Town of Brunswick, Maine

Transcription

1 Town of Brunswick, Maine VILLAGE REVIEW BOARD 85 UNION STREET, BRUNSWICK, ME VILLAGE REVIEW BOARD AGENDA BRUNSWICK TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS THURSDAY, JANUARY 25, :30 P.M. 1. Case # VRB Pleasant Street (St. John s Church/All Saints Parish) The Board will review and take action on a request for a revised Certificate of Appropriateness to modify front façade and clearstory windows as part of the new construction of a multi-use building at 43 Pleasant Street (Map U16, Lots 47-48). The original Certificate of Appropriateness was approved by the Board on November 15, Discuss Barba-Wheelock Contracted Scope of Work for Village Review Overlay Zone Design Guidelines Update and Associated Zoning Ordinance Amendments 3. Other Business 4. Approval of Minutes 5. Staff Approvals: 34 Federal St Shed demo 123 Maine St Windows 25 Mill St Sign 153 Park Row Sign 103 Maine St Sign This agenda is being mailed to all abutters within 200 feet of the above referenced locations for Certificate of Appropriateness requests and serves as public notice for said meeting. Village Review Board meetings are open to the public. Please call the Brunswick Department of Planning and Development ( ) with any questions or comments. This meeting will to be televised.

2 Draft Findings of Fact 43 Pleasant Street (Revision) Request for Certificate of Appropriateness for New Construction Village Review Board Review Date: January 25, 2018 Project Name: Revision to Approved Façade for New Multi-Use Building (All Saints Parish) Case Number: VRB Tax Map: Map U16, Lots 47 and 48 Applicant: Charleen Foley All Saints Parish 43 Pleasant Street Brunswick, ME Property Owners: Authorized Representative: PROJECT SUMMARY The Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland Trust c/o All Saints Parish Booking Office 144 Lincoln Street Bath, ME Kevin Clark, PLS, President Sitelines PA 8 Cumberland Street Brunswick, ME , ext.14 The applicant is requesting a revised Certificate of Appropriateness for changes in window treatments due to the final design of the interior spaces within the soon to be constructed 14,250 square foot, one-story multi-purpose building for All Saints Parish, located at 43 Pleasant Street. The original Certificate of Appropriateness (approved findings attached) was approved by the Board on 11/15/16 and is now under construction. Per the attached letter from Sitelines P.A. dated 12/27/17, three modified areas of design are as follows: 1. The simplification of the bay window along the wall facing Pleasant Street. 2. The reduction in scale and division of the window to the west of the bay window along the wall facing Pleasant Street. 3. The inclusion of solid panels in and among the areas of the gym roof clearstory which was added to specifically address the owners concern of snow drift build up. Prior to application submittal, Staff and Board Chair, Gary Massanek, met with the applicant to determine level of review (minor or major). Due to the type of revisions being proposed, it was determined that the Board should be the approving body. 1

3 Elevation comparisons, dated 12/14/17, of what was previously approved and the requested revisions have been provided in addition to an example of panels to be placed within the clearstory area. Staff has reviewed the revisions and has found them to be acceptable and consistent with the originally approved design. DRAFT MOTIONS 43 PLEASANT STREET (REVISION) REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION VILLAGE REVIEW BOARD REVIEW DATE: JANUARY 25, 2018 Motion 1: Motion 2: That the Certificate of Appropriateness application is deemed complete. That the Board approves the revised Certificate of Appropriateness for changes in window treatments due to the final design of the interior spaces of a new multi-purpose structure at 43 Pleasant Street as outlined in the application with the following conditions: 1. That the Board s review and approval does hereby refer to these findings of fact, the plans and materials submitted by the applicant and the written and oral comments of the applicant, his representatives, reviewing officials, and members of the public as reflected in the public record. Any changes to the approved plan not called for in these conditions of approval or otherwise approved by the Director of Planning and Development as a minor modification, shall require further review and approval in accordance with the Brunswick Zoning Ordinance. 2

4 Approved Findings of Fact Pleasant Street Request for Certificate of Appropriateness for New Construction Village Review Board Review Date: September 20, 2016 (Tabled) Approval Date: November 15, 2016 Project Name: Construction of New Multi-Use Building (All Saints Parish) Case Number: VRB Tax Map: Map U16, Lots 47 and 48 Applicant: Charleen Foley All Saints Parish Pleasant Street Brunswick, ME Property Owners: The Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland Trust c/o All Saints Parish Booking Office 144 Lincoln Street Bath, ME Authorized Representative: PROJECT SUMMARY Kevin Clark, PLS, President Sitelines PA 8 Cumberland Street Brunswick, ME , ext.14 The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for the new construction of a 14,250 square foot, one-story multi-purpose building for All Saints Parish, located at Pleasant Street. This proposal is considered Phase 1 of a two-phase common development plan scheme approved by the Planning Board on July 26, A workshop session was conducted by the Village Review Board on July 19, 2016 at which time, Board members and neighbors raised concerns regarding compatibility with existing neighborhood mass and scale and the desire for the straight line of the Pleasant Street façade to be broken up architecturally, as well as building materials for the west facing side of the structure. It appears that the concerns have not been addressed in the revised text nor elevations contained in the application with the exception of additional landscaping indicated. The Village Review Board conducted their review of the application on September 20 th. Concerns were again raised concerning the mass and scale of the structure, in particular, the front façade. The Board deemed the application complete but tabled further review, requesting the applicant to respond to Board concerns. A revised application, dated October 25, 2016, was submitted and is attached. The proposed development is located in the Mixed Use 2, Town Residential (TR1) Zoning District and the Village Review Overlay Zone. 1

