Historic Resource Commission

Schenectady Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes March 13, 2017 I. CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Wiles called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM. Commissioner Wiles stated that Commissioner Britt had been excused and thus he would be chairing the meeting. He explained that a change had been made to the order of items on the meeting agenda and that Miscellaneous Item A, the presentation by Neil Larson pertaining to the finalized certification reports for the Union Triangle and Morris Avenue Historic Districts, would be considered first, followed by the new applications. Commissioner Wiles stated that the applicants had been contacted before the meeting to inform them of this change; Assistant Planner Shamieh confirmed this. Commissioner Wiles advised the applicants that if at any time during the presentation they felt that it was too lengthy and they were not able to wait they should let their objection be known and in order to accommodate them the Commissioners could consider their application at that time. II. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Ben Wiles, Vice Chair; Dr. Dean Bennett; Jackie Craven; David F. Lowry; Mark Meigher; Patricia Yager EXCUSED: Carrie Britt-Narcavage, Chair STAFF: Rima Shamieh, Assistant Planner; Ashlynn Savarese, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Jennifer Mills, Secretary III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST None. IV. MISCELLANEOUS A. Presentation by Neil Larson of finalized certification reports for the Union Triangle and Morris Avenue Historic Districts. Neil Larson introduced himself and stated that he is an historic preservationist and that he has been working on this project for approximately the past year. Mr. Laron began his presentation by reviewing the Union Triangle District, explaining how it was developed as a sub-division beginning at the turn of the century. Mr. Larson’s slide show presentation included maps of the area depicting the rapid development of the neighborhood, as well as photos of specific homes Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –March 13, 2017 –Page 1 of 11  which also indicated the date of their construction and the original developers or owners. Mr. Larson noted that he did not include the adjacent homes on Union Street in his study because they have already been included in the Union Street Corridor Historic District. Mr. Larson explained that while initially there were several larger one-family homes built in the Triangle the influx of white collar workers into the city, many of whom worked for GE, led to an increased demand for two-family homes that were of a higher quality than those found in the older parts of the city. He stated that builders would buy one or more lots and build houses on speculation. He noted that these homes were fairly elaborate by standards of the day, and were clearly meant for families of greater means than the two-family housing stock that had been previously available in the city. Commissioner Wiles asked Mr. Larson if Union Street was an intentional boundary to the district. Mr. Larson stated that, as demonstrated by the maps of the original tracts of land incorporated into the district, from the beginning of the platting of the land Union Street was the boundary on that side of the development. Mr. Larson next turned his presentation to the Morris Avenue Historic District. He showed slides of maps of the area prior to development and as the process progressed, as well as slides of individual houses on the street. He noted that most of the homes on the street are of the Arts and Crafts style. Ms. Shamieh asked why there is such a concentration of this one style on the street. Mr. Larson stated that it was the predominant style of the day, and many of the homes were developed by the same development partners, Deforest & Nicklas, who also may have had an affinity for the Arts and Crafts style. Following Mr. Larson’s presentation Ms. Shamieh explained that the process will continue with the Department of Development giving Mr. Larson their comments on the draft, followed by his submitting a final report which will then be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office and ultimately the National Parks Service which will then certify the historic districts, thus making the owners of the properties eligible for historic tax credits. Mr. Larson noted that he also has written background histories of the various developers involved in the districts, which he will submit to the Department of Development and hopes will ultimately be made available on the city’s website. Ms. Shamieh stated that this would be possible, and that the certification reports will be made available as well. She noted that the Department plans to hold workshops with the various neighborhood associations of historic districts throughout the city, so that they will be aware of the tax credits and other programs and services that may be available to them. V. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –March 13, 2017 –Page 2 of 11  Motion by Commissioner Wiles, seconded by Commissioner Bennett, to adopt the February 13, 2017 Meeting Minutes with the following amendments, as submitted by Commissioner Yager: 1. Page 5, paragraph 2 – strike fourth sentence, “Commissioner Yager disagreed.” Add, “Commissioner Yager felt individual beadboards for the ceiling are still available and preferred to beadboard panels.” 