RECENT COMMENTS
Council again scheduled to consider Buzzy’s SUP, Monument Avenue CAR reversal
The agenda for Monday’s City Council meeting (PDF) has a number of items of local interest/impact. These are items that were continued at the last meeting, namely Buzzy’z SUP and the Monument Avenue CAR reversal
Ord. No. 2013-112 (Patron: Mayor Jones, By Request) – To amend Ord. No. 2004-216- 272, adopted Oct. 11, 2004, which authorized the special use of the property known as 2623 East Broad Street for the purpose of converting an existing main building for use as three (3) dwelling units and a commercial space and converting the existing accessory building on such property into a dwelling unit, to reduce the restrictions placed upon the commercial space within the building, upon certain terms and conditions.
Res. No. 2013-R47 (Patron: President Samuels) – To reverse the decision of the Commission of Architectural Review which denied a certificate of appropriateness for vinyl replacement windows on a home located at 2916 Monument Ave.
Mr Samuels – there goes the neighborhood. I personally do not understand how Council can’t support it’s own experts (CAR) and allow such a change. We all know there are problems that arise with CAR , but not when the issue is as clear cut as this.
If the City wants to point with pride at its Old and Historic Districts, overturning CAR here definitely does nothing to achieve that goal.
CAR is already broken. It effectively functions like a Magic 8 ball right now since the committee can’t produce any sort of clear standards and seems to enjoy making the process as much about judgment as possible. I’ve ranted plenty about the composition of the committee in the past so I’ll leave that alone.
Replace the current approach with a group of home owners, architects from outside the area, historic preservation experts and task them with creating a comprehensive guide to what is allowed and what isn’t. Follow that guide consistently.
If CAR had been consistent about vinyl windows, I could get this decision but I believe that there are plenty of homes in O&H districts today which have them. Why should an infill be allowed to use cheap materials but someone who owns a historic home next door be held to a different standard. One standard for all or the process is bullshit.
Also, am I the only one who is reminded of Bastiat’s broken window when reading about this story?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
I am confused about all the hubbub about the vinyl windows. Why are these even something that requires a special approval in these areas? They are not that big a deal to the appearance of the property, relatively speaking.
While I understand the need to preserve the look and feel of these neighborhoods, doesn’t their come a point where meeting these historic standards becomes so high that it is a barrier to fixing up blighted properties in these areas or burdensome to homeowners (especially those resident in the areas before the historic designation) looking to maintain their properties.
I am all for standards that require homeowners to adhere to the basic look and feel of an historic neighborhood. But the standards cannot be so specific and picayune as to make it unappealing to rehab in parts of Union Hill and Church Hill that are in desperate need of investment. I don’t think anyone is going to notice a vinyl window. This isn’t like building a version of a glass house in the middle of a series of Church Hill homes from the 1800’s. There has to be a sense of balance in these standards so we can make rehabilitation and maintenance more achievable and affordable.
In a fully restored area like Monument Avenue, I can possibly–possibly–see stricter and more specific standards. But in this area, we need to be a little broader and more flexible. I would rather have a home next to me that is being fixed up with vinyl windows while maintaining the larger look and feel of the neighborhood in terms of the overall structure, than have a condemned home down the street that no one wants to renovate because in addition to the normal costs and risks of doing so, they have to pay additional expenses and jump through additional hoops to meet CAR standards on every little thing.
At City Council meeting: Ord. No. 2004-216- 272 AKA Buzzy’s SUP has been CONTINUED to September 9.
CAR reversal decision also CONTINUED.
Nothing ever gets decided by our fine Council before its time…