Historic Resource Commission

Schenectady Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes May 15, 2017 I. CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Britt called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM. II. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Carrie Britt-Narcavage, Chair; Ben Wiles, Vice Chair; Dr. Dean Bennett; Jackie Craven; David F. Lowry; Patricia Yager EXCUSED: Mark Meigher STAFF: Avi Epstein, Zoning Officer; Ashlynn Savarese, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Jennifer Mills, Secretary III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST Commissioner Bennett stated that he would be recusing himself from the consideration of New Business Item D, the proposal for 108 North Ferry Street submitted by Maxime Guinel. IV. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Britt, seconded by Commissioner Wiles, to postpone the vote on the April 17, 2017 Meeting Minutes until the June meeting because the Commissioners did not yet receive copies of the Minutes for review. Motion carried unanimously. V. NEW BUSINESS - Applications A. Consideration for approval submitted by Catherine and Patrick Haggerty to paint the exterior foundation and trim to original gray color. The premise is located at 11 South Church Street. Catherine Haggerty appeared before the Commission. Ms. Haggerty explained that the painting is approximately ¾ done because she was unaware that they had to receive HDC permission to paint, and as soon as she found out she stopped work and made an application to have the painting approved. She noted that they had received permission from the Commission several years ago to refinish the front doors, which have been completed. She stated that they are repainting the stonework around the door, the front stoop, and the visible portion of Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –May 15, 2017 –Page 1 of 11 the foundation – all of which were previously painted. She noted that enclosed with the application is an early undated photograph showing these areas painted gray, although sometime after the date of the picture the area around the door was repainted a salmon color. Mrs. Haggerty stated that they are proposing to return the painted portions of the building to the gray tone shown in the photo. She noted that they have searched for other old color photographs in the archives but have been unable to locate any. Commissioner Craven stated that she had received some comments about the painting from Gloria Kishton of the Schenectady Heritage Foundation. Ms. Kishton has communicated that she very much appreciated the restoration work that has been done thus far on the building, but that she has concerns about the historical appropriateness of the gray color being used around the door. She explained to Commissioner Craven that typically if a Romanesque Revival building such as this one had stonework that needed repair the repairs would be made and then the stone painted as close to the original color as possible, such as the salmon color used in this case to simulate the original brownstone color. She explained that for this reason she does not feel that the gray color being used around the door is historically appropriate. Mrs. Haggerty asked the Commissioners how what is historically appropriate is defined. Commissioner Britt explained that it can be determined by evidence, if there is any available, of what was originally a part of the building design, or if there is no direct evidence such as this available one could look to similar structures of the same time period. Mrs. Haggerty stated that there is evidence in the undated photo that at some time in the past the stone trim around the door was painted gray. Commissioner Britt stated that because the photo is not dated it is not clear what historical point in time it is referencing. Commissioner Bennett asked what color the bay window is. Mrs. Haggerty stated that it is currently salmon, but that it needs to be stripped and the wood needs to be repaired and repainted. Commissioner Lowry asked Commissioner Craven for clarification of Ms. Kishton’s comments, and whether or not she is making a specific recommendation for the appropriate paint color. Commissioner Craven stated that Ms. Kishton had recommended that the door surround, cheek walls of the stoop, and foundation all be painted a salmon tone to match the color of the brick and thus support the historically accurate monochromatic scheme of the Romanesque Revival period. Commissioner Britt noted that on a Romanesque Revival building of this style the door surround would typically have been sandstone, to match the brick in color, and then if it had needed repair it would be painted over in the original sandstone color to camouflage the repair and maintain the intended monochromatic appearance. Commissioner Britt asked Mrs. Haggerty is she know what types of stone are on the structure. Mrs. Haggerty replied that the side walls of the stoops are sandstone, Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –May 15, 2017 –Page 2 of 11 the steps are granite, and the foundation is fieldstone. She added that she does not know what type of stone was used for trim around the door. Mrs. Haggerty noted that the side (cheek) walls of the stoop need some repointing and asked if she would need HDC approval to make the repairs. Commissioner Britt stated that she would not, as long as the repair is in kind; in other words, if the same type of mortar is used as currently exists. Mrs. Haggerty replied that the repairs will be in kind. Commissioner Wiles asked Mrs. Haggerty is she knows who chose the salmon color paint that was used around the door. Mrs. Haggerty stated