Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-07-13 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF JULY 13, 2017 MINUTES Commission Members Present: Elizabeth Rettenmaier, Chair George Burgoyne Matthew Carter Wayne Mallar Reese Perkins Alfred Banfield, Associate Member Eugene Manzo, Associate Member Consultant to the Commission: Mike Pullen City Staff Present: David Gould Paul Nicklas Sean Gambrel Chair Rettenmaier called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PROJECT REVIEW 1. 1 Central St – Giacomos, LLC Changing color of Painted Trim Chapter 71 – Bangor Center Revitalization Area (“Façade Area”) – Design Review Chair Rettenmaier asked the applicant to present the project. Kyle Grey presented the application to the board. Giacomo’s wishes to repaint the wooden trim around all of its windows a bright green color from the existing off-white color, to match its logo. The project is partially complete, as they had begun not realizing they needed HPC approval to complete the project. They wish to paint all of the wooden trim around all of their windows this color. Commissioner Burgoyne asked for clarification on exactly what was to be painted and what was to be left. He felt that the pictures provided made it difficult to tell exactly what was intended to be done and where. Mr. Grey produced pictures on his cell phone and showed them to Mr Burgoyne and others on the Commission. Commissioner Mallar asked if the application was incomplete, given the lack of clarity on the provided pictures. Page 1 of 9 Chair Rettenmaier explained to Mr. Grey that the pictures provided with the application should’ve shown the entire façade of the building, from both streets that it faces. The applicant responded that he had thought that his photos showed what needed to be shown. Mr. Pullen explained that in his memo he had asked for photos showing the entire front of the building and that the applicant had not provided that. Ms. Rettenmaier clarified with the applicant that they were requesting to paint the wood trim around the window and the wood trim at the base of the building, but not the concrete panel between the window and the base. The Applicant agreed that was correct. Assistant Solicitor Nicklas suggested that if the application was incomplete that the applicant may wish to withdraw the application from this meeting and come to the next meeting with the materials requested by the Commission. The applicant stated that they would like to move forward as soon as possible and ideally would not want to wait another month before completing painting. Ms. Rettenmaier then explained to the board and the applicant that the Commission could vote on the proposal and that if any commissioners felt the application was incomplete they could vote to deny the application. Mr. Grey then asked to withdraw his application and be included on the agenda for next month. Commissioner Perkins stated that he was uncomfortable that the applicant was encouraged to withdraw and that the commission had previously approved many projects of greater consequence with a similar lack of information. Commissioner Burgoyne agreed and asked why applicants presented their projects to the commission if their projects could be held up or denied based on their applications missing some information. He also noted that staff should help applicants understand what the Commission requires in order to make a decision. 2. 56 Main St – Nocturnem Drafthaus Installation of Heat Pump to Rear of Building. Chapter 148 Historic Preservation – Main Street District – Certificate of Appropriateness Chair Rettenmaier asked the applicant to present the project. Gene Beck, owner of Nocturnem Drafthaus, presented his project to install a heat pump condenser unit on the rear of his building. He noted that there were two units already in place in this area, and that piping for the unit would be hidden behind the garbage enclosure fence and under the rear porch of the building. Mounting brackets had been installed already, before the applicant realized that he would need approval from the Commission for this work. Mr. Pullen verified that the questions he had asked in his review memo had been answered. The applicant re-stated that the mounting brackets had been fastened into the brick, not the mortar. Page 2 of 9 Commissioner Burgoyne stated that he generally had no issue with placing this unit in this area but asked if the mounting brackets could be moved from being attached to the brick to be able to be attached into the mortar. Mr. Beck answered that the brackets could be moved to wherever the Commission wished. Commissioner Banfield stated that although this was the rear of the building, it was very visible from a busy city street. He felt that the number of units placed here detracted from the appearance of the building. He asked if there was a way for the units to be grouped to use a larger single unit. Mr. Beck responded that they could not as they were used for different interior spaces. Commissioner Banfield then asked if the unit could be painted to match the exterior of the building. Mr. Beck responded that he did not believe so, but