Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-01-14 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF January 14, 2016 MINUTES Commission Members Present: George Burgoyne Matthew Carter Wayne Mallar Reese Perkins Elizabeth Rettenmaier Alfred Banfield, Associate Member Consultant to the Commission: Mike Pullen City Staff Present: David Gould Paul Nicklas Peter Witham Former Vice-Chair Rettenmaier called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. As the first meeting of the Commission with new members she called for nominations of officers. Member Perkins nominated Member Rettenmaier for Chair, Member Burgoyne seconded the motion. With no other nominations, the motion was approved unanimously. Member Perkins nominated Member Burgoyne for Vice-Chair and Member Mallar seconded the motion. With no other nominations, the motion was approved unanimously. Member Burgoyne nominated Member Perkins for Secretary and Member Rettenmaier seconded the motion. With no other nominations, the motion was approved unanimously. Item No. 1: Approval of HPC meeting minutes from December 10, 2015. The Commission approved the above minutes at the special meeting held on January 11, 2016. Project Review Item No. 2: Consider a request for Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review approval for façade changes and repair at 80 Central St., McCrew Holdings LLC Planning Officer Gould noted that the applicant has requested this item be continued to the February meeting. A lengthy discussion commenced among Commission Members, Planning Officer, and Assistant City Solicitor regarding when the application was received, whether the application was initially complete, the number of times the item had been continued, partly because of the applicant’s indecision about some elements of the application, and the Ordinance 2 stipulations regarding time limits for the Commission’s acting on applications, and if they had been exceeded was the application deemed approved. Member Burgoyne moved to table the application to the next meeting in February where it would be presented and acted upon or withdrawn. The discussion continued about the time limit on applications, specifically on this application, and if the Commission could send an application back to Code as incomplete. Member Burgoyne withdrew his motion that had assumed definite answers on time from Mr. Nicklas. Member Perkins moved to continue the application as requested if the City Solicitor finds the time limits to do so acceptable or if found not acceptable to continue then move deny the application. Mr. Nicklas did not think the motion could have the condition be so conditional and the Board may need to act on it now to as the clock is ticking anyway. The discussion continued among the Commission members and Assistant City Solicitor Nicklas regarding the number of times the application had been continued, and whether or not the standard 45-day and additional 45-day periods had passed before action by the Commission. Mr. Nicklas could not look into that now, but the Commission could act on it now. The applicant could resubmit. Member Perkins withdrew his motion on the table and made a motion to deny the application. Mr. Burgoyne seconded the motion. The Commissioners unanimously approved to deny the application. Item No. 3: To consider a request for Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review approval for heat pump placement and a rooftop structure for new stairway access at 26 State St, Furth Properties Member Carter disclosed that he may have a conflict of interest in this item, having worked on this project’s life and safety issues as a sub-consultant for the applicant’s architect. Member Mallar moved to recuse Member Carter for a conflict of interest. Member Perkins seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. Member Carter left the room and Chair Rettenmaier asked Associate Member Banfield to vote in his place. Mr. Abraham Furth introduced himself as the building owner and Zack Pick general contractor on the project. They presented the application for heat pump condensers as tucked away and the stairway structure in the back of the building to built to the Code minimum. Member Burgoyne asked about the Consultant’s questions dimensions of the heat pumps. Mr. Pike answered that it is approximately 3 ft. x 3 ft. x 1 ft. Chair Rettenmaier asked questions from the audience then Members. Member Mallar asked questions about the proposed roof structure, its shape and if it was for use as an exit or for use of the roof. 3 Mr. Pike answered that the photograph submitted did not accurately show the shape of the roof, but it will be slightly sloped for drainage and its purpose is to provide headroom for the stairs. The photos were provided to indicate the size of the structure and location on the roof. The building has only one exit and the roof exit is the only way to do that. Member Banfield asked if the stairway will end at the roof’s height. The applicant affirmed that height. There was additional discussion about rooftop