Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Development Center Historic Preservation Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 May 3, 2023 Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor I. Call to Order 5:00 p.m. II. Roll Call PRESENT: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Rodriguez Staff Present: Rhonda Baker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich III. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from April 19, 2023 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Thomas Simmons YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Heather VanWormer, Michael Rodriguez IV. Staff Communication and Reports Certificates of Appropriateness Issued by Staff 1. STAFF REPORT STAFF ISSUED COA PERMITS 135 College SE 215 Hollister SE 241 Madison SE 330 Eastern SE 537 Crescent NE 571 Madison SE 708 Cherry SE 927 Virginia SE Motion by Mr. Bruinsma, supported by Mr. Simmons, to approve the Certificates of Appropriateness issued by staff. Motion carried unanimously. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Peter Bruinsma SECONDER: Thomas Simmons YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Heather VanWormer, Michael Rodriguez V. Old Business VI. New Business Generated 5/9/2023 8:48 PM Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 2 May 3, 2023 A. 1009 HERMITAGE - LOCAL LANDMARK 1009 HERMITAGE SE - REQUEST FOR ADA RAMP Motion by Mr. Bruinsma, supported by Ms. Chapman, to recuse Ms. Kindt due to a conflict of interest; the applicant for 1009 Hermitage SE is her employer. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Baker explained that this is a local landmark. As the Commission reviews this request it is only for this particular site and doesn’t include anything around it. The applicant is requesting to replace the temporary ramp with a new ADA compliant permanent ramp. The temporary ramp was approved to allow access to the building while they engaged in fundraising. The ramp will be in the same location providing access to the double doors in the addition structure. It will span in front of the parsonage, similar to putting the front porch back without putting the porch back. It will not be physically attached to the house. There will be a gap between portions of the ramp and the main wall of the parsonage for landscaping and water drainage. Where it does abut the foundation is at the south wall of the bay. They propose a fiber board or other material between the two so there is no actual attachment to the foundation and it remains removable. The ramp will have a concrete base, square wood posts, and wood rails with metal balustrades painted to replicate square wood balustrades. The metal balustrades are requested because this is a commercial use with higher intensity use than a residential installation. Mr. Dixon asked if the entire ramp will be on the subject property and not in the right-of-way. Ms. Baker responded affirmatively; it will remain out of the right-of-way. When going around the building, most of the other doors are elevated. Those at grade access the basement. Carole Moore related that this building is approximately 4 blocks from her house. She has been walking by it for almost 45 years wondering what was going to happen to it. In 2017, she and a number of neighbors got together and realized it had been condemned by the City and there was a for sale sign but no one would buy it because it is on the National Register and it couldn’t be torn down. They requested that the HPC declare Demolition by Neglect and that request was granted. Little did she know, a few months later she realized she might buy the building. She purchased it and everything was needed on this building. The focus has been on the exterior for the last 5 years. They’ve rebuilt the steeple and bell tower, reroofed everything, insulated and resided the church. There is no insulation on the parsonage yet and they will have to do that from the inside. On the parsonage building two sides have new siding and two sides were scraped. Ms. Moore related that she is currently working daily on a 55’ lift at the peak of the church scraping, priming and caulking. They hope for it to be a performing arts center in the church proper. In the basement they hope to partner with Congress School across the street for after school programming. All of the arts will be illuminated here. In the parsonage they will have two residential units, hopefully with a resident manager living upstairs. Downstairs will be zoned residentially but they hope to be able to use it for small assembly meetings, or artisan residents that might like to stay there for a week or month at a time and give their performance in the large living room area. Mr. Dixon thanked Ms. Moore for everything she is doing for this building. It is nice to see people working on it daily. He noted that it appears in providing accessibility where proposed only provides access to the parsonage and not to the church itself. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 3 May 3, 2023 Ms. Moore agreed. It will be necessary to have a lift on the east return of the church proper. They have a plan for that that will take one up to the sanctuary level and to the basement level. She clarified further that there will be a lift on the interior at the southeast corner of the church proper. It isn’t possible to get from one building to the other without going outside. Mr. Dixon clarified that the door would be at street level and then the lift on the interior would take one either up or down. Ms. Moore agreed. Mr. Dixon asked if there were studies done for locating the ramp or some kind of accessibility device on the inside of the courtyard. Tom Nemitz, Cornerstone Architects, related that there are different levels both inside and outside and they were trying to find the least disruptive way to create a ramp and still preserve the character of the building. After a number of studies to see how that might work, the proposed is the solution they came up with. They will be doing a soft touch up against the historic building and keep the ramp removable should it ever have to be removed. As Ms. Moore mentioned, the biggest challenge was looking at the limited access lift and how that was going to connect the sanctuary level. Mr. Nemitz feels they’ve come up with a solution that provides accessibility for anyone in a wheelchair, or even with a limited disability, with the interior design and exterior ramp. They also tried to make sure that the ramp didn’t encroach anywhere close to the neighboring property. There are some trees they are trying to retain as well. Ms. Baker recalled that there aren’t any drop off points that would provide someone ease of access to a ramp if it were located at the rear in the center courtyard. Mr. Nemitz agreed. Ms. Moore added that the rear entrance is very high. It is an east exit from the sanctuary and she doesn’t believe a ramp would be possible in that location. At Diamond and Hermitage there is access for a wheelchair to come up onto the sidewalk and her neighbors also have a driveway where one could come up in a wheelchair. *Ms. Van Wormer arrived. Ms. Moore clarified for Mr. Dixon that the driveway on the north side is for the subject property. Mr. Simmons related that the building is extremely cut up in terms of level changes inside. To get into the back would require a 50-60 ft. ramp. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Dixon doesn’t feel that the proposed is an ideal solution. It is on the primary elevation of the building. It would be nice if it could be on a secondary elevation but, per testimony, that is basically a technical infeasibility that could result in more substantial damage to the building. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 4 May 3, 2023 Mr. Dixon is almost always swayed by the argument for greater accessibility, especially to historic structures. He invited others’ thoughts. Mr. Simmons again stated that it would be very difficult to get a ramp on the north side. There is a doorway going back to the old kitchen that is very steep. The proposed is a good solution to provide accessibility. Mr. Bruinsma stated that he considers this necessary. There doesn’t seem to be another option for accessibility. Accessibility is required for the restoration and reuse of this building and enjoyment by all. If accepting the location of the ramp in a non-traditional location, the materiality looks to be compatible in terms of rails, spacing, and height. Ms. Chapman added that the detailing of the posts is compatible with the style of the parsonage. Ms. Chapman appreciates that it is a light touch and, should it need to be removed in the future, it can be. Mr. Dixon agreed that it is designed very well. He also appreciates the soft touch and the bond breaker between the ramp and existing structure. It is a creative use introducing a planter area to help step the ramp away from the main structure and align it with the bay window. Mr. Dixon agreed that the wood posts are sensitively designed. He is swayed by the argument that a metal rail in this instance is more in keeping since it is a commercial structure and will experience more use than a single-family residential project. Mr. Simmons MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 1009 Hermitage 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, 9, and 10. SUPPORTED by Mr. Bruinsma. