Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-03-23 Historic District Commission MinutesFR r Town of Reading Meeting Minutes 4'6J9, PO TOWN CLERK IN(0R4�p REA4iNG. M„SS. Board - Committee - Commission - Council: D 54 Historic District Commission ' i A Date: 2015 -03 -23 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Pleasant Street Senior Center Location: Great Room Address: 49 Pleasant Street Purpose: Public Hearing Session: General Session Attendees: Members - Present: Everett Blodgett, Chairman; Virginia Adams, Ilene Bornstein, Greg Maganzini, Priscilla Poehler Members - Not Present: Others Present: Virginia Blodgett Angela Binda, 10 Orchard Park Drive Nancy Ziemlak, 15 Orchard Park Drive Camille Anthony, 26 Orchard Park Drive Susan & Frank Coccolutto, 195 Summer Avenue Sara Jones, 26 Avon Street Dennis Carr, 61 Temple Street David Traniello, 1 Old Mill Lane Sandy Matathia, 10 Stonewell Road Sally Murphy, 121 Prospect Street Anne Godwin, 189 Summer Avenue John Arena, 26 Francis Drive Karen Herrick, 9 Dividence Road Stephen Crook, 137 Pleasant Street Mary Ellen O'Neill, 125 Summer Avenue Debbie Stackpole, 186 Summer Avenue Pat and Peter Shields, 31 Randall Road Larry McHugh, 205 Summer Avenue Theresa Jeffery, 181 Summer Avenue Dan Coult, Criterion Child Enrichment Dianne Kennedy, 15 Temple Street Nancy and Jerry Lamb, 194 Summer Avenue Kathy Greenfield, 192 Woburn Street Dan Ensminger, 6 Oakland Road Cynda Rohmer, 176 Summer Avenue Bob Drake, 176 Summer Avenue Marla Clough, 172 Summer Avenue Eleanor and Paul Dustin, 3 Orchard Park Drive Catherine Mayo, 87 Prescott Street Rob Figenbaum, 87 Prescott Street Kelly and Robert Corwin, 199 Summer Avenue Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Kim Saunders Page 1 1 OF R i j. Town of Reading ! Meeting Minutes 4��J9.INCORQ��¢� Topics of Discussion: Mr. Blodgett opened the Public Hearing at 7:06 pm. Mr. Blodgett introduced the Historic District Commission members. Mr. Margolin introduced the Criterion Child Enrichment members. He stated the following: • There are two historic structures — house and barn. They will be maintained and preserved. • The barn would need to be destroyed if not preserved • The Early Intervention Program will be for infants and toddlers and used for early intervention • The exterior features will be preserved • The church in the District is much bigger than the Criterion proposal • The Lot coverage is not large for the District. • The proposal from Criterion coverage ranks number 10 in the District out of 24 properties • The addition size was looked at. It can only be shrunk by 2',this will make the addition closer to the house • The Criterion members welcomes an informal back and forth before a vote • A Certificate of Hardship could be filed • The proposal is a rare opportunity to save the exterior house and the historic barn for future use A PowerPoint presentation was presented by Mr. Maxwell. He did an overview of the proposal. He stated the historic house will be for the administration and the addition will have classrooms. The barn will be stabilized for future storage use. He stated the following: • The addition will be 2 stories in place of the existing shed and breezeway • Mechanical equipment will be in the basement • A breezeway will connect the addition and the house • Showed the poor conditions on the structures • Will maintain existing material where practical • Will match old materials, same kind of materials and texture where possible • Showed the Lot coverage of all properties in the District • Talked about mean and median — with and without the church and Parker Middle School • The project will follow the guidelines of Historic properties • The historic house will stand out and the addition to subside • There will be handicap accessible to the new addition • A short ramp going to the porch to the 1St floor level of the house • There will be clapboard siding, double hung windows, window trim, corner boards • The link is made to be transparent and will disappear in appearance • The Site Plan was approved by CPDC Page 1 2 • The fencing will have 4' of solid and 12" of lattice work. It will be only on the side and rear of property • There will be only 1 retaining wall • Exterior stairs will be wood • The roofing will be high quality, architectural shingles • A small trellis on the north side • The stone and brick foundation will be repointed where possible. The old granite under the breeze way will be saved. Any new material will replicate old. • The connector needs to be the 2nd egress • The main roof is shallower on the addition Mr. Maxwell submitted to the Historic District Commission the Lot coverage and chart that was discussed. The Commission agreed the list of changes did not need to be read, but submitted. Ms. Adams asked for samples of the material's that will be used on the project. Mr. Blodgett read the 7.3 Bylaw. Ms. Adams read the historic significance of the house. Mr. Blodgett opened the meeting to the public: Ms. Corwin asked the likely outcome's for the application. Mr. Blodgett stated the decision will be based on the Bylaw and Regulations. He added if the application is disapproved a Certificate of Hardship could be issued. Ms. Docker questioned why the parking is not under the Historic District Commission