Historic Resource Commission

APPROVED 12/18/17 Schenectady Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes November 28, 2016 I. CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Britt called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM. Commissioner Britt noted that this meeting was rescheduled from November 14, 2016 because City Hall was closed that day due to a flood in the basement. II. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Carrie Britt-Narcavage, Chair; Ben Wiles, Vice Chair; Dr. Dean Bennett; David F. Lowry; Mark Meigher; Patricia Yager EXCUSED: Jackie Craven STAFF: Rima Shamieh, Assistant Planner; Ryan Bailey, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Jennifer Mills, Secretary III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST None. IV. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Lowry, seconded by Commissioner Yager, to adopt the October 17, 2016 Meeting Minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. V. NEW BUSINESS - Applications A. Consideration for approval submitted by Kathleen Quigley to install a fence. The premise is located at 14 Morris Avenue. Kathleen Quigley appeared before the Commission. Ms. Quigley explained that her house is on the corner of Morris Avenue and Eastern Avenue. She stated that she has a two-year-old child and that she would like to install a fence on the Eastern Avenue side of the property to help improve the safety of her child when she is playing in the yard. Ms. Quigley stated that she initially would like to install a fence perpendicular to the back corner of the house and along the Eastern Avenue side of the backyard and then along the driveway (Phase I). She explained that if approved and if financially feasible she would eventually like to fence the entire yard along the Eastern Avenue and Morris Avenue sides, and remove the line of fence running from the back corner of the house to the Eastern Avenue sidewalk Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –November 28, 2016 –Page 1 of 15  APPROVED 12/18/17 (Phase II). Ms. Quigley explained that she is proposing a semi-permanent fence which would not require deep footings, so that she and her wife would be able to install it themselves and save money. She noted that she is aware that there are no other houses on Morris Avenue that have a fenced front yard. Commissioner Yager asked if they had considered bringing the front portion of the fence forward further along the side of the house, perhaps to the chimney. Ms. Quigley stated that because the side yard is very narrow they felt that they would not us it enough to justify the expense of the added fence along Eastern Avenue. Commissioner Yager asked if perhaps the fence could be moved up to the tree on the side of the house. Ms. Quigley stated that she would be willing to move it forward that much. Commissioner Britt suggested that Ms. Quigley might consider bringing the fence further up the side of the house to between the windows by the chimney and eliminating Phase II of the proposal. Commissioner Britt asked if the Commissioners had any comments or questions regarding Phase I. Commissioner Wiles asked Ms. Quigley what the underpass noted on the sketch is. Ms. Quigley stated that it is a covered walkway leading from the garage to the back door of the house. Commissioner Wiles asked Ms. Quigley if she had considered adding fence at the end of the next door neighbor’s driveway. Ms. Quigley stated that it is not part of this proposal but that they might consider it in the future. Commissioner Wiles noted that she does not have to decide as a part of this proposal, and that he was clarifying that there is no proposed fence at that location so as to keep her future options open. Commissioner Wiles asked Ms. Quigley to clarify where the proposed gates would be. Ms. Quigley stated that one would be at the driveway and the other would be at the end of the flagstone path that leads to the sidewalk on Eastern Avenue. Commissioner Britt commented that while she has no major objection to Phase I, Phase II might be a more contentious discussion. Ms. Quigley stated that although she does not plan to carry out the second phase this year she wanted to add it to the application so that she could get feedback from the Commissioners. Commissioner Britt asked Ms. Quigley if she would like the Commissioners to consider only the first phase at this time. Ms. Quigley stated that she would prefer they consider the entire application so that she knows where she stands for the future. Commissioner Britt stated that she would not vote to approve Phase II. Commissioners Bennett and Yager concurred. Commissioner Meigher asked why Ms. Quigley would like the entire yard fenced. Ms. Quigley replied that she would like her daughter to be able to safely use as much of the yard as possible, and that there are many police cars that drive very fast down Eastern Avenue. She stated that she understands that there are no other fenced front yards on the street, but that she is proposing a low fence and the style is in keeping with that of the neighbor’s fences. Assistant Planner Shamieh noted that the photo from 1990 from the assessment file shows a low, farm-style fence around the perimeter of the property. Commissioner Yager noted that in 1990 Morris Avenue was not a historic district. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –November 28, 2016 –Page 2 of 15  APPROVED 12/18/17 Commissioner Britt asked Ms. Quigley if she would like to include the side yard in the fence if allowed by the Commissioners. Ms. Quigley replied that she would be open to fencing as much of the side yard as is allowed, providing she can afford to do so at this time. Commissioner Britt noted that she does not feel that the black metal fence style proposed is in keeping with the style of the house. She stated that she believes that a white picket fence would be more appropriate with the bungalow style. She also stated that it would most likely be less expensive. Commissioner Yager noted that the application states that the metal fence is a semi- permanent fence. Ms. Quigley noted that this is because the metal fence posts can be pounded in and do not require footings. Ms. Shamieh commented that whether the fence is permanent or not does not impact the Commission’s jurisdiction. Commissioner Britt stated that she feels strongly that a white picket fence would be more appropriate. Ms. Quigley stated that she does not believe that it would be within her budget, because while the fence might be cheaper it would require that footings be dug and they could not install it themselves. Commissioner Bennett noted that he does not have a strong preference as to what type of fence is chosen, but is more concerned with where it will be located. Ms. Quigley noted that she had not considered that the metal fence might not be in keeping with the style of her house, but that she had chosen it partly because she had seen similar fences on Morris Avenue. Ms. Shamieh noted that the Commissioners should refer back to the standards and guidelines if there is any question about the style of the fence, or the way in which the yard is fenced. Commissioner Yager noted that she is concerned about the proposed fence style for safety reasons. She stated that while the fence might meet code it is not necessarily safe. She added that she had called Lowe’s and they informed her that the top portion of the fence has gaps of five inches, which is large enough for a toddler to get stuck in. Ms. Shamieh noted that the national standard is four inches in between posts. Commissioner Yager noted that she is concerned that a small child could fall against the lower stake and injure their chin or eye. Ms. Quigley stated that the stakes have rounded tops and that she does not intend to let her child play in the yard unattended. She stated that she will be supervised at all times and that the fence is meant to keep her from darting into the street, perhaps after a ball, before she can be stopped by an adult. Ms. Quigley stated that if the Commissioners prefer another style of fence she would be happy to consider it. Commissioner Britt stated that she believes that the price of the white picket fence would be comparable to the style proposed. Commissioner Wiles asked Ms. Quigley what the fence post between the units of fence looks like. Ms. Quigley stated that it is a two by two inch metal stake. Commissioner Britt asked the Commissioners if locating the fence in the side yard to behind the chimney would be acceptable to them. The Commissioners agreed that it would be. Commissioner Britt suggested that the application be amended to bring the fence on the Eastern Avenue side yard to any point behind the chimney that the applicant prefers. The Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –November 28, 2016 –Page 3 of 15  APPROVED 12/18/17 Commissioners concurred. Commissioner Britt noted that she looked up the white picket fence and that it is twenty-five dollars per length and it is spruce painted white. She stated that she had used this product in her yard and used standard four by four posts with it. Commissioner Yager stated that if the fence is located behind the chimney she would approve of the picket style. Commissioner Wiles noted that while he believes that the proposed style of fence does not perfectly match the house, he has seen it used in historical applications in other places such as the GE Realty Plot. He stated that he believes that the black metal fence might recede more and look less obtrusive than the white picket. Commissioner Britt stated that she disagreed, adding that she believes that the white picket fence is more in keeping with the style of the house, and that the black metal fences used in the Plot are further back from the right-of-way. Commissioner Wiles stated that he believes that picket fence is a mismatch with historic houses. Ms. Quigley asked him what type of fence he feels would be more appropriate. Commissioner Wiles stated that the one shown in the assessment photo, which was in disrepair and removed by the applicant, was probably what would be most appropriate. He stated that while he does not like that style of fence it is what was there so it is what should be replaced. Commissioner Britt noted that picket fences are used to keep children and pets in the yard while the style of fence that was removed is meant to keep pedestrians off the lawn. Commissioner Bennett noted that he is okay with the fence being metal or picket. Commissioner Lowry stated that he would approve either style of fence but feels that the picket is more appropriate. Commissioner Meigher stated that he could support the metal fence in the location discussed, but not for the whole yard. Commissioner Britt stated that she would not approve a fence that she believes is not an appropriate style for the property. Motion by Commissioner Wiles, seconded by Commissioner Yager, to approve the application to install a fence on the property as submitted with the following modifications and conditions: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. 