HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-02-11 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
MEETING OF February 11, 2016
MINUTES
Commission Members Present: George Burgoyne, Vice-Chair
Matthew Carter
Wayne Mallar
Reese Perkins, Secretary
Elizabeth Rettenmaier, Chair
Alfred Banfield, Associate Member
Consultant to the Commission: Mike Pullen
City Staff Present: David Gould
Paul Nicklas
Peter Witham
Ms. Rettenmaier called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. She explained this to be a business
meeting as there were no projects to review.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Item No. 1: Mr. Perkins began reading Minutes of January 11, 2016. Mr. Burgoyne
interjected a motion to approve them as written and Mr. Carter seconded it. The Commission
approved them 4-1.
Mr. Perkins began reading Minutes of January 14, 2016. Mr. Burgoyne interjected a motion to
approve them as written.
Mr. Mallar initiated a discussion about the 28 Broad Street project that was approved with
conditions at the January 14 meeting. The discussion was about the conditions of approval
that included a graphic exhibit of proposed work, the conditions were not followed, but the
project work had been done. This was discussed as an example of other projects that the
Commission has approved with conditions, but the projects were allowed to progress without
them. Other work on properties has been observed without HPC approval where it should
have had it. Discussion of Code Enforcement process and that it largely operates by
response to complaints. Suggestion of having a special meeting with Code Enforcement
present.
Mr. Perkins 2nded the motion to approve the minutes of January 14, 2016 and they were
approved 4-1.
OTHER BUSINESS
Item No. 2: Ms. Rettenmaier introduced as previously discussed the meeting format of
separating project approvals corresponding to the two separate Ordinance standards if the
project is subject to both.
2
She reviewed the initial meeting greeting and reading of the Commission’s philosophy and
order of the meeting. Some wondered about the history of that, others said it was by the
discretion of the Chair. The Commission members concluded reading the minutes aloud is
not necessary, just approving them. Initial introductory comments are helpful to applicants
and other attendees on how the meeting operates. The Chair need not standing at podium.
If the reviews already specify the standards, then a yes vote approves all of them. However a
Commission member needs to explain the reason for a no vote.
Checklists would be helpful for the project reviews for Commission members. Also helpful to
applicants who don’t know the details of the review process. Staff will develop several lists of
standards based on the various types of projects.
Item No. 3: Overlap of Revitalization Areas and Historic Districts. The Commission
discussed the Historic maps and Façade District. At one time a Revitalization Committee
existed when the Revitalization Area was new and Historic districts didn’t encompass as
much of downtown. The thought then was that as the historic districts expanded the Façade
review could be eliminated. However, the Revitalization area continues to exist, but the
Committee was eliminated and the review handed to Historic Preservation.
Mr. Gould led the Commission through images of buildings in the Revitalization area to show
what might be considered to include or not in Historic Districts.
Discussion of process to expand Historic Districts. Discussion of non-contributing buildings in
Historic Districts and percentage allowed. State Historic Preservation Commission would be
helpful to review in expanding Districts. If there are too many non-contributing buildings a
building might be designated, but not the area. The Commission is the first step in
designating a Historic Resource. The Revitalization Area could be more easily changed or
eliminated
Ms. Rettenmaier thought the Waterfront area of the Revitalization Area and its buildings
would be interesting to review further. The question of whether to expand the Historic
Districts could be put on another agenda.
Need to make sure anything pulled into Historic Districts is contributing and follows standards
of review to validate the Commission.
Ms. Rettenmaier thought this did not need to be decided tonight, but to have staff look into
the procedural steps were and the documentation required to expand or add to the Districts.
What documentation would be needed, and what information would be needed to justify the
changes.
Another point of course would be to inform property owners of the differences between being
in one or the other area.
This discussion was brought forth a year before when it was difficult to gather a quorum of
Commissioners and it seemed timely to bring it up again.
Item No. 4: Great Fire District boundary correction.
3
The history of drawing the boundary is that it was based on old paper tax maps that are
difficult to align adjacent abutting maps when necessary. New aerial photography revealed
that Tarratine building is not within the boundary, but the property is listed as being added to
the boundary. Historically it has been reviewed as being within in the District as it should be,
the map was inaccurately drawn. Another property to look at is the 1996 addition to the
Library that goes outside the Historic District. Discussion of all of a property being within the
District, not just the building. Staff will investigate further.
Discussion of Historic Districts, Sites, and Landmarks and the names.
Discussion of whether to just technically fix the map or go through the Council to approve the
change. City Solicitor prefers to see this go through the Council as housekeeping and was
asked to list out what to do for maintenance of the Maps.
Discussion of including the parking lot next to the Tarratine Club. Or to expand farther up
Park Street or to French Street. Ms. Rettenmaier thought there are two questions before the
Commission, 1 was this always intended and is it just housekeeping, and 2 should the
boundaries of this district be expanded since the discussion has been about expanding them
in general.
Item No. 5: Application forms and Applicant submissions
Discussion of scaled drawings, but they are not included with the submissions. Need to
document the dates of passage to Planning, dates of project construction, and a list of the
projects and when they are done. Commission doesn’t know when the application was
deemed complete. Relying on Code to process the projects
Discussion of the application form and the information requirement listed in the Ordinance.
The Ordinance and the application form do not correspond. Requirements in Ordinance are
also described as optional. The Ordinance needs work, then match application form to it.
Some wanted to match the application form to the Ordinance and some wanted it vice versa.
Most wanted the Code Enforcement Office to follow the Ordinance. Discussion of the
applicant proving they meet the standards. Many times the full view of buildings are not
included. Some thought the way to have control would be to say no to applications, others
thought that to be more constructive would be to reach out to the applicants to provide more
information. Sticking point in the ordinance is the 45-day time limit. Code Enforcement should
be telling the applicant what should be submitted.
Some thought the Application form should be looked at to match up with Ordinances. Others
thought the Ordinance needed to be looked at first before the application form is looked at to
match it.
Item No. 6: Other topics
Question and discussion of whether a letter was sent to Shaw House to have them board up
the windows.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Item No. 7: October 13 meeting room conflict – reschedule to October 6?
4
There was a discussion of having the meeting the same night in another room even with no
videotape. Others thought it could be moved to another night. Or it might be shifted an hour
earlier.
Item No. 8: The next scheduled meeting is Thursday, March 10, 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.