Historic Resource Commission

APPROVED 2/13/17 Schenectady Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes January 17, 2017 I. CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Britt called the meeting to order at 7:08 PM. Prior to the beginning of the meeting, Assistant Planner Shamieh distributed the 2017 Meeting Schedule to the Commissioners. She noted that in years past there were two scheduled meetings in June because it was assumed that there would be a large number of applications prior to the summer. However, she noted that for the last few years this has not been the case. Therefore the administration has decided to schedule a single meeting for June at this time, and reserves the right to schedule a second meeting for either May or June, as dictated by the number of applications received. II. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Carrie Britt-Narcavage, Chair; Dr. Dean Bennett; David F. Lowry; Mark Meigher; Patricia Yager EXCUSED: Ben Wiles, Vice Chair; 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 Bennett, seconded by Commissioner Meigher, to adopt the November 28, 2016 Meeting Minutes with the following amendment, as submitted by Commissioner Yager: • Under Section VIII. Miscellaneous, paragraph four will be amended to read: In light of the recent situation on North College Street, Commissioner Yager asked Ms. Shamieh if there is any way that Building Inspectors might be able to provide written notes specific to their inspections of a property. Commissioner Yager felt notes in writing from the inspectors regarding historic property issues would be helpful, since Commissioners are sometimes asked to consider those inspections when reviewing applications. Ms. Shamieh indicated that asking for written comments on every property inspected would not be a realistic expectation of limited staff resources, but perhaps if there are specific Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –January 17, 2017 –Page 1 of 9  APPROVED 2/13/17 properties that come into question the inspector could speak directly to Ms. Shamieh, who could then relay the details of the situation to the Commissioners. Counselor Bailey felt something might be done, and would look into it. Commissioner Yager felt concerned that if Commissioners rely upon an inspection report that is not memorialized in writing, as part of their decision process on an application, and there is a protest of the decision by the applicant, the Commission is on shaky ground defending their decision. Although she appreciates the heavy workload of the inspectors, Commissioner Yager felt there must be an efficient way to provide some form of the report. Motion carried with Commissioner Britt abstaining. V. NEW BUSINESS - Applications A. Consideration for approval submitted by Lawrence James to allow current fence, driveway, and landscaping configuration to remain. The premise is located at 142 Front Street. Lawrence James appeared before the Commission. Mr. James began his presentation by apologizing for being before the Commission, as he had thought that the work that he did on the property was in compliance with a previous HDC decision. He explained that he had been told by the previous owner of the property that permission had been granted to install a parking space in the yard, but he was not told that there had been specific parameters and design guidelines set by the Commission. Mr. James stated that he thought that the work that he had done was allowed within that approval, and only found out after the fact that it was not and that he is in violation of the 2014 HDC decision regarding the driveway installation and installation of the fence, gate, and landscaping. He went on to explain that he is mortified by the current situation and would be happy to do anything that the Commission suggests to rectify the violations. Commissioner Britt asked Assistant Planner Shamieh for clarification as to what had been approved in 2014. Ms. Shamieh explained that the previous application was to put in a concrete slab parking space with a gate that would swing into the space, in order to maintain the fence line as it was at the time. Additional landscaping was also proposed and approved at that time. Mr. James stated that he had chosen stamped concrete tracks with a stone surface between them because he felt that it would add less impervious surface to the property and have less of an affect on storm water run-off. He added that he plans to add additional landscaping, as he has been working on expanding the gardens throughout the property. Commissioner Britt stated that she could approve of the style of the fence since it matches what was previously in place. The Commissioners concurred. Commissioner Britt explained that the location of the fence differs from what was Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –January 17, 2017 –Page 2 of 9  APPROVED 2/13/17 approved in 2014. She asked Ms. Shamieh if the location of the fence was specifically mentioned in the 2014 decision letter or application. Ms. Shamieh stated that it was not mentioned in the decision letter, and that while it was in the application Mr. James had not had access to that document. Commissioner Yager asked Mr. James why he chose the white stone. Mr. James stated that it is used on a path in another part of the yard. Commissioner Yager asked for clarification as to what is in the utility strip by the tree near the parking space. Mr. James stated that is currently just tree roots and mulch but that he plans to add more landscaping to that area. Ms. Shamieh stated that the main areas of concern are the configuration of the fence and the design of the driveway, as these are both now very different from what was approved. Commissioner Meigher asked what had been approved regarding the fence. Ms. Shamieh stated that the fence was supposed to remain as it was previously, following along the front property line with a gate to be installed at the sidewalk end of the parking