well now
now we're live
okay we will call uh to order the um
architectural review board for september
9th 2021
uh for bexley
can we get the roll call please
strausser here mr hellman here mr scott
here chairman tony here
um i just have one announcement today we
are um we normally would have five board
members but we could not get a fifth one
to come today so in order to get
approval on an item today you still have
to get three out of the four board
members to vote for your
um project
um so this is the part of the meeting
where we have public comments this is an
opportunity for any person to provide
comments to the board
on any item that is not on the board's
meeting agenda
any comments
relating to items on the agenda may be
made with those
by those withstanding when the matter is
before the board for consideration
is there anyone who wants to speak on
any matter that is not on the board's
agenda tonight
seeing none
okay we will
start with the first uh application
and we're going to start with uh three
of our
projects that are on our consent agenda
and so the first one
join me to pull up the staff report that
has this on it
i have him here okay
okay the first one is
application number arb
21-59 the address is 99 south roosevelt
the applicant is benjamin beveaux
the owner is
propertypaths.com llc
the applicant is requesting architecture
review and approval and a certificate of
appropriateness for a new front porch
and conversion of the attached garage to
living space
the second is application number b zap
21.
sorry to interrupt you it's actually arb
that was typo in my part i will correct
that in the record
arb 21-61
[Music]
the address is 269 north cassingham the
applicant is brian zingelman the owner
is julie and matt stanley
the applicant is requesting review and
approval of a two-story addition to a
rear of existing two-story house a first
floor mud room and family room a second
floor master suite and a new covered
back porch and new patio from the
addition to existing garage
the third application number is bzapp
21-37
the address is 809 south cassingham the
applicant is brenda parker
the owner or zac and lara kobe
the applicant is requesting
recommendation for a certificate of
appropriateness to the board of zoning
and planning for a new screen porch
a new roof on a sleeping porch and a new
window reconfiguration
is there anyone in the audience that
wants to speak on behalf of any of these
three applications
okay seeing none um
any of the um changes that were sent in
to staff on behalf of any of the board
members those changes were
put into these applications and and
those changes were made so
okay
right anyone a board member that will
make a motion on any on that these
consent items yes i move approval of the
consent agenda
uh mr scott yes mr hellman yes strasser
yes madam chair
yes
okay this takes us to um old business
and so uh our first old business
application number is arb 21-58 the
address is 221 ashborne
the applicant is carrick cheryl
the owner is alex marsh and the
applicant is requesting architectural
review and approval and a certificate of
appropriateness for the demolition of
the existing house fire damaged home and
construction of new single-family home
karen do you have a staff report on this
yeah i i gave a pretty thorough staff
report that um
the references the demolition ordinance
but i'm just gonna give a little bit of
a summary and then i'm gonna hand it to
um the applicant who i i'm sorry keep in
mind that i can't see any of you so if
you need a drawing put up just let me
know
um but i think mike shannon will
probably be speaking um toward the to
the demolition
ordinance for this project who um is a
new represent representative amongst
alex and carrick for this project um
this application
obviously as suzanne as chairman tony
has said is for demolition of an
existing structure and a replacement
structure
it was an application that came before
the board in august it was tabled
the board had
a few requests and a lot of discussion
generally what the board was looking for
was a much more solid argument or
presentation of the structural integrity
or lack thereof for merit of demolition
and as well as a revision and a redesign
of the proposed replacement structure
so those are the broad brush strokes of
the two main things that the board was
looking for we did have an extensive
conversation about
um how the existing
exterior skin of the building which
wasn't
fully damaged in the fire
could be used to kind of
redo the entire inside
i i think that that still has a lot of
merit to it as an idea but i do think
that that discussion came
um
it became such a big part of our
discussion because the
proposal for the new structure really
did not fit into the neighborhood since
then the applicant had the architect has
redesigned
the new structure
while i do stay in the staff report and
i'll continue to say here that it is
much more in keeping
with the
character of the neighborhood according
to the criteria of
architectural review and replacement
within the demolition ordinance meaning
architectural design exterior materials
exterior details height building mass
and then one last thing that's in the
ordinance 1223.04 is a preservation plan
for existing trees which they did
provide
a landscape plan
all of these things are definitely much
better with this design
i didn't receive the design as you own
as your board members are aware until
late in the day on friday and so since
this
since the staff report was published
online i've done a lot more
deep dive into the drawings and while i
do think conceptually this is a much
better
design on the exterior there are just a
lot of details missing on the drawing
that i'm not comfortable with
at this point but i think it's on the
right track the the massing is much more
in keeping with character of the
neighborhood the materials and colors
seem much more appropriate the
proportions of things like the roofline
window placement size massing are all
much more consistent with the
neighboring properties
as is the height and building mass
having said that when i talk about the
details that are still being left out
there um there are lots of things in
this in these drawings that while it's
conceptual and we i'm okay with
accepting conceptual
drawings there are too many things that
are missing that i wouldn't feel
comfortable with that could lead to
further changes on the exterior there
are quite a number of rooms that don't
have windows or doors yet sketched in or
put in
or hardlined in
there are also a lot of kind of exterior
details that are suggestive of trim
details window details etc mullions that
kind of thing
but are really kind of sketchy and not
not well drawn out yet
again i don't want to lose sight of the
compliments to the architect for taking
the criticism and
coming to a much better point in the
design process
back to the demolition documents you
will see and i'm going to trust that
the applicant will go into them in more
detail that there is now a structural
engineers report on file and it is
online
so
the demolition ordinance has been
addressed more fully
and we can let the applicant go through
that i'm sure that all the board members
have had a chance to review that
i think at this time i'll go ahead and
pull up the drawings and hand it over to
the applicant to fill in any of the gaps
i'm going to fill up the new dry i'm
going to pull up excuse me the new
drawings please let me know if you need
me to pull up anything else
[Music]
that i have failed to
okay
sorry i can't see so kathy you'll have
to
introduce who is who the applicant
your judge can choose is to represent
at this point we will uh swear in the
applicant okay please state your name
michael t shannon you saw me swear or
affirm the testimony you're about to
give this evening is the truth i do
thank you
good evening members of the board uh
again my name is mike shannon on behalf
of the applicant mr marsh
carrick is here with me this evening as
well
um i want to state for the record that
um i was in in attendance at last
month's hearing
but i was an innocent bystander i uh did
not participate in that uh presentation
but mr marsh and
carrick
and i have worked together on different
projects and
i'm here to try to help
i was here in fact for the saint charles
case
and as a 75 graduate of saint charles
it's
1975 before you ask cathy um i'd be
remiss if i didn't thank you for the
deliberations regarding that project
um it should be also noted for the
record that mr lauer
[Music]
thought he was hiring kevin shannon who
happens to be your magistrate here at
the city he ended up getting me and for
those of you who know my brother kevin
and know me he's the good son
um
but we take that in stride
um
you know last uh last month's meeting um
uh obviously got off to a bad start i i
think that uh a lot of things that were
said were were cringe-worthy
um and i i do um
uh think that the applicant uh has tried
to take some affirmative steps uh to
give more information for this board to
give us some some additional feedback
i do know that architectural review
boards sometimes detest hearing
testimony from attorneys
a matter of fact there was a gentleman
named peter bardwell who explained that
to me
on multiple occasions throughout my
career
and i know it to be true
and so
eric will be doing a significant part of
the presentation
um my hope here tonight is to advance
the application uh by by refining it by
incorporating comments that we receive
from you tonight in terms of feedback
i certainly have no delusions of
grandeur that we would be able to call
the question this evening
i would however call your attention to
the staff report that karen issued
your process is very user friendly not
only did
your agenda state the criteria but
obviously the staff goes through each of
the criteria
and um to a certain extent we checked a
lot of the boxes in terms of the staff
approval
but i do agree in total with what karen
said uh that there's still some work to
be done
um again i would defer
to eric
to carrick to talk about the
the elevation
that he has submitted um also with
respect to the structural engineers
report
um
and also to the criteria that you look
at in terms of the historic nature of
the architects
architecture mr berardi as well as mr
lewis the structural engineer were both
unable to be here this evening
but
if the board sees fit to allow us to
come back next month would be available
at that time
in terms of the structural report i'm
not going to insult your intelligence
and and read to you what you've already
read
uh quite frankly based on my background
um
i've spent a few years um
regulating all zoning and
building code compliance for the city of
columbus
so i can flirt with the terminology but
certainly not
to the level that a structural engineer
could or to the level that some members
of this board could
um
the bottom line is uh based on the
analysis done by our structural engineer
he thinks
the condition of the property is in
such a state
and that it is economically more viable
to demolish it and
get a replacement structure that merits
your favorable approval
i know that
if we were to go through that report
point by point there would be debate as
to the significance of some of the items
raised
and i would obviously be willing to do
that but to the extent
the engineer is not here
i'll leave it to the commission if you
want to try to ask me questions and i i
can try to respond to to the best of my
ability
similarly uh mr berardi's letter um
although uh
i think some of the tone in tenor
was initially kind of uh took some
people back
i think the substance of it with respect
to his analysis of the
122305 and your demolition
ordinance for removing existing building
uh for
the criteria for determining the uh
significance of the uh structure its
architectural significance the quality
of the design
all of those things are adequately i
believe addressed in his report
and um
just a procedural matter i'd like to
incorporate
both that report and mr lewis's report
into the record
um
so the bottom line is is that i'm
mindful
as my client is now that this is a
process
this is not a one-stop shop
um and that um the task ahead of us is
twofold uh to meet the criteria for
demolition
and i think implicit in that is the um
the perceived value of the replacement
project
and at this time i'd like uh with leave
of the chair to allow carrick to talk
about what changes we've made in terms
of the replacement project
to try to address the concerns we heard
last month
and then we could certainly engage in
any dialogue you deem appropriate and
again my mission here would be to
get the responses get the information
be able to relay that to our
preservationist as well as our
structural engineer
and then quite frankly i anticipate
we're going to have to go back to the
drawing board on some of these things
so that's it for me for now and with a
permission of the chair i'd like kerry
to address the revised drawing if that's
okay yeah that'd be great i think thank
you for your come forward and be sworn
in sir
hello hi
state your name
cheryl
you saw me swear from the testimony
you're about to give this evening is the
truth i certainly do thank you
so you'll have to um
talk to karen and tell her what drawings
you want to pull up because she can't
see you so sure
i can hear you so just let me know what
drawings you want up sure um i i'll kind
of let the board uh lead us in that
direction
um after a brief
um introduction um as you can see
um
and as you probably have reviewed the
design
has changed substantially from what was
previously presented
into something that
is certainly more compatible with the
adjacent structures and the neighborhood
so we spent some time doing that as
staff has pointed out
we are still um
in a rather conceptual stage
and so
understanding that and and having a
client that understands the process a
little bit better
um
and not to say that he doesn't
understand the process because we work
together on
uh multiple these projects but i think
the emotions of his personal home might
have
got in the way a little bit so i hope
you'll forgive him for that um
but anyways we'll uh we'll move forward
now understanding that there's there's
certainly refinements to be done but we
are um
going to walk away with uh
uh at least with the the the replacement
structure
um
a feeling that we're on the right path
and in some pretty concrete um
items to to further refine and including
um as as staff pointed out tying the
uh interior four floor plan with the
with the exterior and while um
it may not be completely apparent uh you
know we do understand what what's going
on and don't expect the uh the interior
of the building to
to result in
any substantial changes to the exterior
but but it is possible there could be
some windows that shift around uh
especially around
uh the
um the north well generally north and
south side so
i'll let you
ask some questions about the project
i can do the best i can maybe a little
better than mike could to answer
questions about the structural report
if i can help with that
other than that i'll take your comments
do you want to go
sure
um well overall i think you know really
appreciate the effort from the last
design
i think
i agree with
all i think
this is uh karen's comments his
artificial
consultants comments related to details
and things that
related to the concept design that you
have
there's a lot of questions but i get
that at this stage those will be worked
out and we'll continue to see those
develop
i think
looking at the the overall design well
first i also i want to say i appreciate
the structural engineers evaluation
um you know relying on a
a licensed professional like that
investigating the property is is
valuable and i think the report was very
well done
photographs were immensely helpful
i did have a question related to the
