LOWELL HISTORIC BOARD

PUBLIC HEARING

October 10, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                         OTHERS PRESENT

Reynold Ilg, Chairman                                                                           Mehmed Ali, Self

Peter Aucella                                                                                        Sean Devan, College Street LLC

J. Matthew Coggins                                                                               Mark E. Goldman, Self

Rachel Edlund                                                                                       Kathleen Heck, RCAB

David Gray                                                                                           Brian McGowan, TMI Properties

Martha Mayo                                                                                        Sarah Stebulis, Assistant Administrator  

Wendy Pearl (left at 6:35 p.m.)                                                              Stephen Stowell, Administrator

1.   PUBLIC HEARINGS

      A.  DLHD-07-20:  27 Jackson Street – Hamilton Mfg. Co.

The former Hamilton Mfg. Co. Mill No. 7, built 1911 and 1919.  Application for an Historic Permit for exterior rehabilitation and associated site improvements.

      The Administrator stated that due to the applicant’s inability to provide final plans due to internal conflicts, College Street has requested that the Public Hearing be rescheduled for November, pending revision of final plans.

      B.   DLHD-07-21:  725-741 Merrimack Street

The Romanesque style former St. Jean Baptiste/Nuestra Senora del Carmen church, built 1889-1896, and associated structures.  Application for a Certificate of Nonapplicability for the removal of selected stained glass and exterior crosses.

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 Kathleen Heck representing the Archdiocese of Boston.  She stated that the church currently contains stained glass windows with highly religious iconography and they have tried to distinguish between those and windows which can be considered decorative and remain in the building. 

The Chairman stated that photographs have been submitted which includes those windows which are proposed to be removed and those that will remain. 

Ms. Mayo asked how many windows they are proposing to remove.  Ms. Heck stated that there are approximately 49 windows to be removed.  She also gave further explanation of what they are considering one window in this circumstance, as stained glass tend to be comprised of numerous windows.

The Chairman asked how many windows are currently in the building, by the standards she just referred to.  Ms. Heck stated that there are approximately 200.  The Chairman stated that of the 200, they are proposing to remove 49.  Ms. Heck stated that was correct.

Ms. Mayo asked for further clarification of how they are counting windows, by referring to the photograph of the Holy Family.  Ms. Heck explained that that window is considered three windows. 

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. 

Mehmed Ali introduced himself and stated that the windows can be seen from the exterior and he wanted the opportunity to voice his opposition for their removal, as it will greatly impact the character of the building.

Having asked aloud 2 more 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. Coggins asked if there were pictures of the exterior crosses to be removed.  The Administrator stated that there are pictures of the crosses in their packets, although one was missed and is also slated to be removed.

Mr. Aucella asked how many crosses there were.  The Administrator stated that there are five crosses which would be removed.

The Chairman asked if the crosses were significant to the Catholic religion.  Ms. Heck confirmed that they were and that the Archdiocese never leaves a cross behind on building.  She stated that they do a process called “relegating the building for profane use” which comes from their belief that the building could never be used for a greater purpose than the Mass.  She stated that the crosses which will be removed from the roof will be done by a technician skilled in their removal and the proper treatment and capping to the areas from where the cross is removed.  She added that select crosses which are carved into the stone on the building will not be removed due to damage it will cause to the structure. 

The Chairman asked about the design on the front cross at the top of the building.  Ms. Heck stated that was the Eucharist.  The Chairman asked if that symbol is unique to the Catholic Church.  Ms. Heck confirmed that it was and that the Eucharist is a highly religious symbol.

Mr. Aucella stated that when the Archdiocese began closing churches, it was indicated early on that they would remove artifacts of a religious nature, including alters, crosses and stained glass, prior to the building being reused for another purpose.  He stated that there was no scenario under which the building would be used for religious purposes and that there is currently a pending agreement with a developer to use the building for housing.  As such, he stated that natural light will be needed in the building to meet the building code. 

Mr. Aucella stated that he was surprised when he has toured the building’s exterior, that he did find it difficult to see the stained glass through the protective coverings in place, although he does stand by the fact that he would still consider windows exterior features and thus their removal must be approved by the Board.  He stated that he felt the view from the exterior would be very similar once the stained glass is removed and that once the building begins to be redeveloped, many of those areas would have had to be addressed anyway for natural light issues.  He stated that the removal of these stained glass windows is not unexpected or unreasonable to him and appropriate to the reuse of the building.

