The URL can be used to link to this page

SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES SGl I�Llit vA �Tt I rr`car/ j �//{'1 ✓Vl is S�un ' `S k r SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION ' Minutes of Meeting January, 2, 1985• A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, January 2, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green; Present were Mrs. Wheaton, Chairman, Ms, Harris, Ms. Hilbert, and Messrs. Carr, Cook, Lippman, Wolfson, V.*,_ Zaharis, Padjen and Slam. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to approve the Minutes of the December 5, 1984 meeting. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. The vote was in favor. National Register Health Hospital,-,Mr. Thomas,,Southworth. of'McNeiltAssociates was present at this meeting to discuss`' this-building and to determine what 'the' Commission's position is regarding its possible demolition. Mrs. Wheaton reviewed the his- ` tory of the sitetbrieflyiwith regard' to development:i When the site was first- offered for possible;de-velopmeni Mrs.lWheatoti said -the, Planning Department , was in favor of retaining the building as part of the complex to be built there.. That_position has changed somewhat over time! 'When McNeil was first designated as the developer they were chosen with` the understanding that the building would be retained. Mrs. Wheaton said there was a question raised by the current City Solicitor as to whether the land was actually sold or not. Recently neg07 tiations were begun again, and the Mayor's•office and Planning Department agreed on a plan which does not include the Health Hospital building. Mrs. Wheaton . further noted that the Board of Appeal denied the application for 36 units. which was presented last summer. She said this project is presently in the City Council being reviewed by the committee of the whole, - The Council- makes the final decision on the'sale., Mr. Southworth spoke on behalf of his company about their plans for this site. He explained that, although the total acreage would allow for 36 units, w minimum yard widths required by zoning would limit the number of,single-family ; unattached units to 16. Mr. Carr asked if it wasn't true that they, could not go back to the Board of Appeals after a denial for two years. Mr. Southworth said that would be so except incases ,where substantial changes have been ; .made. They feel that retaining the clubhouse, the change in price, etc. constituted substantial change, and reported that the CitySolicitor,confirmed this view. Mr. Carr disagreed. Mr. Southworth said that his company has considerable experience in restoration. They currently own and operate properties on the National Regis- ter. Their view on this building is that architecturally it doesn't work. The depth and massof the building does not lend itself to good condominium conversion. He also spoke about the image of the building as a chronic dis- ease hospital which his company feels is detrimental to its marketing. If it were to be restored, the beat views would be of the power plant. There 4 would be a big price differential between what they could sell units ,in this building for and the price they can get for the newer units. Mr. Lippman 'y said he was under the impression that retaining the building was one of the r provisions of the specification for development. Mr...Southworth replied that they had done a study, Their original plan was to retain the building, but �w the study confirmed 'that it was not economically feasible. Mr. Lippman was + rj concerned that the plans seem to have-changed with the building originally ` R\. R M1c ft /a y i`" 1 ..• 1%4ir t 6 �, .at L `i. f(4 j '! t�,4 '+''� � +t• t .y4`. Ja '1 'A.♦.. SLJ '4,+.�R : * �.. tr 1��-,�� r�a a S �3 �1 i� r x , . _ .. �� gJ•x.i -1 _ �•# `,f R�4,. s,,� � .phi,\tPi #� � f 1 r SALEM HISTORICAL.COMMISSION Page 2 January 2, 1985 f 4, beingretainedand now being removed. Mr. Southworth said that the purchase ~ r and sale agreement that originally went to then Mayor Levesque included demo- lition emo lition of the hospital building. ` Mr. Southworth ^spoke.•about the many problems with the interior, They f.•; ; feel retaining 'it would hurt the value of the new townhouse units which they hope to sell for $145-150,000. However, ,he said-it was not just a financial . consideration. The building is .old and just because a building is old it c , 'doesn't, to their minds,, call for restoration. Mr. Carr. said, that the ,ori-�-4 4 ginal developer was Stern-Tise and McNeil's proposal never called for reten- tion of the hospital. Mr. Southworth said that when the city invited proposals `a their condition was that the hospital be retained. His company `Frespouded to' . that offer. On the second"'go-around;the,city did"not-req`,uire}retention. 'Mr. Southworth further said• that:before they got a's. failas a'purchase'and•sale agreement they wanted to take'a`'good`hard' look at the building and that is when they decided not to retain. When the purchase and sale agreement was • issued they discussed this withitherMayor andiat that time the.:proposal in eluded removing the hospital., 'Heaagain` li`sted what they consider-marketing - problem areas: internal circulation, poor elevator placement, damage antici- pated when porch is removed-'viewrof power, plant; loss of privacy for town- house units; not cost effective; poor image because of past ,liistory of building. He: said occasionally something not cost effective -can be taken oil which is balanced by other considerations. That would not apply in this case: He •. further explained that 'since the building has,been declared eligible for the National Register they looked at the possibility of tax credits and they still couldn't get away from the problem that the building simply doesn't work well rl in their view. Ms. Harris asked if there is still an option.that a different purchase price might be{negotiated i'f. the building is renovated. Mr. South- worth said no. His feeling was that' s lower price would not get the approval of two-thirds of the Council because they feel it is simply, not, high enough. 4?` . Mr. Carr asked if the- footprint is any different from when the-plan went , before the Board of Appeal and Mr.. Southworth said it is not;, elevations-are essentially the same. .^Mr,Kavanaugh,"the City Planner, said.the',purchase price of $625,000 was based on demolition of .the building. , He. said Mr. Southworth had agreed-to meet with the Historical Commission as well 'as } . Historic Salei' to discuss .the matter. If McNeil agreed to keep the building up, they would most likely require that the purchase price -be altered. Mr Southworth' said if the.Commission required it, they would ask new architects ; x to look at the 'building. He 'couldn't promise that the conclusions wouldn't change though. , He also noted that there is a lot of neighborhood support for removal. Mr. Kavanaugh declined to make any recommendation. `He said based on .what the Commission does he would then make a recommendation to the Mayor and workwith the Mayor and Assessor on a purchase price. Ms. Harris was_con cerned that the"development wouldn't be in character with Salem. . It should still reflect something of the architecture .of the city. -She was concerned that the city would end up,with a modern development whereas having to retain , , a, the building might require a different approach. Mr. Southworth said his company is sensitive to that and .they are trying to come up,with a traditional design, not modern. Mr:.Cook stated' that he wanted to make clear that. if more.' j than one Commission member speaks-,,' it might imply a majority thought which is not necessarily the case; 'He statedthat in his estimation that mass of brick , -SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION, Page ,3 = ' R r January 2, 1985' 3 , A 2 c. _ 01 in an isolated `area doesn't pariiciularly identify with' any particular period and its presence or absence wouldn't'do anything.'to affect'overali, image of ' Salem architecture, Mr Kavanaugh said that previously McNeil.had'to go � R through thePDesign Review, Board, The present reguiremene. is that they need 3 ' to go through the Planning Board,. but riot Design Review Board, ' Mr, Padjen said the Planning Board.would•onlyrreview on the.basis of the site. Mr. � . ... Kavanaugh said although ;that' is 'usually their. purgiew,: iri th is rcase .they _ 'would review the overall plan. 'r":Planning;;Boakdmembers.,.inelude .two,eilgineers, w an architect and use of -landscape 'architect'from Planning,? Ifo needed,°rthey4 hire an architect, Mr: 'Carr suggested that possibly tliie Historical' Commis°' sion could be designated to review the design. Mr. Staley McDermott of Historic' Salem; Inc. .was present and discussed Hi§toriia, t m .'view of the V �- 1 Y h t a Kar. situation.., He agreed that the 'building' would'�be'difficult to"co"nvert'wth� '� its various inherent. prob_lems. He said' he'would not make any judgement on marketing seasoning,'but his pers`on`al'oposition 'a well6ist that,of tHlstoricr ' Salem` is tbat .it is a unique building in Salem's history,'' a historic landmark, and is elegible for theANatioxial .Regi ter: It does .have some negative con notations, but he doesn: SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 January 2 1985 • once a building is gone; it is gone, and if the developer is willing to look n r at it again she felt the effort should be made. Mr. Slam's feeling was that a lower price should be offered in exchange for retention of the building: Mr. Carr noted concern with changes ina,the proposal along the way-and didn',t' think extreme vote to demolish was calledfor without a recommendation. Ms, i t Harris said she still feels the building has• some,,merits.and though it might cause delays, a letter could be sent to the City Council recommending retention:, Mr. Lippman said he agreed with Mr. Carr. He added that he would want to see strong evidence that design after the building is torn down warrants tearing it down and that there is no viable way of keeping it. Original terms of the offer were that the building would be kept. Mr. Wolfson agreed and said the possibility of retaining should be explored. Mr. Padjen felt a good designer ' could come up with something more organically Salem. Mr. Lippman said. its size has an impact. Mr. Slam suggested that possiblyiwhen McNeil reconsiders this, a representative of the Historical Commission coufe offer input. Mr, f p Carr agreed that the Design Review Board or Historical Commission should have i " ' some input. Mr. Southworth said they did meet with the Design Review Board and they favored something more contemporary: The architects his firm is considering are very traditional and McNeil does not plan to go contemporary. 'They feel it is inappropriate to the location. He said the neighborhood had a lot of input. Mr. McDermott said that most of the negotiations were done with the neighborhood, but there wasn't any city-wide public hearing. • Mr. Southworth reiterated that they could be taking a substantial risk for the ,whole development if the building is retained because it might drag the value of the rest of the complex down, according to their marketing experts. Mr. Kavanaugh concurred strongly on the neighborhood .issue. They looked at it in terms of a terribly deteriorating building versus new condos. ,-' - Mr. Carr made- a MOTION that the Commission favor retention of the Health " Hospital building in any development proposal for that site. Mr'. Zaharis 'y seconded the MOTION. All were in favor except Mr. Cook who was opposed. ' Mr, Carr made a MOTION that the Commission recommend to the City Council that the design review responsibility for this project be assigned to the Design Review Board if the building is demolished and new construction is planned, and to the Historical Commission if the building is to be retained and restored. Ms. Harris seconded the MOTION.' The vote was five in favor (Ms, Harris, Mr. Carr, Mr. Wolfson, Mr. Cook, Mr's. Wheaton) , one opposed (Mr. Lippman), and one abstaining (Mr: Zaharis) . Mr. 'Southworth agreed to provide copies of presently available plans and will let' the 'Commission know when new alternate plans for the building are available. Local District Operation,_ Salem Public Library, 370'Essex Street - Mrs. Wheaton noted that the library has received approval for a project and the director and some of the trustees were present,to discuss preliminary-plans with the Commission, Atty. Albert Pitcoff, a,memberjlof .thefBoardxof'Trustees, spoke -about. the. history of the building whrcti'.;was,.owned by Capt. Bertram who had once lived in it. After f SAM_'HISTORICAL COMMISSION ' ,Page 5 January 2, 1985, , his death' itIwas deeded io the City of 'Salem for use as a' public•library,- Mr. Robert F" arley, .the arcfiitect,,-dis`cussed:;preliminary. plans. One major :change ;was to'develop the lower floor of.,the:library,' belowr.street level:. That will : • ` be:transformed 'into the -Children'`s'Library..` The building.will be°in, operation , _. during construction. They would`also 4like ;:to put an'additioii on the rear of the'building.behind' the, present reference wing. .This will be;abou't seven feet 'ab'ove 'grade and the rest below grade ;at -basement level. They would also like f l ; to add an elevator for4hand'icapped'access-`which 'would service. all floors. - Also a handicap path or}ramp which would start .at the base of' the stairs at the front entrance, go' around the` front, turn`right and go. down4to, the'base ' of 'the elevator.;;, They propose to put a,,sunken courEyard' on-the 'side of the child,`en's" room to provide ;lght'and access 'to .the outside. 3i ` ;mows '' r ff� M ` .."' •` � -" ' - <. ter . _ .. ,. '•.�. .. ` , The'library�wa's built in 1855 in,the Italianate style. ,It is .brick and brownstone with quoins at the 'corners:' The base is brownstone facing start- ingjust under.'the first, story windows and'the 'front,:windows are surrounded by brownstone. ' Side" wind ows have brownstone lintels and'si11s. There is 'a bracketed cornice, at, the, top with a slate roof'and'balustrade,onthe roof, The moldings and ,cornice are. wood.; The :wings,were added in 1911.x' , +In the area where the elevator is proposed,. two'windows will be lost, ' but the bay window,wilI�be *retained and.the-shaft will ,go to :the-cornice. , Mr." Cook asked i£;.the provision for handicap access was-'tied to the grant`and • was told Ghat it was ,Structurally, according o Mr. Earley,` ' the elevator' , s cannot be:located inside;.,'it:must be'outside.,.'Mr. ,Padjen pointed out,that., ';as,'.shown the ramp*will require handrails.` Mr. Farley .said he,hoped not' to have. to`useµthose,. Mr. Garr wanted'to.be sure. thaC the elevator could not ; possibly be'put inside the building, but Mr, .Fa. rley assure"d' him that it'was not. possible ' Additional work,to:.be�done' includes replacing ,brownstone columns anCdther browns tonejelementstwhichvare�falling apart, pointing of brickwork.-and repair, ofislate,roof.-t Ms. Hilbert„r who,worked with Mr: Cloherty t ^and Mr. `FaleY in' ettin$ a' rant application-ready, spoke about the next g ` round'of grant coming up during which�they'(plan t;o.prepare amore complete. . application. s` a� .}r'' tit J t, ( i �,r."'� 4• ro t* The 'front courtyardawas, discussed�with Mr: Farleyidescribirig the brick wall.to,be,.used on thetEssex' Street�s side provide security fo; the 'bhild- - ren s Library+and block p'ublic 'view: bn' the courtyard side there will be steps ,leading down from the,brick wall into'the',courtyard! Mr: Padjen had'. . problems 'with. the,.brick wall as far`as security was concerned,,- He;thought it might:add ,to the .problems .they.were trying to.,prevent,` He was ,also `not , sure'aboutthe architectural impact'of a51,, foot, brick wall .facingXthe,§treet ,On"the Mon,roe,Street side,' the courtyard'will,be- fenced with, steel- louvers e set at an,angle. Mr. ,Carr asked if 'any'of the,berms wi1T be'affected, ' They_`' * will not; they will.-remain the same as.at :present. Mr, 'Cook pointed`out , that though security may be a concern of the Commission,members personally, ,. ''that is-not the area of 'its respottsbility, Mr:: Carr'was concerned about tfie' appearance. of.the-brick wall and .the loss of light to that,below ground: se, • - 'room with a. solid wall Alocated at Pits side o i ;•. , Mr. Glen":Yale, one.of''the trustees present, told the Commission that ' SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 6 January, 2, 1985 4. � when the plans were being developed one+ of the major concerns of the trustees r was security" They are trying to .control the'whole, area using one Andividual. ` It was their feeling that the brick wall provides separation and allows use' of the area. Ms. Hilbert thought an open wall might be,preferable., Mr. Farley -said they wanted to keep it as neutral as possible and attract attention to the main body of the house .which is brick. Ms. Harris was concerned, about the possible :loss of greenspace around the fountain. `She preferredtthat the brick wall not come out beyond the addition"y Mr. Farley said that was pos- sible; however, he`_isfreluctantjto'makethe j, yard,small' er',because it -would `feel„more clos'ed:,inf� Mr. Cloherty•said the`area°in. question will en= croach on the driveway, b t not on the lawn: Mr. .Zaharis asked how deliveries y ;i etc, will be made, f the drivewa'y ,is gone.. Mr" ,Earley said the elevator will be used. Mr" Padjen said', there'would'tie an egress problem from the courtyard. . Mr" 'Farley said there will be- .agate"M Mr. .Padjen said''he had hoped that money would be used for, enlarging the,building.,,,, Mt. Farley.said?.phase two of their plans call for a seconder'tory",addition'andF, another level ,:over, the top of the reference room: They have allowed for future expansion upward Mr. Padjen, said his two main concerns include the ramp or walk which is difficult to make attractive, and the scale 'of the brick wall in the courtyard area. Ms. Harris said she had problems with metal fencingjon Monroe'.Street, how top is ,.. ' fenced off, need for some type of screening on back addition, top of elevator' (balustrade or cornice) , safety, issue of children possibly walking on top of brick •wall and falling into the courtyard. -Mr. Farley said landscaping is planned along front of the brick wall to keep. people from walking right up to, • e it. Mr" •.Carr was concerned about the look -of the brick wall,, heightwise: Ms: Hilbert thought there were cast iron options. . Mrs. Wheaton asked whether material matching the foundation might be more compatible,' rather' than brick. � i`s Mr. Farley said that all=the additions were done in brick and he didn't want ? : to change the concept. There would,be little difference in` cost between the"'. ' two materials: Mr" Carr made a,MOTION to'approve, the concept of the overall-project. Ms. Harris seconded the MOTION. All present='were in favor" .(Messrs; Lippman and Cook left prior to this vote.) The Commission will require more detail on the elevator before approval—During a brief discussion it was mentioned that the retaining wall in the ramp area would be concrete. Mr. Padjen x. suggested -that Mr. Farley meet with the appropriate.,people at the Architect- lural Barriers Board to clear up, the question of handrail .requirement: " He outlined technical difference between a walk and a ramp; . a.] walk would have less than one foot of'rise for every 20 feet; ,a ramp, which requires the •handrail, would"have a one foot rise for every 12 •to 20 feet; Mr. 'Slam was r concerned that the color, of the brick on the,elevator shaft should match that on the'main building. -Ms. Harris and Mr. 'Padjenexpressed +the hope that something would,be.at the-top of the elevator+shaft which would ma tch .the cor- ^nice=at the roof line. Ms" Harris further spoke about .use of: a band to make' , 'the pieces look more integrated and to prepare for future additions' inte-, ; gration. The door at ,the bottom rof the ramp was.>discussed jriefly. There will , • be.two glass sidelights with arwood and glass door Mr. Padjen wondered , whether aluminum would be more practical' for. that location Mr:.Farley 'said r .. ♦ ,Pry. • . SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 7 January 2,. 1985 'J'' A he .would like to keep wood' doors .and wood frame around windows. ' He was asked ; . . to provide the Commission with more detail on that area.. Mr. Padjen expressed P the hope that the cheek walls of the ramp area would be a rubbed-finish con- � } trete. Ms.. Harri-s'said she hoped ,the .ramp walls could match the color of the ' foundation. Mr.'Farley said he hoped to be able to`.do that. Mrs. Wheaton .• ; Asked that he 'provide -more specifics on the fence facing Monroe .Street. Mr. Farley said he planned to, used approximately ks' stock steel. with 2" depth , and the distance between slats would be .2 to, 2'k". As far as the brick,mate- rial for the wall facing Essex Street went, Mr. 'Farley said he felt it would + Took better for a longer period of time. Mrs. Wheaton asked whether the brick wall might have a stone' cap. -, Mr. Farley agreed to that. Mr. 'Padien asked if it could be the'same proportion as stone in other details such as area over windows and in quoins. Mr.' Farley felt that „would be too massive. Ms. Harris also felt a heavy cap woul&be better. Mr. Carr was -not happy with a solid wall or the combination of.`solid wall and metal fence. Mrs: Wheaton and Mr. Padjen both felt a.heavy cap on the brick wall is essential.. Mrs. Wheaton, ' also told Mr. Farley that the•Commission would.wint detail information on new windows and doorsrin the courtyard area. Mr. Farley agreed to come back ., at the February meeting with this information.. Mr. Farley spoke about the double-hung wood sash. windows which need to be replaced'because they are deteriorating." ,,,Wood frames are basically okay. He is hoping to. replace sash with custom-made aluminum sash, bronze-tinted aluminum sash and aluminum', slides. ;He feels .that .will-last longer.-' The other route would'be to repair wood windows and 'add aluminum storm windows. Ms; Harris stated that -is usually the•Commission's position. Consistency�in window treatment was ' stressed., If wood, they should be all wood, and if storm-sashed;Fthey should be all storm-sashed. Ms. Hilbert agreed to 'inspect the aluminum windows Mr. Farley is -using on a project in Gloucester and report back to the board her impressions of same. - Mr. Zaharis.moved to adjourn the meeting. This meeting adjourned at . ! 10.45 p.m. ` Respectfully submitted, Joan F. Pizze {?Clerk [} [ypC S Approved 2/13/85 ni.. ]]43 . ,.y''Mp�r 4� k 5j, ylX- [{(( •� 1. l {4 �, Y 1/,' SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of at January •17, 1985s '," A special meeting of; the Salem Historical Commission was held on Thursday, : January 17', 1985 at. One 'Salem Green. Presenttwere Mrs., Wheaton; Chairman; , Ms': Hilbert,` and Messrs.•Clarke, ;Lippman , ,Zaha'is, Padjen�;nd•Slam. Also ; > , present ,was Ms. Jane Stirgwolt, a'Pprspective associate member. ` 4 To, open'the 'meeting;Ms... Hilliert was asked, torpresent.her proposal for �• ' the=,possible„establishment of a historic district in- 'the Lafayette Street. 'area. She. provided a list of",pr'ocedures required; a copy, of which is filed with these minutes. •. All.members`should'have received a copy by mail. She wanted to determine how the Commission feels about- proceeding with this pro- posal, ,wfiich ,she -said began as a. suggestion from the PlanningOoard. ' Should the 'Commissi,on.;not wish to"proceed with-establishing ', regular local,district ; .'in that area oke she' s 'about' the P possibility of establishing a Neighborhood ' Conservation District." In' that case, ;the Commission would simply advise,' A but their advice would not be binding: • It _was the ge'neraCfeeling of the mem- bars present that. the ;most important thing at-this point was to determine how t the residents of the. area feel About 'the idea. -Ms. Hilbert provided a map y `'. ;showing the ,suggested boundaries of the proposed district. All members pre- sent- felt it would be worthwhile to study further; though'Mr_. Lippman ex- pressed'concern about expansion of the,- local districts to ;;;elude this areas ,• '7 ' ,:He. felt people were not always aware.of- what' is- involved and he referred to 4. . the fact that people expect to get investment. tax crediis .and that process sometimes' brings about its own problems. 'He further 'felt 'that the Commission has trouble administering the districts i now-has without' adding to them. CooMs. -Hilbert•waw: s asked homarir y properties wee included within the proposed area, and she replied that.there are approxi mately '125. 'While discussing � ways to. approach residents, Mrs: Wheaton suggested the .'possibility. of pre= senting some kind of lecture which,cou_ ld be co-sponsored by Historic�Salem, Inc. 'and/or the Essex Institute, ; The focus could be on.Victorian architecture, with -the emphasis on propertie's in the Lafayette Sireet•'area. If area resi dents were invited to''such apresentation, ..it might be possible 'to'' `determine the extent of b'the 'interest in pursuing .a:locai district;, Mr..Lippman said he .would be' more in 'd favor establishment• of ,such. a district if the t, Commission were then to give up ,jurisdiction'over some of ,the less important i items ,it rules on. such•as paint color, in all disfricts:: Members present generally agreed that the Coninission's time would be better;,spent doing detail reviews of more important projects^rather than paint .colors, .fences, shutters, �. etc. Possibly.Ms. •Hilbert could bA` -utilized tostreamlinethe process by'work-' 1 ing with residents-on:those items''and then advising the Commission at its next ` meeting regarding the. appropriateness of the proposed change. 'Mrs." Wheaton felt that people .in the districts might be'fiappy, tliat the Commission exercises C control-to insure fWf someone in their neighborhood will not do anything out- landish to his%hen house Mr.. Padjen agreed, that 'it is sometimes,worth'all the effort,.toprevent that one occasionalrhouse from becoming an eyesore bec'ause,of inappropriate' color choice or other alteration. - °s The organization_of the .Commission wask'discussed at' this" point with the suggestion being made'by Mrs., Wheaton that twice monthly meetings be con-f 'sidered, .especially if�another d'istKi. t ,is established. `Also mentioned- was • ' , the possibility'of having smaller subsidiary•groups 'to.work on.various:assigned items„but it was felt that this might .I' d',to some inconsistency, a SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 January 17; 1985 Ms. Hilbert said that Mr. Kavanaugh had suggested that three members, of the Historical Commission meet with three members of the. Planning Board to discuss further the possibility of establishing a Lafayette Street district. There was some concern that not enough members were present at tonight's meet-' ing to go forward with this idea. Ms. Hilbert explained the differences bet- ween administration of local districts and National Register District, which is federally administered and is just a form -of recognition. The only review involved in National Register buildings occurs when federal or' state funds are used to alter a building. Most ,of the local districts also happen to be National Register in Salem. Mr. Lippman added.'that the arrangement gives the federal government some control over historic buildings being torn down. Also discussed was the need for education of residents as to the value of historic buildings. Ms. Hilbert said owner approval is required to create National Register designation. As far as establishing a new local district, Ms. Hil- bert said that if the neighborhood is not for it, it is unlikely the City Council would vote for it. It was decided that Mrs. Wheaton should poll the j members not present tonight to determine their feelings for or against a Lafayette Street district. 'Mr. Lippman emphasized his earlier statement that the Commission, in his view, should deal only with non-reversible changes. The members present then discussed the desirability of meeting more than once a.month whether or not a inew'district is established in an effort to do a better job administering the area over which they presently have jurisdiction. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION that the Salem Historical' Commission hold regular meetings twice monthly on the first and third Wednesdays of each month ; and send notices and agendas out on the Thursday before each meeting. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. It was noted that notaal'1 members will always be available for both meetings and they should make it a policy to let the chairman or clerk know when they will not be coming. As a general policy it was also decided that applications to be reviewed must be submitted by the Tuesday of the week before the meeting in order to be included ori the agenda. k Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION that Ms. Hilbert'be instructed to propose rules and regulations pertaining to establishment of a Lafayette Street Historic District and present'same to, the Commission at its next eeting.or the meeting after that for finalization by t1ie,Commission for approval!Z Proposals for community communication process' should be included. Mr. Clarke seconded the MOTION. All were in favor.. � � .,.«. f• _ t��7 r, s,�,� a i. � F .eta �: f `!• c 'tit I..'d Mrs. Wheaton was authorized to poll members to determine who would be interested in serving,on ,the committee ,with ,the Planning-Board to study this issue further. Mr Zaharis volunteered tolserve since.he:is a resident of the area under consideration. Minutes Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the Minutes of the November 14, 1984 and December 12, 1984 meetings which were distributed at this meeting. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. ' a_ 1 � .. Y 'r .r.. _.y. •lF uf. ,.c. 'lam. i r SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION 'Page 31 ;'; January,17, 1985;, t i' ♦ - wit, �. Local District Operation ; •1JI } 1396 'Essex Street Mr, David'Clarke presented. plans for his property at # • this address'. He 'proposes to,replace one single double-hung window with a ` I - pair"of 'double-hung windows as a mullioned"unit., '.The reason for the change is r that he,:is remodeling his,kitcheri and wants to•got'more light-itit6 the area. The'area ixi;question is-visible Ifr' i North :Pine-Street''and-.to.`a lesser degree from Essex Street: ' It is`^located' bn a back- all-,facing onto the burial ground. The section,involved^was'not part" of' the original house:, It'was,added some- time between 1910 and 1920. Thei-windows are to be` slightly raised since they .' '.are'to' be, placed&over the sink. ` ,Loss• of symmetry was noted. Y Mr: Clarke said the reason he feels it will be. acceptable is that it is on the .back section of -,the house. ,;Mr. LippmanFsuggestea,cons ideration of ,casement=,windows., He had no,'objection'to kitchen`windows lookingt'like .kitchen'windows. It was also `notedthat 'the only time this area is visible is,during,the'winter when there aie•no„leaves on the trees` Hilbeit'mentioned'the tax,act.. She has been aY.• in. contact with Mass ,#Hisfo''ricalr.abou t this;proposedchange, Andais#awaiting their response. It, was, suggested that�Mr:.Clarke:use;;theirjrecammendation on his application•to. th (,ComiMssion. Mr. Clarke also noted' that `on.the east side' �.' of,the house there are two pairs of mullioned windows (pi 'the main part of the a f .< s k house) Mr:`Clarke decided to1withdraw his application until `the next meeting. n. .�•+eP+. SS $ i y7'`y 4.4�.^K t .. :+j <4 ♦A1{IM1 z�w oii. A:4 Health.Hospital = Mrs Wheaton reported .that this project iisstill in the hands of the City,Council at7present. Plansforireassessment�asxdiscussed at the ` •� _^ January 2, 1985.meeting will�not be available until Friday:, Ms. `Hilb'ert said that Mr: Southworth had indicat;C� t'a-H•istoric`Salem'ymeeting,`that he would not look at. a*ioWer.price.:..Mr; 'Slam said that if the Histoiical Commission wants thebuilding retained it would probably' be ,a good, idea' to lobby the members of the City-Council.; x, w -Mr. Zaharis made>a MOTION to, ,adjourn the 'meeting.' ' Mr ,Clarke seconded `the MOTION. 'The meeting ,adjourned 'at. 9:30 p.m: "' a n '�� ,• �'' n' ." +., `'� Y Respectfully sub 'tted,' >:n 6 It / `Jo'an°F. Pizzello 'Clerk of•Commission eAPProved•'2/13/85 '.0 'i Y 'A SALEM HISTORICAL.COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting . February 13, 1985 ' A'regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, ,' - February.13, 1985.at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green. Present were Mrs, Wheaton, Chairman, Ms: Hilbert; PreservationPlanner, and Messrs: Carr, Clarke, Lippman,` , 1"v .Wolfson, Zaharis, Padjen and Slam. Also„present were Ms. Stirgwolt and Mr.' Oedel,•:prospective .associate members. Local District Operation - 6 Botts+Court,= The owners of'this property, Gary A. LLand Nancy E. Peterson, have submitted an application fora Certificate of Appropriateness for two different items'. 'The first part of the application involves moving the driveway which is presently located'_between the house and the carriage house, which is .a part of this property.^ The owners wish to .relocate it to the Chestnut Street side of the ;carriage house: They would also likepermission to install a swag- type.-picket fence between the house and carriage house on BottsCourt. • They wish to-remove existing stockade fence from Chestnut Street side of carriage house and replace with picket fence. They also wish to rotate the picket,fence across the back of the yard,. Mr: Peterson said he had first thoughtto put, in a brick wall, but .after consultation with Ms. Hilbert he decided the brick wall '” would accentuate the difference between the two houses on the property. The picket fence painted'yellow to match the main house became his alternative. choice. The picket 'fence will have a 1" separation between pickets. : He hopes :to plant vines and azalea against it eventually. . A simple ,post with cap will be used at ends. • Mr. Lippman made theytthree-part MOTION to waive public hearing, accept the s standard definition of-abutters, and approve..the application.as submitted. .Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION �:+All '-pre;ent we`re in%favor, a` ( j . (� �i'�3 v`�...-e i".. .a s'�a•. t 5 ca. ' s �-'��_�,"^F The second part of the application dealt with windows. The Petersons would like to replace-a first.floor window`on3the Hamilton Street side with a greenhouse window. TtCey ,wouldialso.like to replace a.window;aori°the rear of the house (Chestnut Street side) .twith a 16-light traditional fixed casement window similar to the one., in .the. living room at present. Dimensions-of. the-windows requested are •38" X '371 or-the• greenhous e' window and 3!8" X•3'9" for-the • casement window. Mr. Carr noted that these windows are not on'very.•visible sides of the house. Mr. Clarke questioned omission of elevation drawings. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve this portion of the application for the - two windows requested. Framing to match existing' window framing on ;the "exterior of the building. The 16-•light casement .window is to have fixed mun tins, , Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. All present were .in favor. Abutters notified. , Minutes is a '. f Mr. .Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the Minutes of the,January 2'and January l7; :1985 meetings, Mr. Lippman seconded .the,MOTION." All were in:favor. Salem Public Library Minutes,of the January 2 meeting pertaining to the Library project, were read_ by the ci-Erk. - Mr. Farley, the project's architect, SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION 7 Page' 2 February 13, 1985 reported that he had met with the :Barr`iers' Board in Boston to,determine whether ` f { handrails will be required; on the slope leading;down to tkie handicap:entrance/ a elevator:` He iaas told that the slope was`such that the rails will not be re- quired. He spoke'about,,the' two,existing trees in that''area..wAch•are to .be retained." .The` retaining'.wall will 'be' on -one',side' of`the:,ramp and?then .turn back to the building. Earth berm wil'l .be '.retained. On 'the' other side`they will grade down to` ramp to V- in front'of the small tree. ' At,•.that`po .nt there will be an "V% shaped retaining wall to-the -building. There will',be >a visible joint a every• 81 'along the wall. - The brownstone has'joints soethere will be .some re- lationship. He is. not sure he wants..to try `to duplicate .the.brownstone color. . A He prefers-to'go with regular, concrete 'and. let it weather naturally since .coloring concrete in the 'field As very ,tricky,,. Mr. Padjen agreed that it is 4 difficult'ato get the right color in-the;field.',' Possibl'y a darker shade of con- -crete or .type two'cement or bush-hammering. or"sand-blas ting-might. give it a `' u•' „nicer texture. .Mr. 'Clarke.-referredto.:the' building 'opposite'the.Essex Insti- ' f'•> tute•where. concrete was colored- to ,match and' came out we11 , "Mr_ Farley said •. that within the constraints ofrpublic 'bid "they;might have�le'ss control over .who actually will do the work. : Someone with the,expertise' required might be f' i too •expensive. Mr. Padjen mentioned pre-cast colored brownstone. Mr. Carr asked about adding some kind of veneer or facing to concrete:: According to 'Mr_ Farley the cost would be $5-$6 per square foot. Also the retaining wall would have to be prepared .differently, -:;dding •subgtantially. to the cost: .- a Mr. Wolfson asked how facing stands up`to deterioration. Mr. Farley said it i. stands .up`very well., though freezing water might pop :the veneer .off.. - -Mr.. Padjen mentioned painting-the :concrete; though he'.added. that it might .eventu- .ally lead' to a maintenance program. -Mr. Clarke mentioned stucco.. Mr. .Slam asked if '`granite would-be prohibitive; it,would:- Members were•concerned about the treatment ,of this area since it is such an important part of the building. Ideally it should be.done,Jn granite or concrete' colored.-to match brownstone. Brick is' to be used on the sidewalk. Mr. ,Farley then discussed the•four-foot high brick wall"' It is`^now^ capped`with •laige stone cap to match ,belt'course. •He plans to ;terminate the wall at ;the end with 'a.,granite post: • Looking out t'owar'd the fountain-from the courtyard; Mr.`Far'ley's plans -call for a metaltfence with'"granite posts atends.'of :each wall and;similar_.granite posts` atcthirds along the width of ' e the louver .wall. ,The "purposerlfoff-this 'fence is to keep 'the.,children in the courtyard and to prevent;people romllooking'into the courtyard from outside. .` Fencejis�.to consist of steel bare, 5/i6" thick by 6" ^deep and. 6"'.on center, ' . '.forming a,louver. ..This arrangement permits only, a slot of view,from'.the . corner ofrt,Monroe Street :'and,'from E sex Street the=view is blocked, Mr. .Cloherty 'explained that they are-,:trying fo: createa situation where :no one can'stand'out 'on. the. sidewalk and watch the children in the cour"tyard. - The courtyard °is below'level;"making it eve'n more difficultato .:see the children. Members expressed concern that this fdnce will' not serve the:purpose intended, not to mention the question'of attractiveness or appropriateness. Mr. ;Padjen suggested that it: could prove to,be,ahazardouslif' someone .tries;to' climbl ;t{ There was also concern that thereris,, no'",hi''storicp'precedent for;therusP of ithi's' t e of fence with this'�t � Mrs. 'Wheaton asked ,if-"any'yp ype of building.gMr • menbersrwere in•favor of the brick wall at the front going all the way around. _�c � Ta i. Sr •+"sw'f Pw+`f t Y a<y-d,r ' t. s s 4 Ai 3 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 February 13, 1985 Mr. Padjen said that presented another kind 'of security problem. Members sug- gested that the Monroe -§treet side might be'better served using a regular fence,, ', e possibly a regular picketed fence with a cap. Distance across the lawn from the sidewalk and into the area ofthe courtyard makes it a�fairly ..long view. : M . The question of whether the berm should be extended toward the brick wall at the front of fhe building was discussed'' but members felt it would be pre- ferable to keep it in front of the main portion of the house area as it is- at present. Mr. Clarke suggested pushing the brick wall back from the front i facade, and having it begin at the back of the;,quoins. ,Most members agreed with this idea which would allowkthe main house .to'stand slightly apart from the wall; however , Mr. Farley felt the area of the quoins was too far back. He sug- gested going back six to 12 inches. Ms. Hilbert said she thought Mass. History ical would'be in favor of the' idea since it would preserve the outline of the original part of the house. The wall would then look more definitely like an addition, which is preferable. Mr. Clarke noted that if a simplere type of steel fence is designed for the Monroe Street side, the doors in the courtyard would be more visible. Mr. Far- ley is to consider redesign and come back to the Commission. The next item discussed was the front portico which will be fully-restored. Column shafts have been plastered'over.