Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bar Votes Small Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BAR approves a batch of alteration permits, denies one door installed without approval
Summary
At the same meeting the BAR approved several residential window insert applications and a restaurant entry with conditions; the board denied a steel door installed at a pre‑1884 house that lacked a prior COA, and staff fines remain in place pending compliance.
The Board of Architectural Review handled multiple new‑business items after the City Hall presentation.
Windows: The board granted approval for fiberglass Marvin Infinity insert windows at two later‑era houses (313 North Fayette and 414 Pitt Street). Staff explained the BAR had moved insert‑window review to the board level under updated guideline language. Applicants and contractors showed narrow‑frame insert mockups and said the selected insert width preserves the visible sash proportions. The board approved both applications, noting the houses are later buildings and that the inserts meet the updated staff standards.
Door denial at 229 North Alfred Street: Homeowner Megan Gentry told the board her contractor installed a steel door that she believed matched the previous opening and that she had not understood the COA requirement; she had already paid fines. Staff recommended denial because the property predates 1884 and wood is the appropriate material for a primary entrance. After deliberation the board denied the nonconforming steel door per staff recommendation.
Restaurant entry and masonry window approvals: The BAR approved a restaurant entry at 111 N. Pitt with a condition that the applicant work with staff to finalize a suitably detailed wood door (applicant proposed an 18‑panel or salvaged detailed wood door in lieu of a plain two‑panel door). The board also approved a new masonry window opening at 415 N. Peyton, conditioned on reusing original bricks where feasible and properly toothing the new arch into the existing masonry.
Votes and process notes: Approvals and denials were recorded by voice vote; several board members asked applicants to work closely with staff on final details (door hardware, sill conditions, and muntin configuration). The board reiterated that projects on earlier‑date buildings should prioritize wood and traditional detailing.
