UIDRB approves exterior repairs and small rear addition for duplex at COA 250185102104

The University District Improvement Review Board on March 27 approved Certificate of Appropriateness COA 250185102104, allowing exterior repairs and a small second-floor addition to a duplex located within the campus redevelopment site.

Staff described the proposal as a scope of “repair and replacement of mortar as needed to match significant red color,” cleaning and repair of stone, wood trim and soffit repair or replacement like‑for‑like, selective window and door replacement, repair or replacement of chimney caps, flashing and gutters, removal of excess exterior wiring and equipment, a new front porch railing and steps, and a small addition on the rear (north) elevation to close existing roof space. Staff said the application included plans, elevations, material specifications and existing-condition photographs.

The nut of the staff recommendation was that the project is generally consistent with the university district plan’s guidance to preserve character-defining features, to use high-quality materials and lighting, and to design additions to contrast but not overwhelm the original building. Staff noted two exceptions — relocation of one door/ elimination of a transom and removal of two second-floor rear openings — but did not oppose those changes. Staff also recommended salvaging masonry removed from the rear for reuse elsewhere on the site.

An applicant who spoke at the meeting said the plan is to keep existing doors and “only replace them if we can't repair them or if they're in bad shape.” Staff and board members discussed how future door replacements would be handled; staff said replacements that match the existing size, aesthetic and quality could be installed without returning to the board, and that a nonmatching replacement discovered later could become an enforcement issue.

Board members asked technical questions about how the infill at the rear would be finished and whether the infill would be flush with the adjacent siding. The applicant responded that the new siding would be the same profile and that the entire area would be painted to provide a consistent appearance. Staff clarified that the application lists repair or replacement of the chimney caps rather than full chimney reconstruction.

Following discussion, a board member moved to approve the application as submitted; the motion carried. Staff repeated its recommendation that removed masonry be salvaged and reused where feasible.

Votes at a glance - COA 250185102104 — Motion to approve the application as submitted; mover: Mister Fleming; second: Mister Reed. Outcome: approved (board members recorded as voting yes: Mister Fleming; Miss Dozeman; Mister Reed; Mister Samanski; Mister Benton). - Approval of staff-approved applications — Motion carried (mover: Miss Gondelman; second: Mister Reeves). Outcome: approved (votes recorded in the meeting as yes from multiple board members). - Approval of February minutes — Motion to approve was made but the board noted insufficient copies of the minutes and several members abstained; the item was continued/postponed to later in the evening (abstentions were recorded for Miss Dunselman and Mister Reed). Outcome: postponed/continued.

The board advised the applicant to match existing materials and profiles and to paint new siding for visual consistency; staff said salvage of removed brick and compatible reuse would be encouraged. No permit issuance timelines or funding sources were discussed at the meeting.