No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-03-13 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes �; N: � e ���� � I� � �TC�I�.I� P"FF�E� � �V�TI�� � '� ����.I �� S I�� .� .� c�T� �� ������. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 13, 2025, 7:00 P.M. PENOBSCOT ROOM, PENQUIS CAP 262 HARLOW STREET MEETING MINUTES Commission Members Present: Edmund Chernesky Peter Keebler Nathaniel King (via Zoom) Rebecca Krupke Anne Marie Quin Liam Riordan Matthew Weitkamp Citv Staff Present: Anja Collette, Planning Officer Anne Krieg, Development Director Brian Scannell, Planning Analyst Chair Chernesky called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Old Business: � Adoption of Findinqs & Decision for 218 Ohio Street Commissioner Quin moved to adopt the Findings & Decision for 218 Ohio Street— DP Porter Contractors. Seconded by Commissioner Krupke. Roll call vote conducted —all voting members in favor, none opposed. Motion passed. � Desiqn Review— 16 Union Plaza — Map-Lot 042-066 — Banqor Center Revitalization Area —Applicant/Owner: Mark Greenleaf - Approval requested for Design Review to add two windows, replace four windows, and add four fire escape platforms. The property is located at Map-Lot 042-066, in the Bangor Center Revitalization Area. Chair Chernesky introduced the agenda item. Mark Greenleaf, applicant, presented to the podium and gave an overview of the application. Chair Chernesky provided an overview of HPC Consultant Mike Pullen's comments, as well as the applicant's email responses provided to the Commission. Chernesky asked for confirmation about attaching to the brick. Applicant Greenleaf provided additional clarifications. 73 I IA�.L�C3'W' STF�EET. �,Af�1C_,��, �vtE s�41C�1. ,.1"EL�C'1:9C)N�. (�C}7) �)�2-4��Q FA.�: (�C37� `745-���"� t�'V'W W.��A N�;C���f�h.��N E.C�C7 V Historic Preservation Commission — Meeting Minutes March 13t", 2025 Associate Member Keebler asked for additional clarification regarding the third floor of the property— Applicant Greenleaf responded and clarified. Associate Member Weitkamp asked for clarification regarding the windows on the second floor - Applicant Greenleaf responded and clarified. Vice Chair Riordan and Applicant Greenleaf confirmed that all proposed changes are to meet fire code requirements. Member Weitkamp asked if the windows would look the same as what's there currently; Applicant Greenleaf replied that they wouldn't, but future windows would match. Weitkamp stated his support for the application since it replaces poor windows with better quality windows, provided there would be no cutting into the granite. Associate Member Weitkamp asked for clarification regarding how the fire escape structures will be secured to the building —Applicant Greenleaf responded and clarified. Vice Chair Riordan moved that the Commission find that the application was deemed complete on March 13, 2025, the applicant paid all applicable fees, and the proposed project is a Design Review. Seconded by Commissioner Krupke. Roll call vote conducted — all in favor, none opposed. Motion passed. Chair Chernesky opened the public comments —there were none. Chernesky closed the public comments. Chair Chernesky asked the Commission for any questions or comments —there were none. Vice Chair Riordan moved that the Commission find that, based on Exhibits 2-4 and 12, the application satisfied § 71-11A requiring that materials, techniques and designs, where practical, conform to and harmonize with the architecture of the building. Seconded by Commissioner King. Roll call vote conducted —all in favor, none opposed. Motion passed. Vice Chair Riordan moved that the Commission find that, based on Exhibits 2-4 and 12, the application satisfied § 71-11 B requiring that rehabilitation work does not destroy the distinguishing qualities or character of the building and its environment and the removal or alteration of any unique architectural features is avoided wherever possible. Seconded by Commissioner Krupke. Roll call vote conducted — all in favor, none opposed. Motion passed. Vice Chair Riordan moved that the Commission find that, based on Exhibits 2-4 and 12, the application satisfied § 71-11 C requiring that deteriorated architectural features are repaired rather than replaced whenever possible, and in the event that replacement is necessary, the new materials should, where practical, match the materials being replaced in composition, design, texture and finish. Seconded by Commissioner Krupke. Roll call vote conducted —all in favor, none opposed. Motion passed. Vice Chair Riordan moved that the Commission find that, based on Exhibits 2-4 and 12, the application satisfied § 71-11 E requiring that designs and materials are appropriate to the period and style of the building and harmonize with adjacent properties. Seconded by Commissioner Krupke. Roll call vote conducted —all in favor, none opposed. Motion passed. Vice Chair Riordan moved that the Commission find that, based on Exhibits 2-4 and 12, the application satisfied § 71-11 F requiring that new work adjoining existing buildings are carefully blended to minimize the