WESTERVILLE UPTOWN REVIEW BOARD CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 21 S. STATE STREET THURSDAY, JULY 5, 2012 MINUTES

Transcription

1 WESTERVILLE UPTOWN REVIEW BOARD CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 21 S. STATE STREET THURSDAY, JULY 5, 2012 MINUTES The Westerville Uptown Review Board met in regular session on Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers at 21 S. State Street. Members present were Chairman Brian Ruyack, Frank Michell, Ralph Denick, Diana Welling, Ross Lisman, Jeff Reschke, and Mary Lou Prouty. Bassem Bitar and Chelsea Nichols represented Staff. Chairman Ruyack led the Pledge of Allegiance. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 7, 2012 MEETING. Chairman Ruyack stated they had not been presented with the minutes from the June meeting. Mr. Bitar said he had not been able to review the minutes so he suggested making a motion to postpone the approval until next month. Mr. Lisman moved to postpone the approval of the June 7 th meeting minutes; Mr. Denick seconded the motion. Yeas: Nays: Mr. Lisman, Mr. Denick, Ms. Welling, Mr. Michell, Mr. Reschke, Ms. Prouty, Chairman Ruyack None Motion Passed: 7-0 Ms. Nichols swore in Staff and those who wished to give testimony or bear witness. Chairman Ruyack explained the process for the meeting. NEW BUSINESS URB ; 80 E. HOME STREET; AWNING COLOR REPLACEMENT; APPLICANT: GARY P. SMITH. Mr. Bitar stated this is somewhat of an unusual building in the Uptown District; it is a large building at the corner of Home and Vine. The application is to replace some awnings that are on the side and rear of the building. Mr. Bitar showed a picture of the Home Street frontage; which is where the building is addressed. The actual entrance is off of Vine Street. Right now it has an awning at that entrance that has the words Columbus Preferred Apartments on the valance. There are also three awnings above service doors on the back facing the alley. All the awnings are blue right now but Mr. Smith would like to replace them all with black awnings. They would be the same size, same location, same shape and same type of fabric as the existing ones. The only other difference is that the signage would be removed so that they would be just plain awnings.

2 Page 2 Mr. Bitar stated the building has brownish tones. The request is to do black awnings and Staff is comfortable with that. Chairman Ruyack invited the applicant to come up to the podium. Gary Smith, 80 E Home Street, stated the awnings are currently 14 years old. They are showing their age and showing their wear so he is trying to update them with new colors. They will just recover the existing frames. Ms. Prouty commended Mr. Smith on his landscape. Mr. Denick asked what the business is at that location and asked if they are apartments. Mr. Smith stated it is just office and warehouse. He has corporate apartments all over the place; not only in Columbus but also in Cincinnati and Indianapolis. This location is just the corporate office where they have all the household goods that they provide in the apartments. Chairman Ruyack stated that if there are no further questions then they will entertain a motion. Mr. Michell moved to approve URB as presented; Mr. Lisman seconded. Yeas: Nays: Mr. Michell, Ms. Welling, Ms. Prouty, Mr. Denick, Mr. Lisman, Mr. Reschke, Chairman Ruyack None Motion Passed: 7-0 Application approved. URB ; 10 E. MAIN STREET (PIZZA PRIMO); SANDWICH BOARD SIGN; APPLICANT: GARY SNYDER. Mr. Bitar stated the applicant in this case has signage on the awning and the window but it is one of those businesses that are not on State Street. As is the case with many businesses, they would like to use a sandwich board sign. Apparently they didn t realize that approval by the Board was required and so the sign that is shown in the picture, which is inside the window now, was being put on the sidewalk. One of the Zoning Enforcement Officers stopped by and told them they needed to get the Board s approval. Since then, the applicants have put it inside the store and have submitted the application. Mr. Bitar stated the sign is a plastic sign. It is 26 inches by 38½ inches. That is slightly bigger than the guidelines allow but not significantly so. The size is generally consistent with the guidelines. The issue is that a couple of the guidelines indicate that the sign frame must be made out of wood or metal or something that looks like wood or metal so that it is more of a finished look. Also, the letters have to have the appearance of permanence. There had been some debate back in 2007 and subsequent to that when these guidelines were being drafted as to what that meant. The conclusion, based on several discussions by the Board, was that chalkboard signs were OK. However, dry-erase board, because of their nature and sometimes the starkness of their appearance, would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

3 Page 3 Mr. Bitar stated based on that, there was a sign back in 2008 that was approved for a business on W. Main Street. He does not believe the business is there anymore. He showed a picture of the sign. It was a dry-erase board on one side and a chalkboard on the other side. Due to the nature of the framing (wood), it was deemed appropriate. Mr. Bitar stated Staff also did a quick search online for some affordable signs that possibly could still be dry-erase with different types of finishes. Staff thinks there is some possibility to accommodate the daily specials that the applicant would like to advertise but get a little closer to the guidelines. Mr. Bitar stated Staff understands that, based on their business and it being summer, the applicant would really like to use this sign. What Staff is recommending is to allow the sign that they have already to be used for a couple of months until they are able to get something that would meet the guidelines. Staff was suggesting that perhaps they return to the Board in September or October of this year with a new proposal, but that in the meantime be allowed to use the sign being proposed on a temporary basis. Chairman Ruyack invited the applicant to the podium. Gary Snyder, 10 E Main St, stated he and his partner Chuck Sappora had taken over the business this past December. One of the things they noticed is that when they put out a sign and they put their daily specials on it, people look from State Street down, they see them, and are more apt to come down and join in with them. One of the things they were unaware of is the wood frame. Coke supplied them with this sign. They have been in touch with Coke to ask them if they had anything else but there has been no reply. Their sign is professionally done and they would much prefer that than a chalkboard with the rain out and everything. One of the things they would do for their specials is put three pages on the sign. He is not crazy about the handwritten sign. He has talked to a couple other people as to how best to show their program in there and they would use their specials flyers and menus out on the sign. It would be in a professional fashion so it does not bring the area down. People could look down the street and see a pizza shop and decide to get pizza for lunch or whatever it may be. The sign would come out at 10:30 in the morning at the earliest and would be down at closing every day. It is nothing they can afford to let sit outside; these signs are not cheap and they would have to buy their own the next time. Mr. Snyder stated there is an option to their sign. They can take it and paint it black on the boarder if they wish or they can get some wood and put over top of it. They can go any direction the Board wishes them to. They just need the help with it being summer time right now to get the decision. Mr. Denick asked if they are talking about putting signage like that on this particular sign temporarily. Mr. Snyder stated they can do it that way or put a bigger page on the sign. Mr. Denick asked how they would affix it to the sign. Mr. Snyder stated it would be affixed with double sided tape so it could peel off and they could put the next day s specials on it. Their specials change daily. The board that was out there that he thinks was approved before they took over was horrible and he would be ashamed to put it out there. They want to represent a clean, classy type of place that a pizza shop can be. They did not like the sign that was there and that is why they went with Coke; to get something that looks a little classier and a little more upscale than two pieces of plywood with a poor rendering on top of it.

