HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-01-13 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MEETING OF JANUARY 13, 2022, 7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND VIA ZOOM
MEETING MINUTES
Commission Members Present: Edmond Chernesky
Nathaniel King
Rebecca Krupke
Anne Marie Quin
Karen Rand
Liam Riordan
Matthew Weitkamp
City Staff Present: Anne Krieg, Planning Officer
Planning Officer Krieg called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Election of 2022 Officers
Planning Officer Krieg opened nominations for Chair of the Historic Preservation
Commission. Commissioner Chernesky nominated Commissioner Rand, seconded by
Commissioner Krupke. Commissioner Rand accepted the nomination. All members in
favor, none opposed.
Chair Rand opened nominations for Vice Chair; Commissioner Rand nominated Rebecca,
seconded by Commissioner. All members in favor, none opposed.
New Business:
1. Certificate of Appropriateness – 41 Thomas Hill Road – Thomas Hill Standpipe –
Map-Lot 021-084 – Thomas Hill Historical District –Applicant: Smart Link Group
o/b/o T-Mobile LLC; Owner: Bangor Water District - Approval for installation of a
25KW standby generator to support wireless equipment. This will allow wireless facility
to continue to operate in event of power-loss. Installation includes a 4x10 cement pad
upon which generator to be placed at property located at 41 Thomas Hill Road, Map-Lot
021-084, in the Thomas Hill Historical District.
Joseph Rollins with T-Mobile presented the application, and provided the following in part
and in substance:
T-Mobile has ongoing nationwide project for all cellular sites to upgrade all generators
o Proposal for standby generator to support cellular equipment in case of power
failure, 4x10 cement pad, generator to be placed on top
o Plans provided, reviewed comments back from Consultant Pullen
o Small trench to be run to existing conduit runs
Wants to stay as close to the shed as possible, to shorten the run from
generator to equipment
o Nothing to be done on face of standpipe in anyway
o Plantings, no problem – willing to use whatever HPC suggests, at whatever
distance from the standpipe is suggested, away from the stonework
Not readily visible from street, proposed screening should be reasonable
o Underground installation isn’t impossible, but feels it would impact negatively on
the property, as they would need to dig into and up through the ground, making
maintenance difficult. Underground is not the preference
The Commission discussed the technical drawings, but felt that there was no sense of
the project “from the street.” Photography of the existing shed, conduit run, and
location of existing propane tank reviewed, as well as proposed pad location, and trench
for the underground connectors. Reviewed submitted plans/drawings with the
Commission, providing a “top-down” view, discussed “spark-radius” for separation
required by the fire department.
o Discussed the surround of the unit, as well as the height of the propane tank,
extensive discussion regarding the type of plantings; conifer and/or evergreen
usually
o Discussion regarding strict standards to minimize impact of this type of
installation – and if there has been consideration of smaller LP tank, and smaller
generator. Arguably the most historically iconic building in the City of Bangor
Is it possible to shrink scale of both installations, and tuck them further
around the “backside” of the structure – seems that this is still relatively
visible from the road, but “around the corner” would be less visual impact
Applicant indicates that there is no “backside” and there is no way
to make this invisible
Discussed use of discontinued street for utilization
o Discussed 3d visualization of proposed project
Planning Officer Krieg discussed use of high landscaping to shield area, and the foundation
being blocked by landscaping, and a whole section would be blocked from view.
Discussion regarding the historical location and site, potential to destroy the site, and to use
care regarding trenching and unearthing. Commission in agreement that a redesign be
created moving generator and pad to the disused street. New, more detailed design that
does a stronger job to minimize visual impact; 3 items to consider – whether or not these
are the smallesttank and generator sizes necessary, 2) location of tank and generator,
could they be moved a different location; furthest from the most active along-the-road
viewing, essentially opposite of the open door (used for tours) and 3) more robust
description of kind of plants to shield anything above ground. Wants to see demonstrated
more clearly that they’ve done the best job for the least impact on this very historic
structure.
Applicant stated that his inclination is that there is not a smaller footprint, literally done
hundreds of these in the last few months. 25kW is the smallest unit that will do what is
needed. T-Mobile way more sophisticated then the fire departments 2-way radios.
25kW is the smallest that they can do. Regarding location, that’s where they’re proposing
to go – if they wanted it to be the exact opposite, they can do that.
Landscape architect to come up with optimum, discrete place to put this – suggestion from
Commission – maybe this has already been done, I’m not sure. Commission feels they’re
not getting the all information to make them feel comfortable. Commission requesting
rendering of proposed site from multiple angles, to include 3d.
Applicant asked about T-Mobile coming to us to discuss the lease, and how applicant was
surprised that this was allowed. Suggestions provided by Commission is all well and
good, terribly expensive, with a finite budget for this project, certainly will take your queues,
plantings to use, specific location you want us to be looking for you input in this regard.
Applicant will come back to us if it’s feasible to do less then 25Kw, and understands that if
the size is a deal breaker, project may not be able to happen.