2. Phase II of the project is not approved. 3. Phase I as shown on the diagram submitted with the application is approved with the modification that the line of fence perpendicular to the house which extends from the rear corner of the house (as shown on the diagram) may be moved forward on the property to extend from the side of the house anywhere behind the chimney to the Eastern Avenue side of the fence. 4. The diagram does not clearly show a gate but the applicant states that there will be a gate where the flagstone pathway meets the sidewalk on the Eastern Avenue side and another at the front corner of the garage by the driveway. These locations for the gates are approved. 5. The style of the fence may be either the black metal fence proposed in the application or a white picket-style fence. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –November 28, 2016 –Page 4 of 15  APPROVED 12/18/17 Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. The purpose of the fence is to allow a child to play in the yard without constant direct supervision. 3. The design of the original fence, which was removed, is inconsistent with this purpose. 4. The proposed fence does not extend to close off the end of the neighbor’s driveway. As discussed, the applicant understands that should she decide to extend the fence to that side of the property she would have to return to the Commission for further review. 5. The fence is intended to be temporary in that it may be installed and removed by the owner. Prior to the call for the vote, there was additional discussion regarding the style of the fence. Commissioner Yager commented that while she understands it is not within the purview of the Commission she is concerned about the safety of the fence style proposed. She stated that she believes that because the opening is larger than four inches it is unsafe. Ms. Quigley stated that she has been convinced by Commissioner Yager to look into it further and make sure that the style of fence is safe or she will choose another style. Commissioner Britt stated that if the style of fence Ms. Quigley decides to use is not the one proposed or a white picket she will be required to return to the Commission for approval of the alternate fence style. Commissioner Lowry asked Ms. Quigley if she would commit to the picket-style fence. Ms. Quigley stated that she is wiling to consider it but not commit to it immediately, because it will require more maintenance and posts with footings that will make it both more difficult to install and more permanent. Planning Commission Chair Mary Moore Wallinger who was in the audience noted that it is unlikely that Lowe’s would sell a fence that does not meet safety guidelines, given the potential liability issues. Motion carried, with Commissioner Britt opposed. B. Consideration for approval submitted by ABD Engineers, LLP, on behalf of St. John the Evangelist Church to design and landscape the front entryway. The premise is located at 814 Union Street. Mary Moore Wallinger of Land Art Studio, Joe Bianchine of ABD Engineers, LLP, and John Jersen representing St. John the Evangelist Parish appeared before the Commission. Mr. Bianchine began the presentation by reviewing the site plan. He explained that the asphalt in front of the church from the front steps to the curb would be removed and the land would be re-graded. He stated that a one-way driveway is proposed to be installed with two new curb cuts at the entrance and exit. He also noted that a new concrete sidewalk is proposed, as well as removing the front steps of the church and rebuilding them with a new foundation. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –November 28, 2016 –Page 5 of 15  APPROVED 12/18/17 Ms. Wallinger went on to review the landscaping proposal, explaining that the street lawn will be restored between the sidewalk and the curb. She also noted that a change in paving is being proposed for the driveway to both give the feel of a plaza and discourage parking in the driveway. She explained that the species of plants chosen are consistent with the style and historical period of the building; they will be roses, hydrangea, and smaller flowering trees. Ms. Wallinger stated that the existing lights will be replaced with smaller LED lights which will be placed as low as possible and the posts will be in the yew hedge. Commissioner Britt asked when the church was built. Assistant Planner Shamieh noted that the assessment form states that it was built in 1903. Ms. Wallinger noted that the goal of the front entrance is to make it an attractive spill-out space suitable for wedding photos etc. She explained that while she is usually not happy with the effect of stamped concrete the proposed product looks very similar to authentic cobblestones, which are harder to maintain and much more expensive. Commissioner Yager asked if the stamped concrete weathers well. Ms. Wallinger stated that it does. Mr. Jersen stated that this project began because the front steps of the church and their foundation are failing and must be replaced. He explained that they are proposing to rebuild the stairs with a new concrete foundation and replacement treads that will match the existing sandstone but will be a different material due to the high cost and availability problems with sandstone. Commissioner Bennett noted that an online search revealed that the church was built from 1899 