separation, unless such a separation is suitable to enhance or emphasize the qualities of the original work. Seconded by Commissioner Krupke. Roll call vote conducted —all in favor, none opposed. Motion Historic Preservation Commission — Meeting Minutes March 13t", 2025 passed. Vice Chair Riordan moved that the Commission find that, based on Exhibits 2-4 and 12, the application satisfied § 71-11 G requiring that hardware and lighting fixtures, where practical, is selected with care to conform to authentic work of the period and to match remaining originals where such exist. Seconded by Commissioner Krupke. Roll call vote conducted —all in favor, none opposed. Motion passed. Vice Chair Riordan moved that the Commission find that, based on Exhibits 2-4 and 12, the application satisfied § 71-11 H requiring that all alterations, improvements, modifications, repairs, rehabilitation, painting and other improvements are harmonious and tie in with existing materials in an acceptable manner. Seconded by Commissioner Krupke. Roll call vote conducted — all in favor, none opposed. Motion passed. Vice Chair Riordan moved that the Commission find that the project meets the requirements for Design Review and therefore grants a Design Review permit for the proposed Project. Seconded by Commissioner Krupke. Roll call vote conducted —all in favor, none opposed. Motion passed. Other Business: � Proposed Banqor Liqhts Proiect — Request for Commission Comments — Conversation about a proposed installation of large internally lit lettering spelling out Bangor at the intersection of State and Harlow Street. The proposed location is within the Great Fire of 1911 Historic District. Development Director Anne Krieg presented to the podium and gave an overview of the proposed project. Associate Member Keebler asked for clarification regarding how this project was initially proposed — Development Director Krieg responded and clarified. Keebler also asked how the project was designated as public art vs. signage— Krieg responded and clarified. Keebler expressed concerns regarding this designation, as the Commission does not have authority over approval of the project if it is designated as public art. Krieg and Planning Officer Anja Collette provided additional clarification regarding the definitions of public art and signage within the Code. Keebler reiterated his belief that this project should be designated as signage. Member Quin expressed concern about the potential for the definition of public art to be misused moving forward, and echoed Keebler's belief that this project should not be designated as public art. Quin also expressed concerns about the proposed location. Associate Member Keebler asked if additional public comments had been received regarding the proposed project, and expressed concern that only one memo was included in the Commission's meeting packet. Planning Officer Collette and Development Director Krieg responded that additional public comments sent to Planning Division staff and to the Commission had been forwarded to Commissioners via email, and that any other public comments directed to City Council or City management were not sent to Planning staff, and therefore were not available to forward onto the Commission. Commissioner Quin commented that she had heard that a large number of public comments expressing opposition to the project had been received by City Council. Member Krupke expressed concerns regarding the public perception of this project being designated as public art vs. signage. Krupke also commented on the process for designating something as public art. Associate Member Weitkamp expressed concern regarding the designation of this project as public art Historic Preservation Commission — Meeting Minutes March 13t", 2025 causing disenfranchisement of the Commission. Commissioner Krupke echoed these concerns. Associate Member Keebler asked if there had been any feedback received from MDOT regarding the potential traffic impacts of this project, due to the lights potentially causing distraction. Development Director Krieg responded that this project is not subject to review by MDOT, but noted that this project has been reviewed by the City's Engineering Department. Associate Member Weitkamp echoed Keebler's concerned regarding traffic impacts, and expressed additional concerns regarding pedestrian safety. Commissioner King asked whether there had been any discussion regarding potential effects on existing buildings in the proposed area, and whether there would be any ground disturbance for the project. Development Director Krieg responded and clarified what has been already discussed regarding potential effects on existing buildings, as well as what will likely be needed for ground disturbance, etc. King expressed opposition to the project as currently proposed. The Commission discussed at length their concerns regarding the definitions of public art vs. signage. Associate Member Weitkamp expressed his belief that public art within a historic district or on a historic site should be voted on by both the Commission on Cultural Development and the Historic Preservation