Historic Resource Commission

Schenectady Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes January 4, 2024 I. Call to Order Commissioner Yager called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Roll Call PRESENT: Patricia Yager, Chair; Richard Unger, Shaun Andriano, Michael Barron, Jack Connelly; Development Staff, Maxine Barasch; City Counsel EXCUSED: Zakhar Berkovich III.Conflicts of Interest None IV. Adoption of Prior Meeting's Minutes A. December 7th Commissioner Unger made a motion to approve the December 7th meeting minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Andriano. Motion carried unanimously. V. Call for Members of Public to Speak on Agenda Items VI. Old Applications VII. New Business A. Consideration for approval submitted by Eun-sil Lee to add a handrail to the front stairs. The property is located in the GE Realty Plot at 1203 Wendell Avenue. Ms. Eun-sil Lee came to discuss the proposed handrail with the Commission. Commissioner Yager said it would be tough to say which type of railing would be most historically accurate because there was no record of a railing ever being on the property. Commissioner Unger questioned the angularity of the railing, but did not find it overly objectionable- the rest of the Commission agreed that it was acceptable for the property and the specific details would not be overly noticeable from the street. RESOLUTION Commissioner Unger made a motion to approve the application. Commissioner Barron seconded the motion with the following conditions:  All proper permits should be secured  All work to be completed by 1/4/2025 Motion carried unanimously. This is in coordination with standards 9 and 10. Type II SEQR B. Consideration for approval submitted by Asad Dawoodani to add signage to the exterior of the building and remove brick to expose entry/exit point. The property is located in the Union Street Corridor at 602 Union Street. The Commission clarified that the signage had been approved last meeting, and the only the entry way needed to be discussed. Mr. Amin Dawoodani, Asad’s father, was present to discuss the application. Mr. Dawoodani passed around a rough sketch of the door, and said that the colors would be whatever the Commission decided upon. He further clarified for Commissioner Yager that the door would fit solely within the grey brick frame- there would be no enlarging of the area to accommodate the door. Mr. Dawoodani said that the glass rectangle added to the door for visibility was planned on being 12”x12” and that the frame would be hollow metal and the arched glass would be surrounded by a wooden frame. Commissioner Andriano mentioned it may be difficult to have two separate pieces for the door frame and the transom frame, and that it may be easier to have them as one material. Commissioner Andriano questioned what exactly was planned for the arched section of the door. He stated that glass was not mandatory for the arch but needed some further information from the applicant that detailed what would be in that section, as the information given in the application was insufficient. Commissioner Unger noted that the proposed door likely would not fit in the space proposed. Mr. Dawoodani emphasized that they could make the door fit whatever dimensions the Commission wanted. Commissioner Andriano mentioned that in any approvals he would like a condition to be that the width of the door could not exceed the current outline shown with the existing soldiered brick. Commissioner Andriano stated that all of the grey brick should be removed as it is not historically accurate and asked again what the material for the panel at the top of the door. The applicant confirmed that there would be glass in the arch with a hollow metal frame. Commissioner Andriano mentioned that he would like the glass panel in the door extended to be more proportional with the rest of the door. The applicant feared that too much glass would make break-ins more likely. Commissioner Andriano noted that the rest of the façade was glass and that would make no difference. Commissioners Yager and Andriano noted that panels on the door were not necessary. RESOLUTION Commissioner Andriano made a motion to conditionally approve the application. Commissioner Barron seconded the motion with the following conditions:  Door frame to be hollow metal from top to bottom, including the arch  Frame follows the existing masonry with the arched opening  Glass infill between the door header and the head of the frame  Glass panel tempered to meet code  All security features needed to be interior to the door or internal to the glass  Half glass style door  Existing masonry cannot be widened- the door needs to be modified to fit the existing opening  All grey masonry to be removed  Color to match green on existing storefront  Dimensions of existing grey brick to be submitted to Development staff prior to construction of the door Motion carried unanimously. This is in coordination with standards 2, 4, 9 and 10. Type II SEQR C. Consideration for approval submitted by First Presbyterian Church to replace windows and trim paintings. The property is located in the Stockade at 215 Union Street. Mr. Dave Bowles and Jim Nally approached the condition to speak on the application at hand. Commissioner Yager noted that Commissioner Unger had broken down the comments made about the windows individually, and it was recommended that motions would be taken window by window. Although some windows were previously replaced using 2 over 1 divided lights, Commissioner Unger believed that originally they were not 2 over 1. Mr. Bowles said that they did not have the original windows, but they could look for pictures that visualized the originals. As windows 1-6 had already been replaced, the Commission decided they would start with window 7 and then move back to 1-6 afterwards. Window 7 originally had a 12 over 1 appearance. The recommendation of the Commission was that the top sash could be repaired but the broken glass should be replaced. Commissioner Andriano noted that in his visit to the site he saw the exterior of the windows was quite deteriorated, and in most cases needed attention. Commissioner Unger asked whether it would be physically possible to maintain the sashes but rebuild the frame. Commissioner Andriano responded saying that could come