SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
July 30, 2008
A special meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Reiter and Mr. Hart.
J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center – Review of 60% plans in preparation for 7/31/08 DCAM meeting of interested parties
Ms. Diozzi noted that there is a meeting at DCAM on 7/31/08.
Ms. Guy noted that the Commission received the 60% submission on July 18, 2008.
Ms. Bellin stated that there are certainly a lot of nice changes from the 30% to the 60%.
Ms. Guy stated that she forwarded the following letters to Commission members by email on July 29, 2008:
- Federal Street Neighborhood Association letter to DCAM dated 7/29/08;
- Historic Salem, Inc. letter to DCAM dated 7/29/08
Department of Planning & Community Development letter to DCAM dated 7/29/08
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission will prepare its comments at the special meeting on 8/4/09 and suggested Ms. Herbert work on a draft following the 7/31/09 meeting. She suggested that the Commission formulate any specific comments or questions tonight in preparation for the 7/31 meeting.
Ms. Herbert questioned the sustainability of glass buildings, citing an on-line article from May, 2005 that basically said glass buildings cannot be considered “green” because it takes more energy to heat and cool a glass building. She added that at 60%, she doubted that they would do less glass and more brick or stone. She was also concerned about maintenance, noting that there has been broken light globes at the existing court complex for over three years and questioned if there is a budget in place to maintain and clean the glass and garden. She stated that she felt these questions need to be posed. She stated the other buildings have been poorly maintained over the years.
Mr. Reiter asked how many other major glass buildings are currently under State management.
Ms. Bellin noted that One Ashburton Place is 22 stories and is a lot of glass.
Mr. Hart noted that sustainability is a good point, considering that energy costs have gone up, and are legitimate questions to ask.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she suspected that the glass design was not going to go away.
Mr. Hart stated that he had an HVAC concern, noting that it is a large piece of glass that is south facing and that he felt that the heat gain will be tremendous in summer. He added that it is possible that heating and cooling may be running at the same time in different parts of the building, such as during the Spring when the sun comes through the glass on one side.
Ms. Herbert stated that she wasn’t thrilled about the glass screen in the beginning, but has spent a large amount of time researching glass screens all over the world. She stated that the Bronx County Hall of Justice in New York is all glass and was completed in 2006 and that the Ferguson Courthouse in Miami is a beautiful building of all glass. She stated that communities are starting to do this to be transparent and open the judicial system and that she felt it makes sense. She stated that glass panels should be flowing like these other buildings and not flat. She suggested that possibly the pavilion building should curve into the garden and not try to mimic the other building. She noted that it is hard to make a modern building marry well with an antique building. She stated
that we have traditional buildings and this new building and that the pavilion may need to be more contemporary.
Ms. Diozzi asked the material of the penthouses.
Ms. Herbert stated that she believed it was some kind of louvered metal.
Ms. Diozzi appreciated how it was stepped in a little at the top.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would also like to ask if the penthouses need to be that big, but suspected they do because the amount of glass will require more mechanicals. She would like to know the materials for the penthouses and if they could be screened more, such as a parapet wall, and if so, would the Commission want that on the Federal Street side as well. She suggested the possible use of glass parapet wall on the Federal Street side. She noted there is another penthouse on the top of the pavilion, which is a huge problem, right in front of the glass screen that is supposed to mirror everything.
Ms. Bellin stated that it wouldn’t be quite as bad if it were lower and less boxy.
Ms. Herbert wondered if some of the mechanicals go under the garden area in the center so that the glass wall is reflecting back to buildings.
Mr. Hart stated that in one drawing, it shows a gigantic hunk of mechanical space in back of the east façade, where they have added another ½ story to the mechanical and it is huge.
Ms. Herbert stated that she agreed with Ms. Diozzi that it is minimized and that from up Federal, you can never get far enough away for it to grow. She stated that they only way to see it would be from Federal looking over the church, but felt it still needs to be minimized.
Ms. Bellin stated with the windows it appears to be not just mechanicals, but a whole roof structure or attic.