to 1904. Commissioner Britt commented that the church was originally constructed entirely of sandstone. Commissioner Wiles asked if the new proposed stairs will extend across all three entrance doors. Mr. Jersen stated that they would. Commissioner Wiles asked where the handicap access to the church is. Mr. Bianchine stated that it will remain at the rear entrances, as it is now. Commissioner Yager stated that she likes the overall look of the proposed design but feels that the entrance to the church should remain as close to the original as possible. Commissioner Britt noted that what is original is what currently exists, and that according to the standards and guidelines that the Commission must follow if the original is removed it must be rebuilt to look exactly as it was. Mr. Jersen stated that it is a question of economics and that replacing the stairs as they are, including the side portions, would be prohibitively expensive and cost two to three times the current estimate. Commissioner Yager noted that finances cannot be a part of the Commission’s consideration. Commissioner Britt noted that she likes the landscaping plan and feels that the species are low-maintenance and historically appropriate choices. Commissioner Bennett stated that he would encourage that the use of the large maple trees in the tree lawn be reconsidered. He explained that since the trees have been removed from St. George’s Church the effect has been wonderful and has Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –November 28, 2016 –Page 6 of 15  APPROVED 12/18/17 completely opened up the view of the church. He noted that the design of the church is extraordinary and should not be obscured. Ms. Wallinger stated that this is a good point and that perhaps smaller trees like magnolias or flowering cherries should be considered. She explained that she chose the maples to continue with what is planted along this section of Union Street, but agreed that a smaller tree would be much less likely to obscure the view of the church. Commissioner Bennett stated that he feels that a cherry or magnolia would be a much better choice. Commissioner Yager noted that magnolia trees can be messy and she would be concerned about the sidewalk becoming slippery with fallen blossoms. Ms. Wallinger noted that the tree lawn is quite large in this area, but that she would also agree that a cherry tree would be a good choice if the Commissioners preferred. Commissioner Britt stated that she likes the color of the proposed stamped concrete. She noted that because the existing material – asphalt – is being removed and a different material is being used, there must be a justification for approval of it by the Commission. She stated that the stamped concrete looks like cobblestone which would be a historically appropriate material, although in most cases stamped concrete is not approved by the Commission when an original material could be used. Commissioner Britt also noted that concerning the removal of the side steps, while there might be considerable financial burdens associated with replacing them as original financial concerns are not within the purview of the Commission and may not be a part of their review. Assistant Planner Shamieh stated that she did not understand how replacing the side stairs could double or triple the cost of the project since the materials needed would not be double or triple what was originally proposed. Commissioner Britt noted that an alternative would be to leave the side portions of the stairs as is and have them be for decorative purposes only. Laurence Wilson of MCWB Architects commented from the audience that he worked on the Albany Immaculate Conception Cathedral restoration and they received a State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) grant for the project. Commissioner Britt stated that it would be in the best interest of the church to contact SHPO regarding possible funds available. Commissioner Britt stated that a change in material can be allowed if the new material looks the same but might last longer. She explained that if different materials are available for the project that might be easier to maintain or less expensive and still give the same appearance as was the original intent they might be considered. Mr. Jersen stated that they would need time to reconsider the proposal and asked if it would be appropriate to table the application. Neil Larson commented from the audience that the church might also consider seeking a grant from the New York Landmarks Conservancy. Mr. Wilson commented that the Conservancy grants are smaller than those offered by SHPO. Mr. Larsen stated that they are smaller but they can be obtained more quickly. Commissioner Britt stated that the Commissioners support the project and are willing to work with the applicants on bringing the proposal to fruition. Ms. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –November 28, 2016 –Page 7 of 15  APPROVED 12/18/17 Shamieh noted that it is the charge of the Commission to make sure that the original historic features of the property are preserved. Commissioner Wiles stated that he does not feel that an argument can be made to remove the sides of the stairs because they have not been in use. He explained that he believes that they are an important part of the design of the façade of the church and he would not support a change in design that would remove the side portions. Regarding the proposed new light style, Commissioner Wiles stated that he would prefer a simpler design than what is proposed. He explained that when installing new fixtures such as lights it is not necessary that they mimic what would have been there originally, as they are clearly new lights with new technology, but that they blend with the overall look of the design and are as unobtrusive as possible. Mr. Bianchine showed an example of a light with a simpler design, which the Commissioners agreed would be more appropriate. Ms. Wallinger asked what the Commissioners felt would be an appropriate railing style. Commissioner Britt noted that in keeping with Commissioner Wiles’ earlier statement a simple railing would be best, as railings were not original to the church since they were generally not used at that time. The applicants stated that they would like to withdraw the application pending further consideration of the feedback they had received from the Commissioners. Ms. Shamieh stated that she would follow up with the applicants with information regarding possible funding sources. C. Consideration for approval submitted by Mesick Cohen Wilson Baker Architects on behalf of the First Reformed Church to replace a roof, re- landscape, add a code compliant ADA ramp and enclosure, façade restorations, remove fire escape, alter gable edges, apply slate roofing, build an addition, and replace windows. The premise is located at 8 North Church Street. Laurence Wilson and Sarah Raymond from Mesick Cohen Wilson Baker Architects and Fred Daniels representing the First Reformed Church parish appeared before the Commission. Mr. Wilson explained that Ms. Raymond and Brandon Stabler from MCWB appeared before the Commission at the October 2016 meeting for preliminary review of the project. Mr. Wilson stated that the church annex was originally built as an assembly hall in the 1890’s. He explained that it was a two-story structure with balconies on the interior. He noted that in the 1950’s another building was added to it and then yet another connecting building in the 1990’s. Mr. Wilson stated that in the 1950’s the annex roof was raised to add a third floor and the slate valley in the roof was bricked in. He explained that the church does not need all the space of the three floors in the Annex today, but they do have a need for a fellowship hall that is not in the basement and is ADA compliant. He noted that the intent is to restore the original intended us of the building, and the annex will also be opened up again so Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –November 28, 2016 –Page 8 of 15  APPROVED 12/18/17 that it will be a two-story open space. He also noted that they are dedicated to using sustainable and recycled materials as much as possible, without taking the time of obtaining LEAD Certification. Mr. Wilson explained that they will not be able to restore the original roof valley because of structural issues, but that using the slate infill will make it appear sloping from most every angle. He also stated that the windows will be restored to their original configurations, and that the 1990’s addition will not be modified during this project. Mr. Wilson next turned to the plans for the 1950’s building, which he explained will have an indoor sloping sidewalk added for ADA accessibility. He also noted that the ramp area will have a green roof planted with low-maintenance sedum. He explained that the goal is for the addition to be simple and contemporary in style while using similar materials to those used elsewhere on the buildings to give the building context while not making it look blatantly modern or like it is trying to mimic the style of the original. Mr. Wilson explained that the materials of the addition will be stucco with some brick, which they hope to recycle from elsewhere on the site if possible. Commissioner Yager asked Mr. Wilson for more detail regarding the green roof. Mr. Wilson explained that it will be a flat EPDM roof covered with an aggregate planting medium and planted with succulents and sedum. Mr. Daniels stated that although the green roof is very small it is a deliberate statement expressing the church’s support of using sustainable building practices. Commissioner Britt stated that she appreciated the use of the stucco and brick to give the building context on the site. She asked what material is proposed for the courtyard. Mr. Wilson stated that they would like to use bluestone if the budget permits, but if it proved to be too expensive they will leave it grass for now. Commissioner Britt stated that she very much appreciates the restoration of the windows, and that she believes that the addition of the slate on the roof is appropriate because is it restoring an original material even though the roof cannot be restored to the original slope because of structural concerns. She stated that she feels the proposed materials have been used very thoughtfully, noting the brick on the face of the walkway addition and the copper details carried throughout the site. Commissioner Bennett commented that he also feels that the material choices are very thoughtful and appropriate. Commissioner Wiles stated that the green roof is an introduction of a new material to the site, and one which he believes appears very different and stands out considerably. He asked the applicants why they had not raised the roof edge on the green roof so that it is less visible. Commissioner Bennett commented that if they are making a statement with the roof they would want it to be seen. Commissioner Wiles stated that he would