5 The following draft Findings of Fact for a Certificate of Appropriateness for New Construction is based upon review standards as stated in Section of the Brunswick Zoning Ordinance Review Standards A. General Standard. 1. All Certificates of Appropriateness for new construction, additions, alterations, relocations or demolition shall be in accordance with applicable requirements of this Ordinance. In meeting the standards of this Ordinance the applicant may obtain additional guidance from the U.S. Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and the Village Review Zone Design Guidelines. The proposed structure appears to be mostly consistent with existing Village Review Overlay Zone Design Guidelines, with the exception of mass and scale of the structure and how the structure relates to the street. As designed, the proposed structure and outdoor plaza opens to the side parking lot and forms an acceptable campus setting, facing the historic St. John the Baptist Church, the campus anchor. During the previous workshop session, it was requested that the applicant consider adding architectural features to break up the massing of the Pleasant Street façade. However, no options other than additional landscaping have been provided for consideration at this time. 11/15 Review: The front façade has been redesigned to be less massive in appearance by reducing wall length, adding floor to ceiling windows, setting back building corners and lowering roof height. Additional landscaping along the street side of the building, in and around the new location of the Madonna statue, has been provided. B. New Construction, Additions and Alterations to Existing Structures. 1. In approving applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new construction, additions or alterations to contributing resources, the reviewing entity shall make findings that the following standards have been satisfied: a. Any additions or alterations shall be designed in a manner to minimize the overall effect on the historic integrity of the contributing resource. Not applicable. b. Alterations shall remain visually compatible with the existing streetscape. Not applicable. c. Concealing of distinctive historic or architectural character-defining features is prohibited. If needed, the applicant may replace any significant features with in-kind replacement and/or accurate reproductions. Not applicable. d. New construction or additions shall be visually compatible with existing mass, scale and materials of the surrounding contributing resources. The proposed building design and its design elements are visually compatible with the existing materials of the surrounding resources. As stated above, existing mass and scale should be addressed. 11/15 Review: See above. e. When constructing additions, the applicant shall maintain the structural integrity of existing structures. Not applicable. 2

6 f. For new construction of or additions to commercial, multi-family and other non-residential uses the following additional standards shall apply: 1) Parking lots shall be prohibited in side and front yards, except if the application involves the renovation of existing structures where such a configuration currently exists. In cases where such parking configurations exist, the parking area shall be screened from the public right-of-way with landscaping or fencing. No changes to the existing side parking lot are proposed during Phase 1 of the common development plan for the site. 2) Site plans shall identify pedestrian ways and connections from parking areas to public rights-of-way. As shown on the site plan, pedestrian connections to sidewalks and the parking lot are provided. An interiorfacing plaza is also proposed between the structure and side parking lot. 3) All dumpsters and mechanical equipment shall be located no less than 25 feet away from a public right-of-way and shall be screened from public view. No dumpsters or mechanical equipment will be located within 25 feet from the public rights-of-way nor be visible to the public. 4) Roof-top-mounted heating, ventilation, air conditioning and energy producing equipment shall be screened from the view of any public right-of-way or incorporated into the structural design to the extent that either method does not impede functionality. Parapets, projecting cornices, awnings or decorative roof hangs are encouraged. Flat roofs without cornices are prohibited. No roof-top equipment is indicated. 11/15 Review: Rooftop equipment will be screened from view. 5) Building Materials: a) The use of cinder-block, concrete and concrete block is prohibited on any portion of a structure that is visible from the building's exterior, with the exception of use in the building's foundation. As stated in the application, a pattern of large stone-like veneer masonry units will be used on the sides facing the side plaza (entry), Pleasant Street and a portion of the west side closest to Pleasant Street. Buff colored precast concrete (or brick veneer) panels will be used alongside the tall window openings and the west and south side walls. b) The use of vinyl, aluminum or other non-wood siding is permitted as illustrated in the Village Review Board Design Guidelines. Asphalt and asbestos siding are prohibited. None proposed. c) Buildings with advertising icon images built into their design ("trademark buildings") are prohibited. Not applicable. 6) No building on Maine Street shall have a horizontal expanse of more than 40 feet without a pedestrian entry. Not applicable. 7) No building on Maine Street shall have more than 15 feet horizontally of windowless wall. Not applicable. 8) All new buildings and additions on Maine Street: a) Must be built to the front property line. This may be waived if at least 60% of the building's front facade is on the property line, and the area in front of the setback is developed as a pedestrian space. Not applicable. b) If adding more than 50% new floor area to a structure, the addition shall be at least two stories high and not less than 20 feet tall at the 3