Ms. Herbert stated that they need to know on the pavilion building how much of it is mechanicals and how much is other and noted that the pavilion building may need to be raised up more. She suggested that in addition to thickening up the roof line, the columns and the fact that they have been moved away from the building and are heavier is better. She stated that maybe one column should go and the other fattened out. She also questioned the capitals on the columns and did not know if the Egyptian Revival is wanted. She preferred that the lighting be disguised at the ground level or above. She stated that the columns should not be utilitarian light posts. She stated that she still does not know if the church is angled or straight.
Mr. Hart stated that he thinks only the architect is interest in skewing the Baptist Church.
Ms. Herbert stated that she believed the architect designed it that way, so that you have a better view of the entire church, so that it is showcased.
Mr. Hart stated that she has been asked multiple times to give a rendering from Federal Street.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she keeps going back and forth on the angle and thinks she likes the angle, so that more of the building can be seen from North Street.
Ms. Herbert agreed that she was also going back and forth. She suggested having something very user-friendly to the public and stated that it bothers her that the front doors of the church are not being used at all. She suggested having a section with a secured open area to use as a mini-visitor area inside of the church so that the church does not look mothballed with the front doors not being operational. She stated that the current design is incredibly homogenized to the point of being completely boring. She noted that the Federal Street side is the most concern and that the East side will not really be seen. She suggested throwing them a bone and not asking to change the East side, but focusing majorly on Federal Street. She added that if they are going to go modern, to do it right,
by getting some curves in their and adjusting the pavilion.
Mr. Reiter stated that sitting in traffic across the bridge at North Street will be the biggest view. Down on the ground at Federal will not be seen as much.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission has made some suggestions for the North Street side and noted that everyone going in to the court systems will come in from Federal Street.
Ms. Herbert stated that the church doors could be thrown open and have glass panels for security and view to the library with some sort of interpretation of the courthouse and church. She noted that people will be using the stairs to smoke.
Mr. Hart stated that he was concerned with the Federal Street side and how the glass will be treated, including what combination of clear and frit glass and metal panels. He questioned how reflective the glass will be, as well as the transparency. He stated that the pavilion needs a lot of work.
Ms. Herbert questioned what will be seen looking into the glass and hoped it would be corridors or concourse and not desks and people paraphernalia.
Ms. Bellin stated that some of the comment letters received suggest 6 columns, rather than seven, which is the same number as the Registry of Deeds next door.
Ms. Herbert suggested having more curvature and maybe the roof line could be slightly curved and returned in the garden area, so the column would not be necessary.
Ms. Diozzi questioned the metal sheathing on east side of the south façade.
Ms. Bellin noted that it is on both sides, with one more drastic than the other.
Ms. Herbert stated that the metal takes away the floating concept. She questioned if a pediment or other treatment was needed on the pavilion as part of the thickening of the roofline.
Mr. Hart stated that a pediment might work, but that it needs some treatment.
Ms. Bellin agreed and stated that it would help to hide the mechanicals.
Ms. Diozzi agreed it needs some treatment, but stated that there would be too many pediments.
Ms. Herbert stated that the two metal ends destroy the whole idea of the floating glass screen. She stated that if the glass screen was brought back to what it was before with some swoop to it and extends out to the ends, it is a nice piece. She questioned if the pavilion should to try to mirror the Registry or become more contemporary.
Ms. Bellin stated that if the church is angled and the glass wall were angled, it might help balance the overall design. She noted that currently everything is straight on, except for the church.
Ms. Herbert stated she was concerned with the angle of the church, which creates more green space on North Street and wondered what could be done with that space. She noted if the church were straight, the green space would be added to the middle and that the more green space in the center, the better for public use.
Ms. Bellin stated that it also depends how close the church is to the corner.
Mr. Hart noted that the Commission does not have a site plan.
Ms. Herbert stated that she liked the fact that the windows more mirror the church windows, but stated that the upper windows are an issue. She stated that the little hoods on the North Street side upper windows don’t add a lot and they look a little flimsy, and may need to be thickened up or something.
Mr. Hart agreed it needs a little work.
Ms. Bellin stated that it has been suggested that the loggia be extended around to North Street.
