definitely appreciate and agree with mr
heyer's uh consideration of the
character of the neighborhood i think
the evidence before you is that this
will enhance
the character of south columbia i feel
as though we have checked the boxes as
ms strasser put it earlier for a
complete application and mr hellman if
it's helpful on precedent i would say
this board always needs to be guided by
the particular facts and circumstances
of each case have those boxes each been
checked
no one was saying that those phones
should be torn down that's not before
you you're simply saying those are
classic revivals homes and as mr
loveridge said in this letter there are
unfortunate elements of the existing
home that are not um and also it is
worthy of consideration for this board
it's in your code that you need to
consider the housing stock of this great
city that it not remains static i think
karen put it well last month that this
is a living neighborhood that changes
over time uh the city needs vitality in
its housing stock and i really like how
bob put it that what you would be
approving tonight would be a 100-year
asset for this neighborhood and this
community so whether we agree or
disagree on some conclusions i hope you
can see that the applicant the owner the
experts have been very thoughtful about
this new proposed structure it's
beautiful it will contribute greatly to
the character and quality of the
neighborhood
and we believe therefore under the code
demolition is committed
maybe i may make one request from you um
it's just really for the record because
we're relying on the information that
was submitted in a letter from
your firm
on your letterhead but it's not signed
by any of the principles and for me i
like i
as a player like we usually like to see
a signature so maybe you could just
submit something for the record that has
one of your signatures one of your
principal signatures on it yeah which
letter is
this isn't this is happy august 12th
yeah august 12th the letter regarding
the demolition applications yes that
that was a project description
uh is it the city of exiting
architecture
yeah instead of putting it on the
application we simply because there was
a lot to say we
put that in as just a text uh to
describe uh our outline of
the view of the project addressing the
different aspects of the building code i
can certainly sign it and return it
that's no problem
um
thanks it was
it was just a space
thing for them
it would help me because i read this
like as almost um an expert um
submission like this is our our opinion
yes it is so i will sign it for you
um
but um i don't i'd be happy to answer
questions about um our application or
just you know our
uh beliefs about moving this project
forward okay mr helman did you want to
go first or do you want to
okay mr scott would you like to go first
sure
well i'm gonna i'm gonna go backwards um
but this is the proposed i think it's a
fantastic design i think it it does fit
into the neighborhood context i think
it's a very well proportioned
uh
i'd like to know i think the examples of
the stucco
change from the previous i think is
potentially a good move i'm not a huge
fan of stucco in ohio but
if it's done right it can be done well
um
so
great i i think it's an exceptional work
of uh design and i think it uh an empty
lot
would be easily approved tonight on my
my vote so uh that sets into uh my in
reverse order then the existing home
as i stated in my in the last month's
meaning
i agree that there's been additions to
this home that need to be torn down
i i think there's the rear
the architectural elements that have
been added to the rear the existing i'm
assuming is the existing original
structure uh are pretty awfully done uh
and i think are are not adding anything
to the neighborhood even though they're
not well well seen on the street still
you know that context and that that
those dishes are not successful
um
i did not grow up in bexley uh so i
don't have personal attachment or
feelings to this house uh in any way any
you know even the people that might have
lived there over the years um so
that doesn't you know and if that does
or doesn't play into any sort of
decision but then they you really have
to look at the house
in any sort of architectural
significance
as in previous applications there are
things that were affected to the house
that were part of their argument for
demolition
there's none here um aesthetic additions
over the years happen on every house in
bexley those can be removed and
additions can be added in my in last
month's meeting i i asked if any other
studies had been done
to
removal of that any sort of additions
that could be done to the course
structure we've heard repeatedly from
other architects and as well as your own
firm
that the interior spaces of the existing
home are is kind of a strange layout
i don't have plans of that but i take
your word for it of course that you know
there's there's quirkiness and strange
kind of flow of traffic within the home
i have seen interior photos of the home
uh not on its existing exact state but
from a previous uh uh images online uh
