Board Members. Alf Beckman Bloch Brown Burke Essman. Fairbanks O Neill Palechek Ripperger Whalen Jacobs Albinus Brown O Neill

Transcription

1 Architectural Design Review Board September 19, 4:00 P.M. Council Chambers First Floor, 345 High Street Hamilton, Ohio NOTE: Agenda and Reports may be amended as necessary or as required. Applicants, Please Review Your Proposal for accuracy. Board Members Alf Beckman Bloch Brown Burke Essman Traub Weigel Fairbanks O Neill Palechek Ripperger Whalen Jacobs Albinus Brown O Neill I. Roll Call: II. III. Swearing in of Those Providing Testimony to the Board: Tami Rose, Notary Public Approval of Meeting Minutes Written Summary and Audio Recording for these dates: A. 8/15/2017 IV. Properties Seeking COA - New Business 1. 1 Millikin St (Rossville-Main) Signage Dayton St.- (Dayton-Campbell) Porch work, Painting, Fencing, Garage N 7 th St (Dayton-Campbell)- Windows N 4 th St (German Village) Siding, Porch Railings, Painting V. Miscellaneous/Discussion/On the Radar Main St (Rossville-Main) Roof Work (Like for Like) S E St (Rossville-Main) Work Without COA High St (Historic Inventory)- Roof Work VI. Guests: VII. Adjourn

2 AGENDA Architectural Design Review Board Tuesday, September 19, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Subject: AGENDA ITEM # Millikin St... 8 Introduction:... 8 PROPOSAL... 8 Subject: AGENDA ITEM # Dayton St Introduction: PROPOSAL Determining COA Approval: Subject: AGENDA ITEM # N. 7 th Street Window Replacement Introduction: PROPOSAL: Determining COA Approval: Subject: AGENDA ITEM # N 4 th St Introduction: PROPOSAL Determining COA Approval: Page 2

3 Architectural Design Review Board Tuesday, August 15, :30 p.m. Architectural Design Review Board September 19, 4:00 P.M. Council Chambers First Floor, 345 High Street Hamilton, Ohio Planning Commission At-Large Council SID Tom Alf Steve Beckman Armand Bloch Robert Brown Kevin Burke Vacant Tony Traub Chamber of Commerce Rossville Dayton Lane Architect German Village Historic Hamilton Madam Chair Mary Pat Essman Pauline Fairbanks Thomas O Neill Todd Palechek Debby Ripperger Karen Whalen Rob Weigel Jane Jacobs Jennifer Albinus Ann Brown Shi O Neill Staff: Ms. Kathy Dudley (Assistant Law Director), Ms. Charla Henderson, Ms. Kim Kirsch, Mr. Ken Rivera, and Mr. Daniel Tidyman. Per discussion before the meeting between Madam Chair Essman and Mr. Wilson, it was agreed that Item #2 would be heard first, as the Applicant for Item #1 was not present, and the Applicant for Item #2 was. The meeting was called to order at 4:32 p.m. by Madam Chair Essman. I. Roll Call Members present were Mr. Armand Bloch, Mr. Robert Brown, Madam Chair Mary Pat Essman, Ms. Jane Jacobs, Ms. Jennifer Albinus, and Ms. Karen Whalen. II. Swearing in of Those Providing Testimony to the Board Ms. Dudley swore in all audience members wishing to give testimony.