Mr. Hart wondered if the interior relates to the exterior. Mr. Hart stated that they may not necessarily need to extend the loggia, but that they need to do something to step it up.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt the North Street side is a stand alone design and did not prefer to wrap the loggia around, but felt that something a little different needs to happen on North Street.
Mr. Reiter was in agreement, and stated that North Street has a good transition from the side.
Ms. Bellin suggested the use of a different color brick or material to lighten up the side.
Ms. Herbert stated that it would be great to get some vegetation up there and that she sees landscaping as the element that solves many issues. She suggested Blue Atlas Cedar. She added that where the low glass screen ends, from the perspective of Federal Street, it should look like it goes all the way out to the street, possibly wrap around and gradually grow in across that screen, something to get back to the floating glass screen theme.
Ms. Bellin suggested arching the top of the lower windows.
Mr. Hart stated that he was not sure if an arch would gain that much.
Ms. Herbert questioned if the center glass area on the Bridge Street side is all corridors or is there offices right up to the glass, which could potentially be a problem with clutter. She would like to know what material divides the two sections of the building, noting that depending on the material, it could be a nice element. She stated that she will email Joan Goody and ask if the picture of the glass building in Germany could be provided at the meeting. She stated that she would also like to see some examples of glass buildings, preferably local, in order to see it in context. She added that she would like to know the material for the columns, loggia and penthouses, as well. She questioned how much space is in the loggia area and if the loggia area is a place where people could
walk, noting that it may just be a design element. She believed the penthouses are to be painted metal sheathing.
Ms. Bellin questioned if the penthouses could be set back more to be less visible.
Ms. Diozzi stated that if you are on the street by a tall building, the top of it disappears. If you are sitting in your car on the bridge, you will see it.
Mr. Reiter stated you will only see it on North coming toward Salem, not on North going away from Salem because you will already be too close. You will also see it in the parking lot of the funeral home across the street.
Ms. Herbert was surprised the Joan Goody would have those big ugly things up there. She stated that there has to be a solution.
Mr. Hart stated that the percentage devoted to mechanicals is rather large.
Mr. Reiter wondered if some of it is empty space to balance out the roof line.
Ms. Guy stated that it may be needed for air circulation.
Mr. Hart stated he believed a large heat exchange goes on the roof.
Mr. Reiter suggested verifying what is in there.
Ms. Herbert questioned why they are not symmetrical.
Ed Neilson, Historic Salem, Inc. (HSI) member and local architect, stated that the width of green space is a gift of open space that the project could give back to the city, the public and the workers. The way to achieve it is to move the church over to line up with the edge of the North Street façade. He stated that if it were in the same plane, the site would be a 4-square block, similar to the 2006 elevation. He noted that two different people must be doing the renderings and elevations. HSI is in favor of the swoop to give it some silhouette.
Meg Twohey of the Federal Street Neighborhood Association (FSNA) stated that HSI’s and FSNA’s comments largely mirror each other. She urged the Commission to do so as well and to structure the DCAM meeting to review the building façade by façade, starting with Federal Street facade. She stated that the East façade will be totally visible from Washington Street and coming up from the train station and suggested that it be treated the same as the North Street facade. She stated that the 30% drawings show a lot of metal cladding that doesn’t show on the 60%. She stated that more information is needed regarding materials. She questioned why there is no materials list at 60%. She asked that the Commission support them in these requests.
Ms. Herbert stated she was hopeful that not having the list or drawings may give a chance to make some changes.
Mr. Hart stated that what was provided are renderings, not drawings. He questioned where the 60% drawings are.
Ms. Herbert questioned Carol Meeker’s email saying that what we have is of no use for design review.
Mr. Hart questioned if the 60% submission is 60% of design development or 60% of contract documents.
Ms. Twohey stated that she felt the mullions are very heavy. She noted that at the last meeting, they were shown a German building that looked like an office building and then there was a glass façade. Her concern was that Salem was getting a German office building because of the mullions.
