Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-10 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF August 10, 2017 MINUTES Commission Members Present: Reese Perkins, Acting Chair Matthew Carter Wayne Mallar 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 and Vice Chair Burgoyne were not in attendance. Commissioner Perkins agreed to act as Chair for the meeting. He called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PROJECT REVIEW 1. 107 Union Street – Robinson Ballet Repaint exterior door with new color Chapter 71 – Bangor Center Revitalization Area (“Façade Area”) – Design Review Carlene Dunham, who serves on the Board of Robinson Ballet, introduced the project. The pale yellow was chosen in order to match the “Greetings from Bangor” mural which is painted on the side of the building adjacent to the Ballet’s door. They also felt that this would be a more inviting color, especially for children, than the current black color. Mr. Pullen asked the applicant if the intention was to also paint the door frame and transom. The applicant responded that it was. Mr. Pullen reminded the commission that the design review standards specified earth tones and warm colors were to be used. Commissioner Mallar asked the applicant if they might consider a different color, more in line with earth tones. The applicant responded that they could be flexible, and would comply with the desire of the Commission. Mr. Pullen responded that he felt that this particular shade of yellow was in line with the spirit of the ordinance. Commissioner Carter spoke in favor of the yellow color, noting that it was more inviting. Commissioner Banfield said he liked the idea of the color coordinating with the mural. Commissioner Carter moved that the Commission approve the application for Design Review for 107 Union Street, using the proposed yellow color, with the condition that the door frame and transom are also painted. Commissioner Banfield seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 4 in favor - 1 opposed, with Commissioner Mallar casting the opposing vote. Commissioner Mallar stated that it was his opinion that the proposed color was not in line with the requirement that colors be earth tones. 2. 73 Harlow Street – City of Bangor Removal & replacement of retaining wall, receiving area, and railings Chapter 148 Historic Preservation – Great Fire District – Cert. of Appropriateness Commissioner Carter stated that he had a conflict of interest with this application. Commissioner Manzo made a motion that Commissioner Carter be recused. Commissioner Banfield seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Cater left the room for the duration of the discussion. Joshua Tunic, representing Carter Architectural Design, presented the application to the Commission. The applicant is proposing significant repair work to the retaining wall which wraps around two sides of the City Hall building. This will include refacing the wall and replacing the safety railing at the top of the wall. Part of this work will require the demolition of the brick loading dock and receiving area of the building, which are modern additions to the historic building. A smaller addition to be used for storage and receiving will be constructed in the place of the current receiving area. This new building will be ground face stone to match the remainder of City Hall as closely as possible. This addition will have aluminum clad trim and windows with simulated lights and have a metal roof. The doors will be insulated metal doors with windows, similar to what is currently in place. The fence proposed will be black painted steel, and will match what is currently in place. The existing generator will be replaced with a similar model. The applicant provided samples of the proposed fence, stone face, and roof. John Theriault, City Engineer, and Pete Toole of CES detailed the wall reinforcement and answered questions about the mechanical process and drainage. Commissioner Mallar asked what the corner trim of the building would be. Mr. Tunic responded that it would be ground face block. Commissioner Mallar asked if the aluminum trim, windows, and roof would all match. Mr. Tunic responded that all three would match. Commissioner Mallar suggested that the color of the trim on this new building should match as closely as possible the color of the trim and windows on the remainder of City Hall, which is a dark brown color. He felt that the proposed color did not match the rest of the building. Mr. Tunic replied that they would be happy to use a color that better matched the trim on the rest of the building. Commissioner Mallar asked if the generator could be painted similarly. Mr. Tunic replied that it could. Commissioner Manzo made a motion to approve the application for Certificate of Appropriateness for modifications to the retaining wall and building at 73 Harlow Street as proposed, with the condition that the building roof, trim, windows, and generator all have a finish color matching the trim color on the reminder of City Hall. Commissioner Banfield seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. 