could verify with the manufacturer if the Commission wished. Commissioner Perkins stated that he had similar concerns – that these units were becoming very popular and that they were incrementally covering the backs of all of the buildings downtown. A member of the audience asked to speak. Chair Rettenmaier invited them to approach the podium. Joshua Tunick identified himself as a licensed architect in Maine. He expressed his opinion that if the brackets were installed into the brick that it was best to leave them there, as removing them might cause the brick to fracture. Commissioner Mallar expressed concern that in light of that comment he didn’t feel like he had enough information to make a decision, that review by an engineer would be appropriate. Assistant Solicitor Nicklas suggested that perhaps the City Engineer could make that determination and that approval could be conditional on the applicant following the City Engineer’s recommendation. Commissioner Mallar asked if the unit needed to be located as high as was proposed. Mr. Beck responded that it did, in order to provide necessary clearance for the garbage receptacles which were located directly beneath the proposed location. Mr. Beck indicated that this was the only location suitable for the receptacles. Commissioner Carter made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 56 Main Street, to install a heat pump condenser unit on the rear of the building at 56 Main Street, with the conditions that the unit be painted to match the exterior of the building if the manufacturer indicates that this can be done safely, and that the applicant follow the City Engineer’s recommendation for the location of the mounting brackets. Commissioner Burgoyne seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. 56 Main St – Nocturnem Drafthaus Installation of Heat Pump to Rear of Building. Chapter 71 – Bangor Center Revitalization Area (“Façade Area”) – Design Review Commissioner Carter made a motion to approve the application for Design Review for 56 Main Street, to install a heat pump condenser unit on the rear of the building at 56 Main Street, with the conditions that the unit be painted to match the exterior of the building if the manufacturer indicates that this can be done safely, and that the applicant follow the City Engineer’s Page 3 of 9 recommendation for the location of the mounting brackets. Commissioner Burgoyne seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. 11 West Broadway – Michele R. Lauria Repair and extension of porch on southerly side of house, and relocation of porch steps. Replace casement window on northerly side of house with french doors. Addition of arbor and benches in fence along West Broadway. Chapter 148 Historic Preservation – Whitney Park District – Certificate of Appropriateness Chair Rettenmaier asked the applicant to present the project. Michele Lauria, owner of 11 West Broadway presented her application to the Commission. Ms. Lauria stated that her project began when recently repainting her home. Some wooden elements of her home were rotting and needed to be replaced. She replaced the elements identically in terms of design, materials & color. Ms. Lauria stated that she is now requesting to make some design changes to the exterior of her home. One of these changes is to extend the floor of the existing side porch to the edge of the barn, so that it connects the two side doors. The porch roof here will not be extended so it is in fact a deck. She also would like to relocate the wooden steps to the center of this deck. Chair Rettenmaier asked if the steps were to be of a similar design to the existing steps. Ms. Lauria answered that they would be identical to what was provided in the photographs but would have a better handrail (the handrail shown in the photo was temporary for construction). Ms. Lauria stated that another portion of this application was to replace a rotting casement window on the other side of the house with a French door, eight feet tall by six feet wide. She intends to use a reclaimed historic door in this location rather than a new door. Rather than build new wall to fit the door, she intends to place side light windows on either side of the door to fill the gap. She has not provided a design for these windows or the door because she plans to use a reclaimed door, which she has not purchased yet because she has not received approval from the commission. Commissioner Carter asked where the top of the door would be in relation to the top of the window. He felt that the top of the window was aligned with the top of the other elements on this side of the house and that alignment was important. Ms. Lauria indicated that she planned to have the top of the door where the top of the window is located today. Chair Rettenmaier stated that the casement window to be removed was nine feet wide and asked the applicant how she intended to fill the space left once the door was installed. Ms. Lauria answered that she intended to put vertical side light windows on either side of the door to fill the space. Commissioner Mallar mentioned that he needed to have a design for the door and sidelights