Committee splits approval for repairs at 25–29 West Patterson, continues roof and window review

The University District Review Board on Jan. 23 split an application for exterior work at 25–29 West Patterson Avenue, approving common repairs for staff sign-off while continuing consideration of roof and window replacements that were completed before historic-review approval.

The applicant told the board, “Be merciful, please. We got ourselves into quite a pickle here,” explaining contractors began work before permits were finalized and that some character-defining features were removed during the unpermitted work. Staff had advised splitting the application so low-impact repairs could proceed promptly while the more sensitive roof and window work are revised to better match the building’s historic character.

Staff planner Stephanie (Staff member) told the board the building is considered potentially contributing to the University District historic character and that the city’s University District Plan recommends preserving character-defining features. The staff report noted the chimney and a dormer — described in the submission as safety and structural concerns — had been removed and that the applicant already replaced the roof and installed vinyl windows. Because those features were removed prior to review, staff recommended continuing the roof and window portion of the application to allow the applicant to propose remediation and replacement windows more compatible with the original multi-light profiles on the front elevation.

At the meeting the board moved to split the application. Under the board’s motion, the following items were approved for staff-level review and sign-off: door repairs, gutter replacement, soffit and fascia repairs and replacement, brick repainting, concrete repair, rear staircase repair and repainting, and handrail work. The board continued the roof replacement and window replacement portions so the applicant can return with design revisions that would, at minimum, restore porch overhangs, replace boarded “blind” windows with actual windows rather than permanent shutters, and propose multi‑light-profile windows on the front elevation. The board also asked the applicant to consider reintroducing small overhangs above the front doors where feasible.

Mister Fleming (Committee member) moved the split, and Mister Reeves (Committee member) seconded. The motion carried on recorded votes by the members present.

The applicant said they had paid deposits for materials but that contractors would not be paid in full until permits and approvals were in place. The applicant also told the board they will work with staff and contractors to develop cost‑effective remediation, and staff said they would provide a summary email to the applicant detailing required follow-up.

The board’s decision allows the applicant to proceed with repairs that staff can approve while requiring a revised design and additional documentation for the completed roof and window work. The applicant was told to return with proposals to reinstate porch overhangs where possible and to replace shutters and some front windows with a multi‑light appearance to better match the building’s original character.

The board’s record will show continuing review of the roof and window replacement and staff authority to approve the other repairs once they meet the material and installation details specified in staff recommendations.