and it is it is a nice house it wasn't
it was a nice house at the time but
those photos were taken um you know
there's some architectural elements that
are
that are um you know quite nice and and
i think could be argued to be kept
that's not what we're looking at of
course but that is does play a role into
the overall integrity of the house i
have not seen or heard any discussions
of structural integrity issues or wet
basements or any other things that might
affect an older home as we all deal with
investing
so it it is this one's much more
difficult because
though i do agree
that the examples that were said
and we referenced that they could be
torn down or not tonight in other styles
similar to that
the photos that are presented are of a
little bit different caliber
and have a little bit more presence
but still fall within a similar style
and
you know
we it's hard to
put a value on what investment was able
to be spent on someone else's home
versus this property in the history of
this property
so or the architect that was or the
builder of this property and what their
commercial aspect was versus this
all we have is what we have
so
i think
in the end
for me
i have to go back to that checkbox and i
don't have the matrix in front of me of
all the boxes that i've checked
but i want to show you well i'm hoping i
was hoping you'd speak first
um
because
in the end it's it's it's it's
it has to fall on that because it's it's
somewhat subjective there's going to be
i'm sure different comments here about
the history and the
of this house and the importance of this
house that it adds to the character of
the neighborhood and that's going to be
hard to argue that it doesn't
everyone here will have an opinion um
so i think for me we have to make very
it has to be very clear that we're able
you are able to meet the criteria
of those check boxes per se
so that
we can get through this i think for me
the economic hardship i don't see is
being met if
if there's a no to the
significance
because i haven't seen that material or
heard that material we did i did ask for
that in the last meeting uh but i
haven't seen any kind of additional
information or or endeavors on it and
maybe you have that
um so i think i'm not saying i made up
my mind but because i'm very interested
to hear what the other board members
have to say
um but i've that that that's a big
hurdle
yeah and i'm not perfect
for that um
going back to your code it's obviously
the code that has your decisions
the code calls upon you to decide
whether a structure should be demolished
we need to consider the home in its
totality we don't get to pick and choose
an
of entity based on that entirety is not
you are correct that we have not
advanced an economic hardship argument
this evening we feel strongly that it
doesn't go on that first act being
respectful of what some people
the other point though is
yeah i think that you know our focus
since the last meeting and very
respectful of your question too
um the economic hardship question
is not necessarily
something that
applies
to this project well i guess we're
presenting a project or you know what
we're presenting to you
will cost more you know it's when we're
not trying to make that argument trying
to say uh fixing up that house would
cost more so we want to propose this
yeah well and i don't think you have
that argument right i mean looking at
what i know you know i don't see that so
right and i think that and i understand
it could apply to any homeowner right
now
just looking at the circumstances here
it's it's a nicer house it's you know it
that would uh
there wouldn't be good standing
trying to vincent no matter who owned
the house that that this would cost less
than that so the economic hardship sort
of falls out
[Music]
and i understand i understand i'm just
making a point that those those those
weren't presented tonight which we all
are aware of
but that's all i have to say
you can go next
um
i don't agree
with the assertion
that
if the building is architecturally
significant
then our next step is simply to say
under the unusual and compelling
circumstances
this design is superior and therefore it
must be approved i don't think that's an
accurate statement so
the compelling circumstance is a
combination of factors
and not one rules and if you satisfy one
which is perhaps arguably it's a
superior design that doesn't
mean
that
the demolition must be approved so i
just wanted to clarify that because i
don't think that's what you meant to say
but
it almost sounded like that right okay
it's better so we can go forward
so
for me i go back to the architectural
and historically significant and worthy
of preservation piece
it's hard for me to
not give great deference to the two
reports that were provided
i did a little research on
the historian piece the architect that
submitted the letter
it seems to me based on what i reviewed
the credentials are very good
and i
personally i'm not comfortable uh
inserting my own
evaluation ahead of
a reputable report
i feel like as a board
we can
insert our own opinion and our own
judgment and our own experience
