Loading...
2013-05-22CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Approved BOARD: DATE: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: RECORDER: 441 Hale Street — On -site meeting Historic District Commission May 22, 2013 Bill Finch, Jim Younger, Wendy Sue Pearl, Martin Lian N/A Kirk Baker Kirk Baker The meeting begins on the second -floor, in the proposed master bedroom area located on the southeast corner of the house above the first -floor parlor. Pearl calls the Beverly Historic Districts Commission's ( "the Commission ") May 22 site meeting to order. Present at the meeting are the above -cited Commissioners, the property owner, and the applicant, Ms. Helen Greiner, and her design team consisting of the Architect, Mr. John Margolis, and the Landscape Architect, Ms. Laura Gibson. Pearl thanks Ms. Greiner and her design team for meeting with the Commission to further attempt to resolve issues which led to the imposition of two demolition delay periods, the first on November 15, 2012 and the second more recent decision issued on April 29 2013. Pearl requests that Ms. Greiner give the Commissioners an overview of her intent and priorities for the project. Ms. Greiner states that she is looking to have a home that she wants to live in and that, in her view, the keeping of the structure as depicted in the first demolition delay application in November 2012 was her attempt at mitigation. She states that a major benefit to removal of the c.1906 western wing of the house is that it will create a new opportunity for additional landscaped garden space. Moreover, she plans also to keep and restore the existing dining room fireplace (the Inglenook). She states that the previously proposed pool has now been dropped from the plan. The Commissioners agree that this modification is a positive new direction for her proposal. Ms. Greiner then states that the new design does retain the two -car garage which is physically connected to the main house, but also points out that the side of the house where the garage is located (the north side) is in no way visible from any public way. Finch agreed with this assumption and expressed that, because the proposed new driveway and garage is located at the front of the house, it is therefore well concealed from public view, and will not be a concern for the Historic District Commission. Ms. Greiner leads the Commission outside to look at the southern elevation. She notes that she plans to restore the wall stairs located on the existing western elevation. She further indicates that part of her current plan is to preserve, as much as possible, the retaining wall that holds the building perched high above the dense wooded shoreline area to the east. However, she notes that the retaining wall is unstable at the southeastern corner of the house where the proposed double level porch is intended to connect. A repair of this portion of the retaining wall would move the existing wall foundation out an additional 10 feet, serving as a foundation for the proposed porch. Finch points out that the current location of the retaining wall was a probably good reason why a porch was never installed there in the first place. Pearl states that the location of the current ledge can be an opportunity for compromise. She states that the applicant can forgo the installation of a two -level porch but still have a single level porch. Ms. Greiner expresses a dislike of this idea stating that she would like to have a second - floor access to an outdoor view of the seaward side of the house. Younger brings up the issue about impact of the porch installation to the composition of the ledge from which a large, natural rock out - cropping transitions from the house's foundation into its first -floor stone base exterior. Mr. Margolis, states that the rock outcropping will most likely be impacted during the repair of the retaining wall in its vicinity in order to wrap the porch around southeastern corner of the house. Finch questions the effect of the proposed improvements to the transition from stone into the bed moulding, contending that it is most definitely an essential historic detail that should be preserved. The Commission also expresses concern about the awning- covered bench over - looking the southern seaside view from the house. John Margolis states that he understands the problem posed by the alteration to the ledge and the rock outcrop, but he isn't sure at this point in time how he would reconcile that feature with the proposed design. He then states that he would give the matter consideration and get back with the Commission with a solution at a future time. Mr. Margolis indicates, however, that they do intend to preserve the covered - bench. The discussion then turns to the fanlight. The Commission makes clear that the features of the southern elevation, although it is visible only from the seaside, is part of the original 1881 Emerson designed structure and is essential to the historical character and significance of the house. The meeting moves to the interior hall where the fanlight is located. Ms Greiner indicates that she is still proposing a two -floor scale fanlight to allow someone standing on the second floor can look straight out and see the shoreline view. She further states that she does not feel that the current fanlight is part of the original house design due to historic drawings of the house in which the fanlight appears to be larger than it is now and to have different details. The Commissioners disagree with Ms. Greiner's assertion and state that all the evidence points to the fanlight being part of the original design. The Commission asserts that the fanlight is one of the essential elements of the south elevation that should be preserved. Ms. Greiner contends that she feels that it is her house and that she should be able to do what she feels is necessary with the house. Due to time constraints Mr. Margolis requests that the meeting move to the piazza located along the northeastern first -floor elevation. Ms. Greiner states that she has changed her mind in regards to this feature and will seek to preserve it, although it will require significant repair of the flooring which has deteriorated to a large degree. The Commission is pleased that the applicant has reconsidered her original proposal to alter the piazza. Ms. Greiner states that she would hope that the Commission would give her credit for this concession and that it should consider being more lenient with the other features which are in dispute. She expresses a hope that the Commission would consider lifting the existing Demolition Delay decision at that night's meeting. The Commissioners each indicated that they felt it necessary to take time to reflect on the night's discussions and that they would respond officially in writing sometime by the end of the next week. Once the letter is issued to the applicant, the Commission stated that any further consideration of lifting the current Demolition Delay period(s) shall require updated conceptual drawings that reflect the most current the project design proposal. Ms. Greiner and her design team stated that they understood this and would await an official decision letter from the Commission. Adi ourn Finch makes a motion to adjourn the meeting. Pearl seconds the motion. Members vote unanimously (4 -0) to adjourn the meeting at 6:32 p.m.