Loading...
HDC - 6.27.19 - ApprovedCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES COMMITTEE /COMMISSION: Historic District Commission DATE: LOCATION: June 27, 2019 Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street MEMBERS PRESENT: William Finch, Chair Suzanne LaMont, Vice Chair Caroline Mason Wendy Pearl OTHERS PRESENT: Emily Hutchings, Associate Planner Susan Goganian, Executive Director of Historic Beverly Stefano Basso, SV Design RECORDER: Amy McDonough Finch calls the regular meeting to order at 7:07pm. Pearl joins at 7:08. LaMont motions to move to item 2. Mason seconds. All in favor. Motion carries 4 -0. 2. Cabot House: Review of Proposed Improvements to Fence: Goganian notes that the project is CPA - funded and describes the fence's poor condition, including the shift of the granite base. The project involves the removal of the fence, sending the fence to Cassidy Bros. Forge in Rowley to make molds, and utilize the molds to replace missing elements. The granite base will be reset and missing aspects will be replaced. Goganian describes the era of the fence and notes that there are no photos of the building without the fence. Goganian states the qualifications of Cassidy Bros. Forge, and notes their good reputation. Finch says that the fence likely dates to about the 1860s, and agrees that Cassidy Bros. Forge is appropriate. Finch states that Cassidy Bros. Forge will likely job out the casting, and recommends that Historic Beverly acquire the mold after it has been made and utilized. The Commission has no additional comments. Pearl motions to determine that the project is in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Lamont seconds. All in favor. Motion carries 4 -0. 3. House: Review of Proposed Reconstruction of Roof and Porch: Goganian introduces Stefano Basso, the architect on the project, and explains proposed reconstruction is a CPA - funded multiphase protect based on the determination by Historic Beverly to restore the Hale Farm to its historic 1900 appearance wherever possible, due to the significant amount of documentation of the farm during that time period. The section of the project under review is the reconstruction of the porch in the rear of the building and small section of roof from back area to the building. Goganian describes the building, provides historic photos of the building, and shows how the reconstruction will match the historic photos. Goganian and Basso describe the project and how other aspects of the restoration will be Historic District Commission — June 27, 2019 addressed in the future. Goganian notes that the roof will provide protection of the restored French door from the elements. Basso describes the perceived condition and architectural elements of the building in 1900. Basso describes the porch roof, and Finch notes that it is likely that the roof was either a flat seam tin roof, or a canvas soaked in white lead, which was typical of porch roofs at the turn of the 20 century. Finch asks about the material of the roof. Basso states that he would welcome the Commission's feedback in that regard. The Commission, Basso, and Goganian discuss options for roof materials and colors. Finch recommends a copper roof with a freedom gray color. Basso further describes the roof in questions, and states that the main roof is of steeper pitch and contains wood shingles. Finch states that he has spoken to Dave Webb, who will be constructing the roof, and recommends that Basso and Goganian discuss the project with him and ask for his input. Finch describes research he has completed on the roof and the building. Pearl asks about the floor of the patio, and Goganian notes that the patio floor is currently brick, and that a floor will eventually be put in, but not at this stage of the project. Pearl asks about the stone wall around the patio. Basso states that the stone wall will need to be carefully dismantled to get the porch footings below frost line, and then be reconstructed. Finch asks if any archeology study was done around the patio area. Goganian states that she is uncertain about archeological study in that location. Finch ask how far down digging will occur to complete post holes. Basso responds about 4 feet. Finch asks if approval is required from the Massachusetts Historical Commission, and Goganian states that no, no preservation restriction is currently in effect. Hutchings notes that a preservation restriction for the property is under development, but has not yet been completed. Basso describes how the posts for the porch will be installed, and Pearl and Basso discuss the excavation that will be necessary. Pearl asks about how the project would be handled if the preservation restriction were in effect. Hutchings states the preservation restriction is approved by the Massachusetts Historical Commission, but is held by the Beverly Historic District Commission (the Commission); the Commission would therefore review any proposed changes to the property. The current project requires review by the Commission per Community Preservation Committee requirements. Pearl notes her concern about archeology