4 Page 4 Mr. Denick stated that a plastic sign like that with a handle has not been what they have approved for the standards that they have in Uptown. They have shown a lot of flexibility with creative signs but flat, white plastic like that will not work. He could see hem using it on a temporary basis so they could get their signage out. The guidelines say it needs to have a permanent look to it. He uses preprinted things under Plexiglas for his signage. He does not change them every day so he knows that is a challenge for them. It is certainly in the guidelines not to have something that is not affixed more permanently so that it is not blowing in the wind; that is not the look they want. Mr. Snyder stated these would not blow in the wind with double stick tape. The tape would be the whole way around. Mr. Denick stated he can see approving this on a temporary basis while they find something that is acceptable to the Board because he needs to have a sign out there. He is in total agreement with having the signs out, especially when people have to look down and see a reason to make that turn. They have to have that and with business the way it is they cannot expect him to be without a sign. His personal feeling is that it would be fine for a month or two until they get something that conforms with what the Board would approve. Mr. Snyder stated that is something they could possibly do. Mr. Denick stated based on the past, painting the current sign would not make a difference. He would suggest trying again. Mr. Michell stated the corner coffee shop has something like this sign but it is a chalkboard with a wood frame attached to one side and a marker board attached to the other. He agrees it is important for the business to get something out there on a temporary basis. He stated they might be able to salvage the sign with a little bit of creativity. Mr. Snyder stated they were not aware of the regulations and this has transpired within the last 2-4 weeks. A guy came by and told them they could not have their sign out there and then they started investigating to see how it is done. Chairman Ruyack stated one of the issues in his mind is the nature of fixing a piece of paper on a plastic board like that; he thinks if there were a way to have Plexiglas inserts they could put them in so it won t blow around and it would be a little more protected. Mr. Snyder stated the Plexiglas inserts are a very easy thing to take care of. That is not an issue. They could do that without a problem. If that is what the Board wants they would be more than happy to do that. Chairman Ruyack asked if it would be fine to keep the proposed sign through the end of August. Ms. Prouty stated she would echo her fellow members opinions. After speaking with Mr. Bitar and knowing what the guidelines are, it is up to the applicant to decide what he wants and bring it to the Board for approval. It is not the Board s job to design the sign. Mr. Snyder stated he understands and is not asking for that.

5 Page 5 Ms. Prouty stated she is willing to go for a temporary sign for a couple of months but that is it. Ms. Lisman asked Mr. Snyder if the September meeting would work for him. Mr. Snyder stated that would be fine. If they could have that timeframe, that would be excellent. Chairman Ruyack asked if they could entertain a motion. Mr. Reschke moved to approve URB with the following condition: 1) The sign is to be temporary and approval is in effect for approximately 60 days. Ms. Prouty seconded. Yeas: Nays: Ms. Prouty, Mr. Reschke, Mr. Michell, Mr. Lisman, Mr. Denick, Ms. Welling, Chairman Ruyack None Motion Passed: 7-0 Application approved. URB ; W. COLLEGE AVENUE; PAINT COLORS, AWNINGS, WINDOW REPLACEMENT, SIGNAGE; APPLICANT: LEHNER INVESTMENT CORP. (BRIAN LEHNER). AND URB ; W. COLLEGE AVENUE; PAINT COLORS, AWNINGS, WINDOW REPLACEMENT, SIGNAGE, REPAIRS; APPLICANT; SCOTT HRABCAK. Mr. Bitar stated if it is OK with the Board members he will do both presentations together. Mr. Bitar stated that this is another one of those applications that went through the Façade Improvement Program application cycle. Both of these applications were approved by WICC pending approval of the design details by the Uptown Review Board. In Staff s opinion this is one of the exciting projects. What appears to be one building is actually three and maybe four buildings. If they look closely at the picture, they can see clear lines that separate it into three different components. The building is actually under two different ownerships. The spaces at W. College are owned by Lehner Investment Company. Then W. College is owned by Scott Hrabcak. In both cases there are businesses on the first floor and apartments on the second floor. Mr. Bitar showed the Sanborn fire insurance maps that were prepared at different time periods. One is from 1894 and you can see the buildings. There was a gap between what is now 14 W. College and the building where Graeter s is located. When you look at the 1900 map, you can see that the gap was filled. So 12 W. College was actually added at some point subsequent to the original construction. Mr. Bitar stated if you look closely, you could see that they used symbols to designate the uses of these buildings. The middle part, which is 16 now, was a bakery. The building at 14 was an office and the one

6 Page 6 at 18 was a dwelling unit at one time with an open porch on the side. That continued to be the case even when the component at 12 was added. Mr. Bitar stated if you look at the 1913 map, some of the uses were changing and some of the back additions were starting to appear. However, you still see an open porch and designations of use. In 1922 there was an ice cream factory in the back. As you get to 1933 it was apparently City Hall at one time at 16 and 18. Then it was a church subsequent to that in This is the progression. They can see the back additions have been in existence for a long time even though they look like an afterthought if you go to the back of the building right now. Mr. Bitar also showed an aerial photograph from 2010 reflecting those additions. Mr. Bitar showed a picture of the building from He pointed out and that you could see a clear line separating them. It is not just the vertical line. There is a little change in plane as well that you can see there. Mr. Bitar stated at one time it became Williams Grill and that subsequently went into the building where Pasquale s is right now but it started out there. He showed an undated picture of the building with the Williams Grill sign and pointed out awnings of different sizes and scales. The buildings at that time were still unpainted. As far as he could tell, it was just the natural brick. When they added 12 W. College he thinks they matched it up very well even before it was painted; at least as it appears in the pictures. Mr. Bitar showed another picture of the building looking from State Street from between 1910 and He also showed a picture taken during Westerville s Centennial celebration in It appears as if the buildings still had not yet been painted. He has not been able to find out exactly when they were painted. Mr. Bitar showed a picture from the 1980s and stated it pretty clearly was painted at that time. When they painted it, they painted all four components the same color. In effect it made it look like one building. It made it look like a squatty buildings to a certain extent. They had pretty traditional awnings and glass block was used in the first floor windows at 18. If you look back at the 1958 picture, you could see that the window openings were the glass block is currently located had been shortened. Brick had been added between the headers and the top of the windows. He is guessing it was because of a dropped ceiling. When the glass block was later added, there continued to be brick between it and the bottom of the stone headers. Mr. Bitar showed another 1980s picture of the entrance to 16. At that time, Dr. Foltz had his office in there and he used to do creative things with glass so he had a stained glass window. It is not original. Also, some of the side lights were filled in at some point in the past. If they compare the old pictures with the new pictures, there have been some changes in the openings but generally the building has stayed the same overall. Mr. Bitar showed a couple pictures from the early 1990s. The building was still painted the pinkish color and so were the additions to the rear. Mr. Bitar showed a picture of what the building looks like now. What the applicants would like to do is paint each one of the three components of the building a different color. Their consultant has done a very nice job in outlining very specifically what the components of this application are. They are also looking at replacing the awnings at the ground level, installing new awnings at the upper level,

