LOWELL HISTORIC BOARD

PUBLIC HEARINGS

December 12, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT                                                             OTHERS PRESENT

Reynold Ilg, Chairman                                                               Keith Bourgeois, Rogers Homes

J. Matthew Coggins                                                                   Anne Cavanaugh, 136 Hanks Street      

Rachel Edlund                                                                           Jeffery J. Cook, Rogers Homes

David Gray                                                                               Jim Gallaghani, Varnum Associates

Richard Lockhart                                                                      Matt Hammer, Polaris Engineering

Martha Mayo                                                                            Emile Houle, Varnum Associates

Ernie Middlemiss                                                                       Sangmoo Kim, Rogers Homes

Wendy Pearl                                                                             David J. Plunkett, Rogers Homes

                                                                                                Steve Prebble, Varnum Realty

                                                                                                Michael Ready

                                                                                                Will Soucy, Soucy Industries

                                                                                                Sarah Uhlendorf, Assistant Administrator

                                                                                                Stephen Stowell, Administrator

1.  PUBLIC HEARINGS

      A.  DLHD-06-26:  250 Western Avenue

Application for an Historic Permit for construction of an approximately 12,782 +/- square foot industrial building on an existing vacant lot 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 Matt Hammer of Polaris Engineering to speak on behalf of the project for Will Soucy and Gavin and Sullivan Architects.  Mr. Hammer referred to two renderings of the site, which have been approved by the Planning Board, to explain the proposed structure in relation to the site, the proposed elevations and the anticipated use of the building.  He further explained that the proposed building is two stories in height with flanking loading/service areas that are covered by canopies.  The first floor of the structure is proposed to be constructed of split face concrete block on the front, right, and left elevations.  The building will have metal board and batten siding sides the second floor on the same elevations.  The rear of the structure as well as the wings will be metal wave/corrugated siding to distinguish it from the central portion of the structure and a black vinyl chain link encloses the loading areas.

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 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. Edlund stated that the renderings were very helpful to the Board and that she appreciated their work to do them to give the Board an idea of the proposed coloring for the building. 

Mr. Soucy added that he has been working with Chuck Parrott and the Administrator on colors and that the colors represented in the rendering are close to the color scheme that they envision. 

The Administrator confirmed that they have been working with Mr. Soucy for about a month and a half and that they have also discussed the possibility of using a picket fence along the canal if the National Park extends the Canalway on the opposite bank of the Pawtucket Canal at some point in the future.

The Chairman asked the applicant to further explain the reason for the use of split face concrete block rather than brick.  Mr. Soucy explained that on their current industrial building on Mt. Vernon Street they have both flat brick and split face block and that the brick provides a canvas for graffiti, which they often find vandalized.  He stated that although Design Review originally suggested flat brick or block, it was agreed that split face block would act as a deterrent to vandalism on the proposed building.

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

vote to issue the Historic Permit for construction of an approximately 12,782 +/- square foot industrial building on an existing vacant lot and associated site improvements at 250 Western Avenue in the Downtown Lowell Historic District conditional upon the following:

·         Submittal, review, and approval of final design and construction details including, but not limited to, specifications for door and window systems, shutters, masonry, metal siding systems, colors, light fixtures, building signage, and foundation treatment (light sandblast) prior to commencement of work.  Material and color samples will be required for masonry, metal siding systems, and doors/windows/

      shutters.

·         Submittal, review, and approval of final details related to the site plan, landscaping, and other site features including, but not limited to, planting schedule, fencing, dumpsters/screens, signage, and lighting; and

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

Work is consistent with Section 3.2 of the Downtown Lowell Historic District Design Review Standards.

      Unanimously approved, 8-0.

