LOWELL HISTORIC BOARD

PUBLIC HEARINGS

August 14, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT                                                             OTHERS PRESENT

Reynold Ilg, Chairman                                                               Josh Delman, Nextel

Peter Aucella                                                                            Daniel Sullivan, College Street LLC

J. Matthew Coggins                                                                   Sarah Stebulis, Assistant Administrator

Rachel Edlund                                                                           Stephen Stowell, Administrator                          

Richard Lockhart                                                                     

Martha Mayo                                                                           

1.   PUBLIC HEARINGS

      A.  AND-07-02:  99 Willie Street

Application for an Historic Permit for installation of rooftop telecommunications antenna panels and associated equipment          

The Chairman read the published Public Hearing Notice and declared the Hearing open to those wishing to speak in favor of the application.

The Chairman recognized Josh Delman, representing Nextel.  Mr. Delman stated that they based their submittal upon their preliminary informational meeting with the Board and that they explored many other options for the stealth design with Design Review.  He stated that there were two final proposals which he is presenting and will leave it up to the Board to determine which is the most appropriate. 

Mr. Delman stated originally they had discussed three smaller stealth chimneys in which the antenna panels would be located.   Through Design Review, it was decided to consolidate the equipment on top of the existing penthouse.  He added that the two proposals tonight differed in the material which would be used for the stealth screen, either a simulated matching brick or block façade.

Mr. Delman stated that the height of the penthouse currently is 9’8” and the proposal will extend it by 5’, for a total height of 14’8”.  Other than the consolidation of all the antennas in one location, nothing else has changed in the proposal in regards to wiring and supporting equipment from when it was first discussed with the Board. 

The Chairman asked what the two options he was proposing were.  Mr. Delman stated that he had a sample of the fiberglass brick mold which would be the type used, but made to match the existing brick on the building.  He did not have a sample of the fiberglass block mold, but stated that he would be happy to provide a sample as a condition to an approval

The Chairman inquired about the durability of the proposed materials.  Mr. Delman stated that because it was fiberglass, it is extremely durable. 

The Chairman asked for clarification on the height of the penthouse, as the Administrator’s memo had conflicting information.  Mr. Delman stated that the current height is 9’8” and the extension would be 5’, for a total of 14’8”.  The Administrator’s memo read the total height would be 19’8”, which he stated was based upon the interpretation of the dimensions on the plans but that Mr. Delman had confirmed that the height was in fact 14’8”.

The Chairman made mention of the photograph simulations of the options and asked if they were at scale.  Mr. Delman confirmed that they were.

The Chairman asked if the Board can be confident that the image is what it will look like depending on which façade they choose.  Mr. Delman confirmed that they could.

The Chairman asked what the third proposal was.  Mr. Delman stated it was to place the unscreened antennas on the existing penthouse, but upon further exploration Design Review felt it was not a viable proposal and that the antennas would need to be screened.

Having asked aloud 2 more times if anyone else wished to speak on behalf of the proponents and hearing no one, the Chairman declared the Hearing closed to proponents and opened the Hearing to those who wished to speak in opposition. 

Having asked aloud 3 times and hearing no one, the Chairman declared the Hearing closed to opponents and opened the Hearing to comments or question from Board members and the staff.

Mr. Coggins stated that although he didn’t have a preference to the faux brick or block treatment, he felt that this is a much better proposal than the three smaller chimneys which were first discussed and he would be comfortable approving the design based on the recommended motion. The Chairman said he agreed.

Mr. Aucella stated that the Administrator recommended a brick treatment in he motion.  Ms. Mayo stated that she did not feel the brick treatment was appropriate and that she felt the yellow block was more appropriate. 

Ms. Edlund stated that she would like a different color than yellow on a block treatment, but she did prefer the block to the brick, as brick can be too tricky to match and the structure really should not be made to look like a large chimney.  She suggested a lead-coated copper color or a color which is already used in the trim on the building, which is a hunter green.