7 Page 7 replacing all the upper floor windows, replacing the glass block with new double-hung windows, and creating a new signage scheme. The signage would include wall mounted signs and projecting signs. Mr. Bitar stated when the idea was originally proposed about having different colors, Staff looked at what would have been done with an Italianate style building. He stated it is a simple, vernacular Italianate building. He showed a color pallet and stated it was typical of that style. He also showed pictures of various Italianate buildings with different colors. What they ended up proposing is actually pretty similar to that style. It is a conservative color scheme but it is consistent with the style. Mr. Bitar stated he wanted to get a better comfort level as to how the colors would look on the building. So he took the color codes from Sherwin Williams website and plugged them into Photoshop and applied them to a rendering of the building. He showed a slide with three versions and stated that the rendering at the top is reflective of what is being proposed. He explained how the colors would be used on the buildings. He also showed pictures of the paint samples against the existing brick and the vinyl on the side and rear additions. He stated he wanted to show how the proposed new colors compared to the existing ones, especially where the brick and siding would meet. Mr. Bitar stated that the color proposed for the westernmost building is somewhat similar to the existing color. The middle building would be the darkest and the easternmost section would be in between. In the cases of the eastern and middle sections, the applicants are proposing a different color for the trim. By trim, that means the headers, the cornice, the window frames and the windows themselves. The western building as currently proposed would have the same color for both the body and the trim. Staff is suggesting that a different trim color be used so that the header and sill details are not lost. He referenced the slide and stated that the middle version shows a slightly lighter color for the trim and the bottom version shows a slightly darker color. Mr. Bitar stated in general, Staff feels that the color scheme is appropriate for the building; it would help separate the different components. The colors are conservative but the awnings help tie everything together. Mr. Bitar stated that if they go with a traditional color scheme, typically the doors are painted a darker color so they are a point of emphasis and typically the window sash is a darker color. The doors for the most part are currently green. He thinks the jeweler s door is burgundy. One of the suggestions they are making is to perhaps continue to do darker colors for the doors; whether that is the same color throughout or whether each tenant has their own color that is complementary to the color scheme of the building so there is some distinction. With the color, Staff is comfortable with that. They just wanted to highlight that the side of the building, which is brick, will be painted, and the back brick will be painted at this time. The painting will stop at the brick level; it is only the brick portions that would be painted. He thinks Mr. Hrabcak has some thought about building an addition in the future. He is deferring a little bit of the side treatment of the building with the idea of doing that and feels that it would create an anchor at the corner. Mr. Bitar stated as far as the awnings; he tried to superimpose the awning samples that they presented on the rendering of the building. He again showed a slide with three versions. He pointed out that, for this purpose, he picked the color version with the darker trim color on the westernmost building. The rendering they see at the top shows the applicant s proposal. From a Staff standpoint, he is glad somebody is doing something other than a solid black awning for a change. It is nice to see a variety in color in some of the striping that is being proposed here. It certainly helps enliven the building.

8 Page 8 Mr. Bitar stated they are looking at adding awnings at the second floor level. All the units face south and they do have apartments up there. Right now the first floor spaces at both 12 and 14 have one large green awning and they would like to replace that with the striped awning. The one at 16 has an awning that is simply above the storefront and entry door. The proposal is to extend it above the side door as well. His understanding is that is the door you take to get to the upstairs apartments. Mr. Bitar stated on the west side right now the awning is a little bit smaller and is just above the door. They are proposing to extend it above the windows. Staff s suggestion is to separate the awnings into smaller awnings that would be consistent with the Guidelines. The Guidelines advocate one awning per storefront. Mr. Bitar showed one of the older pictures again. It shows there were variations even in the past with those awnings. Generally, especially since there are two separate businesses at 12 and 14, Staff felt that breaking the awning up would help it with the vertical proportions of the building rather than the squatty look. Either way is fine but Staff s preference would be to break it up into smaller awnings and perhaps use the same color awning for the entrances to the apartments as the second floor awnings to separate those form the commercial so that there is a little emphasis. That is what s shown in the middle rendering. Mr. Bitar stated the bottom rendering is simply a suggestion from a Staff standpoint. He thinks they can go with either the middle or bottom renderings. The only difference with the bottom is the second floor awnings are a little bit narrower and positioned underneath the headers. That would be consistent with the traditional way of doing it. Mr. Bitar referred to an older picture of the building at the southeast corner of Main and State and said that a very similar picture was used in the Guidelines as an example of upper floor awnings. As can be seen, the awnings fit completely within the window openings. They do have successful exceptions in Uptown. The Holmes Hotel building has very traditional-looking awnings that are a little bit wider than the windows and positioned above the header. That is why he is saying Staff is comfortable with either one. Mr. Bitar showed some other older pictures of buildings in the Uptown area and pointed out how the awnings were positioned and proportioned. Mr. Bitar stated the current awnings have a traditional feel to them because they have the airy feel and are not very tight like the ones next door are. Staff thinks that provides some relief from the harshness of the brick and it is more like the traditional roll out awnings, so the suggestions would be to continue to use something where it is not as tight and with a loose, scalloped valance to counterbalance the harshness of the brick. Mr. Bitar stated the third item is windows. That is where there are a couple of differences in the two applications. He stated he will start with West College. There are three windows on the second floor. They are wood, double hung windows. They are obviously not original. At some point there was wood blocking added to the top. He believes there are dropped ceilings in there and that is why they were shortened in the past. What Mr. Lehner would like to do is replace all three windows with new vinyl, double hung windows, but they would occupy the whole opening. The size would be back to what it originally would have been. He is contracting with Window World, which provides the vinyl windows. His understanding is that it is an almond color that would be similar to the trim color that was

9 Page 9 shown in the application materials. There is also one business at 12 that has a double hung window on the first floor, which is a little unusual for a storefront. It does have a double hung window where the upper sash is divided and the lower sash is plain. His assumption is that at least the bottom sash had been replaced at some point in time and that it would have been a two-over-two window previously. Mr. Bitar stated in going back to one of the older pictures; if they look very closely they can see that the original windows were two-over-two and the sash was a little bit darker. From that standpoint Staff s preference would be to go back to all four windows being two-over-two. That is sometimes tough to do with the vinyl windows because most of the vinyl window manufacturers do not make them with the right divider. Mr. Bitar stated Staff s preference would be to go with a difference product. The ones that have been used more successfully have been the aluminum-clad wood windows. Having said that, there are some mitigating factors here if they do agree with the applicant s proposal in that the upper floor windows will be partially hidden by the awnings and they would be restored to the original openings. The first floor window is really the only one that is divided at this point. All the other storefronts have plain glass windows. Mr. Bitar stated for the building at 16 and 18, Mr. Hrabcak s proposal is for an aluminum product. They would be all-aluminum and not aluminum-clad. In this instance he would be replacing the four windows on the second floor and the two glass block windows on the first floor. Those would be restored to their original height as well. The proposal is to use simple one-over-one aluminum windows. Mr. Bitar pointed out that there is another glass block window facing the west side. That one is not proposed to be replaced at this point with the idea that there is going to be possibly an addition at that location in the future. The only windows that are being proposed to be replaced at this point are the ones on the front of the building. Mr. Bitar showed one of the older pictures he showed earlier. He stated it does appear that the ones on the west side (above 18), were always simple one-over-one windows. It appears that one of the glass block windows was actually a door at some point in the past. The ones at 16 appear to be two-over-two windows with shutters on both sides. One of the original storefront windows does not appear to be double-hung, but it had that divided look. Mr. Bitar stated one of the Staff s suggestions was perhaps (at least for 16) to use a divided window. As he looked at the product information for the specific window that Mr. Hrabcak is presenting, they do make some simulated divided light windows but he was not clear that the size or shape of the divider would be consistent with the traditional style. Mr. Bitar showed a picture of Brio at Polaris Fashion Place and stated it is a modern building designed in a traditional way. He believes it has aluminum-clad wood windows. They can see how the divider thickness is small but the depth is the same as the overall window sash so it feels like it is actually divided even though the piece of glass continues throughout. Ideally from a Staff standpoint, that would be the case here. In this instance they would be awnings covering half of the windows so that may be a mitigating factor. Mr. Bitar stated the next to last item within the request, and both applicants are working together which is very helpful, is a new signage program. What they are proposing is instead of putting signage on the awnings themselves, they are proposing to put sign boards above the awnings. The sign boards would

