Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Development Center Historic Preservation Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 February 9, 2022 Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor I. Call to Order 5:00 p.m. II. Roll Call PRESENT: Baldwin, Dixon, Kindt, Wormer, Rodriguez ABSENT: Bruinsma, Gleisner STAFF PRESENT: Rhonda Baker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich III. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from December 1, 2021 RESULT: ACCEPTED [3 TO 0] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Kerry Baldwin YEAS: Kerry Baldwin, Matthew Dixon, Anna Kindt ABSTAIN: Heather Van Wormer, Michael Rodriguez ABSENT: Peter Bruinsma, Tim Gleisner IV. Staff Communication and Reports Certificates of Appropriateness Issued by Staff 1. STAFF REVIEWS STAFF APPROVED COA PERMITS 565 Morris SE 326 College SE 931 Virginia SE 319 Cherry SE 549 Logan SE 945 Virginia SE 34 Union NE 916 Fairmount SE 919 Cherry SE 224 Charles SE 403 College SE V. Old Business A. 70 IONIA SW - HEARTSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT 70 IONIA SW - HEARTSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT - REQUEST FOR INTERNALLY LIT SIGN Ms. Baker recalled that this request to replace an upper-level wall sign with a new wall sign was before the Commission in December. The request was tabled to provide an opportunity for a subcommittee to investigate light levels for the proposed sign. Ms. Baker noted that the packet includes photos taken by a subcommittee member. The subcommittee met on site on January 25, 2022. An image of lettering displayed on the sidewalk for the committee was displayed. Images of the lettering diffused and not diffused were displayed. The sign company representative Generated 2/17/2022 5:37 PM Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 2 February 9, 2022 indicated that the Raymond James sign across the street, which is outside the historic district, is a similar style sign with diffused lighting. Ms. Baker suggested the subcommittee provide a report of the findings from their meeting on site. Mr. Dixon noted from the packet information that it indicates both examples provided to the subcommittee had 5 LEDs in them. He asked that the applicant clarify but his recollection was that the diffused version had 4 LEDs. Mr. Dixon provided the subcommittee report. His observation was that there was a clear difference between the diffused and non-diffused versions. Being very close to them it was difficult to tell the difference. However, from across the street there was a noticeable difference in the light levels. The subcommittee was not presented color options. The lighting was white with the two different light levels. Since the Commission is considering this as a non-contributing building within the historic district, the fact that it is at the very edge of the historic district, and that it is replacing an existing internally lit sign, Mr. Dixon’s personal feeling after visiting the site, seeing the context, and seeing the light levels, is that the new, larger sign in the diffused/lower light level does not constitute a detriment to the district. Mary Cook, Valley City Sign, clarified that the letter that was not diffused had 6 LEDs in it and the diffused example had 5 LEDs. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Ms. Baldwin asked Mr. Dixon if he felt the diffused version had the least impact. Mr. Dixon replied that the example with 5 LEDs and the diffuser was putting out less light. It was still perfectly legible and readable as a sign but was casting less light that would create light pollution for the rest of the district and be a distraction from the historic resources of the district. His recommendation would be approval of the 5 LED diffused version. Ms. Van Wormer asked if that is also closer to the approximation of the sign across the street. Mr. Dixon agreed that it is. However, that sign is outside of the historic district so they aren’t to look to that for context. He explained that the proposed sign is replacing an existing internally lit sign. The proposed sign is slightly larger than the existing sign. It is not the only internally lit sign on this block but it is the only one that is actually in the historic district. Ms. Van Wormer recalled from the minutes that there was discussion about the color. Her recollection is that they are proposing green. She asked Mr. Dixon if he was comfortable with the fact that the example was not in the color proposed. Mr. Dixon replied that he is. They had hoped to see the green example as well but, based on what they were shown, he doesn’t believe the sign will create a distraction from the district; not negatively impact the rest of the district. Ms. Baldwin recognized that it isn’t much bigger than the existing sign. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 3 February 9, 2022 Mr. Dixon agreed. It is slightly larger; approximately 25%. The letters are bolder than the existing sign. He suggested it will put out more light than the existing sign did but he doesn’t believe it will negatively impact the rest of the district being that it is on a non-historic structure and immediately adjacent to a large glass stair tower that already puts out a lot of light. Ms. Baker related that the size difference is in the height; it is almost 3 ft. taller. Ms. Kindt felt the subcommittee report addressed a lot of the concerns expressed at the last meeting about the brightness impacting the rest of the district. She feels comfortable based on the subcommittee assessment of the brightness impacting the district. Mr. Dixon clarified that the Commission’s decisions never set precedent, particularly in this case. They are simply considering this because it is replacing an existing internally lit sign on a non-contributing structure. Per the guidelines, this is not typically allowed. Ms. Baker asked that the motion include that the approved sign is per the submittal, with the stipulation the lettering has 5 LEDs and is diffused. Mr. Dixon also related from the subcommittee meeting that the applicant tried to put together a 4 LED option for them to view. Unfortunately, because the LEDs were so spaced out within the letter box, it was creating hot spots and was not ideal from an appearance standpoint. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO APPROVE the proposed internally lit sign per the subcommittee testimony, and the submittal, with the stipulation that the lettering include a diffused lens on the front of the sign with 5 LEDs for the internal illumination, based on the fact that the sign is replacing an existing internally lit sign on a non-contributing building, per the local guidelines and the Secretary of Interior Standards 1, 9 and 10. SUPPORTED by Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Michael Rodriguez YEAS: Baldwin, Dixon, Kindt, Wormer, Rodriguez ABSENT: Peter Bruinsma, Tim Gleisner VI. New Business A. 946 CHERRY SE - FAIRMOUNT SQUARE HISTORIC DISTRICT 946 CHERRY STREET SE - STOREFRONT RENOVATION, SIDING REPLACEMENT & A.D.A ACCESSABILITY Ms. Baker introduced the request relating that the building dates to the 1880’s. Because of the heavy amount of alterations and loss it has incurred over its lifetime, it was deemed to be non- contributing when the area was surveyed. It has not changed since that time and remains a non- contributing structure. Therefore, the Commission will be reviewing this request for its impact to the historic environment and streetscape and not for its impact on the structure itself. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 4 February 9, 2022 Ms. Baker explained that there are three main elements to the request. They are proposing to remove the second recessed entry on the front and pull the wall forward so it is flush. They will raise the bulkhead up and have two identically sized storefront windows in that location. Ms. Baker displayed the plan view. They will continue the vertical board-n-batten siding to infill any gaps for new walls created by the change. There is no change proposed to the existing west-most door. Ms. Baker related that there are no good historic photos of the property prior to changes. The best photo is from 1928 and the building is visible down the street. It is clear how much change the building has undergone. The original storefront was on the corner and is gone. When enlarging the photo, it is evident that the façade was flush with the corner entry and storefront. This proposal brings it back a bit closer, even though they aren’t required to. Ms. Baker continued explaining that the second item relates to the first floor siding, which is a simulated board-n-batten vertical aluminum. The request is to replace it with essentially the same thing but in vinyl. There will be no change to the second floor siding. The final item relates to ADA access. There is a window toward the rear of the west elevation that they propose widening, dropping the head height, and lower the opening to create an ADA access point. In front of that would be a poured concrete ramp with a horizontal metal rail. To add some protection, the request includes a shed roof over the entry with basic post supports and the sides would be enclosed with the vinyl board-n-batten siding. Ms. Baker again stated that the Commission is considering the impact to the surrounding environment and not the building itself. Ms. Kindt asked if the glazing for the front elevation will be clear. Ms. Baker replied affirmatively. Bruce Kwekel, BDD Construction, felt Ms. Baker provided an accurate description of the proposal. He explained that what is driving this request is that the applicant has older clientele. The business that occupies the building is a fourth-generation business. The desire is for ADA access and an ADA restroom. While doing that they would like to improve the building and make it look better. Mr. Dixon asked why vinyl siding. Mr. Kwekel replied that he believes it was the cost factor. He believes the building owners would be open to consider another material if that is the preference of the Commission. The building isn’t very aesthetically pleasing and this is an opportunity to make it look better if they don’t take it too far. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. The Commission discussed the individual items of the request. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 5 February 9, 2022 With respect to the storefront, Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez doesn’t feel there is anything in the guidelines or Secretary of Interior Standards that would suggest the proposed changes would be inappropriate, particularly for a non-contributing structure. Ms. Kindt added that you can’t see much in the historic photo but it appears it had a higher sill with the two large windows in front so it is closer to how it was historically. It does take away the entry on that street. In terms of streetscape in that area there is typically an entry facing Cherry, which was her only concern with the storefront change. However, she feels that is fairly minor. Discussion took place with respect to there being another door on the Cherry side; the remaining door provides access to the second floor only. There is an entry on Warren. Mr. Dixon stated that the front door would typically have been oriented on the main road vs. the secondary. Ms. Van Wormer noted from the application that it doesn’t specify the windows will be clear. Ms. Baker suggested including that as a condition of approval should the Commission find the change appropriate. Mr. Dixon suggested a condition that Zoning review and approve the fact that there will not be an entry on Cherry. Ms. Baker clarified that if the Commission approves the change, it would not override a Zoning requirement for having an entry on Cherry. Ms. Baldwin suggested that because there will still be a door on that façade most people driving or walking by would think it was a front door. Mr. Dixon agreed. He stated that Zoning may have an issue with it however. Ms. Kindt also agreed. She clarified that she mentioned it to see what others thought about removing a main entry. Mr. Dixon felt that the removal of the door and bringing everything back in plane was part of the same conversation. He doesn’t see an issue with that. It isn’t a contributing structure and they are considering whether it will negatively impact the rest of the district. He doesn’t feel it will. Materials were discussed. Mr. Dixon feels the guidelines are fairly clear stating that new materials should be drawn from the context of the neighborhood and vinyl siding is not a historic material or something they have endorsed in the past. He would be more comfortable with fiber cement or a wood product. Ms. Baker asked that Mr. Dixon elaborate on what would make it inappropriate in this context. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 6 February 9, 2022 Mr. Dixon stated that profiles of vinyl material are never clean. Vinyl material is a rolled product; an extruded product. You never get crisp, clean corners on it and it doesn’t do a very good job of replicating historic patterns and textures. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez added that it always terminates into channels meaning you won’t get a clean joint between siding and trim. Mr. Dixon clarified that he has no problem with the board-n-batten to mimic the existing verticality of the product that is there now. Whether or not board-n-batten exists in this area of the district, it is a historic profile and pattern. Using fiber cement wouldn’t utilize a J-channel and you could have cleaner trim details. Fiber cement batten is a square piece that more accurately replicates wooden trim details. Ms. Kindt agreed that the use of vinyl would detract from the district even though it is a non- contributing building. She agreed that fiber cement or cedar would be more appropriate. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez related that there are a number of products. He suggested that if they make a motion denying the proposed vinyl that they approve board-n-batten with a product to be approved by staff. Ms. Baker asked that if they do their due diligence and realize that the products the Commission feel would be appropriate are beyond their budget and decide to keep the aluminum, perhaps painting and refreshing it, could they work with staff if they chose to do a more traditional, flat stock trim around windows and more traditional bulkhead design instead of doing vertical board- n-batten on the front or would the Commission want them to come back. There isn’t a whole lot of siding on the front. Mr. Dixon feels that is something that would have to come back because it is a significant enough departure from what is being reviewed. The discussion moved to the ramp and alteration of the window to create an accessible entry. Mr. Dixon stated that since this is not a contributing building and they are only looking at the impact on the district he feels the addition of an accessibility ramp on a secondary elevation is not damaging the district in any way. Ms. Kindt agreed adding that you can’t really see it much unless going around the building. She is also comfortable with modifying the opening to accommodate the door; it is a minimal change to keep the building in a productive use for the business. Ms. Van Wormer added that the shelter they are putting over it is being matched to the front, which will also blend it in more. Mr. Dixon suggested they work with staff for a railing on the ramp. They are showing a two- line, inch and a half metal pipe rail, which isn’t typically in keeping with the standards for railings in the district. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 7 February 9, 2022 Ms. Baker related that she went back and forth on that. Because it is non-contributing it doesn’t need to be anything historic. Her thought was that it is a lot less noticeable because it is so simplistic and because it is so far back. If it were more traditional, with vertical elements of spindles, it will draw a lot more attention to itself. She asked what others thought. Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Kindt agreed with Ms. Baker. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez also agreed. The parallel metal bars will be unobtrusive and the more they try to encourage the applicant to dress the rail up the more it will draw attention to itself. Mr. Dixon was in agreement based on the fact that it is a non-contributing feature and the Commission is only considering the application in terms of the context of the district. If this was a historic structure it would be very different. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez agreed. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO APPROVE the ADA ramp with a rail, and the storefront changes, per the application, based on the local preservation guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards 1, 9 & 10, with the following stipulations:  The HPC approval does not override potential Zoning requirements for an entry door on Cherry  The proposed windows are to be clear glazing per Zoning and HPC requirements  This motion does not include the proposed vinyl siding SUPPORTED by Ms. Baldwin. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO DENY the proposed vinyl siding based on the fact that the material does not complement the historic district and does not replicate historic materials and texture or trim, based on the local preservation guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards 1, 9 & 10. The applicant may replace the existing board-n-batten with true board-n-batten utilizing fiber cement or true wood products, with final approval by staff. Should the applicant select an alternative material, the request is to return to the HPC for additional review. SUPPORTED by Ms. Baldwin. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. VII. Public Hearing VIII. Discussion 1. 2025 E FULTON - NOMINATION 2025 EAST FULTON - NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION Ms. Baker introduced the request relating that the subject property is Marywood Academy, also known as Sister of the Order of St. Dominic Motherhouse Complex. Ms. Baker explained that as part of the Certified Local Government (CLG) program, all National Register Nominations for properties located within the jurisdiction of the City of Grand Rapids requires review and input by the Historic Preservation Commission. The HPC is required to review the nomination and provide comments as to whether they concur that the property meets national register criteria of significance and provide a realm for public comment, which is what is occurring with the public Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 8 February 9, 2022 hearing. Ms. Baker clarified that the Commission should look at the nomination and determine if it has significantly supported the argument that the property is eligible and eligible under Criteria A & C in the areas of architecture and education, and provide comments. Ms. Baker indicated that, to date, she has not received any public comment. Mr. Dixon clarified that the property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of history and those patterns of history are that it is an education facility owned by a religious institution. Ms. Baker agreed that that is an accurate, brief summary. There was no applicant present. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Ms. Kindt agreed that the nomination was an interesting read. There were very nice descriptions and photographs of the architecture and what was significant in styles and materials. She also felt they provided sufficient evidence related to the education portion. Ms. Baker asked if anyone visited the site. Ms. Baldwin replied that she was last on site in 2021 and Ms. Van Wormer was last on site in 2020. Mr. Dixon indicated he had also previously visited the site. Ms. Van Wormer applauded the detail that was provided. She liked that they had the builders and architects listed, as well as all the other things they were associated with. Ms. Van Wormer indicated that she found three things within the nomination that they may wish to address prior to the submittal:  On page 77 where they are talking about the recording angel, in the last sentence, she believes they are saying they didn’t find evidence of who did it but that isn’t what it says in the sentence; there appears to be a word missing.  On page 79 they mention the cemetery but they don’t ever say if it was used or not. Ms. Van Wormer suggested they clarify that the cemetery was not used. Later they don’t check that there is a cemetery on this site.  On page 80, the second paragraph is missing the beginning; part of the sentence is gone. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez asked about one item the application defines as a contributing structure; the Mayfair steps, a set of wide concrete stairs. He didn’t visit the site but did review the photos. It was difficult to imagine defining those stairs as being contributing based on their design and material. There was nothing in the description that indicated that they were of particular cultural or circumstantial significance. Ms. Van Wormer explained that she is familiar with the site having lived in the residential neighborhood. She explained that the access to the neighborhood park, where the stream is, and where there is a culvert and control basin is down those stairs. They are definitely older stairs. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 9 February 9, 2022 She believes the significance is the connection to the park and the neighborhood. The preschool uses that quite a bit also. Mr. Dixon agreed that making a case for them being architecturally significant would be difficult. Ms. Van Wormer clarified that they connect the pathways that they have outlined. Ms. Baldwin MOVED TO SUPPORT THE NOMINATION based on the comments provided in the minutes. SUPPORTED by Ms. Kindt. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. 514 LYON NE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 514 LYON NE - ADVISORY DISCUSSION - CARPORT Ms. Baker introduced the request for an advisory discussion noting that it is non-binding on the applicant or the Commission. Ms. Baker described the property as the larger complex fronting Lyon Street. They also own a small piece of property located behind them on the south side of an alley. Lyon is to the north, College to the west, and Campbell to the east. There is an east west alley as well as a north south alley and the subject L shape parcel is located where the alleys intersect. They wish to construct an open-air carport on the L shape parcel. They would like feedback on the possibility of such a structure in this location as well as feedback on design. The overall structure would be approximately 60 ft. east/west and 54 ft. north/south with a 6/12 pitched roof. The sides and front would be clad in some sort of horizontal clapboard style siding. Ms. Baker displayed a rough sketch of what it would look like. Ms. Baker displayed photos to provide views from the various streets. She noted that there will be glimpses of the lot and likely the carport from Lyon but likely only during the winter. There would be no visibility from the west side of the complex. From College there is a lot of evergreen vegetation so it likely wouldn’t be visible other than from right in front of the alley access. From Campbell, looking up the alley toward the west, a lot of the structure would be visible. Ms. Baker displayed an aerial view identifying the location of the parcel. She noted that there are properties with one- and two-stall garages and some properties with no outbuildings. Ms. Baker displayed the historic Sanborn map noting that the subject parcel previously belonged to the house fronting College. There was a sizeable outbuilding on the property that ran north and south, approximately the size of a three-stall garage. Ms. Baker clarified for Mr. Dixon that Campbell Pl. is a street. The photos from Campbell were taken from the street looking toward the alley. There was one photo included that was taken from the alley, from behind the house to the east of the subject property. Mr. Dixon asked if there is anything in the guidelines specific to carports. Ms. Baker replied there is not. She pulled material from the garage section because, in a sense, it is that type of structure. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 10 February 9, 2022 Kaleigh Loggins was present for the discussion. She explained that the ultimate goal is to get the structure up. Whatever they have to do to make that happen is what they will do. They are looking for recommendations and will go back to the drawing board if necessary. Ms. Baker asked if they have identified where the rights-of-way are and not just the property lines. Ms. Loggins replied that she would have to discuss that with the contractor because he drew up the structure and did the plans. Ms. Baker advised that they will want to be in touch with the City on that and be careful because the right-of-way lines are never where you think they are. It may be necessary to move the structure back 4-5 ft. depending on where the right-of-way falls. Ms. Loggins is aware that he has spoken with the City but they haven’t received approval for anything so far. Mr. Dixon suggested the right-of-way lines should show up in the survey. He asked if there is a reason they are interested in a car port vs. a full garage. Ms. Loggins replied the expense. Ms. Kindt stated that when looking at garage applications they are normally four walls and a roof, which is different than a car port. With a garage, the Commission looks at the relationship to the main house; is it subservient, do materials complement, does the form complement? She is having trouble with the location of this and what is that relationship? Is it to the main house, which is more of a brick, with a pergola, and the rafters sticking out? It is actually closer to the house on College. How is it going to impact that house? Her question would be is the relationship with the main house materiality or do they pull from College? Ms. Van Wormer suggested another option would be pulling from the stucco piece on the back of the main house because of its proximity to where the structure would be. Mr. Dixon asked if the house is on a separate lot from where the car port is proposed or is it all one parcel. Ms. Loggins stated that, as she understands it, it is the same parcel of land. Looking at the aerial view it makes it look separate. She honestly doesn’t know. Her assumption is they don’t own the alley so it is likely separate. Mr. Dixon stated that he is fairly certain that the Zoning Ordinance has specific rules about outbuildings being on a parcel by themselves. His understanding is that they have to be accessory to the main structure on the parcel. He felt that was something they should look into. If it is a separate, legal parcel, he believes they will have a difficult time getting Zoning approval for an outbuilding. Mr. Dixon asked if they are proposing an L-shaped structure on the L-shaped property. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 11 February 9, 2022 Ms. Loggins replied affirmatively. Mr. Dixon referred to the drawings expressing his understanding that it would be up on posts of some kind and then sided above that. Ms. Loggins agreed. She noted that the submittal provided the dimensions of the posts. Ms. Van Wormer recalled from the summary they received that they bought this parcel later. It would seem to be a separate parcel that currently doesn’t have anything on it but, per the Sanborn, it did previously. That building was likely associated with 152 College. Mr. Dixon stated that aside from the legality of it, he feels the siting of it is understandable based on the fact that there was historically a structure there that was likely associated with the house on College. Ms. Baker agreed. Per the Sanborn, it was part of the College parcel. Mr. Dixon stated that he would have expected, as the Sanborn shows, a smaller rectangular building; not one quite as large as proposed. He can see putting a building on the back of the lot, even if it isn’t for the house on College, from a massing standpoint/land use standpoint. He has a hard time with a number of the other points of it; the L-shape, the size, and it being an exposed car port. Ms. Van Wormer stated that she is struggling with what building they will match it with. If it is matched to the Lyon building it will look strange. If it matches with the one it used to go with it will match better but that isn’t the structure it is associated with anymore. The height is also a concern; it is tall. Mr. Dixon noted that they are proposing storage built into the rafters, which is what is making it as tall as proposed. He agreed the height is problematic as is the openness on the lower portion. A car port doesn’t have a historic counterpart. Ms. Van Wormer suggested they could close it off on the alley sides and make it look like it isn’t open. It would look more like a garage structure unless you went around to the entrance. Ms. Baker clarified that the only vehicular access they will have to it is from the alley(s) so the open sides would be on the alley. They could close the ends and the back. Ms. Baker asked for thoughts on if it were more simplistic and less eye catching; more of a standardized car port with a low-pitched shed roof and none of the buildup on the outsides; just essentially a thin line roof structure and posts. What she is hearing is that this design won’t work; it is too big and bulky. Ms. Kindt added that she is also struggling with the car port design, a mass on columns, vs. an enclosed garage structure that is seen more often in the district. Ms. Van Wormer asked the applicant if the purpose is to add storage or add covered parking. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 12 February 9, 2022 Ms. Loggins replied that the covered parking is the important piece. They can do without the storage. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez offered a suggestion that may diminish the impact of the vertical height and do away with some of the odd siding on toothpicks. He suggested that if on the sides the roof were hipped, the hip would hit the ridge further back and at a 6/12 pitch he isn’t sure it would be nearly as imposing and there wouldn’t be siding on the ends. Ms. Kindt feels that would help from the ends to bring it down but there would still be the toothpick columns. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez asked if the columns being larger and more articulated, vs. what he assumes are 6 x 6 posts, would make a difference or should it be a wall. Mr. Dixon felt they could build a garage or go lighter and smaller as Ms. Baker suggested and then it would be more in the territory of a pergola. Obviously, they would want it covered but a thinner, more decorative structure that would accomplish the same function but does have some historic precedent. They didn’t park cars under a pergola but when looking at the back of someone’s house and you notice a pergola that is different than a car port. Ms. Kindt suggested re-using the roof on the front of the El Dorado on the main façade. Ms. Van Wormer suggested that would look out of place on the alley and draw more attention to it because you can’t see the roof on the front of the house from the location of the proposed structure. Mr. Dixon noted that there are some balconies on the El Dorado. He feels there is a way to do a thinner, lighter line that could be acceptable. Ms. Loggins asked if the Commission has any examples of structures in the area that they could suggest looking at. Mr. Dixon replied no because he doesn’t believe they have ever done a car port before. Typically, they consider garages and carriage houses. Car ports were not a thing when this area of the City was built because cars weren’t much of a thing. Car ports didn’t really come around until the 50s or 60s. A typical car port would be out of the period of significance for this district, which is one of the things he is struggling with. He is looking to other historic structures that would accommodate what they are trying to accomplish, just in a different articulation. Ms. Baldwin recalled that there is a long garage on Union, near Fountain, that doesn’t have any doors making it somewhat of a car port. It does have walls and a back on it, as well as walls between each stall. Ms. Van Wormer didn’t feel they would need walls between each stall. She suggested mimicking the stucco on the back of the structure this would go with, with that roof. There are outbuildings with angled roofs on these alleys. She suggested walking around the area and looking to mimic an outbuilding more. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 13 February 9, 2022 Mr. Dixon agreed that a shed roof is tough. Shed roofs were used but they were typically attached to another building. He can’t think of many standalone buildings that had a shed roof then. A shed roof naturally raises everything taller. He suggested steering more toward a garage or a lighter structure would be a better solution, the easier solution to get approved likely being a garage. Ms. Loggins asked if the Commission had any garage examples they would suggest looking at if they are going to look at mimicking a garage structure. Mr. Dixon noted that there is a garage right across the way, as well as others on the alleyway. Ms. Baker added they could look to their own garage on the house parcel. They are basic structures and don’t have to be fancy. Ms. Loggins explained that when considering the siding for the car port they were going to mimic that garage and use the same type of siding as well as the same shingles. She asked if the entire structure would have to be enclosed and include overhead doors or could it just be three walls. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez felt it could be three walls. A lot of outbuildings were in fact open. Doors were there for security purposes. He feels it would be possible to do a structure that is in keeping with the historic character of this district without having doors. Mr. Dixon cautioned however that it would be a very long building and you aren’t going to get that in wood construction, with three walls, without dropping posts every so often. How those posts get integrated into the rest of the structure will be important. Ms. Kindt asked if they have any concern, if it becomes more of a garage, with how that will impact the site and the neighbors; having a larger structure than what was historically there, at the back of that house, since it is in such tight quarters to the neighbors. Ms. Van Wormer replied she doesn’t have any concerns because of the Sanborn. Mr. Dixon noted that the building they are proposing is much larger than what was there. It will be much closer to the house on College than what was historically there. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez wasn’t sure the footprint necessarily needs to intimidate them. It is all about how the façade is articulated. If there is fenestration/windows and some expression of the structure he feels it can be done in a way that is pleasant to the neighbors, even those closest. Mr. Dixon stated that the fact that it is on an alley makes him more comfortable with the size because you did see multiple stall structures on alleyways. Typically, when on someone’s lot at the back it was more like a carriage house or two stall garage but on the alleys there were some longer utility buildings. He is more comfortable with it in this context because of that. He doesn’t feel the length of the building will be offensive if you’re standing anywhere other than the alleyway. If you’re on one of the streets, he doesn’t see it being a problem. He feels the L- Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 14 February 9, 2022 shape is likely going to cause a lot of headaches. Historically buildings like this wouldn’t have been L-shaped; they would have been long, rectangular buildings. Ms. Baldwin suggested two rectangular, three-sided buildings; one building facing the north/south alley and another facing the east/west alley. Ms. Van Wormer added that one could go all the way to the end and utilize the corner; one would be longer than the other. Ms. Kindt feels having that closed at the corner would help with the appearance. Mr. Dixon would encourage them to do the east/west building as the one that runs all the way to the corner. That would provide a wall view from College and from Campbell Pl. Ms. Van Wormer suggested thinking about which alley experiences more traffic and have the longer building on the alley with less traffic so fewer people are backing into a busy alley. Mr. Dixon suggested before they do anything further, they talk to Zoning. Ms. Kindt agreed. She would like to hear what Zoning has to say also because all the run off would now be directed to the back property line of that College parcel. There may be some requirements related to that as well. Setbacks for an enclosed structure will also be a consideration. Fire ratings were also something the Commission discussed and suggested looking into. IX. Public Comment None. DISCUSSION - New Commissioners Michael Demaag-Rodriguez and Heather Van Wormer were welcomed. X. Adjourn 6:20 PM