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

LOWELL HISTORIC BOARD

REGULAR MEETING

December 12, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT                                                             OTHERS PRESENT

Reynold Ilg, Chairman                                                               Keith Bourgeois, Rogers Homes

J. Matthew Coggins                                                                   Anne Cavanaugh, 136 Hanks Street      

Rachel Edlund                                                                           Jeffery J. Cook, Rogers Homes

David Gray                                                                               Jim Gallaghani, Varnum Associates

Richard Lockhart                                                                      Matt Hammer, Polaris Engineering

Martha Mayo                                                                            Emile Houle, Varnum Associates

Ernie Middlemiss                                                                       Sangmoo Kim, Rogers Homes

Wendy Pearl                                                                             David J. Plunkett, Rogers Homes

                                                                                                Steve Prebble, Varnum Realty

                                                                                                Michael Ready

                                                                                                Will Soucy, Soucy Industries

                                                                                                Sarah Uhlendorf, Assistant Administrator

                                                                                                Stephen Stowell, Administrator

2.   OLD BUSINESS

      A.  AND-06-02:  22 Wiggin Street

Application for an Historic Permit for demolition of existing building and construction of two, three unit, residential structures and associated site improvements (continued from November 14, 2005).

The Chairman read the published Public Hearing Notice from November 14, 2005 and stated that this proposal has been continued from that meeting.  He stated that the Public Hearing portion of this proposal had ended and that now only the Board can ask questions of the applicant about the project.  He added that discussion and decisions about the proposal can only be made by those Board members present at the last meeting, including; Mr. Coggins, Ms. Edlund, Mr. Ilg, Mr. Lockhart, Ms. Mayo and Ms. Pearl. 

The Administrator stated that since the last meeting, staff has done research on the property, including past ownership, and composed a report of the history of the building which was included in the materials sent to the Board.  The Chairman asked if everyone had received that report.  The Board confirmed that they had.

Mr. Prebble added the he also wrote a report for the Board as to the structural condition of the existing building.  He stated that the building is currently inadmissible due to vandalism to the lock on the front door.  He noted that upon investigation of the exterior of the building, there are areas of the stone foundation that are in need of repair, as well as areas which were painted white, making it difficult to determine existing damage.  He added that vinyl siding was added over the existing wood clapboards and that the siding is currently cracked and separating in many areas.  Also vinyl windows were installed in some window openings.

Mr. Prebble stated that the house had not been occupied in at least 2 years and that no maintenance had been done in that time.  He outline the potential problems that could be uncovered if they were to enter the building, including water damage around the windows, the water damage to the flat roof portion of the rear of the building.

Mr. Coggins asked for clarification of the definition of a rolled-roofing system, as stated in Mr. Prebble’s report.  Mr. Prebble stated that rolled-roofing refers to a 4-foot roll of tarpaper that is rolled out onto the roof.

The Chairman asked if Mr. Coggins, Ms. Edlund, Mr. Ilg, Mr. Lockhart, Ms. Mayo or Ms. Pearl had any further questions for the applicant.

Mr. Coggins stated that he had made the motion last month to continue and that since receiving the supplemental information and going out to Wiggin Street to see the existing structure, that he feel comfortable supporting the demolition of the building.  The Chairman agreed. 

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

vote to issue the Historic Permit for demolition of the existing building and construction of two, three unit, residential structures and associated site improvements at 22 Wiggin Street in the Acre Neighborhood District conditional upon the following:

·      Submittal, review, and approval of final design and construction details including, but not limited to,

specifications for door and window systems, chimney brick, paint color, shingles, light fixtures, and foundation treatment (light sandblast) prior to commencement of work.  Material and color samples will be required for paint (on-site paint sample), brick, and shingles;

·      Hardiplank siding and trim to have smooth (not raised grain) surface.  Sample of final selection to be

      submitted for review and approval prior to purchase and installation;

·      Submittal, review, and approval of final details related to the site plan, landscaping, and other site features

      including, but not limited to, planting schedule, fencing, dumpsters/screens, and lighting; and

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

      of work.

Work is consistent with Sections 2.13, 3.1, 3.101, 3.12, 3.13, and 3.2 of the Acre Neighborhood District Design Review Standards.

            Approved, 6-0 (of those present when the Hearing first opened on November 14, 2005).

      B.  RPND-06-02:  206 Rogers Street

Application for an Historic Permit for construction of two single unit and seven duplex residential structures on existing vacant lots and associated site improvements (continued from November 14, 2005).