10 Page 10 be consistent in shape and overall style so they would all be 1 x 4 with a raised trim and a quarterround molding. The face itself would be wood with painted graphics. The colors and the lettering would vary from tenant to tenant so they would have to be presented to the Board individually. Mr. Bitar stated that since those would be above the awnings, they are suggesting for identification when you are on the street to do small projecting signs above the individual doorways. There are four doorways. Unfortunately, the transom windows have been boarded up; perhaps in the future they could be opened up. To break that up, in the meantime they are suggesting that the mounting bracket would be located within those areas so they would be identifying the entrances. Each sign would be approximately 1 x 1 4. In this case the shapes may change. He showed an overall concept and stated the jeweler may have a different style sign and the tattoo shop may have a different style sign. Again, those would have to be presented to the Board. Mr. Bitar stated both types of signs are well within the size requirements allowed by the guidelines. He mentioned to the applicants that he believes the wall signs could actually be a little bit wider and still be acceptable. Mr. Bitar again showed the Brio picture and pointed out that they have signage in the same general concept. In the applicants case, instead of having products it would be the actual names of the businesses. Mr. Bitar stated it is interesting with these buildings because the upstairs windows and the downstairs openings do not completely line up. If the awnings are individualized, he thinks the signs could be placed centered above the awnings. If the awnings are as proposed by the applicants, then it makes sense the way the applicant has shown them centered above the individual doorways. That is something that can be discussed. Mr. Bitar stated the last item he wanted to mention is that there are some repairs that would be part of this application. The building was painted a long time ago. There are some places where not only the paint is chipped off but the outer crust of the brick is peeling off as well so that is why putting a new coat of paint would help with that. Mr. Bitar stated that as they can see the building has a box gutter treatment. There are pieces that are falling apart. Above 16 and 18 there was some aluminum added and it is a little dented. It would be nice to go back to the wood treatment. There are some trim details that are especially evident on the onestory addition that would be nice to repair and replicate upstairs. Mr. Bitar reminded the Board that there are two applicants. He suggested that they allow each one of them to speak individually to their part of the application and have an overall discussion, but then make two different motions. Chairman Ruyack invited the first applicant to approach the podium. Brian Lehner, owner of W. College, stated they appreciate Westerville coming up with some funds because a lot of this would not happen if that weren t the case. In his world they are talking about pretty big budgets here. He is excited about the project and excited about the exterior. He has to be somewhat concerned about the budget so there are some issues he wants to cover tonight that help with that. Mr. Bitar talked about the windows that have the spacer on top. He has a residential unit upstairs that has dropped ceilings. Downstairs they have pretty much the same thing with the barbershop. Barber

11 Page 11 Bob recently passed away so they have an artist going in that space. They took the dropped ceiling away, went back to the original ceiling and it is really a neat look. So, not only does he have the expense on the outside but he has the expense on the inside. The windows are probably the major issue as far as expense goes. He likes the vinyl product. He has several buildings in the uptown district that have vinyl windows and several properties throughout Westerville that are vinyl. It has always been a good product for him, especially being up on the second floor; he does not see that as an issue. That is going to be one of the things he wants to cover with them tonight. Mr. Lehner stated as far as the awning, he is open to breaking that awning down but again, he is getting into a lot of cost there. Right now what they are going to do is use the original frame. It is the frame from They are going to use that actual frame. They get into a lot more expenses if they break that down. Ms. Prouty asked if the original frame would not allow it to be located below the header. Mr. Lehner stated they worked with that trajectory and he thinks they would have to lose some of the angle if they drop that down below. There was not any way to do that awning; to bring that down and keep the same type of trajectory. There are seven pieces going across the top so they need to have the same angle. Chairman Ruyack asked if he had a preference for how they wanted to treat the awnings on the second floor. Mr. Lehner stated right now he thinks there is some tracking up there. It looks like it is just the width of the window and it does provide some visibility of the lintel on top. He does not know that he can use that track but that is probably a pretty good location for it. He does not think he would want it much wider than the window either because they want to keep that perception of the building. Ms. Prouty asked if Mr. Bitar could show the slide that shows the header exposed. She asked if the awning up above are the size of the window. She asked if he is saying he would prefer to keep those. Mr. Lehner answered in the affirmative. Ms. Prouty stated the ones up above are wider. She asked what it would do if they expose the headers and they make the awnings narrow. Mr. Lehner stated the bottom rendering shows what it would be if they used what is there now, which is what he would propose. Mr. Bitar stated it is a little bit challenging because the headers on the first floor are at different heights. Some are lower and some are higher. It was a lot easier when he was trying to play with those to stick with the narrower awnings upstairs. It was harder to keep head clearance and everything else with the first floor level. Some of the existing headers are partially visible. Maybe not on this one but the ones on Mr. Hrabcak s building are little visible. He thinks it would be tough to get that. Jim Saltz stated he did the drawings and worked with both applicants. He stated the initial idea was to break this into three separate buildings. If they look at the front façades, there are actually joints; you can see where they were built as three individual buildings. In terms of the first floor storefronts, there are variations in the lintels over the openings. They are not all the same height and the awnings that are

12 Page 12 there now were all set at the same level across. That gets into how far you go to break them up into individual storefronts in terms of the various details one might use to do that. Initially, their thought was to keep the awnings all at the same height as they are now, but try to break it up more than it is now without getting individual awnings for each individual lintel. If they look at the awning on the bottom of the screen where it has been broken up, that is accurate except for the heights; there would be some change in the heights of the awnings if they were made to conform to the existing lintels or headers. Ms. Welling asked if they would consider combining the top rendering with the bottom rendering: use the top drawing for the first floor and then use the bottom picture for the second floor. In other words, they would show the headers on the second floor but cover them on the first floor. Mr. Saltz stated that would be a compromise that would work. He asked if they would have the three basic awnings on the first floor for the three different buildings and then on the second floor they would have awnings that would allow the headers to be exposed. Ms. Welling answered in the affirmative. Mr. Michell asked if the awning frame from the 1930s is good condition. Ms. Saltz stated the pipe frames are in good conditions. The awnings themselves, the fabric, has deteriorated. Chairman Ruyack asked about the treatment of the bottom edge of the first floor awnings. He asked if they will be taught or if they will be loose. Mr. Saltz stated they can be loose. Chairman Ruyack asked if they will be a boxed in look or if it will open at the sides of the awning. Mr. Saltz stated they will be closed on the sides. Mr. Saltz stated all the awnings can be consistent in terms of the face piece being allowed to hang freely. Chairman Ruyack invited the second applicant/property owner to the podium. Scott Hrabcak, owner of W. College stepped up. Ms. Welling asked how he feels about the trim colors being the darker color to let the header and sills stand out more. Mr. Hrabcak stated he is fine with that. Ms. Prouty expressed her concern of wanting the building to look like Mr. Bitar s renderings as far as colors and such. Mr. Hrabcak referred to the rendering and stated as far as the dropped-in colors, this is how he envisioned it would look. Putting it into practice and making sure it comes together will be their part. This picture is really a nice representation of what he was thinking.

