Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-10-08 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF October 8, 2015 MINUTES Commission Members Present: Sonia Mallar (chair) Reese Perkins (Secretary) George Burgoyne Andrew Saucier (alternate) Consultant to the Commission: Mike Pullen City Staff Present: Jen Boothroyd Paul Nicklas (Editor’s note: item #3 on the agenda, an application for a new window at 43 Columbia Street, was withdrawn prior to the meeting.) Chair Mallar called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 1: Approval of HPC meeting minutes from the September 10, 2015 meeting Chair Mallar initiated the reading of the September 10, 2015 meeting minutes for review. Secretary Perkins began to read the minutes. Commissioner Burgoyne made a motion to forego the reading of the minutes and approve them as written, which was seconded by Commissioner Saucier. The meeting minutes were then approved unanimously. Item No. 2: Consider a request for Certificate of Appropriateness approval for demolition of the Engineer’s House at the Waterworks site, 635 State St.; Shaw House, applicant Gene Sullivan, an attorney representing the applicant, approached the podium and requested that their application be continued until the November 12 meeting of the Commission. He noted that the applicant would use the additional time to gather documentation related to questions and issues brought up by Mr. Pullen in his memo. Chair Mallar reminded the applicant that nay new material they wish to have considered will need to be submitted to City Hall by the application deadline for the November 12, 2015 meeting. th Commissioner Perkins made a motion to postpone review of the application until the November 12 meeting of the HPC. Commissioner Burgoyne seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously with Commission members Burgoyne, Saucier, Perkins, and Mallar voting. 2 Item No. 3: Consider a request for Certificate of Appropriateness approval for a replacement of a porch at 218 Ohio St.; The Hilltop School, applicant Fred Marshall, consultant for the applicant approached the podium and summarized the proposal for the Commission. The Hilltop School would like to replace an existing porch on the side of their building. The porch serves as a point of ingress/egress for the children at the school, and has deteriorated to the point where it has become hazardous. For safety purposes, the applicant proposes to demolish the existing porch, and replace it with a porch in the same style and footprint, painted to match. Mr. Marshall showed samples of the painted siding and trim material and flashing proposed by the applicant’s contractor. He added that the application states that the porch will be demolished down to the deck. Further inspection and discussion with the contractor revealed that the deck, which is currently made of plywood, may also need to be replaced. The applicant would like to use pressure-treated lumber or a composite material for the decking. He also showed a sample of asphalt tab shingles, which will be used on the roof of the porch. Mr. Pullen asked if the applicant could provide a paint chip for the file. Mr. Marshall said he could submit that. Commissioner Perkins stated that plywood is not the best choice for building materials. Mr. Marshall stated that the only place where plywood is proposed is for the panels on the porch, which are currently plywood. He added that they are proposing marine-grade plywood, but he will discuss other material options with them. Commissioner Perkins made a motion to approve the application for Certificate of Appropriateness approval for replacement of a porch at 218 Ohio Street, as presented. Commissioner Burgoyne seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with Commission members Burgoyne, Saucier, Perkins, and Mallar voting. Item No. 4: Consider a request for Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review approval for window replacement and façade changes at 26 State St.; Abe and Heather Furth, applicants Abe Furth approached the podium and summarized the proposal for the Commission. The applicants plan to rehabilitate this building to accommodate a commercial storefront on the ground floor and residential apartments on the second, third, and fourth floors. Currently the building has a commercial storefront on the first floor, but the upper floors were used historically as a cigar factory, and remain largely undeveloped. The windows on the upper floors are badly deteriorated, and many have been sealed shut. The applicants propose to replace all the windows on the upper floors with aluminum- clad wooden windows (Pella Architectural Series). They also propose to create two front entrances, separated by a commercial glass window. The storefront currently has one entrance, but the building is surrounded on three sides by buildings, and there are no points of access to the building other than the front street-level entrance. The creation of two entrances at this level will allow for a commercial entrance to the first floor storefront, and a residential entrance providing access to the upper floors. They also proposed a façade design that includes raised wooden panels. Mr. Furth showed samples of the window product he proposes to use in the project. He noted that he proposes to maintain the single-light window pattern with the double-hung replacements, and that they would like to paint the windows bronze to match the building’s exterior. 