Print this page

HPC Minutes, May 29, 2014

May 29, 2014

The Historic Preservation Commission met on Thursday, May 29th at the City Council Chambers, 305 Gay Street. Brian Roche, Chair, began the meeting at approximately 7:20PM and took a roll call of members attending.

Commissioners Attending: Brian Roche, Will Dennehy, Ron Berman, Patricia Weischmann.

Commissioners Absent: Dormaim Bromwell Green, Mike Russo,

Other representatives or staff attending: Dan Brandewie, City Planner II.

HPC members reviewed the rating system used in the original Cambridge Ward I and III Final Project Report for the nomination of the historic district to the National Register. The consultant, Paul Reed, at that time followed a rating system consisting of seven letters A-G with following references:

A. A contributing resource with an exceptionally high level of integrity and historic and/or architectural significance to the nomination.
B. A contributing resource with a high level of integrity and historic and/or architectural significance to the nomination.
C. A contributing resource with a low level of integrity whose contribution could be enhanced by sympathetic rehabilitation or restoration or by research documenting historic significance unknown at the time of nomination.
D. A resource that does not contribute to the significance of the nomination but may be eligible for listing in the National Register, within another historical and/or cultural context.
E. A resource that does not contribute to the significance of the nomination and is not eligible for listing in the National Register, due to recent construction or irretrievable loss of integrity.
F. A contributing open space of historic or scenic significance to the nomination such as a park, town square, agricultural fields, meadows, pastures, etc.
G. A non-contributing open-space which is no significance to the nomination and is not eligible for listing in the National Register, such as a parking lot, etc.


There are approximately five "A" rated properties in the District with the great majority of properties and resources in the Historic District being listed as B. Discussion followed about tailoring a higher or lower level of standards based on a rating system. It was concluded that there would not be sufficient time to reclassify properties and re-conduct an inventory but that there was merit to exploring different standards to different properties based on the above rating system. Staff noted that they would not be in favor of having no standards for "non-contributing" properties as suggested in table of design standards for windows associated with a another historic district in Maryland.

Staff handed out a copy of a schedule as provided by the consultant, Jill Jasuta. Members proceeded to review member comments and changes to Chapter 4 and the proposed section of "frequently asked questions or FAQ". The FAQ has been moved to Chapter 3. Discussion followed about proposed design guidelines for windows. Mr. Berman has suggested allowing more flexibility in terms of vinyl windows and that more research be provided on the costs associated with different rehab options. The following was identified for further work and follow-up.

Ron

_ Re-org chapters in 4 by June 4 and provide to Will

Brian (or Dan if he has pictures)

_ Take picture of broken snap in grids and failed interior grids _ Picture of poorly maintained vinyl and aluminum siding that needs replacing/painting x Send out revised scheduled (see paper)

Will

_ take info as discussed last night and emailed under separate cover and incorporate into appropriate sections to prepare for Jill

Trish/Mike/All

_ begin review of chapters 5-11


Windows should be considered for replacement only a window-by-windows basis. The Commission prefers that the applicant review the windows on their property and consider only those windows whose individual components are beyond repair for replacement. The applicant should provide two estimates that show the cost of repairing the failing components of the existing window is greater than the cost of replacement with a high quality window that is nearly identical to the existing window with regards to muntin, mullion, sill profile, frame and material.

The HPC voted to rearrange/revise the schedule slightly. Chapter 4 is the bulk of the work for the commission so we need to revise as follows:

June 6 provide preliminary feedback on Chapters 1/2 (same deadline as before but we wanted to emphasize that Chapter 4 is the complicated chapter and has checklists that will add to the formatting and style) June 18 provide contents of Chapter 4 (moved back from June 2) June 26 provide contents of Chapter 5-11 (added Chapter 5 to June 26 timeframe)

Meeting adjourned at approximately 9:45PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Daniel L. Brandewie, City Planner II for Brian Roche

Approved by: Brian Roche, Chairman Date: June 19th, 2014

 

Note: These minutes were approved at the meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting on June 19th, 2014.