LOWELL HISTORIC BOARD

PUBLIC HEARING

June 12, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                         OTHERS PRESENT

Reynold Ilg, Chairman                                                                           Leslie Donovan, Perkins Street Mills

Peter Aucella                                                                                        Barry Ganek, Pilot Development

David Gray                                                                                           Mark E. Goldman, Self

Richard Lockhart                                                                                  Steve Hurley, 30 Market Street

Martha Mayo                                                                                        Eden Milroy, Pilot Perkins LLC

                                                                                                David Silverstein, Phoenix RE Partners Inc.

                                                                                                Jon Waverly, Phoenix RE Partners Inc.

Sarah Uhlendorf, Assistant Administrator

Stephen Stowell, Administrator

1.   PUBLIC HEARINGS

      A.  DLHD-06-44:  30 Market Street

The Italianate style former Hamilton Mfg. Co. Blue Dye House, built 1883.  Application for an Historic Permit for exterior rehabilitation, roof decks, and associated site improvements.

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 Steve Hurley, architect for the project, who would be speaking on behalf of Phoenix Real Estate Partners Inc.  He prefaced his presentation by stating that the proposal tonight was only for 30 Market Street, though additional plans of 20 Market Street have been included for context.  He began by explaining the included plans given to the Board, as well as introducing the material samples included in the proposal.  He noted that the windows will be exact replicas of the existing windows and they propose using Benjamin Moore “Charcoal Slate” for the color of the windows. 

Mr. Hurley detailed the entrance to the building which will be covered with a zinc-coated canopy.  He also noted that the roof top railings and mesh will also be a gray color and the bulkhead overrides will be constructed out of wood and stained to match the gray color. 

The Chairman asked what the roof top rail would be made of.  Mr. Hurley stated that it would be wire mesh.

Mr. Lockhart asked about the height of the railing and other structures on the roof.  Mr. Hurley stated the rail will be 3”-5.5” and the other structures will be approximately 8”.

Details of the roof were discussed amongst the Board including the location and materials of the rails, privacy walls, stairs and other structures.

Mr. Aucella asked for clarification on the rooftop privacy wall and if it was located directly on top of the railings which run the length of the building or if it is located behind the rails, as the plans were unclear.  Mr. Hurley stated that it is located behind the rails and is almost at the center of the building’s roof. 

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. Aucella stated that he appreciated the applicant’s great care taken in restoring the Birke Building and is happy that they are proposing to do another building downtown.  He noted that within the last few hours, concerns have arisen amongst the Board concerning the roof-decks and structures, especially the view of the roof from Central Street.  He stated that he wants to be as supportive as possible and though they don’t inherently find rooftop activity objectionable, hiding the structures is the key.  Mr. Aucella noted that HVAC units are not shown on the plans and he felt that the roof plan had many structures with multiple staircases and the privacy walls.  He stated that the view down the canal at this spot is extremely important in Lowell and he is afraid that this level of activity on the roof at this spot could detract from the view of the “Industrial Canyon.”  Mr. Aucella stated that he has talked to the Administrator and National Park Service architect Chuck Parrott about the possibility of this being an issue with the Board if it is as visible as it seems it will be by looking at the plans. 

Mr. Aucella stated that best scenario would be if the applicant could mock-up the proposed structures to see the true visibility and impact of them.  He stated that this is also an issue of precedent, where if the Board approves highly visible roof structures at this prime location, the Board will compromise its authority to deny similarly visible structures on other buildings.

Mr. Aucella stated that his opinion was only his own and he was not sure what the other members of the Board felt about this issue, but he stated that he recognized these developers are aiming to do a good project and he hoped there would be a way that the Board could assist them in doing this.

The Chairman asked the applicants for their response to the question of how visible the roof-structures will be from Central Street and looking down the canyon vista.

Mr. Hurley asked if it would be possible to first have the Board’s comments on the windows and entry to the building, before moving to the roof deck.  The Board stated that they had no problem with those portions of their proposal.

The Chairman stated that he felt they should quickly discuss the stepped window in the front, as was addressed by Ms. Edlund via e-mail before the meeting.  The Administrator stated that she felt the windows should be at equal levels in the front, unless this was an existing condition to the building.  He stated that he explained that it was in fact an existing condition and therefore is being kept that way, upon which she agreed that it should remain as drawn.

Mr. Hurley addressed the roof deck issues, beginning by stating the compressors will be located behind the privacy wall from Central Street.  Mr. Silverstein further explained that there is an area of the roof that is located behind the Key Span building and therefore would not be visible from Market Street.

