HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-08-11 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
****CORRECTED****
BANGOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes for Thursday, August 11, 2016
Third Floor, Council Chambers, Bangor City Hall
Commissioners Present: George Burgoyne, Vice-Chair
Matt Carter
Wayne Mallar
Reese Perkins
Al Banfield, Associate Commissioner
Consultant to the Commission: Mike Pullen
City Staff Present: David Gould
Peter Witham
Vice-Chair Burgoyne called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PROJECT REVIEW
1. 1 West Market Square (34 Hammond Street) – Mexicali Views
thth
Replace 23 windows on 4 & 5 floors, paint exterior trim to match other
windows
Chapter 148 Historic Preservation – West Market Square District –
Certificate of Appropriateness
Peter Erskine, property owner, presented the project.
Mr. Carter moved approval of the application for Certificate of Appropriateness as
presented. Mr. Banfield seconded the motion. It was approved 5-0.
2. 1 West Market Square (34 Hammond Street) – Mexicali Views
thth
Replace 23 windows on 4 & 5 floors, paint exterior trim to match other
windows
Chapter 71 Bangor Center Revitalization Area – Design Review
Mr. Carter moved approval of the application for Design Review. Mr. Banfield
seconded the motion. It was approved 5-0.
3. 131 Main Street – Penobscot Theatre Co./Jackson Plumbing & Heating
Install 3 new boiler vents and remove oil fill pipe on exterior rear wall of building
Chapter 148 Historic Preservation – Main Street District – Certificate of
Appropriateness
Wayne Jackson of Jackson Plumbing and Heating presented the project.
Mr. Perkins moved approval of Certificate of Appropriateness with the condition
to paint the vents to match the existing brick, and if the oil fill hole can’t be used
for one of the vents they fill it with appropriate mortar to match. Mr. Carter
seconded the motion. It was approved 5-0.
4. 131 Main Street – Penobscot Theatre Co./Jackson Plumbing & Heating
Install 3 new boiler vents and remove oil fill pipe on exterior rear wall of building
Chapter 71 Bangor Center Revitalization Area – Design Review
Mr. Perkins moved approval of Design Review with the condition to paint the
vents to match the existing brick, and if the oil fill hole can’t be used for one of the
vents they fill it with appropriate mortar to match. Mr. Carter seconded the
motion. It was approved 5-0.
5. 105 Main & 92 Columbia Streets – Brick & Mortar Holding Group
Replacement of 20 windows – Chapter 148 Historic Preservation – Main
Street District – Certificate of Appropriateness
Jay Deane, property owner, presented the application and a full-size window to
show the Commissioners what he proposed to install on the Middle Street and
Columbia Street (back) sides. He indicated that they are custom made by
Matthews brothers, dividers are inside the windows, argon filled, low-e, top of the
line.
A member of the audience, Emerson Jones, asked what the windows were made
of.
Mr. Deane said he believed them to be vinyl-clad wood and had provided a
brochure with his application.
Mr. Pullen indicated that he did not believe they are vinyl-clad wood, but solid
vinyl and that he had a number of questions because of the incompleteness of
the application. The majority of the windows are 6 over 6 double hung windows,
but some are 1 over 1’s, and some are 2 over 2’s. He asked if the applicant
intended to match the three different types.
Mr. Deane indicated he believed the 6 over 6’s were original because they
appear very old and he thought to be consistent he would replace all of them with
6 over 6’s.
Mr. Pullen noted from the photograph that there was a very tight and narrow trim
with the existing windows and their openings and asked how that would be
matched by the proposed windows that appear to have a very wide trim.
Mr. Deane noted that some windows are actually 10 inches taller than others,
and that the proposed windows’ exposed trim almost matches by one-half inch
the existing exposed width. He indicated the windows would be without the wide
trim on sample in the room.
Mr. Pullen asked if he intended to match the existing color. Mr. Deane affirmed
that they would the vinyl would be painted to match the existing color.