cost estimating analysis did he provide
a cost estimate
for replacement as a structural engineer
and versus the new build or is it just
his kind of an opinion that he's
providing
um i i did not see a detailed cost
estimate um i would expect that it it
was he was relying on his experience um
with the
the sheer amount of framing that would
have to be
um replaced and and supported while you
know during that replacement
um
as well as
being able to um
you know
provide a
more
contemporary
material i'm sorry let me state that
correctly
to provide contemporary materials that
are more structurally sound than than
maybe what was sure what was built and
i'm you know obviously we wouldn't dive
into that but i'm just he's referencing
that so i just don't know if there was
additional information yeah i'm i'm not
aware of a specific cost analysis um we
should have a cost analysis available at
the next meeting
again it's just uh he's referencing so
just one of the uh additional staff and
they thought it was an ancillary issue
but uh my client said he would take a
look at uh trying to do that thank you
great and again i appreciate the letter
i think it's very helpful um we do have
two issues right we have a demolition
uh are we voting on a demolition and
then voting on it or moving on represent
our proposals or recommendations on
design or if you chose to vote on simply
the demolition it would be subject to a
certificate of appropriate yes that's
right okay just want to make sure but
lately we have been voting one vote
which if we approve the house then
demolition proves the demolition at the
same time
and we're i mean just
from a process standpoint where we're
comfortable with with either way um i
know that
from a real estate transaction
standpoint where we're really trying to
you know take the step to get in the
right direction
that that maybe we don't have an
approval you know obviously this meeting
but not maybe not even next meeting
because there's still going to be some
details but but having a sense that you
know boy this we're headed in the right
direction and
um assuming that the replacement
structure
uh
you know meets the criteria and it is
found to be
um
valuable to your neighborhood that will
be successful in the demolition
application
i think that one of the challenges this
property um in general has is the
proximity of the house to the street
this the existing house it's fairly
close to the street
um so i think
anything that you build there is going
to be feeling a little bit more presence
on the street and and not and i think
what you've done with the massing and
overall massing of the property this or
this design is
is contextual and and works well with
the neighborhood uh i don't feel that
it's it doesn't feel too tall
um again i have a 3d i have an elevation
i have some 3d views at the exist of the
proposed design
so it's hard to exactly compare that but
in any elevation it feels it feels
pretty balanced um
so i appreciate that i think there's
some
things in your in your 3d model in 3d
views that uh
i think are anomalies of the model and
that are going to continue to be worked
out so
i'm not going to point those all out
because i think you'll work through
those i appreciate that but i think that
they can be distracting in in the review
so if someone may point those out and
you'll have to define but i'm not going
to
one of the things i will would be very
interested in looking at as you develop
this is obviously your window details
your brick details around the windows
the
the front elevation
design with the two-story brick massing
is really only found
on the front elevation you lose that as
you go
around the house and then traditional
bexley style architecture you usually
find that a main core
uh let's say it's brick
would remain brick and then there's
most likely additions and things
happening over the years so that i get
that
but the way you've masked and designed
the kind of the side and rear of this
property it almost looks like there's
been some additions that
in general if that was the case would be
successful but the architectural style
kind of changes as you rotate around the
house and i think you know i think the
frontal elevation from what the
schematic design is representing
is one fits
could fit very well in the neighborhood
but it then it kind of it loses a little
bit and turns more to a more kind of a
modern farmhouse because of all the
board and batten and i think board and
batten can be very dangerous so
uh i think it's
i would be careful with using too much
of it on the rest of the property or the
press of the design
um but i don't have any kind of
recommendations of
you know what you would change or how
you do that i just want you to be
conscious of that as you continue to
develop the design
also your columns you have those the two
main columns
uh sitting on brick piers at the entry
uh and then the the main brick mass has
punched openings for the front porch
because you recessed that porch
i think that's kind of a unique way of
handling that based on the
what you're trying to sit on the site in
the distances so i think that's
interesting i think in the model one
size has a
half wall of brick the other side
doesn't so i don't know if that's and
again modeling anomalies aside
understand that but i think the
consistency of how the details on the
looks like a screen and porch on the
left side of the of the property
don't have to match the front columns
that wouldn't be appropriate but
that style and that aesthetic kind of
wants to carry around to the rest of the
property so just the rest of the design
so just be conscious of that as you
continue to develop the details
um
but that's all i have
okay mr helman
yes um
i'm sure there's residents
uh here uh regarding this application
and i don't want to completely re-review
what we talked about last time but i
think it's important to kind of see our
our movement as we deal with this case
uh and it's a two-step process because
there has to be a demolition
in order for a new house to be
constructed logically and there are
criteria for demolition that have to be
met and then uh that the house has to
meet design criteria
and
the at the last meeting
it was kind of a double issue because we
weren't too clear
at the extent of fire damage i think
that's still something i think we want
to learn a little bit more about
that occurred in this house which could
be considered a compelling unusual
circumstance for one of the criteria for
uh demolition
uh but then the other shoe was that the
particular house that was shown um
you know again the stanbury that whole
neighborhood uh we said the last time is
kind of pretty close to almost a
historic district and in terms of its
style and its and its uh scale one house
to the other
and that particular house that was
suggested
felt like it belonged
not there
maybe in some other subdivisions uh uh
that have larger homes
um and so
uh i guess two things uh in my mind that
have taken place and i think pete's
covered the architecture well and i'll
let others cover that um
one
would be the extent of the fire damage
that then
moves the needle on demolition
but secondly uh in terms of the house
itself
again
substantial surprising progress in my
mind from where we were the last time
it's basically 180 degree change
and i would point out two things uh just
for
all of our consideration uh because i
think precedents are important
and so
we have a new house north of
saint albums where there was a
fire
different a little bit because the
family was in the fire and and so
there's a little bit different kind of a
trauma there
that
was an unusual compelling circumstance
for that house to be replaced with a new
one
uh and secondly uh there is a new build
that is behind this house at 230
stanbury
which while built on a vacant lot
is very similar to this house
and the one remaining issue i would
still probably talk about is height
that particular structure
the pitch comes and then it caps itself
with a flat roof high
and just keeps itself kind of at a
polite height regarding its neighbors
and i don't exactly know what the height
this is
how much under 40 it is
but heights to me would still be an
issue as it relates to the context of
the houses in its immediate vicinity
that's my concept uh just to answer your
question it's it's 32 feet from grade to
ridge
um
with the first floor being two two feet
above grade um at the front and then
we've stepped the interior down in the
rear just to get some more volume in the
living space
um but yeah 32 feet is is where we're at
um you know trying to be respectful of
the adjacent homes right obviously the
the home to the
south is is generally a single story
home i think there's probably some
occupiable attic space in there but
um as i was modeling that in 3d i you
know you know kind of recognize that
there's probably there's some windows up
there and it's probably occupiable in
some way or another and i would point
out the house behind you i understand is
35 feet yeah okay i started i started to
try to model that but i didn't i didn't
really have quite enough information on
it yet um
and so
uh you know there's there's a lot of
work in in trying to
to recreate some of that stuff in uh in
scale so
carrick can i ask is that 32 at the rich
top of the ridge yeah that's the total
height that's not the average to the
middle of the peak that's um 32 32 from
first floor plate
it's 30 in the drawings this is 32 8
from finish grade so it would be 30 feet
8 inches
based on this drawing from finish floor
right
that's what your drawing says thank you
okay
i was i was eight inches off in my
memory oh it's okay
i don't know if this is helpful what's
definitely not in terms of exact
measurements but i just wanted to point
out that
um for the public but also for the board
members that didn't catch it in the
staff report i kind of duplicated
carrick's
um
uh
kind of
the sketch that he did placing it just
so you could see it in a photo montage
instead i think it's a little bit
helpful it doesn't doesn't answer the
question of exact relative height but i
think it does help a little bit to see
see them in
in photos
do you have anything else mr hellman i
do not thank you
stress so with respect to the demolition
permit um
for me i'm very comfortable at this
point for two reasons you know the
statute is clear that
first the first threshold isn't historic
or architecturally significant and i
think the reports come close to that
um
maybe not 100 but in addition
it's in either or it's historically
architectural significant or
even if it is significant
would preservation cause a substantial
economic hardship when i read the
totality of these reports that are
included
i have to conclude that
it would
create a substantial economic hardship
to
repair restore or renovate the house
so
uh for me because that second piece is
resolved
assuming the replacement
design can be worked through and i think
like you said we're getting much closer
on the demolition piece i
i would conclude as a board member that
it's appropriate to approve the
demolition
with the information we have today
and that's based on
you know we don't have to get
uh reports but it was so helpful to have
them
because to place that judgment on
um
particularly
historic preservation or historic
significance architecturally you know
that that's a little easier for the
sport but the historic significance is a
bit more challenging
i'm not researching who lived there
but we don't even have to get there
right because it isn't either or
and like i said in my opinion based on
the totality of the information
presented in those various reports
particularly from
the engineer
and the ferrari group
i i'm i'm convinced that that's an
appropriate
course of action
and then let me piggyback on that uh i
think the fire damage i still would like
to understand the extent of it
and i
it would have been it was impossible and
not talked about at the last meeting
that
this house has no
wiring no plumbing
no heating system none of the
mechanicals
uh that you would expect to find
in a house right so and and then the
fire damage which uh
we i would still like to understand a
little bit better
um what does that mean in terms of the
framing on the inside i know there's
been some temporary framing just simply
so that the house stays in place per the
report
but i think that could be elaborated on
as well
so that we have some iron-clad
reasons uh to um then if we do move for
demolition to do so
you know um and and this may not be
really inherent in the report
uh but it may speak to the the cost of
renovating this building there's a
there's a nuance in the building code
that talks about when a uh when a cavity
is exposed it needs to be brought up to
current code
and
the
seismic codes the wind codes all of
those things because because this
structure is only studs and exterior
skin at this point right um you know
just the
the
the ability to even
contemplate how to how to really do that
i mean i'm sure it's it's possible
anything's possible
um
yeah
and keep the historic
context the skin without
with
um correcting all of those things and
and keep what the people like about the
building
um would just be incredibly difficult
it would also be an interesting
statistic uh as to for a
house construction
how much of the actual construction cost
is tied up in the exterior and the roof
versus all the interior all the
mechanicals all the hvac
electrical and so forth um that would
create a sway factor in terms of what
the the the economic hardship potential
sure
well
so
one concern i have is
it might be
helpful
to know the extent of the fire damage
like you mentioned it might be helpful
to have
more detail on the cost
but
i guess i would just think about whether
it's necessary
or
when we review all three reports
we can
come to an informed decision on
whether there is
an unfair economic result by not
approving the demolition
so
you might
we might say yes we definitely need that
um
i guess i'm suggesting that in my view
we have
sufficient
information in the reports
but there could be more for sure there
could be more but is that reasonable to
request for for what it's worth i did
share the letter that was provided by
the engineer addressing some of the
damage and that the estimates that they
were going to provide
i shared with our chief building
official
um
just to pick his brain if in fact you
could get into more expenses than simply
building a new house and he said that it
very well could be the case based on the
year that it was built and the fact that
of what you're dealing with
affecting these exterior structural
walls
that that could have a domino effect
with what's supporting above and below
that
and he said he'd be happy to look at any
any additional information
when they do provide that but he said it
is possible that it could get more
expensive
yeah i guess my point would be
we don't
we don't prefer demolition
it's not typically where we want to end
up
but we recognize and the code recognizes
there's
there are decisions that have to be made
that relate to that and the more that
these can be documented
in terms of numbers as opposed to a
subjective
opinion
uh then i think again in terms of future
cases and other things we run into uh
these help us
sure so uh that's that's the point
behind doing that yeah absolutely and
even if there's not under economic
burden placed on the applicant
the other piece is is it historically or
architecturally significant
at least one of these reports did a
pretty good job of addressing that point
and um at least i was
fairly comfortable that to conclude that
the building is not historically or
architecturally significant
yeah and again not to
belabor that point uh historically not
significant
i'm not so sure on the architecture not
significant because it has certain
characteristics about it in terms of its
fit and its context
