Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-01-12 Historic Preservation Commission MinutesHistoric Preservation Commission – Meeting Minutes January 12th, 2023 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 12, 2023 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEETING MINUTES Commission Members Present: Liam Riordan Matthew Weitkamp Edmund Chernesky Nathaniel King Anne Marie Quin City Staff Present: Anne Krieg, Planning Officer Anja Collette, Planning Analyst Brittanie Thomas, Asst. City Solicitor Member Riordan called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ____________________________________________________________________________ New Business: 1. Annual Election of Officers Weitkamp stated he was happy with the current Chair. Quin agreed. Riordan stated he was okay with serving as Chair. Quin nominated Riordan to be Chair. King seconded. All members except for Riordan voted in favor; none opposed. Riordan nominated King as Vice Chair. Chernesky seconded. All members except King voted in favor; none opposed. 2. Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review – 28 Harlow Street – Map-Lot 041-093– Great Fire Historic District and Façade District – Applicant/Owner: Restorations Unlimited of Maine/New Communities, Inc. - Approval requested for Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review to tuckpoint brickwork on bottom 1/3 of right side and rear of building, repair brickwork on top 1/3 of building, waterproof brickwork after repairs, replace all front windows on the building except the 1st floor, and replace all right side and rear windows. The property is located at Map-Lot 041- 093, in the Great Fire Historic District and Façade District. Riordan stated the role of the Historic Preservation Commission. Stated a Certificate of Appropriateness needs 4 votes and a Design Review needs 3. Stated four members would be voting on the project, Historic Preservation Commission – Meeting Minutes January 12th, 2023 Weitkamp would be on reserve. Riordan discussed logistics of approvals/disapprovals of projects and other requirements. Larry White from Restorations Unlimited presented to the podium. Provided background on the project. Project is being funded through a Maine State Housing Grant; is for New Communities, which is a non- profit that provides housing to the low-income population throughout the state. White passed out paper copies of additional window specifications and written answers to the questions from Consultant Mike Pullen that were submitted as part of the consultant’s memo in the Commission’s packet. White stated that they need to replace the windows because they failed the state inspections. New Communities doesn’t have the money to replace them. Needs this approval to get grant funding to replace the windows. Consultant Mike Pullen and the applicant walked through the applicant’s written answers to Pullen’s initial comments. • Pullen explained to the Commission what tuckpoint is. Pullen and the applicant discussed the use of tuckpoint in this project. • Pullen and the applicant discussed the window transoms. • Pullen pointed out the color of the windows up and down the street being dark and the proposed windows being white. Applicant said they’re proposing to replace what’s there, which is currently white, and it costs about $100 more per window to use a darker color for the window. Pullen and applicant discussed the windows on the different sides of the building, as far as appearance/size/etc. Applicant noted difficulties attaining a certain size aluminum clad window. o Quin asked about the restrictions on the size of the windows- whose restrictions are they? The applicant said it was the window manufacturers’. Applicant discussed different manufacturers they went to. Quin asked about Matthew’s. Applicant said that Matthew’s only did vinyl. • Riordan said the Commission’s biggest concern is the windows on the side of the building. Applicant and Riordan discussed the look of the windows there. • Weitkamp said it would be very jarring to have infill on some windows and not on others. Commission has previously rejected projects with infill on windows. • Pullen discussed maybe doing the more expensive windows where needed and less expensive windows in other areas. • Pullen noted that ordinance asks for the look of a building to be harmonious with other buildings in the area. Applicant noted that 24 Harlow Street has 60-inch windows with fixed, solid panels above; wanted this to look like that. Noted that there are other buildings in the area that have windows with an infill of glass, solid-glazed transom above them. • Weitkamp asked if there was a drawing of the smaller window transoms, with the arched top. Asked for clarification on whether the top panel would be fixed; applicant confirmed. Pullen asked if they would have to custom make that; applicant stated yes. • Pullen stated the drawing doesn’t appear to match what’s being proposed for the lower two windows. Applicant and Pullen discussed the drawing and window appearance; concluded it just wasn’t drawn properly. Riordan closed the public hearing. Riordan opened the Commission discussion and summarized what had been discussed so far. Quin asked about the drawing not matching up with the photos. Pullen said the applicant stated the windows Historic Preservation Commission – Meeting Minutes January 12th, 2023 would match what’s there; it was just poorly drawn. Riordan said if the front façade was in a dark color and the large arched windows were replaced to match, [the Commission] would be relatively comfortable with the street façade. Hasn’t discussed the rear of the building, which doesn’t have much public exposure. Stated Commissioner Weitkamp’s point about the infill in the rear being acceptable. Asked if Commission was okay with infill going in the back of the building, Side B. Chernesky clarified that it was with the recommendation that it be in a darker color, which is more historically accurate. Weitkamp asked if the windows on Side B were the same size as the ones on the north elevation. Applicant provided clarification on the different sizes. Riordan stated the challenge then was with side A, which has 17 windows, with the bottom 2 floors being 100 inches tall and third floor being 77 inches tall. This has raised the issue of whether an infill would be acceptable, should all 3 floors be consistent. Applicant stated there were more than 17 windows. The Commission and the applicant discussed the windows on this side. Riordan asked the Commission to discuss the use of infill. Chernesky mentioned Weitkamp’s point about equity in treatment with other proposals and mentioned last time there was a building with 3 sides of windows being done, [the Commission] was okay with the