HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION HEARING MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2014

Transcription

1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION HEARING MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2014 Commissioners Scott Winnette, Chairman (not present) Robert Jones, Vice Chairman (not present) Stephen Parnes (not present) Tim Wesolek Michael Simons Brian Dylus (not present) Rebecca Cybularz Chase Tydings, Alternate Aldermanic Representative Donna Kuzemchak Staff, Historic Preservation Planner Christina Martinkosky, Historic Preservation Planner Scott Waxter, Assistant City Attorney Matt Davis, Manager of Comprehensive Planning Shannon Pyles, HPC Administrative Assistant I. Call to Order Mr. Wesolek called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. He stated that the technical qualifications of the Commission and the staff are on file with the City of Frederick and are made a part of each and every case before the Commission. He also noted that the Frederick City Historic Preservation Commission uses the Guidelines adopted by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen and the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation published by the U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and these Guidelines are made a part of each and every case. All cases were duly advertised in the Frederick News Post in accordance with Section 301 of the Land Management Code. II. Public Hearing Swearing In Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the responses given and statements made in this hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? If so, answer I do. III. Announcements There were no announcements. IV. Approval of Minutes 1

2 1. July 24, 2014 Hearing/Workshop Minutes Motion: Chase Tydings moved to approve the July 24, 2014 hearing and workshop minutes as written. Second: Michael Simons V. HPC Business 2. Petition for Reconsideration 337 E. 3 rd Street Michael Simons stated that he felt as if it was not the job of the HPC to determine who is being truthful about their finances and hardship cases. He went on to say that if they do this any of the HPC applicants could say that they can t afford the changes so he did not think they should rehear this case. VI. Consent Items There were no consent items. VII. Continuances 3. HPC E. Patrick Street Dennis Hoffman & Paul Tinney Applicant requested a continuance to the August 28, 2014 hearing Gary Baker, agent VIII. Case to be Heard 4. HPC E. 5 th Street Karen Reed Construct addition Timothy Wesolek announced that this applicant was not present so the case would need to be continued to the August 28, 2014 hearing. Motion: Timothy Wesolek moved to continue this case to the August 28, 2014 hearing due to the applicant not being present. Second: Rebecca Cybularz 5. HPC E. 4 th Street Reiner Prochaska 2

3 Demolish front stoop 6. HPC E. 4 th Street Nicole Gerlanc & Kurt Zeller Demolish front stoop 7. HPC E. 4 th Street Reiner Prochaska Construct front stoop 8. HPC E. 4 th Street Nicole Gerlanc & Kurt Zeller Construct front stoop 9. HPC E. 4 th Street Vickey Toms Install concrete sidewalk and wood railing Christina Martinkosky Ms. Martinkosky entered the entire staff report into the record. Motion: Chase Tydings moved to approve the replacement of the existing metal railing with the following conditions: That the railing be according to the drawing presented to the Commission that evening with 1 solid square posts core drilled into masonry and ½ solid pickets spaced per code, every other one twisted. 1 horizontals and 1 ¾ decorative top cap with the dimensions being 45 long and high. Second: Michael Simons Vote: 4 0 3

4 Motion: Chase Tydings moved to deny the replacement of the brick sidewalk with a new concrete sidewalk because it is not in-line with the Guidelines that pertains to maintaining and preserving original materials in the historic district. Second: Rebecca Cybularz 10. HPC W. Church Street Evangelical Reformed Church Construct addition Bruce Zavos, agent Ms. Murphy entered the entire staff report into the record. Public Comment Clifford Bridgford, representing North Court Associates, LLC, stated that he would like the filing letter sent to Ms. Murphy dated August 13, 2014 and the letter to the HPC members from August 13, 2014 be made part of the record for both HPC and HPC Mr. Waxter stated that they are not authorized to reopen the record of a previous case that has already been approved. He went on to say that on behalf of the North Court Associates, LLC they would like to reaffirm that the facts and information in the letter sent to staff and the HPC members on August 13, 2014 are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information and belief. He said that North Court will submit and rely upon the argument made in the letters on each of the issues it raises with respect to the opposition to both applications, HPC and HPC Barron Putnam, resident at 118 N. Court Street, stated that it was hard for him to understand exactly what is going and wondered if the Commission was provided with information showing what the church plans to do. He also wondered if there was an impact statement on how it will affect the other residences in the area. He said that he has a driveway behind his house and it is not clear to him if this project is going to use that driveway. He stated that he would not like to see them use that driveway because it is delicate and very old and it was just refurbished and heavy construction trucks will tear it up. Motion: Second: Chase Tydings moved to approve this application according to the drawing set dated 7/3/2014 and the section drawings dated 7/28/2014 to include the removal of the tree as shown on drawing A-2 with the location of light fixtures to be approved by staff. Materials Approved: Firestone TPO roofing; Glen-Gery 26-HB Redburn brick; Nichiha ArchitecturalBlock [anels Oceania; Kawneer Tri-fab Versaglaze- 451/451- clear anodized finish and untinted/clear glass; Prefinished aluminum coping and roofing by PAC-CLAD; Pre-cast coping by Stafford Stone Works, LLC, #124; Hanover Architectural Concrete Pavers- Tudor finish, cream; Concrete and asphalt paving; Powder coated railings- RAL 7046; and Pole, bollard, recessed, and wall lights by Bega Rebecca Cybularz 4

