Minutes

February 1, 2007

North End - Huntington Heights Architectural Review Board.

The meeting was called to order at 6:05 pm.

Board members in attendance:

 Mary Kayaselcuk, Phil Shook, Deirdre Wells, Fred Whittaker.  Carolyn Hughes arrived at 6:10.

Absent:  Steve Hudak  (The Board has one vacancy).

Staff in attendance:  David Watson, Patricia Diggs

The minutes of the January 4 meeting was approved with minor modifications.

Motion to approve: Kayaselcuk    

Second: Wells

Motion passed unanimous

COA-07-181  337-339 51^st Street. American Contractors, LLC

At the January meeting, Mr. Shook stated that the board would like to see a sample of the proposed siding, columns and rings, porch railings, roof trim, and new elevations showing revised window placement.  The applicant agreed to bring in the requested information.  The Board tabled the application until the February meeting.

The applicant did not submit the required information and was not present at the meeting. 

Motion to deny the application:  Wells

Second: Whittaker

Motion passed unanimous (Ms. Hughes did not vote on this application)

COA-07-182  336 56^th Street  Don and Varna Roberts.

The applicants explained that they wished to build a 9’x8’ finished addition and a small porch.  The new addition will be built on the same footprint as the deck, with the balance of the deck area (6’x8’) becoming a porch.  The new siding will match the siding on the main structure.  Mr. Shook read the relative sections of the ARB guidelines.  Mr. Whittaker asked for clarification regarding the placement of the doors and the size of the windows.  A motion was made for approval with the following stipulations:

Build an addition to the rear of the house with the following conditions:

1)     French doors will be located on the westernmost side.

2)    Side windows will be 72” in height

3)    Porch ceiling will follow the eaves line.

4)    Roof line on porch may contain a soffit.

Motion to approve:  Wells

Second:                     Whittaker

Motion passed unanimous.

COA-07-183 -06-183 320 65th Street JR and Sheila Jones.

The applicant’s representative explained that the application was for the closure of an existing door, and the creation of a new door on an adjacent wall.  As presented, the application called for the rear door leading into family room to be removed by bricking in the doorway.  Install a new door on adjacent wall using Dutch Colonial style fan light door. The applicant confirmed that the brick used for the enclosure will be from stock leftover from the original construction of the addition where the wall is located.  Ms. Wells asked about the structural stability of an opening below the proposed doorway.  The opening was originally a coal scuttle and would be reinforced and closed.  There would still be access to the crawl space under the house by means of another entrance. 

Mr. Whittaker made a motion to accept the application as presented.

Ms. Wells provided a second.

The motion passed unanimous.

Old Business

The photo inventory continues.

New Business

Ben Fitzer of 331 52^nd Street returned to address the Board regarding replacing the roof on his house and removing a defunct furnace chimney, and painting the primary chimney.   Mr. Whittaker stated that the applicant’s choice of shingle would be an improvement over the existing roof.  The shingle sample was not a significant deviation from the existing material and would only require administrative approval.  Since the chimney is not masonry, the applicant is free to paint it without review.   

The next item of discussion was in regard to the rebuilding of damaged structures and the expansion of existing structures.  Mr. Whittaker and Ms. Wells stated an opinion that if a major portion of the original structure was retained, then the structure should return to as close to its original style as possible.  Exceptions would be made for changes in the building code that came into place after the structure was originally built. 

Mr. Shook asked if a house such as a four-square would be allowed an addition because it would significantly change the appearance of the original structure.  Mr. Whittaker opined that if the addition was in the rear, and not generally visible from the public right-of-way, it may be appropriate.  The Board stated that situations such as these must be judged on individual merit.  The Board concluded that the matter should be discussed at the next annual guideline update.