3 Chair Mallar asked if there were any sample materials available for the proposed storefront. Mr. Furth responded that the storefront will be fabricated by the hired workers with the materials indicated in the application. Chair Mallar asked for clarification on the proposed storefront doors. Mr. Furth stated that they will be commercial glass doors with a bronze anodized aluminum finish. He added that the doors will be very similar to other storefront doors throughout downtown. Commissioner Perkins asked for clarification about the finish of the proposed raised wooden panels. Mr. Furth stated that they are proposing five panels above the storefront painted bronze, and three below the storefront, covered in copper. He added that the top panels are not being proposed in copper because they plan to return to the Commission for future approval of an awning, which would obscure the copper panels. The storefront windows will be glass with bronze-colored aluminum trim. Commissioner Burgoyne asked for clarification about whether the brick will be removed. Mr. Furth noted that they are not proposing to remove the any brick. Chair Mallar stated that she is not able to vote to approve the project without seeing what the proposed doors will look like. Mr. Furth asked for clarification about what the Commission would need to see. Chair Mallar stated that pictures of the proposed door, or a manufacturer’s brochure would be satisfactory. Mr. Furth noted that the doors will be custom-made, but he can find pictures of similar doors to provide to the Commission. Mr. Pullen referred to the application, pointing out that one door serving the commercial area will be narrow-style, and the one serving the apartments will be wide- style, and the dimensions of these are standardized. Chair Mallar noted that the doors appear to be different heights. Mr. Furth stated that the doors, as proposed, are the same height, but that the building is on a hill, so the two doors are at different elevations. He added that he is amenable to making the doors be both at the same elevation, but that will require a step being added to the door serving the upstairs residences. He asked Code Enforcement about whether this could be done, and was told that it could be. Commissioner Perkins asked Mr. Pullen if he felt that the additional details he had requested in his memo had been addressed to his satisfaction. Mr. Pullen confirmed that they had been sufficiently provided. A member of the public, Wayne Mallar, cited the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties, noting that the guidelines discourage the rearrangement of historic storefronts, and asked if the applicant proposes a full, flat storefront. Mr. Furth stated that they are proposing to fill out the current “bump-in” entrance area, so that the entirety of the building at fronts fully at street-level. Mr. Mallar stated that, in his opinion, the proposal would constitute a radical change that should not be permitted by the Commission. Mr. Mallar, referring again to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, stated that that the altering of commercial properties to appear residential is not encouraged. He added that he believes the applicant’s proposal to add a second doorway to access the upstairs residences goes against these standards. Mr. Furth stated the applicants could have opted to make the building entirely residential, which would have been an easier project, not requiring an additional entrance and involving less overall construction work. He said that, even though that option would likely also be more profitable, he and his wife are committed to maintaining a street-level commercial storefront in this area where there 4 has been one historically, but that creating residential spaces on the upper floors of the building is the only way to add value to the building commercially, and that having the residential spaces and the commercial space share one entrance was not logistically feasible. Mr. Pullen asked for clarification that the sample window Mr. Furth showed has a heavy decorative molding around it, which is not proposed for this project. Mr. Furth confirmed this. Chair Mallar asked if the existing space between the windows would be maintained. Mr. Furth stated that that area is part of the copper façade, which will remain. Commissioner Burgoyne stated that the existing storefront looks modern, and is probably not original to the building. He said that the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation state that the intention is to preserve the characteristics of the building from the time it was built. He wondered if there is any documentation about what the storefront might have looked like originally. Chair Mallar noted that The Standards also state that changing the location of a storefront’s main entrance is not