Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-07-11 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF July 11, 2013 MINUTES Board Members Present: Donald Lewis III Eric Mihan Kay Blanchard Marie Grady Commission Consultant Present: Sara K. Martin City Staff Present: Jennifer Boothroyd Chairman Lewis called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 1: Consider a request for Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review approval to install a projecting sign and an awning sign at 64 Main Street, William Bart, applicant Chairman Lewis invited the applicant to step to the podium to make a presentation. William Bart addressed the Commission, stating that the proposal is for a new sign on an existing awning, and a new wall-mounted sign, which will be black with green lettering. The signage will be associated with a newly-opened business at 64 Main Street. Commissioner Mihan made a motion to approve the proposal as presented in the application. Commissioner Grady seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with Commission members Lewis, Mihan, Blanchard, and Grady voting. Item No. 2: Consider a request for Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review approval to install copper roofing and trim with new copper roofing and trim at 145 Harlow Street (Bangor Public Library), Roof Systems of Maine, applicant Chairman Lewis invited the applicant to step to the podium to make a presentation. 2 Barbara McDade, Director of the Bangor Public Library, addressed the Commission, summarizing the plan for roof replacement, and apologizing for the delay in coming before the Commission. Chair Lewis asked for the cause of the delay in bringing the project before the Commission for review. Ms. McDade stated that the Code Enforcement office had indicated the HPC approval would not be needed for the roof replacement project, so they had proceeded under that assumption. Chair Lewis asked for clarification that the proposal before the Commission was for replacement of the roof and trim only, and not for the “Phase 2” renovation project recently publicized. Mrs. McDade reiterated that this was indeed the case, and that “Phase 2” would be presented to the Commission at a future meeting. Bob Fulmer, project manager, addressed the Commission and outlined the roof replacement project, offering to answer any technical questions the Commission might have. Chair Lewis asked Sara Martin to summarize her review of the proposal. Mrs. Martin indicated that the proposal was for the replacement of the historic copper roof and masonry with exact replications of the original pieces, and the project meets the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and the requirements of the City’s Code of Ordinances. Mr. Fulmer stated that the architectural considerations on this project were taken very seriously. The ornate copper pieces are being replicated from molding profiles, and the details and records of the pieces will be kept on file with library records for future reference. Chair Lewis asked if chimneys will be removed as was proposed in one of the original bid alternatives. Mr. Fulmer stated that the chimneys will be maintained, and that the only thing that will be lost as a result of the proposed project are some skylights which are currently functionally useless as they are blocked by HVAC equipment. Commissioner Mihan made a motion to approve the proposal as presented in the application. Commissioner Grady seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with Commission members Lewis, Mihan, Blanchard, and Grady voting. Item No. 3: Consider a request for Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review approval to replace second-floor windows, repair and re-paint windows and doors on the first floor at One Kenduskeag Plaza, and replace a door at 200 Exchange Street, Peifen Carroll, applicant Chairman Lewis invited the applicant to step to the podium to make a presentation. Penny Carroll, building owner, addressed the Commission and summarized the proposal. She stated that the windows in the top floors of the building were replaced 15 years ago, and that the current application will involve the replacement of windows on the lower floors of the back of the building (One Kenduskeag Plaza). She also is requesting permission to replace the green door and adjacent window on Exchange Street with a bronze-colored aluminum door, contemporary with the street-level doors on neighboring buildings along Exchange Street. The applicant proposes to replace this front window with three double-hung windows mulled together. Sara Martin stated that if the proposed window replacement changes the design of the existing window, the Commission would need to see the proposed new design before they could determine if it is allowable. Ms. Carroll asked if replacement of the door (only) as 3 proposed would be approvable. Mrs. Martin indicated that the door replacement is appropriate as proposed, since the existing door is not original, and since the design of the original door is not known, the proposed contemporary replacement door is permissible. Ms. Carroll indicated that the blocked windows at One Kenduskeag Plaza will remain blocked, but that the wood will be repaired and repainted. She stated that she was not sure the best way to deal with the existing brown door at One Kenduskeag Plaza. Ms Carroll asked if the window at 200 Exchange could be lowered. Her contractor indicated that he would need to double-check the dimensions of the window to determine if an expanse of window glass that large would be possible. Mrs. Martin suggested that the Commission split their motions and votes to address the separate parts of the application individually. Commissioner Mihan made a motion to approve the replacement of the second-floor windows at One Kenduskeag Plaza as presented in the application. Commissioner Blanchard seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with Commission members Lewis, Mihan, Blanchard, and Grady voting. Commissioner Mihan made a motion to approve the proposed first-floor repairs and replacements at One Kenduskeag Plaza, with the condition that the wooden door be replaced with an aluminum door matching the other at that level. Commissioner Grady seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with Commission members Lewis, Mihan, Blanchard, and Grady voting. Commissioner Mihan made a motion to approve the replacement of the door and window at 200 Exchange Street, with the condition that the configuration and design of the replacements match the existing design. Commissioner Grady seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with Commission members Lewis, Mihan, Blanchard, and Grady voting. Item No. 4: Consider a request for Design Review approval to replace roofing, windows, and doors at 36 Merchant’s Plaza, New Waverly Restaurant Inc., applicant Chairman Lewis invited the applicant to step to the podium to make a presentation. Abby Armstrong from the New Waverly restaurant addressed the Commission, summarizing the proposed changes and repairs, stating that the two front doors would be replaced with a similar-looking fire doors, the single-paned windows will be replaced with double-paned, and the rubber roof will be replaced. Ms. Martin stated that her outstanding concern regarding the appearance of the new windows and door (stated in her memo) had been addressed. Commissioner Mihan made a motion to approve the proposal as presented in the application. Commissioner Grady seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with Commission members Lewis, Mihan, Blanchard, and Grady voting. 