but when it's something as specific as
whether something's architecturally
historically
significant
and we have a decent of not a decent a
reputable opinion so to speak and maybe
that's the lawyer of me because we rely
on opinions a lot
and i'm comfortable relying on opinions
so i'm not comfortable replacing my
judgment
over that
and then we also have the architect
confirming the same
position which i think is helpful as
well
so for me when we
when we've passed that threshold that
it's not historically architecturally
significant unfortunately i'm in the
same place i was on the other property
like i feel like i have to follow the
statute
and move on to the next which is the
quality of the design
and the other pieces that are required
to move forward
now this is a very talented and and
educated
board
several of whom are architects so your
opinion is just as important
as
the experts provided by the applicant in
my view
and that's why i would
want to hear
from the board
members
whether you agree with those expert
opinions
um
or maybe you say no i defer you know i'm
gonna defer to the expert
they built the record so
like i said would i tear this house down
and build a new one even if i had you
know if i had the resources to do that
probably not
but it's not my house so
i'm looking at the statute here's what
it says
so if the board disagrees
and believes there is historical
architectural significance and that's
the judgment of the board
then we're down to other criteria you
know and on balance what's the better
solution because the
as you mentioned
larry the purpose you know you have to
balance the interest of
the the demolition and the benefits of
the new property and what are we losing
or what are we gaining so we balance
that
but i don't think that's an appropriate
discussion
unless you conclude that it is
historically significant
and i don't think we do have to talk
about economic hardship
it's irrelevant
in this particular situation so
i'm trying really hard not to be um
to walk through the steps
because the importance of the house and
the importance of respecting the
ordinance
and and the
and the owners
that's that's where i come out
and i figure you all can work really
hard at making a great property and
making sure that but it is a great
design right
it's pretty spectacular that's where
smiley end
thank you
mr heyer
um i'm going to
start with
um
existing house which i believe does have
character i think that the
the the loss of this house uh if it was
to be demolished would
we would lose character on the street
very similar to our previous case uh i'm
going to be repeating a lot of those
same considerations because
i believe the quality of
structures architectural design
uh the details that are used and used
materials
for construction are essential
to the character of bexley
and give it its character and
and uh add to
the quality of the neighborhood this
house has done that for its life um
i don't think anybody drives by this
house and says that it needs to go away
um
having said that
my
uh my personal as a board member opinion
about the rules and the steps is that
uh if that is to be the case
and
um
then we go down to 20 or 1223.06
f number three the proposed replacement
plan needs to be more compatible than
the existing structure
with existing structures and uses within
the portion of the district in which the
subject property is located
and i would say happily that this design
does that
with some exceptions which are very
important for me
i have been to this property and i have
taken measurements
and i'd like to point out
that the current
elevation of grade
at the front porch to the first floor
plate is two feet not three
your house design is currently a foot
taller to the first floor i can't accept
that
and the reason why is is because of the
streetscape now your drawing
that indicates and this is from august
12th of 2021
um
indicates you know all the houses and i
thank you for being very honest
about the scale of the street because
clearly your house is the biggest one on
that side
what i would ask
is that in particular reference to the
house to the north
okay which is a very handsome
uh
i would call english georgian revival
house with a parapet a true brick
parapet
that house will be micro sized in
proportion to yours in terms of the
details
and the parapet height the eave height
and so on
now i understand that many houses on
uh columbia parkview you know there's
different setbacks for these houses
there's lots of landscaping
but the way i look at it and i hope
other board members look at it is that
landscaping can change any day
so you take out the trees you take out
the shrubs and you're left with these
houses and how do they compare with each
other
so my consideration has to do with scale
i love the details i love the overall
theme that you have here going on
and i'm looking at ways that you could
improve its relationship to the
beautiful georgian house to the north
because that is really the only house
that you visually relate to
on that street okay the house to the
south
um
you know behind a lot of screening again
which could be removed
