Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Development Center Historic Preservation Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 April 20, 2022 Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor I. Call to Order 5:00 p.m. II. Roll Call PRESENT: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, Gleisner, Van Wormer, Rodriguez ABSENT: Baldwin Staff Present: Rhonda Baker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich III. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from March 2, 2022 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Tim Gleisner SECONDER: Michael Rodriguez YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, Gleisner, Wormer, Rodriguez ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin IV. Staff Communication and Reports Certificates of Appropriateness Issued by Staff 316 James SE 511 Fountain NE 230 Lafayette NE 302 Union SE 974 Cherry SE 114 Lafayette SE 569 College SE 509 Crescent NE 640 Union SE 547 Paris SE 572 Prospect SE 200 College NE 441 Pleasant SE 301 James SE 321 Lafayette NE 71 Lafayette NE 21 Union SE 6th Street Bridge 573 College SE 305 Robey SE V. Old Business VI. New Business A. 244 MORRIS SE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 244 MORRIS SE - REQUEST FOR REAR EGRESS WELL AND CHANGES TO PORCH Ms. Baker introduced the request of the owner to create a new basement opening for egress purposes and to replace the non-historic rear porch infill with a new design. She related that the house in question was constructed in 1910 with an open rear porch. There are no records that indicate when the porch was enclosed other than it occurred post 1940 and pre-1990. Ms. Baker explained further that the applicant is seeking to create a new window opening in the rear/east elevation. There is only one basement opening on that façade. It is located close to the existing porch and up higher. It has no association with any of the other basement windows on Generated 4/25/2022 3:13 PM Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 2 April 20, 2022 the sides of the house. The new opening height is 4’ and the width is 2’8”. The header will be located 8” lower than that of the basement window headers located on the south elevation. 2’8” of the new window opening will be located above grade and about 2’4” of that above the well curb. The window will be 2’6” wide and 3’4” tall. It will be an aluminum clad wood casement because of its location partially below grade. The well will have 6” thick concrete walls and will be 4’8” wide and 5’ long as measured to the outer edges of the concrete retaining walls. To accommodate the new opening, portions of brick and the concrete base will be removed. Staff recommends that if the change is approved that the removed brick be stored on site for future repairs on the house or conversion back should the opening ever be removed. Ms. Baker displayed photos and plans and identified where the new opening would be located. With respect to the rear porch, basically everything below the header to the concrete floor would be removed and replaced. Ms. Baker reiterated that they don’t have a date for when that infil occurred. The new wall would be roughly 2’ tall by 4’ wide with a recessed panel design with vertical bead board as the panel. It will be surrounded by 1” x 4” wood trim. The total height of the knee wall will be approximately 2’6”. Wood casement windows will be placed atop the knee wall with a thin mullion between the two. The windows are 2’ x 5’ in size. They are also proposing to clad the concrete base of the porch with a wood lattice and flat stock trim to give it more of a historic look. The concrete steps that have no landing will be removed and replaced with a wood stoop and stairs. The stoop landing will be 3’6” square and they will match the design and rail of the adjacent second story set of stairs, which is the basic square spindle design in the guideline book. Ms. Baker displayed images of the existing porch as well as the plans. Mr. Dixon noted that the new design is fairly similar to the existing. He asked if there is a maintenance concern. Ms. Baker deferred to the architect. She added that the proportions are a bit nicer with the new design and provides more profiles; the existing is fairly flat. Ms. Kindt noted that the existing porch outline shows up in some of the historic maps. She asked if the concrete stoop shows as well. Ms. Baker replied that it doesn’t show that level of detail; it just provides the footprint of the base itself. Jim Winter-Troutwine, architect, was present with the property owners on behalf of the request. Mr. Winter-Troutwine invited questions from the Commission. Mr. Dixon asked if the new porch design is aesthetics or maintenance issues. Mr. Winter-Troutwine replied aesthetic. The current porch seems to say 1970’s quick enclosure. He doesn’t believe there was really any sense of trying to give it any sense of belonging. As Ms. Baker stated, there was a footprint there at one time. He suspects it was a wooden structure that had floor and walls. The roof structure appears to be original. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 3 April 20, 2022 Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. The Commission discussed the proposed egress window and well. Ms. Kindt stated that the location on the secondary façade at the rear is appropriate. It is not visible and doesn’t obscure any character defining features. They have allowed alternate materials below grade due to exposure to water and she is comfortable with that. Ms. Kindt would like them to retain the brick on site should someone want to reverse that in the future. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez agreed. Mr. Dixon finds that it is a minor change to a secondary elevation to allow the use of the basement, continuing the viable life of the property. He agreed that aluminum clad wood is likely preferrable to true wood based on location and maintenance concerns. The size and location of the window well seem appropriate. Mr. Gleisner and Ms. Van Wormer were in agreement. The Commission discussed the porch. Mr. Dixon pointed out that they typically first determine whether the porch in the current condition is historic in its own right. Without any idea of when it was enclosed, he would have a hard time finding that is the case. All Commissioners agreed that the porch infill is non-contributing. Mr. Dixon noted that they have historic evidence that shows that the location, size and likely the massing and height are historic and should be retained but they don’t have any evidence that the infill materials, and potentially even the base structure, are historic. Mr. Gleisner feels the proposed scale is appropriate and the porch is suitable based on Mr. Dixon’s comments. Mr. Van Wormer agreed; in some ways more suitable than what is there now. Mr. Bruinsma agreed. All they know is that there was a footprint of a porch there that is contributing. The infill that exists does have a 1970’s appearance. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez agreed that the massing/footprint of the porch is appropriate to maintain. The finishes that the applicant is proposing are in many ways more complimentary to the parts of the building they know are historically contributing. Ms. Kindt also agreed. There was mention in one of the details of a vinyl composite skirt board, which would be right at grade. She presumes that is so that it doesn’t rot as quickly. She wished to confirm other Commissioners are comfortable with that. Mr. Dixon noted that it is a horizontal lattice material. He wondered if it could just be held off of grade as opposed to trimmed at the base with the vinyl material. He would be hard pressed to Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 4 April 20, 2022 name a material more appropriate for a base condition like that. It is on a secondary elevation and only visible form this property and it is a minor application, one trim board. He suggested he could look past it in this one instance. Per the Standards, he doesn’t believe that vinyl is an appropriate material in most instances. Here he finds it to be a minor deviation and appropriate in this particular instance. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez pointed out that they can suggest appropriate alternatives that would perhaps be in keeping with the Standards and local guidelines. If they are going for a material that matches wood, there are multiple wood species that would do just fine. Mr. Demaag- Rodriguez provided some examples adding that there are some difficulties in acquiring certain species. Mr. Dixon indicated that he would still find it appropriate in this application based on the location and the properties he assumes they are hoping to recognize with its use. Mr. Gleisner agreed, particularly based on the location. Ms. Baker added that this isn’t a usual porch application where it is exposed to the air for drying. This is next to concrete and concrete behind it as well. She isn’t certain that amplifies the amount of exposure and potential rot in that location vs. a traditional location but it does set it apart from other applications. Ms. Kindt feels in this application, especially with Ms. Baker mentioning it isn’t going to breathe and dry and it is right at grade, the vinyl would be an appropriate substitution for long term maintenance. Mr. Dixon added that it is a replacement for what they have found to be a non-historic material and condition. If this was replacement of a wood base board he doesn’t believe he would have the same opinion. Mr. Bruinsma MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED, with the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, based on the local preservation guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9 & 10, with the stipulation that the bricks removed for the egress window be retained on site. SUPPORTED by Ms. Kindt. YEAS: 5. NAYS: 1 (Demaag-Rodriguez). MOTION CARRIED. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [5 TO 1] MOVER: Peter Bruinsma SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, Gleisner, Wormer NAYS: Michael Rodriguez ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin B. 26 UNION SE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 26 UNION SE - REQUEST FOR A SIDE YARD DECK Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 5 April 20, 2022 Ms. Baker recalled that this property was before the Commission in November, 2021. At that time, they were seeking approval for a new deck on the north side of the house as well as a separate patio toward the back, a rear stoop and French doors. The Commission approved the French doors and rear stoop with some modifications. Because of insufficient information related to massing and scale, as well as issues with the proposed materials and design of the rail, the north deck was denied allowing for the applicant to return at any time with a new design. They are now back and have modified the deck design down. The previous proposal was a deck 16’ wide and 39’ 6” long. It is now proposed at 16’ wide and 32’ 2” long. The location remains the same and will continue to line up with the north wall of the existing historic porch but it will step down providing a visual deviation between what is historic and what is new. The rail proposed is a wood rail that will mimic the historic rail that is not currently on the front porch but was there. The plans for the future are to put the rail back on the front porch as well. The only location they are proposing composite material will be the flooring surface. Ms. Baker displayed the proposed footprint recalling that the previous proposal went back to nearly the back corner of the house. An aerial image of the location on the house was also displayed, as well as an image of a similar design as what they are proposing. Images of what it will look like were also displayed. There will be a wing wall structure at the end. A conceptual image from the front was displayed depicting what the porch will look like with the rail back on. Photographs of the side of the house were displayed. Ms. Baker noted that the historic porch ends at the corner board and the deck would be behind that. Mr. Dixon asked Ms. Baker if the handrail matches what is seen in the 1936 photo. Ms. Baker agreed. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez asked if the newel posts are similar to what appears in the 1936 photo. Ms. Baker replied that she would have to review the photo. Her recollection is that they were substantial. Ms. Kindt noted that it appears the deck is framed independent of the house and not on a ledger board hanging off the house. Ms. Baker indicated that is her understanding as well. Ms. Kindt referred to a rendering noting the presence of a trim above the transom proposed above the French doors that was different from what is shown on the house. She asked if that is true to what they are planning or just a rendering. Ms. Baker believes it is just the rendering. All of those plans are part of the November packet. Mr. Dixon observed that there is no handrail on the stairs. He asked if that is true to the design intent. Ms. Baker’s understanding is there is no rail proposed to go down the stairs. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 6 April 20, 2022 Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez asked if a decision by the HPC would supersede building code with respect to dimension. Ms. Baker advised yes, with respect to the height and dimension of the railing. The HPC can approve the stairs without a handrail but they don’t typically counter building code on something new like this. They would look for something that is compatible; simple and discreet in this instance would be fine. It could likely be staff approved in the future. There was no applicant present and no public comment. Mr. Bruinsma recalled from the former proposal that the concern wasn’t necessarily the size but the transparency and the unnatural materials. The transparency has been addressed with this application as have the materials. He also recalled there was a question as to whether it would be attached to the house and he feels they can stipulate that it should not be attached to the house. He feels the concerns have been addressed. Mr. Gleisner indicated that he reviewed the minutes and he and another Commissioner had questioned the scale. It felt too large for the property and streetscape. He continues to have concerns about the scale and appropriateness for the street. He recognizes that they have diminished it but he remains troubled by it. Mr. Dixon related that he visited the site today and reviewed the images. They are reusing the existing stone pillars and there was a deck historically. Ms. Baker clarified that it was somewhat of a sun porch. Mr. Dixon agreed that there was a floor element there of some kind. They are matching that width and it matches the width of the existing front porch as well. He finds that appropriate. He recalled that they felt the length of it was large in the initial proposal. They brought that back to the corner of the house. From the street his read of it from standing at the street was that the front corner is important based on the historic condition. How far back it goes is less relevant to him from the standpoint of protecting the neighborhood. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez circulated the 1936 photograph. Ms. Kindt agreed that a number of the concerns from the last meeting have been addressed. She remains concerned about the overall height of it. If the historic piers they are reusing were for an enclosed sun porch that is one thing but when it is for an exposed deck, that is also longer, it really feels like they are hanging over the edge of the fence. When looking at it from the front it feels like they will really be impacting the neighborhood in terms of how visible that is. When it was an enclosed sun porch it contained itself and you wouldn’t notice as much if someone was out there. When it is an exposed deck she feels it will be very visible. Mr. Dixon asked if the concern is less the built environment and more the occupancy of it. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 7 April 20, 2022 Ms. Kindt replied more the site impact to neighbors and the street. The placement height would be the issue. It will be a foot or two below the top of the neighbor’s fence and feels like it will be peering over adjacent sites. Mr. Bruinsma felt it was interesting to be informed by the 1936 photo. There was a very similar rail there. A photo of the old structure was circulated. Mr. Dixon understood the points offered by Ms. Kindt. However, he is also swayed by the fact that it is replacing a historic element that was in that same location. Ms. Kindt feels the site changes a bit with an open deck vs. an enclosed sun porch. Mr. Dixon didn’t necessarily agree that it significantly changes the impact. Either way if you are standing there you would be looking over the neighbor’s fence. Mr. Gleisner indicated that seeing the 1936 photos sways him. He had been in agreement with Ms. Kindt about the height but seeing the photo changes that perspective. Mr. Dixon stated that it isn’t often that they have such clear architectural evidence for where the structure was. The fact that the stone pillars remain is pretty conclusive. Mr. Bruinsma recalled that there was a question about symmetry at the previous meeting. He is also swayed by looking at what had been there in the 1930’s. In his opinion it is far less impactful than the previous design and introduces more historic materials. Mr. Gleisner gives them credit for the fact that they are trying to make it close to that. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez stated that in his opinion the application appears to satisfy most of the issues raised at the previous meeting and in most ways satisfies the Standards and guidelines. However, the newel posts as proposed in the rendered images don’t have any visible cap or detail at the top. He would suggest recommending that they cap those posts in a similar way to the 1936 photo. He is also having trouble imagining the free-standing pizza oven next to a combustible structure as being a good idea. That may not be a matter for historic significance consideration but he felt it was important to point that out. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez also feels the stairway handrail is historically significant. He would suggest an approval recommend a handrail be approved by staff in all locations where there are four or more risers. Mr. Dixon doesn’t know that the guidelines specifically require a handrail at stair locations but there are Standards and guidelines for railings and their appropriateness within a historic district like this. Mr. Dixon agreed with Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez that a handrail would have typically been found on a structure such as this. Ms. Baker advised that they would likely be required to install a handrail. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 8 April 20, 2022 Mr. Dixon was comfortable deferring the requirement of a handrail to the Building Dept. and if it is required then they work with staff to develop an appropriate aesthetic for that. Mr. Dixon agrees with Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez about capping the newel posts. He referred to packet page 32 noting that the example provided by the applicant has a chicken wire infilling the rail. He doesn’t feel that is appropriate and to the best of his knowledge would not be required by the building code. Ms. Baker advised that the HPC would supersede the building code on that element. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez felt building code would want to see any opening 4” or smaller in the railing profile but understands that the HPC’s decision would supersede that. This would be an appropriate instance where the historic character should supersede present building code, without chicken wire. Mr. Dixon clarified that the chicken wire isn’t called out in their drawings but it is part of the example photography. He feels the Commission should specify that that would not be appropriate and should not be allowed. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez asked if there were any thoughts regarding the free-standing pizza oven proposed at the east side of the deck adjacent to the stairs. Mr. Dixon feels that looking at it from a form standpoint he doesn’t find it to be significantly inappropriate because this is new construction. It isn’t something that negatively impacts the site to the neighborhood. He shares the concerns about having what appears to be a wood-framed pizza oven that close to the wood framed deck. If a handrail is required that will likely necessitate redesign of that particular portion of the deck. He would suspect they will be seeing this application again based on that. In and of itself, he doesn’t have a problem with the pizza oven based on the form of it. Mr. Bruinsma added that it is at the back and not visible by anyone. Ms. Kindt feels the form is fairly simple and goes with the basic deck construction. Mr. Gleisner and Ms. Van Wormer agreed. Mr. Dixon referred to packet page 35 pointing out that the skirting on the north side isn’t necessarily how historic skirting would be done. However, it is new construction and he doesn’t find that to be inappropriate to the neighborhood or outside of the guidelines. He feels the same about the pizza oven. Mr. Dixon suggested they further discuss the length and height of the deck unless the Commissioners that raised those concerns have been swayed. Mr. Gleisner indicated that he has been swayed. Ms. Kindt has also been swayed by the historic photos. She suggested they discuss the synthetic decking material. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 9 April 20, 2022 Mr. Dixon recognized that it has been a typical finding for the HPC that an alternative composite decking material specifically used on the flat surface of a deck, because of maintenance concerns, has been deemed appropriate in the past, which is how they are applying it here. All of the vertical surfaces are wood. Mr. Bruinsma raised the question of the faux wood grain. Mr. Dixon isn’t aware that it is available without the faux grain and his understanding is that it is for slip resistance. Ms. Kindt indicated that she hasn’t seen the material without it either. Mr. Dixon suggested it is appropriate in this particular application. Their decisions don’t set precedence but he doesn’t believe they would typically approve it for a vertical surface. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez MOVED TO APPROVE with the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, based on the local preservation guidelines and the Secretary of Interior Standards 9 & 10 with the following stipulations: that handrail details are to be designed with guidance and approval by staff as required by building code; guardrail details may not include metal chicken wire as shown in the application photograph; the newel post details should be designed with guidance and approval by staff to closely match the 1936 photograph; and the deck framing shall be independent of the house structure. SUPPORTED by Mr. Gleisner. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Tim Gleisner YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, Gleisner, Wormer, Rodriguez ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin C. 57 COLLEGE NE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 57 COLLEGE AVE NE - REQUEST TO BUILD NEW GARAGE Ms. Baker introduced the request to construct a new, 1-story, 1-stall garage in the rear, northwest corner of the lot in the same location as the original carriage house once stood. As a result of current zoning and building codes, the garage size is somewhat limited to accommodate setbacks and greenspace. Ms. Baker related that the house was built circa 1885 with a significant rebuild that occurred in 1994 following a severe fire. The carriage house is evident in the rear yard in the 1895 Sanborn Map. That structure was demolished in 2016 as it posed a public safety hazard. The proposed garage structure will be free standing. It will be 22’ deep, 16’ wide with walls of 8’ in height. The garage will have a front facing gable roof to match the house, smooth finish fiber cement lap siding, 6” smooth finish fiber cement fascia, 12” soffit, and asphalt shingle roof. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 10 April 20, 2022 Corner and door trim is called out as smooth finish 1” x 4” either wood or engineered material called Text Trim. The overhead door is proposed as metal with recessed panel and vertical orientated rectangular lights drawing from the house. The man door will be located on the south elevation and is a fiberglass door with ¼ light with simulated 6 light pattern. The garage will be placed 12’ from the house and 5’ from the north and west lot lines. The house itself is 31.8’ wide and over 50’ deep without the front porch. Mr. Dixon referred to the submittal which lists the overhead door as hemlock, which seems to indicate it is a wood door. Ms. Baker deferred to the applicant to clarify. It is new construction so the Commission may find that either is appropriate, depending on the style. Images of the existing conditions were displayed. Ms. Baker noted that the driveway already extends that far back so they don’t have to increase that. They can reduce it if they like but could leave the wider apron if they need to. Mr. Dixon asked if there is documentation on the original footprint of the carriage house. Ms. Baker replied that it was a huge structure. It was 2 - 2 ½ stalls with a rickety lean to that was over a stall in size. The carriage house was 2 stories. The proposed is considerably smaller. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez noted that the plans show a gable vent per builder on the front elevation. He asked if that detail is provided anywhere else in the documents. Ms. Baker suggested it may be in the materials list. If she recalls correctly, they were drawing from the arched window in the gable of the house. She is not aware of the material or design. Mr. Dixon asked if the proposed 3” fiber cement siding matches the house. Ms. Baker replied that that is very similar to the house. There was no applicant present and no public comment. Ms. Kindt feels the scale is subservient to the house, both in footprint and height, as the guidelines mention. The location is similar to the historic location and in the rear, which are also both mentioned in the guidelines. The architectural features complement the house with the horizontal siding, corner trim and the gable. The style of the gable vent appears to be taken from the front of the house. She would be concerned if the “per builder” decided to change it to something that would no longer complement the house. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez referred to package pg. 68 noting that there is a line item for a half- round gable vent. Mr. Dixon expressed concern that, without more information, it could be a vinyl product. They should clarify that. He also agreed with Ms. Kindt that the scale is subservient to the main structure and neighboring houses. The siting is appropriate for a garage and is a similar location to the carriage house that was historically there. The massing is simple and reflects the main house, which is all appropriate. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 11 April 20, 2022 Mr. Gleisner agreed. Mr. Dixon suggested they discuss materiality noting that the concern has already been raised about the material of the gable vent. He is not familiar with what Text Trim is and they should ensure that isn’t vinyl. They should also clarify whether the overhead door is wood or metal. The man door is proposed as fiberglass. Ms. Baker related that fiberglass for the man door is pretty typical. Mr. Dixon agreed. Additionally, in new construction and especially on a secondary elevation of an outbuilding, he feels fiberglass is an appropriate choice. You can get profiles in a fiberglass door that more accurately mimic those of a true wood door and it will hold up better for maintenance. The craftsman design is also appropriate to the neighborhood and house. Ms. Van Wormer added that it is also not going to be very visible. Ms. Baker felt the Commission could address the outstanding questions in a motion; what materials are appropriate for the gable vent, no faux wood look for the overhead door if metal, and the wood option for the trim can be approved vs. the Text Trim. They could return with more information on the Text Trim if they desire to utilize that material. The Commission discussed the appropriate materials for the gable vent being either wood or fiberglass in the size and shape to match what is shown in the drawings. They also discussed the Text Trim finding that they could approve the option of wood or the applicant can return with additional information on the Text Trim product. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO APPROVE with the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, based on the local preservation guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards 1, 2, 3, 9 & 10, finding that the siting, footprint, scale, and height are appropriate, with the following stipulations:  The gable vent shall be wood or fiberglass with the style per the elevations  The overhead garage door is a true wood product  The corner trim shall be wood or the applicant can return at any time with an alternate material to be reviewed by the Commission. SUPPORTED by Mr. Gleisner. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO DENY a Certificate of Appropriateness as it relates to Text Trim based on insufficient information. The applicant may return at any time with additional information for consideration, based on the Secretary of the Interior Standards 9 & 10 and the local preservation guidelines. SUPPORTED by Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 12 April 20, 2022 RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Tim Gleisner YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, Gleisner, Wormer, Rodriguez ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin D. 925 CHERRY SE - WEALTHY STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT 925 CHERRY SE - REQUEST TO EXPAND OUTDOOR PATIO Ms. Baker identified the location as the Brewery Vivant site. The request is for alterations to their outdoor patio, which is located between the main front façade of the structure and Cherry St. It currently has somewhat of a wave effect. A photo was displayed showing where the stairs are and the wall for Maru’s outdoor patio. The applicant is proposing to bring the patio all the way to the sidewalk so it is one level patio so they can expand their seating area. In the patio area would also be three fire pits. The existing ADA ramp on the west side would remain and the wall for Maru would remain where it is. They are proposing to line the patio at the sidewalk with a brick wall matching the ADA ramp and the wall at Maru. The height would match as well. The applicant is proposing to top their wall with a decorative metal rail/screen because when standing on the patio the height of the brick is only 18”. The rail/screen is an effort to improve the safety yet still allowing it to feel open from the sidewalk. In addition, they have added a sign on the rail element. The sign is metal, the same height as the rail, and approximately 6’ 6” long. They will need Zoning permission to install a sign in that location. Mr. Dixon confirmed that the HPC decision would supersede the building code as to the height of the wall/railing. Ms. Baker agreed that that still applies to the Commercial Building Code, although they don’t often override Commercial Building Code. Ms. Baker responded to Ms. Kindt indicating the height of the rail atop the wall is 1’6”. The total height from the patio to the top would be 3’. Mr. Dixon asked if the handrails are new or existing. Ms. Baker replied that there are rails present on the stairs so they are matching what is there. Mr. Dixon asked if the proposed improvements are all on their property. Ms. Baker replied yes, as far as she is aware. They will have to submit a site plan as part of their LUDS review. Mr. Dixon asked what of the HPC’s decision would override Zoning/Planning. Ms. Baker replied perhaps the solid wall at the sidewalk if they view it as a fence. The encroachment is through Engineering and the expanded outdoor use, seating and sign will be reviewed by Planning. Mr. Bruinsma asked if it was just wide open with stairs when it was the funeral home use. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 13 April 20, 2022 Ms. Baker replied that a lot of it was at grade and it was a playground. It was a funeral home, then a medical group took it over, and later a daycare. It wasn’t a funeral home and daycare at the same time. The childcare use ceased before the beer moved in. Mr. Dixon asked if the brick will match the existing in terms of color, profile and size. Ms. Baker replied that is what is called out. Brian Swem, Lott3Metz Architecture, explained that the decorative rail doesn’t technically need to be there from a code standpoint but it is there for safety reasons. The intent is to match the existing brick of the retaining wall, which is actually a different brick color than the field on the historic building. They will also match the stone cap. All of the handrails for the ramp are existing and will remain. They will match those for the new stair. This whole exercise is an effort to activate underutilized space. The current design doesn’t lend itself well to anything that is happening out there. By reorienting the patio and aligning it with the street and sidewalk it feels more appropriate for the space and delivers more useable outdoor space. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez referred to the rendering shown on the screen asking if it accurately depicts what the metal rail will be like. Mr. Swem replied that what is shown in the rendering is an enlarged ivy pattern, similar to historic wrought iron ivy pattern. In reality they haven’t approached anyone to build that rail because they need approval to move forward. It will likely be a similar pattern. The idea was representing hops since it is a brewery. The ivy is a close approximation. It will likely be a CNC or laser cut steel plate that is welded into the structural. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez clarified that it will be more or less a two dimensional screen with a floral pattern cut into it. Mr. Swem agreed. Mr. Bruinsma asked if the proposed sign will be built into the rail. Mr. Swem replied it would be another steel or aluminum plate, likely painted to avoid having sharp edges from laser cutting it. They are seeking the HPC’s approval with the assumption they can get it approved by Zoning. It exists in a bit of a gray area so they are hopeful. Mr. Swem clarified for Ms. Kindt that the decorative metal isn’t a guardrail per say. It is there because they have safety concerns. The patio is approximately 1.9’ to 2’ above the sidewalk. They don’t technically need a rail but he feels they should have one. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez feels the plan is very appropriate. What they are concerned with is maintaining the historic character of the street and this proposal does a better job with that than what is currently there. Another consideration is not obscuring or damaging the historic character of the contributing building beyond. He is encouraged that the low masonry wall with Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 14 April 20, 2022 a screen atop accomplishes not obscuring the site of the building beyond for the average person walking down the street. Ms. Van Wormer agreed. Ms. Kindt also agreed. It retains the historic character of the building. It is consistent in design and scale with what is there and maintains the historic features of the site and environment based on the approval guidelines. Mr. Gleisner was also in agreement. Ms. Van Wormer feels the proposed will be an improvement to what is there now. Mr. Dixon felt it was important to note that the handrails aren’t something they would necessarily approve in this kind of application but since they match existing handrails that are already part of that construction he finds them appropriate as part of the new construction. Mr. Dixon has a minor objection with the patterning of the railing just because it feels like conjectural history a bit. It is a modern take on a historic form. However, in the context of it being new construction and delineating it from the historic he doesn’t believe it will necessarily negatively impact the site, building, or neighborhood. Ms. Kindt agreed. She also feels the proposed signage does not detract from the site, whether it is solid or laser cut; it complements the railing and the overall scale of it is appropriate to the site. Mr. Bruinsma also feels the pattern of the rail denotes the evolution of the use of the space from childcare to a brewery. Mr. Dixon added that being hops inspired makes sense. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez felt it important to be clear that the image they are seeing is a placeholder for a custom product. If there are concerns that could come back or be reviewed by staff. Commissioners didn’t feel it was necessary that it come back. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez MOVED TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED, with the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, based on the local preservation guidelines and the Secretary of Interior Standards 1, 2, 3, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Mr. Bruinsma. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Peter Bruinsma YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, Gleisner, Wormer, Rodriguez ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 15 April 20, 2022 VII. Public Hearing VIII. Discussion Mr. Dixon explained that this is an Advisory Discussion only and not a formal review. Any comments or recommendations made during an Advisory Discussion are not binding upon either the applicant or the HPC. 1. 316 JAMES - CHERRY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 316 JAMES SE - ADVISORY DISCUSSION - PROPOSAL TO ENCLOSE REAR PORCH Ms. Baker related that the applicant wishes to discuss the feasibility of enclosing their back porch with either a solid wall or glass maybe swapped out for screens in the summer. The house in question dates to circa 1900. In doing some research on it, it is clear that the actual porch was always on the side and not the back but it was double the size it is currently. By the 1936 Assessor’s records, that porch had been half enclosed and became part of the inside of the house. It is a bit unclear as to whether the whole thing was enclosed at one point and then half reopened. Ms. Baker’s guess is that only half was enclosed. A photo of the existing condition was displayed. Another image was displayed depicting a rough idea of some simple framing on the outside of the rail that could be glass and possibly swapped out for screens for air movement or a solid framed wall with a window and siding to match the house. What they are attempting to do is give themselves a bit of mudroom space because they don’t currently have any. A photo of the interior was displayed. Basically, when you enter you walk into a wall and are in the kitchen. They are interested in any thoughts the Commission may have on utilizing the space more. Mr. Dixon asked if they know the date it was scaled back to the smaller footprint. Ms. Baker replied that it was sometime between construction and 1936. Brian and Andrea Russel were present for the discussion. Mr. Russel felt Ms. Baker summed up their request. Currently you walk in to a wall. Most people want to change out of their shoes when entering the house. Mrs. Russel added that they are interested in having a place to step back and take shoes off and even clean the dog’s paws when it comes in. Mr. Dixon explained that the guidelines are fairly clear that they can consider modifying and enclosing exterior porches when they are on a secondary elevation, which this is. He asked if it is visible from the street. Ms. Baker replied that you can see the post from the street. Mr. Dixon related that one of his concerns is that if they enclose it they will have to bring the stair out further to create a landing on the outside. Mr. Russel replied that the intention was not to do that; to leave everything as is. They took the viewpoint that it would be desirable for everything to remain the same. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez related that his understanding is that building code will require a landing at an exterior door. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 16 April 20, 2022 Ms. Baker agreed, if they totally enclose it. If they screen it, whether it be removable glass for screens, she believes it is still considered an open porch. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez thought that a door was to be moved. Ms. Baker indicated that in the instance of doing glass/screens you would have a storm door. Ms. Kindt believes it would require a 3’ landing on the outside so that when the door swung you wouldn’t be swiping yourself off the step. Practically, it would be nice and it would require review by the HPC. That is definitely something to think about. She noted that the floor surface currently appears to be painted wood. She asked if they are proposing any changes to that if they semi-enclose or enclose it. Mrs. Russel replied that they hadn’t thought that far. She was interested in learning earlier in the meeting that the HPC does allow some composite decking. Mr. Russel noted however that if it is enclosed it will be safe from the elements so he wouldn’t anticipate changing the flooring. Mr. Dixon commented on the composite material indicating that decks and porches are slightly different under the guidelines and he isn’t sure it would be allowed for a porch as much as for a deck. Typically, they only approve that where there is no material already, such as with new construction, or in cases where the material is so far gone that it has to be replaced. That doesn’t appear to be the case with the existing floor so he doesn’t believe they would allow replacement of that for convenience’s sake. Mr. Dixon stated that it would be important to maintain the footprint, which it sounds like that is intended, and maintaining the broad strokes of the articulation that is there now. The corner post is important. If they do propose full enclosure his recommendation would be to put the window sill at the height of the top of the current rail to maintain that line and keep the void to solid proportions similar. Mr. Russel stated that it sounds like their best option is going to be a glass enclosure so they don’t have to extend the porch and add a stoop and the existing railing could stay. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez asked, if enclosed in glass, would the glass be on the inside or outside of the existing railing. Mr. Russel replied that ideally, he would like it on the outside for the added protection. The lines for it would be where the rail is to minimize the impact. Mr. Dixon referred to the guidelines, which state that it could be enclosed with screens or with glass with minimal framing. It sounds like the intent would be to keep it visually open. He is struggling with the interpretation somewhat because if enclosing it with a screen, what do you do with the railing at that point. Ms. Baker replied that the framing is usually on the inside of the rail. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 17 April 20, 2022 Ms. Kindt read from the guidelines; consideration will be given to enclosing porches on secondary facades with screens or glass and minimal framing if the change is found to be appropriate for the main building without altering, damaging or obscuring…What she would find important is keeping the feel of that porch space as outside negative space that was carved out of the house intentionally as a porch. She feels that if it were enclosed with glass or screens, with metal framing, per the guidelines, that feel of the porch would remain. You would still see the corner post, the rail, the skirt and joists around where the decking is. It would then be more functional space. She would have trouble with enclosing it with full framing of the wall because you lose the feeling of the porch and it becomes enclosed space. Mr. Gleisner recalled a similar issue a year ago when he joined the Commission. He recalls that maintaining that outside feel was a very important piece of the discussion. Mrs. Russel asked if the Commission would recommend glass inside or outside the rail. Mr. Dixon struggles with the idea of putting glass behind the railing. Ms. Baker suggested something solid behind the rail so the rail remains exposed and then glass from the top of the rail up. Ms. Van Wormer suggested changing the photo displayed to packet pg. 106 where the applicant included lines of where window/screen framing and the door would potentially go. Mr. Russel feels framing in the middle would be necessary and a transom or something above the door. Mr. Dixon suggested discussing what it would look like if enclosed with screens. What is shown on packet pg. 106 seems like an appropriate solution with two screen panels set inboard of the railing and a screen panel and screen door to infill the other side. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez suggested the applicants look at the house at the SE corner of Cherry & Union. There is a screened porch with presumably an original rail. There is a non-translucent panel behind the railings and the screen only exists above the rail to the ceiling. He provided another example on Madison, south of Cherry, on the west side of the street. That is also a screened in porch that has a similar treatment. The railings are visible but there is a non- transparent panel behind the rail and screening above. He believes that is one option that would satisfy the guidelines. Ms. Kindt felt it would also address the practical problems of changing the screens to glass in the winter. All Commissioners agreed that would be the option for the applicant to explore. They also all agreed that completely enclosing the space would likely be a struggle to approve. 2. 337 VISSER - WEALTHY STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT 337 VISSER PL SE - ADVISORY DISCUSSION - PROPOSED 2ND STORY REAR ADDITION Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 18 April 20, 2022 Ms. Baker explained that the applicants would really like to stay in their house but the house is very small, which is typical for this street. They are hoping there is a way to add or push out the second floor toward the back to give them some much needed room. The intent would be to extend the gable following the plane of the roof. Ms. Baker noted that there is a house across the street that has the front gable roof with a very similar pitch and very similar problem that the Commission reviewed several years ago. They received approval to add a dormer and pushed out their back gable over a one-story. They aren’t the same houses but somewhat similar. Ashley Wiebenga was present for the discussion. She stated that they love their neighborhood and home. They have two children that currently share a bedroom and that situation isn’t sustainable because they are different sexes. They would love to add a third bedroom vs. selling their home and moving. They are interested in learning whether it would be possible to add another bedroom because if it isn’t then they will begin the thought process and planning for moving. Mr. Dixon asked, when standing in the second floor space, not including the dormer, how high is it to the bottom of the roof. Ms. Wiebenga replied that her bedroom is at the front of the house and there is no dormer. On the sides of the room she would hit her head. They have a dresser on one side and the other side has a closet so it is very functional. She estimated 4-5’. They would basically be adding a very similar room, mirroring the bedroom at the front. Mr. Dixon stated that if this was an addition that went all the way to the ground his typical recommendation would be that the outside face of the wall step back a bit so you can differentiate the original from the new. This is a vertical addition so his thought was potentially sinking the roof peak slightly to easily differentiate the new from the old. However, based on the testimony, that would be hard to live in. Ms. Wiebenga stated that if they added a dormer or two then they could lower it but that doesn’t seem like it would fit. It seemed to make most sense just to extend it back and mirror the front but they would need it to remain at the same height. Mr. Dixon agreed that adding dormers would add conjectural historic elements. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez wouldn’t say that a dormer is a conjectural historic element; it is very functional. Mr. Dixon agreed. He clarified that it is a major design element that draws the eye to the new portion of the house where typically the intent is to draw the eye to the existing portion of the house. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez understood. Alternatively, the house across the street added a side gable. Mr. Gleisner feels that that changes the streetscape a lot more. What is being considered here is on the rear of the house and not as visible from the street. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 19 April 20, 2022 Mr. Dixon stated that he doesn’t have a problem with the scale and massing. It comes back to differentiating the old from the new. Ms. Baker suggested it is possible to differentiate in different ways; materiality, design of some of the elements, etc. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez recalled previous additions approved by the Commission where the addition was in the same plane as the existing and the only differentiating feature was 4” of trim in between the old and new siding. Ms. Baker added that they have also done a slight variation in window trim and also a slight variation of the dimensions of a window. Mr. Dixon would be hesitant to do a materiality change in this case because most of the houses in this neighborhood are single material clapboard. Ms. Baker agreed. She would suggest a feature change like window dimension or window trim because it is marrying in with something vs. being separate, but attached to the back. Ms. Kindt indicated that she was having some of the same thoughts as Mr. Dixon. The guidelines say the height should be different, the addition should be narrower than the primary structure but with the practical considerations of the height and the simple gable that is there it would be hard to do that and have it result in a functional space. It would be nice to somehow differentiate it. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez feels an addition is absolutely possible. There are a number of creative ways to do it. One could be to find a way to differentiate in the roofline or tastefully change window sizes or proportions. Mr. Dixon agreed that based on the size and scale of the neighborhood an addition is very possible. Mr. Gleisner asked if not having dormers would be the differentiation. Mr. Dixon pointed out that the front doesn’t have dormers. Often times a dormer will be in the middle of a roof structure so his concern is that where the dormer stops and starts doesn’t indicate a historic condition for him. Ms. Wiebenga’s understanding was that you would want it to look historic and like it has always been there. Her understanding from the Commission however is the opposite. Mr. Dixon explained that it is a narrow line to walk. The addition should be compatible with both the house and the neighborhood. However, it is also part of the Commission’s job to make sure that future people can tell the story of the house so it is clear to see that it is clearly an addition and not original to the structure. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 20 April 20, 2022 Ms. Van Wormer felt what is most important for them to do is to think about the possibilities where it fits their house, fits the neighborhood but that can still tell the story for the future. In response to Ms. Wiebenga’s question regarding next steps, Ms. Baker suggested having one or two concept drawings done and coming back for another advisory discussion so the HPC can help fine tune it before spending the money on full drawings. 3. HEARTSIDE NR EXPANSION HEARTSIDE NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT BOUNDARY INCREASE NOMINATION Ms. Baker expressed her excitement about the expansion, which has been in process for over a decade. It was initiated by a CLG requirement when Cherry Street was realigned at Division. Part of the mitigation agreement was to expand the National Registry boundary of Heartside to line up with the local district. It will go to the State Review Board in May and this is part of the CLG requirement. The Commission has the opportunity to offer comments or suggestions for changes. This is also an opportunity for public comment. It is then sent on to the State as part of the package. Ms. Baker asked if Commissioners have been to Heartside. All Commissioners responded affirmatively. Ms. Baker displayed the maps. She related that in 1979 they created the Heartside Historic District both locally and nationally. The boundaries were essentially Ionia, Cherry, the west side of Division, and Louis & Fulton. Over time the local district was expanded a piece at a time to the current boundaries but no one ever expanded the national. The intent is to have them line up. The only thing that won’t line up is that this captured the YWCA. It isn’t local and likely won’t be soon but at least it is within the national boundaries and it should be. Mr. Dixon stated that this is great. It would be nice to eventually see either Heartside continue to grow east or Heritage Hill to grow west to include some of the things on Jefferson. Ms. Baker asked that if the Commission is comfortable with the report that they make a motion indicating they agree with the findings and support it. She related that she has received no public comment and all owners were noticed by letter. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez moved to affirm the findings and support the application. Supported by Mr. Gleisner. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. ANNUAL HPC AWARDS NOMINATIONS AWARD NOMINATIONS After thorough discussion of the nominations, and passed nominations held over, the HPC selected by unanimous vote:  Outstanding Commercial Preservation Project o 302 & 303 E Fulton o 665 Wealthy, 701 Wealthy, & 1157 Wealthy  Outstanding Preservation Project by a Group Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 21 April 20, 2022 o 547 Cherry SE o 1553 Plainfield NE  Special Recognition o Bill Milheim o Brian Black  Outstanding Residential Preservation Project o 144 Fitzhugh SE o 603 Parkwood NE Motion by Ms. Kindt, supported by Mr. Gleisner, to approve the awards. Motion carried unanimously. 5. FEASIBILITY PROCEDURES DRAFT FEASIBILITY PROCEDURES Ms. Baker recalled that the Commission had charged her with looking into a couple of items, one of which was defining economic, technical feasibility, and financial hardship. It was a long process. She has worked with the State Historic Preservation Office, staff, and the City Attorney. She has tried to determine if there was a means by which the HPC could review something based on an owner’s independent financial situation and there is no legal way the HPC can do that. The only way to do it is by the financial ability of the property itself. Therefore, they are working within the parameters of the existing Ordinance language and will not try to change the Ordinance. The information provided to the Commission is reflective of what they can already do. The Commission was interested in more time to absorb the material. Ms. Baker asked that the Commission provide any comments, questions or suggestions between now and the May meeting. This will be adopted by the HPC, similar to the bylaws. The goal would be to have comments from the Commission by the May meeting and she will work with the attorney between the May and June meetings to get it finalized. Her goal is to get it approved at the June meeting. Ms. Kindt referred to page 3 under Economic Feasibility where it says significantly greater expense necessitated by using traditional materials rather than modern counterparts. She asked if there is a definition of significantly. Ms. Baker replied no and, based on what she has been told, they don’t want to create a defined number; it is more of a case-by-case basis. She understands that may make review more difficult sometimes but, in the end, it is likely better to allow them to adapt to the parameters of each situation. IX. Public Comment None. X. Adjourn 7:56 PM XI. Staff Reports Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 22 April 20, 2022