Ms. Edlund asked what the cornice material was on the building.  The Administrator stated that he believed it was a wood cornice with flashing wrapped over it. 

The Chairman asked if a metal flashing would effect the ability for the antennas to function.  Mr. Delman stated that metal could not be used, but a fiberglass match can be fabricated, which would look the same at the existing conditions. 

Mr. Aucella stated that he didn’t mind the brick, but he felt the Board did come to a solution with the block and that they just had to pin down what color they would prefer it to be.  Mr. Delman said that they would be happy to match any color they wish.

The Chairman asked if they wanted to leave the final design to the Administrator.  The Administrator stated they would go with block. 

Ms. Edlund stated that the color should be something that is already on the building, and if the trim is a hunter green, then block color could also be a hunter green. 

Ms. Edlund asked if a lighter metal could be used at all in the design of the screening.  Mr. Delman stated that no metal could be used, as it interferes with the signals. 

Motion by Mr. Coggins, seconded by Ms. Mayo, to:

vote to issue the Historic Permit for the installation of rooftop telecommunications antenna panels and associated equipment at 99 Willie Street in the Acre Neighborhood District conditional upon the following:

·         Submittal, review, and approval of construction and installation details, as well as material and color samples (concrete block), for masonry and stealth application materials prior to commencement of work; and

·         Submittal, review, and approval of any scope of work alterations and final details prior to commencement of work.

Work is consistent with Section 2.323 and 2.324 of the Acre Neighborhood District Design Review Standards.

      Unanimously approved, 6-0.

The Public Hearings were closed at 6:15 p.m.

LOWELL HISTORIC BOARD

REGULAR MEETING

August 14, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT                                                             OTHERS PRESENT

Reynold Ilg, Chairman                                                               Daniel Sullivan, College Street LLC

Peter Aucella                                                                            Sarah Stebulis, Assistant Administrator              

J. Matthew Coggins                                                                   Stephen Stowell, Administrator  

Rachel Edlund                                                                                      

Richard Lockhart                                                                     

Martha Mayo   

Wendy Pearl (arrived at 6:21 pm)                      

2.   MINUTES

Approval of the Minutes of June 19 and July 10, 2006.

Motion by Ms. Mayo, seconded by Mr. Coggins, to:

approve the Minutes of June 19 and July 10, 2006 as presented.

      Unanimously approved, 6-0.

3.   OTHER BUSINESS

      A.  College Street (305 Dutton Street and Jackson Street)

The Chairman recognized Daniel Sullivan, Vice President of Development for College Street LLC. 

The Chairman asked if he received the letter regarding the 305 Dutton Street and Jackson Street projects. Mr. Sullivan confirmed that he had received the letter. 

The Chairman stated that he assumed he was here to address the issues specified in the letter.  Mr. Sullivan confirmed that was correct and stated he was happy to address any issue regarding these projects. 

Mr. Sullivan stated that he is aware that there are several issues, foremost that there have been 4 different project managers on this project in the last 2 years and that the frequent turnover has affected the company’s communication with the Board.

Ms. Pearl arrived at 6:21 p.m.

The Chairman asked who the current project manager was.  Mr. Sullivan stated that Shawn Devane is the new project manager on site.  The Chairman asked why he was not here tonight.  Mr. Sullivan stated that he is the full time project manager for 27 Jackson Street. 

The Chairman stated that this is a large part of the issue, that Mr. Devane who is new on the project is not present here tonight.  He stated that it has been a consistent problem with the project managers that as the message passes down from the Board through a third party, it gets distorted and the issues remain unresolved.  The Chairman stated that there has been a lack of communication with those responsible for this project and that is why the Board requested College Street attend this meeting. 

The Chairman stated that he was unhappy that Mr. Sullivan was the only one in attendance and that he feared the message could once again be distorted as it makes its way to the project manager, who is not present tonight. 

The Chairman asked for the Board’s thoughts. 

