Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-11-14 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF November 14, 2013 MINUTES Commission Members Present: Kay Blanchard Robert Gordon Marie Grady Donald Lewis III Sonia Mallar Eric Mihan (associate) City Staff Present: David Gould Peter Witham Paul Nicklas Chairman Lewis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 1: Consider a request for Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review approval for new paint at 81 Main Street, Bangor Property Development, LLC, applicant Chairman Lewis invited the applicant to make a presentation. Paul Cook, owner of 81 Main Street, addressed the Commission. He summarized the proposal, stating that the intention was to restore the lower part of the building at 81 Main Street to colors that it was historically painted. The proposed colors will be red, cream, and bronze. If approved, Mr. Cook indicated that the work would most likely proceed in the spring. Commissioner Gordon made a motion to approve the new paint at 81 Main Street as proposed in the application. Commissioner Grady seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with Commission members Blanchard, Lewis, Gordon, Mallar, and Grady voting. Item No. 2: Consider a request for Design Review approval for stair replacement at 99 Franklin Street, Bangor Savings Bank, applicant 2 Chairman Lewis invited the applicant to make a presentation. Jason Donovan, facilities manager of Bangor Savings Bank approached the Commission and summarized the project. The applicant proposes to replace the rear exit stairs in an alley behind the building at 99 Franklin Street. The existing wooden stairs are in bad repair and are not code-compliant. The stairs would be replaced with precast concrete stairs with aluminum handrails, in the hopes that they would prove more durable than the wooden ones. Chairman Lewis asked if any right-of-ways would be impacted by the proposed project. Mr. Donovan stated that the stairs would be entirely on Bangor Savings Bank property, and would not be impacting any rights of way held by other entities. Commissioner Mallar asked for clarification of the location of the existing stairs. Mr. Donovan clarified the location, noting that it is only an emergency exit. Chairman Lewis asked if the replacement stairs would be painted or finished in any way. Mr. Donovan that they will remain a low-maintenance concrete finish. Commissioner Mihan made a motion to approve the replacement of stairs at 99 Franklin Street as proposed in the application. Commissioner Blanchard seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with Commission members Blanchard, Lewis, Gordon, Mallar, and Grady voting. Item No. 3: Consider a request for Design Review approval for door relocation at 190D Harlow Street, Thomas D. Brann, applicant Chairman Lewis invited the applicant to make a presentation. Thomas Brann approached the Commission and summarized the proposal. The applicant would like to relocate a fire exit to meet the State Fire Marshal’s requirements and provide additional security. The existing door, built to 1930’s standards, will be moved 14 feet further towards the rear of the building, and will be updated with rebuilt steps. The applicant hopes to be able to reuse the existing door. This will also allow for separate security access for the upper and lower sections of the building. The area where the door was will be filled in. Commissioner Blanchard asked for clarification regarding this proposal and a similar proposal presented to the Commissioner earlier in the year. The applicant responded that this proposal is to override the original approval, since the applicant would not be able to complete the project as originally approved within the one-year time frame. Commissioner Gordon made a motion to approve the relocation of a door at 190D Harlow Street as proposed in the application, with the condition that the patched area shall match the existing concrete wall. Commissioner Mihan seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with Commission members Blanchard, Lewis, Gordon, Mallar, and Grady voting. 3 Item No. 4: Consider a request for Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review approval for repair and restoration of terra cotta façade at 36 Central Street, KVA Associates, applicant Chairman Lewis invited the applicant to make a presentation. Robert Reid from WBRC representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and summarized the proposal. 36 Central Street is one of three building that share a terra cotta façade on Central Street. The applicant proposes to stabilize and make repairs to their portion of the fragile terra cotta façade. The fragile terra cotta is being damaged by water infiltration. Mr. Reid referred to the memo prepared by Commission consultant Sara Martin (not present at the meeting), in which questions were raised about the extent and sources of damage to the façade. He stated that much of this information will not be known until the project is underway, and a thorough investigation can be done. The applicant plans to anchor the façade. Mr. Reed stated that the paint that has been applied to façade in the past is contributing to the damage, as it prevents the terra cotta and mortar to “breathe” and expand as it should. Part of the proposed restoration will include paint removal, restoring the façade’s finish. The applicant proposes to use anchors to secure loose pieces of terra cotta to the substrate. Chairman Lewis asked if the anchors would go into the brick or the mortar of the building. The applicant’s agent indicated that they would go into the brick. Chairman Lewis observed that that practice is usually not supported by the Commission, but that in this case it might be appropriate, since the brick is not the façade of the building. Commissioner Mihan asked about the possibility of causing further damage with the vibrations associated with the restoration process, specifically, falling tiles caused by the investigation process. The applicant’s agent stated that the first priority was to get the project stable, so that any further damage can be kept at a minimum throughout the course of the restoration. Commissioner Gordon asked about the division of façade work, given that the façade covers three separate buildings. The applicant’s agent noted that the applicant is only working on half of the façade that they have access to. Commissioner Mallar followed up with the observation that, if only working on one