-,They, plan'to.remove shaft from the top of base molding to-underside of�capiiol,Yand replace witW new c'a'rved brownstone • shaft with prope`r` fluting;'r'Balustrade needs restoration work. Other carpentry will be done as required. The doorway will be fully restored to its original look. The doors- will probably e 'refinish®ed.' t Mr. FArley said the front facade of- the building with brownstone window surrounds •is'deteriorating badly. They plan to survey to determine which need 'to be replaced, and will try to match as closely as possible ' Ms Hilbert Askedrabout�leadtime required. Mr. Farley said if material is `ordered from Englandµit would take at least o eight weeks. He mentioned that there is a firm in Quincy which could provide the stone; though it would require carving. The brickwork on the entire build- ing is to be repointed. The bracketed cornice which is made from wood will be repaired and scraped down and repainted. The slate roof needs patching and that will be done. Regarding the new elevator shaft, Mr. Farley said he isn't able to match the brick which is ,on the building now, ' but,has found' one_which is pretty close. They are experimenting with test panels trying different mortar colors' and•tooling to try to. get .the color as close to the existing as possible. There is a problem with coursing and jointing which they hope to solve by doing several test panels. Members°of the Commission will be able to examine the test panels when they are ready. Mr. Carr spoke about the look,of the solid wall of brick which is to be the new elevator shaft. He asked about the possibility of a recessed panel• in the center of that area. 'Mr. Farley said though- the shaft would be seen from an angle, he ,agreed that the ,idea of is recessed area would be possible and would reflect the quoining on the,main part of the building somewhat. Mr. Padjen asked about ventilation of the elevator shaft. Mr; Farley said it would be on the roof. Mr. Padjen suggested • finding a way to keep it off the roof and placing it on the backside hidden by • louver, even though'it. might lie slightly' visible from Federal Street. i ~SALEM HISTORICAL.COMMISSION :p Page 4 a 4February" 13, 1985 Mr. Padjen spoke about -the rear addition, noting. that Ms %Harris had ex- pressed concerns about :that area. It'has no; particular architectural distinction. There'is no':cornice. 'Mr. Farley said there are futuie` plans. to 'build over it ' so it was left plain.-r Herproposed+.usirig"a{stonenband..atp'Ehe top Fof;the bottom row of windows to`matchAband'ing,'ontthi adjoining sectionlof-zthe'building. That p idea-a ealed to membersr resentC" Dr"awin s-of-chan es ro ' PP P g g , p used tonight .should. be submitted to-.the Commission Next to be discussed were the windowsand doorsT! Regardi g`windows, Mr. Farley proposes to remove wood sash and parting bead and 'replace, with'aluminum sub-frame and aluminum'%double-hungtsash: ""Top4sash would sbe Yfixed,i.,bottom would be;operable: ' 'Insulated glass would`befused wiEh no storm sash. Screens would .. be on•bottom halves :of.windows, but removable. *' If storm windows were to be used it 'would `be` n cessar 't put 'th s " f r out e o em o . a o they-would�cover: the detail Y P , of the windows. Mr.' Clarke asked'Ms. Hilbert if Mass., Historical'would go i` along withsaluminum windows. }She replied that Mass.' h ' along aluminum windows- but she' did'.not':know what the specifications.of 'those windows were. Mr. Farley said he 'is presently working on a building in,Beverly on= which he is' using the-type-of windowshe 'is proposing .for; the' Library;.l The, site is the. former Elliot Chambers. Hotel'... Mr. Padjen was concerned about' the use. of bronze aluminum 'sash. Mr ';Farley aid it would be a 'dark bronze.ano dize.d. finish ,(fairly dull)";' ;Manufacturer is Ford...Window_Products. 'Members- wanted Members wanted the opportunity to inspect this ;typerof win dow,in ,place,before they ',, ' • ' felt they. could approve iY'.for 'th s application'. Ms. Hilbert said 'slie did not think Mass.' Historical would,object .to aluminum,storms.., ',She said ,this isn't • + • " •,a ,tax acreview,,str ctly a state program; so there is a1' ttle,more leeway. It was agreed that. members would examine the aluminum windows'it ;the Beverly building mentioned. If,"they are;usedtdwill be,,on-,the main,part 'of 'the .building. Next to be discus's*ed 'was the handicap entrance: Mr., Farley would like to use a barrier-free aluminum.entrance door.: _Framing around it would be alumi- num,and luminum`and the color would be dark bronze: ,The,actual;location, of �the; door would ' be -2 to 22" back from*the face of the building," Mr: Slam asked'.whether a wood ,Y+ door could".be used: It'.is 'possible, but it would •be more difficult .for a F . person in'a wheelchair to open. JAlso "wood ;t would block light from getting into the _area. .3 Doors;leading into+ the`courtyard off the Children's Library were^ discussed next Mr.'Farley: proposes. to use- three-pairs--if•doors, ail of which'-wouldbeable�'to be "opened. The doors would be'�alf metal and glass. ,. Members were '*: 4 r ` ''concerned-,about the visibility of'-the doors.. ; With,a`picket fence (on Monroe Street side) which 'was suggested. to be'more desirable earlier, in the meeting, the doors would be. much.'more-visible• tllan with the `first-proposed louver type fence " There was 'some'discussion 'as io�how visible,this large^black-appearing space would be 'from Essex Street. Mr.. P, djen noted the contemporary quality 'of `tlie doors `as they,are'.proposed t,He wasn't-.sure they would work insofar 'as- - openirig;up the courtyard and inner room during'f lm viewing. .> Mr; Cloherty said, ° . that was ;only one of the functionspfor'which'they,plan, to use .the courtyard. Mrs: Wheaton identifie& the problemlas'a; need'for a view out, a`,need for. pri • vacy and W need.for opening` out. She'suggested letting the applicants" rethink ' a - . S 'i • 'M.F a .i, e. T. A M1 'SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5, February 13, 1985 c 'their needs and try to come, up with an alternat'ive.giv,en the concerns of the Commission. Mr. Carr asked how the group felt about a. solid 'brick wall to.hide ' the doors.' Mr. Lippman said if a closed wall were required abetter solution . �r than. a brick wall might be designed. . Members, though they..are not happy with ° s; the doors and their visibility;" are still not inclined to '-favor the louver fence. {Mr..- Clarke felt the applicants should reconsider the goals for the court yard taking into considerationthe things the Commission is concerned about. ;Windows on the courtyard seemed to present n' problem. The series, of doors in that area requires'additional discussion and possibly an.'alternative design. ' This matter is to be discussed further when the''Salem Public Library'is on the {agenda again at the March 6th meeting: 396 Essex Street Mr. David Clarke presented his plans to replace one 2/2 double-hung window ori the side rear of his house facing. the'burial ground 'with-two 2/2 double-hung mullioned units. Frame is to match existing. Present size of glass, 15" X 30", to be replaced by 12" X 24" glass. Mr. ;Carr made a MOTION to. approve _the application. Mr. Lippman seconded the'MOTION. Abutterswill be notified. . All present were inhfavor. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION'to adjourn the meeting,. Meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. •- t. Respectfully submitted, Joan F. Pizzel 3 Clerk of Commission , Approved 3/20/85 .. .. ... } . k • ;,a ,rid r"FS/M"° i r�4 • °. '' hw •r't{'.. p a` .»`, x Y gyp' ',� q , .« r sy.. F"fj' Cyt # E- �yr• _ it I • - i _ it hi. P , fa o 4 w.P •jr:i'!'g" M t:!+. iG"\ F .r':,`.e ;• ciy^ • ' - SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting February 20, 1985 The,Salem Historical Commission met for. its egular�.bi=monthly meeting on Wednesday, February 20, 1985; 7: 30 p:m. at,One Salem Green. 'Present were Mrs. .Wheaton, Chairman', Ms •'"Harris,-'Msand Messrs (Carr, Cook, -Slam and •Zaharis, Also. present''were Mr. Dick'Oedel�'andrCouncillor»Leonard O'Leary, Local District Operation 118 Derby Street - Mrs. Wheaton'explaa.ned-that Mr.-George Burkinshaw's p . ._ 'application for a wooden staircase toserve' as secondary egress from a second , floor*apartment was to have been' presented:at the snow=cancelled February6 -meeting. Since Mr.',Burkinshaw•had wanted to present his application, but was not able to attend either February 13's rescheduled meeting or tonight's meet- ing, Mrs. Wheaton asked if the Commission wouhd like to determine a consensus to ,communicate .back to Mr. Burkinshaw. Ms, Hilbert explained"that he was at this point contemplating an alternative rear' non-visible location,-and a sense of the Commission might assist him in his decision process., Mr. Carr questioned whether Mr. Burkinshaw had obtained.a'variance for extension of a non-conforming " use since the relocation of the apartment to the second floor will occur as Mr: Burkinshaw's candy business 'at 122 Derby•Street expands into the first floor of. 118 Derby. � It was not clear whether a ,variance had been obtained. 1 , Mr.-Carr made 'a MOTION describing the concensus of the Commission as • opposed to any exterior staircase .At 118 Derby visible •from the street"and re- questing the'Commission to notify•both»the-applicant•and ,the Board;of Appeals as --.to'the' possible requirement for',a variance for extension of a non-conforming use. All were in,favor. Salem Public Library, 370 Essex Street - Councillor. O'Leary 'spoke ,briefly to the Commission regarding the petition before the .Board of, Appeals this evening for variances-associated with the library expansion., He explained that a number of neighbors were concerned about 'increased parking and, f particularly Monroe Street abutters, the three-story addition. As• a`, conse- quence,'he was proposing a neighborhood meeting.take 'place prior the peti- tion before -the Board of Appeals»which would be withdrawn this evening, , 314 Essex Street - Mrs. Wheaton-relayed to the Commission her conversation with the contractor for;this +project,' Mr. Strout, who explained tliat Mass. Electric'had required,;the electrical meter box .located on the southwesterly corner of .this building, . despite=strong objections from'the .architect for the project. - Ms. Hilbert further relayed that the architect; Mr. Gary Canner, had determined that the large conduit involved could not be placed within the walls both because of its size and the attendant- disruption to interior paneling::; As a consequence "and since the meter location was directed on the exterior, he .chose an exterior conduit rather than-expose `it.within the southwesterly corner groom. The -Commission questioned'Mr. Carr„who'has been in contact with Mass. Electric regarding electric meter locations in historic districts, about Mass. Electric's current policy.' • fie explained that while Mass-.,Electric-.rules and , regulations"specify exterior boxes, he had received assurances that exceptions might be made in 'historic'districts. While members fe'lt 'the' installation at 314 Essex was visually relatively.. unobtrusive, they were concerned about the general issue. ' J F SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 " 'February 20, 1985 if Mr. Carr made a~MOTION that the Commission,invite the ,general counsel for Mass. Electric',or his appointee to the Commission meeting;of 'March 20.,with a 'view toward ,srrivfng at ,a mutually harmonious plan for future.*,elec_tric .instal_ lations`in Salem's historic districts and toward eradicating some objectionable ¢ prior installations. All were in favor. Ms. Harris was designated project review cooidiiiator 'for'this project. Ms., Hilbert will obtain a copy of± the plans for herruse: c_ + Project Review Coordinators - Implementing the Commission's plan• to follow up on projects' after approval, members,Tjiere designated'as project review coordinators for several current projects: Bowditch School, Mr. Padjen;@aith , :assistance from Ms. Harris;• 8-10 River Street; Mr"'Carr; 100-102`Federal St., Mr. Wolfson (preciously designated); 396 Essex Street,- Mr. Cook; 132-134 Derby * .. and 16 Bentley'Street, Mr, Oedel. Members asked that these designations be listed on meeting notices as reminders. 333 Essex Street - The next item on the agenda was the application of Catherine H. Smith for installation of a solar addition on the rear roof of a first floor ell, adjoining the second floor of that property. . Memberswere concerned that the?applinatio4i-lacked;'adequate' inf6rmation/drawings relating to the integrationtof the,additioncwith ,'tke existing` structure./r .The 'scale on the drawing indicating placement was clearly not1to'scale an`d'made the impact • of-the addition difficult to assess. There,was"some discussion as to whether the application shouldjbeJde,Aedfwf`thout ,prejudice, ,thus',avoiding any possible' • ,.the of. the`60-day decision period, or simply' asOincomplete. y" Mr. Carr made's MOTION to`deny(the'`appl cation as:incomplete".andilacking y clarity as to the relation of the•addition7 thel�existing`structure: The MOTION-carried with Messrs. Carr, Cook and Zaharis in favor; Mrs. Wheaton and'Ms. Harris opposed: ' a a The meeting .was adjourned at approximately 9:00, p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,:, Elizabeth B. 'Wheaton Chairman - . Approved - 3/6/85 ' V SALEM HISTORICAL' COMMISSION s e Minutes of "Meeting ,. March 6, 1985 A regular meeting Iof the Salem+Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, March 6, 1985 at One' Salem Green. Present were: Mrs. Wheaton, Chairman, Ms. Harris, Ms. Hilbert and Messrs. Carr, Clarke, Cook, Wolfson, 'Zaharis, and Padjen, Also 'present were Mr. Oedel, Mrs. Millar and City Council President Nutting. Proposed .Lafayette•Street District , Prior to'discussing regular Local.District business, Ms. Hilbert addressed the Commission concerning possible establishment. of-a Local Historic District in the Lafayette 'S.treet area. Boundaries extend from Holly Street and Leach Street along Lafayette Street to Clifton and Forest Streets, ,Also included is a car- riage house at'"4 Laurel Street. Mr. Carr made a MOTION'that the property facing ortabutting.,Lafayette Street from Holly and,LeachStreets",to ForestwSt'reet"and!Clift:on1Avenue be included in an area for study for the purpose of' formiiig a new district by the Salem Historical ,Commission, Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously:in favor 4-,, i ;ii 'V!pd.w !x €r e i i Need for neighborhood contact was discussed. Councillor Nutting who repre- sents part of the area` infq'uestion,, agreed to keep in*touch withtMs. Hilbert and keep .her informed of any pertinent' developments: ' Ms. Hilbert"is working on.a preliminary .report. Time. constraints prevent the final version from being available for review by the Commission before submission to Mass. Historical ' and the Planning Department'in order ,to meet deadlines. However, copies of whatever sections are available will be sent to all members with March 20 . meeting notification. Ms. Hilbert distributed copies of a timetable she had set up with regard to this. project. By the'April 3 meeting she will have a list of owners available for review by the Commission in order to begin making personal contacts. Her timetable includes submission of preliminary report to Planning Board and Mass. Historical by March 31, mailing of an; informational packet to homeowners by April 15, neighborhood meeting for a question and ,answer session by May 10, possible public hearing by June 2, and the issue would then go before the Council by late June. Mr. Carr suggested that .some way to. highlight the Commission's successes should be planned for the May.10 neighborhood meeting. Ms. Hilbert will keep the Commission informed of her progress, , Salem Public Library - 370 Essex Street - Mrs.' Wheaton said the main areas to be discussed are the question of aluminum windows, fence on Monroe Street side of courtyard and visibility of doors into the courtyard. It was noted that . „ the Library people met. with the Board of Appeals and there "were some concerns noted, particularly parking and problems with the plan for the one-story addi- tion and possible later ,three-story addition as they will affect the near neighbors. .. First to be discussed was the windows, The Library would like to preserve the wood casings and replace'the `removable sashes with metal,windows. It is • „their .feeling, that only a small part of the metal will show. The alternative to that plan would be•to preserve _the original windows in wood (casing and sash) 'necessitating installation of storm windows.which would then cover up SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION,:' Page 2 March' '6, 1985 + nmo.st.of the original casings Mr'. Cloherty, said they have a very real energy y problem which.,must be considered whatever approach is 'taken. Mrs. Wheaton asked k. about muntin bars.-.. Mr-.,Farley said the.windows he proposes to:use. have single muntin bars. . The•configuration, is ;slightly different. Depth 'of muntin bars' and how they'Ippear from .the'siree£ was discussed with Mrs. Wheaton noting that' .` the existing tunes appear,to look quite' deep: " Mr. .Clarke asked about 'screens. Mr. Farley said',they„wili',be half-size=screens.• Some concern,was 'expressed about the color of"the: aluminum,sashes," and exposure of the 'aluminum to the glass win- dow. It was,igreed a dark bronze would be acceptable. '; Mr. Farley said as far 'Y' r as the exposure was, concerne'd, the profile%will.be specified:% . Pq- Ms, Harris made ,a MOTION to move the question Mr. Clarke.-seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. .,t- Mr. ClarkeEmade-A MOTION to, approve 'the windows 'as 'described according to the plan,_- They areto betwo over. two�or one over one as 'existing, with inte- gral muntin bars,` -Color,:is to 'be'standard dark bronze M.'Mr. Carr seconded -the TI MOON - Ths e' vote was unanimously'..in 'favor.' r . Next'to •be discussed was the courtyard area.- Ms H lbert,reported on a � site visit 'she liad taken with 'Mrs., Wheaton'and,'they determined that if.:a slatted < fence is used no doors would be„visible.' ,''An open- fence would allow the doors to`be: seen more 'easily; but ,no't above the top�tof"the fence.;* Mr. Farley said he had'not done any. redesign,,work• on 'thatMonroe Street side.' He did 'speak..about the possibility of redficing .the depth''of.the blade in^the louver which might ' change the perception.' Ms. Harris expressed. iier concern abou.Cthe inappropriate- ' . _ .. . . ness of the louver in general"and.its appearance>as modern in style,, . Ms. Hilbert.said she had no 'problem.with its'modern.appearance since. it is part of . ,i a modern' addition... The.,alternative which .appealed to members was an-iron picket fence:. .The fence and door's are.'closely linked because the clioice .of:.,fence will " .influence.how much of the' doors ;will 'be visible., Ms. Harris suggested*cons idera- tion of two, smali, piers between thecbors:'to:break up the large;+expan's'e of-doors. Mr. 'Cloh'erty spoke about•-the Library's desire 'to have the'doorR;drea as open. as possible. . Mr. Farley,said"the meeU for light is very'great 'in that area:; The area behind the doors is planned as7an as'semblyiarea though- it�will also be I � used for children's functions when, is not being-,used as',,a meeting room:;-Mrs. fs...,.. Wheaton asked for a. consensuscof feeling- fromrr membersrregarding type.of, -fence, and doors,..'. l�.� '�2'., ' ryMr, Zaharis was-in favor of'the design as .presented and4was not -in favor .,of pickets. Mr, Padjen ,said if slatted style were used it would_,have'to have 3 .t •!, S a,flat' top'oyer .iE"for protection.= HeIfelt the better{answer ' uldjbeyto, not ' 'have the�large glass opening ,it wouldP'have a'softer' look if the doors were broken up. He also suggested .that: the brick wall infroint of the courtyard * f might be lowered for a softer effect, It is 'now ,planned. to be approximately' 5' '^ high. -As- for the+ fence, 'he preferred the iron picket. = Ms. Harris 'also favored,.the iron picket. ,fence with•c`ap, She. is still bothered. by-,the:Adoors''in the'. "courtyard and would like to'-see them modified, .possibly by using. a'-1.2" pier t '. 'which would xeduce ".the -line',,significanply. Mr.. Cook :was in"favor of the iron • picket .fence,with'•cap, and would•`probably go'along with the design of ,the lower level ;Mri"Carr was in favor 'of `the=iron picket fence with cap -. the glass n � i SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 March 6, 1985 '_ fir• doors present a problem for him because of -the large expanse; he would prefer to -'„ see it broken up. Mr. Clarke^was in favor of the iron picket fence, with re- duced space between the pickets as one way of reducing the visual impact of the glass wall. Suggested consideration of two one=foot piers between doors. Mr Wolfson was not totally opposed to slat fence, but thought the narrower slats A would be better; then the doors don't enter into the problem. Mr. Oedel thought the iron picket fence with cap was more appropriate. Ms. Hilbertsaidshe could go along with either 'fence. Mrs. Wheaton was not opposed to the'slat fence. ,The brick wall makes the area looklikes. modern addition, so the slat fence) doesn't bother her. its Mr. Carr made- a'MOTION to ree'ct,the,concept'- of,a,s'lattedfence for the courtyard area (Monroe Street side). and `adopt the concept of an iron,,picket fence with 3/4" pickets on 1" standards. Ms. Harris seconded,the,MOTION. The vote was four in favor (Ms. Harris,6Mr.4 Carr,,.Mr.1 6laike,lMr.4 Cook), and three opposed (Mrs. Wheaton, Mr: W61fson4and 'Mr'"Zahari's) .f (4-3) i Regarding the'doors;�into,the courtyard' there'iaas±some .additional discus- sion, with Mr, Cloheity "emphasizing,how important this type of door is for the function of the area in question. They desire's very open feeling. . Mr. fZaharis said the visibility is not great and he was inclined to go along with: what the Library wants. Ms. 'Harris suggested the consideration of plantings to try• to , screen it. She was still in favor of breaking up the expanse, but would not • insist or; it. Mr. Carr madet.a MOTION that given the strong feeling of the Library about ` the courtyard doors, they•be approved as drawn, with a recommendation that plantings be considered along the wall. Mr. :Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously' in favor. Next discussed was the actual spacing of, the iron pickets in the Monroe Street side of the .fence. Ms. Harris made a MOTION to use 3/4" pickets, three to four inches apart, capped. Mr. Clarke seconded the MOTION. All were in favor except Mr. Zaharis who was opposed. ' (6-1) At this point in the meeting Mr. Cook4said he had to leave but before he did he wanted to be recorded as opposed to any parking in the area of the fountain. Mr. Cloherty described the opposition they had encountered with regard to parking. The matter' is presently in the hands of the' Board of Appeals. The Library's plan which they are presenting to the Board of Appeals is that they'are trying to preserve 'the general aesthetics of the lawn and' fountain.. (Corner of Monroe and Essex Streets) ' They.never considered putting parking''<, there and that is the approach they will use with the�Board -of Appeals. Mr. Carr made a MOTION that'-the chairman write a letter to the Board of Appeals in the strongest possible terms urging retention of the greenspace and Mountain and not consider the loss of any of that area to parking., He further MOVED that a personal representative. of the Commission be sent to the 'Board of Appeals meeting when this is 'discussed, and further that a representative of the Commission be sent to the neighborhood meeting to register -opposition to turning that area over to parking space. Ms. Harris seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. •T. •.. * r *. -6`... [f �.r'},t.`�F R�(�. ( };�'.d.��V?�#�.�i�J fw"Y•' � 2'1 {��+�� .♦ _ . . `- gyp,,v �a .e 7. y",�•+i s2 . . 'JY � pp � � �.y t L# � y'� k A f �F • � 'r SALEM HISTORICAL-COMMISSION $ s JPage 4p . , t • �� March 6, 1985 ' Mr. Clohert said the ' e rocess of y are inthe ., y p polling.library patrons in ah effort tot determine where they park. `They areralso taking.a' count of parking spaces used at various times during .the''day. a , Cloherty informed' the,Commissionthat Ward Councillor O'Leary had come' • , up with, a`sugges.tion to change the',whole plan by putting the addition (now Ya. planned',for the•rear)wwhere-the courtyard is to go and putting•the.'courtyard in the°rear. , There was concern- tha[`a,pla`n' ke that would alter the, look of the original- building which they 'are"so� carefullytrying to preserve." Ms. Harris 'F r asked whether any consideration had been given;to"putting the one-story addi- "tion ontopof the stacks 'instead: Mr.€Cloherty said 'they. did discuss that and c '? .it;was one possibility', but, they `are trying `toake. ep control of the-number-6f floors which presents staffing problems. ; _ . . - ° Mr'. Carr made. a MOTION that.the Salem Historica l Commission would strongly - ,•. oppose ,-any,;♦tinkering with„the Moriioe'Streetside of `the'original',Bertram home z portion of the Salem Public Library.. Zaharis '�seconded the MOTION'. The ;vote .was unanimously in flavor., *' 3' Broad Street Mrs.,Wheaton told the Commission that the current status f of 3. Broad%Street is that the_Community Development Committee`is'strongly,con- sidering turning ,it over t'o' the.Salem'Housing Authority for 'elderly,housing. • Mr. Feldkamp was' present•to- discuss preliminary plans, The Architect's Colla- + a b6rative of Cambridge had hoped„to develop bothtl and 3 Broad'for, a total- of 55 units. `; It'seems that l Broadrjust wouldn't work, their purposes because of the ceiling. heights ,'etc. so that building_is,'no longer',part.of their pro- e posal.; 'At number 3•they±want'to put .in 20 units of :congregate housing for elderly 'care. Mi. 'Carr 'asked if congregatehousing-was. a dormitory -type arrangement;Irather than separate'units.' Mr. -Feldkamp 'said".it`"is"more similar to a}.dormitory.*. They are'._proposing. two''additions, one at side rear and the other -on the opposite side,facing' l' Broad whey`e-the'building-presently..has a 1, "U" shaped 'opening.' Mr.:Feldkamp.. said they;are :looking for approval♦'in concept at this point Ms. Harris said there is an alternative proposal for 15 .units with no additi.ons,`to, the buiiding. Mr. Carr expressed his,concern 4 about"the addition-whichijuts out at the side. He would "prefer to have fewerunits with that area area .untouched. Mr. Feldkamp' told the Commis•s ion_ that .the 'reason -they•are, interested' in '20 units is'that'with'20 people they can get funding for a` full °'•a time staff. person. With'anyrfewerw-than 20 ,the'y can „ 't get ,the 'funding;' Mr. " Feldkamp said'.he might be able f0%0 the'taddition 'on the side without having it jut out,. but hiding it: slightly recessed from the existing-walls'if�that is more "R acceptable. He"aaid the building was built- in 1818 and enlarged.;in 1842 -`Ms. Harris told the"Commission-that.because' of parking requirements,-,l Broad Street„ will only be allowed to have 12-units” 'She said the parking issueris:`important ` to the neighborhood. Mrs. 'Wheaton asked about the funding situation. _Mr.rY, a ' Feldkamp. said funding was= the reason they deci,ded`not ,to take on,#l' Broad •, Three Broad is•Fin:good shape structurally. . They;won'.t`:need to spend a' lot on _ the exterior.'-Members expressed concerns about the„proposed .ad d.it ions.° `Mr Feldkamp said the additions would'be' either brick.oi clapboard., 'Windows and"[ '• cornices would match:, ,'Porch space-would match existing architecture. • Fire escapes will be`.removed, ; Mr._Padjen.asked whether the fire escapes would"still c c , ,,,� F l'"' �.A �'as•�N { tyi-�' 3pI°y%?�fi t SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 March 6, 1985' be removed if the 15 unit,,option-were used and=was ,told by Mr ,Feldkamp that he thought. so. Mr' Paden was concerned, 'thattthe building%mijht,r,enCup looking;'too blocky if it were not�''doue'.,'corr'ec`tly and piesumed' they'would'.dottheir best to retain the feeling ,of .the building'as it stands nowr Ms. Hilbert said if the . ' additions are approved suggestions coulddbe ;made 'to";the architect for a more acceptable design. Mra.Padjen"noted that the'. intendedfuse,might •be suitable for that location since any other use would introduce neighborhood problems with regard to parking: ;Ms,xHarris.•did-notFagree wlth ,thataand•ystated that a private developer would*look"lat 'it'with much- fewer units' (poss'ibly. six) , ' Ms. Hilbert mentioned that if,it,were sold-to a developer it. would be done as a tax act project. Mr. Padjen said tithat' though it would appear ,.that the intended use would be in the best interest because it would take .the least amount, of park- ing and would require the least change 'to the building, that didn't rule ,out the possibility that there' may be a different use. He personally would look on the additions unfavorably. `Mr: Carr expressed his concern about the porches though that seems to be a'- likely use in that location next -to the senior ,center. Ms. Hilbert' thought additions were the issue, not use. Mr. Carr felt the best the Commission could' say .is that it is not an incompatible use. Mrs, .Wheaton said . . she also...'had a .problem with the porches which would .be an important part of this use. ' A housing solution might be acceptable providing it had no' additions of subs''tance. Mr, Carr made a MOTION that the Commission communicate to the Community Development Committee that in .its opinion the proposed-use as^a congregate facility is not incompatible with. the historic integrity of the building, but that, it would op pose' any major additions to the building. Mr. Zaharis seconded, the MOTION. .All were ,in favor except Ms. Harris, who abstained. ' (Mr,'Clarke . and.Mr. Cook'left 'the. meeting before this vote 'was taken.) r , 5 , Minutes - Mr: Zaharis made a MOTION to accept the Minutes of the February 20 meeting. ;Mr. Wolfson'seconded the MOTION. The vote was in favor'.' Local District Operation 343 Essex Street- An application was received, for, 'pe'rmission' :to remove and replace an altered window on .the side of the house facing the Salem Athena- eum and to permanently remove an added window (1'. X 1') on the: same side 'of.the , .house._ Both windows are on the first floor. The owners, Sally and Jon Sullivan, wish' to replace the altered window. with a 45 degree Andersen ,bay.window'io .be 5,3" wide'-,,and 4''2" high. The window would`be .terratone :colored, vinyl-clad wood with' c.olonial, grilles. The roof over the bay-would be black .asphalt 'shingle in keeping with•the existing roof. ,of'the house 'proper. Window would, be bracketed. from beneath: Mrs. Wheaton noted the very sensitive location' on 'the main sym- metrically,arranged section of the house:' The window would be on a very visible section'of the house. Mr. Carr agreed and -added,that it introduces a number. .of intrusive elements; ;a window wider, than it is .tall, three-dimensional, and it doesn't line up with the top of existing windows. Ms. Harris .questioned whether any,alternative.would be possible. , Mr. Sullivan said that since the house,is . visible from all sides itis very difficult to make a change. on it, -Mrs. • Wheaton noted that the Commission had-°approved a greenhouse window at ,the rear " •. a �.. 4'. . SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page;`6 March. b, 1985 because it was not located -on a.major facade. 'J ' t. ? Mr. " 'Carr 'made a MOTION, to deny•the application.` Ms.;Harris, seconded the y MOTION. . The vote was- in'favor'of-denial. . (5-.0)_ '. 3 Broad Street - `The''Commission'further discussed.'this.' proposed' project with discussion centering on the optimum use of the building•from a preservation plan- ning point of.'view. The Commission: recogiized the' attractiveness of the proposed use in with4L.e elderly services at 5 Broad Street and the limited . parking needs. of .such' a�facility. On the other hand, •concern .was expressed regarding coordination of site planning'.and, services for -the Housing Authority use at 3 Broad and'the private development proposed'at`l.'Broad,r Further, the Commission~questioned the,'advisability of. retrofittting an,important^historic building tothe proposed uae rather than ,providing for-the congregate' facility 'at.new'construction proposed elsewhere by the Housing Authority. Since tax incentives .for'historic'restoration"would be available to a private developer' 'of ,3 Broad-, '.restoration of ,the highest quality might be facilitated'under this . use. t - • y ..� .'" � ny: ' a 1p4 t. Mrs Wheaton informed the�+CommiAio'n,Y}that,.sheI�woul'd be resigning here J+ position"of-the.Historical Commission'•fasof,June,tl"lsince�she w`ill'be"moving4to Hamilton 4 < ti �yq Mr. Carr' brought 'up 'the satellite dish -installed.on.the home' of Dr. .Gordon at 76-76'k Federal !Street� Mr:' O'Brieh;,,the City:,Solicitor;,waslasked for an opinion'but there has been no,response*to date.'' Mr. Carr.suggested that a.meeting,be'arranged with the Mayor to take+ some action on` this. " Mr..Zaharis made a'MOTION"to'adjourn .the meeting., Mr. Wolfson seconded. Themeeting`adjourned at,10.45 'p.m. •r` ay-a Respectfully submitted, .µ Joan'F.' Pizzello ' Clerk of Commission 0 Approved 3/20/85 =^,r r SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meet Lng March 20, 1985 A regular meeting of 'the Salem Historical Commission,was held-on Wednesday; ^ ' March 20, 1985 'at One Salem Green. Present were .'?Mr, Wolf;on-;.(whoracted as Chairman.in Mrs.' Wheaton's absence) , Mr.'Cook, Mr. Lippman`,' Mr; 'Zaharis and,Mr. Slam. � - r IN s Mr. "Zaharis. made a'MOTION-to,'accept the'Minute's of'`;the FeliruarjLff`and ; o March 6�meetings,.' Mr. ..Lippman seconded the MOTION. , 'All were, n favor. (4-O) - Local District Operations c ' 21R Noith Street ,Dr. Alvin Rosen;'.the-owner of this 'property, rwas: present to discuss his :plan to paint 'the exterior. He.,is .applying,for a 'Certificate of Appropriateressfor his color choices which are: 'Body - Talon.(medium gold shade) tTrim - White and Shutters and,Door -,,Black.' He' did not have the paint manu- facturer's name huf agreed` to provide same to the`,Commission. He plans to '. install, shutters' on th'i'sshouse 'which 'present ly does not -h'ave them. Mr.. Lippman told him that•the shutters mu' t be•wood and be `as high as';the"windows and, wide enough so that when Iclosed they fleet.''However;' one of,t the windows is a picture -window.- -The shutters would then have to 'be 'the rwidth,of the sidelights: (approxi- mately ,2') . - Dr. .Rosen would'also-like,to. ins tail "a.brass' n' eplate on. the 'front facade, a `picture of which was submitted:. ~ Mr. Lippman made a~MOTION to 'approve the colors as .presented (with'Dr Rosen supplying the name of the paint mariufacturer) forx ,the�etezior, ;wooC CO.I , shutters as specified; and the installation of 'the brass,nameplate Mr. 'Zaharis seconded. the,MOTION. . All were infavor.' (4-0) Abutters will be noti- fied. f: Dr. Rosen told the Commission he,was'-also,:seeking permissions to' install an v ''air-conditioner under. the window-in the ,front.. He was told he. shou].Vsubmit a separate application for that and"supply dimensional information. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to table,the request to4illow the:air conditioner` until -further infor'mation, is available":` Mr., Zaharis' seconded the MOTION '' ` The vote was in '{ "favor. (4`0) ( A review of Section.8 (No. of`Chapter.40C,Ater. the meeting revealed .�•.-,.�on,w•s� ictio .' .ovthat -theiCommissi , o dner.window air conditioners.) 771 77 At, thiskpoint in the meeting :there was a brief- recess so that,interested Commission members could•attend' the Board of,Appeals+'hearing concerning the < Salem Public Library �. � q,.i� Salem Heritage Trar.l ,1 Present toadiscuss plans -for,�a Salem°Heritage+.Trail ' wav,Mr.. Ed Stevenson of the House of• Seven Gables..; Also`present were Ms. 'Joan Gormalley,' Exec'utive4Director,ofttheiSalem,Chamber of Commerce,'0Ms.-Kathy ' lDriscoll, President of the:,,Salem Chamber'r'of Commerce;'MMr;''.TomfKershaw, owner of =,Topsides 'Seafood Grills as''well 'as others who are part'of:.the Salem Ad Hoc Committee studying ways 4t'o�i*Aplement 'this -project. Mr. EStevenson described the - `+` �`_ µ � .p vy .'•a. r rte. �' ',' . � .. ,.. :, � ~, ac ` n C - ` '- + : x ..ice � � + � - " n. s7 ` • < _ _ K a _ T SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION pageF2 March 20, 1985. a proposed trail, which was shown on the informational packet distributed to mem-_4 bers• It .consists of a portion surrounding the year=round attractions (museums, etc;) and a portion covering sites which are only open during the summer tourist 1 season. The Committee' is seeking the Historical Commission's input for a marking system which would respect historic integrity'and still be easy.,to follow. -Under ., consideration are sidewalk/street.marking and some type of "signage• Mr.' Za)�;lris asked about the signs which. are presently in place. Mr. Stevenson. said he did not feel they were very helpful because of their size, colors and thefdifficulty V with reading them if one is driving. Mr'. Wolfson asked if they had any'ideas in 'mind. Mr. •Kershaw said the simplest-method is a strip of paint. It is the least expensive and easiest to 'change. Also 'considered is something set in side- walks or, streets which is more involved. - The main consideration is that it be easy to follow. He said .the Committee is also looking for,the Commission's reaction to the concept. Mr. Lippman said'he was in favor of the existence of ra ^ a trail, as were other members when this, was discussed briefly at a previous s meeting (April 4, 1984) , but,was reticent about the idea of •a yellow line'or any line *down the, sidewalk. Mr. Wolfson agreed, `noting that such a line 'would'_` - be even more objectionable in the residential neighborhoods; something more >> s t appropriate`would be required. Mr. Stevenson said the advantage of a line is`, " that it can'be removed or 'changed•, it is not permanent. It also tends to_ keep people on the path. He said the average tourist does not,read sign's and also ,seems to have difficulty.�with maps. . Mr. Lippman asked how tourists would find the beginning of altraiL initially. M'rirStevenson'said' 'the4sgns .now in place tit GO lead people to the:Maritime:site;(Custom'House area) andEthey 'see that as a starting point. Mr. Kershaw added that there are presently five places where visitors can get touristpinformation. andtmaps. :Iwould be desirable to be able to start a tour at'any of those,,points 'onkt tthet % il...°Mr'.'$Slam said he was also 'in. favor of this project which he feelsis ',aesperately}needed. Mr'. Cook a° was also very much- in favor ofothe concept, but addedt also has questions about drawing a line down- streetsMr• aZaha'Aa was in favorof the concept and he. had ,the same reservations about a line being used for marking. . He also stressed the need for the city's other problems'to be addressed which would also help the tourist. These included parking; need for more restrooms, etc. Mr. Kershaw said these things were more the province of the city government, rather than an Ad Hoc Committee such as this one. - , s=. Gormalley spoke about =• the Mayors Downtown Task Force Committee which has recommendations which do address the problems mentioned. Mr. Slam asked whatithe plans were-to^make people aware of the existence of the trail. ` Mr. .Kershaw said they will initially provide a'brochure which will be distributed Iat information booths, once- it becomes 'a reality, they- hope to raise. money, to promote -it, whether through merchants-or•city government. Mr. Wolfson°.'said the rconsensusiof ,those members present was that they , could endorse the concept, but have problems with.•the marking systema He . p further said he felt it should 4be presented to th`e Commission as a whole, pos- sibly at the Aext 'meeting,` for, further-study and suggestions on marking.. Mr. . Stevenson suggested that a liaison from the Commission be appointed 'to 'work with the Ad Hoc Committee. ' •- Mr. -Cook made a MOTION .that the'Salem Historical Commission heartily e. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 March 20, 1985 ' endorse..the suggestion for formation of the Salem Heritage Trail and work closely'., t if with the Ad Hoc Committee- to formulate proper markings for same. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. A'llwere in favor.. (4-0) {, 343 Essex Street - Mr. & Mrs. Jon Sullivan, whose application for permission -a to install a .bay ,window on the first floor of this house on.