structures and need for clarification in the ordinance. Also there were questions regarding potential uses, such as gardens and patios on the roof, but the applicant answered it is only for maintenance access. Member Perkins moved to accept the application as submitted. Member Burgoyne seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously. Member Carter returned to the room. Item No. 4: To consider a request for Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review approval for a fence and bollards, window installation, a front awning, and a back awning and lighting at 28 Broad St, Roy Hubbard Mr. Hubbard presented and explained his application’s exhibit’s to the Commission. Member Banfield asked if light would be shining outward from the proposed lamps as depicted in the exhibit. Mr. Hubbard explained that the photograph submitted only showed the general gooseneck style, but did not accurately depict the lamps to be used as they will be black and not have openings that would emit light horizontally. Member Carter expressed concern that there’s no cut sheet of the fixture actually proposed, but only a photo of something it looks like, but not really. Member Rettenmaier asked if the proposed awnings over the doorways would block light from shining on the entrances. Mr. Hubbard said they are more for the parking lot than the entrances, but there would be lights underneath the awnings. Member Carter reiterated his concern that like many applications received and reviewed by the Commission many of the photographic exhibits ask that several things be imagined together for approval, when they should be more specific. Member Mallar asked if the proposed awnings in the rear will hide the granite lintels, and if they are necessary. Mr. Hubbard replied that even with the existing roof gutters there is runoff that drips at the entrances and that is the purpose of the awnings, but they could be raised higher to expose sight of the granite lintels. Member Mallar discussed and asked about the number of times the applicant needed to return to the Commission to get after-the-fact approvals for work that was already done. Mr. 4 Hubbard explained he had not been informed that some items needed the Commission’s approval. Mr. Pullen asked about the 6 over 6 windows in the rear and 2 over 2 windows in the front, and about the front door’s size and the proposed awning over it. Mr. Hubbard explained the windows in the rear were from a previous owner, and the front door was an oversized for loading purposes. Member Perkins expressed appreciation that the applicant had returned to right the wrongs and get after-the-fact approvals. Mr. Pullen asked if the new doors in the rear were previously approved as black and not white as they are now. Member Rettenmaier asked if the awnings moved upward to expose the lintels would appear too high and discordant. Mr. Pullen thought they might look alright. Member Carter reiterated getting things approved beforehand, and that while the plastic bollards in the rear look alright, they probably would not have passed. Member Perkins moved to approval of the application with the conditions that: 1. the parking lot fence in Photo 2 be approved; 2. the proposed first floor window match existing second floor windows on the same side; 3. the gooseneck lights be black and enclosed so no light shines outward; 4. the rear awnings be raised to expose the granite door lintels; 5. any installations on the brick wall be attached into the mortar and not the bricks; Member Burgoyne seconded the motion. Member Carter asked to add conditions that: 6. there be no exposed junction boxes but lights be flush-mounted; 7. that security cameras be added as a 5th element of the application; and 8. that a drawing or an altered photo be submitted to depict the raised awnings above the doors, black gooseneck lamps, and security cameras. Member Perkins amended his motion to include those three items. Member Burgoyne seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved. Review Findings of Facts The Commission reviewed and approved the following items at its special meeting on January 11, 2016. Item No. 5: To review Findings of Facts in December 10, 2015 Denial of Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of a building at 635 State St., Shaw House 5 Item No. 6: To review Findings of Facts in December 10, 2015 Denial of Certificate of Appropriateness for canopy changes at 5 High St., Together Place Housing, Inc. Other Business Item No. 7: A discussion of HPC meeting rules of procedure Assistant City Solicitor Paul Nicklas reviewed the rules of procedure for HPC meetings for the benefit of both new and continuing Commissioners. This was followed by discussion and questions. Additional Business The next scheduled meeting is Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the third floor Council Chambers. Commissioner Burgoyne moved to adjourn the meeting, which Commissioner Carter seconded. The motion was unanimously approved and the meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M.