Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Development Center Historic Preservation Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 February 1, 2023 Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor I. Call to Order 5:00 p.m. II. Roll Call PRESENT: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons ABSENT: Baldwin, Gleisner Staff Present: Rhonda Baker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich Mr. Dixon called the meeting to order. III. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from January 18, 2023 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Michael Rodriguez SECONDER: Anna Kindt YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Tim Gleisner IV. Staff Communication and Reports Certificates of Appropriateness Issued by Staff 434 Cherry SE Motion by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez, supported by Ms. Kindt, to approve the Certificates of Appropriateness issued by staff. Motion carried unanimously. V. Old Business VI. New Business A. 569 COLLEGE SE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 569 COLLEGE SE - REQUEST ALTERATION TO PORCH FLOOR & REMOVAL OF REAR CHIMNEY Ms. Baker described the home in question as having been built in 1928. It has remained relatively in tact based on the 1930’s Assessor’s records, including the brick base on the porch. It is a relatively safe assumption that the concrete cap with the inset tiles is also historic and original to the structure. Part of the request relates to the porch. There are some structural issues. There is a substantial crack that goes the full depth of the porch. There were two sizeable trees adjacent to it at one point. In order to correct it, the owner would like to support the roof, Generated 2/7/2023 9:13 PM Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 2 February 1, 2023 temporarily remove the columns and rails, removing the failing cap, correct the issue and reinstall a new cap. The proposal is to try to do it in kind. They want to salvage the tile but, because of the nature of the tile, it is likely they will lose some. If they are unable to salvage enough to put it back exactly as it is, they would like to add the concrete border that is currently on three sides and have that on all four sides. The side that doesn’t have the border now is where the porch meets the house. That would provide them some flexibility if they can’t salvage enough tile to do the entire surface. Ms. Baker also related that the applicant would like to remove the rear chimney. The chimney is clearly bowing heavily to the east and is also beginning to bow toward the north. If they wanted to retain the chimney it would require a complete rebuild and likely with new brick since the existing bricks are spalling badly. The request is to remove the chimney completely. It will assist them with interior issues. They currently have a decent sized kitchen but it doesn’t allow for a lot of storage. They also have an odd hallway at the back and a number of offset doorways. They are proposing to remove the chimney so they can slide the opening for the kitchen toward the back, align it with the one across the hall, and utilize what is currently dead space to create a pantry. Ms. Baker displayed images of the interior space she referenced. She also displayed images of the exterior noting that the rear chimney is not visible from any location on College. The only location where you can see it is in back yards. Mr. Dixon asked what other work is being done on the porch to address the structural issues. Ms. Baker replied that will be determined once they get the cap off so they can better determine what is going on. The brick skirt/base is intended to stay. They may need to do some supporting underneath. Mr. Dixon clarified that the current understanding is that the damage is due to tree root infiltration and not because of the porch foundation pulling away from the house. Ms. Baker replied that that is the theory at this point. There doesn’t appear to be any movement of the base itself. It is in very good shape other than the black paint is beginning to peel off but it isn’t taking the face of the brick with it. Ms. Kindt asked if the intent is to widen the concrete border if they lose more of the tiles or just adding the border against the house. Ms. Baker replied that widening the border would be a third option. They are looking for a scaled approach depending on how much they are able to salvage. Mr. Bruinsma asked how many chimneys are on the house. Ms. Baker replied two. The main chimney is located toward the south, it is much larger, and supports the original fireplace. The main chimney is visible from the front. The chimney proposed for removal is a utility chimney on the back. Ms. Kindt asked if the chimney is in use. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 3 February 1, 2023 Ms. Baker deferred to the applicant. Iain Smith was present on behalf of the request. He explained that they have been in the house exactly one year today. When they moved in, they realized the fireplaces and chimneys were in disrepair. They hired a chimney company. They came in and restored the two fireplaces. They advised them not to bother trying to do anything with the rear chimney because it wasn’t in use and wasn’t a good investment. Mr. Smith indicated that there was a picture included in the packet of what it would look like if the chimney were removed. He feels it looks better. It also assists with what they’d like to do on the interior. It is just he and his wife that live in the house and this will be their last home. They would like to make it as efficient for themselves as possible. There just isn’t a lot of room in the kitchen. Mr. Smith explained that they moved here 18 months ago from Idaho. They took 4 years to renovate a century home so they know how lovely it can become if you have the patience and resources to do so. They would like to get the chimney out of the wall because it doesn’t serve a purpose and they don’t have a pantry. They are trying to restore a lot of the home. The pocket doors don’t work and they don’t have a single window that opens. They are really trying to make this their home. The removal of the chimney is pivotal to allow them to have rooms where they can sit, add a small island in the kitchen and walk right into the dining room. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. The Commission began their deliberations with the proposed porch work. Ms. Kindt stated that she appreciates they are trying to salvage as many tiles as possible. However, she anticipates they will lose quite a few of them when trying to get them out. It appears they are direct set in the concrete. Mr. Dixon agreed. He feels that wrapping the concrete apron along the front side of the house is a creative solution to reduce the amount of tiles they need. He is concerned that may not be enough to make up the difference. Ms. Kindt felt they may be able to find a matching tile. Mr. Dixon feels that running the concrete apron along the house is an acceptable measure if there isn’t enough material. However, he is concerned about widening the dimension of the apron to make up for a loss of material. If that is necessary, he would prefer the applicant return to the HPC. Ms. Kindt agreed. The border currently lines up nicely with the columns and forms a frame around the edge of the porch. If it were to be widened, that relationship would be lost. Perhaps that is where the matching tile comes in as a staff reviewable item. Ms. Baker agreed that they can work with her to find a close match. Ms. Van Wormer agreed that staff review would be acceptable. She hopes they are able to retain the tile and appreciates the efforts they are making to do so. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 4 February 1, 2023 The deliberation moved on to the chimney. Mr. Dixon feels it is reasonable to deduce from the photographic evidence that the chimney is not sustainable in its current state. Ms. Baker has indicated that not only is it bowing in two directions but the brick is spalling. Therefore, if they were required to keep the chimney in place it would have to be rebuilt with new material, which results in the loss of historic character. Mr. Bruinsma added that he doesn’t feel it is a distinctive material or character defining element of the house. Removing a utility chimney is relatively normal. It doesn’t detract from the architectural or historic nature of the home. Mr. Bruinsma feels it satisfies the Standards. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed. Mr. Dixon read from the guidelines that lesser or secondary chimneys located on the sides, internally, or on the rear elevation will be considered for removal if determined to be of no architectural or historical significance. Mr. Dixon acknowledged that it is on a lesser or secondary elevation considering you can’t see it from the street. It is a lesser or secondary chimney and agrees it isn’t of distinctive craftsmanship. Ms. Van Wormer added that they’ve already had it evaluated to ensure it isn’t serving a functional purpose. She stated that she appreciated them providing the image of how it would look without the chimney. Mr. Bruinsma MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 569 College Ave SE, with the specific findings that the proposed work complies with the Local Historic District Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation; 1, 2, 5 & 6, with the following conditions: 1. The porch is to be repaired as proposed, or 2. If the tiles salvaged are not sufficient to complete the porch project as proposed, the applicant shall work with staff on review of matching tiles. SUPPORTED by Mr. Simmons. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez suggested a friendly amendment to the second condition. Mr. Bruinsma amended the 2nd condition: 2. The tile to concrete ratio shall be preserved or the applicant shall work with staff on review and approval of a matching tile. SUPPORTED by Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Peter Bruinsma SECONDER: Michael Rodriguez YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Tim Gleisner Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 5 February 1, 2023 VII. Public Hearing 1. 