but in terms of the character what
you're providing here uh honestly has
more character than that house to the
south a lot more character
and so what i'm comparing it to is you
know how we're going to elevate this
street as mr lover such said okay this
design does that i think it works with
the house to the north on many levels
i'm not talking about style i'm just
talking about you know the quality of
detail and so on but the scale is to me
it's too big
now i see you're trying to get window
wells in
on the front
um
and i really don't think those are going
to be possible uh with the conditions
that i'm talking about you know going
down to two feet from grade
i also asked the grade
not be raised and i know that
the house that you guys did a couple
houses down
it's it's absolutely stunning you know
the work that was done for the
landscaping there and the grade levels
very pleased with with what's there you
can do the same here
and i know you will uh i hope you will
but i think that that one is one
condition
for me
um i was going to talk about the english
bond on the current house which gives it
a lot of character and you're not using
brick so that comparison is out the
window
um your the style of your house does not
call for real shutters like what the
current house has with its dog ears
so that's out the window as well you've
changed the language
that's fine i don't have any issue with
that
i'll also note that the
height
to the eave of the current house is 21
feet
your eave height is 26 feet according to
your drawings to me that's not
acceptable only because again of this
this the the character of this street
now there are a couple things that i
would suggest that you could do
one is you lower the first floor plate
let's make this sit in the property the
way all those other houses on colombia
do or most of them
where they nestle into the landscape
the other thing that i that i might
suggest is that in order to
dissipate the the height difference or
you know have it part of the language or
part of the elements that you're working
on to do that
is to increase the setback because
colombia if you look at the houses up
and down that street you know there's a
variety of setbacks now it pushes your
garage further to the back i understand
that but why not push it back you know a
little bit more in order to
allow for the perspective to make this
house seem a little
more in context with the house to the
north
that's just an idea but you know
perspective can sometimes play a huge
role there are other houses across the
street that are way back
and they might be very large um and i'm
not going to go
trancing on their property to see what
their e-fights or anything like that is
but i can tell you that just having that
distance
definitely improves the feel of scale
in terms of the size of those houses
landscaping also but like i said
landscaping we could take it away
everybody all the houses would be
totally visible how do they compare
so those are some of the things that i
would ask for one is that the eave
height be lowered how that's done could
be by and that the first floor plate be
reduced as well in order to retain that
quality and character
of this block of houses on the street
particularly paying attention to i think
the relationship to the beautiful
english georgian house to the north
um
i don't really have any other questions
about the design and the details i know
you're going to
from what i'm seeing in the drawings and
thank you for all the
the details um
these are quality details this is
quality construction
it's really just a matter of the
character of the neighborhood
and the materiality which i see is is
you know so i don't have to go into all
of that but
those those are really the things that
are driving my
decision you know
to say yes to this project i just need
those
i need to be reassured that those are
going to be taken care of
can i comment just while it's
uh hot topic um i uh
agree with you on i think um all of
those points you know in putting this
application together we're
you know getting as much information as
we can for
you know what is kind of preliminary
view it's not quite as detailed as like
a true sort of arb review for an
addition or something so we try to get
the details in there there are things
that i think still need to be adjusted
right um i don't think there's anything
holding us to uh keeping that first
floor out of the ground a certain amount
and i actually agree with you about how
that could sink back down uh just to
help overall proportions
um
i do think you know we've we've started
to move it back from the existing
uh footprint of the house that's there
now
some you know certainly
15 feet back from that portico would be
that facade at this point
for the proposed house and i certainly
agree with you that's a fantastic way to
help to minimize that and give it more
distance to help scale it down
um
i think that there are
uh probably a couple of things that i
very much appreciate the board's input
on from an architectural standpoint as
well because i think that we're very
close here um but i think that as good
neighbors and people that uh
