Historic Resource Commission

Schenectady Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes April 17, 2017 I. CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Wiles called the meeting to order at 7:04 PM. Commissioner Wiles stated that Commissioner Britt had been excused and thus he would be chairing the meeting. He noted for the public that the Commission has seven members and that a quorum of four Commissioners is required to take any action on a proposal. II. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Ben Wiles, Vice Chair; Dr. Dean Bennett; Jackie Craven; David F. Lowry; Patricia Yager EXCUSED: Carrie Britt-Narcavage, Chair; Mark Meigher STAFF: Christine Primiano, Principal Planner; Ashlynn Savarese, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Jennifer Mills, Secretary III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST Commissioner Lowry stated that he would be recusing himself from the consideration of New Business Item A, proposal for 4 Washington Avenue submitted by Frank Gilmore on behalf of Meredith Anker. IV. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Yager, seconded by Commissioner Craven, to adopt the March 13, 2017 Meeting Minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. V. NEW BUSINESS - Applications A. Consideration for approval submitted by Frank Gilmore on behalf of Meredith Anker to finalize design, materials, and colors of the home elevation. The premise is located at 4 Washington Avenue. Frank Gilmore, architect for the project, Jim Plowman, contractor, and Meredith Anker appeared before the Commission. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –April 17, 2017 –Page 1 of 9 Commissioner Wiles asked Mr. Gilmore to briefly review the project and while doing so to point out the aspects of the project that are a part of this application. Mr. Gilmore briefly reviewed the drawings submitted with the application, which he stated show the most current revisions to the plans. He also noted that the project has been under the active oversight of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as it has moved along. He reviewed the plans for the retaining wall, front steps, foundation work, and porch, noting that the design of the porch has changed since the initial review stages. Mr. Gilmore explained that at the recommendation of Larry Moss of SHPO the porch roof has been changed from a peaked roof to a shed roof, as there is photographic evidence from approximately one hundred years ago of a shed-roofed porch on the front of the house. Mr. Gilmore stated that the front staircase will have bluestone treads and wood balustrades which may be sleeved with another material, and an historic cap. He noted that a Versa-lok product will be used for the retaining walls, and the foundation will be faced with a real stone veneer applied over the required poured concrete foundation. Mr. Gilmore commented that the Versa-lok product looks convincingly like limestone, and that the stone veneer on the foundation is cut in an L-shape around the corners so as to give the appearance of a large stone block. He next reviewed the photo of the proposed driveway materials. He stated that they are proposing to use brick pavers with a gray trim, as shown in the photo, but would like to border the bricks with a stone that looks more like slate than the one shown in the photo. Commissioner Wiles asked if they would like to come back with a more specific driveway design. Mr. Gilmore responded that this is very similar to the design they have chosen, but that if they are able to find border stones that look more convincingly like cobblestones they would like permission to use the alternate stones at their discretion. Mr. Gilmore went on to explain that they plan to use the existing garage door and that they will install the required flood vents in the door. Commissioner Wiles asked if he had a photo of the vents. Mr. Gilmore stated that he did not, but that they are the standard vents required by the state and that they will be gray. Mr. Gilmore stated that he had previously had some discussions with Assistant Planner Shamieh regarding the landscaping in the front of the house. He explained that she had requested a landscaping plan, but that there are no significant plans for major foundation plantings, as this was not a practice of the time when the home was built. He stated that instead they would like permission for Mrs. Anker, who is an accomplished gardener, to choose appropriate perennials and perhaps some annuals for the site. Commissioner Craven asked if there would be plants along the terraced wall. Mr. Gilmore responded that there would be. Mr. Gilmore noted that they are trying to keep the large tree at the front of the property, although it has been damaged by fire and severely pruned by National Grid. Mrs. Anker stated that as long as it is viable she would like it to remain. Mr. Gilmore noted that the fence on the property will be removed, stored, and re- installed after the rest of the work is completed. Mrs. Anker noted that the fence Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –April 17, 2017 –Page 2 of 9 will be re-installed in the same location as it is now. Commissioner Yager asked what paint colors are being proposed for the house. Mrs. Anker stated that all colors will remain the same. Mr. Plowman stated that the chimney is no longer an issue, as they have received word from their masonry contractor that he will be able to successfully move it. Commissioner Wiles noted that generally it is the practice of the Commission to require the applicant to submit a landscaping plan noting specific species and their proposed locations. He referenced another agenda