2. Page 5, paragraph 3 - amend first sentence to read, “Commissioner Yager commented that the applicant should also make sure that removing the center post is structurally appropriate (not knowing what changes had been made to the original porch above).” Motion carried unanimously. VI. NEW BUSINESS - Applications A. Consideration for approval submitted by Doug McDonnel to install a missing post, rail, and spindles on the front porch. The premise is located at 849 Union. John May, contractor for Mr. McDonnel, appeared before the Commission. Mr. May explained that he had staff approval to replace the railings and spindles in kind on the first-floor front porch of the building. He stated that when a shrub was removed in front of the porch to the right of the stairs it became apparent that a new railing would have to be installed on this section of the porch in order to meet code. Mr. May noted that there had originally been a railing in this section, but that it had been previously removed and not replaced. He stated that he would like to use the same spindles and railings that were used on the rest of the porch. Mr. May stated that he had discovered one of the original porch columns in the garage and that if the Commission approved he could cut it down to use as a newel post to end the railing at the stairs. Assistant Planner Shamieh noted that the columns on the porch are currently fluted and made of a synthetic material, while the earlier columns were not fluted and were made of wood, as evidenced in the assessment photo dated 1963. Mr. May stated that the column that he found in the garage is wood and is not fluted. Commissioner Wiles asked Mr. May how tall the newel post and top railing would be. Mr. May responded that the railing will match the height on the rest of the porch, and the newel post would be approximately three feet tall, as shown on the assessment photo. Commissioner Bennett asked if the newel post would have a cap on it. Mr. May stated that if the Commissioners preferred he would put a newel cap on top of the post, or he could put a flat top on it so that a small planter could be placed there. Commissioner Wiles asked if the columns on the second-floor porch are fluted. Mr. May stated that they are. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –March 13, 2017 –Page 3 of 11  Commissioner Bennett asked Mr. May how he would prefer to construct the newel post and top. Mr. May stated that he would like to use the original column that he found and cap it with a flat top to allow a small space for display on top of it. Commissioner Bennett asked if the railing around the porch has a flat top. Mr. May stated that it does. Commissioner Bennett commented that the flat-topped newel post would seem to him to be more harmonious with the railing design. Commissioner Craven asked if the flat cap on the newel post would be parallel with the railing. Mr. May stated that it would. Commissioner Yager stated that the evidence provided by the 1963 assessment photo would support the use of the original column used as a newel post in this location. Commissioner Meigher asked what the height of the cap would be. Mr. May stated that it would be slightly higher than the railing but parallel to it. Motion by Commissioner Wiles, seconded by Commissioner Yager, to approve the application to construct and install a new first-floor front porch railing and spindles to the right of the steps. The railing and spindles will match what was recently installed on the porch, and the column found on the property will be cut down to create a newel post at the top of the stairs. Instead of a cap the newel will be topped with a flat plate that will be slightly higher than the railing. The proposal is approved 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 flat top plate on the newel post will allow for the display of a small planter. 3. The new railing, spindles, and newel post will be constructed of wood, as is the rest of the new porch railing. 4. The newel post cut from the column that was salvaged from the garage on the property will match the half-columns attached to the front of the house. Motion carried unanimously. B. Consideration for approval submitted by Marjorie Hyland to replace a flagstone walkway with concrete, replace an asphalt sidewalk and driveway apron with concrete, and landscape. The premise is located at 1204 Rugby Road. Marjorie Hyland appeared before the Commission. Ms. Hyland explained that she purchased the home last year and would like to replace some landscaping, restore the sidewalk across the driveway to concrete (it is currently asphalt) and add a concrete apron, and replace the flagstone front walk which is currently in disrepair with plain concrete. She stated that she had spoken with her neighbor and he is Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –March 13, 2017 –Page 4 of 11 okay with her removing and replacing the landscaping adjacent to his driveway. Ms. Hyland noted that the overgrown yews and pachysandra would all be removed and replaced with other shrubs in mulched beds, and the hemlock trees would remain. Commissioner Bennett asked Ms. Hyland if the concrete walkway would match the new sidewalk and apron. Ms. Hyland responded that it would all be the same material, but that she was seeking some guidance as to the proper color to tint the concrete. Commissioner Yager asked if she had consulted her neighbor as to what color he had used. Ms. Hyland responded that she had, but that he had explained that he had used the color recommended by the City and the contractor, and when it was installed it initially had an undesirable pink cast to it, although it has now faded considerably. Ms. Hyland stated that when she spoke to Grandview Block, her contractor, they said that “Sandstone 2” tint should be used in the GE Realty Plot, but that Ms. Shamieh had advised her that the best practice would most likely be to ask them to match the tone that her neighbor’s concrete currently has. Commissioner Yager noted