SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
March 5, 2008
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Mr. Harper, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Hart and Mr. Spang.
39-41 Washington Sq. North
In continuation of a previous meeting, Diana Gaston, Gordon Van Huizen, Barbara Pervier, Robert & Sondra Newan, David Lomasney and Nikolaus Sucher submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to repoint over arch and along Winter Street side and to replace downspouts. Present was contractor Victor Berube.
Mr. Berube stated that the downspouts on the house currently are steel and are rusted.
Ms. Gaston stated that there are only 3 downspouts on the house.
Mr. Berube stated that they need to add one downspout and that a scupper needs to be installed.
Mr. Hart asked if any downspouts are planned for the front.
Mr. Berube replied in the negative.
Ms. Pervier stated that there are actually four downspouts to be replaced and one installed and indicated their location on a drawing.
Mr. Hart questioned what the scupper would look like.
Mr. Berube stated that they are usually aluminum or copper, but that this will need to be aluminum since the flashing on the house is aluminum.
Ms. Herbert asked if all 4 existing downspouts were steel.
Ms. Pervier replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would want to see the scupper before allowing the wood overhang to be cut into.
Mr. Spang stated that it is essentially a roof drain.
Mr. Berube stated that it collects water under the rubber roof. He stated that the molding will not be touched.
Ms. Herbert asked the diameter of the proposed downspouts.
Mr. Berube stated that they will be 3”.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to replace 4 existing downspouts in kind with galvanized steel painted to match the brick with the option to replace the downspouts with copper. The motion is also to install one new downspout with a non-visible scupper (drain) per drawing made by Mr. Spang. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert stated that she went by the property and notices that the pier going down the side really looks stressed and that it appears to get worse as it goes down. She stated that in the center of the building under the windows are the beginnings of movement.
Mr. Lomasney stated that they are prepared to acid wash the brick.
Ms. Pervier stated that they will rake and power wash the recently repointed brick at the arch with Prosoco 600 detergent (hydrochloric acid).
Mr. Hart noted that Prosoco Restoration Cleaner is for cleaning the remainder of the façade.
Mr. Hart made a motion to rake back the joints of the repointed area of the arch at 41 Washington Square as well as the small area going down the right side of the arch and to clean with a product such as Prosoco 600. The motion is also to clean the remainder of the façade with a product such as Prosoco Restoration Cleaner.
Mr. Van Huizen stated that he was concerned about whether the old mortar can withstand a power wash.
Mr. Hart changed his motion to give the option to clean the remainder of the façade.
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Berube stated that there will actually be 5 downspouts replaced and 1 new downspout for a total of six.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to amend the earlier motion to change it from 4 to 5 downspouts. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Pervier asked if it were possible if the two courtyard interior downspouts could be steel and the rest copper, noting that the two are not visible from a public way.
Ms. Herbert replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Harper left the meeting at this time.
J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center
Ms. Guy provided Commission members with a copy of a CD with the Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building Re-Use Study. She stated that any comments would need to be provided 30 days from March 4, 2008.
Ms. Guy stated that she has not received a new version of the Memorandum of Agreement.
Ms. Guy provided copies of a letter from Historic Salem, Inc. to Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) dated 2/22/08 regarding the 5th draft of the MOA.
Ms. Guy provided copies of a letter from Historic Salem, Inc. to DCAM on the 30% design plans.
Ms. Guy read an email from Hannah Diozzi with comments on the 30% design plans.
Mr. Hart asked who from the city will review the 30% plans and wondered if it would be the SRA or DRB. He stated that he had a problem with the Federal Street façade and noted that an older drawing showed columns and that it is now a glass curtain wall. He stated that the large elevation of the Federal Street façade is totally undefined.
Martin Imm stated that he wondered what material will be seen behind the glass.
Mr. Hart stated that the site plans show two pavilions and it looks like a glass over it.
Mr. Imm stated that in one picture he say it looked like there will be walkways connecting the floors.
Mr. Hart noted that the Commission does not have floor plans.
Mr. Spang questioned if not having floor plans was due to being a security issue.
Mr. Hart stated that the columns are too thin.
Ms. Bellin agreed that they do not fit proportionately.
Ms. Guy recorded the comments, questions and recommendations to be included in a comment letter.
Federal St. façade
Mr. Spang offered Question #1: Why doesn’t the Federal Street façade of the main block have some sort of shading?
Mr. Spang stated that the curtain wall could either be really poorly done and really quite blank or could be really pretty lively and interesting and exciting. He stated that in today’s energy conscious world, it needs to be shaded somehow.
Mr. Hart offered Question #2 : Why isn’t there more articulation of the main block on the Federal Street façade?
Mr. Hart offered Comment #1: For the entrance on Federal Street, the columns appear to be too slender and out of proportion and lack sensitivity to the existing columns on the probate building.
Ms. Bellin offered Question #: Are the columns free standing or engaged pilasters (tied to the wall)?
Mr. Spang noted that the plan (showing engaged pilasters) and the rendering (free standing columns) don’t seem to match.
Meg Twohey asked if the Commission was okay with angling the church.
Mr. Spang stated that he was okay with it.
Mr. Hart was in agreement.
Mr. Spang offered Comment #2: We suggest some sort of entrance canopy.
Mr. Hart stated that the old drawing had intermediate levels which now don’t seem to appear. He stated that he liked the way it had stepped down.