7 front property line. Not applicable. c) The first floor facade of any portion of a building that is visible from Maine Street shall include a minimum of 50% glass. Upper floors shall have a higher percentage of solid wall, between 15% and 40% glass. Not applicable. 2. Proposed additions or alterations to noncontributing resources shall be designed to enhance or improve the structure s compatibility with nearby contributing resources as compared to the existing noncontributing resources. Not applicable. C. Signs Signs shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 6 (Sign Regulations) with consideration given to the Village Review Zone Design Guidelines. Any proposed signs shall meet ordinance standards and Village Review Zone Design Guidelines for design, size and placement. A formal review and approval will be completed by the Code Enforcement Officer upon submittal of a sign permit. APPROVED MOTIONS PLEASANT STREET REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION VILLAGE REVIEW BOARD REVIEW DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2016 (Tabled) APPROVAL DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 2016 The Village Review Board deemed the Certificate of Appropriateness application complete on September 20, Motion 2: That the Board approves the Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of a new multi-purpose structure at Pleasant Street as outlined in the application with the following conditions: 1. That the Board s review and approval does hereby refer to these findings of fact, the plans and materials submitted by the applicant and the written and oral comments of the applicant, his representatives, reviewing officials, and members of the public as reflected in the public record. Any changes to the approved plan not called for in these conditions of approval or otherwise approved by the Director of Planning and Development as a minor modification, shall require further review and approval in accordance with the Brunswick Zoning Ordinance. 4

8 December 27, Mr. Jared Woolston, Town Planner Town of Brunswick 85 Union Street Brunswick, Maine Re: Village Review Board Certificate of Appropriateness ALL SAINTS PARISH MULTI-PURPOSE BUILDING PLEASANT STREET Tax Map U16, Lots 47 & 48 Dear Jared: On behalf of ALL SAINTS PARISH, Sitelines, PA is pleased to submit the enclosed Architectural renderings, VRB Application Form and supportive narrative for design modifications to the façade of the previously approved Multi-Purpose Building on the ST. JOHN S CHURCH CAMPUS located at Pleasant Street. This letter is intended to summarize the modifications in order to facilitate review and approval by the Village Review Board. Please see the following narrative by Ryan Kanteres of Scott Simons Architects, regarding the design changes: In any project, the progression from conceptual design to the nuts and bolts of the construction documents involves a degree of evolution. The designer uses their judgement and discretion to the best of their ability to keep these changes aligned with the fundamental formulation of the design. There are inevitably lessons learned along the way that impact this evolution. In the process of developing the construction documents for the All Saints Multi- Purpose Building on Pleasant street many details were resolved and finalized as the specifics of space programing, budget, and construction methods were fully established. At the time of the presenting the schematic design there was still the usual uncertainty regarding programing, budget and construction methods, but it was felt that there was a strong concept and clear direction to move forward. It was brought to the attention of the project team after the planning board approved plans were submitted for the final building permit there was a concern that three areas of the design may have moved beyond the extents of a simple developments of the project as presented. The three areas were; The simplification of the bay window along Pleasant street The reduced in scale and division of the window to the west of the bay window SITELINES P.A. CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS 8 CUMBERLAND STREET, BRUNSWICK, ME PHONE:

9 All Saints Parish Multi-Purpose Building Brunswick, Maine Page 2 of 2 The inclusion of solid panels in and among the areas of the gym roof clearstory which was added to specifically address the owners concerns of snow drift build up. Uncertainty around the final utilization of the spaces behind these windows was a major factor the simplification of these elements. The construction documents reflected what was believed to be a balance between the owners evolving understanding of how they would utilize these spaces and the original design. Additionally, budget considerations are an ever-present pressure on any project and extraordinary effort and wherewithal was expended to source, detail, and pay for a stonework compatible with the work on the adjacent church. To this end the some of the trim around these windows was simplified. Finally, the depth of structural members could not have been done prior to the completion of the in depth structural design and engineering. These efforts, like many involved in any building process, are costly and are only reasonably engaged after the preliminary conceptual approvals are secured. To balance theses issue revisions were made to the windows along the Pleasant Street elevation, the bay window and the single window were both made simpler and smaller to better accommodate the final depth of the structural steel required in these location, and to better address the programmatic requirements of the spaces they opened into. In addition to these modifications, the decision was made to omit the trim in the masonry walls at these locations to simplify and improve the installation of the stone masonry cladding. These proposed updates are offered specifically to address the concerns that came to the design team regarding the elevation approved at the August planning board meeting and its variance from the originally presented VRB documents. This proposed amendment to the documents previously approved by the planning board is intend to realign the project more closely with images presented in November This solution is the result of working with the full design team, the clients, and the selected contractor, and hopefully helps balance all the various concerns surrounding these issues. We trust that this information satisfactorily addresses the requirements for a Certificate of Appropriateness Application and we look forward to meeting with you and the Village Review Board at the January 17, 2018 meeting to obtain their feedback. We appreciate your assistance with this project. Should you have any questions, please call or contact me via kclark@sitelinespa.com. Very truly yours, Kevin P. Clark Kevin P. Clark, PLS President Enclosures SITELINES P.A. CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS 8 CUMBERLAND STREET, BRUNSWICK, ME PHONE:

