Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-05-12 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes Historic Preservation Commission Meeting of May 12, 2016 Minutes – Approved as amended June 9, 2016 Commissioners Present: Elizabeth Rettenmaier, Chair; Reese Perkins, Matthew Carter, George Burgoyne, Wayne Mallar and Associate Members Eugene Manzo and Al Banfield City Staff Present: Peter Witham and Lynn Johnson with the City’s Planning Staff and Paul Nicklas, Assistant City Solicitor. Historic Preservation Commission Consultant – Mike Pullen Chair Rettenmaier opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and noted the attendance of the Commission. Ms. Rettenmaier welcomed Associate Commissioner Tony Manzo who was recently appointed to the Commission. Chair Rettenmaier discussed the responsibilities of the Commission for the benefit of the audience and noted that five members can vote but four affirmative votes are needed for passage. Project Review Item No. 1: 26 State Street - Orono Brewing Company – Add projecting sign with illuminating lamps – Chapter 71 – Bangor Center Revitalization Area – Design Review Mr. Carter indicated that with a prior application for this property and applicant, he had requested and was recused from voting by the Commission as he did the code study for the building. The Commission was in agreement that Mr. Carter should recuse himself again and they voted five in favor and none opposed to recuse Mr. Carter from voting. Chair Rettenmaier asked Mr. Banfield to vote on this item. Mr. Abe Furth, the applicant, explained the design and placement of the proposed projecting sign and the illuminating lamps. He indicated that he forwarded a rendering prepared by the sign company (Bangor Neon) earlier in the day. Mr. Perkins asked if the applicant had selected the type of stem. Mr. Furth indicated that he decided to wait to ask the Commission for its recommendation. He indicated that he did not want the lighting to obscure the sign. Chair Rettenmaier asked where the sign would be located and the lighting proposed. Mr. Furth indicated that the sign would be placed below the metal blue feature on one of the five panels above the windows. The goose neck lights would be in the center of 2 each of the four remaining panels and hang down slightly in front of the windows. Mr. Manzo asked about what type of lightbulbs would be used. Mr. Furth indicated that he was planning to use LED lighting due to the numerous power surges that occur in the downtown. No one from the audience spoke in opposition. Chair Rettenmaier asked for comments from Commission Consultant Mike Pullen. Mr. Pullen indicated that he had questions regarding the materials used for the sign, its color and location. Mr. Furth indicated that materials would be painted aluminum and the color would be black. Commission Members reviewed the Standards of Chapter 71-20 and Chapter 71- 21. Chair Rettenmaier asked if the rendering that was submitted earlier in the day could be added to the record for this application. Mr. Mallar added that the rendering should be reviewed by the Chair for compliance prior to being added to the record. Mr. Perkins moved to approve the request for Design Review under the standards of Chapter 71 – Bangor Center Revitalization Area Ordinance with the condition that the stem for the sign lights match the others lights, as discussed and that the Chair approve the additional sign exhibit submitted earlier in the day. Mr. Burgoyne seconded the motion. The Commission voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Mr. Furth indicated that he would e-mail the rendering to the Chair. Item No. 2: 26 State Street – Orono Brewing Company – Add proje3ctring sign with illuminating lamps Chapter 148 Historic Preservation - Great Fire District – Certificate of Appropriateness As in Item No. 1, above, the Commissioners found that the application met the requirements of Chapter 148 for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the same conditions as in Item No. 1. It was moved by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Banfield and unanimously approved by the Commission with the same conditions outlined in Item No. 1. Item No. 3: 26 State Street – Furth Properties – Building roof deck, add decal signs on windows and transom, exterior lamps, and security cameras – Chapter 71 Bangor Center Revitalization Area – Design Review Mr. Abe Furth explained that this request is to build a roof deck, add decal signs on windows and transom, exterior lamps and security cameras. Chair Rettenmaier asked Mr. Furth to explain the design and dimensions. Mr. Furth indicated that the lighting would be pointed downward. He showed the proposed light 3 that would be attached to either side of the door of the roof structure. He indicated that this would also help him to control who goes onto his roof and it would be a benefit to his tenants. Mr. Furth also discussed the type and placement of security cameras noting that he was proposing to install one on either side of building at street level, and the roof light was proposed to be placed on either side of the door. Chair Rettenmaier asked if Mr. Furth was proposing to repoint the brick. Mr. Mike Pullen discussed the type of pointing that is on the building. Mr. Furth explained that after further inspection, a mason had indicated that there was not a need to repoint the brick at the present time. Mr. Pullen suggested that pointing should be removed from the application. Mr. Furth discussed visibility of the lighting and deck from neighboring properties and said that he did not feel that it would bother the neighboring properties in the area. He noted that Mr. Pullen had pointed out that while the lighting may not be visible from the street it may be visible from the top of the building across the street on the corner of State Street and Exchange Street and other buildings in the immediate area. Mr. Pullen noted that Deb Andrews has done work in Portland regarding visibility and suggested that the Commission may want to discuss this with her at some future