Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-06-08 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes Bähr DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY .�..�.. -... Maine & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Planning Division HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF JUNE 8, 2017 MINUTES Commission Members Present: Elizabeth Rettenmaier, Chair George Burgoyne Reese Perkins Wayne Mallar(arrived late) Alfred Banfield, 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. She noted that since there were only four members in attendance, all proposals would need a unanimous vote in order to be approved. PROJECT REVIEW 1. 33 State Street—ANM Properties Remove existing cornice over State Street entrance and replace with identical cast stone cornice. Chapter 148 Historic Preservation—Great Fire District—Certificate of Appropriateness James Strout of ANM properties presented the project to the Commission. Mr. Strout noted that his contractor, Drake Masonry, was very experienced in working with cast stone and that they had done similar work on at least twobuildings in Bangor with the approval of the Commission. Mr. Pullen presented his review and described his concerns with the proposal not clearly showing the extent of work as the top of the existing pilasters, and clarified that the new cornice would sit on top of said pilasters. Mr. Strout verified that Mr. Pullen was correct and thate work would be done as he described. 73 Harlow Street Bangor, Maine 04401 207.992.4280 Fax R w, � rw �w� °2 qk �. ... Baca`:.... .".� a,.+v,_ ^s;a Mr. Pullen also noted section 13.E(1)(c) of the ordinance, which states "when replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture, and other visual qualities." Mr. Pullen suggested that the new cornice be etched or sandblasted to match the appearance of the rest of the feature. Mr. Strout agreed that his contractor would finish the new cornice to match the remainder of the feature as closely as possible. Ms. Rettenmaier asked for additional information on the condition of the existing cornice. Mr. Strout stated that the existing cornice had problems with water penetration, chipping, and spatting, especially on the right corner. He referred the Commission to the submitted photos of the cornice. Mr. Perkins suggested that the applicant review professional trade group standards for this type of project and perform work in line with these standards. Mr. Strout read from a letter from Drake Masonry, indicating specifications for construction and stating that work would be done in conformance with American Precast Association standards. Mr. Perkins moved approval of the application for Certificate of Appropriateness for the project as proposed. Mr. Burgoyne seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 — 0. 2. 33 State Street—ANM Properties Remove existing cornice over State Street entrance and replace with identical pre-cast concrete cornice. Chapter 71 — Bangor Center Revitalization Area ("Facade Area") — Design Review Mr. Perkins moved approval of the application for Design Review for the project as proposed. Mr. Bantleld seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4 —0. 3. 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 Mr. Pullen stated that he had a conflict of interest with this project and excused himself from the meeting. Dan Miller of TAC Architectural presented the project, which is subject to the Design Review standards in the Waterfront Development District. Mr. Miller detailed the proposed modifications to the existing building on the site, which included adding an extra story to the entire building, comprised of a glass and aluminum wall panel system, extending vertically from the current parapet edge of the building. Panel system will include a metal shade system projecting outward 36" from the wall. The easterly side will be covered with a hip roof, which will have solar panels installed along its southern face. The westerly side of the building, which is one story shorter than the easterly portion of the building, will have a flat roof, incorporating a rooftop deck area on top of this new floor. That deck area will feature a covered portico area where two sides of the building meet, and an associated metal and cable safety railing around Page 2 of 5 the edges. The roofline of the building will also be modified to create a wide gable over the existing glass curtain wall, extending the depth of the building. A new flat canopy is proposed, extending out from the width of the curtain wall, to replace the two existing small arched fabric canopies. All windows (currently aluminum clad wood) will be replaced with aluminum windows which are shaped to fit the existing arched openings in the brick (currently there are rectangular windows with aluminum transoms to fill the arches). All painted surfaces will be changed from the current white to a softer beige color. Existing brick and stone walls will not be modified. Proposal also includes two back-illuminated signs, one large sign on the gable end and a smaller sign on the easterly wall of the building, facing the Penobscot River. There were no questions from the audience. Ms. Rettenmaier asked about the solar