4 III. Approval of Meeting Minutes Written Summary and Audio Recording for these dates July 5, 2017 Motion by Mr. Bloch, 2 nd by Ms. Whalen. With a roll call vote of (Abstain by Mr. Brown & Ms. Jacobs), the Motion carries and the minutes are approved. ***Mr. Alf arrived at 4:34 p.m. July 18, 2017 Motion by Mr. Brown, 2 nd by Ms. Whalen. With a roll call vote of (Abstain by Ms. Albinus), the Motion carries and the minutes are approved. The Applicant for Race Street arrived and Ms. Dudley swore her in. The applicant verified that she was fine with the Board hearing Item #2 first. IV. IV. Properties Seeking COA - New Business Main Street - Siding, Fencing, Tower Construction The Applicant, Hamilton CORE Fund and Community Design Alliance, has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness Application for the property of 101 Main St. The proposal is a proposed moderate revision to the exterior appearance of the structure involving siding, fencing, and the construction of a tower. This COA proposal involves changes to the rear tower, roof storage/shielding area, and upper floor fencing. The subject property of 101 Main St is part of the Rossville Historic District. Proposal Clad stair/elevator tower with wood and metal banding. o Vertically run wood slats Metal siding on storage shed o MAC Metal Siding o Color: Buckskin Wood fence on roof to screen mechanical equipment o Stained to match shed siding as close as possible Wood egress stair at back of building Determining COA Approval: In determining whether or not the Architectural Design Review Board will approve the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, the Board shall consider: Page 4

5 1. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect or destroy any significant exterior architectural and/or historical feature of the structure, site, monument, streetscape or neighborhood, 2. And whether it will adversely affect or destroy the general architectural and/or historical significance of the Historic District or Inventory Property. In the event the Architectural Design Review Board refuses to issue to a Certificate of Appropriateness: 1. The Architectural Design Review Board shall attempt to reconcile an alternative plan with the applicant that is acceptable to both the applicant and to the Architectural Design Review Board. 2. If the Architectural Design Review Board and the applicant are unable to reconcile an alternative plan, the applicant may appeal the decision of the Architectural Design Review Board to the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Hamilton Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tidyman gave a summation of the item before the Board and showed photos and all supporting documentation for the request. A sample of the proposed color was distributed to the Board for their review. The Applicant, Mike Dingeldein, was present. He gave a little more information regarding the changes and/or additions that they are proposing and the reasons for said changes and/or additions. After a brief discussion with the Board (including the location of the elevator, location of the rear stairway, location of the tower and availability of parking at 140 Ross Avenue when school is not in), and no one else in the audience wishing to speak on this item, Mr. Bloch made a Motion to close the Public Hearing. With a 2 nd by Mr. Alf and a roll call vote of 7-0, the Motion passed and the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Bloch made a Motion to approve the request as presented. With a 2 nd by Mr. Alf and a roll call vote of 7-0, the Motion passed and the request was approved Race Street Roofing The Applicants, Chad and Connie Carr, have submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness Application for the property of 127 Race St. The proposal involves Roofing. The subject property of 127 Race St is part of the German Village Historic District. Page 5

6 Proposal Complete Removal of Existing Roof Replace o Damaged Sheeting o Felt Paper o Shingle Entire Roof o Including Ice/Water Shield Drip Edge Gutter Apron Proposed Shingles are 3D Shingles made by Tamko o Color: Rustic Black Determining COA Approval: In determining whether or not the Architectural Design Review Board will approve the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, the Board shall consider: 1. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect or destroy any significant exterior architectural and/or historical feature of the structure, site, monument, streetscape or neighborhood, 2. And whether it will adversely affect or destroy the general architectural and/or historical significance of the Historic District or Inventory Property. In the event the Architectural Design Review Board refuses to issue to an applicant Certificate of Appropriateness: 1. The Architectural Design Review Board shall attempt to reconcile an alternative plan with the applicant that is acceptable to both the applicant and to the Architectural Design Review Board. 2. If the Architectural Design Review Board and the applicant are unable to reconcile an alternative plan, the applicant may appeal the decision of the Architectural Design Review Board to the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Hamilton Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tidyman gave a summation of the item before the Board and showed photos and all supporting documentation for the request. Ms. Connie Carr, Applicant, was present. She said that she had no information to add, and the Board had no questions for her. Page 6