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note: Ms. Van Wormer abstained due to her time of arrival and Ms. Kindt recused herself due to a conflict of interest). RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 0] MOVER: Thomas Simmons SECONDER: Peter Bruinsma YEAS: Peter Bruinsma, Matthew Dixon, Thomas Simmons, Dru Chapman ABSTAIN: Heather VanWormer ABSENT: Michael Rodriguez RECUSED: Anna Kindt B. 300 EASTERN SE - FAIRMOUNT SQUARE HISTORIC DISTRICT 300 EASTERN SE - RETAIN CHANGE TO WINDOW OPENING Ms. Baker explained that the owner was cited for vinyl window unit replacements and is working with staff on proper replacements. What is before the Commission is an alteration to one of the openings that the owner is asking to retain. Ms. Baker displayed the 1936 Assessor’s photo noting that both of the 2nd floor windows on the front façade were identical. At some point prior to 1994 the south-most upper-level window opening was altered. The multi-light window was Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 5 May 3, 2023 replaced with a 1 over 1 wood double-hung window. There was filler added to the bottom because it was shorter. The current situation with the new window is they attempted to replicate the muntin pattern that was existing on the historic window but did it in a smaller window and added more fill, which is what they are requesting to retain. Should the Commission find it appropriate but perhaps have an issue with how it was done, the owner is very likely amenable to suggestions for infilling that. Ms. Baker explained that the reason for the change is shown in the interior photos. The interior space has likely been a kitchen for decades. When they altered the window she doesn’t know why they didn’t raise it all the way up. It resulted in a well, sitting an inch or two beyond the sink tap. Water gets behind and has caused the sills to rot. The owner, in doing renovations, raised the sill so it is above the counter so there is no longer an issue with water, which is the reason for requesting to retain the alteration to the opening. Ms. Baker reminded the HPC that the original alteration took place before the designation of the District in 1999. Bradley Andrus, property owner, related that he bought the house in October 2021 after having lived there 9 years as a tenant. The house was condemned in 1993 after an arson. The property was uninhabited after that. There was substantial smoke and water damage to units 3 and 1 below. The arson fire was set on the porch. His assumption is that is what caused the need to change the windows. The trim had been changed on the exterior and the muntins removed. Mr. Andrus explained that his contractor unilaterally installed vinyl windows. He did a good job raising the subject sill to the sink level to address the issues Ms. Baker mentioned with the rotting, objects getting stuck, and insects and cold air getting in. The window is much more energy efficient now. However, the job wasn’t finished, which was to come later with the painting. There is a tudor brown trim around the window but currently it is unpainted filler board. They propose to finish the job in the next couple of weeks. The remainder of the window replacements will likely take all summer, or longer, given the expense. Mr. Andrus stated that if the Commission would like to compromise and meet him half way they can discuss lowering the filler board to be more flush. His main concern is covering the gap. As mentioned, the window was already non-conforming; it was approximately 2/3 the size of its twin. Mr. Andrus stated that he is trying to restore the exterior elements after the interior. Mr. Andrus provided some history relating that it is the historic home of John Thomas Batts who invented the wishbone hanger. In his bedroom there is actually a second patent of Mr. Batts, which is a pulley system invented in that house in 1908 or 1909. It was a spec home for the invention. Mr. Andrus found materials, original floor plans and photos from that time. It has inspired him to put forth his best effort to restore these elements. He is happy to replace the muntins and to work with staff and the Commission as appropriate to source those materials and any best practices for installation. This block has somewhat lost its historic character. It wasn’t designated until 1999 and it hasn’t had the history of historic preservation. He is trying to bring that back little by little. The main goal with this request is to preserve the integrity of the wall and window sill so it doesn’t continue to experience water run off from the sink. If they have to go back to the modified opening, it may cause an issue. Mr. Dixon recognized from the photos of the interior that there is a piece of wood trim between the window sill and countertop. He asked the height of that. Mr. Andrus replied it is approximately 4.5 inches from the counter to the window sill. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 6 May 3, 2023 Mr. Dixon clarified for Mr. Bruinsma that the applicant is working with staff on the remainder of the windows. The Commission is only considering the dimensions of this window. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Mr. Dixon clarified that they aren’t considering the materiality of the window or the trim; they are simply considering that the window rough opening has been modified and the applicant is asking to retain that modification. Mr. Simmons stated that his concern is the exterior appearance below the window; it is just a panel. He would like to see a uniform wall below the window so it doesn’t look patched in. Ms. Chapman stated that she would find it acceptable if the panel were painted the same color as the window jambs, head, and sill. Mr. Dixon noted that the window present now no longer matches the window on the other side of the house. It is no longer symmetrical to the face of the house. That condition has existed since at least 1999 when the district was designated. In his opinion, in order to say that this is an acceptable change they either need to support that with the Standards and guidelines or find that this is a minimal change that doesn’t impact the historic character of the structure. Mr. Bruinsma referred to Standard 9, which speaks to scale and proportion. To protect the integrity of the property and the historic context, windows are one of the most prominent features of a home and must be preserved; dimensions, size and repetition. They should balance. Ms. Chapman pointed out however that the size of that window changed prior to 1999. The proposed modification is the second change. Her understanding is that they can’t necessarily require restoration of the original size. Mr. Bruinsma doesn’t feel the change in size is a contributing factor to the house. To make is so, it would be necessary to return it to the original size. Mr. Dixon explained that they can discuss whether or not they feel the window in question is a contributing feature to the home. Typically, that isn’t up for debate when looking at the historic windows. This is a slightly different circumstance in that it was replaced at some point in the ‘90’s prior to designation. While the feature pre-dates the inclusion in the district, they could discuss whether it is a contributing feature to the home based on that age. Mr. Bruinsma explained that he wouldn’t consider the new size contributing. The only size he would consider contributing would be the original size from 1900-1910, not the changed size in the mid-90’s. Ms. Kindt noted that the local guidelines state that when replacing a non-historic window the new unit will be sized to fit the existing/1999 or historic rough opening. In the historic opening, symmetry was a character defining feature of the front façade of the house. She is a bit torn on Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 7 May 3, 2023 this application because under Secretary of Interior Standard 9 they do typically allow for modifications for modern use and kitchens come up quite often with respect to raising the sill. Mr. Dixon agreed. He pointed out that typically they are on a secondary elevation. Obviously, the original design of this façade was symmetrical. The modification in the mid-90’s, changing the window size, has changed that symmetry somewhat. When considering window modifications for kitchens they are usually on a secondary elevation and usually not part of a symmetrical façade. Ms. Kindt added, in terms of what the local guidelines allow for corrections, the only thing they could require it go back to is the already modified mid-90’s opening, which wouldn’t recreate the symmetry. Therefore, what is the compromise to understand that there was symmetry yet allow for a modification for a functional unit with a kitchen sink. Does that mean maintaining the 1990’s trim on the outside with the panel infil to understand that there was symmetry? Mr. Bruinsma recalled that when a modification is made without approval they typically ask the question of whether or not they would have approved it had the request been made prior to the work being done. Would they have approved the modification to the opening. Ms. Kindt feels that if this would have come to them as an application, they certainly would have allowed keeping the 1990’s opening size. She also feels they would have discussed what can be done to make a functional apartment. Where it gets difficult is the symmetry of the main façade. Mr. Dixon suggested, had this been a new application, that his recommendation may have been closure from the inside that keeps the window in the 1990’s dimension but closes it off on the inside with an applied film or something applied to the window itself that didn’t change the overall dimension of the window. He is swayed however by asymmetrical composition of the house currently. That adds a level of complexity. Mr. Bruinsma noted that the meeting bars are at different levels and that shouldn’t be the case. If building a custom window to fit the opening, the meeting bar should be located at the same point as the other window. Ms. Kindt feels that occurred when the sill was raised by approximately 8.5 inches. Mr. Dixon agreed. It was an even one over one previously and it is now an even one over one but with the sill raised. The meeting bar in the 1990’s modification also doesn’t match the opposite window. Ms. Kindt asked, if they are leaning to preserve the 1990’s opening size, could the applicant create some sort of back panel on the inside that wouldn’t be visible from the exterior. Mr. Dixon felt it was architecturally possible. Typically, they don’t govern the interior of the house. The transparency of the windows is somewhat of a gray area that he believes may fall under their jurisdiction. Ms. Chapman felt that may impact the usability of the window. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 8 May 3, 2023 Mr. Dixon agreed it would. Mr. Simmons felt it could still be a double-hung with the lower sash inactivated. Ms. Chapman felt it may also still present a water issue. Ms. Kindt added that there would still be an odd gap. Mr. Dixon agreed. Providing for the long term viability of the structure is in everyone’s best interest. Ms. Baker advised that it is a non-historic opening so the Commission doesn’t need to consider returning it to its original size. She suggested converting the guidelines into a question and responding to them in that fashion. Mr. Dixon asked if this radically changes the window. He feels it does but not to the point of diminishing the character of the building, based on the fact that it is already an asymmetrical later addition. Ms. Baker advised considering it as it is, as well as if it were 5 inches lower than what it is currently. Ms. Kindt doesn’t feel it radically changes but it doesn’t help maintain the historic character. Ms. Van Wormer feels the ship has already sailed in terms of the symmetry. The question is whether this furthers that change. Mr. Dixon again posed the question: is this a radical change to the window and does the change to the window diminish the character of the building. Ms. Van Wormer doesn’t feel it is a radical change to the 1990’s window that was already there. The 1990’s window already diminished the character of the building. Ms. Chapman agreed. Mr. Dixon asked if this window characterizes the property. He believes the answer is no based on the fact that it is already no longer symmetrical to the rest of the façade. The Commission agreed. Mr. Dixon asked if there is concern about distinctive materials, features, finishes or construction techniques. Ms. Baker added that the Commission is only considering that question in relation to the opening itself. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 9 May 3, 2023 Mr. Dixon feels the answer is no. He noted that they have already determined that this doesn’t characterize the property. He asked if it is compatible with historic materials, features, size, scale, proportion, and massing of the rest of the building. He believes the short answer is no, due to the change that occurred in the ‘90’s. Ms. Baker advised that that circles back to the question of whether it diminishes the character of the building. Mr. Dixon doesn’t believe that it does. It is already a modified, asymmetrical window. Ms. Kindt indicated that she would like to see the infill panel minimized since they know there is approximately 4.5 inches where it could at least get closer to the window of the 1990’s. Ms. Chapman agreed, as well as the treatment of the trim around the window. In her opinion that is throwing the symmetry off and there is an opportunity for more symmetry between the two windows. Mr. Dixon clarified that they are only considering the rough opening at this time. Mr. Bruinsma feels there are ways to minimize the negative impact of that opening being changed. Mr. Dixon recognized that this is not the final design or color of the windows. If the infill board was painted the same color as the window itself, that would be the best solution for telling the story of what that 1990’s window was vs. painting it the same color as the trim, which then causes confusion between what is frame and what is window. They don’t necessarily have authority over paint color but they do have authority as to the form and size of the rough opening. Others agreed. Ms. Baker asked if everyone agrees it needs to come down the 4.5-5 inches. She also asked, as she works with the owner to replace the window, if the Commission would be looking for it to be a one over one window or get as close as possible to the muntin pattern on the historic window knowing it isn’t going to replicate it because it is too small. The others to be replaced on the front are one over one, multi-light. Mr. Simmons feels if the upper sash is a multi-light it would more closely reflect the symmetry of the front façade. Mr. Bruinsma agreed that the upper sash repetition would uphold some of the historic integrity of the original window. Mr. Dixon recalled from their discussion that they’ve found that this window is not a characterizing feature to this home. Therefore, his opinion is that it either reflect a replication of the original muntin pattern or the one over one from the ‘90’s. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 10 May 3, 2023 Ms. Kindt feels that not having a muntin pattern really makes it stick out as a replacement window. She feels that had the application come to them from an owner putting in a wood window that they would have required the muntin pattern be replicated. Mr. Dixon disagreed. If what is there now predates the designation of the district then he believes they would allow them to put it back exactly the way that it was. He doesn’t feel there is a good answer here. They either tell them to put back a window that doesn’t symmetrically match or tell them to put back something that is kind of close, which could be argued to be conjectural history, and that goes against the Standards. Based on the fact there is no good solution he would offer them both options. Mr. Dixon asked opinions on lowering the sill 4.5-5 inches. Mr. Simmons feels the sill should be lowered to align with the ‘90’s opening. Ms. Chapman would advocate for lowering the sill to the backsplash; the 4.5-5 inch dimension. Mr. Dixon pointed out that that is how it is now. Ms. Chapman clarified then that she would advocate for the opening size to remain the same as the current rough opening. Mr. Dixon indicated that he is also comfortable with it remaining as it is based on the decisions they’ve reached in this conversation; this is not a contributing feature, it is acceptable to raise the sill because it isn’t a contributing feature, and it doesn’t diminish the character of the property. Ms. Baker asked if this change meets the guidelines. Does it diminish the character of the house? Does it detract from the overall character and integrity of the house? Mr. Dixon recalled that they’ve found that raising the sill doesn’t diminish the character of the house. Mr. Bruinsma feels the smaller the opening gets, the more the house is diminished architecturally. They are offering to lower it to the countertop level. He feels that would be better than keeping it up higher. He wouldn’t necessarily require that but it wouldn’t be a bad idea. He also wouldn’t vote against keeping the entire original opening and building it up inside so that from the outside it looks like the original dimensions but on the interior the space is functional. Ms. Chapman would support dropping the window sill. Mr. Dixon suggested requiring the applicant to drop the sill to within one inch of the countertop, which would allow them to get the sill in there with a bit of height above it so that water wouldn’t freely flow to the window itself. All Commissioners were comfortable with that. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 300 Eastern SE with the specific findings that the proposed work complies with the Local Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 11 May 3, 2023 Historic District Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation 2, 5, 6, 9 & 10, with the following conditions: 1. That the sill height be dropped to within one inch of the existing interior countertop. 2. That the exterior paint color of the infill panel shall be the same as the window color. 3. That the one over one window is approved with or without muntins. 4. The motion does not include the materiality of the window. SUPPORTED by Ms. Van Wormer. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Anna Kindt SECONDER: Heather VanWormer YEAS: Bruinsma, Dixon, Kindt, VanWormer, Simmons, Chapman ABSENT: Michael Rodriguez VII. Public Hearing 1. 211 LOGAN SW - SLIGH FURNITURE COMPLEX - NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION 211 LOGAN SW - NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION Ms. Baker advised that any National Register Nomination that occurs within the jurisdiction of the City of Grand Rapids is required to come before the Historic Preservation Commission for feedback and for the Commission to provide a recommendation. It is also the avenue by which public comment is afforded. Ms. Baker related that she has not received any public comment at this point. The site is being nominated under Secretary of the Interior Criteria of Significance A, which is associated with events that have made a significant impact. The building is the Sligh Furniture Factory. The Commission will decide if the report has provided sufficient information to meet Criteria A under technology and industry. Shannon Winterhalter was present on behalf of the nomination. She related that on behalf of the property owner she prepared the nomination. Ms. Winterhalter thanked the Commission and staff for their review. She invited any questions. Ms. Kindt referred to the aerial map noting that what is contributing vs. what is non-contributing was outlined. She asked about the ‘60’s non-contributing items on the roof and if they are mechanical lofts that were added. Ms. Winterhalter explained that in historical photos you can see that there have been changes on the roof. They would technically be non-contributing but they aren’t identified on the map. Ms. Kindt recalled a section that talked about a loading dock and roof cover that were non- contributing even though they were from 1923, which is within the period of significance. She asked how those items were cut off from being contributing. Ms. Winterhalter felt that if it was constructed in the period of significance then it would technically be contributing. It may have been an error in the wording. They will review that. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 12 May 3, 2023 Ms. Kindt identified it as Section 7, page 10. Ms. Kindt also noted some typographical errors in the summary paragraph at the beginning. Mr. Dixon invited public comment; there was none. Ms. Kindt appreciates this significant building being nominated. The report was very interesting and well done. Being an antique enthusiast, she is concerned about where the tenants will go but that isn’t under their jurisdiction. Mr. Dixon stated that he is very excited to see this go on the National Register. Given how little attention has been given to the building in the past, it remains such a mainstay of Grand Rapids. It is so visible to the city center and such an important structure. The fact that it is finally getting some love is extremely exciting. MOTION by Mr. Simmons, supported by Ms. Kindt, to support the National Register Nomination. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. 406 & 412 LAFAYETTE SE, 409-415 PROSPECT SE & 300-316 WEALTHY SE - HERITAGE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT WPL - NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Ms. Baker recalled that the owners presented to the HPC in January and received formal approval to relocate 406 Lafayette to 415 Prospect, restore both 406 Lafayette and 409 Prospect, and create garage additions. The approval related to the relocation of 406 Lafayette did not include the new foundation facing. That portion was tabled to allow the applicant time to investigate the amount of salvage granite that might be available to face the new foundation with. They’ve researched that and found that they only have sufficient usable material to do the front porch. They have amended their plans to illustrate the stone on the front porch. Ms. Baker wasn’t clear if the HPC wanted them to look at using it for the actual foundation or what they might be able to cut to face the new foundation. Ms. Baker deferred to the applicant to discuss whether they looked at that option. The other change for the relocated house relates to a window that will be on the south side (it is currently on the north side) toward the back and related to a kitchen counter situation. They would like to raise the sill up to facilitate the kitchen counter. They have offered the options of putting a 50/50 window in it and the other is trying to maintain the upper sash at the same height as the window next to it. In doing so it creates a very small lower sash. They are also proposing treatments for infill being either a panel to illustrate the original opening or weaving in clapboard siding to make the original opening go away. The only other change to the two existing historic properties is a slight change to the rear property line. There will be a 5 ft. distance to the rear property line for the structure that is moved and 6.9 ft. for the existing structure. They have to accommodate greenspace requirements as it relates to the commercial and parking abutting residential. Mr. Dixon clarified that it isn’t a relocation of the retaining wall but rather a line drawn on paper of the property. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 13 May 3, 2023 Ms. Baker deferred to the applicant. There was another aspect where it appeared they were attempting to put a fence on top of a retaining wall. It is a minor detail but Zoning won’t permit that unless they count the fence and retaining wall height together. If there is a 4 ft. retaining wall they would be permitted a 2 ft. tall fence, unless the fence is moved in by 3 ft. With respect to the new development, Ms. Baker advised that they are seeking formal approval of the site plan, formal approval of the massing of the new buildings, and an advisory discussion for the design and material of the new buildings. In order to understand widths, depths, and massing, it will be necessary for the Commission to consider some of the architectural aspects; roofs, undulations of the facades, etc. Mr. Dixon asked if there is a formal definition of massing they should keep in mind. Ms. Baker replied that massing is typically broken down by width, height, and depth. Ms. Kindt asked if post cards were sent out to the neighborhood. Ms. Baker replied affirmatively. Ryan Schmidt, Greg Schmidt, and Steven Ruis were present on behalf of the request. R. Schmidt stated that they are pleased with what they have to present this evening. They tried to take the feedback from the previous advisory meetings and input from the Heritage Hill Land Use Committee and neighbors to come up with the plan before the Commission. Things such as handrail and window trim details will come back again as they understand that would involve too much content. What they hope to achieve is that the Commission gets to a point of comfort to approve the site plan, massing, and anything else they may feel comfortable with. R. Schmidt explained that they have a meeting with the Planning Commission scheduled for next week should everything go well this evening. They will present to the Planning Commission for rezoning to correct some of the zone districts to make them more compatible with their plan, as well as a Special Land Use application for ground floor office in two suites. R. Schmidt addressed the considerations for the two existing houses. With respect to the size of the window sash and the way the infill will be handled, they don’t have a strong preference. As the Commission sees fit, they will make it work. The ultimate goal is to be able to locate the kitchen in the back portion of the house and there is a conflict with that window. Thankfully, that window won’t really be seen except for by the neighbor to the south. With respect to the proposed property line modifications, they are very minor but important. While the HPC has jurisdiction over setbacks in historic districts, that is not the case with landscape buffers and aligning with zoning code. They went through a lot of work to figure out how to fit the plan in and meet the zoning requirements both of the hopeful TN-TBA on the north portion of the site and the TN-LDR for the two homes. With this plan as proposed, they can meet the landscape buffer requirements from the zoning code and not ask for a variance there. Mr. Dixon asked if the retaining wall moved as part of that property line shift. R. Schmidt replied that there is no more retaining wall proposed. They have all of their civil work done now, to show elevations, and because of the slope between the parking lot and the Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 14 May 3, 2023 rear yards they don’t need a retaining wall. They are still proposing a fence. The fence is important for the landscape buffer reduction. He also feels it is important to separate the uses between the single-family homes and townhomes and mixed-use component of the project. It will be a 6 ft. tall fence that steps down at the halfway point of the houses where it comes out toward the street. Mr. Dixon asked if the fence will be located directly on the property line. R. Schmidt replied affirmatively. With regard to the stone, they had a mason and concrete contractor out to consider what could be salvaged. There was a lot of concern about the quality of the stone. It was determined that there would be enough good quality stone to properly wrap the front porch of what will be 415 Prospect but, beyond that, they didn’t want to over-promise anything. It would also change the structural system. R. Schmidt stated that the scenario for the porch is that it won’t just be a face stone; the actual stones are being placed with a concrete wall inside of it. Mr. Dixon clarified that even if the material were to be cut and used just as a facing, the assessment is that there isn’t enough material to go all the way around. R. Schmidt agreed. Mr. Dixon invited questions on the house portion. Ms. Kindt noted that it appears the handrail for the stairs won’t have the cross pattern. R. Schmidt explained that they looked at some options with the cross pattern with it on an angle. They couldn’t find a design that looked attractive with the cross pattern turned down the slope of the handrail so they chose not to go with it. The cross pattern will be retained around the porch. It will only be the stairway handrail that doesn’t have it. R. Schmidt provided information on the new development portion of the application. He referred to the non-engineered site plan indicating that it hasn’t changed much from what they last presented in the Advisory meeting. It remains the general shape with the courtyard cutting through the site, and 8 townhomes on the northeast corner of the property. With respect to the height of the townhomes, R. Schmidt recalled that was a topic that came up because they had proposed 3 ½ stories and there was some concern as to whether that was the appropriate height where it began to step into the neighborhood. As they review the elevations they will show that they’ve actually reduced that down to 3 stories, which they feel is correct and results in a very elegant elevation. That change was in response to a conversation they had with the HPC and that portion of the property went down in height. Ironically, they also had a conversation on the northwest corner because of the single story that was previously proposed; that it wasn’t tall enough and wasn’t holding the corner well enough. The plan presented today is now a 3 story building with a stepped back 4th floor. The front façade reads as 3 stories and the 4th floor is stepped back. Mr. Dixon asked the distance of the step back. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 15 May 3, 2023 R. Schmidt replied approximately 16 ft. The step back area will be utilized as a rooftop patio. R. Schmidt continued indicating that the Commission will see a slight difference with the front elevations. They had porches on the northeast corner previously. One consideration was whether they would be used on the busy Wealthy St. corridor. Of greater importance has been a very difficult conversation with Consumers Energy around the power line in the front of this property and distances that need to be kept from that line. The proposed solution meets the requirements of Consumers Energy and the City’s zoning requirements for setbacks. Mr. Dixon asked how the billboard conversation is going. R. Schmidt stated that he isn’t going to promise anything but they are very close to having a resolution on that. They believe that it will come down this summer. With respect to the phasing, it has been designed in a way that the billboard could, in theory, remain because they don’t have a signed lease termination agreement yet. The billboard company has been great. They are working with the Planning Dept. on the billboard exchange program and he believes all parties are coming to a good resolution on that. Regardless, the plan still allows for the potential that the billboard may not come down so quickly. R. Schmidt related that there have been some changes in terms of a sidewalk on the south end of the legs of the townhomes because they needed to provide an accessible path from the parking lot over to the front commercial space. While there have been a number of changes, they are subtle and it continues to look quite similar to what was presented previously. R. Schmidt moved on to the elevations. He noted that the ghosting is provided to see the height context. Because there is such a change in elevation on the site, nearly 10 ft. east to west, they included the buildings behind to provide an idea of relative height. R. Schmidt identified the Prospect face and the side of the northeast townhome. They felt it was important to provide a substantial porch on that corner, as previously discussed. R. Schmidt pointed out that those buildings are now 3 stories vs. 3 ½ as was previously proposed. The elevation on Wealthy, of the northeast portion of the building was displayed. The site grade steps down so they had to find a solution for stepping the building down and still have access to the lower level parking at the back. R. Schmidt explained that they feel it is important to seek approval for office use in this location. They understand the importance of the Wealthy St. corridor because this is located between the retail nodes. They feel that office will be very successful here. They were also trying to balance parking. With retail it becomes difficult because of a higher parking requirement. The plan, as proposed, meets the parking requirements with one surplus space, which is atypical for new development in Grand Rapids right now. Ms. Kindt noted the shadows between the gable portions and flat portions. In the floor plans it appears that the plan along Wealthy is flat. She asked if the three ganged window portions are inset. Greg Schmidt related that the floor plans are not to the level of detail that the elevations are. Ms. Kindt asked if the flat portion between gables will be set back. G. Schmidt replied affirmatively; 18 inches. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 16 May 3, 2023 Mr. Dixon explained that since they are requesting a decision on massing today, the massing of the elevations and not the floor plans is what they will be looking at. R. Schmidt was comfortable with that since that is the furthest developed portion of the plans. Ms. Chapman asked if that changes how the lot line setbacks are drawn up on the plan. R. Schmidt replied yes. On the site plan it would step back in those three inset portions. R. Schmidt noted that they did provide some materials for an idea of what they are thinking. They understand they aren’t planning to get into that this evening. The two story is almost exclusively brick and the primary faces of the northwest portion are brick with fiber cement at the rear. The west elevation of the northwest building was displayed where there will be ground floor office space with 6 residential flats above. As you turn the corners, down the courtyard and down Lafayette, they are townhomes but on the Wealthy face they are flats. They provided some sort of outdoor balcony or outdoor space for every unit. On the northeast building there are balconies at the rear of the units. In the northwest portion there are balconies at the front. In the courtyard are patios facing the courtyard and there are additional balconies on the Lafayette side as well as the roof top deck. R. Schmidt stated that it reads as one building largely. There is some delineation in brick pattern to show the townhome arrangement but it has a similar architecture and similar exterior cladding to read as one building. Mr. Dixon asked if the dark gray bar over the windows on the Wealthy St. side is an exposed metal header that is theoretically more or less flush with the elevation whereas the dark gray bar over the doors is an extruded aluminum canopy; tags S & Q. G. Schmidt responded affirmatively. Mr. Dixon asked if the square next to the doors is a brick relief of some kind; an inset brick panel. R. Schmidt agreed. Mr. Dixon asked about the vertical lines that divide it into three panels. R. Schmidt related that is a brick inset. Mr. Dixon asked if there is a horizontal brick inset line and two vertical brick inset lines there. G. Schmidt replied that the double vertical line between the windows represents a one brick wide inset; approximately a ½ inch inset going vertically. It terminates above the first floor level. At approximately the second level, what is shown as a dark line will likely be a change of brick color. There isn’t a physical change. Mr. Dixon clarified that the strike line right below the second floor balconies is just a modification of materials. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 17 May 3, 2023 G. Schmidt agreed. R. Schmidt displayed the south elevation and identified the portal into the courtyard area. They know they have to meet Planning Commission and HPC requirements for screening of mechanical equipment. They don’t have the equipment selected yet but wanted to include some potential placements to have a conversation about it. They don’t know the sizing or if it can go on the rooftop. That isn’t something they anticipate figuring out this evening. Mailboxes will be at the back. R. Schmidt explained that the center part of the larger massing on the left is actually the driveway to pull into the garages. The door identified will access the trash room. Mr. Dixon suggested that 20 ft. is fairly narrow for two-way traffic. He asked if they’ve talked to Traffic Safety and received any feedback on that. G. Schmidt replied that they have talked to Traffic Safety and they didn’t provide any feedback on that. The drive is 20 ft. but the clear space between the two garage doors is 28 ft. because there is a 4 ft. apron on each one. While it is intended for two-way traffic it is essentially a driveway. They don’t anticipate heavy traffic movement both ways at the same time. They are more concerned with the turning radius, which they are comfortable with. R. Schmidt displayed the rear of the northeast corner building. He identified the balcony proposed above the garages. There is also an inset on this elevation, similar to the other, to allow for the proper turning radius from that driveway. There are two wider townhomes on the ends and three narrower townhomes, with a single-stall garage, in the center. G. Schmidt recalled offering to bring in a computer model of the project. They haven’t provided any perspective drawings but he does have the model available if the technology in the meeting space allows them to do that during the Advisory Discussion portion. Mr. Dixon didn’t believe they had the technology available but that can be discussed when they get to the Advisory portion. Ms. Kindt recalled from a previous meeting that some of the neighborhood feedback was about turning right only onto Lafayette, especially with the school and some of the traffic issues. R. Schmidt explained that it came up from a neighbor at the past meeting with the Heritage Hill Association. There are two times a day that get difficult in this area because of the school drop off and pick up. Traffic safety has determined that this development will have no substantial impact. They didn’t require a traffic study because of the unit count. They recommended the access out to Lafayette and in on Prospect because they believe that the round-a-bout will actually help traffic flow continue. R. Schmidt understands that there are mixed views on the