Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Development Center Historic Preservation Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 October 5, 2022 Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor I. Call to Order 5:00 p.m. II. Roll Call PRESENT: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez ABSENT: Baldwin, Gleisner Staff Present: Rhonda Baker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich III. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from September 7, 2022 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Heather VanWormer YEAS: Peter Bruinsma, Matthew Dixon, Anna Kindt, Heather VanWormer ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Tim Gleisner, Michael Rodriguez IV. Staff Communication and Reports Certificates of Appropriateness Issued by Staff 1. STAFF REPORTS STAFF APPROVED COA'S 321 James SE 437 Pleasant SE 555 Morris SE 103 College SE 339 College SE 536 Paris SE 348 Logan SE 576 Prospect SE 71 Lafayette NE 526 Union SE 143 Lafayette NE 40 Prospect NE 227 James SE 431 Prospect SE 516 Cherry SE V. Old Business VI. New Business A. 543 WEALTHY SE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 543 WEALTHY SE - REQUEST TO INFILL REAR BASEMENT OPENING WITH CMU Motion by Ms. Kindt, supported by Ms. Van Wormer, to move 543 Wealthy SE to the end of the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. (Note: Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez was not yet present) Generated 10/7/2022 8:25 AM Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 2 October 5, 2022 B. 25 S DIVISION - HEARTSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT 25 S DIVISION - REQUEST FOR UPPER LEVEL SIGNAGE Ms. Baker related that the building in question is the McMullen Building, which was constructed in 1891. The applicant is requesting to install two upper-level wall signs on the fifth floor of the building, one facing east (Division) and one facing south (Weston). Both signs are approximately 4’ x 4’ with an approximate 2” thickness. The signs will consist of individual letters and a logo. They will be attached via stud mounts through the mortar joints. They anticipate between 4 and 6 studs per letter and logo. No lighting is proposed at this time. Ms. Baker displayed images of the building of where the signage is proposed. There was no applicant present. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. The Commission began discussion regarding the proposed placement. Ms. Van Wormer noted that when looking at the entire side of the building it has the brick spaces on the level where the signage is proposed. Those are not locations for signage and the other spaces are exactly the same. She is concerned that if this is a multi-tenant building, and the proposed signage is approved, that they would see additional requests for signage in the remaining spaces. Mr. Dixon agreed. The negative spaces and spaces of pause are important to a historic façade and historic construction. In his opinion, these voids between the windows are in line and read as in line with and as a continuation with the columns below. He is struggling with inserting an element in there, especially in such a way that isn’t repeated in the way that the rest of the composition is repeated. His initial inclination is that it is not appropriate placement for a new sign. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez entered the meeting. Ms. Van Wormer stated that she believes the proposed placement is the biggest problem. It isn’t the sign itself, although she does have questions about how permanent the holes would be if the signage were installed. However, as stated, the placement is the bigger issue. When looking at the entire side of the building there are five of those locations and it is not a location where a sign would have been. Mr. Dixon commented on the attachment relating that attachment of signs such as this through the mortar joints is typically the preferred method because mortar can be patched and repaired fairly easily. He isn’t concerned about the method of attachment so much as the location. In a building of this era signage would typically be seen on the awnings, windows or in a cornice band of the first floor. He has difficulty with it on the top floor in what is being held as a void in the architectural composition. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 3 October 5, 2022 Mr. Bruinsma related that he observed different signage on the building. One was a projecting sign at the garden level and signage on the storefront windows. There is direction inside the building as to what businesses are located there. He feels that signage is consistent with how he feels the building should be signed; at the first floor level. Of the 25 businesses in the building, he wouldn’t envision 25 signs outside of their office windows. If the building were occupied by one or two large tenants it may be appropriate to see something at the top. Ms. Baker advised that signage outside every business window wouldn’t be permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Kindt related that she is somewhat torn. She understands that they desire their signage to be visible from the street but she understands the point that that is part of the architectural features and one of the local guidelines directs that signs should not obscure or destroy character defining historic features. The continuation of the column up with the solid brick space is part of the architectural design of the building. It is difficult to discuss the size and scale if the Commission isn’t comfortable with the placement. The material and proposed method of attachment both fit well with the guidelines. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agrees that the material and method of attachment are appropriate. He is conflicted about the location. He read carefully through the guidelines and considered whether this addition is obscuring, detracting from, damaging or destroying the character defining features or materials. Is it absolutely incompatible with the historic character? Ultimately, he believes no. When he looks at images of historic buildings in the city they were covered with signs, murals and banners. He isn’t suggesting that new signage be a free for all but would suggest that there is little about a sign that is a permanent feature. Tenants come and go. In this particular instance he isn’t sure that the proposed placement, although it wouldn’t be his preferred location, does detract, damage or destroy the character defining features of this building. For that reason, he would be comfortable approving the application as submitted. Mr. Dixon agrees that it doesn’t damage or destroy anything and it doesn’t obscure any character defining historic features. However, he is of the opinion that it does detract from that negative space and repeating void forms. He would argue that is part of the character defining characteristics of the building and signage placed in the proposed location on that void space is detracting from character defining elements. Ms. Van Wormer agreed with Mr. Dixon. She referred to packet page 50; a depiction of the side of the building that doesn’t have the same color brick. She noted that that side is where you can see old advertising on the brick. There are no columns to interfere with and it is visible from the street. It isn’t a building that has no other location options for signage. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked, if the argument is that placement of the sign in this location would detract from the pattern of solid and void, isn’t a sign applied to masonry going to make that masonry solid read as a void? Will it interrupt the pattern of solid and void or will it read as an application on top of/over a solid within a pattern of solid and void? Mr. Dixon replied that there is a repeating pattern of solid and void. By adding a metal reflective sign such as this you are changing that. Masonry reads as a solid in a way that a metallic sign Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 4 October 5, 2022 doesn’t read as a solid. The repetition of those solid piers above the columns is an interruption of that patterning. Ms. Kindt stated that she remains torn between the two arguments of the solid vs. void and the fairly sensitive, visually light-weight, design of the sign on the solid. Mr. Dixon asked in what way. The way he reads it, it takes up a fair percentage of the brick panel. Ms. Kindt explained that what is light-weight is the free-standing letters with a post back vs. a solid 4’ x 4’ sign. The three cascading elements look to be individual so you would still see some of the brick solid behind it. She understands that they are only considering what is before them but she is also somewhat concerned about the domino effect of allowing a sign on one of the solids on each façade in a multi-tenant building. Mr. Dixon added that historically you don’t often see signage in this type of location because it wasn’t very effective from street level. In a more pedestrian oriented city, signage up that high wasn’t seen, people didn’t look at it and it didn’t tell anyone anything. He understands that a lot of buildings would often have a decorative piece near the top of the building that said the name of the building. To him those are two different elements and not what is before them. This is not the name of the building or a historic declaration of the building; it is a company’s signage. To the best of his knowledge, you didn’t see it positioned in this way. He can’t think of any examples where there was historic signage located in this manner. Ms. Kindt agreed that this wasn’t meant to be the location for a sign. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez found that compelling recognizing that historically signage was placed for the advantage of the pedestrian and not necessarily to be read from an automobile a quarter mile away. While that is true, the application isn’t requesting that. It is asking whether this particular application destroys in some way the understanding of this building and architectural composition. Mr. Bruinsma feels the sign detracts from character. Ms. Van Wormer suggested that if there was one column it may be different but because there are four, it is part of the design of the building. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if it detracts from balance or symmetry. Ms. Van Wormer replied not just that but also the columns and brick work that was designed for the building. She would be more persuaded if there was not another side, visible from the street at that height, that has none of that architectural design, where a sign could be located without detracting from the design and column spacing. Mr. Dixon recalled that the back side of 1 and 7 Ionia has signage at this height but that is clearly a secondary elevation. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 5 October 5, 2022 Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez pointed out that 50 Louis, the CWD building, is an example of a historic building with upper level signage on the primary and secondary elevations. Ms. Baker agreed. However, that signage is located in the blank space between the top of the windows and the cornice where there is no rhythm or pattern. The State had denied that signage but it was approved at the local level. Ms. Van Wormer MOVED TO DENY based on the Secretary of Interior Standards 2, 5, 9 and 10. SUPPORTED by Ms. Kindt. YEAS: 4. NAYS: 1 (DeMaagd-Rodriguez). MOTION CARRIED. RESULT: DENIED [4 TO 1] MOVER: Heather VanWormer SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Peter Bruinsma, Matthew Dixon, Anna Kindt, Heather VanWormer NAYS: Michael Rodriguez ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Tim Gleisner C. 407 COLLEGE SE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 407 COLLEGE SE - REQUEST TO RECONSTRUCT PORCH Ms. Baker related that this house was built in 1926 in the Dutch Colonial Revival style of architecture with the classic pergola style front porch on it. It has retained most of its integrity over the years. One minor element was removed from the porch. Based on the 1936 photo it had some sort of solid covering on top of the rafters. Ms. Baker