Historical Commission

August 21, 2019, Page 1 of 7 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES August 21, 2019 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 7:00 pm at 98 Washington Street, Salem, MA, 1st Floor Conference Room. Present were: Chair Larry Spang, Rebecca English, David Hart, Vijay Joyce, Stacey Norkun, Mark Pattison, Milo Martinez. Absent: Reed Cutting, Mark Pattison, Erin Schaeffer. 20 Fowler Street – CONTINUATION Michael Jaros and Claudia Paraschiv submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint color Documents & Exhibits ▪ Application: 7/22/19 ▪ Photographs ▪ Paint chips Ms. Paraschiv was present to discuss the project. Ms. Paraschiv presented paint color renderings of her house, noting that they printed slightly darker than what is proposed. Mr. Spang noted that the following options presented by the applicant: Option A: dark riser; Option B: dark treads; Option B1: dark portico trim; Option C: dark riser and tread; and Option D: light transom and surround. Ms. Paraschiv noted that she plans to install tread mats to add some contrast with the darker color and she prefers the darker stairs to contrast the lighter tread mat. Mr. Hart stated that the proposed options are going in the right direction but was concerned that dark risers and treads would have no contrast and could create a dangerous condition. Ms. Kelleher noted that the Commission has no jurisdiction on tread mats. Ms. Paraschiv noted that samples of stains aren’t available so she is unable to put paint samples on the house and provide actual photos. Mr. Joyce suggested a variation of the options presented: Option A1: a darker surround you will want to paint the outer portion before the turn inward towards the darker color. Ms. Kelleher agreed that it would highlight how the trim board goes around the entry and differentiates from the pilaster trim. Public comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Mr. Spang noted that the front piece of the entrance surround trim wraps around from the front of the building into the recessed entry to the mullion between the sidelight and door. He suggested that it should all be a uniform color that grips the sides of the opening, and not a framed element that differentiates the two elements. Mr. Martinez agreed with Mr. Joyce that visually it makes the entrance look shorter and that it blends. Lightening the dark sidelights and transom will make them pop and contrast with the door. Mr. Hart noted that being on a dead-end street there will be minimal vehicular traffic. Ms. Norkun agreed that the vertical trim that does down to the top of the stone foundation should be dark. Mr. Spang asked where the light trim color would stop. Mr. Joyce preferred the dark sidelites. Ms. Paraschiv stated that new Option C or C1 are her preference, “Cappuccino” is a new color choice since she felt the previous “Chamomile” was too light. The opaque stain color hasn’t changed. Mr. Spang suggested a hard paint line to separate the “Cappuccino” and “Voodoo” colors. The door surround will remain “Voodoo”, the door will be “Daffodil”, and the interior trim “Froth”. Ms. Paraschiv stated that her stair color preference is to have both the riser and tread in “Voodoo”, but she hoped to decide that while the painter was painting to see how it looks. Mr. Spang noted that the Commission could approve options and anything beyond that would need to return for review. An all Voodoo or Voodoo tread and Cappuccino riser could be alternative options. Ms. Norkun preferred all Option 2, using Voodoo because two-tone  August 21, 2019, Page 2 of 7 stairs might distract from the overall entry. Ms. Paraschiv felt that Option C was dark with a thin Cappuccino band. Ms. Kelleher noted that the interior panels are flush board with no details. Option C, with the exception that the light surround, is painted Voodoo with only a paint line would separate the two faces. Ms. Paraschiv asked why the light trim was objectionable. Mr. Joyce replied that it reads as surround and separates the entryway from what announces the entry by a paint line. Ms. Paraschiv replied that that’s why she prefers ending the paint color at the end of the trim and not at the corner of the opening. Mr. Spang expressed concern about the colors, noting that the proposed color is not typical in historic fabric. As presented, he felt the column and pediment become a 2D frame and the rest of the entry becomes a series of folded planes which is very contemporary and not a historic treatment. Mr. Spang and Mr. Hart agreed that Option B1 was their preferred tread and riser configuration. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve Option B1. Mr. Joyce seconded the motion. Four in favor, Ms. English abstained, Mr. Spang opposed, and the motion so carried. Ms. Paraschiv requested a vote for an option include all Voodoo treads and risers VOTE: Ms. Norkun made a motion to approve Option A1 with the option for a Voodoo stair color with the handrail painted Froth. Mr. Joyce seconded the motion. Four in favor, Ms. English abstained, Mr. Spang opposed, and the motion so carried. 20 Beckford Street – continuation to next regular meeting Paul and Kristin Bunker submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness for rear door hood Documents & Exhibits ▪ Application: 7/5/19 ▪ Photographs VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to continue to the next regular meeting. Ms. Norkun seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. 