10

11

12

13 14 December 2017 Village Review Board

14 2 ELEVATION DECEMBER 2017 ELEVATION FROM VRB PRESENTATION NOVEMBER York Street, Portland, ME PLEASANT STREET ELEVATION COMPARISON All Saints Multi - Purpose Facility Brunswick, Maine 14 December 2017

15 3 ELEVATION DECEMBER 2017 (ENLARGED) ELEVATION FROM VRB PRESENTATION NOVEMBER 2016 (ENLARGED) 75 York Street, Portland, ME PLEASANT STREET ELEVATION COMPARISON -ENLARGED All Saints Multi - Purpose Facility Brunswick, Maine 14 December 2017

16 4 75 York Street, Portland, ME MATERIAL PRECEDENT All Saints Multi - Purpose Facility Brunswick, Maine 14 December 2017

17 14 December 2017 Village Review Board

18

19

20

21

22

23 Brunswick Village Review Overlay Zone Changes Barba + Wheelock Architecture SCHEDULE January 19, 2018 Task Meetings Suggested Dates Locations Notice to Proceed / Owner-Architect Agreement January 2018 N/A B+W meets with VRB to introduce scope of work, concepts, and to garner feedback VRB monthly meeting MTG # 1.1 February February 22, Thursday 4:30 PM to 6:30 PM Town Hall Neighborhood Meeting with Stakeholders VRB hosts B+W moderates MTG # 1.2 March March 7 or March 8 Wednesday or Thursday Offsite Guidelines for Demolition Review VRB monthly meeting MTG # 1.3 April April 17, Tuesday 7:15 PM to 9:15 PM Town Hall Guidelines for New Construction / Additions VRB monthly meeting MTG # 1.4 May May 15, Tuesday 7:15 PM to 9:15 PM Town Hall Guidelines for Ramps, Synthetic Siding, Other. Recommendations on boundary changes. Ordinance Draft language. VRB monthly meeting. MTG # 1.5 June June 19, Tuesday *** 7:15 PM to 9:15 PM Town Hall ***B+W may need to make thi Special meeting date due to School vacation schedule. To Be confirmed. VRB/Planning Board Public Meeting MTG # 2.1 July New funding cycle begins, new contract with B+W takes effect Date TBD Town Hall Town Council Public Meeting MTG # 2.2 August Date TBD Town Hall Typical Process: Draft agenda or presentation to Jared Woolston 2 weeks in advance. Materials for the public to Jared 10 days in advance. Barba + Wheelock Architecture, Sustainability, Preservation

24 Draft 2 VILLAGE REVIEW BOARD WORKSHOP MINUTES MAY 16, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Gary Massanek, Vice Chair Connie Lundquist, Rebekah Beaulieu, Claudia Knox, Laura Lienert, and Karen Topp MEMBERS ABSENT: Annee Tara STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning and Development, Anna Breinich A workshop meeting of the Village Review Board was held on Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at the Municipal Meeting Facility at 85 Union Street, Meeting Room 206. Chair Gary Massanek called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. WORKSHOP: The Village Review Board will hold a workshop session with a presentation on the Certified Local Government Program by Maine Historic Preservation Commission staff. Megan Hopkins of the Maine Historic Preservation Commission introduced herself and provided a brief work background. Megan presented a PowerPoint presentation on Certified Governments (CLG). The presentation reviewed: What is a certified local government CLG communities (or thinking about becoming one) How to become a CLG overview of National Parks Services (NPS) Maine s Requirements Should we become a CLG Grants o Laura Lienert asked about tax credits and Megan said that she would look into this further Moving forward o Claudia Knox brought up the fact that the historic district includes National Register District and those that are not as well. Megan said that this would include the VRB overlay. o Per Anna Breinich s request, Megan discussed what criteria Brunswick would still need to complete to become a CLG. o Claudia Knox asked if the guidelines would be an issue. Megan said that they are not an issue and discussed the intent of guidelines. o Members discussed federal funding and how that would be affected if Brunswick becomes a CLG. o Anne asked if vinyl siding was allowed under the CLG. Megan replied that she has to look into this as she does not think this would need to be submitted to the National Parks. Megan briefly discussed issues with vinyl windows and stated that they are trying to revamp the window list. 1