doesn’t know what that material was other than it looks very thin. The covering was removed sometime between 1983 and 1988. Other than that, there have been some minor repairs over time and attempts to reconstruct the front beam. The owner is asking to maintain the brick base, replace the failing concrete floor, and remove the columns, repair them and reinstall them, and reconstruct a new pergola roof. Should any of the columns be beyond repair, they will be replaced in kind. The pergola roof will match identically with the front beam with the decorative ends, the same exposed rafters, also with the decorative ends. They would like to re-install a cover over the roof. It had a 1x firring system that went across to help support the roof historically. They would do something very similar and use a rubber membrane. She assumes they will put it on plywood but the applicant can confirm that. They would also like to install a bead board ceiling but it would be in between the rafters and recessed so the exposed look would remain but when under it you wouldn’t be looking up at unfinished plywood. Ms. Baker added that they would also like to change the pitch of the structure itself. They have proposed two options. Option 1 is essentially the same structure just slightly sloping with a bit of a shed pitch to it; 1.5/12. Option 2 would be adding ceiling members that aren’t there currently. It would still have the same pitch, false rafters, and the exposed tails but it would be adding a side member that you don’t see now. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez clarified that both options ask to increase the pitch to the roof. Ms. Baker agreed. It is currently flat and was historically flat. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 6 October 5, 2022 Mr. Dixon asked if there is a zero percent slope to it currently. Ms. Baker replied that she hopes so. Otherwise, it is pitched back towards the house. The applicant indicated from the audience that there is a slight pitch to the existing roof. Ms. Kindt asked if there is a reason for the blocks being added between the rafters, which is in both options. Ms. Baker deferred to the applicant to explain. Mr. Dixon asked if the primary difference between the two options is whether or not there is a flat ceiling underneath. The applicant replied affirmatively. Mr. Dixon asked if there is any other documentation of the original roof other than the Assessor’s photos. Ms. Baker replied no. She was unable to find anything that indicated what material it was. It is barely visible in the 1936 photo and in the 1983 photo you can tell it is covered but you can’t tell what it is. Ben Bosworth, contractor, was present on behalf of the request. The existing slope on the structure is very small, less than 1/12. Mr. Dixon clarified that the main difference between options 1 and 2 is whether or not there is a flat ceiling underneath. Mr. Bosworth agreed. Option one is the preference in an effort to keep costs down. He wouldn’t have to frame a ceiling for the porch and a ceiling for the roof. He can do everything structurally with the pergola looking roof in option 1. He recalled that Ms. Baker testified he would go between the rafters but they will likely put a tongue and groove bead board on top of the rafters and that is what will be exposed from the bottom. Mr. Bosworth clarified further that the tongue and groove beadboard would also serve as the decking for the membrane roof cover. He also clarified that he wasn’t proposing to put blocking in between. It was mentioned that it may be a good idea on the sides to keep birds out if they went with option 2. With option 1 blocking wouldn’t be necessary. Mr. Dixon asked how he will terminate the rubber membrane on the edge of the roof deck. Mr. Bosworth replied that there will be a termination bar there but it will be to the edge of the rafters. He clarified for the Commission that the tongue and groove is proposed to run all the way to the front edge of the rafters, beyond the main beam line. If there is a desire to have the rafters closed, that is where they would put the blocking; over the top of the carrier beam. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 7 October 5, 2022 Mr. Dixon clarified that there will be a metal termination bar or drip edge of some kind at the very face of it. Mr. Bosworth agreed; at the end of the rubber roof. Mr. Dixon asked the approximate depth. Mr. Bosworth replied it is pretty skinny. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez pointed out that drip edge and termination bar are two different things. He asked which is proposed. Mr. Bosworth replied that for a membrane roof a termination bar is needed. The drip edge goes underneath and the termination bar would go on top. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked what a pedestrian on the sidewalk will see on the vertical plain of that termination. Mr. Bosworth replied that if one were to look hard enough, they would likely see the termination bar. Typically, they are silver; they are aluminum. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez also noted from the drawing that the carrier beam will be flashed. He asked the material of the flashing. Mr. Bosworth replied likely metal. They can do a painted metal. He would prefer not to use copper but if required, they can do so. Mr. Dixon asked if it will be run continuously or at every pergola line. Mr. Bosworth replied it would run continuously. He also noted that the original pergola rafters are 2 ½” wide. On the new build he would like to use the typical 2x dimension for rough sawn cedar; 1 ¾”. Mr. Dixon asked if there are any other deviations from the existing form. Mr. Bosworth replied just the change from 2 ½” rafters to 1 ¾”. The beam will be the same size. The scroll work and pattern will all be exactly the same. He clarified for Ms. Van Wormer that there will be a roof on top of them and you wouldn’t be able to see light as you can now. He would run the roof all the way to the edge, perhaps even overhang it a bit to create a drip edge so the scroll work on the rafters isn’t getting wet from the draining water. Mr. Bruinsma asked staff how far out the historic roof went. Mr. Dixon referred to the photos noting that it appears to go to the beam line. Ms. Baker agreed. It didn’t go to the end of the rafters. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 8 October 5, 2022 Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Bruinsma disclosed that he sold this house to the current owner. He doesn’t consider it a conflict of interest. The Commission agreed. Ms. Kindt suggested it would be difficult to discuss the pitch separate from that of the solid roof because if they don’t have a solid roof, they don’t need the pitch. Mr. Dixon recalled that there is evidence that it was historically covered, within the period of significance. He has no problem with a covering, although they will need to talk through the details. Ms. Kindt agreed. It is reasonable to request adding that back in. Mr. Dixon added that otherwise, they would have to argue that the removal of the cover has gained significance in its own right. Based on the 1936 photo there doesn’t appear to be a ceiling. The assembly doesn’t seem to have thickness. It seems to be some type of sheet laid on top of the pergola framing. He doesn’t see a reason to require them to install a separate ceiling structure. Ms. Kindt stated that in looking at the Assessor’s photo and then options 1 and 2, option 1 maintains the slim line of the pergola rafter, the visual appearance and massing of it. With option 2, adding the ceiling support and the pergola rafter changes the massing of it, which has her leaning toward option 1. Also, in option 2, she has an issue with how you read the slope of the ceiling and then the scroll work/rafter tail comes out at a different angle and when you were under it you would see it as flat yet in your head you know that it is sloped. Therefore, she feels there are some continuity issues in option 2 as it is proposed. Ms. Van Wormer and Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed. Mr. Dixon noted that the ceiling is proposed as wood bead board ceiling in the application. Per testimony, they plan to install a tongue and groove wood system on top of the pergola with the rubber roofing membrane on top, which seems appropriate. It provides a nice wood finish underneath that also doubles as a structural deck maintaining the nice thin line seen in the 1936 Assessor’s photo. He feels that is appropriate. The drawing also calls out the blocking between rafters. However, per testimony, that won’t be installed. The metal flashing on top of the beam is a good idea to keep the top of the beam protected. If painted the same color as the wood he feels that is a minimal change for the longevity of the system. He would prefer that the roof sheathing terminate prior to the scroll work on the pergola ends, as it did historically, so that the ends read more clearly, as they do now. If installing metal flashing over the beam then stopping the sheathing there is less of an issue because the support beam is being protected. Mr. Dixon stated that the other reason for stopping it there is that there will be some sort of metallic termination to the roofing and that pulls that line further back from the front of the assembly and helps obscure that a bit. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 9 October 5, 2022 Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez indicated that he feels similarly. He feels it is important that the decorative rafter tails read as individual units. That is how they appeared historically and that is very consistent with the vernacular of this kind of structure. He would be in favor of a motion that would approve roof decking up to the outside face of the supporting beam. The question in his mind is whether they could offer an alternative that would allow the tops of the rafters to be protected/flashed in a similar way to the beam because they are open to the elements and in time will deteriorate. Ms. Van Wormer agreed, particularly if they are thinner. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez related that he has seen them frequently in the district flashed with metal. Typically, that metal is copper but he doesn’t know that it needs to be copper. What he wouldn’t want to see is 1 ¾” aluminum drip edge or T-drip that is crudely wrapped around it. Some kind of flashing that is minimal and as clean as possible. Ms. Kindt suggested a pre-finished metal to match. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez suggested possibly a metal that is painted. He wasn’t sure how that would be included in a motion. Mr. Dixon suggested they could be asked to return if they decided to install metal protection on those. He doesn’t believe it would be something for staff review. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez felt it could be approved by staff is Ms. Baker understands the intent of the Commission; such flashing be as minimal and obscure as possible. Ms. Baker felt she could review some sort of what would essentially be a cap system that would come down the sides to some degree. It should be as thin as possible creating the least lip possible and colored to match. Ms. Kindt wished to clarify that the intent is that the ceiling is at the top of the rafters so that the rafters are exposed all the way back to the house and, per testimony, that the blocks won’t be installed. That will help give it the feeling of a pergola with the minimum weight. Mr. Dixon indicated that he is comfortable with the proposed increase in slope. It is a minimal change that will increase the life span of the building. Most won’t notice the change. All Commissioners agreed that option 1 is the preferred option. Mr. Dixon agreed. However, he doesn’t have a great understanding of how that will die back into the existing materials once they raise it. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez indicated that he would like to se the shingles lap over the membrane rather than have an exposed termination bar that is fastened and caulked on top of the shingles. Ms. Van Wormer referred to packet page 64 noting that the shingle above the flag is on top of something so that wouldn’t be something new. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 10 October 5, 2022 Ms. Kindt was wondering about the termination bar at the low side. It seems like with membrane roofs she never had a term bar where the water would be running into it. She uses them when it is wrapped up to terminate into something. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez wished to invite the applicant forward to respond to questions about the thickness of the roof decking. His understanding is that the roof deck and bead board ceiling are one in the same. He asked the thickness of that material. Mr. Bosworth agreed that they are one in the same. He will use a 2x so the thickness will be 1 ½”. The width of the pieces will be 5 ½”. Mr. Bosworth stated that if the Commission would like the roof to terminate at the support beam he would like to run it at least 1 ½” or so beyond to create a drip line even though he is planning to cover the beam with flashing. If he runs it over just a bit it will prevent the water from literally running down the beam. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez clarified that the termination bar would be fastened to the vertical 1 ½” face of the roof deck. Mr. Bosworth replied affirmatively. He responded to additional questions indicating the fasteners would be screws through pre-drilled holes on the termination bar. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if there is any other method such as an adhered drip edge that would avoid having that termination bar on the eave. Mr. Bosworth felt they could figure something out. Ms. Kindt recalled that a detail she has done is a pre-finished break metal true drip edge coming down and then have a hemmed bottom with the membrane coming over that, which is adhered or hot welded down. She feels that would be less visible. Additionally, if screwing into the end of the 1x’s there may be some splitting. Mr. Bosworth indicated he would do a drip edge and glue the membrane down and if the home owners want to cover the rafters, he will cover those with a piece of flashing. All agreed that was reasonable. Mr. Dixon believed the only other item to discuss was the thickness change from 2 ½” to 1 ¾”. Mr. Bosworth clarified that the existing thickness is just over 2” and he is proposing 1 ¾”. Mr. Dixon noted that if they bought a bigger stock and planed them down so they were exactly 2” it would be an inferior work product vs. having a 1 ¾” board. The gap between the rafters will grow by a ¼”. Ms. Kindt doesn’t feel that will impact the historic character. She also feels it is reasonable for the roof to overhang the support beam by an inch and a half so the water isn’t coming directly down on the beam. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 11 October 5, 2022 Others agreed. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO DENY PACKET OPTION 2 for the proposed pergola alterations based on the Secretary of the Interior Standards 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO APPROVE PACKET OPTION 1, with the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, based on the local preservation guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 & 10, with the following stipulations:  The new covered roof decking can be applied up to 1 ½” beyond the outside beam face.  The low edge of the pergola shall have a drip edge exposed on the vertical face with a glued down roof over it, not a termination bar.  The applicant is afforded the option to cap the rafter tails that will be exposed beyond the new roof. The material and color should be non-obtrusive and compatible with the house and is to be approved by staff.  The deviation to 1 ¾” rafter thickness is acceptable.  Per testimony, no blocking will be placed between each rafter.  Per testimony, the ceiling and decking will be one in the same; 1 ½” tongue and groove located at the top edge of the rafters.  At the termination of the pergola at the mansard roof asphalt shingles shall be lapped over the termination bar so that it is not exposed.  If the columns are found to be too deteriorated to reuse and replacement is necessary, they shall be replaced in kind in material and dimension.  When the pergola is raised, any resulting holes at the existing ledger or termination shall be patched to match existing. SUPPORTED by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Michael Rodriguez YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Tim Gleisner D. 341 CHARLES SE - CHERRY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 341 CHARLES SE - REQUEST FOR REAR ADDITION, REAR DECK, DOOR AND MISC. REPAIRS. Ms. Baker displayed a photo of the rear of the subject home. The house in question dates to the 1800’s. There isn’t much known about it. It was converted to a two-family around 1919 and had some remodeling in 1925. On the rear a very shallow shed dormer was added at some point. The cut out into the roof was done in the 1980’s. The half wall around it was done in 2016 with approval and the access stair structure was removed in 2021. Ms. Baker explained that there are some items in the application that are staff approvable. However, keeping it all together results in Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 12 October 5, 2022 one permit vs. multiple. The staff approvable items include reconstruction of the chimney located on the outside of the building on the south elevation. It is pulling away and needs to be rebuilt. The proposal is to rebuild it to match the existing. The front porch needs some minor masonry tuckpointing and repairs that will be in kind. The porch floor is collapsing so they will replace the concrete slab with a new one. The porch roof is also failing and will be reconstructed and they propose matching what is there currently. Ms. Baker explained that she did a window assessment in this house prior to the current ownership. The windows have not improved and are some of the worst she has seen. There are some in the back that came from somewhere else. There are others in other locations that are smaller than the openings. They are in rough condition. The