Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Development Center Historic Preservation Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 August 3, 2022 Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor I. Call to Order 5:00 p.m. II. Roll Call PRESENT: Baldwin, Bruinsma, Kindt, Rodriguez ABSENT: Dixon, Gleisner, Wormer Staff Present: Rhonda Baker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich III. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from July 6, 2022 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Peter Bruinsma YEAS: Kerry Baldwin, Peter Bruinsma, Anna Kindt, Michael Rodriguez ABSENT: Matthew Dixon, Tim Gleisner, Heather Van Wormer IV. Staff Communication and Reports Certificates of Appropriateness Issued by Staff 1. STAFF REPORT STAFF APPROVED COA PERMITS 255 Warren SE 912 Fairmount SE 937 Fairmount SE 536 Paris SE 406 Lafayette SE 925 Fairmount SE 425 Pleasant SE 318 Paris SE 327 Eureka SE 222 Wellington SE 409 Prospect SE 653 Union SE 746 Wealthy SE 533 Prospect SE 927 Virginia SE 119 Union NE 311 Pleasant SE 60 College NE 416 Washington SE 1 Oakes SW 550 College SE 527 Leonard NW 535 Fountain NE 319 Lyon NE 332 Calkins SE 339 Eureka SE 335 Eureka SE 701 Wealthy SE 429 Washington SE 321 Lafayette NE V. Old Business VI. New Business A. 144 DIVISION - HEARTSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT 144 S DIVISION - REQUEST TO ADD 16 DRYER VENTS TO SOUTH ELEVATION Ms. Baker recalled that this building is the former Moose Lodge and now home to Degage Ministries. They were before the HPC 12-18 months ago for a rear addition. During the changes Generated 8/4/2022 8:08 PM Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 2 August 3, 2022 they want to upgrade and improve their laundry facilities. They’ve had a lot of issues with the dryers not drying clothes because the ventilation run is too long. In doing so, they need to ventilate out the south side of the building. The south side of the building faces Cherry St. Their proposal is to remove the glass from the bottom sashes of two windows located on the third floor, infill it with anodized, bronze colored, aluminum panels and within those panels put the actual vents. That information is detailed at the top of the plan page. They will have twelve vents on the west-most window and four vents in the east-most window. They’ve also provided an elevation showing where on the building they will be located, as well as some interior information. Ms. Baker displayed photos of the building from different vantage points. She noted the windows below that were referenced in their application that has something similar. Those units were created shorter than the opening to accommodate an aluminum panel below it. Ms. Baker also pointed out that the windows in this building are not historic; they date between 1980’s to the early 2000’s. The openings are historic but not the windows. Ms. Baldwin clarified that the proposed vents will be different than the existing vents on the second story. The existing vents look to be plastic. Ms. Baker replied that she believes they are approximately the same size. It is difficult to tell from the photo if they are a flat louver or have a small projection. The proposed will be aluminum; a standard dryer vent. Craig Nicely, architect, and Stacy O’Keefe, Degage Ministries, were present on behalf of the request. Ms. O’Keefe related that last year they did over 8,100 loads of laundry. They serve an average of 60 women every night. The laundry includes towels and sheets as well as their clothing. Mr. Nicely explained that where the current laundry facility is located there is 40-50 ft. of dryer vent to vent it out the north side. It takes three hours to dry a load of towels in the current situation. That length of venting is also an operational issue for them. They have to be cleaned every month and that is costly. As part of their overall renovation the idea was to relocate the laundry facilities to an area accessible directly to the outdoors. They also considered outsourcing the laundry until they learned that the cost was approximately $4,000 a month. Mr. Nicely related that they’ve been in contact with the mechanical inspector and as long as they are over 10’ above the street level where they are venting out he doesn’t feel that will be a problem from a code standpoint. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez noted from the submittal that one opening has 12 vents and the other has 4. He asked if there is a practical purpose for that. Mr. Nicely explained that there are six locations for dryers, double stacked, for the women to do their own personal laundry. Each dryer needs to be individually vented. The bank of 4 is where Degage will do the internal linens; two dryer positions double stacked. There was no one present for public comment. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez feels the applicant described the reasons behind this proposal well. It isn’t arbitrary or for convenience; it is necessitated by the need to dry their linens in a timely Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 3 August 3, 2022 manner and to keep the venting runs short for maintenance. He would be in favor of approving the request based on that rationale, the fact that the windows are not historic, the location is not the primary elevation and is as far as possible from the corner of Wealthy and Cherry. It is also a reversible situation. Mr. Bruinsma and Ms. Baldwin agreed. Ms. Kindt referred to the local guidelines which state that new mechanicals should be installed with the least alteration possible. The proposed maintains the historic brick and the windows are not historic. The application material also talked about not being able to put it away from the street side based on lot line issues. Ms. Kindt felt that was a compelling reason for placement on this façade as well. She noted however that the vents are a bit obtrusive in appearance, especially having them grouped 12 and 4. She wondered if there was a way to take the ducts to the back of a more consistent louver instead of the hoods coming out. From the outside you would see a grill in the bottom