Historic Preservation & Architectural Review Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COHOES HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING HELD WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 2022 AT 6:30PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Daniele Cherniak, Chairperson Barbara Hildreth, Vice Chair John Frainier ABSENT: Evan Lamb ALSO PRESENT: Sharon Butler, Administrative Assistant Josh Giller, Assistant Planner Chairperson Cherniak called the July 20th meeting of the Historic Preservation and Architectural Review Board to order at 6:30PM. Roll Call; Member present; Chair Cherniak, Vice Chair Hildreth, Member Frainier Absent: Member Lamb CONSIDERATION OF THE JULY 6, 2022 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES Chairperson Cherniak; asked if members had time to review the minutes of the July 6th special meeting and if there were any questions or comments. Being none she asked for a motion to accept the meeting minutes as submitted. Motion was made by Vice Chair Hildreth 2nd by Member Frainier all in favor AYE motion carried. YES NO ABSTAIN Daniele Cherniak X Barbara Hildreth X Evan Lamb ABSENT John Frainier X CONSIDERATION OF FAÇADE ENHANCEMENTS AT 127 CANVASS STREET Chairperson Cherniak; next item on the agenda is 127 Canvass Street she asked the applicant to give an overview of the project. Adam Petela architect introduced himself and Dan DiTursi one of the building owners introduced himself Mr. Petela explained to the board that they are converting the old train station/OTB into a pediatric office. Inside the building would be exam rooms, waiting room, they are adding a room for a social worker, lab area, there will be a break room, bathroom, shower and a room to hold vaccines. Mr. Petela explained to the board that their hope is to restore as many of the windows as possible, but they can’t have windows open directly to the outside per HIPPA and that is why they see the design on the drawings. Vice Chair Hildreth asked due to regulations you can’t have a full-size window Mr. Petela responded that he didn’t think it was a full-size window but they certainly can’t have people being able to look directly into them. He explained that the windows were high enough that the top window is enough to provide lighting without people being able to see in. Chairperson Cherniak asked if there was another option like window treatments, blinds or shades. She explained that one of the concerns the board has is to maintain the historic appearance of buildings and one of the things they are concerned about is bricking in windows and changing sizes of windows because it changes the exterior appearance of the building. Mr. Petela stated that there are no plans to brick in any of the windows. He said the building now has infills of texture 1-11 over the windows. The idea would be to remove the texture 1-11 and replace it with cement board a higher quality exterior material and it would be painted the historic color and that would be what takes up that space and it could be removed later on if needed, it’s not a permanent thing like bricking in the windows. He stated that there may be an option of obscuring the glass but he thought that might be a much more modern and contemporary solution and it would come across as not historic. Chairperson Cherniak; having that painted board isn’t historic either Mr. Petela that is correct but our thought is that that is an improvement over what is there. Chairperson Cherniak stated to Mr. Petela that what is there now was never presented or approved by this board, so we would not have approved anyone doing that Mr. DiTursi they are already not acceptable and we are not making anything worse than it already is. As for window treatments it would be impossible to have something coming up from the bottom of the window, because we still want some light in there. Member Frainier asked if they could do a translucent window or frosted window Mr. Petela explained that part of it is cost because the windows are so large Mr. DiTursi told the board that his builder is having difficulty getting windows, that has been the single biggest holdup of the entire project, getting windows and doors Mr. Petela we could explore if it became a requirement a way to build the entire opening with glass but my fear is that it would become cost prohibitive to the point that other parts of the project wouldn’t happen Chairperson Cherniak asked if it was something they investigated or something they speculate Mr. Petela stated it’s a step above speculation it is common knowledge that the cost of the windows is high because of the size of them. He stated that they took down an existing wall and had hopes of opening the ceiling back up to what they were and they proved to be in poor shape from the fire and things like that. The biggest improvement would be the rear side of the building (he showed the members on the drawing) and they wanted to infill with as much glass as possible to restore it and they want to put a window in the unapproved addition (it’s a texture 1- 11 box). Vice Chair Hildreth asked about the oddly shaped window on the back of the building and why it wasn’t lined up like the rest of them Mr. Petela explained where that window is now there is currently another weird series of rough openings that have been chopped out and put back in. He pointed out to the board on the drawing where the existing rough opening is and there is another part that he thinks was taken all the way out and that it might have been a double door in the past but they are trying to keep as much of the existing rough openings as they can because under that window is going to be counter with a laptop and that is the reason for that design. They are not making any rough openings or expanding on anything existing. Vice Chair Hildreth ok Mr. Petela stated that the front door system which would be most noticeable in the front would be installed like at the library next