item at this meeting where the Commission had granted the homeowner permission at last month’s meeting to remove old landscaping but required that she return this month with a specific written plan for the new landscaping on the site. Commissioner Bennett stated that he believes this case to be different since the applicant is only proposing planting perennials that will be consistent with those on the rest of the site and not and large trees or shrubs. Mr. Gilmore distributed printed copies of his email discussion with Ms. Shamieh concerning the landscaping, and stated that he feels that it is important not to require or encourage too much or inappropriate landscaping on the property. Commissioner Wiles agreed, stating that he would be amenable to approving the project with the plantings left to Mrs. Anker’s discretion if only perennials and annuals are being proposed. Commissioner Craven asked if the applicants had any more information regarding the railings, and what type of sleeve they are proposing for the wood. Mr. Gilmore stated that they plan to use traditional cedar wood posts, but that if possible they would like to use a synthetic sleeve over the wood that would increase longevity. He explained that the material they are considering is not shiny and would not appear to be anything different a traditional painted post, but would be much more sustainable. Commissioner Bennett stated that he would like to see more information about the material. The Commissioners concurred. Mr. Gilmore suggested perhaps working with a subcommittee for approval of the railing system. City Planner Primiano noted that the Commission is no longer allowed to work through subcommittees, but that the applicants could come back with samples for consideration of this portion of the proposal at a later time. Mr. Gilmore agreed that it will be some time before the railing portion of the project is done, thus they would be amenable to coming back with more information. Commissioner Yager stated that she would like to see a sample of the proposed material. Commissioner Wiles agreed that bringing a sample would be very helpful. He asked Mr. Gilmore if he would like the Commission to approve the wood balustrades and railing, and if they decide to propose a synthetic material they would have to come back, whereas if they decide to use the traditional wood they may simply proceed. Mr. Gilmore stated that they would appreciate the approval of the wood option. Motion by Commissioner Wiles, seconded by Commissioner Yager, to approve the application as submitted with the following modifications and conditions: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –April 17, 2017 –Page 3 of 9  2. The railing system referred to by the applicant in the 3D rendering, which extends from the driveway to the front door will be constructed of wood. Should the applicant decide that they would like to propose a different material they will return to the Commission for further consideration. 3. The stair treads will be bluestone. 4. The retaining walls will be constructed of the Versa-lok stone product in the gray faux-limestone color and style submitted with the application. 5. The foundation will be poured concrete faced with the stone veneer product shown in the application. 6. The driveway surface will be red brick pavers outlined with a gray stone material meant to resemble traditional slate cobblestones as shown in the photo submitted in the application. 7. The existing garage door will be removed and re-used with standard flood vents added. 8. The exterior of the house will remain the same colors and thus is not a part of this application. Should the applicant wish to change the colors in the future they will return to the Commission for further review. 9. All plantings will be low perennial or annual plants consistent with the type currently existing on the property. No additional shrubs or trees are approved as a part of this application. 10. The revised porch design as submitted with the application with a shed roof and as approved by SHPO is approved by the Commission. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. The elevation of this house has been a lengthy process and is a unique project in Schenectady and most likely in New York State. 3. The applicant has received state funding and has had significant state oversight of this project due largely in part to that uniqueness. 4. This approval is for the design details and cosmetic elements of the project, the concept of which was reviewed and approved by the Commission in 2015. 5. This evolving process has been, and continues to be, educational for all the involved parties. Motion carried, with Commissioner Lowry abstaining. B. Consideration for approval submitted by Joseph and Julia Horn to install a fence and gate and remove a portion of the existing fence. The premise is located at 1353 Union Street. Joseph and Julia Horn appeared before the Commission. Mrs. Horn stated that they would like to install a 36-foot long stockade fence from the back of the house to the garage. She explained that there would be a five-foot Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –April 17, 2017 –Page 4 of 9 gate from the driveway to the yard, and that they are enclosing it for the safety of their pets. Commissioner Wiles asked if there is an existing fence and what material it is made of. Mrs. Horn responded that there is a partial fence and it is wood. Commissioner Wiles asked if there is a fence on the other side of the yard. Mrs. Horn responded that there is, and that it is co-owned but she believes that it was installed by the neighbor because that style of fence surrounds his whole yard. Commissioner