Loading...
HDC Minutes 4-23-20CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES COMMITTEE /COMMISSION: Historic District Commission DATE: April 23, 2020 LOCATION: Google Hangouts Meeting MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair William Finch, Vice Chair Suzanne LaMont, Caroline Mason, Wendy Pearl MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Miranda Gooding, Chris Koeplin, Krista Broyles, Emily Hutchings (Planning Department, City of Beverly), Peter Benton (Heritage Strategies) RECORDER: Jodi Byrne Chair William Finch calls the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Due to technology issues, Vice Chair Suzanne LaMont will formally chair the meeting. Vice Chair Suzanne LaMont reads the following script for Remotely Conducted Historic District Commission Meetings: As a preliminary matter, this is Suzanne LaMont, acting as Chair of the Historic District Commission. Before beginning the meeting, I would like to announce that this meeting is being recorded by the City of Beverly and livestreamed by BevCam on both Channel 99 and via BevCam's YouTube channel. I am confirming that all members and persons anticipated on the agenda are present and can hear me. • Members, when I call your name, please respond in the affirmative. • Suzie LaMont • William Finch • Caroline Mason • Wendy Pearl • Staff, when I call your name, please respond in the affirmative. • Emily Hutchings • Jodi Byrne • Anticipated speakers on the agenda, please respond in the affirmative. • Miranda Gooding • Chris Koeplin • Krista Broyles • Peter Benton (All individuals responded in the affirmative that they were present at the meeting.) Introduction to Remote Meeting: Good evening. This Open Meeting of the Historic District Commission is being conducted remotely, consistent with Governor Baker's Executive order of March 12, 2020, due to the current State of Emergency in the Commonwealth due to the outbreak of COVID -19. In order to mitigate the transmission of the virus, we have been advised and directed by the Commonwealth to suspend public gatherings, and as such, the Governor's Order suspended the requirement of Open Meeting Law to have all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed and encouraged to participate remotely. The Order allows public bodies to meet entirely remotely so long as adequate alternative public access is afforded so that the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. Ensuring public access does not ensure public participation unless such participation is required by law. This meeting may feature public comment. For this meeting, the Historic District Commission is convening by telephone and video conference via Google Hangouts as posted on the City's website identifying how the public may join. Please note that this meeting is being recorded and televised live, and that some attendees are participating by video conference. Accordingly, please be aware that other participants or viewers may be able to see and hear you, and anything that your broadcast may be captured by the recording. You have the option to turn off your video if you are participating via computer. All participants should keep their microphones or phones muted unless recognized by the Chair to reduce background noise and feedback. Please wait until the person speaking has finished before speaking so we can clearly hear all participants. Meeting Materials Supporting materials that have been provided to members of this body are available from the Planning Department. Please contact Associate Planner Emily Hutchings to request supporting materials. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda unless the Chair notes otherwise. Meeting Ground Rules We are now turning to the first item on the agenda. Before we do so, I will cover some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of our business and to ensure accurate meeting minutes. • The Chair will introduce each item on the agenda. After speakers conclude their remarks, the Chair will invite Commission members to provide any comment, questions, or motions. • Please remember to mute your phone or computer when you are not speaking. • You may mute yourself or be muted by the meeting host by clicking the microphone mute /unmute icon, pressing the mute button on your telephone, or by pressing *6 on your telephone keypad. • Please reserve the Chat function for technical difficulties and not for public comment. • Please remember to speak clearly and in a way that helps generate accurate minutes. • For any response, please state your name and affiliation before speaking. • Regarding public comment: o After members have spoken, the Chair will afford public comment as follows: • The Chair will first ask members of the public who wish to speak to identify their names and addresses only; • Once the Chair has a list of all public commentators, I will call on each by name and afford 3 minutes for any comments. • For those individuals present in person, please take care to speak loudly and clearly so the microphone associated with the webcam or telephone can effectively broadcast your comments to those participating remotely. 