uh that i think make it uh
architecturally fitting within its
within its setting
uh so we don't not every house has to be
a standout
um
award-winning piece of architecture but
what it does in context the neighborhood
makes uh gives it gives it its value
sorry
joanne do you have any more comments in
regards to the architecture of the
proposed structure
okay
okay so that leaves me um
so
i've voted for a lot of demolitions in
this city over the years and and my
um
[Music]
criteria for that has always been is the
new structure
going to be better than the one that
you're tearing down
and i'm still struggling with this a
little and it's mostly because you want
to tear down a
lovely brick structure with a lovely
tile roof
and replace it with asphalt and um
board and batten and a little board and
batten i get but
to me
this the quality of this doesn't quite
match the quality of what you want to
tear down
and i could go through a lot of details
of things that i think are a little
goofy but
i you know
it's like little things like you you're
drawing a very symmetrical house
and yet the front door is not on center
to me that's that's very goofy
um
i i agree with a lot of karen's
assessment that what i see on the inside
is a very strange
layout
the the side porch is only seven foot
wide
i'm that's barely usable at seven foot
wide and so i get worried that
trying to take a structure like this and
then fit an interior into it
means that
you know
you kind of have to work those two at
the same time and so
not only am i worried about the details
and the material and the quality of the
materials on this but i think there's so
much to be worked out on it yet
i think
you're a little closer than what you
were last month but not a lot
and again i don't have a problem
really tearing down the existing house
as long as you're replacing it with
something that is much better
and i think you can drive through bexley
and see some projects where we have
allowed people to tear down and
they've put up some amazing structures
and i think
maybe that should be the goal
for all demolitions you know
because i look at the report and i i see
some of the hardships of you know what
the fire did but i also
i've renovated two houses in bexley and
i know what i've dealt with
in a renovation and you know shoring
things up and adding more joists and
things so
i don't think nothing that i saw in that
report made me say well this house is is
coming down you know there's there's no
fixing it
so
i have to start weighing the fixing of
the
the quality of the materials of the
existing house compared to
the new design and the quality of the
materials there and i i think you're
still
i think i think you still have a ways to
go sure
um
could you
just
speak briefly on your thoughts or
opinions about
um
the way that the homes in this
particular area
um develop into
the
the gross square footage that they exist
at today from where they began
and
and whether it's
more
appropriate to
mimic
in a
structure that could be the same amount
of square footage is you know a neighbor
but that is developed all the same time
rather than over time whether that
structure
reflects
a
contrived growth over time or whether
it's designed as a single structure of
that size
do you understand you have you have the
luxury of doing it all at once so it
shouldn't look like it's been
piecemealed together
right i mean i think the question is
over time all these houses get additions
and eventually they end up being four or
five thousand square feet
you have the luxury of designing one
structure at one time so it shouldn't
look like it's been
all these little massings pushed
together it doesn't mean it's one huge
box but it right you have that you have
the control of making
less designs okay and you should do that
and i think i think that
i'm sorry
more successful projects
are ones where the architect has a real
intent of what it is they're trying to
make this look like and whether you you
know pick georgian or whatever style you
pick
you
you do every detail the way that it's
supposed to be done and and
i think i think that's what makes it you
know very successful so and that's what
i'm not really seeing here like i don't
i don't really look at this and know
what style this is i don't
i don't
the board and baton to me feels odd i
guess um
again and i don't i don't have any
problem with contemporary stuff
um i actually love contemporary homes
but
i don't really know what this is trying
to be and
and again it's the quality of the
materials that i'm struggling with okay
i understood
um i keep flipping between this this
elevation and this elevation because i i
think they look like two different
houses so i think that's
just a good example of
making the design
circumvent the whole house this is this
looks like a very modern farmhouse
the windows are completely different
than for example your front elevation
and you have an opportunity to make a
holistic design
residents does that help you at all
oh no yeah absolutely i mean i think um
you know moving forward with a more
linear process than the one that maybe
has only begun um within the last 10
days or so
um
will will
reflect greatly in in in the product
that's produced and in the direction
that we're going
and i would encourage you to do the
interior with it because i don't know
how you design the outside of a house
and then come back in and figure out
what the interior is um you know just
little things like a seven foot wide
porch
i tore a nine foot wide porch off of my
first house in bexley to get a room the
size of something i could actually use
so
you know you have a 20 foot hallway to
the master bedroom
that is nothing but a hallway
and i look at all that and think okay
this is not very well thought out and by
the time you think it all out
has the exterior change if windows are
moving all over the place doors are
moving you know all that things are
getting wider and smaller
then what we've what we have approved is
is worthless sure so i think you have to
develop the whole
house
with details unfortunately and and bring
it back to us and and i think that you
will get a demo
if it's good enough so
thank you
i was remiss in not mentioning one thing
mr marsh did reach out to a number of
his neighbors
he did
find out from one of those neighbors
that
somebody was soliciting
information seeking opposition to the
project
they did reach out to those individuals
and they either were unable or unwilling
to meet with us
but i want to note that from the record
because that's something that changed
from last month to this month
we were not aware of any opposition last
month thank you for your time
okay that's a nice introduction do i
have any members of the audience that
want to speak on behalf of this
application
if so please raise your hand
um how do you want to do it one at a
time or you want everybody to raise
their hand and be sworn in at once or
what do you want to do
there's just a few let's do one at a
time okay um whoever wants to go first
please come up to the microphone
state your name and uh uh my name is
jamie rupp and i am a resident who's
been on the street since 2005. and what
are you doing are you pp
please raise your right hand do you saw
me swear or from the testimony you're
about to give this to you
do you saw me swear or affirm the
testimony you're about to give this
evening is the truth yes thank you
um no i have no agenda here other than
the fact that we actually moved into a
house that was just like this one
built in 1939 were probably you know
similar architecture
all brick um we had a slate roof they've
got tile roof the house we bought had
aluminum gutters it had all these
replacement windows in it
the layout in the house was really not
nice wasn't contemporary it wasn't what
you wanted to move into
so we basically gutted it we brought it
down to the studs it has all new hvac
all new copper we put in copper gutters
we replaced every window in the house
front to back
um
we redid the um well all the all the
copper gutters all the downspout spouts
there wasn't anything we didn't touch in
this house
uh was expensive yeah it's really
expensive but it's also expensive to
live in bexley if you're living in a
quality
manner
i think the idea of tearing this down
tearing this particular house down
it offends us because the fact is that
we actually
live in a house just like this home
there
we look at the the louis report which
was basically a structural report on the
home
if you followed the lewis report you
tear down every street on every home
down in our in our neighborhood because
none of them would be structurally sound
at today's standards in terms of the way
that the beams the timbers the framing
works and so that was that's another
thing you know
we have people that are coming in from
outside the community who don't live in
these homes telling us that our homes
aren't any good but yet our homes are
probably going to be as valuable as
anything else in the community because
of our proximity to downtown
um the quality of life here in bexley
the type of vibrant people that live in
the neighborhood
i think when we start going down the
hill demoing and putting in homes like
this into the neighborhood
it starts to degrade the street and
starts you start to shoehorn a different
personality into the street that that is
going to begin to hollow out the
character the homes already exists there
homes have slate have copper it's going
to degrade my house to have that type of
home in there my house per square foot
dollars per square foot is very very
expensive um
and so it'd probably not be the type of
house that somebody wanted to go in
there to try to flip and turn and make
into something that was um you know just
more economical to possibly flip which
is what this proposition looks like
which is probably why they're coming to
the table without very specific
architectural plans they're trying to
basically lob something over the plate
and get it get it knocked out um
if i were coming to the this board with
a with a project a home it'd be very
specific in terms of the passion that we
felt for the community and the type of
detailing we want to put in that house
this is offering none of that and so i
would if i'm sitting on your side of the
table be offended by that because it's a
waste of your time it's gonna be wasting
my time to come back here in a month and
see something else that's maybe been
pushed a little bit further into the you
know down the field
i don't want to spend my time doing that
so i mean
if they're going to tear it down do
something awesome that we're all going
to be like waving you know jumping up
and down and saying hurrah and high
fiving about because that's not what
we're seeing today
um and you guys know that too you just
have to be a little more diplomatic
about than i do
so that's my position
any questions of me
thank you
next
please state your name
melissa lacroix 254 ashford place
please raise right hand do you finally
swear or affirm the testimony you're
about to give this evening is the truth
yes thank you
um i'm really not here to tell someone
how their house should look
or what they should do with something
they're um thinking about building
tearing down or whatever
what i am here to tell you is i remember
we bought our house 32 years ago
and my parents always said to buy the
worst house in the best neighborhood
that was us
we bought the worst house on ashborn
and we have renovated it we have
put in um metal beams to support the
foundation because it was sinking
we have rested out the house we have
redone the chimney we have replaced
every window in the house
we have added on we have gutted every
bathroom the kitchen
um ac hvac
floors there were no floors on the first
floor only carpeting so what we did was
we restored our house to look like a
bexley home our house looks very much
like this house except it is all stucco
but we have the coins
on the sides we have very large um floor
to ceiling
um
double pane very expensive windows we
cut out the structure to create
that look
in our home
um
we and our neighbors in this surrounding
this home have spent hundreds of
thousands of dollars renovating our
homes to maintain the integrity of our
neighborhood
that is why you are here
to make sure that the integrity of our
neighborhoods are maintained
if this house it seems to i don't know
what's going on with this or the
proposal this is my first time at the
meeting so i was not here at the last
meeting if this is going to be a flip if
the applicants
do not have any intention of living in
the home
then the home will look like they are
not going to live in the home
i would like to know a couple of
questions i have a couple of questions
which i could not find in this
information
and if it can be answered great
um one of the main things is that you
and i fully support it's the proximity
to the street
this is one of the houses that sits
closest to the street of any house in
this neighborhood
on our street no house has ever been
torn down
ever we have a new new build on one
empty lot on our street but no house on
ashbourne place or ashborne road has
ever been torn down
that is something you need to consider
and there's a reason for that because if
you look at our street there are three
houses that were recently purchased on
ashborn the people are gutting them
renovating them they bought million
dollar homes on our street and they are
pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars
to maintain the integrity of our street
um
i guess one of my questions and very
serious concerns
is how much taller
it i don't care what the
the limit is 40 feet which is probably
the tragic home on south columbia
is close to that it's a tragedy that
home is a tragedy to bexley
what we want to make sure is that what
is the height of this house in
comparison to the house they want to
build
if the new structure is 30 32 feet 8
inches this house is 20 feet that's an
extra i don't know what it is but i'm
sure the contractor has that information
i think that should be presented to us
that is a very critical fact that is
missing from this pr their presentation
because the one-story house
south of it
and the
melvin's house the former melvin's house
they use the melvins they have new
people that live there
they don't want to have their house
overshadowed by a three-story
3 790 square foot home
another question i have does the
3790 square feet foot footprint does
that include the third floor bonus room
and the basement that is proposed for
another bathroom and bedroom
does anybody know that answer
the footprint is typically what we have
to calculate for the lot
footprint of the house
so that's the square foot of the house
it's just the footprint the outline of
the house okay so then so there's three
floors
up and one floor down we don't calculate
that
so the physical presence on the lot is
seven limited to lot coverage okay so
that's just a lot that's not square
footage of the house correct and so what
is the square footage of the house
i thought that was the
yeah that was misleading that's very
misleading
because currently it's a 2 000
square foot footprint and the new
footprint is almost double that
on a not on a very pie shaped lot
sitting very close to the street
also this home um starts at the front
with a more classic look
and then it that disappears as you go
down the side of the home which the
people on each side have to look at
it's
you know with the unintended unintended
consequence of this
is that the neighbors on either side of
this will see a massive structure
next to their home
um
i i you know
let's see i'm trying lose anything else
i wanted
point out
i think that's it basically i think the
committee needs to know what the current
height of the house is
as opposed to
the proposed height of the house i'm not
opposed to somebody building a new house
if it's unable to be
re you know restored but most of us have