space, but instead the fence was installed in back of the parking, so that there is a gap in the street wall that was not there previously. Ms. Shamieh added that the Commissioners had specifically stated in 2014 that they wanted the gate to be installed in order to maintain the street wall. Commissioner Bennett asked if it would be an option to leave the existing fence but install a gate at the end of the driveway now. Commissioner Britt stated that her opinion to allow the fence to remain as it is now is influenced by the fact that the work has already been done and she questions whether it would be worth the effort to uproot the entire fence at this point. Mr. James added that it would also be very expensive. Commissioner Britt stated that while she can sympathize with the cost issue the Commission cannot consider financial concerns when making their decisions. Ms. Shamieh reminded the Commissioners that they should always refer back to the standards and guidelines when considering an application. Commissioner Lowry asked if the guidelines specifically dictated that the fence should go straight across the entrance to the parking space. Ms. Shamieh stated that they did not, but that maintaining the street wall is definitely a consideration, in that it affects the whole property as well as that of the neighborhood. Commissioner Lowry stated that he sees a lot of driveways without gates on Front Street. Ms. Shamieh stated that she understands his point, but would question whether or not those driveways are historically appropriate. Commissioner Yager stated that she feels that the fence and the property look significantly altered from the previous configuration. The Commissioners concurred. Commissioner Meigher asked where the gate would be installed. Mr. James stated that it could be put at the end of the driveway, but that it would have to be very wide. Commissioner Britt explained that two smaller portions of fence could be added at the end of the driveway so that the gate would only have to be eight feet wide. Mr. James asked if he would have to remove the fence at the beginning of the driveway. Commissioner Yager stated that she does not believe it would be Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –January 17, 2017 –Page 3 of 9  APPROVED 2/13/17 necessary. The Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Bennett asked Ms. Shamieh if, since the 2014 decision letter said nothing about a gate, the Commissioners are bound to enforce the decision. Ms. Shamieh responded that even if it was not specifically stated in the letter it was a part of the approved decision. Commissioner Lowry stated that he would support allowing the applicant to leave the existing fence and put up the gate so that the street wall would be maintained, but that he is not completely convinced that a gate is necessary. Commissioner Yager stated that she also would be amenable to that decision; however she noted that a portion of the hardscape, i.e. the stamped concrete and white stone, would still be visible. Mr. James stated that he would be willing to plant vines, shrubs, and other flowering plants to soften the look of the fence and hardscape. Commissioner Britt asked the Commissioners to discuss their opinions about the gate. Commissioner Lowry stated that he could go either way on the gate, although he feels that maintaining the street wall should be considered. Commissioner Yager stated that she was not opposed to the gate, but was concerned that a portion of the hardscape would still be visible anyway. Commissioner Britt commented that concrete is an acceptable material so mainly the stamping of the concrete was the issue requiring consideration. Commissioner Lowry stated that he does not feel that the stamped concrete is obtrusive. Commissioner Britt noted that she believes the fence to be historically appropriate and feels that it should be allowed. Commissioner Meigher asked if the white stone might be replaced with another material. Commissioner Bennett asked if the stone should even be considered since it is clearly a temporary element. Ms. Shamieh responded that whether or not it is temporary is not the question, but rather is it historically appropriate. Commissioner Bennett stated that he would not object to the stone. Commissioner Britt stated that she like the appearance of the stone more when it was covered with fallen leaves. Mr. James stated that the stone will darken over time and appear less stark white. He again stated that he is very upset that he unintentionally did the wrong thing and violated the previous decision. Commissioner Britt stated that she has some concern that simply adding a gate to the driveway would make it look like a pen. Commissioner Bennett stated that he agrees with protecting the street wall but feels that it is important to note that this is a simple wood fence, and not a major architectural element like the cast iron fences on Lower Union Street which were meant to make a significant contribution to the overall design of a property. Commissioner Britt agreed, stating that if the 2014 application was being considered now she would most likely be opposed to the addition of the parking space, but it was already approved. Commissioner Yager stated that she would strongly support the idea of additional planting being used to soften the fence and hardscape. Mr. James stated that he has already planted hundreds of bulbs and many other plants, and once he sees what comes up in the spring he will continue to add more plants to the gardens. Commissioner Britt stated that the landscaping could contribute greatly to mitigating the harsh Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –January 17, 2017 –Page 4 of 9  APPROVED 2/13/17 appearance of the driveway and fence, and that if this is the course of action she does not feel that the gate would be necessary. The Commissioners agreed. Motion by Commissioner Britt, seconded by Commissioner Bennett, to approve the configuration and design of the fence, the stamped concrete and stone driveway, and landscaping as it currently exists with the following conditions: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. 