4 Hamilton Street - CONTINUATION Alexis Dwyer submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness for building renovation, gutters and paint colors Documents & Exhibits ▪ Application: 7/11/19 ▪ Photographs ▪ Drawings by Seger Architects Dan Ricciarelli of Seger Architects and Alexis Dwyer was present to discuss the project. Mr. Ricciarelli stated that the Commission previously approved a two-story addition for the building, but the owners have decided to scale back the addition, constructing a first-floor family room expansion but not the second floor. Ms. Kelleher noted that the applicant submitted new plans in association with the new application. Mr. Joyce noted that no windows have moved. Mr. Spang noted that the proposal is for a small rear addition that is not visible, and the owners are salvaging the existing windows and frame on driveway side. Ms. Dwyer stated that new hedges are being added for privacy. Mr. Spang noted that the new trees will be set back by approximately 6- inches. Mr. Ricciarelli noted that the existing window will stay in place. Mr. Martinez asked where the roof of the proposed addition will be pitched. Mr. Ricciarelli replied that the majority of the roof will be a flat hip but will be angled towards the interior corner to the rear of the property.  August 21, 2019, Page 3 of 7 There was no public comment. Ms. Norkun asked if the rear is viewable from any other streets. Mr. Ricciarelli replied no. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. English seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Dwyer asked for advice about the window on the front dormer. She noted that shutters cover what appears to be a window but is in fact a blank wall. She asked if the shutters should be open or closed. She can she keep all four open or remove them from the fake window. They are kept in place with clips. Mr. Ricciarelli noted that the previous owner boarded up the windows, and installed closets on the other side. Mr. Joyce suggested the applicant keep the shutters closed so it seems as if the window is still there. Mr. Spang stated that if the shutters can open and close are okay; however, if they wanted the shutters nailed shut or eliminated, they would need to return to the Commission. The painter can weigh-in on this topic too. Ms. Dwyer noted that she likes the curved element but not the extra shutters. Paint colors Mr. Ricciarelli stated that their proposed paint color scheme from two-weeks ago has changed. Ms. Dwyer stated that she wants to determine a darker color blue to go with a Torch (yellow) door vs. Coral door. The options are for a darker body color vs. lighter body color. Ms. Kelleher suggested the applicant apply sample colors on the house to determine which body color she would prefer and both she and the Commission can see it in place. Mr. Ricciarelli replied that the bulk of the work is the body color of the house and all the colors are historic. Neighboring houses have very dark colors or are brick and they want to have a lighter color. Mr. Spang suggested stating in the approval certificate that the applicant must match the similar colors in the photos provided. Ms. Dwyer suggested a third options of a Georgian Yellow door with Slate Grey shutters. The house body would be Meeting House Blue and the trim Jewett White. Tudor Ice is second body color option with Portsmouth Blue shutters. Her preferred door colors are Clementine first and Georgian Yellow second. Mr. Joyce stated that the shutters should be darker color like a Grey Blue. The Commission agreed that the shutters should be Spruce. Ms. Dwyer submitted a letter of support from a neighbor. VOTE: Ms. Norkun made a motion to accept the following paint colors; Siding/Base color – “Tudor Ice”, Trim – “Jewett White”, Shutters – “Brattle Spruce”, and Door – “Clementine”. Ms. English seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. 192 Federal Street Pamela Waldron submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness for building renovation and paint colors Documents & Exhibits ▪ Application: 7/31/19 ▪ Photographs ▪ Paint chips Pamela Waldron was present to discuss the project. Mr. Spang stated that the previous application was to remove the asphalt siding to expose clapboard, repair or replace rotted wood, and paint with colors submitted in Certificate. Ms. Kelleher noted that the applicant submitted  August 21, 2019, Page 4 of 7 a Certificate of Non-Applicability, but the Commission felt it was a change, so she submitted this second application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Ms. Kelleher noted that the applicant included a photo of the rear of the house without the clapboard. Ms. Waldron stated that she wants to replicate the paint color that was found under the porch, Kendall Charcoal, which is a true grey color. Ms. Kelleher noted that it is an Italianate style house with the window trim and cornice detail still intact. The centerboards and water table are unknown and may still be in place when they remove the asphalt or there may be a shadow line to show the width of these details if they are missing. Mr. Spang noted if items need to be rebuilt the applicant must return to the Commission, since some ornate trim could have been shaved off in order to install the asphalt siding over the clapboard. He noted that the details could also still be intact would only need to be repaired and repainted. Ms. Waldron noted that the wood cellar windows are black, and she has no preference on their finish. She would keep the Grey body, White trim, Rust at the Basement wall, nature stone at the front, and black façade trim at the fake windows. The door will be a Benjamin Moore – Caliente red. She asked if the cornice trim pieces would have been a different color. Ms. Kelleher replied that traditionally the brackets and cornice would be the same color. Mr. Spang stated that if the painter finds other colors during the removal of the asphalt that she would rather use, she needs to return to the Commission for review and approval. There was no public comment. VOTE: Mr. Joyce made a motion to approve the following: new paint colors of Kendall Gray for clapboards, White for trim and porch to match existing, Black for basement panels, door