Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Development Center Historic Preservation Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 July 6, 2022 Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor I. Call to Order 5:00 p.m. II. Roll Call PRESENT: Dixon, Kindt, Gleisner, Rodriguez ABSENT: Baldwin, Bruinsma, Wormer Staff Present: Rhonda Baker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich III. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from June 1, 2022 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Tim Gleisner YEAS: Matthew Dixon, Anna Kindt, Tim Gleisner, Michael Rodriguez ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Peter Bruinsma, Heather Van Wormer IV. Staff Communication and Reports Certificates of Appropriateness Issued by Staff 1. STAFF APPROVED COAS STAFF ISSUED COA PERMITS 572 Madison SE 315 Hollister SE 573 College SE 800 Wealthy SE 438 College SE 322 Paris SE 146 Campbell NE 601 Union SE 226 College SE 555 Lyon NE 245 Paris SE 536 Paris SE 543 Pleasant SE 650 Cherry SE 60 Prospect NE 312 Crescent NE 538 Morris SE 557 Union SE 307 Paris SE 265 Paris SE 569 College SE 417 Lyon NE 305 Morris SE 300 Morris SE 931 Virginia SE 553 Paris SE 449 Prospect SE 38 Commerce SW 455 Cherry SE 550 Union SE V. Old Business VI. New Business A. 553 UNION SE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 553 UNION AVE SE - REQUEST TO CHANGE A REAR WINDOW TO A DOOR Generated 7/11/2022 7:18 PM Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 2 July 6, 2022 Ms. Baker presented the request to convert a rear window to a door. She explained that the house in question was built approximately 1900. On the back is a small, post-1940 addition and 1995 and 1996 deck structures, which were approved by the HPC. The applicant is requesting to convert the single window on the rear first floor into a door. They would maintain the head height and width. The trim above would remain and the side trim would be replaced with new to match existing, and drop the sill. The door proposed is solid wood, ¾ light, to be compatible with the other doors on the house. The reason for the request is they have no access to the deck. It is necessary to go out the south side of the house, up the driveway, and into the back yard to access it. Ms. Baker is uncertain why access wasn’t included in 1995 and 1996. She noted that the façade really has no symmetry, balance, or rhythm to the openings. There was no applicant present. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Ms. Kindt feels the proposal maintains as much of the historic fabric as possible. The height and width will remain the same and they will reuse the existing trim to the extent possible. It is a secondary façade and not visible from the street. The proposed door is also compatible. She finds the proposed to be a minimal change. She would ask that the applicant retain the window on site should someone want to put it back in the future. Mr. Dixon agreed. He feels the request is very similar to a popular request they consider, which is to adjust window height to accommodate kitchen counters. He understands it is changing a window to a door but in actuality it is modifying the sill height of an existing opening to meet a modern use of the structure. Ms. Baker’s point that there is no real symmetry or recognizable rhythm of the windows on this secondary façade is a well-made point and one that allows the Commission some flexibility. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed with the comments offered. He feels the change is compatible with the historic character of the property. Mr. Gleisner agreed. Mr. Dixon asked if Commissioners are comfortable with the style and material of the door. It is clear that they’ve made an effort to try to replicate the existing door on the front of the house. It is period appropriate and seems like the correct decision. All Commissioners agreed. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO APPROVE with the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness based on the local preservation guidelines and the Secretary of Interior Standards 2, 9 and 10, with the stipulation that the existing window sashes be retained on site. SUPPORTED by Ms. Kindt. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 3 July 6, 2022 RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Matthew Dixon, Anna Kindt, Tim Gleisner, Michael Rodriguez ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Peter Bruinsma, Heather Van Wormer B. 806 WEALTHY SE - WEALTHY STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT 806 WEALTHY SE - REQUEST FOR NEW STOREFRONT Ms. Baker presented the request to renovate 800-806 Wealthy, which is a commercial structure. The two-story portion dates to approximately 1900 and the single-story dates to between 1913 and 1930. The entire structure received new storefronts at some point after 1970. Ms. Baker related that she has been working with the applicant for some time. They have received some staff issued Certificates of Appropriateness