187, 193 & 213 Exchange Street – ANM Properties Removal & replacement of storefronts and lower window panels Chapter 148 Historic Preservation – Great Fire District – Cert. of Appropriateness Michael Pullen presented the application on behalf of ANM Properties. The applicant proposes to replace three storefronts in three distinct but connected buildings they recently purchased. Two of these buildings were rebuilt after the 1911 fire. The other, the Nichols Block, was built by Wilfred Manseur. All three buildings have been modified since 1960. The intention is to restore these storefronts to their historic character, matching what might’ve existed when the buildings were constructed. Mr. Pullen presented historic photographs of the buildings which he used as a basis for his design. Commissioners Carter and Mallar had questions related to the design of transoms and trim. Mr. Pullen explained that the intent was to match the historic character and also provide consistency across the storefronts. Commissioner Banfield asked if any signage was proposed. Mr. Pullen explained that there was not at this time, but that the Applicant would seek the appropriate approvals when that time came. Commissioner Mallar pointed out that the trim bands on the columns surrounding the doors did not exactly match what was shown in the historic photographs and asked Mr. Pullen if it was possible to add those to match. Mr. Pullen replied that they would if the Commission so desired. Commissioners discussed the two large crests that appeared in the historic photographs and determined that these were likely signage for tenants of upper floors. Commissioner Mallar asked if the steel beam that appears at the top of the first story went across the entire front of the building. Mr. Pullen replied that it did. Commissioner Carter moved that the application for Certificate of Appropriateness for storefront replacement for 187, 193 & 213 Exchange Street be approved as proposed, with the condition that trim bands be added to the columns to match the historic photo presented by the applicant. Commissioner Banfield seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. 4. 187, 193 & 213 Exchange Street – ANM Properties Removal & replacement of storefronts and lower window panels Chapter 71 – Bangor Center Revitalization Area (“Façade Area”) – Design Review Commissioner Carter moved that the application for Design Review for storefront replacement for 187, 193 & 213 Exchange Street be approved as proposed, with the condition that trim bands be added to the columns to match the historic photo presented by the applicant. Commissioner Mallar seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. 5. 120 French Street – Brelca Company Construction of 9x20 Stair Tower Enclosure Chapter 71 – Bangor Center Revitalization Area (“Façade Area”) – Design Review Fred Marshall of Plymouth Engineering presented the application on behalf of the Brelca Company. Mr. Marshall stated that the applicant had been approved previously for a third floor addition to the building, including a stair tower, which was never constructed. The current application is to construct a stair tower only, similar to the one that was approved at the time. The purpose of this stair tower is to provide access from the lower level parking garage to the apartments on the upper level. The stair tower will be built on top of the existing boiler room and will extend to allow rooftop access. Windows on the tower will match the windows on the rest of the building. The finish proposed is the same as previously approved - brick in a “Balanced Beige” finish and metal cladding by Coralock in a “Dove Grey” color. Mr. Pullen verified that he felt that the materials proposed would match the existing building. He asked the applicant if any exterior lighting was proposed, to which the applicant replied that there was not. He also asked for clarification on the size of the tower, which was inconsistent in the application materials. The applicant responded that the proposed size was 9ft x 25 ft. Commissioner Mallar asked what was proposed for the fencing or railing for the rooftop access. Mr. Marshall said that has not been determined yet but that they were considering a black steel rail fence similar to what is currently on the retaining wall at City Hall. Mr. Pullen reminded Mr. Marshall that the fence would need to be 42 inches in height. Mr. Pullen asked the applicant what color the metal coping would be on the stair tower. Mr. Pullen responded that it would be a bronze color to match the rest of the building. Commissioner Mallar made a motion to approve Design Review for the addition of the stair tower at 120 Park Street, with the conditions that the stair tower be 9 ft x 25 ft in size, and include a railing of a design by or similar to Montage II, in a bronze color to match the proposed windows and coping. Commissioner Manzo seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously 6. 