Albany officials seek clearer rules on substitute materials, solar panels in Article 7 update

City planning staff presented a proposed refresh of Article 7 of the Albany Development Code and asked the Albany City Council and the Landmarks Commission for policy direction on several recurring and contentious items, including substitute materials for historic buildings, solar-panel standards and demolition review.

David Marno, current planning manager for the City of Albany, told the joint work session that the update aims "to bring the development code into compliance with state requirements together with updates based on input from the historic preservation advocates, property owners, council, and commission members." Alyssa Schremz, historic preservation planner, outlined recent program work including grant-funded window restoration, a preservation award, and a resumed quarterly newsletter.

The staff presentation described the scope of Article 7: standards for historic review of exterior alterations, the use of substitute materials, new construction within historic districts, demolitions and relocations, and the local landmark designation process. Marno said review is required for exterior alterations or additions to buildings classified as contributing or noncontributing within historic districts and to designated landmarks outside those districts.

Schremz summarized public outreach: a property-owner survey and follow-up focus groups. She said the city receives a Certified Local Government grant from the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, typically between $10,000 and $15,000 with an in-kind local match that staff estimated can make the total program value about $30,000. She also reported casework totals: Landmarks Commission reviewed 14 land-use cases this year and staff reviewed 7 additional cases that were handled administratively.

Survey responses and focus-group comments, staff said, concentrated on three recurring pain points: solar panels, the cost of rehabilitation, and the use of substitute materials such as vinyl or composite siding. Marno summarized the code's current approach to substitute materials and the staff interpretation: "The city of Albany interprets the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation on compatibility to allow substitute siding and windows only under the following conditions" — for noncontributing buildings, or when a contributing building's original materials are "so deteriorated or damaged that it can't be repaired, and finding materials that would match the original siding, windows, or trim is cost prohibitive." He noted there is no numerical metric in the code for what constitutes "cost prohibitive," and commissioners described that as a persistent gap.

Commissioners, councilors and stakeholders proposed several approaches. Multiple members urged streamlining review of rooftop solar that is not visible from the public right-of-way so those applications can be handled at the staff level; one commissioner said technical bulletins from the National Park Service could inform objective standards. Several commissioners and members of the public argued against broadly allowing modern substitute materials on contributing buildings: "I don't agree with using inferior materials or different materials that wouldn't be time appropriate, like, for example, vinyl windows," a commissioner said, adding that repaired historic windows often last longer and avoid landfill waste.

Staff described existing staff-level review for projects not visible from the street (typically processed in one to two weeks) and said landmarks-level reviews require public-notice periods set by state law. Marno and Schremz told commissioners that when applicants bring comparative cost information (repair vs. wholesale replacement), staff and commissions have often persuaded owners to choose historically appropriate repair because the incremental cost is sometimes small and yields greater longevity and historic integrity.

Commissioners discussed design guidelines and whether broader, district-level guidance could reduce subjective decisionmaking. Staff cautioned that Albany's districts contain a mix of styles — the Monteith and Hackleman districts include Victorians, bungalows and vernacular hybrids — which makes single-style guidelines difficult to write without being too broad or requiring many style-specific modules.

Demolition and relocation procedures also drew comment. Staff reminded the group that the Landmarks Commission may approve, approve with conditions, invoke a stay of demolition, or deny an application after a public hearing. Some participants urged stronger code enforcement and tools to address "demolition by neglect" so properties do not reach a point where demolition is the only economically viable option.

Schremz said outreach and perception are part of the challenge: the city is increasing community presence (farmer's-market booths, contractor lists, window-repair contractor referrals and an information packet for buyers of historic homes) to reduce confusion about when review is required. She pointed to existing online resources that list actions that do not require historic review, such as routine maintenance and paint color changes.

Next steps: staff asked for policy direction, particularly on whether more solar-panel applications and a subset of other cases should move to staff-level review, how to define "cost prohibitive" for substitute materials, whether to pursue formal design guidelines, and what additional enforcement tools are appropriate. Marno said staff will draft specific code concepts and return for additional review and possible ordinance changes.

Ending: The joint session did not adopt ordinance changes; instead staff left with direction to prepare draft code language and outreach materials for further review by the Landmarks Commission and city council.