tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post7725438143796494129..comments2024-03-28T13:58:45.797-04:00Comments on The Gossips of Rivertown: Report from the HPCCarole Osterinkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16010623982526286408noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-68050107406430797892014-07-29T07:51:15.527-04:002014-07-29T07:51:15.527-04:00Just maybe the owner of 134-136 Warren is doing th...Just maybe the owner of 134-136 Warren is doing the math. Rental income from retail (+2500 per month) vs. apartment income (+1200 per month).<br />Money changes EVERYTHING.tmdonofriohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11370760970951114120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-64879754266797945822014-07-29T05:34:12.335-04:002014-07-29T05:34:12.335-04:00Re 134 and 136 Warren Street: Rather than discuss...Re 134 and 136 Warren Street: Rather than discussing what may be otherwise construed as zoning issues and straying from the HPC’s mission, why not simply apply Chapter 169 as so empowered? 169-6 (A) clearly states that “properties that contribute to the character of the historic district shall be retained, with their historic features altered as little as possible.” It goes on to say that “any alteration of existing properties shall be compatible with their historic character, as well as with the surrounding district” and that “new construction shall be compatible with the district in which it is located.”<br /><br />The principle upon which the HPC must make such determinations is one of compatibility. 169-6 (B) of the city code sets forth the criteria to be considered when applying the principle of compatibility. The HPC shall consider the following factors:<br /><br />1. The general design, character, and appropriateness to the property of the proposed alteration or new construction;<br />2. The scale of the proposed alteration or new construction in relation to the property itself, surrounding properties, and the neighborhood;<br />3. Texture, materials, and color and their relation to similar features of other properties in the neighborhood;<br />4. Visual compatibility with surrounding properties, including proportion of the property's front facade, proportion and arrangement of windows and other openings within the facade, roof shape, and the rhythm of spacing of properties on streets, including setback; and,<br />5. The importance of historic, architectural, or other features to the significance of the property.<br /><br />Translated:<br /><br />1. Is the proposed change to the building appropriate to the building itself? A bit of an esoteric discussion that really boils down to “Does it look right?”<br />2. How does the size of the proposed change work with the building aesthetically? Does it fit in with surrounding properties and others in the neighborhood? Precedents are important. Are there similar store fronts to point to?<br />3. Do the building materials and colors to be used in the alteration look like what others have done nearby? Does it work with the neighborhood? Further need for precedents.<br />4. After the alterations, will the building look like it belongs there? There are other principles upon which Chapter 169 could be based, like intentional dissimilarity, but it is not. The law to be applied is one of compatibility. Is the finished product appropriate to the neighborhood?<br />5. How will the proposed changes to the building affect historic, architectural or other character-defining features? What are we losing to make this happen? Is it worth it?<br /><br />In order to create the proposed store front, what historic building fabric must be removed? Is it OK to lose a couple windows and some cladding? Let’s hypothetically approve this plan. What if the next applicant wants to remove three windows and adjoining claps? And the one after them wants to remove a couple original windows and a door? I would be cautious about any proposal that requires removal of historic building fabric for reasons other than systems and materials which have deteriorated beyond a serviceable condition. Ward Hamiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14077951464866486246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-82811185641871098332014-07-29T04:52:31.866-04:002014-07-29T04:52:31.866-04:00Re 900 Columbia Street: The question before the H...Re 900 Columbia Street: The question before the HPC was not “Can the building be relocated to 215 Union?” or moved or any other word. In fact, while this was part of the pageantry of the application, I suggest that how the building was moved from outside the Local Historic District (LHD) to within it was irrelevant. The question before the HPC was “Is the building presently located at 900 Columbia Street historically appropriate if located within the LHD at 215 Union Street?” This examination was based on a principle of compatibility, as proscribed by Chapter 169 of the city code. Based on the appearance of 900 Columbia at the time that the question was asked the answer was a resounding “yes.” Does the building presently located at 215 Union look like what was at 900 Columbia? <br /><br />Choose one: Yes or No<br /><br />Ward Hamiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14077951464866486246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-54186335035690342682014-07-28T14:30:06.927-04:002014-07-28T14:30:06.927-04:00A lot of it turned on the weasel word "reloca...A lot of it turned on the weasel word "relocate" that Cheryl Roberts used in the first certificate of appropriateness. "Relocate" doesn't say it will arrive intact and not in bits and pieces.