Yager asked why they are proposing a stockade fence if it is primarily being installed to contain their pets. She asked if they would be open to considering a fence in the style of the one on the other side of the yard. Mrs. Horn stated that they would be open to it, although that fence will most likely require replacement soon. Commissioner Bennett asked if the existing fence is visible from the street. Mrs. Horn stated that it is not. Commissioner Bennett stated that because the other fence is not visible he does not feel that it matters if the fences match. Commissioner Wiles stated that the argument could be made that the existing style of fence would be a better choice. He explained that the Commission generally encourages a fence that can be seen through when the intent of the fence is not for privacy but to enclose pets. Mr. Horn stated that they chose the stockade style mainly due to cost issues. Commissioner Yager noted that stockade fence usually does not weather as well as other styles. Commissioner Bennett asked if they plan to leave the fence natural. Mrs. Horn stated that they would like to, but that they would be open to painting it if required. Commissioner Wiles noted that stockade fence also requires stepping along grade changes, as is shown in the example photo provided by the applicants. Mr. Horn stated that the grade of their yard is level, and that they would not propose stepping the fence as shown. Commissioner Wiles asked where the gate will be located. Mr. Horn responded that it will line up with the walkway from the driveway to the back door. Commissioner Bennett stated that he would be comfortable approving the stockade fence and allowing the applicants to use the other style should they so choose. Commissioner Lowry agreed. Motion by Commissioner Lowry, seconded by Commissioner Craven, to approve the application to remove the existing thirteen-foot section of fence and install a thirty-six-foot-long six-foot high stockade fence from the back of the house to the garage, with a gate at the walkway to the back door. The proposal is approved with the following conditions: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. 2. The fence will remain natural. If in the future the applicants decide to paint it they will return to the Commission for approval of the color. 3. The correct side (without supports showing) of the fence will face the street. 4. Should they decide to do so the applicants may instead install a lattice-top fence to match the existing fence on the opposite side of the yard. 5. The fence will be installed along a level grade and will not be stepped up by section. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –April 17, 2017 –Page 5 of 9  6. A permit for the fence installation must be obtained from the Department of Development prior to beginning any of the work on the site. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. The applicant is installing the fence to contain pets within the yard. 3. The photo of the stockade fence included in the application is for example purposes only and the stepping up of the fence and the plantings shown are not part of this application or approval. Motion carried unanimously. VI. OLD BUSINESS - Applications A. Consideration for approval submitted by Marjorie Hyland to landscape. The premise is located at 1204 Rugby Road. Marjorie Hyland appeared before the Commission. Ms. Hyland explained that as agreed upon at the March meeting she has completed a landscaping plan showing specific plants and where she wishes to install them. She noted, however, that she has recently received notice from her neighbors on the west side, with whom she shares the hedge in between their front yards, that they will not agree to her removing the hedge in that location. Ms. Hyland explained that this will slightly alter her previously submitted plan, as the shrubs on that side will not be removed and replaced with weigelas as shown on the plan. She also distributed a copy of the letter received from her neighbor regarding the issue. Commissioner Wiles noted that it is not within the purview of the Commission to regulate disputes between neighbors. Ms. Hyland explained that she is now considering adding some smaller shrubs, possibly some hydrangeas, to her side of the hedge to soften its appearance. She asked if she would have to come back for approval of this revision. Ms. Primiano noted that although it was not included on the plans previously submitted the Commissioners could consider it as a part of this application. Commissioner Wiles suggested revising the application to include the option of adding four hydrangea bushes or a small shrub of a similar size along the inside of the western hedge if the applicant so chooses. The Commissioners concurred. Ms. Hyland briefly reviewed the rest of the plantings on the plan, explaining that she is proposing arborvitae along the rear two thirds of the driveway with weigela closer to the street, and a mix of spirea or barberry, mugo pine or juniper, and low perennial and annual planting at the front of the house. Commissioner Wiles asked if the pachysandra and other plants approved for removal at the March meeting had been taken out. Ms. Hyland responded that as agreed everything but the hemlocks has been removed. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –April 17, 2017 –Page 6 of 9  Commissioner Yager asked Ms. Hyland if her landscaper is providing the plants or if she is sourcing them herself. Ms. Hyland stated that they are working together on the choices and for the most part the landscaper is bringing the plants in. She noted that she had originally wanted to include balsam but that Faddegon’s, her landscaper, had advised against it due to a potential disease problem. Commissioner Yager stated that she had noticed the inclusion of hostas in the plan and gave Ms. Hyland information regarding a business in Altamont that supplies unusual hosta varieties. Commissioner Wiles noted that the Commissioners would only be approving the plantings with their decision as all the other work had already been approved at the March meeting. Motion by Commissioner Yager, seconded by Commissioner Wiles, to approve the landscaping plan as submitted. The plan will include arborvitae along the edge of the rear two thirds of the driveway with weigela installed closer to the street, a mix of spirea, red barberry, boxwood, blue spruce, or alberta spruce and mugo pine or juniper installed as foundation plantings, and a mixture of hosta, salmon seal, ginger, euonymus, and annual blooms in front of the larger shrubs. The proposal is approved with the following modifications and conditions: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. 2. The weigelas along the western side of the front yard will not be added and the existing hedge, co-owned with the neighbors, will not be removed. The applicant may plant four hydrangeas or bushes of a similar size along her side of the hedge to soften its appearance should she choose to do so. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. Motion carried unanimously. B. Consideration for approval submitted by Hank Kwon of a 2-story porch rebuild that was undertaken without Commission or staff approval. The premise is located at 1109 Union Street. Robert Bean, building manager for Mr. Kwon, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Bean explained that since he and Mr. Kwon had last appeared before the Commission he had spoken to the building inspector who told him that the center beams on the porches could not be removed, as was requested by the Commissioners in the previous discussion. Commissioner Yager noted that the porch that was removed did not have a center post. Mr. Bean stated that it had a third post but not in the same location. Commissioner Yager noted that the original porch was not the wrought iron, which was removed without HDC approval. Mr. Bean stated that they did have the necessary permits to remove and replace the Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –April 17, 2017 –Page 7 of 9  porch. Commissioner Yager asked if Mr. Bean is certain that there is no way to support the porch without the middle post. Mr. Bean responded that the building inspector told him that there is not, and that building codes have changed since the previous porch was built. Commissioner Yager asked if eliminating the third post would be possible if heavier headers are used. Mr. Bean responded that he does not know and would have to check with the building inspector. Commissioner Yager stated that the applicant should have come before the Commission before starting the work. Mr. Bean stated that they went to the Building Department and were given a permit and the building inspector inspected the porch and passed it. Ms. Primiano noted that the building inspector’s role is not to design the porch but to say if the proposed design meets code. She explained that the Commission can require that the applicant submit a letter from a licensed architect or engineer stating that the porch must be designed with the third post in order to be structurally sound. Commissioner Craven asked why the applicant did not come before the Commission prior to beginning the project. Ms. Primiano noted that there was a mistake in the Building Department and someone overrode the system so that HDC approval was not required. Commissioner Yager stated that she would like to require that the letter from a licensed architect or engineer be submitted. She also noted that the posts used appear smaller than the standard six by six inch. Commissioner Wiles asked for clarification as to specifically what information Commissioner Yager is seeking. Commissioner Yager stated that she would like evidence as to whether it is structurally possible that the middle post be eliminated on the first floor and a newel post added, and the post either be eliminated or moved over on the second floor. Commissioner Wiles stated that he believes that it is worth making the effort for this porch as there are many other homes in the area that have historically appropriate porches and this will certainly be noticeably inappropriate if it cannot be changed. The Commissioners concurred. No action was taken on the proposal pending the submittal of further information, specifically the requested letter from a licensed architect or engineer explaining that the porch must be designed in this specific configuration to be structurally sound. VII. MISCELLANEOUS Commissioner Wiles noted that sometime soon he plans to replace his sidewalk and remove a Norway Maple in the utility strip in front of his house, and that he will be seeking the necessary approvals prior to beginning the work. He asked Ms. Primiano if he needed the Commission’s approval or just the city’s to remove the tree since it is in the utility strip. Ms. Primiano asked if he would like the city to remove it. Commissioner Wiles responded that he does not believe they will since Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –April 17, 2017 –Page 8 of 9  it is not a danger tree. Ms. Primiano advised that he can have the city inspect it and see if they would remove it. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Bennett, seconded by Commissioner Wiles, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 pm. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –April 17, 2017 –Page 9 of 9