Uh into the historic architectural review board meeting of June 1st, 2026.

Harb is an advisory body to city council.

City Council renders the final decision of HARB recommendations.

Under the direction of the historic design guidelines, HARB review covers the general design arrangement, texture, material, and color of a building restructure.

We'll also examine how these factors relate to similar features around your building.

Anyone in attendance wishing to comment on any of the listed items on tonight's agenda are required to sign in for reference purposes.

Sign the sheets right there by the door.

Staff will introduce and present the proposal through a prepared report and provided to the applicant and board members for review prior to this evening's meeting.

The applicant can then provide additional context to the proposal before discussion.

Presentations are limited to 30 minutes and comments from any interested party other than the applicant to five minutes.

After the presentation, the board will discuss the merits of the project among themselves, but will ask the applicant and staff for relevant information to supplement the discussion.

After the deliberation, HARP will recommend to approve as submitted or approve with conditions, deny with explanation, or table the project for further discussion.

If the applicant is not present at the meeting, or information pledge is not sufficient, the board may table a project until the next meeting to provide the opportunity.

Proposal will only be tabled once.

If requirements are not satisfied with the polling meeting, the board may automatically recommend for denial and require the applicant to reapply for a new certificate of appropriateness.

Our recommendations will be forwarded to the next available city council meeting for climate resolution.

And meanwhile, no work can proceed until council resolution or certificate of appropriateness is received.

Once received, you will then be able to pull any official permits associated with the project.

All right, let's move on to roll call.

All right, we'll begin roll call.

We have AJ Jordan.

Here.

We have David Hubert.

Here.

Bill Park.

Here.

Alex N.

Skalestry.

Here.

Addie Shire.

One accent.

We do have quorum.

All right.

Thank you.

We'll move on to minutes from the May 4th, 2026 meeting.

Have everyone had a chance to read the minutes.

Any comments or updates?

Oh, is there a motion to approve minutes?

By Dave, second by Philip.

Those in favor of approving May 4th minutes.

Okay.

Any opposed.

Okay.

Move on to new business, 233 North Ninth Street.

Michelle Evans.

All right.

Do you want to move up to the table?

I'll set we'll begin with the staff reading.

Violation correction.

Building description.

This three-story brick grow house was built in 1870 in second empire with Tiny Influence.

Advanced roof displays scallops, slate shingles, stencil freeze, delineated cornice, single chimney, windows.

On the first and second floors are one over one sash with a tiny eyebrow lintels.

The main entry is a glazed double door with trans by a projecting a tiny eyebrow lintel that is in size and has stops.

Concrete steps have rough iron railing.

There are two basement window grills visible.

And the project description, the property owners looking to legalize the fiberglass door that has been installed and obtain a COA certificate of appropriateness.8 replace doors in kind.

If repair is not feasible, replacement doors should replicate the original material design size profile and operation.

Original doors may be used as a template for replication.

What is the most appropriate material for residential doors?

Panel wood doors should have the same number size and profile of panels as a historic door.

The original design is building style and date of construction should inform the appropriate replacement.9 replace the door will alternate materials.

If in kind replacement is not feasible, deposit wood doors and fiberglass doors are acceptable replacements if the new doors match the original in size, style, configuration, detail, and appearance.

However, these products are not recommended from sustainability perspective.

They have shorter lifespans and deteriorate with exposed to when exposed to moisture, weathering and temperature variation.

For replacement doors, avoid metal doors, including metal metal doors that imitate paneled wood, that they do not have the same appearance and texture of historic.

Avoid pre-hung doors, doors that are purchased already installed in the frame when replacing the doors because these require the removal of historic fabric and can change the size and opening.

Um section 3.611 considered replacement of the previously altered door with historically appropriate wood door.

Then we have number two and six of applicable Secretary of Interior Standards.

Um staff's observation on May 6th, 2026 staff issue a notice of violation to the property owner of 233 North 9th Street regarding removal and replacement of the historic double door along 9th Street without first obtaining certificate of appropriateness.

Property owner standard that the original door was in disrepair and poses safety concern.

However, because the original doors were discarded, evidence demonstrating that these could not have been repaired with liability.

Umors are character finding feature consistent with many of the surrounding structures on the block.

The replacement door proposed for legalization is a fibergrass pre-hung door with six lights.

The new door is smaller than the original opening, resulting in the installation of solid filler panels on either side of the accommodating the reduced size.

Staff finds the style and proportions of the replacement door are not historically appropriate, negatively um impact the established rhythm and character of the ninth street state.

Legalize the installation fiberglass door and recommends that the application be granted a specified time period to install a double-glazed door more closely than matches your original design guidelines.

Staff recommends denied thank you, staff for that reading.

Uh Ms.

Evans, do you have anything you'd like to add to the proposal?

In regards to uh staff comments, we'll ask additional questions, but is there anything you'd like to provide additional um in regard to this application?

No, not at this time until you I mean but you have questions.

Sure.

Uh yeah, so as we discussed last time, um, in order to approve a door, uh there's kind of two sets.

So it's like we need to know the condition of the previous door, and then uh discuss whether the new door is in keeping with the guidelines.

Um I have a letter from my contractor.

Okay.

The letter for seeing construction to the McConservative pristine construction was called by homeowner Michelle Evans to evaluate the repair of her front door at the 233 North Knight Street Alentown PA upon evaluating the front door.