Mr. Aucella stated that he feels comfortable with this proposal in the interest of the redevelopment of the building.  He stated that there is currently a purchase and sale agreement on the property, but it is the policy of the Archdiocese that the building cannot be sold until the religious iconography is removed.

The Chairman stated the he felt the preservation of this building is a balancing act between the Archdiocese wanting to protect its religious iconography in a building which will no longer be used for its intended purpose and the Historic Board to preserve the character of the building in the community.  He stated that he applauded the Archdiocese for their presentation which he felt was very reasonable in bringing both parties together to achieve their separate goals.

Ms. Edlund stated that she does not share the same sentiments as the Board members who have just spoken.  She stated that the building has a sense of place in Lowell and that the removal of the windows will take away the character of the building.  She stated that the building was built in a Gothic Revival style, which is expressed in the stained glass, as well as other features of the building.  She stated that the removal of these windows will defame the building and she is not supportive of this presentation.  Ms. Edlund stated that although she is supportive of the reuse of the building, she feels the removal of the stained glass is not something that should be encouraged.

Mr. Coggins asked if the building was sold as it was today, with the stained glass intact, for a residential purpose, wouldn’t there be an issue of natural light which could lead to the eminent removal of stained glass windows.

Ms. Edlund stated that there are other ways to provide natural light.  Mr. Coggins asked what they might be.  Ms. Edlund stated that he is speaking on the assumption that the building will be for residential use.  Mr. Coggins stated that was true, but that aside, he felt they could run into the scenario in which all of the windows will have to be removed to meet building codes for natural light, and then we are back at square one.

Mr. Aucella stated that in light of the building currently having a purchase and sale agreement for residential, it is appropriate to address these issues.  He also stated that whatever the future use may be, he did not feel that there is a compelling need to retain the selected windows. 

Mr. Gray asked how long the building has been vacant.  Ms. Heck stated that the last mass was held in spring of 2004, so it has been vacant over two years.  Mr. Gray stated that for that period of time being vacant, he feels that it is good that the Board be open to working with the involved parties to reuse the building, rather than have it remain vacant for more years and possibly fall into disrepair.

Mr. Aucella stated that the Board has no control over use but it seems clear that it will no longer be used for religious purposes.

The Chairman asked if the Archdiocese has a policy that a property cannot be sold to another religious denomination.  Ms. Heck stated that it is possible, but artifacts will be removed if the beliefs are not shared between the Catholic religion and the denomination occupying the building.

Mr. Aucella asked if the reason they are not removing more stained glass was financial.  Ms. Heck stated that it was not and they have removed more in other buildings, but generally decorative stained glass is left in the buildings, as it can be still viewed as artwork and add character to the building. 

Ms. Edlund stated that was a matter of interpretation, as some of the windows remaining do have religious iconography.  Ms. Heck stated that in matters where symbolism does have more than one meaning and when an average person looking at a window would see a dove, rather than the Holy Spirit, they must draw a line and symbols such as this can remain.

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

vote to issue a Certificate of Nonapplicability for the removal of selected stained glass and exterior crosses at the former St. Jean Baptiste/Nuestra Senora del Carmen church at 725-741 Merrimack Street in the Downtown Lowell Historic District, conditional upon the following:

·         Final documentation in the form of datasheets and photographs of glass proposed for removal to be submitted prior to work being undertaken; and

·         Submittal, review, and approval of any scope of work alterations and final details for the project including, but not limited to, treatment of window openings where stained glass is proposed for removal and method of securing roof parapet areas where crosses are proposed for removal.

Removal of glass identified to be of a religious nature determined non-applicable under the Board’s statute.

Approved, 5-2.

      The Public Hearings were closed at 6:25 p.m.

LOWELL HISTORIC BOARD

REGULAR MEETING

October 10, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                         OTHERS PRESENT

Reynold Ilg, Chairman                                                                           Sean Devan, College Street LLC

Peter Aucella                                                                                        Mark E. Goldman, Self

J. Matthew Coggins                                                                               Sarah Stebulis, Assistant Administrator

Rachel Edlund                                                                                       Stephen Stowell, Administrator

David Gray                                                                                          

Martha Mayo                                                                                                   

Wendy Pearl (left at 6:35 p.m.)                                                                                                             

2.   MINUTES

      Approval of the Minutes of September 11, 2006.