sash opening and the two openings wouldn’t be inconsistent; you would just see the grill. You also wouldn’t see the hoods sticking out. Mr. DeMaagd asked if Ms. Kindt was considering tabling to allow the applicant an opportunity to explore that and present an option along those lines or to leave it to staff review. It is an interesting idea but difficult to put into a motion. Ms. Kindt invited the applicant to comment on that idea. Mr. Nicely agreed that it is an interesting idea. They looked at the possibility of combining or creating a shroud. Each vent has to be direct to the outdoors and have the flap so that water can’t get back inside. If they were to build a shroud and combine them into one, it would have to be so large that the vents wouldn’t function as well. Another idea is that it may be possible to build a custom shroud for each horizontal row of 4 vents. Ms. Kindt stated that based on the explanation she is comfortable with the request as proposed due to the function of the venting. Even if the 12 vents were reduced to three shrouds, the hoods would still be sticking out. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez MOVED TO APPROVE with the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness based on the local preservation guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards 1, 2, 5, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Ms. Baldwin. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Kerry Baldwin YEAS: Kerry Baldwin, Peter Bruinsma, Anna Kindt, Michael Rodriguez ABSENT: Matthew Dixon, Tim Gleisner, Heather Van Wormer Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 4 August 3, 2022 B. 222 WELLINGTON - FAIRMOUNT SQUARE HISTORIC DISTRICT 222 WELLINGTON SE - REQUEST TO RETAIN VINYL WINDOWS Ms. Baker related this home was built around 1900 and is considered a contributing structure to the Fairmount Square Historic District. A few alterations did occur to the building prior to designation of the District. It was clad in vinyl siding and the trim was wrapped in aluminum. The windows remained historic until recently. The owner is seeking to retain 20 vinyl windows that were replaced without a Certificate of Appropriateness as well as one change to a piece of window trim and two of the windows had a change in operation. On the front/west façade there are three windows on the second floor, two ganged and one independent in the dormer. The dormer is the location where the trim has been altered. On the north side there are three windows on the second floor and three on the first floor. On the south side there are five windows on the first floor and one on the second floor. On the first floor there is a double hung window in the middle and other windows flanking it. Those windows are currently one over one vinyl double hung. They were either fixed or casement, single lite wood windows; those are the two that had the operation change in addition to the window change. On the rear/east there are two windows on the second floor. Ms. Baker displayed images of the windows. She noted that the trim of the dormer window is squared off and basically penetrates into the fascia board. Previously it was a triangle. Before photos were displayed. Interior photos were also displayed. In total, 20 wood windows were replaced with vinyl windows. Ms. Baker related that she didn’t notice a change in the overall dimension of the openings or the trim, with the exception of the dormer window trim mentioned and the two windows that have a change in operation. Ms. Baker stated that if the Commission finds it inappropriate to retain the windows, the owner has offered options for moving forward as it relates to time lines for correction. Ms. Baker responded to questions relating that the two windows that changed operation were previously either fixed sash or operable casements. To the best of her knowledge the windows were historic. From the photos available they seem to match the windows visible in the 1936 photo. She has no knowledge of the condition of the windows before they were removed; she did not assess them. She deferred to the applicant as to whether the windows were retained and she doesn’t know the reason for the change in operation of the two windows. Joe Jurkovic was present on behalf of the request. He stated that he is a first-time homeowner in Grand Rapids. He is 26 years old and his girlfriend is co-owner of the subject house. They bought the home in early January of this year. As to the need for the windows, there were several cracked on both the main and second floor. One of the windows facing the staircase had a hole in it. General safety was also a reason for replacing the windows as most of them didn’t appear to lock properly. Energy efficiency was another key factor. Mr. Jurkovic explained that they have learned since being contacted by Historic Preservation that they overlooked the application process. At the time they didn’t know it was a requirement. They were both unaware that it was considered a historic home. He admitted that was their mistake and they should have gone through the proper channels. The windows were a big first purchase for their new home and they were eager to get started on it. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 5 August 3, 2022 Ms. Kindt asked if the former windows were retained and the reason for the change in operation of the two windows. Mr. Jurkovic replied that the windows were not retained. There was no real reason for the change in operation of the two windows. Until this meeting he didn’t know that was also an issue. There was no one present for public comment. Ms. Kindt explained that the Commission considers these types of applications as if they had come before them for a Certificate of Appropriateness before the work was done. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez acknowledged that these are always difficult considerations. The Commission recognizes that it is a substantial and well-intended investment in a home. The difficult part is they do evaluate it as if the work had not been done yet. The standards are clear about those kinds of window material changes. He can’t recall an example of the Commission approving a change from a historic wood window to a vinyl replacement window. In fairness to former applications, it would be difficult to argue that this meets the standards to be retained. Ms. Kindt agreed. The language of the local guidelines speaks to retaining proportion, materials, dimensions and that they should be preserved, repaired and maintained. If they are deteriorated beyond repair, the new unit needs to be an in-kind replacement for things like material and function. She agreed that it is difficult to find an exception even though these are difficult applications. Ms. Baldwin didn’t have anything further to add. She agrees that it is very difficult when these requests come before them. Mr. Bruinsma added that what the applicants are going through is definitely very important to the Commission and they can empathize. Unfortunately, they have Federal and local guidelines they have to follow and there doesn’t seem to be much choice in what they are supposed to do in this situation. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez also wished to state that they are glad the applicant came to speak with them this evening. They appreciate the investment in the historic district, see the effort they are making to preserve the home, and that is respected. Ms. Kindt recalled that the trim configuration of the dormer window has been changed and the triangle that was part of the design has been lost. It would seem that the Commission is leaning toward a motion to replace the windows back to their historic appearance and material. She wished to discuss whether the trim restoration would be something that is part of bringing the house back to how it appeared historically. Mr. Bruinsma feels it does make a significant visual impact. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that the difficulty he has is that although the change is quite clear, the existing materials were not historic. Without historic images they can’t determine what would have been there historically. Given the choice, he would favor returning it to what was Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 6 August 3, 2022 there but he is less confident in saying it has to be changed because the materials themselves that were altered are not historic and they don’t have any evidence to show what was there historically. Ms. Kindt felt that was a good point. She noted from the application that the applicant requested a replacement period of one side of the house every three years or 3 windows every three years. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez feels a generous schedule of correction is appropriate given that it is a substantial investment for first-time homeowners and because materials and labor are expensive and difficult to come by. He would like to give them as much opportunity as possible to research the alternatives, make a financial plan, and best decision possible. He would be in favor of one façade being completed at a time as opposed to a set number of windows every three years. Ms. Baker noted that the south side has six windows. If the Commission says one façade per a certain time period it will be heavier in one time frame than another depending on which side they do. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez understood but feels that if it is one façade every three years there is likely ample time to plan for that. Mr. Bruinsma would hope that the front façade is addressed first. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez recalled from the application that they would start on the front elevation. To Ms. Baker’s point, his preference would be one elevation every three years. Ms. Baldwin felt that was reasonable. Ms. Kindt agreed. It would maintain consistency on the house just in case something happens and they can’t get exactly the same window then it would end up with a patchwork on the same façade. Doing one side every three years will result in a 12-year project and there could be changes in that time line. Ms. Baker responded to Ms. Baldwin regarding if the house were to change hands during the correction period. The new owner would be responsible to complete the work. It is not something that would show up in title work but would be flagged. It would be the buyers responsibility to do their due diligence. The time frame for correction would also be passed on to the new owner but they could come before the Commission with their own schedule request. Mr. Bruinsma explained that it would be required for a seller to disclose that information. He suggested the Commission discuss the change in operation of the two windows. Ms. Kindt pointed out that the guidelines mention function in terms of materials to be retained. Without a compelling reason, such as to accommodate a kitchen counter, she feels returning the functionality would also have to be done. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if the change in function was documented. When saying they were either casement or fixed, was that because it was unknown. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 7 August 3, 2022 Ms. Baker agreed. She has photos of them but without being inside to see if they were hinged she doesn’t know if they ever operated or not. It was a single sash. Mr. Bruinsma MOVED TO DENY the request to retain 20 vinyl windows and to require they be replaced with new windows matching the historic windows in materials, design, dimensions, finish, operation and location. The two windows that were changed from a single sash to double hung are to be returned to single sash style windows, based on the local preservation guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards 2, 5 & 6. The applicant shall complete the correction of one façade every three years beginning immediately. SUPPORTED by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: DENIED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Peter Bruinsma SECONDER: Michael Rodriguez YEAS: Kerry Baldwin, Peter Bruinsma, Anna Kindt, Michael Rodriguez ABSENT: Matthew Dixon, Tim Gleisner, Heather Van Wormer VII. Public Hearing VIII. Discussion IX. Public Comment X. Adjourn 5:40 PM