recommended. Mr. Furth reiterated that the reconfiguration to provide two separate entrances is crucial to the redevelopment of the building, considering that there are no other points of access to the building on any other sides. He added that, when designing the proposed storefront, much consideration was given to the esthetics of the building, and maintaining its character. Mr. Pullen referred to historic storefront section of the HPC brochure, noting that some of the elements common to historic storefronts are the large glass display windows, with smaller windows below, known as “bulkheads”. Mr. Pullen noted that the panels above the windows are most likely in the space where transom windows were historically. He does not know for sure if these transoms existed originally in this building, or if an existing photo of the historic storefront exists. Mr. Furth stated that he was also not sure if these elements were originally part of this building. Mr. Pullen noted that the three panels above the storefront mimic the pattern of the windows, which is an interesting feature of the building. He noted that the addition of a transom window above the proposed redesigned storefront might add continuity and historic character that would offset the rearrangement of the entrance and display area. He noted that it would address some of the issues raised by Mr. Mallar. Mr. Furth stated that he would be amenable to incorporating the transom if the Commission thought it was appropriate. Mr. Pullen added that recessed entrances like the one existing at 26 State St. are often so not comply with the ADA, as they can be a barrier to accessibility. Commissioner Burgoyne read aloud the following statement from the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, “Particular care is required in planning and accomplishing work on storefronts, so that the buildings historic character is preserved in the process of rehabilitation,” stating that he feels that is important. Chair Mallar stated that she is willing to entertain a motion for the window replacement on the second third and fourth floor, but she cannot vote to approve the changes to the storefront until she has more materials. Ms. Boothroyd identified some options for the applicant; choosing to go forward right now to see if approvals could be obtained, withdrawal with the option to obtain more information and returning to the Commission for approval, possibly at the special meeting of the Commission on October 16, or a partial approval, and a later application for a minor revision. Mr. Nicklas stated that he did not think minor revision was an option in this case, and that if the applicant wishes to return to a later meeting, he suggests that the application be tabled, so that the project does not need to be readvertised. Ms. Boothroyd noted that it might be appropriate to split the vote so that the window replacement could be voted on separately from the storefront changes, or at least clarification for the applicant whether he needs to return with the window samples he brought to this meeting. Mr. Nicklas said 5 that it would be appropriate for the window replacement to be voted on, and a vote on the storefront changes to be tabled to a later meeting. After some discussion about what the Commission would like for additional information, Mr. Furth th stated that he would like to come back to the Commission at the October 16 meeting for further review of the storefront changes, and that he will bring material samples, photos of door styles similar to those proposed, and a historic photo, if one can be obtained. Commissioner Perkins stated that, in his opinion, the proposed storefront, as designed, does not diminish the building, but, rather, enhances it. Commissioner Saucier agreed with this. Commissioner Perkins made a motion to approve the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review approval for only the replacement of the windows on the upper floors with the proposed aluminum-clad wooden windows, in the proposed bronze color, and tabling a vote on the storefront façade changes to the Commission’s special meeting on October 16th. Commissioner Burgoyne seconded the motion. The motion was approved with Commission members Burgoyne, Saucier, Perkins, and Mallar voting for approval. Item No. 5: Consider a request for Design Review approval for façade changes at 80 Central St.; McCrew Holdings, LLC, applicants No one was present to represent the applicant and the proposal. Commissioner Burgoyne made a motion to table consideration of the project until the November 12 meeting of the Commission. Commissioner Perkins seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. Other Business: Chair Mallar stated that, although a review of follow-up photos was put on the agenda, the follow-up photos were not prepared for review, since the meeting was anticipated to be lengthy. The item will th be placed on the November 12 agenda. There being no further matters for discussion, Commissioner Burgoyne made a motion to adjourn the meeting, which Commissioner Perkins seconded. The motion was unanimously approved. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 P.M.