13 Page 13 Ms. Prouty asked if he had a timeframe for his addition. Mr. Hrabcak stated no and explained how there are a lot of moving parts with the building and the area around it. Ms. Prouty expressed her concern that the back of the building looks terrible. With the work being done to the Nealer building, that area will look better and this corner will be improved. She would like the back of his building cleaned up as well. Mr. Hrabcak stated there are things he would like to see done as well. There are a lot of moving parts in what the City has planned for Uptown and that is something they will talk about. He explained why they do not have a timeline currently. That is not something they know but it is something they look forward to. Ms. Prouty asked if when he does the addition if the glass block windows will be covered up. Mr. Hrabcak stated based on what he is thinking about doing, there would not be a window there. He stated he also wanted to make a correction to one thing Mr. Bitar mentioned about the second floor windows. It is not just the front windows; he is actually doing the windows all the way around on the top floor. He would like to amend the application to state that they will replace the windows on the second floor from 16, wrapping around to the back side of 18; except for two very small windows where there is a kitchen and a bathroom. Those two will not be replaced at this time. Ms. Prouty asked if they will not have the cross piece with the wood. Mr. Hrabcak stated no, he is along the same line of thought as Mr. Lehner s. He thinks the awnings will cover most of that. Ms. Prouty stated she is talking about what is there now; what the tenant has put up there. She asked if he has deed restrictions. Mr. Hrabcak stated he has tenant requirements. Mr. Hrabcak pointed out the windows on the back that he is talking about replacing. The other windows, the two to the left of the outcropping, will probably not be replaced. He explained how they are unusual and it is a challenge. What he has asked their guys to do is to try to find a way to make them blend as much as possible with the others that will be done. There was substantial discussion regarding the signage the applicants are proposing. There was confusion on what was being proposed and what the Board was to approve. It was explained that the if the sign program was approved, it would include the size, shape, and border details of the wall signs but that each tenant would have to submit a separate application to the Uptown Review Board showing proposed colors and graphics. Also, if the projecting sign program is approved, it would include location and general size but that each tenant would submit a separate application to the Uptown Review Board showing the proposed design, colors, and graphics. Ms. Prouty stated she wanted Mr. Bitar s reaction to the aluminum windows versus the vinyl.

14 Page 14 Mr. Denick stated that in Mr. Bitar s report the guidelines start at wood, then aluminum, aluminum-clad and vinyl-clad. They are all the way down to vinyl without discussing any other options. Chairman Ruyack stated it appears to him that they are all going to be one-over-one type windows but there are a couple of different materials they are looking at based on the different owners. Mr. Bitar stated the proposal for is vinyl. The proposal for is aluminum. The guidelines do say the first course of action is to repair the original windows. In this case, he is not sure about the window downstairs but it is pretty clear most of the windows they are talking about are not original so the repair option is for the most part off the table. The Façade Improvement Program criteria says that because there is City funding involved with this project that the applicant is held to the highest standard of the guidelines. He thinks that is also within reason. Staff s preference would be, knowing that the repair of the original windows is off the table, to do something similar to what was done at the Stoner House and similar to what was done at 34 E. College. That is the simulated divided light. In both cases it was the aluminum-clad wood windows that give you the authentic look even though the material is a little different. Even though they are aluminum, until you walk up to them (CVS is the same way) and start tapping them, they look just like wood. That would be Staff s preference if they go purely by the guidelines. The two-over-two is one of those things where they can somewhat see them in the old pictures. What it says in the guidelines is to not try to historicize unless you have proof. It seems like there is some evidence that some of the windows were two-over-two, so that would be Staff s preference. Mr. Bitar stated the applicants argument is that the awnings would cover much of the windows and mitigate that. The argument that most of these windows are upstairs windows that you cannot touch and cannot see closely, he thinks also helps mitigate it. Staff s strong preference would be to do the aluminum-clad wood windows. The ones the Board may want to discuss a little bit more is that there is a total of three windows are the ground level that will be next to wood windows and doors. For those ones it would be helpful if there is a sample or if Mr. Lehner can tell them where one of the properties that has the vinyl windows is. Perhaps if those don t look very different and the color finish is the same then it may be more acceptable. The first floor is more critical. Ms. Prouty asked for a little more clarification. Mr. Bitar stated Staff has a strong preference for aluminum-clad wood windows. The applicants might have a legitimate argument. Chairman Ruyack asked if the applicants had reviewed any kind of aluminum-clad wood windows. Mr. Lehner stated they would be over three times the cost. Mr. Lisman stated that he asks every applicant that comes here if they have gone out and gotten an actual bid on wood windows. He lives in a house that was built in 1897 and they have replaced some of their windows with wood. It is not that much more expensive. He can tell them that. Mr. Lehner stated he had an Uptown property at 56 E. Main Street where they had a fire. The old windows were burnt out. There was some back and forth with the insurance company that they were going to pay for it. They did in fact do that. He could have had top of the line wood windows but they had to have those milled because they had to make the finish. A wood window is one thing. A wood window like what is in these buildings is a completely different thing.

15 Page 15 Mr. Hrabcak stated aluminum-clad wood window in this building is completely different. Mr. Lisman stated he is not against the other type of windows but that is always their first option with windows and he has yet to have any applicant that would come in with a price of wood. They say it is more expensive but no one has even been able to tell him how much wood costs. Ms. Welling stated maybe they could get cost estimates; if they could get a bid from someone and do the comparison. Mr. Lehner stated he bid it out and it was over three times the cost compared to aluminum. He stated if it would help; he does understand what Mr. Bitar is saying and they had the conversation about the first floor. That window is right there and people pass it. The other ones are higher. He would certainly look into maybe if he can save the cost by doing vinyl on the second floor to see if they can have that sash repaired on the first floor. Ms. Welling asked if it would be the current window or a new window. Mr. Lehner stated he would use that window. Ms. Welling asked if the window is repairable. Mr. Lehner stated it needs some work and it would not be cheap. The previous tenant, the barbershop, used to open the window to get a breeze. Ms. Welling asked if all the windows on the first floor are repairable in both buildings. Mr. Hrabcak stated in his building there are no first floor windows other than the storefront window. Mr. Lehner stated his first floor window is the only window that is a double sash. Ms. Prouty pointed out wooden pieces in the windows that the tenants put in. She asked if they would come out. Mr. Lehner answered in the affirmative. He stated the tenant has a small child on the second floor. Mr. Bitar stated for clarification; given Mr. Lehner s answer, if he is willing to repair the first floor window and the profile of the vinyl and aluminum windows that are being proposed by the two applicants here are similar to what is there right now, Staff can recommend approval. Ms. Prouty asked if he can recommend approval of Mr. Hrabcak s windows as well. Mr. Bitar answered in the affirmative. He stated the only reason he says that is because those other two windows where the glass block is right now are a little more residential scale and are more consistent with the windows upstairs that it makes more sense for those to be consistent. If Mr. Lehner is willing to repair or replace in kind the one there, that is really more of a storefront. That is a compromise that is acceptable to Staff. Chairman Ruyack asked about the center, larger window at 16 W. College.

