Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Façade Renovation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews unpermitted demolition and approves façade items for Brothers Packing House with conditions
Summary
After finding some brick spandrels had been removed outside the approved scope, the commission reviewed the Brothers Packing House façade project, required product/spec clarifications and approved glazing, panel profile and keeping the existing canopy; a stop-work order remains on the exterior work.
The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed a condition at the Brothers Packing House (1844 South Cherry) after staff observed demolition work that was not part of the project approval and issued a stop‑work order. Staff and the architectural review subcommittee presented photos showing removal of brick spandrels that the Department of Parks and Recreation had listed as character‑defining features. The commission considered whether the demolition exceeded the scope of prior approvals and sought additional product and material details from the applicant.
Ownership and design representatives said it had been their intent in earlier plans to remove and replace some brick to attach new corrugated metal panels and that they believed drawings indicated that approach. The applicant said they would retain the canopy (no demolition) and replace missing brick on the South Cherry side in kind while using corrugated metal infill on other elevations; they also provided product information and agreed to supply additional data for the corrugated panels and a window product with a 'true divided light' appearance.
Ashley Atkinson said the stop‑work order remains in place because the removed brick is a character‑defining feature; the architectural review subcommittee recommended the commission review the three outstanding items (glazing details, panel profile and canopy) so the applicant could proceed on those elements. Commissioners asked for product data and a window muntin detail that mimics a true divided light; applicants agreed to submit the specific window option and color samples for the metal panels.
After clarifications that the canopy would remain and the applicant would supply the requested product submittals, the commission voted to approve the glazing, metal panel profile and canopy proposal consistent with the subcommittee’s recommendations; the motion passed.