-the side facing the Salem Athenaeum was denied at the March"6 meeting were' present to submit alterna- tive proposals for that area.; They also propose to remove'a small first floor window to the .left .of the main area in question. Mrs. Sullivan stated again their reason for the application which .was to. allow, more light into that area which is to be the kitchen. She"'said in the course of the interior work they t had discovered. that the windows on that side of the house were probably not 4r_ origiinal; in. fact there were probably no windows on-that 'side at.all. at the time it was -built. .,. She was told `that did not' have any bearing on the issue. High visibility of the house is'" re the issue, The alternative proposals from the applicants were:` , 1) spread the existing casements apart to allow one 'more panel' between them and 2) install' a pair of double-hung windows to match the other ,three windows on that side of the 'house. Mrs.. Sullivan pointed out that there are other facades of' the house which have asymmetrical window arrangements-,if that is a concern of the`Commission. ' Though members were sympathetic to''th'e,, need for more light, Mr. Cook, Mr. Lippman and Mr. Wolfson+all had problems,, With both alternatives; ' Mr. Zaharis was inclined tohave no -problem with the two double-hung windows. " Members were reluctant to take any,action without consulting with,'other,Commission members about this sensitive situation'. With- out the presence+of members having architectural or building expertise, ,ideass formcompromtse^we;=e not readilyaappareut. The ,Sullivans are having problems because'interior-work is,'being held'up pending decision on the window; . Mr. Wolfson told them that though the Commission could` sympathize with them, its function was to determine whetherchanges on the 'exterior were appropriate architecturally from a his viewpoint. ' Its concern is with aesthetics. Mr. Lippman suggested that work probably should not have been started on the interior without resolution of the effect,.on the exterior. ' This .was not done' deliberately, ,but has resulted in a problem with no 'easy solution. Since it became apparent that members present would not be able 'to approve, 'either of the alternatives-, particularly without consulting, with other ,members, the Sullivans decided to withdraw for the time being and appear again at'-,the -April 3 meeting. , 4. ,4A'representative of Mass. Electric was to have been present to discuss electrical installations` in historic districts, . but.was unable to attend:, He will meet with the Commission at the'April 3 meeting: Mr: Lippman. made a 'MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The meeting adjourned at 9,:30 p.m, t espectfully su tted,• • Joan F. Pizze', _ Clerk of Commission q Approved 4./3/85 r f1^ i A j • i 'ti 41, SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting 'April 3, 1985 r A regular meeting,of the Salem Historical Commission .was held on Wednesday, li April 3,' 1985 'at One Salem"Green: = Present were: Mrs. Wheaton; Chairman, Ms. Hilbert, and. Messrs. -,Clarke; Cook, 'Lippman,;Wolfson, Zaharis,-Padjen and Slam: Minutes .- Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION`to accept the Minutes of the March 20, 198,E 4'.,. meeting.1 Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION: All were in 'factor ' Local' District.Ope,ration r Salem Public Library'' ,Afterllexplaining the'-standard three-part motion involving the requirement ,to notify abutters of action taken by ..the Commission, `Mrs. ' Wheaton. reportedlthat .therle were responses to the abutter notifications. sen't 'after the!March 20 meeting concerning the,Salem Public Library. Mrs. Wheaton said that though• this": was not,originally on the agenda tonight she would. allow those, present..to discuss'-, their-concerns. Mr. Robert .Hale,` representing'his family:which' owns'-S.Monroe Street, - read from a'letter sent to Mrs. Wheaton' stating that they oppose the present plans) 'based o; 'their, feeling that proposed expansion will detract from the' characf@rris'ties of the surrounding homes.. Part of the new building planned for future expansion would be located 22'feet',from .the Hale'prope'rty. He said' they feel the existing`addi tion •(1972) was :an,,unattractive addition., They•have,no objection;to correcting code . problems, but do object to ahe expansionplans. They feeh that code' and safety viola- tions will not all be"corrected as the present plans exist; also ,they feel the first floor is not fully utilized. He-'added that they. are as,strongly opposed to additions planned for' the front as those planned,at the rear.. It •is .,their feeling that changes were 'made in a Hurried fashion to• compensate' for closing branch libraries. Mr. Hale stated that they dc ,jiot, intend- to"allow,the heavy' equipment required to•do the work - at the rear* to go over their property and he felt 'the "city would have no legal ,re- . course to make that°happen. :He `referred'' to the possibility of more expansion - _two additional floors. . He also spoke about the lack of parking. They`'•fe'el' this.. is, a major change and the variance people 'are taking 'it rather lightly.',,, They support restoration and needed Ichang'es ,to,make- .it,safe':and accessible toithe handicapped, 5but feel that can be' done. without great disruption' to`'the building. . ,They are; there- fore,. requesting a 'denial• of Certificate'ofyApprop;riateness': '. � I I �,• f.r `if r. , M Next to speak' was'Mrs'. Eleanor Connel•ly,of 135-Federal Street. ,=She .opposes the addition'which would abut her rear yeard: Itis to,be nine `feet from her property. .Mrs. Wheaton'asked if she had any comments about the ,other changes (Children's,. Library and handicapped entrance) . She'had"no objectior to those changes, Sut was strongly opposed 'to the additions and proposed future additions at, the rear.: s - v'44 �,,', OY'r"p f. , Mr. David Fix of 7 Monroe Street expressed his view that2since, there'are exist- ' ing code violations .and the building has 'no5 beenamaintained properly, hedidn t5seel how a Certificate of Appropriateness could be issued for new construction. He had noobjection to handicapped-access, elevator,^etc., . He7is'opposed,4to the new addition_ and the proposed addition planned for a. future date:' Hepfelt 'tleie werebareas non c= presently,being used in the building'which.could be used rathher' thanbuildingon. . Mrs. Elaine•Krueger of 358-3582 Essex•Street' spoke next about her interest in • maintaining the 'historic character of the neighborhood.' She thought the Library ' should haveImade -an attempt, to mitigate'some -of the congestions and,density problems that .the changes will bring. ' She was also concerned about plans to add upwards in . h ' 4 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 April 3, 1985 . *: . the future. She referred to another city where the library became too small and a `+ 44' new modern building was erected at another location. She quoted from the law establishing the Commission noting that the Commission could be more stringent and 'z hoped the Certificate would be denied. Councillor O'Leary said he approved of the handicapped ramp and elevator, but `' r,* '' _ 0 was not in favor of the expansion because of the closeness to abutters and he felt" it was the duty of the Commission to deny the application. Mrs. Wheaton asked if anyone present had any comments about the proposed brick wall facing Essex Street. ,Neighbors said they had not seen the plans.,as they were submitted to the Commission. Mrs. Wheaton also stressed that if the Library wants to add additional stories at some future time they would have to come before tie . Commission for approval. Ms. Hilbert showed the plans as presented to the Commission. Neighbors were concerned about future growth'and more changes. Ms. Connolly of 135 Federal' Street' f said there is presently an area at the rear for children. She wondered how mucbi Y. t use would be given to the children in the planned activity room facing the court- yard. She said the back area is not used that much in the summer and thought it could be used more (if egress is added) instead of adding a_courtyard. She felt it didn' t change the character of the building as much or be open to Essex Street and. would satisfy the neighbors. Mrs. Krueger felt the courtyard area would invite vandalism. Though the children won' t be seen in the courtyard, vandals won' t be .. seen either. She said she was told by one of the library trustees that.the court- w yard area was not negotiable. "She' felt the backyard area is -more' appropriate for children's use. At this point;Mfrs.rWheaton' closed. the public hearing portion of the meeting. Members asked whether library, trus'teeg twere aware that= libraryratiutters would be heard at this meeting. They were not. They can be invited back at some point if the Commission needs more information. Ms. Hilbert said that- the library posi- tion is that the stacks. are inadequate 'and are afire hazard'and' $200,000 would be insufficient to address the problems. Mr. Lippman wondered whether the trustees would agree to keep additions to one level-, that it was not written into the variance. Mrs. Wheaton said that obviously a four-story addition makes a larger impact than one story and the library would have to come before the Commissionif they wanted to do that. Ms. Hilbert stated that it is the Commission's job to determine whether the changes make an adverse affect architecturally on the building. Mrs. Wheaton further added that the Commission has no jurisdiction over concerns such as parking, density, etc. Mr. Slam asked if there were any preservation issues not discussed previously that would have a bearing on members changing their decisions. Mrs. Wheaton read a.letter received from Mr. Edward Mello who ownsthe building "at 364-366 Essex Street which stated that he rejects the courtyard additions in favor, of more parking in that area since he said vehicles always parkin front of his building. Mr.. Hale said that under the law the Commission is able to vote on setback re • quirements. Ms.; Hilbert told him that the Commission can' t vote on setbacks when, they pertain to =use, only on the basis of architectural considerations. Members seemed to feel that several of the issues raised at this meeting were sufficiently important or.unclear to warrant inviting, library trustees back to -meet s n;A ��s dr' e1p py ,sd x_ •5h t; r ,. ' 'r.x •,;• SALEMFHI'STORICAL COMMISSION , Page 3 F April 3,; 1955 with ahe Commission'' to clarify them.* i ¢6 4' Mr. Clarke made a,MOTION `to invite the library to' attend vthe. next meeting to r' discuss`this 'matt er, further - Mr. Lippman �seconded''tlie MOTION. -IAll we're in favor. Lafayette'Street - Administrative Options Ms.. Hilbert informed the Commission that vshe had to submit a•preliminary report on the, proposed Lafayette Street His- toric' bistrict and the Commission must}discuss administrative options such as what � u to include-or exclude' from'review procedures. ,Mostinembe`rs favored keeping require t mehts'for 'review 'consistent with established districts.' ' Mr:-.Lippman felt the Com7 mission should^not rule on paint color in any district. , Mr. Zaliaris ;made a MOTION that +Ot e proposed new`distric't use the same. rules -and regulations ,that apply to,:.existing' districts withino'exceptions. •Mr. Cook seco_nded 'the.'MOTIONT , MrLippman"made'a MOTION„to table'. There was no, second F ti n 4 Ld-F'� s. T i Ms. Hilbert and.'Mrs: Wheaton.pointed out' thata.this.'i's 'a preliminary.report. Change's are possible'before finalization. .14s.-Hilbert"was asked for her,recommenda- tion. She agreed-with Mr.;Lippman• and preferred thatcthe':Commission not rule on paint colors, but,�if'.it ;is already ruling•in three districts it 'should be consistent in a new district as' well .., f fA• ,On the%o'riginal"MOTION„the vote-was'rall in favor '18 .Dalt6n ParkwIVA A , ay .Mr.IBruce�Fernaly, the ownervo£ this property presented ' his proposal to install 'skylights.• He is- requestingnapproval for ;three skylights, s all`,on the side facing Warren-Street Court and Warren Street.' 'The location of this F 'house at the edge of the'district wa"s considered Mrs. Wheaton, read.from, the•guide- line's,notebook concerning skylights: The size of those requestedjs2�' byh4 (xwo) t and 2;.":by,3' (one): Mr. Fernalt,submitted, a letter, from,the'owner ofthe,ahutting , property, Mr. Nash, supporting his-application- and 'noting no objection. WThough the Commission' is usually opposed to skylights in general,'Ythe.•positionlof this, property was 'again' considered, particularly'-from the viewpointtthai ''tlMdist`rict is'lualikely s 1. to expand in he' area having the most 3rect view of,-theseparticular skylights., L Since this. is a 20th century' building" 'it was also'notedyby Mr,TgLippman that the Commission might not,apply"the same'"rigor to a relatively new bu'ilding.' WItrwas also noted that the only ,view,from within the ,district`is .at close range o'n',the sidewalk i, or street 'directly�below. �. ' �: },• >, Mr Cook:made.a, MOTION to 'Approve the application' for_three'skylights as sub- • 'e- mitted.- Mr. Lippmanseconded; the MOTION. Concern wasxpressed about 'possibly { . 1, •;Y.`, setting a precedent and approving an element which s,,usuallyaopposed in .anyJother. part-,of the, district: ' Ms.e,Hilbert pointed out that, each.case is -judged individually. " On theYMOTION, the ,vote was in-'favor 'except- for Mr. Zaharis..who+was opposed. ••; « � 94-96-98, berbyStreet/33 Carlton Street' Mr., Robert Robuszewski, owner, and. Mr.' David 'Jaquith, architect;, were present to discuss plans forTthis building, which r "! r Y •. A }, '� � , 4 ro x v fir. :t_ s 7 i 5 • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION -,Page 4 + April 3, 1985 r } originally was a sea captain's house and•wasslater�us'ed as)a bakery. Additions 'were made to it ':in the 1880's. At.present there are three,residentzah units and one`or two commercial renters. There are six,othergunits intthe brick ,portion 'of the'build- f ing. Originally the entry on the Carlton Street side was a Colonial Georgian design, ,but they haven' t been able' research*it•-sufficieutly so they are*,restoring the". ; arched doorway. They are also replacing the'window which+^is presently'`brickedlin..' _ " 'In' the 'rear where ovens were demolished, a new`. addition is planned using clapboards. Changes discussed included; Rear.portion�-r repair'flashingtaround chimney; (clean, an repair, and ,repoint brick chimney, repair•an'd"rep lace`asphalt shingles'on roof; 're•,- pair cornice; clean and' repoint existing brick; Carlton Street side—.clean and , ' repair brick chimney; shingles; clean and repair brick; clean existing, cast stone band; clean. existing lintel;, *new 6/6 double hung windows (baked aluminum storms # V, ' applied on top); windows`to be wood, new louvered wood shutters. .There was a ques- tion about the electrical installation which is very visible and terminated in the middle of the building." Mr. , Jaquith is to get back to ,the Commission on that; he is, trying to move, it to a more ;inconspinuous•area.~ He was asked' if this was a .tax ? act project and 'replied that they .are attempting to go that, route: The doorway on the Carlton- Street side was discussed. As noted previously, they had no luck. researching the original and will, therefore, restore the arched doorway. Mr. Clarke noted that the windows on the thirdvfloor shouldall :conform ,to those existing that are a, shorter height, as shown in photographs, but-not reflected on drawings.. That should be carried around to the Derby Street side as well. Mr'. �. Lippman asked if the foundation could be made continuous again. "Mr. Jaquith agreed to repair cellar glass and search for granite for foundation. Mrs. Wheaton questioned the window frame of the ,store=.type window. It should be wood, not aluminum. a , ,• Changes on the Derby Street side include: windows to right of 'the door to be 2/2; doorway will be kept as, doorway; .but probably not used;'shop front window to be studied by Mr. Jaquith to try to come.up with something more in keeping with the period in which it was, built. Members all felt something should'be done in- that area. The whole corner 'should be looked at again.. - Mr. Jaquith agreed. ''. .�- ;: - a Porch section: new rolled roofing; new wood posts; new single, French door; new wood balusters and rail; new Ionvered wood shutters; new wood-windows; new wood panels to match existing;, new wood basement windows. Mr'. Cook asked about ' possible removal'of porches, but Mr. Jaquith said they are functional for the rental units and they, don't intend to reinove them.' Mrs.,Wheaton suggested exploring that with Mass. Historical-. f . There was no'formal ,application on this project;,','This was .a preliminary review. The applicants will 'return ,for the April 17 meeting. ..y . ' Salem�Heritage Trail - This project .was discussed in detail at the March 20th meeting., The Committee was before the Commission again to .further discuss methods of marking: 'Ms. Maureen Beaver discussed marking.methods used;in various..other locations, including the Boston Freedom .Trai�l and the Harbor, Walk and a' portion of,.Charlestown Navy Yard near the U. S.S. Constitution. ;She said all of the proje' cts.noted 'reviewed marking methods. They found that a painted line worked best. ` It was found to be . most economical as well, costing only 22c 'per foot. She said from the point of view of ,preservation it is better because it needn' t be permanent. The Park Service has • SALEM HISTORICAL' COMMISSION • Page,5 April 3, 1985-1 come up with a special water-based paint that is used-at-the Navy Yard that lasts ' only it months. A line is basically-vandal-proof, plusisalways there except when it snows. Mr.4Kershaw askedr'that, the Commission seriously consider the possibility of painting a line throughout the designated area and augment•where necessary by signs. Members were asked- for their thought's on the painted line. Mr.- Cook was less '`' • opposed to''a'pai t strip' in commercial areas: Mr.. Lippman pointed out that resi- dential areas don' t lend themselves to *that type of marking as readily since the residential portion does not form a circuit; there are a lot 'of,"dead 'ends." Mr. Padjen asked whether the .marking was to "go on, one or both sides of the streets and was •told one side only.' He was concerned about'this ,type of marking in residential' .areas. Mr. 'Stevenson said the 'residential portion of the trail may have another type.of marking. Mrs. Wheaton suggested' consideration of using turned brick in the Common since it,is to be renovated anyway. ' Mr. Clarke; asked about the reaction of people living in. areas where theipainted •line•would be' used. .= Mr. Stevenson said he didn' t think°'thele would be any •strong adverse`Ireaction'. Mr. Zaharis said he . thought the parking situation needed to be addressed. Mr. Stevenson"said thecity- is addressing that. The color' of the proposed line was ,discussed; with forest .green and red being mentioned. ' Mr. Padjen voiced the same concern as Mr. Clarke about feelings of home-owners in areas where the line will be painte'd:' Mrs- Wheaton suggested' that. Derby Street and Washington Square East people be made aware of this' possibly via a mailing. Itwas also felt that if the line is done, the temporary ` I1-month paint should be used..-.As for color; �it was determined-that red would be • mast unobtrusive; especially on'brick. 'Mr. Cook noted �ihat it'should not be assumed that extension into the more residential areas of Federal and�Chestnut; Streets would be as' easily approved. Of" p1': Mr. ,Clarke made a MOTION to table this issue for two weeks and send a notice to all residents of the affected residential streets. ,Mr. Lippman seconded the j MOTION. All were in .favor, except Mr. "Zaharis,who xabstained: Ives Greenhouse = 256 Lafayette Street;-, Present .toldis.cuss ',this application were Mr. Jaquith; the architect, Mr. Belisle, ithe developer; andtAtty, Wysor.among others: 'Their intent is to combine properties at 256-258 and 260 Lafayette Street and'make one condo proposal',with 19 units. There is a carriage house located on Laurel Street which they propose to move to^a' location presently occupied by the former greenhouse building. They will also be building a new: addition to the carriage house. They were looking for- a favorable recommendation' from• thisCommission both '. to the Planning Board and +the Board of Appeals. Mr. Jaquith said they will possibly''have an access driveway' .from the Lafayette ' Street side. ' The Gothic cottage located at the, corner of Lafayette and Laurell will have five units. A change will be required to provi'de.a" second means of egress.- 'Mr, Padjen suggested' they consider internal stairs in. that 'area' even thougt it is not visible. r , Ms. Hilbert and Mrs: Wheaton expressed their concern that the carriage house should�be` situated slightly''behind so that it reads as a cariiage'house. Mr. Jaquith said they- had problems with cost'. and loss of parking if it were -to be moved ,.� back: Ms: Hilbert pointed out that the smaller scale of that building should be considered also.; Mr. Padjen asked if 's foundation would be added .to the. carriage 1iid+'A� 4aff. ' "•�•.• 'i n P^'r""� ' • r! UTI rll'?J SALEM>HISTORICAL COMMISSINi'Y; `z �_L Page y 6 � ,,� � '� April- 3, 1985 r z house-,and was; told by.-Mr. 'Jaquith that va '12-.16'.' ,foundat ori would be added'. Mr. , H _T Clarke said the .position doesn' t,tiother him,as much. as the.overall' density of the site:°"Mr.'Wolfson felt 'iv t. shou'ld,be;set'back slightly; but.he 'didn't feel strongly about.'it. .Mr.' Lippman felt' it should be'further back and he" also had problems with:, density. Mr. .C_o'ok>agreed with Mr.' Wolfson;,he .could go along with itasshown. Mr. Zaharis. had no problem with it as shown.' Mr. Padjen felt it''would be nicer iflooser; with proper fences` and landscaping', decould: nsity problems lie imitigated; indeed { exciting if, done^well. . He'also. felf 'that' if the carriage house';wexe elevated it would help the:,scale:.relationship with both, buildings.. Extra space gained' might be 1 . useful for;storage, -etce . �Mr. Clark 'thought , e that, might bmaking 'a carriage house look Aike something else. Ms.'Hilbertipointed out that -there are only two''good . carriage .houses, in the area ,and shethad prob ems.with;the proposal for this one as ' sa shown: Mr. SlaimYhad problem's with scaietand discontinuity of streetscape'iand would like to .see something done to compensate. Regarding the parking on.Laurel Street, Mr.,Padjen.suggestbd continuing the�walkway'.,on through to preserve a- sense continuity-of the^neighborhood-so-hot,top doesri' t ;'take. oder: " There,was:a question- about zoning requirements�. which Mr. Kavanaugh clar1fied by noting the requirementas .1,000 square< 'feet for-,garden-type and 3,50& square' feet: per dwelling unit Mr. Cook made a, MOTION tHat; the'Salem Historical Commission concur with placing of.carriage house, conditional upon review of exterior design changes, 'insist'upon • s no' exterior clianges. .to the Gothic cottage at:the corner,of :Laurei 'and Lafayette'` { -. Streets and that a special.`permit:be 'contingent',up= Commission'rev ew given the importance of the buil'ding:'; (Because ,of .new''Plannng:Board ordinance;"it is neces- sary for them to;show the actual siting of, the building when,going before the Plan- niiig Board.`.fThe 'Appeals Board can' t"rule, on it 'until the- Planning_Board does. . Mr. Kavanaugh noted: that modification of;approval was'possible.) ' .. ... ` Mr. Zahariaseconded the MOTION; The vote'was 'twoin' favor' (Mr. Cookand Mr.. Zaharis) ,' three opposed I (Mr:`'-Lippman, Mr. Wolf soh, Mrs •.Wheaton) , and one absten- tion, (Mr."Clarke)"' MOTION 'denied.. (2-3-1) A +Mr. Cook made a MOTIONlto'endorse ,the location of the carriage -house with the exception that. it be. set back six' feet more Also -there are"to be no exterior) Langes-to the' G6thre ..cotf,age at theiZo-finer o`fSLaurel3andI afiye-fEe-Street#s?. r. Zaharis_ secoiided -the MOTION'. AllFwere in`favor except Mr.: Lippman who was opposed. MOTION carried: ; .(5a1-) % ,An endorsement letter is' to. be sent apprcving� �movement -of carriage house with the exception that it tie-set back six, feet more. Also'"to'�be, 'noted is that any ', d ' minor change, ;to ,the Gothic.c'ottage such as` exterior staircases .or,fire .escapes " would-be looked upon with the closest scrutiny . The`.Commission would also`.request jurisdiction over landscaping; ;pathways, etc.; . . �` Mr.- :Slam made a statement'at the end of .the meeting regarding the Library issue. He 'felt. the'Commission should only"concern itself-with preservation issues , r a ,• � . �. `,• ' and^since no new preservation�issues,arose, he felt the vote to confirm-the , Certificate' of-Appropriateness need";iot- have been{delayed. . Av. d ` i.`, $' a:. J "� e�.:' f aPy} �.+� ��s��i �i`+' .�.,:,r: A ^ 1 fi°?�p r �!'�6 t.• d• , r ` a t_ I '� " .y s.,: e r 1{S 4 �{.`, •� drr ,.' •. SALEM HISTORICAL: COMMISSION`; FPage 7.ti. April 3, 1985 .. Mr. Padjen mentioned just before,the'close of thermeeting th'ailie felt^compelled -' t toresign from. the Commissionfbecause of personal commitments; He' said he would be available occasionally-in. a�consultant capacity if required. 4tHe'was prevailed upon to `reconsider and keep his;status`as'•associate memberifor the time being. z 4 Mr. ,Zaharis made. a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr: `Wolfson'seconded the The me etingadj ,. r4 MOTlON.' ; '' ourned at 10:50"p:m. ' IT A s Respectfully submitted, JoanF. PizzelfoG� y, z t -Clerk ` }• i Approved 4/'18/85IT :.I,: a• �a . rt i 4 _ "? of 1 � t ky14 tt}"p P 3 sWIT r'M°I. yjf.y8 yy' J " J IV �vp # y.t Yf 'SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION eMinutes `of Meeting April 18, 1985 - A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Thursday, ` April 18, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. at One Salem,Green. Present were`Mrs. Wheaton, Chair- .w man, Ms. Harris, Ms. Hilbert and Messrs. Carr. (arrived' after- the yote�on the - - Library and 78 Federal Street) , Cook, Li ppman, Wolfson- Zaharisand Slam. Minutes - Mr. Zaharis made a 140TION to accept the•Minutes .of the April 3, 1985 meeting. Mr. -Cook seconded the MOTION. All were in`favor. P Local District Operation Salem.Public'Library - 370`Essex Street -`To summarize the,situation to date, Mrs. Wheaton read from the- April 3, 1985 Minutes She noted that 'the'Historical Commission approved the plans at the March 6,; 1985 meeting by^,the stindard three- part motion, contingent on abutter notification. Abutters had a 10-day period to respond. Several requests to,be heard were received and-those having comments,Weref; invited toattendthe April 3 meeting. At that time� the`Libary trustees were not called in. That has been the generalpolicy 0 -the'Commission .in instances' where an abutter response is received: Mrs: Wheston .explained that at the .April 3`meeting . she had opened the meeting to comments from the public on'the application. ,After the public comment portion of the meeting was closed,'Commiss on members identified several points of information, they felt necessary before any further decision could be made. Those'.points of information willbe addressed at tonight's meeting without • reopening for statements from the public.'.This follows the policy of the Board of Appeals in instances^where a petition is continued rr Commission members with ques- 4 tions for any neighbor may address questions out througti.the chair. Mrs. Wheaton ,asked Councillor O'Leary,to give' ani,update of the current situa- , tion with the Board of Appeals. He said that by a' 5-0 vote `they`had 'granted a special permit required for renovation-of ,tb�e huilding"and installation of handicap entrance and elevator. By,a separate 5-0 vote, the' Board of Appeals had also granted a special permit to, attach a single story and egress sat the rear of the building with the condition that all aspects of ,the` plans and alterations_ to the plans must be done in'conjunction and cooperation of`. the City Planner and the J Library Commission'. By another 5-0 separate:vote, . the Board of Appeals -bad voted 1 in favor of a variance for relief from parking requirements 'at',370 Essex Street. 1i Mrs. Wheaton' asked if -the decision was currently under appeal.' Mr •Robert Hale, j representing his family,as abutters at,5'Mon ro' s-Street; .said he�jfil'ed an action with the City Clerk yesterdayfa d'�it i;'�definitely,un`der appeal..,' } Mrs. Wheaton said she had checked withw;the Board of Appeals and confirmed the fact• that any 'further additions, C otlierth`an 'thesingle storyonewould have 'to _ go'-back 'to the Board of%peals. Next to be discussed was }the exte.nt; to,which existing inter or space will be used at completion of the renovations and theextentto which existing code viola- tions�will be corrected. Mr. Farley, .architect for the project, was asked*if there • is ,any existing.interior space that4could be used instead of adding the rear addi- tion: .He replied that the space to be added on •is 'the only space that can be'used _ for assembly. purposes . It will be the only.level that will be fully sprinkled and SALFSI HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 April 18, 1985 safe. fo "people to gather. It-will also be the only level from which handicapped people will be able to leave the building without using the elevator. Also new bathroom facilities will be installed in that area. ° Ifthis area is not available, doing work in other'areas, down- for mean shutting the library dowfor six to eight -months. He 'submitted, a. written summary+of .use,of, space on that floor and summary ,,.} of planning and spatial relationships involved in 'that space:;,Mrs.., Wheaton asked j, about third floor usage.+ IG is presentlyjused for-overflow storage-.- It is not's� =,�a accessible to the general public because there is no elevator. It will be used tot administrative purposes whebltheinew elevator 'is installed' ' Mr's. Wheaton asked what the status of code violations ,will= be;when �the+ renovations =are complete. Mr. Farley said most of them will be corrected under this phase. What won' t be corrected is that the first floor will still have jus t'one lmeans' of egress: "Also the first' floor' of stacks and me zzanine will+'confinue' to`be one space. In the next 'phase of renova- tion they hope to close if.off with a fireproof floor. Also remaining upper por- tion of the building willbesprinkled. Mr.' Lippman .asked if the plans for the next phase included building up the first floor addition. Mr. Farley said it would only ' include the stairwell. Mr. Lippman asked how, many phases are planned and was told ` two., Mr. Cloherty stated that in the planning stages additional'floors were con- sidered. They would be closely reviewed;' however, ,given the objections stated in the .past month and perhaps be modified in view of the objections. Mr. Cloherty reviewed the* feelings' of the Library.,Board that space is requi_e'd on .�thefirst'floor,. allservices for children should be on the ground floor, safety and egress problems, etc. also assembly should be .on She ground floor for egress, • not only, for children, but for adults or anyone attending library functions should there be a.problem. They are also very concerned about the handicapped. The meet- ing room should not be on any floor other than the ground floor. Ms., Harris `asked if there was third.,floor,.space`in the old building and at the top of the stacks. She was told by Mr. Farley that the only third .floor space is in the old building; there is no third floor over the stacks. When renovations are complete, the third floor of the old building will be used 'for administrative functions. All areas will be fully utilized: Mr. Cloherty clarified that the space over the stacks is not a full floor, just ahigh.space. In future work they would ^capitalize on that excess height and,the space in order to raise the mezzanine floor level in order to get adequate- ceiling height on -the main floor. . There is not enough space to put another floor up there and they would not have the funds to do so in any case. Mr' Farley said the planned construction will invoi^se no closing of the library. It will remain open during construction. Mrs. Wheaton asked if there had been any change in the location of the'elevator since the, plans were originally presented to' the Commission, since at the meeting with abutters someone alluded to the possibility of its. being placed inside. Mr. Farley said it is still planned for=outside as presented in original plans. Mr. Cook asked about the'-feasibility of actual..construction 'if access is not permitted across the Hale property. Mr. Cloherty repliedthat it will be accom-, plished ,wi.thout using the 'Hale property. Mr. Cook further asked about the space • at the rear which is available 'for children's use . and the extent to which it is used., Mr. •Cloherty said most•programs take place indoors. Presently the children ' � I ...t a � f SALEM.HISTORICAL;COMMISSION N Page 3 a; e April 18, 1985 - congregate~`on:o-the secon d?floor with noproper`egres's The.outd6or space is utilized . on.a limited basis. It is used in desperation^when,there is 'an' overflow, .crowd or they want to,beoutdoors k Mr. Lippman asked whether they are. re considering more additions. Mr.' Cloherty`said `that,while working .with,the :architect, on the. work underway they;-will .restudy•th'e future program very carefully.? • He was not-in a y< position to`say` they,would' give it, up. because they feel `it is needed. '.The-loss " is significant, but at -the same time ;the --are not totally:.ins( nsitive tb the ` neighborhood and' to' the concerns expressed. He said it was`.also clear-)that, the Board of Appeals and the'Historical Commission would require• approval of any future additions. , •Mr'+Cook-expressed a great sense of obligationito neighbors because of the vehement >objections by 'neighbors. Mr. Cloherty .;noted that�alth'ough-Mrs. Wheaton . had.spec fically asked them%-not to'Arally.)neighbors aiid supporters,£or this.-meeting . he did submit'ta 'list of neighbors and others who had testified af 'the Board of Appeals in favor 'o f, this project. a + , Mr.+ Zahari's asked ,about•the 2k_ foot �distance. from the Hale+property and was told that was' wtiat'tlie'variance was granted for: 'Also M'rs.'Wheaton;clari'fied that at the rime,-of the last meeting" theCommission was'inot sure that the 'addit'icn was specifically, limited. to one.:story, but'they:now know that'.to beythe,ycase. Mr. Hale "objected to,:allowing Mr. Cloherty,',,s listof be sub- mitted,as part of the 'recordaof the meeting. Mrs.' Wheaton 'mentioned that, the'list was* toI 4become part of the offi'ticial Minutes, but¢was just part'of the general information. .; y IF J Mr. Wolfson made a4 MOTION thatn finding•no' new ev_idencejindicating architectural designina ro riate to-"the. 4historic characteristics , : pp• pof ttie .building or`distr`ict, ¢ the Salem Historic alCommission ,confirm the vote taken at a.previous meeting to ni .- grant a Cerfficate .of Appropriateness to .thelSalemPublic-Library for, renovations as submitted' ands reviewed. Mr Zahari's�'seconded ''the'MOTION ",t"�``'"' ' r •' ' ts ,,,. ; it' . ,gy •y.,:,::P+s m, p a 'i�,.., .,During discussion, Mr .Lippman cbmmen�ted oxnkthe.imishandlzng and misunderstand- ings ,arising+from 'this project. He spoke .about the nommunity'bene'fit and .said' that has priority over.'neighborhood •concerns ' He, appreciated the-'fact that. the Library's position with`regard to future additions would b;e'rethought,given .the. neighborhood's feelings. He felt there was"some"compromise on both sides. Mrs. Wheaton stated that the Commission has heard 'a`lot"'of serious Land real " "concerns b'ut 'they rare not.the°Historical Commission's con eras. ' She said that a the Commission has worked closely with`the Library ,at a`number of meetings. ,The neighborhood concerns `seem'`to be' more issues for,the•Board' of Appeals. , She stressed the fact .that the"revlow 'by ;fihe Historical Commission dealt with architectural and'preservation,�issues The vote on�the MOTION was four in favor (Mr. 'Lippman,� Mr: Wolfson, Mr. yn . RZaharis'andMrs: -Wheatonj->_one 'opposed (Mr.' Cook)', and one 'abstention (Ms- Harris). MOTION carried 4-'1=1: ^; K• 78 Federal 'Street Ai'application was received`'from the owner of;this property, q �y v:� t. Zvi 'P'♦ .. _ 'l+ • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 April 18, 1985 r r�, Mrs. Joyce Cook, for exterior painting-J The colors,,s'ubmitted were Crownpoint Sand - for the body, Monterey: Whi'te;.foi the trim send Newport'Blue! for'the shutters she proposes to install on the side of the house facing Federal Street (4 pairs). Ms. •. Harris suggested that if#shutters were to>bewinstalled on the side facing Federal ,, Street they should be `carried!ar'ound,to ,the' front ,facade where*.the main entrance is located as well. They would not be required on the back facade. She said if they are not carried around+ to the front.pfacade they,should not be installed on the Federal Street side;eiiher.% A ' F it Mr. Lippmanmade a-MOTION to approve the application as submitted with the following changes: Shutters on front and side or none at all. • Body color should be similar to that on the Phillips School project (sample of Crownpoint Sand was not available) . Shutters to be wood and properly hung. Trim and shutter color approved as per samples. Ms. Harris seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. Abutters to be notified. a3 . v •�. Salem Heritage Trail - Mrs. Wheaton reviewed the project to date. She noted f v that the Commission felt responsible to send a letter to •property owners in resi- dential areas -to let them know .about the proposal to paint a line. Speaking in favor were residents of the Derby' Street Historic Distric area. , Mr. Robert Shapiro . of 1 Daniels Street Court spoke as a •member of the .Derby Street Neighborhood Associ- • ation. He said he had seen people wandering the area trying to find their way to various attractions. They were often carrying maps. He, felt the line would lead them around. Mr. Lippman asked if he had spoken with other residents in his area. Mr. Shapiro said he had and many of them were long-term residents who had been aware of the problem of wandering tourists for many years. Mr. Ray Michaud, pro prietor of Ram Mart, formerly Armand's Variety, on Essex Street, said that many people stop in the store to ask directions. He thought the line was a good idea. He asked if the line would be broken. or solid and was told it was presently planned for a solid line of non-permanent paint in red. He recommended that arrows be . used at intervals so that people. knew they were headed in the right direction. He also spoke about the intersection near his store and said it is a very dangerous spot. He feels it definitely requires a crosswalk. He also said the area across Hawthorne Boulevard and Derby Street is another dangerous intersection. There is only one -stop sign at that location and.it is a four-way intersection. He thought another stop sign would help. Mr. Sullivan also spoke in favor. He noted that signs in some areas are too high. People do not look up. There was some discussion concerning a possible starting point. Mr. Sullivan spoke about, the cost of coming to Salem which he said was. $18 for a Gray Line Tour out of Boston. He suggested the Committeecontact the META about promoting use of their busses tovisit ,Salem. Mr. Kershaw's 'committee will be looking into that. The only negative response was a call Ms. Hilbert received from Mr. Bochynski of 60 Essex Street who felt the,,red•line was not the answer. He felt there was a . . problem with dirty streets and the city should do something about cleaning them up. . There were no speakers in opposition. • . Mr. Kershaw spoke, about one modification to the original route. He said the Witch House and Witch Dungeon Museum had been on the second, more :residential, t r s f y '- '+sr e SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION = ' Page 5 :, { April 18, 1985 portion of the Itrail which was dropped. They,are now-to -be. included- inthis portion. A loop was added',through 'Essex Street, Washington Street, -and Route -114:-, There is some residential- area-.on Lynde Street„but since,,it-is'aall apart�rents, it�was. felt there would-be' n6 'major concern. Mr: Slam noted that'the Salem. Common .portion would r, disappear while the 'Comm6n undergoes' renovat, 'Mi::`Lippman .said that. in Boston,. the trail is extended.out.into the street :to point the way..across the street. Mr. ` Kershaw said the extension' would probably be shown on 'maps as.a dotted,.line to in- dicate "that the attractions -are 'seasonal. Ms. 'Harris asked about 'the Pierce-Nichols House:"Mr.' -.Kershaw'said'=they- are definitely° not ,—m'a ng 'that residential' area: He felt- the area isIpretty,i7611"known for, its architecture ,and people will probably take that, routeCon•^their-own 'W'hthout requiring line's. He said the area will be in- 'dicated ,on themap'- to be given+out with •the notation that it is a nice" walking` area. Mr. 'Lippman pointed out,an`area at,,the head.+'of Old Town Hall^near ':ther'Derby Square Book Store .which forms.a,"T" and could present, problems.'` Mr. Kershaw said that would be addressed.. 'The width of the"line, was .determined •to be two bricks wide. ; ..Mrs. Wheaton-saidtthe; pl'an;has been endorsed by the'•Planning' Department'',, Th'e City + Council has been-'contacted. ;,-The Mayor`s .office has been• involved.' Everyone who needs `to be iovol,"ed has been ':involved. ;The public portion of,.ihe_:'meeting`was closed at this .point. Mr. Carr made 'a MOTION.f.to 'endorse the'plan as'submitted^and reevaluate, after ' 4 ,>. the 'end'of the' tourist"seasonxand review it again"."* Ms Harris seconded, the. MOTION& The vote was unanimously Jn favor Ms.� Harris asked how the project rwas 'eo be,-financed'. ', Mr.,Kershaw said there , is money,in the>budget. for this year and he said eviery 'eff8ri would be made to fund •r . „ .._ i it;next year. s 33 -Flint,'Street,-'Since" the applicants, Mr. & Mrs. Peper, were not present, this application was moved up' toitheMay l+ymeeting.y;, .4t e,, . r �ltf F _r a* t e {✓e i'tf`}°+��t iftJl'}j t . ' Preservation,Awards,-?Mrs.