MINUTES August 24, 2015 Historic Preservation Commission City of Batavia

Transcription

1 MINUTES August 24, 2015 Historic Preservation Commission City of Batavia Please NOTE: These minutes are not a word-for-word transcription of the statements made at the meeting, nor intended to be a comprehensive review of all discussions. They are intended to make an official record of the actions taken by the Committee/City Council, and to include some description of discussion points as understood by the minute-taker. They may not reference some of the individual attendee s comments, nor the complete comments if referenced. 1. Meeting Called to Order Chair Bus called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Chair Bus ; Commissioners Sullivan (entered at 5:39pm ), Sherer, Roller, and Foster Vice-Chair Hagemann Joel Strassman, Planning and Zoning Officer ; and Jennifer Austin- Smith, Recording Secretary 3. Items to be Removed, Added or Changed There were no items to be removed, added or changed. 4. Approve Minutes for July 27, 2015 Motion: To approve the minutes for July 27, 2015 Maker: Sherer Second: Foster Voice Vote: 4 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Absent Motion carried. 5. Matters From the Public (for items not on the agenda) Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Chair Bus asked if there were matters from the public for items not on the agenda. There were no matters from the public. 6. COA Review: 13 East Wilson Wall Sign Installation (Aubrey Signs, Applicant) Paul Bandur, Aubrey Signs, addressed the Commission. He stated that this COA is for a wood sign with dimensional letters and vinyl graphics. The Riverview portion would be laser cut acrylic letters and the child and family therapy portion would be applied vinyl. The substrat e would be a painted half-inch panel. They would install the sign into the mortar joints with screws and the screws would be covered with black caps so they would not be seen. Bus asked if there was any exterior lighting. Bandur stated that there would not be exterior lighting. Bus asked what building used to be at this location. Foster stated that it was the

2 Page 2 doughnut shop and it burned down in February of Bus noted that it is a shame that we lost the opportunity to have a building built that better represented our commercial street block. Roller requested that the signs be aligned with each other so that they are on the same plane. Bandur stated that they would like the center the new sign in between the other existing signs. They will take into account what is next to it. *Sullivan entered at 5:39pm Strassman asked the Commission to consider if they wanted the sign vertically on center or have the same baseline. Roller asked for this sign to be centered vertically since the sign next to it is probably centered vertically as well. The Commission discussed the building, the location of the sign, the location of the doors, and how the building is non-contributing. Motion: To approve the COA as presented Maker: Roller 7. Façade Grant Review: 10/12 North River Street (Laura & Casey O Brien, Applicants) Bus asked to have agenda items seven and eight to be discussed at the same time since they are related. There was no objection by the Commission. Bus welcomed the applicant to address the Commission. Laura O Brien, applicant, shared that they are working on the list of improvements that the Building C ommissioner gave to them upon inspection of their significant building. Currently, they are working on the priorities on the list. The two top priorities are in the grant request, one is the gable on the top of the building and the other is for the repairs to the mop room located on the side of the building. The mop room is a structure that she is unaware if it is part of the original building or not. They would like to demolish and rebuild it. The Commission reviewed photos of the gable and the mop room structure. Strassman reported that s taff would be recommending approval of th e project with a façade grant payment of 33 % of the estimated project cost as opposed to the maximum amount of 50% as requested by the applicants. Staff would recommend approval of the grant for an amount of 33% of the estimated project, not to exceed $2,583. Mrs. O Brien formally asked for the Commission to consider awarding the full 50%. She does not understand why staff is trying to make it more difficult for someone who is trying to keep a historic limestone building up and there is so much more work to be done on this building. She explained that it is expensive to keep it up. Sherer asked when they plan to get the work done after they receive the grant. Mrs. O Brien answered that they plan to get the work done in September. Foster asked what material the mop room is made of. Mr. O Brien answered that it is made of cement. Roller expressed her concern with the generic term of cinder block being used for the material to rebuild the mop room. She