to be Caliente red; and removal of asphalt shingles and in-kind repairs to underlying wood. Applicant to return to the HC if the applicant finds other colors beneath the asphalt. Mr. Hart amended the motion to include the applicant coming back if the cornice and corner boards are radically different than what is proposed. Ms. Norkun seconded the amended motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. Bertram Field Powder House Lane City of Salem submitted a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish field house and press box Documents & Exhibits ▪ Application: 8/13/19 ▪ Photographs Eileena Long with Left Field Project Management was present to discuss the project. Ms. Long stated that the demolition of these two buildings and constructing new buildings, will be Phase II of Bertram Field project. They along with Beacon Architects is working on the Construction Documents and will have a GC in place by November with demolition in December. Construction will continue through August 2020 and the buildings will be open by September 2020. Mr. Spang noted that all of these structures are in poor condition. Ms. Kelleher noted that the field house may have been a WPA project done in the 1930’s and Jenna Ide is researching this project to do history boards of the structure. Ms. English asked if the project has been funded. Ms. Long replied yes, fully funded. Mr. Joyce asked if the existing brackets will return, since they seem out of place for this building. Ms. Long replied that there were no plans for the brackets, but they could be salvaged. She added that the new construction will consist of a new entry way, connections, changing rooms, team locker facility, and restrooms. The construction will be masonry. Mr. Spang stated that there is not much historic fabric left to save in these buildings. Ms. Long replied that all of the existing signs inside will be preserved, including the red and gold Bertram Field sign. There was no public comment. VOTE: Ms. English made a motion to approve the demo delay of the field house and press box as submitted  August 21, 2019, Page 5 of 7 Mr. Hart amended the motion to include providing photos and dimensioned plans of the interior and dimensioned building elevation. Ms. Norkun amended the motion to include retaining all signage, decals, and encourage the salvage and non-destruction of any details (Ms. Kelleher to determine), including documenting the brackets as evidence of a WPA building. Mr. Joyce seconded the amended motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. Request for Comment - 79 Columbus Avenue – CONTINUATION Eric Cormier was present to discuss the project. Mr. Cormier stated that the dormers as proposed may not be allowed since it may constitute a third-story. If they are allowed, they will be further back and may only be able to extend two-feet, but the ZBA will determine that. The second-floor porch extends 6-feet on the left side of the stair and 11-feet on the right side of the porch, when the setback on the house is factored in. The building steps back 5-feet making the right-side porch 11 feet deep. The diamond window will be replaced and the deep fascia will remain. Inspectional Services Director, Tom St. Pierre, also needs to approve the proposed plans. There is still just over a 6-foot setback and 18-feet to the front of the existing property. Mr. Cormier asked if due to the heavy flood zone, they add a cement veneer or cement at the lower portion of the Basement wall, which will break up the height of the wall. There may need a step down when you exit off the house deck, but they will keep it subtle. Ms. English asked if there were any garage related issues. Mr. Cormier replied that there is a 1-foot difference to match up from the garage to the porch floor. Ms. English asked if there will be a cross gable on the left side. Mr. Spang replied yes. Mr. Cormier stated that the previous rear addition was built on pylons, but they would not build on those pylons and will stay on the existing footprint. They want to lift up the house and he understands the inviting nature of the steps leading up to the house. Mr. Joyce stated that the rake detail on the existing house should also be replicated and not squared off, to maintain the look of the historic appearance. Mr. Cormier replied that exposed rafter tails are on existing house and he can expose them in the new design. Mr. Joyce added that the return at the diamond rake isn’t necessary. Also, the 6 over 1 windows as proposed are not typical of Victorian architecture and should be 2 over 2. Ms. Kelleher noted that the original windows were 2 over 1. Mr. Cormier replied that he has already purchased black 6 over 1 windows. Spang suggested the applicant check the energy code on exposed rafter tails. Mr. Cormier stated that he will go over the details with Mr. St. Pierre and Ms. Kelleher who can tell him if returning to the Commission is required. Ms. English requested details about the new diamond window. Ms. Norkun agreed that the details will make it more Victorian. Ms. English asked what the usable space would be at the top floor if the existing roof pitch was replicated, although replicating the roofline would help replicate the look of the house. Mr. Cormier replied that there would be very little useable space and it would change the house to a 2 bedroom. Mr. Spang replied that expanding the attic requires zoning relief. Mr. Cormier noted that Mr. St. Pierre said that if the side walls go above 2 feet it will be considered a 3rd story. Mr. Spang asked if the Basement will be mechanical closets and the garage only. Mr. Cormier replied that the 2nd and 3rd floors will house the bedrooms and closets, the first-floor the kitchen, dining, and living rooms, and the Basement the garage and mechanicals. The Basement fills up with about 1-foot of water during floods, so the owner