think that the point is to have a green roof – and that they will all know that it is there without seeing it so obviously. Commissioner Wiles asked Mr. Wilson why the windows are not divided light. Mr. Wilson Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –November 28, 2016 –Page 9 of 15  APPROVED 12/18/17 pointed out that the original windows that are extant on other parts of the building are not divided light, and these will be restored to match what was original. He added that the plastic clip-in dividers were added about twelve years ago, and will be removed. Commissioner Wiles asked if the windows open. Mr. Wilson explained that the windows originally pivoted open horizontally from a center point. He stated that the windows will be restored with new sashes in the original frames with thermal glass. He stated that the upper windows will most likely have a center point vertical pivot to open. He added that the transoms will remain original and will most likely have an additional piece of thermal glass added on the inside for insulation. Commissioner Wiles asked if it would be possible to conceal the edge of the green roof. Mr. Wilson stated that they would prefer not to, but that it would be possible. Mr. Daniels explained that the church recently adopted a Care of Creation covenant, explaining the congregation’s commitment to sustaining the earth for future generations, and they feel that the green roof is an important statement in support of that covenant. Commissioner Britt commented that the argument could be made that the green roof is an ecclesiastical accommodation and thus would be allowed under the standards and guidelines. Commissioner Wiles stated that he has no problem with the green roof being used, but he does not feel that it needs to be seen so blatantly. Commissioner Meigher noted that an applicant could propose using solar panels and use the argument that it should be an ecclesiastical accommodation. Commissioner Britt stated that the specific proposal would have to be examined on its own merit, with consideration being given to whether the panels could be hidden from view or placed in an unobtrusive way. She also noted that the ramp addition is allowed because it does not try to look like the original historical building, and that a solar panel might be allowed on one of the more modern stucco building portions on the site, but not on the slate roof of the annex building. Commissioner Bennett stated that he supports the use of the green roof and believes that it should be allowed in this case. He also noted that he appreciates the use of the stucco on the more contemporary portions of the site. Commissioner Wiles stated that the stucco is not a surprise to the eye and that it blends in unobtrusively and is an expected material in the overall context of the site. He noted that earlier in the meeting the Commission had told the applicant’s for St. John the Evangelist that they have to be extremely sensitive to introducing new materials, and the green roof could not be a more obvious new material. Mr. Wilson commented that unlike the St. John’s proposal, the green roof is not at all attempting to look original but is trying to make a specific contemporary statement. Assistant Planner Shamieh briefly reviewed the standards regarding green roofs and Commissioner Britt reviewed the section on new additions. Commissioner Wiles stated that the issue is the compatibility of the green roof with the historical portions of the site and the new additions. He added that he believes Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –November 28, 2016 –Page 10 of 15  APPROVED 12/18/17 that it completely disrupts the rhythm of the site, and that it is an easy problem to fix by raising the edge of the roof to better conceal it, thus allowing the congregation to have the green roof, which they all will know is there, and preserving the context of the site. Mr. Wilson responded that the congregation views the green roof as an opportunity as opposed to a problem. Commissioner Wiles stated that the congregation will know that the green roof is there and thus the promotional goals of its installation will be almost completely met. Commissioner Britt stated that compatibility is a subjective idea. Ms. Shamieh noted that if a building has architectural elements that reflect the beliefs of the congregation the argument could be made that the elements should be considered first in that context, with the historical context still being considered but secondary. Commissioner Wiles stated that compatibility is a tenuous argument that would be used by either side, but that he cannot support the blatant visibility of the green roof which could easily be remedied. Motion by Commissioner Britt, seconded by Commissioner Bennett, to approve the application to replace a roof, re-landscape, add a code compliant ADA ramp and enclosure, make façade restorations, remove fire escape, alter gable edges, apply slate roofing, build an addition, and replace windows as submitted with the following condition: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. The new materials introduced help to distinguish between the historical buildings on the site and the more contemporary additions. Motion passed, with Commissioner Wiles opposed. VII. OLD BUSSINESS A. Consideration for approval submitted by George Gordon to remove the garage. The premise is located at 31 N. College Street. George and Elaine Gordon appeared before the Commission. Mr. Gordon stated that