Mr. Carter indicated the sample window has the muntins dividers in between the
panes of glass. He noted that typically when trying to match historic architecture,
the ideal is to provide true-divided lights, but that is not always possible in
modern windows, so as in the first application on the agenda, that one had an
external and an internal muntins with a spacer between the glass to simulate the
idea of a muntins that goes all the way through the glass. The example shown
does not have that, but he knows that Matthews does have windows with more
historic features. He wondered if he would consider talking with the manufacturer
to see about a better fit for an historic application.
Mr. Deane understood and explained the reason for the proposed internal pieces
is that there are 22 apartments in the building. He said that his expectation is that
if he had both the exterior and interior ones and that the interior ones would be
broken off in no time. He acknowledged that he has very good tenants, but things
do happen and so the idea is not to have to continuously replace broken parts.
When he looks at that he saw that it is a more expensive option and it looks
exactly the same to him.
Mr. Carter indicated that to him it does not look the same because a certain
angles all you would see would be a sheet of glass with no divisions in the glass
and it won’t look like a building in a historic district, but a building that was in a
historic district where there are all new windows installed.
Mr. Deane understood that at a specific angle you would not see the dividers as
shown in the photograph. He asked if he could put them on the sample window
he would have no problem.
Mr. Carter indicated that if he was concerned his tenants damaging the muntins
on the inside of the window he might consider not putting them on the inside, but
he would at least like to see them on the outside. Mr. Deane agreed.
Mr. Carter also said that it is clear that the building has had multiple renovations
to the windows over time and that he might consider picking one period when the
windows were done and sticking with that and consider going back to the older 6
over 6 windows.
Mr. Deane did not realize that he had the option other than to propose the 6 over
6 windows, and that he was not an architect or not into this, but a stockbroker.
Mr. Carter understand and indicated that the Commission understands their job
as the historic review board is to help the applicant’s understand that so they can
do something that will be more conductive to supporting the historic character of
the downtown. He has worked applicants in similar problems
Mr. Deane asked if understood that Matthews brothers has that type of product.
Mr. Pullen indicated that it is provided in the package that is part of his
application and pointed out page 14. He also called attention to the prefinished
manufacturer’s colors. Mr. Deane said the color on the sample window is the
closest to what is existing on the building. They didn’t have a “plum” color, but
that the windows are paintable.
Mr. Carter called attention to the simulated divided lights in the brochure that he
would recommend to his clients. He believed that they are not snap in, but
actually fused to the glass and that trying to remove them would break the glass
unlike cheaper products.
Mr. Pullen called attention to the muntins’ width choices 5/8” and 7/8” and that he
would recommend the narrower ones as they are closer to the original ones. He
also agreed that they are fused to the glass and could not be removed without
breaking the glass.
Mr. Carter asked again if he would consider talking to Matthews Brothers and
getting the right product for a historic application.
Mr. Deane asked if he had the exterior and interior, muntins, then the sample
window would meet the requirement.
Mr. Carter said he thought so, but also reiterated Mr. Pullen’s concern about the
width of the window frame comparing the sample to the existing windows in the
photograph.
Mr. Deane said that the existing frames in the photo are approximately 2 inches
and he was trying to provide the best and as accurate a replacement as he and
his partners could afford in their budget.
Mr. Carter has talked with product representatives at Matthews Brothers and they
can pick out the right product for an historic application.
Mr. Deane agreed to provide what they are looking for.
Mr. Emerson Jones from the audience offered his knowledge of aluminum-clad
windows by Colby and Colby would provide what the applicant is looking for.
Mr. Deane explained that he did not want to go with aluminum because across
the windows across the street in the Freese building are aluminum and residents
complain about the cold. He did not want his tenants to pay extra for their electric
heat because of aluminum’s conductivity and shrinkage and cold seeping around
it.
Mr. Emerson argued that they may be solid aluminum and not a more modern
aluminum-clad product.
Mr. Dean said that he would take the comments under advisement.
