Loading...
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.