We determined it was unfixable.

Both panels were severely rooted on the bottom.

Um, and the left panel was damaged by the top hinge.

Due to this, the door would not be able to close properly.

And since we could not get a replacement for this door, it was decided to replace it with a one with one 36-inch single door made of fiber batch to be able to withstand the weather.

This will also prevent rotting the future door size 36 by 85 request PVC.

So it sounds like the the issues, I'm assuming that was rod.

So it was rather routed in the bottom and didn't fit the frame in the top.

Those were the issues with the previous.

Yeah, it wouldn't lock on top, and you couldn't replace like I couldn't get a new lock to go.

It wouldn't accept a new locking system.

It was just too rotted for that.

So I would guess it was the mortise lock that was built into the door.

Was that what was uh damaged, or was it the C Red top and bottom?

It was at top and bottom.

Reefs do anything about the wood on the inside.

I'm sorry.

Did they do any effect any for repair on the inside of the door?

It wasn't repairable, and we were having issues with transients coming inside.

Um, so if it wasn't that I could replace I could fix the door.

The standard we would have to were any photographs taken of the door?

I just have I had the one that I submitted.

I have ones maybe that are older.

Um, we need to determine the actual condition of the door at least.

Well, I didn't I didn't realize number one that I had to come before the board, I would have changed the contractors should have known.

Yeah, my understanding when I spoke with the contractor, he stated that it was my responsibility.

reference the kind of the standard we would have to take for any photographs taken of the door i just have i have the one that i submitted i have ones maybe that are older um well we need to determine the actual condition of the door at the time at least well i didn't i didn't realize number one that i had to come before the board i would have taken the contractor should have known yeah my understanding when i spoke with the contractor he stated that it was my responsibility which were actually both of your responsibility for your own protection was right but i mean if i had known when the when the property was transferred into my name last year that i was responsible to know to come before your the board i would have um however i didn't receive any notification about any responsibility for the exterior until this past month i know we went around every house last summer anyway it's well you couldn't have gone to my house if it if i if i if i'm if i live well i would in that it would have been put in this at this house not wherever you live well how do you how do you do that with uh we do door hangers no but how do you how do you notify the the owner if if it's a a tenant occupied building that's that's everything there's anytime you have new owners in the historic description right a list of the addresses we get notifications to let them know that they're located in the historic district we give them literature that directs them to our website yeah but I didn't receive that last year when the when the property was transferred I would have come before you yeah um sorry to receive I know it I know it's regularly done to 12 properties uh but uh yeah it's it's still the third rule so I um I'm not sure we can take that into account for any ruling here but I'm sorry if that happened yeah I am too and and considering that what I have right next door to me is the tattoo power and right next door to that is this obstrosity and right next door to that is that obstrosity and this is what I have which is a very nice it is a very beautiful building I'm really it's good to see well taking care of buildings like that that's why I need a variance.

Well I I'm not I'm I'm not sure we can provide a variance.

Well you can you can I it goes before council is that correct isn't I understand the process if with your recommendation it would yeah um yeah and we uh we have to put everything against the guidelines and I understand that there's neighboring properties that are probably also going through a similar process um no you've been like this forever I I've lived on the street for 20 years.

Yes I just came before city council six months ago to try to get it stopped from being turned into a tattoo I understand but so removal of the old doors um I'm not sure we have much evidence to go up there.

Um is the contractor it does he specialize in historic um restoration no probably not he's not really a qualified to to say if it's repairable or not why would he not be qualified because he's not a historic well it does if if he doesn't do that that there's a lot of methods that you could restore almost any door or or window um sometimes you replace one of the pieces like the the rail or the style and then you're good to go but it's almost anything's repairable.

Um and then the the second test is whether the new door is in keeping with the guidelines there's definitely a change in configuration lights um and material um contractors still have the old door no you're out of doors Alex now unfortunately yeah people that high demand doors so I um I looked into the mill work around here um the their start mill work I can't really make that recommendation but it's their lead time is about 18 to 20 weeks uh that's I found out there there were some similar doors at local salvage operations um so up in scrants and and uh they have some double doors in stock so guidelines 3.6 point nine do allow fiber class as acceptable replacement because they match the original in size style configuration detail and appearance which these don't uh the only doors that uh like in salvage would be they're incorrect they're for seventh street and they they're like a hundred and twelve inches uh I would imagine this is probably did you do uh measurement on this or I think it was 42 originally 42 you had 22 inches uh so at least there's other doors in town that are of the same configuration

Uh I would imagine this is probably did you do uh measurement on this?

Or I think it was 42 originally.

22 inches.

Uh so at least there's other doors in town that are of the same configuration.

I guess I'm reviewing the guidelines to see if there's anything that anything that we could point to that could potentially allow this door.

Um struggle with so I did see that the fiberglass is allowable, but it's the configuration of the divided lights that doesn't appear to be similar to any historic district.

Um the change in dual single door, it's a lot that that expresses not to do that.

Um I mean, I saw that you had the the full panel doors without any lights in it that is that was on the list that was was on the approved lens.

I had a two-third light for reach before.

I think that's what so that's over like you if you have like something that you can point to to say, I I believe this means the guidelines are display.

