SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
April 1, 2015
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert (Chair), Kathryn Harper (Vice Chair), David Hart, Susan Keenan, Larry Spang, Joanne McCrea and Jane Turiel.
18 Washington Square West
As a continuation of a previous meeting, the Hawthorne Hotel submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to modify the hotel’s main entrance for universal accessibility. The changes include the installation of a new ramped entrance to replace the existing temporary ramp, a lowered sidewalk, curb cut, and new handrails and planters along the ramp.
At a previous meeting, the Commission approved the installation of the planters and removal of the associated step. The Commission found that they did not have jurisdiction over the ramp, curb cut, or sidewalk. Discussion of the handrail design was continued.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 10/20/14
- Photographs
- Grey Architects, Inc. Plan dated 8/1/14
- Rendering
- Newel Post Options Draft dated 12/2/14
Ms. Guy stated that the applicant has withdrawn the application.
8 Botts Court
Alexander Marks and Kimberly Tompkins submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install two roof vents. The vents are necessary in order to decrease the temperature differential between the living and attic spaces as a result of 6” of new spray insulating foam having been installed in the attic. The vent will be either mushroom or square shaped. The precise location of the upper roof vents is unknown. Ideally, they will install the new vents at an equal distance and spacing from the existing vents.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 1/31/15
- Photographs: 1/31/15
- Contract for Products/Service Work: Conservation Services Group dated 1/15/15
- Explanation of need: 3/3/15
Ms. Guy stated that the applicant has withdrawn the application.
92 Federal Street
Steve Sass submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for:
- Removal of damaged top part of doorway (bracketed canopy)
- Restoration/reconstruction of Federal-style lintel/architrave at front doorway
- Installation of paneled balustrade above old roof
- Repainting or painting of two front steps and house exterior at dustpan dormer and trim.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 3/16/15
- Report/Photographic submission by John Goff d/b/a/ Historic Preservation & Design: 3/31/15
Steve Sass and John Goff were present.
Mr. Goff stated that the Commission had previously advised taking off the damaged canopy. The house details from four periods, with the major portion being Federal. There is also Greek Revival details and Italian and Colonial Revival. There are currently 6 over 1 windows. There is mixed massing and styles. It is a nice building with cosmetic problems. The chief problem is the front door. All the snow piles up on top and when it melts it sits against the wood clapboards and creates rot over the canopy. The right side has dropped 4-6 inches. The right side bracket is being crushed. The main proposal is to replace the canopy with a more traditional style. They would eventually like to do something with the dustpan dormer. There is a nice granite first
step, but the next two are concrete, which they will leave but want to paint. The first step is the doorway. He provided a sketch for an appropriate architrave/lintel sketch. He noted that the clapboards are 3 ½” and there is 10 ½ clapboards of space until the window overhead. The existing pilasters are 9” wide. He stated that the majority of the houses on Federal Street have Federal/Greek Revival doorways. The proposed has 45 degree proportions and it will have a base, middle and top, with an 8” projection. They are considering Azek for the top cap or ¾” exterior plywood, with a copper top that will project over the edge and under several clapboards above. They propose to paint California Paint Andover Cream trim with Rocky Hill body.
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal St., recommended maintaining the lites above. She also recommended doorbells for each unit.
Mr. Goff stated that they also want to upgrade the railing.
Ms. Herbert stated that the proposed pilasters appear kind of slim.
Mr. Goff stated that when they start the work, they will look for clues as to what was there before. He noted that the dormer has inconsistent cladding and it was not part of the main façade.
Ms. Herbert asked the number of units behind the dormer.
Mr. Sass stated that there are two units.
Ms. Herbert asked when the dormer was constructed.
Mr. Goff guessed that it was early 20th century.
Ms. Herbert suggested brainstorming on how to modernize it (i.e. maybe something with the roofline).
Mr. Sass stated that he would like to make it look invisible. He noted that Mr. Goff had suggested a faux balustrade under the windows with dormer being a different paint (i.e. sky blue) that would make eye focus on the traditional building.
Mr. Goff noted that Federal period houses often had a balustrade on top.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt that the dormer reads as having been added and felt the balustrade will draw the eye.
Ms. Herbert asked if the paint trim on the windows will be the same as the body on the dormer.
Mr. Goff replied in the affirmative and stated that they would do a test panel first.
Mr. Hart stated that ta dark color will recede.
Ms. Herbert stated that it is a departure from what is traditional, but noted that the dormer is a departure from traditional.