5 11. HPC E. 7 th Street J. David Hunter Install asphalt shingled roof Christina Martinkosky Ms. Martinkosky entered the entire staff report into the record. Public Comment: Peter Samuel, resident at 102 W. 3 rd Street, stated that there is no basis in the Land Management Code, Rules of Procedure or the Guidelines that say the Commission cannot take cost into account. He went on to say that the whole policy on asphalt shingles is a mess and there is no basis under the Guidelines for approving asphalt shingles in new construction in the historic district and yet they are doing that routinely. Motion: Second: Vote: Rebecca Cybularz moved to approve the use of asphalt shingles as the Guidelines state on pg. 621 that asphalt shingles can be used to replace existing asphalt shingles and that they be a medium gray color to match the original slate roof and the final color selection be approved by staff. Chase Tydings 3 1, Michael Simons opposed 12. HPC Carroll Creek Linear Park City of Frederick Construct pump house Greg Brown, agent Ms. Murphy entered the entire staff report into the record. Motion: Timothy Wesolek moved to approve the addition of a pump house along Carroll Creek Linear Park with the following conditions: The traditional hand crimped standing seam metal roof shall include seam not greater than 1 in height, a rolled or crimped ridge, and a natural metallic or field painted finished unless prior staff approval is obtained for a prefinished coating. All wood elements shall be painted or stained with a solid color opaque stain. The building represents the drawings provided from Bates Architecture dated 3/3/2014. Second: Rebecca Cybularz 13. HPC14-629ZMA 1317 Hughes Ford Road Historic Preservation Commission Shaver/Johnson Farm (Renn Farm) Historic Preservation Overlay Zoning Map Amendment Ms. Murphy entered the entire staff report. Public Comment 5

6 Carl Morris, with Matan Companies, stated that he would like to compliment staff because this is a process that is new to them and Ms. Murphy was instrumental in guiding them through the process. He went on to say that she demonstrated a high level of patience in dealing with their questions and concerns. He stated that the Renn farm is 220 acres and it currently zoned light industrial which is M-1 in the City of Frederick. He said that the last four or five months they have been working to try to determine what is the best use for the Renn farm. He also said that over the last several months they have engaged a nationally recognized independent real estate advisor and design professionals that have a track record of designing some of the sustainable developments and communities. He stated that what they have looked at over the last several months are the physical characteristics of this site including the existing structures and they also looked at the proximity of the farm in its relationship to historical downtown Frederick. He went on to say that they looked at the demographics of the City of Frederick along with the County and the surrounding counties. He said that in addition they looked at market trends and the market trends they looked at were not only residential trends but also commercial trends. He stated that over the four or five months they came to the conclusion that the best use of the property which is a mixed use development and that is important because if you look at the East Frederick Rising report that went through a similar process and came to the same conclusion. He stated that their expectation is to pursue the zoning map amendment and master plan for the entire 220 acres for a MU-2 or mixed use development. Kate Kuranda, with Goodwin & Associates, stated that the historical evaluation of the Shaver/Renn farm has a long administrative history and dates back to She said that their firm was retained to assess the farm with nine other properties through thecorps of Engineers associated with the improvements of Monocacy Boulevard. She went on to say that as noted in the staff report a recognizance survey was completed and the properties were individually and collective evaluated applying the National Register criteria based on local significance and the results were submitted to the Maryland Historical Trust for review. She said that as they know the City s criteria for designation are based on the National Register criteria and the parallels were noted in the staff report. She stated that the MHT review of April 2009 found that Shafer farm in its entirety, all the buildings and acreage, was a contributing element to intact rural historic district along Gas House Pike and that area was eligible for listing in the National Register. She went on to say that its importance as a contributing element related to the overall agriculture of the area and to the transition to the diversified farms to dairies embodied by the buildings in the district and the active agricultural landscape. She stated that MHT did not find the farm individually significant for its association with its broad patterns of local agricultural history or local patterns agricultural architecture and this finding was incorporated into the documentation that was later submitted to the City along with the demolition request. She said that the former agricultural area along Gas House Pike has undergone major changes in the recent years and the historical integrity of that area is somewhat questionable at this point. She stated that the area of the Shaver farm that is currently being considered for a historic overlay represents a portion of the overall farm that directly relates to the mid-20 th century dairy farming and it should be noted that the milk shed is consistent in design and construction with the mid-20 th century development. She went on to say that milk sheds were common features on dairy farms and they were used for the short term storage processed milk in cans between milking and pick up. She said that the sheds provided a road side access frequently at the end of the road and they eliminate damage by heavy trucks through the farm yard and help maintain pick up schedules along the route. She stated that they do differ in their interpretation of the date range for that shed. She added that their research on the property both undertaken this year and as part of their previous investigation on Monocacy Boulevard did not suggest the 20 th century dairying operation made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of history and it does not illustrate important transitions in agricultural production as the whole district or innovative technologies or noteworthy architecture responses to an increasingly industrial agricultural area. Motion: Timothy Wesolek moved to continue this case to a special hearing on August 20, 2014 at 6:00 pm in the City Hall Board Room. 6

7 The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:00 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Shannon Pyles, Administrative Assistant 7