Ms. Herbert stated that we were shown an 8” x 10” photo and the glass screen part of it was about 2” x 4”. She stated that she saw a glass curtain and in front of it was twin antique buildings being reflected off the screen. She noted that what we have is a very small church and a very large quasi-modern pavilion building. She stated it was kind of hard to see how it would work. She noted that glass screen buildings are usually done on large campuses, so the general view is at a distance. In Salem, you are right on top of it and so the effect will be different. If the mullions are too big, it will look very heavy.
Mr. Neilson stated that the church does not need trees in front of it, and you want to see the building.
Mr. Hart asked who is running the 7/31/08 DCAM meeting.
Ms. Herbert stated that she assumed it was being run by Carol Meeker and Joan Goody.
Mr. Hart stated that they should be asked what they define as 60% design before they start the presentation – i.e. are we in programming, design development or construction documents stage. He felt it was important for us to understand where they are in the process. He felt that the Commission has 60% renderings.
Ms. Herbert suggested that FSNA and HSI email Gail Rosenberg and ask for the agenda and pose that question.
Ms. Twohey suggested using a different approach and suggesting stating that it is our meeting to discuss the 60% design and we would like to conduct the meeting by beginning with Federal Street façade and then step around the building and that we want to be sure that we get through all of the questions that have been raised in writing.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt if that is stated at the start of the meeting, it will appear confrontational and noted that there is a lot at stake and felt it was a bad idea to suggest it when walking in the door. She felt they would need to digest the request.
Mr. Hart suggested sending an email stating what are our expectations on what we hope to accomplish, along with asking where we are in the process.
Darrow Lebovici suggested that the email reinforce the need to answer the questions raised in the HSI and FSNA letters.
Ms. Herbert stated that a glass screen can be incredibly effective if done properly, so we need to embrace it, but somehow push it forward to a better design.
Jeff Bellin, 396 Essex Street, stated that the process is frustrating and that at meetings we tend to get railroaded and then after the fact, DCAM states “you had your chance”, but they never answered any questions that got brought up and before you know it, it’s already done. He stated that they can say that they are going for a transparent look in our court systems, but then they pretty much ignore the unique distinction of Salem. He was concerned how the courthouse will look and did not mind some glass. He stated that he felt it looks way too boxy and suggested softened corners. He stated that it looks very monotonous, prison like and absolutely indistinct which could be found in any generic town. He noted that it is the first view into Salem coming from North
Street. He stated that he felt a lot of light will be coming through the glass and that it will show the dirt and was concerned it will look scummy and grimy all the time. He stated that someone questioned him if the apple tree on the grounds will be saved. He stated that he hoped the meeting tomorrow does not turn into a dog and pony show, where there is regret and complaints that we never got our questions answered.
Ms. Herbert stated that her opinion was that what was provided does not equate to a 60% submission.
Mr. Hart stated that what was provided are renderings, not elevations. Elevations are scaled drawings and renderings are artistic depiction.
Ms. Bellin questioned if the submission is reliable in terms of proportion. She stated that some of the stuff looks off.
Mr. Neilson stated that Ada Louise Huxtable has verbally stated her agreement with the need to increase the landscape and define the streetscape.
Ms. Twohey asked the Commission to consider asking DCAM to continue the meeting, if they can’t get through it all tomorrow.
Asphalt Roof Shingles
Ms. Guy stated that she mailed Commission members a packet of internet research on 3-tab and architectural shingles. It included responses she received from an inquiry made to local historic commissions. She noted that contractors and homeowners who have been applying for roof replacement have not been not differentiating between 3-tab and architectural.
Mr. Reiter stated that the information provided on architectural shingles states that they are more in line in old slate shingles in profile and raised pieces.
Mr. Hart was in disagreement
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission needs to decide if it wants to change its policy.
Ms. Diozzi asked if, over the years, the Commission has previously approved architectural shingles.
Ms. Guy replied in the affirmative. She noted that for a long time, there was no differentiating. Then a new member came on who had a problem with them and the Commission stopped approving architectural. Once that Commissioner left, the Commission did not have concern with architectural. Now it has come up again. Our guidelines say to use 3-tab.
Ms. Bellin stated that the guidelines say not to draw attention.