7 With no one in the audience wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Alf made a Motion to close the Public Hearing. With a 2 nd by Mr. Bloch and a roll call vote of 7-0, the Motion passed and the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Alf expressed his appreciation for the Applicant investing in the community and improving the property. Ms. Whalen made a Motion to approve the request as presented. With a 2 nd by Mr. Brown and a roll call vote of 7-0, the Motion passed and the request was approved. VIII. Miscellaneous/Discussion/On the Radar There was then a discussion between the Board members and staff regarding changing the time of the meetings from 4:30 PM to 4:00 PM. At the conclusion of the discussion, it was decided that the meeting time will be changed from 4:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. In addition, staff will solicit input from applicants to see if they prefer one time over the other. Mr. Alf made a Motion that the meeting time be moved from 4:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. with the condition that a survey will be taken from the applicants for the next three months. With a 2 nd by Mr. Brown and a roll call vote of 7-0, the Motion passed. It was requested that the meeting time be changed on the Application on the City website. Mr. Tidyman advised that the next tentative ADRB meeting is 9/5/17, and the deadline for Application submission is August 25, Mr. Tidyman gave the information regarding the Plan Hamilton Public Open House on August 16 th at 6:00 PM. Lastly, Mr. Tidyman gave the information regarding the property inquiry for 404 Ross Avenue. Adjourn With nothing further, Mr. Bloch made a Motion to Adjourn. With a 2 nd by Ms. Whalen, the Motion passed and the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m. Submitted by: Ed Wilson Secretary, ADRB Mary Pat Essman Madam Chair, ADRB Page 7

8 Architectural Design Review Board September 19, 4:00 P.M. Council Chambers First Floor, 345 High Street Hamilton, Ohio To: Architectural Design Review Board From: Daniel Tidyman Subject: AGENDA ITEM #1 1 Millikin St Ed and Janet Dempsey Meeting Date: 9/19/2017 Received Application: 9/8/2017 Impacts: Rossville-Main Street Historic District (Location) Introduction: The Applicant, Ed and Janet Dempsey have applied for a certificate of appropriateness for the property located on 1 Millikin St. The project involves Signage. The subject property of 1 Millikin Street is part of the Rossville-Main Street Historic District and is zoned I-1 Limited Industrial District. The applicant is required to have a certificate of appropriateness before erecting any signage. Attached to the report based on Section of the Hamilton Zoning Ordinance. PROPOSAL Signage o 1 (one) Wall Sign Erected above building entrance located along Millikin Street 10 X 4 Letters 7.5 tall Logo 36 tall 6mm Poly Metal Colors Steel Gray Gold Black Background o 1 (one) Freestanding Pole Sign Setback 6 ft from property line adjacent to South B Street and 12 feet from the property line adjacent to Millikin Street. 8 ft X 40 in ½ in alumacore 58 tall Color Steel Gray Gold Black Background

9 Determining COA Approval: In determining whether or not the Architectural Design Review Board will approve the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, the Board shall consider: 1. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect or destroy any significant exterior architectural and/or historical feature of the structure, site, monument, streetscape or neighborhood, 2. And whether it will adversely affect or destroy the general architectural and/or historical significance of the Historic District or Inventory Property. In the event the Architectural Design Review Board refuses to issue to an applicant Certificate of Appropriateness: 1. The Architectural Design Review Board shall attempt to reconcile an alternative plan with the applicant that is acceptable to both the applicant and to the Architectural Design Review Board. 2. If the Architectural Design Review Board and the applicant are unable to reconcile an alternative plan, the applicant may appeal the decision of the Architectural Design Review Board to the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Hamilton Zoning Ordinance. Supplemental Items Sign Definition in Section of Hamilton Zoning Ordinance Sign - As Defined by Section Definitions of the Hamilton Zoning Ordinance (OR ) a. New permanent signage or any change of signage is considered an Alteration to the historic property as defined in the aforementioned Section of the Hamilton Ordinance. Such proposal shall submit a Certificate of Appropriateness Application for review and approval by the Architectural Design Review Board per Section of the Hamilton Zoning Ordinance. b. Proposed freestanding permanent signage must comply with Section D of the Hamilton Zoning Ordinance. c. All proposed permanent signage must comply with the regulations of Section of the Hamilton Zoning Ordinance which states the following regarding the area and height of wall signs and freestanding pole signs located within an I-1 Zone: Page 9