that she does not, but noted that the older picture shows the stone painted gray. Commissioner Bennett asked her what color the stone around the door is currently. She responded that it has been already painted gray. Commissioner Wiles asked the other Commissioners if there was a consensus as to what color they believe the stone work should be painted. Commissioner Britt stated that she believes that the salmon color is the historically accurate choice for the sandstone portions. Mrs. Haggerty asked if the gray shown in the earlier photograph would not also be appropriate. Commissioner Britt stated that it would not be, explaining that originally the stone was intended to match the brick, and after repairs were made it was erroneously painted gray, which was then corrected by whomever painted it the salmon color. Commissioner Britt asked if there were any pictures available that had been taken since the latest painting had begun. Commissioner Wiles reported that there are not, but that that he had visited the site and it appears very close to the picture provided by the applicant showing the gray trim. Commissioner Britt asked if Commissioner Wiles believes that the foundation is fieldstone. Commissioner Wiles stated that he is almost certain that it is. Commissioner Craven noted that unpainted fieldstone would be a darker gray than the tone being proposed by Mrs. Haggerty. Mrs. Haggerty stated that she believes that a gray foundation and salmon trim would look strange. Commissioner Britt shared pictures that she had found on her phone showing brick and sandstone Romanesque Revival structures with fieldstone water tables (the portion of the foundation visible above ground) to demonstrate how the façade would look if the gray color was used only in this area. Commissioner Yager asked Mrs. Haggerty if there are any other examples of similar buildings of this style and color scheme in the Stockade. Mrs. Haggerty that she could not think of any specific examples. Commissioner Yager asked Commissioner Britt why Mrs. Haggerty could not use the old photograph for her historic reference supporting the use of the gray color. Commissioner Britt responded that it is up to the Commission to decided what historical point in time is to be used to reference the appropriateness of repairs, not the applicant. Mrs. Haggerty stated that she would be willing to leave the water table gray and repaint the rest of the trim as advised by the Commission. Commissioner Britt stated that in her opinion the most historically appropriate course of action is to Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –May 15, 2017 –Page 3 of 11 paint the door surround, stoop cheek walls, and trim the salmon (sandstone) color and leave the fieldstone gray. Mrs. Haggerty asked what color the Commission would support for the bay window. Again referring to photos on her phone, Commissioner Britt stated that she believes that it should be a different color than the trim and foundation; typically, a unique darker shade would have been used. She noted that in her research she sees no evidence of the wood elements, such as the bay window, being painted to match the stone. Commissioner Britt stated that for the bay window the applicant could pick a color from the Benjamin Moore historical paint chart referenced in her application. Mrs. Haggerty stated that she believes that having the bay window a unique color will look strange. Commissioner Britt asked her if there are any other significant wood elements on the building. Mrs. Haggerty responded that there are not. Commissioner Britt stated that in that case the bay window is a unique element, and it would be historically appropriate to the Romanesque Revival period to paint it a unique color. Mrs. Haggerty asked how the Commission would advise matching the dark salmon color of the sandstone. Commissioner Britt stated that a professional painter would be able to match the color from a picture of the stone or from a chip of the previous salmon paint. Commissioner Wiles noted that if the applicant completes the painting as described in the Commission’s decision and decides that she feels that it is completely inappropriate she may of course return to the Commission for further review. Motion by Commissioner Wiles, seconded by Commissioner Britt, to approve as submitted the application to paint the architrave, stoop cheek walls, foundation water table, horizontal trim at the top of the water table, and bay window with the following modifications and conditions: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. 2. The proposal is to paint the non-brick elements of the face of the building. The Commission agrees that the painting is appropriate and useful but advises a different color scheme than the one proposed. Specifically, the fieldstone foundation water table may remain gray, and the sandstone elements including the stoop cheek walls, the architrave (surrounding the door), and the horizontal trim capping the water table will be painted a salmon color similar to that shown in the photo included in the application. 3. The bay window, which is a unique element constructed mostly of wood, will be a color different from the sandstone and the fieldstone and will be a darker color than the gray fieldstone. The Commission approves the colors Templeton Gray or Narragansett Gray as shown in the Benjamin Moore Historic Homes paint brochure provided. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –May 15, 2017 –Page 4 of 11  2. The structure requires very specific historic preservation painting consideration. It is not a brownstone but a Romanesque Revival design which would have used sandstone accents. As the sandstone aged and required repair the visibility of the repairs would have then typically been mitigated by painting the stone a color very close to its original shade. 