Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Facade Restoration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Post proposes facade repaint, restored windows and copper awning; board presses on materials and code limits
Summary
An applicant seeking to repaint a downtown storefront, restore historic window openings, add an elevator and install a new awning described a phased rehabilitation; board members questioned materials (canvas vs. copper), code-driven fire-rated windows and whether elements could be approved pending staff review.
A property representative presented plans to repaint the building’s front in a cream-white tone, repaint the 1st-floor brick to produce a more monolithic appearance, restore historic side-window openings and replace vinyl infill with brick, the presenter said.
The applicant, who identified himself in the hearing as an architect, told the board the project would also remove a roof skylight and install a commercial membrane roof (TPO or EPDM) and that a new elevator would be added without impacting the front façade. “They will be nonoperable,” the presenter said of the new windows, describing them as fire-rated units required because the façade sits on the property line.
Why it matters: The board’s design guidelines and the building code together shape which historic elements can be restored and which modern safety requirements must be met. The discussion centered on balancing visual compatibility with Main Street precedent against durability and code constraints.
Board members asked detailed questions about rear access and stairs. The presenter said the left rear door would become the primary rear access for post members while the right door would remain dedicated to kitchen staff, and that a new concrete landing is planned to meet code and split stair runs rather than have stairs project straight out.
A key point of debate was the awning. The applicant proposed a standing‑seam copper awning, saying copper is an “elevated material” that will patina over time. Several board members responded that the board’s guidelines generally “push away from metal” and favor the canvas-style awning common on Main Street. Members also raised technical concerns: because the proposed slope is shallow, snow‑retention hardware or guards may be required. A state‑affiliated architect on the panel said snow guards are often needed on similarly shallow profiles.
Board members also queried the proposed window profiles and whether the manufacturer could deliver the curved top shown in the drawings. The presenter said a supplier had indicated it could produce the curved tops and that the applicant would follow up to confirm details.
Public comment: Nathan Lauderdale, who identified himself as “the commander over at the post,” asked whether a contest could be held for local students to paint murals on the two front doors; board members said painting the doors would likely be allowed, though community response could vary.
Next steps: No formal vote was recorded in the public portion. The applicant said applicants in other jurisdictions have received approval contingent on staff sign‑off of specific elements, and the board discussed the possibility of a similar path for unresolved items such as awning shape and soffit details. The board closed the public portion and moved to deliberation.
Details and constraints noted during the hearing include: the building dates to the late 19th century; the project team proposes to repaint the 1st-floor brick and remove vinyl panels; new side windows will be fire-rated and nonoperable due to property-line code requirements; the awning projection limit discussed is 4 feet maximum and a valance limit of about 12 inches was referenced; phase‑2 fuller storefront restoration was discussed as contingent on future funding.