round-a-bout and what the best traffic flow will be. He committed at the meeting to have another conversation with Traffic Safety about that and whether they feel it is important not to allow a left turn. There won’t be a massive demand to leave this development at any one time; there won’t be a 20 car back up to leave 20 houses. Someone will sit there and if they can’t make a left they will turn right, go through the round-a-bout and proceed to another side street. They do understand the sensitivity around the school and he did commit at the last neighborhood meeting Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 18 May 3, 2023 to return to Traffic Safety to discuss it further. The solution shown with the access point on Prospect and out on Lafayette was based on a previous conversation with them. Ms. Kindt stated then that hopefully the site plan will remain pretty similar in terms of massing. R. Schmidt replied that they hope this is the final site plan. They would like to hopefully have it approved this evening so they can continue on. Their goal is to hopefully have Planning Commission approval next week. It then has to go for City Commission approval because of the rezoning. They want to be moving the house in late July if all proceeds as they hope. He explained that the house won’t actually leave their property. The move will occur on the site. It will be lifted, rotated and driven over to Prospect. The house will be lowered and the truck will drive out onto Prospect. Mr. Dixon related receipt of a letter in support of the site plan dated 5/2/23 from Richard App, President of the Heritage Hill Association. The project includes 20 residential condominium units, two single-family homes, and two commercial spaces. As presented, it supports many of the goals set forth in the neighborhoods Master Plan last revised in 2005, which includes thoughtful development and careful density planning. They look forward to continued conversations, particularly related to selection of building materials and architectural features. Mr. Dixon invited public comment. Wayne Norlan, Chair of the Heritage Hill Association Land Use Committee, related that they are very interested in the next step regarding architectural detailing and materials. They are primarily present this evening to listen to the Advisory Discussion. The team has promised to return to the Association for a fourth meeting. They appreciate their willingness to continue talking to the Association and the process that has been used to review this important project. Mr. Dixon suggested the Commission begin their deliberations with the house issues. He suggested beginning with the window on what will be the south elevation when the house is moved. Ms. Kindt pointed out that it is on a secondary façade and isn’t visible from the majority of the street. It is basically only visible from the neighbor. They often consider these applications to keep the house in a modern use and make it functional. Mr. Dixon agreed. In the past when they have reviewed these, they have opted for the applicant’s second option where it is an even one over one window and the siding underneath replaced/toothed in. All Commissioners were comfortable with the second option. The discussion moved to the foundation. Mr. Dixon noted that they have enough material to rebuild the porch out of true stone. They don’t have enough material to go down the sides. They were asked to investigate it and they have done so. He doesn’t feel the material that is proposed will be deleterious to the larger property, house, or the neighborhood. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 19 May 3, 2023 Mr. Simmons stated that he is somewhat concerned about the amount of concrete that will be there because they did lift the house a bit. Mr. Dixon agreed adding that it is going to be a fair amount of concrete. Other than reusing the old stone, which they’ve heard is not feasible, he doesn’t have a better material in mind to help navigate that. Ms. Kindt recalled that in a previous application they had the siding step down a bit more to cover the concrete. Mr. Dixon referred to packet page 306 noting that the siding does step down. He was in favor of keeping it as proposed so as not to modify the existing siding. The Commission agreed. The Commission discussed the proposed property line alteration. Ms. Kindt noted that it is under Zoning’s authority. In the overall plan it appears a bit gerrymandered, especially where it is tucked in behind the houses. However, she understands it is a means to an end. The house at 416 Lafayette went from being surrounded by single-family on two sides to now having the higher density residential on the north side and behind it. She feels that does impact the district and the site. Mr. Dixon’s understanding is that there is a property line conversation and a Zoning line conversation. Ms. Kindt suggested they are somewhat separate but also somewhat the same. Mr. Dixon’s understanding is that the property line is moving east toward the houses. 415 Prospect was always going to have that parking lot area behind it, it just has a couple feet more. Ms. Kindt noted that the snow area was an extension of that. If these developers didn’t also own those two properties, she is considering how she would feel about that if she were in those two houses where zoning is supposed to protect you with compatible uses. Mr. Dixon noted that it appears the old iteration is 5 ft. from the relocated 406 Lafayette to the property line, as is shown on the updated drawings. R. Schmidt explained that the main one that moved is between 409 Prospect and the future townhome and drive lane, on the north side of 409 Prospect. If it changed on the north south line, the east/west dimension, it would be very minor in order to meet the landscape buffer requirement. The primary line that was moved is the one that runs east to west that sits north of 409 Prospect; it moved south about 2 ft. The back property line may have moved but it would have been a very small amount. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 20 May 3, 2023 Mr. Dixon clarified that the porch rail, per testimony, will remain but on the steps the handrail won’t have the same cross pattern. The Commission was comfortable with the rail as proposed. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 409 and 415 Prospect SE, per the application and testimony, 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, 3, 4, 5 & 6, with the specifications that the window modification at 415 Prospect shall have a sill height consistent with Option 2 with siding seems to be staggered and the window to be an equal one over one. SUPPORTED by Mr. Bruinsma. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The Commission began their discussion on the massing and site plan. Mr. Dixon suggested they not discuss window details and materials. He suggested they begin with the site plan. Mr. Dixon feels it is very well laid out. The fact that they are providing the required parking on site is nice for the neighborhood. He is sorry to see the commercial space won’t be a retail occupancy but understands the reasoning. Mr. Dixon pointed out from drawing C100, the context map, that the existing houses along Lafayette and along Wealthy don’t really strike a strong building line. There is somewhat of a building line along Lafayette that the new development is more or less in keeping with. It is a bit further west but Lafayette does trend in a northwest direction there. The houses along Wealthy don’t have a consistent setback or provide a strong building edge. Personally, he feels the setbacks proposed are appropriate for a multi-family urban environment and contextual with the character of the historic district because, in this respect, there is no defined characteristic. Ms. Kindt agreed with respect to the setbacks along Wealthy and Lafayette. The setback along Prospect fits within the averages there, especially with the porch structure. She has some concern about the buffer, especially at the northwest building. They have the drive along the south side of their site and how close it is to some of the historic buildings is concerning. They are providing a fence and landscaping there. 416 Lafayette may be expected to have a single-family driveway next to them, especially based on the current zoning, but now they will have a 20-unit and office drive next to them. She is wondering about the impact that will have on the historic character there. Mr. Dixon noted that 416 Lafayette is currently a 12-unit multi-family. He understood the point however. The Commission discussed massing. Mr. Simmons stated that he likes the new iterations with the step backs on the north side of the northeast building. Ms. Kindt added that they turned the gables to be facing the Wealthy side. Mr. Simmons added that with the east elevation, looking west, it is a nice pairing with the existing house. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 21 May 3, 2023 Mr. Dixon agreed. The information provided makes a strong case for the proposed heights being appropriate. Ms. Chapman feels the roof forms were done very thoughtfully; the transition from gable forms to the flat roof forms within the development. It makes perfect sense given the context of the character of the historic district, proximity to the school and hospital. From a massing point of view she feels that works very well. Mr. Dixon agreed. He added that the step back along Lafayette really helps navigate the 3- story/4-story conversation they previously had. They want some height on the corner to anchor it. They also want it to respond to the school across the street that is tall. Mr. Simmons added that with the houses on the north side of Wealthy, just west of the apartment building on Madison and Wealthy, this is a nice change. Mr. Dixon stated that the roof forms are a representation of what they want to see as new construction in a historic district like this where there is a variation of sloped and flat roofs with the flat roofs pairing with the more commercial uses and the sloped roofs pairing with the residential uses. Even the pitches of the roofs are well suited for a historic district. Mr. Dixon related that he has a couple of concerns about the breathing room given between the door heads and the window bump outs on Wealthy and the head height provided between the canopies and the balconies above them on Lafayette. It feels a bit squeezed and tight in there. In terms of how it blends with the neighborhood, he feels they could look at that again. He feels the concerns expressed at the Advisory were heard and addressed. Ms. Van Wormer agreed. They did a good job listening to what was said and what the observations were but it wasn’t just doing what we asked. There is another level of mindfulness and thoughtfulness here. Mr. Simmons agreed. They also listened to the neighborhood and took it beyond. Ms. Kindt feels there have been some good improvements on massing, the gables and heights. The actual heights on the plans were helpful to understand that it does fit the context of the houses on the different streets. Ms. Kindt felt the Wealthy façade was broken up nicely. With respect to the building on the northwest corner, she wondered if they want to see the Lafayette façade broken up a bit more. They are also relating to the school there so there is precedence for long brick facades but that façade read a bit flat to her. Mr. Dixon feels that is a good point to bring up. When talking about massing, they are talking about the large-scale building forms and gestures, not necessarily about how certain facades are broken up. If a one-foot bump out is introduced, to him that is more articulation than massing. Ms. Kindt MOVED TO APPROVE the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 406 & 412 Lafayette SE and 300-316 Wealthy SE, the site plan and massing, as submitted, with the specific findings that the proposed work complies with the Local Historic District Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation #9, with the caveat Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 22 May 3, 2023 that the approval does not include placement of mechanical equipment. SUPPORTED by Mr. Simmons. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Advisory Discussion 406 & 412 Lafayette SE, 409-415 Prospect SE & 300-316 Wealthy SE R. Schmidt related that what the Commission just approved allows them to continue the steps of development. He expressed his appreciation for the Commission’s kind words. This development means a lot to them. R. Schmidt indicated the only big item he would like to have more of a conversation about is the Lafayette façade. They feel there is some precedent in the neighborhood, such as the Wealthy and Madison apartment building, with the large, strong brick façade and obviously across the street with the school. G. Schmidt did look at options of changing siding/material on that but their team’s preference was a strong brick building at the corner. He feels it does respect the character of some of the surrounding contributing structures like Wealthy and Madison apartments and the school. If there is a strong opinion from the Commission, he would love to hear more. They have also mentioned some of the materials such as brick and Hardi. He would like to hear if the Commission feels they are out of alignment in general or of any materials not favored, such as handrails or anything like that. G. Schmidt suggested going through each elevation and pointing out materials they are proposing. He began with the northeast townhome building along Wealthy. Each of the three gable facades are proposed as horizontal lap siding, fiber cement. For the inset portions on the alternating facades, as it is currently shown it is a fiber cement shake. G. Schmidt explained that he wasn’t clear on the guidelines for that material. If proposing shakes on a building do they have to be wood or is composite acceptable. Mr. Dixon stated that typically with new construction it comes down to conversations about profiles and things like that. The profile on a fiber cement shake is going to be slightly different than the profile on a wood shake. Typically, with new construction, the HPC has found in the past that a fiber cement product is acceptable. It would be helpful to see some examples. Mr. Simmons asked if they will put corner trim boards on. G. Schmidt replied that they would. The inside corners will have a vertical trim piece but it will be a traditional inside corner. Mr. Dixon stated that typically with historic buildings materials were horizontally stacked because it was an expression of structural systems. Vertical stacking, especially such as a three- story vertical stack where it is side by side materials, he personally finds to be at odds with historic districts because it isn’t the articulation you used to see. Mr. Dixon expressed that he likes the bump outs with the flat, fiber cement panel. If it were him, he would do the insets as lap siding. The difference in depth from the building’s face is going to sell the articulation without having to artificially switch to another material. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 23 May 3, 2023 G. Schmidt explained that they are also sensitive to that. They didn’t want to introduce too many materials. They want to keep it fairly simple. They haven’t gotten very deep into color studies but they think that with colors it will be simpler and more refined vs. a lot of variation. Mr. Dixon advised that the Commission doesn’t rule on color but he feels that is exactly the right thought process. Often times when people try to do historic they over complicate things, especially because in new construction what they are looking for is something sympathetic yet blends in. The statement pieces are the old homes. Ms. Kindt feels the shake does help at the insets and that the insets really help to break up that façade, along with how the gables were turned. There isn’t going to be much shadow or difference within that 18 inches so she feels the different material helps with that. Mr. Dixon added that if they want to do a material change on the inset they might consider doing the first story in lap siding and then switching to the shake above it. Ms. Kindt also wondered about the shed dormers, where the flat panel is, how that will be articulated. She will be interested to see how that is done, whether it is a trim piece or if the flat panel is stacked. She would be interested in precedent in the district or how that will be compatible with some of the context. Ms. Chapman related that, in her experience, large sheets of panel aren’t friendly over time. G. Schmidt responded to Mr. Simmons regarding whether there would be any ornamental trim between the soffit and siding relating that they haven’t gotten that far in the details. If they did, it would be something very simple. He also related that they are proposing fiberglass windows, currently shown as black or charcoal. Mr. Dixon explained that the Commission has experience with aluminum clad wood and less experience with fiberglass. What they will be looking for are profile studies. Bringing in a sample would be very helpful. Mr. Dixon stated that he likes that they are proposing contemporary sash windows mixed in with the one over ones. It is successful and helps make a statement that this is a new building. Ms. Baker asked for other’s thoughts on the windows, given that there is a mix. Ms. Kindt agreed that there is a mix but there is a discernable pattern, especially when you take the gables that do have the same pattern. While the three gangs are pretty close, you wouldn’t necessarily see that a lot in historic structures but it does help to differentiate it. Mr. Dixon felt that was a good point and suggested they consider narrowing them a bit. Ms. Chapman noted that the sizes may be directed by egress requirements. Mr. Dixon asked what foundation and stoop material they are proposing. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 24 May 3, 2023 G. Schmidt replied concrete. R. Schmidt suggested there may be a different material on the commercial portion. Mr. Dixon asked if they are proposing Arriscraft anywhere. G. Schmidt replied that they are on the northeast building. Mr. Dixon recommended that they give their contractor very specific instructions about the Arriscraft, otherwise it turns out yellow. Ms. Kindt suggested going over the commercial portion of the northeast building. G. Schmidt explained that what they are thinking of for that building is a very simple brick façade void of any ornamentation. There may be a small cornice detail in the brick but, other than that, it will be expressed as punched openings without any other ornamentation. They want it to stand out in contrast to the adjacent residential building. Mr. Dixon felt that was appropriate. He suggested putting some energy into the cornice. A simple design like this with the unornamented punched openings on the second floor and storefront on the first floor is appropriate. The proportions are correct. When you saw that historically, there was usually something up at the cornice/parapet line. Ms. Baker suggested hearing about the brick color palette. R. Schmidt explained that a lot of what they like about this design is that because of the different architecture on the façades they are creating something that doesn’t look like one ominous development. The commercial portion is intentionally starkly different than the townhomes next door and will have a different color palette. They are trying to provide some diversity. They are looking at colors but they aren’t that far yet. Mr. Dixon suggested leaning toward historic brick colors. Black is very popular right now but that wouldn’t blend with the rest of the neighborhood. There are great examples of brick in this area. Ms. Chapman stated that she appreciates the punched openings for the upper stories. She asked if there will be an incorporated brick mold. It isn’t necessary to see a lot of historical detailing there but there is something to be said about masonry opening sizes. Mr. Dixon stated that he likes it without any trim since it is new construction. Depth of things will be important. G. Schmidt stated that with both this building and the northwest building they are planning for a deeper than typical brick detail so at the window openings it isn’t just expressing the 4” depth of the brick. They would turn it so that there is an 8” depth for the brick at the openings. It allows them to also add more insulation. Ms. Baker asked if it is typical to want to see the openings recessed. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 25 May 3, 2023 Mr. Dixon felt that was accurate more for the masonry than the sided buildings. The windows should be set in the plane of the studs, not in the plane of the finish. Ms. Chapman agreed. She would even argue that that is more contemporary, which is good to differentiate from a 1970’s or ‘80’s brick structure. G. Schmidt commented on the northwest building indicating that much of what was stated for the previous building will apply to this one. Many of the materials are similar, although they will not only use a different color brick but likely a different type of brick. One of the things they are considering is whether there is any differentiation. Is it a subtle brick color change or just a brick finish change with a similar color. Ms. Kindt appreciates when the building sides are broken up because it makes the buildings look a bit smaller. There is precedence on this block with the school being huge and all one brick. Is this a monolith or a subtle change. She wouldn’t envision a bold first floor and then something totally different going up. The transition will be important. Mr. Simmons feels the balconies break it up a lot. Mr. Dixon stated that he isn’t bothered by the three bays of brick. The balconies and window patterning break it up sufficiently that it isn’t going to read large. G. Schmidt stated that for the balconies it will be a steel structure. He isn’t certain yet if it will be an aluminum rail system or steel but they are thinking thin vertical rails. They will also be proposing a composite decking but they aren’t proposing the underside be finished other than just the metal. Ms. Chapman stated that she likes the vertical railing as opposed to horizontal. It helps express the three story verticality. Ms. Kindt finds the material and proportions of the railings compatible with the district. Ms. Chapman also likes the transition of material to the fourth level. It makes a lot of sense. Mr. Dixon appreciates the brick relief panels at the corner. He wondered if they looked at doing something similar under the thin recesses along the Wealthy façade. G. Schmidt asked if signage will be a separate approval process for the commercial spaces. Ms. Baker replied that typically it comes in separate because they don’t know the details of what is desired until later. If they happen to know exactly what type of sign, how it is built, what size it is, where it will go, materials and how it is lit, it can be added to the next proposal. G. Schmidt asked if for the next proposal they should simply indicate future signage or something to indicate where signage would be. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 26 May 3, 2023 Ms. Baker replied that they could do that or leave it off altogether. G. Schmidt related that where there are balconies they are proposing fiberglass sliding doors. Where there is not a balcony it would essentially be a Juliet balcony with the same guardrail material between the masonry jambs. It would be flush with the brick and not protrude. Ms. Baker asked if there are any concerns with the sliding doors. Mr. Dixon replied somewhat. Sliding doors have a very different profile than French doors do and sliding doors are a modern invention. He would prefer French doors if at all possible. He understands that is a different price range. G. Schmidt stated that they are still exploring that. He pointed out that with the sliding doors there is a functional aspect, which is screening. With a sliding door you can open it and keep it open with the screen in it whereas a swing door the solutions aren’t great. Mr. Dixon asked the width of the doors. G. Schmidt replied 5 ft. Ms. Kindt stated that when considering French vs. sliding doors on a new building she is wondering how they could require a French door. It isn’t like there was something there that needs to match. Ms. Van Wormer doesn’t feel they can require that. Ms. Baker advised that the Commission can require anything. It all comes down to what is compatible and what works with the neighborhood. Ms. Kindt stated that she doesn’t see how sliding doors would detract from the district, especially in a new building. Mr. Dixon didn’t necessarily disagree. He wondered about ADA issues with a 2’ 6” door. G. Schmidt stated that he didn’t believe the balconies would be an issue but they will look into it. There is a cornice proposed for the northwest building. The fourth floor level is concealed and the brick wall basically provides the guardrail for the terrace so there won’t be anything in addition. Ms. Baker asked if they are turning the corner sufficiently. Both corners will be visible and play into the streetscape. Mr. Dixon stated that when turning the corner to the parking lot on the southwest building, south side, if they are doing anchored brick the siding will naturally sit behind the brick. As much as that can be accentuated, the better. Ms. Chapman appreciates that it is going for 16 ft. and not simply wrapping the corner. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 27 May 3, 2023 G. Schmidt asked if 16’ garage doors are allowed. He believes there is some precedent on new construction in the neighborhood. Mr. Dixon replied that when talking about new construction the intent is to protect the surrounding area. They are looking for something that blends in. Personally, he feels that because the garage doors are on an internal courtyard and would not be visible really from anywhere in the historic district except the house due south of it, that has bearing in this case. Ms. Baker disagreed that it wouldn’t be visible. Mr. Dixon clarified that he was looking at it as the internal courtyard that is part of the U-shape of the west building. He wasn’t looking at the L-shape of the building on the east. R. Schmidt explained that it would be challenging to get two individual doors there. Mr. Dixon feels it is a contemporary convenience they can allow on new construction. R. Schmidt noted that there is a 16’ door at Madison and Pleasant. They did look around for examples before proposing it. G. Schmidt asked if the Commission reviews light fixtures. Ms. Baker explained that some of the smaller things can be worked through at the staff level depending on what it is. R. Schmidt asked if the HPC will review the mail box units that will likely be required by the postal service because they don’t want to deliver to individual condos or apartments. Ms. Baker advised that if free standing and going at the back they will work with staff. G. Schmidt reviewed some of the cut sheets. He referred to the fiberglass clad wood swing doors and sliding doors. Mr. Dixon noted that wood doors and windows are included. He clarified that they aren’t proposing wood. R. Schmidt stated that it is possible but they are working through pricing, unit counts, etc. He clarified that that information related to the two houses on Prospect. Mr. Dixon asked that they bring a sample of the fiberglass, wood, and aluminum clad wood for comparison. He asked if the brick they are proposing is a real anchored brick. G. Schmidt responded affirmatively. They are proposing architectural asphalt shingles for the roofs. A cut sheet of the rail system was also provided. Standard aluminum storefronts are intended for the commercial spaces but they may be fiberglass also. Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Full Page 28 May 3, 2023 VIII. Discussion 50 College NE Ms. Baker recalled that there is a one-story addition to this house that is non-contributing. They are redoing a number of windows and a new stoop and door entry. On the south side there is a gang of three windows. What is shown in the drawings is what was approved. What they ran into is the fact that the window sills are too low for a counter on the inside. The question is whether they can raise the sills by 1 ft. Mr. Dixon didn’t see any difference to historic character. It is a non-contributing addition. Ms. Baker felt that it was a significant enough change to the proportion that she should bring it back. They also propose changing the windows to casement for ease in opening them over the counter. The Commission felt that portion would need to come back. Mr. Simmons MOVED TO APPROVE the dimensional change to the previously approved windows and allow for the sill to be raised 1 ft. from 4’ 4” to 3’ 4”. SUPPORTED by Ms. Kindt. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. IX. Public Comment X. Adjourn 8:10 PM