HARB

Historic Architectural Review Board
Meeting Minutes

May 20, 2009

Chairman Gary Shaffer called the Historical Architectural Review Board to order at 7:33 p.m. on Wednesday, May 20, 2009. Mr. Shaffer reported that the Board had met in Executive Session prior to the meeting to discuss matters in litigation.

Those in attendance were Board members Nancie Gudmestad, Peggy Gustafson, Elwood Christ and Dale Gettel, Borough Code Enforcement Official; and Merry Bush, Borough Planner. Claire Lewis, Borough Council liaison, was absent. The number of Board members present constituted a quorum. Others in attendance were Gary and Pat Stone for 52 Chambersburg Street; Judith Butterfield, recycling committee; Jim and Bonnie Wentz, 48 and 52 York Street; Stephanie Calp, 139 Breckenridge Street; John and Pat Ziegler, 236 York Street; Holliday (Holly) Giles; 45 Chambersburg Street; Jacqueline White and Gregg Pitzer for 690 S Washington Street; Jim Biesecker, Gettysburg College, and Jill Rohrbaugh, architect for 227 Carlisle Street; John Petersen, 162 E. Middle Street; and Scot Pitzer, Gettysburg Times.

There were no additions or corrections to the agenda. Peggy Gustafson moved to accept the minutes of March 18, 2009 as submitted. Nancie Gudmestad seconded and the motion carried.

Mr. Shaffer introduced the members and noted that the Board serves as an advisory group to Borough Council, which makes the final decisions concerning Certificates of Appropriateness. Borough Council will meet next on Monday June 8, 2009.

Judith Butterfield asked that the Board consider possible designs for recycling containers to be for placement on the Square. She suggested that the Board form a taskforce to come up with a brief description of what is appropriate for downtown. She noted the constraints of narrow sidewalks and ADA issues. The Board agreed to review and comment on the suggestions presented.

Applications for Certificates of Appropriateness

A. Alteration. 139 Breckenridge Street. Jennifer Eckerson, owner.

Elwood Christ said that he had researched a good part of the 100 block of Breckenridge for the Elm Street program. He noted that while he has been hired by Elm Street to do research he has no fiduciary relationship with the owner, Jennifer Eckerson.

The house at 139 Breckenridge Street was owned by Edward Menchie around 1900. The western portion of the street (the 100 block) was laid out in the 1870s.

Stephanie Calp reported that Ms. Eckerson was the first property owner to pursue a grant through the Elm Street façade program.

Nancie Gudmestad asked about the options and alternatives listed on the paperwork provided by Zavos Architecture and Design. Ms. Calp said that those options were given to the owner and that the items listed on the HARB application are the ones actually selected. Ms. Gustafson said that shutters would not fit the third floor or attic window. The applicant agreed to withdraw the request for shutters for that window.

Nancie Gudmestad then asked about the steps, will they be concrete or made of an alternate material. Ms. Calp said that the owner had selected Trex steps. The application calls for stucco to be installed on the front and side of the porch.

Peggy Gustafson complimented the owner on the relocation of the satellite dish and the reduction in the tangle of wiring at the front of the house.

Gary Shaffer asked if a new door was part of the plan. Ms. Calp said the owner plans to install a new storm door instead. Mr. Shaffer then asked if handrails would be added to the new steps. Ms. Calp said yes and they would be made of Trex to match the steps. Ms. Calp also noted that the stucco on the porch would be a light cream matching the paint color for the siding beneath the front porch roof. The applicant will have the window repaired.

Findings of Fact: The house at 139 Breckenridge Street is located in the Gettysburg Borough Historic District as set by ordinance. The proposed changes are visible from the public right-of-way. The building has a mixed degree of integrity. Alterations have compromised the building's architectural integrity, however, it does retain its original fenestration.

Nancie Gudmestad moved to accept the application as submitted with the following stipulations: the handrail for the steps must match the design of the existing porch railing and balusters, and the shutters must match the correct width and height of the windows. Dale Gettel seconded the motion.

Peggy Gustafson said that the handrail should remain wood and match the configuration of the porch rail and balusters in color and design. Nancie Gudmestad and Dale Gettel agreed to amend the motion. The amended motion carried, 5 to 0.

B. Alteration. New on-site ADA ramp. Removal of existing fire escape and multiple past roof and porch modifications. Enclose 1st floor porch area. Remove rear block garage. 227 Carlisle Street. Gettysburg College, owner.