that in her research she learned that the concrete should be unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment. Commissioner Wiles agreed that this would be a good idea. Commissioner Wiles noted that in the past when applicants have done major landscaping work, especially where it will be highly visible from the street such as in this case, the Commission has asked to see a landscaping plan showing the design of the plantings and specific species to be used. He asked if Ms. Hyland might ask her landscaper to draw up such a plan for submittal to the Commission. Ms. Hyland responded that she plans to do the design and installation herself, and that much of it will be cost-driven as she has a specific budget for the project. She noted that she plans to use arbor vitae along the driveway side of the property. Commissioner Wiles stated that he would prefer to see a written plan, even if it is simply one that the applicant draws herself. Commissioner Wiles asked Ms. Hyland if she plans to do any other work on the driveway. Ms. Hyland stated that she does not. Regarding the walkway, Commissioner Lowry noted that the standards say to retain and preserve whenever possible. He asked the other Commissioners whether they would consider this guideline significant to a walkway or if it would it only pertain to structures on a property. Commissioner Bennett stated that he has seen evidence of other plain concrete walkways in the immediate area and he had assumed that the flagstone had been added later. Ms. Shamieh stated that it is her interpretation that the guidelines should refer to the entire site, and not just the structures on it. Commissioner Wiles stated that Commissioner Lowry’s point was a good one, although he agrees that it this case it is evident that the flagstone was added later. He explained that in his opinion it would be more of an issue if the current walkway was plain concrete and the applicant wished to add a new walkway with Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –March 13, 2017 –Page 5 of 11  decorative flagstones. Ms. Shamieh noted that the layout of the site will remain the same and the location of the walkway will not be altered in any way. Commissioner Wiles stated that he would propose to approve the application with the condition that the applicant agrees to return with a landscaping plan and not implement it until it has been reviewed and approved by the Commission. Commissioner Bennett asked if she would be allowed to remove the existing landscaping prior to the approval of the new plan. Commissioner Wiles stated that the decision could be written either to allow removal or not. Ms. Hyland stated that time is of the essence as she has scheduled her home for a spring garden tour and thus would ask that they allow her to at least remove the old landscaping prior to the approval of the new plan. The Commissioners agreed that they would be willing to allow the removal of the old materials before the landscaping plan is approved. Motion by Commissioner Wiles, seconded by Commissioner Lowry, to approve the application to install a concrete driveway apron and a new concrete sidewalk over the driveway area, replace the existing flagstone walkway with concrete to match the sidewalk and apron, and remove a substantial amount of vegetation to eventually make way for new plantings. The proposal is approved with the following conditions: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. 2. The applicant agrees to provide a plan of the new landscape design and specific plants to be installed. The applicant agrees to refrain from installing any new landscaping until the plan is reviewed and approved by the Commission. 3. The applicant is authorized to remove the yews and pachysandra and other older plantings that she intends to replace. The larger trees will remain and their removal has not been authorized. 4. The applicant has agreed to ask the concrete contractor to match the existing tint of the concrete on the neighbors’ properties to the east and west. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. The applicant is a new homeowner in the Realty Plot and is anxious to proceed with a landscaping plan that is less overgrown. 3. The Commissioners asked that the new concrete be dated unobtrusively to facilitate future research and treatment. Motion carried unanimously. C. Consideration for approval submitted by Maria DeAngelo to install a hanging sign and window signs. The premise is located at 412 Union Street. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –March 13, 2017 –Page 6 of 11 Maria DeAngelo appeared before the Commission. Ms. DeAngelo explained that she would like to install the submitted blade sign with a hanging bracket on the building as well as two vinyl window signs. Assistant Planner Shamieh clarified that the window signs will have white lettering over frosted spoons and will be installed on clear glass. Commissioner Bennett noted that the window signs would not be permanent and could be easily removed. Commissioner Wiles stated that what the Commission would be approving in this case would be the hanging sign. Ms. Shamieh noted that they should also consider the placement of the bracket on the building and that the sign in the assessor’s photo was placed higher on the building. She also noted that the overhanging sign is metal and not wooden. Commissioner Yager stated that obviously the bracket must be placed high enough so that the sign hangs completely above the door and does not interfere with it. Ms. Shamieh commented that if the sign is not going to be placed as shown in the photo accompanying the application it must be determined where it will be hung instead. Ms. DeAngelo stated that the bracket would be perpendicular to the