Mr. Sass stated that he would like to do the doorway and painting over the summer. The dormer can be left until there is a plan. He noted that he will be putting up the gutters previously approved. However, the gutters will be cream instead of white.
Ms. Herbert stated that she was thrilled that they are willing to brainstorm.
Mr. Spang stated that the door sits back 3-4’
Mr. Goff guessed it is 3’.
Mr. Spang asked what happens on the inside paneled walls.
Mr. Goff stated that it will be white painted wood with mailboxes.
Ms. Herbert stated that a recessed set of mailboxes will seem to disappear.
Mr. Goff stated that the top part of the second floor windows have original molding.
Ms. Herbert stated that she was bothered by the pilaster width. She asked the width of the watertable and stated that the pilasters need to be bigger than the watertable.
Mr. Spang stated that he felt that the water table looks skinny.
Ms. Herbert asked how the stairs will be treated.
Mr. Goff stated that they will be painted to look like granite.
Mr. Spang suggested using blue stone tread.
Mr. Goff stated that they could throw sand in the paint mix.
Mr. Spang suggested treating the dormer as a roof and using shingles. He stated that, if treated like a Victorian mansard, paint colors would be different.
Mr. Goff agreed that it would help soften.
MOTION/VOTE: Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the paint colors as proposed - Andover Cream and Rock Hill. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
MOTION/VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to paint the two concrete steps to replicate granite. Ms. Turiel seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Harper made a motion to remove the front door canopy removal and to replace it with the canopy proposed. There was no second.
Ms. Arlander stated that she agreed with Ms. Herbert that the pilasters and watertable look narrow. She noted that with a flat lintel, the fire box would be more visible. She stated that a canopy top would disguise the fire box.
Mr. Spans suggested widening the pilasters inward and then having a return back to the panel.
Mr. Hart stated that the water table should be reconsidered. He stated that it appears narrower than the cornerboards and that Georgian/Federal typically reads hefty. He stated that they might want to consider the relationship, which may alleviate the problem with the relationship of the pilasters.
Ms. Herbert was in agreement. She stated that the watertable and cornerboards should be hefty if going for period.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt the cornerboards are of appropriate size.
Mr. Goff stated that the white is so white that it is jumping out.
Mr. Spang stated that with a canopy, the fire box will still be seen.
Mr. Hart suggest modifying the motion to have the applicant study the height of watertable to conform more closely with Federal/Georgian.
Mr. Sass stated that he is willing to consider.
Mr. Hart stated that his only concern is that the cornerboard is thicker than the watertable. He stated that if the water table is beefed up, he is okay with the pilasters. He stated that he is also okay with adding to the inside of the pilasters.
Mr. Spang stated that he feels that, as drawn, the pilasters should work.
Mr. Hart stated that he feels a scaled drawing is needed, instead of the sketch perspective provided.
Mr. Sass stated that the insurance company wants the canopy down. The builders want to create a lintel before taking down the canopy.
Mr. Spang suggested approve what submitted and having Mr. Hart be delegated to approve the finished drawing.
MOTION: Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the door surround as submitted subject to verification of the proportions of the pilasters and watertable, which are to be delegated to Mr. Hart.
Ms. Herbert asked if the motion should specify that the water table be rounded or slanted.
Mr. Hart stated that he encouraged the applicant to do the watertable with a slant.
VOTE: Mr. Spang amended his motion to include that the watertable be thicker than the cornerboards with a 45 degree milled slant on top. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Sass withdrew the balustrade.
Ms. Herbert noted that the handrails were not in the application and he will need apply for them.
Other Business
Request for letters of support
Ms. Guy presented three draft letters of support provided by the City of Salem Department of Planning & Community Development for support of the City’s requests for Community Preservation Act funding for the Salem Common Fence, the Charter Street Burial Ground and the conservation and restoration of three portraits in City Council Chambers.
MOTION/VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to submit the letters of support. Ms. Turiel seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Approval of minutes
MOTION/VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the minutes of December 17, 2014. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
MOTION/VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the minutes of January 7, 2015. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
MOTION/VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the minutes of February 18, 2015. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
MOTION/VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the minutes of March 4, 2015. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart stated that the map on City website is not entirely accurate, noting that the right-of-way at the extension of Beckford Street differs slightly.
Ms. Guy noted that there are also other errors that need to be eventually corrected.
VOTE: There being no further business, Ms. Harper made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Turiel seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Assistant Community Development Director
| 