82 Columbia Street – Monarch Associates Replace two broken windows facing Middle Street Chapter 148 Historic Preservation – Main St. District – Cert. of Appropriateness John Lorenz of Monarch Associates presented his application to the Commission, to replace two existing pivoting windows with fixed windows of similar design. The existing windows cannot be replaced identically and the applicant desires fixed windows in their place. The proposed size, shape, color, finish and tint will match the existing windows, and the rest of the windows on the building. He stated that they will likely need to approach the board for similar projects in the future. Mr. Pullen asked if the transom would be identical as well. The applicant responded that it would be. Commissioner Mallar asked that if the rest of the windows would need replacing in the near future, if the Commission should approve the replacement of all of the windows at this point. There was some discussion of the matter but because of the requirement that if approved, work must be complete within one year, the idea was not pursued. Commissioner Carter moved to approve the application for Certificate of Appropriateness for 82 Columbia St as proposed. Commissioner Banfield seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. 7. 82 Columbia Street – Monarch Associates Replace two broken windows facing Middle Street Chapter 71 – Bangor Center Revitalization Area (“Façade Area”) – Design Review Commissioner Carter moved to approve the application for Design Review for 82 Columbia St as proposed. Commissioner Manzo seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. 8. 1 Central Street – Giacomos, LLC Repaint trim with new color Chapter 71 – Bangor Center Revitalization Area (“Façade Area”) – Design Review The applicant for this project was not in attendance at the meeting. Commissioner Mallar made a motion to table the application since the applicant could not present their project. There was no second. The Commission discussed the proposal with no presentation from the applicant. There was discussion of whether or not the paint color was appropriate in general, and if the windows could truly be considered “display windows”, where brighter colors are allowed, since there was no product on display in these windows. Commissioner Carter moved to approve the application for Design Review for 1 Central Street. Commissioner Manzo seconded the motion. The vote was 3 in favor, 2 opposed, and therefore was approved. Commissioners Carter, Perkins, and Manzo voted in favor of the application and Commissioners Mallar and Banfiled voted against approval. Commissioners Mallar and Banfield both cited §71-11.F, with Commissioner Mallar stating that he felt that the proposed color was inappropriate, and Commissioner Banfiled stating that he felt that the windows to this business did not qualify as “display windows” and therefore would not be included in the clause about bright colors be allowed surrounding display windows. The application for Design Review to repaint trim at 1 Central Street was therefore approved. DISCUSSION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROCESS 10. Property Maintenance Assistant City Solicitor Paul Nicklas discussed the concept of Maintenance as it relates to the Historic Preservation section of the Code. This is specifically detailed in §148-8.A(1), §148-8.A(5), and §148-14 . “Maintenance”, as defined by the Code would all be handled through the Code Enforcement Office. Maintenance or other proposed work must typically meet one of two criteria to avoid review under the historic preservation ordinance: either 1) there is no change to the appearance of the building, or 2) there is no requirement of a building permit to conduct the work. Discussion at recent meetings seemed to indicate that not all Commissioners have had the same understanding of what is considered maintenance and what is not. Staff wished to be sure all commissioners have the same understanding of these concepts. 11. Minor Changes Assistant City Solicitor Nicklas presented to the Commission a revision to the ordinance to incorporate “Minor Changes”. These would be similar in character to Minor Revisions, but are intended for situations where a change is proposed that does not relate to a recent HPC decision, and are therefore not “revisions”. Similar to Minor Revisions, these activities would be outside of the scope of “maintenance”, but minor enough not to warrant full Commission review. These would be handled identically to Minor Revisions, requiring approval by the Commission Chair, Planning Staff, and Code Enforcement Officer. If any of these individuals thought that the proposal should be reviewed by the full commission, they could refuse to consider it a Minor Change and therefore send it to the Historic Preservation Commission for review. Commissioner Carter moved to recommend the ordinance to be changed to incorporate the addition of Minor Changes, as presented by Mr. Nicklas. Commissioner Mallar seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 12. Review and Approval of HPC meeting minutes Commissioner Banfield identified a few minor changes related to spelling & typos. Minutes were unanimously approved with Mr. Banfield’s changes. Meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.