680 WEALTHY SE - CHERRY STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT 680 WEALTHY STREET SE - REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT NEW BUILDING Ms. Baker related that 680 Wealthy was previously known as 666 Wealthy. The building on the site burned last year and the site is currently vacant. The proposal is to construct a two-story commercial structure on the vacant lot. Ms. Baker pointed out that in the rendering there is a sketch of a sign on the corner, which is not part of the request. Because it is in the submittal, if the Commission approves the request, the motion must include that it doesn’t include the sign. Ms. Baker addressed the site plan. The building is essentially lot tight. The west side is approximately 4 ft. from the building to the west, which is a historical condition and not uncommon in this area to have a small corridor between buildings. That 4 ft. area will be maintained. The structure slopes away from the north elevation as you get closer to the east corner. Her understanding after speaking with the applicant is that, in a modern way, they are trying to replicate some of the design features of the historic building. She recalled that the historic building had a very wide, very deep, front access point. When adding the corner column and plate glass on both sides it gave the illusion of an open corner. Ms. Baker again stated that the proposed building will be lot tight, east to west. It will stop approximately 38 ft. short of the south lot line to allow for parking and service needs, which is another common feature of the neighborhood. The area at the back will be an asphalt parking lot with a concrete service walk. There will be some landscape buffers and a 6 ft. fence on the west property line. There is currently a chain link fence along the south, which Ms. Baker believes belongs to the school behind the site. The dumpster is proposed at the southwest corner of the back lot. It will be a basic enclosure of concrete block walls, 6 ft. tall, with a solid wood gate. Ms. Baker commented on the proposed building. It will be approximately 44 ft. wide and 73 ft. deep and roughly 30 ft. tall. The stair tower at the back will be approximately 40 ft. tall, which is in line with what is located in the neighborhood. It has two recessed front entries. The storefront is an aluminum bronze frame system with a 2 ft. tall concrete knee wall. It has metal clad round columns and a flush or recessed steel lentil system acting as a modern day cornice above the storefront, which is somewhat mimicked at the top of the building. The cornice on the first floor wraps around the east elevation stopping approximately 2/3 of the way down. The upper cornice wraps around what she assumes to be the entire building, although the west elevation isn’t shown. The applicant should verbally inform the Commission what the west elevation will look like, whether it is clad, and whether it has any features. Ms. Baker suspects it will be very simple but it should be noted for the record. The exterior of the building is proposed as modular brick with some cast stone detailing. The windows are clad, vertically oriented, fixed on top and Ms. Baker believes awning on the bottom. On the east side there will be recessed balconies on the second floor. The balconies are 5 ft. deep and 11.8 ft. wide. They have a bronze aluminum storefront system very similar to the front. It does penetrate up through the roof. The balconies will have steel plate guardrails that appear to extend out past the opening over the brick walls. The south elevation will have the same building detailing as well as a projecting metal balcony with matching steel rails and a metal canopy that will project approximately 5 ft. from the south wall and approximately 5.8 ft. past the east wall toward Henry with 1-inch painted steel cables Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 6 February 1, 2023 for support. The stair tower is to have vertical oriented standing seam metal panel exterior. The penetrations for the upper units aren’t specifically called out but it appears to be the same material proposed for the stair tower. The Commission may wish to clarify that for the record. The stair tower is approximately 33 ft. west of the east elevation and approximately 60 ft. from the north. The northmost projection is approximately 13 ft. back from the north edge and the southmost is approximately 36 ft. back from the north edge. Ms. Baker noted that specifications were provided for the rail systems, balcony, canopy, storefront systems, and windows. Renderings were also provided. Ms. Baker noted that it shows the building abutting the adjacent building but it won’t be; there will be a 4 ft. gap. Lisa Miller, Lott3Metz, was present to discuss the proposal. She added to Ms. Baker’s presentation relating that material-wise they are proposing brick and glass for the front, taking materials from the neighborhood. As they transition around to the side they are introducing some new materials such as the metal panel and concrete knee wall. With respect to the 4 ft. between the buildings, originally there was a gate. Ms. Miller would like to add to this submission that they will include a decorative metal gate to close that 4 ft. alley off. They picked up traditional components in the façade with the parapet, cornice, sign band, large display windows, and transom windows. The material on the upper dormers will be metal panel to match the stair tower. With respect to the west side, they will return the brick material down the alley by approximately 2 ft. and then transition to metal