at the October meeting the Commissioners suggested that he return to this meeting with a proposal for the parking area once the garage is removed. He explained that they had submitted several different sketches for the Commission’s consideration. Commissioner Wiles asked Mr. Gordon if he has prefers one of the plans submitted. Mr. Gordon stated that he does not. Commissioner Britt stated that she feels that the white stockade fence option would be the least obtrusive. Commissioner Meigher asked for a brief review of what has happened so far at the site, since he had missed the previous meeting. Mr. Gordon briefly reviewed the case to this point, explaining that when they had begun to repair the garage wall Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –November 28, 2016 –Page 11 of 15  APPROVED 12/18/17 and had the required inspections the City Inspector informed them that the garage wall could not be rebuilt without adding footings, which would require encroachment on the neighbor’s property and would be prohibitively expensive. Mrs. Gordon commented that upon the Commissioners’ suggestion they had formulated proposals to enclose the former garage space so as to preserve the street line and maintain the feeling of a closed space. Commissioner Wiles asked if the proposed fences shown are on the property line. Mr. Gordon responded that they are. Commissioner Wiles asked if a vehicle would be able to drive through the proposed gate and park. Mr. Gordon stated that they would. Commissioner Wiles noted that the Commission has had issues with fences being installed on an uneven grade and thus ending up being stepped up along an incline. Commissioner Bennett asked is the ground could be graded prior to installing the fence so that it would be level. Mr. Gordon responded that the ground could be slightly built up to ensure that the fence is consistently level. Commissioner Britt stated that in order for the proposal to pass it would need to receive four votes; thus, four Commissioners must approve of demolishing the garage. Mrs. Gordon asked what, from the Commissioners’ perspective, the arguments for and against demolishing the garage would be. Commissioner Britt reviewed the appropriate section of the standards and guidelines and explained that financial concerns cannot be considered by the Commission when reviewing an application. Commissioner Bennett stated that in his opinion the garage is definitely a contributing structure. Mrs. Gordon stated that the neighbor was allowed to take down his garage, which she believes was the impetus for the failing wall of their garage. Assistant Planner Shamieh noted that there are no minutes detailing the decision to allow the neighbor’s garage to be demolished, so it is unclear as to why it was allowed. She reminded the Commissioners that their decision must be based on the standards and guidelines and that financial issues cannot be considered. Commissioner Bennett stated that the argument could be made that the garage should not have been built in the first place. Ms. Shamieh noted that one could argue that the garage had fundamental structural problems from the beginning, but that does not automatically mean that it should not be salvaged. Commissioner Yager asked Mr. Gordon if repairing the garage would be feasible if he was not doing the work himself. Mr. Gordon responded that the problem is installing new footings without encroaching on the neighbor’s property and the expense of the whole project once new footings are required. Ms. Shamieh noted that the garage could be removed in its entirety and replaced. Mrs. Gordon agreed that it could be, but that it would not be financially feasible. Commissioner Britt stated that while she understands the financial concerns, the Commission cannot consider them. She noted that there is a financial hardship appeal process that goes through the Board of Zoning Appeals. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –November 28, 2016 –Page 12 of 15  APPROVED 12/18/17 Commissioner Wiles stated that he believes that the site must be considered as it stands now, not as it was six months ago. He explained that the wall has been taken down and now the next step must be considered. He stated that he does not believe that this application should be considered a demolition but a property owner attempting to preserve the essential features of the space by proposing an enclosed parking area. He noted that the building was failing when the first application was made by the Gordons in August 2016 and now the applicants are trying to remedy that situation the best way they can. Ms. Shamieh stated that even if that argument were accepted she does not believe that it would support demolition based on the standards and guidelines. Commissioner Wiles referenced Guideline 9 and stated that many of the standards could be interpreted in different ways to support opposing arguments. Mrs. Gordon stated that the footprint of the proposed enclosure would be the same as the garage. Mr. Gordon noted that they are not changing the use of the space. Commissioner Britt asked for a review of the financial hardship legislation and asked Ms. Shamieh if in her opinion the applicants would qualify. Ms. Shamieh reviewed the section of the code and stated that in her opinion they would not, but that the BZA is an independent board and she cannot say what they would decide. Commissioner Wiles asked that an informal poll be taken of the Commissioners asking is they support the demolition. Commissioner