restored our homes on ashborn
most of them were not even basically
livable when we moved in our house the
windows were falling out of the house
on this onto the front lawn
so clearly a lot of us
instead of tearing down our homes
chose to renovate and maintain the
beauty of our neighborhoods and i hope
you'll look at that as we do because
we're the ones that live on the street
and if this is going to be
a flip
they're not going to live on our street
thank you
please state your name brian mcdermott
you saw me swear or affirm the testimony
you're about to give this evening is the
truth yes it is thank you
um bryan mcdermott live at 275 ashborne
place
um i bought my house in december my wife
and i december of 2008 pretty much with
jamie and mrs lacroix said
we bought
we bought the house from a flipper who
tried to remodel it but we basically
gutted the whole first floor added beams
changed the direction of the flow added
beams to get to the true kitchen
and you know we spent time in like
across the street we looked at to
jeffrey's house
and went over and found out who did
their architecture for the landscaping
and pretty much copied that so we tried
to keep
the same architecture in the field so
yeah we went through the pains of
remodeling
kind of like jamie said it's kind of
insult that they would throw a
house like that in front of us
heard that we you know as an i'm a
licensed electrical engineer for
while the last 10 years but i've done a
lot of projects tonight by the worst
home and fix them up and you know we
eventually move our kids
we'll leave we'll
do the same but i just find that any
report you can without really getting
bids or contracts
for a remodel it's kind of really not
fair i mean i can write a report saying
it'll cost i can sway a report whatever
and i'll stamp it
i mean whatever you want i mean so i'm
not even getting a fair shot to remodel
it's kind of an insult in my my case
because i i went through it spent you
know five years remodeling so
thanks
absolutely
it's not to my awareness that this house
was ever on the market so it's being
presented as a distressed sale as the
the current buyer has no other option
or that we have no other option than a
demo
and yet it's never been in the open
market for anyone else to even make it
up to maybe approach us as anything
other
so what i'm trying to say is that this
is not a distressed
home the fact that the current re the
current resident or the prior resident
decide not to maintain it well
i know that they're elderly they've been
on the street since 1983
and they probably never maintained the
home even before prior to the to the
fire but
that's beside the point a lot of homes
that we bought are of that same
character
i guess my point is that it doesn't feel
like it it should have to be resolved as
a demolition if an applicant
provides an application requesting i i
have to provide them with the process
okay
that's being presented as a distress
sale in a sense that oh this had fire
damage and it's been destroyed
but
it doesn't ring true i guess the
argument
i i i you'll have to ask the applicant
is there anyone else that wants to speak
please state your name jeffrey walker
you saw me swear or from the testimony
you're about to give this evening is the
truth
i do thank you i'll make this very quick
um
you all do an amazing service for this
community and i appreciate uh all of
your expertise and all of the process
that you
require everyone uh to go through uh
to to make all of uh the uh demolitions
if those happens or or architectural
changes so i wanna make sure i'm clear
on that i i really only ask two things
of this process and and one that it'd be
respectful and secondly that it'd be
based on on facts and i want to thank
you all on the first point because
tonight i think was very very respectful
i frankly think last meeting fell a
little bit short of that but i
appreciate uh the respect that that that
you all are are giving the process
tonight but the second thing is is the
factual elements and that's the only
thing i want to speak to um some of you
may know because some of you i consider
friends some of the people that are
objecting i i consider france was a
small community that's what's great
about it
um but there's i just want to make sure
we stay to the facts here and there's an
innuendo
constantly being brought up last month
and today that the motivation here is a
cheap rebuild for a flip for a profit
and what i can tell you is that is the
furthest thing from the truth and some
of you may know we're dealing on both
sides of this family with very involved
families we have
29 year olds that are committed to
staying in this town they love bexley
my daughter is the applicants my the
applicant is my son-in-law my daughter
owns a business on main street that you
know
that she is
way outside of of of of uh
her uh comfort zone jumping into uh
owning a business on main street um you
know we the families have been
incredibly active i'm not suggesting
that that's part of the consideration
but i want to make sure it's clear
that the motivation here is not somebody
the constant wording of the outsiders
coming in all this these are people that
are committed to bexley and doing
something amazing so if you have
something that you require of them that
you want to see
communicate it and and i appreciate you
doing that and i am confident that they
want to rise to that occasion to build
something that you all will be proud of
the city will be proud of this is not
this is not a flip for profit motivation
these are
young adults that want to raise family
and find a home to raise their family in
for another generation and make it the
fourth generation in bexley and that's
all i have says thank you thank you
please state your name james jeffers
your son makes where or from the
testimony you're about to give this
evening is the truth yes thank you
so i live in the ranch house just
to the south there um
and my primary concern and i have not
really
gotten a chance to look at any new
uh submissions
but the the height
and the footprint kind of encroaching uh
even
further towards our house
the our north facing windows facing the
house
uh
all now
look out
and you know have a clear view of the
sky
trees and sky that's what we see but the
proposed uh
plan really is is it it seems like this
is going to be
replaced now by a view of the house
right a view of their roof uh
and that's concerning to me as far as
the property value goes i mean there's a
uh
60-foot uh hemlock tree
between the two houses that's going to
be
torn down to put in the enclosed porch
uh and that again now that's my view
after this
uh it's it's
significant to me that my line of sight
is going to change
uh with with such a tall structure there
that's what i wanted to say and also i
really because i have not
experienced the uh council meeting
before and i'm very impressed with your
confidence and the whole process
and everyone talking so thank you thank
you thank you
is there anyone else in the audience
that would like to speak
okay so at this point i i guess i need
the applicant to come up and ask how you
would like to proceed
do you understand what your different
options are
you can ask us to vote you can ask us to
um
move you to the next meeting and you can
we can keep working or
yeah we'd respectfully ask to be moved
to the next meeting so we can address
your concerns and those of our neighbors
okay thank you
and kathy do we need to vote on that
then or no um yes we should yes okay so
somebody
do i need someone to make a motion then
yeah i move that this application be
tabled to the next arb meeting i second
i'll call the role mr scott yes mr
helman yes mr stafford
yes
madame tony yes
okay so we will see you next month and
if you need more time if you can't get
your application together by next month
just let karen know and she can roll you
to the month after thank you very much
okay thank you
sorry i couldn't hear what you said
that's why i fought pause
he said tell me your name i changed my
name
make sure you're paying attention
which is why i didn't record it
okay the next application
is part of new business
it's application arb
21-63 the address is 261 south columbia
the applicant is nathan sampson 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
construction of a new single-family home
um
i think we have bellwood first i thought
we have a
small there's so
yeah ooh 2162.
it's um 27.95 bellwood sorry i'm sorry i
jumped the
that's okay
gun
okay or 27.95
oh yes okay so this is application arb
21-62
the address is 2795 bellwood the
applicant is brian law the owner is bill
adams
the applicant is requesting a
certificate of appropriateness for the
installation of solar panels on the
front face of the existing structure
aaron
um kathy did you want to address any of
the finances as the zoning officer or i
can just um kind of go through
my staff report a little bit which i
don't i'm not going to sit here and
reread it but what i did do and those in
the public can also see it on
online is
kind of cut and paste the solar panel
ordinance
kathy and i we didn't we know it's a
long agenda we all and kathy you can
speak to this but we really wanted to
get good feedback from the board on this
particular project because
though you'll be able to see these
from the front front face of the house
there it's truly not a front
facing roof
so
um
yeah for clarification we just wanted
the board's opinion in these type of
cases where the shingles are on actually
on the side of the house do you have a
problem with staff review and approval
would you prefer to see these
do you want us to each answer
individually yeah okay i'm fine with
staff are proving this because this does
not meet
the front face of the house in my
opinion
uh i would agree it provided that i i'm
not again looking here
um
you know what we're after trim wise i
presume the trim is all black and the
surfaces are all black and
as we've generally required before is
that correct
yes
correct yes
okay
what do you think pete um
no i would agree with that i think this
is a what i would call a side yard
facing since the gable's facing the
street
uh and the the shingle roofs are facing
uh the actual neighboring properties
i think the only only concern i would
have is since these are raised off the
roof
any solar panels that approach the front
gable so approaching the street side too
close to the edge of that roof would be
more seen
so i don't think there's any ordinance
that we currently have
a regulation that says they have to be
held five feet or ten feet off the front
face of that cable but
i i don't know what that number would be
we might need to talk about that but
um
and that might be facts and
circumstances based on um how tall the
roof is
true oh there's so many factors so and i
think that's why i think we have an eye
on on staff to um find out you know
what those are and if there's an
uncomfortable
or situation bringing
insensitive i would think that we would
defer to the board exactly but i think
i'm i just for clarification and i don't
want to beat this to this case you know
to death we've got um you know other
cases too and i i don't have a problem
with this at all well i think kathy and
i were also a little bit and kathy
correct me if i'm wrong a little bit
gun-shy because we did have
um a project recently that we did proof
through staff approval and the
neighboring property was
very panicky about the glare and the you
know real really the glare and what it
would look like now since then i have
definitely added to my checklist
um or emphasized i should say because i
already did the
glare-free surfaces
we're we're learning as we go but i
think we just wanted to
confirmation that you're okay with us
doing this yeah and again not being
fussy here but the submit drawings show
a bright metal side trim and panel trim
and so we'll want to make sure that the
application has the what will become the
black trim with the black all black
surfaces
yes if in fact that's what looks the
best with the roof which typically is
the case
so just for clarification no stressor
are you okay with this going to the
because you're the only one i did not
hear say you're comfortable with this
going back to the city okay so i think
do you need us to vote on this then
kathy or are you just okay
yes
i'm finding the facts
okay
do do we have anyone that asks any
questions of the audience if anyone's
here that wants to
ask any questions yeah is there anyone
that wants to speak on this
yeah please come forward and be sworn in
please state your name my name is
antoine smith
do you solemnly swear from the testimony
you're about to get this evening that's
the truth
thank you
i really only have um a question
in regards to
um mr hellman uh as far as the color
technically of of the shingle or the
panels in the actual
um
structure that it's mounted on um it is
are you referring that you want it all
black or because it already
typically what uh we we like
solar
uh but from an aesthetic standpoint the
better that it blends in the happier we
are exactly uh so and the brighter
things are the less they blend in and
the more they become absolutely visibly
a problem so
i'm pretty sure i checked that and that
was already what it was is that not
correct yeah that's that's correct i
just
posed the question so i wanted to make
sure that it was answered
um from the structural standpoint i know
in the structural design you can't
technically see the color um but um as
far as the collection of energy that
these panels need it needs to be all
black surface anyway
um it collects the most of the
ultraviolet the framing yeah the
framing's black everything's black
and i believe that was in the specs
not in the pictures the picture showed
bright metal trim yeah it it's outlined
in like blue red everything like that so
i i understand where you're coming from
and just wanted to clarify it thanks all
black absolutely thank you
i'll read the findings
the findings of fact and decision of the
board for application number ar
b
21-62 for property located at 2795
bellwood the architectural review board
finds
it appropriate to approve a certificate
of appropriateness as submitted which
for solar panels which are
architecturally compatible with the
existing structure as proposed black
panels with black frame
so somebody want to make that emotional
i also move
to approve that
second
all right
call the role ms strasser yes mr hellman
yes mr scott yes madam chair
yes thank you
thank you
you can work out any future details with
with the city
thank you thanks
okay and so now our last application
uh is arb 21-63
266
the applicant is nathan sampson the
owners uh 261 south columbia llc and the
applicant is requesting architectural
review and approval and a certificate of
appropriateness for the demolition of
existing home and construction of a new
single-family home
karen would you like to speak on this
one sure i'm actually not going to take
a ton of time because i know that the
applicant has come prepared with the
extensive presentation
um this i will just start by giving a
little background which there isn't much
this application is before the board for
the first time
it is a proposal to demolish an existing
home on columbia 261 south columbia
and build in its place a new single
family home
the
applicant has
when i say satisfied i mean
checked off the list of all of the
demolition ordinance would i which i
have listed
in the staff report
at the beginning of the staff report i
have the full ordinance and then i have
gone through and
addressed each of those in the staff
report if anyone would like to go into
those in more detail i think we
definitely can i
after the applicant gives their
presentation there is a powerpoint that
the applicant is going to give so in
lieu of me going into any detail about
the
house or about any of the materials that