I can well it it didn't when I looked, and I think I gave it to my contractor when I looked up the guidelines for everything, it showed the different, but it showed a solid panel versus I think there's a there's a part in there where it gives it a couple visual display.

Right.

What we're talking about this diagram?

Yes, right.

Exactly right.

So those were not acceptable.

But that one was.

But no, I do that.

Of course, this was after the fact when I bought the door, you know, this was after I was here last month.

Typical door styles, but it's underneath a like a period listing.

So the period listing for 1890 to 1910, which I believe this building is.

Well here's how many 1870?

Okay.

So we're looking at that.

It's common, but it's not right.

And the work is three 3.6.12 is to avoid replacing the historic door for the first thermal performance, which was just that doesn't really apply here.

I mean, isn't it a matter of opinion as to whether or not I I could have avoided um replacement on, you know, I mean so I mean you're not gonna put I'm basing it off of the fact that that I went to my contractor and asked and and asked for you know well and that's that's kind of why I moved to the second standard because that's the second the second part is easier for us to read the guidelines and determine that first part is a little more gray and difficult to determine.

So I think we need to determine first whether the replacement door is in keeping and then and then go back a little bit.

But you know, our the reason we have a board is because there's guidelines and everything, it's kind of subject to interpretation, it's not really subject to opinion.

It's we're trying to read the language that the code put out there to make sure that things are in keeping with it.

And that language does sometimes get a little blurry, and that's why there's there's a board to look at it, but I'm struggling to find anywhere in the language that would support the approval of this door.

Um beyond that first standard of whether the original door could be replaced.

Um I'm not seeing anything.

We've got a staff recommendation for straight denial.

Um, but I'm I'm curious if anybody else has so typically when we're reading these guidelines too, it's not so we're we're saying that the original one was irreparable, so we need a new one if we accept that, which I think we have no choice but to to do that.

But um the the new door needs to it's not hey, take your pick from these six pre-approved designs.

It's saying hey, these are uh designs that are consistent that are in other cases consistent with what was the point is that it should replicate as closely as possible to the original door that was on there.

Um so this door looks great, it's not consistent with the original styling.

It ends up being fine, it's not preferred, but who cares?

Good from work, right?

So we're not talking about the fire less.

That it's the fact that that is so divergent from what the original design was.

And you know, we've also made cases though where we say, hey, if there's consistency or a context on that block or the blocks where like most if that was period correct for that house, then we could kind of make the exception there too.

I don't think that that is, if I'm I'm not mistaken.

So because it's just a different style than what was originally there, and it's not contextually the same as the rest of the block.

Well, says you need to repeat restore and reuse existing door frames, scams and some really components.

So that's not hasn't been done here either.

There's like multiple things that apply here that not.

So yeah, and I'm struggling, so I'm struggling to find a way not to get to a denial, but then the resolution of how we move beyond that's what I want to get to is like what's a good way forward.

Um there needs to be a phone's replacement, keeping the guidelines out there.

The the I think the major problem with the story, even though it looks nice.

I agree, it does look nice.

It it's the divided light pattern doesn't match the historic district.

So, like the the organization of the windows doesn't match any of the period doors from anywhere from 1870 to 1920, even if we went that far.

Um and it's really hard for us to do anything other than deny that.

Um door instead of two, right?

Different configuration.

And I mean there are single doors in the district.

I think there is a possibility of that making its way to approval, but especially without the context, it sounds like we just showed that there's not the neighboring door to match that.

Like they might have been able to fit a 42-inch door in there.

Um without the measurements, I don't know, but that's about the limit that you're gonna get a residential door in.

It might have fit the opening, I don't know.

So in other situations where where we've had this, people have had to find original doors um elsewhere from other historic districts or have them custom made.

If we don't want to go to custom aid, there are a lot of original doors out there.

Often they're local from other places that have moved remove their doors, but it sounds like our our local door store doesn't have them right now.

Um I think that I think that we're gonna have to kind of do some research and and chat with Brandon about that to get a resolution, but for right now, I'm not sure there's anything we can do other than table or deny.

We could table it if you want to do some research to find an appropriate door to replace if that's the route you'd like to go.

And we could table it a month to see if we can approve a door for you to get it get it fixed without it going that next denial step, or it goes to denial, goes to council, and then not sure if that end moves to a fine that you know this depends on what council does it.

Um I think those are kind of the two paths we have right here, but I'm not seeing anything in the guidelines that I'm gonna need more than a month.

I can't resolve this issue in a month.

Okay.

Well, we're not asking you to fix it in a month.

We're I'm not even knowing that I can get a resolution in a month or to bring something before you again in a month.

So then I think the only thing we can do here today is is denial, but there are other steps for how to resolve it.

So from the board's perspective, I think all we can do is deny, and then hopefully in the process before it moves in a different direction, we can find a suitable door to bring it back before here to potentially find a suitable alternate for this.

Uh but it's got to go through the denial and then resubmission process because we can't table more than a month.

Okay, that's fine.

Yeah.

So anything else?

I'm sorry that you're dealing with this process, but yeah, you may want to talk the contract issue.

Yeah, I would definitely know.

It's not the contract is fall.

Well, there is no it's not a contract's laws.

I should have known better.

So however, I didn't realize that when I this got transferred that I need I needed to do this.

Now I know.