Ms. Guy stated that some of the information she found talks about the slope of the roof and the visibility. She stated that maybe the guidelines need to address how much is seen of the roof for architectural to be allowed.
Ms. Bellin noted that, historically, slate shingles were very visible and very dimensional.
Mr. Hart stated that the Secretary of Interiors Standards say that any element should be replaced with the same thing because it has achieved a visual quality in its own right over time. He stated that roof systems from the 13th to the 21st century have a lot of variety - particularly during Victorian times – there were roofs that were different than 3–tab, because they were not a traditional wood shingle, nor were they slate, which were the predominant roof coverings until 1850-60-70, when asphalt and other kinds of roofs were invented. He stated that for Victorian eras, he felt architectural could be considered on a case by case basis, because in some cases Victorian roofs were meant to be seen and they do stand out. He stated that he had a problem using them for
Georgian, Federal and Greek Revival, because they were traditionally either wood or slate.
Ms. Bellin stated that she has seen slate look dimensional and felt that architectural should be reviewed on a case by case basis.
Mr. Hart felt the Commission should be careful on approving architectural for a roof that was traditionally flat. He had no problem reviewing them on a case by case basis.
Mr. Reiter stated that the public would not like it when their neighbor gets approval, but they don’t.
Ms. Bellin stated that on a case by case basis, we don’t want a dimensional, textured look, but added that she not like a rule that every home has to have the charcoal or black 3-tab which looks flat, because while it lets the house speak for itself without the roof distraction, there may be a situation that the roof, with a little more detail to it, might enhance the overall look of the house.
Ms. Guy stated that the guidelines state that, where historically appropriate, the Commission, may approve a polychromatic color scheme.
Ms. Bellin stated that she liked having a little leeway and for case by case, she felt that the Commission needs to be very clear about the shingle they are approving and are specific that for a particular house, what color scheme, texture/dimensionality is appropriate for that house. She stated that the Commission would be on solid ground with other applicants if it is clear that for that particular house, that particular arrangement and that particular color is appropriate, but may not be for another house. She did not feel architectural shingles should be excluded completely.
Ms. Guy stated that she felt there needed to be something in the guidelines that provides some information for when architectural or 3-tab may be better suited.
Ms. Herbert suggested disallowing any architectural shingles that have high profile or are random shapes or any shingle that is wildly colored. She stated that we are basically looking for neutrals.
Mr. Hart replied that the exception would be if there is a precedent.
Ms. Herbert suggested naming a couple that a very low profile that will work in different situations, as well as name a few that are definitely inappropriate.
Ms. Guy suggested that the Commission update pictures in the guidelines. She suggested that Ms. Bellin review the existing guidelines for roofing and suggested some tweaks and that Mr. Hart taking some photographs of examples showing good architectural and bad architectural, along with good 3-tab and bad 3-tab.
Mr. Hart stated that a 20 year shingle is cheap, but is pretty thin.
Ms. Guy stated that the homeowner does not necessarily know this, because they are listening to the contractor. The guidelines may need to say that 3-tab shingles are less expensive and that both are available in 30 year.
Mr. Hart stated that he would also like to investigate Slateline. He stated that contractors push architectural.
Ms. Guy stated that people believe what they read, therefore the Commission may want to make changes to the wording that might help guide when architectural might be allowed and the style of shingle likely to be approved, along with pictures of good and bad.
Mr. Hart stated that a heavier shingle does not mean it will last longer.
Mr. Hart offered to take photographs of good and bad 3-tab and architectural roofs.
Minutes
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of August 1, 2007. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of August 15, 2007. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of September 5, 2007 with corrections. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of September 19, 2007 with corrections. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of October 3, 2007. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of December 5, 2007. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of January 2, 2008. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that she received a request from the owners of 35 Broad Street to extend their certificate for chimney repair and chimney cap, dated 6/21/07, for one year. Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the extension request. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy noted that Commissioners were sent a copy of the Salem Superior Courthouse and County Commissioners Building Feasibility of Real Estate Options.
Ms. Guy read a letter from MHC to DCAM dated 7/15/08 concerning the Baptist Church Relocation Specification Review.
There being no further business, Mr. Hart made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
