Historic Preservation Commission
November 19, 2015
The Historic Preservation Commission met on November 19, 2015 at the City Council Chambers, 305 Gay St. Chairwoman Patricia Weichmann called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Ms. Weichmann began the meeting by issuing a welcome and asking Ms. Kinser for any announcements. Ms. Kinser announced the upcoming tax seminar being hosted by the HPC. Ms. Weichmann then conducted the roll call and swearing in persons planning to testify.
Patricia Weichmann, Ron Berman, Sharon Smith
Jackie Vickers--Council Liaison, Janice Olshesky, Mike Russo, Gaver Nichols (recused)
Other Representatives Attending:
LaSara Kinser—Planning and Zoning Assistant
October 15, 2015: Ms. Smith submitted a change to reflect that she had submitted a letter to the HPC in support of HPC #2015-012. On a motion by Mr. Berman the minutes were accepted as amended, to include the supporting comments of Ms. Smith; Second by Smith and passed unanimously.
HPC #2015-015, 610 Locust St.:
The application was represented by Joe Turner, on behalf of Zion United Methodist Church. The request was to cover the existing three-tab asphalt shingles with architectural asphalt shingles on the church parsonage. Mr. Turner gave some context surrounding the decision to do the work, and the material selection. There was public comment by Ms. Kristin Baybrick, who had questions about the color. There was some discussion around when the parsonage was built. Ms. Smith made a motion to approve the application as submitted, Mr. Berman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
HPC #2015-016, 308 Oakley St.:
Ms. Kinser asked, on behalf of the applicant, that the case be tabled to allow the applicant more time to evaluate the options for repair of the window and considering that he was unexpectedly unable to make the meeting. Ms. Weichmann made a motion to table the application until the next meeting, Mr. Berman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
HPC #2015-017, 306 Glenburn Ave.:
The application to replace eight windows in the house, install a black aluminum fence in the rear yard to replace the existing “turkey wire” fence, and to replace the existing slate roofing with asphalt architectural shingles was represented by Ed Anderson, the property owner. Dr. Anderson indicated that the factors for his decision to complete these projects were cost, and the example of similar modifications at a nearby property. Dr. Anderson also indicated that he was not interested in seeing whether or not the slate roof could be repaired and presented a sample of the proposed roofing materials. Further discussion involved the proportion of slate to shingle on the roof, and the extent of deterioration to the slate. There was no public comment. The Commission decided to evaluate the application in three parts, and discussed the fence, roof alterations, and windows separately. Discussion on the fence included code requirements on fences and the design of the fence. Ms. Smith made a motion to approve the fence proposal as submitted, Mr. Berman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Discussion on the windows included the design, the staff recommendation, and the placement of the windows, the energy efficiency of the existing windows, the proposed grid pattern, the proposed materials of the window, the relative significance of the windows. Mr. Berman made a motion to approve the replacement of all eight windows as submitted, Ms. Smith seconded the application and it passed 2-1 with Ms. Weichmann dissenting. Discussion on the roof included the type of slate, the existing deterioration, the cost to repair the roof, alternatives to complete replacement, the impact of tabling the application, the timeline of existing damage, and how to evaluate the reparability of the roof. The HPC decided to call a special meeting in December to evaluate the new information on this application. Ms. Smith made a motion to table the roof proposal until the applicant can provide more information on the reparability of the slate portion of the roof. Ms. Weichmann seconded the application and it passed unanimously.
HPC #2015-018, 117 Belvedere Ave.:
The application was represented by Mark Mills, project contractor, on behalf of the property owner with a request to replace one wooden window with a vinyl replacement, and to install a 3’ tall cedar fence in the rear. Mr. Mills explained that the applicant proposes to install higher quality windows that what are on the rest of the house, with exterior as opposed to interior grilles. Mr. Mills presented a sample of the proposed window, and explained that the window is on the front of the house, but not part of the front façade in the way that it is oriented to the road. There was no public comment on the application. The discussion included the visibility of the fence from the road. Ms. Smith made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Weichmann seconded the application and it passed unanimously.
HPC #2015-019, 311 Oakley St.:
The application was jointly represented by Gaver Nichols (who recused himself from the entire meeting), project architect, and Marti Tomey, contract purchaser. The application represents several action items to begin a rehab of the entire house. Ms. Tomey indicated that there are structural issues to the house that necessitate the work. She presented a sample of the existing railing, and samples of the proposed composite materials. Points of the discussion included the construction date of the house. Ms. Kristen Baybrick contributed to the public comment with several questions. Further discussion included the level of deterioration on the porch, the repair of the original materials. The public session was closed, and reopened. Mr. Nichols then joined the discussion and presented information on the structural integrity of the porch, the size of the columns, proposed modifications to the porch, porch roof, and turret roof, proposed modifications to the windows, the material samples submitted by the applicant, the proposed guttering materials, the profile of the porch steps, the size of the proposed porch flooring, the height and materials of the proposed railing, proposed alterations to the trim and lighting, the windows on the front façade of the house, the system for attaching the railings to the columns, the material of the proposed porch steps. Ms. Weichmann made a motion to approve the application, with conditions. Ms. Smith seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
306 Glenburn Ave.: Dr. Anderson was not present, and so there was no review.
311 Oakley St.: Ms. Tomey presented more information regarding the proposal to demolish three additions in the rear, including the extent of the deterioration of the materials, and the instability of the structure. Mr. Nichols presented conceptual drawings of the existing conditions and the proposed demolition and addition. The need for documentation of what, if anything, is demolished. The guidance from the Commission indicated that the next step should be a site visit, and that further documentation should be gathered on the additions.
206 Belvedere: The applicant was not present and so there was no review.
There was one administrative approval AA 2015-010, 215 Choptank Ave
305 Mill Street—Staff indicated that an HPC application is forthcoming.
Solar Panels: The request for City Council consideration of a moratorium on solar panels in the historic district was denied.
Guidelines: There was discussion on whether staff will bring the Guidelines for HPC recommendation to City Council in sections, or as a whole document.
Motion to adjourn: Motion by Mr. Berman, Ms. Weichmann seconded the motion and the Commission unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at 9:54 p.m.
LaSara KinserPlanning and Zoning Assistant