1. Application from Beverly Crossing: HDC Review of Depot Square Phase II development —Condition of Planning Board approval of Special Permit #172 -19. Site Plan Review Application #140 -19, and Inclusionary Housing Application #17 -19 —134- 142 -146 Rantoul Street and 1 -9 Park Street. Attny. Miranda Gooding speaks on behalf of the applicant and introduces Chris Koeplin and Krista Broyles. Attny. Gooding informs the HDC that the conceptual design for the Casa de Luca building has been approved by the Planning Board with the condition that this design is presented to the Historic District Commission. She informs the Commission that the clear and consistent intent of the renovation is not to historically preserve the structure, but to renovate with sensitivity to the history that it represents. Attny. Gooding says that they are interested in hearing the Commission's treatment recommendations within these parameters. Associate Planner Emily Hutchings displays images of the project on the screen. Finch suggests that they view the elevation images of the Casa de Luca building. Image A100.13 (page 14) drawing of the redevelopment plan for the Casa de Luca building is displayed. Krista Broyles provides a description of the image from the viewpoint of Rantoul and Railroad Streets. She says that the intent of this design is to keep the upper portion of the structure true to the 1910 historical photo of the building through window sizes, the use of shutters, the cornice design, and the balustrade. She says that they plan to follow this historical design, noting that materials will be similar, but not exact, and that the height and spacing plans of the balustrade posts will match the historical photo. Broyles says that the lower portion of the building will differ from the historical photograph as it is planned to be used for retail space. She says that the lower level enlarges the ground floor in order to connect it to its new use. In addition, Broyles says that their design, which includes enlarged windows, is set to intentionally blend the Casa de Luca building to the project's new construction (Depot II building). Broyles says that the lower level doors will remain in the same place as they appear in the historic 1910 photo. Finch informs the group that he has provided a higher resolution photograph, and Hutchings displays this image. In the image, Chair Finch notes that the balustrade is turned, unlike the one shown on the architect's hand drawing. Broyles responds that the cut sheet does show a balustrade profile that matches the high - resolution photograph, rather than the hand drawing. Finch also notes details such as paneling on the posts, the cornice, and the style of the shutters. Broyles says that the existing cornice will remain and be maintained and repaired as needed. Broyles also says that she will look into the style of the shutters as a panel or louver. Finch says that he hopes the window frames will be a frame with a band mold, and Broyles says that a banded molding is planned. She confirms a planned "two over one" window configuration, stating that it works best with the adjacent new construction building. Finch notes the architect's plan to use Hardie board and asks that they meet the existing structure exposure. Broyles says that she will investigate the exposure of 4 inches versus 3.5 inches. Finch notes that the cornice is projecting in the original photograph and drawing, and says that he hopes the intention is to have it projected. Broyles confirms this and says that the higher resolution photograph helps them to better match this projection. Finch compliments the original building's unique corners, and also makes note of the detailing to the left of the entry with panels that were formed with bead groove or beadboard. He says that this detail is preferred over a flat design. Finch concludes his suggestions with the note that in the photograph the cornice fades around the side and back of the building, and the developer should consider continuing the cornice and balustrade around the building to complement the site. Broyles confirms that it is their intent to have the cornice design and balustrade continue around the building. Mason says that she appreciates the improvements that have been made to the building, and she thanks Broyles and her team. Pearl says that the high - resolution photograph was helpful, and that she appreciates all of the work that went into this design. Pearl also says that bringing up the vertical side from Rantoul Street is an important design element, and she states that this will bring back the commercial front to the building. Pearl says that while the rendering may not clearly show coloring contrasts, that a greater difference in colors could better set the building levels apart and clarify the detailing. Broyles answers that the design color plan is a "tone on tone" with the trim work being darker than the body of the building. She says that now it is showing a willow green color, and that the trim and paneling are planned to be darker than the rest of the building. She adds that the first floor is planned to be the strongest color. Finch says that in the spirit of a historical building, the trim should be darker and stand out more. LaMont also says that she wants more contrast in the bands to keep to the Victorian design. Broyles says that they will provide a mockup on the building and review the colors. Pearl states that the raised panel shutters are not true to the building, but that she is agreeable to the design. LaMont shows an old advertisement of the Casa de Luca building that portrays the building without shutters. LaMont says that she likes the addition of the shutters, feeling that they give a more distinctive look contrasting with the new part of the building. Finch recommends that the shutters be installed as functional pieces and not pinned to the building. LaMont says that she is in favor of the balustrade being curved and not straight, and Broyles says that she will send a cut sheet with this more clearly defined. Pearl asks about a drawing of a courtyard elevation that shows drawings on the firewall of the building. Broyles says this area is planned to hold a commemorative exhibit, and she brings Chris Koeplin into the meeting to answer to this. Koeplin says that this area is planned to host artifacts or photos for the public to view in the telling of the story of this city block. Finch suggests the use of historic photos and says that Historic Beverly has a glass plate negative for a better rendition of the photograph to contribute to this display. The Commission thanks the group for speaking. Hutchings says that no motion is required and that she will inform the Planning Board that this condition has been met. The Commission requests that their recommendations be noted and included in Hutchings' letter to the Planning Board. Attny. Gooding thanks the Commission for their input. 