The application for this project, submitted by Steven Joseph Squire on behalf of the owner, had been carried over from the May 2024 meeting. An architect, Caroline Grieco, presented the revised plans to the commission. The modifications included a reduction in glazing on the rear elevation by 15%, redesigned bulkheads to minimize visibility from the street, and clarified cornice details. The front elevation saw adjustments in brick coursing to ensure even window spacing, and the architectural plans now included full details of the front entry door and canopy.

The presentation also featured colored renderings to demonstrate the materials and colors proposed for the building, with brick samples provided for review. Grieco emphasized the intention to maintain a simplistic design that complements the historic character of the district. Two samples of brick were presented, with an alternate option preferred, yet open to the board’s opinions.

Commissioners raised various concerns, including window spacing, color choices for materials, and the importance of mortar color. One commissioner noted the shift from a curtain wall-like appearance to punched openings on the facade. Another suggested that the cast stone sills might be too light and proposed a darker color to better fit the district’s aesthetic.

The commission also discussed the canopy design, which remained a point of contention due to its depth and modern appearance. However, it was suggested that its street-level positioning would lessen its visibility and impact on the historic district.

Following the presentation and discussion, the staff report was referenced, indicating general consensus on moving forward with the design’s approval, with some clarifications required. The proposed height of the building matched adjacent structures and was not seen as disruptive to the streetscape. The recommendation for approval included several conditions, such as adding dimensions to the front facade, working with staff on sill and coping colors, and performing a mockup of brick and mortar samples for review.

The commission then moved to another application from the same applicant for a rear and fourth-story addition to an existing three-story building. The architect noted that the rear elevation had been redesigned, reducing the glazing by 15%. Concerns about the visibility of the fourth floor from the public right-of-way led to a proposal to condition the approval on the construction of the neighboring project on Bright Street.

The commission addressed the height and massing of the new building, noting that reducing the height by two inches could mitigate visibility over the cornice of existing structures. The lack of renderings showing visibility from directly across the street limited the ability to evaluate the building’s impact effectively. There were also discussions on the materials proposed, particularly the cornice color and trim, to ensure preservation of the existing historic fabric.

A test patch of the original brick on the building revealed that the paint could be removed relatively easily, influencing the design of the new structure. The commission suggested differentiating the architectural treatment between historic elements and new additions, especially on the side facade.

Further, the commission discussed variances required for the project due to the undersized lot, particularly a rear yard setback variance. The possibility of considering the applications for a property on Bright Street and the adjacent building as one was raised but clarified that they were separate lots.

In another case discussed, a proposal for a facade treatment and roof deck addition was reviewed. Conditions related to the visibility of the roof deck from the public right-of-way were set, specifying that no portion of the roof deck or accessories should be visible. An amendment to reduce the height of the rooftop addition by two inches was recommended. The commission agreed that the proposed color of the water table and stoop should be “classic brown,” and discussions on adjusting the stucco color were held.

The commission’s staff affirmed that the proposed roof deck and renovations were consistent with historic standards and would not adversely affect the Van Vorst Park historic district’s character. The COA was approved with the outlined conditions, receiving unanimous support from the commissioners.