Loading...
HDC_05 10 20101 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, May 10, 2010, 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall I. Roll Call Quorum was present being five (5) in number. Members Present: Marshall Peters Julie Wiedower Randy Ripley Loretta Hendrix Chris Vanlandingham Members Absent: none City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Margaret Brueggeman Boyd Maher II. Approval of Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Julie Wiedower to approve the minutes of April 12, 2010 as corrected (page nine, third full paragraph). Commissioner Randy Ripley seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote of 4 ayes and 1 recusal (Vanlandingham). Chairman Peters introduced the new commissioner, Chris Vanlandingham. Mr. Vanlandingham stated that he had lived in the district for 15 years, renovated historic houses, including the one in which he lives and helped reorganize the MacArthur Park Neighborhood Association. III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness None 2 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. DATE: May 10, 2010 APPLICANT: Margaret Brueggeman ADDRESS: 1423 Commerce Street COA REQUEST: Replacement Vinyl Windows PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1423 Commerce Street. The property’s legal description is Lot 6, Block 157 Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This house was built around 1886 and has Craftsman alterations at a later date. It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District in the 2008 and the 1988 survey. The architectural significance in the 1978 survey is of a Priority II (I being the highest and III being the lowest) and no Historical Significance or Local significance. This application is for six Vinyl Replacement Windows. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: No previous actions on this site were located with a search of the files. PROPOSAL: This proposal is to replace six original wood one over one windows with vinyl replacement windows of the same size. The windows are located on the west portion of the house: two on the northern side facade, three on the front western facade and one on the southern side façade that faces Fifteenth Street. These windows would replace the windows in the westernmost two rooms of the house. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 Location of Project 3 WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The Guidelines state on page 52: Windows should be preserved in their original location, size, and design with their original materials and number of panes. Stained, leaded, beveled, or patterned glass, which is a character-defining feature of a building, should not be removed. Windows should not be added to the primary façade or to a secondary façade if easily visible. Windows should be repaired rather than replaced. However, if replacement is necessary due to severe deterioration, the replacement should match, as closely as possible, the original in materials and design. Replacement windows should not have snap-on or flush muntins. Unless they originally existed, jalousie, awning, and picture windows and glass brick are inappropriate on an historic building. The Commission has readdressed the section on replacement windows. The following section will replace the last sentence. … Replacement windows should not have snap-on or flush muntins. Wood clad windows may be appropriate if the structure originally had wood windows. Wood clad windows are wood construction windows with an outer coating of vinyl or metal that facilitates easier maintenance. Windows of 100% vinyl are not appropriate in the historic district since they were not historically installed in the Existing front western elevation Existing south side elevation 2008 Survey Photo 2008 Survey photo of northern facade 4 structures. Unless they originally existed, jalousie, awning, and picture windows and glass brick are inappropriate on an historic building. These definitions will be added to page 113: Window, clad: A wood window (frame and sashes of wood) that the exposed exterior surfaces are sheathed with specially formed aluminum or extruded vinyl to facilitate easier maintenance. The cladding is on the exterior parts of the sashes, jambs, sills and head of the window. Also known as a wood clad window. Window, vinyl: A window whose frame and sashes are made from vinyl. Vinyl is a generic term for modified PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride). The Secretary of the Interior standards #6 states: Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical or pictorial evidence. The Commission discussed replacement windows in the Commission Hearing on January 11, 2010 in the Workshop item. It covered Storm Windows and Replacement Windows. A portion of that report is included: The topic of energy savings has again moved to the forefront of renovations with the added tax credits for rehab and energy conservation tax credits passed by Congress that will give credits to many items that conserve energy from new appliances, new heat and air systems, insulation in your home, new replacements windows and storm windows. Air infiltration is the culprit that many of these home renovations are attempting to thwart. Most homeowners are assured that “new windows” will save them lots of money and will solve all of their