Mr. Carter said that the issue is picking the right product and obviously in an ideal
world getting as close to the historic configuration of the window as possible is
desired. In the past he would not have recommended vinyl, but they are better
now. He recommended talking Matthews Brother, they do have aluminum, but he
would not pick the system for him to pick. Mr. Deane said his only problem with
aluminum is the electric heating factor for 22 apartments.
Mr. Carter said that he did know that some true-divided lights would end up with
wider muntins profiles than the existing narrow muntins of the old windows so
overlaid muntins with spacer and muntins on the inside are a better decision.
Doing a true-divide light would end up with a muntins 1 ½ inches wide that would
look terrible.
Mr. Perkins asked to clarify if the goal is to have all 6 over 6 style. Mr. Deane
responded that his initial impression was that the whole building had 6 over 6,
except for some that were put in and are not. They wanted to put it back the way
they thought it should be.
Mr. Carter recommended researching photographs in the Bangor Historic
Society. Mr. Deane said that he found a lot of the front but not the side. Mr.
Carter agreed that all he could was the best he could do.
Mr. Mallar asked Mr. Pullen about the trim on the sample window appearing
much wider than the existing windows. Mr. Pullen said he understood the
applicant saying that the outer trim would not be used. Mr. Deane moved the
window closer to the Commissioners and pointed out the optional outside trim
piece that would be removed and not used in the installation. He demonstrated
how much frame would remain. Mr. Carter pointed out that you get everything
when you buy a window like that, but may not use the trim. Mr. Mallar said that
he just wanted to be sure he understood. Mr. Pullen pointed out the stops used
to keep windows in place that may need to be replaced to match the existing
ones.
Mr. Mallar asked about the number of 20 windows proposed to be replaced in the
photographs being unsure of which ones, as there are three in the middle not
circled. Mr. Deane said those three are in great shape now and they are targeting
the ones that are literally falling apart. He conceded that they will eventually need
to be replaced but there are financial considerations on their end. He did not
know what material they are.
Mr. Pullen indicated that he thought the point Mr. Mallar was trying to make is
that with all the windows around them being replaced these three would be left
and in the middle and may not exactly match. The question for the Commission
is would they believe that it would look consistent. Mr. Mallar indicated it would
not. Mr. Deane conceded and indicated to circle those three and they would
increase the number to replace 23 windows. Mr. Pullen and Mr. Mallar said they
were not trying to add to the project.
Mr. Deane indicated he understood what they were saying, but he had just
picked out the windows that needed to be replaced at this time, the cost of them,
and the cost of a lift for the installation. But if they need to do the other 3, he
would add them to make 23 so they will all look the same.
Mr. Carter said that he thought the applicant was waiting for the Commission
wants him to do the other three. His viewpoint is that they would ask him to do
the best window he could do, whether 1, 3, or 20 and if the cost of doing 3 more
now would save him in the long run from having to do them later.
Mr. Deane said that it all comes down to dollars and cents, and he would add
them. Mr. Carter said he thought the applicant could provide a revised application
with a different product after talking with Matthews Brothers to help pick the right
thing.
Mr. Perkins indicated from his perspective talking with Matthews Brothers to pick
the right product would be good if he could do that. Regarding the 3 other
windows talking with Matthews Brothers to see what they could provide.
Mr. Deane asked to clarify if the window like this a no go, or if they have the
option...
Mr. Perkins indicated that from what he was hearing that they were saying is they
need some muntins on the outside as a minimum.
Mr. Deane asked if they needed them on the inside of the glass or just the
exterior.
Mr. Carter suggested he talk to Matthews Brothers to see if it costs more to do
that. He would at least like to see them on the outside with the spacer in the
glass.
Mr. Pullen added that as the Commission’s advisor he would advise them for
both outside and inside because from angle it would like the original. Mr. Carter
agreed.
Mr. Carter thought that the two concerns he saw were the muntins issue and the
outside trim issue and that if the applicant Deane could submit something that
solves those two problems he had a go.
