Design review board continues rehearing for 71 Michigan Ave after owner replaced slate roof and gutters without approval

The University District Design Review Board continued a rehearing for 71 Michigan Ave after hearing testimony and staff analysis about unpermitted roof and gutter work.

Staff presented the homeowner’s rehearing request under the code’s economic-hardship provisions, noting the work — removal of an original slate roof and replacement with asphalt shingles, plus installation of 5-inch K-style gutters — was already completed without a certificate of appropriateness. Staff said the work is inconsistent with the University District Plan, which recommends preservation of character-defining features, and that the application lacked a condition assessment proving the slate roof was beyond repair.

The homeowner, Mr. Allen, testified that he reroofed the home himself and supplied multiple quotes and financial documentation as part of his rehearing request. Preservation staff and several board members said they did not have a definitive slate-condition assessment or a precise cost comparison between restoring the original slate/stop gutters and the work already done. Members debated whether the altered gutter type (described in the record as having been modified and in places rolled up) materially changed the building’s street appearance.

Board members discussed three pathways: uphold the prior denial, grant rehearing and find an economic hardship under the code’s four statutory criteria, or continue the case so the applicant can work with staff to identify a mitigation that restores molding/trim or finds a more historic-looking gutter profile. Several members favored continuing to obtain clearer repair/replace cost estimates and to seek a gutter profile and trim detail that would reduce the visual harm without requiring full slate replacement.

Miss Parker moved to continue the application so the applicant can search for a remediation (for example, a gutter with a historic profile or adding molding under the gutter to replicate the original appearance) and provide clearer pricing; Mr. Flannery seconded. The board voted to continue the rehearing and staff will follow up with the applicant and schedule the case back on the agenda.

Next steps: the applicant should obtain and submit specific quotes for rebuilding a historically appropriate gutter/trim detail or for slate repair, and staff will assist in assessing solutions and returning the case to the board for final determination.