Union Street sidewalk and the bracket placed higher so that the sign will hang clear of the door. The Commissioners agreed that this would be suitable. Commissioner Yager asked what the exterior material of the façade is. Ms. DeAngelo responded that it is stucco. Ms. DeAngelo stated that the owner of the building had told her that the Yates Street side of the building is not under the purview of the Commission. Ms. Shamieh responded that this is false and that the building owner has been told this numerous times. Motion by Commissioner Bennett, seconded by Commissioner Wiles, to approve the application to install the overhanging sign designed as submitted with the sign bracket placed perpendicular to the Union Street sidewalk and the sign hung high enough to not interfere with the door, as well as the installation of two temporary vinyl window signs designed as submitted. The proposal is approved 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 Commission has approved the rendering of the window signs although the vinyl signs are temporary and thus not necessarily under the purview of the Commission. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Shamieh noted that there is nothing written in the zoning code which states that because something is not permanent it does not fall under the purview of the Commission. Commissioner Meigher stated that on an application a few months Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –March 13, 2017 –Page 7 of 11  ago white driveway stones were allowed to remain although they had not been previously approved and the argument had been made that the stones should be allowed to remain because they are a temporary element and could be removed, although he had felt that the stones had a definite impact on the site as a whole. Ms. Shamieh commented that there can be a difference between saying that something is temporary and something not having a lasting impact because it does not have a long life. She reiterated that there is nothing in the zoning code that says that the Commission should not consider temporary items. Commissioner Bennett commented that this discussion would relate to the section of the guidelines regarding temporary elements that can permanently alter a site. Ms. Shamieh stated that there is a difference between saying that an element should be permitted because it is not permanent and making a decision to allow it for this reason as opposed to saying that it is not within the purview of the Commission and not considering it. D. Consideration for approval submitted by Joshua Mackenburg to install a new sign. The premise is located at 611 Union Street. Joshua Mackenburg appeared before the Commission. Mr. Mackenburg explained that he had recently bought the business at this location and will be changing the name and thus would like to change the sign. He stated that the new sign will use the same brackets and will be the same shape and very slightly smaller than the existing sign, and that it will be a faux wood panel over aluminum, which will be lighter and weather the elements better than solid wood. He noted that rather than neon, like the current sign, it will be back-lit with LED lights which can be programmed to change color, although for the most part he will leave the light on the warm white setting. Commissioner Yager asked if he plans to ever change the color of the light. Mr. Mackenburg stated that he would like to change it to appropriate colors for different holidays or special occasions, but that the color would be static for a set length of time and not morphing. Commissioner Yager asked if the writing on the sign is the actual logo for the business. Mr. Mackenburg stated that it is, although on the sign it is oriented vertically instead of horizontally, as the actual logo is designed. Commissioner Yager commented that her concern with the sign is that the lettering looks very contemporary, but that if it is the logo for the business she is not certain that he should be required to change it. Commissioner Bennett noted that the sign is clearly a new addition to the building and not an original element. Assistant Planner Shamieh agreed, stating that there was not originally a sign like this on the building, and that the previous sign was approved by the Commission, as where other changes such as painting the brick. She added that she is uncertain how much the Commission can dictate about what the sign says and how it says it, i.e. typeface etc., because it might become a Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –March 13, 2017 –Page 8 of 11 Constitutional issue regarding freedom of expression. Ms. Shamieh asked Counselor Savarese if she could offer an opinion. Ms. Savarese responded that she would research the question. Commissioner Lowry asked if the age of the building is known. Ms. Shamieh stated that she is not certain, but it is clear from the assessor’s photo that the building has been significantly altered, including the allowing of the painting of the brick, which she believes should not have been permitted. Commissioner Craven noted that the previous owner of the building had not been completely forthcoming about painting the brick, and that to the best of her memory the Commission had approved a wash or stain and not the actual painting. Commissioner Wiles stated that he has mixed feelings about the sign, because while it is a unique design there are also many other different signs on the street, and thus one could say it fits in because of its uniqueness. Commissioner Yager stated that she has seen other neon signs in the area but none like this. Commissioner Wiles stated that one could make the argument that features added to a building that are a later addition should be made to appear