The Chairman read the published Public Hearing Notice from November 14, 2005 and stated that this proposal has been continued from that meeting.  He stated that the Public Hearing portion of this proposal had ended and that now only the Board can ask questions of the applicant about the project.  He added that discussion and decisions on the proposal can only be made by those Board members present at the last meeting, including; Mr. Coggins, Ms. Edlund, Mr. Ilg, Mr. Lockhart, Ms. Mayo and Ms. Pearl. 

The Chairman recognized Mr. Cook and Mr. Plunkett representing Rogers Development.  Mr. Plunkett stated that all of the issues from the last meeting have been addressed in the revised plans.

Mr. Coggins noted that though they would not be doing a new presentation of the project, the Board did request a street elevation.  The Administrator added that there also have been changes made to the elevations of the buildings which are reflected in the plans.

The Chairman stated that Mr. Cook could present the items that have been revised in the plans. 

Mr. Cook presented a streetscape plan of the proposed project, as the Board requested, to give them a better idea of what the buildings would look like.  Mr. Cook added that changes have been made to the garage doors, entrance doors, window treatments, exterior lighting fixtures and slight changes have been made in the rooflines.  He also stated that chimneys have been added.

Ms. Edlund asked why buildings 1 & 9 do not have chimneys.  Mr. Cook explained that they were not added to these buildings because they were on a smaller scale and the larger, 2-unit buildings were given chimneys because of their scale.

Ms. Mayo asked if the trees were in scale on the streetscape plan.  Mr. Cook confirmed that they were and that they would be 3 inch in diameter as to ensure their survival. 

Ms. Mayo asked if the tree on the corner of Astor Street was bigger than the others.  Mr. Cook confirmed that the tree was very large.  Ms. Pearl added that it was the only remaining original tree on the property and that it had to be protected.

Mr. Cook wanted to discuss the topic of the sidewalks with the Board.  At the last meeting it was agreed to have them be either gravel or concrete to offset the use of pavement in the parking areas.  He stated that he had concerns with concrete for a couple of reasons.  Firstly, he felt they could not be used for building 1, as part of that sidewalk would also be the City’s asphalt paved sidewalk and it would look out of place.  Secondly, he was concerned about their ability to last through winters where salt could be used on them and ultimately damage them much quicker than asphalt pavement. 

Mr. Plunkett stated that the homeowners association would be responsible for the plowing of the driveways as well as the clearing of the sidewalks.  Mr. Lockhart asked if there would be only one homeowners association.  Mr. Plunkett confirmed that was correct.  The Chairman asked if that would include the units in the two existing buildings that were to be developed later.  Mr. Plunkett confirmed that it would. 

Ms. Pearl asked about a discrepancy in the trees shown on the plans and on the streetscape.  Mr. Cook stated that he did omit some of the trees on the plan from the streetscape, as she had pointed out.

Ms. Pearl stated that they had talked about maximizing the size of the proposed trees and asked why many were only 3-inch trees.  She continued to explain that the reason for wanting larger trees is because the two existing trees are quite large and you would want the proposed trees to be as large as possible to fit the scale set by the existing trees.

The Administrator added that within the conditions of the permit is the stipulation that the applicant work with the Design Planner in the Division of Planning and Development to ensure proper landscaping and tree selection.  He also added that the reason for the smaller trees was to better ensure their survival.

Mr. Coggins thanked Mr. Cook and his associates, as well as the developer, for the work they have put into the plans and he feels that this is a vastly better project and he will support it.

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

vote to issue the Historic Permit for construction of two single unit and seven duplex residential structures on existing vacant lots and associated site improvements at 206 Rogers Street in the Rogers Fort Hill Park Neighborhood District conditional upon the following:

·      Submittal, review, and approval of final design and construction details including, but not limited to,

specifications for door and window systems, railing systems, paint color, shingles, light fixtures, and foundation treatment (light sandblast) prior to commencement of work.  Material and color samples will be required for paint (on-site paint sample) and shingles;

·      Wood siding and trim to have smooth (not raised grain) surface and must be back primed prior to

installation.  Sample of final selection to be submitted for review and approval prior to purchase and installation;

·      Submittal, review, and approval of final details related to the site plan, landscaping, and other site features

including, but not limited to, planting schedule, fencing (including replication of historic fence along Rogers Street), paving, dumpsters/screens, signage, and lighting prior to commencement of work.  Applicant to coordinate with DPD Design Planner regarding selection of trees and other plantings to ensure compatibility with site and approved plans;

·      The applicant withdrawing any appeal or legal action against the Board relevant to the Board’s decision

regarding RPND-06-01 at Public Hearing on October 11, 2005 and dated/filed at the City Clerk’s office on October 17, 2005 prior to release of any Permit; and

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

      of work.

