Landmarks Commission

Page 1 City of Dayton Landmark Commission Meeting Case Record May 16, 2024 1. Removal of chimney for approval - Case # PLN2024-00124 – 633 Oak St – A Major modification to remove a chimney on the home that is in a considerable state of disrepair. Applicant: Jesse I Hannan Owner: Jesse I Hannan 633 Oak St 633 Oak St Dayton, OH 45410 Dayton, OH 45410 Priority Land Use Board:Downtown Planning District: South Park Historic District: South Park Decision: Denied Case Presentation Ms. Hornbeak presented the case. The request is to remove a chimney that is in a state of sever disrepair. The applicant would like to avoid rebuilding the chimney If possible. Photographs showing the condition of the existing chimney and statement from a roofing company were submitted. Information from a previous case in 2020 to remove this same chimney was submitted. The owner and applicant, Jesse Hannan, was present to answer any questions. Mr. Hannan stated that he felt the chimney, in its current condition, was a safety hazard. Mr. Holley asked how long the applicant has owned the property, and also asked about the condition of the chimney stack. MR. Hannan stated he has owned the home for 6 years and that the chimney stack is in decent condition below the roof. Public Comments No public comments. Board Discussion The Board discussed the proposal. Mr. Gow thought that the estimate provided to rebuild the chimney didn’t seem too outrageous, but that it did seem high, and suggested that the applicant get a few more estimates for the reconstruction of the chimney. Mr. Holley noted that this chimney is the only chimney on the home, and that it is highly visible. Mr. Gow noted that the maintenance of historic details is what makes historic districts special. Board Action A motion was made by Ms. Sebald and seconded by Mr. Johnson to deny PLN2024-00124 – 633 Oak Street. Mr. Gow Yes Ms. McNicholl Yes Mr. Heckman Yes Ms. Sebald Yes Mr. Johnson Yes Mr. Holley Yes Ms. Maragano Yes Approved by Landmark Commission (7 in favor, 0 opposed) Elizabeth Dakin, Secretary, Landmark Commission  Page 2 City of Dayton Landmark Commission Meeting Case Record May 16, 2024 2. Modification of exterior door for approval - Case # PLN2024-00125 – 101 Linden Avenue – A Major Modification to modify an entrance door on the 1918 (est.) addition. New door configuration will have a single swing door instead of the existing set of double doors, which will necessitate some infill of the opening with trim elements. Applicant: Linden Ave Baptist Church Owner: Linden Ave Baptist Church c/o Steve Force 101 Linden Ave 101 Linden Ave Dayton, OH 45403 Dayton, OH 45403 Priority Land Use Board: Northeast Planning District: Historic Inner East Historic District: Huffman Decision: Tabled Case Presentation Ms. Hornbeak presented the case. The request is to modify an existing entrance door on an addition to the church, constructed in 1920. The existing double doors would be replaced with a single door and the opening would be partially framed in with trim. The request is due in part to concerns about the accessibility of the entrance, and the desire to install an automated door opener. A sketch of the proposed new door was submitted. Photographs of the existing door and church were submitted. Information on the history of the addition was submitted. The applicant, Steve Force, was present to answer any questions. Ms. Sebald had asked staff about the measurements of the opening, but staff did not have that information. Mr. Force said the opening was, to his best estimate, 54” wide. Mr. Force explained his proposal, noting that the existing door didn’t have an area to properly mount the horizontal automatic door opener arm (desired to make the entrance more accessible). Mr. Force also reported that the door was in poor condition but had no evidence of the condition of the door nor any images showing the interior of the opening. Public Comments No public comments. Board Discussion The Board discussed the proposal. Overall, the Landmark Commission felt that the existing door was likely original to the building, and that more effort should be made to retain these doors. The Commission discussed potential solutions or alternatives with the applicant, and said that, if the existing door was truly not compatible with any automatic door opener or accessible entry hardware, that they would need to see more evidence to that fact. Ms. McNichol and Ms. Sebald explained that they would want to see a to-scale floorplan of the entrance, which showed the landing and door. Board Action A motion was made by Mr. Heckman and seconded by Ms. Sebald to table Case # PLN2024- 00125 – 101 Linden Avenue until more information on the existing door, the plan drawings for the accessible entrance, and information on the automatic door opener hardware could be provided.  Page 3 City of Dayton Landmark Commission Meeting Case Record May 16, 2024 Mr. Gow Yes Ms. McNicholl Yes Mr. Heckman Yes Ms. Sebald Yes Mr. Johnson Yes Mr. Holley Yes Ms. Maragano Yes Approved by Landmark Commission (7 in favor, 0 opposed) Elizabeth Dakin, Secretary, Landmark Commission  Page 4 City of Dayton Landmark Commission Meeting Case Record May 16, 2024 3. Demolition of significant accessory structure for review - Case # PLN2024-00141 – 1916 E Third Street – A Major Modification to remove the rear apartment building at 1916 E Third Street and construct a garage to fit a similar form. Applicant: Terry Perdue Owner: Terry Perdue 1916 E Third St 1916 E Third St Dayton, OH 45403 Dayton, OH 45403 Priority Land Use Board: Northeast Planning District: Historic Inner East Historic District: Huffman Decision: Approved as Submitted Case Presentation Ms. Dakin presented the case. The request is to review the condition and potential demolition of the rear accessory structure (an apartment building) and called back the information that had been submitted at the concept review on 2/15/2024 where it was found that the demolition of the building was appropriate given the “demolition by neglect” it suffered by the previous owners as well as few opportunities for this apartment building to operate with little parking and no way to divide the lots. Cost estimates for the ongoing rehabilitation of the primary structure were submitted. Information on the history of the structure and current condition photographs were submitted. Elevations and floorplans were submitted for a proposed garage that would fit the area of the existing apartment building. As proposed, it matches the roof style, pitch, dormers, and massing of the existing structure. Terry Perdue, the applicant, was present to answer any questions. Mr. Perdue discussed plans for a new garage at the rear of the property, which would be constructed after the existing accessory structure was removed. Mr. Holley asked if they were proposing vinyl siding and the applicant confirmed that they were not. The applicant further clarified that the trimming around the windows does not matter to him -they would put anything in that would be acceptable. He also clarified that the second story would eventually be potentially finished for an upstairs apartment but that it would not be immediately. Mr. Perdue stated that the building would be up sometime next year. Public Comments No public comments. Board Discussion The Board discussed the proposal. They concurred with the previous statements they had made about the building at the concept review. Ms. Sebald pointed out the potential building code issues at play with the building being 3ft or closer to the property line. Such as, they may not be able to put windows on the sides of the building. The Board clarified that the final building plans for the new garage would need to come back for review including the information about the siding and windows proposed. Mr. Gow Yes Ms. McNicholl Yes Mr. Heckman Yes Ms. Sebald Yes Mr. Johnson Yes Mr. Holley Yes Ms. Maragano Yes  Page 5 City of Dayton Landmark Commission Meeting Case Record May 16, 2024 Approved by Landmark Commission (7 in favor, 0 opposed) Elizabeth Dakin, Secretary, Landmark Commission