Mr. Aucella asked if Mr. Sullivan supervised the project managers.  Mr. Sullivan confirmed that he did and he would be the constant contact.

Mr. Aucella suggested going through each of the issues outlined by the Administrator in an e-mail to Daniel Borer on May 12, 2006.  Mr. Sullivan stated that he would be happy to do that.

“Two new windows that do not match the replica steel ones previously installed on the building have been installed on the basement floor level of Dutton Street.  Need to be replaced with approved replica steel units.”

Mr. Sullivan stated that he only noticed one replacement window, which a car drove through and a replacement window had to be installed a quickly as possible.  The Administrator explained where the second window was located and noted that both need to be replaced with the originally approved window.  Mr. Sullivan asked if the issue was the flat muntins.  The Administrator confirmed that was true, but the configuration is also quite different in the Board approved window.

The Chairman asked when the accident happened.  Mr. Sullivan stated that he did not know.  The Administrator stated that is was sometime in the spring. 

“Replica canopy has not been installed above former loading dock on Broadway elevation.”

Mr. Sullivan stated that he has spoken with his architect who does have the detail of the canopy.  He is expecting to receive that from the architect shortly, although he has not yet received it.  The Administrator stated that once Mr. Sullivan received the design he needs to forward it to staff to review to make sure it is the approved design. 

“Infill areas at top of stairs on Broadway elevation are supposed to have false windows and doors that match profile of replica steel sashes.  Misc. other work also needs to be completed in several areas.”

Mr. Sullivan stated that he will also get these details from the architect and forward them to Historic Board staff for review.

Mr. Aucella asked about the infill on the Dutton Street elevation, which was supposed to have steel sashes where there is now block infill.  The Administrator stated that the project manager about a year ago told him that they could not install the approved window infill as there were utilities and other mechanical equipment located there which prevented it. 

Mr. Aucella stated that this infill was his number one issue with this project.  He stated that the Board was asked to vote on their architect’s plans before College Street even took title of the building, as College Street wanted assurances before they purchased the property that the project would be a viable one.  Mr. Aucella added that this is a Tax Act project as well.  He stated that he cannot understand why even if mechanicals are located here, why there is not a faux window treatment on this elevation.  Mr. Aucella stated that there needed to be a proposal for that part of the building on Dutton Street.

Mr. Sullivan asked if this treatment originated with the Abrams Group prior to College Street taking over the project.  The Administrator stated that it was the same architects and that it was his understanding that College Street gave financial backing to the project when these plans were approved.

Mr. Aucella asked to go back to the approved plans which were sent for tax approval to see what treatment needs to be done at this location.  The Administrator added that per the Board’s approval, there were additional detail and designs to be submitted for specific areas of work, such as these areas.

“Misc. concrete repair and painting still needs to be completed in several areas.”

The Administrator stated that there are varying degrees of concrete repair on the buildings, from areas of repair being close to invisible, to areas being left highly visible.  He added that there are also areas around windows in which repair was not done in the proper manner and what is left is a not a sharp angle as in the other windows.  Also, the Administrator stated that there are many highly visible areas of paint touch ups which gives the building a spotted look contrary to the uniform appearance it should have. 

Mr. Sullivan asked if it was possible to do a site visit with the Administrator so that the issues could be pointed out directly to him and so that he can address them properly. 

The Administrator also stated that there are areas on the towers, concrete returns and flashing that need paint touch ups.  The Administrator stated that the Board feels that three years after a project’s slated completion date, small items like this would have already been resolved.

“Site work and landscaping including perimeter fencing, repair and replication of concrete piers, paving (for lot and paths), site lighting, and other elements need to be designed and approved.”

Mr. Sullivan stated that there are two reasons there has been little movement with the site plan.  One being that the rear building is about to undergo its major reconstruction and they have just run utilities out to the site.  College Street wanted to accomplish this before any site work was done, so that paving and landscaping wouldn’t be damaged during the process of completing the work on the rear building. 