10 Pole Signs i. Maximum Height: 20 ft ii. Maximum Size:.5 sq ft x lot frontage (100 sq. ft. max) iii. Maximum Number: 1 per street frontage iv. Minimum Setback 5 ft Wall Signs i. Maximum size: 1.5 sq ft of sign area per lineal foot of building frontage ADRB Policies & Guidelines; and Other Requirements Attachments: 1. Exhibit A: Images of the Property 2. Exhibit B: Location Map 3. Exhibit C: COA Application 4. Exhibit D: Additional Submitted Item From Applicant EXHIBIT A: Images of the Property Page 10

11 Page 11

12 EXHIBIT B: Location Map Page 12

13 EXHIBIT C: COA Application Page 13

14 Page 14

15 Page 15

16 Page 16

17 Exhibit D: Additional Submitted Item from Applicant Page 17

18 Architectural Design Review Board September 19, 4:00 P.M. Council Chambers First Floor, 345 High Street Hamilton, Ohio To: Architectural Design Review Board From: Daniel Tidyman Subject: AGENDA ITEM #2 644 Dayton St David and Katie Wright Meeting Date: 9/19/2017 Received Application: 9/8/2017 Impacts: Dayton-Campbell (Location) Introduction: The Applicants, David and Katie Wright, have applied for a certificate of appropriateness for the property located on 644 Dayton St. The project involves porch railings, painting, and fencing, and replacing a garage door. The subject property of 644 Dayton St is part of the Dayton-Campbell Historic District and is zoned R-0 Multi-Family Residence District. The property is also registered on the Ohio Historic Inventory. The home is also known as the John McKee- Allen Andrews House. The applicant is required to have a certificate of appropriateness before initiating any work on the property. As it pertains to the proposed railings, balusters, and newel posts being constructed on the front porch, the applicant is applying for a Certificate of Appropriateness in order to comply with mandatory recommendations and to maintain insurance coverage from the United States Liability Insurance Company. As stated in a memorandum addressed to the applicant in bolded italics below: The policyholder is to comply with the following mandatory recommendations and confirm compliance in writing by signing and returning this form with 45 days to avoid policy cancellation..retain licensed and insured contractor to install railings on the front porch. The baluster spacing on the stair and balcony railings need to reduced to be less than 4 inches to meet local code PROPOSAL Porch Construction o Installation of railings, balusters, and newel posts Requested by insurance company Wooden Railings 4 per memorandum

19 Wooden Balusters 4 Victorian Style 3 MS-Designer Wooden Newel Posts 4 Designer or Boise style 6 Designer style Painting o Newly installed railings, balusters, and newel posts Same colors as existing porch posts or period appropriate Cajun Red sw0008 Calico sw0017 Dover whites sw6385 Black of Night sw6993 Cascade Green sw0066 o Garage Door Period appropriate wood or red Garage Door o Removal of current garage door o Replace with carriage style Wood or period appropriate red Perimeter Fencing with Gates o 42 Fence Aluminum Black Bella Tera with puppy pickets 1 (one) 4 (four) ft sidewalk grate 1 (one) 5 (five) ft sidewalk grate 1 (one 16 (sixteen) ft double driveway gate Located on entire perimeter of property Meet adjacent property fences o 622 Dayton St o 229 N 7th o Applicant stated the purpose of this work is to protect two children and two dog while keeping people off of the property o Applicant intends to maintain appropriate historical appearance o 42 fences are permitted to be on property line in all residential districts Page 19

20 Determining COA Approval: In determining whether or not the Architectural Design Review Board will approve the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, the Board shall consider: 1. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect or destroy any significant exterior architectural and/or historical feature of the structure, site, monument, streetscape or neighborhood, 2. And whether it will adversely affect or destroy the general architectural and/or historical significance of the Historic District or Inventory Property. In the event the Architectural Design Review Board refuses to issue to an applicant Certificate of Appropriateness: 1. The Architectural Design Review Board shall attempt to reconcile an alternative plan with the applicant that is acceptable to both the applicant and to the Architectural Design Review Board. 2. If the Architectural Design Review Board and the applicant are unable to reconcile an alternative plan, the applicant may appeal the decision of the Architectural Design Review Board to the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Hamilton Zoning Ordinance. Supplemental Items ADRB Policies & Guidelines; and Other Requirements Painting Color Approval Requests for Certificates of Appropriateness involving the painting of a property and/or the color selection for the same will be treated by the Board in the following manner: A. The Board may use the following publications as reference base for decision making on color applications. 1. A Century of Color, Roger Moss, American Life Foundation, Victorian Exterior Decoration, Roger Moss and Gail Winkler, Holt & Co., The Board may also take into consideration technical information that may be available locally, through the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, and paint sampling research from the property in question. Page 20