T-Mobile wants to be good tenants, leasing space for a while now, unsure when lease if up
for renewal. Wants to be able to work with us to make this happen, along with the Water
District. The unused road, again,to put equipment in there in the tree line, that’s going to
be a big, expensive job. Not impossible.
Commission indicated they want a clearer sense that a reasonable effort has been made to
make minimum alteration to structure and its environment, as provided by the language in
the code. Wants a stronger sense that care given to figure out how to minimize alterations.
Planning Officer Krieg indicated we would meet with applicant and staff to come up with
something to bring back to the Commission. Applicant can withdraw, or ask for
continuance and submit new plans under the same application, amend the application,
keeping the process moving forward. Applicant amenable to this, can do revised drawings.
Can circle back up with City Staff. Motion to continue application to be considered.
Commissioner Riordan moved to continue proposal for Thomas Hill Standpipe until it
returns with revised plans, seconded by Commissioner Quin. All members in agreement.
Roll call vote not provided.
Stephen Brough, citizen, brought in after vote made; wanted to know why generator
couldn’t be in line with the present building, as there was already something located on that
side – rather than to obscure the brick work, have everything “in line” with what is already
there. Suggested to come “straight out” from the shed, right in line with the existing shed,
keeping it from the actual standpipe.
2. Design Review – 16 Union Plaza – Map-Lot 042-066 – Fa ç ade Review District –
Applicant: Mark Greenleaf –Approval for adding fabric awning(s) at property located
at 16 Union Plaza, Map-Lot 042-066, in the Fa ç ade Review District.
Mark Greenleaf, applicant/owner, presented the application and provided the following
in part and in substance:
Applicant indicates that awning will extend out to the edge of the fence
Aware of concerns about heaters and carbon monoxide
Color will be “Pacific Blue”, not “Carolina Blue”
Corner part to be permanent to go over stage, other two sides are independently
removable as needed
Chair Rand asked Planning Officer Krieg to review Commissioner Pullen’s comments:
Previous application for new stair/deck withdrawn
Fabric roof – will be outside of the stairs, not connected
Fabric structure at low side is 7’ high, LP heaters require 50” clearance from
combustibles, applicant stated that he is not concerned about it, and will work with Fire
Prevention to assure that things are correct
Rear roof will not drain on to the fabric awning, there is about a 3’ gap, will drain onto
the ground, not connected to the building
Chair Rand indicated that she doesn’t feel it’s an issue as it’s not connected to the
building, Commissioner Weitkamp also not opposed. Since this is in the Fa ç ade
District, this falls under Historic Preservation jurisdiction. Commissioner Quin moves
approval, seconded by Commissioner Chernesky. All members in favor. Roll call vote
not taken.
3. Design Review – 16 Union Plaza – Map-Lot 042-066 – Fa ç ade Review District –
Applicant: Mark Greenleaf – Approval, after the fact, for removal and replacement of
existing deck with a larger pressure treated deck and stairs at property located at 16
Union Plaza, Map-Lot 042-066, in the Fa ç ade Review District.
Mark Greenleaf, applicant/owner, presented the application and provided the following
in part and in substance:
Applicant states that this were completed without a permit, at the time; Historic
Preservation Commission wanted an architectural drawing, and applicant said he didn’t
have the $1,000, and tried to sneak it in without anyone noticing
Posts will be along the stairs and fence post and awning will be connected – stairs and
walkway will be open to the air –none of it will be closed in
Lighting discussed, willing to put in a gas light, seeing they didn’t have electric back
then –stated that the light would be the same as it is now –applicant states he’s been
there “20 years” and that light has also been there the whole time
Commission feels staircase is an improvement to what was there before, buthas concerns
about the lighting, language of code- 71-11-(g) hardware and lighting fixtures to max
remaining originals, and of the era. Applicant discussed what was currently on the front of
the building for lighting. Applicant states that there is nothing historic about this building,
and that’s it’s just in a historic district. Applicant states that he can match what is currently
on the building. Commission discussed having applicant match what’s currently there for
continuity. Planning Officer Krieg suggested conditioning to match light fixture to the front
of the building with a reasonable, good faith effort to match.
Commissioner Chernesky moves approval, pending lights installed match in kind as much
as possible existing lights on the building, and seconded by Vice Chair Krupke. All
members in agreement. Roll call vote not taken.
Commissioner Quin brought up in person meetings vs. zoom, and how the dynamic is
different when the group is all together. Chair Rand indicated that currently hybrid seems
the best, especially with ongoing health issues. Vice Chair Krupke also feels that in-person
is better, and understands that most are using zoom for now for safety concerns.
4. Annual Training – Commission decided to have Annual Training at February meeting,
as it was getting late.
5. October 28, 2021 Meeting Minutes– Commissioner Riordan moves to approve the
meeting minutes of October 28, 2021, seconded by Vice Chair Krupke. All members in
approval. Roll call vote was not taken.
6. Historic Preservation Commission 2021 Report– This was not discussed by the
Commission.
7. Adjournment – 8:59 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Melissa L. Bickford
Development Assistant
Planning Department