So if I do any more work, now I know.

But this is up and the burden on me is fine, and I'll figure it out.

I think we'll have to move forward with that denial, but we are hoping to resolve this summer in the future.

Uh just make sure you're keeping communication with Brandon on that.

Um I'm sorry, I I just don't see anything.

So any other comments from the board.

I wouldn't not let the contract off the hook.

I would partially some restitution.

I don't think you I appreciate that you take personal ownership because it's your property, and I don't think it can be this is kind of tangential.

I don't think you would want to transfer all ownership on the the contractor, but when you contracted that person, they accepted some of the responsibility appointments or if I have to replace the door, he'll do it for me.

And he's in, and he's not gonna charge me if you know.

I mean, I have that relationship, but it's just it's just the whole thing here, it's just very frustrating.

To say the least.

And for me to have to go and try to find door exactly like that is just crazy.

That's just my personal data.

Anyway, yeah, that's that's what we always recommend repair repair before.

Um, but here we are, we're here.

So I think we should move forward to denial just so to help move this process along.

Um someone would like to make a motion.

Make the motion.

Yeah, yeah.

All right.

Um, I'll uh the language here.

I'll move uh to deny the application for 233 North Ninth Street.

Um presented on June 1st, 2026 for um approval of uh door installation violation.

Um that there are the replacement door is not in keeping with um guidelines 3.6.8, 6.9, 3.611.

Um not circumstances to this property that concludes my motion.

Is there a second?

Second from Philip, all those in favor for denial.

All right, any opposed.

Okay.

So I'm sorry that you've had to come back here two months in a row.

Um that moves to council.

And then um, if you do find a replacement door, send it to Brandon.

Hopefully, we can get some movement before you have to spend some time going back here because we would really like to move forward.

It doesn't need to be identical.

Um, but it doesn't be in keeping with that time period and kind of in the guidelines.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Good to know.

All right, that concludes new business.

Uh we got violations, anything successful violations.

Okay.

Moving on to other business.

We've got ripple church conversion, discussion of the ripple church conversion proceedings, clarification.

Um there's stat reading here.

Nope.

It's just open discussion.

It's open discussion.

Um, I can take this off since I was the one that asked for this.

Um at the West Park meeting, you guys did a great presentation.

Talk about what the next steps were as far as process.

And I'm sorry for for the record, uh guys.

Brandon, I'm sorry, Brandon, Kevin.

Right.

Yep.

Um, thank you for doing that.

You guys are great.

Always come under fire when standing in front of the community.

Um, and so there's a lot of discussion on the door and the the windows, and so I was uh happy to tell everybody look, I made this motion when we talked about this.

We're just talking about four windows of a very minor piece of what's gonna come down.

Um, and so I went back and reviewed the plan.

So the first conversation that we had was on as far as this group was in October, and then we had a second in November.

October when we reviewed the plans, the context, the conversation, um, and that I think it was a W7 note pointed to the front and rear windows of the the east and west facing the wall.

So and and I know that I said, you know, I hate I listened to all the transcripts and and uh listen to the the recording.

So I hate to see, I always hate to see any of these windows committos going, understanding what the idea and the mission of this project is, you know, kind of cave on that, and let's move forward and fix a bunch of the other little things, which is some lights and some plaques and all this stuff.

So that was the the conversation in October was all right, let's just document the the ones that we come down.

It was again it was those four windows, not 14.

Um then in November we came into the meeting, and um the did that the meeting mostly virtual.

I read a hybrid meeting, and so we came in and the discussion focused only on the new changes that were there, which addressed all the things that we asked for.

There was a change on the windows, and the note says that hey, there was an updated update to the windows to replace stain glass windows.

The change includes an adjustment to the output window and the emplacement within the window system, resulting from energy code requirements, and the staff finds the change to be relatively minor and has no objection.

And then there were some other things about the double, some other very minor things said, okay, great, that answers that.

Now let's talk about the mechanical and utility equipment, the fences, the streetscape, the accessibility, exterior lighting.

And I made the motion saying, Great, let's move forward.

Um, so then fast forwarding to two months ago at the West Park meeting, when I went back and reviewed the plans, I saw that the plans actually changed from October to November, and the November now included that note on all 14 windows.

Um, so I don't find that acceptable.

I don't think that was the context um by which I was making the the motion to approve.

Yeah, and those of us online didn't have the chance to to fully see it.

And it's glitchy, you can couldn't even hear the audio very well either.

And what they did say though is that they were replacing several windows, and 14 is a far cry from 14 or what they originally told us.

Yeah.

So I would like to see, I just would like to get confirmation to affirm up that in fact if this project is moving forward, then we'll be replacing the large windows, the two in the front and the two in the back on the east and west facing.

It doesn't look like that's what the plans call for.

Um, so and so I'm a little uh uh so I understand the frustration here with uh potentially not uh understanding the full scope as we ruled on it.

This was two and a half years ago.

I'm struggling with the process here, like so what resolution it's even legally possible, because as far as from my perspective, we ruled on something, and Ripple is the applicant, um, right?

Uh and Ripple has followed all of our recommendations this last couple years.

So I don't know what remedy like including finding a reputable place for the windows in Philadelphia.

So I'm struggling with even if we were to determine that there maybe was some misrepresentation.

