Minutes

Annual Guidelines Update

October 16, 2007

North End - Huntington Heights Architectural Review Board

The meeting was called to order at 6:00

Members present:

Steve Hudak, Mary Kayaselcuk, Deirdre Wells, Fred Whittaker, Phil Shook 

Members Absent:  Carolyn Hughes

Staff present:

David Watson

Call to order 6:00

Chairman Shook welcomed neighborhood residents and reviewed the meeting agenda and procedure.

The first item discussed addressed section IV K. 2d.  This modification of administrative review of windows proposed changing the wording for this section to state Muntins must be permanently adhered to the exterior of the windows.  Under the Board Review section and additional item, numbered 9, will state For replacement of windows with multiple panes, muntins must be permanently adhered to the exterior of the window.

The second item will address fencing.  The Board is proposing an editorial modification of IV.1 description of fence/wall types to move the fence type stockade from “b.” to “k.”  Also in the same section “i.” the sentence vinyl or PVC fencing is discouraged but permitted has been struck from the guidelines.

IV. 2 will be modified to define the transition line between front and rear yards as the midpoint of the house.

IV H. Roofing Administrative Review

1.    The following language was added Replacement of three-tab shingles with architectural shingles is allowed under administrative review if composition, size, profile, and color remain identical to the old roofing.

The intent of this change is to speed up the review process for homeowners wishing to repair their roofs.

Mr. Shook stated that the Board would vote on these proposals after the public comment section.  He then opened the meeting for public comment.

A letter from Mr. David Galinski of 5500 Huntington Avenue was read into the minutes as follows:

I would like to thank the ARB members for their service and time on the board and as a homeowner in Huntington Heights I would like to express a few brief thoughts about replacement windows.  My maintenance and restoration on many of my properties in Huntington Heights has gained me a solid experience level pertaining to replacement window options and what many of the neighbors prefer.  A good medium grade quality replacement window with no mullions has a base cost in the range of $250-$350.  Mullions between the glass cost an additional $30.  Upgraded mullions outside the glass to emulate real wood mullions cost close to $200 more.  I know from experience from talking to many neighbors that just the base cost of $250-$300 is a financial burden.  Many neighbors have installed one-over-one windows when there used to be mullions because they are financially strapped to afford the extra $30 for basic mullions between the glass.  Requiring the upgraded mullions outside the glass will keep many homeowners from affording energy efficient windows and this may create resentment toward the guidelines.  We all want the guidelines to be accepted and practiced and keeping the basic mullions is something the majority of homeowners currently like and are trying to follow.  I understand the decisions the ARB deals with are often difficult and all of your hard work is appreciated and is making a sdiffere3nce in the neighborhood.  I truly hope my input contributes to this matter and assists the board in their decision.  Thank you for your time.

Mr. Shook asked for further public comments regarding windows.  No one came forward.  Mr. Shook asked if there was any public comment regarding other issues pertaining to the guidelines.  Mr. Richard Byars of 322 56^th Street asked to address the Board. 

Mr. Byars said that he had recommendations and observations for the Board to consider.  He further stated that there are many houses that have experienced extensive renovations in the form of new siding and soffits that have been performed prior to the creation of the Board, as well as after the Board’s formation.  He explained that much of this work performed by homeowners was performed without a permit due to homeowner ignorance of the regulations.  These changes have not harmed the appearance of the neighborhood and have helped reduce the maintenance requirements of the structures.  Mr. Byars further explained that there are a number of maintenance activities, such as the installation of vinyl soffit, that are permissible without a building permit but require ARB review.  Homeowners are not always aware that though a building permit is not required, a COA from the Board is required.

He recommended a process to inform realtors and new homeowners of the requirements of living in the Historic district.

Mr. Whittaker asked David Watson if there was a method for tracking the property transfers in the district and ensures that each new resident received a copy of the guidelines.  Mr. Watson responded that using the city’s GIS system, it should be possible to run a program that will pick up new transfers within a given time period.  Mr. Watson noted that there usually is a two month lag between the time a property closes, and the time it is posted to the data base.

Mr. Whittaker also stated that realtors are required to disclose that a house is located in a historic district, though it is sometimes difficult to ensure that the realtors themselves are up to speed on the issue.  It is incumbent upon the realtor to provide this information to potential buyers. 

Mr. Watson informed the Board of policy changes within the Department of Planning that will provide the following items that will aid in education and enforcement of the historic district.

