Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Development Center Historic Preservation Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 May 4, 2022 Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor I. Call to Order 5:00 p.m. II. Roll Call PRESENT: Dixon, Kindt, Van Wormer, Rodriguez ABSENT: Baldwin, Bruinsma, Gleisner Staff Present: Rhonda Baker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich III. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from April 20, 2022 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Michael Rodriguez YEAS: Matthew Dixon, Anna Kindt, Heather Van Wormer, Michael Rodriguez ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Peter Bruinsma, Tim Gleisner IV. Staff Communication and Reports Certificates of Appropriateness Issued by Staff 1. STAFF APPROVALS STAFF ISSUED COA PERMITS 74 Lafayette NE 12 Portsmouth NE 538 Madison SE 565 Madison SE 912 Fairmount SE 300 Hollister SE 230 Lafayette NE 582 Prospect SE V. Old Business VI. New Business A. 301 IONIA SW - HEARTSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT 301 IONIA SW - HEARTSIDE PARK - REMOVAL OF RESTROOM STRUCTURE & INTRODUCTION OF NEW STRUCTURE Ms. Baker explained that the request relates to Heartside Park, which is a non-contributing site located in the Heartside Historic District. The park was constructed in 2003-2004 and has been updated periodically. There are some minor elements of the park that they will be working with staff on for approval. Generated 5/10/2022 9:21 AM Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 2 May 4, 2022 Ms. Baker explained that they are before the HPC this evening to discuss the removal of the existing restroom building and introduction of a new structure. The existing restroom is located at the back/west side of the park and is a non-contributing building. It is a non-historic structure on a non-historic site within a historic district. The second portion of the request is the introduction of a new bathroom structure. Both the structure and the proposed location are part of the review. They are asking to locate the new structure closer to Ionia. It has been pretty well documented that Heartside Park needs to offer restroom facilities. In doing this community outreach project, they wanted to find something that would be easily maintained and a safe solution. What they have decided upon are pre-fabricated, self-cleaning metal structures. They are structurally sound, easy to maintain and designed for safety. They felt that relocating the building closer to Ionia was important to address the safety factor so that it is more visible and more eyes can be on the facility at all times. The new bathhouse is 18.1’ wide, 7.7’ deep and just over 9’ tall. It has a shed roof with a 22” overhang, a concrete base, and metal sides. It is proposed to have a mural installed on the outside of it. Ms. Baker related that public facilities have historically been located throughout the city. Often there is an entry location along the sidewalk to a sublevel restroom. There is only one historic facility left, which is located in Veteran’s Park. More recently there have been bus station structures approved in historic districts and most recent is a very similar, but much smaller scale, metal bath structure located at Division and Weston in the public right-of-way. That structure is not precedent setting but provides the Commission something to look at to get a sense of what the structures look like and how they may or may not interact with the streetscape. Mr. Dixon asked the dimensions of the existing structure. The new structure appears to be approximately the same size or smaller. Ms. Baker replied that the new structure is smaller and proposed in a different location. The existing location is toward the west in the north 1/3 of the site and the new location is still basically in the north 1/3 but on the east side of the site; it will be street side vs. toward the highway. Ms. Baker responded to additional questions indicating that she isn’t sure if the new structure is taller. The existing building has a fairly substantial hip roof. She believes the entirety of the new structure is smaller than what is there currently. The massing is more diminutive. Ms. Baker deferred questions to the applicant regarding whether the mural will be permanent or something that can be changed, what the security concerns are with the current location of the restroom facility, and whether the siding is prefab metal siding or fiber cement siding. Karie Enriquez, Project Manager for the Parks Department, responded to questions. With respect to safety concerns, the bathroom is currently pushed all the way to the back of the property. It is dark in that area. There is fencing that goes along the back side and they tried to fence off the back of the building but people still cut the fence and tents get set up or other activities occur behind the bathroom space. There are also people that are hesitant to go back into the park to use the restroom. Moving it forward will put more eyes on the building and will help them ensure there is accessibility, especially during the winter. The big drive for this change is that the existing restroom is seasonal. It wasn’t built to be open during the winter. From September through May people have to use porta-johns or find another place to use a restroom. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 3 May 4, 2022 The proposed pre-fab structure is winterized so it can remain open all year, 24 hours a day. There are three stalls in the structure and it is self-cleaning, which they hope will help eliminate some of the necessary maintenance. Ms. Enriquez indicated that she doesn’t have the size of the existing building but the new building is definitely shallower and not as tall. The width may be similar. Ms. Enriquez responded regarding the mural. It is a skin that they manufacture and it could be changed at a later date. Eventually murals need maintenance or replacement. Ms. Enriquez responded to additional questions indicating that the structure will be heated. It will be tied into the City’s sewage system. They will cap the existing utilities at the back of the site and install new service connections at the front for City water and sewer. There will not be a solar component on this structure. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Ms. Kindt had no concerns related to removal of the existing structure since it and the site are non-contributing. Mr. Dixon agreed adding that the existing restroom is as far away from the historic structures in the district as is physically possible. He doesn’t feel removal of that structure will negatively impact the rest of the district in any way. The Commission discussed the proposed placement of the new structure. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez stated that in another circumstance he would likely be hesitant to support a public restroom right at the streetscape. However, given the documented security concerns, he feels it is an appropriate location in this instance. Ms. Kindt agreed. Ms. Van Wormer added that its orientation minimizes its impact on the street. She expressed concern about what the mural will look like. It will either make it a lot more visible or less visible. Mr. Dixon agreed regarding the mural. Typically, the HPC doesn’t weigh in on color. However, if this is decorated like a watermelon in bright pink and green, that might draw some attention away from and negatively impact the historic properties. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez asked staff if the Commission weighs in on the content of murals. Ms. Baker replied no to content but they do consider the application of a mural or paint. Mr. Dixon clarified that he doesn’t care if it is watermelon patterned or not but he feels the color and visual impact will be important for the Commission to review. The fact that the size and Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 4 May 4, 2022 scale are smaller than what is there now, even though a different footprint, is a positive improvement. He also recognizes the need for this facility in Heartside Park. Ms. Kindt feels it will have a minimal impact on the streetscape, although it is more visible. The placement makes sense for safety and meeting the needs of the park. There was additional discussion on reviewing the mural. Mr. Dixon’s recommendation would be approving the application but table the mural/finish for review at a later date. His concern is that it may detract from the historic district. Ms. Enriquez showed the Commission a draft they have of the mural. She also related that it will go to the Arts Advisory Council for their review. Mr. Dixon didn’t feel the mural would detract from the district, per the draft shown to the Commission. Ms. Van Wormer agreed. The applicant was asked to send the draft to staff for the record. 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 1, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Ms. Kindt. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Matthew Dixon, Anna Kindt, Heather Van Wormer, Michael Rodriguez ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Peter Bruinsma, Tim Gleisner B. 665 WEALTHY SE - CHERRY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 665 WEALTHY SE - REQUEST FOR NEW FENCE Ms. Baker recalled that this is the site of a 1935 Sinclair Gas Station. It was renovated into a restaurant, which is present today, in 2012. At that time, part of the exterior ground/landscaping work included an ornamental aluminum fence and shrubbery. What they are proposing currently is to install a couple areas of concrete for ADA access, which could be staff reviewed but has been included in this review to avoid multiple permits. The main consideration for the HPC is the proposed replacement of fence and shrubs with a new style of fence. Ms. Baker explained that the existing fence is approximately 4’ tall and cuts away at the corner for clear vision. The new fence has a horizontal orientation to it. It consists of 1” x 6” wood slats with a 3/4” gap. It stands a total of 2.11’ tall, which includes the 5” gap at the base, and it is Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 5 May 4, 2022 5” thick. Ms. Baker displayed the detail of the fence noting the side profile. It will have a good/finish side on both sides. Mr. Dixon referred to packet page 49 noting that the height is dimensioned as 2.6’ from the ground. Ms. Baker suggested the applicant confirm the height. Either way, it is considerably shorter than the existing 4’ fence and shrubs. The proposed fence will go all the way to the corner of Wealthy and Henry but it will decrease in height to provide for the clear vision triangle. Along the south/Wealthy line it will be deeper; 2.4’ as it will incorporate a planter box in between. Ms. Baker provided an example of a somewhat similar style of fence; 900 Wealthy, which is a ‘50’s gas station. It is located on the secondary street façade only and was only included as an example if Commissioners were interested in seeing something similar. Ms. Baker clarified for Mr. Dixon that there will be two small areas of concrete they will be adding for ADA access. Lisa Miller, Lott3Metz Architecture, was present on behalf of the request. She recalled that this property had an addition approved last year. Part of that addition requires some stormwater management improvements, which involves digging up the entire patio for the installation. The thought was to declutter the patio and look at some changes. There is a lot of shrubbery that is overgrown and they began looking at planters and that evolved into maybe replacing the fence as well. The building was constructed in the ‘30’s, which is the same time the streamline moderne movement was starting. They looked at that for some inspiration. It was based on aerodynamic designs with long horizontal lines and sometimes curvilinear shapes and nautical elements. That is how the design evolved into the horizontal fence. It worked well with the planters they were designing. The are proposing this design to clean up the periphery and they are proposing to run the fence all the way back to the building. Currently, the ornamental fence stops. There is a retaining