21 B. The Board will attempt to provide corresponding color matches by paint company trade name to the basic reference colors approved through the publications listed in Item A above. C. For technical items not covered above, the Board will rely on the following: 1. Preservation Brief No. 10, Exterior Paint Problems on Historic Woodwork, U.S. Department of the Interior, Technical Preservation Services Division, The Old House Journal, published by OHJ Inc., New Jersey, June, D. As staffing permits, the Board will attempt to provide a record of colors other than those listed in the reference publication that have been approved under selected circumstance Garages / Garage Doors Requests for Certificates of Appropriateness involving new construction/replacement of garage doors will be treated by the Board as follows: A. Replacement garage doors will replicate, as close as possible, the existing garage doors in design and material. B. New/replacement garage doors that cannot replicate existing doors will have a multi-paneled design. C. Garages should be painted in a color scheme that compliments the principal structure. Fences Request for Certificates of Appropriateness involving fences will be treated by the Board as follows: A. Requests for chain-link fencing that may be visible from a public right-of-way will be denied as inappropriate for the district B. In extraordinary cases, the Board may approve the installation of chain-link fencing with the following constraints: 1. The property owner proves to the Boards satisfaction that alternative fencing has been investigated and is not able to meet the need for the Page 21

22 fence as such need is outlines by the property owner in the request. 2. If approved, the fence is hidden from public view by an evergreen hedge or comparable shrubbery that is maintained year round at a minimum height equal to the height of the fence. Additionally the fence is painted a dark green or black to mitigate its appearance. C. A privacy fence will generally be approved in the rear yard of a property if it is not extensively visible from a public right-of-way. If a privacy style fence is visible from public right-of-way, the finished side of the fence must face the right-of-way and the Board may impose installation/set back conditions for approval. Attachments: 1. Exhibit A: Images of the Property 2. Exhibit B: Location Map 3. Exhibit C: COA Application 4. Exhibit D: Applicant Submitted Information 5. Exhibit E: Memorandum from Insurance Company 6. Exhibit F: Ohio Historic Inventory Designation Page 22

23 EXHIBIT A: Images of the Property Page 23

24 Page 24

25 EXHIBIT B: Location Map Page 25

26 EXHIBIT C: COA Application Page 26

27 Page 27

28 Page 28

29 Exhibit D: Applicant Submitted Information: Page 29

30 Page 30

31 Page 31

32 Page 32

33 Page 33

34 Page 34

35 Page 35

36 Page 36

37 Page 37

38 Page 38

39 Exhibit E: Memorandum from Insurance Company Page 39

40 Exhibit F: Ohio Historic Inventory Designation Page 40

41 Architectural Design Review Board September 19, 4:00 P.M. Council Chambers First Floor, 345 High Street Hamilton, Ohio To: Architectural Design Review Board From: Charla Henderson, ADRB Subject: AGENDA ITEM # N. 7 th Street Window Replacement Matt Stitzel, Applicant Meeting Date: 9/19/2017 Received Application: 9/8/2017 Impacts: Dayton-Campbell Historic District (Location) Introduction: The Applicant, Matt Stitzel, has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness Application for the property of N.7 th Street. The proposal involves window replacement The subject property of N.7 th Street is part of the Dayton-Campbell and is Zoned B-2 PROPOSAL: The site in question is currently occupied by a large multi-family residential dwelling unit. The applicant proposes to replace existing wood windows on the structure with vinyl replacement windows. Determining COA Approval: In determining whether or not the Architectural Design Review Board will approve the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, the Board shall consider: 1. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect or destroy any significant exterior architectural and/or historical feature of the structure, site, monument, streetscape or neighborhood, 2. And whether it will adversely affect or destroy the general architectural and/or historical significance of the Historic District or Inventory Property. In the event the Architectural Design Review Board refuses to issue to an applicant Certificate of Appropriateness: 1. The Architectural Design Review Board shall attempt to reconcile an alternative plan with the applicant that is acceptable to both the applicant and to the Architectural Design Review Board.