work in the neighborhood a lot we we
don't want to do anything that uh
creates issue or you know minimizes or
detracts from the neighborhood we want
to get this right and so i think the
input from you guys is very important to
help us you know
go that last mile get this thing
dialed in to the point where everybody's
really happy about where it's landing
and how it turns out
so you would you would
say that those things can be met those
yeah absolutely
i think that's a very good insight and
you know i stare at this
elevation sheet quite a bit
so it's nice to know to get a uh
some other perspective especially from
uh the architectural people so i
appreciate that
you'll know that
colombia
obviously has a rich history
of a building
and there are certainly you know i mean
all the streets in bexley are
important for this board
they all have a character
and what's growing and maturing on this
board is how to express that to
applicants
and what it means and how it can be
improved how it can be you know how the
beauty of our streets can be improved um
on every block
and uh some of that has come to the head
because we have become more sensitive
to these issues and and now we are you
know able to work them better for the
benefit of applicants and neighbors
so i really appreciate your
um willingness to to consider those and
you know for the for the sake of the
of this neighborhood
i remain highly concerned about the
demolition i think that's obvious um
in reviewing our demolitions to date at
least the ones that uh since i've been
on the board
um
we had the house that got replaced on on
columbia which was the oddball house the
white one
uh three up from brighton
we got a strange white house in return
then the blue thous
again no issues there regarding uh
merit or architectural significance and
then we had keener johnson's bungalow
that
was a cute house
and was delightful because of the amount
of space but from an economic hardship
standpoint it sat in the middle of two
lots as a hard thing to overcome
this to me represents if we would
approve this demolition is a progression
it moves to the next level of demolition
and it's something that needs to be done
extremely thoughtfully
because if it's if if
we're not careful
this will be pointed to by others i
think most people
that would go by this house and have
seen the pictures online
uh from the real estate ads and see all
the rooms and the delightful of it uh
they would say my gosh why is that house
being torn down that's a delightful
house it's delightful on the outside it
sits so well in the lot it's it pairs up
with the house on the corner so well
the rooms there are some gracious
wonderful beautiful rooms that have does
it have some strange additions on it or
things that could be prepared well sure
but how many houses and then i also we
did not hear the economic argument
tonight
like we did the last time
but i point out that this house
sold for at least by zillow 189 dollars
a square foot
the average price a lot of the houses
that we've been talking about here are
260 dollars a square foot sales price
that's a 70 dollar spread
against 6 600 square feet so there's
margin in this house for renovation as
well so it doesn't have to go
so
we need to be extremely thoughtful about
this this will be our test case this
will be our litmus case in terms of how
we deal with demolitions from here on
out
thank you
okay i guess that leaves me um
so i i
i don't know that i've struggled with
demolitions
in the past the way i have with these
two that we've talked about today
[Music]
it's it's really easy to drive down the
street and talk about demoing a house
that isn't great
but these two houses are great and so
they cause me a lot of pain in
trying to figure out whether they should
or can come down
and i guess i hear all the lawyer talk
and
it rattles around in my head and it in
the end it feels to me like we are
basically
to use our judgment um of whether we
think
um
it's justified and so in my head it is
justified only if it is replaced by
something that is superior not even
the same quality the same quality but
superior and so
um
i guess you know
i lean towards that this that this can
be demoed um i think that the design
here is
very it's amazing
um
and in the end it will probably end up
being one of the best houses on the
street
um
i did go out and measure with mr heyer
today to figure out because we have had
some debacles
and i guess you know like most things in
life we learn more from our debacles
than we learn from our successes and
so i think what we are coming at least
bill and i were talking about today is
that
probably eve height is the most
important thing
when you start to talk about mass and
scale
and so um i would say that what mr heyer
has um said about setting the house down
in the ground a little more not raising
the grade up which i think has happened
on other houses
and then getting that eve line um
down a few more feet from where you have
it would make me
more comfortable with approving this so
um
[Music]
i like your your
your quality of materials is you know
top of the line i don't i don't know if