wall that runs along the property line that is undulating and unsightly and they wanted to provide some continuity aesthetically. They will put some greenery along the front to beautify the Wealthy frontage. The fence will run along Henry and return just to follow the new concrete pad to frame it. The reason the concrete pad is sized the way it is, is that there is a catch basin they would like to hide with landscaping so they pulled the concrete pad wide enough to the south to be able to get people in and out. The second concrete pad they are proposing is near the new take-out window. Currently there is a gravel edge between the sidewalk and property line. They propose infilling that with concrete to provide a better experience for people picking up their to-go items. Ms. Miller identified where the openings in the fence would be to enter the space. They are not proposing a gate at this time, leaving it open as it is currently. There are a couple of catch basins they are attempting to hide with planters and furnishings will be positioned around. They will likely reuse the furnishings because of COVID and availability but there is a possibility of new furnishings as well. Ms. Miller explained that they are proposing taking the fence all the way to the corner and they will work with Zoning to satisfy the clear vision requirement. She clarified that the fence was originally proposed at 2.11’ but it was dropped for clear vision. They aren’t going to step it; they will maintain a consistent height. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 6 May 4, 2022 Mr. Dixon asked if the intent is that the fence will move with the ground plane or will the top be held level. Ms. Miller replied that she doesn’t believe there is too much of a slope but it will slope with the ground. Her recollection is that there is a bit of a rise along Henry. They will maintain the 2.6’ at the corner but it may creep up a bit as it goes north. She added that they are proposing to irrigate the planter. Part of the reason some of the landscaping looks so rough is that it is in gravel. They may also add some freestanding planters throughout the space. Mr. Dixon clarified that there are no changes to the paving surfaces. Ms. Miller replied that when they tear it all out to do the site work they will replace it with crushed stone to match. The only surface change is the concrete pad at the new entry door of the addition. Mr. Dixon asked if a clear stained finish is proposed. Ms. Miller agreed. She feels that will be the easiest to maintain vs. paint. It could have a pigment to the stain. Mr. Dixon noted that wood can mean a lot of different things. He asked what the material will be. Ms. Miller suggested it will be some sort of treated wood. They haven’t finalized that through pricing documents. It is a double-sided fence so there is some expense to that. Obviously, they want something that isn’t going to warp, will accept the stain, provide longevity and affordability. Mr. Dixon asked if the intent is that the top cap will be face flush with the side and have no overhang. Ms. Miller replied that there might be a ¼” just to allow for some flexibility. The aesthetic intent is to look like a monolithic rectilinear form. Mr. Dixon clarified that they won’t change the material out for a fake plastic product. Ms. Miller replied no. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Ms. Kindt explained that as she reviewed the local guidelines, what stood out to her was that front and side yard fences should retain transparency and it talked about spacing between pickets. The existing fence has more transparency. However, with the proposed low height of the fence, 2.6’, she doesn’t feel it changes the views on the streetscape or to the historic building. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 7 May 4, 2022 Mr. Dixon agreed indicating that was his concern as well. The point about the height is well taken. The intent of this is to look monolithic with the planters and the planters, by nature, are not transparent. Therefore, he understands why the closer board spacing was proposed. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez added that the local guidelines also indicate that vertical orientation is preferred or more easily approved by staff while horizontal orientation requires review. He is satisfied that the applicant provided rationale for their decision to orient it horizontally. It is in keeping with the character and date of construction of the building. Mr. Dixon noted that there are some changes to the extent of fencing proposed; they are proposing that it wrap back further on the west side and also on the east side. He asked if there are any concerns related to that. There were no concerns expressed. Mr. Dixon drew the discussion to materiality relating that he has some concerns approving something that just says clear stained wood. He doesn’t feel that stock wood from a big box store would be appropriate based on how modern lumber looks. Ms. Kindt stated that natural wood is a good fit with the guidelines. Does the Commission have a say in terms of knots or quality? Ms. Baker stated that the Commission has never required a certain species. The quality of the chosen product is the risk the owner is taking. Ms. Van Wormer feels, given the expressed design, that they won’t settle for knotty pine that puts polka dots across the nice clean finish they have expressed a desire for. Ms. Baker suggested the consideration comes down to whether the proposed finish is appropriate. Mr. Dixon recognized that clear wood finish on a fence is something that they have approved in the past. It is often in a residential back yard but it is a material they have approved. Ms. Van Wormer was not concerned. Ms. Kindt wasn’t sure they had jurisdiction to specify a species. She feels wood, with a clear finish, does meet the guidelines. Mr. Dixon agreed that wood meets the guidelines. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO APPROVE, as submitted and per testimony, with the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, based on the local preservation guidelines and the Secretary of Interior Standards 1, 2, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 8 May 4, 2022 RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Michael Rodriguez YEAS: Matthew Dixon, Anna Kindt, Heather Van Wormer, Michael Rodriguez ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Peter Bruinsma, Tim Gleisner C. 227 HENRY SE - WINDOWS 227 HENRY SE - REQUEST TO RETAIN 3 COMPOSITE WINDOWS Ms. Baker introduced the request to retain three windows that were installed without a Certificate of Appropriateness. The windows are located on the south elevation. One is east/street facing and the other two face south. The windows they installed are one over one composite double-hung. They replaced non-historic one over one wood double-hung windows. Over the years the house has undergone a number of alterations, which is important to consider when making a decision as to whether or not existing windows are appropriate. Ms. Baker displayed photos of existing conditions as well as before photos illustrating the changes. The house has had some significant changes but also still has a fair amount of character in its shape. The front/east elevation and north of the main bulk of the house appear to retain what are believed to be original opening dimensions and locations and they are retaining historic one over one windows or casements. The rest of the house is a hodge podge. The back is almost entirely additions and the original portion of the house is no longer visible. The windows around the back don’t relate to anything. The don’t relate to themselves, don’t match in design, shape, operation or material. There is one on the back that is clearly old but didn’t come from this house. It is the same on the south side. The only windows that appear to read original is the gang of three on the first floor of the south side. As to the gang of two on the second floor that were replaced, that opening is not historic to that location and neither is the one next to it. Ms. Baker was unable to determine if the one replaced facing east on the south side was an original opening or not. It might be as the scale seems to blend with what is on the front. The window that was in it was not historic. She again stated that the ganged windows on the south side is not a historic opening. She identified other ganged windows which are not part of the consideration that are also not original openings. Mr. Dixon asked if this modification changed the rough opening of the windows. Ms. Baker replied that the modification did not change the rough openings. From the outside there is no change to the dimensions of the trim but from the inside it reads like it wasn’t set into the rough opening. She isn’t sure if that is due to work they have done on the inside. It may be an alteration from the previous non-historic windows. Ms. Baker summarized that what the Commission is considering are the three windows. They are a composite. The windows that were removed are moot as they weren’t historic. The question is whether what was installed meets the guidelines. Mr. Dixon clarified that there are remaining original windows. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 9 May 4, 2022 Ms. Baker replied that there are historic windows. She can’t confirm they are original because there isn’t a photo of when it was built. There do appear to be windows on the front facade and north façade that date to the period of significance and they are wood. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez clarified that the non-historic windows that were replaced were wood windows that are not believed to have existed during the period of significance. Ms. Baker agreed. They were likely less than 10 years old. Ms. Baker explained that she did a window assessment on the house before this work was done. The owner received a break down of what could be staff approved. She isn’t sure if he got confused because there are 49 windows and nearly a different answer for every window. Ms. Kindt asked if there were any windows staff approved to be composite. Ms. Baker replied that approving composite windows is not within her scope of approvals. She provided a break down of her findings of what could be staff approved. The only material she can approve is wood for wood or an in-kind replacement. The windows were in good shape and she didn’t provide an option for replacement. The applicant was not present due to his work schedule. Ms. Baker related that if the Commission finds the replacements inappropriate, the applicant has made a request with respect to how much time is allowed to correct the situation. There was no one present for public comment. Mr. Dixon pointed out that typically when work is done prior to review the Commission considers the request as though the work has not been done and would they have approved it had application been made prior. Ms. Kindt feels that the local guideline that applies is the statement regarding replacing a non- historic window. “The unit will be sized to fit the existing or historic rough openings and shall match existing trim and other features.” For that portion, from the exterior, they used existing window trim and Ms. Baker indicated that the size and trim hasn’t been changed. In terms of the existing opening, the work was appropriate. The guideline also states “the new unit can either duplicate the appearance of the existing window or with HPC and/or staff approval it may replicate the missing historic window. The new unit must match either the existing or historic window in design, dimensions, proportion, reflective qualities…and when technically feasible, material.” Ms. Kindt related that the statement on material is where she is having trouble as it would have been feasible to replace with wood windows. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez indicated that he feels very conflicted about this request. He strongly agrees with Ms. Kindt. However, he did visit the site and in his visual analysis of the second story windows from the ground he found it difficult to identify how it was impacting the house or neighborhood in a negative way. With that being said, the local guidelines are clear about what the appropriate course of action would be when replacing a window on a historic structure. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 10 May 4, 2022 Ms. Van Wormer doesn’t feel the windows look at all like any others. They are inset and it is a white sash. The others look like they are flat. Ms. Kindt clarified that the ones that are flush have a storm window on the outside. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez related that that was why he found it difficult because in terms of plane or location, the windows seem to be exactly where they would be expected. The color was bright and obvious but the Commission doesn’t have jurisdiction over color. He doesn’t know that they could insist that storm windows be installed where they weren’t previously. Pragmatically he feels conflicted but unless there are any other thoughts, he would defer to the local guidelines. Mr. Dixon stated that he would as well. The guidelines specifically say that where feasible, to replace with a material to match the historic windows on the house. The historic windows are wood. Without being presented with some evidence, he doesn’t find a case of technical infeasibility. Additionally, if this application had come to the Commission before the work had been done, he likely would have requested to see profile samples of both a true wood window and this product. Ms. Baker clarified that if the material is an issue than the profile wouldn’t have mattered. Mr. Dixon explained that he was reinforcing the matter of the material being an issue as the guideline also states that it should match the profile of the former windows. There is more than one item in that section that is not met or they don’t have enough information on. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez asked Ms. Baker if she could recall composite windows or doors being approved as a replacement for wood windows or doors. Ms. Baker replied not that she could recall, outside of new construction. The only materials she has seen requested would be metal or fiberglass and if the material being replaced is historical it is typically denied. She asked if the Commission finds the home to retain integrity to be a contributing structure. Mr. Dixon replied that he sees no reason to say otherwise. He understands that numerous alterations have been made but the form, massing, scale, and in some cases materiality, are still intact. He doesn’t believe substantial changes have been made that would require it to be listed as non-contributing. Ms. Kindt agreed. Ms. Baker related that if the Commission denies the request to retain the windows the owner is requesting as much time as possible due to the expense. The Commission briefly discussed the amount of time to afford. Mr. Dixon recalled that two years has been pretty typical in such cases, with an option to return to request an extension. Ms. Kindt felt two years was reasonable given current lead times and the related expense. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 11 May 4, 2022 Ms. Van Wormer noted however that there were wood windows in place that staff had said were fine and the expense that was incurred was self-imposed instead of fixing what was there if something happened to them since the analysis. Had they requested approval prior to doing the work, that expense wouldn’t have been incurred. Mr. Demaag-Rodriguez asked, if the motion is to replace the replacements with wood windows will the applicant have to return for the HPC to dictate the profiles. Mr. Dixon suggested wood windows with the profile to be staff approved. Ms. Baker indicated she would advise the applicant to draw from the historic windows on the front of the house. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO DENY requiring that the windows be replaced with wood replacement windows with the profile to be approved by staff. The applicant is afforded two years, with the option to return to request an extension. Denial is based on the local preservation guidelines and the Secretary of Interior Standards 2, 5, 6, 9 and 10. SUPPORTED by Ms. Van Wormer. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: DENIED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Heather Van Wormer YEAS: Matthew Dixon, Anna Kindt, Heather Van Wormer, Michael Rodriguez ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Peter Bruinsma, Tim Gleisner VII. Public Hearing VIII. Discussion 1. 510 LYON NE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 510 LYON NE - ADVISORY DISCUSSION - CARPORT There was no applicant present and the Commission chose not to discuss the matter in their absence. 2. FEASIBILITY STUDY FEASIBILITY STUDY There was brief discussion regarding the document. Ms. Baker explained that the HPC had asked her to provide more clarity on what the terms meant and how to use them and what they can require applicants to submit. It has been a very gray area for a long time. Mr. Dixon recalled that there was confusion between the terms economic hardship and economic feasibility, and what the difference between them was. There was also no standard for the Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 12 May 4, 2022 burden of proof the applicant was required to provide. They had to improvise in some situations and in some cases they had asked for bank records and such, which they’ve learned is not within their power to do. Getting those codified and into a published document that staff and the applicants can refer to was the intent. Mr. Dixon asked if it would be possible to get input from the City Attorney if Commissioners feel they need more clarity. Ms. Baker felt that could be arranged. Ms. Van Wormer MOVED to adopt the Feasibility Study as procedure, with the minor edits that were provided. SUPPORTED by Ms. Kindt. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Heather Van Wormer SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Matthew Dixon, Anna Kindt, Heather Van Wormer, Michael Rodriguez ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Peter Bruinsma, Tim Gleisner IX. Public Comment X. Adjourn 6:12 PM