Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
University District board splits approval for 25–29 West Patterson exterior work after unpermitted roof and window changes
Summary
The University District Review Board split an application for repairs at 25–29 West Patterson Ave., granting staff approval for non-controversial exterior repairs while continuing review of roof and window work after those elements were already replaced without obtaining required historic-review clearance.
The University District Review Board on Jan. 23 split an application for exterior work at 25–29 West Patterson Ave., clearing repairs and finish work for staff approval while continuing the portion of the application that covers roof and window replacement.
Board action came after staff reported the roof and windows had already been replaced and recommended splitting the application so uncontroversial repairs could proceed while the applicant returned with a revised design addressing removed historic features.
Staff member Stephanie said the property is “potentially contributing” to the University District plan and identified the house as an early-20th-century French-eclectic residence built between 1902 and 1910. The staff report described scope items eligible for staff approval — door repairs, gutter replacement, soffit and fascia repairs/replacement, brick repainting, concrete repairs, rear stair repair and repainting, and handrail work — and recommended continuing the roof and window replacement portion to allow remediation of removed character-defining features.
The applicant, who identified themself in the hearing as Neil and said they were acting as the general contractor, told the board that subs began work before permits were in place. “Be merciful, please. We got ourselves into quite a pickle here,” Neil said, explaining that the roofer completed the roof before pulling permits and that chimneys and a dormer had been removed for safety reasons because they were crumbling.
Board members pressed the applicant on possible remediation. Several members said replacing the front façade windows with a multi‑light profile and reinstating porch overhangs would help restore character. One board member noted that, while rebuilding a decorative chimney would be costly and potentially create future maintenance issues, restoring overhangs and selecting more compatible front‑elevation windows would be more feasible.
After discussion, the board voted to split the application as staff recommended: approve by staff the items listed above and continue the roof and window replacement portion so the applicant can submit a revised design that shows reinstated porch overhangs, multi‑light‑profile front windows in a compatible color, and that the previously shuttered/boarded side windows be returned to active windows rather than permanently shuttered.
Motion and vote: the motion to split the application was moved by Fleming and seconded by Reeves. Voting recorded in the hearing: Fleming — yes; Mather — yes; Reeves — yes; Sublette — yes. The motion carried.
The board instructed staff to work with the applicant on material specifications and to return the roof/window portion for further review once the applicant submits revised designs. The applicant said contractors had been paid for materials but not final payment until permits and approvals are in place.
The staff report and the board’s direction leave most repair work able to proceed under staff approval while the applicant develops options to mitigate the loss of character‑defining elements and to restore more compatible window profiles on the front elevation.