Mr. Hurley asked if it would be possible to pause and approve the proposal with the exception of the roof deck and details, which can be further discussed at a different meeting in which mock-ups can be prepared to better show the impact.  Mr. Aucella stated that he felt that was the best thing to do, even though the Board generally does like to move projects through, provided they meet the Standards, and create as little delay for developers as possible, but he felt it was important here to explore the details of the roof further.

Mr. Hurley stated that this does pose a problem, as commitments have been made with buyers and these units are being marketed with roof-decks.  Mr. Aucella stated that he understood where they were coming from and that it is even more important to sort the issue out further. 

Mr. Aucella stated that Unit 14 roof deck appears to be right at the roof edge along the Market Street elevation and that will certainly be too visible.  The Administrator asked if it would be possible to flip the position of the roof deck so that is will be located further from the edge, and be located more toward the center of the building.  Mr. Waverly stated that it would be possible.

Mr. Hurley stated that Mr. Silverstein felt they may be able to reduce the height and change the material of the privacy walls.  Mr. Aucella stated that there would still be the issue of how much was still going to be located on the roof, including seven individual staircases.  He again stated that the best thing to do would be rooftop mock-ups to determine the true impact.

Mr. Hurley asked about what would happen if the Board continued this and when they could meet next.  The Administrator stated that if the Board continued the Hearing, that there is a 48-hour notice required, but it does not need to be re-advertised in the newspaper. 

The Administrator questioned if Units 8 & 9 were two story units.  Mr. Hurley stated that they were.  The Administrator asked if it was critical that each unit have a private staircase to their deck, or if a common staircase could be created and therefore many of the other structures be eliminated.  Mr. Hurley stated that they did look into that option, but two stair towers and an elevator would be necessary and it was not ideal to the project. 

Mr. Gray asked if the floor plans would allow for the individual staircases to be pushed back to the privacy wall.  Mr. Waverly stated that it is not possible at this point, as they have already gone before the ZBA.

Mr. Aucella stated again if it was possible to have a mock-up done and the Board could meet within a week to expedite the process and not hold up the process any further, he would be happy to do that.  Mr. Waverly stated that would be great if they could meet that quickly so that project delays would not occur.  The Administrator stated that the five Board members present at the meeting would have to be at the next meeting and they would be the only members who would be able to vote on the application as the other Board members were not present when the Hearing began. 

Mr. Waverly stated they would be grateful if the Board would do that for them.  The Board discussed when and where they should meet to further discuss the issue.  Mr. Lockhart suggested meeting at the site to see the mock-ups to make the best decision. 

The Administrator stated that the railing, stairwells and back wall should be included in the mock-up.  Mr. Waverly stated that he would build scale models which could be moved to each proposed location to see the full impact. 

The Board decided to meet Monday, June 19, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. at the site, 30 Market Street.

The Administrator asked if a permit could be issued for everything except the roof elements which were proposed.

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

vote to issue the Historic Permit for the exterior rehabilitation of 30 Market Street in the Downtown Lowell Historic District conditional upon the following:

·      All roof elements including, but not limited to, decks, railings, and other structures to be reviewed and

approved separately.  No work is to commence regarding roof elements until final design and location has been determined.;

·      Submittal, review, and approval of final details related to all aspects of the window scope of work

including, but  not limited to, shop drawings, paint color, interior screen units (dark colors), and blinds (dark color) prior to commencement of individual work items;

·      Submittal, review, and approval of final details related to all entries, egresses, canopies, and former

     garage door infill treatments prior to commencement of individual work items;

·      Submittal, review, and approval of design, material, and color samples for masonry repair/cleaning,

repointing, metal work and flashings, and paint.  On-site mortar, brick, cleaning, and paint samples will be required for review and approval prior to commencement of individual work items; and

·      Submittal, review, and approval of any scope of work alterations and final details including, but not

limited to, roofing, cornices/eaves, gutters/downspouts, lighting, doors and related hardware, mechanical equipment, landscaping/site treatment, signage, dumpsters, and screening prior to commencement of work.

Work is consistent with Section 2.301 and 2.303 of the Downtown Lowell Historic District Design Review Standards.

      Unanimously approved, 5-0.

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

vote to continue the Public Hearing for DLHD-06-44 to Monday, June 19, 2006 at 5:00 pm on site, 30 Market Street, to further discuss and see mock-ups of the proposed roof decks and other structures.

      Unanimously approved, 5-0.

