Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Architectural Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables request to replace front door and Corinthian columns at 626 Nolan Street; staff to work with applicant on historic-appropriate options
Summary
CTAP case 2020And8 to replace a nonoriginal front door and convert Corinthian columns to Tuscan on a historic property at 626 Nolan Street was tabled so staff can work with the applicant on appropriate column and door profiles; staff did not recommend approval and suggested repair or in-kind replacement unless historic documentation supports change.
The Compliance and Technical Advisory Board tabled CTAP case 2020And8 for 626 Nolan Street after staff said the proposed replacements did not match the house’s architectural style and recommended retaining or repairing existing features in kind. Staff told the board that it does not recommend approval of either replacement item and encouraged working with the applicant on an alternate, historically appropriate design or returning the feature to an earlier condition if documentation exists.
“Staff does not recommend approval of Item 1 based on finding B... Staff does not recommend approval of item 2 based on finding C. Staff recommends the existing front door be maintained and repaired in kind as necessary,” a staff member said during the presentation. The staff presentation noted that administrative approval might be possible if the applicant provides historic photos or documentation showing an appropriate door or column profile.
Applicant Billy Telles, who identified himself at the hearing, said the current door is deteriorated and that the existing columns are plastic and nonoriginal: “My name is Billy Telles, and we're working at 626 Dolan Street... The door is falling apart.” A resident who said they purchased the house from a nonprofit described the 2005 alterations as nonhistoric and said earlier columns were Doric and smoother; the resident said they wanted the house returned to that earlier appearance.
Staff and commissioners discussed using survey photos and other archival images to establish an appropriate profile. Staff said it can look at survey photos and work with the applicant on a door and column profile; if staff cannot resolve the issue administratively, the applicant can return at the next hearing. Commissioners moved to table the item and direct staff to work with the applicant; the board set a return hearing date of June 26 to accommodate the 60-day review timeline if the applicant agrees to the continuance.