with some mechanical difficulties. Mr. Bowles questioned whether a manufacturer would be able to replicate a 12 over 1 SDL as seen in window 7 and asked what the Commission would accept if that was the case. Commissioner Unger felt comfortable saying that a staff approval could be given in that instance, only if the 12 over 1s were fully unable to be used. Mr. Nally stated later that he could construct a 12 over 1 frame if needed. Commissioner Andriano re-emphasized that much of the wood was in very rough shape, and temporary fixes would delay the problem but that ultimately much of the wood would need to be replaced. Commissioner Andriano said that generally speaking the upper sashes were in better condition than the lower sashes as they had less contact with water. Window 7 was an example where the top sash could be repaired but the bottom sash had more extensive damage. It was agreed that the sills of window 7 were in very bad shape, and Mr. Nally felt confident that he would be able to properly take them off to repair them. The Commission did not have a preference if the applicant used cedar or pine to replace the frame, and said that they would leave it up to the applicant’s discretion between to choose between those options. While the Commission was favorable on either choice of wood, they stated that PVC products would be unacceptable for this project. RESOLUTION Commissioner Unger made a motion to approve the repair of window 7. It was noted in the motion that the windows did not need to be operational, so while aspects such as the sash cords were allowed to be replaced it was not mandatory. Commissioner Andriano seconded the application with the following conditions:  Top sash be repaired  Bottom sash be repaired if possible, with the sill being replaced  Window unit to be 12 over 1 with muntins  Broken glass to be replaced  Sash cords can be replaced at the applicant’s discretion  The applicant to choose between cedar and wood for the frame  Paint color to be the same as previous Motion carried unanimously. The Commission then moved onto window 8, deciding to complete a vote on SEQR and go over the Department of the Interior standards at the end when all windows were voted on. Commissioner Unger noted that window 8 had very similar conditions to window 7 and was also 12 over 1. Mr. Bowles that window 8 was in worse condition and doubted that much of the window was salvageable. RESOLUTION Commissioner Unger made a motion that the approvals for window 7 be carried over to apply for window 8. Seconded by Commissioner Andriano. Motion carried unanimously. Windows 9 and 10 were discussed together as they were in very similar states and both were 6 over 1. Commissioner Andriano recommended that both windows 9 and 10 be replaced, as the state of disrepair was so serious that repair may not be possible. The Commission stressed the importance of maintaining the 6 over 1 SDL with the replacement windows. Mr. Bowles noted that replacements for windows 9 and 10 had already been purchased. They were not the exact original color, as that was not available and described them more as a taupe color. The Commission agreed that no matter what color was officially decided upon would need to be consistent throughout the entirety of the third floor as was stated in the two earlier motions. The Commission discussed whether is would be an issue that if the taupe was used that it would make the third floor a different color than the bottom two. Commissioner Yager mentioned that as paint is not permanent she would be comfortable approving a different color. The Commission came to an agreement that the window units of 9 and 10 would be the color used throughout the third floor. RESOLUTION Commissioner Andriano made a motion that windows 9 and 10 be replaced. Seconded by Commissioner Unger with the following conditions and findings of facts:  Both windows are beyond repair, with both the sills and frames being in extreme disrepair  Aluminum clad wooden windows to match rest of third floor  6 over 1 SDL to remain  Paint color to match rest of third floor windows Window 11 was discussed by itself. It was noted that the bottom sill of window 11 was already replaced and the existing divided light was 1 over 1. The Commission was unsure what the light division was before it was 1 over 1 but the true original state of the window was unknown. Commissioner Andriano recommended that the window be repaired as needed. Commissioner Unger said that since the windows to the left and right of 11 had different divided lights there was no way to match both of them, and therefore keeping it 1 over 1 was the best bet. RESOLUTION Commissioner Andriano made a motion that window 11 be replaced with the following findings of facts and conditions. Seconded by Commissioner Unger  Bottom sash, sill and exterior trim are all beyond repair  Unit to be replaced with a 1 over 1 divided light  Aluminum clad window  Color to be consistent with the color of the rest of the third floor  Trim paintings to be consistent with adjacent trims Motion carried unanimously. The Commission discussed windows 12 and 13 which were square windows but were located within the arch of the building. Commissioner Andriano believed that the condition on these windows was poor enough that it warranted them being replaced. The jambs and sill in particular were in exceptionally poor condition. Commissioner Andriano said that portions of the window could be repaired rather than replaced, but that would likely prohibit the window from being functional. The Commission agreed that although maybe some portions of the window could be repaired, enough of the window was beyond repair that replacement was recommended. RESOLUTION Commissioner Andriano made a motion that windows 12 and 13 be replaced with the following findings of facts and conditions. Seconded by Commissioner Unger  The unit sills, jambs and bottom sashes are beyond repair  Units can be replaced  Sash lights should be 9 over 1  Aluminum clad wooden windows  Color should be consistent with the rest of the third floor Motion carried unanimously. Windows 14 and 15 were handled together due to their similar conditions. Due to their severe deterioration Commissioner Andriano recommended that they be replaced. Both windows were 1 over 1 and the Commission wanted them to remain that way after replacement. RESOLUTION Commissioner Andriano made a motion that windows 14 and 15 be replaced. Seconded by Commissioner Unger with the following findings of facts and conditions.  