panels, if they would be installed flat on the roof or it they would project upward. Mr. Miller indicated that they would be installed on an angled "standing seam" structure. Ms. Rettenmaier asked if there were any other proposed changes to the facade, specifically the easterly side that faces the River. Mr. Miller responded that there was only a minor change on the river side, re-opening a covered over door bay. Mr. Miller also detailed the projecting sun screen and railing system, details on which had not been provided to the Commission in advance. Ms. Rettenmaier asked if there would be changes to the retaining wall or other areas of the site. Mr. Miller responded that there were not any changes currently proposed for the site. Mr. Banfield commented that he felt that the window screens detracted from the appearance but that they may be a practical necessity given the amount of glass proposed. Mr. Burgoyne asked about the brightness of the proposed signs. Mr. Miller was not able to provide an exact answer but said that they would be similar to the signs used on Bangor Savings Bank locations elsewhere in the City; that they would not be overly bright. Ms. Rettenmaier requested that Mr. Miller provide the Commission new renderings that he brought to the meeting which included the features that had not previously been provided to the Commission. Mr. Burgoyne moved approval of the application for design review for the project as proposed, including 'tasteful" illumination of the two proposed signs. Mr. Banfield seconded the motion. The motion failed 3— 1, with Mr. Perkins voting no. Mr. Perkins detailed his reasons for voting against the proposal, which included the following: • General lack of information provided, as specified in section 71-9 (B). Specifically absent is information regarding the windows, railing, and signs & lighting; and • Lack of architectural harmony with its neighbors, and between the existing and proposed portions of the building, as specified in section 71-11(A), (B), & (G); Commissioner Mallar had arrived during the discussion of the project but remained sitting in the audience. He asked whether or not he was allowed to vote on the motion since he was now present. Page 3 of 5 Assistant Solicitor Nicklas responded that it would be inappropriate since he had not been present for the full presentation and discussion, and that the vote had already taken place so officially the Commission had made a ruling. Ms. Rettenmaier and Mr. Nicklas described to the applicant the process moving forward, that the Commission would compose a Finding of Facts and Conclusion of Law and that the applicant could then appeal their decision or revise the proposal and come back to the Commission. Mr. Mallar asked about the possibility of reconsidering the motion now that he was present. Mr. Nickles answered that the applicant could request reconsideration within 10 days , or that the Commission could decide to reconsider by a motion from a member of the Commission. Mr. Mallar asked if that reconsideration could be requested at that moment. Mr. Nickals responded that the Commission can choose to convene and reconsider a project at any time, so long as proper notification has been given to applicants and abutters. No new information is required to reconsider a proposal. Mr. Burgoyne made a motion to reconsider the proposal. Mr. Banfield seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. Mr. Miller repeated his presentation to the Commission. There were no questions from the audience. Mr. Banfield asked Mr. Perkins to restate his concerns on the project . Mr. Perkins agreed and elaborated his concerns on lack of information and the new glass and aluminum panel walls lacking harmony with neighboring properties and the older portion of the building. Ms. Rettenmaier and Mr. Mallar and Mr. Banfield spoke in favor of the panel wall system, saying that it brought unity between the large glass curtain wall and the rest of the building, and unifies the two wings of the building. Mr. Perkins restated his concern about changing the material of the windows. Mr. Mallar countered that the proposed aluminum windows would look no different from the exterior than the existing aluminum-clad wood windows. Various members of the commission mentioned wanting more information on signage, the window shade system, and the safety railing. Mr. Burgoyne moved approval for the application for design review, excepting the proposed railing, signage and illumination thereof, and sun shades, pending further information from the applicant, as required in section 71-9(B), and subsequent Commission action. Mr. Mallar seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-1, with Mr. Perkins voting no for the reasons described earlier. Findings of Facts and Conclusion of Law regarding the conditions of this approval will be prepared and voted on by the Commission at a subsequent meeting. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Page 4 of 5 4. Review and Approval of HPC meeting minutes Minutes from the May meeting were not presented due to staff vacancy between the May and June meetings. May minutes will be presented at a later date. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Page 5 of 5