in order to make an informed decision on the proposal. Ms. Lauria stated that because she would be using a reclaimed door, which she had not yet bought since she did not yet have approval to instal, hence she could not provide a design. She stated that she felt that the parameters she had provided should be enough to allow the commission to make a decision. Commissioner Mallar disagreed and said that he would not be able to approve the application without the exact details of what was proposed. Page 4 of 9 Chair Rettenmaier agreed that it was difficult to ascertain exactly what was proposed and what the final design would look like. Commissioner Carter agreed that he felt he could not make a determination without more detailed information. Chair Rettenmaier suggested that given the lack of information on the proposed French doors, the application should be considered in multiple parts – one for the porch modifications, one for the French doors, and one for the fence replacement and arbor. A member of the audience asked to speak. Chair Rettenmaier invited them to approach the podium. Rick Bruns is a neighbor and spoke highly of the work Ms. Lauria has been doing to restore her property. He stated that he believes her improvements are making not only the neighborhood, but also the whole city look better, given its location along Union St. He stated that her new fence has also improved safety for pedestrians on the Union St sidewalk. He approves of her proposed work. Commissioner Banfield spoke in support of removing the casement window but suggested that the application be considered in parts so that approval of the door could be conditional on acceptance of the door by the Commission Chair. Chair Rettenmaier agreed and asked for a motion to approve the application in parts. Commissioner Carter moved that the Commission approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for 11 West Broadway for extension of the deck and relocation of the staircase with all new columns and railings matching those existing. Commissioner Perkins seconded the motion. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness. Commissioner Perkins made a motion that the Commission approve a Certificate of appropriateness for 11 West Broadway for the replacement of the casement window on the easterly side of the house with a 6x8 French door and sidelights, with the condition that the specific design of the door and sidelights be reviewed and approved by the Commission Chair prior to construction. Commissioner Carter seconded the motion. The Commission voted 4-1 in favor of approval with Chair Rettenmaier casting the dissenting vote. Commissioner Perkins then moved that the Commission approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for 11 West Broadway for the replacement of the existing fence, including a new arbor facing West Broadway, made of Eastern White Cedar. Commissioner Carter seconded the motion. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness. 5. 32 Main St – Happy Endings Restaurant / Matthew Carter, applicant Alteration of storefront display area to eliminate recessed entryway and provide streetside dining area. Chapter 148 Historic Preservation – Main Street District – Certificate of Appropriateness Commissioner Carter stated that he had a conflict of interest with the applications from 32 Main Street and excused himself from the meeting. Chair Rettenmaier asked the applicant to present the project. Joshua Tunick, representing Page 5 of 9 Carter Architectural Design, described the proposal to the commission. 32 Main Street occupies the southerly half of the building at 30-32 Main Street and is seeking to modify the ground floor storefront of the building. Currently the building has a recessed entry with a central display case that closes off the middle of the entry way. This has created problems with loitering and litter and the current uses of the building do not have use for this display area, and the applicant wishes to remove it. The applicant believes this was installed sometime in the early 1950s and provided photos showing that this case was not part of the structure before that time. The existing floor tiles will be repaired and/or replaced as needed to match what is there now. Mr. Tunick also described proposed changes to the display windows at 32 Main Street. The existing concave angular windows that face into the entryway will be replaced by a hinged custom glass door system which can be opened to create a “streetside” dining experience for patrons. When closed this will create a straight window enclosure, which will add a small amount of space to the restaurant over the existing concave design. Mr. Tunick stated that the storefront at 30 Main Street will remain unchanged and columns, fenestration, and other elements of the building façade will remain unchanged. Mr. Pullen suggested that matching tile should be available and should be used. Mr. Pullen asked if seating was proposed to be placed in the entryway area. Mr Tunick replied that was unlikely because there was a slight difference in floor elevation and slope between the storefront and the entry way. This is mostly