there's anything we could ask for that
you haven't already done so
um i appreciate that
thank you
um
may i make a comment yeah so you know i
understand you know that
this needs to be a careful process
uh certainly and
um i think that you know in approaching
that we certainly want to
give you guys a clear idea of the
quality and the type of structure
that we're proposing
but i also
you know
on a professional level um
you know work with you a lot and i think
that and i respect your opinions a lot
and so i think that you know when we
talk about
you know working together to get this
neighborhood right um
it's it's something that you know that
i'm open to just from
past projects but it's something that's
important to us too i mean we um
if if we did something funny i couldn't
come back here and talk to you guys
you know about you know proposing
something else you just wouldn't believe
me right so um i do want to express my
gratitude for the process but also for
everyone's opinions because uh like you
i think that this process needs to be
carefully considered each time
um i think that it does not
i don't want to put in a place that
opens the floodgates i want to put a
place where
i'm meeting your expectations
for for what is needed
to uh consider something like this
and working with you to get there
well and i i will say that none of the
debacles have been your projects
thank you
i i appreciate that and a matter of fact
as i drive down that same street some of
your past projects are they're beautiful
buildings and i so i i i really
appreciate that and i also appreciate um
mr lover sludge coming today and talking
he is to me one of the probably the
um expert in historical buildings in
columbus not just bexley but columbus so
i appreciate not just his letter but
actually coming and talking in person i
give that a lot of credibility
so yeah yeah we're very proud to have
him
yeah you should be
okay so um
is there anyone with standing that would
like to speak
about this application
uh 2226 brighton road on the corner of
colombian bride
yes
so i'm here in favor of the project i've
reviewed the application and i have
great confidence that b samson and deets
can use utilize the right materials so
i'm very encouraged to you guys talk so
much about all the material use um they
feel like the house can look established
as opposed to brand new
which i think is really important to me
as a neighbor that we don't have
new construction that ends up looking
brand new upon completion
so
that's why i'm here today
we appreciate waiting so long
i will eat dinner before i come
why do you have a view of the debacle
from my family room um that you referred
to as a debacle literally
my
tv room has a double door glass window
that's a half a story above
that faces it and i would like to say i
think
off subject i guess but it's come
together better than anyone expected it
to so i think that's another reason that
i'm here is
you know we've had some changes and i
really like it yeah we at least got the
backhoes off the property now right
tobaccos are gone
but i think that's another reason
right
but i think the materials and the scale
are key to keeping the neighborhood
looking consistent
so
anyway do you have any other questions
thank you so much
is there anyone else in the audience
with standing that would like to speak
about this application
columbia
i do
i think again i agree it's a beautiful
design i think my biggest concern is the
presence that all of you guys are
studying uh my dad live although i grew
up here my dad lived in burton county
new jersey go out there to faron you see
many big mansions and what i fear is
that proving this roosevelt stan arden
every single stream in bexley is going
to become mansions because you guys are
going to approve it based on a better
outcome there and all that we're going
to see now is
a horrible city as a result because
you're going to see developers come in
flippers come in want to just turn
mcmansions tear down little smaller
houses be big ones this is what's going
on go to chicago the north suburbs there
go to the east coast
all examples this is what will happen
the backsliding will bring down our
house values not bring proper house
values i just want to point out that
what the
[Music]
that money can buy anything that joel
pazuti with money can just buy anything
he
wants thank you
okay
um
you've heard all the comments what would
you like to do
um well i think
that
yeah
i mean i think um
you know
clearly
we are
um in a stage of this process uh ready
to move forward with
your input guidance for
to help us dial this in um and i think
that you know with that collaboration
you know we are
we will achieve something that i think
everybody will be proud of and that does
add to that neighborhood so i think you
know in that spirit i think we'd like to
take a vote
well
if i can respond to that yeah go ahead
um
because of the nature of this demo and
you know the character of the house
that's being removed
um i really would like to see those
conditions met before we take a vote i
would like this to be tabled and to come
back next month