2. Discussion: Long -term preservation strategies for the GAR Hall Hutchings presents a brief review of this restoration project. She says that the physical restoration for phases 1 and 2a (front and side facades) is complete and notes that the concrete portion of the "doghouse" on the side of the building will be painted to match the rest of the building. Hutchings says that the remaining aspect of this project is based upon the Memorandum of Agreement (MCA) regarding long -term preservation. Hutchings explains the following options as required by the MCA: 1. To incorporate a preservation restriction. 2. To develop a local historic district on the property. Hutchings cites her concerns for utilizing a preservation restriction to protect the property, and notes that most entities that are willing to hold a preservation restriction require a monetary endowment. Hutchings says that incorporating an endowment into a preservation restriction does not pay for the maintenance of the building, but rather the monitoring and enforcement. She also states that this option is costly at between $40,000 and $50,000. Hutchings explains that because the Planning staff had concerns about this funding, they contacted the Community Preservation Coalition and Historic New England's Preservation Easement Program director. Hutchings says that Planning staff were told that it is unusual for a city to seek a restriction on one of their own properties unless they are concerned that the building will be sold and become in danger of demolition. Hutchings says that if a preservation restriction is deemed necessary, that there would still need to be a vote to allocate funds for the required endowment. Hutchings then explains that the second option (of developing a local historic district on the property) is a lesser cost, but that it still requires a broader public process. She says that it would take several months to move forward and would require both a public meeting and a hearing with the City Council. Hutchings says that if the MCA is revised so that neither of these options is required to complete the project, a local historic district could still be pursued. Hutchings says that because this is a CPC project, any consideration would need to be reviewed by their Committee. She also notes that the CPC is currently busy working on recommendations to ensure they stay within their funding cycle, so that it may be prudent for the HDC to consider an option that does not require the immediate allocation of funds. Pearl says that there are similarities between these issues and ones currently being considered by the CPC in The Cabot lobby restoration project. Pearl says that in The Cabot plan, the CPC is looking at an option of a long -term recapture clause as well as a long -term maintenance agreement to ensure that public funds are protected. Pearl suggests this type of recapture clause as an option for the GAR in order to preserve the public's investment as well as support preservation protection. Pearl then asks why the City Council would have any part in amending the MCA. Hutchings explains that there was a staff -level discussion that a change in the MCA would need to go to the City Council, but that she will check if the MCA can be approved by just the CPC as they are the managing entity. Pearl says that she is open to having no preservation restriction with the GAR, but that she does support putting something in place to ensure protection for public's investment, which may include a maintenance plan. Hutchings says that there may be a verbal commitment to maintenance but allocating funds for long term maintenance may not be a possibility. She notes a discussion with the Commissioner of Public Services about how a maintenance fee could not be allocated, and describes how the City's yearly budget development is a significant factor in the inability to allocate long -term maintenance funds. Mason suggests that a local historic district could be developed to include the GAR, The Common, and the library, encouraging funds to be used for projects within the district. Chair Finch agrees with Mason that a local historic district would be optimal. Finch says that "landmarking" the GAR would be the simplest process, following with the creation of a historical district. He says that landmarking the building would protect it, and that it would be called a historical district with a single property (or a landmark). Pearl asks how the City would apply to complete work for a landmarked building. Hutchings describes the process that was followed with the Powder House restoration, noting that the contractor pulled the permits and then the City approved them. She says that clarification of this process would need to be discussed between the Department of Public Services (DPS) and the Building and Planning departments, and whether DPS would need to apply to the Historic District Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness if they are performing minor work or maintenance on the building. Pearl asks if the Massachusetts Historical Commission would accept this option of a local historic district. Finch says that there was talk of developing a historic district in the City, but that MHC wanted different district