owners are proposing to replace all of them with new wood windows that would match the design and be fitted properly to the rough opening. Ms. Baker noted that the submittal calls for brickmould as part of the window order. She suggested the Commission caution the applicant to order them without brickmould or ensure that the brickmould actually matches the historic wood trim and that the design is to replace and not put it over the top of the existing window trim. Also, throughout the house, siding and trim repair or replacement is needed and they propose to match the existing. The applicant should be sure to stagger seams. Ms. Baker identified the items for the Commission’s consideration, which pertain to the back of the building. One item is to relocate the existing door. The existing rear door is not historic. They would like to relocate it to the south-most window opening. Ms. Baker explained that when she did research on the footprint of the house, she found that it did have a back porch at one time and it was actually located toward the south end of the back wall. The proposal actually moves it closer to where it was historically. The existing window opening is 26” wide and 66” tall. It will go to 3’ wide and 6.8’ tall. Her understanding is that the head height will remain the same; it will just get wider and taller to accommodate the door. The two windows in this location seem to Ms. Baker to have been acquired from another building and installed here. The door they are proposing to use is a full light wood door. Ms. Baker would recommend installing a storm door to help protect the wood due to the fully exposed façade. Along with that proposal is to remove the non-historic deck and install a new deck in a new location. The deck is a standard structure and not much bigger than the existing deck. The existing deck is 7’ x 5’ and the proposed is 8’ x 6’. They are proposing composite deck boards and composite stair treads. Vertical members will be wood, including skirting if they install a skirt. The rail design is very similar to what is in the guideline packet. It is 2’ 10” from the floor to the top rail with 2” square spindles spaced approximately 2” apart. The construction is per the guidelines except for where the top rail meets the post. In the guidelines, rails typically terminate into the posts. Their proposal is to have the top rail run over them. That is something the Commission should discuss and determine whether that is appropriate or not. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked about the recommendation to install a storm door. Is that per the guidelines or because it is a good idea. Ms. Baker replied because it is a good idea. It isn’t something required. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if there is a distinction between an uncovered porch and a deck. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 13 October 5, 2022 Ms. Baker replied yes and this is a deck. Decks are only located on the rear. They are uncovered and typically have a different shape; square and extend out whereas porches tend to be no deeper than 5-8’. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked if the installation of a skirt is recommended by the local guidelines. Ms. Baker explained that they aren’t required to have a skirt on a back deck. Some choose to and others don’t. Some don’t do it at first and then add it due to animals. That is typically something that can be addressed at the staff level should they decide to add it. Mr. Dixon understands that the guidelines permit using composite material for the floor boards of a deck or porch. He asked if it states anything about the steps. Ms. Baker replied that it is more geared toward the flat surfaces vs. the vertical surfaces. Ms. Baker continued her explanation of the proposed alterations. The final item is a proposed rear addition. The addition will take the footprint of the recessed cutout on the back elevation. It will be 8’ wide and 12’ deep. It will have an 8/10 gable pitch roof that will be a minimum of 6” lower than the main ridge of the main roof. It will have the same siding and trim as the house. The windows proposed are high windows, 38” wide by 28” tall. They are proposed to be fixed. They will be wood and have exterior trim that matches the window trim on the rest of the house. The north wall will line up with the north wall of the house as will the west. Currently there is a continuation of the roof ridge where the back deck is. Their proposal is to remove that. Ms. Baker displayed the proposed floor plan at Mr. Dixon’s request and described the location of the addition. Mr. Dixon asked if the Commission needs to deliberate the items that could otherwise be staff approved. Ms. Baker replied that they should consider them but it can be a simple discussion and move on to the items that need Commission review. Adrian Byl, Byl Builders, was present on behalf of the request and invited questions; there were no questions. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez recommended installing a storm door in the back. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. The Commission considered the staff approvable items; chimney, front porch, windows, siding and trim. Mr. Dixon noted that all are in kind replacements that have been deemed necessary replacements by staff based on their current condition. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 14 October 5, 2022 The Commission had no concerns about approving those items. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez recalled that they were asked to discuss the brickmould. Mr. Dixon noted that the windows are currently listed as being ordered with brickmould. The Commission recommends the brickmould either be removed from the order or adapted to work better in some fashion. Ms. Baker clarified that the window trim has to match the existing window trim whether it comes in a brickmould fashion or separate. Additionally, any siding to be replaced should have staggered seams. The Commission began their discussion with the relocation of the rear door. Mr. Dixon recalled from Ms. Baker’s presentation that the back door is not original and is not currently in its original location. Her testimony was that relocating it to the proposed location is moving closer to the original location. Mr. Dixon doesn’t feel the existing door is a contributing feature and he has no problem removing it. Is there any concern about removing one of the windows for the new door location and modifying the rough opening. There were no objections to that alteration. Ms. Kindt noted that it is on the rear façade and a reasonable change to keep the building in a modern use. Mr. Dixon added that Ms. Baker doesn’t believe the windows are original to the home. The new door is proposed to be a full light wood door. Wood is an appropriate material. A full light door in that location, while it doesn’t match the door on the front, which also appears to be a replacement door, is acceptable and appropriate in this location. All Commissioners were in agreement. The size, scale and placement of the proposed deck was discussed. Ms. Kindt stated that in looking at the floor plan the size seems compatible and the massing is subservient to the house. Mr. Dixon added that it is on a secondary elevation and fairly negligible in terms of size and scale. Materials will be wood with composite material for the stairs and decking. The Commission has approved composite flooring on a horizontal surface previously for weathering purposes and he would be inclined to approve that here as well, particularly because it is deck on a secondary elevation and not a front porch. With respect to the railing, it meets the guidelines with the exception of the top rail, which is currently designed to bypass the newel post as opposed to terminate at the post. He feels it would be a minimal change to ask them to follow the standards and terminate the top rail at the newel post. Additionally, the deck should not be attached directly to the structure and should be removable at a later date. Ms. Kindt also felt it was reasonable to request that the top rail terminate at the newel post. As proposed it is a more modern/contemporary detail. The Commission agreed and moved on to discuss the addition. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 15 October 5, 2022 Ms. Kindt stated that when she reviewed the guidelines vs. the plan this is a secondary façade. She feels the size of the addition is in proportion with the house. The roofline was slightly lower to show it is subservient. It does align with the back of the house. Ms. Kindt stated that she is somewhat torn on the roof edge being removed. Perhaps it should remain to show this is an addition vs. making it look like the original part of the house. There are currently many rooflines on the house so she feels modifying what is there and adding another doesn’t necessarily detract from any sort of symmetry or organization. The windows being added are in proportion with the remainder of the house. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed with Ms. Kindt with the exception of the windows. They aren’t proportionate to the other window groupings on the house. However, given that it is a bathroom on a secondary façade, it seems appropriate to the use of that space that those windows are allowed to be wider than they are tall. It also differentiates it as an addition. Mr. Dixon pointed out that Standard 10 requires that new additions be removable at a later date. He asked Ms. Baker how that works with vertical additions. Ms. Baker replied that this one in particular would be one of the more easily reversible additions. In her opinion, the major alteration that would be hard to reverse is the change in the roof pitch but that has already been done. Essentially there would be a little bit of wall and a little bit of roof coming off of the dormer addition that would have to be reconstructed. Mr. Dixon stated that he wouldn’t define the individual materials and craftsmanship of that particular section of the house as character defining. Therefore, their future removal and potential replacement would not be a significant change. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO APPROVE with the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness based on the local preservation guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 & 10, with the following stipulations:  The deck rail cap shall terminate at the vertical posts in keeping with the local guidelines.  The window trim shall match existing.  Seams should be staggered with any siding infil or replacement.  The deck should be freestanding and not directly attached to the structure. SUPPORTED by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Michael Rodriguez YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Tim Gleisner A. 543 WEALTHY SE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 543 WEALTHY SE - REQUEST TO INFILL REAR BASEMENT OPENING WITH CMU Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 16 October 5, 2022 Motion by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez, supported by Ms. Kindt, to recuse Mr. Bruinsma as he is the applicant. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Baker related that the house was built approximately 1900 and was moved to its current location around 1946. There is no record of where it was moved from. The building was placed on a shallow cinder block foundation. It is a full basement but as far as above grade it is low; it is two steps up to the house, which is significantly lower than what is found in the area. The land slopes down toward the back of the house and places the back portion of the house nearly at grade. The window in that location is almost entirely below grade. There is no window in it; it is a boarded opening. Ms. Baker noted that the house is considered contributing to the District even though it was relocated. The request is to infil the window opening with block to match the foundation. Ms. Baker explained that this is part of a larger plan to address what is going on with the foundation on this property and a vital step to ensure it doesn’t continue. Ms. Baker displayed photos of the interior noting that there is