City of Gardiner
Historic Preservation Commission
6 Church St. Telephone 207-582-6892
Gardiner, Me. 04345 Fax 207-582-6895
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
November 15, 2005
Gardiner City Hall, Council Chambers
Present: Clarence McKay, Chair Kirk Mohney Mike Giberson Geri Robbins-Doyle Norma McDonough Gail Ham
Absent: Victor Tessari, Alternate Derrick Grant, Alternate
Also Present: Mitchell Rasor, Planner, Staff to Historic Preservation Commission
Francis Gray – Recording Secretary
Anne Davis, Interim Director of Planning and Development
Brian Curry, PDT Architects Anita Nored, GSI Richard Bachelder, GSI Chad Reed, PDT Architects Gifford Swanson
1.) Clarence McKay called the meeting to order at 6:01 PM
2.) Roll call was taken.
3.) Kirk Mohney made a motion to accept the minutes as presented. Geri Doyle seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Gail Ham arrived.
NEW BUSINESS
4.) Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness from Gardiner Savings Institution FSB, Applicant; Anita Nored & Richard Bachelder, Agents
Proposal: To replace windows with Marvin Aluminum clad wood units or equal – 8x8 double hung replacements on all 3 buildings (front & back); 1st floor units on all 3 buildings; 4 floor dormer units and doors as per drawing.
Location: 149 - 157 Water Street, City Tax Map 34, Lot 138 & 139 and Map 37, Lot 167
Land Use Ordinance Reference: Section 9, Article F.
Anita Nored, Applicant, introduced herself and turned the review over the Brian Curley of PDT Architects, Agent for the project. He passed out packets with additional information, which includes what they were given before and supersedes the original application.
Brian Curley, Agent for the project, gave a detailed description of the project and showed a sample of the window type. The windows are proposed to be cream/off-white, Marvin wood windows w/aluminum cladding. They plan to maintain the same window profile. The storefront would have wood windows and doors on the retail side. The roof level would be asphalt shingles with a snow guard and lead coated copper. He described elevation drawings provided showing proposed dormers and decks on the back side, details of the Water Street side and parking lot.
Kirk Mohney noted that the 8 over 8 configuration in the proposal for buildings 2 & 3 matches what is there now and in building 1, the 8 over 12 matches what is there also. He asked if there were screens in the lower sash. Brian said yes, also that the lower level windows will not open.
Kirk Mohney distributed photocopied pictures of the storefronts. From these photos, the lower part of the storefront of building 3 was very high and in building 2, quite low – more typical of the 19th century & early 20th century commercial storefront design and in building 1, it was high. He said that in looking at the photos, there was not uniformity and the proposal is uniform. He asked if they might be flexible and perhaps have a little more variety. Brian Curley said that he had looked at photos from the library and others and had talked with Earle Shettleworth about the storefronts. Earle indicated that many storefronts originally had 8 over 8 configurations that were later changes over
time to suit the needs of the business. That is why there is so much variety. Brian said he will talk with the Applicant to see if they might want some changes. Kirk said the proposal is consistent with the standards in Preservation Brief 11, Rehabilitation of Storefronts, but wanted to look at uniformity across the three vs. what we see historically. The variety in detail seems to reflect a pattern that has existed for a while.
Norma McDonough asked if the mullions were placed in the windows instead of one big piece of glass would it make it look more historic. Brian Curley said he would put mullions at the transom. Earle said after the Civil War, technology changed and they went to bigger pieces of glass. The transom with the divided light might add some more interest and tie the front, the bottom and the top together a little bit more.
Gail Ham said that the purpose of the storefront windows used to be to display and it had something behind it. Display was a major feature because you could put something in the window. She asked if these will be open space without something behind it. Brian Curley said there will be a wide sill about 2 feet off the floor inside the window so something could be displayed there and the retailer could put a backing in there.
Kirk asked about sheet A8, the brick parapet above the dentil – was this in the proposal approved previously. Brian Curley said yes. The roof edge was in very poor shape and they had to make some emergency repairs. It’s from that point up that they are rebuilding with brick. They are replicating what is there. They are not extending the brick above beyond what was there. Kirk asked about sheet 4, the note about the lead coated flashing on the party wall. He said that he thought from the discussion at the prior meeting that the flashing for the roof shingles and then a cap for the walls so that you would still see some of the brick. Brian Curley said the party wall is in really bad condition.
The brick itself is in very bad shape. It cannot be just re-pointed. The brick is very porous and it’s letting water inside the building. Part of the wall started to collapse when they took off the roof. In this proposal they’ve come up with a plan to put lead coated copper flashing over the party wall. Kirk asked about an egress stair on building 2 to the roof of building 1 as shown on sheet A10. Brian said it is there now and they aren’t proposing any changes at this time. Mitchell asked if there was any thought about making any improvement now in terms of egress stairs where there is substantial construction going on now with the roof. The end wall is a highly visible wall and the stairs jump out. Brian said it is a future issue.
Kirk thanked Gardiner savings for the amount of information they have given the Commission. This is a long way from where we started.
Clarence asked if the two dormers were going to look exactly alike. Brian said no because the two buildings were not alike. Mitchel Rasor asked it the dormers were 1 large dormer or two separate dormers. Richard Bachelder said there would be two separate dormers. Down the road there might be access from one to the other.
Anita Nored asked if Mitchell was suggesting that they eliminate the stairs at this time where there is major construction going on. Mitchell said no - it is just that they’ve put a lot of work into the plan and the stairs visually jump out at you. Anita said when they get to that point, because it is a residential use on that floor, the Fire Marshal would have to be involved and they would tell them what they would have to do. Brian said it’s a visual thing, but also a safety thing. They will have to look at it at a later date.