25 Draft 2 o Anna asked if the list of low maintenance materials is also being updated such as Hardie Planks. Megan replied that she will look into this as well and thinks that a lot of the decisions will be what the Board feels comfortable with. Megan discussed the HPF Grant and said that the hope is to produce a pamphlet to educate the public on preservation. Adjourn This meeting was adjourned at 6:08 P.M. Respectfully Submitted Tonya Jenusaitis, Recording Secretary 2

26 Draft 2 VILLAGE REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES JUNE 20, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Connie Lundquist, Rebekah Beaulieu, Claudia Knox, Laura Lienert and Annee Tara MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Gary Massanek and Karen Topp STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning and Development, Anna Breinich A meeting of the Village Review Board was held on Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at the Municipal Meeting Facility at 85 Union Street, Council Chambers. Vice Chair Connie Lundquist called the meeting to order at 7:15 P.M. 1. Case # VRB Union Street The Board will discuss and take action regarding two Certificates of Appropriateness to 1) demolish an existing one-car garage, and 2) construct a replacement two-car garage and accessory dwelling unit structure, located at 20 Union Street (Map U14, Lot 64). Anna Breinich introduced the application and reviewed the project summary dated June 20, The applicant, Rebecca Darr, stated that when she and her husband purchased the property in 2009, they were told that there was nothing they could really do with the garage aside from painting it. If they wanted other renovations, the garage would need to be demolished. Rebecca and her husband would like to build a two-car garage using the same footprint, with a studio above. Rebecca stated that they do not know what the design will be yet and that they just met with the architect. The architect did inform them that due to the arch of the driveway they may want to consider a single garage door instead of two garage doors. Rebekah Beaulieu asked if there has been any other opinion conducted on the garage since Rebecca Darr replied that they had an appraiser at their home today as they are doing a mortgage refinance so they may have something coming, but the 2009 report is the most recent. Laura Lienert asked how married they are to the highlander style window. Rebecca Darr replied that it was a last minute choice so that they could obtain an estimate from Hammond Lumber; they are still open. Rebecca Darr said that they plan on painting the garage grey and they are still unsure of the umbrella roof. Annee Tara pointed out that they seem to be in a rush and asked if they are trying to get it done this year. Rebecca Darr replied that they are trying to do it sooner so that they do not push it off anymore. Annee asked where they proposed the tenant would park. Rebecca Darr replied that the driveway is rather large and they should still be able to drive around a vehicle parked in the driveway. With regards to the water damage noted and seeing that they are located at the bottom of a hill, Claudia Knox suggested that they look into the source of the water damage; the source may just be the roof. Connie Lundquist asked the applicant if they are seeking suggestions or approval of 1

27 Draft 2 a new structure. Rebecca Darr replied that ideally she is seeking approval, but she does not know how this process works. They do not have anyone scheduled yet and they only have a basic plan. Claudia asked staff what the process would be to allow the basic structure to be approved and allow staff to make decisions regarding materials. Anna explained that staff can approve minor modifications, but pointed out that the applicant has presented options on the materials and the Board can state what they would prefer for siding, roofing. Anna said that either way, they can still act on the demolition and table the COA for new construction if the Board would like more detail from the applicant. Chair Connie Lundquist opened the meeting to public comment. No comment was made and the public comment period was closed. Laura Lienert feels that her biggest concern is with the roof and reviewed the new construction Design Guidelines. Laura said that she is not sure that the proposed roof line is compatible and pointed out that Hammond Lumber does have some prebuilt rooflines with living space above that may work better. In addition, Laura pointed out that the guidelines also state that double and triple width garage doors should be avoided. Laura said that in fitting with the neighborhood, having two clearly defined doors would be the way to go. Annee Tara replied that she had the same reaction to the gambrel roof but then she looked across Oak Street and is less concerned with the proposed garage looking like the garage next door as this neighborhood is eclectic. Laura clarified that she is not suggesting that the garage look like the one next door, but that the roofline should be compatible with the primary structure as presented in the Design Guidelines and the primary structure does not have a gambrel roof. Claudia Knox stated that she also had some misgivings about the roofline but then she recognized the applicant s goal to create a living space above on a fundamentally small footprint. Claudia said that the gambrel option seems more rational as it will allow for more headroom. Rebekah Beaulieu stated that she did not have any negative feelings towards the proposed roof, but that some of the options that Laura has brought forth may be worth looking into. Rebekah agreed that there is a lot of eclecticism in this area and although she understands where Laura is coming from she also feels that there is enough variety of the facades in the immediate area and does not think the garage would stand out. Claudia asked for more information on the garage door. Rebecca Darr replied that she does not like the idea of one large door but that they would like to be able to put two cars in the garage. The contractor was just advising them to the point of practicality when pulling out of the garage. With regards to the roofline, Rebecca Darr replied that the gambrel roof would allow for more living space. With respect to the garage door windows, Connie Lundquist pointed out that most of the garage doors in the area have a stacked, six over twelve decorative windows. MOTION BY CLAUDIA KNOX. THAT THE CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS JOINT APPLICATION IS DEEMED COMPLETE. MOTION SECONDED BY LAURA LIENERT, APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. 2