The property was originally owned by Henry Wentz Spangler. In 1875 the older home was razed and Edward S. Breidenbaugh, a Gettysburg College professor and editor of The Compiler, built this home in 1883. His father, the Reverend Edward S. Breidenbaugh, lived just north.

The applicant proposes to add an ADA accessible ramp in the rear of the property; remove the existing fire escape and multiple past roof modifications; restore the existing dormer; rebuild the foundation of the existing porch and build a new structure on top of the foundation. The applicant also wishes to remove a modern block garage at the rear of the property. The property will be cleaned up, some trees removed and landscaping added.

Dale Gettel asked who the ADA consultant was. Jill Rohrbaugh said that she was a register architect. The proposed ADA ramp is not within the public right-of-way. It will be located at the rear of the property next to a non-contributing block structure.

Elwood Christ moved to recommend that Borough Council grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the application as submitted. Nancie Gudmestad seconded and the motion carried, 5 to 0.

C. Alteration. Replacement window, door. 236 York Street, John & Patricia Ziegler, owners.

The applicant proposes to replace the rear door and window on the second floor facing the alley to the north. The door would be made by the same manufacturer as the front door recently approved by the Board. The window would match the existing windows. The application proposed two options: Option One would be a single pane of glass, Option Two would be a one- over-one design.

Findings of Fact: The house at 236 York Street is located within the Gettysburg Borough Historic District as determined by ordinance. The changes are a permanent alteration located at the rear of the building. The changes would have minimum or no visibility from the main street. The proposed work is consistent with previously approved work.

Nancie Gudmestad moved to approve the application as submitted with a double-hung window (option two). Dale Gettel seconded.

Peggy Gustafson asked if the window in the brick portion to the left of the window to be replaced was a double-hung window. The applicant said yes. Continuing, the applicant said that the window was located in an addition built after 1920. He wishes to continue the rustic look of the adjacent windows. The vote was 1 to 4; the motion failed to carry.

Peggy Gustafson then moved to recommend to Borough Council that a Certificate of Appropriateness be issued for the application as submitted with Option One-a single pane of glass. Elwood Christ seconded. Gary Shaffer noted that the window was located on a less critical portion of the building and has minimum visibility from the alley. The motion carried, 4 to 1. Nancie Gustafson, who cast the dissenting vote, noted that while a mixture of windows is part of the charm of the building and that she does not disagree with anything that Mr. Shaffer said, she felt that a double-hung window would be the most appropriate in this case.

D. Alteration. Replacement windows. 162 E. Middle Street. John Pedersen, owner.

The applicant proposes to replace all the window sashes in the house. The work proposed is a critical project to a sensitive building. The work will involve the replacement of 28 original double-hung windows with Marvin double-hung windows. The Marvin Ultimate Insert is aluminum clad and will be made to match the existing color. Mr. Pedersen said he would have the option for divided lights on the top sash.

Gary Shaffer asked if the owner could tell if there were any muntins that had been removed. Mr. Pedersen said he did not find anything to indicate that there were once muntins. Mr. Shaffer said that the home was Victorian with Queen Anne elements. Continuing, he said that the Board "would need to see what you would propose." The owner repeated that these were the original windows. Gary Shaffer said that based upon this it is unlikely that the Board would recommend anything other than one-over-one windows.

Nancie Gudmestad asked if the owner was replacing the attic window. He said that he was not.

Peggy Gustafson asked if Mr. Pedersen was planning to replace the framing or the sills. He replied no, he was only restoring the window sashes.

Findings of Fact: The proposed work at 162 E. Middle Street is a critical project. The home has significant architectural integrity. The proposed replacement of the window sashes with new wood-clad sashes will maintain the original look, following the Historic District Design Guidelines.

Nancie Gudmestad moved to recommend that a Certificate of Appropriateness be granted for the application as submitted. Peggy Gustafson seconded and the motion carried, 5 to 0.

E. Alteration. Enclose front porch. Rear Addition. Add a carport. 690 S. Washington Street. Jacqueline White, owner.

The applicant proposes changes to the building at 690 S. Washington Street to make it more habitable for her to live in. Jackie White said that the home had been remodeled and turned into apartments. According to Ms. White all the original fabric had been removed. The windows are made of word and according to Gregg Pitzer, Ms. White's contractor, were probably added in the 1950s or 1960s.

Nancie Gudmestad asked where the proposed windows would go. Ms. White said that the windows would go into the front porch enclosure. There are no windows proposed for the rear addition. When asked, Ms. White said that there would not be an overhang above the relocated front door.

