Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues review of roof and gutter work on potentially contributing building, asks for details and repair options
Summary
Property owners requested permission to replace deteriorated roof gutters and associated roof work on a building potentially identified as contributing in the university district. The Design Review Board asked for additional documentation, condition photos and proposed details and continued the application.
Owners of a building identified as potentially contributing to the University District’s historic character asked the board for approval to replace deteriorated roof gutters and to reroof portions of the building. Staff said the university district plan recommends preserving character‑defining features and cautioned that covering or removing the building’s existing gutter detail could affect its architectural character.
The applicant’s representative said the existing gutters are in poor repair, holding debris and failing to shed water properly. They asked the board to allow replacement with new 6‑inch k‑style aluminum gutters and a black finish to match the building’s brick. The applicant also said they plan to replace roofing materials and install a ridge cap to improve appearance and performance.
Board members and the historic preservation reviewer discussed whether the existing gutter elements are original character‑defining features (box gutters, stop gutters or similar). Staff and the preservation officer asked for clearer documentation and detail drawings. Several board members said they were open to repair rather than wholesale replacement if the existing elements can be conserved, but also recognized that some pieces appear beyond repair.
After discussion the board voted to continue the application and asked the applicant to provide additional documentation: clear, close‑up photographs of existing gutter details, a proposed replacement detail that either replicates the original profile or explains the repair approach, and (if feasible) a small trial removal in a non‑prominent location to allow inspection of the underlying construction. Staff said the board could consider a narrower approval if photos and details show the feature can be repaired rather than replaced.
The board recorded a motion to continue; the motion carried. Staff advised the applicant to consult with the historic preservation officer and return with the requested details at a future meeting.
