Loading...
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