Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Windows topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board accepts staff recommendations on historic-window replacements, defers siding decision pending field review
Summary
The board accepted staff recommendations on selective window replacements for a Smallbury Avenue property, emphasizing full-wood replacement where staff identified >50% deterioration, and postponed a separate siding decision to allow staff and the applicant to assess original materials on site.
The Historic Technical and Compliance Advisory Board accepted staff recommendations March 20 addressing multiple requests for window replacements and repairs and postponed a separate siding request to allow staff to inspect original materials.
On the Smallbury Avenue case, staff reported inspecting 10 windows and concluded three exceeded the 50% deterioration threshold that warrants replacement; staff recommended replacing several windows with full-wood units (items 20D, 20E and 25) and repairing others. Owner Estela Daz and contractor representatives from Pela explained safety, energy and availability concerns and asked for flexibility on materials. The board heard multiple exchanges about whether aluminum-insert or composite products met the guidelines, and staff repeatedly emphasized that the guidelines call for full-wood replacement for like-for-like preservation but also offered an administrative, case-by-case pathway for further review.
After deliberation a commissioner moved to accept the staff recommendations, including requiring full-wood replacement where specified and allowing staff to evaluate and process repairs or administrative approvals for other windows. That motion passed by roll call (Davis; Riggard; Spiller; Fullerton; Pollock; Spitz; Vsquez; Seplveda).
Separately, on a different case concerning proposed removal of vinyl and overlay with fiber-cement siding, staff and commissioners agreed that removing vinyl to assess the underlying material is necessary before a final decision. The owner expressed concern about exposure and cost; staff proposed a site visit and additional documentation. The board voted to postpone that siding decision and asked the applicant to work with staff on an inspection and documentation plan ahead of the next hearing (scheduled for April 17).