air infiltration issues because the window salesman told them so. However, as the chart to the right and the one below show, air infiltration by windows and doors are ranked fifth and sixth of all air infiltration culprits. The main offender in air infiltration in the home is floors, walls, and ceilings that account for 31% of all air infiltration. After that is ductwork at 15%, fireplaces at 14% and plumbing penetrations at 13%. Source: California Energy Commission 5 Basically, air seeps though your walls, ceilings, and floors at a much greater rate than through your windows and doors combined. Adding insulation to your ceilings and floors can be done with no external change to the structure and not evoke the COA process. The insulation of walls can be more difficult, but can be achieved from inside or outside without a COA. Likewise, sealing the HVAC ductwork; inspecting and replacing or repairing the damper in your fireplace; installing expanding foam around plumbing entries; and sealing around fans, vents, and outlets can save energy dollars without a COA. For many years, people have been adding storm windows to their home. According to Paul Trudeau, (NAPC Staff) storm windows have been in existence for over 100 years. Before that, people protected the sashes of their windows through operable shutters. The addition of storm windows changed with the recent invention of vinyl (plastic) windows. The vinyl was cheap enough to entice people to replace the whole window unit instead of adding storm windows. The chart below describes energy savings and financial payback on window replacements. The chart assumes this is existing construction with single pane original windows in place. This chart was shown by Paul Trudeau at CAMP in September 2009 in Eldorado, AR. Starting on the left side of the graphic, a $50 storm window when combined with the existing window has a U-factor (efficiency factor) of .50. Your old wood window has a U-Value of 1.10. The lower the U- factor, the better. The energy savings is 722,218 Btu with an annual savings per window of $13.20. This simple payback will take 4.5 years. The next three examples show differences in the types of windows installed and the types of windows being replaced. This is annual energy savings as compared to the window it is replacing. The energy savings noted in this chart is not for new construction. For example, to replace your original window with a double-pane Source: U.S. Department of Energy 6 thermal window saves 625,922 Btu over what was there before. Your windows will be tight, but the cost will take 40.5 years to recoup the cost. By that time, a vinyl window will need to be replaced and the homeowner will be “underwater on their window mortgage.” A more extreme example is to replace your original windows and storm windows with Low-e glass double pane thermal windows. That takes 240 years to recoup the cost of the windows. Also, note that the old windows go to the dump yard when taken out. The thermal seal in the double and triple paned windows are noticeable when they are broken as evidenced by the condensation in between the layers of the glass. The metal on storm windows can be painted to match the sash of the house before they are installed. Storm windows also come in different colors from the factory, mill (aluminum color), bronze and white are common colors. Painting your windows at the same time as installing the storm windows will provide a seamless installation that will obscure the presence of the storm windows as much as possible. It is also important to buy storm windows with full screens that mimic the older screens. On fixed windows, no screen is allowable, since no screen Source: Keith Habereern, P.E. R.A. Collingswood Historic District Commission 7 would have been there originally. On operable storm windows, the sash size must match with the original windows to provide the best results. Interior storm windows are an option that does not require a COA. Some research on the web provided professional companies along with do-it-yourself options. A DIY option is at http://www.hammerzone.com/archives/energy/conservation/basics_1/window_co ver.htm. Toolbase Services has a list of manufacturers of interior storm windows at http://www.toolbase.org/TechInventory/TechDetails.aspx?ContentDetailID=938. Climate Seal promotes interior storm windows that have a “refrigerator like seal” that has a magnetic attachment system described at the website below. http://www.climateseal.com/preservation_window_inserts/preservation_window_i nserts.htm. All of the interior storm windows that were located on line are removable during mild weather days to allow the opening of the original windows. Below are two graphics that show interior storm windows. The energy savings calculated in the graphic above are based on exterior storm windows, not interior storm windows although U-Values are thought to be similar. This shows a person removing an interior storm window. This shows the interior storm window installed. It is placed vertically against the lower sash in this photo. Below are the applicable Secretary of the Interior Standards for storm windows and replacement windows. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 8 5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical or pictorial evidence. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. When the Secretary of the Interior Standards are applied strictly, no replacement windows are installed in the district. The addition of storm windows is completely reversible, as standard number 10 requires where as a replacement window is not. The education of the public needs to enforce the facts that replacement windows are not the end all to energy savings that they are purported to be, not on a financial level or an energy saving level. Maintaining the original wood windows with an appropriate interior or exterior storm window is acceptable to the HDC and the Secretary of Interior Standards. Staff has inspected the windows and the wood appears to be in good condition. Cords were visibly cut so that the weights and pulleys would not work. Glazing was not missing, but was not tight against the glass as it should be. The windows were also painted shut from the outside. It is Staff’s opinion that the windows are a good candidate for repair work and are not in a state of deterioration that would warrant replacement. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. COMMISSION ACTION: May 10, 2010 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the commission. He stated that the notices had been met for this item to be heard. 9 Margaret Brueggeman, the applicant, gave photos of the house and the brochure of the new windows to the commissioners. She spoke of excessive heat bills ($1,205.39 for the November – April 2010 gas bills). She continued that she suffered heat loss though the windows. Her house feels drafty and cold. She wondered about the objection to the vinyl windows. She stated that the top part of the windows would be stationary, and the bottom part would lift out to be cleaned. They would come with half screens. She says the house was built in 1937, not as the Staff report states. She has considered under floor insulation, but it could not be financed. Sears would finance her windows. She has hardwood floors, no cracks in her walls or ceilings. She recently obtained a reverse mortgage and planned to stay in the house for a while. Later on, she plans to add a driveway and steps to the side of the house. Commissioner Julie Wiedower stated that the commission wants to help her enjoy her home and the she was excited about the changes. She asked Ms. Brueggeman which windows were to be replaced. Ms. Brueggeman stated those were the worse rooms for draftiness and has to use space heaters in those rooms. Commissioner Wiedower talked about heat loss in homes. Ms. Brueggeman responded that there is a lot of wind in the neighborhood and there were drafts in the home. Commissioner Wiedower confirmed that reducing the drafts were the main objective. Commissioner Wiedower stated the commission’s problems with vinyl windows. Chairman Marshall Peters stated that she was proposing to spend $600.00 for each vinyl window but that storm windows for $150 each would be more economical. Commissioner Randy Ripley asked how long Ms. Brueggeman had lived there. She stated since 2001. He asked if she had bought the windows yet. She said that she had obtained financing for them, but believes that she can cancel the windows. Commissioner Loretta Hendrix asked if she had considered an energy audit. Commissioner Ripley explained what an energy audit was. Ms. Brueggeman explained that she knew what was wrong with her house. Chairman Peters asked if she had had the house rewired. Ms. Brueggeman responded that she had some rewiring done to add an electric cook stove, security lighting, etc. She stated that she had had a CDBG block grant in 2003 for correcting some electrical problems. She also had to replace the connection to the public sewer line for $2000. Commissioner Chris Vanlandingham noted that the MacArthur Park Neighborhood Association meets once a month and that he would like to invite her to attend those meetings. He continued that she should be able to do her entire house in storm windows for $4000.00. He stated that it was noble for her to spend money on the improvement of her home, but suggested that she could do all of the windows for what she is spending on doing part of her windows. 10 Commissioner Hendrix spoke of how she had caulked and insulated around her windows in her own home to reduce drafts. Ms. Brueggeman commented that most of her problems come from the windows, not through her walls. Commissioner Wiedower asked if the City of Little Rock received “cash of caulkers” stimulus money. Chairman Peters stated the he thought we did. Conversation then turned to grant monies available to improve energy efficiency of homes. Commissioner Hendrix suggested that she check out tightenuparkansas.org. The commission can defer an item for cause to obtain more information on an alternative submission (storm windows). The next hearing date is June 14, 2010. Chairman Peters advised the applicant that if the application is left as is, it could be denied. Ms. Brueggeman amended her application to reflect storm windows in those locations. Commissioner Ripley asked that Ms. Brueggeman check with Sears to see if they could provide storm windows. A motion was made to defer the item at the request of the commission until the June 14, 2010 meeting by Commissioner Wiedower based on the amended application and seconded by Commissioner Hendrix. The motion was approved with a vote of 5 ayes. Staff stated that they would check on grant monies and storm window issues. Commissioner Wiedower said that she would check with Entergy. The applicant was given a copy of the guidelines. 