jurisdiction. Mr. Blodgett stated CPDC already approved the parking. Mr. Maxwell agreed parking is under CPDC jurisdiction. Ms. Zielmak questioned why the backside shows no detail. She stated the addition looks like an office building. Mr. Maxwell stated they wanted the back of building to look simple and not like an apartment building; overtime the plantings will be present. They were asked to remove the gables from the back of the building. The gables were not going to be used and they made the building bigger. Ms. Godwin commented the current Lot was previously 3 Lots. The house and addition are on 1 of the 3 Lots. The other Lots will be used for parking. The project does not visually fit into the neighborhood. Ms. Binda commented that the street scape should be considered in a Historic District not just preserving a house. She questioned if there were restrictions on a size of an addition. She stated she was not in favor of this project. Mr. Margolin commented if the addition size is restricted, then the Commission is actually denying the application. Ms. Anthony questioned if the addition would be under the Historic District Commision jurisdiction. Ms. Adams answered that the Commission has jurisdiction over what the addition looks like, but is limited by the Bylaw. Page 1 3 Ms. Anthony commented on the size of the addition on a beautiful historic home. Mr. Blodgett commented philosophy changes generation to generation and explained his comment. Ms. Stackpole followed up on a previous comment regarding the back of the addition. She stated the Historical Commission asked that the addition not look identical to the historic house. The architecture could be similar too, but not the same. Ms. Adams agreed and said the house should stand on its own. Mr. Maxwell confirmed they tried not to follow the some size and height. A resident asked about the proposed parking spaces and questioned why the parking is not relevant. Mr. Blodgett answered the Historic District Commission does not take things at ground level. The parking falls under the CPDC jurisdiction. Ms. Ziemlak expressed her concern the Commission is not listening to the audience. She stated she was not sure of the alternative, but the proposed does not work in the neighborhood A resident asked if there were restrictions on a modern extension on a historic home. Mr. Blodgett stated there is a wide range what can be done. Ms. Jones asked for a 3d rendering. She questioned why the fence was not on the model; the distance between the addition and barn; snow plowing; and if the glass structure could hold the weight of snow. She questioned the comment made earlier regarding the conflict of the Bylaw and Guidelines, and if this could open up other options. Ms. Clough questioned what would happen to the structure of this size when Criterion is done with it. Mr. Corwin questioned the cost stated earlier on preserving the structure and barn. Mr. Maxwell said the cost was not based on scientific evidence. Ms. Mayo commented the building material looks like a cheap grade; it does not keep up with the neighborhood. Mr. Lamb asked Town Counsel to comment on the parking. Town Counsel answered if a conflict between the Guidelines and Town Bylaw then the Town Bylaw will overrule. The Bylaw got approved at Town meeting. He stated the driveway and parking lot is excluded under the purview of the Historic District Commission. Mr. Corwin asked if the large sign in front of the proposed fits under the Commission's jurisdiction. He asked if the Commission would consider requesting the sign be put on the building. Ms. Anthony questioned if the Sign Bylaw is for businesses only or does it include residential. Town Counsel answered the Sign Bylaw is part of the Zoning Bylaw and applies in all districts. The Historic Bylaw allows jurisdiction over the sign as well. Mr. Margolin stated CPDC made changes to the original sign and since has approved. Page 1 4 • Ms. Godwin asked for clarification on the purview over setting. Mr. Blodgett answered the setting of the building not changes at the ground level. Ms. Greenfield questioned the bulk of the size of the addition. She stated it was not appropriate for the neighborhood. She said the Commission should stand firm and not issue the Certificate. Mr. Corwin asked about the size of the other facilities around the State. He questioned why this facility is so big. Mr. Margolin said the Stoneham facility would be moving to Reading. The size of structure was created after the need of the classrooms was set. Dr. Littleton's submission documented this. The structure also needs to follow the ADA regulations. Ms. Herrick read an email from Mr. Wood, 55 Locust Street opposing the project. Mr. Corwin requested the size of the current Stoneham facility. Mr. Margolin said that information was not brought to this meeting, Mr. Littleton thinks just as big as the proposal. A resident stated Town Counsel did not mention parking spaces when listing things that are excluded. He also stated structures should be considered under settings. Ms. Binda commented modern structures have been built to have architectural features. Ms. Corwin asked the street scape be considered and due to the mass of the addition, deny the application. Ms. Godwin read a statement opposing the project. Mr. Blodgett added anyone