What corrective action are you proposing?

That the plans revert as far as the large window replacement that they're the four would move, but not the 14.

But uh like I don't even think we have a we don't have like a mechanism for doing that.

Well, so uh Mark Hartney on the deputy director for the is it okay if I shred the speech so um we reviewed we went back and reviewed the staff reports um from the original submission, and in there under windows, um, it says the applicant proposes to retain all stained glass windows on the primary two street facade, including the large character defining tripartite window above the main entrance.

Staff finds the retention of these windows to be a significant and commendable preservation effort.

The application further proposes to replace the large stained glass windows on the east and west elevations.

It says the windows.

Uh and here's the thing.

I recall I recall both these meetings that they recall them differently, which is why it's important that we put everything in the minutes and notes because I recall being surprised that this window discussion wasn't a bigger deal back in October of 23.

Well, so in October, and and and I understand that from your perspective, that's because it was only four of the 14 windows.

From my perspective, I know I would have made a bigger deal if it was only four of the 14 windows because I don't know about symmetry.

I'd have been like, why are we only approving four out of 14 windows?

From my perspective, I was always approving the entire east and west facade.

Um so I'm struggling to appreciate that there was like a definite misrepresentation.

I think it's I am seeing us that it's interpreting some words completely.

Um and and so I I can appreciate that you don't feel that way, but I know let me respond to that.

Yeah, yeah.

So I don't think that there was a misrepresentation.

I'm not saying maybe there wasn't, but it wasn't.

I'm still not I'm not gonna go down that route.

That's not what I'm trying to do.

When we met in October and talked, the plans had four windows definitively, right?

And that was the discussion, the context of the discussion.

And we said, okay, moving forward from there, here's the other items that we need to fix.

Then, and unbeknownst to us because we didn't have a chance to review the plans.

When the plans were then put in front of the application on in November, it changed to 14 windows.

I was unaware of that.

Okay.

So there are two sets of plans.

I believe the new plans had all the other minor changes that are noted here.

All right.

Um, so the talk about two sets of plans that were submitted.

The new ones, and so when staff was making all the recommendations incorrectly outlining those things for the new ones, right?

The lights and all that stuff.

She did not, and in the writing, it does not talk about there being, hey, it's moving from four windows to 14.

At that point, it would have been kind of great to say, like, oh, by the way, there's a pretty major change.

The only thing that we have in the listens to both meetings numerous times.

I'm looking at all the notes, and the notes in the November meeting say, hey, it's just a minor change.

Here's the things.

It doesn't talk about the whole window systems being placed.

So I'm not saying if there was intentional, um, but I also think as an act of good faith, since wasn't part of the conversation.

Yeah, it would have been great times for anybody who knew it was going from four to fourteen to say, hey, just to roll on the same page.

We're we changed plans to go from four to fourteen.

That's yeah, so that that's the base of this conversation.

I I don't know if there's this has ever been done to say, oh, let's withdraw the COA.

I would like to do that, but that's that's just kind of my opinion.

Um, but I yeah, I'd like to why would why do we go from four to fourteen and why can't we go back to four?

The whole community is kind of in uproar.

And so that's what I'm representing as well.

I know we we voted on this thing, but the context of my um of my approval motion was based off the original plans of all windows and then all the minor changes that we talked about in November.

So a couple of things.

One, this was two and a half years ago.

Yeah, you guys pulled other permits and started work.

We pulled a permit.

Yeah.

So um, and that permit was based on the certificate of appropriateness.

Uh that was issued two and a half years ago.

So, you know, I I think you're gonna run you can make a recommendation to city council.

I don't know that we've ever had something where the board made a recommendation to council, and then two and a half years later came to a different conclusion.

Um so I I don't know how they would handle that.

Um, and I don't want to put you on here.

Um, but like the other thing that I'm uh thinking here when I think about this property.

You have a church that was a church, now it's being reused for another purpose.

So like the standard that you're looking for is adaptive reuse.

I don't know that like they're not altering the window openings, they're keeping the arch windows, like the but stained glass isn't gonna work for the residential.

Right.

And I recall, and this is why I recall it differently, Philip, because I've always seen that as a change of use behind those windows.

They're they're bedrooms behind those windows, and when I was reading those original plans, I read that as all the windows because I don't I it never in my mind made sense for some of the rooms to have different windows and other things to not.

Um so from my perspective, it was always all the windows.

I I'm not talking about recollection, I'm talking about what was actually said at the meeting and what was before us because that's I went back and listened and watched all those meetings.

Okay.

Um that's fine.

Um I'm still not sure what remedy.

I'm curious.

I I mean, just what was the interesting for answers?

Well, I'm also kind of wondering, yeah, why when the plans were modified and we talked about all the modifications in the meeting and move forward.

Going from four to fourteen windows is a pretty significant thing.

Why wasn't that you know put forward in good faith to say we didn't talk about that?

Just want to make sure you guys know we're given away on the same page.

Why was that kind of it feels like it sounds like it was kind of a bait and switch?

And I'm not I'm not implying that, but I'm saying, you know, why wasn't that was a very significant change that wasn't discussed?

Why was that not brought up?

So I'm happy to respond to that, but I want to start by saying I I was not notified of this meeting.

I was not notified that our project was being placed back on this agenda.