panel. There will be no openings on the west façade. The cornice also turns the corner and basically circles the entire building. Mr. Dixon noted that in the rendering the cornice turns the corner but the steel lentil detail does not. Ms. Miller related that the steel lentil does not turn the corner. Mr. Dixon noted that on the front façade, directly below the steel parapet there is a steel lentil that is approximately two courses of brick below that that provides an additional shadow line. Ms. Miller clarified that that wraps the building on every side except for the west. Mr. Dixon asked if the painted steel lentil is a true steel; a W-section left exposed and painted? Ms. Miller replied that is the intent but they have not involved structural yet. The design intent is to have painted metal. Mr. Dixon recognized design similarities to another building. He asked if that building has the same material or if that building has cladding. Ted Lott, Lott3Metz, replied that the one at the top is clad and the one at the storefront is a C- section. That was specific to that project for specific reasons. Ms. Miller added that they are continuing the parapet along the east façade. It doesn’t step in with the balconies but rather creates the massing and holds the line. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 7 February 1, 2023 Mr. Dixon asked if there is a design inspiration behind the cable supporting the canopy, which comes from the very top. Ms. Miller replied it is just a modern approach to supporting. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez asked how the cable rod intersects the second-floor balcony on the south elevation. Ms. Miller replied that it goes in front of it. It is tying into the stair tower so it goes in front of the rear balcony. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez noted that the canopy proposed to extend onto the Henry sidewalk is shown at 6’10” above grade. He asked if that head height meets code. Ms. Miller replied that they will be looking at that in relation to door heights. If necessary, they will adjust it to meet code. Mr. Dixon asked if the standing seam metal panel is true standing seam. Ms. Miller replied that it is a prefinished decorative metal with concealed fasteners. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez referred to the elevation drawing labeled as south elevation, which he believes is actually the east elevation. Ms. Miller agreed it is the east elevation. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez noted that there is a portion of brick between the chamfered corner and storefront windows. However, on the three-dimensional rendering it appears to be shown as concrete. Ms. Miller clarified that it is supposed to be brick. The concrete is limited to the knee wall below the storefront and there will be brick above that. Mr. Dixon recognized that there isn’t a cast stone piece or flashing of any kind shown where the balconies are inset. He asked if there are any thoughts on how that would be treated. Ms. Miller replied that there are no initial thoughts on that. They purposely didn’t want to have a cast stone piece there. They will look at something to minimize that line. Mr. Dixon recognized that there is one cast stone inset detail on the first floor of the front façade. Ms. Miller agreed. She explained that it does have a relationship to the ones above it. They considered it both ways, not having one there, and felt it was important to tie in some decorative design at the pedestrian level. They are also looking at possibly using those as a landing zone for lighting in the future, which she would work with staff on. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 8 February 1, 2023 Ms. Van Wormer noted that the sign piece is only shown on the color picture and not on the architectural drawings. She clarified that it isn’t part of the building or that there won’t be a piece of metal sticking out later. Ms. Miller replied no. The signage usually comes when they have a tenant. They like to have input on that. Mr. Dixon noted that the concrete bulk head in the elevation drawings is shown as a flat piece and on the renderings it appears seamed. He asked if there is an intended treatment for that; brush finish, etc. Ms. Miller agreed that it will be seamed. They don’t know the finish for that yet. They obviously want to have a high-quality finish on it. Mr. Dixon asked if the seams will be those you get from the form work or will it be a tooled joint. Ms. Miller replied that it will likely be from the form work and will have a regimented pattern. They don’t anticipate at this point adding specific joint lines. The intent is for it to recede and not be part of the rest of the façade. The intent is that the special materials are featured and the concrete be minimal. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. The Commission discussed the site plan. Mr. Dixon indicated he has no issues with the site plan. The location of the parking lot is appropriate and the amount of parking is minimal and screened with landscape. The dumpster is also screened. All Commissioners agreed that the site plan is appropriate. Mr. Dixon stated that the size, scale, and massing of the building feels appropriate. It seems similar in height to the building that was there before the fire. It occupies the corner appropriately. Ms. Kindt agreed. The local guidelines speak to maintaining district vistas, which she feels it does. The height relates to other buildings and the historic building. The scale and massing are appropriate as well. Mr. Dixon recognized that the stair tower is internal and comes up at an angle. That is obviously a form and massing that wouldn’t be found in a historic structure, at that scale anyway, but he feels it is an appropriate nod to the contemporary design as a differentiating feature, especially based on the fact that it is set back from the exterior walls as much as it is, which allows the two- story more traditional form to be read. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 9 February 1, 2023 Ms. Kindt stated that, in looking at it under Standards 9 & 10, the clear story pop up helps differentiate the material and massing. Mr. Dixon indicated that he is struggling with the inset balcony conditions. He realizes it is a secondary façade but it is a very visible secondary façade from Wealthy. He was interested in hearing others’ thoughts. Ms. Kindt asked if it was because it speaks to being residential on the second floor. Mr. Dixon replied that it is more about breaking the plane of the structure. He understands they have made concessions to that with the parapet and trying to unite all of that together. He clarified that he didn’t feel strongly enough about it to hold up the project. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez indicated he feels similarly about that. He understands the intent and there were a lot of intelligent decisions that went into making it the way that it is. However, those are large recesses in places that historically they likely wouldn’t have been. The alternative would be a balcony that is hung off the plane of the building and he isn’t sure that would be better. Mr. Dixon agreed that wouldn’t be an improvement. When first reviewing the elevations, he didn’t recognize that the parapet continued in that plane. Now that that has been clarified he is more comfortable with those recesses as a modern interpretation while maintaining the plane of the building façade. Ms. Kindt added that, with the railing, you will still feel the horizontal line of the brick going across and, with the parapet line held around it, it won’t feel like a hole but like a balcony. If they were projected over the active sidewalk below it would feel strange from a pedestrian standpoint. Mr. Dixon agreed. Ms. Van Wormer stated that she doesn’t find that the balconies detract from the district with the way the rest of the streetscape looks. This building is not supposed to look historic and it is okay if parts of it are not historic. She doesn’t feel that that detracts in any way from the scape there even though it is visible from Wealthy. It might be nice to have a building that shows a way to have a modern building but still have it fit in with the other spaces instead of an empty lot where a building burned down. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez stated that he finds the canopy that extends over Henry to be odd. It calls attention to itself in a way that he wouldn’t want to see even in a building working hard to be a modern building in a historic context. Mr. Dixon indicated that his trouble with it is the extremely long cables. He asked if that was also the issue for Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez replied that the cables or rods aren’t really that much of an issue on a tertiary façade that isn’t really seen when walking or driving within the district. He has more of Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 10 February 1, 2023 an issue with something that is suspended out into the public right-of-way in a way that he isn’t sure they would have seen before. It is announcing its presence like a canopy of a storefront but is certainly the tertiary façade of the building. It is an explanation point where he isn’t sure there should be one. Ms. Kindt agreed that it is the tertiary façade. What stuck out to her is the overhang, especially when it is shown at 6’10” over the sidewalk. If you were to see the canopy from Wealthy you would think there must be another storefront there and that doesn’t happen. She wondered if it could be pulled in to align with the building or be slightly set back. She also anticipates people on the sidewalk jumping up. Mr. Dixon agreed that the height is problematic and recalled that the applicant indicated they would adjust the height to meet code. He also feels it hanging over the public right-of-way is problematic. He also has a problem with the long rods and cables. While introducing modern takes on traditional forms is appropriate, his reading of Standards 9 & 10 has always been that new construction should not detract from the rest of the area around it and shouldn’t draw undue attention to itself so that historic buildings are still the focal objects of the historic district. For some reason the extremely long rods are drawing undue attention and is a flashy gesture that doesn’t belong or combine well with the surrounding area. Ms. Kindt wondered if it was also sticking out to them so much because in the drawing it is the only non-horizontal or vertical