42 2. If the Architectural Design Review Board and the applicant are unable to reconcile an alternative plan, the applicant may appeal the decision of the Architectural Design Review Board to the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Hamilton Zoning Ordinance. Supplemental Items: ADRB Policies & Guidelines; and Other Requirements Request for Certificate of Appropriateness involving windows will be treated by the Board as follows: A. All windows on a structure will be considered part of the exterior features of that property. B. The following items will be considered a critical part of the exterior architectural/design elements that should not be altered on a structure: 1. The specific location of each individual window. 2. The specific style of each individual window. 3. The specific dimensions of each individual window. 4. The specific treatment of the framing for each individual window. 5. The specific design of each individual window. 6. The relationship of the above elements and/or related elements for each window in the overall window treatment/design of a structure. C. Certificates for window replacements may be approved if the existing window is demonstrably beyond repair. D. If approved, replacement windows will conform to the following: 1. The replacement window must match the existing window with regard to location on the structure. 2. The replacement window must match the existing window style. 3. The replacement window must match the existing window dimensions. 4. The replacement window must match the existing window design. 5. The replacement window should match the existing window in material composition (example: existing window is made from pine, the replacement window should be made from pine) E. Filling in or covering up windows, transoms, or vents is not allowed. Attachments: 1. EXHIBIT A: Images of the Property 2. EXHIBIT B: Location Map 3. EXHIBIT C: COA Application 4. EXHIBIT D: State of Ohio Inventory Record Page 42

43 EXHIBIT A: Images of the Property Page 43

44 Page 44

45 Page 45

46 Page 46

47 Page 47

48 EXHIBIT B: Location Map Page 48

49 EXHIBIT C: COA Application Page 49

50 Page 50

51 Page 51

52 Exhibit D: Ohio Historic Inventory Page 52

53 Architectural Design Review Board September 19, 4:00 P.M. Council Chambers First Floor, 345 High Street Hamilton, Ohio To: Architectural Design Review Board From: Daniel Tidyman Subject: AGENDA ITEM #4 425 N 4 th St Billy and Tana Robertson Meeting Date: 9/19/2017 Received Application: 8/28/2017 Impacts: German Village (Location) Introduction: The Applicants Billy and Tana Robertson, have submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness Application for the property of 425 N 4 th St. The proposal involves finishing siding, repairing porch railings, and painting trim The subject property of 425 N 4 th St is part of the German Village Historic District and is Zoned Multi Family Residential R-4. The Health Department reported that exterior work was being done without a COA. An ADRB notice letter was mailed to the applicant on 8/17/2017. The letter stated that a COA was required to start any exterior work. The applicant claims that the work being done is by order of the Health Department. On 08/28/2017, the Planning Department contacted Mr. Robertson requesting more information for processing the application. The call requested more information on the paint manufacturer/swatch, reasoning for using vinyl siding, and requesting pictures or sketches of the porch work to be done. Mr. Robertson stated that he was doing the work per order of the Health Department. He claims that he received a letter a few years ago stating the 4 th St is no longer in the German Village Historic District. He stated the paint used was a primer from Behr, the vinyl siding already existed on the building, and he tried to match it. The applicant stated that the porch work was already completed and he tried to replace what was already there. The applicant gave the Planning Department permission to go to the property to take more photos. PROPOSAL Finish siding o White Vinyl Dutch Lap Double 4 (Modern Building Supply) Porch Railings o Needs repair and painted Painting Trim o Behr Primer