date. Chair Rettenmaier noted that the current Ordinances are silent on this issue. No one spoke from the audience. Mr. Perkins noted that in prior applications the Commission requested that fencing be black and suggested that this also be black. The Commission reviewed the standards for Design Review approval under Chapter 71. – Bangor Center Revitalization Area – Design Review. Mr. Banfield asked if the deck on the roof would be flat. Mr. Furth indicated that it will be on stringers in order for the roof to drain. Chair Rettenmaier asked the applicant for photos from the vantage point of across the street after the project is completed to be included in the file. Mr. Perkins moved to accept the application as submitted for Design Review approval with the changes noted by the Commission that pointing be removed from the application, that the decal signs be removed from the application and that the fence and barrier be painted black after the materials have had a chance to weather. The motion was seconded by Mr. Burgoyne. The Commission Members voted unanimously in favor of the motion. 4 Item No. 4: 26 State Street – Furth Properties – Building roof deck, add decal signs on windows and transom, exterior lamps, and security cameras. Chapter 148 Historic Preservation – Great Fire District – Certificate of Appropriate Chair Rettenmaier indicated that this is an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness under Chapter 148 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance for the same applicant as in Item No. 3, above. Commission Member had no further questions. Chair Rettenmaier asked for a motion. Mr. Perkins moved to approve the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 26 State Street – Furth Properties, with the same conditions stated in Item No. 3. Mr. Burgoyne seconded the motion. The Commission voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Item No. 5: 5 High Street – Together Place Housing, Inc. – Remove and replace front exterior canopy with like materials – Chapter 148 Historic Preservation – High Street District – Certificate of Appropriateness Mr. Keith Ewing with Plymouth Engineering, represented the Together Place Housing, Inc., and indicated that the applicant was before the Historic Preservation Commission last December with a similar application. Mr. Ewing noted that at that time the Commission denied the request as it felt that the design was not in keeping with the original design of the exterior canopy. Since that time, the applicant has applied for a façade grant and has redesigned the canopy in accordance with the suggestions the Commission made in December, 2015. Mr. Pullen noted that the Commission had denied this request previously and the new submittal returns the canopy to its original design and materials. As there were no questions from the Commissioners, Chair Rettenmaier asked for a motion. Mr. Carter moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Together Place Housing, Inc. at 5 High Street. Mr. Burgoyne seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Item No. 6: 635 State Street – SHWP, LLC – Demolition of Engineer’s House – Chapter 148 Historic Preservation – Certificate of Appropriateness Chair Rettenmaier indicated that this is a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness from SHWP, LLC to demolish the Engineer’s House located at 635 State Street (the Waterworks site) under Chapter 148 – Historic Preservation Ordinance. 5 This item was previously before the Historic Preservation Commission in December 2015. At that time, neither Mr. Mallar nor Mr. Carter was on the Commission but both spoke against the application. Chair Rettenmaier noted the potential for a conflict of interest. Assistant City Solicitor Paul Nicklas indicated that it was up to the Commission to determine whether or not they felt there is a conflict of interest. Mr. Burgoyne noted that while he felt confident that they both would vote in good process he felt that the perception of a conflict was important and that he would vote for them to be recused. Mr. Burgoyne moved to recuse Mr. Mallar from voting due to a conflict of interest. The Commission voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Mr. Burgoyne moved to recuse Mr. Carter from voting. The Commission voted 4 to 1 in favor of the motion to recuse Mr. Carter. Attorney Gene Sullivan represented the applicant, SHWP, LLC. Attorney Sullivan explained that the applicant was requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the Engineer’s House located at the Waterworks site. He indicated that there were two paths to do this under the ordinance. The first is under the Historic Preservation Ordinance, Section 148-13B that the property is not capable of earning an economic return at its location. He indicated that he felt that this application clearly met these criteria. He noted the second path under Section 148-13(F) exceptional circumstances. As part of their application, Mr. Sullivan discussed Exhibit 16 which is an appraisal report done by Mr. Ron Henderson a certified appraiser in 2009 with an update done on April 12, 2016. Also included was a supplemental exhibit prepared by Tess Kiran another real estate appraiser that indicated low values on larger units/properties. Mr. Sullivan stated that the documents supported their argument that this property is not capable of earning an economic return at this location. Attorney Sullivan indicated that the applicant had been in contact with building evaluators to determine if this building was economically feasible to be rehabilitated. He noted that Mr. Pullen had asked for Mr. Becker from Portland to prepare a site evaluation for the building. Attorney Sullivan explained that he called Mr. Becker several times to obtain his services but that Mr. Becker indicated that he was not interested. Mr. Brian Ames, a consulting engineer, was hired to do an inspection of the building but was unable to do so as he fell through the floor upon his initial entry. He indicated that he was not able to inspect the interior of the building to say if the building could be rehabilitated. 