11 V. Other Matters Enforcement issues There were no enforcement issues to present to the Commission. Certificates of Compliance There were no Certificates of Compliance issued in the previous month to present to the Commission. Dunbar Survey Update Andre Bernard was invited, but did not attend the meeting to update the commissioners. Preservation Plan Subcommittee Dates for possible meetings were discussed. Historic Preservation Month Commissioner Wiedower asked to be informed on what was on the Board of Directors agenda previously concerning Historic Preservation. Mr. Minyard stated that AHPP requests that cities and counties proclaim May as Historic Preservation Month. Our Mayor had proclaimed such at the previous Board meeting. Vanessa McKuin of the HPAA and Chairman Marshall Peters were there to speak on behalf of the proclamation. Mr. Minyard asked Mr. Maher how many participants there were. He said that they had a couple dozen, and that county judges were good to do the proclamations. NSP2 funding Commissioner Wiedower started the conversation concerning the two census tracts targeted. Mr. Minyard stated that the Mayor had asked for applications for the review committee. She asked if we should have a historic preservation person on the committee. Commissioner Ripley stated that he had been interested, but did not pursue it. Staff is to check on the deadline for applications. The comment was that maybe a former commissioner could be on the committee. Commissioner Ripley commented that the program should be striving to get the biggest bang for its buck and use it as a catalyst to spur other private development. Education of Habitat for Humanity and other developers to do a better job of design should be a focus. Commissioner Hendrix asked Boyd Maher about the Section 106 review of the NSP2 project. Mr. Maher said that he could not speak for the 106 review process, but that there would be Section 106 review of the monies. He stated that there was review, but no authority to stop the work. Mr. Maher congratulated the commission on its facilitation of the COA item tonight. He encouraged the commission to attend the NAPC training in Michigan this summer. Mr. Minyard said that the city was already on that. Mr. Maher left the meeting. 12 Work Plan Bylaws topic: Debra Weldon, of the City Attorney’s office, led the discussion. She handed out two handouts. After discussion, the conclusion was that the HDC should notify neighboring property owners of the deferral at the city’s expense. If the city does the mailing, it will be sure that the mailing is completed. On Article IV 4 c (i), there was language to insert between (i) and (ii) and renumber (ii) to (iii). That new section would add notice of the deferrals to the property owners. Mr. Minyard asked a question on how we were to prove that the applicant mailed the letters of the Deferrals. Mr. Minyard stated that the city could mail those letters and make sure that they have been mailed. The handouts were discussed that described deferrals and how many were allowed. The ninety-day clause was discussed and it was decided to add that to the ordinance revision. Discussion occurred about notifying property owners of deferrals. The issue of due process is why the insertion of the new paragraph is necessary. The requirement to ask for a deferral five days in advance was questioned. Mr. Minyard stated that the five-day clause may have originated in other bylaws and were copied to this set of bylaws. Chairman Peters stated he did not see any reason for the five-day requirement. Commissioner Wiedower asked why an applicant could not ask for a deferral during the hearing. Ms. Weldon discouraged eliminating the five-day deferral clause. Commissioner Wiedower asked if a deferral was requested five days in advance, what would happen. Mr. Minyard stated that if the HDC had enough items to have a consent agenda, the five-day advance would facilitate a consent agenda being published before the agenda hearing. Commissioner Wiedower commented that the commission could waive the bylaws at the time needed, but requested that the five day deferral be eliminated now, but it could be added back later. It was decided to leave the bylaws as is for now, and waive them as needed. It was clarified that the applicant gets a copy of the Staff report a day after the commission does. Commissioner Wiedower asked how to emphasize the recommendation. She asked Staff to modify the letter given to the applicants with their copy of the report that would restate the recommendation. Mr. Minyard clarified that the 90-day issue could be added to the ordinance revision that will be taken to the Board of Directors this summer. Ms. Weldon stated that the addition of commissioners and the clarification of ninety day versus three regularly scheduled meetings was more of a housekeeping item. Mr. Minyard stated that he would clarify that in the Board write-up. In the past, all changes to an ordinance are grouped under the same item to the Board, but it will be distinguished between the two. Citizen Communication No citizens were present to speak. VI. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:55 p.m. Attest: 13 to Date 69 " /4 - )-&' � Date