Yager stated that as it appears that a financial hardship appeal would not be granted she could approve the demolition and fence enclosure as the best way to remedy the existing problem. Ms. Shamieh noted that financial concerns should not be considered, even in this way. Commissioner Britt stated that in light of the new information offered by Ms. Shamieh in her staff notes, and as the result of her continued deliberation about the proposal, she would not support the demolition of the garage at this time. Commissioner Bennett stated that his opinion has been growing more towards preserving the garage, but that he is not entirely convinced it is the only remedy. Mr. Gordon stated that at the October meeting he was given the impression that they would be able to move forward with removing the garage once they had presented alternative plans for the space. Commissioner Bennett stated that if necessary he would probably approve an enclosure that would mitigate the loss of the garage and is historically appropriate and preserves the street wall, but he does not feel that he could approve a stockade fence enclosure. Commissioner Britt stated that the style of the fence is not the main issue, but the question of allowing the removal of the garage is. Commissioner Wiles stated that the style of the fence is significant for the applicant, who has stated that he is willing to accommodate the Commission’s preference. Commissioner Yager stated that she would reluctantly support the removal of the garage if an appropriate enclosure is approved. Commissioner Meigher stated that he does not have specific objections to any of the enclosures proposed, but that he feels that the garage should be preserved if at Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –November 28, 2016 –Page 13 of 15  APPROVED 12/18/17 all possible. He noted that the Commission had just told St. John’s that they could not alter the steps of the church due to financial concerns, and that he believes that is the mandate of the Commission to protect the integrity of historic properties if at all possible. Mrs. Gordon stated that the neighbor was allowed to remove his garage twenty-five years ago. Ms. Shamieh stated that there is not detailed record of that decision. She noted that the Building Codes Supervisor she spoke with stated that the applicant could hire a structural engineer for $200-$250 to take a look at the garage and produce stamped drawings for repairs that could cost less than what the code requires, considering that the building is historic. Mr. Gordon stated that in his opinion a one-bay garage is not historically significant. Commissioner Britt stated that she fully understands his opinion and it is justified, but that the Commission is required to follow the standards and guidelines set forth. Motion by Commissioner Wiles, seconded by Commissioner Yager, to approve the application to remove the garage submitted with the following condition: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. 2. The applicants have submitted a plan for the fence enclosure that they would implement once the garage is removed. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. The applicants appeared before the Commission previously in August and October of 2016. If they had been able to carry out their original proposal approved in August 2016 the garage would have been repaired. 3. During the course of the approved repair it came to light that new footings would have to be installed before repairing the garage wall. 4. The proposal presented was amended to add three different versions of replacement fenced enclosures in the garage space. The applicant has demonstrated a willingness to provide alternate designs to remedy the current state of the site. 5. The garage could at any time be replaced by this or a subsequent owner. 6. The proposed enclosed fenced parking space maintains the same footprint and intended use as the garage. Motion did not pass, with Commissioners Britt, Bennett, and Meigher opposed. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS A. Presentation by Neil Larson of the draft report to certify the Union Triangle and Morris Avenue Historic Districts. Neil Larson made a brief report to the Commissioners regarding his progress on this project. He explained that as an historian specializing in survey projects such Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –November 28, 2016 –Page 14 of 15  APPROVED 12/18/17 as this he is used to starting a project and having a large amount of information available from which to begin his research. He stated that in this case there is a lot of information available regarding Morris Avenue, but very little about the Union Triangle. He stated that there was some general information but very little on individual buildings. Mr. Larsen distributed materials showing historical maps of the Union Triangle area and stated that he plans to begin work on the draft of his narrative about the neighborhoods very soon. Commissioner Britt stated that she would like to see a draft when it is available. Mr. Larson stated that he will share it with the Commissioners as soon as possible. Commissioner Britt thanked Mr. Larson for staying to the end of a very late meeting to make his presentation. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Bennett, seconded by Commissioner Yager, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 pm. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –November 28, 2016 –Page 15 of 15