2. Plantings of perennials and shrubs will be added along the side and at the beginning of the driveway in order to soften the appearance of the hardscape and fence. 3. The project must meet all code requirements and a fence permit must be obtained. Counselor Bailey asked Ms. Shamieh if, assuming the decision is approved as stated, there will be any resulting or existing code violations. Ms. Shamieh stated that the applicant failed to get a fence permit prior to installing the fence, so he will have to obtain one immediately and the fence will have to be approved as installed. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. The applicant purchased the property eighteen months after the previous HDC approval of the driveway and fence application. While he had access to the 2014 decision letter he was not aware of the specific design details of the decision and thus unknowingly violated that decision when installing the new fence and parking space. 3. The current fence design is an exact match of the previous fence. The homeowner has indicated that landscaping has already been added to soften the appearance of the fence and that more plantings will be added in the upcoming season. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Shamieh stated that the Commissioners may want to explain for the record what criteria in the standards and guidelines they based their decision on. Commissioner Britt stated that the fence design is the same as what was previously in place. Commissioner Bennett stated that concrete is an acceptable material for use on the driveway. Commissioner Meigher noted that the appropriateness of the white stone was in question. Commissioner Britt stated that the stone would be softened by the elements and could also be easily altered. VI. OLD BUSINESS - Applications A. Consideration for approval submitted by George Gordon to remove the garage. The premise is located at 31 North College Street. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –January 17, 2017 –Page 5 of 9  APPROVED 2/13/17 Commissioner Britt asked Assistant Planner Shamieh of there was any new information from city staff since she had issued her staff notes on the property. Ms. Shamieh stated that there was not. Ms. Shamieh distributed a document from Mr. Gordon explaining his position on what had transpired thus far regarding the garage. She explained that the Gordons chose not to travel from Vermont to attend the meeting due to the inclement weather. She also noted that the Commission’s failure to take action on the proposal at this meeting would result in an automatic approval of the application, unless an additional ad hoc meeting was called very soon. Commissioner Lowry stated that he believes that the whole situation was caused when the neighboring garage was allowed to be taken down years ago, and thus in effect the garage that was left was doomed to fail. Commissioner Britt stated that by reviewing the standards and guidelines she has been convinced that demolition cannot be allowed. Commissioner Bennett agreed. Commissioner Lowry asked what she sees as the alternatives to demolition to be at this point. Commissioner Britt stated that the guidelines make clear that the structure must be repaired and rebuilt or removed and replaced with a new, similar structure. Commissioner Yager stated that initially she had agreed to allow the demolition but through a further review of the standards and guidelines and after hearing the report of the building inspector she has concluded that the removal of the garage is not an option. Commissioner Britt agreed, stating that the Commission must contend that the garage is salvageable until there is absolute evidence that demonstrates that it is not, and that it cannot be replaced. Commissioner Bennett stated that since the initial application he has walked by the property numerous times and he observed that the garage is historically significant and removing it would result in a loss to the property and the surrounding area. Ms. Shamieh noted that the building is a contributing building and the garage is a portion of the building and thus it is contributing. She added that although the removal of the garage would not result in the loss of the entire contributing structure it would alter the building in a significant way. Commissioner Lowry asked what recourse the applicants would have if the application is denied. Ms. Shamieh stated that they could go to the Board of Zoning Appeals and pursue a financial hardship exemption, but that the question of finances or what the applicants will decide to do after the decision cannot influence the Commissioners’ consideration of the proposal. She added that they must base their decision solely on the standards and guidelines and the criteria listed in the zoning code. Commissioner Britt stated that demolishing the garage could not be justified after reviewing the standards and guidelines. The Commissioners took a few moments to review the materials submitted by Mr. Gordon. Commissioner Britt asked the Commissioners if they would like to discuss the issue any further or address any other concerns. Commissioner Lowry stated that Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –January 17, 2017 –Page 6 of 9  APPROVED 2/13/17 after reviewing the standards and guidelines he could find no support for demolition of the garage. Seeing no further comments from the Commissioners Commissioner Britt asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Bennett, seconded by Commissioner Meigher, to deny the application to remove the garage at 31 North College Street. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. The building is historical and a contributing structure. As a portion of the building, the garage also contributes to the historical character of the property and the surrounding properties. 