Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-08-08 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF August 8, 2013 MINUTES Board Members Present: Donald Lewis III Sonia Mallar Kay Blanchard Marie Grady Commission Consultant Present: Sara K. Martin City Staff Present: Jennifer Boothroyd Chairman Lewis called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 1: Consider a request for Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review approval for placement of a projecting sign and two awnings at 89 and 91 Main Street, Abe & Heather Furth, applicants Chairman Lewis invited the applicant to step to the podium to make a presentation. Abe Furth, owner of 89 and 91 Main St. the Commission, stating that the proposal is to install two new fabric awnings, one on each building, and a projecting sign. Commissioner Blanchard asked if one awning was bigger than the other. Mr. Furth replied that one awning was 6 inches longer than the other, to match the longer dimension of that building. Commissioner Mallar asked if the awnings would be moveable. Mr. Furth stated that they will be fixed awnings. Commissioner Mallar 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, Mallar, Blanchard, and Grady voting. 2 Item No. 2: Consider a request for Certificate of Appropriateness approval to alter the front porch to accommodate wheelchair access at 133-135 Broadway, SWL & Associates, Inc, applicant Chairman Lewis invited the applicant to step to the podium to make a presentation. Carol Cuddy, property manager at 133-135 Broadway, addressed the Commission, summarizing the plan for construction of a wheelchair ramp along the left side of the building, wrapping to the front, to provide handicapped access. The ramp would be screened from view by bushes planted alongside it. Ms. Cuddy noted that access to both halves of the building is from the front only, and that they are having a hard time renting space in the building due to limited handicapped accessibility. She stated that a ramp on the back of the building, which would be preferable to maintain the historic façade of the building, would not permit access to both sides of the building. Ms. Martin noted that the proposed ramp, screened by bushes, may be the best solution. She asked if a wheelchair lift was still being proposed, as it had been mentioned in the application as an option. Ms. Cuddy stated that a wheelchair lift is no longer being considered, as it would likely be more obtrusive and expensive. Commissioner Mallar stated that she has concerns about the proposal due to the building’s high visibility on Broadway. She stated that the ramp would need to be very long to accommodate the necessary slope. Ms. Cuddy stated that the ramp, although long, will wrap around the side of the building, so much of it would not be visible from the building’s front façade. Mr. Steve Blackwell, a tenant at the building, mentioned that the building’s extensive gardens extend all along the front of the building, and further plantings can be designed to completely conceal the ramp from view. He also noted that handicapped accessibility is key to his business, and that a recent interested party turned down a lease at the building because of the accessibility issue. Commissioner Blanchard asked if both sides of the building were accessible from the front porch. Ms. Cuddy responded that they are. Ms. Martin stated that the Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines state that new additions should be as unobtrusive as possible. She said that, in her opinion, the proposed ramp, screened by plantings, fits within these guidelines. Chair Lewis also referred to the standards and agreed that they are being met by the proposed project. Commissioner Blanchard made a motion to grant Certificate of Appropriateness approval to alter the front porch to accommodate wheelchair access at 133-135 Broadway. Commissioner Grady seconded the motion. Commissioner Mallar noted that drawings submitted by the applicant show the ramp along the building but outside of the bushes. Ms. Cuddy stated that the bushes will be replanted along the outside of the ramp. Commissioner Mallar stated that the applicant may need to invest in larger bushes to fully screen the ramp. Mr. Blackwell stated that the landscaping will be done in a way that both sides of the building have matching plantings. Commissioner Mallar noted that it may still look mismatched, because the plantings on one side will have to extend further out to hide the proposed ramp. 3 Commissioner Blanchard amended her motion to add the condition that plantings be placed along the front and outside of the ramp. Commissioner Grady seconded the amended motion. The motion was approved unanimously with Commission members Lewis, Mallar, Blanchard, and Grady voting. Item No. 3: Consider a request for Certificate of Appropriateness approval to replace lighting around the crown of the Thomas Hill Standpipe on Thomas Hill Road, Bangor Water District, applicant Chairman Lewis invited the applicant to step to the podium to make a presentation. Laura Wade, electrical engineer at WBRC, addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant, and summarized the proposal. She noted that the Commission had previously granted approval for replacement of the light fixtures atop the Thomas Hill Standpipe with new fixtures of the same type. Since then, the applicant has determined that those fixtures are now obsolete, and they are now proposing