line. She wondered if the one-inch rods, painted brown or black to match the lentils, would be less noticeable. Mr. Dixon didn’t believe so. He agreed they are seeing it in an angle on the drawings but that will also be the view in person. He again stated that it is drawing a lot of visual attention and that it will in person also, especially with it hanging over the Henry right-of-way. Ms. Kindt asked his opinion if it was pulled in, flush with the building, or held back from the building so it was only visible from the back. Mr. Dixon feels it would be more appropriate for the rods to be brought down and shortened to draw less attention. Even though they are on the back side he believes they will be visible as you drive along Wealthy. Mr. Simmons didn’t agree that they would be visible from Wealthy. The Commission discussed materiality. Mr. Dixon feels the brick, cast stone and steel articulation are nice. It is very appropriate for the district and is using historic and classical materials in a modern articulation and modern design that is very successful. Mr. Dixon has no issue with the metal panel at the top of the building because with it being pulled away from the edge and being a dark color it makes it disappear. He is struggling a bit more with the stair tower on the back. It seems like a large slab of metal panel. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez agreed that it is large but he also thinks that where it is located on the site plan will make it recede from view pretty significantly from anywhere within the district. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 11 February 1, 2023 Mr. Dixon explained that he never considered it that they were only looking at the district from Wealthy St. Ms. Baker explained that what is behind the subject lot is not in the district. Mr. Dixon clarified that they aren’t only looking at this as it relates to Wealthy. They are looking at all four sides of the building. Whether or not it is on a secondary or tertiary elevation is not free license. Ms. Van Wormer doesn’t feel that is the case. Those structures on the roof have been moved in from the edges quite adequately. There are plenty of historic buildings there with something that size on the roof. Mr. Dixon clarified that he was speaking about the big stair tower behind the building that goes all the way to the ground. Ms. Van Wormer argued that it is in a location where you would have to be in a small five foot area on Henry to see it from your car window. Behind this building is not in the district. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez related that he has some reservations about the introduction of the chamfered corner/the recessed entry on the corner of Wealthy and Henry. He understands the design intent but is not quite convinced that by doing this that that is recalling the previous building’s recessed entry because of its lack of symmetry. The way that this building approaches the street on Wealthy is totally appropriate until getting to that chamfered edge. The guidelines specifically say that new storefronts will follow historic storefront patterns. When looking at the patterns within the district, between Eastern Ave. and Union, he couldn’t find any with the exception of the building that formerly housed Elk Brewing that had a chamfered entrance and the building on the corner of Wealthy and James that houses Rowster Coffee, but that is a much more modest chamfer and that chamfer actually houses the door where you enter the building. He likes everything happening about this building even though he has reservations about how well that deeply recessed chamfer is in keeping with the patterns that are established on the street. Mr. Lott recalled that Ms. Baker mentioned in her presentation that they are referencing the previous building. Mr. Lott stated that wasn’t their intent at all. They were trying to create a modern storefront on the corner. The reference point is Rowster’s. The issue when stepping it back like that is how far back should it be so people can actually get to the door and go into it. The step back isn’t more than 6 ft. and well within the bounds of a typical set back for a storefront. It is just asymmetrical at that corner because there is a corner there. What it is doing is acknowledging that it is a corner storefront, which is the intent. Ultimately, from the street, it is very symmetrical. Ms. Kindt stated that when she read through the guideline mentioned by Mr. DeMaagd- Rodriguez she read the intent of it in terms of feeling; the feeling of setting back an entry to make it more inviting to the public to get the door off of the sidewalk to welcome people in and Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 12 February 1, 2023 not just in terms of referencing the historical form, which might be more symmetrical and might be recessed. She feels this still achieves the feel of that but just a more modern interpretation. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez explained that his concern is that the modern interpretation creates a weaker corner. The previous building was discussed as having plate glass on both sides of a masonry corner and that same condition exists on another building just down the street. That is a very different condition than having an open-air recess. He isn’t sure the concern is enough to say the application is inappropriate, but it is a concern. Mr. Simmons finds that it is quite welcoming from Henry St. It really integrates the corner of the building. Ms. Van Wormer added that the fact that it isn’t just integrating Wealthy is a good addition. She agreed that the previous building didn’t do that but she finds it to be an improvement. Mr. Dixon indicated that he is comfortable with the recess as proposed because with as heavy as the second floor is, as heavy as the beam detail coming around the corner is, and the fact that they’ve dropped the substantial column at the corner, this still reads as a rectangular building. He is willing to look at it as a modern nod toward its contemporary design. It is similar to the argument of the recessed balconies with the parapet continued across, which maintains the plane as a readable item. Mr. Dixon feels the same way with the corner; it is still a readable corner even though there is some lightness introduced to it. Mr. Simmons brought up the matter of the stairs again. He noted that the perspective seen from the drawing is basically from the northeast corner of Wealthy and Henry and it is seen from the second floor, not the ground. Much of that tower will go away from view. The silo effect won’t be noticeable from the street. Mr. Dixon agreed. He again clarified that he isn’t concerned about the projections. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez recalled that the staff report mentioned that it is unlikely that the east elevation meets the Zoning Ordinance minimum transparency requirements. Any motion should make note of how the Commission would like to proceed with that. A lot of that façade is shown as masonry without many openings. Ms. Baker shared that the Planner she spoke with wasn’t certain if the HPC overrides Zoning with respect to transparency. Mr. Dixon asked the applicant team if there is a reason for not having more transparency on the first floor of the east façade. Mr. Lott replied that it is a condition seen frequently in urban commercial districts; the side wall on turned streets are more solid. The real issue is that if they have someone leasing the storefront, whether it is a restaurant or mercantile space, they want that wall space for display, etc. It is functional from an internal standpoint. Mr. Lott indicated that they can add some glass if desired. However, he doesn’t believe that the Zoning Ordinance would require 70% glazing around the whole street corner if the storefront is focused on the north. Mr. Lott summarized that Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 13 February 1, 2023 they are happy to add a little bit of glass there but it is a common condition in this district and others, historic or not. Mr. Dixon found that to be a reasonable argument and agreed that a lot of times on a corner condition like this, in a historic district, you see a more restrained side wall like proposed. He feels there is still enough articulation and it is a small enough span that it doesn’t negatively detract from the rest of the district. Mr. Simmons referred to the corner of James and Wealthy. There is only one small window on that secondary elevation. Mr. Dixon summarized that there are some concerns remaining with the canopy and, other than that, there is general agreement. Commissioners agreed. Mr. Dixon recalled that he is the only one that has an issue with the two-story cables. There were other concerns related to the height of the canopy and its projection onto Henry. Ms. Kindt stated that her concern is with it overhanging the sidewalk. If that is brought in, she wouldn’t have an issue with the two-story rods. If it is to remain overhanging the sidewalk then she does have an issue with at least one rod. Mr. DeMaagd-Rodriguez indicated he feels similarly. Mr. Dixon suggested a condition that the canopy be pulled back to be in line with the building wall, or further west of the building wall, and that the height should meet building code. Commissioners were in agreement. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 680 Wealthy SE, per the application and testimony, with the condition that the canopy shown on the drawings be revised to be in line with the building, or slightly recessed, and that the height meet Building Code. The approval does not include any signage. The motion is based on testimony, the Local Historic District Guidelines, and Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 & 10. SUPPORTED by Mr. Bruinsma. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Peter Bruinsma YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Rodriguez, Simmons ABSENT: Kerry Baldwin, Tim Gleisner VIII. Discussion Ms. Baker recalled that she sent Commissioners revisions to the garage section of the guidelines. If everyone is okay with the suggested revisions, she will move that forward. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 14 February 1, 2023 Mr. Dixon related that he hasn’t read it yet. Ms. Kindt had a comment on the new #9 bullet point. She doesn’t know that they will run into the same situation where it is so specific and wondered if they should include something such as specific site conditions vs. sublevel. IX. Public Comment X. Adjourn