Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies three‑story infill at 221 Venable Street, cites corner‑building and massing concerns
Summary
The commission voted to deny a proposed three‑story building at 221 Venable Street in Union Hill, finding the design did not sufficiently address the block’s predominant two‑story character or provide the architectural emphasis expected for a corner property under the guidelines.
The Commission of Architectural Review denied the certificate of appropriateness for a proposed three‑story building at 221 Venable Street after an extended review that included applicant presentations, neighborhood comment, and lengthy commissioner deliberations about height, corner treatment and porch design.
Alex presented the staff report and noted the current submission was identical to the version the commission deferred in November. Staff reiterated prior concerns: the building’s porch depth should be increased to create a usable presence on the corner, cladding material needed clarification (brick versus siding), and the corner needed stronger architectural elements to read appropriately as a corner building in Union Hill. Staff recommended conditions addressing porch depth, porch ceiling finish, window details and downspout/gutter information.
Will Shelllette, representing the owner and Baker Development Resources, said the applicant had met with staff and incorporated changes but asked the commission to approve the project with staff conditions, expressing that the project team had received inconsistent earlier comments. Shelllette said the team was willing to meet conditions but asked for either approval or a definitive denial so the owner could move forward.
Neighborhood member Nancy Lapper urged the commission to enforce guidelines to preserve Union Hill character and to protect unique features such as a nearby mosaic and cobblestone streets.
Commission discussion centered on two principal points: compatibility of height and the corner treatment. Chairman Moore and other commissioners said the building’s additional height imposed a heightened responsibility to demonstrate compatibility with the district’s mostly two‑story character; several commissioners concluded the proposed facade lacked sufficient elements to emphasize the corner. One earlier motion to approve with amended conditions (removing the first porch‑depth condition) failed. Commissioner Moore then moved to deny the application, citing page 48 (section 5) of the design guidelines on corner residential properties; Commissioner Striffler seconded. The motion to deny carried.