Mr. Deane said in summary he would go to Matthews Brothers and see what
they had, but asked if he had to bring in another window. He said that he would
bring in their design. Mr. Carter offered that they can provide samples.
PK Kurth working with Mr. Dean asked for clarification on what they wanted for
the outside trim width and what they are looking for. Mr. Pullen suggested looking
at the existing frames and that they didn’t want to expose any more than is there.
5 inches wide as opposed to about 1 ½ inches. Mr. Kurth said it currently
measures 2 inches. Mr. Pullen and Mr. Carter said to measure what I is there
and see what Matthews Brothers can provide as close to the original. Mr. Perkins
suggested a Matthews Brothers employee could accompany him to the meeting.
The Commission discussed how to proceed and the easiest would be to table
until the next meeting. Mr. Deane asked if they could have another meeting
sooner than that with September and heating season approaching. Mr. Mallar
thought they could proceed with approval contingent on the type of window they
are talking about and have the Consultant and Chair approve the redesign. Mr.
Pullen indicated that he would like to expedite this and that the ideal would be to
have one window installed and then see if they would approve it. Mr. Deane said
that they could not do that. Mr. Mallar said that was too much. Mr. Pullen said
they would need to see a window.
Mr. Carter moved that the application for Certificate of Appropriateness for the
windows at 105 Main Street be approved contingent on review by the Board
Chair and the Consultant of a new sample product that addresses our concerns
about the muntin construction and patterns of the windows, and also the width of
the trim, and the color, and replacing 23 windows all with the 6 over 6 style. Mr.
Perkins seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 4-1 with Mr. Mallar not in favor of vinyl windows.
6. 105 Main & 92 Columbia Streets – Brick & Mortar Holding Group
Replacement of 20 windows
Chapter 71 Bangor Center Revitalization Area – Design Review
Mr. Carter moved approval of the application for Design Review 105 Main Street
contingent on review by the Board Chair and the Consultant of a new sample
product that addresses our concerns about the muntin construction and patterns
of the windows, and also the width of the trim, and the color, and replacement of
23 windows all with the 6 over 6 style. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-0 (with Mr. Mallar voting in favor).
7. 137-139 Main Street – Adam Jordan
Reconstruction of first floor storefront
Chapter 148 Historic Preservation – Main Street District – Certificate of
Appropriateness
Adam Jordan, the property owner, presented his project. Mr. Pullen suggested
that the proposed black paint be a gloss finish in order for details of the molding
to be more visible. Mr. Perkins suggested that the awning be reinstalled after
removal and for the minutes to record this suggestion.
Mr. Perkins moved approval of the application as submitted. Mr. Banfield
seconded the motion. It was approved 5-0.
8. 137-139 Main Street – Adam Jordan
Reconstruction of first floor storefront
Chapter 71 Bangor Center Revitalization Area – Design Review
Mr. Perkins moved approval of the application as submitted. Mr. Banfield
seconded the motion. It was approved 5-0.
9. 28 Broad Street – Roy Hubbard
Enclose 55-ft. x 2-ft. area at building front w/ 3-foot tall black aluminum fence with
gates
Chapter 148 Historic Preservation – West Market Square District –
Certificate of Appropriateness
Roy Hubbard, property owner, presented his project to install a 3-foot high fence
across the front of his property 2 feet out from his building in the West Market
Square sidewalk. The fence would not be an installation fixed to the ground. The
purpose is that because there are no commercial spaces on the ground floor, just
residential apartments, this would provide some barrier and a little sense of
security to the residents from people from loitering in the recessed doorways.
There would be no tables and chairs, but gates located in front of building
entrances.
Mr. Pullen went through his review comments of the application that he
recommended the Commissioners determine and consider. He began as follows:
• Standard 148-13.E(1) a. states; “Every effort shall be made to provide a
compatible use which will require minimum alteration to the structure and its
environment”. The commercial storefront of this and other downtown
buildings typically feature broad expanses of display glass and recessed
doors to provide an inviting entrance for shoppers. Non-compatible uses,
such as residential uses of these ground-level storefronts will likely generate
inappropriate alterations to the environment.