Site Plan
Ms. Twohey stated that she would like to see a view of the building with all the lights and fixtures. She noted that per Joan Goody, the new walkway will slope and will need to have landings at 20’ intervals in order to accommodate handicapped requirements. She stated that it will likely be used by skateboarders and that nobody will want to walk there at night.
Darrow Lebovici suggested that they have maintained that they are not putting in an official pedestrian access that goes from the Federal Street corner of the West ramp, down crossing the west ramp and down. They are saying the right way is to cross three streets and therefore the new walkway needs to be there, so they can eliminate the one across the green space there now.
Ms. Twohey suggested saying that it appears to be problematic and that you want to discuss its practicality and that the Commission may want to request a view of what it will look like.
Ms. Herbert stated that it sounds like muggers paradise.
Ms. Twohey stated that it is kind of scary and suggested it will be a drug haven.
Mr. Imm suggested that based on the grade of the proposed ADA standard sidewalk, if the building was moved over, there would be enough room for a ramp, noting that they are saying there is not enough room, suggesting that it is because the building is going to be an office supply distribution facility.
Comment #3: The walkway at North Street will be a haven for skateboarders and night time incidents and it is suggested that alternatives be looked at.
Ms. Twohey stated that at 30% is the last chance ever to make significant changes to the building. She stated that they don’t show any kind of lighting plan.
Request #1: Request a detailed lighting plan including pedestrian and building accent.
Mr. Spang asked if it is going to be LEED criteria.
Ms. Twohey stated that it is supposed to be LEED Silver, but suggested the Commission ask.
Mr. Hart offered Question#4: What level of LEED do they expect to achieve?
Mr. Spang stated that they can earn a point if none of the exterior lighting goes out into the neighborhood, so they are not creating light pollution.
Question #5: What is the glass?
Mr. Hart asked if something should be said about the massing.
Mr. Spang stated that the massing of the building of the July rendering had more articulation that would help break down the massing of the building and that those have gone away.
Mr. Hart offered Request 2: Request a 3 dimensional rendering showing the Bridge Street and North Street facades from the viaduct and from the intersection of Washington and Bridge in order to have a view of the building in the context of the surrounding buildings so that the Commission can see a pedestrian view.
Bridge Street & North Street facades
Comment #4: Would like better articulation of the Bridge and North Street facades to fit better with scale of architecture in the area. Building should address gateway entrance to the city.
Ms. Bellin questioned the window layout, which she felt looked like barcodes.
Ms. Twohey stated that some of the windows open to courtrooms, while others are to offices.
Mr. Spang offered Comment #5: Suggest windows be articulated according to the solar orientation.
Ms. Bellin stated that the windows look too random on the Bridge St. facade. She stated that if we want it to fit in with the neighborhood, then random is not what most of our existing architecture looks like. She stated that Salem’s architecture is more balanced and symmetrical.
Mr. Hart agreed that the fenestration is unbalanced.
Comment #6: Windows should be less random and have more symmetry like Salem’s existing architecture, even if it is uniform widths in the brick, but not in the glass.
Mr. Spang offered Comment #7: Building should have a base, middle and a top.
Ms. Herbert wondered if the windows could be arched to soften the rectangle business going on and wondered what could be done to soften the mechanics on the top.
Mr. Spang stated that he is concerned most about the parking underneath. He stated the underside of the current building is a horror show with the parked cars, the dumpsters and maintenance equipment. He stated that it is a mess and should not be repeated on the new building.
Mr. Hart stated there needs to be details as to the mechanical equipment, layout and site features (i.e. walls and fences) on the Bridge Street ground level.
Mr. Spang offered Comment #8: The proposed location of mechanical equipment and visible parking under the building at the ground level of Bridge Street will be an eyesore, similar to existing and should not be repeated. There should be further definition of mechanical equipment and site features, including walls and fences.
Mr. Spang stated that it could be recommended that all the transformers and generators be placed in the service court.
Mr. Hart stated that that is where the semi’s deliver all the materials.
Mr. Lebovici stated that that is where they have the Kinko’s warehouse.
Mr. Imm stated that it will be the supply depot for all the courts in Essex County.
Mr. Spang offered Request #2: The Commission would like street level pedestrian views from all major streets (Federal, North and Bridge) including site details (mechanical equipment, walls, fences, landscaping). Views should include new traffic improvements with human beings in order to get a sense of scale.
Ms. Guy asked if there was anything the Commission liked and wanted to say, “This is good, don’t change it.”
Ms. Twohey stated that one of her concerns was that it seems the materials have gotten cheap really fast and that project hasn’t even begun. She wondered if the Commission was concerned that the materials will continue to degrade as the project moves forward.
Ms. Herbert asked what could be done to soften the view of the mechanicals, particularly from overpass.
Views to request:
- From train station stairs
- From the overpass at its highest point
- From the Federal Street neighborhood
Mr. Hart offered Question #6: What is the philosophy on appearance of mechanical systems being placed on the roof and how will they be designed to be compatible with the building?
Mr. Lebovici stated that he believed during earlier site visits they represented that the height of the building would be something like 70” +/- plus mechanicals on the Bridge Street side. He stated that the represented one thing and did a shoe salesman’s swap.
Mr. Spang questioned what we have for an 80’ building around town.
Ms. Guy suggested 27 Charter Street may be.
Mr. Hart offered Question #7: What is the grade to roof line vertical dimensions at Bridge and North and then from the roof line to the top of the mechanical equipment?
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