16 Page 16 Mr. Bitar stated that remains as is; all of those remain as is. Mr. Lehner stated yes, the jeweler s window stays the same. Mr. Reschke asked if at the windows will be aluminum only, not aluminum-clad, upper and lower, and one-over-one. Ms. Welling asked if they can do the two-over-two in that product. Mr. Bitar asked if she was asking about the aluminum. Ms. Welling answered in the affirmative. Mr. Bitar stated he did look at the literature from the company and they do have one that is a simulated divided light; meaning they have the divider inside, outside, with a spacer in between. What he has less comfort level with is if he saw it correctly it seemed like the option they had was a little too flat and wide to be more like the one he showed as the example. From that standpoint, he would be hesitant. He thinks it would look better if they stuck with the simpler one. However, he could be wrong; he has not seen an actual sample. Mr. Reschke asked what he means by simpler. Mr. Bitar stated by leaving it one-over-one instead of two-over-two with something that looks fake. Chairman Ruyack stated another consideration to that is the current look of it. The way it is now is not a historical look they are trying to maintain. Mr. Hrabcak stated he did look at a two-over-two and the products he had seen with the height of these windows did not look right. Ms. Prouty stated the reason why the historical look is not there is because everybody has done everything over the years to that building. Now it is their chance to bring some of that back. Mr. Bitar stated his house is a 1980s house but he has replaced some windows and did use simulated divided light. It s a fiber glass material. It is wood on the inside and fiber glass on the outside. It does have that authentic look and is not nearly as expensive as the aluminum ones. The only thing is that it only comes in standard sizes so he is not sure whether that would be available. Ms. Welling stated she would feel more comfortable if they could maybe see a few more options and what the cost analysis would be. With the City wanting them to follow the strictest adherence to the Guidelines, she would like to at least follow some part of that. She knows they cannot do wood but maybe they could do the two-over-two; some kind of a compromise where they could at least meet one aspect of the guidelines. Ms. Prouty stated she has a problem with the windows. Chairman Ruyack asked what the specific question is.

17 Page 17 Ms. Prouty stated she does not like the aluminum ones. Ms. Welling stated the Guidelines say that wood is the preferred option but if not then they could do the vinyl/aluminum-clad. They need to match the appearance of the original. She thinks except for 18, they would have all been two-over-two. To her, they should do 18 as two-over-two as well to just make it consistent. Mr. Denick stated he agrees. There are three aspects to this; one is that they are receiving funding and their directive is to look at the high end of Guidelines. Secondly, he agrees with Mr. Lisman in that they continually get applications saying it is too expensive but they have absolutely no documentation that it is and he would prefer to see a bid/documentation of a different cost structure to help them determine where they should be with the Guidelines on this. He knows it is a compromise as far as cost but they are getting some funding to help them with some of that and their directive is to not go with the low end of the Guidelines but at least above that. Vinyl to them is the low end of the Guidelines; at least on the first floor. Mr. Lehner asked what their issue is with vinyl. He asked if they walked down the street if they could tell the difference between aluminum and vinyl and whether it is clad or not. Ms. Welling stated she could only because that s what she does for work. Mr. Hrabcak stated she would be one of seven. Mr. Reschke stated he probably could. Mr. Lehner stated they are looking at three times the cost. Ms. Welling stated they are trying to follow the Guidelines; that is their job as Board members. Mr. Hrabcak stated he does not have a problem looking at different products but his question is if the Review Board s role and responsibility is to look at cost and then decide or to look at product and then decide. Ms. Welling and Ms. Prouty answered by stating product. Mr. Denick stated their role is to protect the heritage of Uptown. Mr. Hrabcak stated a bid should not have any bearing on their ultimate decision. Their decision should be based upon what they hope the applicant can get done within some economic scale. He does not mind bidding these out to 25 different people. That would add another month and a half to the process and it will probably be winter by the time they get this started. He cannot have the building open in the middle of the winter. He is exaggerating a little bit but the reality is that in the interest of time, a certain amount of this needs to get started on before the weather starts to break. He knows that with the aluminum windows he is looking at, he has about a 6-8 week lead time to order them. He is really looking at September at this point in time. It is getting close but it can still be done. He does not have a problem getting multiple bids; that does not bother him at all. Ms. Welling stated she thinks the bids would be helpful for them to make a good compromise.

18 Page 18 Mr. Hrabcak stated his biggest challenge is that he does not want to put a number in front of a group that is going to be making a decision that to a certain extent is based on numbers. Mr. Denick stated if they made the decision without the number then he would not be able to afford it. Mr. Hrabcak stated and they would not do it. Mr. Denick stated that is why they compromise throughout all this. The Guidelines say one thing but they end up with something other than that because it is unfair to the business owner to say they have to do something that they mandate that they cannot afford. They are trying to avoid that. Mr. Hrabcak asked if this would be setting any kind of a precedent. He asked if they have asked other people to bring in numbers so that they can decide. Ms. Prouty stated her opinion is not based on the estimate. They are appointed to this Board and they have a guideline to follow and now that they are getting funding from the City, they have added a second layer to that. Many times she has voted for things that her gut told her she shouldn t. She does and then she always hates herself. She calls Mr. Bitar the next morning and she is ranting and raving. Her feeling as a member of this board is they have two sets of guidelines here and he is not doing what they are saying. Mr. Lehner stated Mr. Hrabcak s windows are within the specs of what they are talking about. He stated that his windows are the issue here. Mr. Hrabcak stated his are an issue. Mr. Prouty stated she is not talking about the cost. It says to go with the wood first and then it gives some alternatives. Mr. Hrabcak stated from his perspective aluminum-clad is kind of mid range. It is not wood, not aluminum-clad; it is aluminum, its vinyl, and it is not plastic. From his perspective, an aluminum-clad window will make no difference from the street view from the perspective of the layman. If they look at Generations, their second floor windows are aluminum. That is a very good example of someone who did it and in reality he cannot tell. Ms. Prouty stated she did not vote on those windows so she cannot do anything about that. Mr. Hrabcak stated he understands that but they still look good. He does not think that they detract from the asset. He thinks they serve the owner well and he thinks the challenge with some options is the longevity/the useful life. He will compromise as he knows the Board will compromise. They will all compromise here to a certain extent, he would imagine. He asked for them to give him direction and he will follow. Chairman Ruyack stated he does not think it is the Board s direction to compare bids versus costbenefits of different materials. He does not think they can tell the property owner what they can afford and hold them to that. They always act on the materials that are presented to the Board. He does not think it is appropriate for the Board. Obviously the applicant has already researched some of the other cost issues, so in the applicant s mind this is the solution they are bringing to the Board. They think they should act on this. He does not think they have the place to delay the proceedings because the