4 Item No. 5: A discussion of proposed removal of Downtown and Waterfront Design (Façade) Review from the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission Jason Bird of the City’s Community & Economic Development Department, addressed the Commission to discuss the possibility of Design (façade) Review being removed from the purview of the Commission. Mr. Bird stated that the main reason behind the proposal was to more responsive to the business community. Chair Lewis noted that the proposal was on the Business & Economic Development Committee agenda in May and was removed. He asked if the proposal was back on the table now. Mr. Bird stated that is not, and that the Commission’s feelings on the matter wanted to be clearly understood before the proposal goes forward. Chair Lewis wanted to know who would be on the new review committee that might take over Design Review. Mr. Bird stated that there had been consideration of a committee made up of city staff members from the divisions of Planning, Code Enforcement, and Economic & Community Development, as well as a member of the Downtown Bangor Partnership, and possibly a City Councilor. Chair Lewis noted that, with this makeup, there would be no residency requirement for committee members, with the exception of the Councilor. Mr. Bird affirmed this. Chair Lewis asked if there would be any representation from the public in the proposed process. Mr. Bird stated that any meetings would be open to the public. Chair Lewis asked what sort of notification of these public meetings would be made. Mr. Bird stated that the regularly-scheduled standing meetings would be held weekly or bi- weekly. Chair Lewis asked if the current frequency of meetings has ever been a problem. Mr. Bird stated that there have been reports from business owners that the once-monthly standard meeting schedule of the Commission is burdensome. Mr. Bird stated that the intent is that when a project would need to be reviewed under both the historic preservation and design review guidelines, the HPC would still have jurisdiction. Ms. Martin asked if the district boundaries could be re-drawn so that there was no overlap between the historic districts and the façade districts. Mr. Bird stated that that was a possibility, but that the intent was that, in cases of overlap, review under the historic preservation ordinance would trump design review. Ms. Boothroyd noted that this could result in a proposed project on a downtown property never getting reviewed for façade- related things like color appropriateness. Member Blanchard asked if it was possible to separate Downtown design review and Waterfront design review. Mr. Bird stated that the intent is to keep the HPC reviewing historic properties, and that if the change went forward, it may mean an applicant would need to attend two separate meetings if the subject property fell under both historic and design review. Member Mihan stated that the problem won’t be resolved if the applicant is still required to come to the once-per-month HPC meeting. Ms. Martin wondered if the Commission would consider meeting more frequently during the construction season. Member Mihan agreed that it might be a good idea. Mr. Bird stated that the problem might be improved with better training for the Commission and more frequent meeting, if necessary. 5 Item No. 6: A discussion of proposed changes to Chapter 148, the Historic Preservation ordinance Assistant City Solicitor Paul Nicklas addressed the Commission to discuss the proposed changes to the Historic Preservation ordinance. MUBEC, adopted by the City in 2010, has language stating that fences under six feet in height no longer require building permits. Since the Code was adopted wholesale, this made such fence structures exempt from HPC review, which is tied to projects requiring building permits. The ordinance also exempts fences and retaining walls from HPC review. The proposed ordinance change would require the HPC to once more review these structures. Chair Lewis noted that the HPC had reviewed fences in the past, but with the implementation of MUBEC things changed. The proposed ordinance amendments will fix the problem, and he favors them. Ms. Martin asked whether the proposed changes would be made to the land use code or the historic preservation code. Mr. Nicklas confirmed that the changes were to the historic preservation ordinance. Chair Lewis stated that the designation is already made in the historic preservation ordinance. Mr. Nicklas said the change already exists in the evaluation standards of the ordinance, this will add the language to the jurisdictional standards. Ms. Martin asked if the change would be made in the definitions section. Mr. Nicklas confirmed this. After the language change had been distributed and reviewed among the Commission members, Mr. Nicklas asked for a vote so that he could proceed with the ordinance change procedure. Commission members Lewis, Mihan, Blanchard, and Grady voted to approve the proposed ordinance change. Other Business Chair Lewis asked for any additional items to be discussed. Abe Furth, owner of 89-91 Main Street, approached the Commission to discuss ongoing renovations to his property that were reviewed and approved by the Commission in March 2013. Mr. Furth said that they had begun the process of stripping the white paint from the brick façade of the building as proposed, but that the stripping procedure was not working as expected. To avoid damaging the mortar beneath the paint, he would like to abandon the stripping plan and, instead, paint the brick a dark red with a satin sheen, as can be seen on several other downtown brick buildings. As the staging for the project has already been rented and is currently in place, he hoped that the Commission would be willing to allow the painting to go forward during the month of July. Mr. Furth produced a paint sample of the color he is proposing. 6 Chair Lewis stated that since the Commission has reviewed and approved the renovations in question, they can make this change to the approval with a minor revision, if the Commissioners are in agreement. Ms. Martin noted that the proposed red color seems appropriate. Commissioner Blanchard asked whether just the one building, currently painted white, 91 Main Street, would be painted red. Mr. Furth confirmed this. The Commissioners present agreed that this is an appropriate modification of the prior approval, and gave consent for the building to be painted red rather than stripped of its white paint. Ms. Boothroyd reminded the Commission members of the upcoming workshop for councilors, board members, and commissioners on the City’s Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area project., and encouraged them to attend. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m.