for air flow. Mr. Pullen asked if the finishes and colors of the proposed elements would match the existing elements on the other side of the building. Mr. Tunick stated that they would. Commissioner Mallar stated that he believed replacing the central display was appropriate but had concerns changing the multi-angled display area for 32 Main Street in that it would produce an asymmetrical look for the building. He stated that a similar hinged-door design could be achieved maintaining the current geometry of the space. Mr Tunick replied that he believed that any asymmetry would not be noticeable, and that the design of the doors required a straight span across the opening. He also mentioned that the addition of interior space was a tangible benefit to the owner. Chair Rettenmaier asked whether the cap framing was being maintained, and what the difference in appearance was in this area between the two display windows. Mr. Tunick replied that the cap framing would be retained and that the difference was that the window at 30 Main Street had a painted band across the top of the window just below the cap. He stated that the paint could be removed to match the window at 32 Main Street or that the window at 32 Main Street could be painted to match it, depending on the desire of the Commission. Melissa Smith, owner of Happy Endings approached the podium. She mentioned that outdoor seating in the entry area may be requested in the future but it was not the intent at present. Commissioner Perkins asked about the existing lighting in the entryway and whether there was any change proposed . Ms. Smith replied that there was a single central fixture which adequately lit the area and that no changes were proposed to lighting. Chair Rettenmaier again stated that she would like to see the cap framing, header, bulkhead, and painted band consistent across the entire building. Mr. Pullen stated that ideally the Page 6 of 9 painted band would be removed. Chair Rettenmaier inquired about the materials and finish of the new door framing. The applicant stated that they were unsure of the exact finish, but that the material would be wood. Because the other side is metal, they would not be able to match it exactly. Commissioner Perkins made a motion that a Certificate of Appropriateness be approved for 32 Main Street for the removal of the central display case and the replacement of the existing display windows as proposed, with the condition that horizontal banding on the 30 Main Street window be either eliminated or continued to the 32 Main Street window to create a consistent appearance across the storefront, and that all trim for the new window area be as consistent at possible between sides of the building. Commissioner Manzo seconded the motion. The Commission voted 4-1 in favor of the Certificate of Appropriateness, with Commissioner Mallar casting the dissenting vote. 6. 32 Main St – Happy Endings Restaurant / Matthew Carter, applicant Alteration of storefront display area to eliminate recessed entryway and provide streetside dining area. Chapter 71 – Bangor Center Revitalization Area (“Façade Area”) – Design Review Commissioner Perkins made a motion that design review approval be granted for 32 Main Street for the removal of the central display case and the replacement of the existing display windows as proposed, with the condition that horizontal banding on the 30 Main Street window be either eliminated or continued to the 32 Main Street window to create a consistent appearance across the storefront, and that all trim for the new window area be as consistent at possible between sides of the building. Commissioner Burgoyne seconded the motion. The Commission voted 4-1 in favor of the Certificate of Appropriateness, with Commissioner Mallar casting the dissenting vote. 7. 40 Summer Street – Harmaney Real Estate / TAC Architectural, applicant Cover existing deteriorating brick with metal architectural panels in two shades of grey. Add four surface-mount non-illuminated signs. Chapter 71 Bangor Center Revitalization Area (“Waterfront Development District”) – Design Review Chair Rettenmaier asked the applicant to present their project. Dan Miller of TAC Architectural, representing Harmaney Realty, presented the application, which is to cover the building’s exterior with metal panels in order to protect the deteriorating brick from additional damage. The brick walls are structural and are very damaged from an earlier covering installation and removal. Replacing the brick is not feasible. The panels will be in two slightly different shades of grey to provide slight contrast between top and ground floors, but should generally match the building next door at 30 Summer St. Two existing signs will need to be replaced if/when the exterior is modified. Commissioner Carter asked if there was an air gap between the panels and the brick, to allow the brick to “breathe” and therefore not be damaged further. Mr. Miller responded that was true. Page 7 of 9 Commissioner Mallar asked how thick the panel assembly was and how it would interface with the window openings. Mr. Miller responded that the panel assembly was roughly 