1)    A sign will be placed in the yard stating that a property is applying for a Certificate of Appropriateness.

2)    When a COA is issued, a placard will be provided to the property owner to place in the window.  This placard will be similar in appearance to a building permit.

3)    A brochure containing FAQ will be provided to the residents.

4)    Adjacent property owners will continue to be notified.

Sheila McAllister also noted a request made by City Council to the General Assembly in their legislative packet to require realtors to disclose historic districts prior to closing.

Mrs. Byars restated her husband’s comments and asked if it would be possible to send out a copy of the Guidelines to all district residents.

Mr. Shook brought up the issue of items that need a COA, but do not need code approval.  These items include fences, trim, roofing, etc.  Mr. Watson stated that this is a very difficult enforcement issue.  The department believes that the issuance of a placard will aid in this regard.  If the Board wishes to make these items that are currently unregulated to be regulated under the city ordinance, a request could be made to the city’s Regulation Committee.

Mrs. Byars returned to the podium and noted that a house down the street had new vinyl siding and soffit installed over the summer.  She stated her opinion that the house looked horrible, but now looks quite nice.  She wanted to know how they were able to do this while they (the Byars) were not able to do so.  She stated that she did not want to report the owners of this house to Codes because the house looks great, and the people put a lot of time and expense into fixing their house.  She used this example to illustrate the need to educate and inform the residents about the policies of the ARB.  She noted that there was a lot of work taking place in the neighborhood that does not have ARB approval.  The Board concurred with her assessment and stated that enforcement is sometimes slow, but the city is working to correct violations.

Mr. Whittaker noted that the point of the North End-Huntington Heights was to preserve the historical integrity of the neighborhood.  Removing or covering architectural details have a homogenizing affect on the neighborhood and will make it look like everywhere else.  Mr. Whittaker also stated that he has been a long term proponent of synthetic materials that can be used to replicate original materials but with significantly lower maintenance issues and sometimes a lower cost.  He cited the ability of homeowners to replace slate roofs with synthetic slate or architectural type shingles.

Mr. Watson asked Mr. Byars if he was requesting the Board to consider the possibility of allowing the installation of soffit.  Mr. Byars stated yes, that some homes should be allowed to install soffit but on a case by case basis.  Mr. Shook reviewed that section of the guidelines that addressed the installation of soffit.  He stated that the trim on older homes revealed a lot of detail unique to the style of the home.  Covering these details changes the integrity of the structure.  While the Board is flexible in the composition of the materials used, such as PVC trim instead of wood, the Board is not willing to alter the detailed appearance of the structures in the historical districts. 

Mr. Shook asked the Board if there were any further comments regarding the changes proposed.  Mrs. Wells asked Mr. Whittaker to give his input regarding David Galinski’s submitted concerns that exterior muntins would price some residents out of the window upgrade market.  Mr. Whittaker stated that his opinion that some windows that were custom made with a true divided light window, with individual vacuum sealed units would be cost prohibitive.  However, a muntin permanently applied to the outside of a single piece of glass would not be very expensive.

Mr. Shook closed the public hearing and asked if all modifications could be voted on under one motion.  Mr. Watson noted that the meeting did not begin with a roll call and asked to do so at this time.  Mr. Shook gave his approval.

Mr. Hudak expressed some concern regarding the window regulation modification and asked that it be voted on separately.  He stated that he has a concern regarding the additional cost to the homeowner of requiring the exterior muntin.  Mr. Whittaker noted that the Board has been charged to protect the historical integrity of the district and preserve it for future generations.  A flat pane glass window does not provide the same relief as an exterior muntin.  Mr. Whittaker stated that he feels that by requiring the exterior muntins we are living up to our charter.

Mrs. Wells made a motion to accept general guideline modification as listed that will require that replacement window will have muntins permanently affixed to the exterior of the glass.  Mr. Whittaker provided a second.  The motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Whittaker made a motion to approve agenda item 3b defining the transition area between front and rear yards pertaining to fences and walls as the midpoint of the house, as well as editorial changes. Mrs. Wells provided a second.  The motion passed unanimously.

Mrs. Kayaselcuk made a motion to accept agenda item 3c. to equate three-tab shingles and architectural shingles.  Mrs. Wells provided as second.  The motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Shook stated that the Board will take under consideration the public comment that more items requiring COA also have a building permit required.