as such, and not attempt to be a re-creation of what might have been original. He noted that the current sign did not leak any additional light on to the street and asked Mr. Mackenburg if this would be the same. Mr. Mackenburg stated that the only light coming from the sign would be from the backlighting by the LED lights, as shown in the drawings. Commissioner Lowry stated that he likes the overall design of the sign and the fact that it will use the same bracket, but stated that he agreed with Commissioner Yager that the sign face looked contemporary. He explained that he is not certain that it would have a large impact on the overall appearance of the building, however. Commissioner Bennett stated that while the new sign is a contemporary style he feels that it is less aggressive an appearance than the red neon sign was. Mr. Mackenburg agreed that the sign will have a much softer appearance than the neon, especially when the warm golden light color is used to backlight it. Commissioner Yager commented that she believes that the neighboring businesses have put forth an effort to have historically appropriate signs. Commissioner Wiles stated that he wouldn’t necessarily agree, as he believes that there are many different styles of signs in the area. Commissioner Craven stated that she is most concerned with the scale of the sign compared to the building and the other signs in the area. Mr. Mackenburg noted that the new sign will be slightly smaller than the previous one. Commissioner Meigher stated that the existing sign appears to him to blend more with the current colors of the exterior of the building, while the new design stands out more. Mr. Mackenburg replied that he would eventually like to change the colors of the building, as his preferred color scheme is more toward natural tones and materials, such as wood and slate. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –March 13, 2017 –Page 9 of 11 Commissioner Lowry stated that for him the main question is whether the new sign will change the overall character of the building. Commissioner Bennett stated that he does not believe that it will. Commissioner Craven commented that the original applicant did not place the sign where it was originally approved to be located, which was over the alleyway. Ms. Shamieh noted that if the sign is moved it will result in the need for making more holes in the brick façade of the building. Commissioner Craven agreed. Commissioner Lowry stated that he is inclined to approve the new sign, as he does not believe it to be any more obtrusive than the previous neon sign was. Commissioner Bennett agreed. Commissioner Lowry noted that he is not certain that the Commission would have any valid reason not to approve the sign. Commissioner Craven agreed, stating that it will use the existing hardware and for this reason she would not want to see it moved. Ms. Shamieh noted that the point of a sign for a business is to be somewhat obtrusive so as to attract business and make its location clear. Commissioner Bennett agreed, stating that usually a business owner wouldn’t try to hide their sign. Ms. Shamieh commented that she does not feel that the current location is a problem, given the scale and design of the building. Commissioner Craven stated that she feels that the sign is acceptable, as except for the actual writing and lighting one the sign it is essentially replacing like with like. Commissioner Lowry commented that the use of the building is very different today than what was originally intended, and thus he would conclude that the sign might be different as well. Commissioner Yager stated that she had some hesitation about the sign being allowed to change color. Commissioner Lowry stated that he believes that it will add an interesting element to the property. Commissioner Yager agreed, but added that even though she might think the changing colors look good she is not certain that it is historically appropriate. Motion by Commissioner Bennett, seconded by Commissioner Wiles, to approve the application to install the new sign using the existing hardware in the same location as submitted. The sign will be 3.5 feet by 12 feet and be backlit by LED lights. The proposal is approved with the following condition: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. All existing hardware and brackets will remain as they are and only the sign will be replaced. 3. The color of the LED lights will be maintained as a warm white most of the time, with the applicant stating that he may switch to colored lights for specific holiday periods. Motion carried, with Commissioner Wiles opposed. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –March 13, 2017 –Page 10 of 11  Following the vote, Commissioner Wiles asked Mr. Mackenburg if he believes that he could accomplish the same goals using a smaller sign. Mr. Mackenburg replied that he did not know, but stated that he wanted to use the existing hardware and that he feels that at this size the scale of the sign as it relates to the building is appropriate. VII. MISCELLANEOUS (CONTINUED) A. National Register nomination report for St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church Complex. The premise is located at 820-828 Eastern Avenue and 104 Irving Street. Assistant Planner Shamieh presented the draft report to the Commissioners. The Commissioners reviewed the letter. Commissioner Wiles stated that he believed that it was very well done and should be forwarded to the appropriate recipients. The Commissioners concurred. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Lowry, seconded by Commissioner Craven, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 pm. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –March 13, 2017 –Page 11 of 11