I learned about it by happenstance on Saturday afternoon.

I our architect is not here, right?

We had no opportunity to prepare for any kind of conversation here.

I think my my first question, and I'm happy to address yours, Bill, but my first question is I'd really like to understand how this property, how this project landed back on an agenda two and a half years after it received unanimous approval from this board.

I if there's a precedent for that having ever been done in the past, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Otherwise, I'm very concerned that our project is being singled out in this way.

It makes it quite uncomfortable.

Uh in response, Bill, to your question, I the plans were not were not changed.

There was never a different plan when it came to the windows.

The residential use always required those windows to be replaced with clear glass, which is why if you and I I'm not sure where the four, I'm not sure where the notion of the four is coming from.

Um, but if you look at the the photos even and the documents that were provided by Meredith at the time, they have essentially those photos, right?

Showing the both sides of the building, saying that the windows will be replaced.

So these are one.

So this is a this is a combination of the so on the plans that were submitted for the October meeting showed something like that top right one where it points to the outward ones, right?

And then on the November meeting, then the note is on all like on the bottom.

Again, this was approved.

Yeah, I must not unanimously two and a half years ago.

So I think if there's if there's precedent for reopening it, I'd be interested.

Because this isn't other business.

This isn't we're not there's nothing to vote on for us tonight.

Um because I also share that concern.

I've not um keep asking what the process is here because there's nothing we can vote on here tonight.

Um that would I don't believe there's even a possibility for us to rescind that COA.

So I think this is more of an open discussion on there appears to be a difference of opinion on the board and how we got there, and I appreciate you being here to answer questions for that.

But I don't think this is an official agenda item that we're talking about rescinding here.

And what I would say with plans, I did look at the two separate sets of plans and talked to it with some of our plans reviewers.

And I I think what happened in the first set of plans.

It was the way it was notated.

Um I could see how you could think they were only talking about four, but the note included all of the windows on that elevation.

Um when we talked about it with our plan reviewer, he said, you know, they the way they submitted it the second time, it was clear that all the windows were included.

Um, but the way it was submitted the first time that it wasn't right, it wasn't clear.

It implied the form and well, that was what the conversation is.

But the way the plan reviewer interpreted it when he just looked at it now.

He was like, I would have assumed all of the windows were included in.

Okay, because the way I interpreted it in the way different pointing to the end windows, just a short arrow, and yeah, nothing else.

But there wasn't a bracket, it wasn't it was very high, easy to think if you're not used to reviewing plans, I could we're not planning, right?

And why did it change on the next set of plans?

And maybe that's why I was has always had this this because I've always viewed it as all 14 windows.

I I I know I always did because I would have commented on why we would only be doing the corner windows, and maybe it's because I do review plans.

So maybe that was a difference in how we review plans, and maybe that's a learning lesson for us.

But uh I I am I agree in going back.

I did not understand this to be four windows at any point in this process.

Um so uh I I don't know how we interpreted them differently.

It sounds like the arrows might be the thing.

I think that it sounds like they've been an effort to make it more clear in the second meeting.

So I'm struggling again with but the fact that they said it was several windows reinforced the thought that it was only pointing to those several on the building.

There's no other way different set of plans that were submitted as part of the application process.

Clearly showed the all of those.

We didn't really see a review.

So I understand there's a I understand that this is not all right, and I I it's just it's very I think this is why all I did I by the way, I'm not trying to pull fast on you guys, right?

I'm not like this just got on the thing to talk about, right?

Yeah, it's the discussion.

Let's not have that.

Um again, I appreciate the being.

It's just when when you're looking at the review in the November, it noted it notes all of the changes, all of the updates from the October to the November plans.

And it does not change it from several to all so when I read the first plan and the staff review of the first, like I don't interpret it as four, I interpret it as all the windows.

Maybe, but like they could have said the exact number of windows, but like when I read the staff report, to me, I take it as all the windows on the east and west elevations.

That's true, and that's coming from a professional from a high level view from the public.

Looking at the plans and the notes from the first one.

We can see here that the inference is several, it's four windows.

It's noted physically on the drawing is four, and the language supports that, right?

So that's so and I'm not a professional.

Yeah, there's one thing 99% of the people that are looking no, and I and I see that, but I mean, one thing that the planner also wanted us to mention that in the original plans, it's W7, and this zooms in on a particular window, which is not an outer window.

So I think that was their way of also saying they showed a window in the area.

I mean, uh of one of the seven that we're referring to, right?

Or I guess one of 14.

One of them, right?

Sure, but it's not zoomed in on any of the outer windows because I think there was the focus that this is going to be including a window on the interior, not just the two outer edges on one side or the four combined.

It's and I'm just saying it was just another piece of the pie of like someone took a specific effort to zoom in on one of the windows that was in the interior to show that's not just the exterior.

That I'm thinking from a layman's perspective that that further solidified the understanding that I had, not that but why though?

If you're saying it's the two outer ones and they're zoomed in on an inner window, why would you think that's uh only referring to one of the four?

What plans it was from the October plans.

And again, I'm also going back to that's why we have work for us to interpret things because again, I've always interpreted it as all 14 windows.

So I I don't know where I I'm understanding that that was not interpreted by everyone the same way, but I think it's that's why we have a board to understand what we're looking at.