Mr. Aucella asked what plans have come in on that rear building for approval.  The Administrator stated that approval has been given for the roof and window work.  He added that Board still needs to see design for the doorways and interior structure, such as floors, which may be visible on the exterior. 

The Administrator stated that nothing has come in to the Board regarding the site plan.  He told the architects over a year ago to refer to the landscape at Massachusetts Mills, in regards to paving, landscaping and lighting to get some ideas for this site, as the Board expected the design at 305 Dutton to be to that level.  The Administrator also stated that he was made aware of cut-through traffic issues by previous property managers, which could be partly remedied with the site plan here.  He stated that the Board is happy to work with College Street on this.  The Administrator also stated that not only the parking lot will need to be addressed, but also the perimeter areas where the concrete piers and fencing are. 

Mr. Coggins stated that all of these conditions were clear in the approval three years ago, and the Board is getting the impression that after three years with nothing done and not even a site plan proposed, it is the intention of the company to simply not do it and that is not acceptable.

Mr. Coggins asked if any landscaping plan has been submitted.  He stated that no formal plans have been submitted, but that the architects have been to Mass. Mills to see their site.  The Administrator stated that landscaping had been done without approval and will need to be removed or changed to fit an overall site plan.

Mr. Coggins again stated that all of these issues were fully articulated three years ago, and that he has had discussions with Mr. Nyberg in the past about it as well and that everyone at College Street should be fully aware of these ongoing issues. 

Mr. Aucella asked the Administrator if there have been City Council motions about why this project has not yet been completed.  The Administrator confirmed that there have been.

The Chairman stated that College Street is very fortunate to have a building in the gateway to the city, which is a great benefit to them, but the way the company is going about this project is unacceptable and is not raising the confidence for the company among planners in the City.

The Administrator stated that Condition 4 of the permit from March 10, 2003 states “Submittal, review and approval of site plan including dumpster locations/screens, landscaping, fencing, lighting, and other site features to be submitted for review and approval under a separate application.”  He stated that this condition was intended as a safeguard to the Board due to the rush the company was in to receive the main Permit in order to close on the property and with the understanding that the site details were not yet ready.  It has always been the expectation that a site plan would be developed with the Board and submitted for final review and approval.

Mr. Aucella asked about the site signage.  The Administrator stated that this building could easily accommodate banners on two corners of the building.  He stated that currently there is no permanent signage at the site, which is needed and would be considered part of the site plan. 

Mr. Aucella stated that there are rental banners which have been up far beyond their allotted time.  The Administrator stated that was correct, per the permit, they were to come down December 2003.  Mr. Aucella told Mr. Sullivan he should plan to remove them within the next few weeks.

The Administrator also stated that there are temporary a-frame signs which are in use, but are not allowed in the district, which is another problem when there is not permanent signage.  Mr. Sullivan stated that he would talk to the architect and have him work on to a site plan to be submitted to the Board.

The Administrator asked if his architect was Matt Koenig at J.K. Roller.  Mr. Sullivan confirmed that was correct.  The Administrator stated that Mr. Koenig can e-mail plans as he proceeds to get feedback throughout the process, which should make it easier for the Board and for the architect to achieve the desired result.  

The Administrator stated that these unresolved issues can also affect the tax credits for this building, and he does not think that College Street would want to do anything that would jeopardize their tax credits for this project. 

Mr. Aucella stated that he represents the Lowell National Historical Park and that he works with the Massachusetts Historical Commission and the federal government regarding Tax Act projects in Washington D.C. and it is his role to alert these agencies to projects that do not meet the standards or have not been compliant with the plans as they were approved.  He stated that the priority is to get College Street in compliance and to start to see some real movement.  He asked for Mr. Sullivan to attend the September 11, 2006 meeting to give the Board an update on the progress and to return each following month to update the board.

Mr. Coggins asked if we should still notify Tax Act of these problems, as it has been three years.  The Administrator stated that he is still trying to find out the status of the certification, as there is a discrepancy in building numbers of the main and rear building.  The Administrator stated that MHC is aware of the issues.