28 Draft 2 MOTION BY CLAUDIA KNOX THAT THE BOARD APPROVES THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR DEMOLITION OF A ONE-CAR GARAGE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 20 UNION STREET, AS OUTLINED IN THE APPLICATION AND AS SATISFIED BY SUBSECTION D.1.D, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. That the Board s review and approval does hereby refer to these findings of fact, the plans and materials submitted by the applicant and the written and oral comments of the applicant, his representatives, reviewing officials, and members of the public as reflected in the public record. Any changes to the approved plan not called for in these conditions of approval or otherwise approved by the Director of Planning and Development as a minor modification, shall require further review and approval in accordance with the Brunswick Zoning Ordinance. MOTION SECONDED BY LAURA LIENERT, APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. Connie Lundquist suggested that they set the conditions for the garage. Laura Lienert replied that she would like a condition that the garage does not have a gambrel roof and suggested that the applicant vet the design of the garage a little more. Rebekah Beaulieu replied that maybe they should table the application and have a follow-up. Laura stated that she is comfortable with a having the applicant follow-up through staff, but does not feel that the applicant needs to come back before the Board. In looking at the accessory apartment, Anna Breinich asked the applicant what the square footage is of the apartment. Laura replied that it is 562 square feet. Anna said that the Board should keep the square footage and the height limitations in mind because this will be another issue for the applicant. Anna said that when she saw the roofline she wasn t sure that the Board would go for it, but as Rebekah Beaulieu stated, this isn t completely out of line for the area. Rebekah suggested that a condition be made that the applicant have additional conversation with staff regarding the roofline. Connie suggested that there be a condition that requires the applicant have two garage doors and that the windows be similar to other windows in the neighborhood. With respect to windows in the studio, Connie suggested that they require exterior mullions. Claudia pointed out that the main house has plain, double hung windows. Connie advised the applicant that if they choose to have mullions in the windows of the accessory structure, that the mullions be exterior. Laura stated that she would prefer wood siding. MOTION BY ANNEE TARA THAT THE BOARD APPROVES THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A REPLACEMENT STRUCTURE BEING A TWO-CAR GARAGE/ACCESSORY APARTMENT AT 20 UNION STREET, AS OUTLINED IN THE APPLICATION, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the Board s review and approval does hereby refer to these findings of fact, the plans and materials submitted by the applicant and the written and oral comments of the applicant, his representatives, reviewing officials, and 3

29 Draft 2 members of the public as reflected in the public record. Any changes to the approved plan not called for in these conditions of approval or otherwise approved by the Director of Planning and Development as a minor modification, shall require further review and approval in accordance with the Brunswick Zoning Ordinance. 2. Regarding considerations of functionality, floor space, and height limitation, that the applicant will follow up with the Director of Planning and Development to further explore roofline options similar in style to that of the neighborhood and confirm with staff approval. 3. That the proposed garage will have 2 garage doors with windows, similar in style to that of the neighborhood. 4. That the windows are compatible in style to that of the primary residence and, further, having no grids. 5. That a wood-based siding is the preferred material over vinyl or composite materials. MOTION SECONDED BY LAURA LIENERT, APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. Case # VRB Maple Street The Board will discuss and take action regarding two Certificates of Appropriateness to 1) demolition an existing residential structure, and 2) construct a replacement residential structure, located at 7 Maple Street (Map U08, Lot 80). Anna Breinich introduced the application for demolition and replacement of a residential structure and reviewed the project summary dated June 20, Anna stated that this residential structure has not been lived in for the past five years and both the Codes Enforcement Officer and the Deputy Fire Chief / Life Safety Officer have visited the site and determined that it is in very bad shape. Their reports are included in the packet materials. The structure was purchased via a bank sale and the new owners would like to demolish the condemned structure and rebuild on the same footprint and same scale. Shawn Cox, stated that his mother-in-law purchased the structure with the hopes of building another single family home for herself. Shawn would be surprised if the current structure lasted another year without the roof collapsing and agreed with Anna Breinich s summary. Laura Lienert asked the applicant if they were using vinyl clapboards and wood windows. Shawn confirmed that this is what they were using. Claudia Knox asked if they had a time frame. Shawn replied that they would like to move forward as soon as possible as they purchased the condemned structure in November of Anna clarified that the windows are vinyl clad wood. Connie Lundquist asked if the mullions were going to be interior or exterior. Shawn replied that they were interior. Connie explained that there is a dimensional effect when the mullions are on the exterior and this effect is lost when they are in between the window panes. Connie asked the applicant if they would be willing to consider using exterior mullions as they have requested these in past cases. Claudia added that she did not believe that exterior mullions added to the cost of the windows much and pointed out that this is suggested in the VRB Design Guidelines that they try to honor. Anna clarified for the applicant that the mullions 4