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

approve the Minutes of September 11, 2006 as presented.

      Unanimously approved, 7-0.

3.   OTHER BUSINESS

      A.   College Street (305 Dutton Street and 27 Jackson Street) Update

The Chairman read the update provided by the Administrator in the meeting notes.  The Chairman recognized Sean Devan, representing College Street LLC.  Mr. Devan stated the he and Vice President Carlos Texidor will be the point people for 305 Dutton Street and 27 Jackson Street, in light of Mr. Sullivan’s recent termination.

Mr. Devan stated that he has been in constant contact with the Administrator regarding all details related to both projects.  He stated that he would continue to do this and work closely with The Administrator to correct the issues that he has inherited.  He stated that he has obtained samples of railings, granite and window guards for the Administrator to view.

Ms. Edlund asked about the site plan.  Mr. Devan stated that his office is currently working on the site plan and he was still waiting on lighting details.  He stated that he didn’t want to present it to the Board incomplete, but that it is being addressed.  The Administrator clarified that they were talking about the site plan at 27 Jackson Street.

The Administrator explained the recent confusion regarding the ramping, which was originally set to be built on the interior, now appears that it will be an exterior feature, and thus must be reviewed before coming to the Board.  Upon this discovery, it was decided to postpone the Public Hearing until the November 13 meeting. 

The Administrator added that in talking the Mr. Sullivan previously, and more recently Mr. Texidor, there are also site plans for 305 Dutton Street which will be transmitted soon.

Mr. Aucella stated that Mr. Devan would not be making any progress regarding site plan, railings, and entry way until after the Board discusses such plans at the November meeting.  Mr. Devan stated that was correct. 

The Administrator stated that a project of the type and size does not typically play out the way this one is.  The Chairman agreed and stated that the Board is not new to the progress or issues historic buildings can pose in reuse. 

The Chairman stated that this is the third meeting in which representatives from College Street have addressed the Board and they are hearing the same excuses.  He stated that the Board expects to see major progress on the plans for both 305 Dutton Street and 27 Jackson Street by the November 13 meeting.

Mr. Aucella stated that College Street is going to need to get the Board’s approval soon to continue their progress.  He asked when they are going to start marketing the building.  Mr. Devan stated they would begin marketing in 2-3 months. 

Mr. Aucella asked about the plans for 305 Dutton Street, specifically the infill on the Dutton Street elevation.  The Administrator stated that with the recent transfer from Mr. Sullivan to Mr. Texidor, the plans for that are still in the shuffle and he expects them next week.  Mr. Aucella stated that he continues to be concerned specifically about that as it is the main elevation of the building, and now with College Street putting out rental banners on an unfinished building, he feels it is sending a mixed message.

Mr. Coggins asked Mr. Devan how long he has been with College Street.  Mr. Devan stated that they have employed him for one year.  Mr. Coggins stated the Board does have a great deal of frustration with this project which is three years old, and that the Board was promised satisfaction which they have not received.  He stated that while he understood he is coming into someone else’s problem, that the Board is quickly loosing patience and this back and forth is becoming ridiculous and it is insulting to the Board and the community.  He stated that he hopes Mr. Devan will take the opportunity coming into this problem to be the one to take control and make this right. 

The Chairman asked Mr. Devan to pass the message up the chain of command at College Street that the Board continues to be unhappy and the projects are no further ahead now than they were three months ago.

B.  419 & 509 Market Street

Mr. Gray spoke on behalf of Alan Kazanjian and stated that structural problems have been found in the buildings at 419 and 509 Market Street.  He stated that a structural engineer located the problems 2-3 weeks ago and he will provide the Board with the structural report at the next meeting.  He stated that they are continuing to work on the project, but it also must be economically feasible for them to continue. 

Ms. Mayo stated that she didn’t know where they stood with the property.  Mr. Gray stated that they were hoping to have residential on the upper floors and possibly a function hall and two storefronts on the first floor facing Market Street.

Mr. Aucella asked if he has a schematic design of the buildings.  Mr. Gray stated that they do and work has been done with design review since the Board first viewed it. 