�Whe'aton noted..that` the.AnnvaltMee,ting of- Historic Salem, Inc. is scheduled for May 16th. Since the Commission awards its Preservation Award Yat that time, 'she ntisoned',the#prolectstwhieh' the IC ommDssion'has reviewed over s 'the'.past ,year. Mr. ''Carrastated that he,hoped .the Commission would not include any- thing`that,-is. in progress at this point since it is uncertain how an uncompleted project will finally turnaout.' ' (�(' a{g "#+('' 4 Mr."Carr made'`a'MOTION' to ,award a 1985 Preservation. Award to Philip and Shirley Burke-.of- 48 Chestnut .Street for :the 'addition to their, fence, and completed this. year. >3 `Mr. Lippman seconded the,MOTION. . The vote*was unanimously in' favor. - %,� • + Mr..' Carr"'noted'.the spiral staircase added to-2-4 .Chestnut Street which; when , compheted, turned out to be'very unobtrusive -and seems to blend'n1cely with tte- black grillwork beneath:it.-, *Mr. Carr.made •a MOTION,to nominate"for a large scale Preservation Award 'the ' '3 property+ .,c at 95-97'Federal. Street which is owned by Jessica 'Herbert-Babyak and Mark • Babyak. Mr. Cook,seconded the 'MOTION. r , s • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION. : Page 6 y April 18, 1985 i During discussion, .Ms. Harris pointed out that the project is not complete and F shouldn' t be considered this year. She also mentioned neighborhood concerns which . a`re as yet unresolved and should be considered.. Mr. Carr said' he recognized the fact that there 'are problems still unresolved', but felt that based purely on design basis there is no other competitor. Mr. Cook. agreed,'.also noting the sensitivity of the neighborhood,-but thought that should have nothing to do with' the rehab of the building. .Ther`e was further discussion' on the 'subject and the function of the award - whether it is strictly recognition of a well-done project or whether the public relations aspect should be 'considered if a .project has caused .concern in the neighbor- hood because of issues which are not strictly related to the ,design. As an aside, a Mr. Carr mentioned that.he`has problems withthelights which were:installed at ,95-97 Federal, and said there are skylights which were,not approved.yMr. .Slam felt the award should be above.politics''",Mr. Zaha'ris,felt the applicant in-this `case had not'been' completely.,ho-ne`st'with• .the�Commission whentthe plans were reviewed. Ms. Harris added that if presented to this~applicant it�might",be construed as an " endorsement not only based on' architectural detail,,,,but of what else was done and since the Board of Appeals*'processlh 'sn',t-be n- comp�leted:lyegt ' giving the, award could* carry some weight in their decision. .. , �2+. �w. t . • '•• a• ""iJ^ r:y ld +,'1 !'> Mr. Lippman,made a�MOTIONito movel the question`. MsJ Harrisfseconded the MOTION. All were in favor except Mr. Cook, who was opposed; On the original MOTION to award aRreservation Award,to 95-97 Federal Stkeet.,_, , the vote was two in favor (Mr. Carr and Mr. Cook) and four opposed (Mr. Lippman, Ili Ms. Harris; Mr. Wolfson and Mrs. Wheaton),. (2.4) ' MOTION DENIED'" } Mr. Lippman made a MOTIN to present only one Preservation Award. foa".1985. Mr. Zaharis seconded. the MOTION. , The vote-was unanimously in favor. ' The type of award was discussed with most members •favoring,.a--pewter Paul'. Revere bowl. - _ -r, Election of Officers'-'Since Mrs. Wheaton1wilI be leaving the Commission, the question of electing anew chairman was'discussed., Mr.' Cook made 'a MOTION to nominate Mr: Carr as chairman. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. 'Mr. Wolfson made a MOTION to nominate;Ms. Harris-„as chairman. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. Mr. Lippman, made a MOTION to table this matter .until the next meeting.; It is hoped-that all members will be -present ,for the vote'. N c .;, Mr. Lippman made a MOTION t0adjourn the meeting. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. After Mr. Lippman and Mr. Cook left there was more additional general discussion ' SALEM HISTORICAL•COMMISSION Page 7 April 18,' 1985 on the following issues: Members - A discussion concerning potential members was held with the following,. - names placed under consideration: Mr. Staley McDermet, Mr. Dick Oedel, Mr. Bruce Fernald Ms. Mary Jane Stir g >y gwolt, Ms: Kim Bren le and Ms. Darlene Melis: � Lafayette Street - Ms. Hilbert said the neighborhood meeting was tentatively • scheduled. for May_ 7 and will be heldatthe South Branch Library:". She,hoped members of' th.e Commission would find it.possible to attend. ^ 260 Lafayette Street r, Mr. .Carr brought up the Gothic cottagelocatedat this, address, which is to be ,part of a'dvelopment. ;discussed at. the April 3 meeting at which'.he was not -present: -He felt the .Commission should do everything in its power to preserve this relatively pure one-family building. He spoke,of concerns about the interior thoughithe .Commission has,no jurisdiction `over that. . Ms. Hilbert said if it is a tax act,. project someone will be reviewing the interior. Mr.. Carr made .a MOTION that, the 'Salem' Historical Commission write a strong letter to the Board of Appeals and Planning Board before. they meet to entertain the application stating that: 1) the Gothic cottage is one of the most precious architectural. gems in Saleiu; • " ? - ,,. 2) that because of -its extraordinary and unique architectural significance, both' .: exterior and interior; the Commission is very 'much' concerned about the proposed development of, the cottage'.into five. condominium units; 3) that while we recognize that we do not have direct statutory authority, and whi.le:, we approve of-the .concept of the project as a whole,,we nevertheless strongly r oppose the specific proposal of five condonimum units, due to the extent of in- terior disruption and modification that this number of units 'would entail. . 4) We wish to remind both the Planning Board and the Board of Appeals that the granting of special permits or variances is discretionary, and that they have a unique opportunity by granting either to save,,what is an outstanding archi- tectural gem. - 5) We would hope that as a condition of the .granting of the variance and special .permit they do not allow more than a .two-family: 3 Ms. Harris seconded the MOTION. All were in,favor. (Mr. Lippinan �and Mr. Cook were not` present for this vote. )* • *Since the meeting was officially. adjournedat this time, this MOTION will be con- sidered only in the form of,a'`discussion and'.formaL»vote`taken at,;th'e May` 15•.meeting.• aft, dS1Jf spectfully submitted,' .•t.� F � yea ( 0'an 'F�`-Piziello Clerk Approved`6/5/85 . » w L •. ,..y,. I}°}i q.,,. 1. �.� .�:�^'[�j ry'. � j"1 }.,. d '� SALEMHISTORICAL COMMISSION' !";,'Minutes of Meeting ' May 1, 1985 :1. A regular meeting of .the` Salem Historical Commission was held€on Wednesday, May 1, 1985 at One :Salem,Gree n. ' Present were: Mrs. Wheaton, Chairman, Ms: Harris, Ms. H l .bert, and Messrs". Carr', Clarke, Cook,,`.Lipp,man, Wolfson, Zahar -s. and• Slam: , i Local District Operation : y 96-98 �berby .Street/33 Carlton street - A preliminary review of,this project was done;'at -the April. 3,. 1985 At.-that time• the architect, Mr: Jaquith, was asked to rework the angled'.front entrance,:a°rear.,: PSr. Jaquith acknowledged that the Derby Street facade,�presented a few. problems' and he has decided to' focus -the building on ,the Carlton Stre'et,side. He'^noted that- the bands ori •.the. brick portion are brownstonh ` and 'the.key ifntels`aboue the windows are brownstone,•also. - ,The.entry on the-Carlton Street",side _is to be'emphasized. '•He.said that at one" time it might ,have been pedi- mented,'but they could find no .information on it` so they have decided to leave the existing arcHti ., 'At" the last'meeting ,the re'was -a suggestion to"make the windows at •the_ top level,,smaller and,,t6 carry that `all,around. However,'Mr':, Jaquith said that he. prefers to -keep';,them all :1arge .because it 'is 'di'ff-icult tomatch the brick which would be 'require, to patch the ,areas on the'brick facade. Mr. Carr brought up the ".porches' on the Derby Street .side. ' (Mr.,Carr was:not„present at the,April' 3+meeting }'. ,. t when�ahis' project was frrst' revfewed:)2^He was in' fagor�,of removalt .�if possible`. He was told that the'Commission expressed that'preferenceat the previous review but was' told by ,the 'architect-and`the owner ” Mr:Kobus zewski, that .the ,porches'- will, re-- j main as they consider 'them a .plush fo'r ,the.' residential tenants. �An additions''is'," planned for the area where,the 'old"bakery�ove'ns used to be: They were deno lis with,the permission of the 'Commiss'ion. The addition will be%very slightly recessed. ;;Since- it is located in the alley off Carlton Street:it was'de.termine .d to be' difficultJ-., to, see and no objection,w•as.•raised.,:.'Mr.•-Slam asked' _f.�the.-porches are being removed ' . for repair. Mr. Jaquith said they must bd-partially removed to'get;at certain areas, , - but ;they will;b- replaced as existing. a � The new door,.area was discussed,wfth Mrs. 'Wheaton expressing concern about the proposed stair and''wrought ron addition The o`t-V'door :. n; the' area is ''presently planned'to be non-functional'`:'.: If 'it,could be made to.be,"functional the door with - ;wrought iron_ rail could.be-removed and replaced withr;a window. " There-,are problems .which would have *to be.'resolved on',the .interior' to accomp,lfsh `this since the floors are on different levels. Mr. Carr..spoked-about the.'opportunity`the owner has to"accomplish armore pure mrestoration ;by removing some,,of the less attractive`features`such' as ,the .porches, but was told that this w'a's not possible because of, practical' considerations for use of. this`buil'ding,assa •commercial/residential-property Mr "Slam pointed out that " if-the porches for example�"are to be replaced with.,ideiti.cal porches -tlie Commission can''t say anything ab_ut-_them-. • Mr': ..Carr felt this' was'•a situation'where. the evolu- tionary accre. ionsare not of value,,in the r 'owri right.. ' He, further felt .that if tax -' e credits are,being,awarded's'omething ,should'be gainedj,1n.'return •and as -the local .primary design authority the rCommission could take;'a,,position with the awarding "xagency. Mrs. Wheatc told' Mr: C'arr_,:that the Commission had raised all' the 'same i . - concernsyaf., the preliminary review. ;Mr: 'Jaquith.explained-1the "interior.considera tions which' caused the owner-to restrict� changes�to those -compatible with ,use . Mr. ^ Slamasked if-there,was any way••-to make the"porches`more,palatable. Ms: Harris" 's s 7 •>` _ '+'4 4 ,� }s.,t #. ;++s.tiV s,a R i }.ak"'^« t�'1e ♦ k tg t 3 Rty rrv. ny #� Vw �f es p a .', t • ! t;,k 1 i'"( e _ .Y "sT }r7 u.A :i:0'/' '� 7`,r�, iq� ... 's �.}" ' ' - - _ 1014 • a SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 May 1, 1985 thought that if the porches were completely removed the Commission might have juris- diction over rebuilding, but since they are not-being completely removed prior to repair, authority is limited. Mr. Carr thought the Commission should take a position with Mass. Historical in return for ;tax credits. Ms. Hilbert thought if the Commis; t �- sion ,took that position Mass.' Historical, could go either way. She did riot think they'r would make them' take off the porches'. She said she would be,glad to see the applicant remove them if lie were willing to do so, but would.,be fearful of, jeopardizing 'the . good features in the plan if the Commission were to press the issue of porch removal Mr. Jaquith noted that the,electrical fservice, the prominent location of which,f '"� ' the Commission 'was unhappy with, .has been. moved. . He has also found•a piece of gra- nite to fill- in the area near the Carlton Street entrance as suggested at the April 3 review. Mr. Carr asked if the brick is to be sand-blasted, but was told by Mr. Jaquith that ,a chemical wash will be used since sand-blasting is not allowed. Ms. Harris suggested using a six-panel Brosco (M-,100) door on .the Carlton Street side. r Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the changes on the Carlton Street side as shown on the plans submitted. The brick coloration is to-be as uniform as possible and new mortar is to be as integrated as possible with existing. Color of shutters ' is to be either black or black-green. The muntin bars and window sash are to be white and the door is to be.black or very dark green. Baked aluminum white storm windows will be used. Mr. Zaharis seconded-the MOTION. All were in favor.' Next to be discussed was the Derby Street facade.% Harris, made a.MOTION to approve the Derby Street"sidela`s'desgned wiih the following modifications: Deletei ._ the new concrete platform with wrought iron rail and door on Carlton Street facade." 4 . A window will replace that¢d'borCatThe window is to-be 2/2 and be the same height as those on the Carlton,,,Str'eet facade with arched top'. ^The corner ,Is to be fenced (iron fence) and landscaped '(to be specified at a later date) . The door is to be as specified., ..Mr. Slam*seconded�the,MOTION:,t; All were iin-favor;except.Mr. Carr who abstained. - Ms. Harris suggested-that"a high evergreen placed "in that area might soften the brick corner and make the window less obvious. Mr. Carr made a MOTION that the Historical Commission communicate with Mass. Historical that, although the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the porches, their removal from that side of the building would be a better rehabilitation and would preserve the original integrity of the building. Credits for any work short of that should not be given. There was no second. Mr. Carr made a MOTION that the Historical Commission communicate with .Mass. Historical that although the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the porches, their removal from the Derby Street side of the building would'be a better rehabili- tation, and the Commission would encourage Mass. Historical to steer the developer , in that direction. Ms. Harris seconded the MOTION. All were in favor except Mr. .Cook who was opposed. No vote was required for the, side facing the alley off 'Carlton Street since it is not visible. Mrs. Wheaton designated Mr. Slam to act as Project Review Coordinator. . x • • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION» Page, 3 May 1, 1985 Y Lafayette Street Proposal -' Ms. Hilbert informed the Commission that the neighbor- hood information meeting is set for Tuesday, May 7. It will start off with -coffee aid doughnuts and photographs will be 'available for people to look at. , Mr. Kavanaugh will : A make introductory remarks. Ms.. Hilbert will ,present a slide show on the history of the area and desirability of.preservation. The chairman will make a'few remarks ,an&,� then open the meeting to questions. Commission members are invited to attend Ms.T ' µ' Hilbert said two ward councillors are involved since the area is`represented by two' �r people. Neither seems in favor of establishment of a district at this point A > f brief discussion was held concerning the most desirable approach to take and the .con-.,s,, sistency of standards required in• all districts. ' Guidelines Notebook _ Mrs. Wheaton mentioned that all-sections although 'of the' k Guideline's Notebook"were -reviewed carefully land approve`dlasTcompl'eted, (the rcombined sections which became the finalized book were never adopted as official guidelines. Mr- Carr made a MOTION to adopt the Guidelines ,as the .official.Guidelines of the Salem Historical- Commission. Mr. Clarke seconded ;the MOTION, All were in favor �L except Mr.. Lippman who was opposed, .basedkon hi.s'_contention that it was not necesszry=4',,, to take that step.' y , M t F ns 40 At; this point ,in the meeting several unresolved issues were discussed. Since the chairman will be leaving the Commission it was felt these should be reviewed before her, departure: The first was the blue shutters, some of which are still attached to Dr White.'ts building at 398 Essex Street. , The City Solicitor has communicated with Dr. "White;`''but removal has not been completed to this date. = ; The satellite dish at 76-761-, Federal_Street is another unresolved issuer The k City Solicitor has also been involved in this. a , Mrs• Wheaton said she planned to meet with the Mayor next week to formally ,. present her resignation 'and•introduce the new chairman to be elected this'evening. l , At that time some. of these issues can be discussed. After election of officers additional unresolved problems were to be discussed. Election of Officers.- At the April 18 meeting, Ms. Harris and Mr. Carr were nominated for the position of chairman. . Only the sdven regular voting members were- allowed to vote. As a result of the vote by ballot, Ms. Harris who received five votes to Mr. Carr's. two, was named chairman. Mr. Carr nominated Mr. Clarke to be vice-chairman. Mr. Lippman seconded the nomination. Thero were no further nominations. Mr. Clarke informed the Commission. of the possibility that he may not be available for both meetings every month in case they wished to withdraw his name from consideration on that basis. However, the .vote was unanimously in favor of electing him. • 95-97 Federal Street - Unresolved projects were further discussed with Mr. Carr referring to 95-97 Federal Street and two unapproved skylights, both,of which h C *4� T'. A � .. V '� a •- F, 5 - , r _ ' �a'-.Ph . a J SALEM HISTORICAL'COMMISSION ,_l Page 4, � ' , i May 1; 1985 i are visible. When, this project was reviewed the, applicant was told to come back be-j ;y for,,th•e Commission,,to: discuss' the skylights, if',they were,go ng`to ,be visible. ' It has since been learned that',the,`skylights'•had.already 'been;installed. Also the.lattide fence is different fromfthe*dne +a _. pproved;[and the, outdoor,. lghtpo'sts were ;not part of the plan approved. There rslalso' a section&oflfence neait�hVe��fontIdoor which is differerit. from what was sub itted.` +'Mr'. Carr said`he,would support"action to order ; removal of the,skylights 4 IUI Ms: Harris .made a MOTION:Jto 'communicate with Ms:'Jessica Herbert-Babyak in- forming her,that several things are in violation*such as .'skylights, fence, light- .+ a•- k „ 7 ,,,4... . posts, for example, and requesting her attendance -at ,the ne_AAmeeting. Mr. Wolfson secondid 'the MOTION. All-were+:in favor except Mrs,. Wheaton-who was opposed.,because she thought it:would be more`effective'simply to• request compliance. " _ f J i Mr. Lippman made aMOTION to adjo6rn'the meeting JJ Mr.'Wolfson seconded the * ' ' MOTION. :. The tmeeting,.adjourned--at. 9-:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted', Joan F:,PiiLllo t. Clerk • qa{; ' Approved 8/8/85 l f y" of� '.f _ '''4. •� q' . .. - 4 .. Ji • F. � • 4 C . ♦, pt �+..� °t„ of ♦`' '' •'• y +�, ' . t _t ✓ r 1' J � I. Y .T 14 Yu J .{ +-.t ' � � •�._ u.�4 414 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of .Meeting + May 15, 1985 r' A re'gular4meeting°of the-Salem Historical ,Commission was held on Wednesday, `F May 15, "1985 at One Salem Green. zPresent were:, Ms. Harris" Chairperson, Ms. Hilbert, 'and- Messrs. Carr' Lippman, Zaharis and Slam. ' �Prior,ao covering regular agenda items, Ms. Hsrris .noted ,that a formal vote . Yswas --required,,6n the letter to,be sent to the Board of.Appeals ,and Planning Board ,. < concerningathe,Gothic- cottage at 260- Lafayette Street which was discussed after the, last,meeting adjourned: '.. . . e •. a # _�^ a . . a r �... � .,. ' + , .' % ,. Mr. Lippman made a•MOTION toy endorse the letter to the BoardofAppeals and Planning Boaid'.concerning'the Commission's recommendationthat^no exterior changes be allowe'd. on the Gothic cottage at-Z60 Lafayette Street°and `recommending that no morethan two units"be 'allowed in< that`building since more units would be detri - mental* to the''.architectural fabric of the house. Mr. `Slam>seconded the MOTION. All were in }favor... " Local District Operation' Bowditch School' Landscaping Plan `- Mr. Jaquith, the architecYt for this ' ` ro ect '' resented'+the landsca in plan which he said is still o�en for suggestions. P J P P g'P P gg .' poke .aouthe requirement for 56 parking,spaces' (two per unit) which had a 'bearing on the He',4so mentioned the need'. to°stay ten; feet away from the northerly boundary and landscape that ,ten-foot.buffer zone. He .proposes` a wood • .'' board fence with forsytlCia, viburnum and spirea .planted in front ,of it..' They are.thinking o�f .planting English- ivy And' allowing ,ie.to.`.climb,up the wood fence to soften Ae ,effect.','He has planned to break„ tt e`length of,. tie lot.at' two points with. fingers;of landscaping (using sugar-maples') . There"is a natural hill on the lot with the^ crest toward the middle of the' lot.',. They ares.dividing at ,the break between the oid building 'and,the rear Addition and at•fhe rearzentry,where the gym- As once joined. The wood fence will extend"around: the back and°include the _ dumpster location which is at'the Fowler Street end'. They have left open an F, , access which is required'fo r� the'Fire .Depar�tment and which will be,closed by chains attached'to bollards,-at;,the"Fowler Street end. There will be'boxwood .and sugar • *•+ maples planted'in that area and-there is a large tree there. whicfi w'ill`be left. The existing, chain link fence will remain 6ecause:it is'in: good shape. - :They are : ,adding arsmall.wrought,iron fence with gates which may open or closed as , desired: They prefer not to^have the back 'area used as. a passage-way'.." Onv the south side the, asphalt will be removed and.,replaced with `sod. `Bark chips and low plantings ,of'boxwood are planned there. At the front entrance, of the building ° they -planJto plant rhododendrons,and short. juniper so it.,ciill' remain .green-all -.,,J4. 'yearlong.,: Barkchips.wll be'-used therebecause asphalt'will be removed. - Two „ , ornamental •dogwoodstree's are,planned for- the driveway• entrance'on Flint Street m --along with ,some.,crabapples. ; The trees,at the Fowler- Street end'are,•to be white pines. There are to be' two 'granite'ibollards at 'the Flint Street' entry. ,. They plain,to repeatithe existing fence and.bring it down -to both sides of,the\drive- wa Concrete curb: will be used: y,. # , • . ; - Mr. '"Jaquith-"said the,:plan was 'a \resula\of discussions with'the Planning Department:`- Ms.'.Andrea Fish of the Planning Department was"present and was asked for her comments. " She said,she preferred' that the planting of the shrubs • '+ > - 6\ It t 6'.;Y � .t"f Y, t •ty_ i • _,x 4 �a f. 4 s r r - • N • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 May 15, 1985 r .t along the fence'be done in:groupings; rather thaneall in a row equidistant from each other. Councillor 0!;Leary who was present asked if a local person would be doing the landscaping. He was told that Tom :O'Shea is the landscaper. A' drawing of the fence which is. to`be. six-'feeyt high was submitted. Some of ` the neighbors would prefer a higher fence. Mr. Carr asked about the height of the sugar maples planned for the center and was,told they will-be approximately 15 feet high., The white pines at the rear will be approximately 10-12 feet high. ' t Mr: Carr thought there should be more .planting at' the rear with trees larger than 12 feet high. Mr. Slam commented that the 'shrubs planted for the fence area on the Federal Street side are all of types that lose •their,,leaves. ' Mr. Jaquith said evergreens do not .do. particularly well in urban' situations.. and they can get tre- mendously big after a ,certain time, but he is willing to- use some rhododendron if . preferred. Mr. Slam suggested using yews .beneath .'the •sugar maples. Regarding the fence, Mr. Jaquith'said it would be about 6'2". X 3/4" X;4"; boards over rails wi_th, flat cap rather than scallop cap. ' s At this point the Chairperson allowed neighbors, to comment. Ms. Martha Jarnis of 155 Federal Street noted concern with. thelheight o£.the fence. The chain link-'that. is there' now is 9-10 feet. `.,With a-six-foot fence.,they will be able to see-cars She thought the -idea of the 'fence was to block out the view of' the parking lot. A solid fence would block out light. , Mr."Jaquith said the • zoning ordinance calls for a heightmaximum of fence''of, six feet: Ms. Harris questioned the view of cars which are only about- 41-, feet tall Ms_. Jarnis said ` they have a deck which is set a foot or so off, the`,ground. Mr. Jaquith added that -a higher-fence would then require some bracing to keep it up, but sAid he would look into it. ; . Ms. .Shelby Hypes of-15.7 Federal Street said'she preferred theo6z to '7 foot , Pr fence height. She noted that comments. from previous meetings ,seem .to be re- flected in the plan and she was generally'pleased with it. Mr. -Wayne Sousa of 41 Flint Street agreed.with her.' His concern, ,however, was with light from the carsparking after 6 or 7 p.m. The solid fence will eliminate that. He men- .tioned that he plans, to. tear 'tip his adjoining,drivewayrand add peast7one and asked about the level of the pavement., Mr: Singleton suggested that he coordi- nate his driveway work with Mr. +Singleton's 'people. At ,this point; Mrf Kavanaugh was passing through and was asked about a height requirement for fences in resi- dential areas. He said the maximum in' residential areas is six feet; A higher fence would require a variance. Mr.. Sousa .asked.if the metal fence abutting his property would come down and was ".told it,would.J,Ms:'t'Judy +Bunceldf 394 Essex Street asked ,if thefi`wood `-fence would compl'etely" enclos'e;theftrash bind . It will. She asked why the chain link fence at- the rear wasli;Lng kep[. I�Mr. Jaquith said that comments solicited from neighbors early in the planning of the project indi- cated that there was nolproblem with�it.` ;Mst' Hypeslasked?about an, existing tree in that�area and was.told`it was*tosstay.' Ms. Bunce' Lked ab'outxan existing chestnut tree and was told that is staying also. ' Ms. Terry Beth,Hypes, of 157 Federal Street asked'aliout*ihe rlighting'and'hoped it`wouldfnot be excessively bright. Mr. Jaquith said there are to be three: 15--foot°poles"with all light facing into the parking lot. It is to be soft mercury vapor blue light,, not - bright white. .There will also be a light on the building. There will be two, , decorative lights at the front. At the rear only the existing pole light will. Tremain. " Ms. Bunce 'asked about the light around the perimeter 'of the school at • Y � SALEM.HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 May 15, 1985 f, +' the Federal Street end. Mr. Jaquith said just existing lighting,will remain. r; Councillor O'Leary asked about maintenance of the' passage-way from the Fowler Street .end. Mr. Singleton said he committed •himself,to maintenance of the passage-way, .and would honor that commitment Mr. Tom Bryson of. 2,North Pine Street spoke about the trafficlinthat..are'a ,;Ms aMary'Stewart of--,19 Fowler Street men- tioned the noise in the 'alleyway 'where the, gym used to,be: Ms"."Har'ris said the situation will change once people living in the building., Mr. Lippman said that, people will probably be happy if the walkway is:open and visible, rather than 5 tttr _ r " / € - hidden by a six-foot fence. Ms: ;Hypes suggested g h >sted usinI., g , .b'ut Mr. Jaquith said people tend to walk 'through 'them'antd"leave holes.' Mr. Ron'Bouchard, who was with Mr. Singleton, acknowledged that there is a problem,with,kids in the area. He said the i developers �t t ' ' �� rying to+close off the'ilot so it,.tlooks"good to everyone. Councillor O'Leary, suggested moving the fence. Mr. Singleton said he doesn' t own ; the alleyway and can' t build a fence.` He would like to continue the fence to separate the parking lot from the alleyway. r He will maintain the alleyway. He said the residents will call the Police if the kids continue to present a problem. 'r ' Ms. Harris said that a public right of way cannot be blocked off. She suggested that a four-foot fence might serve thefpurpose. Ms. Hypes suggested that a fence might keep that corner from being trashed. Ms. Jarnis asked about the, existing trees and was told they:would be kept. Neighbors wanted to know when 'the ,new fence would be installed and. Mr. Jaquith said probably in the fall. He-agreed to let abutters know when that will take placer Ms: Harris closed the public portion of the meeting at this point. ' Mr. Carr expressed concern thatthewhite pines at thecFowler Street end are§, fine but would'like: them to be larger sized. He favors a six-foot fence in'.that _ + corner. .Mr. Jaquith said four trees might be used rather than three5if needed., The finished side of the, fence.will 'face the abutters. Mr. Carr also favored ' grouping the shrubsalong 'the 'fence and preferred some azalea or rhododendron rather,.than all 'deciduous- shrubs. Mr T Slam also preferred some evergreen'shrubs along the fence and suggested adding a low-trunked conifer' like a yew in the area of the sugar maples. Mr. ,Lippman said his only comment is that the fence should be 'four feet high at the Fowler Street end so the distance. is less like a tunnel. Ms. Fish noted' that,white pine has branches all the way to the, ground and'will require_ 20 feet. of?space,at ground level. She didn' t favor columnar trees which she thinks are' very unattractive. Mr., Carr said lower branches could be p+runed; ,Ms. Harris and Ms. Fish thought that would look strange. Ms. Fish �. w. noted that at, .an earlier'. meeting.'she was given: the impression that' front green- space,would 'begin even with the front of the,,building and go all ,the way across. Mr. Jaquith said he.' didn' t want to narrow the parking spaces'below 9' . Ms. Fish agreed with Mr. Lippman about not wanting to create a`tunnel where the fence at the Fowler Street end .is located. The alternative of using plantings rather than trees was brought up, ,but,Ms. Fish felt that lowering the fence is „a'better solu- tion..' Ms. Harris suggested that since the fence ,is';a standard type, the fence posts should be ".beefed up.” Mr.. Jaquith said he could use caps. Ms. Harris was also opposed ;to -a rough-sawn .fence and Mr. Jaquith said the smooth finish' would be used if desired. . Ms. Harris asked if it would be stained or left •` natural .to weather. Mr: Singleton7 said he would do whatever the Commission' T- t ' ` SAfEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page�4 May 15, 1985 3 preferred. F Ms. Harris said staining 'is preferable since it would fit in better 4 with the. neighborhood, ' She was also concerned about the wrought-iron fencing at front. Exis'ting'dis 1" baro stock"with' a',granite.post atlthe- ends: ,:�Mr. Carr asked about` the berm. The area;is.to,be planted;and inulcled with bark ,chips. "Ms. Harris,suggested using:ground cove r, rather,than bark chips; possibly,'pachy-. Sandra or myrtle. 'Shealso,Ynoted heavy use of boxwood which' she said is .extremely slow' growing.,, Mr.: Jaquith said that makes the :maintenance so newhat. less. 'Ms.,, Harris suggested'. considering"yew,: She was also not happy :with' the. 15' mercury, . ; vapor poles: Mr. Jaquith said more lights would be nee ded"if4they we re ..made ,. . . lower. Mr. Carr madera MOTION:,.to.•;take* the:placi.ufide'r advisement to dis�cuss .later in .,the meeting, for .formaliaction. ` Mrj Lippman.,;seconded -the-MOTION: 'All were in favor. The,Bowditch,School landscaping pl"an will be put"on'the agenda fora , later 'meeting ` r v j Mass: .Electric - Mr'. Robert Smith,-District Meter Supervisor for the* North .,.Shore -was present on behalf of Mass. Electric to,Idiscuss electrical installations in, histor'ic districts. !Ms.._Harris noted, that there:are 'instances 'wheie electric me to rs 'are being.placed in very. visible, locations on historic luj:uses. - Mr. Smith suggested thanhe be notified when someone applies" for 'a permit so'.that�he: or someone he,appoints'-can see' if• there is a suitable location'to keep it off the • :, face of the building. .. If that can' t.be worked out he would discuss it with, the Commission, on a,case by case'• individual -basis. - As_a last- resort he would consent to:having{the meter go inside at .those locatio[ s.� He wouldhlike•to viewithe^loca- ` tion personally,in order to try 'tosagreeFon ran:'outside+•1ocation: Ms{;Hilbert'-$` asked if"' so me ,agreement'might b'e'put'into",writing+to 'e`stabli'sh that procedu're'' as "policy. •-Mr. Smith saw no„problem with that: . Mr., Lippman',referred to .the guidelines written for cable inst`allations,l+suggestsng=that ,they might raisbiapply to meter locations. Mr. Smith wanted.-too, be, advised 'befo e wo.rk;is actuahy do,'ne; Ms. Harris,#,asked if Mass. Electiic people need`any kind of approval from the city. They do no .If going from inside to�outside`they�.woul.dyrequire, a4permrt:��Mr. Slam said this should be' done 'through'the'City�Electriciant (The City' Eleetrician was invited:to: this meeting,. but was unable to attend'.), If the,City Electrician notifies. the Commission, the,Commission can then contact M,r. ,Smith'. Ms. Harris mentioned _the timing indolved in this' type of.pro.ceddre: Mr.vSmith said under terms 'and. conditions°of electric :service, ten-day 'notice is required.' That is sufficient;time ,frame. Mr.Smith 'mentioned involvement of the Wiring,ln's'pector.. c• 'Mr. Carr asked what then,procedure is'when` someone-Wants to install-a new•mete r. ;. . Mr. Smi.th'said. the first step is E6-get ,arpermit. and then to. contact Mass. 'Electric 'for. service. request:: It:was suggested that th_e`City-Electrician could-, call Debbie Hilbert to determine. the correct';location. That.would :then be;sub- Bitted to Mass. Electric.' Mr. Lippman,asked who pays. for..the work. Mr. Smith said that. the• board to'weatherhead is supplied by Mass. Electric and;thefrest belongs to” the homeowner. Ms. Hilbert questioned whether this,iaouldlbecon- he That would have to tie determined. ' Ms. 'Harris*said the , -City' Electrician',would have to be pursuaded` .to send ' applican7ts` to the :Commission efo'r a Certificate of Appropriateness. He would know not to'.issue a.,permit' until the-Historical Commission -reviews.=the application.. Mr'. Smithk�said. the,inspector • • .tentatively picksthelocation as 'a rul . Ms. Hilbert questioned how the' - y, SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 May 15, 1985 a Commission would know where the best location would be from the viewpoint of the •c electrician. Mr. Smith'added'tha t 'there'are'other problem's that require expertise in order to •determine.location. �Mr Smith' felt that Mass.jElectric should pick the site and then come to 'th`e%6=1`ssion fora roval: �M'r Slam suggested " pp ggested that normal process be waived in lieu of someone on the Commission checking the loca- tion to eliminate a' lengthy procedure '• `b+t i �•' +; €�" Mr. Carr made a MOTION to establish a policy for future_ installations of 'electric.meters: . ' f 1) adopt guidelines; 2) adopt procedure,discussed; „ 3) draft. agreement between the Historical Commission and Mass. Electric; 4) .send copy, to, Mr. Smith. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. All'were in favor. • With respect to existing .installations, Mr. Carr suggested that he meet with Mr. Smith to give him a list and see-what can be ,worked out on a case by case basis. He would do this'after discussing the cases with the Chairperson. Ms. Hilbert was not sure every case should come before _the Commission. Probably should be delegated. Ms. Harris felt it should be tested. • 178 Federal Street - Mr. Paul Konstadt, the owner of this property, sub- mitted an application for a new roof, some painting and bathroom vents. The roof ' is to be black fiberglass. He is replacing existing. Next discussed were the bathroom vents; one on the second floor and one on the first. The vents will z . have flat louvers that open when the fan 'is on. Mr. ' Carr told the applicant .than ordinarily the Commission likes .to see some kind of detail. The vents are' to• b&',, 6" X 6" set in the wall and painted to match the wall. Mr. Konstadt also wan�s:�; to paint the window trim a slate blue-gray. The body color will remain white:Y • At some future date he said he would like to strip the siding. He found upon investigating that after afire some years back most of the original clapboarding was destroyed, so 'when they do remove the siding, reclapboarding will. be expensive. As an alternative, he mentioned painting the siding either all red or leaving it white and,painting the trim blue. The red he spoke about was Sears Great Ameri- can Homes Red #079 or Sears 11065 slate blue-gray for trim. This is a 1750 house and he thought all one color .was appropriate. 'Ms. Hilbert said ;that-though that is usually the case with houses of that period,' the siding changes things. Mr. Carr made ''a MOTION to give the applicant the option of painting the trim .. blue as submitted or painting the body of the house barn red with trim color to be determined-and approved at a..later date. Also approved are vent fans to be positioned on the building as 'specified on the application. Also approved is the black fiberglass roof Mr. Lippman=seconded the MOTION. Mr. Carr added to his MOTION the option to remove an existing skylight. Mr. Lippman seconded. All were in favor. Abutter notification will be sent. • Mr. Konstadt mentioned a fence which is not visible because of landscaping. He is painting it white which was not objectionable in any case. .fie•� .. , .. •n 4:,° ♦ R Y ' b SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 6 `'. May 15, -1985 12 Gifford'Court -'Ms.'Christine Munkholm'�bwris this' pr*operty which 'is being renovated.onder. the Planning:Department's Home Improvement Program. She is . - replacing four aindows,Yonly- two° of which `will tie visible" from .a street or 'public way. .Sash is to be,wood' stained the same color,as` it 'is at :present. Windows ` will be 2/2:with munt"in;bara Since these..are <replacement windows and' are to be .. wood to'match existing, it'was determined that no application was required: g. � ♦ Vy, 30-32.IBeckford Stree"t'- Ms. Lynn O'Hare ppresented`her application. for paint colors. :She said;,she pians .to remove th'e" shutters�from: the house since.'they are ,• not-an appropriate type. She would like, to replace with wood shutter; '-'The white trim presently on theI' house gets,very dirty, from the'Rsap coming off a near=. ! by tree. ` She wants'to'.keep the house gray; but would like to.'p"aint,the trim atkblack.%The door cololr,sle-wants :is aksoft yellow. There was mixed reaction to ;• the suggested black trim: ' She suggested a compromise using charcoal slate in " . 11 stead of. black:' °^ ^ NMr. Carrtmade ',a.MOTION' to approve the body color, as on the application (Benia'n' Moore:,Platinum'Gray'I/71) :� Mia° Slam seconded the•MOTION:, A•ll were in favor. Mr. Slam made .a MOTION'to approve thesCha oal Slate-collor (Ben arm a Moore 1186)4for trim Mr: `Zaha ris'seconded the MOTION- All were in favor, except Mr. a 'Carr who was opposed a Mr.`rZaharis made`a MOTION toapprove' Day's,End 113-15 `for;.the -door.• There `•was no:second.' .Door color 'wastidiiscuss'ed briefly with alternative suggestions ` madexto the -colo.rgsuggested, Day's.,End,- which was a pumpkin-toned yellow. - r «. ' i �' , , - - ter: •. + _ .. '• , . ., .. � S � '3 ' Mr Slam made 'a MOTION' to .approve;Benjamin'Moore Manilla for the door. Mr. Lippman' seconded`'the MOTION. `'"All were in favor. .Abutter notification to be'* .sent" r. >8. �.. ,.% Bowdi.teh Landscaping PI'M -'The landscaping .,plan presented earlier in the' r "°'•meeting was discussed with;the 'following points listed as concerns • 1)' Fence at Fowler Street end - Suggest the fence be 4 feet high, rather than six,feet high at -that` location. a a 2) , Trees,i-y Sugar maple at:;area of fingers dividing parking lot#=, Suggest t 1; another. type.of ree�'(pos, ly little-leaf linden or sycamore) Shallow troot of'maple.could.hurt the ,asphalt,-arfd,it'4is difficult' to grow anything - else since it;'takes.lup all the:water: ,Taller_and larger=trees recommended, Fenced(Federal,Streettside)#-'IThe*evenly spaced ar"rangementt o shrubs:should be changed to4groupingsiand,should,iiclude;,vibui; um,fsp{rea, i nterspersed- t a;wath`rhododendron(something�evergreen) instead of forsythia.` -; 4)'-, Boxwood, Suggest changing�to lessiboxwood, more azalea, rhododendron, yews, • .a —Japanese liolly,or"'regular holl'y. „�,j'', # .F".i:�i:za: (' i,l 1 ., _ t } q S5 ^i4 • ' i',,f a _ SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 7 May 15, 1985 5) . Flint Street end -, Should berplanted more, heavily at Flint.Street entrance to .the driveway. - a' 6) Fence - Require drawing of wood fence with fence" post improved.. Should not be rough-sawn; prefer smooth, stained. Suggest better posts and 'require 'aetails on caps. r 7) Would like to see details of •fence.at entrance from Flint Street- also on ,wrought iron fence. , . 8) Berms - No wood chips. - Suggest myrtleor,pachysandra. 9) Lights - Want details.•'. Prior,to adjournment. Ms. Hilbert noted that the nr000sal' on establishing a Lafavette Street Historic District is ready forooublic hearing. It was agreed to include this at the'June •5th meetinel- " Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to adjourn''the meeting.. Mr—Slam seconded. The meeting -adjourned at 10:30 p.m. a' " • •Respectfully submitted, . 