Norma asked for clarification on what they were voting on tonight. Brian said the windows and the doors. He was just giving an update on the dormers and roof. Norma asked about the window on the storefront – will it be as proposed. Gail Ham said that the photos were interesting because they show that these building existed before anything in the rest of the line did and they show the consistency of the upper windows was overwhelming. She asked if they were in agreement with the 8 over 8s on the second and third floors. They said yes. She asked about the storefront windows. Would it be better for them to all look alike? Kirk said there is some inconsistency in the pattern anyway and maybe in looking at it in elevation you see it in a different way than out on the
street when it’s done. The pattern on building 3 is different from building 2 and different from building 1. Maybe it’s the combination of the same colors and detail, but what struck him was the uniformity and height of the horizontal lines at the lower section and at the transom level – it was uniform all the way across. There is certainly some inherent uniformity in those buildings because that granite line, that lintel at the top of the storefront is uniform. Geri noted that the placement of the doors on the three buildings will add a sense of difference as well. Mitchell suggested that different colors on the doors would add variety. Kirk suggested that panel detail on the front would add variety as well.
Kirk Mohney made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the windows with Marvin aluminum-clad wood units as shown tonight and as reflected in the plans that have been presented and to approve the dormer design on the rear elevations and the storefront designs as developed in the revised drawings that have been presented to us and dated 15 November 2005 and to approve the revised detailing of the lead-coated copper covering on the party wall parapets to be a full wrap rather than just a cap and roof flashing as previously approved, but that it will remain a cap on the end wall parapet as reflected in the simulated drawing. Geri Robbins-Doyle seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Kirk followed up on an item in the previous minutes referencing approval on the parapet reconstruction – that there was a requirement that a masonry spec be submitted for review. He asked that when they get that done, would they submit it. Brian Curley said they were working on it now.
5.) Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness from Lemon Lime Enterprises, LLC, Gifford Swanson, Applicant
Proposal: To rehabilitate storefront
Location: 279 Water Street, City Tax Map 37, Lot 119
Land Use Ordinance Reference: Section 9, Article F.
Gifford Swanson introduced himself and described his proposal. He would like to redo the storefront. There are 6 windows across the front of the building and they vary in width and length from 18” up to 78”. He described the internal columns and that there is one column that used to be on the inside of the building that is now on the outside. He is in the process of redoing the second floor into a front apartment and a rear apartment. Currently the building has two doors to the left on the front of the building. One serves the second and third floor apartments, one serves the storefront. What he would like to do is to replace the existing windows with 4 large windows with 2 smaller windows on either side. The window will sit above 30” high wooden panels. The
cornice above the windows will be wooden and will contain the signage for the store. He would also like to put in a new door on the far right of the building, which will serve as a second means of egress for the second floor front apartment.
Kirk noted that the existing layout of the columns behind the storefront is irregular and asked if Gifford was going to have to move one. Gifford said no, he didn’t want to get into moving them. You might see one of them through the window. He plans to recess the right hand door to match the other two about four feet. Clarence asked he were putting in all new windows. Gifford said he is considering replacement windows but had also considered re-cutting the glass, but didn’t know if the glass would survive a re-cut.
Gifford said that the windows he put in front came through with clad mullions instead of wood. He is thinking about putting them in the back of the building in the spring if they match up and replacing the front ones with wooden.
Gail asked if the two doors will stay as they exist now. Gifford said eventually he would like to put in a wooden door to match the one to the right. He will paint the door to the storefront for now.
Geri Robbins-Doyle made a motion that we consider a Certificate of Appropriateness for Lemon Lime to rehabilitate the street level of his building, the façade of the storefront, by setting the windows on 30” high wooden panels split into two; the window casing will be wooden and 6” wide; put on a second door entrance which will be wooden with possibly 2 panels with glass above; to remove the existing material above the storefront and cover a piece of gold and replace it with wood paneling; and box in the post by the 2 commercial doors. Kirk Mohney seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
OTHER BUSINESS
Kirk Mohney brought up the issue of internally lit signs inside of some businesses downtown. Gail noticed an externally lit sign at Bank of America. Other banks had been told they could not have lighted signs. Mitchell said some of the neon signs in place pre-dates the Ordinance. The Ordinance Review Committee is working on the Sign section of the Ordinance. He said members could forward issues to the Code Enforcement Office for the Ordinance Review Committee agenda.
Kirk mentioned that there was an article in the Bangor Daily News that said that Camden and Gardiner became the first towns in Maine to be designated as historical communities. The designation came from Preserve America. The Whitehouse initiative, spearheaded by Laura Bush, whose mission is to encourage communities to preserve their cultural heritage.
Norma McDonough noted that the area around the little park area by Yankee Title and by Henny Pennys have not been cleaned or kept up and the flower pots have not been cleaned out. Clarence McKay talked about another similar situation in the Gardiner Common – trash, dog waste, poison ivy, etc. Linda Matychowiak, the Downtown Manager, has contacted Gardiner’s Public Works about this. Mike Giberson said that the Gardiner Main Street sponsored two cleanups in the past. They participated in them and cleaned storefronts from one end of the street to the other. They have not cleaned up this year – it is up to the storefront owners. Most of the people who are merchants keep their storefronts clean, but someone like Yankee Title who do not depend on attracting clients into
their business, let it get dirty. He has brought it to their attention a couple of times and nothing has been done. Gail Ham said that she and others have swept the streets and cleaned up for special events in the past and then had to go down the next morning to clean up the trash from the night before. It was disheartening. She asked if there is a committee within the merchants to take care of this. Mike said that Gardiner Main Street has done some work, but the merchants should be keeping their storefronts clean. The Commission members discussed ways to accomplish this.
6.) Adjourn
Geri Robbins-Doyle made a motion to adjourn. Mike Giberson seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Meeting adjourned.
| 