The Chairman asked the Administrator if the issues outlined in the June 30, 2004 letter to Joe Alex had been resolved.  The Administrator said that many are ongoing and can be found in the most recent correspondence.  Some had been addressed but largely not such as the venting on the Broadway elevation, which will be affected by the necessary infill changes that need to be made as discussed tonight and which the Board originally approved.  Also the Dutton Street infill in the center of the façade that Mr. Aucella referred to and the site plan.

The Chairman told Mr. Sullivan that the letters in the packet and their discussion tonight should act as a reminder to him of the continuing concerns the Board has at 305 Dutton Street.

Ms. Edlund asked Mr. Sullivan if he can do anything outlined tonight which would give the Board faith that College Street will address the issues.  Mr. Sullivan stated that he would first like to do a site visit with the Administrator to view the specific issues and to then make a plan to act on them, so as to know exactly what the Board requires and the exact locations of the unresolved issues.  He stated that he is prepared to meet immediately on these issues.  He also stated that he would immediately remove the temporary banners and talk to his architect to get plans submitted to the Board for approval.  The Administrator stated that he is happy to do a site visit to go over the issues.

Ms. Edlund questioned if he was informed enough about the issues to take immediate action.  Mr. Sullivan stated that he was not informed enough or confident enough to make immediate changes without first making sure it is exactly what the Board would like and he would appreciate the Administrator’s direction on the issues.

The Chairman stated that the Board’s next meeting is September 11, 2006 and asked if Mr. Sullivan would attend to give the Board an update on these issues and progress made.  Mr. Sullivan confirmed that he would be in attendance.

The Administrator stated that he would set a meeting for Wednesday to do a site visit regarding these issues.

Mr. Coggins stated that his attendance was appreciated tonight, but he needs to deliver the message to Mr. Nyberg that their time is up with the Board and these issues need to be resolved immediately. 

The Administrator mentioned the issues at the former Joan Fabrics plant at Jackson Street.  He stated that all of the windows were previously replaced by Joan Fabrics, but that work is going on inside of the building and the Board has seen nothing of substance as of yet with regard to the exterior.  He stated that the conversion of former loading doors to entries needs to be approved as do any interior changes visible from the exterior and the site plan, none of which have been submitted.  He added that the Board is eager to work with College Street and neighbors such as the Architectural Heritage Foundation to involve all relevant parties at this site and make the millyard and site look cohesive.

Mr. Sullivan stated that the architects are currently finishing up the site plan, as well as a proposal for bars on first floor canal windows.  He stated that he will work directly with the Administrator to ensure that work is not done without approval.

Mr. Aucella asked if there was an occupancy timeline for that project.  Mr. Sullivan stated that he did not know, but did not think they were actively marketing the units at this point.

The Administrator stated that the Preservation Alliance of Greater Philadelphia has submitted a preservation easement for the property.  He stated that the developer is taking a preservation easement which is allowed under the current IRS regulations, prior to the development of the property into condominiums.  The Administrator stated that he has this document, as does MHC.  He added that Massachusetts law is rare regarding easements, in that the local and state historical commission have to sign off on projects and that he is very concerned about signing any documents without these plans in hand and that in talks with MHC, they have stated that they will take the Historic Board’s lead on this project and they will not do anything with it until the project meets the Board’s guidelines and the work is compliant.

Mr. Coggins added that at present, College Street does not have a good track record with the Board.  Mr. Sullivan stated that he was confident that the plans for Jackson Street were well under way and that he would contact the architect immediately regarding Dutton Street to resolve the issues. 

The Chairman stated that it will be a monthly requirement that a College Street representative appear at the Board’s regular meetings to update them on the progress of both Dutton and Jackson Street projects, until the Board feels confident in the progress. 

      B.  Enforcement/Violations Update

The Assistant Administrator stated that staff has received a good response to the 20 request for compliance letters sent out last month and that many have been resolved or are in the process of working with staff to resolve issues. 