The windows and structure around the windows are beyond repair  Replacement is approved  Aluminum clad wooden windows  1 over 1 light window  Color to be consistent with remainder of the third floor Motion carried unanimously. The Commission decided to handle window 16 by itself. Commissioner Andriano stated that the sill of window 16 was in worse condition than any other sill on the site. The condition of the rest of the window was unknown. It was recommended that the applicant attempt to repair the window, but if repair was deemed impossible than a staff approval could be given to replace the window. It was clarified that staff would consult with a Commissioner prior to issuing any approvals RESOLUTION Commissioner Andriano made a motion to repair window 16. Seconded by Commissioner Unger with the following findings of facts and conditions.  Exterior condition of the unit is unclear  Repair of the unit is recommended, but applicant should discuss with City staff if repair is found to be impossible Motion carried unanimously. Windows 17 and 18 were next discussed, and were deemed to be beyond repair. RESOLUTION Commissioner Andriano made a motion to replace windows 17 and 18. Seconded by Commissioner Unger with the following findings of facts and conditions.  Windows 17 and 18 were beyond repair   Sills and jambs were extensively damaged  Replacement is approved  Aluminum clad wooden windows  9 over 1 SDL for both units  Color consistent with the rest of the third floor Motion carried unanimously. The Commission circled back to windows 1-6. Commissioner Barron noted that windows 1-4 had already been replaced previously, and were 2 over 1 which was assumed to not be the original makeup of the windows. Commissioner Andriano expressed that he felt the top sashes should be replaced so that SDLs could be put in, but rose the question of how the SDLs should be, since the original windows were unknown. Commissioner Unger pointed out that while there isn’t consistency with the SDLs, the one commonality was that they were all “over 1”, and therefore that should be kept the same in windows 1-6. Commissioner Andriano recommended that all of windows 1-6 get 1 over 1 SDLs so that the window proportions could not get messed up. RESOLUTION Commissioner Andriano made a motion to replace windows 1-6. Seconded by Commissioner Barron with the following findings of fact and conditions.  The original SDL makeup of the windows was unknown  Replacements were to be 1 over 1  Aluminum clad wooden windows  Color consistent with the rest of the third floor Motion carried unanimously. All motions taken for 215 Union Street were in coordination with standards 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10. Type II SEQR. D. Consideration for approval submitted by Harline Andrus to repair the chimney and the front steps. The property is located in the Union Triangle at 40 Union Avenue. Ms. Harline Andrus came before the Commission to discuss the project. It was stated for the Commission that Ms. Andrus had spoken with the City’s Chief Building Inspector who had given authorization to redo the chimney as it posed a safety hazard in its current state. Ms. Andrus said that the chimney on the right is completely rebuilt, while the other was only partially taken down with plans to finish work in the spring. Commissioner Yager informed Ms. Andrus that the sealer noted in the application was not approved by SHPO, and therefore should not be used. Ms. Andrus said she was unsure if it had been put on the completed chimney. Commissioner Unger was not a fan of the proposed concrete for the steps, and recommended untinted concrete be used instead. Ms. Andrus confirmed that the reparation of the stairs included the walls on the side of the stairs as well. RESOLUTION Commissioner Unger made a motion to approve the repair to the chimney and the front stairs. This was seconded by Commissioner Barron with the following conditions:  New mortar should match the existing color  No sealer to be put over the chimney  Front stairs would be reconstructed to their original design  Concrete used for stairs would be consistent with City of Schenectady requirements  All necessary permits to be secured  Work to be completed by 1/4/2025 Motion carried unanimously. This is in coordination with standards 2, 5, 9 and 10. Type II SEQR. E. Consideration for approval submitted by Charles Meisner to repair a portion of the roof. The property is located in the GE Realty Plot at 1412 Lowell Road. Mr. Charles Meisner appeared before the Commission to discuss the desired changes to be made to the roof, which were needed as the roof was leaking. Mr. Meisner said that the intent of the application was not to change the appearance- everything would look identical and the same materials would be used. Mr. Meisner said that the valley is old copper and that the drip edges would match the existing exactly. The Commission requested that any copper removed would be replaced with new copper. The Commission was unsure if there were any snow slides on the roof that would be impacted by this application. After looking further, Commissioner Barron did not believe that there were any snow slides in the portion in question. RESOLUTION Commissioner Unger made a motion to approve the reparation of the roof. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Barron, with the following conditions.  Shingles to be replaced using GAF Timberline HDZ architectural shingles  Any copper removed from roof will be replaced with copper  All necessary permits to be secured  All work to be completed by 1/4/2025 Motion carried unanimously This is in coordination with standards 2, 5, 9 and 10. Type II SEQR VII. Miscellaneous Mr. Connelly discussed the desire to update the Historic Commission’s application process in order to receive more consistently complete applications. He said that anyone wishing to assist with that would be welcome, and the updated application can be reviewed by the Commission at the next meeting. VIII. A d j o u r n Motion to adjourn made by Commissioner Unger. Seconded by Commissioner Andriano. Meeting adjourned at 8:26 PM