No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-07-06 Historical Commission Minutes Reading- Historical Commission Meeting Minutes: July 6, 2010 Meeting Called to Order at 7:35 pm Meeting Held at: The Town Hall Conference Room Virginia Adams (VA) Present Others in Attendance: Mark Cardono (MC) Present William Johnson (WJ) Pierce OWgn, pyqlop -pr,, Kathy Greenfield, Chair (KG) Present Dan Smith (DS) Structural Engin'b"!6e'-;"'1`J 5 5 Sharlene Reynolds Santo (SRS) Present Roberta Sullivan, Treasurer (RS) Present Angela Binda (AB) Present Subject Discussion Action Follow Items -up Since last meeting, KG sent letter to WJ stating RHC opinion that Pierce St extension should be maintained. KG read a letter from David Strand asking for RHC support of WPJ Development plan. DS was introduced.He stated that the"main block"seems to be in good shape, needs reinforcement to get up to code. Pierce St extension is not in as good a shape; not built as well; still pretty good. Original carrying beams were replaced with steel rods which over time length have sagged considerably some members cracked & broken, Recommended remove and replace w/like kind for this section. A new foundation would be required under the complete structure. Some Pierce failed members under copula area. Floor sags in ell addition with improved support may work. Exterior walls are in decent shape. WJ stated that he cannot continue with Organ project if he needs to keep the external frame of the extension on Pierce St. DS agreed that sill beam would need significant amounts replaced due to expected rot. VA asked as a citizen if it is possible to keep Pierce St facade and roof. Discussed hardiplank being ok on new construction only.WJ agreed that he could use cedar and pine corner boards. RHC prefers real brick over brick veneer, if chimneys are maintained/replaced. Units only about 1,200 sf. Vents could be in back courtyard section not visible from street. WJ asked what we are really saving when we are replacing the interior and recovering the exterior. WJ will review plan and submit it for our approval. We do not need the interior kept. 118 Salem Property was sold to a Mr. Colbert who inquired about the history of the house. He found the structure unique and wants to maintain house and restore it. It had recently St been in danger of being sold for demolition. KG spoke to developer, Matt Roman (MR) stressing that he needed to get permits Send from Glen. By June 21st MR had met with Glen who requested elevation drawings; letter permit application received by building inspectors office on 6/30. MR dropped off agreem 33 Salem St plans. KG came to town hall to get copies of building/partial demo application,which ent with KG was not available. KG found application in Community Services Office on 7/1. This is complicated because the work has already been begun. RHC considers not imposing conditio demo delay so that RHC will continue to have some jurisdiction in the future. ns for Applicant bypassed the demo permitting procedure. rebuild Inventory Received all of the forms from Lisa Mausolf; LM making revisions based on Photos, Expansion RHC/MHC comments and writing final report;Abby McCabe preparing maps for MHC; prepare IRS Update IRS working to get balance of photos. Should be complete by end of July. warrant Submit Minutes Approved 5/4,5/25 and 6/1 as amended. 5-0 to Town SRS Clerk RS moved to pay phase IV invoice for$4,800 to LM when due from the Town's Mass Treasurer Historic Preservation account. Approved 5-0. The 2010 Fiscal Year has ended and Report RHC had approximately $3.00 left in the Operating budget which will revert to the town. Other More Main St Alleyway name suggestions are being requested by the EDC. Business Economic Development Committee (EDC) has a fall summit planned; RHC will attend and represent its mission for preservation. Meeting adjourned at: 10:45 pm Note Taker: Sharlene Reynolds Santo Submitted as Final document on: August 17, 2010 Next Meetina Scheduled for: Auaust 3. 2010 June 21,2010 Town of Reading Historical Commission 16 Lowell St. Reading, MA 01667 To our friends at the Historical Commission of Reading: I'm writing today to ask for your support of the development plan before you regarding our family's Property at 10 Pierce St. As you know, we have been the owners of the Samuel Pierce Organ Pipe Factory for over 36 years. Over the last decade you have seen that we have been presented with offers to purchase and develop the property on many occasions. All of which, for a variety of reasons, have fallen through. We have always tried to pursue development deals with investors who appreciated the historic nature of the property. And this most recent deal, with Bill Johnson of WPJ Development, is no different. He's communicated a true appreciation of the value of the historic rehabilitation of the building. But he's also presented a unique addition to the property. One that we think adds tremendous value to the neighborhood and is in keeping with the ever-changing nature of this parcel over the years. The addition of a new return from the back right of the building will create a natural courtyard and ultimately more open space. We recognize that this, and the necessity to rebuild some portions of the building that have fallen into disrepair, represent