      B.   DLHD-06-48:  21-39 Perkins Street – Lawrence Mfg. Co.

      Storehouse No. 14 (1876) and Mill No. 12 (1907).  Application for an Historic Permit for exterior rehabilitation and site improvements.                                           

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 Barry Ganek, architect for the project, speaking on behalf of Pilot Development.  Leslie Donovan introduced herself as the preservation consultant for the project and stated that she would assist Mr. Ganek in his presentation.  Eden Milroy introduced himself as Principal of Pilot Perkins LLC. 

Mr. Ganek gave a brief description of the project and proposed work, including rehabilitation the McQuade Building and HUB Hosiery Building.  He stated that the buildings will be converted from industrial use to residential apartments.  He stated that all of the windows will be replaced, masonry will be repaired and restored, replacing the roofing and repairing and restoring the soffits, replacing and adding gutters where needed.  He stated that they will also be restoring many window and door openings that have been modified previously. 

Mr. Ganek stated that the west elevation, which was originally covered in a pressed tin will be replaced with a corrugated metal, of which he showed a sample to the Board.  He stated that this treatment was employed when the building was first built in anticipation of a future addition that was never built, thus the reason for not having a masonry wall in this location originally.  The Board looked at photographs of this elevation for further explanation of the current condition.  Ms. Donovan further explained the condition to the Board.

Ms. Mayo asked if they would want a clapboard treatment.  The Administrator stated that it was not there originally, the wood had always been covered with a metal sheathing of some sort. 

Mr. Ganek stated that they will be removing two elevator head houses and that they will be able to contain their new elevator head houses in the building.  He stated that they will be adding one stairwell to the roof which will be 30 feet from the edge of the roof of the McQuade building.

Mr. Aucella asked to what extent the stairwell could be seen from Perkins Street, if at all since it is such a tall building. He asked how tall the structure would be.  Mr. Ganek stated they would be 8.5”. 

Mr. Aucella asked where the HVAC units would be located.  Mr. Ganek stated that they would be located on the roof, as they do not have any land.  He stated that they will be located in the middle of the roof, as to make them less visible and they will be 5” in height.

The Chairman stated that he sees a roof deck and rail also on the roof plans.  Mr. Ganek stated that was correct. 

Ms. Mayo asked how tall the rail was for the deck.  Mr. Ganek stated that it is 32 inches high.  He added that the deck is located in the center of the roof and it should not be visible at all. 

Mr. Ganek described their proposal for the entry, which will be located where the green wood structure was added in the mid-1940’s.  He detailed the glass treatment and canopy which are proposed for the main entry. 

He stated that they will also restore an arch entry on Hub Hosiery at the stairtower where the 1929 art deco entryway was placed over the original opening. 

Mr. Aucella asked if the new entry would comply with the requirements under the federal Historic Tax Credit program.  Ms. Donovan felt it was a great approach and supported their proposal of this location. 

Mr. Ganek explained the intention to open the passageway in the stairtower of Hub Hosiery to the back of the property and the new landscape being created in the millyard by the state. 

Ms. Donovan explained the proposed treatment of the garage door opening on the west elevation to clarify the new treatment.

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.

Ms. Mayo asked if they had a color pallet yet.  Mr. Ganek stated the did not.

The Chairman asked if there were railroad tracks in the front the building.  Mr. Milroy stated that there are tracks in the street which are not on their property.  He stated that they proposed redevelopment of Perkins Street to the City and that they are supposed to be removed by the City. 

Mr. Aucella stated that there is also a proposal to extend the LNHP trolley tracks, subject to funding, which may come to fruition in the future. 

The Administrator asked to clarify the conditions of the recommended motion, where it says “prior to commencement of work” that it should read “prior to commencement of work of individual work items.”  He also asked that the details of the roof deck and rail details be added in what needs to be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to commencement of work.

Mr. Aucella asked for further information about the deck, specifically if it was a common deck.  Mr. Milroy stated that it was a common deck and was set back 35” from the edge. 

Mr. Lockhart stated that at the Planning Board they were told that the tracks would be pulled up from the street and that the City is in favor of the re-development of Perkins Street.  

Mr. Lockhart asked what the canopy to the entry way would be made of.  Mr. Ganek stated that is would be made of steel frame.