Commission, rather than just the Commission on Cultural Development. Weitkamp also asked if the City's Legal Department had been consulted when designating this project as public art vs. signage— Development Director Krieg responded that she was not sure. Weitkamp expressed that he believes they should be. Associate Member Keebler commented on whether there could be a better use of the funds proposed for this project. Vice Chair Riordan asked for additional clarification regarding the two design options for the letters — Development Director Krieg responded and clarified. Associate Member Weitkamp asked if a study had been conducted regarding potential future costs of the project regarding maintenance, etc. — Development Director Krieg responded and clarified. Commissioner King commented that the proposed location is in a nationally registered historic district, and expressed additional opposition to the proposed project. Associate Member Keebler asked how the Commission's comments would be presented to the City Council — Development Director Krieg responded that she would be forwarding everything that was said to the City Council. Associate Member Weitkamp requested that the Commission be copied on what is sent to City Council regarding their comments. Planning Officer Collette confirmed that a statement could be drafted for the Commission to vote on at their next meeting. The Commission discussed at length their desire to have approval authority over public art in historic districts. Chair Chernesky opened the public comments. Member of the public, Anna Maria, presented to the podium and expressed opposition to the project. Member of the public, Frank, presented to the podium and expressed his belief that the Historic Preservation Commission should be the only approval authority for public art in historic districts, and expressed concerns over the project's proposed location. Historic Preservation Commission — Meeting Minutes March 13t", 2025 Member of the public, Mike, presented to the podium and expressed opposition to the project. Member of the public, Suzette, presented to the podium and expressed opposition to the project, as well as concerns regarding the authority of the Commission on Cultural Development. City Councilor Wayne Mallar presented to the podium and stated that he is presenting public comment as a citizen, and not in his role as a City Councilor. Expressed opposition to the project. Member of the public, Joe, presented to the podium and expressed opposition to the project. Member of the public, Sonia, presented to the podium and expressed opposition to the project. Member of the public, Burt, presented to the podium and expressed concerns regarding the project, and expressed support for the Commission being involved in the approval process. Member of the public, Karen, presented to the podium and expressed support for the Commission. Member of the public, Hilary, presented to the podium and expressed opposition to the project. Member of the public, Roxanne, presented to the Commission via Zoom and expressed opposition to the project. Member of the public, Kay, presented to the podium and expressed opposition to the project. Chair Chernesky closed the public comments. 4. Correspondence: Staff Testimonv on LD 146 and LD 435 — Historic Tax Credit —An update on testimony staff have submitted on pending legislation. Chair Chernesky introduced the agenda item. Development Director Anne Krieg presented to the podium and gave an overview of the pending legislation for LD 146 and staff's testimony. Associate Member Weitkamp expressed support for staff's testimony. Associate Member Keebler expressed concern over this legislation [LD 146] potentially not impacting owners of historic homes in the City. Development Director Krieg responded and gave an overview of a second piece of legislation (LD 435) that would expand the tax credit to homeowners. � Meetinq Minutes — February 27, 2025 Associate Member Keebler moved to approve the February 27th meeting minutes. Associate Member Weitkamp seconded. All voting members in favor, none opposed. Motion passed. � Adjournment Planning Officer Anja Collette presented clarification regarding the Findings & Decisions process for application approvals. Associate Member Keebler commented on not allowing restrictions to discourage discussion — Planning Historic Preservation Commission — Meeting Minutes March 13t", 2025 Officer Collette responded and clarified the Commission's scope of authority. Commissioner Quin asked for a status update on properties that the Commissioners have expressed concern about— Planning Officer Collette responded and requested a list so that she could get the requested updates. Commissioner Quin expressed particular concern about the church at 126 Union Street. Collette stated that staff remedies were limited since the owners couldn't afford to make the necessary repairs, but that staff had sent a letter to the owners listing potential funding opportunities for repair of the steeple. Meeting adjourned at 8:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Maquillan Development Assistant Planning Division