address demolition the merit of
demolition um i think we'll just move to
that
i believe that unless i'm wrong we're
going to begin with
mr miller who is attorney for the
applicant followed by nate sampson who
is the architect for the new proposal
and we will
go ahead and let them do their
presentation
that sound good
yeah they're being sworn in okay sorry i
can't see anything it's kind of
strange
that's where you've both been
let's start with your names starting
with nathan
nathan sampson hi joe miller
you saw me swear from the testimony
you're about to give this to me is the
truth i do yes thank you
thank you uh members and thank you so
much for your time this evening i'm joe
miller of course here seymour and pease
i'm joined by my colleague liz alexander
and of course architect nate sampson
this evening we are very appreciative of
your time we are seeking approval of
demolition of the structure at 261
south columbia i hope that you'll agree
after this presentation um and thank you
karen for that lead in
that we have put in considerable time
and consideration to ensure the
appropriateness of this request
we do believe that this structure
may be may be demolished under each of
the criteria
of 1233.05
as well as
half and i'm prepared to address each of
those with with nate
but frankly
we're also here hopefully to engage in
collaboration i've been fortunate to be
before you before on other matters and
frankly i was struck again tonight by
the extensive feedback
that you give to applicants we welcome
that and we welcome the opportunity to
address any specific
questions or or concerns you may have as
we go through things and karen if you're
working it from home if we could go to
the next slide i'll try to cue you um
we
this is the
existing structure that is there on uh
south columbia today
and i'd like to go to the next slide
you know i know that this committee
knows well uh the code and the ordinance
at issue but i think it does
it is worthy of reminding that
homes in bexley as you well know may be
demolished and in fact that is the
presumption
that demolition can take place
it's only if you make an affirmative
finding
that the structure in question is
historically or architecturally
significant
or worthy of preservation that it calls
into question
can it be demolished
we intend to present to you the evidence
and information and hopefully answer the
questions you have
to satisfy you that this this structure
is not historically or architecturally
significant and thus not worthy of
preservation but is also as has also
been recognized in the earlier case that
you heard
demolition can still take place even if
you make such a finding
if there's a substantial economic
hardship
or there are unusual and compelling
circumstances it's our belief
and we'll have third party expert
evidence for you as well
that demolition frankly can take place
under any of these criteria that the
structure well to my layman's eye may be
handsome it is not achieving the level
of historic or architectural
significance
making it worthy of preservation i've
set forth each of the factors
that are for your consideration in
making that determination
that is 12 30 12 23.05
d
and so we'll gonna march through each of
these factors if you'll please indulge
me and nate
uh we'll talk through those
we'll also have some additional evidence
for the record uh and then i also want
to hit upon 1223.05
e and f as well and and we'll also be
talking through
the uh proposed structure hopefully to
your satisfaction this evening so
karen if we look at the uh
next slide that first factor i itemized
is the age and condition of the
structure here i'll try to
tag team it hopefully effectively with
with nate sampson
so the home itself
built in 1927
i think in our
letter from uh
our outside historical architecture
expert the date was slightly off but it
was a 1927 uh built um
it is
you know
there was a lot of uh construction
happening that time in bexley uh the
type of material and the style of the
house
is also
fairly prevalent
throughout the neighborhood
just being built that time colonial
revivals everyone had a different take
on that and this is just a specific
example of that style
at that time and so if we look at the
next slide for your consideration it's
not simply the age but also the
condition of the structure
the
house itself certainly
you know is suffering from deferred
maintenance you know it just as the
condition of the house has also been a
number of additions over the years none
too recent uh on the back of the home of
a different architectural style not
very
carefully done let's say in respects to
the original structure
and those are certainly
treated and at the time as secondary
additions to what was the main house at
that time and so what we're left with i
suppose it's not an architectural term
but if i refer to it as a mashup i'm not
trying to be unkind uh to any prior
owner but these additions were not
put on or designed from the exterior or
the interior in a cohesive way with the
original structure
and so what we have is not just finishes
or or
taste not to someone's liking of today
but also systems and amenities that are
significantly dated and worn that would
require extensive renovation of the home
which we'll address more thoroughly in a
moment
karen if we can look at the next slide
also for your consideration is the
quality of the architectural design
detail
use of materials or construction
so
you know this is
you know some of these items you know
overlap slightly so when we talk about
this you know we're talking about the
age of the home the material the home
and the style
the
you know you can go through bexley and
see
you know
a dozen or more brick two-story colonial
revival homes each one uh
sort of with their own take on that
style in this particular case you know
this one has the
uh outsized pediment front porch second
floor porch on there somewhat outscaled
relative to colonial revival
architectural style uh
that part of the original house then you
know starts to fade as you go back into
the multiple additions that have taken
place over the years so although it is
an example of a certain type of
architecture
it is not outstanding
uh in its quality or detail and again
again
what you're determined is it
historically or architecturally
significant as our application points
out the home doesn't classically define
any one style it is we said hovers
between several architectural styles
southern plantation classic revival
greek revival as well as aspirationally
others
so too continuing that conversation with
the next slide uh karen i'd like
nate to address some of the scale and
size we have versus the quality because
they don't do not equate
correct i mean
there's the additions to the original
structure you know are probably
near the
approach the original square footage of
the
you know 1927 house
uh done to varying degrees to the years
you know the conception you know that
sort of knee jerk sometimes is you know
larger house you know denotes you know
high quality uh or that um
you know
age
uh defines quality in a certain way you
know this house you know at the time was
sort of a common house uh and so
with the deferred maintenance deferred
systems those sorts of things it's it's
not necessarily outstanding or unique uh
if you follow either one of those paths
and to echo what nate said a moment ago
karen if we could look at the next slide
about you know this style being somewhat
ubiquitous throughout bexley if you'd
like to just address that
yeah i mean so
just you know driving down
probably
a number of streets adjacent to this
property you can see similar style homes
you know front porch is treated somewhat
differently in each case or modified
over the years um
just speaks to kind of the
prevalence of that style the
uh reinforcing the idea that you know
that house of that time not necessarily
unique or outstanding um
based on the housing stock
you know in the near area of actually or
even further afar
there's no question about that yes
that
i've heard a couple times that it's
prevalent
so
right now that style is prevalent
so this is torn down
and then the next one is torn down
and the next one is torn down when is
the prevalent argument
like i'm having a hard time with the
prevalent argument
and why that
if i can add in on that i'm not sure
it's appropriate to interrupt your thing
but if these are as common
uh as the one that we're talking about
then the follow the following suggestion
would be that all of those would be
candidates to be torn down as well well
i think
no i think the difference well mr
hellman we can point within the housing
stock and it goes to member strasser's
uh question as well you know you have to
determine is it worthy of preservation
this structure and we're simply saying
when you consider the factor the
importance of the structure to the
character and quality of the
neighborhood this structure
does not meet that factor or does not
make it worthy of preservation or
architecturally significant because it
can be found within the existing housing
stocks but again that suggests that all
of those are in the same category all
those would be candidates for
demolitions you know i we're not here
suggesting that all these could be torn
down as long as you save the last one
we're saying you're not losing anything
from the character uh and quality of the
neighborhood and the surrounding area by
this particular structure
and that's why i'm really not trying to
argue with you i just want to understand
what your point was on the problem i
think both are fair questions and i
think that you know on a case-by-case
basis the merits are measured right i
think that
certainly in these pictures there are
examples of that type of house done
better
than the house that is in question
tonight
we're addressing the details of the
house in question now
it has similarities to these other ones
some done better some maybe not done as
well but i think in the cot we're trying
to basically put a context to that style
of house in the neighborhood and how
this particular
residence you know fits into that that's
a fair point and and and likewise you
know this we're trying to have you or
appreciate you considering the totality
of the factors for consideration and
this is but one we think that it also
weighs in our favor but you'll hear
you've seen some of the deferred
maintenance and restoration issues that
exist you'll hear more on that and that
is this unique case of whether this home
is significant and worthy of
preservation we think under all the
relevant factors it does take karen
navarro you're afraid check out all the
boxes here um so too let's get a little
more granular in the next slide looking
at
the neighborhood the immediate area
and the homes on south kilometer
i mean
a nice
part about actually in general is that
there
are different styles of houses that
exist within the same street which is in
the same block you know there's a
variety of buildings creating a fabric
that that
makes each street more unique it's not a
variation of a certain type of house you
know being you know built in mass so
you know with that in consideration you
know this
the architectural style of this is not
prominent it's not um
you know a
you know example of something that is
outstanding necessarily uh on this
street just within the variation of
houses that exist you know within one
block within two blocks or a street or
two and here i think it's appropriate as
you will in a moment to consider what is
proposed in its place i mean certainly
um
that when you talk about uh the
character and quality of the
neighborhood
you can consider it in a vacuum but i
think you'll see we've also put in the
time and consideration to what the
replacement structure would be
such that i don't think you can find
that uh this structure's demolition will
somehow compromise the character and
quality in light of what's being
proposed and we'll address that in a
moment but under um
1223 d
or excuse me 0.05 d there is still
one or two other factors for your
consideration in the next slide karen
and that is the significance of the
structure to the historical
architectural cultural development of
the city central ohio the state for the
nation and i've been fortunate as i
mentioned to be before you on issues
such as this in the past
and you've looked at some of the things
we've been talking about but you've also
looked at the historical significance of
the structure in terms of its residents
it's it's history within the city and i
want to assure you and they will talk
about in a moment i mean we've really
invested the time hopefully in this
first instance even to give you comfort
uh as to where this structure stands um
we've gone through the chain of title uh
this this this
house was inhabited by incredibly
respectful or respectable citizens
honorable families
without denigrating its history here i
can report to you that
we don't have a unique story to this
home in terms of the prominence of of
its former
residences and i'll let you talk to
speak to this as well right in in even
the
development of bexley
as the locale
the state or beyond uh we went back
through looking at uh
the chain of title actually reached out
and spoke to
someone who
uh has lived their family live there um
asking them you know about you know the
importance of the house or the history
of the house to try and understand if
there was something
beyond just sort of the public
information that we can gather um
and they assured us there was not at the
time we talked to them um and so you
know trying to make sure that you know
that avenue is follow through with and
respected
doing what we can to identify
if if something did occur there or if
there was some significance to the
residents at that time to lead this to
be something that should be
preserved for a historical reason
so
we feel comfortable on on this score i
heard you loud and clear in the first
case that outside reports are likewise
helpful it wasn't somehow it uh wasn't
included originally in what was
considered by staff but we've since
drawn uh kathy and karen's attention to
and i think you have before you tonight
um
the letter of bob lovers rich we're
we're
frankly exceptionally proud to have uh
the support of mr loveridge who's a
nationally recognized expert in historic
preservation i i hope you give
this his letter in the record that due
consideration that it deserves i will
just
highlight a few things in it that he
expresses the opinion that quote
demolition of the existing house and
replacing it with nate sampson's elegant
design would be a win for our community
and he amplifies certain of the points
we've made here tonight specifically
quote although the house is old and
fairly large
neither of these traits constitute
historical or architectural significance
he goes on to echo what's in our
application he actually says that this
home when considering its architectural
significance or lack thereof
he describes this home as an
amalgamation of classical revival styles
with a rather oversized portigo
and a number of unfortunate additions
and again i i don't say this lightly
because we all love historic structures
within this community but looking at the
factors that guide your decisions
looking at the expert evidence we're
gratified that he agrees with our
assessment of the home he goes on in his
letter to itemize each of these factors
we're describing tonight and why he
feels that this home
under those factors does not
satisfy your standard for
architectural significance historical
significance or worthy
of preservation
[Music]
if i could digress for just a moment
on uh
the factor the last factor before you
before we discuss the new and proposed
structure and that's in the next slide
karen
you are to consider
the impact of the city's real property
tax base uh of restoration versus
replacement and removal while mr
