Loading...
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.