during excavation. Finch says Historic Beverly has an obligation to consider the archeological impacts given that the building is a 1S period house. Finch recommends setting up a couple of test pits in relation to the wall. The Commission reviews the excavation required for the project with Basso and Goganian and how to complete the construction in the most historically sensitive manner. Pearl asks about the footing detail for the posts. Basso describes how the stones will be more of a veneer around the posts. Basso reviews reconstruction options regarding the stone wall with the Commission. Finch notes that the main question that the Commission should be considering is the ground disturbance, and reviews the potential coordination needed for the reconstruction. Pearl and Finch review potential options for the project, and Finch recommends discussing the project with Dave Webb. Finch, Basso, and Pearl review code issues associated with the project. Goganian says they will review the project with Dave Webb to reach a solution. Historic District Commission — June 27, 2019 Basso describes posts, rods, and other details for the porch. Finch states that the proposed design significantly increases the likelihood of rot. Keep wood off the wall as much as poss. Finch and Pearl make recommendations about the construction of the posts with regard to the stone wall to limit the possibility of rot. Pearl asks about the material of the skylight, and Finch states that it was probably wood, although it could have been metal. Finch asks about the window glazing requirements due to code, and Basso states the glass will likely need to be tempered. Pearl asks about the ADA accessibility of the patio. Goganian states that two sides currently have steps, but the project will include enough of a slope to eliminate the need for a step. Finch asks if the roof pitches and if the respective pitches match. Pearl states that she doesn't think you can match the pitch slope. Finch asks if the evolution of the porch was reviewed, and notes that it appears connected to the one -story addition to the building. The Commission and Goganian discuss the evolution of the building and the porch. Basso asks if Finch has any recommendations for the posts, and notes that currently the plan is to use 6x6 cedar. Finch and Basso review the posts and discuss options. Basso and Goganian will review the posts with Dave Webb. Pearl asks if the porch ceiling will be natural wood or painted. Finch states that the ceiling was likely painted, and that the new ceiling may hold up better if it is painted. Finch further comments on the material of the posts. Pearl recommends the drawings should specify where the downspout will be locate it, and recommends that it come far away from any masonry. Pearl motions to determine the project meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards provided that the footing detail at the stone wall can be adequately detailed to preserve the masonry and to protect the wooden posts. Mason seconds. All in favor. Motion carries 4 -0. 4. Post Office: Finch notes that the plans shared with the Commission have been approved by the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) as having no adverse effect on the historic building. Hutchings stated she is waiting to hear from MHC and has not yet heard back regarding why the Commission was not contacted for Section 106 Review. Finch stated that he doesn't think MHC is obligated to contact the Commission per Section 106 Review. However, allowing review by the local historic commission is usually a courtesy, and Finch notes that MHC has provided the Commission with the opportunity to review many different projects in the past. Hutchings noted that she was surprised simply because the Commission is contacted regarding projects with much less of an impact on historic resources, such as roadwork. Pearl noted that other projects typically involve the state undertaking work in some capacity, whereas this project involves the federal government undertaking work on a federal property. Hutchings notes that as soon as she contacted those completing the work on the Post Office they were extremely helpful and got all requested documents to her very quickly. Finch states that the drawings are well done. Finch asks if any action needs to be taken, and Historic District Commission — June 27, 2019 Hutchings states that this item informational. The Board comments on the need for the Post Office's restoration and their enthusiasm at the project. 