lovergridge couldn't be with us this
evening we do have an expert witness
on this factor in particular uh debbie
wilcox expert appraiser mai uh if i
could ask mrs wilcox to come forward and
we'll we'll make this brief but i think
hopefully you'll find it helpful in
terms of consideration of this factor
please state your name debbie wilcox
do you finally swear from the testimony
you're about to give this evening is the
truth i do thank you
miss wilcox uh in just narrative fashion
would you briefly uh
give an overview to this board of your
occupation your relevant experience in
the appraisal field any certifications
that you hold sure
i started appraising in 1985 with
actually u.s realty consultant sam
powers organization downtown
i've been in the columbus area since
then i've appraised commercial
industrial residential development all
different kinds of properties
i have the mai designation and i also
have the ccim
i'm a realtor and i've been a member of
nar and the ohio association of realtors
for years and mai is the highest
designation you can hold in the field of
appraisal it is and it permits us to do
any kind of appraisal of any kind of
property
you were asked to offer expert opinions
in this matter i was would you please
describe the board what you did in this
matter in order to formulate your
opinions and satisfy yourself with those
yes um i went to the property yesterday
and i walked all three floors above
ground and the basement
and then i drove the neighborhood and i
pulled poor house records to familiarize
myself with it i looked at other
properties on the street and then i read
over the relevant instruments that i
thought was relevant information for the
property so let me ask you then based on
certain of
the factors before the board this
evening
would a renovation
of this home be necessary for it to be
truly marketable to all market
participants well let me say that any
home will sell
but if you're going to achieve the most
profitable the highest price and you're
going to have a home that's accepted by
the market and considered to be
marketable a renovation would not would
not be in my opinion relevant um the
term i think you used earlier mash or
you use that term you walk through room
to get to room to get the room it's been
put together there's a lot of square
footage i think slightly more than 6900
square feet
however i would submit that at least a
third of that is not useful the third
floor is dormered
that is completely inappropriate in
today's world
the rooms that have windows
are all chopped up and then there's
actually one section
and i think we had a picture of it where
it was built around and there's it's
just vape there's it's i guess i would
call the courtyard but the doors are so
warped you can't even open it and all it
is is weeds so there are several factors
that i think would make it completely
inappropriate to try to renovate the
structure that's there yeah question um
in your
analysis did you talk with uh bexley
realtors and any renovation people uh
that are doing bexley renovations an ad
for maybe the last five or six or seven
years no i did not i didn't speak it was
being with the architect he met at the
property and we talked about it um
no i did not i have renovated some homes
yeah no thank you that's good yeah um
been involved in that process well then
in your opinion is it economically
feasible to renovate this home no it is
not because it would cost so much
to renovate it that no one could ever
afford to
do that and if they could they couldn't
afford to ever sell it it's one of those
options where
there are some things like load-bearing
walls the way the additions were put on
i'm not sure that you could even
make the rooms any bigger they're all
chopped up and so there are a lot of
factors that in my opinion make it
economically inventive so would a
rational market participant choose to do
that with this one no they would not and
then in real estate there are a couple
factors that we look at
functional obsolescence or functional
issues are within the property and
external issues are outside of the
property the neighborhood which we're
all concerned about
the problem with the house like this is
someone can go in and say they're going
to renovate it
they do it part way they do it poorly
and then you end up it making a drag on
the rest of the neighborhood because
instead of the value increasing the
value is going to decrease
have you reviewed plans for the proposed
home
i have
with the proposed home have an impact on
property values for this property and
surrounding properties that's different
than the existing structure yes it's my
opinion that
if this house is demolished and a new
house is put in its place it would be
more valuable and it would actually
increase property values and the city's
tax base rather than decrease
thank you mrs wilcox
and here again
well those are the factors under
1223
.05 d
e and f are relevant to your
consideration as well because even if
you were to decide that this home was
somehow uniquely worthy of preservation
um
e for instance e3 allows for
you to consider
is there a substantial economic burden
because the cost of preserving or
restoring the structure will impose an
unreasonable financial word exactly what
ms wilcox hit on whether a rational
market participant would ever undertake
that
or is it simply an uneconomic
proposition uh and as you've heard
tonight at least in one expert
appraiser's opinion that is the case it
is an economic proposition not to be
undertaken
and finally
uh f
uh
allows you as i think was recognized in
the earlier case to allow demolition
even if the structure is historically
significant and worthy of preservation
if there are compelling circumstances
and certainly
the ordinance itself itemizes as a
compelling circumstance the proposed
replacement plan is superior to
retention of the existing structure
and
madam chairwoman i don't say this
lightly i feel like we can satisfy the
tony standard in terms of what you
articulated earlier does the proposed
structure
present an improvement for this
community um we absolutely are prepared
to go through that
in some detail but
in some ways you don't have to take my
word for it mr lovers which has likewise
uh reviewed uh those plans that you'll
be seeing
he says that this is a compelling
circumstance uh namely quote an
objective comparison of the old to the
proposed design
shows clearly that the new house
designed as what might be styled quote
quintessential bexley unquote will be a
significant addition to the streetscape
the neighborhood and our city
the proposed home occupies about the
same site area as the old
but is positioned in a slightly more
formal way
the mature landscaping of the site will
be maintained in so far as possible the
scale materiality and detailing of the
new design
will be superior to the existing home
and again we're very proud to have
that
affirmation of what we already believed
to be true but i'll let nate talk in the
next few slides karen
about the sighting of the proposed home
its design its quality
karen could you
uh
switch over to the application that we
submitted okay and then down to
the second slide
it's just survey third slide there
perfect
okay so uh this is uh the current site
survey of the existing home and existing
law
on this
uh
what in knowing the sort of the careful
nature in which we need to approach
proposing a new structure here we just
want to reference this for a second you
know it's a larger lot actually used to
be half a parcel larger to the north so
the house was more centered at one time
than it was sold off to the corner lot
but
on this
site plan as well we
did note
just from existing trees to remain
existing trees that would need to be
removed to realize the proposed plan
they're dashed it's really hard to see
on this but you can see it in your
printout um
so i just want to go through
can i set this down
i just want to go through a couple of
issues just so you guys can understand
sort of our approach to the proposed
design um
i think one thing that's important to
note here is that you know in
this proposed new structure and the
sighting on the slot we are asking for
no variances uh to the
you know to the site zoning uh to the
for the structure itself or for the use
um
in looking at this
site and considering a
uh
a new
let's say structure for it here are some
sort of comparisons as far as the site
plan is concerned and karen if you want
to go to the next slide
this will sort of uh
illustrate what we're talking about
yep got it
um so in our proposed site plan
we have uh pulled the front of the house
back five feet further than the current
front of the house
sits now that's not the porch that's the
actual facade of the house so pulling it
back slightly from the street
that is also uh more in line with the
adjacent properties uh which is part of
the
zoning regulation it's a setback or the
average you know setback of the sides of
that on the street so
then another thing that we did was we
took the placement of the proposed house
moved it south you know the in
consideration for the property to the
north and also the consideration for our
clients you know that is their backyard
and so as the house sits now it's
we we've moved it 22 and a half feet
further south for privacy on both across
that property line and on the north and
the south because that is their backyard
because they have a corner lot and
corner lots are funny like that
um on the south side we are
well within sort of the
you know outline setback uh for side
yards i think it's in r3 it's 12 feet or
15 plus feet back which is more of a
side yard condition uh very much you
know related to
side yards down the street especially to
the parcel directly to the south of us
uh the house itself has an attached
garage and so the rear yard setback is
well within the 40 feet uh also keeping
some distance from the property to the
west right uh exceeding the zoning
requirement for that
um
if we were to compare
you know the
the old structure as a mass and its
location on site to
the proposed structure
nearly i think identical lot coverage
footprint is within
248 square feet difference as it sits on
the site
we are within building lot coverage
requirements this you know 25 is the max
we're at 13.9 with this proposal uh our
overall lot coverage with the proposed
hardscapes at this point in the driveway
uh
is well within
the 50 allowable it's just a hair over
40 percent at this point
uh we are
keeping or proposing to keep the two
existing curb cuts
to the street
um
the width of the body of the house is
within five feet difference uh existing
to proposed and then um
the height of this house
relative to the house that's there it's
uh 60 inches taller but still three feet
below
the maximum allowable uh 40 feet for an
r3 so in saying that well i'm mostly
trying to point out like
it's not
you know
uh a complete sort of sea change for the
type of structure that we're proposing
on this lot right it's it's not a great
change in volume it's not a great
changing footprint
in height whatsoever and still you know
well although related to the existing
house still well within the zoning
guidelines that that we
want to adhere to
um
the proposed house itself which we
included floor plans
elevations oh actually i'll just go to
the streetscape
uh karen yeah there you go thank you
so
in this
slide you can sort of uh it outlines
some of those notes that we we've just
made you know in the street the setback
from the
sidewalk in the street relative to the
other homes uh footprint the rear yard
setback and also illustrating how we are
sighting the house relative to the rear
yard at the corner lot and also
relating to the side yard condition
directly to the south and this
diagram is turned slightly so south is
left north of his right just to line up
with our diagram of the streetscape up
above
the
so then i just want to talk about the
house itself
so
you know
again
in an effort to be careful and
considerate with
the neighborhood in everyone's time
we spent a lot of time with our client
developing the design of the house to
get to this point so that everybody had
a clear picture of what our intentions
are for you know what that looks like
even down to
the floor plans themselves so
as you can karen if you flip down
you know basement first floor
uh as it relates certainly a book of the
site plan and the next one karen
second floor and roof now
this house we're
the client doesn't want it we're not
proposing an occupiable third floor it's
a mechanical floor to help us with the
hvac placement
so it is simply two floors above ground
with a lower level of a basement
and if you go to the next
slide
okay
so
lower right hand elevation is the uh
front elevation that we've developed
based on the floor plan based on you
know all of those other factors uh i
would agree uh
with the chairwoman that
you know we started with the plan so
because moving windows around and
changing things once you if you're
trying to do the plan secondary is
problematic because i don't want to come
back with all these changes in front of
you or asking for changes so in
developing that floor plan and the
you know exterior in tandem
we have a symmetrical two-story house um
you know at this point
you know we've taken it very far and
with these elevations it looks quite
developed there are still small details
that are
you know being worked through but what
we're proposing here is very accurate
for the direction
of
the design and the client's intention
for this property
so you know we're talking about
certainly
slate roof you know we're talking about
an exterior material that uh
is of the palette of the
sort of larger more historical homes in
bexley in this version we're showing
brick with stone detailing around the
windows there is you know
still ongoing conversation about the
option of doing a historical
fine-grained stucco finish much like the
glassman's or the powers house on
commonwealth park
uh
brett kaufman's house down the road and
even
a pool house that we've done was more
recently just up the street uh
at 198 i think it was
but uh you know
the massing and the design of the house
the window layout you know chimney
placement garage all of those things
we've worked very hard to lock those in
and make sure that those aren't things
that uh will change with other ideas
that come up as this gets finalized and
if we go into production of you know
permit documents and those sorts of
things you know
this is our
intention
and so
you know subject to your
input and thoughts and offerings as it
relates to this new home we hope that
you'll agree that um
with no variances with a massing and a
layout that we think is actually more
sensitive to the neighbors than what's
existing um
and building height as well within
code um
that
along with the generous setback that
exists from uh south columbia and from
the neighbors you know
we're not going to have ashborn road
issues here in terms of how it appears
we think it's going to be a tremendous
enhancement to the streetscape of south
columbia with the church trees being
preserved and so we hope that you'll see
that we have
put in the time of consideration the
sensitivity towards the neighbors in the
area and with that we obviously
it's subject to anything else nate has
certainly welcomed your input your
thoughts your reactions yeah well you
can get much more detail in the
application we've also submitted a uh
enlarged uh
elevation section of the home also uh
just you know a what is right now a
basic
section through just to show how that
how the uh we intend
those details to be realized on the
facade of the house the
house is also conceptualized as an
entire house right it is all brick uh
all the way around there's a water table
uh presented uh there's a consistency to
each facade here because we do want it
to look like a
cohesive
idea because we have the opportunity or
