Meeting tonight (03/13/13) - Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) COA Changes

[JaxUnicorn]

If you own property in any of Jacksonville's historic districts, you want to be at this meeting!!

The HPC sub-committee will meet tonight to discuss the proposed changes to the administrative COA process (requiring metal roofs to be replaced with metal shingles instead of standing seam/5 v-crimp (which can cost up to 3 times as much in material over standard metal panels), restrictions to the rear of the structure, changing the alleys to be considered "right of way" for the purposes of facade changes, etc.).

The meeting will begin at 5:30 and will be held in the 1st floor training room at the Ed Ball building. It is an open meeting so anyone can attend.

A copy of the proposed changes can be found on Preservation SOS's forum (link below):
http://forum.preservationsos.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1151

[aubureck]

Just to clarify...the Commission has a list of suggested changes that were submitted by the various neighborhood organizations and as part of the annual review of the administrative matrix document they will discuss some of these suggestions.

Also, requiring metal shingle roofs would only impact properties that currently have a metal shingle roof...

[strider]

 That is not entirely correct, the wording states :

Installing metal (shingle) shingle panel, 5 V crimp, or standing seam or roofs for structures in Springfield that are Frame Vernacular but with no evidence of historic metal roof. 

In Springfield, the replacement of metal shingles with metal shingle panel, 5V crimp, standing seam or gray composite shingle. (must be a HPC decision). 

So, from above, I guess if you are trying to replace a metal shingle roof with red composite shingles, staff can allow that?

And while there is an attempt at making it only Springfield, the first line sort of negates the second line as any vernacular house that has had something other than metal shingles on since before 1985 must go to the HPC.  All the second line does is reenforce the fact this if you have metal shingles, you must go before the HPC.

Why is this all bad,  besides the obvious that it is worded badly?  Because it adds time and money to the process. The material cost for metal shingles alone is from 2.5 to 4 times the cost of metal panels. I would put the labor at double. At best, they give you permission to install metal panels, so it is a 30 to 45 days delay to start your roof and a $ 300.00 fee.  At worst, on top of the cost to go to the HPC, they say you must put on the very costly metal shingles and you can't afford it so it could be many months and an $ 800.00 appeal to City Council to get permission to put an affordable roof on your house.  Sorry, it doesn't make sense to me to even go there.  Just keep doing what has been done for over fifteen years now and allow staff to make that decision and allow any metal roof.

[sheclown]

No decision on the roof issue tonight.

SPAR has requested that the commissioners institute new rules for metal roofs.  The acceptable metal panels, the ones used for 20 years in the neighborhood, will most likely no longer be given staff approval, but have to go before HPC ($300 and a case will have to be made to the commissioners why the homeowner cannot put metal shingles on instead.)

The meeting was adjourned and the subcommittee members will get input from the commission as a whole, presumably at the next HPC meeting.

Metal shingles are $3.00 to $6.00 a square foot for materials.  Metal panels are $1.30 a square foot for the conventional standing seam or 5 v crimp materials.  Steve Heykins, Springfield roofer, says labor to install will be 4 times as much given the fact that the panels are so small and labor intensive.

We all want the houses to look nice and be as close as possible to orginal.  But, with an excess of 100 condemned houses in the neighborhood, is now really the time to burden the owners with this?

[strider]

As to this roofing issue.  The only reason to change from what is done now is if the commission members want to try to make people put on the metal shingles.  At from between double and four times the cost.  I heard tonight that they weren't tryng to say you couldn't use standing seam or 5 V Crimp, but that they simply wanted it to be looked at closer.   Look at what closer?  The only possible "Look" is looking to try to make people use metal shingles.  There is no other possible conclusion.  That is what Joanne and the architect from St Augustine that I believe at least was on the SPAR Design and Review at one time, meant when they were talking about how much better it looks and that there is is a big difference in appearance and it was against the Historic code to allow alternative materials.  Their intent is to compaign heavily for HPC to start requiring metal Shingle roofs.

Another thing about how SPAR's suggested changes were writtin up.  If you have a venacular house (proabbly accounts for 97% of the houses) you will have to take your roofing request to the HPC for review, regardess of what kind of roof it has now. From the meeting, Staff nor the comittee saw this but that is how it is phrased.

For what it's worth, only one house has had a metal shingle roof installed in the last, heck, probably 50 years.  It is owned by Jacks Meek's (and Joanne?) company and is on Laura. Over on  2nd and Market a house had just the porches reroofed with metal shingles in about 2000 or 2001. They are rusting by the way.   A house on 2nd has a nice looking metal panel (equals about 4 or 5 shingles) roof installed on the porches as well.  That's it. 

They certainly do look nice, and perhaps better than the standng seams and the like, but if the worst happens and they start telling peole to spend 10 to 30K MORE for a roof, how will that effect the number of houses being saved in the historic district?

[iloveionia]

If I am forced to re-roof the Ionia Block house (it currently has the lovely tin shingles) to reproduction shingles, the cost to re-roof will be more than the purchase price of the home.  Seriously.