some hardship from the commission's point of you. We would like to go on record as the owner's and caretakers of this property, that this plan presents our best option and is in fact in keeping with the nature of Samuel Pierce's evolutionary development style. During these last few years we have invested very little in the upkeep of the building. The investment, given the pending sale, did not present a reasonable.ROI. Mr. Johnson's necessity to remove some of the building and rebuild is not only reasonable, but also will allow him to repurpose some of the old materials in more sell evident ways throughout the residences. I hope you will understand that if this project should not go through, we will be forced, considering my fathers age and health, to take whatever concept may be presented hereafter, even if this means pursuing a demolition permit. It is simply an honest, harsh reality we must now face after years of pursuing the perfect deal. With our respect and appreciation, David Strand On behalf of the Strand Family 10 Railroad Street, Newburyport, MA 01950 978-463-0780 p N OPR�' Town of Reading e 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 6�9'�NCORr�pP HISTORICAL COMMISSION (781)942-6661 historical@ci.reading.ma.us June 4, 2010 Mr.William P.Johnson WPJ Development Company 36 High Vale Lane Andover, MA 01810 Re: Pierce Organ Factory Proposal/WPJ Development Co. Dear Mr.Johnson: This letter is in response to the proposal which you presented at the May 4,2010 meeting of the Reading Historical Commission. After reviewing your preliminary proposal of eight units,our further study of the factory complex, and further discussion and assessment of our position,we present our expectations below. Your current plan,as presented,would substantially destroy the Pierce Organ Factory complex in order tobuild housing on the site. Such a significant demolition would leave only a limited portion of the early building extant and,therefore,the importance of the remnant portion gains even greater significance due to the minor amount of original materials,shape and fabric still intact. Early photos illustrate that the earliest portion of the factory is delineated by the first four windows on the southern f tgade. We also believe that a portion of the extension along Pierce St. should be considered as a relevant historic addition and retained. Further study of a series of historic photographs dates this extension almost to the same time as the original block. In addition,this portion of the building would give some support and stability to the earliest section,and would maintain the streetscape and feel of the organ factory. Even with the retention of this extension,there is still substantial enough demolition to warrant the expectations set forth below. We will agree to appropriate changes, including new construction,while limiting our restrictions to the street facades or what can be seen from the public way. A more concrete and comprehensive discussion will depend upon information provided by additional detailed plans and engineering reports. As previously stated in our letter dated October 29,2010,the Commission will expect to pre-approve the materials and placement of exterior characteristics of the entire project, including,but not limited to,clapboards,windows,doors,cupola„ lighting and walkways. The Commission will also require a deed restriction be placed on the portion of the building that will be retained As also stated in that letter,in order to preserve this historic and valuable portion of the structure,all efforts must be made to retain, or replace in kind,the following: a. Fenestration: Windows shall be retained,and shall only be replaced with same profile and materials(wood) if necessary.The fenestration will be retained including wooden window architrave. Use of appropriate storm windows is encouraged. b. Exterior siding shall be of painted wood clapboards,exposure to be within a 1/2" of the earliest clapboards. c. Trim shall be retained or replicated in wood. d. Door placement should be retained in place. e. Roofing should be of asphalt,non-architectural style. f. Chimneys should be of real brick or non-existent. g. No shutters or metal/awnings, although door hoods are encouraged. h. Paint color should reflect earlier paint scheme. These conditions shall apply only to street visibility. New construction shall NOT be subject to the above conditions. Artificial materials such as Hardiplank(smooth sided not grained)and Azec are considered compatible to the historic portion,provided they are of similar scale. The use of compatible new construction techniques and materials will differentiate that portion from the historic portion and define the new from the original as recommended in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards of Rehabilitation,which states that"Designing a new addition in a manner that makes clear what is historic and what is new." In a sense,the preservation of only a portion of the Pierce Organ factory,with - more stringent design requirements, is a mitigation measure against the loss of the complex's mass. We hope our position is clear and we look forward to working with you as plans take shape on the redevelopment of this National Register property. Sincerely, Kathryn M. Greenfield Chairman