Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Retroactive Alteration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants retroactive approval for stucco at Northwood Hills house; waives requirement for wood cladding
Summary
The Historic Preservation Board retroactively approved stucco applied by mistake to a contributing house at 9513 30th Street, opting not to require replacement with wood siding and advising reasonable mitigation for the owner’s cost burden.
The Historic Preservation Board granted retroactive approval for stucco applied to a contributing minimal‑traditional house at 9513 30th Street (Northwood Hills), after the property owner explained he had removed rotted siding and replaced the exterior with stucco while attempting emergency repairs.
Owner Tim Brown told the board he did not realize a historic‑district permit was required for the work and that he had been fined while trying to regularize the work with building staff. He explained the original vinyl siding had significant rot and that he acted to secure the structure and obtain a permit. Brown said he had difficulty reaching reviewers online and by phone during the permitting process.
Staff recommended conditional approval, advising the board that the property had earlier nonhistoric vinyl siding and that the immediate repair did not remove intact historic fabric. Staff proposed a condition allowing replacement with reasonably appropriate cladding; they suggested options including asbestos‑looking fiber cement or old wood siding in a 5‑inch bevel in cedar or cypress. Because the neighborhood includes many stuccoed houses, several commissioners supported allowing the stucco to remain.
After deliberation the board approved retroactive work without imposing a requirement to install full wood cladding. The board directed staff to provide the owner guidance on acceptable materials and to proceed with standard staff review for final permit documentation; the board also expressed concern about the owner’s accumulating enforcement fines and encouraged staff to help expedite the permitting steps needed to close the code/enforcement matter.
Why it matters: The decision balanced preservation principles against practical considerations for an owner who performed emergency repairs; the board prioritized repair over punitive measures and clarified acceptable materials and next steps for the owner to resolve outstanding code enforcement fees.
What’s next: Staff will work with the owner to document the existing stucco and, if needed, allow a permitted cladding alternative following the HPB’s guidance, then resolve outstanding enforcement fines once the work is permitted and documented.