19 Page 19 Board members do not personally know what the wood windows would cost or if aluminum-clad wood is even possible to fit into these openings. Mr. Hrabcak stated the only other thing he would add, in getting outside of windows, is that this is one component of the totality of the project. He thinks that it is not just that. It is one piece of eight; at least for him. The eight for him is a lot different than the eight for Mr. Lehner. He has a little bit more to tackle, is trying to get it done, and is trying to get it done as positively as he can. He is trying to get it done as closely as to what the Board would like to see and as close to what he knows he can afford. Mr. Bitar stated Mr. Hrabcak is correct; the role of the Board is not to look at cost. Having said that though, it works both ways. If the applicant is telling the Board that the cost of the windows is three times as much, he thinks that is where the concern is. It is an issue and while the Board is not looking at that, to be fair he thinks that is the question they are asking. If it is going to be a cost-prohibitive project that is the question that is coming up. In reality, the decision needs to be based on the Guidelines. Mr. Hrabcak stated the operative word is cost-prohibitive. He thinks had the City not offered the opportunity for property owners like them to do these things, this would all be cost-prohibitive. It would be done much differently and in a much different timeline. The reality is that they are trying to get some scale that makes sense but also do it in a fashion that they think makes sense. Mr. Reschke stated to replace windows the labor is the same; it takes the same to pull out a window and the same to put in that product. The labor is the same so it is the cost of the product that changes. To have six windows, it could be three times as much but you are not dealing with a place that has 40 windows. They have a dozen windows so the percentage of three times is three times $100 or three times $10,000. There is a big difference there. The labor is the same; it is just the product. However, they can only vote on what is presented to them. Mr. Michell asked if the reason behind the hierarchy of the aluminum versus the vinyl is weathering and what they might look like from five years from now. Mr. Bitar stated the Guidelines were written 1995 so some of the current products that may be acceptable and they have approved were not in existence before. Most people will not see the inside so they couldn t tell whether it is clad wood or not. In his opinion there are a couple of issues. One, for the window to look right, the measurements of the sash need to look similar to the original ones. So, the availability of those in vinyl or the aluminum is one test. The second is, and what is triggering much of this conversation, if they are going with one-over-one windows, for the most part they will not see the different especially if it is on the second floor. If they start going with the divided ones, there is a lot more limitations with vinyl. Having said that, there was one window project approved at 64 E Main Street. Last year or the year before they did use a vinyl product that had a simulated divided light appearance. That is still not exactly like aluminum but it s not too bad. Mr. Bitar stated the last thing with vinyl is he thinks there are some limitations in color. Due to vinyl s nature, darker colors would not work because they absorb heat and would warp. The limitation is the color. Otherwise, he does not know enough about longevity and things of that nature. Mr. Reschke asked about 12 W. College. He stated the inventory shows there were second story replacement windows back in He stated that unit 14 had exterior changes in January of That was 23 years ago, so they may not see this back for 23 years again. That is why they need to try to get what they can now.

20 Page 20 Mr. Lehner stated that is one of the reasons the vinyl was preferred to him. He has put vinyl windows in all his buildings because it lasts. Again, he uses light colors. He has a lot of experience with them and he trusts them. That is why he is using them. Mr. Bitar stated he does not think that the inventory is referring to unit 12. He would have to go back and check what that was from He thinks that may have been the back window. Mr. Bitar stated in the end when they make the motion they have two options; one is to make one motion for each application or to split each application into multiple parts. Chairman Ruyack stated he wanted to make sure they are in agreement on the color choices too. He thinks the colors are great, the awning stripes will look great, and breaking up the buildings is going to be a really neat effect too. He has no issue with the larger awnings on the bottom floor. He thinks if that is the way the applicants want to go because of the existing hardware, then that seems fine to him. Mr. Hrabcak stated on the bottom of the west end building, they have in their application a trim color of SW6142 but he wants to change it to what Mr. Bitar did in the rendering here. It would now be Sherwin Williams 6102 for the color of the trim for the west end building. Mr. Lisman asked about the color for the doors. He stated Staff recommended a darker color for the doors. Mr. Hrabcak stated he wants to keep it consistent with the rest of the trim. However, color does not matter to him as much. If they have a recommendation then he is fine. Chairman Ruyack asked if the doors should remain the same as the trim color. Mr. Reschke asked Mr. Bitar to show a current picture of the storefront. He asked for clarification on the awnings for 16. Mr. Bitar stated if the framing is remaining there Staff would still suggest it become an individual frame. Mr. Reschke asked Mr. Hrabcak what he thought about it. Mr. Hrabcak stated they would have to add something to the door but he does not have an objection to it. For the tenant upstairs he thinks that makes sense. He and Mr. Lehner are doing this together so he does not want to do it unless he is OK. Mr. Lehner stated that he would be Ok with that. Mr. Reschke stated he thinks three solids would be best since they are making it individual buildings. They are all different but the same. They are trying to make them uniform but not. There was some reiteration on what the awnings would be. They would be combining the top rendering with the bottom rendering; use the top drawing for the first floor and then use the bottom picture for the second floor. Basically, they would show the headers on the second floor but cover them on the first floor.

21 Page 21 There was some discussion regarding the repairs at Mr. Hrabcak stated as far as the brick, most of the product there is an inferior product. It is very difficult to work with. If they start to touch it, it crumbles away very quickly. What they are trying to do it protect it as much as anything else. The product they are going to use when they look at painting is something that will help seal it and protect it. Mr. Hrabcak stated with the box gutters, there are two different products up there. There is a wood product and an aluminum product; which is white in the picture on the right on the screen. He has had some discussion with two different contractors who have looked at both. Taking all that out and doing that in wood is going to be interesting because he does not know what is underneath it. He has not even gotten there so he does not know what he is up against when they start going down that road. The reality is that they want to try to bring the look and the feel to as close to consistent as they can. His intent is to go ahead and repair the wood product that they see that is damaged and bring it as close to new as he can make it. Their intent was not to tear out all the aluminum product but to put in a decorative component that would be consistent across the front and bottom. In the picture they can see there is almost an accent piece at the bottom that somebody started but stopped near the corner. He does not know why; he has no idea. The idea from his perspective is to make it consistent all the way across the front and around the back. That would be his idea there. Mr. Hrabcak stated you can see the chipping of the rest of the brick s paint work. Some of it is actually the brick itself; it is deteriorating and it is falling apart. Unfortunately, they cannot tuck-point this building. He had someone look at sandblasting it and they told him that it would disintegrate. What they need to try to do is fill where they can fill and then protect the integrity with a paint product that is also a sealer. Mr. Hrabcak referred to a picture and stated most of that box gutter is in need of replacement. It is in very poor shape. He is going to try to replace it as much as possible. Some of it is going to have to remain because the product is OK but it is a little difficult to try to replicate. Otherwise, he would have to come in and show them an entirely different look and he does not know where to start with that. His idea is to try to bring it back to as close to the integrity as they would expect in a full replacement. There is quite a bit of product there that needs to be replaced. There is a bunch that is not repairable. It is going to have to be removed and replaced. Ms. Welling asked if when he said decorative piece, he meant continuing the trim piece around the corner. Mr. Hrabcak answered in the affirmative. Ms Prouty asked if Mr. Bitar had a response to that. Mr. Bitar stated as long as it maintains the original character. Generally, he thinks the lower gutter has more of the original character remaining than the upper one. He realizes there needs to be a lot of repair but if the character is maintained similar to the lower one then Staff is comfortable with that. Also, the brick obviously needs to be treated. Mr. Hrabcak stated one thing to keep in mind is when they paint these buildings, at some point they will be facing this again. If they go to New Orleans it is a perfect example. They can see the weathering and

22 Page 22 the look. It can enhance the look sometimes but any time you paint this product you are going to have to face it again at some point in time in the future. The reality is they hope they won t have to face it too soon. Mr. Reschke asked if the soffit will be continuous and have a finished look to it. Mr. Hrabcak answered in the affirmative. Mr. Denick stated when the two applicants get done it is going to look just great, but the roofline, the soffit, and everything that is there could totally ruin it. That is the unknown right now; what it is going to take to fix that. He does not even know how to put a motion together for that. Mr. Bitar stated he is guessing it will all be painted to match. His suggestion would be to continue to have a smooth finish rather than a paneled finish there so that it matches the wood in some capacity. Mr. Hrabcak stated the colors are all going to match the rendering Mr. Bitar had. He was talking about the actual repair. Ms. Welling suggested painting the trim piece the same color as the sills and headers. Mr. Hrabcak agreed. Chairman Ruyack asked why they do not have similar issues on He asked if they do not have the same style of gutters. Mr. Lehner explained how the roof had been done with a proper treatment for the gutter. Mr. Reschke moved to break up URB into URB A (paint colors and awnings), URB B (signage) and URB C (window replacement); and to break up URB into URB A (paint colors and awnings), URB B (signage), URB C (window replacement) and URB D (repairs); Mr. Denick seconded. Yeas: Nays: Ms. Prouty, Mr. Denick, Mr. Michell, Mr. Reschke, Mr. Lisman, Ms. Welling, Chairman Ruyack None Motion Passed: 7-0 Mr. Reschke moved to approve URB A (paint colors and awnings) with the following conditions: 1) Colors as presented; 2) Awnings on first floor as presented by the applicant and awning on second floor as suggested by Staff (placed below the headers and within the window openings); 3) The awning fabric is to be loose-fitting with a scalloped edge. Mr. Denick seconded. Yeas: Mr. Denick, Mr. Reschke, Mr. Michell, Mr. Lisman, Ms. Welling, Ms. Prouty, Chairman Ruyack