3. The second-floor bay window represents a unique wood element which would have been called out as unique by painting it a different color. 4. The Commission has recommended and approved two specific colors for the bay window with the understanding that after seeing how the building looks painted the applicant may choose to reject these choices and return to the Commission for further review and approval of a different color. Motion carried unanimously. B. Consideration for approval submitted by Charles Padula to replace several shingles on the roof. The premise is located at 30 Union Avenue. Dr. Charles Padula appeared before the Commission. Dr. Padula explained that he is a dentist and took over the practice at this location approximately five years ago. He stated that his insurance company has informed him that the roof needs to be replaced and he has obtained estimates from four different roofing companies, all of whom have recommended architectural-style shingles due to their long life. Initially during the discussion there was some confusion as to whether Dr. Padula was proposing to repair only some parts of the roof, as the agenda stated the application was to replace several shingles on the roof. Through further discussion it became clear that Dr. Padula is proposing to replace the entire roof. Commissioner Britt asked Dr. Padula if he knows the age of the current roof. Dr. Padula replied that he does not, but that the previous dentist had been there for twenty-five years and he said that he had not replaced it, so he concluded that it must be at least thirty years old. Commissioner Craven stated that the Cobblestone Gray color proposed appears very light in the brochure. Dr. Padula stated that he would like to choose a darker color had chosen the Cobblestone Gray because he believes that it most closely matches the existing roof, which he thought he was supposed to replicate. He indicated that he would prefer the Charcoal Black or Moire Black as shown in the brochure. Commissioner Wiles stated that because the building is all white he believes that one of the black choices would appear to have too stark a contrast once it was installed over the whole roof. Commissioner Britt suggested the Pewterwood or Charcoal colors in the CertainTeed Landmark brochure provided in the application. Commissioner Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –May 15, 2017 –Page 5 of 11 Lowry stated that in his opinion the Charcoal also appears very dark. Commissioner Craven stated that while it is difficult to tell from the small sample she believes that the Pewterwood has many different colors in it, which the applicant might not be happy with once it is applied over the large roof surface. Dr. Padula explained that he could also choose from the Owens-Corning brochure, which he then showed the Commissioners, stating that he had chosen the CertainTeed color only because he felt it was closest to the existing color, which he had been under the impression he had to match as closely as possible. Commissioner Britt suggested that the Owens-Corning Quarry Gray or Estate Gray might be good choices. The Commissioners concurred. Dr. Padula stated that the roofing company prefers to remove the existing aluminum flashing in the dormer valleys and instead fold the shingles into the valleys. The Commissioners agreed that this would be acceptable. Dr. Padula asked if the Commissioners had any other recommendations as to how he might improve the building’s appearance in an historically accurate manner. Commissioner Britt stated that the aluminum siding could be painted a different color, as long as it is approved by the Commission. Commissioner Craven suggested a more traditional design for the porch with wood railings and balusters. Commissioner Britt questioned whether the porch would have originally had railings of this kind. Commissioner Wiles noted that Dr. Padula could still propose a traditional porch design, which it would then be up to the Commission to consider. Commissioner Britt suggested replacing the solid vinyl skirting on the porch with wood lattice, which would be inexpensive and have a significant impact. She suggested Dr. Padula visit MiSci and the Historical Society to try to find some old photographs of the property. Dr. Padula stated that he had gotten some 1960’s era photos from Assistant Planner Shamieh, but that he would do some further research. Motion by Commissioner Britt, seconded by Commissioner Bennett, to approve as submitted the application to replace the roof with the following modifications and conditions: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. 2. The primary and secondary roofs will be replaced with new architectural- style Owens-Corning True Definition Duration shingles in Quarry Gray or Estate Gray. 3. The aluminum flashing may be removed. Instead of installing new flashing the shingles may be folded into the dormer valleys as is now a more standard roofing practice. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. The current three-tab style shingles are at least thirty years old and are in poor condition. The applicant has been informed by his insurance company that they must be replaced. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –May 15, 2017 –Page 6 of 11  Motion carried unanimously. C. Consideration for approval submitted by Michael Barron and James Allen to landscape and install lamp posts. The premise is located at 1174 Lowell Road. Michael Barron and James Allen appeared before the Commission. Mr. Barron explained that they would like to remove the existing yews and add three hydrangea bushes with a boxwood hedge in front of the front porch on both sides, as well as remove the burning bushes along the south side of the property and add hemlock trees. He added that they would like to add a flowering dogwood tree to the front lawn to the left of the top of the front stairs from the sidewalk, where it appears that a small tree was planted previously. Mr. Barron stated that they also propose to add a Japanese Maple tree and a lamp post to the southwest corner of the house, as well as a lamppost on the left side of the stairs from the sidewalk. Mr. Barron distributed cut sheets and plant details to the Commissioners. He noted that the application stated that the lamp post would be cast iron, but they have been unable to source cast iron posts that are not overwhelmingly large, so they are asking to use an aluminum fixture of a similar design if it is not possible to obtain the cast iron. Mr. Allen explained that the hydrangea species chosen do not die back in the winter and thus there will always appear to be a shrub there throughout the year. Commissioner Britt asked how high the boxwood hedge will be. Mr. Allen stated that they would like to keep it at two feet or lower, and thus will have to prune it back regularly. Commissioner Britt asked if the porch trim will remain visible. Mr. Allen responded that it will. Mr. Barron stated that the proposed hemlock trees will be approximately four-feet high at the time of planting. Commissioner Britt asked if the applicants are aware of the possible insect problems with hemlocks. Commissioner Wiles noted that the hemlock borer is a potential threat. Mr. Allen stated that they are aware of the borer and have researched the issue, and that they believe that the problem can be addressed by treating the trees with a pesticide spray. Commissioner Wiles asked the applicants why they had chosen a dogwood tree. Mr. Allen stated that they have seen others in the neighborhood and like how they fit in with the overall landscape. Commissioner Wiles asked what other species of trees are in the front yard. Mr. Allen stated that the tree closest to the house is a hickory, which was planted by the previous owner’s grandfather and that while it is growing perilously close to the house they would like to preserve it if possible. He stated that the other large tree is an oak. Commissioner Wiles noted that a flowering dogwood has a lifespan of thirty to forty years while an oak would most likely live 100 years or more. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –May 15, 2017 –Page 7 of 11 Commissioner Britt asked for some clarification regarding the position of the proposed lamp post at the southwest corner of the house. Mr. Allen explained that there is currently a path from the front door to the driveway, and there is evidence that there had been such a path on the other side, leading to the side yard. He stated that eventually they would like to install a new path in this location, but would like to put the lamp post in now so that they can have all the electrical work done at once. Commissioner Wiles asked if the light will be LED or incandescent. Mr. Barron responded that it will be incandescent. Commissioner Wiles recommended that the two lights be independently switched so that the applicants have more lighting options. The applicants agreed that this was a good suggestion. Commissioner Bennett asked the applicants if they had considered two lamp posts at the front stairs. Mr. Allen replied that they had, but that they like the design of two lampposts in different locations better. He added that they were very thoughtful in their consideration of the posts and considered many different configurations before deciding on this one. He also noted that many homes in the Realty Plot have one lamp post at the front stairs. Commissioner Britt asked the applicants if they are certain that they wish to add the path in front of the right side of the front porch. Mr. Allen stated that they are certain that they will, and that they would like to add the lamp post in this location now so that they can have all the electrical work done at one time. Commissioner Britt asked Commissioner Wiles if he had any specific comments regarding the proposed Japanese maple. Commissioner Wiles stated that obviously it is an ornamental tree and not a monumental one, but he believes it is a suitable choice and if ultimately the applicants are not happy with it they can take it out and replace it. Motion by Commissioner Britt, seconded by Commissioner Lowry, to approve as submitted the application to remove the existing yews and add six hydrangea shrubs and a boxwood hedge in front of the front porch, remove the existing burning bushes and add hemlock trees, add a flowering dogwood tree and a Japanese maple to the front yard, and add two lamp posts, one on the left side of the top of the stairs to the sidewalk and one close to the southwest corner of the house, with the following conditions: 1. Once commenced, the project will be completed within one year. 2. The lamp post design is approved as shown on the cut sheet submitted. Either cast iron or aluminum is approved for the material of the post, subject to availability. Findings: 1. This is a Type II SEQRA. 