Work is consistent with Sections 3.10, 3.20, and 3.30 of the Rogers Fort Hill Park Neighborhood District Design Review Standards.

      Approved, 6-0 (of those present when the Hearing first opened on November 14, 2005).

There was a brief discussion among Mr. Plunkett, the Chairman and the Administrator about the steps to be taken to withdraw the appeal of the Board’s decision RPND-06-01, prior to the release of their permit for RPND-06-02.

3.  MINUTES

Approval of the Minutes of July 11, August 8, September 12, October 11, and November 14, 2005.

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

approve the Minutes of July 11, August 8, September 12, October 11, and November 14, 2005 as presented.

      Unanimously Approved, 8-0.

4.  OTHER BUSINESS

A.  Administrator’s Report

The Administrator stated that he and the Assistant Administrator have distributed an enforcement list including Request for Compliance letters that will be going out within the week.  He noted that there were signage violations, including neon signs, sidewalk signs and paper attached to the glass, as well as some minimum

maintenance violations included in the list.  He added that if any Board member had a personal relationship with any of these business or property owners, that their assistance would be appreciated in resolving the existing violations.

The Administrator asked the Board for clarification on the violation process.  He noted that is was previously agreed that the staff would send the first, friendly letters requesting compliance and the next letter, which includes legal action and fines, would be voted by the Board to issue the letters.  He asked if that system should be retained or if staff should automatically send the second letter if the issue has not been resolved.

The Chairman noted that this topic was the issue last time this decision was made.  The Administrator agreed and added that staff is a bit confused as to what the Board would like.  The Chairman added that he felt that the Board’s vote to send the second letter gave it more power and people would take the notice more seriously.  Mr. Coggins agreed.

Ms. Edlund added that she also felt that took the pressure off of staff to be responsible for angry businesses if they are not the ones making the final call.

Mr. Coggins stated that though we may lose a couple of weeks going through this process, he still felt it was worth it for the Board to vote on Orders for Compliance.

The Administrator stated that Request for Compliance letters will be sent and at the next meeting staff will come back with a list of unresolved violations for the Board to vote on sending Order for Compliance letters to.

The Chairman noted that it was interesting that many of the businesses with violations are ones that the Board has cited in the past.  He added that because of this the Board needed to have constant vigilance in regards to violations as most of these people are aware of what they are doing.

The Administrator added that many who have permits for permanent signage have permit conditions that note many of the items in question are not allowed and need to be reminded of that. 

The Chairman thanked staff for their work to get back on top of violations.

Mr. Coggins asked for clarification of trademarked signage within the list of violations.  The Assistant Administrator stated that it referred to trademarked logos or posters that are hung in business windows or on signs advertising products they carry.  Standards note that they are not allowed unless it is the specific logo of the business operating at that locale. 

The Administrator again stated that many of these regulations are noted in permits for permanent signage but once people get their permit they tend to do whatever they like.

The Chairman asked if there were any businesses on the list that never complied with prior efforts to correct outstanding violations.  He stated that it tends to happen gradually, businesses add more and more to their windows.  He also added that there are some businesses that have just failed to come in for a permit at all. 

The Chairman asked if there were any who never complied even after the last effort made by the Board. 

There was a brief discussion of businesses that are ongoing or perennial violators, such as Blue Shamrock and Tax Man.

The Chairman asked that at the next meeting if these violations have not been resolved, if staff will come back for the Board’s vote to issue Order for Compliance letters.  The Administrator confirmed that they would.  He

stated that staff will also send out a supplemental mailing with photographs of the violations, as well as copies of the Request for Compliance letters. 