for restoration on the sides and rear of the buildings as well as a new storefront for the two-story portion. There is enough physical and pictorial documentation to illustrate what the restoration needs to be. They will be doing the same on the single story, although there is a deviation from a restoration; it is more of a renovation, which is why the one-story portion is before the Commission. Ms. Baker displayed historic photos to provide a sense of what will go into the two-story area. It will be an anodized aluminum storefront system and they will match the proportions as closely as possible. Ms. Baker displayed a historic photo of the single-story. What is illustrated, but not easily visible in the photo, is a two pane storefront system with a panelized wood bulk head and knee wall and a solid wood transom and mirrored on the other side. The center has a slightly smaller transom and was the auto entry for the structure. The change they are proposing is the center portion. They don’t have a new use at this point but it is anticipated that the new use will not be auto related or need the auto entry. They will need a walkable man door. They are proposing an anodized bronze aluminum storefront system with full light double doors, surrounded essentially by transom and side lights. They want to bring it all the way to grade to keep the differentiation between the other two sides so it is obvious it wasn’t a storefront and that it was a full opening. The storefronts will be very similar to what staff approved for the other part of the building, which is anodized aluminum matching the patterns and rhythm, matching the solid transoms and the bulk heads. Ms. Baker added that anything remaining that is historic will remain; the openings and masonry columns. Mr. Dixon asked if the Commission’s decisions today are related only to the center storefront bay on the single story portion. Ms. Baker replied that the Commission would be approving the whole façade of the first story. She didn’t want to segment them out. Mr. Dixon asked if there is any other evidence or photos that show what was in the center portion. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 4 July 6, 2022 Ms. Baker replied that the applicant has some evidence from the inside, but there isn’t a lot remaining. However, if you lighten the historic photo and blow it up you can actually see some of the details. Nathan Willink was present on behalf of the request. He presented pictures to the Commission using his phone to allow for them to be blown up somewhat. He also presented them with photos of the interior to demonstrate some of the evidence they’ve discovered of original features. Mr. Dixon referenced the photos in the packet as well as the photos Mr. Willink presented. He noted that photos marked “before exploratory”, was when the building was beige and red. He asked if those are the original wood doors that are shown in the packet. Mr. Willink replied no. The status of it when it was beige and red is that it was a wood overhead door and a man door. It was used as a service door for Economy Heating and Cooling. They had it in somewhat of a non-compliant status. Mr. Willink explained that when they did the exploratory demo they took down the overhead that wasn’t operable. They took it down trying to figure out where they could get at the transom. Mr. Dixon clarified that to the best of everyone’s knowledge the original wood doors are gone. Mr. Willink agreed; they do not exist. They were accordion style with small divided lights. It appears that those were removed in the ‘40’s. At this point they have retained the overhead door. There was no one present for public comment. Ms. Kindt referred to the local guidelines which state that new storefronts are to use either historic documentation or a new design that is compatible. Although there is some historic documentation, since it was an auto door some deviation from that could be expected with the new design to make it ADA compliant and to provide a man door for the updated use, which likely won’t be auto related. Ms. Kindt appreciates that they are maintaining the signage banner and the transom on the top so that line is maintained. Ms. Kindt feels that some deviation, as shown, remains compatible with the local guidelines. Mr. Dixon also feels there is something to be said for the historic documentation they have being a dark black and white photo with a car parked in front of the area in question, which doesn’t allow for visibility of the architectural detail behind. Mr. Dixon stated that any effort to recreate what was there would involve some speculation. He isn’t sure that a like for like replacement of the original would be possible. Therefore, they are then directed to Standards 9 & 10, which relates to whether what is proposed is compatible and whether it works with the building and surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Dixon feels it does. It maintains all of the opening proportions and maintains transparency. He is compelled by the argument that they want to make this storefront slightly different and take it all the way to grade to help illustrate that it isn’t original construction and not a conjectural element. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez and Mr. Gleisner agreed. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 5 July 6, 2022 Mr. Dixon pointed out that even though the only item in question really is the center bay, the Commission is approving the entire façade of the first story. He noted that all of the existing brick that is present will remain and the new storefront elements on the left and right of the center bay appear to be as close of a match as possible to the originally documented windows. Other Commissioners agreed. Ms. Kindt 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, 6, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Mr. Gleisner. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Tim Gleisner YEAS: Matthew Dixon, Anna Kindt, Tim Gleisner, Michael Rodriguez ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Peter Bruinsma, Heather Van Wormer C. 701 WEALTHY SE - CHERRY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 701 WEALTHY SE - REQUEST TO CHANGE SIDING ON NEW ADDITION AND REMOVE SUN VISORS RESULT: WITHDRAWN VII. Public Hearing VIII. Discussion 1. HARDSHIP PROCESS ECONOMIC & TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY, FINANCIAL HARDSHIP & ECONOMIC FEASIBLE PLAN - PROCESS AMENDMENT Ms. Baker recalled that she sent the document out to Commissioners inviting feedback and didn’t receive any. Therefore, her understanding is there are no concerns about any of the amendments to the economic and hardship plan. Following discussion, Ms. Baker would ask that the Commission formally adopt the plan as an amendment to the previous plan that was approved. Ms. Baker recalled that after the first plan was approved it became clear at the last couple of meetings that there was still some struggle with how to utilize these tools. Ms. Baker had further discussions and reworked a few things with the City Attorney. Ms. Baker related that she is much more comfortable with the newly amended version and hopes it is more definitive for the Commission. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 6 July 6, 2022 Ms. Baker highlighted the significant changes. One thing that definitely changed is that you don’t have to meet technical and economic infeasibility now; the Commission has to consider both during deliberation and discussion. The actual project does not have to actually meet both. Mr. Dixon referred to page 3 of the plan, mid-way down the page where there are two bullet points that begin with the word Significantly. His reading of that, because of the word “and” at the end of the first bullet point, is that they must demonstrate both. Ms. Baker indicated she would remove the word “and” as it was likely a carry over. She explained that the attorney was comfortable with that change and that the term within the Ordinance means the Commission has to consider it but that it doesn’t have to meet both. Ms. Baker explained that the other change was defining economic and technical feasibility vs. undue financial hardship. They will both require that the applicant submit the same documentation for review by the Commission. The difference is the outcome. For economic and technical feasibility, it falls under the economic feasibility plan. The only way to get that approved is through a Certificate of Appropriateness. The first question to consider is whether it is necessary to do the work; is the feature beyond repair. If it is beyond repair, can it be repaired or replaced in kind? If it cannot, the Commission is also allowed to look at it from a reasonable manner, which is whether it meets the intent of the Secretary of Interior Standards and guidelines. It wouldn’t be following strict adherence, which would be in kind replacement. This opens the door to meeting intent. The intent still has to meet the guidelines and standards. Ms. Baker provided the example of an asbestos sided house that is beyond repair. It is technically infeasible to replace in kind. The Commission would then look at the replacement plan. Does it meet the intent? If they are asking to cover the asbestos siding with vinyl siding, that likely doesn’t meet the intent of the guidelines and Standards. If they are asking to replace it with fiber cement that has a similar appearance, then that may meet the intent and the Commission would issue a Certificate of Appropriateness citing the economic or technical infeasibility that was discussed and note the preservation plan. Ms. Baker explained further that undue financial hardship, because it falls under Criteria C, it would be a Notice to Proceed because the Commission would be approving something that doesn’t meet the Standards and guidelines. She has been told that as it is written it applies to demolition and relocating a home only. It could be the demolition of a building, part of a building, or demolition causing loss of a feature. The only time the Commission will be looking at any request for a Notice to Proceed is if it aligns with one of the criteria under Notice to Proceed. Mr. Dixon asked about the language about an owner maintaining their ability to use the property as intended, etc. and if it falls under the sub-heading of the demolition items. Ms. Baker replied that what the applicant is required to submit for the Commission’s review to make a determination are basically identical because it is really the same question. It is the result that is different. In both instances the Commission is trying to determine if there is a financial hardship. Economic and financial hardship really are the same thing. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 7 July 6, 2022 Mr. Dixon noted that what it doesn’t say in the economic infeasibility section that it says in the other section is about whether they have tried selling the resource, etc. Ms. Baker explained that that is specifically written into the Notice to Proceed, which is why it is in that section and not the other. Ms. Kindt recalled that they adopted the draft language previously. She asked how they deal with applications they considered that might have been impacted by this change in language. Ms. Baker didn’t feel there was any concern. In the one case, the ultimate decision came down to the economics of it and had nothing to do with the technical feasibility of it. Ms. Kindt referred to page 2 of the plan under the heading Historic Preservation Commission Consideration and sub-heading Economic hardship. She pointed out that she believes a word is missing in the final sentence, which states “This would extremely rare.” She suggested it should read “This would be extremely rare.” Mr. Dixon summarized that unless they are considering a demolition request then they are only talking about feasibility. Ms. Baker agreed. The only time it would be a Notice to Proceed consideration would be a request to relocate a structure or a project that involves some sort of demolition. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if the plan will be published on line. Ms. Baker replied that it will be part of the by-laws and is public information. She explained further that she will be updating and creating a new application form for technical and economic infeasibility. There is already an application for demolition that would cover the Notice to Proceed requests. Mr. Dixon asked if there is a section in the guidelines about technical and economic infeasibility. Ms. Baker replied that it is referenced but not thorough because they didn’t have anything she felt comfortable putting in the guidelines. Her intention is to keep it in the application packet that goes out to the applicant. Mr. Gleisner MOVED TO ADOPT the Economic & Technical Feasibility, Undue Financial Hardship, Economic Hardship and Economically Feasible Plans, with the minor typographical changes as discussed. SUPPORTED by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 8 July 6, 2022 RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Tim Gleisner SECONDER: Michael Rodriguez YEAS: Matthew Dixon, Anna Kindt, Tim Gleisner, Michael Rodriguez ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Peter Bruinsma, Heather Van Wormer 2. ILLEGAL DEMO PROCESS Ms. Baker recalled that the Commission had asked her to look into the potential for more significant repercussions for illegal demolitions. What she has found is there are roughly four different responses:  Require restoration of the lost resource  Heavy Fine ($10,000 seems to be the highest)  Delay ability to build/freeze redevelopment  Combination of those above Ms. Baker explained that most have found that a fine by itself is not sufficient to deter an illegal demolition. Delay or freezing redevelopment has also been found to have questionable impact as a deterrent. What most have found to be the best solution is to require a resource be reconstructed. As the strongest solution and one that already exists within the GR HPC Ordinance, staff recommends this route under Chapter 68, Section 5.395(12) Mr. Dixon noted that they frequently see requests from applicants that say they didn’t know the rules. If someone with limited income takes down a garage and they are cited for it, is there an economic hardship process for them to go through retroactively? Ms. Baker replied that it would be the same as any other violation. They would begin with a Certificate of Appropriateness request which may turn into a Notice to Proceed where they would have to prove financial hardship. Ms. Kindt asked, when ordering a restoration, what if the resource was slightly dilapidated. Ms. Baker replied that they could theoretically argue that in court. However, the assumption would be that it is restored to the former functional condition. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if there are any local examples of illegal demolition. Ms. Baker replied that there have been two since she has been with the department. IX. Public Comment None. X. Adjourn 5:40 PM