half of the façade, care must be taken to match the other half of the façade. She noted that one of the parapets on the façade has already been removed. The applicant’s agent noted that it was removed prior to falling, and is currently lying on the roof. Commissioner Mallar asked if they had been able to glean any information about the source or extent of damage from the area where the parapet is missing. The applicant’s agent stated that he believes that damage is due to separation from the expansion and contraction of freezing and thawing water. Commissioner Mallar asked how the applicant will ensure that that doesn’t continue to happen. The applicant’s agent said that they plan to flash the parapet somehow so that the mortar is protected. The applicant’s agent stated that he understands the difficulty facing the Commissioners of having to approve work to a historic building without knowing the full extent of what will need to be done in total, but he stated that there is no other good way to investigate and treat the damage. 4 Commissioner Gordon stated that the study provided by the applicant explaining the proposed procedure does not provide enough information for him to determine whether or not it is the best course of action for this specific building (36 Central St.). The applicant’s agent stated that the information provided came directly from a contractor who is very knowledgeable about work of the type proposed. Chairman Lewis pointed out that the uniqueness of the terra cotta façade is not something the Commission deals with often. Commissioner Mihan asked what would happen if the investigation shows that every anchor has deteriorated. The applicant’s agent responded that if that were the case then every tile would need to be re-anchored. Commissioner Mallar asked for clarification on a photo of the façade how much of it will be undergoing restoration. The applicant’s agent stated that one of the pilasters/parapets is split down the middle regarding rights. Chairman Lewis mentioned that the owners of the other part of the façade may have done restoration work in the past. The applicant’s agent stated that they were not aware of any façade work that might have been done by others. Commissioner Mallar asked if the applicant was seeking approval for Phase One only at this time, or for the entire project. Chairman Lewis stated that they are currently applying for Phase One. The applicant confirmed this, and that the intent at this time is to stabilize and anchor the terra cotta. The future phases will involve removing paint and addressing the issues with the mortar joints. Commissioner Mallar made a motion to approve phase one of the repair and restoration of the terra cotta façade at 36 Central Street with the conditions that (a) The applicant address how to remedy the sources of water filtration before repair and replacement begin, (b) the applicant assess the system of anchoring the terra-cotta to the building to ensure that it has not deteriorated, (c) the applicant address how the method of replacing the parapet will help protect against further water infiltration, (d) the applicant assess the condition of the mortar to determine if that is a source of water infiltration. If it is, then the mortar should be repointed with a mortar compatible with terra-cotta, and (e) that the glazing match the color of the original. Commissioner Mihan seconded the motion. The motion was approved with Commission members Blanchard, Lewis, Mallar, and Grady voting. Commissioner Gordon abstained from the vote. Chairman Lewis told the applicant to keep the Planning Office and the Commission informed on the findings of their investigations. Item No. 5: Consider a request for Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review approval for installation of new window and vent openings at 96 Main Street, Bangor Housing Authority, applicant Chairman Lewis invited the applicant to make a presentation. Mike Myatt from the Bangor Housing Authority and the non-profit Bangor Housing addressed the Commission and summarized the proposal. He clarified that neither of those two entities own the condo unit where work is proposed, but that they have been appointed by the City Council as the developer for the renovations. The applicant wants to add windows to the space, which will be a new storefront, at 96 Main Street. 5 Chairman Lewis asked the applicant to address the issues highlighted in the memo prepared by Sara Martin. Robert Reid, from WBRC, responded on behalf of the applicant. He stated that one of the concerns raised in the memo was the incomplete information about the proposed vents and windows. He stated that some new windows are proposed, as well as the reconfiguration of some existing windows. The application states that no changes are proposed at the Main Street elevation, but the plan has progressed, and some changes are now proposed to the window configuration in that area; the sill height will be lowered. The vents will be similar to dryer vents, but will actually be bathroom vents, and will only appear on Water Street and in the alley. The applicant estimates that there will be seven vents on Water Street and four in the alley. The memo also raised questions about the proposed storefront. The applicant stated that the storefront is proposed for the Water Street side under the plaza, and will be a pair of glass storefront doors. The paint finish will be green to match the windows. There will be market-rate apartments on the second and third floors. Commissioner Mallar asked if the new ducts would need to go through the brick. The applicant responded that they would need to, but the vent size has been minimized to reduce the amount of brick that would need to be gone through. Commissioner Mihan made a motion to approve the installation of new window and vent openings at 96 Main Street with the condition that the windows be the same configuration, size, and color on Water Street and Main Street. Commissioner Mallar seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with Commission members Blanchard, Lewis, Gordon, Mallar, and Grady voting. Item No. 6: Brief training session led by Paul Nicklas Paul Nicklas offered a summary of Commission policies and procedures for the benefit of the Commissioners. The following topics were discussed:  Ex-parte communication  Conflicts of interest  Public meetings/public hearings  Public documents  Follow-up/enforcement of Commission decisions There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 P.M.