Mr. Aucella asked if the brick building would remain and be rehabbed and the white wooden building would be torn down.  Mr. Gray confirmed that was true. 

      C.  Enforcement/Violations Update

The Administrator stated that he met with Nick Petrakos of the Blue Shamrock last week to discuss signage and painting and that Mr. Petrakos is very eager to work with us to come into compliance.  Ms. Edlund asked if it was a typo that the colors from 1995 were approved, as stated in the meeting notes.  The Administrator stated that it was not and he was provided with the original colors from when the building was rehabbed.

The Administrator stated that he has been in contact with Mr. Patel, the owner of 35 Market Street.  Mr. Patel is working with Gene Soucy at Mill City Iron on a design for a canopy, similar to that found on the Mollers Building.

Mr. Aucella asked about the roll down doors on the Labor Ready building.  The Administrator stated that he would contact the building owner about these, as they are no longer in use.

The Administrator stated that staff plans to send out friendly follow-up letters to some businesses to schedule site visits and address outstanding issues. 

The Administrator stated that he has had two calls into the management of the Sirk Building about the fencing which needs to be repaired. 

Mr. Aucella stated that the nail salon located in that building has also been expanding their signage at the back of the building.  The Administrator stated staff would check on it and send a Request for Compliance.

Ms. Mayo asked about Moe’s on Market Street.  The Administrator stated that the building owner did do the minimum maintenance required, but that staff would go out and look for any additional maintenance issues that need to be addressed.

The Chairman asked what the status was with the screen wall damage at Saab’s parking lot on Central Street.  The Administrator stated that Dennis Cronin and Tim Kelleher were stuck with this problem in the transfer of the property from Mr. Saab.  Mr. Coggins asked that they be given a little more time to make the repairs, as they have been easy to work with in the past and have always gone above and beyond what they have to do, but did ask that the Administrator give the owners a phone call to determine what the time line was on its repair.

Mr. Coggins asked if they could put bollards in the parking lot to prevent people from hitting the fence.  The Administrator stated they could do that, or even install a low guardrail or wheel stops.  He added that the current damage was actually caused by someone hitting the wall from the street and not the parking lot. 

Mr. Aucella asked about roof top decks on Paige Street on John DeAngelis’ building.  The Administrator stated that the roof deck on McCartin building also needs to be addressed.  He stated that he would call Mr. Deangelis about both of these decks.

D.  Administrator’s Report

The Chairman stated that the City Manager has been invited to the Board’s next meeting on November 13, 2006 in the Arthur Hammer Conference Room in the JFK Civic Center.

Mr. Aucella asked if there was an update regarding 26-28 Lawrence Street.  The Administrator stated that he had to check back with Larry Bevere to find out the status.

The Administrator stated that he has the contracts for the MHC Survey and Planning Grant and will be picking a consultant by the end of the week.

The Administrator said that he and the Assistant Administrator will be attending the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s annual National Preservation Conference in Pittsburgh, October 31-November 4.  Depending upon funding from Wellesley College, intern Kim Zunino may also be able to attend.

E.  Board Member Items/Inquiries

Ms. Edlund stated that she attended the Traditional Building Conference in Washington, DC.  She stated that it focused on design and infill in historic neighborhoods, and that the architectural historians whom she spoke with are all very aware of Lowell and the preservation that has taken place here.  She stated that Lowell was very lucky to have the Historic Board that they do, as each member here brings a specific knowledge which aids in the decision making process, something other communities can lack. 

She stated that in learning more and talking to colleagues about the tax act standards and guidelines, she had the sense that their will be a positive shift which will be encouraging for new tax act projects, making the guidelines a little more reality based and attainable.

There was a brief discussion of the issues revolving the buildings at the Lawrence Mills on Perkins Street.  Mr. Coggins asked if their was fire suppression systems in the two buildings.  The Administrator stated that he did not know.  Mr. Coggins stated that is something they should find out, in protecting the building with minimum maintenance while legal issues surrounding the site are being resolved.

4.   ADJOURNMENT

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

            adjourn the meeting at 7:00 p.m.

Unanimously approved, 6-0.

__________________________________

Sarah U. Stebulis, Assistant Administrator

Stephen R. Stowell, Administrator

Lowell Historic Board