A disagreement over whether or not to allow a developer to paint the bricks on an existing building has led to a lawsuit and delay of a major project in Fort Thomas.
The Quarter Group, LLC, has filed suit against the city of Fort Thomas and the Fort Thomas Design Review Board after their application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was denied three times.
The certificate is needed to move forward on a project to remodel the former BB&T bank building at 25 North Fort Thomas Ave., according to court records. The plan is to renovate and augment the building into a family-style restaurant.
The Cafeo Hospitality Group is in place to take over the building once the work is completed. Cafeo operates several restaurants in the Greater Cincinnati area, including the Incline Public House, Jefferson Social, Press on Monmouth and the Somm Wine Bar.
The city has an interest in the success of the project as well — last year, city council authorized the mayor to enter into an agreement with the developer to provide an $850,000 no-interest loan.
The business has 10 years to repay. The restaurant would make an annual payment of $10,000 plus 2.75% of any sales over $1.3 million. The developer would also receive 2.75% of those sales. Even if the loan is not repaid within the 10-year period, it would dissolve at the end of the period.
The initial application
In the fall, the Quarter Group, working with the architectural firm Drawing Dept, made an application with the review board and presented their project for review at the board’s September meeting.
The company asked for permission for a one-story addition to the building, the construction of an exterior fireplace and terraced patios on the front lot and other design elements, court documents show.
They also requested permission to paint the original unpainted brick facade white. While the design guidelines do not forbid painting brick, they do state “Painting brick walls that have never been painted before is discouraged.”
The property is located within the Central Business District, which is designated a historic district. Historic districts generally have a stricter set of guidelines for both historic and nonhistoric buildings within the area. The board provides design guidelines and outlines what is required for approval.
The guidelines ask for reasonable conformity with nearby buildings — conforming to scale, height and width; keeping rooflines compatible with nearby buildings; choosing doors, windows and other architectural details in keeping with the overall look of the district.
According to the filing, the company received a notice from the city’s General Services Director Kevin Barbian notifying them of some of the pertinent considerations and referring them to specific pages in the guidelines. He also noted that the original building was built in 1966 and did not appear to be a significant historic structure.
Making the case for paint
Ron Novak, owner and architect of the Drawing Dept, gave a presentation of the building design plans during the September meeting, pointing out alterations to various indoor and outdoor features. He said the goal was to create a family-friendly restaurant and community gathering place.
Novak contended that while the original building would be incorporated, the desire is to remove any appearance that suggests the original use as a drive-through bank. As a part of that effort, the bank’s brick façade would be painted white.
Two board members objected to painting the brick. After discussion, the board voted to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness conditionally upon seeing more of the design elements including proposed muntins (dividers between glass panes) on windows and doors. They also requested to see renderings of the building with and without the painted brick.
The Quarter Group and their architects returned for the DRB’s November meeting and attempted to persuade the board that painting the brick would harmonize the interior and exterior of the building and allow them to move away from the appearance of a bank.
The board again voted on approval, but the vote was a tie (2 to 2, with two members absent), and so the approval did not pass. The board then voted unanimously to continue consideration of the issue at the next meeting in December.
Another denial
The Quarter Group’s lawsuit states they received notice from Barbian that the December meeting was part of a 30-day negotiation period and would be the final consideration and vote on the application.
City ordinance requires the board to make a decision on each Certificate of Appropriateness application within 60 days of receiving the completed application. It does allow for the board to extend the period by another 30 days in the case of demolition or new construction. After denial of an application, a 30-day negotiation period is provided.
What followed is at the crux of the Quarter Group’s complaint. The company claims the Design Review Board and the city did not follow the stated timeline for making their decision. They point out that the December meeting occurred 90 days after they turned in their original application. They also contend that they did not receive notice that there had been a final decision and that the 30-day negotiation period had started.
At the December meeting, the company again made an argument for painting the brick. The board held a vote that again resulted in a tie, and therefore, the application was denied. In their suit, company officials say it was unclear to them if the vote concerned all or parts of the project.
Back to the drawing board?
The Quarter Group and their architects returned for the board’s February meeting to share some modifications they had made and to present their case once again.
The group was invited to make their presentation under the “continuing business” section of the meeting’s agenda, but Tim Schneider, attorney for the city of Fort Thomas, noted, “I want to point out this is in reference to ‘continued business’ only from the standpoint that these folks have been here before but this is a different, new application process.”
Novak made his presentation and said there were some changes and modifications to their application. He brought additional information on the branding concept for the restaurant, along with a new light gray paint color for the brick. He again made the case for painting the façade.
Tony Cafeo of the Cafeo Hospitality Group, spoke in support of the project and reiterated his confidence in the work by the Drawing Dept.
Fort Thomas Mayor Eric Haas also spoke in favor of the project. After thanking the board, he noted that a family-style sit-down restaurant is in the city’s Community Plan.
“I’m a firm believer also on not painting brick, especially on historic buildings. I feel differently about this case, because this is a different situation,” Haas said. “We finally have some wonderful citizens who are putting up their hard-earned money. The city is putting up money. We’re all trying to work together to create this, and we have a great restaurateur who wants to be here. And, they are all saying the same thing – They don’t want it to look like a bank building. It’s going to look like a bank building if it doesn’t get painted. I’m very much in favor of letting this happen.”
The board again voted on the application and once again, the vote ended in a tie, 3 to 3.
The lawsuit asks for an expedited review of the matter and for the court to approve the application and grant the Certificate of Appropriateness. For now the project is stalled.