23 Page 23 Nays: None Motion Passed: 7-0 Paint Colors and Awnings approved. Mr. Reschke moved to approve URB B (signage) with the following conditions: 1) Wall sign program is approved, including size, shape and border details, but each tenant shall submit a separate application to the Uptown Review Board showing proposed colors and graphics. 2) Projecting sign program is approved, including location and general size, but each tenant shall submit a separate application to the Uptown Review Board showing the proposed design, color and graphics. Mr. Lisman seconded. Yeas: Nays: Ms. Prouty, Ms. Welling, Mr. Lisman, Mr. Michell, Mr. Reschke, Mr. Denick, Chairman Ruyack None Motion Passed: 7-0 Signage approved. Mr. Reschke moved to approve URB C (window replacement) with the following conditions: 1) Installation of vinyl windows on the second floor as presented; 2) Repair of the first floor wood double-hung window. Mr. Michell seconded. Yeas: Nays: Mr. Reschke, Mr. Michell, Ms. Prouty, Chairman Ruyack Mr. Denick, Mr. Lisman, Ms. Welling Motion Passed: 4-3 Window replacement approved. Mr. Reschke moved to approve URB A (paint color and awnings) with the following conditions: 1) Colors as presented, but with the addition of a darker trim color at 18 W. College Avenue; 2) Awnings on first floor as presented by the applicant and awning on second floor as suggested by Staff (placed below the headers and within the window openings); 3) The awning fabric is to be loose-fitting with a scalloped edge. Mr. Denick seconded. Yeas: Mr. Lisman, Ms. Welling, Mr. Denick, Ms. Prouty, Mr. Reschke, Mr. Michell, Chairman Ruyack

24 Page 24 Nays: None Motion Passed: 7-0 Paint Colors and Awnings approved. Mr. Reschke moved to approve URB B (signage) with the following conditions: 1) Wall sign program is approved, including size, shape and border details, but each tenant shall submit a separate application to the Uptown Review Board showing proposed colors and graphics. 2) Projecting sign program is approved, including location and general size, but each tenant shall submit a separate application to the Uptown Review Board showing the proposed design, color and graphics. Mr. Michell seconded. Yeas: Nays: Mr. Michell, Mr. Reschke, Ms. Prouty, Mr. Denick, Ms. Welling, Mr. Lisman, Chairman Ruyack None Motion Passed: 7-0 Signage approved. Mr. Reschke moved to approve URB C (window replacement); Ms. Prouty seconded. Yeas: Nays: Mr. Reschke, Chairman Ruyack Mr. Lisman, Ms. Welling, Mr. Denick, Ms. Prouty, Mr. Michell, Motion Failed: 2-5 Window replacement disapproved. Ms. Welling moved to approve URB D (repairs); Ms. Prouty seconded. Yeas: Nays: Mr. Michell, Mr. Reschke, Ms. Prouty, Mr. Denick, Ms. Welling, Mr. Lisman, Chairman Ruyack None Motion Passed: 7-0 Repairs approved. Mr. Bitar asked for some clarification on the decisions regarding the windows. He asked if the Board could give them some direction.

25 Page 25 Ms. Prouty stated she would like for them to at least consider upgrading the windows a little bit. They did not see the window and all she has is some brochures. They have to convince her that they have come up to that quality that they are expecting. She has not seen that tonight. Chairman Ruyack asked how that is different from the other property. Ms. Prouty stated she feels a little differently about that because he is going to repair the bottom. She feels the vinyl from the description she read was maybe one step up. Mr. Hrabcak stated he has no problem going to a vinyl product. He would have delivered a vinyl product to the Board if he thought that was the route the Board would point him to. Mr. Denick stated three of them voted against the vinyl product as well. He thinks it is more in keeping with what he and Ms. Welling said. First off, they would like an upgrade from that based on the Guidelines; especially if they are getting City funding. Also, they are not asking for them to prove that they can t afford it but they would like to see a feasibility study if nothing else as to whether it is feasible to do a vinyl-clad or aluminum-clad window as opposed to the straight aluminum before they say yes. Mr. Hrabcak stated he is fine with that but he is a little confused by the inconsistency then. If that was the route they were going to go he thinks he would like to make his building consistent with what his neighbor is doing. Mr. Denick stated the difficulty here is that he was consistent; he voted against both. Mr. Michell stated for him it was the first floor issue. Mr. Denick reiterated that part of it was the first floor issues. Mr. Hrabcak stated it is an interesting dynamic. He thinks it will end up being a very interesting look. He thinks they will end up with two different products here when it is all said and done; or maybe not. He does not know. It does not matter, he will bring in some other things for the Board to look at and then they will decide accordingly. ADMINISTRATIVE CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: Mr. Bitar said there were none. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Bitar said that the Board had previously approved a projecting sign for the real estate business on the second floor of the building at the northeast corner of College and State (ERA Real Solutions at 2½ N. State). After the sign was installed, the owners of the antique shop on the first floor of the building contacted Staff to complain that the positioning of the sign made it appear as if it were identifying their business. They have had people walk into their store thinking that it is the real estate office. Mr. Bitar said that he suggested that they talk to the landlord and that, if they wanted the issue to be brought to the Board s attention, they could submit a letter. They have done so. Apparently, the landlord did not realize exactly where the sign was going to go when he signed the application. He also did not know that mounting it was going to cause some new holes in the brick. Mr. Bitar reminded the

26 Page 26 Board members that the original proposal was to hang the sign lower to take advantage of existing holes in the brick where a previous sign apparently existed. Staff suggested to the applicant raising the sign so that it is visible above the awnings. He said most of the discussion during the meeting was about the sign color and size and not about the location. He said it does bring up an interesting issue because most signs are intended to identify first floor, not upper floor tenants. The owners of the antique shop were pointing out that other first floor businesses such as Talbot s Flowers have projecting signs at the same elevation. Mr. Bitar said that there is little the Board can do at this point since it is well past the appeal period, but it is something they probably should pay further attention to in the future. Board members concurred. Mr. Bitar said the owner of 30 E. College had requested postponement until the August meeting because he is out of town. He is looking at some additional options and, in the meantime, Staff is looking at securing advice from a professional. Mr. Bitar reminded Board members that the owner had offered tours of the building and asked if they were interested. Board members answered in the affirmative. Mr. Bitar gave a brief update on the Tea House site. He said there has been some progress and plans may be presented to the Planning Commission and this Board in the near future. Chairman Ruyack adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Brian Ruyack, Chairman Bassem Bitar, Secretary