I also am struggling with why we're I I am struggling with why we're discussing this again.

I thought we discussed this at last month's meeting and we discussed this two years ago.

I oh I didn't we review lots of applications with less information, and it seems like they followed all of the appropriate steps.

Um I'm I sent an email saying can we talk about this?

Sure, sure, sure.

But again, I'm not sure why this one is bubble up again.

Um we're talking right because two months ago this came up because part of the ship of all that stuff, right?

You guys agree with that.

Yeah, I think that's the disconnect of the two different processes here.

Wait, that's not that versus uh understood, but that's shown in the light because I immediately I'm like, well, let me go back and change check the plans.

And then when I did, I saw two separate plans, one that showed four windows, and one that showed 14, and I'm like, what the heck?

We gotta talk about this.

Whether it's two and a half years later, two and a half weeks later, 25 years later, I'm concerned about the discrepancy.

And now this is led down to a this is something, and one of the reasons that I put my name on these motions is so that I can be accountable to people West Park, right?

And I'm representing them saying, guys, I know it sounds terrible, but here's the deal.

And then I looked at it, I'm like also I was deceived by these plans, and so that's why I want to talk about this.

That's that's whether you think it's correct for me to say that it's deceived or not.

That's how that entire group feels.

Uh actually, we're we're also part of West Park, so it's not it's not the entire group.

I think it's important to clarify that there is a group of neighbors that are very clearly opposed to our organization, that it is not it is not the whole neighborhood.

Well, I don't think everybody's um talking about being a post-level organization with opposed to thate all the windows pretty large contingent, so I think what further led to the confusion too was having these hybrid meetings, it was very difficult for me on every single meeting we've had like that.

It was difficult to follow the because there'd be like extraneous noise going on throughout the whole meeting.

I don't know that there's a mechanism to pull back a COA, right?

I'm saying for my personal opinion, I wish I could do, I wish always we have magic block.

All right, that's my personal opinion.

Um I just wanted to make sure we had the conversation.

Sure.

I still still oppose it.

I don't think all 14 should come out, and I think if plans have changed support that I'm willing to do to do four, and I'm willing to go on record to do that.

Oh understood and I'm I'm I'm trying to take a learning lesson from this right like and that's why I'm surprised because I thought we discussed this at the last meeting like we you know we we looked at this and and read it differently and came to a conclusion um more more you know I was looking at the greater amount of evidence which further supported opinion that I'm the the interpretation and the motion that I posited and that's why I sent that email saying this is not we've not been looking at all of the evidence before us.

Okay.

So I'm trying to figure out how we could use this moving forward is this uh do we need um some mechanism for better reviewing plans like I'm trying to figure out how we can prevent this yeah I think any changes to plans need to be fully have to be fully on the table so that everybody understands what they are that's not the case for this.

And I don't know and I and I think that's a change in plans.

No well I don't view it as they tried to clarify.

I don't know I I'm not saying that look applicants submit something and there's an improvement on it.

From a legal perspective I get it I'm not saying that you have the legal obligation to say hey you guys missed something.

But I am saying as an act of good faith when something changes it's really nice to put on a table.

But I can agree to that yeah I I do think everybody and this might be a staff comment because it it does like between October and November I also interpreted that as all 14 windows old times.

And so it seems like an attempt from somebody to clarify was read by others as a change.

And so I'm trying to figure out how we mitigate that distinction so was change of plans emailed to us.

No so we'd be in the same boat as most of the people who said they missed meeting then I'm not sure when I think there may be a breakdown of staff on that to not email to us I'm not sure when the second set of plans was emailed I'm sure I'm guessing it was ahead of the meeting it wasn't possible so I don't want to we did not have time to review anything.

So our our review was on the fly through a version.

It is tough to review like extensive plans like that on a fright you only have from Friday till a meeting on Monday it's it's sometimes it's very challenging to be able to and then also some of our members are just residents of the district they don't have any experience reading plans or understanding them or anything is there's they're they're relying on basically staff to give us well and they're relying on us to read that yeah that's they're relying on us the ones that we voted unanimously for it I understand so like the part where the the community that's that's where we're supposed to protect the community the the part where we're we wearly read things differently that's where I think there's SAP and how it's presented to the city and so I'm trying to figure out this was all before I was here so I travel works oftentimes especially when someone submits a window application like I want to replace my windows one of the first clarifications is which windows how many where are they located or if I'm gonna replace 10 okay well which 10 so usually I I try to like have the quant quantification of you know what's happening where specifically so I think in the stack report having those work items more clearly listed when it's something like windows where um there's certain locations and having that kind of parody that pairs with the drawings and then the applicant can make their clarifications if it's that review or the interpretation is or not because to me as a as a design professional when I I have a similar interpretation where to me that be flying across I read that as all the windows here otherwise I would have just had one note here and one note here.

So not everyone's gonna understand that so and adding like a first the first pitch we saw only had an arrow at each end it didn't have the connecting going across that's why that kind of the other thing that I read in the first packet is there there were the floor plans and that's what I saw was veterans behind all those windows because I know I would have spoken up if it was different windows for different bedrooms because it was said why the hell would you replace some windows and not all of them what's the difference behind those windows so I that was my but when I was reading the plans that's what I saw the plans that clearly said to me all the windows um I will say something else and this has nothing to do with the applicant is that you know pre I don't want to go by name to malign the previous staff number but the work that that person had done was excellent through and through and something changed with this the work that was prepared on this was very different and it was very lacking.