6 Mr. Dan Wellington, former City of Bangor Code Enforcement Officer, certified environmental health specialist, building inspector, and a certified code enforcement officer was asked in 2015 to take a look at this building. Mr. Wellington provided the Commission with a packet of information regarding the building. In his opinion he indicated that the building in its present condition is unsafe, unstable, unsanitary, dilapidated and a fire hazard. Mr. Wellington provided a recap of the history of the building that was first used as the residence of the Chief Engineer for the Waterworks. In 1959 the Bangor Water District was established and there was no longer a need to house a Chief Engineer. The house was designed by Mr. Wilfred Mansard. In the 70’s the building was used for long-term general assistance families. The last time it was inhabited was in the mid 1970’s. Over the years several developers were interested in the waterworks site for projects ranging from restaurants to housing but none ever came to fruition nor did any of the proposals include the engineer’s house. In the 2000’s there was some CDBG money that was used to stabilize the building with a new roof and a new foundation. Also because of water damage to the interior due to a leaking roof, much of the material used for walls was removed. At City Hall the property’s Assessing card does not include the Engineer’s House structure. One can conclude, he added, that the City has assessed its value at zero. A few years ago attorney Ed Bearor received an estimate of $308,000 to renovate this building into a law office but he chose to locate elsewhere at a lower cost. Mr. Wellington indicated that on March 24, 2016 the condition of the building had changed such that it appears to be sliding off its foundation in some places. Mr. Kaminski, attorney for Shaw House, indicated that he was the attorney involved when this project was put together. Back in 2003 when they got Planning Board approval to do this project, it was their intent to renovate this building for office space. He pointed out that this was not required by the Planning Board. However, the money to do so wasn’t available as Shaw House had unforeseen expenses due to a lawsuit by the railroad who did not want a railroad crossing at this location. He said that they can’t take advantage of a Federal Historic Tax Credit because they are a non- profit organization. Mike Pullen felt that because of the historic nature of the building and because it was designed by Wilfred Mansard that they could ask the Historic Preservation Commission to take the necessary steps to have it added to the National Register of Historic Places. He indicated that he felt that more could be done to preserve it. 7 Representatives of the Shaw House indicated that they were not interested in the property being added to the National Register. The representatives from Shaw House who were present included: Sally Tardiff, Executive Director and Board Members Danya Rhine and Kendra Speed. Sarah Martin, a former member and consultant to the Historic Preservation Commission, said that she felt the building in its present condition was not in a condition to be rehabilitated. She felt that any monies spent on rehabilitation would be better spent to help clients in need of the services at Shaw House rather than maintaining or rehabilitating a building that is in such a bad condition. Attorney Kaminski added that 80% of the deterioration of this building existed prior to Shaw House’s acquisition. Sonia Mallar, 103 Essex Street, said that she did not feel that this building should be torn down and it should be saved for future generations. Kendra Speed, a Shaw House Board Member, indicated that it is Shaw House’s mission to help homeless children. When they took on this project the Engineer’s house was a part of the acquisition. The condition was very bad but they had to take it as part of the project. She indicated that they have spent $9,000 on roof repairs and upwards of $90,000 in structural repairs. Dayna Rhine also with the Shaw House Board indicated that this request for demolition is a last resort. It’s been for sale for 10 years. They would be willing to donate the building but they have had no serious takers. Mr. Burgoyne asked if there were any takers. Sally Tardiff, Shaw House Executive Director, indicated that one company was interested but they were unable to obtain funding. Another offer came from a meat packing business but that one could not secure funding, either. Chair Rettenmaier asked why they did not appeal the Historic Preservation Commission’s decision in December, 2015. Attorney Sullivan noted that the reason why they didn’t file an appeal was because the applicant in the December application was in error (Shaw House rather than SHWP, LLC). After considerable discussion, Chair Rettenmaier asked for a motion on the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the Engineer’s House at 635 State Street under Chapter 148 – 13B that the property is not capable of earning an economic return at its location. 8 Mr. Burgoyne moved to approve the request of SHWP, LLC for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the Engineer’s House at 635 State Street - Chapter 148, 13B - Historic Preservation. Ms. Rettenmaier seconded the motion. Mr. Perkins indicated that he was the one lone vote in favor of granting a Certificate of Appropriateness in December. He said that he felt that the application was made by the wrong owners of the building. At that time he felt that this is the best chance for this to move ahead to get it on the market for somebody to buy it. He felt that there is somebody who will buy it because there is some attraction to the property because of the building and its location. He indicated that he was still leaning toward supporting the application. Chair Rettenmaier explained for the newer commission members that the focus has been on the evaluation standards and whether they are met. Even after the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, there is a 180-day