<br /><br />Did you ever see the 1967 film "Bedazzled"? I am often reminded of poor Stanley Moon's struggles to get the wording of his wishes right when observing Galvan and the HPC.<br /><br /><br /> Carole Osterinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16010623982526286408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-84488908291463017602014-07-28T14:18:18.520-04:002014-07-28T14:18:18.520-04:00Thanks for the explanation, Carole, especially reg...Thanks for the explanation, Carole, especially regarding the 900 Columbia St. So, the petitioner violated the agreement and the HPC simply issued a new one, making the violation a non-violation? That I've got to see.Petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18156709450381145019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-17112461438454829692014-07-27T19:21:30.986-04:002014-07-27T19:21:30.986-04:00No, no. I never said that the public was not allow...No, no. I never said that the public was not allowed to see the applications. My meaning was that, understandably, applicants do not pass out copies of their applications to members of the audience. The HPC requires three copies of the application for its own use.<br /><br />I have a copy for the application for the certificate of appropriateness to move 900 Columbia Street, and I have posted about it many times. (It was no big deal to get it. I just send an email to the city clerk, Tracy Delaney.) The problem with that project was this: They only needed a certificate of appropriateness to move to house to 215 Union Street--in other words, for 215 Union Street to receive the building--because 215 Union Street is in a locally designated historic district, but its original location is not. Although it was absolutely clear from the original application that the intention was to MOVE the house intact (they even named the company that would do it), the approval was required not to move it from 900 Columbia Street but to move it TO 215 Union Street. Rick Scalera figured they were approved to put the house there in whatever shape it was in when it arrived--which as it happened was in bits and pieces--but the HPC insisted they needed a new certificate of appropriateness because they hadn't done what they said they were going to do, and they prevailed. The project had to get a new certificate of appropriateness.<br /><br />For whatever use it is, 134 and 136 Warren Street is owned by Realty II Danian and Paul Kisselbrack is the property manager.Carole Osterinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16010623982526286408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-64459650844631067642014-07-27T18:48:29.307-04:002014-07-27T18:48:29.307-04:00Thanks, Carole. So, if I understand you correctly,...Thanks, Carole. So, if I understand you correctly, the public is not allowed to see a copy of the application? I would say this would not pass FOIL muster.... And if everything is in writing, then I'm assuming that permission to "move" and/or "disassemble" and "reassemble" the Green Street house is all in writing? Any idea who we would FOIL for this information? Thanks, peter m.Petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18156709450381145019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-76617688667370426692014-07-26T22:22:33.703-04:002014-07-26T22:22:33.703-04:00Ref: 134-136 Warren & all other bldgs. locate...Ref: 134-136 Warren & all other bldgs. located on the 100 block of Warren.<br /><br />At the time of Hudson's Urban Renewal in the 1960's-70's choices were made. <br />One good choice was decided to maintain the historical façade of the buildings in the 100 block with most renovations of the day reflecting the same.<br />And I do believe that historical block of Hudson was the genesis of what exists in Hudson today.<br />Therefore it is time for the HPC to reject any & all major alterations to the 100 block of Warren and to say "nay" to the proposed new storefront and stand and be counted that the historical preservation of Hudson is most important to us and all future Hudsonians whether they are Hudson by Birth or Hudson by Choice but all are for the best in Hudson. <br />tmdonofriohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11370760970951114120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-63966325820586655652014-07-26T22:10:22.129-04:002014-07-26T22:10:22.129-04:00I don't know who owns 134 and 136 Warren Stree...I don't know who owns 134 and 136 Warren Street. The owner was never identified during the discussion at the HPC meeting. The owner had to be identified on the actual application, but people attending the meeting don't get to see the applications.<br /><br />Everything is is writing on the application, as it always is. Not that that has helped any in the past. Carole Osterinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16010623982526286408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-48563641816167448722014-07-26T21:54:38.296-04:002014-07-26T21:54:38.296-04:00Carole, you didn't say who own owned 134-136 (...Carole, you didn't say who own owned 134-136 (or did I miss it). And speaking of ownership, can the HPC please get everything that Galvan is proposing in writing, with stipulations that failure to comply comes with penalties. The City does not need any more 3-card monte games played with our historic buildings.Petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18156709450381145019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-30595664000550659882014-07-26T16:48:54.161-04:002014-07-26T16:48:54.161-04:00What a most unfortunate situation for this once e...What a most unfortunate situation for this once elegant property.Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05548912912359709568noreply@blogger.com