Minutes

August 2, 2007

North End - Huntington Heights Architectural Review Board

The meeting was called to order at 6:05

Members present:

Stephen Hudak, Carolyn Hughes, Phil Shook, Deirdre Wells, Fred Whittaker

Members Absent:  Mary Kayaselcuk, One position is vacant.

Staff present:

David Watson

Review of the Minutes of the July, 2007.

Mrs. Wells asked for a change in the first sentence under old business.  The Board wishes to consider a prohibition on parking in non-driveway areas of the side yard to The Board wishes to consider the feasibility of a prohibition on parking in non-driveway areas of the side yard.

Mr. Whittaker noted that a lengthy discussion regarding fixed exterior muntins on replacement windows was not reflected in the minutes.  He further stated that he believed that the minutes should be a comprehensive reflection of the positions of all opinions of all board members. The final sentence under Old Business was changed to The Board will also discuss requiring fixed exterior muntins on replacement windows.

A motion was made a motion to accept the minutes with modifications by Mrs. Wells

Second: Mr. Whittaker

Motion passed 5:0

COA-07-195 345 55^th Street.  Brian Cooper.

Kathleen Cooper was the representative applicant.

Mr. Shook read the germane section of the guidelines regarding fences and stated that it appears that the application meets the requirements of the guidelines.  Mr. Shook asked for Board comment.  Mr. Whittaker asked confirmation that the fence was indeed vinyl.  The applicant confirmed that it will be vinyl.  Mr. Whittaker agreed that vinyl was the best choice.

Motion to approve as presented:  Whittaker

Second: Hudak

Motion passed unanimous.

Old Business

Mrs. Wells and Mr. Whittaker thanked staff for providing an update regarding old business issues regarding Codes Compliance issues within the neighborhood.

Mr. Whittaker asked if there was anything new regarding Mr. Byars’ appeal.  Staff replied that it will be heard at a September work session of City Council.  A firm date has not yet been set as Council will not meet for their last meeting in August.  The City Attorney will put the appeal on the agenda dependant on the amount of other items to be heard.

The Board asked if there was any new information regarding the former nurses’ dormitory and the former Riverside Hospital.  There is a parking problem at the dormitory; specifically it appears to be a paid parking lot.  Staff responded that the Codes Compliance Department was well aware of the problem, but were having difficulty enforcing any action.  The conversation ensued discussing environmental issues, such as asbestos exposed by vandalism, that preclude simple condemnation and demolition by the city.

Guidelines update

Mr. Shook stated that he would like to have the meeting in the early Fall in order to avoid the Holiday season complications.  Mrs. Wells noted that late September or early October would be the best time as that would also avoid back to school conflicts.

The major topics were listed as:

Windows

Parking

Administration review of roofing

Mr. Whittaker interjected a desire to strike out verbage in the fencing section that discourages vinyl fencing.  This would also provide a soft method to dissuade the installation of stockade fences, as vinyl stockade fences are not commonly available.

Mrs. Wells asked a question regarding the breakpoint of front to rear yards.  Where is it located on the house?  The guidelines state “the rearmost front wall of the house.”

Mr. Whittaker stated that most new communities forbid fencing forward of the rear corner of the house, and this preserves a symmetry and proportion along the street front.  He stated a desire to apply the same type regulation in NE HH.

Mr. Shook stated that he personally does not like large privacy fences in side yards, but respects the desire of property owners with shallow rear yards to have a larger area of their yard enclosed for the sake of privacy.

Mr. Whittaker stated that a compromise solution could be to have the larger 6 foot height fence extend up to the mid-point of the house.  A smaller 42” fence could continue up to the front property line.

Mrs. Wells stated that the wording, and order, should be edited to list stockade fencing last.

Staff noted that editorial changes to guidelines did not need to be advertised because they would not change the statements in the guidelines.

Staff asked for clarification regarding the terminus of 6 foot tall fencing.  The Board agreed for proposed guideline modifications that that a 6 foot height would be allowed to extend to the midpoint of the house.  From that point forward to the property line, a 42” fence would be permissible.

Mrs. Wells asked if the Board would want to eliminate stockade fencing.  She stated that she did not support the idea.  Mr. Whittaker stated that he probably would be the only one supporting such a move.  Mr. Shook stated that it would not be possible to rule against stockade fences because they are historical, and the Board is not allowed to rule on aesthetics.

Administrative review of roofing:  the guidelines would be modified to equate three-tab shingles to architectural style shingles.  Mrs. Hughes expressed a concern over change of color of the shingles.  Mr. Shook stated that a radical change in coloration would still require Board review.

Mr. Whittaker stated that the architectural style shingle is a superior product to the old three-tab shingle, both materially and aesthetically.

Windows:

Should muntins be placed between the glass panes, or permanently affixed to the outside.  Mr. Whittaker stated that interior muntins provide no shadow and do not look authentic. Mr. Whittaker brought in two sample windows to illustrate his point.  Mrs. Hughes stated that one objection in the neighborhood would be the cost.  Mr. Whittaker retorted that he has a hardnosed opinion that “we are not a welfare neighborhood.  If you can’t afford to live here, then move.”  Or, that is when it is appropriate to restore your windows instead of replacing them.  Mr. Shook stated that while the cost factor should not be a driving factor in setting the guidelines, we should also be aware that if an item is priced exorbitantly high, needed repairs may never occur.

The Board consensus was to propose modifications to state replacement windows must have muntins that are permanently adhered to the outside of window pane.

Parking:

At the July meeting staff was tasked with investigating the ability to regulate side-yard parking.  Staff reported back that the City Code does not state the ability to regulate side yard parking.  Mr. Whittaker stated that he would like to clarify opinion through the city attorney.  Staff stated the most likely route to enable this regulation would be to change the city code to enable such restrictions.

Mr. Whittaker stated that if a change is made it will take a year, if it ever happens at all.  Staff noted that several years ago the city tried to regulate paving over, and parking on, front yards.  The effort died because of public outcry.  Mr. Whittaker stated that was because “the wrong people were standing up.  “We curry favor with the lowest common denominator in the City of Newport News and that is why it is a crap hole.  Until City Council finally gets a little back bone and says this is the way it is going to be it will not change”.  Staff stated that the last attempt was brought forward by a Council member and the effort never gained any traction.  Mr. Whittaker replied that he is of the opinion that the people who agree with regulating the activity are not willing to come out and suffer the abuse of those who oppose the regulation.

Mrs. Wells stated that the cover picture of the guidelines needs to be changed because the house currently pictured is in a state of extreme disrepair.  The Board agreed to address the issue and make a change, but did not think that the guideline update meeting was the appropriate time to make the decision.

Mr. Shook reviewed the topics to be discussed at the meeting.  Staff has been tasked to complete the prototype ad and deliver it to the Board members by August 14^th for review.  Silence on the part of the Board members will be considered acquiescence.

The meeting adjourned.