HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-10-16 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
MEETING OF October 16, 2015
MINUTES
Commission Members Present: Sonia Mallar (chair)
Elizabeth Rettenmaier (vice chair)
Reese Perkins (Secretary)
George Burgoyne
Derek Mitchell (alternate)
Consultant to the Commission: Mike Pullen
City Staff Present: Jen Boothroyd
Paul Nicklas
Chair Mallar called the meeting to order at 2:00 P.M.
NEW BUSINESS
Item No. 1:
Consider a request for Certificate of Appropriateness approval for
installation of an electrical transformer on a concrete pad at City Hall,
73 Harlow St.; City of Bangor, applicant
Ms. Boothroyd noted an error in an earlier version of the meeting agenda, and clarified that the
equipment being proposed by the first applicant is a transformer, not a generator.
Amanda Soucier, an engineer from the City’s Engineering Department, approached the podium,
thanked the Commission for agreeing to hold a special meeting to accommodate a tight schedule, and
summarized the proposal for the Commission. The City is seeking to install a new electrical
transformer outside City Hall, adjacent to the main entrance. The transformer will be housed in a dark
green cabinet, and will be placed on a concrete pad. The new equipment will replaced obsolete
equipment which is currently housed in the basement of City Hall in a hard-to maintain area which is
often wet. The new equipment will also reduce the number of electrical meters from three to one.
Commissioner Perkins asked if any other locations for the new transformer had been considered. Ms.
Soucier said that, to her knowledge, the proposed location was the only site that could reasonably be
considered, because it takes advantage of the existing electrical feed from Harlow St. and the location
of the existing equipment in the basement, some of which will be staying. Rerouting the feed and
other electrical infrastructure would be cost prohibitive.
Commissioner Burgoyne asked if there was anyplace else on the property that the transformer could
be placed. Ms. Soucier stated that the Electrical Department would need to verify whether there was
any other site, but that it was her understanding that the proposed site was the best option available.
2
Commissioner Rettenmaier asked if the adjacent equipment seen in the existing photos was an HVAC
unit. Ms. Soucier confirmed that is was.
Commissioner Rettenmaier asked if the applicant proposes any landscape changes, such as additional
plantings, to screen the new equipment from view. Ms. Soucier said some pruning may need to take
place, but that additional plantings could be pursued if the Commission requests it.
Chair Mallar asked if the new transformer could be located in the back alley at the rear of City Hall.
She noted that there is an existing generator in that area, and that any new piece of equipment
would not be visible from the street if it were placed there. Ms. Soucier said that the proposed
location takes advantage of the existing electrical feed from Harlow St. and the location of the
existing electrical infrastructure in the basement, which is at the front of the building, so placing the
new transformer behind the building was probably not possible.
Mr. Pullen noted that the proposed site for the transformer is fairly well-screened by landscaping from
Harlow and Center Streets, but that it will sit up a bit higher than the entrance, so new plantings
might help screen the transformer from the main entrance of the building. Chair Mallar stated that
the existing air conditioners in that spot can be seen from the road.
A member of the public, Wayne Mallar, asked why the new equipment could not be installed in the
basement like the previous equipment had been. Ms. Soucier stated that, per City Electrician John
Cyr, modern electrical regulations (ArcFlash70) would not permit that. She provided an e-mail from
Mr. Cyr supporting the project.
John Theriault, City Engineer, stated that he is uncomfortable locating the new equipment in the alley
at the rear of the building because the retaining wall in that area is in fairly bad condition, and is
targeted for repair in the near future.
Chair Mallar asked if the new transformer could be located in the alley along the side of City Hall. Mr.
Theriault stated that the logistics and cost of rerouting the electric feed to that side of the building
are prohibitive. He also noted that there is ledge very close to the surface in that area, which might
make burying cables cost prohibitive.
Commissioner Rettenmaier asked if the associated new conduit could be placed underground. Ms.
Soucier confirmed this, noting that installation will be tied in with an existing concrete vault.
Commissioner Mitchell made a motion to approve the application as submitted, leaving the decision to
provide additional buffer plantings to the City’s discretion. No one seconded the motion.
Commissioner Rettenmaier made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the
placement of a new transformer on a concrete pad outside City Hall, 73 Harlow St., with the condition
that additional plantings be placed as a buffer between the new equipment and the front entrance of
City Hall. Commissioner Burgoyne seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously with
Commission members Burgoyne, Rettenmaier, Perkins, Mitchell, and Mallar voting.
Item No. 2: 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
Commissioner Burgoyne asked for clarification about whether this item, which was tabled at the
Commission’s last meeting, need to be taken off the table. Mr. Nicklas agreed that this should be
3
done. Commissioner Burgoyne made a motion to take the proposal off the table, and Commissioner
Mitchell seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously.
Abe Furth approached the podium and summarized the proposal for the Commission, drawing
attention to the specific parts of the project that had been revised or clarified since the last meeting.