So there seems to be some sort of breakdown with what was happening there as well.

So I have nothing else to I have nothing else to talk about, but that was no, and I appreciate it.

And then I'm trying to think if there's anything we can do because it sounds like we've got some members of community who are upset.

Um we've got some board members who were upset, and I don't think there's anything we can do to change what has been approved.

But I'm trying to think if there's anything we can do to help with this and the you know, like make a statement to help with, you know, we understand what went wrong here now, and and but it has to move forward because this was approved, and and they've followed all of our rules and guidelines for the last two and a half years ever since.

I don't think there's anything that we can do to stop that process, but is there anything we do to communicate that we've really dug into the details here to see?

No, because I don't think I think we have a divided opinion right now, so I don't think putting forth any sort of statement's gonna properly represent that.

Okay.

Well, I I do want to sit down the record and appreciate everyone as for really looking at the details.

Um because I think that is the purpose of this board, and that is why it's not one person just said, yep, it's it's there's a reason we have a board, and it is okay for us to review things, and that's why we should discuss things at every meeting and and review those minutes at every other meeting because this does create a legal record that that follows for a long time.

So thank you for taking over those.

Um I feel bad.

But when it's led, I I kind of I feel bad that I have a completely different interpretation, but I I know when I was reviewing those plans, it was all 14 for me the entire time.

Alex, did you think it was four?

What did you think?

You don't have to answer if you want to.

I just feel like we should have seen like the new plans basically.

Um I didn't think that many would be coming out.

I mean the majority of the people on the board would not have that understanding.

And I it does strike me that I think a lot of the problem here was the dual thing, which has been corrected, right?

So I'm glad we're all here again in person to actually review plans.

Um anybody else?

Because again, I think this is a good learning opportunity.

And I again I appreciate Ribble for being here.

Um I'm sorry, but blinded that this is this was uh an internal discussion that we wanted to put on the record.

Um but thank you.

I I do want to say thank you for finding the reputable window dealer in Philadelphia.

I I'm uh I'm excited that those windows are going to be preserved.

Um thank you for being here.

Do you have any other comments that you'd like to say on the record for this?

Do I?

Yeah.

Uh I I don't think that uh this has been a long and arduous process for us, I think is an understatement.

Um and I understand that there has been uh a handful of households in the West Park neighborhood who are my neighbors who have been opposed uh to the project.

Um at the same time, there are many people in the community who are very, very supportive of the project.

Many of my neighbors who are very supportive of the project.

And um, I hope that as it goes forward, we can put some of this uh behind us and see that what we're doing here is taking a beautiful old historic building that we could bulldoze, right?

Like another option is we bulldoze the entire thing.

But what we're doing is taking it and preserving absolutely every piece of the historic nature of this building that we can, including much of the interior features that we're able to maintain um the entryway and whatnot, uh, and repurposing it so it doesn't become another story like the church that's on 15th and Turner that has trees going out of the roof, right?

That's literally falling apart.

Um, but it's a space that continues to serve the community while maintaining this beautiful historic structure.

Uh that's a that's a benefit to our community.

Um and I hope as as the project unfolds and we start to see the the use actually take place there.

Um, that there can be some uh reconciliation and some kind of coming together around that as a as a positive overall then.

Anything else from the city?

Any other actions here?

Okay, all right.

Well, thank you for the discussion.

Are there any other business?

Oh we call the meeting to a close at 723.

Um, we're gonna be doing um reviews the homework.

Yeah.

That's gonna work.

I was about to pause it.

Oh, but they've asked for homework.

I'd be willing to answer it.

I gotta be like I want to point out there's errors in this picture, Professor Jim in the guidelines.

Okay.

I'd like for you to point out what you would notice to have a record.

Oh well, there's actually several that there's arrows okay on here in the page that's five doors.

And they're giving you terms of what the different parts of the door frames.

Okay.

The complete door system.

So there's an arrow here pointing to the panel, and it's calling it a hinge style.

Thank you.

Um there's one pointing to the molly in and it says lock style.

There's one pointing to a panel that's a button.

There's another one pointing to the hinge style, and that one says Mollyan.

Um there's another one pointing to a panel, and that's just pacing.

Sounds like we just messed three of them.

Including the one next to it that was referenced earlier.

So it's always clarifying.

Which about what the graph representing, I think.

Yeah, the arrows just going in the wrong place or too short, too long, whatever.

It's a very good note.

That that page needs to be scrapped.

Somebody will look at this and be like using the wrong terms, and then like you are so confused.

I never like read it before.

It was all need, so I know what the stuff is, but so why would I read it until I tonight I was just getting a little bored and I would enter me up?

I've never seen, I don't know where that grocer's alley round top gate.

I know there's a driveway gate like that on Turner.

Yes.

I ever I walk past that every day I'm away to my bus stop, and I'm like, who approved this and why?

All right.

So that is our home.

I thought we're not forced to stuff product.

No, no, no, no.

We already have much of that question.

We have violation.

Oh.

So we'll see how that works.

I moved to journal.

All right, we got a motion from a second from me to adjourn at 727.

Yeah, thank you.

All right.

Oh.