2. The applicants state that they plan to re-establish the former pathway from the front steps to the side yard and thus would like to install a lamp post at Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –May 15, 2017 –Page 8 of 11  this side of the yard to potentially help to illuminate that future pathway, as well as to help illuminate the yard in its current design. Motion carried unanimously. D. Consideration for approval submitted by Maxime Guinel for the installation of a fence in the rear of the property. The premise is located at 108 North Ferry Street. Maxime Guinel appeared before the Commission. Mr. Guinel explained that his driveway is very long and wide and therefore he would like to put up a fence at the end of it, both to allow for increased privacy for his backyard and to partially block his view of what he identified as an illegal tent storage structure erected on the neighbor’s property. Mr. Guinel stated that he had included in his application four different proposals for the layout and design of the fence, all of which he stated he believes meet the requirements of the easement with his Front Street neighbors. Commissioner Yager produced a photograph from a realtor website and asked Mr. Guinel if it is a picture of the backyard area. Mr. Guinel stated that it is but that it is an older photograph. Mr. Guinel stated that he had believed that the owner of the Front Street property was former City Building Inspector Eric Shilling, who is now deceased, but eventually found out that his brother Erwin was the legal owner. He stated that he had been told by Mr. Eric Shilling that Mr. Shilling had been granted permission by former City Zoning Officer Steven Strichman to erect the tent storage, but that he made a FOIL request to the City and there is no documentation to show that an application had ever been submitted. Mr. Guinel explained that he had complained to the City numerous times about the tent, and eventually Assistant Planner Shamieh visited his property and took pictures of the structure and subsequently filed a complaint but the tent is still standing. Counselor Savarese explained that it is not within the purview of the Commission to settle disputes between neighbors or to regulate the enforcement of easements. Mr. Guinel responded that there had been a previous application to put up a fence submitted to the HDC by the former owner of his property, which had been approved but never installed. He stated that his proposal would not block access to the neighbors’ property. Commissioner Wiles asked if the Front Street neighbors can access their property by car from Front Street or only by way of the easement. Mr. Guinel responded that their only vehicular access is through his property, but that the initial intent of the easement was to allow the neighbors to access a shed at the rear of the property. Mr. Guinel stated that the shed is no longer there. Commissioner Britt asked Counselor Savarese how the Commission knows exactly what the parameters of the easement are. Counselor Savarese responded that she Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –May 15, 2017 –Page 9 of 11  feels that prior to the Commission taking any action on the application there should be clarification with both neighbors as to what the agreed upon easement is. Counselor Savarese stated that it was communicated to her by Deputy Corporation Counsel Rachael Ward that the Law Department’s recommendation would be to deny the proposal at this time. Mr. Guinel stated that in his opinion Counselor Ward has not handled any of the issues relating to this property well. He stated that she had initiated a case against him in NYS Supreme Court that was immediately dismissed. He went on to say that he has proof that Counselor Ward engages in personal legal work which is paid for by outside clients while she is supposed to be working on city business. Commissioner Britt stated that the discussion should be kept to the application at hand. Commissioner Britt asked Counselor Savarese what sort of documentation would be needed to be able to move forward with the application. Counselor Savarese stated that there would need to be written documentation that both property owners approve of the fence. Commissioner Yager asked if the purview of the HDC is limited only to approving the design and location of the fence with the condition that it must be approved by the neighbor. Commissioner Britt agreed that the purview of the Commission relates to materials and placement based on historic appropriateness, but added that she would not feel right approving a proposal that could be in direct violation of an easement. She proposed tabling the proposal based on the advice of counsel and awaiting more information from the Law Department regarding what the Commission can approve in a case such as this one, as well as some sort of acknowledgement from the neighbors that they agree on the location of the proposed fence. After reviewing the copy of the deed provided to them the Commissioners agreed that this would be the best way to move forward. Motion by Commissioner Britt, seconded by Commissioner Craven, to table the proposal due to an incomplete application. Motion carried, with Commissioner Bennett abstaining. VI. OLD BUSINESS None. VII. MISCELLANEOUS Commissioner Britt noted that Matt Smith from the Department of Development had contacted her to let her know that there will be a meeting regarding the Stockade Elevation Design Guidelines held May 24th from 3 to 6 pm. Commissioner Britt stated that she is unable to go to the meeting and asked if any of the Commissioners would be willing to attend. Commissioner Yager stated that Commissioner Meigher had Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –May 15, 2017 –Page 10 of 11  volunteered to attend the meetings. Commissioner Britt stated that she would ask Matt Smith to follow up with Commissioner Meigher. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Lowry, seconded by Commissioner Craven, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 pm. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes –May 15, 2017 –Page 11 of 11