wants a concrete slab Basement since it’s below grade. Mr. Spang noted that the proposed lower floor with windows and sheathing make that level seem like habitable space. At a recently expanded house on Bayview an attempt was made to have trim with windows behind the lattice to get borrowed light at that level and to make the structure appear elevated. Mr. Cormier noted that the basement foundation wall can be cement to match the existing and the neighboring homes are higher so this will fit-in well. Mr. Joyce agreed with Mr. Spang but noted that bottom level could have lattice panels and the windows can remain. Mr. Spang noted that the lattice should be  August 21, 2019, Page 6 of 7 smaller and in a square pattern not diagonal. Ms. Kelleher stated that lattice between the posts should be treated like traditional framing. Mr. Cormier requested input on the new columns, noting that the existing are plastic. Mr. Spang replied that with the existing structure being built 1915 the posts would be wood with Victorian era details, and the PEM may have historic photos. Ms. Norkun asked about the proposed roof pitch and whether it can it be extended over the roof to lower the pitch, since the original has a bungalow style roof pitch, in addition to the rakes and overhangs. Mr. Kelleher questioned how to adjust it while maintaining the same footprint. Mr. Spang stated they could extend the knee wall up 2 feet and the applicant could speak to the architect. Mr. Cormier was in favor of that since it would provide additional head height. Mr. Cormier asked about the railing posts on the porch. Mr. Martinez replied that they should remove one post on each side and one on either side of the door. Also, if the lattice is too skinny it will make it like the porch is on stilts. Mr. Spang noted that there is no alignment between the face of the house and the porch bays, so it’s a more independent structure. Mr. Cormier asked for any thoughts on the new garage door. The Board agreed that the door should be wood. Mr. Joyce added at the garage door should be carriage style to match the house. Mr. Spang requested the applicant continue with the progress drawing, provide catalog cuts, photos of the Pella true divided lite windows that were already purchased, and a materials list for the Board to review. There was no public comment. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to continue to the next regular meeting. Ms. Norkun seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. Request to amend certificate - 95 Federal Street Laurie LaChapelle and David Leach request to amend Certificate of Appropriateness Mr. Hart recused himself as an abutter. Ms. Kelleher presented the proposed amendment on the applicant’s behalf. Mr. Spang stated that this application was before the Commission in October and a location was approved which was problematic. The applicant has requested a different location, under the porch and concealed from street view by bushes. A mock-up was installed and reviewed by the Board 3-weeks prior during a site visit. Option 1 is the former location and there were concerns with breaking through the brick foundation wall and steps to porch exhausting towards the steps. The photo included a view from the driveway looking South where the unit will be vented behind the bushes, on the lattice, exiting through a window tucked under the crawl space and porch to a furnace receiver. Photo 3 was taken further down the street where the vent will be hard to see. Mr. Joyce noted that from within the bushes it won’t be visible. Mr. Kelleher noted that the vent will be painted to match the lattice color. A neighbor sent a letter stating that the vent will hardly be seen. Mr. Martinez agreed. There was no public comment. VOTE: Mr. Martinez made a motion to amend the certificate for the new vent location on the lattice under the porch. Ms. Norkun amended the motion to including painting the vent the same color as the lattice. Ms. English seconded the amended motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.  August 21, 2019, Page 7 of 7 98-102 Lafayette Street Request for Letter of Support – Historic Tax Credit Application Ms. Kelleher presented the request for a letter of support on behalf of the North Shore CDC. Ms. Kelleher stated that The North Shore CDC asked for letters of support for several projects and the Commission passed a policy that the date can be changed if an application is reapplying for a letter of support. 98-102 Lafayette is a new property for which the CDC is seeking for tax credits. They will renovate the interior, adding appropriate windows and entrance doors, and details that must meet all requirements of the Massachusetts Historical Commission. The structure was built after the 1915 fire. Mr. Spang noted that obtaining historic tax credits is a rigorous process that is highly scrutinized in terms of replicating and being historically sensitive. Public comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to have Ms. Kelleher draft a support letter from the Commission. Ms. Norkun seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. Other Business Essex Street: Cy Fisk had concerns with how to treat the porch cap. He will match the existing and replicating it on the other side of the porch. The building needs a lot of work. Ms. Kelleher stated that at the next regular meeting, both the Interim Chair and Vice Chair won’t be in attendance. Hopefully Mr. Cutting will be available to Chair the meeting as he’s done in the past. There may be several applications that get continued. Mr. Martinez asked about the fence on Derby Street. Ms. Kelleher replied that it will be on the next meeting with a request for Hardship. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Joyce seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 PM. Respectfully submitted, Patti Kelleher Preservation Planner