1. Approval of Minutes: • November 28, 2018: LaMont points out one scrivener's error. December 19, 2018: Pearl asks if, regarding the Briscoe Middle School, whether the Commission discussed a preservation restriction for the building. LaMont and Mason confirm that a preservation restriction was discussed, particularly with regard to the impending Request for Proposals. Hutchings will revise the minutes to include the discussion of a preservation restriction. The Board further discussed the prospect of placing a preservation restriction on the Briscoe Middle School. • January 23, 2019: LaMont states that Jonathan Loring is the cousin of the property owner, rather than the brother. Pearl clarifies some of her statements regarding the historic resource survey on Off Lots (I 10 Common Lane). Regarding the GAR Hall, the Commission reviews how the paint colors were discussed, and determined to reword the sentence discussing the GAR Hall paint colors. April 25, 2019: Regarding the demolition delay hearing for 146 Rantoul Street: LaMont asks to clarify a statement made by Miranda Gooding for Beverly Crossing. Hutchings will revise to clarify what was said. Pearl asked if the timeline and slideshow submitted by Beverly Crossing can be submitted as an attachment to the minutes. Hutchings stated that she will check to see if attachments can be incorporated into minutes. Pearl stated that if the slideshow cannot be attached then it should be placed on the Commission's webpage. LaMont points out scrivener's error, and asks Hutchings to confirm a dollar amount stated by Gooding during the hearing. In letters from the public, LaMont notes that the letter from Historic Beverly was submitted by the Chairman of the Board, not the Executive Director. LaMont points out scrivener's errors regarding another letter from the public. Mason asks if the Mayor will have seen the letters submitted by the public in reference to the demolition delay for 146 Rantoul Street. Hutchings states that the letters are to the Commission, not the Mayor; the Mayor would not see the letters. Mason asks if the Mayor needs to be informed of the letters and the case. Hutchings responds that the Mayor is aware of the case and the public's concern. Finch asks if there was a newspaper article following the case, and the Commission confirmed that yes, there was a newspaper article in the Salem News. The Commission discusses whether the Mayor should be informed of the public comment at the meeting. LaMont shows where the notes state "Board" instead of "Commission." Hutchings will revise the minutes to say "Commission" rather than "Board." LaMont motions to approve the minutes as amended. Mason seconds. All in favor. Motion carries 4 -0. 5. Updates on Proiects: Powder House Hutchings says that the City received $55,000 from the Massachusetts Historical Commission's Preservation Projects Fund for the restoration of the Powder House. Historic District Commission — June 27, 2019 Hutchings is going to the Local Project Coordinators meeting on July l l at MHC to review next steps. GAR Hall Hutchings states that the restoration will go until August 30, 2019. Additional work on the windows and turrets is needed, but otherwise the project is on schedule. Hutchings notes that the project is still $70,000 under budget. Pearl asks if the change orders have impacted the budget, and Hutchings states that no, they have not. Finch asks if the insulation has been put in the side walls yet. Hutchings states that the insulation is not yet in, but will be soon. Briscoe Middle School Hutchings state that the RFP has been released, and bids are due August 9 Pearl asks if presentations and interviews are part of the selection process. Hutchings stated that proponents will submit proposals — which are public — and there will be a selection committee to make a recommendation to the Mayor. Hutchings will ask David Gelineau about the attendance of the site walk. Mason asks who will make up the selection committee. Hutchings states that she does not know. Historic Preservation Hutchings has submitted draft RFP, scope, and solicitation list to MHC. Hutchings has received edits back for solicitation list and anticipates the City will be able to put RFP out next week. 6. New /Other Business: Mason asks if commissions ever take a positions or voice opinions on issues. Members discuss precedence for taking positions on certain issues, including legal authority and appropriate venues for taking positions. The Commission discusses concerns about preservation and zoning, and how the current Master Plan process and upcoming Historic Preservation Plan could facilitate additional preservation and education about historic resources. Mason notes the opportunity for the Commission to be proactive in their approach. Mason reviews concerns about the proposed Depot II development on the corner of Rantoul Street and Railroad Avenue, and how the development may impact the adjacent park. Pearl asks if the Commission can note the impact the proposed development will have on the Depot and the Beverly Depot — Odell Park Historic District. Hutchings notes that there is an opportunity for the Historic District Commission and the public to have input on the zoning and historic preservation in the master planning process and input on historic preservation in the Historic Preservation Plan. The Commission discusses examples of communities that have appropriate zoning and design standards. The Commission reviews options for providing input on the Depot II development, and reviews aspects of the Downtown Design Guidelines. 7. Adiournment: LaMont moves to adjourn the meeting. Pearl seconds. All in favor 9:04pm Historic District Commission — June 27, 2019