Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-01-08 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF January 8, 2015 MINUTES Commission Members Present: George Burgoyne Marie Grady Sonia Mallar Reese Perkins Elizabeth Rettenmaier Consultant to the Commission: Mike Pullen City Staff Present: Jennifer Boothroyd Paul Nicklas Vice Chair Mallar called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 1: Election of officers for 2015 Vice Chair Mallar opened the floor for nominations for the position of Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. Commissioner Perkins nominated Sonia Mallar, and Commissioner Grady seconded the nomination. The nomination was unanimously approved, and Sonia Mallar was elected Chair of the Commission. Chair Mallar opened the floor for nominations for the position of Vice Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. Commissioner Perkins nominated Elizabeth Rettenmaier, and Commissioner Grady seconded the nomination. The nomination was unanimously approved, and Elizabeth Rettenmaier was elected Vice Chair of the Commission. Chair Mallar opened the floor for nominations for the position of Secretary of the Historic Preservation Commission. Vice Chair Rettenmaier nominated Reese Perkins, and Commissioner Grady seconded the nomination. The nomination was unanimously approved, and Reese Perkins was elected Secretary of the Commission. Item No. 2: Approval of HPC meeting minutes from December 11, 2014 meeting Chair Mallar initiated the reading of the meeting minutes for review. Secretary Perkins began to read the minutes. Commissioner Rettenmaier made a motion to forego the reading of the minutes and approve them as written. Commissioner Grady seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. 2 Item No. 3: Consider a request for Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review approval for a new storefront at 29 Broad Street; Aaron James, applicant Aaron James, owner of a new jewelry store to be opening at 29 Broad St., approached the podium and summarized the application for the Commission. The applicant proposes a new storefront at the location, including new windows, a door, trim, paint, lighting, signage, and decorative elements. The applicant is not seeking approval for lighting and signs at this time, and will return to the Commission for those elements at a later date. Commissioner Perkins asked the applicant if he had seen the concerns raised by the Commission’s consultant in his memo, and if he had some responses to the issues. Mr. James stated that he had seen the memo, and offered the following information. The existing light bar on the building’s façade will be removed. The proposed windows will be tempered glass. The door will be replaced with a door of similar design. The existing air conditioning unit will be removed. The applicant proposes to reduce the height of the windows at the top to match the height of the door. The proposed wood façade is based upon area buildings, such as the Charles Inn, and will be smooth-textured. The replacement windows will be sealed in a seamless fashion by professionals. Chair Mallar asked if the applicant brought any additional samples to share. Mr. James stated that he had nothing further. Commissioner Rettenmaier asked if the existing windows are the originals. Mr. James stated that he did not know. Commissioner Rettenmaier asked if the existing door is original to the building. Mr. James stated that it is an aluminum-framed commercial door and is not original. Commissioner Rettenmaier asked for some additional information about the framing being proposed on both sides of the storefront windows. Mr. James stated that currently the brick wall is visible in these areas. He is proposing to cover the brick with a wooden façade. Commissioner Rettenmaier asked if the red overhang depicted in the application is currently existing. Mr. James stated that there is no overhang there now, but it is proposed for future lighting. Ms. Boothroyd distributed additional photos of the building to the commission and applicant. Chair Mallar asked for clarification on the plan to cover the brick façade of the building. Mr. James stated that he would like to do this to make the storefront look uniform. Chair Mallar stated that she believes the brick façade is an extension of the adjoining brick building. Mr. James stated that the owner of both buildings, Telford Allen, has seen his plans and supports them. Mr. Pullen noted that the building and its neighboring building, 25-27 Broad St., together make up the Circular Block, dating from 1834. He called attention to the granite pilaster on the left of the storefront at 29 Broad St., noting that the storefronts in the area were defined by granite lintels and pilasters. He stated that the brick on the façade of the building is likely a replacement of the original granite pilaster, and the façade proposed by the applicant, while not of the same materials conveys a similar design. Commissioner Burgoyne asked if the proposed gray color is too similar to granite, or if it is an appropriate tool to lend the effect of granite. Mr. Pullen noted that the color and proportion both need to be considered. He stated that maintaining the proportion between the height of the windows and the transom is important in this case. He also noted that the existing granite lintel on the adjacent building is a good color to harmonize with, a few shades lighter than the ‘gargoyle gray’ that is proposed. Chair Mallar reiterated this. Mr. James said that his concern with a lighter gray is that the white accent paint might not stand out as much. He would like a little more contrast in the color scheme to draw attention to the building. 3 Commissioner Mallar stated that she is not in favor of covering the brick façade of the building. Mr. Pullen stated that he is comfortable with the proposal because it mimics the design of the original storefront with its granite pilaster. He stated that he is more concerned with the proposal to reduce the height of the window glass. Mr. James stated that he is comfortable maintaining the full size of the glass if the Commission thinks it is important. He stated that he thought the lowered glass height would be more compatible with the wooden panel that would be placed in the transom area when the air conditioner is removed. Commissioner Rettenmaier asked if he would be amenable to installing a glass transom and maintaining the full window height. Commissioner Rettenmaier noted that full- sized glass windows and a glass transom replacing the existing air conditioning unit would be preferred. Commissioner Rettenmaier asked Mr. Pullen if the proposed overhang was appropriate. Mr. Pullen compared the design to an historic photo of a different period storefront, and showed that the overhang (or cornice) is appropriate. He noted