side wasn’t really being seen, but with the 2 sides that were visible, they gave partial approval and [the applicant] was supposed to return for the other windows; cost was a factor, but the Commission wanted to maintain the look. In a similar situation now. Happy with the front, but not the side where’s there’s a parking lot. Chernesky, Weitkamp, Pullen, and the applicant discussed infill versus a glass transom and other buildings in the area. Applicant said if they had to do a transom with a flush glazed glass above the windows, it would be doable in the budget, but if they had to get Marvin, not sure if they’ll be able to do them and they can’t do them all, the State won’t do any of them at all. State is saying that they’re not usable, the tenants can’t get them open in case there’s a fire. Pullen stated the Commission would have to make a determination using the standards in Chapter 148. Quoted the relevant section of the ordinance on alterations. Riordan stated his impression that the Commission is okay with the front and the rear but that side A is a struggle for them. Asked if a strategy might be to withdraw the application, think more about the different price points and what can be done with their budget, and come back to the Commission. There could be a couple of options- the ideal from a historic preservation point of view would be to replace the windows just as they are, but maybe if they had a clearer proposal and the applicant had clearer numbers on infill versus glass, color, maybe that would be one possible way forward. Applicant said they could do a darker color and a fixed glaze on the side but if they had to be a Marvin full without a fixed glaze, the 100-inch windows were almost $2,000 apiece. Take 8 windows and times it by $2,000 and that would be $16,000; that would put them at $212,000 and there’s no way that would work. $200,000 is the budget; that’s what the State’s allowing. There’s no other window manufacturer out there that will make windows that tall, other than Marvin, and that’s the price they gave. Has reached out to other manufacturers. Pullen mentioned Colby and Colby or Norwood in Canada. Asked if they could go to single hung instead of double hung; that may possibly save money. Applicant stated they don’t make the 100-inch double hung; they were going to be single hung. Quin asked if the state should be able to dictate how much is able to be spent on a building; in order to give a grant, do they have to have final say on how much money they will give and control how much money goes into a project? Applicant said yes; they approve and deny the application based on how much money goes out, but the cap is $200,000. Quin asked if somebody else could put more money into it. Applicant said yes, but has been told by New Communities (the owner) that they don’t have any money to put into it and that’s why they haven’t replaced any of the windows. Everybody that lives there gets a voucher, so they get so much money per month from the state, and that doesn’t even cover their Historic Preservation Commission – Meeting Minutes January 12th, 2023 costs for the building; they rely on government funds to keep the buildings going. Quin asked why we would have this type of development in the center of downtown Bangor where there are historic buildings; why wouldn’t it be more suitable for a project like that to go somewhere else. If [the Commission] is going to be so constrained, [the Commission] really don’t have much to say about this; it’s the State who says how much they’re willing to put into it and if we don’t stick to that then the project is a no-go; that doesn’t seem quite fair. Riordan said it’s a difficult situation and from his point of view, this is why they have a commission made up of residents. In the past, they’ve been fairly strict about public façade windows, maintaining that historic structure, but in this case, because it’s a non-profit, because it’s provided very much needed low-income housing, is more open to be flexible about how they can come up with solution. Can they, with Larry’s creativity and flexibility, come up with a way to make side A acceptable to the Commission and meet the applicant’s needs? The Commission can also say no and the applicant would have the option of appealing it. Quin stated that last year, there was a historic building owned by a non-profit and the Board that was running it was clear that they couldn’t do the things to keep up the house historically. So, if many buildings were to be owned by non-profits in the historic zones, it would be very difficult for historic preservation. Riordan summarized the discussion amongst the Commission and the various concerns and solutions presented so far. The Commission and the applicant discussed the process and next steps. Chernesky moved to approve the Condition of Appropriateness for 28 Harlow Street – Map-Lot 041- 093– Great Fire Historic District and Façade District – Applicant/Owner: Restorations Unlimited of Maine/New Communities, Inc. with the following conditions: • That the windows be a darker color on all three sides of the building • That the front windows would fit the existing size • That the windows on the rear (Side B in the application) would be acceptable with the proposed infill • That the windows on the side (Side A in the application) would fit the masonry opening King seconded the motion. All voting members in favor. None opposed. King motioned to approve Design Review for 28 Harlow Street – Map-Lot 041-093– Great Fire Historic District and Façade District – Applicant/Owner: Restorations Unlimited of Maine/New Communities, Inc. Weitkamp seconded. All voting members in favor. None opposed. Riordan stated next step is for the applicant come up with their strategy and to contact City office on whether it will be a minor approval or need HPC approval. Applicant asked Chair questions about minor approval for 24 Harlow Street. Riordan said he didn’t have a clear enough sense of the number of windows and what’s going on. The applicant discussed what he was proposing to do. Riordan said that once the City Planner gets a look at it, they’ll share their thinking and they’ll get back to the applicant about it. 3. Annual Training This agenda item was deferred until the next meeting in February so that all Commissioners could view the training. Historic Preservation Commission – Meeting Minutes January 12th, 2023 4. December 8, 2022, Meeting Minutes King motioned to approve. Quin seconded. All members voted to approve. None opposed. Chair asked member of public for comments. Unidentified member of the public came to podium. Thanked the City for its work. 5. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 8:08 pm. Respectfully submitted, Anja Collette Planning Analyst Planning Division