Historical commission recommends denying after-the-fact certificate for altered rowhouse at 444 W. Lemon Street

Peter (chair of the Historical Commission) told the Community Planning Committee the commission recommended denial of an after-the-fact demolition and new construction at 444 West Lemon Street because the build removed a historic dormer and gable roof and replaced it with a third-floor addition, violating the Secretary of the Interior's standards. "The historic character of the property shall be retained and preserved," Peter read from the standards, and the commission cited Standards 2, 5 and 9 in support of denial. The nut graf: The owner, Nathan Charles, and builder Jesse Pellman said they obtained building permits and sought to transform the property into a highly insulated, Passive House-style unit; they described multiple plan submissions and inspections and said staff did not notify the Historical Commission during plan review. City staff and members of the Historical Commission said the issued permit appeared to be for interior renovations only and did not have demolition/addition boxes checked, so the application did not get routed for historic review. Builder Jesse Pellman said the existing dormer and roof were structurally unsound and that the design choices were driven by a goal of reaching Passive House certification, adding, "...we resubmitted plans and elevations that represent the current as built condition to the city and to the city inspectors for additional review and for comment and receiving none and following through with site inspections." City Historic Preservation staff and the historical commission said the demolition and substantial exterior change to the repeating dormer pattern on the block constituted a major alteration and that the commission had no authority to recommend detailed design fixes; staff said they would investigate the administrative permitting process that allowed the work to proceed without historic commission review. After public comment and discussion the committee voted to table the commission's recommendation and directed further review of the permit process and options for remedy, with several council members urging an investigation of how the permit was issued. Ending: The owner said interior work has continued only with the city's permission for nonvisible work and that reversing some choices would be logistically and financially difficult; council directed staff to review permit routing and options and to return with findings at a future meeting.