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

vote to issue the Historic Permit for the exterior rehabilitation of Storehouse No. 14 and Mill No. 12 at the Lawrence millyard in the Downtown Lowell Historic District conditional upon the following:

·         Individual Permits will be issued for each work item based upon final design submittals, specifications, material/color samples, and on-site samples;

·         Submittal, review, and approval of final details related to all aspects of the window scope of work including, but not limited to, shop drawings, paint color, interior screen units (dark color), and blinds (dark color) prior to commencement of work for individual work items;

·         Submittal, review, and approval of final details related to all entries, egresses, and canopies including, but not limited to, the main entrance at the corner of Mill No. 12 and Mill No. 12 tower prior to commencement of individual work items;

·         Submittal, review, and approval of design, material, and color samples for masonry repair/cleaning, repointing, metal work and flashings, and paint.  On-site mortar, brick, cleaning, and paint samples will be required for review and approval prior to commencement of work for individual work items; and

·         Submittal, review, and approval of any scope of work alterations and final details including, but not limited to, roofing, cornices/eaves, gutters/downspouts, lighting, doors and related hardware, mechanical equipment, landscaping/site treatment, signage, dumpsters, screening, roof decks and rails prior to commencement of work for individual work items.

Work is consistent with Section 2.301 and 2.303 of the Downtown Lowell Historic District Design Review Standards.

      Unanimously approved, 5-0.

      The Public Hearings were closed at 7:00 p.m.

LOWELL HISTORIC BOARD

REGULAR MEETING

June 12, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                         OTHERS PRESENT

Reynold Ilg, Chairman                                                                           Mark E. Goldman, Self

Peter Aucella                                                                                        Sarah Uhlendorf, Assistant Administrator

David Gray                                                                                           Stephen Stowell, Administrator

Richard Lockhart                                                                                 

Martha Mayo                                                                                       

2.   MINUTES

Approval of the Minutes of April 10, 2006.

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

approve the Minutes of April 10, 2006 as presented.

      Unanimously approved, 5-0.

3.   OTHER BUSINESS

      A.  Enforcement/Violations Update

The Administrator stated the he felt enforcement of violations and the look downtown has improved greatly.  The Assistant Administrator stated that she goes downtown each week and has found fewer violations popping up, as well as a heightened sense among businesses that they need to come to us for permits.  The Administrator added that there has also been a decrease in the incidence of “copy-cat” cases. 

Ms. Mayo asked about the building Moe’s Trading Post was in.  The Administrator stated that the owner has stated that it is on market.  She asked if there was anything we could do about the condition of the window content.  He stated that there was not, it was out of our control. 

Mr. Aucella asked what had happened with them being fined by the Board for minimum maintenance.  The Administrator stated that the owner did the ordered maintenance.  Mr. Aucella asked if our fines just went away after that.  The Administrator stated that Assistant City Solicitor Patricia Talty worked on the case and since the serving of the original documents was made in error and the violations were addressed, the fines would have most likely been voided by the court.

Mr. Aucella requested the Board receive photographs and updated information of previous violations and would like the Board to be voting on more violations to stay on top of them.  The Administrator stated that staff will prepare that for the next meeting.

Mr. Aucella asked if they were voting on any violations tonight, and if not, does that mean all the violations they have voted on previously are in compliance.  The Administrator stated that the previous violations voted on are either in compliance or in the process of working with the staff to come into compliance. 

Ms. Mayo asked about the empty windows on Merrimack Street.  The Administrator stated that he would get in touch with COOL to see if local artists could do window displays, rather than just having the windows covered in paper. 

      B.  Administrator’s Report

The Administrator gave an update on the issues regarding the Father Garin Statue.  He stated that staff has done research on the true history of how the statue came about, which seems to have truly been a gift by the people of Lowell, regardless of religion or belief system.  He stated that staff has not received any further calls on the issue, and that aside from the original newspaper coverage of the happenings, the issue has cooled.  

The Administrator stated that the NAPC Forum and National Trust for Historic Preservation conferences are coming up soon.

Doors Open Lowell was very successful.  The Auction made $7395, which is about $40 less than last year with 9 fewer doors.  The basket raffle made $250 as well. 

Staff is working on the National Register nomination for Saint George’s Antiochian Church. 

The Administrator attended the Preservation Coalition meeting where they are attempting to look into a residential rehabilitation tax credit to complement the state commercial rehabilitation tax credit.  The Assistant Administrator attended the Historic Districts/Historic Commissions Committee meeting. 

The Administrator spoke at the Mass. Planning Director’s Conference on neighborhood districts. 

C.  Board Member Items/Inquiries

The Chairman asked if anyone else had further issues to discuss.

No items of interest were raised by the Board.

Next meeting is Monday, June 19, 2006 at 5 p.m. at 30 Market Street.  The next regular meeting is Monday, July 10, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.

4.   ADJOURNMENT

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

            adjourn the meeting at 7:09 p.m.

Unanimously approved, 5-0.

_______________________________

Sarah Uhlendorf, Assistant Administrator

Stephen R. Stowell, Administrator

Lowell Historic Board