for those final revisions i think that
sets a good precedent especially for you
know where bexley is going with the
charac how we want to
improve the character of the
neighborhood um
i don't
really
think that um
it's it's right for us especially with
the conditions to um move ahead with the
vote at this point
yeah i respect that uh and i think that
you know
if we can provide those additional
details and uh understanding of um some
of these modifications
uh
in an effort to forward this
i'm 100 for that
i might just also add that maybe just
check the application conditions
carefully because maybe i missed it but
i don't see a time schedule for the
replacement project
and um on that first application
we had discussed it and i'll make sure
that that
is part of the my point being that this
is an important step
we're going to hold every object into
you got to have this really tight and
thoroughly embedded and like you said
the plans
very clear and finished
and even though this board has a high
degree of confidence in your
professionalism
you know it's not
appropriate to
give deference to that
and the next applicant we have
that we don't know
or are friends with or have a
professional relationship differently so
if you're just gonna have to do this
really tough and
totally different
i think sir please do not talk without
coming from being
is
yeah uh and
just my thought on that too is um
i
do want to keep this project or this
process um up to the standards that i
think it needs to be
and if that is asking to you know
make those adjustments so that we can
all look at that and have a chance to
comment and think about that i'm 100
behind that now as
as an architect you know that when you
make that kind of adjustment
something else is going to come up
and so maybe two things
and so this is an opportunity and thank
you very much for your patience but this
is an opportunity for you to
dot the eyes and cross the t's with that
adjustment
how many times have you reviewed a shop
drawing or a submittal where you say you
know what i'm going to look at that just
one more time and you catch something
again and you think to yourself
that would have been a huge mistake if i
had missed that so you know that's the
nature of our business i really
appreciate your patience it's the curse
that we live with so i i respect that
um so with some of the modifications
that we talked about um
in there
i think that you know just to dot the
eyes and cross the t's we'll update that
uh building section detail because it's
still in brick that's correct yes
yes thank you yeah
yeah i'll admit it and uh
but uh then work through that and get
you guys um the answers that you're
looking for awesome so you will be back
next month in the november meeting okay
um
just as a final note too because the
uh
the request to preserve the pre-existing
circular drive
on this lot was there any concerns of
the boards just from that application
standpoint
it just i know it's separate we can i
don't know if you want to answer that
after the circular drives are allowed
with the lot width that that lot has if
it were a smaller lot width then it
would have to but that's not it's
pre-existing no i understand so that but
it's allowed all already so
oh it's just under it's a hair under
that would you know with data
i want to be careful uh yeah okay but no
necessarily concerns to voice about i
think that's very close so okay
okay so uh you're requesting a table
table please yes okay
november 11.
second
oh second
[Music]
yes
yes mr scott yes
yes
okay thank thank you everybody for their
time
thank you
okay and um so we just have a few more
small things to do uh something went
wrong with our youtube at the beginning
of the meeting and so um
we need to just go through a few items
and just to prove them again just for
the record so karen's going to actually
read the ones that didn't yeah um
actually
mayor kessler said i don't need i didn't
even have to do this but it would make
me and i think kathy feel a lot better
if we just zip through them again
i'm just going to read really quickly
the addresses of
the consent agenda items somebody can
make a motion
and then at least we have it recorded
um
so i just want to reaffirm that the
consent agenda items that have been
approved um as indicated in the staff
report
um
uh
just to reaffirm that because we were
not on youtube
[Music]
oh yes 121 north remington and 2592
bexley park were withdrawn and saint
charles tabled us in november 11th
thank you
thank you that would save us a lot of
time
the minutes will reflect the actual vote
that was taken so anybody who didn't
hear it on youtube could go to the city
website as soon as those are up and get
great information thank you guys very
much okay and sorry about that we have
no idea one last item is we will be
putting out a do uh a poll for um our
next meeting um
yeah our next workshop um so look for
that to come from karen in the next
couple days so we've got some things we
would like to discuss as a group yeah
about demolition clearly okay
so we're done
well you can meet at the site with two
but we shouldn't discuss it