The Administrator updated the Board on the progress at 26-28 Lawrence Street and stated that the RFP is being re-tooled and that he has been in talks with the City Solicitor to ensure all the steps are done properly.

The Administrator stated that FY06 review and permitting activity is holding steady with FY05.

The Administrator stated that staff has also prepared a list and report on the House Marker program that the Board administers.  He noted that approximately 145 homes in National Register Districts have markers, as well at 13 (7 of which have MHC Form B) who are not located within historic districts. 

Ms. Mayo stated that she had asked for this report, as she feels the Board needs to set some solid criteria for the Historic Home designation.  She felt that the criteria of over 50 years was not sufficient.  She also felt that the criteria needed to be approved by the Board and she that applications could even be approved by the Board.

The Administrator explained the reasoning behind the Historic Homes of Lowell.  He stated that to allow homeowners who had pride in their home, but weren’t in a defined district, they decided to expand the program to foster pride in historic preservation and the community.  He added that these homes all are well over 50 years and retain much, if not all of their historic character.

There was a discussion about the design of the plaque and the possibility of changing the color of the Historic Homes markers to distinguish them from the plaques for National Register Districts.

Ms. Mayo expressed her continued belief that there needs to be criteria for getting a plaque. 

The Administrator added that he has been calling other communities who may have dealt with an issue like this to see how they dealt with it.  He said that information will be available at the next meeting. 

Mr. Coggins agreed that there was a need for criteria, but he did not feel that homeowners should come before the Board.  The Chairman agreed.

Ms. Mayo asked if the Board could be notified of the homes that are receiving these plaques, as to this point there has been no formal notification.

Mr. Coggins stated that he felt this program was an important component of the Board’s goals in educating the public as to why preservation is important and that it allows homeowners to show their pride in their home.  He did not want a process to get to the point where we turned people away as that would defeat the purpose of the program.

Ms. Mayo agreed that it was a very important program and that we should do more publicity to promote it.  She felt before we could promote it though, she would like to put a process in place with criteria.

The Chairman asked if the process needs to involve the Board.  He felt that the Board could set the criteria, but from there the staff can administer the program.  He stated that each month the Administrator could report on the recent house plaques given and that way the Board could be more involved.  Ms. Mayo agreed.

Mr. Coggins asked if people with homes from the 1950’s are interested in getting a house plaque as they are eligible under current criteria.  The Administrator noted that 50 years is a general benchmark for antiquities.  Mr. Coggins stated that we should possibly increase the minimum age to 75 years.  Ms. Pearl added that 50 years is the national standard.

The Chairman proposed having homeowners tell the Board why their home deserves a plaque.  The Administrator felt this might not be the best idea as people would be too sentimentally attached and the history would not be as accurate.

Ms. Mayo stated that she felt there was a need for another neighborhood survey as was done in 1981.  The Administrator stated that would take a huge amount of money and that there were grants available that could possibly be applied for.

The Administrator said that a report would be prepared for distribution at the next meeting regarding the Historic Homes of Lowell element of the Board’s Marker program, including possible criteria, color change and information on other communities’ programs.

Planning has begun on the fifth annual Doors Open Lowell, which will be held May 4-6, 2006, as well as the Doors Unhinged! component of the event.

Staff assisted the Merrimack Valley Catholic Charities with their Christmas on Clark Road event that was held December 11.  Work included providing historic research for the homes that were open and used in materials related to the event.  LHB Intern Kim Zunino did the research and volunteered at the event and by all accounts it was a great success.

The Board’s 2006 Meeting Schedule was enclosed in the packet for this meeting.  The Administrator stated that the Board is booked at the Library through April.

The Board’s next meeting will be on Monday, January 9, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Pollard Memorial Library Meeting Room.

B.  Board Member Items/Inquiries

No items of interest were raised by the Board.

5.   ADJOURNMENT

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

            adjourn the meeting at 6:47 p.m.

_______________________________

Sarah Uhlendorf, Assistant Administrator

Stephen R. Stowell, Administrator

Lowell Historic Board