timeframe where notices must be posted for demolition. This is not permission to demolish the building tomorrow but perhaps in six months. Chair Rettenmaier asked if the land and the building are owned by different people if this would be an issue if there is an offer to buy. Attorney Kaminski indicated that the land lease from one entity to another is assignable to the new buyer from the parties. However, they would need permission from the lender. Mr. Banfield said that he had concerns that there hasn’t been enough effort made to try to sell it. He felt that to just put a For Sale sign on a building doesn’t offer much exposure. He asked if it is listed with an agent and for how long it has been listed. He said that if it is not aggressively marketed not many people will know that it is for sale. Attorney Sullivan respectfully indicated that he did not feel that Mr. Banfield’s comments were relevant to the standards. Mr. Manzo asked if designation on the Historic Register is desirable. Chair Rettenmaier said that for some, a registered property is a benefit, for others a detriment. To the right person it is a diamond in the rough to others it’s pyrite. As no one else spoke and there were no further comments, Chair Rettenmaier asked for a vote on the motion. Mr. Perkins, Mr. Burgoyne and Ms. Rettenmaier voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Banfield and Mr. Manzo voted in opposition. The vote was 3 to 2 and, therefore, it did not pass. 9 Assistant City Solicitor Nicklas asked those voting in opposition to describe their reasons for voting “no” to be finalized and entered into a Findings and Conclusions. Mr. Banfield indicated that he did not think they have shown the economic return criteria. He said that right now they haven’t spent anything on it lately so to make the decision now, it is not hurting them because they haven’t spent anything in keeping it up and it is not hurting them on an economic return. Mr. Manzo said that as to the economic return, he just felt that there is a potential buyer out there to pick up the property. Assistant City Solicitor Nicklas asked if they both agreed with each other’s points or not. Both said yes they agreed. Mr. Burgoyne recommended that the Commission move forward to start the process of getting the building on the National Register designation. He said that Shaw House has indicated that they would let it go for as little as $1.00. He indicated that he would like to see the Commission take action on obtaining a National Register designation for this building. Assistant City Solicitor Nicklas indicated that the Commission needed to address Exhibit 7 of the applicant’s submittal which is a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness under Section 148-13(F). – exceptional circumstances. Chair Rettenmaier indicated that there are two paths to approving the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition. If it does not meet the criteria under 13B then there is the exceptional circumstances section. Attorney Sullivan discussed the criteria under exceptional circumstances. 1) The Commission may issue a certificate of appropriateness where the standards otherwise set forth in this section are not met but where the Commission Determines that failure to issue the certificate would result in undue hardship to the owner of the property. Before the Commission may issue a certificate under this subsection, the records must show the following: (a) The property cannot yield a reasonable economic return or the owner cannot make any reasonable use of the property; (b) the plight of the owner is due to exceptional or unique circumstances and to the general applicability of this chapter; and (c) the conditions or circumstances which constitute the hardship were not caused or created by the property owner after an amendment to Section 148-5 of this chapter by which the property became subject to this chapter. (2) For purposes of Subsection E (1), “reasonable economic return”: shall not be construed to mean a maximum return, and “any reasonable use” shall not be construed to mean the highest and best use. Attorney Sullivan indicated that the applicant received the property from the City of Bangor in serious condition. The applicant does not have the financial resources to maintain the building and the hardship was not caused or created by the 10 property owner. For these reasons he said that he felt that this application met the criteria of Section 148-13(F) – exceptional circumstances and that a Certificate of Appropriateness should be granted. Mr. Burgoyne moved to grant approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the Engineers House at 635 State Street under Section 148-13(F) – exceptional circumstances. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. Mr. Perkins, Mr. Burgoyne and Mr. Manzo voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Banfield and Ms. Rettenmaier voted in opposition. Mr. Banfield indicated that his reasoning was much the same as in the previous vote. He did not feel that the applicant has spent the money that was needed to keep up the building and they haven’t spent anything so it doesn’t put them under extreme circumstances as they haven’t spent anything. Chair Rettenmaier indicated that although the property “cannot yield a reasonable economic return” criteria was met, the applicant did not demonstrate that the plight of the owner is due to exceptional or unique circumstances nor that the conditions leading to this application were not caused or created by the applicant due to the lack of maintenance on the property. The motion failed by a vote of 3 in favor and to 2 opposed. Chair Rettenmaier noted that the applicant has the right to bring this before Zoning Board of Appeals. She indicated that the Commission will work to have the findings and conclusions done in a reasonable time. She indicated that the Commission would hold a special meeting to go over the findings and conclusions. Additional Business Item No. 7: Approval of HPC meeting minutes. No Minutes were available for review. Adjourned at 10:15 p.m.