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. They also propose to
create two front entrances, separated by a commercial glass window, and to place a transom above
the storefront. The two entrances will be at the same elevation, which will require a step to be
incorporated for one of the doors, to accommodate the slope of the street, and they will be the same
width. He provided an updated sketch of the proposed storefront, and circulated photos of a door
similar in width to the ones he proposes to use, which will be custom-made out of bronze-colored
aluminum. He also presented an example of the bronze-colored aluminum. He noted that he was not
able to find any historic photos of his building that clearly showed the façade.
Commissioner Rettenmaier asked if the new storefront will be framed within the existing brick
surrounds. Mr. Furth confirmed that it would be, and noted that he proposes to place the doors at the
same level, which different from how it was previously presented. He also noted that the glass and
aluminum of the new storefront will go up to the existing support beam.
Mr. Nicklas called attention to a photo from Deborah Thompson’s book which was found by Mr.
Mallar, showing a historic storefront similar to the one at 26 State St.
Chair Mallar stated that she contacted the Maine Historic Preservation Office, and they stated that it is
not recommended to take out the indentation of the storefront. She noted that most of the
storefronts in the downtown have maintained their indented storefront, and she believes the
proposed project could be altered to maintain an indented storefront. Mr. Furth stated that, due to
the narrow building width, and the incorporation of two entrances, he believes that making the
storefront indented, flush, and then indented would make the façade too busy.
Mr. Nicklas asked the members of the Commission who were not at the last meeting to disclose for
the record that they had reviewed the draft minutes and reviewed the video from that meeting.
Commissioners Rettenmaier and Mitchell both stated that they had reviewed the minutes and video.
Wayne Mallar asked if the new doors would open inward or outward. Mr. Furth stated that they would
open outward. Mr. Mallar stated that, traditionally, they open inward, and he finds it strange that the
doors would open outward into a busy sidewalk. Mr. Furth stated that he had discussed this with the
door manufacturer, who advised that the doors function better if the open outward, and the fire
marshal recommended the door style so that the doors can be pushed open in case of emergency. He
noted that the sidewalk in front of his building is fairly wide, and the doors will be mostly glass, so he
does not think that the doors opening outward won’t be a hazard to pedestrians.
Commissioner Rettenmaier asked Mr. Pullen for advice on the relative importance of the recessed
storefronts versus flush storefronts in this district. Mr. Pullen stated that, generally, there was a mix
of both styles during this time frame. He noted that recessed storefronts are sometimes a barrier to
accessibility in modern times. He added that recessed storefronts sometimes incorporate interesting
tile work, which is often a desirable detail to maintain. Mr. Furth indicated that he had not noticed
whether there was interesting tile work in that entry.
Mr. Pullen stated that it may be preferable to only slightly recess the entrances to provide definition
and separation. Mr. Pullen also called attention to the way the three-bay storefront design mimics the
three bays of windows in the floors above, and that the copper in the façade, which is an important
4
feature of the building, is being maintained in the new design. Chair Mallar stated that Robin Reed at
the Maine Historic Preservation Office considered the copper parts of the building important. She
referred the Commission to the Secretary of the Interior’s Treatment of Historic Properties, sections
#9 and #10. Mr. Pullen noted that the Commission should use the City Ordinance Chapter 148
Section 13E, Standards for renovations, alterations, and repairs of existing buildings. Chair Mallar also
referred to page 31 the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, referring to
maintaining storefronts.
Commissioner Rettenmaier asked if it was known whether the existing storefront is the original
storefront of the building. Commissioner Burgoyne noted that Deborah Thompson’s book shows
similar storefronts dating from the time this building was built. Commissioner Mitchell noted that
pictures of similar storefronts don’t provide an answer. He added that he applauds the proposed
project, noting that he would rather see these buildings rehabilitated, rather than be abandoned or
demolished.
Commissioner Burgoyne asked if it were possible to indent the entrances at an angle to preserve the
character of the existing indented storefront. Chair Mallar stated that she thinks this could be done in
many ways.
Commissioner Perkins stated that it was his understanding that the Commission tabled portions of this
project at its last meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to obtain additional information about
the proposed doors. The Commission appears to be having an ongoing discussion about other aspects
of the project that had been considered largely considered, but the applicant provided the information
he was asked to provide. Chair Mallar stated that Commissioner Perkins was welcome to make a
motion if there were no more questions.
Commissioner Perkins made a motion to approve the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness
and Design Review approval for façade changes at 26 State Street, as amended to two new doors at
the same elevation. Commissioner Mitchell seconded the motion.
The motion was approved with Commission members Burgoyne, Mitchell, Perkins, and Rettenmaier
voting for approval, and Chair Mallar voting against it, citing that she believes the storefront changes
are not appropriate for a historic building.
Commissioner Rettenmaier asked the applicant to see if the tile work in the entry was worth saving,
and if so, to please make an effort to preserve it somehow. Mr. Furth stated that he would investigate
this.
Other Business:
There being no further matters for discussion, Commissioner Mitchell made a motion to adjourn the
meeting, which Commissioner Rettenmaier seconded. The motion was unanimously approved, and
the meeting was adjourned at 2:46 P.M.