1 Joan F.'�Pizzaell ;i61srk '. ar Approved 6/5/85 ' wAx ; SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting June 5, 19851 • }•, . A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on. Wednesday, r,: June 5, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. Present were Ms., Harris, Chairman, Ms. Hilbert and Messrs. Carr, Clarke, Cook, Wolfson and Zaharis; Also present was Council President Nutting. Public Hearing - Proposed Lafayette Street Historic District Ms. Harris opened the public hearing portion of this meeting by introducing Ms. Hilbert who briefly described the process involved in the creation'of a historic- district: She spoke about the history of the area, noting that Lafayette 'Street contains some of the finest examples •of Victorian architecture in Salem. She explained, the Commission's function regarding review of exterior architec- tural changes and listed items which are exempt. She described Lafayette Street as an entranceway into 'the city and mentioned some of the benefits of being ' included in a historic district, particularly the increase in property value. Ms. Harris saidthat the neighborhood meeting has been held. This is the „ first public hearing. After this, the proposal goes to the City Council for a = `' s; vote and first passage and finally second passage. Councillor Nutting spoke about s, ''; _ a procedures at City•Council level and invited comments from anyone living in the proposed- district. He further noted that, there is presently an opening on the {. Historical Commission which might be filled"by a resident of the Lafayette Street F` District if it becomes--a reality.. Councillor Nutting mentioned issues such as siding'and the increase in property value, though not necessarily in assessments connected with taxes. He expressed support for the idea while':stressing the need to be practical and sympathetic to the needs of the homeowner. Mr. Walter Power, Chairman of the Planning Board, who was present spoke in favor of establishment of the district; He said there are pressures to change ' in the future and would like to see Lafayette Street remain.as it is now. ' Ms. Harris spoke >about tax incentives which are presently available, but may or may not be available in the- future depending on whether or not the Federal tax structure is changed. Dr. Richard ,Winer"of '249 Lafayette -Street spoke in favoriof the district. r He was excited about ,the possibility. . He mentionedtSalem's �history as one of , C - : its greatest attractions and was 'in favoriof restoring and maintaining areas like. Lafayette Street. His property was owned by his father and grandfather >.. ., before him. '^�' r..} ,« . , a a •{ : #,,: fs e yt.�i � toy" gw Mr. George Belisle,dwho is attempting to develop properties at 256 and 260 Lafayette Street also* ;poke in favor `of the„district A Mr. Michael Lehman of 1 Holly Street said he is just outside the boundary of the proposed district, but spoke in favor as' a representative of Historic Salem, Inc. He suggested that the residents on Linden Street between Holly and . Laurel be..polled as to their feelings. about being part•of the district 'since that stretch of houses is also largely intact. They are not as ,stately as those " SALEM HISTORICAL ' ° Page 2 June 5,e 1985 r on Lafayette Street, liut quite beautiful., HeY said that corner is in�'danger of s deteriorating because it:is'owned •by absentee landlords and tends to get trashy. Ms. Joan Gori alley. of�'236 Lafayette Street also spoke int-favor of. the district.♦ She°was :also concern_d, -about absentee landlords;wh'o have'ib use d- tiie area'and felt that making it a •historic district would give it more visibi- ility and the citymight,pay,more.,attention. M§. Harris spoke about multi-family buildings in other districts noting that being part of a -district has, been helpful Ms.. Gormalley thought that becoming a district,�would stop, the deterioration. x When Ms Hilbert was, ques'tioned about the 'size, of the proposed district; she said that 'a larger, area was-originally planned and it was,decided to start smaller and 'grown i Mrs, Marilyn-MysliwyE:of 232 Lafayette Street said she was "very much .in < favor. She alsospoke about the, need to stop the deterioration of Lafayette `Street. She'submitted^a�petition whichyshe cir6iulated to s'isti 97bf 43 Signa- tures of neighborhood-people who-arein favor. '?•' .. Fr. Lawrence Rondeau of St. Joseph's Church,. which has jurisrdiction over ' %St. ',Therese's ChapelCt'26iSu'mmi(Avenue, asked about+ sidi siding and colors! Ms. Harris spoke about the�guidelines; `noting that each'case •is reviewed 'individually. A's for siding,a,she .saidyit is not generally acceptable because it is not appro- priate for<historic houses'. j However; if`buildings are no't1historic. it is not strictly. forbidden. ,'Also"I . if a,b"uilding 'is already sided there .is no 'problem with repair of existing siding In"terms of paint,„she said •the 'Commission'is fairly relaxed on paint:•colors. They are rarely`denied;. 'in most-casestmutually . acceptable 'compromises 1can be reached.-' ' Dr. Winer asked about. the, process involved.,- Ms. Hams describe d';the ap,pA- ' by cation process�and;spoke`.abo,ut the necessary abutter notification. Dr. Winer •. asked about properties not kept up Ms. Harris explained that;the Commission does not have'jurisdiction over plantings, etc:; but said .the' Commission has found`that"being part of,-a district sometimes encourages people to take better care of their property: 'Mr."Carr'added; that'if the neighborhood wanted the Commission,to have' authority'over plantings and landseaping; ;the City Council could makeYthat part of the ordinance ':for this .district.,f, sy ,'`t •. r. .. -' `' -• a .'•� '. - Siding was brought up in'terms of economic feasibility. Ms. Harris,said the Commissionhas done a l. 11ot;of workton siding and has found that`clapboarding and, "shingling are more feasible over a long period of time' `.',She: touched briefly oft the, detri'mental effects of siding on older homes. She added,,tthat 'e'ach case is . taken'individually.' 'Size 11 of the district was, disc1.ussed again with'Ms:' Harris noting 1.that„typically districts are started small and abutters and neighbors r ?have. pe titioned•£or expansion. : •jhe ,possible 'relocation of the carriage house -from Laurel'Street'. to Lafayette.Stree't 'was brought. up by Robert Hussey of '3 Laurel.Streef. Ms. Hilbert +said-, that 'since .the carriage house is a secondary structure- and.not.-a 'residence, • moving it would not be a.serious preservation issue. Mr.,Hussey mentioned that . ♦ ., s :`+ _ + • pat i SALEM'HISTORICAL COMMISSIONIx, f# ` f Dt�' � Page 3� "� tl .x � � g �tw b � " h x, ,.: June 5, 1985 � if the carriage house isi movedi-from Laurel':Street they will' be�left with just a parking lot in its place.,MA_t some future.'point -tho'setneighbors� might be petition-.', ing' for'inclusion in the district and,he wondered how the loss of the carriage fiouse would affect the-{street's eligibility'for, inclusiori'. f Mr, Carr spoke about . the need for neighborhood stpport!required �for`, expansion " He'further mentioned y that .the moving of the carriage house would probablyrequire a public hearing if the district becomes -a reality. That. is one of the advantages of becoming a district. ` Ms. Gormalley asked about the authority of: the Commission. Ms. Harris ex- plained the enabling legislation, ,Chapter 40C of Massachusetts General Laws. It spells out the parameters of :the Commission, membership, and process by which homeowners' seeking changes may apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness. She also.spoke.about the ;appeals process in cases where problems arise.. Ms. Kathleen Driscoll of 15 Willow Avenue asked abouttheguidelines. Ms. -Hilbert described the notebook which is available for review at the Commission office,, adding that specific information on various subjects can be duplicated and sent to applicants. V Mr. Carr also mentioned the Certificate of Hardship which is �also a pos- ; sibility when an applicant is in circumstances. which prevent him/her .from being able to maintain a property in accordance'with, the Commission's standards: • Speaking.`in opposition to the establishment of a district was Brig. Gen. -Arnold Dane of 5 Glendale, Ro-ad,"Marblehead, who was appearing at ,the .request of his sister-in-law,' Mrs.,, Harold Edelstein of 2811 Lafayette :Street. His ,opinion was that the-people who spoke in favor knew very little about the sub- ject. He felt that,-'the -district would not stop .at Lafayette 'Street, but would expand. ' His sister-in-law's house is aluminum-sided. He said new clapboards . are different from old,clapboards. They do not,hold paint. Today's` paint is also different in that lead paint is not permitted„ and the new paint does not `,stick as' well. In his opinion, vinyl siding looks very much like wood. ` He also 'spoke about the expense of'replacing some- of the detail work on these houses. He feels it creates neighborhood friction. He mentioned the political aspects. Since there were :no Athers speaking' in opposition,`', the Chairman4closed the public hearing portion of'the.meeting' at `this point. Ms. Hilbert told the group that she is.,available daily at the office. to answer ,questions. and offer i advice. Councillor Nutting asked what 'proportion, of owners is absentee. Ms. Hilbert said 40% absentee and 60% resident: Councillor'Nutting questioned whether home- t owners on ,mallei outlying streets would have 'the„means -to.keep up:with decisions in the district. He noted that the Council,does have the, right to repeal the ordinance if the neighborhood were opposed. - � - M Ms. Harris 'said,it was "difficult 'to think of an instancewhere being in a ' `district caused someone a serious problem. ..Mr. Carr referred to the track record of the established districts and mentioned that.they .compri;e some A the most attractive areas of the city. He -further noted,that when properties ,in districts SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 June 5, 1985 come up for sale, their location.in a historic district is often the first thing mentioned in the real estate ad. ' Local District .Operation t f , 165 Federal 'Street - An application was received from the owners of this 3 property, Paul and Jeanette Malawka, to remove the asbestos siding which is presently on the house and replace it with. vinyl' siding. The house is 218 years old. : Ms: Hilbert said that the cost to reclapboard and stain would be 'approxi- mately $2,500 more than the' cost of vinyl siding., She emphasized that once £. vinyl siding is: put on it is on for .many years. Shesuggestedthat the Malawkas consider clapboarding and staining the Federal .Street side. and the side facing 167 Federal Street,,both of which are:the most'visible and do .the other sides 3 at a later date. The Malawkas said it would be eery difficult to strip and r paint; the trim.. Mr.' Clarke-agreed that 'the trim would have to be scraped back to bare wood and then stained. Their estimate for the cost of siding is $7,500 .as opposed to approximately $10;200+ for reclapboarding work. It has not been determined whether .there is anything beneath the asbestos siding. It was clear that the cost was' a 'factor in their decision- to side the building. Mr. Malawka is,retired 'and Mrs. Malawka said theydo not have the mdriey to do, the clapboarding and in any case would .not be able to, afford're- painting which they felt would be necessary every few years. ' Ms. Hilbert spoke • about the Home Improvement Program offered through the Planning Department. Though. they, are not in the target area, she: said 30% of the money is used for ' projects outside' the•a'rea. Mr. Carr felt the issue was one' of hardship, but said he still had serious problems with the application. ` Mrs. Catherine Peper of 33 Flint Street who,was present .,to, submit an appli- q cation on her property:was, asked.to tell the.Malawkastabout her experience re- moving asbestos siding.' ' She 'said thatjshe;an'd her husband we re p leasantly sur- fi prised to find,that. th(7clapboards beneath were in good shape. ,. Mr. Cook suggested, that no-actionzbe taken untilgthe Malawk'as can determine what'is under the asbestos on their house. ' He and Mr,. Carr both favored keeping the existing asbestos rather `than.Rapproving vinyl siding.,,Mr. & Mrs. 'Malawka were'.riot interested in finding out •wliat.Awas undeineath• ' .They;were afraid once t the. asbestos was removed and they found'out that the clapboard was not in good shape;, they would really have a problem since the vinyl'siding would probably °not be .approved. ` If Mr. Carr-made a MOTION .to approve, the application ,for .vinyl siding subject to the following restrictions;: 1) that corner boards be reproduced as wooden at 'the four corners; •2) that wood surrounding' front and side 'doors be kept as wood; z ° ,3) that windows be kept as wood (not covered with vinyl or aluminum) ; and 4) that there be a. horizontal water table at the. top of ,the foundation around the four ' corners of the building. ' Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. .,On the vote, only Mr.: Carr was in favor, all otherswere opposed. MOTION denied. - Mr. Clarke agreed, as a preservation contractor,`to , look at the 'house and give an opinion if that was acceptable. - q, y {/ • f.•J � r�:; � {i' 4 6F r M '.LAR �t. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 r µ June 19•1985 f 1 13^Washington Square West - The'applicant;,'Ms. Nancy^ Britton,,wouid like -to. erect "a sign. 412 feet off- the*ground at 'right,'angles,:to''the 'buildi Ing.. The `sign would-be 30" by 24". ht would be"'black,on.white with black frame. The sign is for her business, Linsey-Woolsey•which` is: relocating,at that 'address. Mr. Carr made a�MOTION to approve the application as submitted. a Mr. Wolf- ' son'seconded the`MOTION. .,The vote was unanimously in favor'.` Abutters will-be - notified.,. .. ,*A .. .,. . .. . . . . .•:a- } y • 57 Warren?Street The owner of this property, Mr. Bruce Whear, presented .k his-,application for 'two skylights on'the roof of>, this,h`ouse on the ,side facing 3 Warren Street Court. The skylights w•o,uld be Velux. #4 and'the- size'_he "is re- -_ s!' guesting, is• 46"'by-44". "The roof is 'slate sand will, remain ,slate,. Members were k t concerned about the size A the 'skylights. requested. ' Mr. -Carr felt `one'.that size might be acceptable; but not two:'• ,Mr. _Carr made, a MOTION to approve''one Velux_ A skylight to .be-located to Ithe. left„of the shed dormer. Mr. Zaharis seconded ;the'-MOTION: iDuring discus- sion,' theaapplicant said he .would he willinQ: to scale down the size;if that is .more' acceptable. 'Mr ',, Parke moved" to 'amend the MOTION by approving two Velux .#I skylights,which, are slightly .smaller,to be installed'as' shown in••the, photo graph which accompanied .the .application .on either side of the-•existing•shed dormer. ' Mf'.' Carr secondedthe amended MOTION. . All were in favor. ',The appli- pnt will submit abutter,waivers himself: `Once .received, the Certificate will • be sent. �` B - • ., 33'Flint ,Siereet'- An application'was submitted.by the owners of this pro- 'perty, Sam, and Cathy Peper,' for:=a new front door, .Brosco M 100i. or F.-66, six- .Panel,wo'od,door: The question 'of the transom which is',p,resently located over the o •.front door was',discussed. Ms. Hilbert said it is `a dater addition- to the house. The Pepers ,wer'e willing to,abi'de byrfhe Commisson's` recommendation, which was .to.,remove it .andaclapboard and add trim to match existing." .The paint' colors th' 'sutimitted for consideration were:,, Body: ` Benjamii'.Moore Sandpiper '(Beige) ; Trim: Berijamin,MooregPi.ttsfieTd Buff (Lighter.Beige) an-d Fron't.Door: ,. Benjamin Moore Pine ,Mountain (Dark Green) or Newport Blue.'• it n Mr Carr. made a MOTION 'to approve the application''as submitted ;" Theadoor colo can be either 'of ~those submitted, The7fransom over the front: door is-to 7 be;removed and;the area reclapboarded,�to the top.'of the 'door: Trim to,match •:' } w 'existing.: Mr. Wolfson .seconded'the MOTION. Mr. Clarke moved to,,amend,the MOTION' stating that, if the transom is''installed the Commission would, want.;to, seek a drawing;'. Also the spiral staircase is to be left'black,as, existing: ,'Mr. Carr , seconded the 'amended MOTION.`' The`vote°was 'unanimously, iii f,avor. ' ThekPepers, ' also have •the option of,'painting° the spiral,. staircase,to match the,body of' the,k _house if they so .desire., Abutters will' be notified '` f t Y' .� , - • •_ y Ate., ✓ # H' y„ ru..e '}Ak,. < c In other business,' Ms Connie Arlander was introducedasia;prospective1, •. future member of the Commissin '1" Jlfp r# F� ¢ " ( ff � d :.. .ii tee. .y ''' � � .,h • ', , e� .wq-'py}�c {•..a..y .Q t 'r.� ( {s,. #M • )# , '} x ,wkxy Y. �fi � <. +i,y jY3�.,t 6 i 1�q�'� 7� s} ? �'►' b k,F�;€Lw�P ,r7$'� � , k ,. L ^:,"0 " '+ • a "�+,y.�yAY ]„° '4.k�\r.p»1,r e � L.,,v', �lw, lA � 1� 4r k y "- .' , t SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 6 June 5, 1985 r .` 7 Ms. Hiibert pointed out that .the regular,July meeting falls on July 3, the night before- the holiday. It was decided to'cancel' that meeting and hold only one meeting in July on July. 17. ' -The.City Clerk's office will be notified Ms. Hilbert also explained that although Ms. JessicajHerbert- Babyak was requested to attend this meeting to discuss violations at 95-97 Federal Street; she agreed to attend the June 19 meeting instead because tonight's agenda was too long. A thank you note'was received from the Burkes who were the recipients of ` this year's Preservation Award. 5 Broad Street - Ms. Hilbert informed the Commission that this building which houses the Council on Aging is in the process of internal renovations. They would like to extend the elevator to the third floor and are trying to get a variance. The elevator is set back 10 feet from the front door of the building and if it were to be extended and pushed up through the roof it would be very visible. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to write a letter to the Board of Elevation Regu- lations supporting the application but opposing any extension ofthe elevator above the roofline. Mr. Clarke seconded the MOTION. All were in-favor. Some long-standing items requiring resolution were discussed briefly. r .� Among them were the shutters on Dr. White's building at 398 Essex Street which: have still not been' comOletely,removed, the paint color,of 13 Beckford Street which was' to have been repaintedkthis .spring; 'the'satellite dish on 76-7612 ^- Federal Street. Ms. Harris is to meet with the Building Inspector and the . City. Planner and further 'action onathese items will bejfo"rthcoming. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to accept the Minutes of the Aprii 18, 1985, May 15, 1985 and September 26„ 1984 meetings. Mr. Clarke seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. Mr. Clarked moved ,to adjourn the meeting. . Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The meeting adjourned at 10: 15 p.m. Respectfully subm' tted, f - Joan F. Clerk of Commission Approve d, 6/19/85 t • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes` of,Meeting June 19, 19,95- A 985A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was .held on Wednesday, June 19, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green. Present were: Ms. Harris, Chairman, , Ms. Hilbert, and Messrs. Carr, Cook, Lippman, Slam, Wolfson and Zaharis. Local District Operation 54 Derby Street - The owner of this property, Mr. Richard Quirk; presented his application for exterior painting. The colors he has chosen are: Benjamin Moore Winthrop Yellow #11 for the body; White for,.the trim; and Black for the door. , Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted. `Mr. Wolfson seconded i the MOTION. All were .in favor. Abutters will be notified. 92 Federal Street - Mr. Quirk also owns this property and submitted an applica- tion ,to strip the aluminum siding as well as the asbestos shingles beneath; and install 111 red cedarshingles which are to be stained Cabot Federal Blue (#0577) . ,1 4. Trim will be painted Salem Piint's .oil based White. This is a seven-family house built in 1780. Mr. Cook asked if Mr. Quirk would consider clapboarding which is } more appropriate for a house of this age. Mr. Quirk said the cost of shingling would be approximately $2,600 as opposed to the cost of $3, 375 (5V' exposure) or s"r $5,400 (312'.' exposure) for clapboarding. Mr. Slam mentioned added value to the house if clapboarded, but Mr. Quirk -said there is no added value, as far as selling it goes. He is looking at the project from a strictly financial viewpoint. ' Ms. Harris: • asked if it wouldn' t be considered more valuable-in terms of the purchaser, but Mr. Quirk felt that the house 'does not lend itself to being owner-occupied.- Mr. Slam said it could be condo-ized at some point and would then be more valuable from that point of view. Mr. Quirk said the price would then go up because of the added value the property would have to the developer. Ms. Hilbert suggested the possibility of clapboarding' the first two floors of the ,front facade and shingling •the rest. . Mr. Quirk was willing to compromise to that extent. Mr: Slam asked why the siding is being removed and was told` th'ai�there is a water problem in the _rear which is covered with asbestos.' Since this siding has loosened and has to be replaced, he thought he would do the whole building. Ms. Hilbert pointed out that ,this is a % Federal style house though -somewhat Victorianized'. In some, cases, shingling could .. be considered an acceptable 19th. century alteration. 9 Mr. Cook made a MOTION to approve clapboarding the front facade up two stories with 32" exposure clapboards. Remainder to be shingled at 51Z"., Corner boards are !" to carried around all corners and painted white to match trim. Width of corner boards is to be 1",X 6". Window frames to be 'wood and sillboard (2" X 8") to be . installed over foundation.;, Approved colors are: Body: Cabot's #0577 Federal Blue ' stain; Trim: Salem Paint oil-based White. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. During. ,discussion Mr. Carr noted he still had a problem with difference in materials between front and one side which he felt was' exposed. to view. The house - next door is 10-12 feet away -and he thought the .clapboarding .should be done on that side as well. Ms. Hilbert felt the addition.of'corner boards would 'ease the problem. Another alternative suggested by Ms. Harris was the use of different colors. • On the MOTION the vote was five in favor (Mr. Cook, Mr. Lippman, Mr. Wolfson, Mr. Zaharis and Ms. Harris) and two opposed .(Mr. Carr and Mr. Slam) . 5-2 Abutters will be notified. b r -r - } r i " - ''Ft •s '.3 ; 4}•,' � 't � 1 � 2 $ i.A°.w.• � �p of g.� iY - b SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION' - Page y2, ` •June 19', 1985 a E.r s t Mr. Quirk `spoke ,briefly;, about.Ahis ,concern" re"gardingy,cable-installation pro- `•; t ;cedurea. Whenever a new tenant moves into` his -buildirig`a new,cable ,installation added', .He has. spoken with',the cable :compazay reques'ting;iiiore sympathetic treatment. ' Ms. Harris told him that ,the Commission had written to the cable company last year outlining 'the procedure which'should be-followed for. Astallations.'"' Copies 'of the instructions were also s' 1, as part of a spring/summer .mailing s last year. :`She.said the,'Commission will communicate with 'theacompany .aiain via y ` Ms., Hilbert. jt,,was noted that-the :company hires contract help to, do the instalm. lations' and they are not.'alwaysgiven proper'instructions: `: Homeowners are not always aware ,that. they have some say about how the installation should be done. Ms. Harris said she would also bring this up with the City.Solicitor'when she �. ,, Y 4 . discusses other v>olations;w>_th him." F - .Z: r. ..,11.1 De6y' Street/33 Turner Street This property,/-formerly-Gables-Variety, is owned`by 1arry.Frej and,ConnieaUallis. '..They were present, along with their architect, David Jaquith, �to. discuss .their plans for the•buildinga 'The wood trim over the storefront_ will be kept', but a wood dooar,, rather.than aluminum will be installed, and. the simulated marble and aluminum'storefronts.will' be replaced by wood- and glass. The eight over eight windows-on`the top,-floor which. .appear to be 'original will.;be restored:- ;Windows on 'the second and:first'floor's'Yiave been' changed and will be. replaced:by".8/12%sash: '-The door on- the Turner Street'side will be upgraded as well, but will be kept,;simple. Dentias will be, repaired, and the;building will be re-roofed :in shadow-black. They.•plan to remove.the 1880-1910 . -chimney',and replace with stucco wood frame back-.in the original` location. There •% ` is'anIexisting closed-over skylight:which will becremoved"on the Turner Street side. "They would•like to,b ave a skylight df, the same approxim_ate'size on the soufh,"(water)' side. The are adding asix-panel, door and the one narrow window t on the second' floor,will`be `removed., The chain link fence Iwill be removed and' stone gravel'.drive will replace iti' The bulkhead wi1L also be removed. Mr. Carr asked about the chimney. • Mr. Jaquith, s'aidyit will be enclosed in. a . box{ stuccoed 't_o.look like ta�stucco,ehimney.fjThere"are atwb residentialunits' w above and the first. floorwil:l be for,.commercial o`officeusefr�Ms�aHarris .asked that more detail"•be submitted on the. Turner Streev,door as well as the windows in, 1 the :entrance area: £ ,y, ,fgr Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve as submitted with further, detail ao be pro- vided,in terms of windows' andiside .doors.:j.Mr , Zaharis,seconded i�the MOTION. All were in favors } Abutters�to b'e�notified. ;Co to r`,cho ccs will;be submitted at a later date.• Mr. Frej. asked 'about suggestions for plan`"tings and Ms.' Hilbert re- , ferred him to.Andrea Fish in''the`Planning'.,Department., He was .also Iinterested Iin infoimation' about having a'tre(?,planted•to discourage paiking in:one' particular area. He was told'Ma: Fisfi could advise'about 'that' as�well. . ;Bowditch School Project - Mr.` Jaquith, the architect on this project,aasked the.Commission'about color,of drainpipes .which'-are to' be installed-soon. ''Ms.. Harris suggested that they be the color of the brick since. they will,be, running ' down the brick. ; That was agreeablezto Mr. Jaquith."The drainpipes' are to be made of galvanized'metal,material. Mr. Jaquith said they would be'back.in,;July to discuss lands caping again z Lippman made a MOTION to approve red as the color of the drainpipes .on the • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page ,3 June 19, 1985 Bowditch School project. 'Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. - All were in favor, J While Mr: Jaquith was'still present he was asked the status of the project at a 132 Derby Street. He said work will resume in. about a month.' As for the fence at. 100 Federal which' is still unresolved, he suggested that the Commission write dire ctly. to Mr.- Bramble about it. ` 14 Kosciusko Street - Mr. -James Casellini, the'owner 'of the building, pre- sented -plans for removal of existing exterior porches which he would like to relocate further backand alongthe:boundary which looks out over Derby Wharf. This will allow for the parking ofAtwo:"cars,rather than one-,in his side yard. %There are also s some changes to windows planned /Twenty-," feet'of 'porch will be+tr moved from the street,side. On the third floor, hefwould 'like to�enclose �th'elnew section to make p it,part of -the living'space. Mr. Carr was,concerned about the view of this house from Derby Wharf_if -these"changes? are- allowed '✓Mr:�Casellini is 's cheduled for a Board of Appeals hearin g(on4 July 17:$ }# t 4 _; ` I ` •`s,Q1 ' 7q1 i There would be no deck,on the'first-floor;kon'ly on the''secorid' and third. The decks were originally planned •to he clapboarded,$but he now'prefers spindles for cost- reasons and because of personal preference. The addition would go right up to the property line on the Derby Wharf-side. Existing shrubs will modify the #te - view somewhat from that vantage; point. - The oint. +The present double door on. the second floor will become a single door. Ms .' Harris expressed concern with the lone post at the corner, and the extension of . loom toward the new decks. She thought the enclosure should be added on both floors; but`Mr. Caseliini was not in favor of doing that. Mr. Carr had a problem with turnaround for stairs. Generally, members felt it would not be too intrusive: 41 Mr. Carr asked. about .a spiral staircase, but Mr. Casellini said that since this is ' ' the principal stair it wasn'.0ossible. Furniture can' t•be moved up or down,a spiral staircase. Mr. Lippman thoughtintroducing a deck on the.bottom would make the plan better, but Mr. Casellini said he plans to use that area"for wood s.torage,`, and garbage cans", ,etc., '. . Mr. Cook made a MOTION .to' approve the deck as applied for. Mr. :Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The vote was. three'in favor (Mr. Cook,. Mr." Zaharis and Mr. Lippman) ,and four opposed (Mr. Carr, Mr. Slam, Mr. Wolfson and Ms. Harris) . 3-4 MOTION denied. ' It was apparent that anon-site inspection would be helpful in resolving 'this application. Mr. Casellini agreed to diow the site to interested Commission members on Saturday, June 22, -at,' 9 a.m. Further-action on, this application was deferred until the July 17 meeting. At that time the windows will be di§cussed as well. 95-97 Federal Street - The owner of this property, Ms. Jessica-Herbert-Babyak, was present to discuss violations at the request of the Commission. They included Ithe skylights which were not'shown on original' plans, trellis fence which was different from that° shows on the plans, front entrance area dirt enclosed with large railroad ties, rather than iron fence as originally mentioned, and lamp posts. Regarding the enclosures at the front, she said hopefully there will be an ' I 3 . f SALEM'HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 June 19, 19 85' # iron fence. in the front. Presently the cost is prohibitive. :,She will be using granite also. The present situation in that area is temporary and will eventually,,;,• be more in keeping with the plans originally presented. The trellis is a period' � 4y Victorian piece which she wanted if she could find something other than a straight'' fence. She would like a gazebo `if she can find one.- She _would like to put another , ' .lattice piece a foot or so behind the trellis on which to grow vines to protect the decorative trellis: Regarding the skylights, she said 'the only way they can be seen is if one-goes beyond her property. Visibility is also less because of a tree in that location. Skylights are very flat velux and somewhat obscured behind the ,chimney. , At the lme the originalplanswere reviewed there_were no.drawings of 'the skylights because she was under the impression that they wouldn't be seen from the street so there > would be no problem. As for the lamp posts, . she said there is a problem with the driveway on the side. The porch light doesn' t light it sufficiently. She thought the lamp posts would solve the problem. Once,one was put in they added another to balance it. µ She is not happy with them. . She suggested moving one behind the tree so that it .is not so visible, but still lights the walkway. , She also. proposed moving the >, < others back .so that they still light the area, bu't'are not such focal points Mr: ' ' Jaquith said they are underscale for the street'. . Members felt that moving' them • back closer to the building would help. Ms. Harris suggested moving them even further toward the buck. '` r Its. Herbert-Babyak mentioned that the people who purchased the rear unit are interested in haying a garden, but she is 'not sure where it will be located as,yet,.,; <- Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the relocation of the lamp posts as shown 'in' pencil on the plan as #1 and #2, and that,the third light be removed with the applicant returning for approval of a location at a future date. Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION. All were in favor, r Regarding the formal garden mentioned for the trellis area, Ms . Harris said x, she would not be comfortable approving or disapproving until the redesign of the area mentioned by Ms. Herbert-Babyak is, completed. That would include the, area in front of and behind the trellis. Mr. Carr made a-MOTIONAto consider the existing"trellis and existing wooden piece of fence as temporary structures and that no action of an enforcement nature -be taken until the applicant comes back in 30 days with an overall scheme 'showing fence and trellis together with redesign of parking so that all can be considered in context. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTIOyN. All were in favor. Mr. Carr made a MOTION, ,to approve"the skylights as ;installed.,,;•Mr. Slam , seconded the MOTION: During discussion, Mr Carr noted"tliat'altho` gh the Commission had turned down a request for skylight's at 102 Federal Street, the situation is not the same because one sided of t:he roof;was being;.,loaded with two,or;three skylights. On the vote, -all were 1 'favor'. i- • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION^ Page 5. June 19, 1985 Mr. Carr'brought`up _the `"temporary rubbish receptacles. Ms. Herbert-Babyak.. said they are trellised and covered.. A permanent,location,will be discussed when she, returns to discuss other issues in July. 14r. Carr asked about the front doors,% which to-thisoint have'no,t been approved. .p • She replied that when she came to the; Commission she, did+mention the doors and''showed photographs .of them. Mr. Carr ; made a MOTIONeto approve the front doors as installed. Mr.; Slam seconded the MOTION ' e All were in favor. "J Ms . Herbert-Babyak will return to 'th e' Commission_ at the .Jul " y y.�meeting with information requested tonight: Salem Common Renovation ='The City of Salem is the recipient of a state grant for renovation of the Common through the City and.Town Commons Program. Ms. Andrea a' Fish of the Planning,Department presented plans which have been submitted to the Department of Environmental Management.' . She. showed. the existing plan of the Common b= and a site plan showing what they propose to do with the grant. The plan is not , really a redesign, simply a'sprucing 'up of what is already ;there.. Major items. include �restora'tion of 'the perimeter fence in the exact.style of 'the existing, pieces that are already there, restoration,df the original path system (the five-foot wide ' concrete perimeter path will become a 12-foot wide stone dust path; also a shoza y path running from Washington Square West to Washington Square North. will be� 2-fob't wide stone dust), installation of 50 trees ,(for themost part'on the perimeter and along the, path at Washington Square North) . .Mr. Carr asked how large the trees will be. Ms. 'Fish said they are to be six inch caliber and the variety is red oak. The variety was, recommended by Mr. Don Gostin who described it as a very strong . } tree with tap root rather than spreading root system which'causes lumpiness all } around it. It is called red oak but is green. When asked about. the shape of the ' tree •she said it has a very broad round crown. The only possible problem is that oaks don't transplant well in the fall which is when these will be, put in. She next spoke about moving the'war: memorial' to the.PleasanC treet end; how- ever, this may not be possible° sirice there has been some opposition. They are still working on that since they feel that the present location disrupts4the vista.. Re- garding the McIntire arch, sHe` said it�was�felttthat itireally, does`not do justice ': to -the memory of, the original• 'arch 'as far as creating a grand entryway. It will be moved over to the Washington Square North side near Winter Street and serve as a ' 3 replica. w: '1 * #" . ti t The .pavinglat the entryway is being ripped up and ,will be all one material - either black or concrete. Soccer field will not'longer be used as such. Basketball court will 'stay; that was resolved today. The bandstand will be cleaned up, the electricity reestablished, lights will be put in working order and it will be lit at night. She said the; DEM had suggested tearing down. the •bandstand, but that is now a dead issue; it was only a'suggestion. - „ Ms. Fish said the opposition to' �the `relocation of the war memorial is based on the •feeling .that a prominent position'is more, desirable. • P.rotection of the fence was discussed. Some type of guard rail or bollard, is being considered at the .area near Winter Street since that is where most of the • ,Y + � .;. .,.. a_ : "' .:'Fi}.Pz"�S•5ti: AC} } � �,a��tMf. .y. •� �q� i,,...� - a. • MSALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION' " Page 6 June 19, 1985 accidents which damage the'fence occur.' Mr. Carr:said another•way',that°the fence was often damaged'i as by people parking too close to•it where there"is no sidewalk- and hittingit--with car,doors. 'Possibly ,the curb could be :higher; to make it impos-, ,.sible for a,car door to clear it. ..,Ms. Fish 'saidrshe was"looking -into the possibi— lity ,-of insuring .the fence, but thought that was. probabiy" no't;very likely: She ":is continuing tolookinto further meansof,.prote;ction. She, adds d .th'atextra _' sections will be ordered and, kept,on•,hand to beYavailable if needed for repairs:, • ' ` Ms.. Mary Jane' Stirgwolt; a..member .of the.Coinmon'*Association, ,suggested'that some , . „ means of slowingtpeo`pler'down'when 'they come' down Winter Streeteand alerting them that ,they'are, coming .to a Common and must turnshould be investigated ;„ • Ms Fish said that period lights will be installed., Exacf�style not deter- mined as yet', but they i ill'come before 'the Commission. - -A 'total',of 23 lights will be installed., Originally they proposed`to install` these 'mostly on the in- terior, but'the DEM suggested more emphasis on lighting the 'perimeter. ' She explained the pattern theyNchose ;for theYnew lighting, mentioning that the corner of Washington Square West. and North would be very well lit as 'a,showpiece'. Ms. , Harris wondered why there would not be very much%oerime ter'light and so much on the paths. Mr. Slam thought that when 'everyone sees.;the' lighting'in the 'extra well-lit -areatit would encourage'go ing-after.'more, fuiding eventually for .the perimeter lighting. Lighting the interior later would be.d fficult because rip= ping up would,,be.necessary. It ,would be easier toadd lighting.'to .the perimeter at a future date since it just involves bringing lines in from the'street and • a,not necessarily having to.,rip. anything up ^;,Mr. Slam noted that the lights cost approximately.$2,500"each. Mr. ZaharisIsuggested,1that GTE Sylvania or GE be . contacted �to. findout':if they , wouldebe 'willing: to donate ,new lighting. Ms. Fish thought that was.•a verygood' idea 'and she`�will 'foll'ow• up om;the''suggestion: , <, .. : ... a -a .,.•- _ "'Approximately420 'wood and,,iron;beinches`will bei;added. 'The' benches that. are there now will be,removed. Two new, drinking water fountains will be 'added. Ms Harris,asked 'about an irr gation`system.,.,Ms.'-Fishµ said that'Mr. . Foley1. r of the Park Department did not feel`it was necessary. Access in case" of eme r ' .t ' . gency-will .Bejprovided by'.removable bollards at twoypoints - Washington Square_ East/South corner.and West/South`corner'. , Regarding the':McIntire arch,. Ms. Fish said �thersize' will`be' the same. It>will simply-be -moved' and'refurbished, and, = 'will serve moreas a memorial rather than'an,`archway. Ms. Fish will-be back to the .Commission•with ,details')on. benches 'and light fixtures and at: that time*.will report onlprogress. regarding protection'of,the fence' The''job, is going 'out-,to bid the first week-in, August and'con'struction- , : ' should be'starte`d„rght ,after Labor Day. , If the information required is 'available she will be back to the Commission at'the July 17-meeting.; ..Mr.,, Carrmade``a MOTION .to endorse enthusiasticallypthe.concept of the plan described ,on' the;Common renovations. Mr. Slam,seconded the MOTION.. All were in If avor. < »'21 North Street Dr. Alvin Rosen, the owner*of�,the,property, submitte,d ,a ,. request forrapproval'on change o)ftpaint }!color "At jatprevious meeting "th6j5'Commission Jw, NO ' - 1d •tae 'r.*�' .w � + ., ,.�`,� 'k,»'” x y„ [MY -_ - _ .- _ � . ' �' xt.Y,X n�s� '^ F'� Sfiw� , ,•` w4�i.tY •�7�'� � SM-` '4* •IT-a(+. _t- t SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 7 June 19, 1985 1 2 7yI r, l hot �.1 approved Talon (yellow shade) for the body of the house. He wants to 'change that to Richmond Bisque 1154 for 'the body and Newport Blue for' the trim. Mr. Carr made' `' a,MOTION to approve as submitted. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION:, 'All were in ,'`4 ' favor. Abutters will be notified. r ... F 25 North Street - An application was received from the owner of' this property; Mr. Essler, for exterior painting. Colors submitted were Benjamin Moore - 'Alexandria Beige for the body; Putnam Ivory for the trim and'Lafayette Green for the door. Mr. Carr made a,MOTION to approve. as submitted. - 'Mr. Lippman,seconded the MOTION. .All werein favor. -Abutters will be notified: 42 Chestnut Street - An application was received from the 'owner of this ,pro perty, Mr. James C. Ayer, for exterior painting.' Body would be Cabot Solid Stain 'Desert Sand 110592; trim would be Old Virginia White 110511; shutters and'muntins ' would be Black. Panels in bays and corner boards are to be' painted the body color. Drainpipes are to be painted out. Ms. Hilbert said as a Victorian house 'it shouldn' t be a solid color. She suggested the possibility 'of using a lighter shade of the body color for the trim instead of the creamy white submitted. Mr. Lippman 'A s made a MOTION to approve as submitted., - Applicant will also have the option of ,- using trim color which. is a lighter shade' of the body color. Mr. Zaharis seconde x ' the MOTION. All were,in. favor, except,Mr. Carr who was opposed on the basis th3E he preferred to see specifically, the trim options before approval. Abutters will_- be notified, .. Demolition Ordinance;-'Ms'Hilbert'distributedlinformation•on a proposed ' demolition ordinancefforYreview by;membersv'p Lor toZthe next meeting when it will be discussed. She'explained that its purpose is to prevent demolition of buildings without any .public' comment or review. y.`Applications -for demolition of buildings a f ,SO years or older would' be,,. ,reviewed by tlielHistorical4Commission: The ordinance was written by Councillor Centor'ino and allows for a review'period of 90 days. There is an option of not laving to wait the 90 days before allowing the demoli- tion because of the,safety factor ,r Regulations under}the: building code would supercede in case of"h zarda w .Ms. Harris spoke about the vacancy which presently exists on the Commission: Ms : Hilbert said it should be filled in 60 days. ,She recommended that Mr.'Zaharis ' be moved up to status of regular member. He is presently an alternate: ;'.Mr. Carr + made a MOTION that the Mayor be asked to fill -the outstanding vacancy' on -the ' Commission. Mr: Lippman seconded the MOTION: All were `in favor. Consideration • will have to be given to naming another alternate, as well as associate"members. .#' • .. _ •� +AT III Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the Minutes of,the June 5, 1985 .meeting. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr: Slam seconded the ... MOTION. The meeting adjourned at 10: 10 p.m.. Respectfully' submitted,• Joan F. 4Pizzello Approved 8/8/85 Clerk of Commission /'.a r 1 �1. 't ¢ ♦ t '1 SALEMkHISTORTCAL COMMISSION a Minutes of Meeting � Y - July 17, !1985 } A*regular meeting of the Salem,Hxstorcal Commission'was; held on Wednesday, # July. 17,' 1985 at 7: 30 p m.: at One Sal em,Gree '' Presentcwere ' Msi. Harris;'Chair man; Ms. 'Hilbert,,and,Messrs. Carr, ',Cook, Lippman, Wolfson' .'and Slam. ,+" ; ,^ Local District Operation" ' 111 Derby #Street/33 Turner Street : The owners of this` property, Mr. harry Frej and Ms : Constance,Vallis,, were present' and submitted samples of paint and trim'colors the7'lave`chosen: Body color''is+Pratt &'Lambert Stonemill Gray. They ",are. considering painting body ;and�trim in^the same color. . Their other option 'is to,, paint the' trim accustom-blended'coto.i.�two.aoiies 'lighter than the body "color'. They, submitted drawings 'showing requested details•on 'windows and.:doors Mr. . �. Carr.asked.whether`mullions could he added,to the?storefront-type windows on the, front Mr..iFredydid te: not think they could. do that. { �- F-a •" " f .. ' tta Ji *".b_Y Y' .°'. . �� s 1Mr Carr made a .MOTION'to`approve;window--and door- changes submitted tonight and colors.?"submitted.. The .applicants will,have the" op tion,of paiiYting the trim x. t the same' co lo r, as;the'body or painting the. trim 'two.-tones lighter,than fhe;body. Th'e 'recommendation of the: Commission, however, is.-to use''t9e two-tone; treatment since .the house':is soclarge. =--Mr:, tippman:s`econded�the MOTION.7All were,infavor.. Ms Hilbert was assigned, to be, the Project Review Coordinator, ^ 80 Washington Square East Mrt. Thomas''0'Donne- the owner of this property, submitted,an,'application for ,paint :col6rs *:' He told the' Commission ,that he,�iS plan- ping to sandblast ,the-clapboards to remove the paint. The colors h' has chosen are Oyster,White for the body;, White-for' the>trim; Cape Code•Blue fon the shutter's - and„Swedish Red 'for the doors.' .These .ar'e'Lynch Paint colors, but.he plans to stain Fin colors; to match these paints. Mrt. ppmarr. told him about .the problems he'might encounter:using' the sand`-blasing method'of, removing paint°from wood, andsuggested that� be consider -using'a heat{metfiod'ins'tead. ` Mr."O'Donnell was 'recept veto the advice' offered;°and Ms 'Hilbert will send.him`copies of, alpamphlet regardingheat , , removal' methods. r Mr. Carr made a MOTION to .,approve the, application �as .submitted. Clapboards . � and door surrounds to be. painted the body color{and all else to be,,painted the' 'a , trim color including such feature"as porticos;�entablatures, corner�bboards;;water table; etc.; Fence, to be body co table; Lippman econded(,the MOTION ' All were ' :in .favor. Abutters will be notified. Mr. O'Donnell is to ubmii a detail 'drawing of .the fence when' it is available.. - f It All t 104 Federal Street,- -"Application was for an entrance,,gate and fence on this by Mr r, property .owned : David M Hart; , lt,,;was clear„h'owever`, whether,it•.was to. i 0 h f ! ~•"r be put ons the left 'or•right'~side of;: thev:house r' Ms.; Hilber" t'is tocq` contact,ahe;. applicant for more detail and at the same'�time recommend 'that.spindles ,be 'used % for the•fence'instead•of pickets'. This "application will' be taken up again at the:!' r August 7'.-meeting - .. i' tiry v. ;,e: F 167 Federai' Street.-cThis application'submitted by:,owner John McHale was for , h;• reclapboarding 'and `ataining,e,' A sample of the material was, included (cedar) ,,and • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 July 17, 1985 , $ ,. .,# J was stained Olympic Redwood Natural 11717. Trim would be as existing,-Sherwin Williams Autumn Red. Mr. Carr commented that the smooth side to the weather should ±`. S be a requirement for approval. The trim doesn' t require approval since it is. exi's't ap ing: He did not feel the natural stain was appropriate to a house of, this period; ., * ; and was opposed to the clear stain, favoring instead a solid body stain. It was ark noted that reclapb'oarding smooth side out is considered a repair. , Rough side out ; would ,be considered a °change. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to deny the application as submitted and.communicate to the applicant that the Commission requires smooth surface to the weather.-and that since a clear stain is not historically appropriate, will require a full 1 • +� body stain of some sort: He'woulFd then,reapply-for the -color'of'his preference:` Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION: There,was some,"discussiori/about w,hether, or not a clear stain was appropriate to 'the period of'this'house. On the vote, two were . in favor of denying, (Mri Carr and Mr. _Cook) and three were,opposed (Mr. Lippman, Mr. Wolfson and Ms. Harris) 223 MOTION."denied.; (Mr. Slam was not present for this .. vote.) " `, 4 4 t: ! I 3 �„ o .', .,,e'•, , • ,. Mr. Lippman made 'a MOTION.s'to approve the colors as submitted ,and to require that clapboards be applied smooth side to the weather. Mr. Wolfson seconded-the .V .F MOTION. The vote was three in favor (Mr. Lippman, Mr.' Wolfson and Ms. Harris) Y <% e.z and two opposed (Mr. Carr and Mr. Cook) . MOTION, passed 3-2. Abutters will be < • notified. 4 ' ' Lafayette Street - At this point in the meeting, Mr.,Robert Hussey, ,3 Laurel 14 , , Street, who was attending the Board of Appeals meeting concerning the condominium "'.,:x project at 258-260 Lafayette Street, requested that a representative of the Histori cal Commission be available for the next Board of Appeals meeting (special meeting in one week) to communicate the viewpoint of the Historical Commission in this matter. It was noted that the project would have to come back to the Commission for design review in any case. Mr. Jaquith who happened to be present told the Commission that two units will be .dropped from the original plans. Total number of units is 'now 14, four in th`e Gothic cottage at 260 Lafayette, four in the carriage house, and six .in the rear portion. i Bowditch School - Mr. Jaquith referred to a letter from Ms. Hilbert itemizing .. the concerns of the Commission after the-last review. Regarding the height of 'the' fence along Kelleher Way, the Commission recommended that the height .be dropped-.,' to four feet at the far section and six feet in other areas and around the dumpster: They agree to that change. The trees (3) in that area which were originally to be white pines will be changed to a cluster 'of three .birches instead and will be 3" caliber. The height will .be approximately 35 feet. Next to be discussed were the trees on the four parking lot fingers. The. Commission recommended a variety other than sugar maple. One of the suggestions was little leaf linden. The new plan showed four of these trees (one on each finger) of 5" caliber (later amended to red oak - see Motion) . The developer has also agreed to plant the shrubs along .the fence running parallel with Federal Street in .groups rather than all in a row, and will add rhododendron as suggested. Other plants to be used along that fence' . include' viburnum and spires. Approximately 20 plants will be used. As recommended, the amount of boxwood will be reduced and replaced with azalea and some yews. Ms. Harris emphasized,that the size`of the"plantings used in the front of the building fV ps �., Wdv � S,kk7 }++.•w I({h U, �'•^q, g1,,Q} .+ •' SALE MryHISTORICAL COMMISSION.; pl at la 4 Page 3 l i ,r .July 17,:: 1985 �•." will'be important;,,four-feet•high would ,be preferable: Regarding the Flint Street entrance ;to' the`parking.area, the Commission recommended more,heavy planting e Yews ,(2-2z"high) will be added to--the two dogwoods (10-foot spread and 3i', Pos` �: ? t „ sibly 4"; caliber). ,Barkochips, will-not be used,ibut'Will be-replaced by pachy- . saridra in front,of the building, as',suggested. " Ms. Harris ,wanted to be sure ,that 'concrete •curbing will be used rather than 'asphalt. . That,was agreeable, '"-r-•accbrding,to Mr. Jaquith. ..The.Corfmission'would expect that Crowninshield will Y. rep lace�any`plantsrthat turn out_not to be healthy: Next„to' 'be discussed was the detail of. the wood fence running parallel to «, Federal Street. "Fence posfrto 'be 6"'X V' Boards will bet'3/4”"two by fours and extend 8' ' ceinter to,center.. Ms. :Harris'questioned-the' design"of,the, top. of the +' Post., yMr.",Jaquith said he , could change it'to 'a simpler 'cap "He 'then ''submitted ; detail on the?low-iron *fen'cejn''front of the building. He suggested taking the pikes off .the top and capping it, thereby eliminating the pipe`rail which was put oin' forsafety -reasons. -'S'tone bollards to match existing•(granite),. Lighting fixtures, were reviewed next.;; One twenty foot pole ,with three rec- taa gular.,lights on.,"top' is,planned,for -the middle: finger..in the'parking lot.: Mr. Jaquith said`the 'street light is to be improved ;to provide better,,ligh`ting at the. tof, ''=front of, thle lot near, Flint Street ' Ms. Harris suggested the possibility of putting lower.li'ghts in, but more of them . Mr. Jaquith"'said he could dropthe4 height from- 20' rto.;16' and put another`16", pole at the other finger. Mr. Carr.was z • concerned about using huge 'lamps-like those at shopping centers, Mr. Jaquith assuredhim.there;Would.be' iio glare. 'Mr*'. Carr was .also 'co`ncerded,about the lack °of'tall greenery. ' He would like to -see a higher; larger`treeIused on, the,fingers. " He was not"in"favor of little"leaf linden. sinceit won' t grow $igherthan 20 feet: It was`suggested*that red oak be used "That; was, agreeable. �Mr Carr made a MOTION`to approve landscaping.as' 'revised per recommendations except that' red oak' be :subst tute&for what'is shown on the-plan 'as� little leaf linden. ..'Aiso nicluded•in the .approval is concrete{curb,. fence` redesign,-pachy- ' �sandra in place,of' bark chips,-`and wooden fence -design. Mr. 'Wolfson seconded t6e -MOTION.;" All were''in favor Thele was further discussion ;about the lighting ,Mr. Carr'did not think the`;delsignisubmitted would do<the.job he preferred a more traditional. design. r h• . ., and;mo re of it. Mr. Lippman also expressed resenations,;Rand concerns abaut the } ' lighting as submitted Ms.' Harris ,mentioned.h'av ng lights on all four fingers and using amore pedesirianrlevel (10 feet) "acorn" type: • However, she'did' like the idea:of minimizing the' .amount if the one large unit is used.,tiShe said if `"the one °large unit 'is used, ;some small low"-level cone's would help. 'Landscaping spotlights were suggested. '.Mr'., Jaquith.,.thought„that :night.be interestingand saw no problem with it Ms. Harris made a MOTION to approve` the 20 foot light as specified and to ` add the installation of °foul -du' 1 'spotlights„one at each .of ,the.,four finger's in the parking'.'lof,` and torbe iocated'.in. the ground to shine up into 'the landscaping. i Mr : Cook seconded the MOTION. = Ahl were''in favor. s . Y **. ' At the meeting, the woodmfence posts-were rede"signed-so that the'posts would r • SALEM HISTORICAL. COMMISSIONn Page 4' „ July 17, 1985, .* r be 8'L square and would run straight up into .the caps. (Refer to plan for revised' cap detail.) A 1" X 6" water table board will be. added to both sides:of,,the wooden fence. " Mr. •Carr made a MOTION to approve the fence as •submi-tted. •Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. ` All were in favor. Z;.. 14 Kosciusko Street - Mr. James Casellini,. the owner of this property, informed' the Commission that,he had just received the necessary special'permit at tonight's. Board of Appeals meeting. . He submitted a redesign showing a change to all single windows on .the front elevation ofthe addition instead of the double windows ori--, r` . 'F• ginally drawn on the plan. '•That was more acceptable to the Commission. On the left elevation; changes to the existing"building include: moving a third floor door to the left, replacing„the�second floor+double ,door with a,single door, and _-- replacing—the; door- on�the first floor with a window. It was .s uggested 'that he apply'„ exterior glued on munti^'n'barss-to the windows. He;'agreed. . In places where new o windows are required, he is to .use wood windows with integral muntins. He agreed 'tothat also. Therdoor istobe wood with two panels andreal-wood muntins.• The ° side' doors.are to be wood with'. large-panes of,"glass as shown. Mr: Wolfson made a MOTION to approve the plan as,revised with single windows replacing those shown as double on the plan. Mr. Cook" seconded the MOTION. During discussion Mr., Carr expressed concern with the 'view of the building from the Derby y • Wharf side.; as well as-his: opposition'_to exterior stairs. ,,;Ms. Harris noted a lack m,, of-detail on the fence and fence post., The posts are 4" X, 6"„ rails will be ' . 2" X 4" with 1" X 2" baluster,, similar to the railing on, the house at 40 Daniels , Street., On the MOTION; the vote-was -three in favor, Mr. Cook, Mr. Wolfson and Ms. `Harris, and two opposed, Mr. Lippman and'Mr. Carr. 3-2 MOTION passed. Abutters to be notified. . Mr. Carr volunteered to be Project..Review Coordinator. 13 Beckford Street'- It was notedthatthe ,owner of this property, Mr. Nondas ° Lagonakis, has repainted the house as required by :the Commission, but is building " an unacceptable brick wall in front of the house without-any "approval. It was suggested that Ms. Hilbert 'contact the owner's attorney, Mr. Merry, to request that they be present-at the next meeting. Also suggested by some members was contact with the Building Inspector,with-a request for a• Stop-Work .order;- 4Ms.• Hilbert said-- if aid if the fence/wall does*not require a permit,ythe Building$Inspector will not..issue a Stop Work order. -Ms.' would`contact,' the Building Inspector about r•.. this and Ms. Hilbert will call Mr. Merry to advise the owner of the Commission's + `j r} 4. . Ly��'4 � ! � f4 � 4LL'„ ° '¢•�' 4. .�• • 'v.�#.,"ad4r ." � - Demolition Delay Ordinance —Architect Staley MCDermet was present.to .discuss rothis proposed ordinance:which, he:;said;> is-solely intended.- to bring to light the 9 . ,,,, , ,..,4 , - .w,rt proposed demolition of„a building.*+Under the ordinance `a>personimust apply, for a demolition permit and the building may be'demolished 90 days after that. • During that 90 days it would go . to the Historical Commission-which would decide to take action or not as desired. Historic Salem recommended that buildings 50 years or older be included. Regarding'the 90-day timeframe; he thought it should probably •, ` be longer, but •Historic Salem recommended 90 days. :In case the building presents a-hazard, ,there are other regulations•which would supercede this ordinance which SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 July ll,' 1985' . would allow demolition sooner than 90 days. . He told the Commission that .Councillor Centorino who wrote the ordinance will be introducing , t to the• City Council. Re- garding the 90-day time frame', he said the problem with it is that 90 days isnot always sufficient time to find an alternative use or a developer who might restore „ the building. Ms. Hilbert'said six montfis',wnuld be a more reasonable time frame. Mr. McDermet said he willtdiscussLthis 'with the Pfanning Department rbut Commission members did'not feel the Council would go along with that suggestion. Mr. Carr '3 suggested that it might.bembetter'to .present.�the six-month option ,as recommenda- tion, but definitely not-les`s'4han{threeYrmonths'r, Mr. ,McDermet ,s,aid he would return to the. Commission with a'final �dxaft' whenAit is ready for endorsement by the Com- mis sion. om- mission. Lafayette Street District - Ms. Hilbert gave a brief update on the progress of the proposal to establish the Lafayette Street District. She said many signa- tures were collected in favor: Councillor Martineau ,has gone on record as being s very opposed. It comes up for first passage at tomorrow's Council meeting: She was .very hopeful of a, favorable outcome. Derby Street Historic District Expansion - It was rioted that Councillor Nowak ' of'Ward I is ve-ry interested in an expansion of this district .which' is in his ward. 'Mr. Carr made a MOTION. to establish the Historical Commission as a Study Committee to look into the question of .expanding the 'Derby ' Street District and , '+ AVI. further that a letter be sent to Councillor George' Nowak .thanking him for his • interest and expressing, enthusiasm about working=with"him on this project. The - specific area of the study would include those, streets sunning between Essex and. Derby. down to the harbor. Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION. -All were in favor. Ms. Harris suggested that Mr. Slam look into the possibility. of expanding the ' Common ,district (Washington Square District). ,; 'Also discussed was an idea to send�a letter to Councillor Centorino endorsing his suggestion to include .the Knights of Columbus building as'pdrt of the present Washington Square Historic District. Mr. Lippman was in favor of endorsing inclu- sion, but.not until expansion of the district takes place. Mr:" Cook was also ' opposed to sending a letter 'on the basis that.if he were a resident of that area he would rather have no beano and no inclusion of that building in the district. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr.. Lippman seconded the i MOTION. The meeting adjourned,at 10:25 p.m:' espectfully submitted, .. Soan• F. Pizzello Clerk of Commission Approved 9/4/85 a j • �1 V R � 4i !! •. l I M,e_ - t .e .v + s � 1 { SALEM HISTORICAL COMMIS SION. #h Minutes of Meeting ' August 7, 1985 t l •_. ' A regular meeting of the,Salem'Histor1.ical Commission was held on Wednesday, August 7,' 1985 at 7:30 p,m:';at One 'Salem' Green. Present were Ms.'Harris, 'Chairman,- -Ms. Chairman,-Ms. Hilbert; and Messrs. Carr, Clarke;'"Cook,°;Slam, Wolfsontand'zahars, r• ! ` ' ..� � ` • .N"} 'X int 1i A2 + � R , f � et • {' y r Minutes -:.Mr. Clarke made a MOTION to approvelthe Minutes of the September 12 + " I 1984, May a 1;:,1985and June;;,19, 1985 `meetings. Mr.;-Wolfson' seconded the;MOTION., All t were in',favor c 3.< N. a , ,Local' District Operation 13' Beckford Street Ms. -Marcia Cini of Jinti,• Quinn & Savoy wag present with Mr.-Nondas.Lagonakis, the owner of the`property, to discuss the brick wall which <. was constructed at the, front of the house: It was noted that theicolor of the house_"• _, has been' changed �in :accordance with the request'of the Commission. Ms. Cini tol'd;{'. 171 the Commission that she has been working with Ms ?,Hilbert in an effort to come up ,with an acceptable`compromise,on the wall: The'owne'.rJs wilSing .to make . any modi- . ,fications which.will allow him"to keep, the' brick;portion" of the wall. r;They ,propose to reduce thesix courses' that,make up',the runs •between the piers to two courses ;(6-6V`high), to provide' a base. The piers would remain but would need 'to be slightly 'larger to accept three'-foot pickets.`• ,Pickets are' i';,"and spsced•4"" apart with a flat i cap on,the 'top.', Mr. Clarke asked if the design.was `taken 'from a' similar one. She said.she was'working witl what was`already,'th' ' and after:checking similar fences . .. in the neighborhood tried to -determine how it could be'modified, to be acceptable. She said there is one siinilar`fenc'e, in the neighborhood, but 'it pre-dates the t district. Mr. Clarke asked about the steps which are'now brick andimentione,d",that `when this property was a'disciussed previously, the ,Commission had specified wooden l` steps with a recommendation for granite: Mr`;, Slam asked if theairon, pickets would be round: Ms. Cini said .they"felt squarerwould:'be'better.' She 'discussed briefly ' •'-'some of the 'other design alternative's that'4were"considere'd, noting.; that-they were rejected in favor'of'the one`presented'which theyW-felt was simpler-looking in keep- ing with this rather'simple`,build ng.,1,7Anotherssuggestion 4wasffor, taking the brick t out and using shrubs,mther',than`the brick based The',ownerjfeels ;,that ,is not., as; effective' for''keeping dogs, out*andble was 'concerned, about"'the effect-of salt which is .used on., -streets during the winter on any shrubbery location'. Mr tCarr asked what provision!w_Jmade for parking:and`was told 'it would' be.located'• at the side.of the building,-,not in the front° �" '� °"j" � '', "�" aI lip, . Some members wereconceed with the`' equpst ;to pprove 'some,�thing.after the w fact- hich `"they would not have approved before the-work was begun. Ms. Hilbert ' said 'the:pro'ject .has come along way and`Me! 'Lagonakis- did'not' iealize that the Commission had jurisdiction over fences. She said a 'lot of time,,;gas'spent trying ' p p p .. _ p. i t d' take to' come u with an acce tab lecom romise 'and ho edthatthe members would that into -consideration. , Mr. ,Carr ;said he.had'spoken-with some,of the neighbors about the wall. and they were. not in favor`of it 'either• Mr. :L'agonakis, said,if ' " it'would'make it mo reMacceptable' er 'te ;Ihnce down' and, use the area for parking:-;.Some of the.'membersIifelt'that was^more'prefe able 'than the' fence. Mr. Lagonakis, pointed out'''the• conditioti ofrthe houses near his .and .stated that he ,• . _ was trying' to -improve the ,area •}' + i; r ' ,. Mr. Cook made ,a MOTION, to deny``the` application- and request .the removal of the bricks 1lr'.. ,Carr seconded the MOTION On the' vote, five were in favor `(Mes`srs. d' z ' • ITt a }..,� , .;.. -} � q e-x $ '� � s t ' ' i, SALEM HISTORICAL 'COMMISSION Page 2 *i'. August,7, 1985 Cook, Carr, Slam, Clarke and Wolfson) and•two were opposed (Mr., Zaharis and,Ms. Harris). 5-2 MOTION carried. ' The next -issue to be addressed was �that•of thebrick. steps. They have a blue- stone slab lue-stone'slab on top of the%rick. Mr. I'agonakis'pointed out that--.the foundation'is brick.' Mr.. Clarke said there is no other'house of the same period with brick steps and bluestone tops: Mr. Carr madeaa MOTION• to notify the homeowner that there is an existing viola- tion and that the Commission requests the removal of the steps: -Mr. Slam seconded R the MOTION. "On the vote, five,were in tfavor .(Messrs.,Cook',Carr•',fSlam, Clarke and, k Wolfson) and"two were,fopposedY(Mr�.; Zaharis,,and Ms:: Harris)`.�f MOTION J carried 5-2. it Z*1 a 6 Cambridge Street - Mr. John Donoghue, the owner of this property, presented` his application for construction 'of ja`dormer on the ihiid)floorf acing'Cambridge 'Street. -Ms. Hilbert pointed' outithat�therelare other cross gambrel houses' in' the area with dormers. 'Ms. Harris asked why' the dormer was not lined up with the .windows on the floor beneath + Mr.'--Donoghue-sai&there"is 'a,wall in that location on•the .third floor and'iticouldn t`b'erlined up , ' He, saidit'w`asn't unusual for a roof dormer no,C to be lined up with the windows beneath, ;pointing to the Ropes building as an example. ` Mr. Carr noted that on •the' Ropes building there are three dormers and they are symmetrically placed. This application is for one only. rMs. . Harris said most of the•time dormers are evenly spaced and•symmetrical.• Mr Dono.ghuersaid'=it would be shingled like the existing,dormers. • It would-be 30" wide and havew one 6/6 window (wood) with integral muntins. Mr. Carr made a MOTION'to approve the application 'as submitted. Mr.'Clarke seconded the MOTION. , Vote was unanimously in favor. Abutters to be. notified. 95-97 Federal Street -'Ms. Jessica Herbert-Babyak was present to discuss ;concerns expressed by the Commission. She said as, far as the outdoor ,lights go,�. she has decided to remove -diem entirely. ' She agreed 'that 'they' are out of, scale " with the house,. She still''requires' light in, the driveway and='has decided to in crease the amount of light available from the porch light: The next Iissue was her idea to double' up on the lattice piece in the yard to the right of .,the building. She said the center portion is laminated and she is having some problems with the idea. She. would like to use another lattice behind it. She will' be putting wisteria on- it eventually, ,,so a lot of it won:.t be. visible. She had considered... the idea of putting a wood fence (flat boards with a lattice,top). closer to the . ^ street on that side of `the douse, but couldn' t find a way to make it 11 with the rest of the frontage. Instead,, she, preferred andiron fence at;tfi at location to, be set in granite: Current plans are to install the granite'in September with the fence to be set in later when she can buy one. ' The iiext. issue brought up was the location of: the trash bins at the .side 'of the house ,facing the Arlanders. She said the design wasn' t finalized' as yet, but.,.the location was because she felt it'-was the•most convenient place for owners to dispose of trash and have 'it'be close enough to the street so that it will be ' sure to be put out for.pick-up. ,• '' The :method".of'screening the" parking area was discussed. She said solutions • • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 August 7, 1985 7 are limited because there is a problem' in making the turn at that point in the give way: 'Ms. Harris suggested using landscaping as much. as possible. ., Ms. Herbert-' Babyak said there might not be room for it. Mr. Carr mentioned the possibility of •} . extending the trellis to help screen the area. She agreed to submit ideas for`" screening. Mr. Carr asked about reducing the width of the driveway, but she sal ti serves 'as. guest parking. Mrs. Arlander; the abutting neighbor, happened to be present and spoke abqut her concerns with the location of the trash bin which she said is righton the`pro rt , ji perty line., She. added that it is visible from the street. Ms. .Herbert-Babyak saiq ,. w3�', ,� that originally she did not want to locate it there; but by screening it with ever *; greens she felt it would be acceptable as well as convenient. Mr. Carr suggested ' placing it further back on that side and Mr. Clarke suggested consideration of a location at the rear of the property near where a compost bin is planned. The list of concerns to be addressed again at the September meeting include: 1) double lattice - Mr.. Zaharis requested a drawing since this is very difficult to visualize; 2) sketch showing continuation of lattice or some shrubbery to conceal parking area; - 3). design for enclosure of, dumpster and discussion about an alternative location; 4) fence (set in granite) - may not be ready for September. 104 Federal Street - Though the owner of' this property, Mr. David M...Hart, was not present, his 'application for fence- and.gate to be located on the right side of the front facade was reviewed. Pickets are to be 4' 3" and the maximum. • height of the fence would be 6', to the top of ,the post cap. Ms. Hilbert 'reported Ya. that she had communicated the Commission's preference for spindles with this type yr,° of fence instead of pickets, but the applicant prefers to -use pickets. -Mr. Zaharis,made a MOTION to approve- the'application as submitted. Mr'. Carr seconded the MOTION. All were in favor except Mr.Clarke who was opposed. (6-1) Abutters to be notified. . Ms. Harris noted some concern with the size of the urn to be placed on the posts. Ms. Hilbert to .clarify. Salem Common - Ms. Hilbert presented details on the lighting, benches and - bollards. She. was asked .to check- with the appropriate people. in Planning about the,, availability of extra fence sections, location of removable fence sections and-pro-- visions' for nd•provisions' for fence maintenance. Bollards will exactly duplicate the fence post. to , .' a point and have -a simplified cap. The benches (16) will be 'cast iron with wooden "slats and be made from original Victorian patterns. .The proposed light fixturey is a Hancock Post Lite manufactured by. Boulevard Post Lights. It will be 11 feet tall: and made of cast iron. This, light is similar to those that appear in :l9tht'c century photos of the Common. Instead of glass they will have a poly-carbonate ' hard,plastic which is harder than glass. Its appearance is not as clear as glass *. and it might yellow in. time, , but it is less susceptible to vandalism than glass . X ^ and inexpensivetoreplace. e i �; I ' s `� s, 'r � Mr.' Carr made a MOTION'�o`approveltte ,desig'n of the itemsrubmitted tonight. Zaharis seconded- the 'MOTION. All were in favor. Meetings - Because,.fie workload is particularly lightfat'the''moment,. it was :decided' to .omit .the second scheiduled August meeting (21st) and meet next on - Wednesday, September 4, 'I'9;85: " € ?' `' t * s �•R ' • . SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION. Page . 4� *1 !'J, ^ August 7, 1985 a F *ppJ#(}' �SJ� f r ',,, r j • 1 °r:� •�°! i ' �rY'.S' �'�ud f�d.� I,� ��'�� f � W !�t'inik]i`� F , P 165 Federal .Stre6t ` Since Councillor Grace has requested`a meeting between ', �•' the ownerstof: this property,, naul',zandjJbanette ,Malawka 'and representatives or'the + ` Commission, °Ms`., Harris discussedibriefly,the position taken.by'the Commission when f this „appliication was denied. :There was an indication ofesome possible flexibility R expressed ;as far as!'allowing vinyllsiding�,asflong as wood",trim was preserved 141y Aiiother♦option is" requiring "clapboard on*' the 'two".Vfsible .'facades,only. Members ' contain''the controversy surrounding this application as much as wanted to'=try to poss1 le:':,Ms. Harris and MS. Hilbert will.atiend 'the meeting"when it .is. scheduled " 'and .report,back t6.the Commi'ssion. , 'Lafayette"Street Condo Project (258"-L26CLafayette .Street) Ms. ,Hilbert re- ported e ported that'this project came to ',the Board of•Appeal as'.,,two ,separate applications.' ` The Board`of Appeal denied; the four: units in the' Go.thic cottage. They can' t reapply f'or. two' years unless. tfie application contains„ a substantially differen..t' approacH. . '' She ;further reported that.,the- let ter sent by the Commission regarding tliis. project' was somewhat misreported. in the Salem News.` ” M 3 Lynn`Street - Mr. Cary reported that this''house was,painted without permis-' _ 4 Sion'and 'there are some.,window'changes.. Ms. Hilbertyis to inve's,tigate and inform "r *^ i the owners about` the need to 6apply!for"Certificate 'of Appropriatenes's 'on future ':,;, changes. •They. should also be' informed,that the windowsills'should match existing,. and the Commission can, provide several suggestions as 'to howythat can be accomplished. • ' s DerbyStreetExpansion Ms.VHilbert"reported ,on the progress'of the survey 'in this area and discussed the 'issue- ofIhowrtoI administer. the'p'otentially ienlarged district since so many of the houses .in the areah,ave,been sided. Her suggestion, is that if -the, district there._is':enlaiged,. a•separate! commission-be'.formed to handle r' that area and perhaps' the Washington .-Square area." In -addition, the caseload would increase dramatically and,for' that-reason- alone another. commission might be.needed. M6,p.'ros and cons. of two separate icon'n fissions were discussed briefly. : During that n . discussion, Ms. Harris;directe.d .membe'rs' to compile %and submit lists of known viola- ' " .} ^tions which the Commission should address.'. These should be' available for the i September meeting. } ADemolition Delay Ordinance- Ms.i.Hilbert .reported' that she,and Staley McDermet met'with'Mr. Kavanaugh and the review period-will be 'eh an'ged from 90 to 180 days. ` ""Also, the 'ordinance- will say that."'ittwill not supercede any of the 'health and,safety 't regulations already ine'ffe'ct., . Members There was a discussion concerningenew' members'.. Ms. Harris-suggested that Mr.: 0ede1 be ,nominated as an official alternate. 4 ! ± ;y a `€ Mr ' Carr made a MOTION -to nominate 'Mr. Pichsrd' Oedel as an alternate-member of the Salem Histori'callCommission. Mr. Slam seconded the, MOTION. All' were in favor. . t '<. .Ms. Harris and'.Ms. Hider lbert discusse'd the need to, get more- people, with archi- tectural expertise on ',the; Commission. ' A certain balance 'is required un :.Chapter •4s Z' F. i CL s. ,� a P � N � srk •t - � ,.rw y ., i, 1•A , , ^ ... • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 August 7, 1985 ;} Y' 40C. Ms. Hilbert added that becoming a Certified ,Local Government also makes more desirable to seek members with expertise in certain areas. t t Mr. Slam made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. ' Mr. Zaharis seconded the {' •+ • ,: MOTION. The meeting adjourned at*9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joan F. Pizzello Clerk'of Commission . APproved.9/4/85 i�{N 4 ' syr (•ji a.� ¢ fief {,, ♦ .� I + a\� �,+ie • SALEM HISTORICAL' COMPIISSION , Minutes of Meeting '• August-,114, 1985 i ` A specialmeetingof the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday August 14, 1985` at'+7:00 p.m.',at One, Salem Cree'n..`.Present were Ms. `Harris, Chairman, 'Ms.' Hilbert and Messrs. ' Carr, Clarke, Lippman, Slam,.Wolfson 'and Zaharis. . Local District Operation' 13 Beckford Street'- Ms. Marcia Cini° of Tinti., Quinn ;& Savoy. was present on r<. - ; .',behalf of,Mr: NondasFLagonakis, ,owner,'of;-the property. ,Ms: Cini ;presented a revised. ' design°of"the fence in whichthe existing brick piers w,ould.be'•increased from 31". .to P 44",^ faced=with wood and capped' to form fence posts. .`Brick.Yuns will be replacea with`1": square pickets with'+'a base and cap. Shrubbery;°will mask the right':hand ,Preturn -adjacent,to the parking area. As the discussion progressed; further modifi- cationswere"made 'to the fence 'design as 'follows t ? , s pickets to measure +l`> 5/16" square; ,. bottom railing to duplicate'.that on the fence in front of 14 Chestnut St. ;. . n..� .. 1 11 !". "Iw. ' Tt Yy .n1 A - fence cap .to beN a�minimumof 3 z, wide f } .kyr A t a f - posts I to,have iplinths (and'�base cap,,oldi_ngs; ' } -',post'caps. to have bed moldings - z post .to be placed against the house on the sight side where the, fence meets .the buildin `:##; One:.tall'ever reen�bustCyyto mask this yinterSection. ` g.. g # bh - fence to return�to meex the einsting stockade on`the left side of the house;; •! :ti. Y. dd'lsr.. :'--� 'f A.i ';Yre' `� r • µ .- 3ouble gate.at walkwayato „serve as fenceroopeninjfl i.- f t - each gate •s_ection to_.be finished with a board the width of,-the cap: Gate cto be=held in place with barrel, bolt. 1 A,discussion of. the steps followed' and the 'consensus of the' Commission was to approve,facing the 'presently exposed'brick,with'.bluestone to match rthe existing treads. - • .y - �.' e _ <*, Mr. Slam made a MOTION ,to approve the submitted design as amended 'above. ti , ' ' • ,Mr,.',.Zaharis..`seconde& the MOTION.', All°were in^jfavor except Mr."Carr who abstained. ,-. 'r°Abutter notices to be sent: A 131 Federal Street Mr Steven Glovsky; the owner of this property'; presentedk,t .his application- to the Commission: •<The .body of the house is •to. be'painted with .,Benj amin,Moore's,Coionial Yellow.,#10 with'. 3 glossyfiliish. Trim" to;remain white, . -shutters and doors to remain black: ,, The door',to the south side ell presently has .a roof which slopes from upper left'to,'Iower right. `,Mr.' Glovsky would like to remove this,roof ,(a later addition) and "replace; it :with'.a sloped door hood. Ms. Hilbert asked' if�he, would'.consider ,a flat door'hood:'4 Mr. Glovsky .said he was ;. "willing lto' cons ider` o th er'options. A first •f loor' casement window in _the"ell c.w1950 iso to ,be "replaced;with a 6/6 sash' to match the others inrthe.house:;.'Also a compost,heap,and log',shaped ,area atthe rear'of. ,the"dobsway,'along Monroe Street is 'to ,be replaced with 'a'narrower ' but longer,' storage "s Y ;While Commission` membess 'ag`reed to.Mr,. Gloysky's request -to remove .the ' existing rear" door^roof,and•compos't heap now,`.they, requested"fhat he return to � a.thesSeptember'4th' meeting with more detailed drawings of the•new ""door hood and i r storage bin. Ms. Hilbert'will •lookyfor other,examples°of door hoods'to'.present to,Mr. Glovsky' ;rt, Al s SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION —Page-2l / k« .V$!August 14, 1985 _ �.f�2 i+ °.d 4,+�,�,+„'�Y i:'�'i r''#i.�'�.'`��.�F ,.«w..•a��l y��J{ �Y-+` f G r�' Mr: Carr made a MOTION to approve the body color, the new 6/6 sash, and the: :, 'removal of the'existing rear jdoor,.,lioofjanfl'compost°^heap'^ t Mr. Zaharis seconded - `the MOTION. All were' in favor. r Mr. Carr made a MOTIONNto adjo rn the' meeting. (Mr' Zaharis?seconded the {s$ MOTION. "The. meeting°adjourned at 8:00 p.m. q Respectfully submitted, A r Debra'Hilbert ' s Preservation Planner 'Approved 9/4/85 4., , • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting September 4, 1985'. 4Y A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,. September 4, 1985 at 7: 30 p.m. at One Salem Green. Present were Mr. Clarke (Vice- Chairman) who chaired the meeting in the absence of Ms. Harris, Ms. Hilbert,%"aud Messrs. Cook, Slam, Wolfson and Zaharis. t Minutes Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the Minutes of the July 17, 1985, Augusta,7 1985 and August 14, 1985 meetings. Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION. All .were in favor. . F k Local District Operation 106 Federal Street - Mr. Richard S. Minturn, the owner of this property, pre- ,{ sented his applciation for removal of a second floor window (20" X 48") 1/1 -' which presently opens into a bathroom which is being renovated. Once removed, the area would be reclapboarded. It is visible from Beckford Street and from the cor- ner of River Street. He is also seeking permission to install two 4" vents above the former window opening and stain them to match the body of the house and would also like to install one 4" X 10" vent below the former window opening to service a kitchen exhaust fan. That would also be stained to match the body of the house: Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. Abutters will be notified. • 9 Chestnut Street - Ms. Faith Stammers, Manager of Hamilton Hall, presented this application to raise the rear portion of the fence abutting 9 Cambridge Street ' to a height of six feet. The front portion will remain four feet high. There will be approximately 40' of new fencing. The present fence is badly deteriorated. The new fence will be capped flat board, same as existing, but taller at rear. There` are no plans at present to paint the fence. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve ' the application as submitted. Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION. All were in favor,. . Abutters will be notified.