significant damage; the foundation is bowing. Mr. Dixon clarified that the building is contributing even though it was relocated. Obviously, the foundation was new in 1946. He asked if there is any delineation between the foundation and the rest of the structure when it comes to contributing, or is that for the Commission to decide. Ms. Baker replied that that is for the Commission to decide; what are the features that make the building what it is. They really aren’t requesting to change the foundation much. Mr. Dixon noted that they are requesting to make a change below the first floor. Ms. Baker agreed. They want to infil and increase the foundation. Pete Bruinsma was present on behalf of the request. He explained that this is part of a larger project that will be over $20,000. They are doing a lot of work to redirect water flow and re- support the foundation. The foundation has been found to be defective. The interior of the CMU blocks were not filled properly or reinforced. There are horizontal cracks around the entire house, which is structurally the worst kind of crack causing it to move inward. Over the years they have done a lot of things to try to shift water away from the house. They have done gutters and regrading. The problem is the house is too low on the lot and you can’t just dig dirt out because then there would be a swimming pool in the back yard. It wasn’t a very well thought out installation when it was moved there. It is a great house. The foundation is the worst part and it is definitely because of the subject window. The water collects in there and goes down. What they propose is hopefully filling in that source of that north elevation caving in and preserve the house and structurally solidify the walls. They will also be doing other things, such as burying drainage, to address the problem. Mr. Dixon noted that typically people ask to install glass block. He asked if the reason they are not asking for glass block is because of all of the other remediation they are doing. Mr. Bruinsma replied that there are a couple of reasons. Another reason people install glass block is for security. That window has been kicked in approximately 20 times since he has owned the property. However, what they want to do is back fill against the home, which will be Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 17 October 5, 2022 part of the whole drainage system. There will be drainage outside that window and it will carry the water around the sides of the house. Mr. Dixon asked if the window well itself is also causing difficulty. Mr. Bruinsma replied absolutely. The window well is the main problem, and the fact that it is below grade. Mr. Bruinsma noted that just to the east of the window is a staircase. If someone is looking from the road there is no chance you would see this. The neighbors can’t see it either. The only ones it would be visible to are the residents of the home if they sit in the back yard and look toward the house. In the interest of preserving the home and its stability, getting rid of that opening and backfilling dirt up to it is the best solution. Ms. Van Wormer asked if they know for sure it was a window. Mr. Bruinsma replied that this house didn’t come with that window. The foundation was built when the house was moved. It was definitely a window in the ‘90’s when he first bought the house. He repaired the window many times as a result of people trying to break into the house. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Bruinsma left the meeting room. Mr. Dixon doesn’t feel the foundation is contributing. It is not original to the house and not outstanding craftsmanship. It dates to the 1940’s to the best of their knowledge. In his opinion, the foundation, and therefore the subject window opening, are not contributing features. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed. He added that it is almost entirely obscured by grade. Mr. Dixon agreed. It is also considerably lower than all of the historic foundations in this area. Per testimony, maintaining this window opening in any way is causing a problem for drainage of the site and the long-term stability and longevity of the structure. Mr. Dixon sees no reason to deny this application. Ms. Kindt agreed. Even though the foundation was within the period of significance it hasn’t gained contributing status within that time because it is not an example of craftsmanship. She doesn’t feel this change will compromise the historic integrity of the building or the neighborhood. Ms. Van Wormer added that in some ways it will match the rest of the building better. Mr. Dixon added that there is no evidence that the original structure, pre-relocation, had any sort of opening in this location. Ms. Kindt added that the CMU infil is compatible with the existing structure and doesn’t detract. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez recalled from testimony that the applicant has battled many years of maintenance and security issues related to this opening. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 18 October 5, 2022 Ms. Van Wormer added that the proposed change supports the other efforts being made to improve the site drainage. Ms. Kindt added that in addition to it being below grade, it is at the back of the house and not visible to the public. 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, 4 & 9. SUPPORTED by Ms. Van Wormer. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 0] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Heather VanWormer YEAS: Matthew Dixon, Anna Kindt, Heather VanWormer, Michael Rodriguez ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Tim Gleisner RECUSED: Peter Bruinsma VII. Public Hearing VIII. Discussion Commission Retreat Ms. Baker asked if there is any interest in having the annual retreat in November. Mr. Dixon recalled from a recent MHPN conference that Rob did a good presentation on the ten standards. He believes it is recorded somewhere and felt it may be helpful. Mr. Dixon agreed with others that delaying that until the new members are onboard would be beneficial. IX. Public Comment None. X. Adjourn 6:32 PM