• The idea of walling off storefronts from public access has no precedent in
downtown Bangor. Commercial storefronts are intended to be open to public
spaces and visible for the display of merchandise or services, drawing
passers-by into the business. In select areas of the downtown, a few
restaurants have installed movable, low barricades to keep seating areas
from spilling onto adjacent walks. This applicant’s proposed fence barricade
would have a very different visual than those existing.
Mr. Carter added that it’s important to add that the reason for the fences in front
of restaurants is related and required to serving alcoholic beverages.
Mr. Pullen agreed with Mr. Carter and made the point is that this is a big visual
change and change in use for public space. This is not owned by the
applicant, but by the City of Bangor and is public space. Mr. Pullen continued
his review comments:
• Standards 148-13.E(1) b. and 71-11.B state; “Rehabilitation work shall not
destroy the distinguishing qualities nor character of the structure (or
building) and its environment…” Distinguishing qualities of Bangor’s
downtown commercial storefronts include their open, inviting display
windows and recessed entrances.
• Standards 148-13.E(2) “Guidelines…Historic Buildings”; pg.45,
recommends; “Retaining the historic relationship between buildings,
landscape features, and open space”.
In my opinion, this fence barricade would have a negative visual impact on
the distinguishing qualities of this historic downtown storefront and its
immediate environment (West Market Square). The three recessed
entryways offer opportunities for gates within the bounds of the property,
without impacting West Market’s public space.
Mr. Carter emphasized Mr. Pullen’s suggestion that gates or grilles at the front of
the door recesses in line with the building plane might be a good compromise.
Mr. Hubbard added that the goal was not only for the entrances but to keep
people an arm’s length away from knocking on the windows, too.
Mr. Mallar asked if City Council approval was required.
Mr. Hubbard indicated that he sat in on a City Council meeting where they
approved it last month.
Mr. Mallar indicated that he was not in favor of it.
Mr. Banfield thought that it would set a precedent to block off the front of other
downtown buildings along Main Street.
Mr. Hubbard indicated that the City Council had that opinion and that he would
be required to get a permit yearly. It would be much like merchants putting goods
out on the sidewalk for sale.
Mr. Carter emphasized that mercantile use of the sidewalks was a much different
use.
Mr. Hubbard indicated it would be similar in the temporary permit and did not see
that this smaller fence would have as much visual impact or area as those in
front of nearby restaurants.
Mr. Pullen pointed to the photo exhibit in the application, to imagine the fence
blocking off the entire front of the building. It would change the complexity of the
street that was designed to be commercial and continuously inviting to the public
instead of a barrier, unlike fences in front of restaurants that allows people in.
Mr. Carter reiterated that the better option of doorway grilles would be permanent
as part of the building rather than temporary and blocking the entire front of the
building. He wondered how much punishment it would take before someone
knocked it down.
Mr. Carter noted and offered to the applicant that the Commission has offered
the applicant a “straw poll” to indicate how an official vote might turn out. Mr.
Hubbard declined the offer.
Mr. Carter moved approval of the application as submitted. Mr. Perkins seconded
the motion. The motion failed approval 0-5.
10. 28 Broad Street – Roy Hubbard
Enclose 55-ft. x 2-ft. area at building front w/ 3-foot tall black aluminum fence with
gates
Chapter 71 Bangor Center Revitalization Area – Design Review
Mr. Carter moved approval of the application as submitted. Mr. Perkins seconded
the motion. The motion failed approval 0-5.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
11. Approval of Meeting Minutes
Mr. Perkins moved approval of the July 14, 2016 meeting minutes. Mr. Banfield
seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0.
Commissioners discussed what options and time period they might have
regarding the decision by Board of Appeals to overturn the Commission’s denial
of demolition of the Waterworks Engineer’s House. Commissioners decided to
meet on August 16 when City legal staff could be present.
The Meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m.