to replace them with a similar-looking fixture that allows for the bare bulb to show, as the existing lighting does. A representative of the Bangor Water District showed a sample of the existing fixture and the proposed fixture side-by-side. He noted that the incandescent bulbs being used now tend to darken over time. The new fixtures, which will use LEDs, won’t have that problem. Also the gaskets around the LED bulbs will keep water and ice out of the fixtures, reducing breakage. Commissioner Mallar wondered if replacing the existing lights with LEDs would result in lowered energy costs. The applicant confirmed that it would. A member of the public asked if there would be a cot savings. The applicant stated that while the new fixtures will require an increased up-front cost, the lowered energy use over time would make them cost-effective. Ms. Martin asked if the Thomas Hill Standpipe lighting will look the same from a distance as it does now. Ms. Wade stated that it would. Commissioner Mallar made a motion to approve the replacement lighting around the crown of the Thomas Hill Standpipe on Thomas Hill Road. Commissioner Grady seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with Commission members Lewis, Mallar, Blanchard, and Grady voting. Item No. 4: A discussion of a proposed addition to, and renovations of, the Bangor Public Library Architect Scott Simons addressed the Commission to discuss proposed renovations at Bangor Public Library. He stated that the project is designed to modernize the library, and will include the following elements; restoration of meeting rooms, computer relocation, a small business center, meeting rooms, and expansion of the young adult section, children’s library improvements, and an addition in front of the “new” section of the library, including a front porch atrium. The goal is to make the library more of a community resource, and to enhance the beauty of the building while allowing for growth. 4 Ms. Martin noted that the Bangor HPC will only be reviewing proposed changes to the exterior of the library. She said that she would be more comfortable having the Maine Historic Preservation Commission review the proposal and provide guidance to the Commission. She noted that, as proposed, the addition does seem to meet the requirements of Bangor’s ordinance. Ms. Boothroyd stated that if the Commissioners are in agreement, she will formally request that MHPC review the proposal. Commissioner Mallar stated that she was in favor of requesting the MHPC review. Commissioner Grady stated that she has had an opportunity to visit several libraries in other states, and that, in her opinion, the proposed renovations will make the Bangor Public Library comparable to other top libraries. Chair Lewis agreed that the upgraded library will be a great community asset. Ms Boothroyd asked the Commission to confirm that they are in favor of requesting MHPC review. The Chair confirmed that this is the preference of the Commission. Item No. 5: A discussion of proposed changes to the West Market Square plan approved in June Jason Bird, of the City of Bangor’s Community and Economic Development Department referred the Commission to their previous approval of upgrades and redesign at West Market Square, and noted that the City would like to change from the style of street lighting that was approved by the Commission (Chicago-Style) to another type (Acorn-style). The reason for the request is twofold; the Acorn-style lights are considerably lower in cost than the Chicago-style, and the Chicago-style lights have come to be associated with the design of Bangor’s Waterfront, while the Acorn-style lights seem to blend better with the design of Downtown Bangor. Chair Lewis asked if any other changes to the approved plan would be affected. Mr Bird confirmed that this was the only change being proposed. Ms. Martin agreed that the Acorn-style lights seemed like a better fit for West Market Square. Chair Lewis declared that the Commission was comfortable with that change to the proposed plan. Item No. 6: A discussion of a proposed mural at 23 Hammond Street Jennifer Hooper of Spark Bangor approached the Commission to continue the discussion about a possible mural in Downtown in Bangor. She stated that there is still work that needs to be done, but that she would like some clarity about how the approvals from a proposed mural would proceed. Chair Lewis stated that this commission’s role in the process is Design Review, so it would be reviewed by HPC before it would go to the Council. We would need details and specifics to review the proposed project before we could approve a project and send it along for Council approval. Ms. Hooper stated that the intention is to form a Committee of members of other Commissions that would do a primary review and send it along to HPC. Chair Lewis clarified that even if some members of HPC had reviewed the proposal prior, the Commission as a whole would still need to review it. 5 Commissioner Mallar asked if the Cultural Commission is in support of this. Judith Boothby, a member of the Cultural Commission stated that the Commission has discussed the proposal and is in support of it. Commissioner Mallar brought up the following concerns and questions: safety issues regarding a mural behind drivers on a one-way street; who will be responsible for mural maintenance; has the building owner’s permission been obtained; is SPARK going to have a fund for maintenance; who will