Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-09-14 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF September 14, 2017 MINUTES Commission Members Present: Elizabeth Rettenmaier, Chair Matthew Carter Wayne Mallar Reese Perkins Alfred Banfield, Associate Member City Staff Present: Tanya Emery Sean Gambrel David Gould Paul Nicklas Chair Rettenmaier called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. PROJECT REVIEW 1. 120 Park St – Unitarian Universalist Society of Bangor Installation of Two Heat Pumps Chapter 148 Historic Preservation – Great Fire District – Cert. of Appropriateness The applicant introduced the project, which is for Maine Alternative Comfort to install two heat pump units in the religious education area of the building. Pipe runs will be installed as part of this project and will run around the corner and along the side of the building to each of the interior units. Pipe runs will be painted brick red to match the building as closely as possible. Chair Rettenmaier asked for public comments. There were no comments from the audience. Commissioner Perkins asked how the condenser unit and piping would be attached to the building. The applicant responded that it would be attached into the mortar, as suggested by the Commission’s Consultant. Commissioner Rettenmaier asked about the placement of the piping, as it appeared to be inconsistent in the provided elevation drawings. The applicant replied that the piping would go over the door that was shown but then drop down to ground level and be located beneath the windows shown, generally along the ground. Commissioner Mallar asked if the condensing unit could also be painted to match the building. The applicant responded that he believed so and would be happy to. Commissioner Carter cautioned the applicant to check the manufacturer’s warranty terms before doing so. Commissioner Mallar questioned the need for drilling through the brick. The applicant responded that this would only be done where the piping entered the building, and would be located so as to disturb as few bricks as possible. Commissioner Carter moved to approve Certificate of Appropriateness with the condition that all attachments be placed into the mortar, not the brick, and that the condenser unit cabinet be painted to match the building exterior if the warranty allows. Commissioner Banfield seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. 43 Columbia St – Peace & Justice Center Paint Mural on Northerly Wall of Building Chapter 71 – Bangor Center Revitalization Area (“Façade Area”) – Design Review Andrea Simoneau, Art Director at the Peace & Justice Center introduced the application. She mentioned that this was a joint project with an organization called End Violence Together, and was a youth art project from their summer art camp. The placement of this mural would coordinates with international event of over 1000 actions for the International day of peace. The building owner has approved the placement of the mural and the Downtown Bangor Partnership has also voiced its support. Ms. Simoneau then highlighted various elements of the design. Ms. Simoneau would like this to be a semi-permanent installation using acrylic paint on the concrete foundation cap on the northerly wall of the building. The overall dimensions would be 7 ft high by 12 ft wide. Lifespan of the mural in acrylic paint is estimated to be 10-20 years. Ms. Simoneau stated that it the Commission was uneasy with this lifespan, she would consider painting the mural on a wheatpaste background, which would be applied to the building. This material is easily removable with soap & water, but can last over a year on its own , exposed to the elements. Chris Betz, of the Carleton Project at the Shaw House spoke in favor of the project and read several letters of support from students. MaryEllen Quinn of End Violence Together & Pax Christi Maine spoke in support of the project and further described the International day of peace events and how this mural fits in with that event. Chair Rettenmaier asked the Commission if they had any question or discussion. Commissioner Perkins noted that the Commission’s consultant recommends the wheatpaste option and suggests it be removed in spring of 2018. He stated that because the Commission balances historic character and arts and events in downtown, he feels that temporary installation is most appropriate. Commissioner Carter stated that this is an important, visible location, and would like to see additional murals in this spot later, perhaps in an annual rotation. That would keep the art fresh and impactful. Commissioner Banfiled noted that the paint would deteriorate after some time, and perhaps impact the gravity of the message, and therefore, Wheatpaste may actually be the best option. Commissioner Banfield also stated that in his opinion the mural could be left up for a year. Commissioner Perkins made a motion for design review approval for a mural at 43 Columbia Street, with the condition that it be applied via wheatpaste and be removed within one year of the date of approval. Commissioner Carter seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. DISCUSSION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROCESS 3. Number of Votes Required for Approval - Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review Assistant City Solicitor Paul Nicklas discussed the number of votes required for approval for Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review approval. Certificate of Appropriateness requires a majority of the commission regardless of number present at the meeting, so it will always require four votes. Design Review approval only requires a majority of those present at the meeting. Mr. Nicklas went on to discuss difference in focus of the Historic Preservation ordinance and the Bangor Center Revitalization Area (BCRA). The BCRA is generally more embracing of change and rehabilitation and less focused on preservation, and specifically discusses “improvement”, ”change”, and “replacement”. The Historic Preservation ordinance is more focused on preservation as one would expect. Mr. Nickals stated that there are a few options. One would be to leave everything as-is. One would be to require a simple majority of those present at the meeting. One would be to require a majority of the Commission, regardless of presence at the meeting. Other options, such as requiring a ¾ vote of the Commission or those present could be explored as well. Mr. Nicklas would like direction from the Commission and will incorporate those thoughts into the Bylaws when they are revised. Commissioner Mallar stated that the current situation is confusing, and because most properties are in both districts, would like to see the same standard applied to both. Ideally a majority of the Commission. Mr. Nickals suggested that there may be value in making the two approvals feel different. Chair Rettenmaier stated that she felt a higher level of agreement is appropriate with HPC and is comfortable with a lower amount required for BCRA. She is supportive of the current situation. Commissioner Carter agreed that he also liked the higher standard for HPC. Commissioner Banfield stated that he supports the current situation but worried about the image of the commission if two neighboring properties were held to different standards and one was approved and the other was not. Commissioner Perkins stated that he supported the current situation. The discussion then turned to what defined a quorum and how that might affect votes on Design Review approval, if it was left as it currently stood, to require only a majority of present voting members. Mr. Nicklas stated that the current quorum is only three members, but that can be confusing, since Certificate of Appropriateness approval requires four affirmative votes, or more than what is required to hold a meeting. He stated that it would be important for applicants to be able to continue their project to the next meeting if that continued to be the case. Commissioner Perkins stated that the advantage to a three-member quorum is that the Commission could still vote on Design Review projects and other procedural matters. Applicants who are before the Commission for only Design Review deserve to have their projects heard if there are enough Commissioners present to vote to approve it. Mr. Nicklas stated that this area would be covered thoroughly in the updated bylaws and thanked the Commission for their input. 4. Removal of Waterfront Development District from Bangor Center Revitalization Area City of Bangor Community and Economic Development Director Tanya Emery presented the proposed changes to the Commission. Ms. Emery stated that the regulations in this area of the City are very confusing to many people. The standards, intent and effect of Design Review approval are very different here than in the rest of the district. Over the years since this was adopted, much has changed in this area, and the City isn’t sure that it’s still the best solution. The character of buildings here are not consistent the same way as they are in other areas. The Business and Economic Development Committee of the City Council supports the idea of making changes in this area of the City and wants recommendations from staff and HPC. Staff is recommending removal of Design Review in this area, in favor of more stringent zoning requirements, but is here to listen to the Commission’s ideas. Commissioner Carter asked how long these requirements have been in place. Ms. Emery noted that these regulations were adopted in 2007, in order to give a better direction to development anticipated in this area. Commissioner Carter than asked what the Commission and the City would be giving up by removing these regulations. Ms. Emery noted that the City would likely be giving up some control here, but that there is concern that there currently is not a great balance between aesthetic control and facilitating private sector development. The current standards are somewhat vague and hard to interpret. The rush of development that was anticipated never really happened, though there has been slow improvement. Overall, what is the vision for this area? Is this supposed to be similar to downtown? What are we hoping to do? Chair Rettenmaier stated that she felt this would end up being an extension of downtown, especially with the new Bangor Savings development. She felt that this is probably not the best time to