hoping to have the opportunity to do
this as a single house
in one go
um let's start with mr hellman
um
yeah this may be
extensive
uh i guess at first blush i would maybe
challenge the presumption that
demolition is the rule and not the
exception
and i think it's important to
read into the minutes
a couple of things from the purpose
section 1223.01
residential property values have been
maintained in significant part due to
the city's unique physical attributes
such as high-quality homes built
primarily in the early and mid-20th
century
reflecting the diverse architectural
styles and sizes of that period
distinctive established neighborhoods
plentiful mature trees and landscaping
on both public and private property
the demolition of existing residential
structures which frequently also results
in the destruction and removal of mature
trees significant landscape features may
constitute an irreplaceable loss to the
quality and character of a neighborhood
in the city
second paragraph encouraging the
retention of buildings which have
historic architectural or cultural value
or which are otherwise worthy of
preservation otherwise worthy of
preservation maintaining lot size and
building scale appropriate to each
neighborhood
demolition permitting demolition
replacement existing residential
buildings when they are not worthy of
preservation or cannot be economically
maintained or restored or other
compelling reasons to do so and then i
think we go to
uh you're
going through your various points
and
let's go to those really quickly
so i think on d
i would emphasize d2 the quality of the
arc the structure's architectural design
and i think it's highly debatable
that this is a
in some case the existing structure
is not up to does not have architectural
character it has it has pretty
significant architectural character uh
like mines can differ
um it has different additions and
different styles in the back fair number
of bexley houses have that uh and when
we get to your economic factors uh that
uh
because they're one might have to take
off an addition or change things i would
say probably a third to half of our
editions that are put on houses are
taking off an old edition to put on one
that's bigger and more appropriate to
the house so pretty common thing uh the
columns detract it's a common house
um
i
so many people i know have always loved
that house they call it the plantation
house uh it's obviously the the west
waterhouse which i'm sure you're aware
um you know a family that has some
stance here in town has been around for
a while one of the kind of the founding
important families but i'm not saying
that's a huge deal um
and then i think likewise the the the
the point about all the other pictures
in all the other houses
says
and let me get back to that point but i
think then number two on the renovation
part and the economic hardship um all
houses require renovation uh if you went
through uh most bexley houses one time
or another you've got to put money in it
everybody puts money we put money into
our houses everybody does so yes
renovation is a normal part of having a
100 year old house
it's going to happen
and that's why we have the
architectural review board that's why we
have historic preservation
to ensure that that can be done in a way
that
is
compatible with the existing character
of the house and its neighborhood and
done in such a way that we the house can
be modernized but by the same token
attain the essential characteristics
that are part of what make this
community strong to begin with
renovation costs and renovation values
you might talk to the bexley realtors in
you know many many many cases it's not a
new thing
to where
a house gets turned over uh it's bought
by somebody they're renovated they put
hundreds and hundreds of thousand
dollars and then they sell it for a
pretty decent profit i i would suggest
talking to mike carruthers or sheila
straub any of those about that process
because i think that's pretty
pretty important
then we're down to the superior
is this superior to the retention of the
existing structure
that one is is is an interesting point
because
is bigger always better is newer better
than old and i would support that the
code
first speaks to preservation
and preservation is not possible or
feasible and i've heard nothing about
structural incompatibility and i'm not
sure uh the argument is cogent about
economic hardship so that's the point
that then remains
and i guess my i i would end by saying
uh it's a nice house i have no issues
with that uh i don't think this is the
lot for it because it requires the
demolition of a house this particular
house
and
the if this house is not worthy of
preservation
and it does not merit
preservation
then i think what we do is then turn
every almost every lot on parkview
drexel and columbia into potential lots
all somebody has to do is to show a
bigger better house that's newer fresher
and then
by definition than that that flips those
houses and i think you made that point
when you talked about all those other
houses being equally common and equally
unusual that's our fear that's why this
ordinance was put together in the first
place is to protect the heritage and the
value of our houses so as obviously you
can tell uh
i i might love your house but i can't
support the demolition and respectfully
mr hellman i do appreciate that feedback
if i could respond briefly um
that the actual purpose of this
board as codified in the mexican city
code and you touched upon it is to
promote and improve the quality of
neighborhoods by permitting the
demolition and replacement of existing
residential buildings promote and
preserve
not worthy of preservation or cannot be
economically maintained or restored or
where there are other compelling reasons
to do so such as protecting and
preserving property values and the
city's tax base we believe that's what
we're proposing to do i i would also
tell you that
and miss cunningham would as well that
prohibitions on the use of private
property in ohio
supreme court ohio has repeatedly said
those have to be narrowly construed in
favor of property owners and
be
ohio
requires um
as far as whether this proposed home is
superior i i presume that reasonable
minds could
disagree as it relates to any home
but again
we're gratified that
our belief is not just buttressed by mr
sampson's own expertise which is
extensive but mr leverages as well
so i i simply offer that as food for
thought yeah and we're talking about
this lot
uh if this were a vacant lot someplace
else and whether the existing house
would could that design on the lot or
this on the lot but we're talking about
this specific lot and it's harmony with
its neighbors the brick house that's
next to it uh this thing sets up in the
lot so well it's a classically beautiful
bexley house that has uh deferred
maintenance that is so extensive we are
proposing a home that is harmonious with
the neighborhood i i actually respect
very much mr sampson that i'm sure
you've seen people before on new
big a building bui as smaller setbacks
as they possibly can
none of that took place here and so i i
think it's a respectable and worthy
proposal
mr
so
uh i guess generally i agree with mr
hellman in that
i very much appreciate
the
quality of the design and the plans
the attention to the details
uh
but the demolition
justification
is always tough
and it is tough in this
situation as well
um you know we we are concerned about
preserving the tax base
but i don't want to twist that to say
we're trying to increase our tax base
you know i in my view the spirit of that
is
we can't
preserve homes to the detriment of
what's going on around just because it's
when it's falling down and it's old and
it doesn't say i have to do things to
enhance the tax base and approve a
bigger house that will be more expensive
i don't think that's our charge
so
you know your council is very articulate
and
has put together
some pretty um good arguments
um but i think if if
we had an opportunity to go line by line
we could come up with some some very
compelling rebuttals
um you know it's tough when someone
comes with um
a a well-reasoned presentation and
arguments on why it's appropriate based
on the statute
um it that's that's
um difficult on the fly for us to
counter each point
um although you did an admiral job of
trying
that's pretty impressive
um
so i i think it it could warrant
additional consideration and
um evaluation of your points i know we
had the materials in advance but it was
helpful to hear your presentation it's
really helpful to hear
your your the legal points um but it is
one view right and and i think
it's important to the community to
really assess that
and um
have a thoughtful approach to this is
not um
it's not a slam dunk by any stretch
and uh
and and folks can disagree about the
importance of that and that's why we
have great architects on the board
to to really give consideration to the
importance of that home
just a question for the board too
for clarification you know i don't you
know i don't want uh
the
intent to come off to you guys either as
you know it
increase the tax base okay that'll get
them or you know it's it's more like
that issue
maybe is checked off it's off the table
you know there's not a lesser something
lesser happening here right and i think
going through those points
trying to
also focus how we
can best present you know
our uh approach to all of you two is
maybe a little bit of clarification on
how
the board and the city
sort of reads into the qualifications uh
of the demolition
you know
it's a
it's an either or proposition sort of as
it's written
is it historical
or if it is
is there economic hardship
economic hardship is is tough right of
course especially in this neighborhood
you know it's more to i think with you
know
some of the information you heard
tonight too you know uh
it's not
lots of things are possible
right and so it's more the idea as well
or i guess an accompaniment it's an idea
of you know the
the investment in that existing house
you know to retain that existing house
far outpaces the value more so than just
as a concept more so than
some other ideas of how you might
approach this battery yeah i just think
that's
there's no basis
for that conclusion yeah i think that
that's good though that if that's a
question that we can help
that out absolutely for sure i can go
through
i mean
just again talk talk to the folks that
are on the ground the realtors are doing
this the houses that have been turned
around and the amount of investment
that's put in i mean that is i mean just
i i just want you to be able to
say these things
uh
with that background sure that may
change how you think about it or you may
say well yeah but this that and the
other but to make it as a categorical
statement uh when all of us are seeing
month after month after month these
additions to houses and big renovations
and all these chains we see it every
month oh sure and believe me i think
that our perspective doesn't mean to
wash over that necessarily because
from my vantage point
i'm doing a lot of those projects so uh
there's a truth you would know that yeah
so when and each case is different is
you know uh by the you know intent of
the owner by you know what they're
trying to do in how they present that to
uh the commission
for the board uh so it's it's individual
certainly and and so
thank you for this thoughtful input one
thing i would say is we're not just
asking you to take our word for it nate
obviously has decades of relevant
professional experience and ms wilcox
has seen it as well in her 40 years of
nearly 40 years of appraisal experience
um
in case we weren't clear enough
absolutely we would we would agree to
table this to next month to provide for
a fuller discussion uh perhaps mr heil
will be here as well
and and we're happy to do that and to
continue to flush out and talk through
these issues you are very able
represented by miss cunningham and so
i'm load the drag her into this you and
i have known each other for decades at
this point including in this room i i
would say however and you'll be well
counseled by
catherine i would say it's troubling to
hear of
other homes or where is the line drawn
because that's not what this coordinates
directs you to consider or or to do
madam chairwoman you're correct we know
of the many
demolitions that have been approved
so to suddenly you know start talking
about where is where is the line raises
some serious equal protection concerns
for our client and so i just want to
kind of
try as best i can to remove that
from the consideration and stay focused
on the factors to guide you i appreciate
it yeah and and we would also be happy
to talk about every single
demolition case that we've approved and
why we'd be happy to again i i'm
well familiar with many
most of them and i'm just simply
for the record and for your counseling
just got
um
so
very interesting from both sides i
appreciate all the efforts
as an architect uh i look
maybe
differently um
[Music]
but maybe not uh so looking at the
photographs that i have i've driven by
the house i know the house but not have
not been inside i don't know very well
um
the core essence the original home and
maybe the original and first edition
maybe
uh it is a pretty
actually pretty unique house to bexley
we can argue style wise for the front
porch don't like it like it get that
it's not my preference but it's still a
style
the additions in the back
wish the board was around then because
that would have happened right it just
it
it's uh they're awful uh they should
they should never even done that but
that's that's what they are and that's
what you have
um
jumping
ahead to the design
um i don't have a i don't have a single
comment i think it's fantastic design
for the new home i had a couple
questions that i was going to ask that
i don't know if i need to tonight uh i i
think it's exceptional i think it would
fit exceptionally into the neighborhood
i think there are other examples of that
in bexley now obviously not that exact
design but that quality and i'm looking
at your
material page on the end when the ground
copper dormers and
uh
the material of the gutters and the
garage doors and the windows limestone
all of it is
it's exactly what we want right it's
exactly those if if it's affordable if
we're in the budgets we'd love to see
that so
uh no complaints um so then it always on
this particular project it comes back to
we have this existing house
uh and it comes back to the demo and you
have your
obviously position on what you would
like to do and we have our opinions uh
or the
ordinance so in all of that and i would
lean all of the legal
evaluation of that to
more those more qualified than i
so i think really i only have one
question it is what
if any
were there any
uh
investigations into renovating the
existing home through demolition of the
older addition the newer editions on it
and any feasibility studies and design
concepts of what could be done to that
existing home prior to
you know the design that you've come up
come up with
only
through discussion and walkthroughs
there was
an earlier
very early discussions when we were
walking through the house initially
about
what
that concept
in general and
it was talked about
the client chose
to pursue this direction versus that
direction and that's where we started to
develop it from i understand i i get
that yeah
i think the challenge there
is you know any kind of cost estimating
comparisons
without having some sort of kind of
tangible documents to say this is what
we could do
it's hard to say what those costs would
be to renovate because we don't know
other than the walk-through and i get
those i've been there i know what those
are
are hard to kind of
substantialize because it's more of a
guess so this potentially could be this
kind of cost
uh and again i understand why those are
