Do the updated guidelines better address in-kind maintenance and repair? No
On a scale of 1 to 5, how easy is it to navigate the updated guidelines? 3. Neither
On a scale of 1 to 5, how clear are the updated guidelines? 4. Unclear
Do the updated guidelines better address substitute materials? No
Are there any other comments or questions you would like to share about the draft guidelines? Nicely done and visually appealing. But does not add clarity. Also the "Recommended" and "Not Recommended" boxes being numbered the same may create some confusion. Also does not address newer issues or more effectively address them. Ex. EV charging cables stretched across sidewalks, I've seen them with plastic totes covering the junctions and left outside regularly, tape covering the sidewalk, or just cords stretched across with no trip hazard precautions. Ex. The number of properties that have added landscape lighting ("stick type") with no clear guidelines about appropriateness, quantity, etc. Many look haphazard, not straight, not well spaced, and over-sized or over-used. Would also like specifications for when a house is raised for flooding concerns. Very well done on Yarmouth 10ish years ago but seeing other locations (such as Larchmont/Hampton Blvd) with cinderblocks and no attempt to blend the architecture. Would like to see Norfolk get ahead of all of these trends instead of leaving them so ambiguous.

Do the updated guidelines better address in-kind maintenance and repair? Yes
On a scale of 1 to 5, how easy is it to navigate the updated guidelines? 1. Very easy
On a scale of 1 to 5, how clear are the updated guidelines? 1. Very easy
Do the updated guidelines better address substitute materials? Yes
Are there any other comments or questions you would like to share about the draft guidelines? A significant improvement from previous guidelines

Do the updated guidelines better address in-kind maintenance and repair? Yes
On a scale of 1 to 5, how easy is it to navigate the updated guidelines? 2. Easy
On a scale of 1 to 5, how clear are the updated guidelines? 2. Easy
Do the updated guidelines better address substitute materials? Yes
Are there any other comments or questions you would like to share about the draft guidelines? Overall, these are much more comprehensive than the former Guidelines. While they are clearly written, it goes without saying that average citizens will need interpretation from city staff. The addition of carefuly chosen photographs is important to the final version. Section 4.4.3 on New Accessory Structures should be carefully coordinated with city objectives for allowing ADUs. Some parcels in historic districts may be appropriate, but many will not be due to limited size and open space. Identifying a requirement for open space percentage could be one solution for determining whether a parcel can accommodate an additional structure. Section 5.3 provides good guidance on appropriate solar panel placement without eliminating the option. Section 7.1 adds important information in the Lights at Night section to restrict the trend to install 24 hour lighting on residential buildings (the earlier section on lighting is not strong enough on its own). Since most people are likely to use this document digitally, it might be useful to have links to other document sectons where appropriate, to city forms and resources, and/or to additional historic resources.

Do the updated guidelines better address in-kind maintenance and repair? No
On a scale of 1 to 5, how easy is it to navigate the updated guidelines? 5. Very difficult
On a scale of 1 to 5, how clear are the updated guidelines? 4. Unclear
Do the updated guidelines better address substitute materials? No
Are there any other comments or questions you would like to share about the draft guidelines? I think these guidelines are still too complex for average homeowners to follow and leaves a lot of ambiguity which can trip people up. I also think this discourages people from maintaining their homes because they are fearful of the massive fines or having to tear out replacements. This process has become too expensive and arduous for homeowners and we are seeing the results unfold in real time. Many homes (especially those with landlord/tenant situations) are simply just not maintaining or repairing because of these strict, unrelenting guidelines. The replacement materials are usually much more expensive to use than those that are visually similar but more efficient or have longer lifespans (woods, windows, decking, paints, etc.). Norfolk has to do something to account for these increased costs if they want these residents to bear the burden of preserving these homes - tax credits or reduced property taxes. Why should we continue to pay for more expensive materials, hiring of experts, seeking CoAs, and STILL pay the highest tax rates? That doesn't make me want to put more money into my home so the city can then assess me higher and higher still. I like the idea of preserving but at what cost? There needs to be some incentive to encourage homeowners. My neighbors actively distrust the ARB and Historic review group because we've all been burned. The process needs to be kinder and more helpful and less vengeful (using google images to send out fines en masse is a terrible policy).

Do the updated guidelines better address in-kind maintenance and repair? Yes
On a scale of 1 to 5, how easy is it to navigate the updated guidelines? 1. Very easy
On a scale of 1 to 5, how clear are the updated guidelines? 1. Very easy
Do the updated guidelines better address substitute materials? Yes
Are there any other comments or questions you would like to share about the draft guidelines? Very comprehensive and easy to understand.

Do the updated guidelines better address in-kind maintenance and repair? No
On a scale of 1 to 5, how easy is it to navigate the updated guidelines? 5. Very difficult
On a scale of 1 to 5, how clear are the updated guidelines? 5. Very unclear
Do the updated guidelines better address substitute materials? No

Do the updated guidelines better address in-kind maintenance and repair? Somewhat
On a scale of 1 to 5, how easy is it to navigate the updated guidelines? 3. Neither
On a scale of 1 to 5, how clear are the updated guidelines? 2. Easy
Do the updated guidelines better address substitute materials? Somewhat

Do the updated guidelines better address in-kind maintenance and repair? Yes
On a scale of 1 to 5, how easy is it to navigate the updated guidelines? 2. Easy
On a scale of 1 to 5, how clear are the updated guidelines? 1. Very easy
Do the updated guidelines better address substitute materials? Somewhat

Do the updated guidelines better address in-kind maintenance and repair? No
On a scale of 1 to 5, how easy is it to navigate the updated guidelines? 5. Very difficult
On a scale of 1 to 5, how clear are the updated guidelines? 5. Very unclear
Do the updated guidelines better address substitute materials? No
Are there any other comments or questions you would like to share about the draft guidelines? could not find link to guidelines

Do the updated guidelines better address in-kind maintenance and repair? Somewhat
On a scale of 1 to 5, how easy is it to navigate the updated guidelines? 2. Easy
On a scale of 1 to 5, how clear are the updated guidelines? 3. Neither
Do the updated guidelines better address substitute materials? Somewhat
Are there any other comments or questions you would like to share about the draft guidelines? This still leaves a lot of ambiguity on who can approve the materials. The process for permitting for approvals for historic buildings. I also think if the city wants to put this much emphasis on homeowners in these districts, there needs to be some kind of tax credit. I am maintaining a historic home in a flood zone with NFIP insurance. It would be great if the city had money available to change out central air for mini-splits, etc and actually put up street flood signs to prevent cars and trucks pushing brackish storm water up against foundations. I also think there should be a list of companies that are qualified, familiar with Norfolk, and understand how to conduct repair/replace to help homeowners navigate the dizzying permitting system of the city that does not support easy home repair. I’d also like to see a section about maintenance/repair to parts of a home in the historic district that was added in the 80s/90s. And if it is in the rear; whether that requires the same historical requirements as the actual historic part of the home. Finally, Chrysler was allowed to install an incredibly modern fence along the back of the 700 block of Yarmouth. It would be nice, in that light to see an exceptions. What if someone had a disabled child and they need a ramp, etc. Thank you. I am very welcome to further discussion. I love our historic homes and am on the team to keep them preserved for as long as possible. It would be great if the city was able to provide support.