who wants to submit something in writing to drop off at the Town Hall. Ms. Greenfield questioned if the school would be able to operate in the space if it was smaller Mr. Arena commended the Commission on the handling of the meeting. Mr. Margolin made statements on why Criterion Child Enrichment has a right to exist in a residential neighborhood. He stated the church is a non - residential structure in the District. The scale of the proposal is not out of proportion to the Lot. If the Commission wants the addition to look like the house, changes could be made. Mr. Blodgett closed the meeting to the public. Ms. Bornstein asked if moveable walls were used, could the school downsize the addition. She asked if the bulk of the building could be reduced. Mr. Littleton stated the facility sizes are based on the number of families serviced in the area. Mr. Maxwell said they originally were going to have classrooms in the barn, but the Structural Engineer and Code Compliance Officer said it was not possible. Ms. Bornstein questioned if the State has separate regulations for children with disabilities. Page 1 5 • Ms. Adams commented the Historic District Commission has jurisdiction over this hearing due to the District being established. The West Street Historic District Commission will oversee the Summer Avenue Historic District. Ms. Adams stated the 2' suggested reduction does not make much of a difference. The addition size should be reduced. She questioned why there were no alternatives suggested. She had concerns on the material on the new structure Mr. Blodgett said the size is a problem. He stated the proposal is 188% larger than the historic building. There is no room to negotiate if Criterion won't bend to have less. Mr. Maxwell said the addition is not for a family home, it is for an Early Intervention Program. That is why the addition is bigger than other additions in the District. Town Counsel questioned if the barn is not suitable for classrooms, what would the usage be? Mr. Margolin answered educational storage on the first floor only of the barn. He stated the codes are more stringent where children are present. Town Counsel questioned the distance from the rear of the addition to the barn. Mr. Maxwell stated 15' and the building codes allow the buildings on the Lot to be separate buildings. Town Counsel asked the distance from original house and the classroom addition. He questioned if it was shortened 2' what would be the benefit? Mr. Maxwell stated it is 12' on the proposal, but could be changed to 10'. This will make the barn more visible. Town Counsel asked if the addition could be moved closer to the barn. Mr. Maxwell stated they are trying to stay away from the barn foundation. Town Counsel asked if the rear fagade could be improved. Mr. Maxwell said yes the exterior appearance can be modified. Town Counsel asked how hard it would be to make the addition look like the historic house. Mr. Margolin answered they could, if the Historic Commission would give some guidance what they would like. Mr. Littleton agreed this is negotiable. Town Counsel asked if the addition is similar to the historic house, would the building be less bulky in appearance. Mr. Maxwell explained he didn't think that would help make it look smaller. Ms. Adams questioned if a color change would reduce the size visually. Mr. Maxwell said the addition is usually one shade lighter than the historic home. Town Counsel stated the addition is 2 stories, but visually looks 2 -1/2 stories. What is the significant difference between 2 and 2 -1/2 stories? Mr. Maxwell stated the dormers were taken off to reduce the size of the building. He said if it is unoccupied space it is considered 2 stories. Town Counsel questioned how and why the 3 Lots got combined. Mr. Blodgett said it was originally 1 Lot and Ms. Stackpole subdivided. The property is now considered 1 Lot. Ms. Stackpole commented the Town deemed one of the Lots non buildable. Page 1 6 • Town Counsel asked if the Lot coverage calculation could be done a different way. After a discussion Criterion agreed. Town Counsel asked what would happen to the structure if Criterion decides to move their business. Mr. Margolin stated any type of Use would have to get new approval from the Town. Mr. Blodgett questioned the preservation of the carriage house. He asked for a time frame in writing that it will be stabilized. It was agreed this would be forwarded to the Historic District Commission along with the Structural Engineer Report. Mr. Blodgett stated his concern if Criterion decides they would want another addition. Mr. Sullivan stated they would need to come to the Town for a major change to the approved Site Plan. Town Counsel confirmed conditions can be added to Certificates. Mr. Blodgett questioned what is needed if the Certificate of Appropriateness is disapproved. Town Counsel and the Criterion representative's discussed this. Mr. Maxwell presented to the Commission a proposed drafted decision. The Commission and the Criterion representative's agreed the Public Hearing can be continued to April 2 "d Motion made by Ms. Bornstein to continue the Public Hearing to April 2, 2015. Ms. Poehler seconded. Vote was 5 -0 -0 A motion was made by Ms. Adams to adjourn at 10:00 PM. Ms. Poehler seconded. Vote was 5 -0 -0. Page 1 7