- 7 Bott's Court - Mr. Jonathan Horwitz and Ms. Patricia Kravtin, owners of the property, presented their application for roof work. First, they plan to replace the present roof with Georgia Pacific Sable Black Blend asphalt, a;:sample of which was supplied. Secondly, they plan to remove rusted metal between flat and sloped_.. roofs and replace with wood and crown molding (which would be painted to match trim) ., Third, they wish to install two small skylights on the back side of the top flat part of the gambrel. They would not be visible from Essex Street, but one is slightly visible from Bott's Court. The owners plan to use the third fllor in the , future and feel the need for more natural light up there. Mr. Horwitz said the rear portion of the house has a greenhouse window so there is precedent for y, alterations of a contemporary nature. Also, they would like to remove a roof hatch from the front of the house and close up this opening. The skylights are Velux TPS-6, 38" by 21". Though there was some concern noted regarding visibility of the skylights, Mr. Zaharis was the only member who had serious reservations about allowing them. Others thought the visual impact would be minimal because of , their placement and because there are no trees to reflect the light at night. Mr Zaharis had no problem with the rest of the application. While discussing the area between the roofs which is being replaced, Mr. Clarke suggested that the 't G r. • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 September 4, 1985',+ '* " , l owners give some thought to whether they will eventually require venting of some, type depending on what they do in this area inside the house. Mr. Cook made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Slam er seconded the MOTION. All were in favor, except Mr. Zaharis, who was opposed. Abutter notifications will be sent. 141 Federal Street - Mr. Steven Gregory, the owner of this house, presented his plan for exterior painting. The colors he has chosen are Sherwin Williams4-, "x Renwick Heather for the body ( which because of the style of the house is less . . r than 50% of the total area) , Benjamin Moore English Ivory for the trim, Sherwin Williams Rookwood Dark Red for the shutters and Benjamin Moore Country Redwood for the sash. The door will be stripped and left natural. Trim and body colors,, .: will be reversed in major trim areas. Chamfers on columns of porch to be picked; out with sash color. Brackets to be body color and window trim over door to be, "T body color. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Cook'."'J;•' "L seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. Abutters to be notified. 255-259 Lafayette Street - Although the Lafayette Street District will note•: become official until November 1, Mr. David Stricker, representing the owners of.•" : • this property (Lafayette Court Condominium Trust) , met with the Commission to re- ,� view exterior paint colors. Mr. Stricker said they would like to paint the trim . � vhp. now and paint the body which is asbestos-sided in four or five years. The body ,•;� .�, is presently beige and the sash are dark brown with dark brown anodized storm windows. They would like to paint the trim a reddish-brown color (Benjamin Moore"r r ST-1). The molding piece on frieze board may be painted in sash color, and some -st a -' •; play between trim and sash colors will occur. Mr. Cook made a MOTION to approve the colors as submitted, noting that Com- '';%:.y mission jurisdiction over the Lafayette Street Historic District does not officially take effect until November 1st. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. It was emphasized that when the owners decide to paint the body they will have to apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness. No abutter notification will.` ' be required since the district is not yet official. Owners have applied for y' approval as a courtesy. 31 Broad Street - Mr. Clarke noted a change on the rear of this property owne&i' ;. r by Peter and Barbara Copelas. No application was received. It appears that a rear. ` , exterior porch has been closed in and a staircase built. A building permit was ,+ issued, according to Ms. Hilbert; however, since the new clerk in that department,"-, was unfamiliar with the requirement to get permission for the work from the Histo-'; rical Commission, she did not direct the owners to apply for a Certificate before work was begin. Ms. Hilbert will write a letter to the owners informing them of the correct procedure to be followed in the future: Though this is considered a violation, the quality of the work and the oversight by the Public Property clerkz*' , contributed to the Commission's decision not to pursue it further. There was a brief discussion concerning options open to the Commission when ^%;:• ' a violation is taking place. If a building permit was issued, the Buildingsg t sy • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 September 4, 1985 i Inspector can be asked to issue a Stop Work order until the issue is resolved. However, in cases where no permit is required, such as painting, etc. any Commis- " sion member may be justified in informing the owner of the violation and report same to the Commission for action. : r South Branch Library - Ms. Hilbert informed the Commission that the trustees are planning to sell this building which is located in the future Lafayette Street District. At present the first floor is an open space with 20' ceilings. She wanted the members to be aware that if purchased by a developer, it is possible that a proposal calling for this space to be made into two floors might be sub-,- mitted to the Commission and if so, the upper floor will probably require some provision for more light. She wanted to alert the members to the possibility"of , an application for skylights on the round portion of this building.at some future date. Proposals are due on September 11. Mr. Oedel suggested that members view the Flour Grain Exchange Building in Boston which has skylights in the cone. Possible development could be office or residential. Commission members felt that it would not be appropriate to make a statement about skylights at this time, but would rather wait until an application is in hand. Demolition Delay Ordinance - Ms. Hilbert said this ordinance will be going to the City Council on September 12. She noted a change from the original pro- posal in that the review period has been lengthened from 90 to 180 days. There is • also a provision stating that there is nothing in the ordinance which would super- cede the State Building Code regarding unsafe structures or emergency measures. '. Mr. Slam made a MOTION to endorse the proposed Demolition Delay Ordinance. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. Also noted at this time were known violations; in particular, Dr. White's E, 4 shutters at 398 Essex Street, the satellite dish on 701 Federal Street, a bricked-in window at 52-56 Flint Street, fence at 102 Federal Street and sliding glass doors at 31 Flint Street. A letter regarding the fence at 102 Federal will be sent to Mr. Bramble next week. No action has been taken as yet on the sliding glass doors and the bricked-in window. Also mentioned was the work at the rear of'. 31 Broad Street which will be addressed via a letter to the owners by•Ms.' Hilbert. Ms. Hilbert informed the Commission that Salem is now officially a Certified;: {; '7 . Local Government. She mentioned a workshop to be held in November in Worcester where criteria for nominations to the National Register will be discussed. Membersx2;.Y2, should attend if possible, since the Commission will now review National Register nominations in its capacity as a Certified Local Government. 33 Flint Street - Mr. & Mrs. Sam Peper presented their plans to erect a capped picket fence across the back of the driveway. The fence pickets will be 1" X 3" and be spaced 3/4" apart. It is to be 40" (3'4") high and 168" (14') across. Ms. Hilbert suggested a third post be included for better balance. The Nd , owners agreed. • { . Mr. Wolfson made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted with SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 September 4, 1985 4 i additional specifications as noted. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. Abutters will be notified. Fr Y Y Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. The meeting adjourned at 9 :00 (! ! !) p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joan F. Pizzello Clerk of Commission F; a. - ' r • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting September 18, 1985 A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, September 18, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green. Present-were Ms. Harris, Chairman, Ms. Hilbert and Messrs. Cook, Slam, Wolfson and Zaharis. Local District Operation 10 Summetr Street - The owner of this property, Mr. Frederick D. Small, was ,• j represented by Mr. David Small and Mr. Tom Mason. The application is for removal of metal siding to be replaced with clapboard; replacement of every window with 6/6 wood single-paned windows; and extension of the third floor of the rear ell 12 feet to the end of the building, adding a dormer. That rear portion had rotted and the chimney fell down. The new extension will be the same height. Nothing is being deleted. Ms. Harris asked about the wood trim around the win- dows and was told the wood trim will be replaced as needed. Members also ex- pressed concern that the sills be extended and the owner's representatives agreed to do that. Ms. Harris wanted to be sure that the trim that is replaced will be the same as originally existing (prior to siding) . The entry door will be re- placed with one similar to existing if that one cannot be used. Ms. Harris told them that if they decide on a new door they should furnish the Commission with drawings or photos. They agreed to do so. Ms. Harris also expressed some con- cern about the dormer since no working, drawings were furnished. On the drawing submitted it reads as a small window in a large dormer. Typically, the window • fills the dormer with no clapboard showing. Mr. Cook suggested setting the dor- mer-below the ridgeline of the roof, unlike the drawing. The drawing which was submitted was not an architect's drawing; therefore, it was assumed the posi- tioning of the dormer was simply an error. Exposure of the clapboard was dis- cussed with Ms. Hilbert suggesting 4" to the weather, smooth side out. That was acceptable. Ms. Hilbert further suggested that they consider staining rather than painting, using a solid body stain. Storm windows will be used, but the Commission has no jurisdiction over them though it was recommended that white baked enamel be used. Mr. Cook made a MOTION to approve the application as amended. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. (4-0) (This vote was taken prior to Mr. Slam's arrival.) Abutters will be notified. Further details on door, dormer specifications and paint or stain colors will be discussed at the October 2 meeting. 95-97 Federal Street - Ms. Jessica Herbert-Babyak was not present. It was noted that two of the lights which she agreed to remove have been removed. One is left. There has been no change in the rubbish enclosure area and no change in the fence. A letter will be sent requesting that plans for the items to be resolved be submitted no later than November 1. 5 Bott's Court - The owners of this property, Arthur and Jacqueline Bunting, were unaware of the requirement to have their paint colors approved by the • Historical Commission since they are new to the district. The work was begun without approval. Colors chosen are Benjamin Moore Sandrift (110 57) for the Salem Historical Commission Page 2 September 18, 1985 body, Benjamin Moore Navajo White for the trim, and black for the shutters. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the colors. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. (5-0) Abutters to be notified. e Salem Common Landscaping - Ms. Hilbert discussed the plans for the Salem Common Landscaping project, noting that the Department of Environmental Manage- ment has requested that a number of trees be planted around the basketball court and tot lot. The Salem Common Advisory Committee, which objects to the change, is looking for a letter of support from the Commission. It was the feeling of the members present that planting the trees would present a visual barrier. Trees were not originally planted that way and it would be inconsistent with the plan which calls for mostlyperimeter trees. The Common Advisory Committee feels this would call attention to the area, rather than conceal it and further. feels that isolating the children's playground in this way is not a good idea. The budget is the same and the money for the additional trees would have to come out of the original budget. Ms. Harris was concerned about taking money away from other important aspects of the Common restoration. Members felt the new proposal was historically inappropriate. 3 Mr. Wolfson made a MOTION to send a letter opposing the addition of the trees on the basis that the addition is historically inappropriate, and would • limit funds available for use on historic restoration. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. (5-0) 18 Chestnut Street - Ms. Hilbert told the Commission that she had been contacted by the owner of this property, Mrs. Frederiksen, regarding plans by her neighbors to string telephone lines across her property. She wondered whe- ther the Commission has any jurisdiction over'.this matter. Members felt this was not under their jurisdiction, but,suggested that Mrs. Frederiksen contact the City Electrician and Building Inspector, as well as the telephone company which, they felt sure, would not take any action without requesting an easement from her. At this point in the meeting, several unresolved applications were discussed; among them a pool enclosure. at 14 Chestnut Street, sliding glass doors at 31 Flint Street, roofing at 1 Lynn Street and possible enclosure of a porch at 37 Warren Street. Ms. Hilbert is to follow up on these. Minutes - Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the Minutes of the September 4, 1985 meeting. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. (5-0) Mr. Cook made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The meeting adjourned at 8:25. p.m. fully sn mitted, • yZ Joan F. Pizzel`3o Clerk of Commission Approved 10/2/85 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting October 2, 1985., k A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, October 2, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green. Present were Mr. Clarke, Vice- h Chairman, who served as Chairman in Ms. Harris's absence, Ms. Hilbert, and Messrs. Carr, Cook, Wolfson, Zaharis and Oedel. } Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the Minutes of the September 18, 1985 meeting. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. Local District Operation n. 95-97 Federal Street - The owner of this property, Ms. Jessica Herbert-Babyak, was present at the request of the Commission to discuss four unresolved issues. The first was the one remaining lamp situated to the left of the front entry. She has removed the other two as requested by the Commission. She would like to leave the last for safety reasons and to avoid confusion by people looking for the entry- way to units other than hers. Members who were present had no problem with allow- ing the light to remain. i The second issue was the lattice fence. She prefers to leave it having an open look and plant wisteria near it. Once the wisteria grows it would have a more solid look. The original idea was to screen the parking, but the parking is no longer located in that area— There was some discussion concerning the appropriate- ness of the design with Ms. Hilbert noting that though she felt it was inappropriate,. originally, she has modified her opposition, based on the fact that the lot is unusually large and can support a more unusual treatment. It is made of pressure- treated wood and will weather to a silvery color, if it is left unstained. Members were in favor of removing the plywood which was placed behind the fence on a temporary basis. Next to be discussed was the granite base for the future iron fence which was part .of the original design. In place at present are wood pieces similar to rail- road ties. She suggested that at least the top layer of wood be removed and the remaining wood stained granite gray. She would also plant -ivy in that location. Mr. Carr thought having wood there might draw attention to it and he preferred to have nothing there. Ms. Hilbert noted that the area would have to be regraded since it was just planted. Ms. Herbert-Babyak said she would like to leave at least one layer of wood as a border to keep it looking neat. Ms. Hilbert said that shortening it and concealing it somewhat with ivy would make it blond out and be less conspicuous. Mr. Zaharis wanted to be,sure the ivy, if planted, is kept trimmed so that it doesn' t flow onto the sidewalk and.present a hazard to people walking by. Members thought at least one course should be removed and whether to remove two was left to the discretion of the owner. The last issue to be covered was the design and location of the enclosure for rubbish barrels. The present location is to the left of the entry on the left property line. The enclosure is covered by trellis and screened from the street by a large evergreen and low deciduous shrubs. The latticework is painted- green and there was some discussion with the abutting neighbor about possibly sharing the cost of planting more evergreens in the area to provide more screening'. • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 October 2, 1985 Alternative locations were discussed since the abutting neighbors would like to % see the barrels moved elsewhere. Originally they were to be placed in the vici- nity of the carriage house (which is not part of this property), but becausethe yard is so open in that area it was felt that they would be very visible. Another. location further along the left side of the house was considered but it was felt there was not enough room to locate them there and they would be difficult to get to. After discussing this for a while the consensus of most of the members pre- sent was that the best location is probably the present one. Mr. Zaharis was concerned about possible odor problems in the present location. Mrs. Arlander, the abutting neighbor, was present and reiterated her opposition to the current location. Owners of two of the units at 95-97 Federal were present and spoke in favor of leaving the barrels where they are. They contend there is no odor prob- lem. They felt that if this location becomes a problem in the future it can be addressed again. Mr. Carr pointed out that the Commission's function is to review design based on historical considerations. If the location becomes a problem it should then be addressed by the Board of Health. Mr. Cook agreed noting that every effort has been made to make it as unobtrusive as possible. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the siting of the lamppost as shown to the left of the front entry; to leave to the owner's discretion removal of a minimum of one or two courses of wooden foundation for fence both on edge of driveway and edge of sidewalk and to stain the remaining wood gray; to approve the lattice fence; • and to ratify the placement and design of barrel enclosure. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. The vote was four in favor (Mr. Carr, Mr. Cook, Mr. Wolfson and Mr. Clarke) and one opposed (Mr. Zaharis) . (4-1) Abutters will be notified. 4 10 Summer Street - Present to discuss exterior painting and dormers,were Mr. David Small representing the owner, Mr. Frederick Small, and Mr. Thomas Mason. Paint colors submitted were California solid stain Blue Rock for the body and Sherwin Williams Colonial Revival Ivory for the trim. A more detailed drawing of the dormer was submitted as requested by the Commission at the September 18 meeting. Prior to discussing the dormer, Mr. Small and Mr. Mason asked about the possibility of the Commission's approving vinyl siding, samples of which they presented. They were told that it was unacceptable. Mr. Carr who was not present when this application was discussed the first time, asked about the dormer and questioned why there were not two since there is room for two. Mr. Small had no problem with adding a second one to make it more symmetrical. The area where they are to be placed is 22 feet long. Mr. Clarke suggested that the top of window casing should be even with the bottom of the rakeboards. The two dormers should be symmetrically placed in the ell. Wood showing over the window in the dormeir is to be flat boards, rather than clapboard. , Dormers :do not require the sill extension that was specified for the other windows of the house. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the application for paint colors as sub mitted and the addition of another dormer. Dormers to meet specifications agreed • upon at this meeting. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. (5-0) Abutters to be notified. • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 October 2, 1985 19 North Street - Mr. Gary Sackrider, the owner of this building, was present to submit an application for a change in windows on the north facade. He would like to remove two small adjoining windows at the rear (second floor) ell and re- place them with a bay window, providing more light in the room. The window open ing would be increased. Mr. Sackrider said that the reason for the change is that ? there will be a new tenant who will probably be a long-term tenant and the tenant has requested the change and is willing to pay for it. Mr. Clarke noted that the window requested is a Perma-Shield vinyl window and the Commission doesn' t usually approve vinyl windows, specifying wood instead. Mr. Sackrider said there was no problem with using a wood window if that is what the Commission requires. Mr. Carr said.if the window were more visible he would want to see a window that re- lates to the style of the first floor windows. The three-dimensional aspect of a bay was a concern. The amount of visibility was discussed. Members who did not view the site were unsure of how minimal it actually was. Foliage also makes a difference. Ms . Hilbert felt the visibility was minimal and said she was further influenced by the fact that there is probably not a single original window on the rear ell of the building. Mr. Oedel's view was that it was not a question of re placing original windows; they are not in original locations;, the ell is at the rear of the house and the windows below are replacement windows themselves. Mr. Zaharis was opposed because of the visibility. Mr. Wolfson was also concerned about visibility. Mr. Cook thought it was so far back it probably would not be an eyesore. The Commission would be aware of it, but the general public might • not be bothered by the visibility. Mr. Clarke said he would encourage use of a 5'4" window instead of a 7' window. When asked if the tenant would agree to 'a different style of window, Mr. Sackrider said he thought the tenant would go along with using wood and would probably agree to use of the lesser size, but definitely wanted a bay-type window. The question of what constitutes "minimal visibility" was discussed with members concluding that it was difficult to decide without viewing the actual site. Each case is different. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted and leave to the discretion of the owner the size of the window, either 5'4" by 4'6" or 7'4" by 4'6". Angle of the bay should be 45 degrees. Recommendation of the Com- mission would':be....to-.use the smaller size window. :Mr..-Cook seconded the MOTION. The vote was two in favor (Mr. Carr and Mr. Cook) and three opposed (Mr. Wolfson, Mr. Zaharis and Mr. Clarke). (2-3) MOTION defeated. The applicant, Mr. Sackrider, expressed his opinion that the Commission was making its decision based on insufficient information regarding visibility. In an effort to be as fair as possible, since members had not viewed the site, it was suggested that Mr. Sackrider reapply, giving members a chance.to investigate the application more thoroughly and review it again at the next meeting. Mr. Cook made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Zaharis seconded the • MOTION. The meeting adjourned at 9: 15 p.m. especd�subm3�tted, ' Joan F. Pizzello�� Approved 10/16/85 Clerk of Commission • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting October 16, 1985 . A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, October 16, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green. Present were Ms. Harris, Chairman, Ms. Hilbert, and Messrs. Carr, Lippman, Wolfson and Zaharis. Mr. Oedel, an Associate Member, was also in attendance. Minutes Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the Minutes of the October 2, 1985 meeting. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. Local District Operation 19 North Street - This application was originally presented at the October 2 meeting. The owner, Mr. Gary Sackrider, is seeking approval for a bay window to be installed on a rear ell of the north facade. Members were unable to deter- mine how visible it was without an opportunity to view it again. Mr. Wolfson said that after seeing it he feels the visibility is minimal and has no problem with the application. Ms. Harris thought it was visible enough so that approval couldn' t be automatic. She noted that typically bay windows on Victorian houses are two stories tall. She added, however, that the bay window is not typically Victorian nor is it really modern. She hasn' t been able to find an alternative that would look great in this application. Mr. Carr agreed with Ms. Harris that it is visible enough to want to do it right. Mr. Sackrider said if the style • submitted is not acceptable he is agreeable to finding something that is. He is somewhat flexible. He seemed to want some type of bay window with the alternative being that, he would leave it as is. Ms. Harris asked whether he would consider ` two side by side larger windows. Mr. Sackrider said that if pressed, the tenant t (who has requested the change and will pay for the work) might agree to one or two larger windows though initially he was in favor of only a bay. Mr. Carr said he would prefer to see symmetry restored in the top two windows by using 2/2 windows the same dimensions as the bottom windows in that same area. He said he would approve one and hoped the owner would do both. Mr. Oedel and Ms. Hilbert thought visibility was minimal. Mr. Zaharis said he had not changed his original ...' position that it was visible and he was opposed to the bay. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to deny the application as submitted for a bay window but indicate that the Commission would approve a window where the two smaller windows are that would be directly above the first floor window and match it in terms of dimensions. Also would recommend that the second floor left-hand window of the ell be likewise treated. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. All were in favor except Mr. Wolfson who was opposed. (4-1) Mr. Sackrider agreed to submit a new application. Abutters will be notified. 3 Beckford Street - The owner of this property, Mr. Thomas Barrett, is seek- ing approval for exterior painting. Body is a tan shade of Sherwin Williams, GB-52; the trim is an offwhite Sherwin Williams OW-72. The front door will be dark brown. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the application as presented. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Abutters to be notified. t . . • Salem Historical Commission Page 2 October 16, 1985 92 Federal Street - An application was received from the owner of this pro- perty, Mr. Richard Quirk, for a new front door. The photograph submitted showed a Federal-style door. The house has a Victorian-style portico over the present glass demlra •Since the owner was not present and the Commission felt it had in- sufficient information, it was decided to table this until the next meeting. 95-97 Federal Street - Ms. Hilbert reported that after the last meeting the usual abutter waiver forms were mailed and within the ten-day period allowed, ,a letter objecting to the trash enclosure was received from the Arlanders. They would like to see the rubbish barrels moved to another location on this property which is owned by Mark Babyak and Jessica Herbert-Babyak. The Arlanders feel that the present location is conspicuous and the plantings are insufficient to mask the enclosure, particularly with foliage loss approaching. They further statethat they never agreed to replace these plantings. Also they claim that the present enclosure is beginning to show signs of deterioration. The Arlanders who were present said have signatures from other neighbors who support their. position. Mr. Carr objected to allowing any comments without the owner having been notified that this would be discussed again. Ms. Hilbert said the three- part motion allows for a ten-day period within which abutters are allowed to voice their objections. If such objections are filed, the Commission is obliged to reconsider and revote. Mr. Carr was in favor of holding a public hearing. Mr. Lippman thought the abutters should be allowed to speak before any decision • is made as to whether a public hearing should be held. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to grant a public hearing in three weeks at the next regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission with notification to all in- terested parties. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The vote was three in favor (Mr. Carr, Mr. Zaharis, Mr. Wolfson) and two opposed (Mr. Lippman and Ms. Harris) . (3-2) Public hearing will be scheduled for the November 6, 1985 meeting. Witchcraft Trial Statue - The sculptor, Mr. Yiannis Stefanakis, presented his clay model for a statue commemorating those who died during the Salem Witch- craft Trials. He told the Commission that the City Council has endorsed the statue and requested that the Salem Historical Commission review his plans and make suggestions for a proper site. He described the process involved in the creation of the statue which depicts three women, two standing, one sitting, and which was inspired by the recent locally filmed television drama "Three Sovereigns for Sarah." He intends to use as a base a boulder selected from Gallows Hill. Total height of the statue will be 13 feet. The boulder is to be approximately 8-9 feet. The statue will be cast in bronze and will be ap- proximately 7 feet tall without pedestal (dimensions as presented by the artist). Mr. Stefanakis was looking for an endorsement of his design by the Commis- sion. He told members he will be raising funds to pay for the project. Mr. Carr asked about the site. Mr. Stefanakis said it would be 212 to 3 years before he is ready for a site. Possible locations are to be suggested by the Commission . and the City Council • Mr. Zaharis expressed his view that the witch trials are not a plus, for Salem and questioned whether the city wanted to publicize the witch history. Mr.' Stefanakis said he thought the statue would be a memorial to those people who died. , � S " r . Salem Historical Commission Page 3 October 16, 1985 .r Mr. Carr asked about the City Council vote. He was told that the Council endorsed the idea of having this monument. No funds were allocated by the city. They will be raised privately. The sites under consideration include Salem Common; .: the circle in front of St. Peter's Episcopal Church and Gallows Hill. Mr. Stefa nakis thought the Common would be preferable since there is so much space, but " T conceded that the location is not his decision. Mr. Carr said he had no problem with endorsing the concept, but that would be hard to do without knowing where the site will be. He was most in favor of the area in front of St. Peter's Church since it is located just down the street from the site of the jail where the witches were held. Mr. Lippman was also uncomfortable about endorsing with- out knowing the site. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to endorse the concept of a memorial to the people who lost their lives in the witchcraft hysteria, but reserve all design approval to a later date for more specific information on the site. Mr. Wolfson seconded. the MOTION. The vote was four in favor (Mr. Carr, Mr. Wolfson, Mr. Lippman and Ms. Harris) and one opposed (Mr. Zaharis). (4-1) Sites were discussed briefly with Mr. Carr noting that the original SRA plans called for statues to be placed in 5 or 6 locations. One of the locations was the area in front of St. Peter's Church. He mentioned again that the origi- nal witchcraft jail was located in the general vicinity and thought that site . was the most appropriate. Whether the size of the statue is correct in scale for that location would have to be rethought. Ms. Harris voiced her reservations about the Common site. She would not like to see the Common too cluttered. She did not feel that location would do the statue justice. She. thought the area in front of St. Peter's was an inter- esting one, but was a little concerned about the design for that location. The semi-reclining figure might bea problem. It makes the design wide. Mr. Stefa- nakis said it is five feet wide. This matter will be discussed again when the site is officially chosen. Frye Building - 263-265 Essex Street - Though this building is not within a local historic district, the Commission has been asked to review plans for its rehabilitation by the Salem Redevelopment Authority. The owners, Partners Realty Trust, represented by Atty. William Quinn and Ms. Marcia Cini, were joined by the architect,. Mr. Robin Wunderlich of Scagliotti Architects in pre- senting the plans. Mr. Quinn said it is a combination new construction/rehab. The building is composed of three parts: the 1768 brick section fronting on Essex Street, a Greek Revival structure at the rear of the property, and a late 19th century infill structure constructed in two parts which connects the front and rear sections of the building. The developers' first proposal calling for the infill building to be redesigned to simulate a Federal period building was voted down by the Design Review Board of the SRA. According to the Secre- tary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, new construction should be • built in a manner that makes it clear what is historic and what is new. Mr. Quinn presented photographs of the building as it looked in the past. t . • Salem Historical Commission Page 4 October 16, 1985 The brick portion along Essex Street is the oldest commercial building in down- town Salem. Windows have been closed over. They plan to open them up again. The back portion of the property was used for storage. Most of the property was vacant in the upper floors. There were several fires over the last few years. The owners have purchased two parcels of property which will have office condos with on-site parking. They have an SRA $200,000 facade easement loan. The balance will be funded through industrial revenue bond issued by Shawmut Bank which is anxious to see the property improved since the bank is an abutter. The purchase is completed and they have secured the parking lot with fencing. They have 30 days from purchase and sale to get all necessary permits and per- missions from local boards which are required before the bank will release any money. As part of that process they have gone before the SRA which has approved preliminary plans. They were then referred to the Design Review Board and it was also suggested that the Historical Commission offer its input. The brick portion facing Essex Street would be occupied by one business. The center (warehouse portion) is to be renovated into three-story office buildings with several condo units on each floor served by a central elevator and corridors connecting the various parts of the building. The rear Greek Revival section will house a single unit. For the front section, the developers will restore the. original window • configurations,- the glass storeefront,_ the granite -lintel along front, and the granite posts along strategic points. The building will have a stucco sur- face. Mr. Quinn mentioned the interior features such as window sills, moldings, fireplaces and mantels and noted that they intend to preserve, anything that is significant which is inside the building. He said that the middle building and the use of its space is critical to the project because income will make the rest of the project possible. He also spoke about some of the various approaches they tried before coming up with what they did finally. They are now awaiting Redevelopment approval. No final action will be taken until the Historical Commission has looked at the plans. Mr. Carr asked how the connecting portions line up. Mr. Quinn .said from the front facade on Essex Street the modern addition is set back approximately 25 feet and it projects about 12 feet out into the parking lot from the west end of the front building. Mr. Carr asked whether' a fence would enclose the parking lot. It will and the parking area will be private for tenants of the building. The fence will be carried around to the back part of the parking lot to secure that area as well. (There will be approximately 50 feet of fence.) Mr. Zaharis asked how many tenants they expect to have and how many cars they will be able to accommo- date. Will they be able to accommodate their tenants? Mr. Quinn said there will.,` be 26 spaces in the lot as it is designed. There is 15,000 square feet of rent- able space. He couldn' t say how many people will work there. (Possibly 30 or 40) He said in some cases employers may want to provide parking stamps for their, employees which will allow-them to park at Riley Plaza. Also tenants might wish_' • to park at Riley Plaza thereby allowing the parking near the building for use of their customers. i S. . • Salem Historical Commission Page 5 October 16, 1985 r .^ Mr. Carr asked what the Design Review Board's reaction was to the stucco. Ms. Cini said they have been treating the building as if it were a restoration. All available photographs show stucco. They have no evidence that it was built as a brick building. They cannot document that it was intended to be exposed brick. Ms. Hilbert asked why the glass was not brought around. It was structurally not feasible. Structural elements integral to the side of the building are loca- ted there so it was not possible to add glass. tion. Mr. Zaharis commented that he was happy to see in improvement in that loca- Ms. Hilbert brought up the door facing on the parking lot. It is shown as a plain steel frame with full glass doors. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to endorse the concept of this project. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The vote .was unanimously in favor. s Appropriate fencing material and style was discussed. Mr. Lippman said he thought a see-through fence would be more appropriate. Mr. Carr favored a gra- nite base with wrought iron, granite posts and simple wrought iron balusters. • Ms. Hilbert thought a cast iron fence would be consistent with design philosophy of a mid-19th century building, the time period to which the front building is being restored. Mr. Zaharis asked about plantings. Mr. Quinn said there will be a gate to the left of the parking lot with a path which will probably be concrete. The area ,to the right of the front facade will.have shrubbery and a single tree. Another tree will be located in the large section near the main door on the park- ing lot side. Some low plantings or grass will be used in that area also. -There is also a tree back in the area of the old building at the far end of the parking lot. It was suggested that some plantings be placed on the Essex Street side of the fence at the entrance to the parking area. Mr. Quinn asked what kind of plantings are suggested. Ms. Harris said plantings behind the fence should be substantial. .The back of the parking lot is to have a wall'-type fence for both screening purposes and to secure that end. Ms. Harris asked if an iron fence is an option and mentioned the fence in front of the addition to the Salem 5G Savings Bank. Mr. Carr wanted to be sure to indicate to the Design Review Board and to the owners how important the fence is. Mr. Lippman suggested that it be no more than four feet high; simple but substantial. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to add a four-foot high open simple but substantial wrought iron fence. Plantings should extend two feet behind the fence. A solid foundation is recommended for the fence as well as granite posts. Solid wall recommended for the back. Ms. Harris said she liked the idea of keeping the building plain, .but it is • so plain that she is afraid it might look cold. She asked about putting lintels of a contrasting color and material over the windows. That is possible. The lintels would be light-colored. its. Harris asked about not having windows on corners of transitional portions. Tinted glass proposed for transitional portion and modern area. Ms. Harris asked what color the stucco will be. Mr. 'Wunderlich � � e • r '� r • Salem Historical Commission Page 6 October 16, 1985 said a warm light gray tone. Shutters will be trim colon which has not been decided yet. Wood shutters will be used. The glass will be.bronze color. Ms. Harris noted a personal preference for light or clear glasstcalor. Mr. Wunder- lich said he could possibly go to a rose color which Ms. Hilbert thought would look better with the brick. Added to Mr. Lippman's MOTION was a recommendation for light colored lintels of a contrasting material and extremely lightly tinted glass (color unspecified) .` Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. A letter will be sent listing suggestions made by the Historical Commission. t Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joan F. Pizzello Clerk of Commission • Approved 1/6/85 • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting November 6, 1985 A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,. November 6, 1985. Present were Ms. Harris, Chairman, Ms. Hilbert, and Messrs. Carr, Clarke, Cook, Lippman, Wolfson, Zaharis and Slam. Mr. Oedel, an Associate Member, was also in attendance. Minutes Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the Minutes of the October 16, 1985 meeting. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. Local District Operation 95-97 Federal Street - According to zoning regulations a structure cannot _ be closer than 10 feet from the property line. Therefore, Ms. Hilbert met with . Ms. Herbert-Babyak, owner of the property, to discuss alternative locations for the trash enclosure. Two possible sites were chosen along the west side of the house; one was toward the front (behind a small pine tree) and the other was in the back near a deck at the rear of the property. During discussion members indi- cated that they favored the location toward the rear of the property. Mr. Cook had no problem with either and was willing to give the owner the option of choosing. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application for permission to locate . the trash enclosure at the rear of the property adjacent to the deck. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. All were in favor except Mr. Clarke who abstained from vot- ing since he was not present during the discussion. (6-0-1) Abutters to be notified. 92 Federal Street - Mr. Richard Quirk, the owner of the property, was not at the meeting to present his application. There are two doors on the front of the house which he would like to replace. None of the trim will be touched. Replacement door he has chosen is the standard 6-panel wood door (Brosco M-100 or the equivalent) . Ms. Hilbert showed a photo of the door noting that there will be no mail slot or lights as shown in the photo. Members indicated that the owner could be given the option of using a 4-panel door if he prefers (Sun-Dor SD 409) since the doorway has a Victorian door hood, although the house dates to the '18th century. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the doors as applied for (6-panel wood, Brosco M-100 or equivalent, with the option of choosing 4-panel doors (Sun-Dor SD 409) as an alternative. Either would be acceptable. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. (7-0) Abutters to be notified. 94 Federal Street - Mr. Carr noted a change in the paint color of this pro- perty and a change from a screened porch to half-screen/half-walla Ms. Hilbert is to investigate and invite the owners to meet with the Commission to discuss the changes. • 313 Essex Street - The owner of this property, Mr. Roger L'Heureux, was present to discuss his application for aluminum replacement windows on the third.. • Salem Historical Commission- , Page 2 November 6, 1985 floor only of this house. The windows. are currently 3/3 and he would like to replace with 3/3 aluminum thermal pane windows. Presently there is a wood win- dow with storm window: The reason he is seeking the change is because there was a fire there in September and the Fire Department dismantled the windows. He said he intends to leave the aluminum storm windows in place. He feels alu- minum windows will be easier to maintain and he has been told that they will be ', . ` 30-40% more energy efficient. Mr. Slam asked what the guidebook says about re- placement windows. Ms. Hilbert read the notation which states that replacement windows should be made of wood - aluminum replacement windows are not generally acceptable. Mr. Clarke discussed the fact that the size of the frame:;would•;be increased and the size of the window decreased which would result in a heavier reveal,:.thus .changing the dimension-of the window... Mr. Carr also expressed con- cern about muntins which would have no depth and no reflection. Mr. Lippman said that he not only had a problem with replacement of non-original material, but stated that wood windows with storm windows are very good on energy conser- vation. Mr. Cook had problems with consistency and authenticity as well. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to deny the application as submitted for aluminum thermal paned windows at 313 Essex Street. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor of denial. (7-0) Mr. L'Heureux asked about windows on the back of the house and he was told that as long as they were not visible from a public way he could change them. The Commission recommended c that he consider using wood windows. • 333 Essex Street - The owner of this property, Ms. Catherine H. Smith, was not present to discuss her application which was for a wrought iron exterior spiral staircase. Ms. Hilbert informed the Commission that there is no secondary egress from this side of the house which has two separate owners. The Building Inspector has required that a provision for secondary egress be made. Mr. Carr questioned whether the solution must be on the exterior. He feels it is very visible. Mr. Lippman agreed. Mr. Slam suggested communicating with the applicant and express- ing the Commission's concerns about visibility. He would also want to know why it can't be located in the interior of the building or if it must be exterior, at the rear of the building where it would not be as visible. He thought the owner of the other half of this house should be involved in this. In any case the owner should be present when this is discussed again to provide answers to the questions raised. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to table this application until the November 20 meeting. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. (7-0) Other Business Expansion of Derby Street District - Possibility of Neighborhood Conservation District - Ms . Hilbert reported that she had met with Mr. Oedel and Mr. Robert Shapiro to explore the options in connection with this project. She has done a survey of the area and said that though it is historically significant, there are many altered buildings. She said it would be extremely difficult to adminis • ter a local district, given the changes. One of the different options explored was a Neighborhood Conservation District. She provided copies of enabling • Salem Historical Commission Page 3 November 6, 1985 legislation covering such a district in Cambridge. The commission for this dis- trict would consist of five members, three of whom would be area residents (two of these three must be neighborhood homeowners), one who would be a property owner (but could be an absentee landlord), and one who would be a Historical Com21 - mission member serving a joint appointment. The Neighborhood Conservation Districtw would have binding review over new construction, demolition and additions to exist ing structures, and nonbinding review,over all other changes covered in the ordi- ., i, nance. Paint colors would not even be considered in this type of district. Ms. Hilbert felt this arrangement would be more workable given the altered nature of the neighborhood and it would probably be received more favorably by residents. Ms. Harris noted that when enabling legislation is drawn up for such a district additions may be made to items which would be considered binding or non-binding.,. Mr. Oedel said the neighborhood is made up primarily of older long-term owners and tenants. He has had some good response to having some local structure, but the general consensus is against a regular local district. Ms. Hilbert provided copies of other legislation which members were asked to review before the next meeting at which time it can be discussed further. The City Council would create the ordinance and the Commission's role would be to support it. Ms. Hilbert thought it would require two passages of the Council. It was not known whether a 2/3 vote was required. Also unknown was the percentage • of neighborhood support required. Ward 1 Councillor Nowak is known to be generally in favor of expansion. Ms. Harris suggested that the Assistant City Solicitor be asked to review the legislation provided and comment. Ms. Harris said the Commission has three options: do nothing, push for a historic district, or establish. a Neighborhood Conservation District Commission. , Mr. Slam expressed his opposition to a local historic district commission for this area separate from the main commission. (Note: this would be in the case that the existing Derby Street Historic District were expanded instead of creat- ing a Neighborhood Conservation Distict.) Other members seemed to agree noting that it would be confusing and inconsistent. Mr. Oedel agreed and stated that the people in that area want something fairly simple. Use of a title other than a Conservation District Commission was also suggested in order to avoid being mistaken for the city's Conservation Commission.' Ms. Harris suggested that members review the material and consider a pos- sible vote to endorse at the 'next meeting. If endorsed the proposal could then be discussed with the Assistant City Solicitor. Mr. Lippman asked about canvas- sing the neighborhood. 'Ms. Hilbert said that has not been done yet. The next step would be to write a document explaining the options, then schedule neighbor- . hood meetings add then a public hearing. Members agreed that they would like to see neighborhood feedback before proceeding in any direction. Mr. Slam thought neighborhood people should be seen before deciding which direction should be taken. They should know the options and what each one entails. As a point of information, Mr. Wolfson spoke about a property on White • Street which he was told about by a neighbor. The property is not in the dis- trict but there appear to be building violations involved. No action will be Salem Historical Commission Page 4 November 6, 1985 . taken since the building is not currently in a district. It was also noted that Councillor Grace spoke with some members prior to the. meeting. She was concerned about 165 Federal Street and the application for siding which was denied. Ms. Harris informed members that she and Ms. Hilbert had sought a meeting with applicants and the councillor and had been unsuccessful, because the applicants won't even discuss it. She had also tried for a meeting via Mary Usovicz and that also did not transpire because the owners are not wil- ling to discuss any other options. Mr. Carr suggested that Councillor Grace be informed of the Commission's efforts in this matter as a courtesy.. Members were reminded to bring to the next meeting their lists of known violations. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to adjourn the -meeting. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. r ; Respectfully sub," ub ted, V ` ?Joan F. Pizzellloerk of Commission Approved 1/20/85 J -n Ll.. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting November 20, 1985 A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, >. November 20, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green. Present were: Ms. Harris, Chairman, Ms. Hilbert and Messrs. Carr, Cook, Zaharis and Slam. Mr. Oedel, an Associate Member,was also in attendance. Local District Operation 94 Federal Street - Mrs. Constance R. Conrad, owner of the property, pre- sented an application for a change in a side porch from all-screened to half- screened and bottom half clapboarded, and a new front door. The present door has two windows at the top and a mail slot. Mrs. Conrad submitted a construction drawing of the parch work. It was determined that the porch is a later addition - to the house. The clapboarding to be used for the bottom half of the porch would be painted to match the body of the house. Mrs. Conrad was receptive to suggestions of the Commission concerning the door. The Brosco M-100 with two lights was suggested. The mail slot which she would like could be added. Mrs. Conrad said she was interested in:.an insulated door for energy conservation purposes. Ms. Harris said that the Brosco door is a solid wood door and can be ordered with weatherstripping. Mrs. Conrad indicated that the door frame also needs to be replaced. Mr. Carr wanted more information on the door sur- round. The owner was told that if she is replacing the door frame exactly as it is she needs no approval for that work. Mr. Carr noted a change in color from that shown on the original inventory form. Mrs. Conrad said it was painted. within the last year, but she did not think she needed permission since it was , painted green. Members pointed out that though it was painted green, the shade is very different from the previous green. Also shutters which were painted black originally are now painted a deeper tone of the green used for the body which is very light. She should have applied for a Certificate because the change in color is substantial enough to warrant review. . No further action was taken on the color change. Mr. Cook made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted for the porch change and to specify use of. a Brosco M-100 door with two lights and mail slot. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. All were in favor, except Mr. Slam who abstained since he was not present for the first part of the discussion. Abut- ters will be notified. �10 River Street - Mr. Stephen D. Whittier, owner of the property, submitted his choices for exterior painting. Colors chosen are Cabot's Solid Stain Spanish Moss (0553) for the body and the trim and Cabot's Solid Stain Park Red (0527) for the window sash only. Mr. Cook made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. During discussion, Mr. Carr indicated that he thought the color was too dark. Ms. Harris was also concerned about the choice of Spanish Moss which she thought was a heavy color. A suggestion was made that the applicant paint a wood panel in that color to see how he likes it and to show to neighbors before the whole house is done. Mr. Whittier 'did say that he was not sure how the Rz�, f SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 November 20, 1985 color would look either and was receptive to alternative suggestions. Mr. Carr who is also a neighbor thought that other neighbors might also have reservations about the dark color chosen. The vote on the MOTION to approve as submitted was four in favor (Mr. Cook, Mr. Zaharis, Mr. Slam and Ms. Harris) and one opposed (Mr. Carr). (4-1) Abutters to be notified. In an effort to suggest an alternative color as a compromise, since Mr. Carr indicated that he as well as other abutters might be opposed, Pewter Gray ' (0541) was suggested or Beechwood Gray (0542) . Mr. Whittier mentioned that he liked Cordovan (0537) which was another dark color. Mr. Cook commented that he thought the applicant was being pressured to change his color choice. It was suggested that if the applicant can come up with an alternative selection after considering it briefly, he could come back tonight for an alternate approval. 333 Essex Street - Ms. Hilbert reported that a letter was sent to the owner of this property, Catherine H. Smith. No response was received. The . application was for an exterior spiral staircase on the west facade, rear portion, fifth bay from the front. Ms. Hilbert suggested that this be tabled until the • next meeting. A stronger letter will be sent to the applicant requesting her presence at that time. Members agreed to table until December 4, 1985. Other Business Mr. Ralph. Hobbs, a member of the Board of Trustees of the Brookhouse Home for Aged Women, addressed the Commission about an application to the Mass Historical Commission's Preservation Projects Fund for a matching grant to renovate thia property at 180 Derby Street. The money would be used to clean and repoint the brick work. Mr. Hobbs also spoke about putting the blinds back on the front facade. The deadline for grant application is December 6. Ms. Hilbert said part of the preliminary application calls for an architect to go through and do a survey. She said the maximum amount available would be $100,000. Mr. Hobbs said the Home is supported by endowments from which their half of the matching funds would come. Part of the application calls for com- ments from the Historical Commission. What Mr. Hobbs was looking for was a letter of support from the Commission. The question of suitability of blinds on this building was discussed briefly. Ms. Harris asked if there are other projects in the city competing for these funds. Ms. Hilbert said there is an application for the City Hall. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to endorse both projects in concept and to reserve all specific recommendations until Ms. Hilbert and the architect involved in each case discuss and decide what they want to do specifically. Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION. All were in-favor. • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 November 20, 1985 ` k There was a brief discussion concerning outstanding violations. Mr. Carr suggested that a few designated members tour the districts to determine if there are any other violations not noted. Mr. Carr and Mr. Oedel volunteered to tour the McIntire and Derby Street districts and Mr. Slam will tour the Washington Square district and they will all report back to the Commission at the next meeting. Ms. Harris said she would be scheduling a meeting with Mr. Kavanaugh and City Solicitor O'Brien also. Possible Derby Street Expansion - Members discussed sample ordinances which_ Ms. Hilbert supplied at the last meeting relative to options available in the Derby Street area. Mr. Slam said he was not too enthusiastic about the Neighbor- hood Conservation District idea. He thought it might work as an interim phase ' before becoming part of a regular district. He was more in favor of presenting all possible options to the neighborhood without emphasizing any of them to see what the neighbors want. Ms. Hilbert said her preliminary judgement is based on. discussions with some of the neighbors. She is willing to hold neighborhood meetings and is excited about the possibility of a Neighborhood Conservation District. Ms . Harris questioned whether the people there really want a regular dis- trict. She thought there might be more feeling for a Conservation District. ' S • Mr. Carr spoke about his concerns with respect to alterations and said he was strongly against new additions. He also felt it was important to get a sense of the neighborhood. He spoke about the appeal to investors when an area. is part of a regular historic district and said that those side streets included in this survey have homes that could benefit by tight control. He expressed his concern about a Conservation District which he thought reflected another layer of government where control is amorphous. A regular district provides tight clear control. Mr. Oedel spoke about the Conservation District idea as an interim step with a regular district being the goal in five to ten years. The advantage to the Conservation District idea is that during that time at least houses couldn' t be knocked down; architectural integrity might be maintained. He thought the area might develop into a regular district at some point, but wasn' t sure if the neighborhood was ready for that at this time. Ms. Harris thought there might be some risk in offering two options; people could lose interest completely and she was not sure they want any control. Mr. Oedel said he based his feelings on conversations with neighbors in the area being considered and felt that at this time they are probably not in favor of a strict historic district. Mr. Carr discussed the history of the McIntire District expansion and how it came about and added that if Lafayette Street passed, Derby Street would be • even more likely to pass. Mr. Zaharis thought that the Conservation District might be a stepping stone • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 November 20, 1985 and a good way to start. He expressed some concern about the make-up of such a Neighborhood Conservation District group with one person doing the appointing. Mr. Cook said he had no objection to a Neighborhood Conservation District. He said the neighborhood attitude would be very important. y .. Ms. Hilbert thought local control on a Conservation District is appealing and probably would be appealing to the neighborhood. Ms. Harris thought a public meeting would be a good idea but wanted to know whether the Commission wanted to present two options or one option. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to have a neighborhood meeting and present all three. options (do nothing, establish a Neighborhood Conservation District, or expand . the regular Derby Street Historic District). Residents/owners from Hawthorne Boulevard to Webb Street, both sides of Essex Street to Derby Street, are to be notified and invited to such a meeting. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. All were in favor except Ms. Harris who was opposed based on her feeling that more conversations with neighbors are required before any district is considered. Mr. Oedel suggested that Councillor Nowak be contacted before planning the meeting. This was"agreed to by Commission members. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION.to approve the Minutes of the November 6, 1985 meeting. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully sub ted, Joan F. Pizzel� Clerk of Commission Approved 12/4/85 r r '9 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting December 4, 1985 A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, December 4, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green. Present were: Ms. Harris, CLir- man, Ms. Hilbert, and Messrs. Carr, Clarke, Cook, Lippman, Wolfson, Zaharis and Slam. f , Prior to covering regular agenda items, Ms. Harris introduced Ms. Julie John- son of the Massachusetts Historical Commission who was present as an observer. Ms. Johnson told the Commission that there is new legislation pending in the state legislature revising Chapter 40C. There is a possibility of passing more controls on to local governments under provisions in the new legislation. It will also allow for designation of individual local landmarks, and protection of archaeolo- gical sites, and will also provide for review of interior spaces of public build- I ings. Chapter 40C will be completely reviewed. She told the Commission that local governments (in Salem's case, the City Council) will have to amend their local ordinances when the new Chapter 40C is adopted. Ms. Harris asked what the status of the legislation is and Ms. Johnson replied that specific legislation e has been drafted and has been reviewed favorably so far in sub-committee. She said it was very difficult to tell how it will go in the legislature. She agreed , to send further information and to keep the Commission informed on the bill's progress. • Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the Minutes of the November 20, 1985 meeting. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The vote was in ':favor. ` Local District Operation 256-260 Lafayette Street - Mr. George Belisle, the owner and developer of the property, was present with his contractor, Mr. Steve Fuller. Ms. Harris reviewed . the progress of this project thus far, noting that the carriage house is ready to be moved to its new location, six feet back from the previously proposed location, as requested by the Historical Commission during its preliminary review, Ms. Hilbert reported that she viewed the site today and the foundation has been poured and it is six feet back as stipulated. Mr. Belisle said he has been to the Board of Appeals and has the necessary approvals to commence work. Tonight's review by the Historical Commission was to deal mainly with the carriage house. Ms. Harris suggested that the concept of the massing of the rear condo units might also be reviewed. Mr. Belisle said there are no proposed changes to the exterior of the Victorian cottage at 260 Lafayette Street. Mr. Belisle told the Commission that Mr. Jaquith who is his architect on this project is in the process of redesigning the rear area because there will be fewer units than originally proposed. The application called for replacement windows in the carriage house. Mr. Belisle asked the Commission to consider vinyl inserts. His second request was that the windows be shortened (they are currently between 6'6" and 7' ) for energy • conservation and easier interior furniture placement purposes. They would like to lower the first floor windows 8 to 10". They are presently just below the trim piece. They propose to use 5' windows. The frieze board would be left • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 December 4, 1985 where it is and there would be crown molding all around. The next issue he raised is the use of skylights. Also the garage door was removed and they pro- posed using a wooden solid core door with four panels and sidelights and transom above. Regarding the windows, they propose to use 7/8" with muntins inside the glass. They spoke of replacing with 6/1 which they thought was the original configuration. Also proposed is use of French doors (wood clad in vinyl with thermal-pane and muntins inside). A new railing will be built in front of the proposed French doors. , The dormers will remain exactly the same. Mr. Clarke said it looked more like the windows on the old picture are 8/1, not 6/1. There is one existing chimney (taken down for moving purposes, but to be rebuilt) and they would like to add another. Changes on the right elevation include a new door with transom, four new vellux skylights, all the same size, one new chimney, a repaired cupola and turret being restored. There is an existing dormer which will remain and there is a portion below the turret. On the rear elevation there will be replacement windows in existing open- ings, a new door but not in the same position. Above the door they plan a new • skylight (fixed glass). The door will be glass with solid wood trim. This area is planned as a connector with the new condos. The overhang takes light away so they have put in two vellux windows to give additional light. The cor- ner is cut back. The shed roof overhang .which is presently there will be re- moved to allow for the new overhang. The mass is the same as what was there previously but had been torn down. The roof is asphalt shingle and will be replaced as existing. Also on the rear elevation, 8/1 windows were changed to 6/1 and shortened. Mr. Carr asked about a second floor window which appeared thinner and was told it was existing. On the left elevation there is a small insert at an angle and there is no corner board on the edge. The original door was removed and is being replaced by a window. Also three existing windows are remainipg. The dormers are staying . the same, but a new skylight is planned. The railing over the bay*window is being restored. Also there is a new ridge vent on the roof. It was determined that eight skylights are requested for the main roof and ti two on the kitchen wing. Ms. Harris summarized the changes which include 10 skylights, Andersen windows in back, the idea of replacement vinyl clad wood windows throughout the building, new door in front (sidelights and transom, thermal-pane with integral . muntins) , new door on right side (solid wood panel) , glass door at rear and removal of one door, new chimney, roof vent,uchange door into window on left • side, shortening and dropping of windows, French doors, corner treatment. Under discussion, Mr. Wolfson deferred to Mr. Lippman who said he has • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 December 4, 1985 strong problems with muntins that aren' t real. He suggested that they could use storm windows. He also had problems with non-authentic materials such as vinyl. He had problems with the skylights and also with the roof ridge vent. The skylights on Lafayette Street are pretty obvious and could be seen at night. He was confused by the idea of shortening the windows - it was hard to tell how it would look from the plans submitted. Mr. Carr was concerned about the proposed window treatment. He felt a strong case would have to be made to deviate. He would like to see uniformity in the window treatment and would like to see 8/1 windows as original. Integral muntin bars should be used and he favored original materials wherever possible as stated in the guidelines. He also expressed concern about the skylights as also noted in guidelines and was particularly concerned about the side that has four. Regarding the French door, he would like to see lights integrated better with existing windows. He also had a problem with the continuous ridge vent which also deviates from guidelines policy. Mr. Zaharis agreed with the concerns stated by Mr. Lippman and Mr. Carr, and wanted to hear the comments by Ms. Hilbert as Preservation Planner. Mr. Slam had no problem with the ridge vent, but does have problems with the skylights, especially the four on one side. He also was concerned about • the use of vinyl clad windows. Mr. Cook said his biggest problem was with the change in the size of the windows. He said he was unalterably opposed to shortening the windows, given the scope of the building. He favors the use of wood windows and particularly would require integral muntin bars. Mr. Clarke noted that this is the first Lafayette Street District review and the Commission will be looking differently at this project now that it is in a regular district than when it came in for a courtesy review. He was con- cerned about setting precedents in the district, particularly with the vellux f windows. He also agreed with the comments stated previously by Mr. Lippman and Mr. Carr. He thought the windows should stay existing sizes and should be 8/1. Height of the windows is part of the Victorian character of the carriage house with its high ceilings. He also expressed a dislike for ridge vents. Ms. Hilbert said she had nothing new to add to these comments, but agreed with Mr. Clarke's comment that the character-defining element of the windows shouldn' t be changed in size. They should also have integral muntinq. She was - concerned about too many skylights and suggested that maybe there are ways to get rid of some. Ms. Harris said all the windows are an issue with her in terms of size, integral muntin bars, vinyl rather than original material and skylights. She also said she had about a 50-50 concern with the ridge vent. • All members were especially concerned about the skylights on the Lafayette ' Street side. x • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 December 4, 1985 Mr._ Clarke asked about setback (31 feet + from granite wall) . When ques- tioned'about the need for so many skylights, Mr. Belisle said they were needed for light. Entire light for the third floor loft level is by skylight, though r some light comes up from lower level without the use of the skylights. Mr. Carr expressed concern about the visibility of the four skylights as seen coming up Lafayette Street. Mr. Belisle thought they might not be as visible because of the trees. Mr. Zaharis reminded members of a previous application (19 North ` Street) for a window which was not thought to be as visible and which turned out to be very visible when trees were bare. Ms. Hilbert read the excerpt from r ` the guidelines which deals with skylights. Ms. Harris asked Mr. Belisle for his comments after hearing the concerns of the Commission. He said he could live with keeping windows as they are - same width and length. Regarding the skylights, he said since the building was moved back six feet he thought one on the front could be eliminated, but the side ones aren' t going to be that obvious, in his opinion, since the buildings on each side are higher. The side lot is narrow and he feels visibility is difficult. The carriage house will be somewhat obscured by the other buildings. No dimen- sions on the skylights were on the drawings, but Mr. Clarke said the model num- bers noted were approximately 3'6" by 4' . Mr. Belisle said they kept the^" ' skylights flat and his interpretation of the guidelines is that the Commission is not totally opposed to them. Wood or vinyl windows is not an issue with him • and he said he would go along with wood. He said on the large area he could live with real muntins and on the sides he would like to go with the inserts. Mr. Clarke informed him that J & B Sash now does make thermal-pane windows and the,muntins are applied inside and outside. Ms. Hilbert said she was not that confident about howsecurethose are. Mr. Carr mentioned that SRA buildings did use storm windows inside, Mr. Belisle said he would rather not go with storm windows. Mr. Clarke suggested that his case might be strengthened if he waits until the carriage house is moved into position because visibility is difficult to determine until then. It was suggested that the skylights be reviewed again in two weeks by which time the carriage house should be moved into position. Mr. Belisle asked if a dormer would be more acceptable if sky- lights are not acceptable. Mr. Clarke suggested that he consider using eyebrow dormers. Ms. Hilbert thought the vote should wait until plans for the rear portion are finalized. Mr. Lippman said if the windows are unchanged (wood with wood muntins) no vote is needed on the windows. Mr. Carr said he would rather vote on issues that were already decided than to rediscuss these issues again at a later date. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to deny that part of the application which requests the following: - to reduce the size of existing windows by either lowering lintels or raising sills; • - to deny that part of the application that requests 6/1 windows so that r existing lights are retained,, SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 December 4, 1985 - to deny that part of the application that requests vinyl-clad windows so all windows shall be made of wood material; r: - to deny that part of the application that requests thermal-pane with muntins between two pieces of glass; owner would have the option of keep= ' - ing existing single-paned windows or using thermal-paned windows (wood) with muntins permanently glued on both the inside and outside. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. All were in favor except Mr. Zaharis who was opposed. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to deny the proposed application for continuous ridge pole on the roof, Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. Mr. Cook said he was not vehement about the ridge vent. Ms. Harris asked Mr. Clarke for an opinion on alternatives. He suggested consideration of fascia and soffit ventilation with solid ridge pole with holes drilled through. Mr. Fuller thought that was not possible in this case because it is sectioned off in so many places. This MOTION was withdrawn with owner asked to come back with alternative solu- tions to venting problems. Mr. Clarke made a MOTION to approve the chimney. A sample of the brick to be used should be furnished. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. Ms. Harris said the brick should match existing in terms of mortar color, brick . color and spacing between bricks. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve: - door on the right side elevation which shall be wood with lights above ` as shown. The transom should either be a single-paned wood window with integral muntin bars or a thermal-paned window with muntins glued to both the interior and exterior; - wood four-panel door on the back with glass as shown and wood frame fixed glass window above; window being substituted for an existing door; casing and.sill size to match existing; - two vellux windows and two Andersen-type wood casement windows on the back and one Andersen-type wood casement window on the 45 degree angle corner; - approve the addition of corner board to the edge -in the area of the 45 ' degree angle 'corner. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. • Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve a wood four-panel door as shown on the front elevation facing Lafayette Street and approve windows on either side of the front door and the size of the panel beneath and three transoms using same •: " t • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 6 December 4, 1985 window treatment (same wood material, casing to be wood as shown). As through- out the building the owner has the option of using either single-paned windows with integral muntins or thermal-paned windows with glued-on muntins inside and >• outside. Molding should be as shown around the whole area. Similar casing to match other windows. Single raised panel is an option in each case. Mr.Zahari' seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to request redrawing on the loft doors. Moved to deny that part of the application as proposed. Recommendation is to repair or reproduce existing doors. The only approval in that area is for railing as shown in front of doors. Mr. Clarke seconded the MOTION. All were in favor, except Mr. Lippman who was opposed. There was some question about inconsistencies in windows and whether or not , they were originally 8/1 or another configuration. Ms. Harris suggested that windows that are not 8/1 should be noted at the next review for further discus- sion. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve 4/1 windows for the sides of the bay window. Same requirement to use either single-paned windows with- integral: mum- tins or thermal-paned windows with glued-on muntins inside and outside would apply. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. . The rear buildings will be reviewed at the next meeting. . Ms. Harris wanted to be sure that the building does not extend any further on the right side. Foundation is to be as shown. Ms. Hilbert is to contact the architect to let him know what transpired at tonight'smeeting. 333 Essex Street - This application was for an exterior spiral staircase to be located on the west facade, rear portion, fifth bay from the front. The owner, Catherine Smith, was not present. Ms. Hilbert said she was told verbally that the application was being withdrawn, but she had nothing in writing. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to deny the application as submitted. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor of denial. 10 River Street - Mr. Carr withdrew his request for a public hearing on this . application. A paint sample was put up and was approved by the abutters. Violations List - As a result of a survey by Mr. Carr and Mr. Oedel, a list of violations was prepared and submitted by Mr. Oedel. These include: ? �i 16 Kosciusko Street Stone wall on side of building 112 Derby Street Signage on the ice cream shop 94 Federal Street Color not approved • 100 Federal Street Doorbells, unapproved fences on both right ' and left side of building . SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 7 December 4, 1985 95 Federal Street Trash bin in wrong location Bowditch School Electrical service entrance, fence, landscaping, tree sizes and locations w P� g> 31 Flint Street Porch on rear �F 2 Gifford Court Windows replaced are now Andersen 1/1; should be at least 2/2 - Were to put match- ing windows on principal facade 54 Flint Street 2nd and 3rd floor windows bricked in, shut- ters, outdoor mailboxes and eagle, 1/1 windows4 2A North Pine St. (Carriage House) Window on south side, no stain on exterior 398 Essex Street Blue shutters 6 Botts Court Unapproved fence 4 Chestnut Street Rear fence not approved 15 Hathorne Street Picket fence missing 13 Warren Street Aluminum siding f 5 Warren Street Skylights t 76-761� Federal Street Satellite dish Phillips School Main entry and doors to new wooden buildings 343 Essex Street Window in kitchen area 13 Beckford Street Steps 96-98 Derby Street/ 33 Carlton Street Brick corner i Regarding the violations on the Bowditch School project landscaping, Ms. Harris suggested that Ms. Hilbert contact Andrea Fish in Planning to discuss this. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION that a letter be sent asking the developers to come in to answer the Commission's concerns. It was further recommended that the Building Inspector be asked not to issue a Certificate of Occupancy until the problems are rectified. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. w L t • a SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 8 December 4, 1985 T .0 Mr. Zaharis mentioned changes being proposed for the Kerr Furniture building in Town House Square. Two floors are to be added and renovations are to be done to the former Foodland building. Also proposed is a new building on the open lot across the street and a bridge across Essex Street to join the buildings. R r Mr. Carr made a MOTION to write a letter to the Design Review Board ex- pressing the Commission's serious concerns and opposition to the proposal with ; a copy of the letter to be sent to the City Planner. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. The next regular meeting is to be held on December 18th unless the plans for the further review of the Lafayette Street project are not ready. If that is the case there will be no meeting on the 18th, but the Commission will meet for its first regular January meeting on January 8, 1986 (no meeting on the first Wednesday of January which is New Year's Day). Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joan F. Pizzello Clerk of Commission Approved 1/8/86 r t is v