3. The standards and guidelines that the Commission must follow dictate that a structure be repaired or replaced in kind whenever possible. Therefore the garage, whether repaired or replaced, should remain as it previously existed. 4. Sufficient evidence has not been provided to support the idea that the only possible alternative is to demolish the garage. Motion carried unanimously. VII. MISCELLANEOUS A. Proposed training by SHPO, tentative date is Monday, February 27, 7-9:30 p.m., City Hall, Room Assistant Planner Shamieh stated that she would like to schedule a training session for February 27th presented by the SHPO. The Commissioners present stated that the date would work for them. Commissioner Britt stated that she believes that the previous training had been very helpful, especially since it involved information about historical applications for new building materials, a subject which is constantly evolving and changing. Ms. Shamieh agreed, stating that she would like to make the training an annual event. She noted that Counselor Bailey would also be making a presentation at the training. B. Decision Letter format revamp Assistant Planner Shamieh stated that she was not prepared to present any new information yet and would like to put this item off until the February meeting. She explained that there is a section in the zoning code that is quite specific regarding the procedures that should be followed with the decision letters; for example, the decision letter should be signed by the Chair. Ms. Shamieh stated that she is working with Counselor Bailey on a new letter format and procedure. She also noted that she is seeking information regarding how other area Historic Commissions format their letters, and will follow up further before the February meeting. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –January 17, 2017 –Page 7 of 9  APPROVED 2/13/17 Ms. Shamieh noted that the 142 Front Street application is a great example of why the decision letters must be specific and clearly state the details of the decision. She explained that she would like to formulate a worksheet that the Commissioners could follow in making the motion and decision so that all of the necessary details may be addressed. Commissioner Britt stated that she believes that this would be very helpful both in making motions and for stating the decision. Commissioner Bennett agreed, stating that Commissioners would feel more comfortable making motions if there is a set formula to follow and thus they would feel less likely to leave out any key details. C. Additional discussion Commissioner Meigher asked for clarification regarding the discussion of the white stone at 142 Front Street and why it is significant that it is not considered permanent. He commented that if an applicant wanted to paint their building fluorescent orange that could also be considered not permanent, but would not be allowed. Commissioner Britt agreed that he had a valid point. She explained that her thinking was that the stone was temporary in that if left alone it will darken, and thus be less obtrusive, pretty quickly. Commissioner Bennett added that paint would last quite a long time unless it is altered. Commissioner Britt thanked Commissioner Meigher for his comment and stated that she hopes that all of the Commissioners feel comfortable vocalizing their opinions and questions. She added that while she believes that part of her role is to facilitate the discussion and keep things moving forward, she hopes that the Commissioners feel free to ask questions and redirect the discussion if necessary. Ms. Shamieh stated that it is her observation that sometimes the discussion might be going in one direction but there is another issue that has not been addressed, and then someone will bring it up and the discussion will completely change direction. Commissioner Britt stated that the Commissioners should always be refocusing on the standards and guidelines in their deliberations. She added that she knows that everyone wants to do their best when considering applications and wants the applicants to be happy with their experience with the Commission, and thus people will be more likely to come in when they should. Commissioner Yager stated that she had spoken with Ms. Shamieh regarding the garage at 31 N. College Street and the fact that the garage had not been maintained for many years and had been allowed to deteriorate by the property owners. She noted that Ms. Shamieh had explained to her that this information should not be part of the Commissioners discussion because it is irrelevant to their decision. Ms. Shamieh added that it is in the zoning code that properties should not be allowed to fall into disrepair but it is not a part of the standards and guidelines or the subsection of the city code that lays out the criteria that must to used to evaluate applications. Commissioner Britt commented that a lot of information comes up that is not within the purview of the HDC and thus cannot be considered. Ms. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –January 17, 2017 –Page 8 of 9  APPROVED 2/13/17 Shamieh stated that she would also like to make it clear that in her staff notes she if providing information in an effort to eliminate distractions and provide context for an application, but it should not be interpreted that the information provides information that the decision should be based on. Commissioner Britt added that she feels that it is important to express empathy to the applicants and make sure that they understand what is and is not within the purview of the Commission and what the Commissioners are allowed by the standards and guidelines and the zoning code to take into consideration when reaching their decision. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Britt, seconded by Commissioner Bennett, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 pm. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –January 17, 2017 –Page 9 of 9