Commission approves two COAs after Romero House removes three windows for ADA restroom

The Historic Preservation Commission approved two certificates of appropriateness to allow removal and siding-over of three window openings at 702 Clark Avenue, the Romero House, after hearing staff reports, testimony from the facility director and extended commissioner discussion.

The action matters because the Romero House is in the Old Town Historic District and the commission must weigh preservation design guidelines against the building code and ADA requirements that the applicant cited as the reason for altering window openings.

Staff member Ray explained the referrals to the commission: “There's actually 2 requests for certificate of appropriateness. 1 for the removal of 2 double hung windows on the backside of the house, and replaced with siding… In this case, staff was alerted to this change, and we contacted the property owner. And, we could not approve it as staff the way it was done. So, we are forwarded onto the commission for your action and your consideration.”

David Thielen, director of the Romero House, told commissioners the organization removed the windows to construct a handicapped-accessible restroom after the city inspector told them the room must meet ADA dimensions for a commercial restroom. “You can't have your cake and eat it too, meaning that the city can't tell us that you have to make this ADA accessible… That takes up every piece of wall space in that bathroom,” Thielen said, explaining the tight five-foot turning-radius requirement and why the windows conflicted with restroom layout. He also said architectural plans showing the change had been submitted earlier in the year and that the group had applied for other COAs for the site.

Commissioners reviewed precedents in the staff report, noting prior COA denials and approvals for window changes at other addresses and differences between ‘‘blocking down’’ a window and full removal. Commissioners debated whether the altered openings were part of an addition (not original to the house) and how visible the change would be from the street. Commissioner Scott said precedents and the fact the altered wall is an addition led him to be more favorable to approval. Another commissioner said removal of the south-side window did not “change the character of the building at all.” A separate commissioner said the late application and removal after prior COA work made the situation “frustrating” and characterized the sequence as asking forgiveness rather than permission.

The commission voted to grant the COA for the east-side (rear) window removal and later approved the COA for the south-side single-window removal. A motion to grant the east COA was moved and seconded and carried (aye votes recorded; motion passes). The same procedure was followed for the south COA; the motion passed with at least one recorded nay.

Commission staff noted the COA request followed citizen complaints and administrative staff outreach: the request was filed after staff learned the openings had been filled with siding. Staff also said internal capacity issues contributed to delayed follow-up. Thielen said the organization had spent money to retain or restore other historic features and invited commissioners to an open house.

The commission did not direct staff to take enforcement action at the meeting; staff said municipal infractions remain an option if code compliance is not achieved but the commission preferred working with property owners to resolve violations where possible.

The Romero House case highlighted a gap commissioners flagged in the code: design guidelines reference “blocking down” windows but do not explicitly define or address full removal of windows, creating a gray area commissioners said should be clarified in future Chapter 31 updates.