30 Draft 2 would just be grids that attach to the exterior and if they wanted they can also be added to the interior. Claudia expressed that she is happy to see a structure that is no longer livable being demolished so that another structure can be put in its place to allow someone to be added to the downtown community. Laura Lienert echoed Claudia Knox s comments and thinks that the building being proposed will be a great addition to the community and a boost to Maple Street. However, Laura does think that the vinyl should be addressed and pointed out that there is a whole page about the history of Maple Street. Although there is vinyl present on Maple Street, they should follow what the Design Guidelines. Laura pointed out that there are a lot of different materials available and reiterated that she does not want to see vinyl. Anna Breinich pointed out that the guidelines do list vinyl as an acceptable material. Laura agreed that the guidelines state that it is acceptable, but that original materials are preferred; she does not know how they justify that. Claudia replied that it appears from the application and from the comments made by the applicant that due diligence has been done but that she too does not understand why they chose vinyl. Claudia said that she wants to support the applicant and pointed out that if the applicant was looking for material that required little maintenance, even plastic breaks and vinyl chalks. Rebekah Beaulieu said that in looking at the vinyl and the wood based composite, she believes that they would prefer the composite, but asked members how they want to handle this. Should they just state again for the record that they do not like vinyl, solicit more discussion with the applicant or propose something else? Connie Lundquist replied that she does not believe that the Board does not like vinyl, and understands that the guidelines say it is acceptable when there is no other choice, but does not feel that vinyl is a given. They have guidelines for a reason and would not be putting people through this process if there was not a reason. Laura asked if it wouldn t be beneficial to have an education session on the cost of materials and the different types of materials. Although most assume vinyl is the cheapest way to go, this may not necessarily be the case. Rebekah replied that maybe what they need to ask of the applicant is that other material options be looked at prior to saying yes to vinyl, but that vinyl is not necessarily off the table. Annee Tara asked members if in moving forward they wanted to give Anna the ability to allow or not allow vinyl after the applicant has provided other material options. Claudia asked Anna if she would be comfortable making this decision. Anna replied that she would like this application to move forward and that she could make the decision if members decided upon this. Anna pointed out that the site will have to have some asbestos removed which will take some time. The Board could approve the demolition tonight and ask the applicant to do more research on wood and composite siding materials and come back to the Board in July. This will still allow the applicant to prepare the site for construction. Anna said that they could issue the applicant their permit for the foundation prior to final approval so long as the Board is OK with the structural design of the building. Another way they could handle the application is to approve the COA with a condition that the applicant come back before the Board with other siding options. Connie replied that she is comfortable with adding a condition that they allow the applicant to move forward, but that they are required to come back before the Board for a final decision regarding building materials. 5

31 Draft 2 MOTION BY ANNEE TARA THAT THE CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS JOINT APPLICATION IS DEEMED COMPLETE. MOTION SECONDED BY CLAUDIA KNOX, APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION BY LAURA LIENERT THAT THE BOARD APPROVES THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR DEMOLITION OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 7 MAPLE STREET AS OUTLINED IN THE APPLICATION AND AS SATISFIED BY SUBSECTION D.1.D, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. That the Board s review and approval does hereby refer to these findings of fact, the plans and materials submitted by the applicant and the written and oral comments of the applicant, his representatives, reviewing officials, and members of the public as reflected in the public record. Any changes to the approved plan not called for in these conditions of approval or otherwise approved by the Director of Planning and Development as a minor modification, shall require further review and approval in accordance with the Brunswick Zoning Ordinance. MOTION SECONDED BY CLAUDIA KNOX, APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION BY LAURA LIENERT THAT THE BOARD APPROVES THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AT 7 MAPLE STREET, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF EXTERIOR SIDING MATERIAL, AS OUTLINED IN THE APPLICATION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the Board s review and approval does hereby refer to these findings of fact, the plans and materials submitted by the applicant and the written and oral comments of the applicant, his representatives, reviewing officials, and members of the public as reflected in the public record. Any changes to the approved plan not called for in these conditions of approval or otherwise approved by the Director of Planning and Development as a minor modification, shall require further review and approval in accordance with the Brunswick Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the windows have simulated exterior grids. 3. That the applicant provides an alternative non-vinyl siding material, preferably wood-based, for consideration and approval by the Village Review Board. MOTION SECONDED BY REBEKAH BEAULIEU, APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Case # VRB Maine Street The Board will discuss and take action regarding a Certificate of Appropriateness to complete exterior renovations to the Field Block building, located at 147 Maine Street (Map U13, Lot 161). 6