boundaries. Hutchings states that the MHC was putting the brakes on placing the building on the National Register of Historic Places and has control over what districts and buildings are recommended for the National Register. She says that MHC is required to weigh in when putting a property on a National Register, but that the local ordinance or historic district is a decision of the City Council and not MHC. Hutchings states that the MHC can make recommendations, but that the City Council and Mayor have the final say. Hutchings says that she will check on this process. Peter Benton (Heritage Strategies) is introduced and says that his experience shows that the process of declaring a single building as historic is optimal. Pearl says that it concerns her that The Cabot is near this location and would be without the same protection; yet she can see the benefit of getting the GAR Hall protected in the short term before focusing on the bigger district. Mason says that perhaps this could be achieved on a building by building basis. Benton states that there is momentum in the City to mark a historical area around Cabot Street and that it is one of the recommendations he anticipates making in the Historic Preservation Plan. 3. Update: Historic Preservation Plan Hutchings reports that the Historic Preservation Plan is currently between phases two and three, and that they are continuing to pursue public outreach and engagement even though community workshops were shut down due to the pandemic. Hutchings says that Benton has held interviews with several members of the community and that there is also a survey prepared that will be going out to the public. Hutchings states that there will be a public forum before the Plan is completed. She says that as they move into phase three, existing conditions will be reviewed and the consultant will make their recommendations. She says that this may open up the potential for a local historic district right now and that there is a steering committee meeting next week. Benton says that phase two was a planned focus on public outreach. He explains that this process began in February with public meetings, before being cut short by the pandemic. Benton says that he is continuing to reach out to key stakeholders for personal interviews, and that he has much to report. Benton adds that there are some written reports that he will submit to Hutchings, and that public outreach will continue through spring. Benton says that he hopes to lay out his thoughts on the public's recommendations to the HDC before making a formal recommendation document. Hutchings asks if any additional discussion is needed for item #2 on the agenda regarding the GAR Hall. Pearl confirms the Commission feels a single - property historic district is appropriate at this time, and does not see the need to remove the requirement from the MCA. Hutchings asks if it would be appropriate to request an extension to the MCA and Pearl agrees. The meeting continues with agenda item #3. Pearl asks about the preservation plan and the process of public surveys. Hutchings says that the survey should be out next week and then remain in circulation for six weeks, with the intention of being shared throughout the community to garner as many responses as possible. Benton explains that Hutchings curated the survey with a focus on neighborhoods. He says the survey will be distributed through Survey Monkey. It is noted that the survey will also be sent to the HDC, the Master Plan list, all of the Boards and Commissions, and to the public. Hutchings says she will place the survey on the City's Facebook page and on as many locations as possible to promote public access. Benton compliments the HDC for their input on the Depot II project and asks if this group will be returning to the HDC with updates. Hutchings explains that the condition of the Planning Board was only that they consult the HDC, and that while this condition has been met, the HDC could ask for additional documentation. Benton suggests the HDC make a request to see further documentation as sometimes it is necessary to see before the construction begins. Finch suggests that the HDC use the language that "the HDC looks forward to receiving future documents as the plans progress." Hutchings says that she will note this in a letter to the Planning Board. Pearl suggests that the letter include the details from tonight's meeting. Hutchings says that she will share the letter with the Commission prior to sending to the Planning Board. 4. Approval of Minutes a. January 23, 2020 — Minutes are discussed and amended as needed. Pearl motions to approve the minutes as amended. LaMont seconds. LaMont performs a formal roll call vote with each member voting yes: Wendy Pearl, Caroline Mason, William Finch, and Suzanne LaMont. The motion passes (4 -0). b. March 12, 2020 — Pearl noted that she thought there was some discussion at the March 12, 2020 meeting about parking adjacent to the Briscoe Middle School site bordering Colon Street. Hutchings stated she will review the meeting recording and revise the minutes accordingly. Pearl motions to place these minutes on hold until the next meeting. LaMont seconds. LaMont performs a formal roll call vote with each voting member voting yes: Wendy Pearl, Caroline Mason, and Suzanne LaMont. The motion passes (3 -0 -1). Finch abstains as he was not present at the March meeting. S. New /Other Business • Other discussion or action items related to Commission business, if any — none. 6. Adjournment Mason motions to adjourn the meeting at 8:45pm. Finch seconds. LaMont performs a formal roll call vote with each member voting yes: Wendy Pearl, Caroline Mason, William Finch, and Suzanne LaMont. The motion passes (4 -0) and the meeting adjourns at 8:45pm.