Peggy Gustafson said that she was surprised when she read the application. She asked Ms. White if she had read page 51 of the Historic District Design Guidelines where it discourages the enclosure of porches particularly in the front. Ms. White said that she had the guidelines. Continuing she said that this would be a temporary home for her until she could build a new one. She acknowledged that the proposed work was not in keeping with what she has done in the past.

She is proposing the porch enclosure to conserve energy and keep utility costs down. She said that her employees would be running in and out.

Peggy Gustafson said that the drawings were not to scale. The shutters appeared to be 12-inches wide and would certainly not cover the windows if closed. Ms. White said that the porch enclosure would provide insulation for the rest of the house. The windows would be environmentally friendly, according to the applicant. Ms. Gustafson asked if Ms. White had thought of enclosing the porch with glass instead.

Elwood Christ said that glass might be more acceptable. Mr. Christ agreed that better drawings were required.

Peggy Gustafson said that it is unfair to the property owners in the Elm Street neighborhood if we require less of others. Everyone should meet the same standards.

Gary Shaffer that the enclosure of a front porch goes against the Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Buildings. He suggested that the applicant create a vestibule in the rear addition that would allow easy access to the car cover. He said that the Board couldn't recommend enclosure of the front porch or a car port in the front of the property. The rear addition with windows and a door would most likely be approved.

Dale Gettel asked why a ten-foot addition was needed. Ms. White said that it would be used for storage. Mr. Gettel suggested that the contractor check the building code for the requirements for windows and doors for ventilation. Ms. White said that both levels would be used for storage.

Findings of Fact: The structure at 690 S. Washington Street is a sensitive building exceeding 50 years of age. It is located within the Gettysburg Borough Historic District as set by ordinance. The proposed changes would be permanent in nature. The building has been altered with the use of alternate siding and changes to the windows. The proposed changes to the building require a Certificate of Appropriateness.

Elwood Christ moved to recommend that Borough Council deny this application a Certificate of Appropriateness. Dale Gettel seconded. The key components bringing this recommendation are the proposed porch enclosure and the car structure on the main street. The motion carried, 5 to 0.

Jackie White asked what she needed to do to accomplish what she wants. Dale Gettel said she needed accurate, measured and detailed drawings. A structural engineer would need to be involved if any steel is proposed for the building, but otherwise professional drawings are not required for a private home. Electrical and pumping drawings also need to be required.

Any non-residential use would require architectural or engineered drawings.

F. Alteration. ADA compliant ramp. 52 Chambersburg Street. Gary B. and Patricia Stone, owners.

The applicant proposes a handicapped accessible masonry ramp, 8 feet long and 4 feet wide, running along the front of the building within the Borough right-of-way. The ramp would have two wrought iron handrails.

Elwood Christ vaguely remembers the building being a restaurant in the 1920s to 1940s while completing the Historic District Survey 20 years ago. Gary Stone, the owner said that the nucleus of the building existed during the Civil War, and that there is a Civil War plaque on the building. The building has since been altered with a brick façade and a modern storefront, which was added in the 1950s. Peggy Gustafson remembered a knitting shop there.

Findings of Fact: The building is located within the Gettysburg Battlefield National Register Historic District, as well as the Gettysburg Borough Historic District as set by ordinance. The building is over 50 years of age making it a sensitive building. The addition of a modern storefront altered the building. The proposed changes would be permanent and visible from the main street.

The proposed ramp was designed by his contractor to be ADA compliant, according to Gary Stone, the property owner. Mr. Stone said that he only worked with his contractor, P.T. Masonry. After Merry Bush explained who was qualified to prepare ADA compliant designs, ie. engineer or registered architect, Mr. Stone said that he had not worked with any ADA consultant or engineer. Mr. Stone also said that the ramp would not change the front of the building, that in fact it would be separate from the building.

Mr. Stone continued, saying that no PennDot permit was required and that he was providing access to his building with a concrete ramp on the sidewalk. Dale Gettel noted that the proposed ramp would encroach on the Borough right-of-way, as well as that of PennDot.

Merry Bush asked if any other designs were considered. The applicant said no. He said his design was similar to the one across the street [17 Chambersburg Street].

Mr. Stone was somewhat antagonistic toward the Board. At one point, he said that he would sue the Board if they did not approve his application. Gary Shaffer explained that the Board could not recommend approval or denial at this meeting and asked Mr. Stone if he could wait until the next Board meeting for a decision. Continuing, Mr. Shaffer said "if you do not give us this extension we will be forced to recommend that the application be denied." Mr. Shaffer said that the Board would ask questions of the applicant at this meeting.

Mr. Stone was unhappy but finally agreed with input from his wife, a joint owner, to grant the extension until the next HARB meeting.