door, that same door front, frame and style sashes Vice Chair Hildreth asked if the door would open automatically like the library Mr. Petela said he didn’t think so. He stated that there is a request for as many operable windows as possible in the back area Mr. DiTursi stated that this was a question about handicap access at the front door Vice Chair Hildreth stated that the doors at the library open up automatically when you approach, my question is will this door do the same Mr. DiTursi stated they are not planning on any motion sensors. I can check with our security company to see if they can put in an opener of that sort. Mr. Petela stated that if there is an opener it would be a surface mounted one at the entrance Vice Chair Hildreth ok. She then asked if the door was even with the parking lot and there are no steps Mr. Petela right, one of the problems with the building is that the parking lot is paved right up to the building so there is a lot of damage at the bottom of the building to the bricks. There is a slight depression where the water pools up against the building and it has damaged the bricks so that is all going to be fixed and we will be repaving and restriping the parking lot and fix it so it slopes away from the building. Chairperson Cherniak asked if there was any possibility of the window in the back to bring it up even to the others Mr. Petela explained that it is a possibility but this was their preference Chairperson Cherniak stated that if they were going to go that way in having the infills and the windows at the top then it would be good to have that match the others Mr. Petela responded I think a solution would be keep the window height where it is all the way down to the existing sill. The request here is that right behind here is a counter so they are asking to have as much visual access to outside as possible—the other windows are up high so no one can see in the exam room but these windows have lower sills for outside access. So I would propose to fill in this entire area (shown on the drawing) We can propose masonry infill so we can clean up this whole back area up Chairperson Cherniak not the whole window space just on the edge? Mr. Petela no, then area would be the entire window glazed or it would be a partial window similar to the others. I think what they want is to be a low as possible so it might not be the same height as the others. Again none of it is permanent Chairperson Cherniak again as long as you aren’t bricking up the windows. Vice Chair Hildreth asked if there is a basement in the building, as she is looking at the drawings and it states new door on existing basement Mr. DiTursi there was a trap door that had stairs down to the basement to a very old oil boiler that has been decommissioned by us. Mr. Petela it’s a basement but not really most of it is dirt and it’s just a path, I think some of the utilities might be located down there. He stated that the bilco door will be a low profile one Chairperson Cherniak; asked about signage if they were going to do that now or later Mr. Petela stated that the signage on the drawings was just to imply that they are going to apply for a sign permit and get whatever appropriate certification needed. It would be a face mounted sign above the doorway. Mr. DiTursi as of right now we are thinking just the face of the building on the glass. Down the road possibly a monument sign at the road Mr. Petela stated that the sign was not part of this application Chairperson Cherniak ok I was just curious then she asked if there were any other questions from board members Mr. Petela stated that inside they were planning on keeping one hearth fireplace but the other chimney does not have a fireplace. He stated that he thought the chimneys were in decent shape but told the board that any masonry that needs to be repaired would be repaired. There was a discussion regarding the chain link fence – the fence behind the building would remain as it is the property of the railroad, but the fence by the library would be removed. Mr. Petela stated that all the original ceilings are in tack. They are going to reroof the dormer and they are looking at metal as it is in bad shape and it is not visible to anyone Chairperson Cherniak said that wasn’t a problem because it is not visible. Any other questions from board members. Mr. Petela asked the board what they wanted him to provide to them Chairperson Cherniak stated it definitely needs to be a masonry fill that extends to the outside (shown on drawing), approach it as the other windows with the cement board material and then the window in the remaining space and just in keeping with the historical dimensions without any bricking in Mr. Petela showed the board a picture on his phone explaining that you can see where the texture 1-11 doesn’t go all the way up to the top of the window and he stated that behind all of that is what was formally a double door and became a window filled in at the top half of the double door so there is framed infill and it’s kind of a mess. He said he would provide a photo of what’s there now and then the renderings of this small area calling out what they plan to do but they needed to verify with the contractor that the masonry infill there can be done. Chairperson Cherniak stated that if for any reason it can’t be done the way discussed, then they would need to come back to the board Mr. Petela stated that they would come back and talk to them about what they planned to do if it was any different. Chairperson Cherniak asked if there were any more questions from board members, being none asked if there was a motion to approve the application with the conditions that we outlined? Vice Chair Hildreth made the motion 2nd by Member Frainier all in favor AYE motion carried. YES NO ABSTAIN Daniele Cherniak X Barbara Hildreth X Evan Lamb ABSENT John Frainier X With no other business to discuss Motion was made by Vice Chair Hildreth 2nd by Member Frainier to adjourn at 6:56PM