The Assistant Administrator asked the Board to vote to issue five (5) Order for Compliance letters to businesses which have not responded to the initial correspondence, including; Malas Motors, Ten Perfect Nails, Bombay Mahal, One Stop International Market and The Courtyard Bar & Grill.  The Assistant Administrator also asked the Board to vote to issue an Order to Appear at the September 11, 2006 Public Hearing to the Simpson Block, for minimum maintenance issues.

Motion by Mr. Aucella, seconded by Ms. Mayo, to:

vote to issue Order for Compliance letters to Malas Motors, Ten Perfect Nails, Bombay Mahal, One Stop International Market and The Courtyard Bar & Grill.

Unanimously approved, 7-0.

Motion by Mr. Aucella, seconded by Mr. Coggins, to:

vote to issue Order to Appear to the Simpson Block, 1 Merrimack Street, for the September 11, 2006 meeting.

Unanimously approved, 7-0.

Mr. Aucella stated that there were a few new businesses to address, including Osiris on Central Street, as well as those featured in the Lowell Sun recently.  The Administrator stated that he is working with many of those businesses currently on signage, either directly already or though correspondence and other communication. 

Mr. Aucella asked about the status of the SMP sign on Market Street.  The Administrator stated that he has discussed the proper canopy for this building, and a design was submitted which was inappropriate.  He stated they are currently working to get the revised design.  The Administrator stated staff would send out a Request for Compliance letter to begin the violation process.

Mr. Aucella also asked about status of the Petren Building.  The Administrator stated that shutters and lettering have been removed and painting has begun.  The Administrator stated he would call the building owner concerning the graffiti being painted over, rather than chemically removed.

Mr. Aucella asked about the missing rosettes on the Fairburn Building.  The Administrator stated that those were lost many years ago and they were not part of the renovation on the building.

Ms. Mayo asked about the status of the former Moe’s Trading Post store on Market Street and asked if there is anything we can do about the storefronts.  The Administrator stated that the building owner had done the minimal work required with regard to the Board’s past maintenance issues.  Mr. Aucella asked Mr. Coggins if there was anything there that went against the fire code.  Mr. Coggins stated that he would talk to fire prevention.  The Administrator stated that he would contact the building owner as well.

C.  Administrator’s Report

The Administrator stated that he has spoken to Larry Bevere, DPD Asset Manager to coordinate the disposition of 26-28 Lawrence Street.  Mr. Bevere does not believe the building will need a new appraisal.  He also discussed how they might be able to transfer the HOME monies to a different project, to make the building more marketable without the affordable housing restriction. 

Mr. Aucella asked if there is a timetable to advertise it.  The Administrator stated that he is meeting with Mr. Bevere about it again this week and it depends on the status of the appraisal. 

The Administrator stated that about 10 RFP’s were sent out for the Survey & Planning Grant for the Acre and Pawtucketville neighborhoods and the deadline for those proposals is September 8, 2006.

The Administrator attended the National Alliance of Preservation Commission’s biennial National Commission Forum in Baltimore, July 27-30.  Approval will also be sought for both the Administrator and Assistant Administrator to attend the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s annual National Preservation Conference in Pittsburgh, October 31-November 4.

The Greater Lowell Chamber of Commerce has nominated their Assistant Director and DLBA member Susan Zacharer to replace Mr. Middlemiss. 

D.  Board Member Items/Inquiries

Mr. Coggins asked if the Board will send Mr. Middlemiss anything to thank him for his service to the Board.  The Board all agreed they should do something to thank Mr. Middlemiss.

4.   ADJOURNMENT

      Motion by Mr. Coggins, seconded by Ms. Edlund, to:

            adjourn the meeting at 6:58 p.m.

Unanimously approved, 7-0.

_______________________________

Sarah U. Stebulis, Assistant Administrator

Stephen R. Stowell, Administrator

Lowell Historic Board