walk away from this, because big development is likely coming in the wake of the current investment. Commissioner Mallar asked what the advantages of giving this would be. Ms. Emery stated that to some it currently feels like an overreach. There are other areas of town that are likely more important design-wise. Economics will make the area have high-value, well-designed projects, we’re unlikely to see lowest common denominator projects here. Mr. Nicklas pointed out that the boundary of this area is somewhat arbitrary. He pointed out that the reason there are different standards here is precisely because it doesn’t have the same feel as downtown core. He noted that there are several options that could be pursued. One would be to make the standards in the Waterfront Development District the same as the rest of the BCRA. One would be to incorporate this area just into a historic district. But if the focus is really the “downtown walkable feel” we can probably do better than current standards. Commissioner Perkins stated that he would like to just see this area just be covered under the Historic Preservation ordinance. He feels there are too many confusing rules and mismatches between the districts. He noted that this issue felt like a bigger question than the Commission should determine; that the wider community should determine a change like this. Ms. Emery reminded the Commission that the Council would make these changes and is looking for input. Commissioner Carter felt that there SHOULD be different standards in this area, because it’s so different, but felt that perhaps zoning regulations were a more adequate protection. But he cautioned that there should not be a vacuum left when Design Review is removed. Some design standards are still needed here. Chair Rettenmaier noted that if zoning and enforcement were improved, perhaps this change would be appropriate. However, she felt that enforcement hasn’t been great overall. Commissioner Banfield noted that it only takes one bad project to really ruin the feel of a whole district. Commissioner Carter noted that the City’s Planning process is definitely thorough, so zoning changes would likely be effective. He and Chair Rettenmaier underscored that if Design Review was removed, that new regulations should be put in place, ideally before removing design review. Commissioner Perkins stated that he felt that whatever the outcome, the process needs to be as easy as it can be for applicants. 5. Amendment of Historic Preservation Commission Bylaws Mr. Nicklas presented the board with the draft bylaws. He stated that this is a clean replacement of the current bylaws, adopted in 1979. He asked the Commissioners to please review the draft bylaws, ask questions, and suggest changes over the coming weeks. He hoped that new bylaws would be adopted at a future meeting, preferably next month. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 6. Applicant Education Commissioner Carter offered an additional business item. He is concerned that applicants keep coming before the board stating that they were unaware of the Historic Preservation and Design Review regulations, and has heard the same complaint it numerous places elsewhere. He felt that Code Enforcement could be doing a better job asking applicants if they’re in historic district and further educating applicants when they come in for a permit. The application materials on the website don’t even mention that these additional regulation might apply. In the end, it makes the Commission look bad and makes the Commission’s charge very much more difficult. The lack of information provided at the time of application also gives applicants plausible deniability. He asked if the Code Enforcement department could add something about Historic Preservation to the building permit packet. Mr. Nicklas stated that Staff will pursue this idea. He noted that often times people may be getting this information, but are overwhelmed with information and paperwork. We do need to stay focused on this issue. Commissioner Mallar asked if Code Enforcement should be making the effort to explain this to applicants? Commissioner Perkins stated he felt that they were. Commissioner Carter stated that he was aware of situations where contractors are given a permit by code without any information about the additional regulations. He noted that it is very hard for the Commission to make people change bad work if they were never made aware of the additional regulations when they were in City Hall speaking to staff. Commissioner Mallar stated that the City really needed to be more helpful in terms of pointing this out. He stated that he felt that the City was also are not great at penalizing people who violate the ordinance. 7. Review and Approval of HPC meeting minutes: Minutes from the August 10, 2017 meeting were unanimously approved as presented. 8. Next Meeting Date Because of the Indigenous Peoples’ Day holiday, all City meetings that week are being shifted back a day, leaving the Historic Preservation Commission to meet on a Friday evening. Commissioners agreed to meet a week later than usual to retain the usual Thursday night. The meeting was rescheduled to THURSDAY, OCTOBER 19. Meeting Adjourned at 8:35pm.