done at that level it's just for us here
it gets a little bit more difficult
because those are
numbers that somebody's come up with
on ideas and not something that was
drawn
um
[Music]
so i guess that's really my only only
comment because i think
i don't have a problem with the design i
don't have a problem with how it sits on
the site
you know mirroring it north south and
why that would be done as more of a
preference for the ownership
uh i probably would have a different
view just depending on my own personal
preferences it doesn't it doesn't bother
me
um it comes down to that existing house
and
um and i
would 100 demolition of all the add-ons
right no doubt i would be fully
supportive of that
uh but in my mind i can picture those
gone and i see that core house and then
it becomes much more difficult i know
the windows are vinyl windows and
there's other things that have happened
and i haven't been on the inside so i
won't comment on that but
uh that's it gets a little bit more
difficult for me
and just for
what i'm hearing that maybe uh falls to
me too to uh actually work to develop
and provide information for you guys
uh
it sounds like there's some
consideration of that cost differential
so we're attacking it both ways it's a
it's a hardship
and it's a
sort of the significance
of that original structure
is to be a little bit better understood
for me information needs to be presented
because i can clarify that i think that
the new design if this was you know
a total destruction home through some
sort of does that then you know the new
design
i don't think i have any problem with
any of it i think it's fantastic it's
beautiful work but uh
that cord that's the core brick
structure that i i'm getting stuck on
right now
doesn't i'm not you know set on my
decision but
yeah i i'd agree 100 that was my
thought as well like
why demolish everything yeah the the
additions detract from
arguably detract from the
the
the design
but there are additions and they can
come off
so
i think that's a valid question
and maybe it's my imagination i know
that if the work that you your firm does
if that's all we had
you know what's your first approach
meant to be like what can we do with the
existing
structure to improve it
and there's other complications that i
get it but uh yeah
that's what i'm sitting here thinking
about yeah and
one last note just to mr hullman's uh
comment too um
i think that our comparison to other
similar houses like this is
by no means to diminish them it's simply
to put it in context right and we're
we're just talking about this house but
there's references to others so um
i don't want to come off as
thinking that they're well i understand
for some reason we just haven't dug into
them and talked about them i i just you
know i i would echo
i'd be the third one on that um the
expiration of
something spectacular i know your client
spectacular uh that could be added to
the back of this house that really is
the combination design that says we've
done two things
the front
is civically part of the community like
it's always been but look at the back
look what went on back there and it's
fabulous and it's wonderful and it's
something that operates as a design
unique design challenge which we've
which we've seen happen
over and over and again so both things
and obviously that's uh a doable
creative enterprise to do that
and so it would encourage you
to first look at this as a home
that could be renovated with addition as
opposed to first blush it's a lot
and we're going to scrape it clean we're
going to start over
oh this is this is hard
um
you know usually it's it's a house that
has something wrong with it and so it's
pretty
you start saying you know by saying okay
i understand why they want to take it
down
um
if you had brought this to us
and said i wanted to demo all of the
editions
the on the back on the side i want to
demo the front put a new front on it i
wanted i'm going to demo the inside and
put all new walls in and all new
electric and i'm going to put all new
windows in it
um
with with the way that you draw things
we would be like okay what do you want
to make of it
it's just that weird line when you say i
want to take the whole thing down that
we start to go
why you know like
what's wrong with it
and i see you know you want to move it a
little bit on the lot and uh you're
basically going for a different style
you know then maybe what's there but
i
i i struggle just a little bit i
struggle to to try to figure out where
is the line of
you know what in bexley can cannot be
torn down and i know there's some things
here that can't be torn down
but
i i don't know it's it's a very
you know all of our criteria of you know
who lived there and stuff i mean we've
never really come up with anything that
has said well you know somebody
important lived here well in some ways
we're all important you know because we
all
have contributed to the community and
all that so
i don't know i mean your design's
amazing it is absolutely absolutely
amazing and by the tony criteria
um yeah it's
it does exactly what i would normally
say yeah let's go for it but
i am curious have you talked to the
neighbors around and are are they
involved in your process and
we may have someone in the audience no
no
on that point i just wanted one thing
like when i read the statute it's not is
the house better
it's
the proposed replacement plan is
superior to retention of the existing
structure not superior to the existing
structure right because the retention of
the existing structure
is more than that
it is
but isn't all that subjective
it's also i i agree and that's and
that's where the problem comes
so
i guess my challenge is just saying
just saying
first of all i'm not sure
everyone would agree that that the new
design is superior it is certainly
fantastic
but is it superior to the existing
structure that was built um 100 years
ago i can't say that that is a fact
right that is definitely subjective
and
the replacement plan not the design but
the entire plan
is that superior to retaining what we
have
for many reasons that's correct right
not just
i prefer that house that
this great architect plant
is retaining it
is it superior to the retention because
we have a lot of things going on here we
have that history of the house we have
the relationship
all those things that you say so
eloquently
that i i can't say as eloquently as mr
hellman
but it's it's for me it's a lot more
than just that's a prettier house or
that's a well-designed house or
or even design
a better design
uh it's it's architecturally fantastic
okay well that's that's one piece but
that doesn't mean it's superior
yeah there are things
there are things that new can't do
uh new can't have
that sense of history new can't have
that
cohesiveness of
aging things together
new can't have familiar things that have
been there that they've become landmarks
and they become recognized pieces of the
community
and
you can any number being to german
village you can do any number of places
to where there's a certain
overall ethic
that is
reinforced by our architecture the scale
the rhythm of the houses
uh the front yards um one of the one of
the great views in bexley is going down
south columbia and looking at the corner
of the brick house and this house and
you know the other house might have a
similar view
but it's just a beautiful how brick to
brick white trim to white trim uh it
becomes kind of part of what everybody
has kind of recognized this place uh
beckley is a place that
um
people move back to over and over and
over again it's a very unique special
place and it's it you might use the old
montana it's like maybe one of the last
best places and it's because we really
care about this stuff it really matters
our street trees really matter we're an
arboretum the only city that's declared
an arboretum that really matters
so it's nothing against your client it's
nothing against the design of the house
it's about the character and essence of
what we think our community is about and
i would just urge you in totality to
look at whether we strive to capture
that um
again
i can understand how passwords buy
they think that i think i use the word
cancer uh i think this house is
attractive
when we look at the factors and the
totality of the issues that exist with
this house and i'm not really trying to
administer author sell you a house in
terms of the news being better
i do think you need to look on a
relative basis
respectful of not just treating this as
a lot but looking at the issues and
frankly the lack of distinction
of the existing structure
are
which i know you haven't seen in other
instances we're really striving to do
that if you're engaging this back and
forth this dialogue
yeah i guess my last point on this topic
is
with enough money
every single house in the city could be
replaced with a better house
a prettier house
i think right there's always better
and that's not the point of the of the
statute or the ordinance
it's more complicated than that
i think we should all start getting paid
for this work because it's really hard
it's very stressful i have to say it is
very stressful
can i make a motion
sorry it took us
so long i want to say a few things
please state your name i'm
sorry gilly zofian i'm resident at 209
south columbia please raise your right
now sorry do you saw me swear from the
testimony you're about to give this
evening is the truth
i do thank you
so as i said i'm the resident my wife
and i and family live at 209 south
columbia i've actually stood in front of
you del cathy five years ago we
renovated completely demolished interior
to two additions to the house at 59
south roosevelt that was a prior rental
my wife and i actually tried to buy this
home at 261 south columbia from mr
robert and eleanorship prior to mr joel
pazuti buying it and just wanted to
say some factual things to what they
said first i want to read the listing
from when it was posted by david powers
often admired southern colonial brick
central bexley house custom built in
1927 on expansive point eight acre lot
featured in the columbus dispatch in
october 1928 traditional central hall
flam central hall floor plan with
gracious sized living room dining room
with all the classic details you'd
expect expensive kitchen open 1980s
family room addition that brings the
home to almost 7000 square feet
advertising entertaining size family
room with built-in bar and high ceilings
which looks out to this premier lot
large kitchen with eaten area first
floor pantry mudroom worker room large
sunroom den office four bedroom second
floor three full baths featuring
sprawling owners suite with abundance of
closets and dense study third floor
offers a fifth bedroom half bath true
bexley treasure
so take that and everything they said
when you walked through the house in the
kitchen there was an article featuring
the dispatch article bob shook a
well-respected businessman wrote over 15
books i think that would show that
that's true not even speaking the west
water history of the house
you look at the house i actually asked
the shooks to give me history on the
mechanics which are all very new and not
outdated runs about two hundred dollars
for a month for electric and gas on the
size house seven thousand square feet
one would expect to be double triple
that not a boiler system
outdated yeah it might be in the 90s
bathroom has a huge whirlpool could be
updated my wife and i want to make this
our home fortunately we did 209 was the
driveway outdated yes two weeks ago we
laid a new concrete driveway at our
house plenty you could do do i love the
new design yes do i think money that
joel pizzuti could spend yes i grew up
on brighton road second house that i've
lived in bexley and i think that this
new house would yes raise my property
value but are they washing a piece of
bestly history 100
thank you
thank you thank you very much
okay so um i guess i need to ask you how
you would like it
it would be very desirable to have a
laundry room on the second floor as this
house does have a walk-in closet for
wife
husband this house has all the features
of any family that wants to raise their
kid to allow somebody that's from an
outsider to just spend millions of
dollars it's not the place now you would
spend over a million dollars on property
spend three million dollars saving
thank you
i
respectfully uh disagree obviously with
that conclusion but nonetheless i meant
what i said to you
nate meant what he said to you at the
beginning we want
to collaborate with you we want to hear
your honest feedback certainly i
appreciate the unvarnished thoughts that
you've shared with us tonight that this
gentleman has shared with us tonight
we kept in touch with the city we're not
aware of any neighborhood opposition to
this obviously
okay sir i'm sorry but you you need to
not talk until you're up come back
okay um so how would you like to proceed
would you like to table it and give us i
mean i have to say from a board's
perspective
we don't know that any of these projects
are coming until usually three or four
days before the meeting we pull up the
agenda and see what we've got i mean i
did walk around this house but i've not
been in it but
um it's just not a decision i don't
think that that we could make lightly
and so if anything i'm gonna err on the
side of caution
and i don't know if the other board
members would feel this way but
um
i i think we just need to do a little
bit more research
you know on everyone's part i guess just
to
totally respectful of that we can be
comfortable with the decision that we
get frankly having been in your shoes in
another in another arena i get exactly
what you just described that you need
time to consider and consume and frankly
it was probably our our intention if not
stated when we came in that this likely
did have to be tabled for months so we
could take your feedback respond to it
and hopefully give you time to
consider what we've provided to you this
evening so we would ask
usually we have like a list of three or
four things that you still need to
provide that we can just say okay you
still have to do this but you you have
put together a very complete application
it's just that i think we all need more
time
to process all this and really kind of
get our arms wrapped around it so
understood if you'd like to table it to
next month i i i think that's
what i would recommend is that okay with
everyone
yep
are you finally we need a motion i'll
make a motion to table this application
to the next month
to a certain date
yes the date of the of the next
whatever that is that would be
october 9th i think
14th october 14th
[Music]
that doesn't sound right
isn't it
the second
oh it is october 14th is correct
the seven and four years
it's the only time that happens from
there come on guys
you got it
it's the 14th
all right
so we have a motion and a second do we
have a second larry
i'll second
okay
all right
i will call the roll the strasser yes mr
scott yes mr cowan yes i'm chair yes
i would encourage everybody to walk
around the property
if that's okay with the owner i'm
assuming it is
and that peaked in the windows
saw her out there today
you saw her you you were walking around
yeah took a picture of you walking
around and we appreciate your thoughts
and your questions very much thank you
thank you thank you thank you very much
okay i don't think we have any other
business right kathy we're
that that is the end of the agenda okay
okay um i i would just ask if anybody
would like to give me
feedback on the
staff report i i'm up for whatever
criticism
or compliments but criticism so please
email me
suggestions
yeah yeah no i'm kidding of course
i don't have any i was great good job
thanks karen
thanks for running the meeting for us
from afar yeah
oh no problem sorry i will have a
white-coated kid tomorrow so thank you
for your patience take care thank you