3 Page 3 requested that the material used to be appropriate for outdoor use. Roller wanted the applicant to make sure that the cinder block used be an exterior grade product. The Commission discussed the applicant s contractor, the elements of the project, and the color chosen for the gable material. Mr. O Brien brought a sample for the Commission to view. He noted that the color they had chosen was named sandstone. Roller stated that she feels that the proposed material is appropriate for the top of the building but she would like to see the material match the rest of the building s limestone. Bus agreed. The consensus of the Commission was the proposed color looked too yellow and that the texture should be rough to match the building. Mr. O Brien stated that the color would be made to match the stone. He distributed a picture of the building so the Commission could view the color of the existing limestone. Bus asked if the applicant should consider split face d block for the mop room. Roller stated that she does not think split face d block is necessary but having it be a n exterior grade product is a necessity. Mrs. O Brien stated that she would talk to the contractor to ensure that the product is exterior grade. She noted that the general public would not see this structure from the street or the parking lot. Foster asked for more information on the breakdown of cost and for staff s rationale for the 33% contribution opposed to the 50%. Strassman answered that the gable work is for $4,700 and the utility is for $2,650. He explained that this type of repair could be viewed as deferred maintenance that would lead to a project of this scope. Strassman continued that this repair would not cause an increase of the assessed value of the property and there would not be additional TIF dollars created from this project. Mrs. O Brien stated that they bought the building in 2006 and at that time the gable was not in need of repair. She stated that if there is a need to change the façade grant program in 2016 stating a reduced contribution for deferred maintenance repair that is fine. She does not want to be made the example in this particular case. She asked the Commission to consider the 50% contribution since maintaining a significant building is arduous and expensive. Bus stated that we as a City value these historic buildings. In the past, we have not been doing maintenance inspections. We should be saying as part of public policy to go the maximum of 50% to provide an incentive to building owners who have had a significant building for a very short period of time, a building that has been allowed to deteriorate to a certain condition by no fault to the current owners. The applicant does want to do the right thing. Bus continued that we should create incentives to business owners. He does not see that going to 50% would be much more money and it would be an encouragement and an incentive to property owners of significant buildings to do the right thing. Sherer and Foster agreed with Bus. Bus asked how much more it would cost to put limestone in for the gable. Mr. O Brien answered that it would be more than double the cost. The consensus of the Commission was that the c olor and texture of the gable material should closely match the building to be in alignment with the HPC guidelines.

4 Page 4 Motion: To recommend to City Council approval of the façade grant at the requested 50% of the project cost Discussion was held on the motion. Sherer asked if the Committee of the Whole would be aware of why the HPC decided to go with the 50% contribution. Strassman answered that the minutes would reflect that and staff would let the City Council Committee know the reasoning for the 50% recommendation. Maker: Sullivan Second: Foster 8. COA Review: 10/12 North River Street- Façade Repairs (Laura & Casey O Brien, Applicants) Motion: Maker: Roll Call Vote: To approve the COA for the significant building at 10/12 North River Street with the caveat that the cast stone product to be used match the color and texture of the capstone and that the contractor uses concrete block material made for exterior use on the back of the building Roller Aye: Sherer, Sullivan, Roller, Foster, Bus Bus thanked the applicants for their commitment to maintaining this significant building. Mr. O Brien shared that ghost hunters approached them to research the building. They did a background check on the building going all the way back to Wilson Street before the building was built by Judge Wilson. There are some popular names of people who lived there. The background includes all of the businesses that were there including during the prohibition. Mr. O Brien stated that he would give the historical information to the Commission for their review. 9. COA Review: 122 West Wilson Street Revisions to Approved COA/Walgreens (John Bradshaw, CT Architects, Applicant) Dan Stellato, BE I, applicant, and John Bradshaw, CT Architects, addressed the Commission. Stellato stated in the process of searching out competitive pricing they found a better match for the brick. The bad news is that it is more expensive and the good news is that it matches much better. The brick is from a local company and made in America. The color goes by two different names, Red Velour and Mountain Red. Stellato noted that the bricks chosen match the bricks of surrounding buildings and handed out photos that illustrated that. Bradshaw handed out the cast stone for the Commission to view as well.

5 Page 5 Bus and Sherer noted that the cast stone proposed for this project would be a good fit for the O Brien s significant building gable. Bus asked staff to let them know about this product. Sherer stated that the new brick chosen is much better than the previous selection. Foster asked about the multiple tones of the brick. Stellato showed the Commission the sample of the bricks. Motion: To approve the COA for the revised brick and cast stone presented today for the Walgreen s project Maker: Roller 10. Design Guidelines Review Section L Signs, Section M Site Improvements, Section N Strom Windows & Door Section The consensus of the Committee was in favor of discussing this at the next meeting. 11. Other There were no other items discussed. 12. Adjournment There being no other business to discuss, Chair Bus asked for a motion to adjourn th e meeting at 6:48pm; Made by Foster; Seconded by Sullivan. Motion carried. Minutes respectfully submitted by Jennifer Austin-Smith