that the proposed decorative brackets are not as appropriate. Mr. James stated that he would like to have something there on the ends of the cornice. Chair Mallar stated that the Commission cannot vote on anything that they haven’t seen or reviewed. Commissioner Perkins noted a corbel extension on a cornice in one of the historic photographs of Downtown Bangor. He asked Mr. James if something like that is what he would consider. Mr. James confirmed this. Commissioner Perkins reiterated that it is difficult for the Commission to make a ruling, not knowing exactly what is proposed. Chair Mallar indicated that the brackets might not be acceptable as proposed. Commissioner Burgoyne asked if the applicant would be returning to the Commission for approval of lights and signage in the future. Mr. James confirmed this. Commissioner Burgoyne suggested that a different bracket/cornice design could be reviewed at that later date, and thus removed from the current application. Ms. Boothroyd noted that the applicant was welcome to rescind a part of the application to bring forward at a later date. Chair Mallar noted that no motion has yet been made. Commissioner Perkins asked Mr. Pullen to clarify his opinion on the brackets as proposed. Mr. Pullen stated that he did not feel that they were appropriate on this building. Mr. James noted that similar trim appeared under the eaves of the building. Chair Mallar stated that the existing trim on the building was a separate issue from the proposed brackets below the new cornice. Mr. Pullen added that the proposed brackets are representative of a different time period, not the 1830s. He stated that he could not tell from the application how deep the cornice would be, but if the new cornice is designed similar to that on the adjacent building, it is probable that it could be supported as a block only, without brackets. Mr. James stated that he would like to rescind the portion of the application including the brackets below the cornice, and continue with the review of the rest of the application elements. Commissioner Perkins asked how far out from the building the cornice would extend. Mr. James stated that it would not extend any further than 5 inches. Commissioner Rettenmaier suggested that the width of the cornice be considered when the applicant chooses lighting that is designed to go underneath it. Mr. Nicklas asked the applicant to clarify whether he was amending the application before the Commission to maintain the full glass height of the windows, as suggested previously. Mr. James confirmed that he was. Commissioner Rettenmaier made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review for a new storefront at 29 Broad St. as amended at the meeting, with the following 4 conditions: 1) that full-sized glass windows are maintained, 2) a clear glass transom replace the air conditioner, 3) the cornice (without brackets) extend no more than 5 inches out from the building, 4) that anything attached to the building be done through the mortar rather than the brick, and 5) that work be started within six months, completed within 12 months, and photos of the completed project be submitted to the Planning Office. Commissioner Burgoyne seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with Commission members Grady, Burgoyne, Mallar, Perkins, and Rettenmaier voting. Item No. 4: Consider a request for Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review approval for the replacement of a sign and two awnings at 115 Main Street; 115 Main St Associates, applicant Brian Ames, owner of 115 Main St., approached the podium and summarized the proposal for the Commission. The applicant proposes to replace a hanging sign to reflect a tenant change, and to replace two canvas awning, one of which has fallen down in bad weather. The replacement awnings will be the same red color and fabric as the existing ones, and the lettering on the awnings will be changed. The existing sign bracket will be used, and a rendering of the new wood and vinyl sign was included in the application packet. Commissioner Rettenmaier asked if the awning which has fallen down will need new framing. Mr. Ames confirmed that the awning will need all new framing, rollers, and brackets. He added that the existing mounting holes should be sufficient for remounting the awning. Chair Mallar asked if the awnings are fixed in place. Mr. Ames stated that they are on rollers, so can be rolled out and back. She asked if the awning fabric would be identical. Mr. Ames confirmed that it would be. Commissioner Rettenmaier asked if the consultant had any concerns with the design of the proposed sign. Mr. Pullen responded that they were not a concern. Commissioner Perkins asked if any sign lighting was being proposed. Mr. Ames replied that it was not, and that the sign was fairly well-lit presently. Commissioner Burgoyne made a motion to approve the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review for replacement of a new sign and two awnings at 115 Main Street and shoring up the existing bracket, with the condition that work be started within six months, completed within a year, and that photos of the completed project be submitted to the Planning Office. Commissioner Rettenmaier seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with Commission members Grady, Lewis, Mallar, Perkins, and Burgoyne voting. Other Business: Mr. Nicklas briefed the Commissioners on plans to establish official board procedure rules for the City that would be used by the HPC. He asked for input from the Commissioners. Commissioner Burgoyne stated that he would like some clarification about when a multi-stage project becomes more than one review. 5 Chair Mallar asked that some change be made to discourage after-the-fact actions and reviews. Chair Mallar asked if there was any information regarding an upcoming appeal of an HPC decision to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Nicklas confirmed that one of the decisions from the December 2014 meeting was being appealed. Commissioner Rettenmaier asked for additional information for applicants to aid them in preparing their applications and preparing themselves for appearing before the Commission. Ms. Boothroyd noted that going forward, applicants will be strongly encouraged to have pre-application meetings, in the hopes that some of the omissions or confusion can be caught ahead of a meeting. Commissioner Burgoyne agreed that being able to screen applications ahead of the due date for applications would be beneficial. Commissioner Perkins agreed that having official procedural rules as described by Mr. Nicklas would be preferable. There being no further issues for consideration or discussion, Commissioner Burgoyne made a motion to adjourn, which was seconded by Commissioner Perkins. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 P.M.