54 Determining COA Approval: In determining whether or not the Architectural Design Review Board will approve the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, the Board shall consider: 1. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect or destroy any significant exterior architectural and/or historical feature of the structure, site, monument, streetscape or neighborhood, 2. And whether it will adversely affect or destroy the general architectural and/or historical significance of the Historic District or Inventory Property. In the event the Architectural Design Review Board refuses to issue to an applicant Certificate of Appropriateness: 1. The Architectural Design Review Board shall attempt to reconcile an alternative plan with the applicant that is acceptable to both the applicant and to the Architectural Design Review Board. 2. If the Architectural Design Review Board and the applicant are unable to reconcile an alternative plan, the applicant may appeal the decision of the Architectural Design Review Board to the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Hamilton Zoning Ordinance. Supplemental Items ADRB Policies & Guidelines; and Other Requirements Painting Color Approval Requests for Certificates of Appropriateness involving the painting of a property and/or the color selection for the same will be treated by the Board in the following manner: A. The Board may use the following publications as reference base for decision making on color applications. 1. A Century of Color, Roger Moss, American Life Foundation, Victorian Exterior Decoration, Roger Moss and Gail Winkler, Holt & Co., The Board may also take into consideration technical information that may be available locally, through the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, and paint sampling research from the property in question. Page 54

55 B. The Board will attempt to provide corresponding color matches by paint company trade name to the basic reference colors approved through the publications listed in Item A above. C. For technical items not covered above, the Board will rely on the following: 1. Preservation Brief No. 10, Exterior Paint Problems on Historic Woodwork, U.S. Department of the Interior, Technical Preservation Services Division, The Old House Journal, published by OHJ Inc., New Jersey, June, D. As staffing permits, the Board will attempt to provide a record of colors other than those listed in the reference publication that have been approved under selected circumstances. Siding Requests for Certificates of Appropriateness involving the application of aluminum, vinyl aluminum, vinyl, or other siding material not original to a property or the historic district will be treated by the Board as follows: A. Application of a non-original siding material to a property will be approved only as a measure of last resort and when extenuating circumstances justify the application. If nonoriginal siding material is approved, the Board will identify the extenuating circumstances in its official minutes. (Example: fire damage to an entire side of a structure would be an extenuating circumstance.) B. A copy of Preservation Brief No. 8, Aluminum and Vinyl Siding on Historic Buildings (U.S. Department of the Interior, Technical Preservation Service Division, 1984) will be made available to every property owner considering/requesting a Certificate for aluminum, vinyl, or vinyl aluminum siding once the Board has been made aware of the desire by the property owner and before the request for Certificate is considered by the Board. C. The Board will not approve the application of siding materials over brick. D. In all cases involving the application of non-original siding material, the Board will require an actual sample of material(s) and a written contract proposal for installation before approval will be given. E. If approved, the new siding material must have an appearance as close to the original siding as possible and have a minimum thickness of 04-inch. It is understood that this requirement will generally preclude the application of very Page 55

56 wide sidings, vertical sidings in 4 x 8 panels, and raised wood-grain look sidings. F. The Board may require certain application methods and/or materials to mitigate the effect of the new siding on a property and/or its environs. G. New products will be treated as such by the Board and may be approved on an experimental basis, after any one or more of the following: 1. Review and/or investigation of the manufacturer s specification/claims for the product. 2. Consultation with the U.S. Department of Interior, Technical Preservation Services Division. 3. Consultation with the Ohio Historic Preservation Office. 4. Consultation with other preservation/design commissions, contractors, and/or architects who may have experience with or knowledge of the product. H. For technical items not covered above, the Board may rely on Preservation Brief No. 8, Aluminum and Vinyl Siding on Historic Buildings (Technical Preservation Services Division, the U.S. Department of the Interior, 1984), the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, and/or references from the above. Attachments: 1. Exhibit A: Images of the Property 2. Exhibit B: Location Map 3. Exhibit C: COA Application Page 56

57 EXHIBIT A: Images of the Property Page 57

58 Page 58

59 Page 59

60 EXHIBIT B: Location Map Page 60

61 EXHIBIT C: COA Application Page 61

62 Page 62

63 Page 63