maintain insurance in the case of damage caused by falling panels, etc.; will the City be liable; the racehorse mural on the Grandstand is in disrepair; how many cities in New England have murals like this; who will be on the mural selection committee; who will pay for the mural; what is projected cost; what portion will the City pay. Ms. Hooper stated that many of these questions can’t be pursued further until there is some level of support shown for proceeding with the project. Mr. Bird stated that some research has been done into some of these issues. Regarding liability, it will depend on how the installation is done (for example a contract with the building owner for installation, for example). In some situations, the City may have money available for some of these issues. For insurance purposes, a mural like this should be viewed in the same way as a sign, and hopefully would be added to the building’s insurance as such. A professional will make determinations on how the mural will be attached and what materials will be best. Commissioner Mallar expressed concern about how a piece of art like this can satisfy a community’s taste for a period of 25 years. Mr. Bird expressed the hope that the committee review process and public input would allow as many people to weigh in on the proposal as possible. The procedure has been followed by other communities. Commissioner Mallar wondered which communities. Mr. Bird stated that he can make the list available, but could name a few; Memphis, Jacksonville, Gloucester MA, Quebec City, Lisbon ME, Saugus MA, Portland ME. A member of the audience expressed his opinion that having professional art on blank walls in the downtown may limit illegal graffiti on those walls. He also referred to mural projects that encourage community members to contribute to the art, thus the mural evolves over time. Commissioner Mallar expressed interest in a project like that. Ms. Martin referred to the Façade Ordinance, which gives this Commission authority to review the content of a mural. She wondered if the Cultural Commission would also review the art for content. Mr. Bird stated that they would, especially since SPARK would approach the City for funding through the Cultural Commission. Ms. Martin stated that the Facade Ordinance seems focused on buildings, and suggests that the mural, as art, should be removed or separated from the process as a different thing entirely, especially if the Cultural Commission is reviewing it as well. Assistant City Solicitor Paul Nicklas stated that it is his interpretation that the HPC is only supposed to consider art of this type in reference to how it might impact the architectural significance of the building on which it is placed or the surrounding buildings. Ms. Martin summarized this: the HPC would be getting a drawing of the proposed mural, and would be making a determination “thumbs up or thumbs down” about whether or not the proposal would detract from the architectural significance of the building and area. Mr. Nicklas confirmed this as a correct interpretation of the HPC’s role. Mr. Bird noted that the site selected is a blank wall that used to face another building, so there seems to be little chance that the mural would have any impact on the architectural character of the building. Ms. Martin asked if the Commission should consider the artwork itself in this determination, or the physical presence of it and how it is installed. Mr. Nicklas stated that both of those aspects should be considered in the context of the building’s architectural characteristics. Ms. Martin also mentioned that in Gainesville, FL that had a city 6 muralist who would create art as citizens watched. Ms Hooper agreed that that would be great, but not at this site, where the adjacent property is a parking lot, where disruption should be minimized. Mr. Bird stated that there is a possibility for the work to be created publicly, off-site, before it is mounted in its final spot. Ms. Hooper stated that she is hoping for some concept support and an understanding of the approval process of the mural project. Chair Lewis stated that he feels the Commission is in favor of the concept, but must maintain our ability to review the final project and placement. The Commission agreed that there do not appear to be any key architectural features on that side of the building that could be obscured. Ms. Boothroyd stated that there should be a consensus about how the approval process goes forward. Chair Lewis stated that, in his opinion, the next time the project comes before the Commission should be when the design has been selected, and the details about mounting, insurance, etc. have all been figured out. Commissioner Mallar expressed interest in contacting Portland to find out the details of their review process. Mr. Nicklas stated that he has been in contact with Portland City officials regarding this. The Commission agreed that they are conceptually in support of the project, and that they will be seeing the project next as a complete application. Additional Discussion: Matt McAntee approached the Commission to discuss a project idea for a public bike repair station in the downtown area. The project is still in the concept phase, and he was wondering what the process is for taking the idea forward. Ms. Boothroyd directed Mr. McAntee to the application forms and suggested that his first stop should the Code Enforcement Office. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.