2.5” thick and that it would cover the existing window sills and transoms via flashing. The windows are not proposed to be changed and the depth from the outside of the new panels to the windows would be around 5-6”. Mr. Pullen asked if the existing cast stone sills would be cut off or covered over. Mr. Miller responded that they would be covered over and that is part of what creates the gap between the brick and the panels. The existing sills do not project very far. Mr. Pullen inquired about the horizontal band on the front of the building and whether it would be maintained in place. Mr. Miller said that banding would be maintained and continued around the sides of the building. Chair Rettenmaier stated that the commission always prefers repair of historic brick to new cladding and asked Mr. Miller if the brick was indeed beyond repair. His indicated that it was and highlighted a number of locations show in the photos where the brick was deteriorated and/or patched with mortar. Commissioner Mallar asked what was happening with the solar energy system on the roof of the building. Mr. Miller replied that it was not working and would be removed. Commissioner Burgoyne asked for further details on the signs. Mr Miller explained that the signs would be attached to the ribs of the metal panels and not into the panel face or into the brick behind. The signs are not going to be illuminated in any way. The proposed signage is less than the maximum allowed. Commissioner Rettenmaier asked whether any of the closed off windows would be opened or if the panels would have openings for these if they were eventually reopened. Mr. Miller replied that no windows were proposed to be reopened at this time and that any windows that were currently closed off would be covered over with the new panels. Commissioner Perkins moved that the Commission approve the application for Design Review for the building at 40 South Street, to cover deteriorating brick with metal architectural panels, and for the placement of four signs onto the exterior of the building as proposed. Commissioner Carter seconded the motion. The Commission voted unanimously in favor of the approval. 8. 60 Summer Street – Harmaney Real Estate / TAC Architectural, applicant Addition of canopy across front of building to match existing canopy across remainder of façade. Add one internally-illuminated and one non-illuminated sign. Chapter 71 Bangor Center Revitalization Area (“Waterfront Development District”) – Design Review Commissioner Rettenmaier asked the applicant to present their project. Dan Miller of TAC Architectural, representing Harmaney Realty, presented his application to add a canopy to the northerly side of 60 Summer Street to match the easterly side of the building. This canopy and its supporting columns will be designed identically to what exists on the other side of the building in Page 8 of 9 terms of size, shape, form, and color. The applicant also wishes to add an exterior door and a sign in this location. Chair Rettenmaier asked how deep the canopy was. Mr Miller responded that it was five feet deep. Mr. Pullen asked what color the proposed canopy would be. Mr. Miller responded that it would be tan with white trim and white columns, to match the existing adjacent canopy. Chair Rettenmaier asked about the sidewalk material beneath the canopy, if it would be brick to match the other side. Mr. Miller indicated that it would be concrete, as this is the existing sidewalk material and the owner does not think it is necessary to change. Chair Rettenmaier asked if the proposed door was in the location of an existing window. Mr Miller responded that the door was proposed for the location of the fourth window from the right, under the new canopy. Commissioner Mallar moved that the Commission approve the application for Design Review for 60 Summer Street, for a new canopy over the left side of the building, and for the placement of a new exterior door and a sign on the canopy. Commissioner Carter seconded the motion. The Committee voted unanimously to approve the application. REVIEW FINDING OF FACTS 9. 20 South Street – Bangor Savings Bank Add a floor to westerly portion of the building, including an outside roof deck and rail. Expand existing upper floor on easterly portion of building with aluminum & glass architectural panel system. Modify roofline over the main entrance of the building and add illuminated wall-mounted sign. Replace existing windows. Add canopy over main entrance. Chapter 71 Bangor Center Revitalization Area (“Waterfront Development District”) – Design Review The Commission reviewed the statement of Facts and Findings as presented by staff. There were no questions or modifications proposed. Commissioner Mallar moved to approve the Facts and Findings. Commissioner Banfield seconded the motion. The Commission unanimously approved the statement of facts and findings for 40 South Street ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 10. Review and Approval of HPC meeting minutes Minutes from the June 8, 2017 meeting were approved as presented by unanimous vote. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Page 9 of 9