32 Draft 2 Anna Breinich introduced the application and project summary dated June 20, 2017 for extensive exterior façade improvements as noted in the application and said that the architect for the applicant is here tonight to discuss those improvements. Keith Field, applicant, pointed out that they are looking to replace the siding on the entire block and clarified that the address is actually 145 Maine Street. Keith said that the block was built in 1902 and has been in his family since 1918; the Field family is in its fourth generation of ownership and they are very proud. His desire is not only to rehabilitate the building, but to bring it back to its previous beauty and historic accuracy much of which was changed and removed in previous generations. For example, the window molding header trim has been removed, iconic molding has been removed, and a balustrade above the Vinyl Haven storefront has been removed. It is his desire to create beauty not only in the jewelry store he owns here, but also in the building itself. This building was built by the same builder as the Lincoln Building, AF Warren of Auburn. Keith intends to bring the second story interior to its original beauty and professional function. He plans to remove the original brick print asphalt siding as well as the wood clapboards underneath to examine potential damage to the sheathing. Keith said that underlying clapboard has rot. Deterioration and even the extent of its actual existence is unknown as the asphalt siding was put on in the 1960 s due to deterioration of the clap at the time. The building needs blown-in insulation and if they are down to the sheathing and a barrier layer is applied, this will also give them a flat surface to work on to install the durable steel siding that they are seeking. Keith stated that he must consider the cost to maintain wood clapboard and he finds the cost prohibitive. He has studied True Cedar Steel Siding warrantees, guarantees, and color and would also like to have the plain design as it is more historically accurate. The current asphalt now stands above the window trim and the first level column trim, True Cedar can be installed without a J clip. Keith would like to change the storefront canopy to a smaller frame and within the storefront space. John from Barba and Wheelock presented a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed the scope of the work, siding, wood storefront and pilasters, corner board buildouts, rooftop balustrade, restore eves and window head trim, replace rooftop membrane and modify window, rework south façade, rework mechanical equipment to rooftop, modify fire stairs, and clad over first floor windows at the north. John stated that he read over the Staff Review Committee meeting notes and the Village Review Design Guidelines and it is his understanding that they will allow vinyl over the historic clapboards, but he would really hate to see this. He thinks that the Cedar Steel siding retains the relationship in terms of authenticity that Keith is looking to gain. John did go back to the Secretary of interior standards and feels that the strongest case is with number 9 which talks about exterior renovations. John passed around samples of the materials that they wish to use. They are leading towards a darker clapboard and lighter trim, but are trying to avoid white trim. Laurie DeCamilla highlighted the sustainability and functionality of the Cedar Steel siding and stated that True Cedar can be recycled after its lifecycle. They feel that this product is a viable solution to Keith s dilemma to wanting to do this project but also 7

33 Draft 2 ongoing maintenance. Claudia Knox asked if they have used this steel siding before. John replied that they have not, but he has seen historic structures using the steel clapboards. Connie Lundquist asked if they could provide an estimate between the steel versus wood siding. Keith Field replied that he cannot, but the wood product, restored or renewed would be primed and painted; maintenance issues would occur in 8-12 years. The product that they are proposing for the trim, will hold the paint for up to twenty years and the steel clapboards have warranties of up to fifty years. Cost is hard to pin down because there is always a maintenance cost, but with the proposed materials, there is no maintenance. Laura Lienert asked for clarification on the window being removed. Keith replied that it is the window on the alleyway side. Laurie added that this is the only triple hung window. Claudia asked what they are thinking about in terms of the emergency egress. Keith replied that depending on how much this project costs and over time, he would like to have a courtyard area and conversations with the owner of the Tontine Mall to remove the swinging door that opens on his property. Keith pointed out that the building in the back is not part of his property and also not part of this project. Annee Tara asked for more information about what is actually occurring on the roof and what has been referred to as a doghouse. Keith Field replied that the little building is actually access to the roof and will stay where it is, as it is. Laura Lienert asked if there has been any attempt to look under the asphalt siding even though there is asbestos. Keith replied that officially, no, but there are a few portions where there is loss and deterioration. Connie Lundquist asked if the reason why this material cannot go over the old clapboard is because it would interfere with the trim. John replied that technically it could go over the clapboard, but it would need the J bead. Annee pointed out that staff has recommended the Board request the applicant to look more into wood siding and it is clear that the applicant does not wish to use wood. Annee asked the applicant if they have any way to honor wood material. Keith replied no. Connie asked if the trim material can be painted. Keith replied that the material can take paint and will last up to twenty years. Laura Lienert stated that she is so happy to hear that the applicant loves the building as much as those who live and work in Town, but that there are two elements coming into play. One is that they have to abide by the ordinance that refers to the Design Guidelines which talk extensively about siding and trim. In addition, this building is on Maine Street where there are another two pages that talk specifically about the façades on Maine Street and exterior siding and trim. Laura pointed out that the first choice in the guidelines is to preserve and maintain the original cladding and every effort should be made to preserve the original clad and trim. The guidelines also discuss substitute materials. Laura further reviewed the guidelines as they pertain to the existing shingles / clapboards. Laura stated that the key sentence is that while these conditions are not ideal, it is preferable to losing all the character defining details in original siding. The reason for this is because at some point in the future someone may want to get rid of the steel siding and go back to the original features. But if it is not there then you cannot do it. Laura said that every reasonable effort should be made to repair the original storefront and thinks that it clear as to how they should proceed. Rebekah replied that she believes that there really needs to be an exploration phase so they can really see what is going on with the original 8