Peggy Gustafson asked if Mr. Stone planned to install two eight-foot-long handrails. Mr. Stone said yes and that they would be black wrought iron with curved ends similar to those across the street. She then asked the reason for two handrails. Mr. Stone said that the ADA standards require them.

Ms. Gustafson again noted that the Board could not make a decision at this meeting. Mr. Stone agreed to the extension, but said he would discuss it with his attorney.

The Board received the property owner's agreement to wait until the next HARB meeting for the Board to make a recommendation. Peggy Gustafson motioned to table further review of the application until the next HARB meeting. Nancie Gudmestad seconded and the motion carried, 5 to 0.

Gary Shaffer recused himself from the Board and discussion about the following applications, as he as a fiduciary relationship with the property owners. The Board received the recusal in writing [see attachment to these minutes]

Elwood Christ assumed the role of chairman.

G. Alteration. ADA compliant ramp. James & Bonnie Wentz, owners

The building at 48-52 York Street was built above a pre-Civil War cellar by Peter Stallsmith in 1890. Elwood Christ asked the applicant whether the proposed ramps were designed by an engineer or architect. Bonne Wentz said that they were designed by Shaffer and Associates. When asked if any other possibilities for ADA access were explored, Mrs. Wentz said that a rear entrance was not possible because of the Borough parking garage.

Elwood Christ ascertained that no other Board members had a conflict of interest. Mrs. Wentz agreed to grant an extension until the next HARB meeting for the recommendation to Borough Council.

Mrs. Wentz explained that drawings marked "A and B" refer to the storefront at 48 York Street, while those marked "C and D" refer to 52 York Street. Mrs. Wentz said that the designs for the two storefronts were similar but the ramp at 52 York Street is removable to allow access large equipment and furniture stored in the cellar. The ramp will always remain in place when the shop is open.

1. 48 York Street.

Peggy Gustafson asked why there were no railings on the ramp. Mr. Shaffer explained that since the ramp will rise less than six inches a railing was not required. However, a curb must be installed along the length of the ramp.

Nancie Gudmestad asked why there was no ramp to the door located between the two shop entrances. Mrs. Wentz said that the door leads to the upstairs apartments and ADA access is not required for private dwellings units.

Peggy Gettysburg moved to table further review of the application until the next HARB meeting to allow the Borough's ADA consultant to review the ramp design. Nancie Gudmestad seconded and the motion carried, 4 to 0, with one abstention.

2. 52 York Street

Bonnie Wentz asked her architect to explain about the removable ramp. Gary Shaffer described the removable ramp as having a non-slip surface and an integral curb or handrail. Mr. Shaffer said that the drop off must have either a curb or a handrail. A rise of less than six inches will allow for a curb. Continuing, Mr. Shaffer said that the curb does not have to be four inches tall but just two and a half to three inches, which would preclude a four-inch sphere from rolling off the side. He said that the ramp "is removable instead of portable."

Peggy Gustafson moved to table further review of the application pending review by the Borough's ADA consultant. Nancie Gudmestad seconded the motion, which carried 4 to 0, with one abstention.

H. Alteration. ADA compliant ramp. 45 Chambersburg Street. Holliday & Allison Giles, owners.

Built between the 1820s and 1830, the building houses both the shop at 45 Chambersburg Street and the Blue Parrot Bistro, 35 Chambersburg Street. The façade has changed over the years. The building housed the Blue Parrot Tearoom in the 1920s.

The owners are working with Shaffer and Associates, a local architectural firm, on the design of the proposed ramp. When asked if the applicant had considered any alternative, Holliday Giles said that there are no passageways to allow access from the rear of the property.

Elwood Christ ascertained that the Board had no other conflicts of interest.

Holliday Giles had a few questions that she wanted answered. She wanted to know the name of the Borough's attorney who was working on the ADA complaints. She was told that it was the firm of Campbell Durrant Beatty Palombo & Miller, PC of Pittsburgh. She also asked about the Borough's ADA consultant. She was given the name of H.R. Gray whose home office is in Ohio.

The Board having no other questions, Peggy Gustafson moved to table further discussion of the application until HARB's next meeting giving the Borough's ADA consultant a chance to review the ramp design. Nancie Gudmestad second the motion and it carried, 4 to 0 with 1 abstention.

Holliday Giles asked that the four applications that were awaiting recommendations for ADA ramps be first on the agenda for the next meeting. The Board agreed.

The meeting adjourned at 10:00 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Merry V. Bush

Borough Planner and Historic District Administrator